R vs. NR tag allocation

[Sadler]

80/20 and while we’re at it let’s get rid of the preference and bonus point system and make everything a 100% lottery draw like New Mexico.

 

[jonnyviceroy]

50:50 since you're asking

There probably shouldn't be a set ratio. Have a set number of tags available then allow residents say, two weeks to buy tags. What ever is left goes on sale to NR. There should never be a resident that cannot get a tag because of a NR.

I wish it worked that way, unit that I hunt as a resident takes me multiple preference points and zero for a NR. That being said it doesn’t bother me in the slightest when I’m running to non-residents out there they do bring a lot of revenue I’m also always pretty impressed by how much more courteous and friendly they tend to be than the locals I run into lol

 

[Rob5589]

You can laugh if you want to but its true. Add up what you spend on your week long out of state hunt and Ill add up the money I spend within my state for the year and we will see who spends more in the state

But how many of those non hunt/fish/license dollars fund the dept? Hunting and fishing is one of those activities where NR pay a significant amount more than R. That doesn't happen with anything else, other than college, that I am aware of.

 

[bmart2622]

I buy sportsmans combos for 4 members of my family so a significant amount I would guess goes to departments. All the other money I spend supports the local economy the same way an out of state hunters does when he books a hotel for example, except my contribution is much more

 

[bmart2622]

Just to be clear I am no way advocating an increase in out of state license costs. Residents pay less and get more tags which is fair. The argument that nonresidents are responsible for whichever state they are hunting in existence just bothers me and isnt true

 

[z987k]

100/0 should be the default. If the citizens of the particular state decide they have an excess and would like to turn that excess into money for their economy and/or government, then they should decide how they want to do that. Every state should be different because every state is different and the citizens of that state probably have a different idea of how much they'd like to sell.
If you want a vote on how that happens in a particular state, move there. If you don't vote in that state then your opinion is meaningless.

 

[bmart2622]

^^^^ This guy is hardcore!!!

 

[z987k]

^^^^ This guy is hardcore!!!

I'm not saying I'd support no NR hunting. I'm mostly saying that people who don't live in a state get no say whatsoever on how the residents run their state. Which is true, because you can't vote in an election in a state you don't live in.
It starts at, the citizens own everything and they get to decide how to sell the surplus. Obvisouly we don't directly vote on game allocation, but we do vote for people to make those decisions or appoint people to make them.

 

[sndmn11]

I would be in support of a split NR allocation based on the species being sought and if said NR has that species in their state to hunt.

EX:
80% Resident allocation for CO limited elk
5% limited NR allocation for UT, WY, CA, AZ, MT, AK, KS, NE, ID, OR, WA, NC, PA, KY, and Canada
15% limited NR allocation to states with no elk like FL, MS, etc.

 

[insanelupus]

Whatever the governing body which dictates the ratios establishes.

 

[bmart2622]

I'm not saying I'd support no NR hunting. I'm mostly saying that people who don't live in a state get no say whatsoever on how the residents run their state. Which is true, because you can't vote in an election in a state you don't live in.
It starts at, the citizens own everything and they get to decide how to sell the surplus. Obvisouly we don't directly vote on game allocation, but we do vote for people to make those decisions or appoint people to make them.

Oh I agree with you.

 

[Raghornkiller]

90/10. Nonresidents get 90 because there's more of us.

 

[KsRancher]

A true 80/20 with no landowner vouchers or outfitter handouts.

Here in Colorado landowners get 20% of the quota right off the top, so in reality even in our high demand 80/20 GMU's residents only get 64% of the tag quota in the draw

It affects the NR the same way. So the 80/20 put the NR down to 16%.

But to answer the OP. I feel like a 75/25 or 80/20 is pretty fair for both parties. I am only familiar with Colorado. But I feel like it should be 1st choice apps first. If there isn't enough 1st for R or NR either one. They get filled first. Whether the R or NR get more tags is just how it goes.

 

[Gutshot007]

It used to be an unspoken rule between states that they would not charge a non-resident more than 10x a resident tag . Not sure of the history of when that changed ? Thoughts ?

 

[sneaky]

You can laugh if you want to but its true. Add up what you spend on your week long out of state hunt and Ill add up the money I spend within my state for the year and we will see who spends more in the state

Money you spend on gas and groceries and utilities doesn't go to your wildlife. May want to rethink that example. If your fish and game doesn't receive money from the general fund then that's a dead argument.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[velvet muley]

90/10, everyone has a choice and has different priority's. If you don't like it and your priority in life is hunting, then choose to move to whatever state you please. If hunting is down on the priority list then deal with what that particular state has to offer you as a non-resident.

 

[Laramie]

This isn't a one size fits all situation. I think the number should fluctuate based on herd size, resident demand, and what % of surplus there is.

Bottom line is we are lucky to have the opportunities we do and should be thankful.

 

[Rob5589]

90/10, everyone has a choice and has different priority's. If you don't like it and your priority in life is hunting, then choose to move to whatever state you please. If hunting is down on the priority list then deal with what that particular state has to offer you as a non-resident.

People say that and then complain about all the people moving into their state. Would you rather deal with some nr hunters a couple weeks a year or thousands of California expats moving in (Idaho)

 

[bmart2622]

Money you spend on gas and groceries and utilities doesn't go to your wildlife. May want to rethink that example. If your fish and game doesn't receive money from the general fund then that's a dead argument.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

It still supports local economy, I still pay state taxes so its a very valid argument

 

[MallardSX2]

People say that and then complain about all the people moving into their state. Would you rather deal with some nr hunters a couple weeks a year or thousands of California expats moving in (Idaho)

Truer words have never been spoken.