The resident short game. Long term consequences?

[Bighorner]

So residents can hunt elk annually in UT if they want, it isn’t like the opportunity isn’t there then, I’ve never looked into UT.

Maybe you should. This is a real conversation with real dollars, laws and regulations. It's is not a conversation about feelings.

 

[CorbLand]

So residents can hunt elk annually in UT if they want, it isn’t like the opportunity isn’t there then, I’ve never looked into UT.

Yes, you can. The archery OTC in Utah is unlimited. Muzzleloader, Rifle and Multiseason are limited to 15,000 for any bull and 15,000 for spike only. The hunts arent that great but the opportunity is there.

If you are willing to hunt elk in August with a bow, you can hunt elk every year in Utah. I would have to double check but I think the Archery is unlimited for NRs too. So, a NR can hunt elk every year in Utah as well.

 

[CorbLand]

Thats a very good question. I have never gotten involved in UT issues. But i view my applications to other states as a statement towards my desire to get a tag when i apply. Furthermore i fill out surveys cor the states for which i apply. Great point thanks for bringing it up.

I always use Utah as a base line because its where I live. I don't really follow other states enough to understand how they work.

An application only goes so far. You need to let your voices be heard and use them.

 

[Bighorner]

That made me laugh pretty good

Me too, this isn't getting solved today. I think my cafine level is a reasonable point and I can take a couple deep breaths. The weather is too nice to be pissed on the internet.

 

[CJ19]

I always use Utah as a base line because its where I live. I don't really follow other states enough to understand how they work.

An application only goes so far. You need to let your voices be heard and use them.

Fair point

 

[tdhanses]

Maybe you should. This is a real conversation with real dollars, laws and regulations. It's is not a conversation about feelings.

Coming from the new king of feelings in WY, Buzz has been dethroned

 

[realunlucky]

Utah has arguably the worst allocation out there. Its has some of the worst draw odds for the general public and some of the highest prices when sold on the open market, both things you guys are continually comparing about. Why don't you spend some time fixing that?

Utah already has 90/10 for elk.

Again if you missed it Utah already has 90/10 for elk.

If you are so sure WY is being greedy why are you having to hunt as a non resident? So WY is greedy, but has a better NR tag allocation?

Maybe you missed my earlier post about getting up to speed on regulations

No one is arguing that residents don't have more skin in the game only that non-residents provide a value that also benefits the states resources.

While I don't necessarily like the new changes to Wyoming and have adjusted my personal application strategy, I don't see it as the end all be all.

What scares me is the constant search for "unfairness" to justify more and more restrictions for non-residents. That's what this thread is about -- when the juice isn't worth the squeeze for the majority and thier influence is thrown to the wayside for a slight increase in residence odds.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[a_noob_hunter]

This is why im moving to Montana in a couple months from the east. It makes much more sense to move out there to get better opportunity

Sent from my LM-G850 using Tapatalk

 

[CorbLand]

Public meetings

Utah Wildlife Board and RAC meeting schedules, agendas and materials.

wildlife.utah.gov

There is the contact information for Utah.

You can email the wildlife board at any time. Stick to facts, don't let emotion take over. DO NOT use the "animals are on federal land" argument. States manage wildlife regardless of whose land it is on. Argue for more opportunity. Be kind and recognize that it may take time. I have been fighting for more opportunity in Utah for 4 years and we are just now starting to see it come up in the meetings. Also remember that if a State uses percentage split allocation, as resident opportunity goes up so does NR.

Watch the meetings, they are on YouTube. Email the board after the meetings because they may say things your agree or disagree with. Case in point, at the last board meeting one of the board members said that people wanted trail camera seasons in Utah because they want better quality of animals. I sent a email to clarify my stance that I wanted a season, to decrease success rates, so we could issue more tags, so I could chase quality animals more often.

 

[Bighorner]

Coming from the new king of feelings in WY, Buzz has been dethroned

You are right, I cant say I didnt get pissed when I read the first few post. Ultimately we hold the cards. If it shoots us in foot we have to own it. Best of luck to you.

 

[bozeman]

With the name of Bozeman coming g from Alabama....

And your point is?

 

[Bighorner]

No one is arguing that residents don't have more skin in the game only that non-residents provide a value that also benefits the states resources.

While I don't necessarily like the new changes to Wyoming and have adjusted my personal application strategy, I don't see it as the end all be all.

What scares me is the constant search for "unfairness" to justify more and more restrictions for non-residents. That's what this thread is about -- when the juice isn't worth the squeeze for the majority and thier influence is thrown to the wayside for a slight increase in residence odds.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

That unfairness is a two way street. This whole uproar is over 90/10 for the big five. Those odds really didnt change much for you or I. They are in line with th e vast majority of western states. The wilderness law has been around from like the 1970s I think. I understand that you dont like the trajectory. It is a slippery slope like all things are, but I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water, but that's your choice. There will be bigger things coming that have a direct impact on NRs not just a precieved impact. When it's time to discuss those, folks that have called state game on federal land welfare and that want to boycott organizations like the RMEF, I just dont see enough middle ground.

 

[CJ19]

No one is arguing that residents don't have more skin in the game only that non-residents provide a value that also benefits the states resources.

While I don't necessarily like the new changes to Wyoming and have adjusted my personal application strategy, I don't see it as the end all be all.

What scares me is the constant search for "unfairness" to justify more and more restrictions for non-residents. That's what this thread is about -- when the juice isn't worth the squeeze for the majority and thier influence is thrown to the wayside for a slight increase in residence odds.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

I think this post articulates many NR's concerns very well.

 

[Idaho_Potato]

 

[AlaskaMark]

Well, hell, not sure what to make of this...are residents supposed to feel bad for wanting a hunting opportunity priority in the state they live in? Here in AK our allocations and wildlife mgmt are too heavily influenced by the commercial hunting industry. It started right after we became a state with our "must-be-guided" law and continues today, to the detriment of our wildlife and resident hunters.

Unlimited nonres sheep hunting where nonres guided hunters take 85% of the annual harvest on a declining sheep population, 40-50% nonres allocations on some coveted draw hunts like Kodiak Brown Bear and trophy moose, with 100% opportunity to hunt if you are a nonres and have the money. That's happening right here in Alaska. And every nonresident hunter I have spoken with over the years at shows and fairs says "we would never allow that in our state."

I want nonres hunting to continue in Alaska, want to share what we have with others, but there needs to be limits. I also would love it if you guys and gals in the lower 48 weren't required to hire a guide for brown bear, Dall sheep, and mtn goat. It has nothing to do about "safety" or "judging a legal animal," and sure nothing to do with "conservation." It's a subsidy to the guide industry that has led to greed and evermore bad-apple guiding outfits that don't care about the resource.

I choose to live here through the long dark winters, high energy prices, and expect to have a clear hunting opportunity priority in my state. That's what I'm fighting for, for myself and future generations of Alaskans. Don't see anything wrong with that, doesn't mean I don't want to share with others what Alaska has to offer....there should always be reasonable limits on nonres allocations so residents have a clear priority in the state where they live.

 

[tdhanses]

Well, hell, not sure what to make of this...are residents supposed to feel bad for wanting a hunting opportunity priority in the state they live in? Here in AK our allocations and wildlife mgmt are too heavily influenced by the commercial hunting industry. It started right after we became a state with our "must-be-guided" law and continues today, to the detriment of our wildlife and resident hunters.

Unlimited nonres sheep hunting where nonres guided hunters take 85% of the annual harvest on a declining sheep population, 40-50% nonres allocations on some coveted draw hunts like Kodiak Brown Bear and trophy moose, with 100% opportunity to hunt if you are a nonres and have the money. That's happening right here in Alaska. And every nonresident hunter I have spoken with over the years at shows and fairs says "we would never allow that in our state."

I want nonres hunting to continue in Alaska, want to share what we have with others, but there needs to be limits. I also would love it if you guys and gals in the lower 48 weren't required to hire a guide for brown bear, Dall sheep, and mtn goat. It has nothing to do about "safety" or "judging a legal animal," and sure nothing to do with "conservation." It's a subsidy to the guide industry that has led to greed and evermore bad-apple guiding outfits that don't care about the resource.

I choose to live here through the long dark winters, high energy prices, and expect to have a clear hunting opportunity priority in my state. That's what I'm fighting for, for myself and future generations of Alaskans. Don't see anything wrong with that, doesn't mean I don't want to share with others what Alaska has to offer....there should always be reasonable limits on nonres allocations so residents have a clear priority in the state where they live.

Aren’t all these tags otc or easy to draw for residents in AK? Is the limiting factor not getting tags but affording the transport to areas to hunt? I know many residents use transport services but I can’t imagine all can afford that.

 

[realunlucky]

You may be putting more weight on your influence than I do.

Influence in wyoming? That's not the entirety of this discussion. That is short sightedness of thinking you can protect your hunting heritage without help. The ongoing migration of folks expanding into western states is diluting the very foundation of those beliefs.

Simply standing on an issue such as states own the wildlife negates the reality that those populations are living on public lands. That fact alone intertwines multiple issues requiring broad support approach.

That is the conversation -- is dividing broad support doing more harm than good.




Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Moserkr]

CA has 90/10 tag allocations for their game too. We tried not to bring our politics over to the good ole states but…. Haha I got jokes.

Im one of the few who moved East to the great western state of MT, then moved back West to CA *shudders*. But here I am. No problem with the 90/10 split majority or opportunity for res first, I find most of that fair. The argument I find interesting is the “these animals in our state are ours”. But they are on federal land we all pay for, and specifically in WY and AK, some areas or hunts are inaccessible without a guide. Highly disagree with that - animals are on federal public land, not state land.

But hey, reap what you sow. OP hit the nail on the head but he missed a word thats coming your way - CALIFORNIACATION. Happening in your backyard now. Taking away winter range with housing development. Migration of people with incomes and wealth above the state they move to. Populations migrating that dwarf that of the areas they are moving to, hence the sky rocketing price for a limited housing resource. OP hats off to you for calling a spade, a spade. Wish it wasnt so dark and ugly, but this is the clown world we live it.

Now the question is which state to move to next and bring the whole fam damnly cause we hate CA more than the people who complain about us…. Im talking 15+ people in 5 family units. Those states restricting non-res hunting with 0% income tax sure are attractive with my out of state money and love of hunting…. See what OP and I are saying? Just thank God we arent libs.

 

[wytx]

tdhanses you seem enamored with our OTC General licenses in Wyoming, how about we give NRs all the General licenses they want and keep the LQ for Rs? General areas and LQ are not the same hunting for the most part. Residents want more access to the better licenses, not going to try and hide that.

 

[lab-roamer]

Enjoy it while you can fellas, once they get the wolf reestablished out West in all the states with federal protections and no seasons on them decimating your elk herds, couple that with piss poor game management from the new "college Experts", and habitat loss, there will be 1000 resident hunters hunting the same 2 elk. Should be fun.
Its already happening in the Northern Midwest.
And yes the Anti's are winning...at least the propaganda war.