I know this will maybe get heated but i think its a crock of sh#t that NM pulled their same old tricks to make Elk hunting a rich mans sport again. Its bad enough that the non-resident tags are favored to guys who want to have an outfitter, thats bull, all non res apps should be the same pool and then get your outfitter afterward! Now they have it so you can sell your valles caldera tag! now all the outfitters are hogging a good number of tags by submitting apps from multiple names and then selling the ones they won. This ranch is owned by all of us, the US taxpayers, not the rich who can afford 5k$ plus hunts. It is sad to see that the state is KILLING hunting tradition where a common man could take his kids hunting for good bulls, and have the same odds to draw tags on govt land as the rich. I am sure some of you will disagree because your either a guide or outfitter but you cannot agrue that its fair to allow the outfitters perspective clients a better chance to draw a tag. let the opinions be heard.
NM lottery opinion, valles caldera
- Thread starter schmalts
- Start date
Tom
New member
In my state everybody has the same chance to hunt, what's it like in yours? Out of state people pay like 5 times more for a deer liscense, but the same for many other species.
Its the same here in wisconsin. The tags are not restricted to non residents, and are some of the cheapest non-res tags out there.last time i checked they were 135$ and no additional license fee. the real kicker is that the state is mostly private property. AZ and elk country is mostly federal land,owned by us all and they resrict the non residents to 10%, go figure.
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-27-2002 19:36: Message edited by: schmalts ]</font>
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-27-2002 19:36: Message edited by: schmalts ]</font>
BuzzH
Well-known member
Schmalts, I do agree with you on the NM deal, that is a crock. New Mexico has pulled several real dandies over the years.
However, ownership of the land is a moot point. In AZ as well as most other states the wildlife is owned by the state. Therefore its completely OK by me that they limit the number of NR hunters in each state.
They can manage their wildlife any way they see fit, including not allowing any NR hunting, requiring guides etc. Whether you or I agree with the various laws, well thats another matter...
However, ownership of the land is a moot point. In AZ as well as most other states the wildlife is owned by the state. Therefore its completely OK by me that they limit the number of NR hunters in each state.
They can manage their wildlife any way they see fit, including not allowing any NR hunting, requiring guides etc. Whether you or I agree with the various laws, well thats another matter...
[
However, ownership of the land is a moot point. In AZ as well as most other states the wildlife is owned by the state. Therefore its completely OK by me that they limit the number of NR hunters in each state.
They can manage their wildlife any way they see fit, including not allowing any NR hunting, requiring guides etc. Whether you or I agree with the various laws, well thats another matter...[/QB][/QUOTE]
True Buzz, but owning the critters is half the ownership. There needs to be a balance between the states animals and the property they live on. You cant hunt the critters just because the state says you can shoot our critters, you need to be on someones land. Thats why landowner tags are handed out. and thats fair. The owner of the land should be first in line to hunt, but who owns the federal land? all of us, not just 10% like arizona thinks, or the rich who want to use an outfitter like in NM.. hope this helps get my view across. What do you think?
However, ownership of the land is a moot point. In AZ as well as most other states the wildlife is owned by the state. Therefore its completely OK by me that they limit the number of NR hunters in each state.
They can manage their wildlife any way they see fit, including not allowing any NR hunting, requiring guides etc. Whether you or I agree with the various laws, well thats another matter...[/QB][/QUOTE]
True Buzz, but owning the critters is half the ownership. There needs to be a balance between the states animals and the property they live on. You cant hunt the critters just because the state says you can shoot our critters, you need to be on someones land. Thats why landowner tags are handed out. and thats fair. The owner of the land should be first in line to hunt, but who owns the federal land? all of us, not just 10% like arizona thinks, or the rich who want to use an outfitter like in NM.. hope this helps get my view across. What do you think?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Schmalts, I dont like the landowner tags for a couple reasons. Mainly because the landowners are just one more hunter, whether or not wildlife lives on their land or not. They shouldnt be given any preference in drawing tags over any other hunter, just because they happen to have elk, deer, or antelope on their land. The other thing that really turns me off on the landowner tags (at least in MT) is that the landowners get preference and then dont even hunt their own land. I know a guy who lives in Chinook MT who has drawn a really tough bull tag 3 times on a landowner preference draw, and has yet to kill an elk on his own place. He has taken 3 really good bulls though. At the same time I know a ton of people who have yet to draw a single tag in that unit, and who would give a left one to draw a tag.
I think as long as the states give NR a reasonable chance at a percentage of the tags, they are doing just fine. I truly believe that despite the property ownership, the residents of the state should get a majority of the tags. They do own the wildlife and controll the administration of the wildlife as well. I think if you live in a state, pay taxes there, go to the F&G meetings, etc. etc. you should get priority on the available tags.
But, thats just my opinion.
I think as long as the states give NR a reasonable chance at a percentage of the tags, they are doing just fine. I truly believe that despite the property ownership, the residents of the state should get a majority of the tags. They do own the wildlife and controll the administration of the wildlife as well. I think if you live in a state, pay taxes there, go to the F&G meetings, etc. etc. you should get priority on the available tags.
But, thats just my opinion.
Moosie
Grand poopa
HEY BUZZ,
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In AZ as well as most other states the wildlife is owned by the state. Therefore its completely OK by me that they limit the number of NR hunters in each state.
They can manage their wildlife any way they see fit, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't they see fit to make money ? And that's what drives thier opinions ? That, or the lobiest ? Do you think they have the game in mind ?
As far as NON-RES, I liek the law Idaho jsut passed last year (Or year before) With the sheep tags being limited to a "REAL" 10% but then allowing Moose to be hunted, I think thats a better deal all around !!!!! Although It was FNAWS that came up with it
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In AZ as well as most other states the wildlife is owned by the state. Therefore its completely OK by me that they limit the number of NR hunters in each state.
They can manage their wildlife any way they see fit, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't they see fit to make money ? And that's what drives thier opinions ? That, or the lobiest ? Do you think they have the game in mind ?
As far as NON-RES, I liek the law Idaho jsut passed last year (Or year before) With the sheep tags being limited to a "REAL" 10% but then allowing Moose to be hunted, I think thats a better deal all around !!!!! Although It was FNAWS that came up with it
BuzzH
Well-known member
Moosie, not sure what the point is?
I think if it was up to just the Game and Fish agencies, they'd rather sell all the permits to NR and make a ton of cabbage.
Personally, when it comes to the money end of permits, I feel the resident fees should be increased considerably in all states. Residents for the most part get their permits far too cheaply. If the Resident fees were increased then a lot of the money issues would go away.
However, just because NR fees are higher that still isnt a reason for the Game and Fish to give NR any more than 10% of the available permits. I think 10% is a good number of NR permits for the fish and game to offer. Again, just my opinion.
I think if it was up to just the Game and Fish agencies, they'd rather sell all the permits to NR and make a ton of cabbage.
Personally, when it comes to the money end of permits, I feel the resident fees should be increased considerably in all states. Residents for the most part get their permits far too cheaply. If the Resident fees were increased then a lot of the money issues would go away.
However, just because NR fees are higher that still isnt a reason for the Game and Fish to give NR any more than 10% of the available permits. I think 10% is a good number of NR permits for the fish and game to offer. Again, just my opinion.
moosie, whats fnaws? Some states limit game in some units to only residents, even on federal land , thats not right. I see both sides of the picture, and do think resident tags are a little cheap. My freind in AZ whined last year when the deer tags went up to something like 14$ (dont qoute me) but i laughed at him and told him ours were 22$ so stop whining. He shut up. I heard that a long time ago NM sold most of its tags to nonresidents for the $ and the residents found out and changed it. At 750$ a tag I can see why they wanted to sell to the nonres hunters. Really the thing that pisses me off about NM is the outfitter preference you get on federal land hunts. That land is not dangerous and has no grizzily bears to need giud protection. Its a scam made up by outfitters like USO.
tmsander
New member
Schmalts,
I agree with your assesment of the outfitter deal in NM. Having grown up in NM and now not being able to hunt there with my dad burns a little. But, its their state and up to the residents to effect change if they want to.
But regarding states locking out non-residents not being right because the land is federal is wrong. As Buzz stated and you know, the wildlife is owned and administered by the state, regardless of landstatus. The fed does not limit your access to Forest Service land at any time. You are free to recreate on it all you want.... even during hunting season. You just can't kill one of the states animals without meeting the state requirements.
I agree with your assesment of the outfitter deal in NM. Having grown up in NM and now not being able to hunt there with my dad burns a little. But, its their state and up to the residents to effect change if they want to.
But regarding states locking out non-residents not being right because the land is federal is wrong. As Buzz stated and you know, the wildlife is owned and administered by the state, regardless of landstatus. The fed does not limit your access to Forest Service land at any time. You are free to recreate on it all you want.... even during hunting season. You just can't kill one of the states animals without meeting the state requirements.
