R vs. NR tag allocation

[Z Barebow]

I can throw out a ratio from one hunters perspective. But there is more to it. There is a big picture.

Every state is different. There isn't a one size fits all ratio. For states that have generous NR tag allocations (And preference point schemes), the coffers have become addicted to the NR revenue. Now that those agencies/depts are addicted/hooked, they are finding it almost impossible to find a revenue neutral proposal without significantly impacting participation or game management. Any decision maker who would arbitrarily recommend any loss of NR revenue to be made up for with R price increases would be met with pitch forks and torches.

Speaking of hooked/addicted, that is a core issue in Colorado. (Among other contributing factors) They have unlimited OTC along with 65/35 for lower demand LE units. Residents complain of overcrowding, yet Colorado Parks & Wildlife are focusing on archery while making 2nd & 3rd rifle OTC off limits. Why? Not biological reasons. Revenue loss. No way they could get to 90/10 without destroying their revenue stream.

 

[WCB]

10/90 first number is Residents

 

[Hnthrdr]

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.

Yep… if I was moving for hunting it would be to Wyo or Alaska hands down most other states don’t have the opportunity or take care of residents first like they do

 

[Hnthrdr]

In addition I think 80/20 is more than fair, if they want to keep landowner tags then make them a separate quota and private land only, no general unit tags for landowners

 

[mavinwa2]

This or 85/15 and the elimination of Landowner tags, Outfitter preference tags too.
Go back to the days that a hunter draws the tag and then hunter decides if an outfitter/guide is needed.
Add that private landowners can sell access passes (tax free) to successful draw hunters.

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.

 

[bmart2622]

10/90 first number is Residents

Good one!!

 

[WCB]

Good one!!

Hey gotta try right!

Looks your from MT. I have family all over MT. I know the area my sister and her boyfriends ranch is in, most would rather see NRs than a 6 at the start of a plate number hahaha

 

[bmart2622]

Hey gotta try right!

Looks your from MT. I have family all over MT. I know the area my sister and her boyfriends ranch is in, most would rather see NRs than a 6 at the start of a plate number hahaha

Honestly man NR dont bother me, plenty of dip shit residents too

 

[velvet muley]

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)

Haha, it's been happening for a while now. Funny thing is, they just add to the already over crowded, easy to access areas and continue to beat them to death with the same results. The hunters that have a true passion for it don't deal with all the weekend warriors in my experience.

 

[Wheels]

Yep… if I was moving for hunting it would be to Wyo or Alaska hands down most other states don’t have the opportunity or take care of residents first like they do

Wyoming takes care of their residents by locking them out of most of their public land with the way it's checker boarded and their laws.

 

[Hun10-freak]

75/25 in states with an abundance of wildlife.

85/15 in states that are dealing with extreme point creep for residents.

Unfortunately there's more demand than tags...

 

[GringoBling]

Hilarious the sentiment on here to eliminate landowner tags from all the clueless guys who don’t own land.

 

[BRTreedogs]

All depends if I'm a resident or not in that state.
If I'm a resident the 100/0
If NR 0/100
I want all the tags.

 

[bmart2622]

You should absolutely be able to obtain a tag and hunt your own property without a doubt but you shouldn't be able to use that loop hole to get a tag allotted only for land owners and then hunt elsewhere

 

[cuerro viejo]

Hilarious the sentiment on here to eliminate landowner tags from all the clueless guys who don’t own land.

they have never watched 200 head of pronghorns mow down their wheat crop to the dirt…. In March.

its all fun and games until HF’s go up to protect habitat and there is no more tolerance for “winter range”.

Just like the NR hate, all fun until there is no more NR revenue influencing Legislation. bye bye hunting hellooooooo wolf viewing

 

[Hnthrdr]

Hilarious the sentiment on here to eliminate landowner tags from all the clueless guys who don’t own land.

Meh… family has a big ranch in AZ where they don’t issue landowner tags. I see the purpose behind them, but I think they should be good for their land, in Co lots of units have big ranches where they get general unit tags and sometimes the target animals don’t even hang on the ranch. I completely understand rewarding landowners and making game animals valuable to them, but I think they should have to hunt on their land and don’t get unit wide tags.

 

[GringoBling]

they have never watched 200 head of pronghorns mow down their wheat crop to the dirt…. In March.

its all fun and games until HF’s go up to protect habitat and there is no more tolerance for “winter range”

Just like the NR hate, all fun until there is no more NR revenue influencing Legislation. bye bye hunting hellooooooo wolf viewing

Exactly. All of that feed, water, safe haven as a relief from pressure....all of it.

So many on here neglect to comprehend the simple economics of Non-Residents subsidizing their "right" to hunt. I can't tell you the number of locals who I see "hunting" while sitting in their truck at the bottom of a game trail waiting for an elk to appear. Or cruising around on a SxS "hopin' to bust one" or 10 guys camping and partying scaring away all game in a 2 mile radius. Let's see if those guys currently paying $115 all in for an elk tag are willing to approach the $900 that NRs are paying for the same tag.

 

[bmart2622]

I guess if the cost of tags is too high you could just not hunt

 

[GringoBling]

That's my whole point- many of these guys won't be able to afford (or won't be willing to spend) $900 on a tag if they go to 90/10. As it currently stands, it's an opportunity for many residents to go spend a week in the mountains and if an elk happens to appear, that's just gravy.

 

[bmart2622]

My point is this, the state gets to make the decision of how the tags are managed, allocated, and priced. So anyone, including residents, can choose to take part or not. Whining and complaining does nothing