Is the current high tag demand a bubble that will crash in the next 10 years?

[alexnelon]

So figured this would be a okay place to ask.

To control the rise in tag applications, and point creep. Would states ever think of doing what BC does and requires out of staters to hire a guide to hunt in state? WY does a version of it for wilderness, Alaska does it for sheep, goats, griz.

I understand why states wouldn't at the same time, due to the amount of out of state tag money brings to the state. But, would this help control the issue?

Not saying this is something I want, because there goes my plan of wanting to hunt a pain in the ass unit in Montana next year. But, have wondered if states might start going that way eventually?

Any solution aimed at reducing NR hunters will have no noticeable effect on crowding or tag demand.

The scarcity of tags means there will always be a surplus of NR who can afford them. Price increases will never result in fewer NR hunters. Ever.

Even if every NR goes from applying every year to applying every 10 years, every NR tag will still be sold.

The only two solutions are more opportunity, or cut Resident tags, but the states are up a creek because they have to cater to residents but residents want less hunters, cheaper tags, more animals, higher success, more access, and to get tags every year. So the residents want to cut out NR hunting.

But 90-95% of their funding comes from NR hunters. So all they can do is raise prices to try to appease the residents who think that higher prices mean less people even though that's never been true.

 

[rookieforever33]

Hunting areas will be more crowded and more expensive. Higher population of people with less suitable habitat for wildlife. Even if the percentage of people that goes down the amount of hunters at least stays the same or goes up. The populations of western states keeps going up so blaming non residents is going to be less of an excuse.

 

[alexnelon]

Hunting areas will be more crowded and more expensive. Higher population of people with less suitable habitat for wildlife. Even if the percentage of people that goes down the amount of hunters at least stays the same or goes up. The populations of western states keeps going up so blaming non residents is going to be less of an excuse.

True. Habitat loss and urbanization of the west is the whole problem. You can cut all the NR tags you want but if your population goes up by 30% (and they all get tags for a nickel) and public land goes down by 20% you'll never feel alone on the mountain again.

 

[wapitibob]

But 90-95% of their funding comes from NR hunters. So all they can do is raise prices to try to appease the residents who think that higher prices mean less people even though that's never been true.

There isn't a single western state game dept that gets 90-95% of their funding from NR hunters.

"Crowding" is an interesting one; hunters are limited by tag quotas. There aren't any more hunters in an area unless its an unlimited OTC area or they increase LQ tags.

 

[CMF]

To control the rise in tag applications, and point creep. Would states ever think of doing what BC does and requires out of staters to hire a guide to hunt in state? WY does a version of it for wilderness, Alaska does it for sheep, goats, griz.

I understand why states wouldn't at the same time, due to the amount of out of state tag money brings to the state. But, would this help control the issue?

Not saying this is something I want, because there goes my plan of wanting to hunt a pain in the ass unit in Montana next year. But, have wondered if states might start going that way eventually?

That's one of the worse ideas out there, along with using price increases to curb demand.
The lottery and draws manage the supply and demand. They aren't all designed great, but we shouldn't increase regulatory burden and prices just to decrease the demand.

 

[alexnelon]

There isn't a single western state game dept that gets 90-95% of their funding from NR hunters.

"Crowding" is an interesting one; hunters are limited by tag quotas. There aren't any more hunters in an area unless its an unlimited OTC area or they increase LQ tags.

Should've clarified tag revenue instead of funding, but you're right. They range from ~80-90%, not 90-95.

My mistake.

The second point is a good one though with residents getting unlimited general tags and the number of residents skyrocketed over the last 4 years.