R vs. NR tag allocation

jonnyviceroy

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Dec 16, 2021
Messages
110
Location
Salt Lake City
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

WKR
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
5,991
Location
N CA
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

WKR
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
1,674
Location
Montana
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

WKR
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
1,674
Location
Montana
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

WKR
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
1,109
Location
AK
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.
 

z987k

WKR
Joined
Sep 9, 2020
Messages
1,109
Location
AK
^^^^ 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

DuckBowMaster
Joined
Mar 28, 2017
Messages
7,436
Location
Morrison, Colorado
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.
 

bmart2622

WKR
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
1,674
Location
Montana
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.
 

KsRancher

WKR
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
315
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.
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2021
Messages
737
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

WKR
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
9,651
Location
ID
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
 
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
35
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

WKR
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Messages
2,273
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

WKR
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
5,991
Location
N CA
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

WKR
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
1,674
Location
Montana
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
 
Top