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.

 

[OKHunter84]

I think it will only get worse.

For instance, in Oklahoma we've broken the yearly deer harvest record a few times in the last five years. That's due to a lot of people getting into hunting or people harvesting more deer then they would've in the past. Most guys you talk to that are newer or adult onset start talking about doing a western hunt after they've got their feet wet deer hunting. If you're just getting into the game then you have no context for what prices used to be or how good the hunting was in the past.

Just my opinion, but I don't think it'll slow down out west anytime soon.

 

[sreg8]

Colorado specifically is taking away the option to put points as a first option. That plus the addition of weighted random chance, means you have to risk your points to hunt instead of just getting a point then hunting your 2nd choice.

That's definitely going to change the game. I have 24 points for deer and elk and have just been putting in for points for elk because I'm not sure where I want to use them.
I was lucky enough to finally draw my big horn sheep tag this year, so I'll try to burn my deer and elk points before 2028 if I can.

 

[Q_Sertorius]

The surest way to make someone want something is to make it hard to get. I am not suggesting letting everyone hunt, but a lot of people enter this game from Fear of Missing Out. The difficulty of getting to play the game makes more people want to enter it.

At my university, the traditional part of grounds had the original student housing as an option. Drafty single rooms without toilets or air conditioning. Students had to walk outdoors 50-100 yards to get to a toilet or shower. They couldn’t pay people to live in them. So they put an application essay requirement on it and said it was a huge distinction to be chosen to live there. Now students spend three years crafting their resumes to have a strong chance at living in the old rooms and 500-1000 people out of a population of under 5000 apply for 50 spots.

I think some of the same psychology underlies hunters’ desire to join in the backcountry hunting experience. It certainly explains, at least to me, why people adamantly insist on applying to the areas with the lowest odds year after year. The fact that the odds are so low makes those areas more desirable way out of proportion to the real value as “more desirable units.” Of course 50 people will probably pile in to say that the “best units” are actually the best. To which I would reply that a lot of people are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

And there is huge money at stake (tourism dollars for the destination states, NR fees, and gear sold), so it is heavily advertised. Backcountry hunting is a big business. So, I don’t see it becoming significantly less popular unless something else becomes more popular and profitable. If you want to make things less crowded, then states will have to kill the entire industry for at least a while (the goose that lays golden eggs). Apparently Pennsylvania did something like that to whitetail hunting about 25 years ago. But unless it becomes absolutely necessary for herd health, I just don’t see that happening.


____________________
“Keep on keepin’ on…”

 

[WV Mountaineer]

We all can feel the demand for tags is through the roof. Point creep is a nuisance. Tags in general are just way harder to get than they used to be and every ridge has 5 guys on it. States are changing how they allocate tags, increasing fees, all sorts of things trying to "fix" things.

How much of the increase in demand is permanent though? Honest question I haven't seen addressed anywhere.

Nearly 40% of hunters are over 60 years old. Most of these guys have 4-6 years left on the mountain at the most so by 2030 (at current recruitment rates) there will be ~300,000 fewer non-resident hunters across the west and by 2035 it could be down by half a million from current numbers. I know (anecdotal evidence take with salt) several guys who are currently planning their "last elk hunts" over the next 3 years and planning to burn all their points in CO, WY, and AZ.

Are states aware of this and trying to milk this demographic while they still can? The Arizona and Colorado changes make a lot more sense through this lens since there are so many high point holders who will age out (or pass away) long before they have the points to draw the units they've been chasing for 30 years. So adding weighted random chance and forcing guys to burn points will at least do something that affects these guys, while still giving the younger guys a reason to keep applying once the old timers start burning points and turn every 5 point unit into a 15 point unit for 5 years.

Is non-resident demand for tags really going to be cut in half in 10 years? What will the repercussions be?

This isn’t temporary. My dad is 72. Few hunters in his generation hunted out west. I can only count of one in all his friends.

Im 50. And 25% of the hunters in my generation that I call a friend have been west hunting. All have been more than once.


Tag allocation isn’t going to get better for NR’s in any state. The demand will continue to grow though. So, point creep will never work out. There’s no serious need to as it stands concerning game departments. It’s exactly where they want it.

It might see small cycles as it progresses if states become too bold to NR’s. But, it'll be like the stock market long term. Just keep truggying along concerning the long average.

 

[Beendare]

Analogous to this topic;

Did you see what the NM big horn governors tag went for? $1,300,000.

And there were a couple guys vying for the tag at $1.2M. I remember when one could get these tags for a measly hundred grand- grin


Its a pipe dream if you think the demand for these tags is going to drop.

 

[alexnelon]

Analogous to this topic;

Did you see what the NM big horn governors tag went for? $1,300,000.

And there were a couple guys vying for the tag at $1.2M. I remember when one could get these tags for a measly hundred grand- grin


Its a pipe dream if you think the demand for these tags is going to drop.

Multi-multi-millionaires aren’t getting younger, just saying.

 

[DanetheBoss]

I would guess public land is getting more scarce, government is seeing financial incentives, so tags keep getting more expensive.

Hopefully som else folks realize hunting is hard and don’t stick with it!

 

[Blackcow]

Just saying what? They can take the $ with them, so they’re kids or grandkids get it, and THEY buy the tags…..

 

[Rich M]

Just how the bouncing ball bounces. I'm in FL - when's the last time you tried to get a 3-5 day quota hunt for 3-5 points down here? That's what it takes to hunt the WMA i hunt. 3 to 5 preference points for 3-5 days of sweating in a palm tree hoping to shoot a 100# WT or hog. The guys go crazy over them stupid turkeys tho. Need em for the "slam". FL R hate NR turkey hunters - i find it funny.

The western hunts will not get easier. Enjoy it while it lasts, and try to have reasonable expectations.

 

[Mojave]

Here are my thoughts.

1. Hunting Demographics will change over time. Yes the 50-70' year olds are still on the mountain.
Will that mean more tags for the younger folks? Probably not for a long time.

2. Points systems are mature, and point creep for basic tags exceeds 15-30 years of applicants for dream species or dream tags for "BOL" units. I don't see BOL units or BOL tags ever dropping much.

3. The good news is that there are a ton of tags still available in the lower point tiers.

4. States could easily cut off the supply even more to non-residents. Wyoming did what was thought to be unthinkable a few years ago by cutting the sheep, goat, moose, bison and grizzly allocation for nonresidents by half. And Wyoming was the golden goose, no body else was even close in tag allocations for non-residents. Could this happen to elk, deer and pronghorn of course it could and it probably will.

5. Cost will continue to go up.

6. There will be hunters that are priced or aged out of this as non-residents. No residents will cry or shed a tear for you, unless they are outfitters. I am a New Mexico resident, but grew up in Wyoming, Montana and Arizona. I have a pile of points in Utah and Arizona, and quite a few in Wyoming and Montana.

7. There could come a day that states shut the door to non-residents. North Dakota and Kansas shut us out until recently.

 

[CMF]

The surest way to make someone want something is to make it hard to get. I am not suggesting letting everyone hunt, but a lot of people enter this game from Fear of Missing Out. The difficulty of getting to play the game makes more people want to enter it.

At my university, the traditional part of grounds had the original student housing as an option. Drafty single rooms without toilets or air conditioning. Students had to walk outdoors 50-100 yards to get to a toilet or shower. They couldn’t pay people to live in them. So they put an application essay requirement on it and said it was a huge distinction to be chosen to live there. Now students spend three years crafting their resumes to have a strong chance at living in the old rooms and 500-1000 people out of a population of under 5000 apply for 50 spots.

I think some of the same psychology underlies hunters’ desire to join in the backcountry hunting experience. It certainly explains, at least to me, why people adamantly insist on applying to the areas with the lowest odds year after year. The fact that the odds are so low makes those areas more desirable way out of proportion to the real value as “more desirable units.” Of course 50 people will probably pile in to say that the “best units” are actually the best. To which I would reply that a lot of people are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I agree.

People here in MS keep asking for a preference point system. But you can bet, as soon as they do, there will be more people applying than ever before.

 

[LCguy]

A little late to the party here and have zero scientific data to back up the claim I'm about to make but I feel like the demand for western hunitng will go down. Will it ever be at pre-covid levels? No, but covid changed everything for better or worse. I think that a lot of folks don't realize how difficult it is to hunt out west and that will definetly turn some people off after they get one or two opportunities out west. Just my humble opinion and maybe I'm just hopeful as one of my other hobbies (skiing) has also been impacted by a huge increase in demand post-covid. WIth both skiing and hunting, I do think a regression to the historical mean is coming in terms of demand and participation.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Looking at this through a set of fresh eyes after most of the 2025 drawings have been completed I don't see this as a bubble that is going to crash in the next ten years. The bubble is only going to increase significantly over the next 3-4 years IMO as people try to draw tags before system changes or significant price changes go into effect. It is too easy now to learn and play the application game which will only lead to more and more fresh blood coming in at higher rates then those of us who have been playing for decades getting out.

Many people have adjusted strategies and are now trying to draw lower level tags just to get some sort of return on their points and time invested which is only going to make any tag more difficult to draw.

 

[FredH]

Hard to say, but my guess is that demand won't decrease unless prices go up exorbitantly, or hunt quality goes way down. In my opinion the increase in demand is due to a combination of how easy it is to apply for tags and how much information is available (draw odds, strategy, e-scouting, etc.) and the fact that there seem to be way more people in the country with the disposable income to pay for these expensive hunts. The internet isn't going away, and no states are going to make it harder to apply for tags, so the only way I see it going down is raise prices to the point where demand goes down, or if there is a huge recession or something that wipes out a lot of upper/upper middle class people. Sure the age of the non-resident hunters skew older, but is that just due to less younger people being into hunting, or is it due to the simple fact that older folks just tend to have more disposable income and free time than young people? If it's the latter that just means the younger people will replace the older people as they age out of hunting, and the younger people get richer and have more free time.

Tag prices for non residents have gone through the roof already. Have you been paying attention? Many states have also reduced the number of tags available to non residents. Are you happy yet?