mtmuley,
Finally heard back from the biologist and had a good visit with him. I asked him why the tag quota is being recommended.
The first reason is to reduce the number of hunter conflicts between hunters. Namely, fist fights.(His words)
Second, to remove the incentive toward leasing up of private lands by outfitters. The elk move to these lands and then elk are not accessable to enough hunters, so not enough elk are being killed and the elk numbers are going over objective.
Third, in some units, mainly on the south side of the river, archery hunters are killing too many bulls and the bull quality is beginning to suffer.
I agree that herd management is needed if quality is to be maintained, no matter what the species. Unfortunately for nonresidents like myself, we are the ones that will take the brunt of the proposal.
The proposal will allow an amount of tags equal to 75% of the three year average of archery tags sold during the last three years. I asked for the specfic numbers on the units north of the river and was told that the proposed quota is 1250 total. Last year in 2007, 1750 tags were sold for these areas. Of those, 1165 were residents and 550 were nonresidents. With the 10% max rule, the distribution will break down like this:
Resident tags = 1125 Nonresident tags = 125 max The biologist said they figure residents will have a 95% draw success (1165 tags vs. 1125 applicants)and these figures bear that out. Nonresidents will have about a 22% success (125 tags vs 550 applicants)
It;s easy to see why this proposal would be overwhelmingly popular with residents. It's pretty much a win win situation for them. Hopefully the issues that have caused the quota will be resolved and the residents will still get to hunt there almost anytime they want. I guess the only ones that will be squealing unfair will be us nonresidents and the outfitters. I have no comment on the outfitters position because I have always hunted public land there and the private land issue hasn't bothered me. But, as for the nonresident point of view, I think it rips that once again the nonresidents get hammered.
As food for thought. This proposal will have it's affect on some businesses in the area. Take myself for an example. I go hunting there for two weeks every year. I camp out for the first week, then I rent a cabin for the second week and eat a number of meals at the local cafe while there. Plus, I will buy alot of gas and some groceries to eat in the cabin when I don't feel like eating at the cafe. All told, I will drop from $1000 to $1500 with the local merchants. I am only one. I have met and visited with other nonresident hunters using the cabins, etc. as well. My observation has been that come friday, the number of hunters in the camping areas swells and then on Sunday, they leave. No doubt, most are residents who spend little money with the local merchants. I know the sentiment usually isn't with the nonresidents, but proposals such as this do have a wider affect on residents than might first be apparent.
I am confident that the proposal will pass. I am sad to see the area I love to hunt, basically disappear for me. Being able to hunt it once every four or five years makes it very difficult to get to know the area and the elk very well. Archery hunting is tough enough as it is. One of the best ways I know of to try to improve my odds of success is to learn the country and the game, intimately. Since I can't come up on weekends prior to the season and scout, I have to rely on information accumulated over succesive years hunts. These are my thoughts.