Guaranteed Outfitter Tags??? Poll

Should outfitters be guaranteed a certain percentage of the tags each year.

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 9.3%

  • No

    Votes: 186 90.7%
  • Total voters
    205
  • Poll closed .
Look how fragile your self-righteousness is. You can't even admit you pray for, beg, and sometimes, receive welfare.
 
Tristate said:
Roadrunner, do you enter state hunting draws?
Click to expand...

Not if there is an OTC tag available.

Tristate said:
If you answer yes then isn't the natural conclusion is either you aren't being honest, AND THIS IS ABOUT GREED, or you are a hypocrite that thinks you on welfare is morally superior to others on welfare.
Click to expand...

Wrong home-slice. Wellfare is something for nothing. A draw permit still makes you pay for it. A draw system is the very definition of what Economics really is.

Your proposal is to let the highest bidder win all the time, the one with the deepest pockets. That is the very definition of greed. What's really funny is you think you've proved something.

Tristate said:
All that talk and then denial. Greed is everything to do with it.

The interesting parts of this thread is the logic behind the greed. Some of yall say its welfare. OK. Here's the problem. THE ENTIRE DRAW SYSTEM IS WELFARE. So you look down your nose at one type of welfare all the while praying you can get some welfare. Please forgive me if I am lumping you into this group and you actually don't enter the draws.
Click to expand...

? Logic isn't your strength. Critical thinking skills fall short with you. Now go and stitch something up, tuck some lips, or apply some magic sculpt somewhere...
 
Tristate said:
All the good will in the world doesn't make something not welfare. In fact almost all welfare is based on the premise that it is going to aid someone or some group.
Click to expand...
I don't know man... I think you're reaching a bit. I don't think we will change each other's minds on the welfare bit but that really doesn't matter. I am totally against special tags set aside for outfitters. We do just fine without guaranteed tags just for us outfitters. I really don't understand the purpose... other than to prop up an industry
 
Last edited:
roadrunner said:
Not if there is an OTC tag available.



Wrong home-slice. Wellfare is something for nothing. A draw permit still makes you pay for it. A draw system is the very definition of what Economics really is.

Your proposal is to let the highest bidder win all the time, the one with the deepest pockets. That is the very definition of greed. What's really funny is you think you've proved something.
Click to expand...
Something for nothing is a gift. Paying in some cases less than %1 of the fair market value of a tag isn't something for nothing???????? You are living in denial.

I'm not sure what proposal you speak of but I didn't make it. Also the highest bidder doesn't necessarily have the deepest pockets and who can spend the most for something actually has nothing to do with greed. Greed is about consumption not spending.

A draw system is not the very definition of economics.
 
Tristate said:
Something for nothing is a gift. Paying in some cases less than %1 of the fair market value of a tag isn't something for nothing???????? You are living in denial.

I'm not sure what proposal you speak of but I didn't make it. Also the highest bidder doesn't necessarily have the deepest pockets and who can spend the most for something actually has nothing to do with greed. Greed is about consumption not spending.

A draw system is not the very definition of economics.
Click to expand...
Yawn
 
Tristate said:
Something for nothing is a gift. Paying in some cases less than %1 of the fair market value of a tag isn't something for nothing???????? You are living in denial.

I'm not sure what proposal you speak of but I didn't make it. Also the highest bidder doesn't necessarily have the deepest pockets and who can spend the most for something actually has nothing to do with greed. Greed is about consumption not spending.

A draw system is not the very definition of economics.
Click to expand...
I know this wasn't part of our exchange but I wanted comment if that's ok?

I think when you make reference to auction tags, I don't think its reasonable to consider that "fair market value". Our tags are statewide for 365 days. A draw tag is good for sometimes as few as 7 days and is only good for one unit. Auction off a 7 day draw tag in an average unit and you'd be lucky to get a bid.
 
Desertmuleyguide said:
I know this wasn't part of our exchange but I wanted comment if that's ok?

I think when you make reference to auction tags, I don't think its reasonable to consider that "fair market value". Our tags are statewide for 365 days. A draw tag is good for sometimes as few as 7 days and is only good for one unit. Auction off a 7 day draw tag in an average unit and you'd be lucky to get a bid.
Click to expand...
No problem desert muley. In your example that's apples and oranges. However there are tags that are auctioned off for extreme amounts every year that have exact draw comparitives.
 
I always get a kick out watching Tri argue with himself and spew senseless rubbish. But even better is when Tri throws out the reverse percent symbol, e.g. %1. That is when you know he is getting serious! ???
 
Hawkeye said:
I always get a kick out watching Tri argue with himself and spew senseless rubbish. But even better is when Tri throws out the reverse percent symbol, e.g. %1. That is when you know he is getting serious! ???
Click to expand...
I always get a kick out of you dodging questions so you can talk about me. :ROFLMAO:
 
Tristate, while I dont always agree with you, but i can usually see the point your trying to make with your arguments...... you lost me on this one.

Ohh and if you auctioned off every tag in the state even those hard to get tags for "fair market value" as you put it, would drastically reduce. The reason they are so high priced now is inflated because of the extreme limited number of the tags for auction, combined with enough rich guys to buy them, and the fact there is a legal work around to buy them. On top of that they can write the cost off in there taxes because that money goes to a conservation org not the state, the state didn't get any extra money. If you auctioned off every Henry mountains deer tag you wouldn't get nearly the $ it is generating now.
 
JakeH said:
Tristate, while I dont always agree with you, but i can usually see the point your trying to make with your arguments...... you lost me on this one.

Ohh and if you auctioned off every tag in the state even those hard to get tags for "fair market value" as you put it, would drastically reduce. The reason they are so high priced now is inflated because of the extreme limited number of the tags for auction, combined with enough rich guys to buy them, and the fact there is a legal work around to buy them. On top of that they can write the cost off in there taxes because that money goes to a conservation org not the state, the state didn't get any extra money. If you auctioned off every Henry mountains deer tag you wouldn't get nearly the $ it is generating now.
Click to expand...
No problem Jake H. I agree totally that the price of tags would fall, some more than others, if we were auctioning them off. However that isn't what they are doing. They do cut a check to a conservation organization. However the org has to pay out back to the state in many of the cases. All this is hijack games by other posters. So it doesn't matter.

Here is my simple point I am making on this thread. Nobody has offered a logical reason for why the state can't or shouldn't give tags to outfitters. Which in reality they don't even give tags to the outfitters. Its simply a separated draw for people who want to use an outfitter and the state still runs it.
 
Tristate said:
Here is my simple point I am making on this thread. Nobody has offered a logical reason for why the state can't or shouldn't give tags to outfitters. Which in reality they don't even give tags to the outfitters. Its simply a separated draw for people who want to use an outfitter and the state still runs it.
Click to expand...

Reasons have been given, you just don't like them or maybe even agree with them while others have.

Allocated tags to outfitters forces some to use a service they may not normally use, it favors a service provider, and removes opportunity away from somebody else. Like it or not, that's just the way it is.

Any and all gov't sponsored programs revolve around equality and fairness. Like it or not, that's just the way it is. Allocated tags keep the tenets of a free market at bay. Like it or not that's just the way it is.

You keep trolling back to the concept of 'greed'. Who's more greedy, the guy that wants a chance to go hunting with scarce resources available or the guy who thinks they are entitled because they have deep pockets and a coddled advantage...?
 
roadrunner said:
Reasons have been given, you just don't like them or maybe even agree with them while others have.

Allocated tags to outfitters forces some to use a service they may not normally use
Click to expand...


See this is what I mean Jake H. Roadrunner hasn't and isn't offering a logical explanation for his feelings on this subject. He posts this sentence. This sentence is a complete lie. He doesn't understand lying to people sweeps logic off the table. In reality it doesn't force anyone to do anything. You can still enter a different draw where you don't have to be associated with an outfitter. Thats the truth.

Then he goes on some rant about the deepest pockets and greed. When in reality the guy that spends pays a guide and the guy that goes DIY are the same. They get a tag and get to hunt. The style which they hunt doesn't make one more greedy than the other. I don't think roadrunner understands greed even though he suffers from it. Greed is about consumption not if you spend more money than someone else. He can't figure that out. He just hates people with more money than him.
 
This is a bit funny. There is a total jack-wagon who refuses to answer why he had the BLAM thread pulled but keeps asking questions. People need to ignore the troll. He gets his rocks off by playing his games. We should not play along.

The definition of welfare is: statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need.

Outfitter set-aside is designed to promote the material well-being of people in need (outfitters). Trying to argue with the troll is worthless and answering his questions when he refuses to answer any himself is a bit funny.
 
Utah400, you are acting like I said the tag draw for outfitted hunts isn't welfare. I NEVER DID. Go read.

Where you and these Jack wagons ran off the tracks is when I told you your entire draw system is a welfare system AND BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION IT IS. So either you and some of these others are in ignorant denial or yall are hypocrites. Take your pick.
 
If it's all welfare why does one group deserve more welfare carved out of the welfare pie than the next? Seems they are making an outfitter tag pie using the same finite limited ingredients taken from the general draw tag pie?
 
Tri's point that tags aren't getting fair market value and are being sold below market value is valid. Call it subsidized, call it welfare, but they are undervalued. Every moose, goat, and sheep tag would be out of reach of the common man if they were auctioned off. The problem comes in when businesses and organizations are gaining financially off of those tags, as those animals belong to the state, in turn, the people. Which is why tag prices are well below market value in certain instances, so the common man has a possibility of one day chasing an animal that ultimately partially belongs to him.
 
If there's one thing I know about state wildlife agencies it's that they're motivated by one thing above all... their budget. They're getting something out of those tags. We can go on and on about it being welfare but... I've yet to see a wildlife agency do something that wasn't going to help their budget. Couple questions and forgive my ignorance. Do states with these types of tags have non-resident caps? As I'm sure most of you know, AZ has a 10% non-resident cap on tags. Do these states have landowner tags? I'm just trying to piece together the real motivation for these tags without using the word welfare because it's gotta be more than that
 
Tristate said:
Utah400, you are acting like I said the tag draw for outfitted hunts isn't welfare. I NEVER DID. Go read.

Where you and these Jack wagons ran off the tracks is when I told you your entire draw system is a welfare system AND BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION IT IS. So either you and some of these others are in ignorant denial or yall are hypocrites. Take your pick.
Click to expand...
The context of the thread is whether or not outfitters should have a special pool, never anything about whether or not the draw in its entirety is a wellfare process.

Wellfare is something for nothing. Everyone who has ever won a tag in a lottery system has paid for it.

Try and keep up or just go do something else...
 
DW said:
Tri's point that tags aren't getting fair market value and are being sold below market value is valid. Call it subsidized, call it welfare, but they are undervalued. Every moose, goat, and sheep tag would be out of reach of the common man if they were auctioned off. The problem comes in when businesses and organizations are gaining financially off of those tags, as those animals belong to the state, in turn, the people. Which is why tag prices are well below market value in certain instances, so the common man has a possibility of one day chasing an animal that ultimately partially belongs to him.
Click to expand...
Most of what you say is spot on. However I don't see a problem with people gaining financially off of the wildlife. They are partial "owners" also. Plus it incentivizes a larger portion of society to protect the wildlife because it has an actual fiscal value to society and not just one household.
 
roadrunner said:
The context of the thread is whether or not outfitters should have a special pool, never anything about whether or not the draw in its entirety is a wellfare process.

Wellfare is something for nothing. Everyone who has ever won a tag in a lottery system has paid for it.

Try and keep up or just go do something else...
Click to expand...
You haven't been paying attention again. Other people started justifying their feelings by attacking this as welfare. I just showed how that isn't a logical justification because the entire system is set up around welfare.

Everyone who has ever drawn an outfitter tag has paid for it. I guess you just proved the outfitter tags aren't welfare. Thanks again Roadrunner.
 
Nobody answered my questions. But that's cool, I didn't address them to anyone specifically.

One state that I know has guide tags is a Nevada. They also have a draw for those tags. So the whole "guaranteed" thing goes out the window. I'm guessing applicants have to apply through an outfitter... so they are choosing the outfitter to apply through. So there's really no guarantee. Outfitters have go after and compete for that business. I would also imagine it's mostly non-residents applying for those tags. That's Nevadas motivation for having guide tags. They want to capture more of the non-resident money because I'm guessing it would be much harder for a nonresident to draw that particular tag. Calling that situation "welfare" is a stretch.
 
Tristate said:
You need to learn how to read slick. I never said they have to or they do sell to the highest bidderin every case. I was just saying they can and do, when they decide to. They are perfectly well within their rights to distribute those assets by any legal means they desire.

We have already shown this isn't a free market no matter how they distribute tags, so I don't understand why you keep coming back to that.

Slow down and reeeeeeead.
Click to expand...
You are just wanting to argue, because that is what you like to do.

Hunters in Utah have every right to be upset that 2% of the tags are being taken from them. If I took 2% of your profits from your taxidermy work that would be wrong, even if I was doing it in the name of "conservation".

Outfitters seem to survive just fine in AZ and other states without the state guaranteeing tags for clients that book with them.

Guaranteed outfitter tags, Wyomings wilderness law and Alaska's outfitter requirements are just a form of government welfare.
 
Desertmuleyguide said:
Nobody answered my questions. But that's cool, I didn't address them to anyone specifically.

One state that I know has guide tags is a Nevada. They also have a draw for those tags. So the whole "guaranteed" thing goes out the window. I'm guessing applicants have to apply through an outfitter... so they are choosing the outfitter to apply through. So there's really no guarantee. Outfitters have go after and compete for that business. I would also imagine it's mostly non-residents applying for those tags. That's Nevadas motivation for having guide tags. They want to capture more of the non-resident money because I'm guessing it would be much harder for a nonresident to draw that particular tag. Calling that situation "welfare" is a stretch.
Click to expand...
The problem in Nv is that a portion of the tags are reserved for outfitters client only. Why should Outfitters have a monopoly on a % of the tags. It is a form a welfare because Outfitters say they need that guaranteed percentage to stay in business.
 
BrianID said:
The problem in Nv is that a portion of the tags are reserved for outfitters client only. Why should Outfitters have a monopoly on a % of the tags. It is a form a welfare because Outfitters say they need that guaranteed percentage to stay in business.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that I agree with it. I absolutely do not. I'm just trying to figure out how Nevada benefits from iI. They wouldn't do it if they didn't. The poll specifically says "guaranteed" and that word is a stretch in Nevadas case.
 
BrianID said:
The problem in Nv is that a portion of the tags are reserved for outfitters client only. Why should Outfitters have a monopoly on a % of the tags. It is a form a welfare because Outfitters say they need that guaranteed percentage to stay in business.
Click to expand...
And if they're saying they can't stay is business without them then they need to find a new line of freakin work. That's horse$hit.
 
BrianID said:
You are just wanting to argue, because that is what you like to do.

Hunters in Utah have every right to be upset that 2% of the tags are being taken from them. If I took 2% of your profits from your taxidermy work that would be wrong, even if I was doing it in the name of "conservation".

Outfitters seem to survive just fine in AZ and other states without the state guaranteeing tags for clients that book with them.

Guaranteed outfitter tags, Wyomings wilderness law and Alaska's outfitter requirements are just a form of government welfare.
Click to expand...
You take over %30 of my profit every year.

The states aren't guaranteeing tags for clients that book with them. These clients still have to apply and draw the tag. Plus they aren't forced to only use one outfitter decided by the state.

Yes they are government welfare just like when you draw a tag its government welfare.
 
Tristate said:
You take over %30 of my profit every year.
Click to expand...

I've never seen a dime of the 30% that you are speaking about. The government takes a lot of $$ from every hard working American and then provides services that I agree with and some that I don't.

It depends on who you think owns the opportunity to hunt wildlife. There is the Texas model aka "kings deer" that you seem to believe in. Then there is North American Model for Wildlife Conservation that many of us believe in were "government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership." Government allocating a portion of the resource to those with extra wealth or prestige violates what many of us believe. It is a free country and I respect your 1st amendment rights to believe that the "kings deer" is the best model.
 
BrianID said:
I've never seen a dime of the 30% that you are speaking about. The government takes a lot of $$ from every hard working American and then provides services that I agree with and some that I don't.

It depends on who you think owns the opportunity to hunt wildlife. There is the Texas model aka "kings deer" that you seem to believe in. Then there is North American Model for Wildlife Conservation that many of us believe in were "government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership." Government allocating a portion of the resource to those with extra wealth or prestige violates what many of us believe. It is a free country and I respect your 1st amendment rights to believe that the "kings deer" is the best model.
Click to expand...
You do realize almost nothing in your last post is truthful or logical.
 
saddlesorerider said:
yes. I applied in the guide pool In NM with my 11 and 13 year old grandsons. Why? Because I'm 75 years old and want a chance to hunt and sit on a mountain with them. I don't have too many hunting seasons left.
Click to expand...
So because you are 75 with some young grandchildren you should have an advantage over those that dont have the means or just dont want to go guided?

I don't have a problem with you personally taking advantage of the system in place, but that doesn't mean its right.

Newmexico gives 10 of the 15% nonresident tag allowance to the guide pool, so 66% of all nonresident tag holders must hire a guide. That is a ridiculous number and really isn't fare to everybody else.
 
saddlesorerider said:
yes. I applied in the guide pool In NM with my 11 and 13 year old grandsons. Why? Because I'm 75 years old and want a chance to hunt and sit on a mountain with them. I don't have too many hunting seasons left.
Click to expand...
Let's hope your grandchildren get good paying jobs and can afford an outfitter to hunt. If not they will be getting the crumps the states and outfitters leave them if we go down this slippery slope.
 
Desertmuleyguide said:
I'm not saying that I agree with it. I absolutely do not. I'm just trying to figure out how Nevada benefits from iI. They wouldn't do it if they didn't. The poll specifically says "guaranteed" and that word is a stretch in Nevadas case.
Click to expand...
In Nevada those non resident any legal weapon guided buck deer tags are guaranteed to the outfitters.
A percentage of each hunt areas non res quota is reserved and guaranteed for the guide draw.
No guarantee the individual hunters who are applying for them will draw.
However that percentage of guaranteed tags will be drawn and the quotas will be filled.
Guaranteed!!!
 
buckhorn said:
In Nevada those non resident any legal weapon guided buck deer tags are guaranteed to the outfitters.
A percentage of each hunt areas non res quota is reserved and guaranteed for the guide draw.
No guarantee the individual hunters who are applying for them will draw.
However that percentage of guaranteed tags will be drawn and the quotas will be filled.
Guaranteed!!!
Click to expand...
Right but certain outfitters are not guaranteed a certain number of tags right? I don't like any of it, I'm just trying to make sense of it and figure out how the state benefits. They're coming out of a non-resident quota which I'm assuming is capped? If they're coming out of a pool of tags that would go to non-residents anyway, I can't imagine why a resident would care. I can see why non-residents would care for sure... but residents wouldn't care. If they were taking tags from residents I'm certain they would lose their sh!t. If states want to run their tag quotas a certain way, I say let them. If I don't like the way Nevada runs their non-resident system, I can either move there or not hunt there.
 
The way I understand it in NV is that the NR guide draw tags come from the NR allotment and its not lot of tags. There are no guarantees that you will draw if you apply with the guide. Also if you apply in this draw you cannot apply in the regular deer draw.
The NM draw is different. Both NR and residents can apply with the guide draw so its not taking away tags from residents.
In NM only 6% of the tags go to NR, 10% guide, and 84% resident.
AZ is up to 10% NR and most states are like that.
 
Tristate said:
You do realize almost nothing in your last post is truthful or logical.
Click to expand...
It seems completely truthful and logical to me. I'm guessing it seems logical to everyone else reading this thread besides you but I'll leave that open to anyone else to comment on.

One question for you Tristate. Do you believe in the Texas model where the "king" owns the deer or do you believe in a model like Arizona (90% resident/10% nonresident) where residents of the state all have an equal shot at tags and the opportunity to hunt? Or do you believe something in the middle like NM where guides get a guaranteed percentage, land owners get a percentage of unit wide tags, residents get a percentage and nonresidents get the crumbs?
 
saddlesorerider said:
yes. I applied in the guide pool In NM with my 11 and 13 year old grandsons. Why? Because I'm 75 years old and want a chance to hunt and sit on a mountain with them. I don't have too many hunting seasons left.
Click to expand...
I don't blame you for that at all. Even applying as a nonresident in multiple states and taking 4 weeks of vacation time in the fall like I do is too expensive for many hunters. So I do use $$ to provide myself opportunity. I've also applied in guide draws and applied for many auction tags to increase my opportunity. I don't blame anyone for using guide draws or buying landowner tags that are available. If I get lucky and draw a sheep tag in Nevada this year, it would make better financial sense for me to hire an outfitter than it would be to put the time away from work to scout for the hunt.

I don't want to demonize individual hunters that take advantage of their $$ to buy opportunity but don't agree with a system that sets up hunting to be a rich mans sport. I think it goes back to my roots when I was 20 years old and had very little disposable income. I really enjoyed having the same opportunity to hunt deer and elk on public land in Idaho as everyone else. I want future generations to enjoy the same opportunities that I had. I can see how some hunters believe in the "kings deer" model when they didn't grow up in a place that allowed for equal opportunity to hunt public land.
 
Desertmuleyguide said:
Gotcha... my bad
Click to expand...
No problem.
The history with some of the guide guaranteed percentage of tags is often due to states reducing or "caping" tag numbers for an area. The guides become concerned because they know their regular hunters that come back year after year will no longer get a tag and they risk not booking as many clients as they did in the past. I would like to think that states have good intentions in reserving a percentage of the tags for the outfitter pool so when they cut tags, they don't put an outfitter out of business. Unfortunately, mule deer in about every state are not as abundant as they were 50 years ago and there just are not enough tags for everyone that wants to hunt places like the AZ strip every year. I think we have to come up with a fair system that gives everyone an equal shot at the limited resource. Some people like the "kings deer model" and I prefer "government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership."
 
BrianID said:
No problem.
The history with some of the guide guaranteed percentage of tags is often due to states reducing or "caping" tag numbers for an area. The guides become concerned because they know their regular hunters that come back year after year will no longer get a tag and they risk not booking as many clients as they did in the past. I would like to think that states have good intentions in reserving a percentage of the tags for the outfitter pool so when they cut tags, they don't put an outfitter out of business. Unfortunately, mule deer in about every state are not as abundant as they were 50 years ago and there just are not enough tags for everyone that wants to hunt places like the AZ strip every year. I think we have to come up with a fair system that gives everyone an equal shot at the limited resource. Some people like the "kings deer model" and I prefer "government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership."
Click to expand...
Makes sense I guess. I like the way Arizona does things except for the point system. I like the bonus point system but point creep is a big issue. They need to start squaring points. Arizona seems to be on the opposite end of the spectrum compared to other states. No land owner tags, no guide draw. Definitely not a kings deer situation.
 
This is what I mean. You want to have a logical conversation but you introduce a state which doesn't have a guide pool of tags to draw from. Then you start ranting about how they are on a king's deer management system, which isn't true.

Then you start talking about outfitters getting clients coming back year after year?????? I got news for you. That's not reality either.

Then you finish with this gem.

"government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership."

I got news for you slick land ownership is important. Just as important as the house I assume you live in. Land ownership and the rights and privileges attached to land ownership are one of the cornerstones of your freedom. Just because you want to get greedy over some stupid deer tags doesn't mean you need to drag land ownership into whatever socialized antifa pipe dream you've been brainwashed with. The day the government makes their decisions with all disregard for land owners you might as well kiss this country goodbye. Shame on you for letting your ancestors down with your greed and foolishness.
 
Tristate said:
Then you start talking about outfitters getting clients coming back year after year?????? I got news for you. That's not reality eiither.
Click to expand...
Thats not reality? I don't know if you're a guide, outfitter or regular Joe but we live and die by repeat clients. We have clients that come back every single year for archery deer. All the clients we have want to hunt multiple species. So if they hunt deer with us every year and then draw an elk tag, we guide them on elk hunts... and anything else they draw. If it weren't for repeat clients we wouldn't be in business.
 
Last edited:
Tristate said:
....land ownership is important. Just as important as the house I assume you live in. Land ownership and the rights and privileges attached to land ownership are one of the cornerstones of your freedom
Click to expand...
Tristate said:
The day the government makes their decisions with all disregard for land owners you might as well kiss this country goodbye.
Click to expand...
I agree with this statement more than anything I've read on this thread.
 
Last edited:
Desertmuleyguide said:
Thats not reality? I'm calling BS. I don't know if you're a guide, outfitter or regular Joe but we live and die by repeat clients. We have clients that come back every single year for archery deer. All the clients we have want to hunt multiple species. So if they hunt deer with us every year and then draw an elk tag, we guide them on elk hunts... and anything else they draw. If it weren't for repeat clients we wouldn't be in business.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying we don't want repeat customers or we don't take them when we can. But betting on a repeat customer through an outfitter draw system every year isn't reality. The applicants don't draw every single year. It's still a draw. Maybe you get a customer one year and then you see him 5 years later when he draws again but you won't see that guy every single year.
 
Tristate said:
I'm not saying we don't want repeat customers or we don't take them when we can. But betting on a repeat customer through an outfitter draw system every year isn't reality. The applicants don't draw every single year. It's still a draw. Maybe you get a customer one year and then you see him 5 years later when he draws again but you won't see that guy every single year.
Click to expand...
I think what he was trying to say is that's why they created an outfitter draw. Because... when they cut non-resident tags it hurt the outfitters.
 
Tristate said:
I'm not saying we don't want repeat customers or we don't take them when we can. But betting on a repeat customer through an outfitter draw system every year isn't reality. The applicants don't draw every single year. It's still a draw. Maybe you get a customer one year and then you see him 5 years later when he draws again but you won't see that guy every single year.
Click to expand...
Oh and I edited "I'm calling BS" part. Sorry about that. I didn't want to sound hostile. I like to keep things respectful.
 
What I'm realizing through this thread is that we have created such a totally different business model from the norm that I can't even relate to any of this. We don't outfit hunts on the strip. We don't even outfit hunts in some of the other "top" units in AZ. We outfit most of our deer hunts in the desert where a non-resident can draw a tag every 2 or 3 years. There are a couple units a non-resident can draw every year. We also book a ton of OTC hunts. Those are our bread and butter. We aren't killing "strip" type deer either though. Our average is probably 160-170 with one or two per year getting into the 180 range. There are a lot of guys that would rather have an opportunity at a 170 buck every couple years rather than wait a lifetime for a strip tag. I'm sure glad I live and work in AZ. I'm realizing I'm really blessed.
 
I did not want to bring this up, but look at Oregon. The outfitters apply for something like 1/2 of the tags the NR drew the previous year in their own draw. I’m not sure what they pay for them, but they then turn around and sell them to clients. So if there is only
1 NR tag it goes into the NR draw every other year. Talk about welfare!!!
 
LIK2HNT said:
I did not want to bring this up, but look at Oregon. The outfitters apply for something like 1/2 of the tags the NR drew the previous year in their own draw. I’m not sure what they pay for them, but they then turn around and sell them to clients. So if there is only
1 NR tag it goes into the NR draw every other year. Talk about welfare!!!
Click to expand...
How is that welfare? That actually sounds like the least amount of welfare we've heard yet. Sounds like straight business. You apply along with other businesses for tags and then you have to pay the state for the tags then you can resell them????? Doesn't sound any different than the oil and gas industry.
 
I hate to break it to everyone, but we're all on welfare in some form or the other. That's why the US has trillions of dollars in debt. However you make your money, if you follow the money trail back far enough, your money is tainted with money that flows from federal debt.
 
Tristate said:
This is what I mean. You want to have a logical conversation but you introduce a state which doesn't have a guide pool of tags to draw from. Then you start ranting about how they are on a king's deer management system, which isn't true.

Then you start talking about outfitters getting clients coming back year after year?????? I got news for you. That's not reality either.

Then you finish with this gem.

"government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership."

I got news for you slick land ownership is important. Just as important as the house I assume you live in. Land ownership and the rights and privileges attached to land ownership are one of the cornerstones of your freedom. Just because you want to get greedy over some stupid deer tags doesn't mean you need to drag land ownership into whatever socialized antifa pipe dream you've been brainwashed with. The day the government makes their decisions with all disregard for land owners you might as well kiss this country goodbye. Shame on you for letting your ancestors down with your greed and foolishness.
Click to expand...

Thank you for answering my question even though you didn't do it directly. You believe in the "kings deer" aka Texas model of tag distribution. You probably think it would be a great idea for a large majority of the BLM and forest service lands in Western state to be sold to private individuals so they can all function more like Texas. That is your first amendment right to believe that and it is my right to believe that Western public lands are a treasure to be enjoyed by all citizens and they shouldn't be sold off to private individuals.

I'm sorry if my ranting in this thread doesn't follow a logical order for you but your ranting is no better. I know you don't think your **** stinks but maybe you should try sniffing it sometime. I brought Arizona in as an example of a state where outfitters do fine without the "welfare" tags that are provided in NM.

Calling my ideas socialized antifa is a really low blow. Honestly I just feel sorry that you have been stuck in Texas your whole life and haven't been able to experience the freedom large expanses of public land provide. I'm very thankful I was able to grow up in Idaho where I was able to enjoy the opportunity to fish and hunt on public land and I hope future generations can enjoy the same public land that my grandfather, father, my children and I have enjoyed. It has been really sad to see hunting success and opportunities become more about $$ instead of time and effort.
 
Tristate said:
I'm not saying we don't want repeat customers or we don't take them when we can. But betting on a repeat customer through an outfitter draw system every year isn't reality. The applicants don't draw every single year. It's still a draw. Maybe you get a customer one year and then you see him 5 years later when he draws again but you won't see that guy every single year.
Click to expand...

You are just talking about things you don't fully understand and rambling on trying to push your Texas ways on everyone else. How many Western States have you hunted in? You didn't grow up in a place with large expanses of public land, so I can see how you don't value them and equal opportunity to all hunters.

"government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership." This phrase bothers you because you believe that wealth, prestige and land ownership are the most important factors in deciding who has access to wildlife resources.
 
Tristate said:
How is that welfare? That actually sounds like the least amount of welfare we've heard yet. Sounds like straight business. You apply along with other businesses for tags and then you have to pay the state for the tags then you can resell them????? Doesn't sound any different than the oil and gas industry.
Click to expand...
I guess the difference is that some of us see hunting as and opportunity for friends and family to enjoy the outdoors together. Others see hunting as something they enjoy doing but also as a source of $$. When you take away opportunity from me, so that you can make extra $$, I'm going to call that welfare.
 
Let me be clear comrade. Thinking land owners shouldn't have a say in wildlife management and wildlife distribution is spitting in their face. You are happy with them feeding you and the people you care about. You are happy with them being stewards of wildlife. You are happy for them to pay taxes. But you worry they might have their own ideas for wildlife and so you don't think they deserve a voice. Let me tell you something slick, I may disagree with people here and be a complete a-hole but I have never once advocated for someone to loose their voice. Especially someone that America owes a deep debt of gratitude to. I was wrong when I said you were a socialist. You are a communist. You want everyone to have their stuff provided to them by the gubmint like a socialist, but you want to be the only opinion on the distribution and those other people should just shut up and keep putting food in front of your greedy pie hole. I rate you somewhere between people who beat their grandparents and people who say the soldiers that stormed Normandy are wimps.

You keep bringing up how bad Texas is. But guess what, we don't have the outfitter tags you wish you didn't have to put up with. We also have a pile more game and hunting opportunity than you do.
 
The ultimate goal of any debate SHOULD be understanding. Arguing to be right is fruitless.

The poll was pretty cut and dry, should there be outfitter tags? Going around in circles about whether or not it's welfare is such a waste of time. The fact of the matter is, nobody has any real say in whether they exist or not. You really don't even get a vote. If there's one thing I know about the hunting community it's that they excel in apathy. Guys will get on the internet and wail about perceived injustices but won't go to a commission meeting and make their voices heard. Some do.. but very very few. So... whether you like outfitter tags or not doesn't really matter because it's not likely to change. I've yet to see a commission unwind a rule like that... once it's done its done.

In a case like this, 99% of residents probably don't give a sh!t either way because the tags aren't even coming out of their pool. Most residents don't like non-resident hunters anyway (which is silly because they bring in a lot of money). So it will NEVER change because commissions DO NOT listen to non-residents. They only care about how much money they can get out of them.

Anyway... thats my ultimate take on all of this. Have a great weekend!!!!
 
Tristate said:
Let me be clear comrade. Thinking land owners shouldn't have a say in wildlife management and wildlife distribution is spitting in their face. You are happy with them feeding you and the people you care about. You are happy with them being stewards of wildlife. You are happy for them to pay taxes. But you worry they might have their own ideas for wildlife and so you don't think they deserve a voice. Let me tell you something slick, I may disagree with people here and be a complete a-hole but I have never once advocated for someone to loose their voice. Especially someone that America owes a deep debt of gratitude to. I was wrong when I said you were a socialist. You are a communist. You want everyone to have their stuff provided to them by the gubmint like a socialist, but you want to be the only opinion on the distribution and those other people should just shut up and keep putting food in front of your greedy pie hole. I rate you somewhere between people who beat their grandparents and people who say the soldiers that stormed Normandy are wimps.

You keep bringing up how bad Texas is. But guess what, we don't have the outfitter tags you wish you didn't have to put up with. We also have a pile more game and hunting opportunity than you do.
Click to expand...
Looks like the troll was trolled!!!

I just used the Texas comment to get under your skin and you let it work. Texas is a great state. I've actually lived in San Antonio, and Fort Worth and currently live in El Paso. I've lived all over the US and there are many great places. I'm sure that you and I agree on more stuff than we disagree. I just had to hit you with a low blow when you called me a socialist.

Send me a PM If you ever come through El Paso, I would be happy to take you out to lunch or dinner if I'm not busy but you will have to take a picture with me that is posted on Monster Muleys for everyone to see. We as hunters can disagree on certain things but still need to stay united. Just look at the stupid trapping ban legislation taking place in NM.

I would be happy to get back to a civil discussion without name calling or talking bad about the great state of Texas. However, I think it is better that you and I just agree to disagree on outfitter tags. Many of the animals that I hunted growing up lived on public land 99%+ of their life. I just think the opportunity to hunt those animals should be equal for all US citizens with a strong preference to state residents. I lived on a potato farm when I was young and my grandfather had cattle that grazed on both private and public land. I have a great appreciation for the hard work that farmers and ranchers do to keep food on the tables of Americans.
 
Last edited:
Desertmuleyguide said:
The ultimate goal of any debate SHOULD be understanding. Arguing to be right is fruitless.

The poll was pretty cut and dry, should there be outfitter tags? Going around in circles about whether or not it's welfare is such a waste of time. The fact of the matter is, nobody has any real say in whether they exist or not. You really don't even get a vote. If there's one thing I know about the hunting community it's that they excel in apathy. Guys will get on the internet and wail about perceived injustices but won't go to a commission meeting and make their voices heard. Some do.. but very very few. So... whether you like outfitter tags or not doesn't really matter because it's not likely to change. I've yet to see a commission unwind a rule like that... once it's done its done.

In a case like this, 99% of residents probably don't give a sh!t either way because the tags aren't even coming out of their pool. Most residents don't like non-resident hunters anyway (which is silly because they bring in a lot of money). So it will NEVER change because commissions DO NOT listen to non-residents. They only care about how much money they can get out of them.

Anyway... thats my ultimate take on all of this. Have a great weekend!!!!
Click to expand...

Very well said. I was just trolling tristate because he likes having someone to argue with.

I would disagree with the fact that outfitter tags are here to stay. This year there has been a push in the NM state legislature to get ride of the outfitter tags. I think there is a very real chance that NM will have a clean 90/10 split for resident and nonresident tags instead of the current 84/10/6 split.
 
BrianID said:
Very well said. I was just trolling tristate because he likes having someone to argue with.

I would disagree with the fact that outfitter tags are here to stay. This year there has been a push in the NM state legislature to get ride of the outfitter tags. I think there is a very real chance that NM will have a clean 90/10 split for resident and nonresident tags instead of the current 84/10/6 split.
Click to expand...
If it is taking the NM state legislature to get rid of it, that means the commission is REALLY dug in on it. That would be the one and only way to get rid of it because commissions don't go backwards on stuff like that. I've never seen it anyway.
 
BrianID said:
Very well said. I was just trolling tristate because he likes having someone to argue with.

I would disagree with the fact that outfitter tags are here to stay. This year there has been a push in the NM state legislature to get ride of the outfitter tags. I think there is a very real chance that NM will have a clean 90/10 split for resident and nonresident tags instead of the current 84/10/6 split.
Click to expand...
I'm curious to know if the NM legislature is led by Dems or Reps.
 
It didn't bother me that you talk bad about Texas. It bothers me that you are communist and you are perfectly happy screwing over as many hunters as you like as long as you think your greed is satisfied.
 
Desertmuleyguide,

Here is what BrianID is too shortsighted to understand. He thinks if the legislature gets rid of outfitter tags suddenly there will be more tags for him in the regular draw. In reality they will just get rid of the outfitter tags. Politicians love dividing up a group to attack each other so they can swoop in and screw them all. While BrianID loves to hate him some rich folks and land owners and is praying they will get screwed in all of this, he doesn't realize he is in the crosshairs.
 
Tristate said:
Desertmuleyguide,

Here is what BrianID is too shortsighted to understand. He thinks if the legislature gets rid of outfitter tags suddenly there will be more tags for him in the regular draw. In reality they will just get rid of the outfitter tags. Politicians love dividing up a group to attack each other so they can swoop in and screw them all. While BrianID loves to hate him some rich folks and land owners and is praying they will get screwed in all of this, he doesn't realize he is in the crosshairs.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm not trying to get in the middle of ya'lls mess.... lol
 
Tristate said:
It didn't bother me that you talk bad about Texas. It bothers me that you are communist and you are perfectly happy screwing over as many hunters as you like as long as you think your greed is satisfied.
Click to expand...
I think I did get under your skin with the Texas comment because you are still using your communist insult. Really I just feel sad that you have never been able to enjoy vast expanses of public lands. It is sad you don't see the treasure they really are. There is a reason that people like Theodore Rosevelt created large expanses of public lands for all American citizens to enjoy. They wanted future generations to enjoy the freedom they did of the frontier. Texas had a different model of selling off almost all the the land to private individuals. Since Texas is the only place you have lived and it sounds like all your hunting has been focused on private land it would be something you don't understand.

Does that make me a communist?? Are you saying I'm left of AOC and Bernie Sanders?
 
Tristate said:
Desertmuleyguide,

Here is what BrianID is too shortsighted to understand. He thinks if the legislature gets rid of outfitter tags suddenly there will be more tags for him in the regular draw. In reality they will just get rid of the outfitter tags. Politicians love dividing up a group to attack each other so they can swoop in and screw them all. While BrianID loves to hate him some rich folks and land owners and is praying they will get screwed in all of this, he doesn't realize he is in the crosshairs.
Click to expand...
You are correct. If NM goes to a 90/10 split vs a 84/10/6 split, my odds of drawing a tag as nonresident will likely decrease. I don't have a problem with a 10% cap on nonresident tags though. I do have a problem with dumb laws like the Wyoming Wilderness law or outfitter set aside tags because I view them as a form of government welfare.
 
BrianID said:
You are correct. If NM goes to a 90/10 split vs a 84/10/6 split, my odds of drawing a tag as nonresident will likely decrease. I don't have a problem with a 10% cap on nonresident tags though. I do have a problem with dumb laws like the Wyoming Wilderness law or outfitter set aside tags because I view them as a form of government welfare.
Click to expand...
Well man, I don't mean to sound like a jerk but you as a non-resident have no say so in how other states allocate their tags. The animals in those states belong to the people of those states. Not you and not me. We are guests that these respective states have allowed to hunt their animals. We can have opinions on how they do things but our opinions mean nothing.
 
Desertmuleyguide said:
Well man, I don't mean to sound like a jerk but you as a non-resident have no say so in how other states allocate their tags. The animals in those states belong to the people of those states. Not you and not me. We are guests that these respective states have allowed to hunt their animals. We can have opinions on how they do things but our opinions mean nothing.
Click to expand...
I agree that residents of the state get to decide who the tags go to. We can still voice our opinion but it doesn't hold the same water as those residents of the state.
 
Tristate said:
In Utah yall have been screaming and crying for years over a total number of tags which is less than %2 of your big game tags. Yeah, this is about your "chance".?
Click to expand...
I agree with Try on this.
$FW should get less than 2% of ALL tags to pimp out.
I want to see $FW auction off a Wasatch West deer tag to the highest bidder.
The winning bid will be like $20 and $FW gets to keep their 10%.
 

Similar threads

bstewy
Lucky Utah Once in a Lifetime
Replies
20
Views
1k
PleaseDear
PleaseDear

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

9D06D087-8A8A-460A-A186-65902C549A8B.jpeg
IMG_9466.jpeg
IMG_4694.jpg
IMG_6652.jpeg
C7B88807-775C-4A8B-BDE5-BFC32E4A0094.jpeg
IMG_20231121_132553.jpg
IMG_3473.jpeg
1664200872262.png
Last Day 200" Colorado Buck
6879A4C6-6192-4D97-9A3D-909223966531.jpeg
IMG_3560.MOV
Arizona Early Rifle Bull Elk
Back
Top Bottom