Wyoming got that figured out thanks to the special draw
Screwing over the Non-resident (or not)?
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
- Status
No Blow hard Buzz. I don’t complain about current allocations. If take a minute an stop patting your back. You’d see I complain out WY moving in the wrong direction. Like your greedy mantra of “ if we can’t be them join them”
The idea that states like Wyoming ( and three others) that have ample populations of wildlife and ample tags available for all their residents should be moving towards restricting NR allocations even more… is just greed. Like you have shown, if the shoe fits steal it
BuzzH
Well-known member
And allowing NR's to apply for the leftovers.
I would do my part by paying higher resident fees here in CO. 90/10 across the board would be outstanding here and I support WY in pursuing it there (where I am a NR).
It’s not as much an issue in a good economy as it will be during a recession.
Most states aren’t charging residents enough for tags too. I can buy a Sportsman’s package for $124 and can fish or hunt all OTC tags in the state. IDFG should raise prices so this discounted package is $300.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Yes, actually you do, you've spent countless posts, high pitch whining.
Residents here want 90-10 for LQ elk, deer, and pronghorn. Frankly, I would rather see a 12 year old Resident hunting the better areas than a NR...every....single...time.
90/10 won’t satisfy the greed, after that it will 95/5 and so on……
I agree residents should get a significant benefit. They should also pay in accordance to that benefit.
Let them pay for the administration of the lands their animals inhabit as well
Good thing most of, well some ass kissers might, don’t give two shits what you want …every single time
BuzzH
Well-known member
Prove your whining...specifically what states have dropped their allocations from 90-10 to 95-5 in the last 20 years.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Right, that's why 90-10 passed for moose, sheep, goat, bison, and eventually grizzlies.
You'll see 90-10 for the rest as well.
Not sure, perhaps you’re right.
Don’t forget to consider the wants of the landowners and outfitters… all residents are not created equal, after all.
Mallardsx2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,616
North Dakota?? But its much worse than 95-5. I wish it was 95-5...
BuzzH
Well-known member
If it were up to outfitters, the special fee for everything would be significantly more than it is now, even with the recent fee increases. They would also rather that 100% of the tags were at the special fee and completely get rid of the regular fee.
They've tried it several times...in case you weren't aware.
100% agree.
NRs might just get lucky and see some transferable landowner/outfitter tags in the deal though, would be a shame to leave the table empty handed.
You’re a perfect example of why it will happen all it will take is one to do it and then greedy pricks like you will jump on the bandwagon
BuzzH
Well-known member
Show your work, it could be.
BuzzH
Well-known member
If that happens, it will be 95-5...
elkduds
Well-known member
I respectfully disagree. Through 4 years of CPW Roundtable meetings I attended and current meetings to revamp big game draw, CPW constantly noted that all their hunter surveys found a large majority preferred some form of point system. It provides some predictability in draws, and offers eventual access to units that hunt better than OTC. If recommendations of the current draw revision working group are honored, expect to see some mix of preference points and hybrid draw for high demand units starting in 2025, and not because it benefits CPW.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Oregon 97-3 on antelope/bear and 95-5 on elk/deerz
- Status
Similar threads
