Just Draw already New Mexico!!!

[541hunter]

Yup, understand the wildlife belongs to the state but without resources and land the wildlife doesn't have a home. It would seem that the federal land and funding is what provides the home for the vast majority of wildlife. I think we can all agree that without the federal land and funding there would be significantly less game. I'd love to see a study on what percentage of funding/resources/land the state contributes currently to what it takes for wildlife to thrive in western states, I can all but promise you that it isn't 90+% like most tag allocations.

I can see your argument, but fundamentally disagree with it. While having the public land definitely helps, the animals will exist with or with out them. Public land increases access, in some cases increased habitat quality (species dependent), and adds to the adventure of the hunt. If public lands were essential for wildlife, Texas wouldn't have any hunters. Please don't take this as me being anti public lands because I'm the exact opposite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mproberts]

I feel like the fish in that alpine lake on federal land is just as much of a federal resource as the tree that grows next to that same alpine lake. I get your argument that wildlife would survive without federal lands but would those residents have the same access to game without the federal land. I'm sure if the federal government sold off all federal lands in western states you wouldn't have a tag allocation system that benefits residents. You would in fact have what is the case in most eastern states, licenses and tags for all but limited access to the land that wildlife calls home. There would be no need for the draw system if it wasn't for the vast areas of federal lands, but yet residents get greater access to hunt these federal resources.

 

[541hunter]

I'm not very familiar with a lot of the eastern states but states like Iowa have little public land yet still have a draw system. We also have to take into consideration the population size of the pursued animal. Comparing whitetail populations in the east and elk populations in the west is not possible. There is no need for a draw in many eastern states because there are some many animals. Also here in Oregon, a majority of our high alpine lakes cannot support a natural fish population. These lakes have to be regularly stocked by the state utilizing packers and helicopters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mproberts]

It is hard to compare the demand for western game to eastern game but with the few permit hunts I know of in eastern states there is no difference in allocation between residents and nonresidents. A good deal of those hunts are on state owned and managed game lands as well, and some of the tag quota hunts are in high demand, like tundra swan tags.. obviously this falls into the federal waterfowl realm but different states have different tundra swan quotas and none to my knowledge have differing allocations for who gets the tags.

 

[Ellensburg]

Have they refunded yet? I havent seen mine hit.

 

[541hunter]

I would think that if the population dynamics would allow unlimited tag numbers, the state would let it happen in order to produce more revenue. Unfortunately the population can't sustain that, so the tax payers who foot the bill for the actual management, get the benefit. I am both a resident hunter and an out of state hunter in the west. I can understand and have felt at one point in time or another the sentiment towards tag allocations you express


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[seldomseensmith]

I can see your argument, but fundamentally disagree with it. While having the public land definitely helps, the animals will exist with or with out them. Public land increases access, in some cases increased habitat quality (species dependent), and adds to the adventure of the hunt. If public lands were essential for wildlife, Texas wouldn't have any hunters. Please don't take this as me being anti public lands because I'm the exact opposite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the type of hunting in Texas is the example then THANK GOD FOR PUBLIC LANDS.

 

[541hunter]

If the type of hunting in Texas is the example then THANK GOD FOR PUBLIC LANDS.

I agree with you. The example was used for arguments sake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mproberts]

I think that's where the disagreement is in my head. I would love to see a study that shows the resident taxpayer is the one accounting for 90+% of the bill for providing wildlife what it needs. I just would find that incredibly hard to believe, especially when you consider the vast amount of federal owned and managed land and how that is so critical to western big game. Could the state pay to manage these lands? I doubt they could take on the wildfire prevention and management side of it alone. I just feel that the federal contribution far exceeds what states provide as they should considering it is federal land, but I just don't understand how someone could argue that the state truly is the one footing 90+% of the bill. I'd love to know if there was study out there on this topic.

 

[MIKEYB]

I think it's more about opportunity than funding and who manages the opportunity(State). Residents fight hard for that opportunity as you have seen in the past with New Mexico. If the Feds managed the Game, I imagine that it would look different.

Anyone can enter the free market space and hunt NM every year if the wanted(had the resources) to, the opportunity is there equally for anyone willing to pay the price.

 

[541hunter]

No the states can't afford to manage the lands, hence why state transfer is a horrible idea. Maybe look at through this perspective; while USFS manages land, the benefits it provides to elk is a byproduct of the overall management objective. Where as the state game agencies sole mission is to manage the species.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tlowell02]

If you hunt or fish on federal lands in New Mexico, a "habitat stamp" is required. Proceeds from the sale of said stamp are then distributed by New Mexico Game and Fish to various federal districts as part of the habitat stamp program for wildlife-related projects. Just is just one case where state dollars are applied to federal lands for wildlife.

 

[orionthehunter1]

Have they refunded yet? I havent seen mine hit.

Mine and my kids was on my card today

 

[mproberts]

So the states can't afford to manage the lands and state transfer is a bad idea. Even if you assume that wildlife benefits as a byproduct from federal management and you take out all the federal land and funding for it lets just compare federal conversation and enforcement dollars to what the states put forward.. I think you would still see that the federal dollars incredibly outpace what the states provide.

And... honestly if you really want to get into "who foots the bill for actual management" lets examine the CPW budget since it's easily accessible and digestible. CPW states themselves that "CPW relies on user fees, not general tax dollars, to pay for wildlife management and state parks" and that "Sportsmen and women provide 80 percent of Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s funding for wildlife through hunting, fishing".

Now lets take a look at who accounts for those license fees..

Resident Hunting Licenses - 377,952 Resident Fishing Licenses - 686,973
Nonresident Hunting Licenses - 109,712 Nonresident Fishing Licenses - 394,888

When you consider license cost you easily see that it is nonresidents that foot more of the bill for managing wildlife.

Hunting license cost $11.7 mil (resident) vs 43.8 mil (nonresident) (this is even being incredibly conservative with the figures)
Fishing license cost $17.8 mil (resident) vs 22.1 mil (Nonresident)

I just would love to hear a solid argument for why residents should be entitled to 90+% of tags.

https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/About/Reports/StatewideFactSheet.pdf

 

[orionthehunter1]

Because we pay taxes in said state and also put up with some of the negatives like high cost of living. If you don't like it you can move here to get a resident license. The state also owns the wildlife even the ones on federal ground

 

[541hunter]

I completely agree with you on who actually foots the bill when it comes to non resident vs resident tags in most western states. In fact I'm all for my home state Oregon opening up tag allocation as well as lowering costs on non residents.
I guess in the end I'm just providing you with the reasons that I'm aware of that states manage for residents first and foremost.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mproberts]

No, I completely appreciate the dialog. I just wish I could find a legit reason for why it is the case. I know there is a big discussion about federal to state land transfer and a lot of the big hunting guys have weighed in on that, but when you dig deeper into that issue it makes you really wonder about why draw allocations are so heavily slanted in favor of residents. I get wanting to be able to hunt your home state, and that it would suck not being able to draw tags, but where are the legit reasons for why the states should be entitled to such a large allocation. I hear people constantly yelling about but I pay taxes... yeah that's great but your taxes don't pay for that.

 

[El General]

The reason that states allocate tags heavily to residents is politics. Resident hunters vote and NR hunters don't in that state. Unless resident hunters come out overwhelmingly for a more even tag allocation, it will never change. And, I can't blame resident hunters for not wanting to make it more difficult to draw tags for themselves.

If it was all about money, the non-resident quotas would go way up.

 

[TradAg02]

The reason that states allocate tags heavily to residents is politics. Resident hunters vote and NR hunters don't in that state.

IMO you nailed it.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[El General]

IMO you nailed it.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Philosophically, I don't have any problem with the way western game agencies allocate their tags. Of course, as a hunter, I wish it was easier to draw tags for public land DIY opportunities. I think some states NR tag quotas are too low, but that is just quibbling about numbers really.

I don't like the New Mexico guide pool, but that state's draw is otherwise very equitable and they refund all your money outside of $13.00, so I think it all kind of balances out.