Screwing over the Non-resident (or not)?

[Nick87]

A short tangent, it is not just individuals, it is state fish and game commissions. Montana can provide numerous examples. One that bugs me, the state decided to carve out part of the 313 deer and elk district and put into the neighboring district. This district is the famous district next to YNP. The elk herd is significantly diminished after the wolf introduction.

More importantly, the brow tine bull to cow ratio is absolutely in the toilet. The state made a half hearted effort a number of years ago, to try improve the ratio. They made the last two weeks of the season hunting by permit only. This kicked in the 90/10 tag allocation we are arguing about. This did not make the outfitters very happy.

So the state, gave the outfitters an area they can pound for the last two weeks. It seemingly never occurred to the commission that Montana shares that herd with YNP and that perhaps the visitors might want to see a few mature bulls to go along with the herds of cows.

What should have been done if the elk herd's needs where put first is all of the hunting should have gone to by permit for the entire season. The 90/10 split would have crushed the outfitters, so they chose to crush the bull to cow ratio instead.

I agree its totally on the game commissions. But the individuals are responsible for the hissy fits that ensue that persuade that decision sometimes.

 

[Buffs35]

Very interesting. Difficult to see how herd numbers will bounce back when all western states are experiencing increase in resident populations - that puts pressure on the resource, even if those new residents aren't hunters. You can't find a parking spot on most trailheads in Colorado, even on weekdays.

Anyway, I have thrown this idea out but received no traction. What if we could increase hunting opportunity for both residence and non-residents by shortening seasons, increasing the number of seasons, and requiring less lethal weapons? In Colorado, for example, create two archery seasons - one for recurve only, and the other for modern bows. Eliminate all but one rifle season, and replace them with multiple shorter muzzleloader seasons. The goal would be to get more hunters in the hills, while aiming to decrease or maintain the number of animals taken.

I realize this will never happen because rifle and archery manufactures are just like golfing manufacturers, gotta sell the latest and greatest by promising extra distance. And, after reading this thread, I'm afraid the notion of "I want more opportunity" should really be "I want more opportunity in high quality areas with any weapon I choose."

 

[406dn]

Now kinda back on the subject.

Every limited entry tag in the west that is allocated to a non resident, be it for elk, moose, sheep, goat, pronghorn, there were more than a few residents that tried to get the same tag. That should be a thought for some consideration and gratefulness that the states are allocating tags to non residents, when the supply does not come close to meeting the demand of the resident hunters.

 

[Nick87]

We’ll just that statistically you can’t guarantee one every year.

i mean, the point is really now 10% of residents who im sure want to get a deer every year and many who I’m sure place high prize on eating deer will not be able to. 10% every year.

99% of whom have probably never left the state to hunt.

Simple answer yes I'm totally fine with it. At 90/10 split

 

[SAJ-99]

Pucky's point, I believe, is also about stagnating wages/ inflation/ etc.

The spread between median earners and top 5% earns as dramatically widen in the last 25 years. With demand where it is today, it's at least plausible that you could dramatically raise tag costs without reducing demand to a point that it erodes tag sales.

Average joe might not be able to afford a trip to Disneyland or an elk tag while a top 5% earner could buy a guided hunt in 5 states every year.

True, but Buzz is correct. People complain about how expensive a tag is and want more of them. Hard to square that circle. This below made me realize that Americans aren't that bad off, regardless of how much they complain.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

True, but Buzz is correct. People complain about how expensive a tag is and want more of them. Hard to square that circle. This below made me realize that Americans aren't that bad off, regardless of how much they complain.

View attachment 317912

But that's just George Soros and his pals trying to buy the next election for the dems

 

[TOGIE]

Simple answer yes I'm totally fine with it.

see and I just wouldn’t be. If the harvest can only take so much residents should be last to take the hit.

Every state resident in this country has cheap local hunting opportunity and it should be the last opportunity they lose when scarcity comes a knockin

 

[buckbull]

Pucky's point, I believe, is also about stagnating wages/ inflation/ etc.

The spread between median earners and top 5% earns as dramatically widen in the last 25 years. With demand where it is today, it's at least plausible that you could dramatically raise tag costs without reducing demand to a point that it erodes tag sales.

Average joe might not be able to afford a trip to Disneyland or an elk tag while a top 5% earner could buy a guided hunt in 5 states every year.

53% of hunttalk members are millionaires according to the recent poll. Stop spreading misinformation.

 

[Nick87]

We’ll just that statistically you can’t guarantee one every year.

i mean, the point is really now 10% of residents who im sure want to get a deer every year and many who I’m sure place high prize on eating deer will not be able to. 10% every year.

99% of whom have probably never left the state to hunt.

Now the not simple answer because it's just not that simple. There's so many tags to get here. You've got archery tags, Muzzleloader tags, firearm tags, late antlerless tags, cwd tags. Pretty much all otc now. So you could still probably do 90/10 split and pickup some kind of tag and not have one or two for every single season(I'm just using Illinois here because obviously I'm most familiar). However that 99% ain't gonna like that. They are gonna piss and moan like the entitled twat waffles they are. I've been to some of our meetings and not to side track but some of those other hunters must have suffered a major lack of oxygen as children and I'm being generous. 20 or so years ago here and longer you weren't always guaranteed a firearm tag as a resident. At least in this part of the state maybe @buckbull could chip into how it was in the western part. I'm not even sure what the split was back then when we actually managed I think it was just a staright lottery for R and NR. But I'm not sure. I'm all for not drawing a tag of any kind every year. But only if we're slashing tags across for wherever it's needed. I don't think residents should give that up to NR without something to gain somewhere as a whole. I would expect residents of other states to do the same.

 

[Nick87]

see and I just wouldn’t be. If the harvest can only take so much residents should be last to take the hit.

Every state resident in this country has cheap local hunting opportunity and it should be the last opportunity they lose when scarcity comes a knockin

I was typing my other response at same time. I'm fine to take a cut as long as we're cutting for everyone. Not just residents. I agree they should be last to take the hit for sure but shouldn't be exempt from it.

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

Very interesting. Difficult to see how herd numbers will bounce back when all western states are experiencing increase in resident populations - that puts pressure on the resource, even if those new residents aren't hunters. You can't find a parking spot on most trailheads in Colorado, even on weekdays.

Anyway, I have thrown this idea out but received no traction. What if we could increase hunting opportunity for both residence and non-residents by shortening seasons, increasing the number of seasons, and requiring less lethal weapons? In Colorado, for example, create two archery seasons - one for recurve only, and the other for modern bows. Eliminate all but one rifle season, and replace them with multiple shorter muzzleloader seasons. The goal would be to get more hunters in the hills, while aiming to decrease or maintain the number of animals taken.

I realize this will never happen because rifle and archery manufactures are just like golfing manufacturers, gotta sell the latest and greatest by promising extra distance. And, after reading this thread, I'm afraid the notion of "I want more opportunity" should really be "I want more opportunity in high quality areas with any weapon I choose."

I could get on board with it. If I have to sacrifice some type of technology or such in exchange for more opportunities to be out hunting I'm all for it

 

[Sytes]

A tag along @Buffs35 :
Population boom in ID, MT, and CO will change the dynamics of big game population. Continued encroachment into wildlife territory to additional boots, bullets, and arrows...

Split archery and rifle into traditional and modern.
Cut the seasons down to two week intervals.
R and NR select a max of one choice for archery and another for rifle.

@Big Fin spoke about the frustration of these R/NR arguments and how they don't lead to one additional elk, sheep or duck.

Well, convert to season structure above, and make it across the table, 90/10.

Oh and reciprocal agreement for States based on the more restrictive including NR tag fees.

World hunger solved!

/carry on.

 

[Elky Welky]

I mentioned it earlier, but there is no way MT is going to go to 90/10, at least not anytime soon. First, it would have to go from OTC for residents to LE across the board; otherwise there is simply no way to calculate what it should be, and the state would need to overturn the statutory cap of 17,500 Big Game Combo tags. Those are two significant and unlikely lifts.

MT's LE permits are already 90/10, but when there was a bill introduced to close the loopholes allowing for unlimited NR tags, it included that 90/10 language about MT's permits. The fiscal note then assumed the bill was going to cut NR tags dramatically, and the legislature balked at that loss of NR dollars. Further, pretty much every national sporting org showed up to help kill the bill. Local sportsmen groups didn't stand a chance.

I do think what is happening in central MT is the exception that proves @Big Fin 's rule. That's one of the only places where there are "too many" elk, but they are inaccessible and public land overcrowding is exacerbating the problem. But if there were more elk and better habitat in NW MT, for example, then maybe that could reduce the pressure...

 

[buckbull]

Now the not simple answer because it's just not that simple. There's so many tags to get here. You've got archery tags, Muzzleloader tags, firearm tags, late antlerless tags, cwd tags. Pretty much all otc now. So you could still probably do 90/10 split and pickup some kind of tag and not have one or two for every single season(I'm just using Illinois here because obviously I'm most familiar). However that 99% ain't gonna like that. They are gonna piss and moan like the entitled twat waffles they are. I've been to some of our meetings and not to side track but some of those other hunters must have suffered a major lack of oxygen as children and I'm being generous. 20 or so years ago here and longer you weren't always guaranteed a firearm tag as a resident. At least in this part of the state maybe @buckbull could chip into how it was in the western part. I'm not even sure what the split was back then when we actually managed I think it was just a staright lottery for R and NR. But I'm not sure. I'm all for not drawing a tag of any kind every year. But only if we're slashing tags across for wherever it's needed. I don't think residents should give that up to NR without something to gain somewhere as a whole. I would expect residents of other states to do the same.

Oh yeah, when I started deer hunting in the eighties you picked your first county preference and then the second county. You may not get either. We are a far cry from that today. Unlimited archery permits are state wide and over the counter. Firearm permits are still limited by county and folks apply for the drawing but any left overs can be purchased over the counter. I never heard about non residents coming to Illinois to deer hunt during the eighties and even nineties besides family coming back to hunt the family farm. My county now has a huge outfitter presence. Most of the plates years ago were from southern states: Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi. For some reason we have a ton of guys from Wisconsin and Michigan now; I really don't understand that. Last I knew Illinois gives out 25,000 non resident deer tags. That

 

[Sytes]

I mentioned it earlier, but there is no way MT is going to go to 90/10, at least not anytime soon. First, it would have to go from OTC for residents to LE across the board; otherwise there is simply no way to calculate what it should be, and the state would need to overturn the statutory cap of 17,500 Big Game Combo tags. Those are two significant and unlikely lifts.

MT's LE permits are already 90/10, but when there was a bill introduced to close the loopholes allowing for unlimited NR tags, it included that 90/10 language about MT's permits. The fiscal note then assumed the bill was going to cut NR tags dramatically, and the legislature balked at that loss of NR dollars. Further, pretty much every national sporting org showed up to help kill the bill. Local sportsmen groups didn't stand a chance.

I do think what is happening in central MT is the exception that proves @Big Fin 's rule. That's one of the only places where there are "too many" elk, but they are inaccessible and public land overcrowding is exacerbating the problem. But if there were more elk and better habitat in NW MT, for example, then maybe that could reduce the pressure...

Kick out the 90/10 and keep the rest. (Reduced seasons, selective weapon, yadda, yadda, yadda) Sure it's a broad brushstroke. World hunger isn't resolved w/in five sentences... Though my impression, from his podcast, Randy supports the 90/10. Am I incorrect?

Markus: Do you think there’s a good balance there in terms of balancing Resident versus Non-Resident opportunity?

Randy: I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have a 90/10 split in pretty much every State. In Montana, we don’t have a 90/10 split. We have a statutory requirement that we have to issue 17,000 elk tags to Non-Residents. If there were two elk left in this state, right now under this statute, we’re selling 17,000 Non-Resident elk tags.
The bigger point is the funding mechanism. Here’s one thing I hear all the time, and it’s a legitimate complaint. I pay $25 for my Montana elk tag and my brother pays (by the time it’s all done) 40-45 x’s that with addons and everything else. That’s a pretty weird disparity. But there’s no shortage of demand.

 

[Nick87]

Oh yeah, when I started deer hunting in the eighties you picked your first county preference and then the second county. You may not get either. We are a far cry from that today. Unlimited archery permits are state wide and over the counter. Firearm permits are still limited by county and folks apply for the drawing but any left overs can be purchased over the counter. I never heard about non residents coming to Illinois to deer hunt during the eighties and even nineties besides family coming back to hunt the family farm. My county now has a huge outfitter presence. Most of the plates years ago were from southern states: Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi. For some reason we have a ton of guys from Wisconsin and Michigan now; I really don't understand that. Last I knew Illinois gives out 25,000 non resident deer tags. That

Down by the Shawnee I wish I kept track of all the different states. I literally think I've seen then from all 48 and this is no kidding Alaska once, I'll never forget that one. Seems to go in trends we will see guys from like Tenn, Alabama, Georgia then a few years later a new cycle from like Ohio, New York, PA and so on. The last ten years though we have seen a. Dramatic fall off in NR hunters down there I'd say there is 1/4 of what it was in the 90's and early 2000's everybody thinks they are in illinois they're gonna find giant bucks then they hunt that southern most part and are disappointed. Still good deer hunting but nothing that you would encounter say from Mt. Vernon and North. I've never struck out on a firearm tag but know quite a few who did back then or drew 2nd season only.

 

[Derek44]

Just got home from 14 hours in my log truck. Reading through this, I’ve came to one conclusion. I DONT WANNA BE A NR ANYMORE. If the representation we have as NR is evident by the whiny assholes here, no wonder they don’t want us hunting their state. For crying out loud. What a shit show. I for one am very grateful for all the hunting I’ve been able to do in WY and MT as a WA resident and intend on trudging forward with all the opportunities presented. Next up… AK. It’s really not that tough. And the whining hypocrisy is exhausting

 

[BuzzH]

Just got home from 14 hours in my log truck. Reading through this, I’ve came to one conclusion. I DONT WANNA BE A NR ANYMORE. If the representation we have as NR is evident by the whiny assholes here, no wonder they don’t want us hunting their state. For crying out loud. What a shit show. I for one am very grateful for all the hunting I’ve been able to do in WY and MT as a WA resident and intend on trudging forward with all the opportunities presented. Next up… AK. It’s really not that tough. And the whining hypocrisy is exhausting

I wish we could hand pick which NRs drew tags here, you would be hunting WY anytime you wanted to.

Real easy to determine who appreciates the opportunity versus those that feel entitled to it.

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

Just got home from 14 hours in my log truck. Reading through this, I’ve came to one conclusion. I DONT WANNA BE A NR ANYMORE. If the representation we have as NR is evident by the whiny assholes here, no wonder they don’t want us hunting their state. For crying out loud. What a shit show. I for one am very grateful for all the hunting I’ve been able to do in WY and MT as a WA resident and intend on trudging forward with all the opportunities presented. Next up… AK. It’s really not that tough. And the whining hypocrisy is exhausting

I second the motion. I'm grateful for the opportunities I've had and will cherish those ahead so long as they exist. Lord willing once I retire I'll leave this communist kingdom (NY) behind and make for the setting sun.

 

[DFS]

Everytime I’ve hunted Colorado I’ve wondered why they let so many nonresidents in. If they want to go to 25% good for them. Eastern Montana in the fall is no different, what are we doing.