80/20 split, for Nonres/res in every state

Would you all agree to this?

  • Yes

    Votes: 53 51.5%

  • No

    Votes: 50 48.5%
  • Total voters
    103
65/35 here outside of a few high point units, plus unlimited OTC elk tags in many parts of the state. Where do I sign?!!
 
I’m good with an 80/20 split, let the residents pay 80% of the game dept budget.... oh you meant tag split. They can allocate as they see fit, matters not to me as long as it the same numbers are seen in percentage of revenue supporting their game dept.
 
85/15

But of the 85%, split those into 75% of that allocation going to residents that reside in the counties where tags are good for, and 25% of that allocation going to residents that reside in other counties within the state...

Trophy species with less than 1000 tags available statewide, 100% to residents, once in a lifetime rule if drawn
 
I see no reason why all states should be in a cooke cutter shape. The argument " we need to do it because the other states around us are already doing it".
I guess the days of each state governing itself is a thing of the past.
 
I'm a resident of Idaho...I'd be all for the 80 / 20 split here, and everywhere for that matter.

Non-Resident hunters in every state provide a ton of ancillary income to secondary related businesses...like motels, grocery stores, sporting goods stores, processors, taxidermists, gas stations, etc, etc, etc.

Plus...the license fees they pay to Game / Fish depts is 10 fold that of residents, much needed revenue when you put any entity into the hands of the gubment! States are all just like Idaho...they continue to raise license fees not because they have a revenue problem, but because the have a spending problem! Maybe this could help with that problem?

Idaho Game / Fish generated over $100 million in revenue in 2018...yet they still were over $3 million in the RED! How the hell do you do that?? I wouldn't let govt manage my kid's lemonade stand!
 
Although I hunt out of state, my home state is and likely will always be my favorite state to hunt, there’s just somethin about hunting at the place I grew up hunting and learned how to hunt. With that being said I’d agree more with the 90/10 that some guys have said, I already have a hard enough time drawing a tag as a resident
 
Last edited:
In utah there are 2 words that you need to say to yourself, over snd over until they sink in. Before you start the res/nonres game. POINT CREEP
 
Stonefly. The Point creep is out of hand anyways. A few more tags to the non-residents will be well worth it if all the other states gave us 10% more of their tags
 
Tell my grandkids that, whats the average age for a hunter to start applying to hunt in other states. It used to be in thier 40s, i dont know what it is now. There were stats, I remember teaching hunters education to guys who never had taken it because they were born before 65 and didnt need it in utah, all the sudden they are putting in for other states, and those states require it. Anyway, my grandsons want to hunt here in utah, and IMO point creep DOSNT NEED TO BE MADE WORSE by taking more tags from residents. If they apply when they are old enough, and do it every year at 10 bucks an app. How much if the fee stays 10 bucks ( laughing) can an average 14 year old spend for the chance to draw a tag, in his lifetime..... fix the point creep first, you wont have resident hunters in another 40 years if it keeps going to pot the way it has been. Then let all the nontes in you want. For now try making it better for the next generation, resident generation
 
Last edited:
Stonefly said:
In utah there are 2 words that you need to say to yourself, over snd over until they sink in. Before you start the res/nonres game. POINT CREEP
Click to expand...

Utah recently passed a law that you cannot turn your tag in after 30 days before the hunt.
 
Well I see what you're saying. However, if three or four more States give us 10% of their tags that's a lot more tags out there available to your grandkids than just Utah's 10%
 
I have always said that all states and all species should be 80/20.

I think that 20% is enough for nonresidents to keep paying for all the point fees, app fees and unused hunting licenses that it takes to play the game.

For residents 80% is plenty. Going from 80% to 90% or more doesn't seem to change resident odds much so why should residents be so greedy?

I'm in Colorado. The splits here range from no limit on nonresidents (pronghorn) to slightly less than 10% (sheep, goat, moose) but most are 65/35. I'm all in favor of 80/20 across the board everywhere.
 
I would go for 90/10 if each state had to pay the national forest expense for the 90% of the tags .As unfair as it is to buy lic. and point fees for many years, I still gladly pay and am a huge supporter of your state in the west,. I would much rather see pointless draw with a nr cap per animal per state it would sure seem a lot more fair to always have a chance to draw , that would also give a young hunter at least a chance versus 100% no chance. For me it actully doent matter that much because I got into the pyramid schemes early and now sit on nearly 350 points not including my wife, it is the serous young hunters behind us that will never get there
 
Again 90/10. Leave my state alone. It has always been 90/10. We have the least amount of overall tags available in all the western states. And resident demand far exceeds the supply. There has also been a regulation in force for years that after the first drawing any leftover resident tags are split 50/50 and half are made available to nonresidents in the second draw. We have ZERO over the counter tags for anything except mountain lion. Don't make your problem mine.
 
NVBighorn I see what you are saying but I think with the tough draw odds and the waiting periods after drawing, you probably aren't going to be hunting top units in Nevada a lot no matter if it's 90/10 or 80/20.

I believe that If you apply in a bunch of states like I do, your overall number of drawn tags in a lifetime would probably improve if all states including Nevada went to 80/20.

I understand some only hunt their home state or just want to maximize their home state odds. Personally I would love to go from less than 10% nonresidents for sheep, goat and moose in my home state to 20%. I think nonresidents deserve a more reasonable slice of the pie.
 
Cowkiller said:
NVBighorn I see what you are saying but I think with the tough draw odds and the waiting periods after drawing, you probably aren't going to be hunting top units in Nevada a lot no matter if it's 90/10 or 80/20.

I believe that If you apply in a bunch of states like I do, your overall number of drawn tags in a lifetime would probably improve if all states including Nevada went to 80/20.

I understand some only hunt their home state or just want to maximize their home state odds. Personally I would love to go from less than 10% nonresidents for sheep, goat and moose in my home state to 20%. I think nonresidents deserve a more reasonable slice of the pie.
Click to expand...

When one considers most public land (BLM / USFS) is federal land, funded by federal taxpayers too...I totally agree.

A quick tally from the 2018 IDFG Final Report below.

Note: I only used general big game hunting, this does not include fishing, waterfowl, Upland game, or the Moose, sheep or Mtn goat numbers for either group of hunters.

Note II: These numbers include 46 total categories of licenses / fees listed for both groups of hunters.

Total License Sales in these categories: $11,082.655

Total NR License Sold - 53,413
Average - $75.34 / per license: $4,024,135.42 = 36.5%

Total RES License Sold - 362,347
46 categories - $19.48 / per license: $7,058,519.56 = 63.5%

Non-Residents are paying for more than they are getting, that's for sure!
 
NR should always pay for more than they are getting. If they don't like it they should stay home and hunt their own state, This **** is getting old.
 
huntfishall1 said:
85/15

But of the 85%, split those into 75% of that allocation going to residents that reside in the counties where tags are good for, and 25% of that allocation going to residents that reside in other counties within the state...

Trophy species with less than 1000 tags available statewide, 100% to residents, once in a lifetime rule if drawn
Click to expand...
Interesting concept. I would love that in the county I live in!!
 
excaliber said:
NR should always pay for more than they are getting. If they don't like it they should stay home and hunt their own state, This **** is getting old.
Click to expand...

NR's fund game/fish depts across the west with large amounts of money...all of whom still seem to run at a loss every year, despite huge gross receipts. Perhaps a true 80/20 split could help eliminate the fiscal downfall?

Wait...what? I agree with paying more for the opportunity / licenses from NR's, but who should ever pay for more than they are getting...that's just un-American! When you cross state lines do you pay 8 times more for a gallon of gas than a state resident, and only get 10% of a gallon of gas...I don't think so?
 
Last edited:
Hell just flip the cost of NR pay to the resident side($$$$$$) look how much the Dept of fish and game could waste then.
 
I voted no because of the price difference. Raise resident prices and lower ours by half and you can have the 80%/20%

Funny thing is, at least in Colorado, it is the big price difference that keeps them from reducing our numbers to 20%. They have already spent all the money we pay them and they don’t think they could make it financially if they cut our numbers more. You can’t have it both ways. ?
 
Nobody pushing for the generous 97.5/2.5 that Oregon offers?

I would be more than happy with 90/10 and dedicated tags like Nevada. Just another thing that they got right.

Utah could take all the SFW tags and put them back in the NR pool. That would help.
 
As a start it would be great to see NR boosted to a true 10% allocation of limited hunts in some of the states. CA is probably the worst for NR allocation, but even a state like MT gives only 3-6% of their OIL hunts to NR, due strictly to the way they choose to conduct their draw. Other states like CO & UT at least give NR their own separate 10% allocation.
 
Utah's 10% to NR in some hunts doesn't even result in 1 tag in the max pool thanks to all the tags stolen from the NR's by $FW and UTAH F$G
 
I can understand the restrictions on NR hunt permit numbers. Each state should be able to decide what is best based on their animal populations, available animals to hunt, resident population and resident demand, then factor the NR. What is ridiculous is how much more NR's have to pay for a tag compared to a resident. Tags should be no more than 3 or 4 times what a resident pays IMO.
 
wytex said:
How about nr get to hunt only what is available in their home state, much like Wyoming's fur bearer regs ?

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Tri g to get rid of those east of the Mississippi and NR moose apps?

I guess Mt. Goat would eliminate a couple states in the west.

Bill
 
:unsure:Ban hunting on all federal lands in that state unless the state offers at least 20% of the tags in an equitable manner to non-residents. I understand the states manage the game but they do not control the federal lands (that we all own). Just a thought that I am sure will receive widespread support. :) This is where someone will say well we will close the roads...better read up on what states agree to when they accept federal gas tax money. I just hate when states change the rules as the game is being played.
 
90/10 is a good number, I’d like to experience some out of state hunts but if it came down to it I could just Stick to good ol wyo, Nothing like the variations, Muley,elk,antelope, whitetails and if your lucky moose, bighorn and mountain goat,Buffalo and then ya got bears wolves and on and on !!!
 
Non-Residents are free to recreate and enjoy all the federal lands, however, it has been proven in court that each state owns in trust the animals that live within their state boundaries.

Who remembers about 15 years ago when George Taulman and USO outfitters from NM tried to sue AZ and a few other states for the rights to more non-resident tags? He lost. Long story short, The states own the animals even when they live on federal land.
 
Dang we need to start charging grazing fees for any and all State animals that has been taken on ALL the FEDERAL land (NF, BLM, NP Etc) that belong to all Americans that means Non residents too. Charge resident tag holders only a SMALL grazing fee LIKE $50 for deer $250 for elk $200 for Black bear ETC talk about a money making deal.
OR just double the cost of a resident hunting licenses so it cost 1/2 of what a non resident license does cost.
Could hire more Game Wardens
Drive newer trucks
More paid vacation time
 
huntazido said:
Non-Residents are free to recreate and enjoy all the federal lands, however, it has been proven in court that each state owns in trust the animals that live within their state boundaries.

Who remembers about 15 years ago when George Taulman and USO outfitters from NM tried to sue AZ and a few other states for the rights to more non-resident tags? He lost. Long story short, The states own the animals even when they live on federal land.
Click to expand...

Then that negates the arguement about tribal/treaty hunting rights, doesn't it...
 
I'm only the messenger. If you don't like the courts decision hire a lawyer and sue. Complaining on here will get you nowhere.
 
huntazido said:
I'm only the messenger. If you don't like the courts decision hire a lawyer and sue. Complaining on here will get you nowhere.
Click to expand...

Not complaining dude - just making a statement followed with a question based on your post of them being state owned per a court's decision...
 
txhunter58 said:
I voted no because of the price difference. Raise resident prices and lower ours by half and you can have the 80%/20%

Funny thing is, at least in Colorado, it is the big price difference that keeps them from reducing our numbers to 20%. They have already spent all the money we pay them and they don’t think they could make it financially if they cut our numbers more. You can’t have it both ways. ?
Click to expand...
Corrado will need that money to pay for your wolves, that are going to be released,
 
My wolves?? Where you getting that? None In Texas so far, and I am contributing to the stop the wolf org. You?
 
txhunter58 said:
My wolves?? Where you getting that? None In Texas so far, and I am contributing to the stop the wolf org. You?
Click to expand...
I think Texas, ,needs about a thousand wolves
To help reduce the wild hog problem as big as your state, is 1000 would be a, small percentage compared to its, size
I contribute by shooting one every chance I get
 
I’d have no problem 80/20 with ID, WY, CO, NV, NM,AZ, MT. Utah borders with those states meaning we also share animals back and forth. Adding Montana to that mix would create a Mountain zone, which in truth is where the majority of NR tags are from(outside Alaska).

But I see no reason to be quite that generous with other states. Many of whom offer very little to NR hunters.
 
Tribal governments have essentially the same status as States. That's why they can have their own G&F departments (and EPA, police, etc). Like everything, its a bit more complicated than that but its a good way of looking at their governmental authority.
 
I stopped applying out of state due to the increased costs just to apply. I'm no longer willing to sink that kind of money into other states for who knows how many years, before eventually drawing. So no, I do not want reduced resident odds for my state!!
 
In 30 or 40 years or so, I will care a lot less about this argument. One can only imagine how much we will all hate on each other then - If public hunting even makes it that far. Once it inevitably becomes residents only, it will only be a matter of time before national anti-hunting interests organize to ban hunting on federal lands. The closer one flirts with 0% nonresident numbers today, the less national support each individual state's wildlife issues will get. Fact of life, not saying I agree with it. If I had to take a positions I would support making State owned land 100% state residents only. But Federal lands should be MUCH more democratic.
 
Katoom said:
In 30 or 40 years or so, I will care a lot less about this argument. One can only imagine how much we will all hate on each other then - If public hunting even makes it that far. Once it inevitably becomes residents only, it will only be a matter of time before national anti-hunting interests organize to ban hunting on federal lands. The closer one flirts with 0% nonresident numbers today, the less national support each individual state's wildlife issues will get. Fact of life, not saying I agree with it. If I had to take a positions I would support making State owned land 100% state residents only. But Federal lands should be MUCH more democratic.
Click to expand...

I agree with your fist half statements but strongly disagree with the second half. From my experience the guys who want to claim rights to the federal lands and it's resources out west are from someplace with virtually no federal lands. Again, every American is free to recreate on these lands but the animals on it are owned by each state. Might as well pack up and move out west. Hell...... everybody else is.
 
Being an Az resident I'm quite happy with the 90% up to 10% split. I'll be honest I had never seen the talk about Wyoming doing a split until this year. Az a few years back changed the way NR get that 10% and it kinda screwed the guys at the top of the points so my buddy and I decided to cash in our 12 points for antelope just in case Wyoming did change things. I'm totally cool with each state managing the wildlife in their state however they see fit.
 
huntazido said:
I agree with your fist half statements but strongly disagree with the second half. From my experience the guys who want to claim rights to the federal lands and it's resources out west are from someplace with virtually no federal lands. Again, every American is free to recreate on these lands but the animals on it are owned by each state. Might as well pack up and move out west. Hell...... everybody else is.
Click to expand...

Thanks for considering my post. Its OK we disagree on points. Its a passionate topic. Naturally, I also disagree with some of what you said. People from states that have no federal lands are not “wanting” to claim rights to those lands in your state. They have every bit as much right to them as you do. Would you agree with that? But courts have ruled that the States owns the wildlife, that is fine, to a point. Biologists are local, the knowledge of their needs are local, the social costs of animals such as crop damage is local, etc. My problem comes from the arguably unfair business practices of how opportunities at those State-owned resources are sold - when on federal land. If I was a private concessionaire selling ice-cream and allowed to operate on federal lands, the courts would certainly also rule that I own my “product”. I very much doubt however they would rule that when operating on federal land I could discriminate in pricing or sales quantities depending on where each US citizen resided. $3.00 for me and my kid, but $30.00 bucks for you and yours, and only if I have any left at the end of the day. Look, animals are not ice cream, but I am trying to make a point here that illustrates at least a portion of the disconnect. You want to rely on the court case and ignore the interwoven role of the land upon which those state-owned animals reside, land which residents only own a MINORITY stake in, as compared to residents of the other 49. Land which, without, even YOU would have almost no opportunity to hunt. So in that sense, we are all equal. All I ask is that residents should think deeply about the core of that issue, fairness is not more for
me and less for thee, no matter what side of the state line one finds themselves on.
 

Similar threads

C
draw question
Replies
3
Views
892
sticksender
sticksender
L
Outfitters
Replies
15
Views
1k
heywouldya
heywouldya
N
Boat load of non res elk points
Replies
24
Views
2k
NM high country
N

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

20230828_175459.jpg
E2FE488C-ECCA-4533-9095-89D45EC6717C.jpeg
EE2728A6-C836-40AE-B80E-21A6C9EF1754.jpeg
234.JPG
Huge Buck
IMG_3302.png
IMG_4623.jpeg
Dandy Bull
Screenshot_20220111-211200_Facebook.jpg
Screenshot_20221224_132350_Instagram.jpg
IMG_2213.jpg
Screenshot_20220901_222721.jpg
Back
Top Bottom