The point Creep is ridiculous

[PathFinder]

Lets not forget that many of the wildlife agencies really do want to do work but they are generally hamstrung by legislature and other agencies. The amount of red tape, especially on federal ground, is pretty remarkable.

Not saying all are good or even the good ones cant be better but largely the blame lies at red tape and lack of funding.

No doubt the folks on the ground in every agency would love nothing more than to have a budget specifically to improve habitat. Quite a bit has been done in some places, and there's lots more to do on state wildlife areas before moving on to federal ground. Extra money could be used to buy up grazing permits as well, which has been done a lot already. We just tell the feds that we're restoring the natural plant life. Or better yet, they'll all get fired in the next two years.
The hard part would be ensuring that the money made it into the field and not into additional bureaucracy.
All this to say my personal preference is for higher prices and better odds from both a conservation funding and hunting standpoint.

 

[CorbLand]

No doubt the folks on the ground in every agency would love nothing more than to have a budget specifically to improve habitat. Quite a bit has been done in some places, and there's lots more to do on state wildlife areas before moving on to federal ground. Extra money could be used to buy up grazing permits as well, which has been done a lot already. We just tell the feds that we're restoring the natural plant life. Or better yet, they'll all get fired in the next two years.
The hard part would be ensuring that the money made it into the field and not into additional bureaucracy.
All this to say my personal preference is for higher prices and better odds from both a conservation funding and hunting standpoint.

I dont disagree.

One thing that I think is largely overlooked when it comes to stuff like this is a lot of that work can be done and funded by nonprofits and volunteer work. I have done a handful of lop and scatters on state ground in the last 5 years. If you see a project that needs to be done, reach out to the land manager. Maybe instead of just raising prices to get more funding (funding is important and needed) people should actually show up and do some work on a couple Saturdays a year.

I have and in ways still am pretty critical of SFW but I give credit when credit is due. SFW has done WORK on some of the smaller, no name units around me. In talking to the guys organizing the projects, there is no shortage of people willing to help.

 

[PathFinder]

I dont disagree.

One thing that I think is largely overlooked when it comes to stuff like this is a lot of that work can be done and funded by nonprofits and volunteer work. I have done a handful of lop and scatters on state ground in the last 5 years. If you see a project that needs to be done, reach out to the land manager. Maybe instead of just raising prices to get more funding (funding is important and needed) people should actually show up and do some work on a couple Saturdays a year.

I have and in ways still am pretty critical of SFW but I give credit when credit is due. SFW has done WORK on some of the smaller, no name units around me. In talking to the guys organizing the projects, there is no shortage of people willing to help.

That's absolutely correct, and one of the reasons I would like to see something else considered in the future vs just points or odds. Non-profits have done a ton of great work over the last couple decades. Property purchases, collar studies, transplants, habitat improvement, guzzlers, etc.
Perhaps a service based merit system would be more effective than raising prices while providing hunters who are deeply invested to get ahead. Something that allows those who are willing to put forth more than just entering a drawing makes a lot of sense.

 

[CorbLand]

That's absolutely correct, and one of the reasons I would like to see something else considered in the future vs just points or odds. Non-profits have done a ton of great work over the last couple decades. Property purchases, collar studies, transplants, habitat improvement, guzzlers, etc.
Perhaps a service based merit system would be more effective than raising prices while providing hunters who are deeply invested to get ahead. Something that allows those who are willing to put forth more than just entering a drawing makes a lot of sense.

Utah has a program like that.

 

[TheYukiYama]

One way to increase tags without increasing supply is to decrease efficacy.

More archery and less rifle.

Less hunts during the rut. How much less effective would archery elk be if they weren't hunted while bugling?

What if we shortened all the seasons? Less people are successful, but more can get tags. More tags would require less time to draw.

More restrictions on the animals that can be harvested like the brow tine restriction for Alaskan moose. Could be applied more often to other species.

A rule that if you shoot an animal under a certain size, you have to wait a number of years to apply for the tag again. Would encourage people to eat tag soup rather than shooting a small animal toward the end of a hunt.

I've also wondered if states would consider working together to reduce the take in many western states by a single individual. Say you are just building elk points, you draw, you lose points in all states for elk. If you drew in CO you'd still lose points for WY, MT, AZ, UT etc.

Increasing population numbers. Reduce antlerless hunts where larger populations can be supported.

There's tags that after you draw there's a waiting period to draw again. What if we did that for more tags? Yes those that hunted have to wait longer to hunt again, but maybe that's better if you don't have to wait as long to draw in the first place?

These are all just thoughts that have certainly not been thought through...

 

[PathFinder]

Utah has a program like that.

True. It will be interesting to see what the odds look like now that we can't apply for both.

 

[CorbLand]

True. It will be interesting to see what the odds look like now that we can't apply for both.

I dont think it will really change them significantly but a couple years will tell us.

Heres to my dumbass that didnt realize that you could apply for both. I could be one of the top point holders for general deer with how many years I missed out on that.

 

[SDHNTR]

One way to increase tags without increasing supply is to decrease efficacy.

More archery and less rifle.

Less hunts during the rut. How much less effective would archery elk be if they weren't hunted while bugling?

What if we shortened all the seasons? Less people are successful, but more can get tags. More tags would require less time to draw.

More restrictions on the animals that can be harvested like the brow tine restriction for Alaskan moose. Could be applied more often to other species.

A rule that if you shoot an animal under a certain size, you have to wait a number of years to apply for the tag again. Would encourage people to eat tag soup rather than shooting a small animal toward the end of a hunt.

I've also wondered if states would consider working together to reduce the take in many western states by a single individual. Say you are just building elk points, you draw, you lose points in all states for elk. If you drew in CO you'd still lose points for WY, MT, AZ, UT etc.

Increasing population numbers. Reduce antlerless hunts where larger populations can be supported.

There's tags that after you draw there's a waiting period to draw again. What if we did that for more tags? Yes those that hunted have to wait longer to hunt again, but maybe that's better if you don't have to wait as long to draw in the first place?

These are all just thoughts that have certainly not been thought through...

I agree with this premise. I spoke to a game warden in a once previously storied mule deer unit that had declined dramatically. Among other problems leading to increased mortality, he included hunter lethality. The ability to regularly kill at 6-800 yards is the norm now, where it was half that just 10-20 years ago. That’s an issue. I’d be just fine if the exposed and toolless turret were banned.

 

[Hnthrdr]

I agree with this premise. I spoke to a game warden in a once previously storied mule deer unit that had declined dramatically. Among other problems leading to increased mortality, he included hunter lethality. The ability to regularly kill at 6-800 yards is the norm now, where it was half that just 10-20 years ago. That’s an issue. I’d be just fine if the exposed and toolless turret were banned.

This is the idea behind the iron sights season that Utah is trying. I think it’s a great idea. And I have a lot of money invested in expensive scopes haha I think Co could follow suit. The issue is companies will make some sight to help you shoot 800 yards with a peep… but we should make hunters hunt again. More bows, more open sight muzzy, and open sight rifle hunting, could issue more tags since efficiency of killing will drop. I am 100% in for this. Would be awesome. Anyone can get 500-600 yards from a good buck or bull, iron sights most will need to get 200-300 yards or closer