Episode 99

[cur dog]

I just finished listening to this podcast. I thought it was excellent. I've become concerned recently, with the sizable price increases of some non resident tags. Its nice to hear someone else is worried that folks are getting priced out of these non resident opportunities. I personally know several people who have dropped out of the game. I don't feel it's a good trend. Less participation and interest is certainly not good for our public lands. Thank you.

 

[wyoelkfan15]

Some great points were made on this podcast for sure. Randy brought up the point that people, especially in the East, who don't have immediate access to the public lands in the West, will find it difficult to advocate for public lands. This especially becomes the case when specifically talking about hunters and how non-residents are charged so much to hunt on these public lands. Often I think hunters get criticized, I certainly do at least, for views on public lands and why the public should be interested in them. I've had friends point out that I advocate for public lands strictly because I like to hunt on them.

One point I always like to bring up in these discussions is the fact that these are the lands of MULTIPLE use. Anyone who has an interest in hiking, camping, climbing, rafting, skiing, photography, etc. etc. benefits by these lands being available to the public. It is a completely narrow minded view to say "I'm not going to advocate for public lands because Wyoming likes to charge me $692.00 for an elk tag." I think we can often get pigeon-holed in these discussions as hunters and people will completely misrepresent our intentions strictly because of our preferred use of these lands.

Anyway, rant over, thanks for a great podcast Big Fin and Crew, got me through the afternoon at work. Gonna go take the dog for a walk on our public lands!

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I can see it both ways, I pony up for out of state tags every year, but despite the increase in price every western state continues to see an increase in license sales and applications. In my mind that means prices haven’t increased enough. That being said I don’t think hunting should become an activity for only the super wealthy. I’m not sure if that is actually an issue though if most residents in western states can still afford to hunt and if eastern hunters can still afford to hunt at home just not vacation hunt...is it really a rich mans sport if all you have to do is move?

There is definitely a conversation to be had about state DNR budgets and NR licenses sales, NR are the life blood of western conservation.

As far as public lands go that’s a more difficult topic to pull apart. I’m sure there are statistics, so please bury me in data if this is incorrect, but I believe the majority of public land users are non-hunters. Probably something like 100:1 if not more, but the majority of those users are at national parks, monuments or a few specific areas. Hunters are probably the biggest use group on BLM, and the most widely dispersed group of recreators. Though this is definitely changing. Point being lots of people should have a vested interest in public lands, but hunters are probably the main group that care about spots like the red desert of Wyoming, the Missouri breaks, etc.

Selfish easterners might decide they don’t care about most of WY because they can’t hunt there and Yellowstone isn’t going away so whatever.

This thinking makes you a selfish tool bag. What kinda jerk says “Well if I don’t get to use it burn it down.”

I’m likely never going to make it to ANWR, and I still value it existing.

You could tell me tomorrow that I can never hunt again, permanently revoke all my hunting privileges, I’m still going to advocate for public lands.

 

[wyoelkfan15]

You could tell me tomorrow that I can never hunt again, permanently revoke all my hunting privileges, I’m still going to advocate for public lands.

^^

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I listened to this podcast today and another topic that was discussed was tag allocation/ NR opportunity v. resident opportunity; the idea that NR can only get a portion 6%-35% or what have you of the tags.

This topic is going to blow up on the forum once draw results get posted, and there will be lots of complaining.

I think one thing NR lose sight of is resident opportunity, example:

Michigan, if I own 120 acres in Michigan I can get 2 whitetail buck tags every year and harvest some meat for the freezer and potentially get a nice rack for the wall. In addition I can apply to hunt in a number of states and if time and money allow go on a vacation to hunt.

Colorado, if I own 120 acres and live in say unit 44 (where I grew up) I can at the very most get 1 archery deer tag every other year. There are no whitetail deer in the area, and mule deer are migratory and are in high in the mountains on public till November, so 4th season. Essentially, the only time I would have a chance at killing a deer on my place would be during 4th season which takes 17 points to draw, even if you had 160 acres and could apply for a landowner voucher it would still take 4 years to get a tag. There are 3rd season tags that you could get but it would be hit or miss to have deer down in the valley on private, basically there is no way that with 120 acres you will get to see a deer every year on your property during hunting season with a tag in your pocket.

Obviously there are holes in these examples, but my point is that being a resident in a western state is just different than back east. Herds are managed differently and in a lot of cases people can't hunt their back 40 even if they have deer and elk in their yard for 6 months out of the year. Given this fact CO residents have to go elsewhere to hunt and public land is there only option to hunt. I think that a CO resident has just as much right to get a deer tag in CO as a Michigan resident has a right to get a deer tag in MI. Given this fact I think it's common sense that any state should make sure it's residents have opportunity before non-residents.

Sometimes I think NR take their local hunting for granted, and don't realize that residents play by the same rules they do and only have a 5-10 day season to get 1 deer.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Also per the discussion on price ratio... this was 2017 numbers but you get the idea...

 

[bushman13]

Georgia, if you own 1 or 120 acres, you can shoot 12 deer with a 3 month hunting season. Every time I start to noodle out this east vs west opportunity issue, and you have said it before, I always get back to game scarcity. I wonder if we would even be having these conversations if the herds were not manged to the benefit of agriculture, in the west. The CPW currently pays around $500,000 per year to farmers for crop damage. If the game herds of Colorado doubled in size ( ), would that math translate? Could we apply a small increase in resident fees and pay the farmers a cool million?

I listened to this podcast today and another topic that was discussed was tag allocation/ NR opportunity v. resident opportunity; the idea that NR can only get a portion 6%-35% or what have you of the tags.

This topic is going to blow up on the forum once draw results get posted, and there will be lots of complaining.

I think one thing NR lose sight of is resident opportunity, example:

Michigan, if I own 120 acres in Michigan I can get 2 whitetail buck tags every year and harvest some meat for the freezer and potentially get a nice rack for the wall. In addition I can apply to hunt in a number of states and if time and money allow go on a vacation to hunt.

Colorado, if I own 120 acres and live in say unit 44 (where I grew up) I can at the very most get 1 archery deer tag every other year. There are no whitetail deer in the area, and mule deer are migratory and are in high in the mountains on public till November, so 4th season. Essentially, the only time I would have a chance at killing a deer on my place would be during 4th season which takes 17 points to draw, even if you had 160 acres and could apply for a landowner voucher it would still take 4 years to get a tag. There are 3rd season tags that you could get but it would be hit or miss to have deer down in the valley on private, basically there is no way that with 120 acres you will get to see a deer every year on your property during hunting season with a tag in your pocket.

Obviously there are holes in these examples, but my point is that being a resident in a western state is just different than back east. Herds are managed differently and in a lot of cases people can't hunt their back 40 even if they have deer and elk in their yard for 6 months out of the year. Given this fact CO residents have to go elsewhere to hunt and public land is there only option to hunt. I think that a CO resident has just as much right to get a deer tag in CO as a Michigan resident has a right to get a deer tag in MI. Given this fact I think it's common sense that any state should make sure it's residents have opportunity before non-residents.

Sometimes I think NR take their local hunting for granted, and don't realize that residents play by the same rules they do and only have a 5-10 day season to get 1 deer.