R vs. NR tag allocation

[Scoot]

What is the "right" ratio for states to give tags to Rs vs NRs? There are some recent changes in some states in how this is being handled. Several posts have addressed this at the state-specific level, but I haven't seen a thread that generically addresses what the "right" ratio should be. Obviously, each state can make its own decision and they will settle on different answers.

90:10, 80:20, 65:35... what's "right"? All of these ratios provide preferential treatment for Rs, but obviously some more than others. I'm curious what most people think is the "right" amount.

Of course, I think my home state should provide huge preference for Rs, but all other states should welcome NRs with open arms.

 

[Tod osier]

I don't know what is "right", but 90:10 is where I feel things will end up in most states.

Were it me, I'd probably go with something like 80:20 with no outfitter or landowner special deals. I think that fairly offers opportunity to NRs while massively prioritizing residents.

 

[Rob5589]

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.

 

[Fitzwho]

85/15 with no outfitter pool. Landowner tags for private land only.

But I sort of like that all the states having different setups. Colorado’s new allocation seems pretty reasonable (looking at it as a nonresident) with the resident demand dictating the allocation ratio.

 

[Fitzwho]

I’ll add, that I think that anything lower than 90/10 should require that the resident and NR tags be the same price.

 

[JD Jones]

First come first served!

I truly appreciate the state having that right to decide. I don’t like most as a NR but I vote with my wallet on what state I’ll be hunting.

Now…. How the tags are dolled out. That’s another thing all together

 

[dreamingWest]

80/20. With non-transferable hunt-own-land tags and no draw preference to outfitters.

 

[jlmatthew]

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

 

[bmart2622]

90/10, landowner preference not valid on any state or federal lands

 

[Fatcamp]

80/20. With non-transferable hunt-own-land tags and no draw preference to outfitters.

Yup.

 

[MallardSX2]

They should take the total revenue from the previous year, split it into revenue from residents and NR's.

Once they figure out what percentage of income each provide, allocate the tags to that percentage. If NR's pay 75% of the bills, then they should get 75% of the tags.........

Seems fair to me.

If residents want more tags, they should be paying the majority of the bill.

Likewise for NR's.

 

[bmart2622]

Residents already do pay more into the state each year

 

[bmart2622]

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

 

[BuckeyeRifleman]

80/20. With non-transferable hunt-own-land tags and no draw preference to outfitters.

I think this is a good balance, glad to see so many folks agree.

I also think NR tags should be no higher than 10x that of resident tag cost.

 

[Paul_E_Hunter]

Enough NR tags to fund the Game department.

 

[Btaylor]

80/20 for federal lands, State lands are resident only, resident and NR non-transferrable landowner tags are for owned land only 5 acre minimum, no outfitter tags, no OTC or general units, eliminate points, 3 choice random draw with any remaining tags going into an open draw for R&NR at NR pricing.

 

[hobbes]

This is going nowhere fast.

 

[bmart2622]

This is going nowhere fast.
[/QUOTE
Of course, its Rokslide

 

[bohntr]

90/10

 

[bmart2622]

How a

They should take the total revenue from the previous year, split it into revenue from residents and NR's.

Once they figure out what percentage of income each provide, allocate the tags to that percentage. If NR's pay 75% of the bills, then they should get 75% of the tags.........

Seems fair to me.

If residents want more tags, they should be paying the majority of the bill.

Likewise for NR's.

They should take the total revenue from the previous year, split it into revenue from residents and NR's.

Once they figure out what percentage of income each provide, allocate the tags to that percentage. If NR's pay 75% of the bills, then they should get 75% of the tags.........

Seems fair to me.

If residents want more tags, they should be paying the majority of the bill.

Likewise for NR's.

How about we use your logic and say that we take the amount of money a resident pays within their state for the year and subtract the amount a nonresident pays when they come hunt once a year and the difference is what a nonresident tag costs