Generosity to non-residents

[wytex]

Not Idaho. The lifetime license guarantees you a NR tag, even if the cap has been met. It does not get you access to a Resident tag.

Yes, and I learned Colorado is the same.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think the majority of WY residents don't necessarily want less NR's due to crowding, more that when the resource is highly limited and desirable (M/S/G, LE elk, etc.) that they would like further preference. Those feel different to me, maybe the perception for NR hunters is similar in either case.

It's going to be interesting when WY gen tags go draw for residents and NR gen tags are 8+ points.

I'm personally not optimistic about any NR M/S/G tags long term.

 

[wytex]

Can you elaborate how it works now? I assume residents have multiple choices and there are units/tags they aren't designating on their primary application? I agree with the premise NR should be limited to the quota.

To that end, in CO there is a cap in limited units of 35% ( a few units 20%), but because of OTC + leftovers CPW recently reported it's as high as 70% NR in some units.


You did not... but it's a common refrain in every western state, fair statement?

This will sidetrack the thread, but any under allocated licenses on the resident side are rolled into the NR draw. NRs will apply for and draw most of them. NRs have been drawing over , someone knows the exact numbers, but I think 45% of pronghorn licenses because of the roll over.
As a resident it is possible to not draw any of my chosen areas if I apply for let's say better areas- best access and trophy quality. Many folks take this strategy and hope that when they don't draw the better areas there will be leftovers in marginal areas they have access in. Not the case any more for leftovers.
I favor a hard quota for NR in their initial draw in the very least, no resident rollover to the NR draw. Start there before going 90/10 on deer and pronghorn , imo.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

This will sidetrack the thread, but any under allocated licenses on the resident side are rolled into the NR draw. NRs will apply for and draw most of them. NRs have been drawing over , someone knows the exact numbers, but I think 45% of pronghorn licenses because of the roll over.
As a resident it is possible to not draw any of my chosen areas if I apply for let's say better areas- best access and trophy quality. Many folks take this strategy and hope that when they don't draw the better areas there will be leftovers in marginal areas they have access in. Not the case any more for leftovers.
I favor a hard quota for NR in their initial draw in the very least, no resident rollover to the NR draw. Start there before going 90/10 on deer and pronghorn , imo.

So NH let's you rank every unit in the state for Moose... so 22 choices. Something like that or a secondary resident only draw seems totally fair to me.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

NRs' access to quality western big game hunting can keep them invested in advocating for public lands. Without the support of voters and legislators in more populated states w less public land, western federal lands @ least will suffer politically. I'm struggling to think of a public land user group more passionate and w fewer access alternatives than elk, MSG and predator hunters.

I get this to some extent and I don't blame an NR for scaling their time and monetary investment to some degree. I have soured on some aspects of this perspective however.

We're not going to win any popular votes at a national level, whether WY gives 10%, 20% or 30% of LE tags to NR. From what I can tell state legislators care somewhere between little and none about input they get on wildlife issues from those who don't live in their state. If people aren't generally supportive of natural spaces, intact ecosystems and public land access for their inherent value, that's a fundamental problem that's very tangential to opportunity. Some people make is sound like hunting is the only good thing to do in the woods.

I like seeing NR dream about hunting adventures and finding success. I think it's great that kids can come here and get a great western hunting experience for a $19 youth doe/fawn antelope tag. I'm sure that creates some advocates. But in the long run the legislature and commission is going to pick winners and losers, and they have little incentive to prioritize intangibles. If they need to make up funds, they'll do it on the backs of nonresidents and the demand is there to do it. I'm not saying that's right, fair, or wise, it's just how it is.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I get this to some extent and I don't blame an NR for scaling their time and monetary investment to some degree. I have soured on some aspects of this perspective however.

We're not going to win any popular votes at a national level, whether WY gives 10%, 20% or 30% of LE tags to NR. From what I can tell state legislators care somewhere between little and none about input they get on wildlife issues from those who don't live in their state. If people aren't generally supportive of natural spaces, intact ecosystems and public land access for their inherent value, that's a fundamental problem that's very tangential to opportunity. Some people make is sound like hunting is the only good thing to do in the woods.

I like seeing NR dream about hunting adventures and finding success. I think it's great that kids can come here and get a great western hunting experience for a $19 youth doe/fawn antelope tag. I'm sure that creates some advocates. But in the long run the legislature and commission is going to pick winners and losers, and they have little incentive to prioritize intangibles. If they need to make up funds, they'll do it on the backs of nonresidents and the demand is there to do it. I'm not saying that's right, fair, or wise, it's just how it is.

I kinda drove this into a slap fight with @PrairieHunter (sorry man, my bad) but this is the conversation I was looking for...

I've been on both sides of the fence in multiple western states and I'm torn...

Side one...
I generally think Resident comments are bs on allocations... there are some egregious situations like the 70% NR units in CO or not following the spirt of the regs, the reallocating leftover resident tags in WY, the fact that there are a ton of 6+ units in CO that don't have a 80/20 split as they should etc.

Though generally, and after 7 years on the forum, I kinda feel like it's all driven by dudes who want a 350 bull and or to complete their sheep slam and could give a careless if their pursuit of that goal keep Tod and his daughter from Missouri from killing a rag horn together on a once in a lifetime father daughter trip.

I think you Buzz, WYtex etc are in that first camp... cleaning up technical problems lets call it, I'm all for that... but it feels like that's a minority camp more and more.

Side 2. I have plenty of hunting here on the east coast... western trips are 100% a luxury. I could fill my freezer in New England. Residents are either correct/skeptical/ or don't care about, economics/agency funding or recruitment/ support (@elkduds) argument. Seems like they would just as well take the 6-20% bump in tags and deal with the issues that creates.

I have a pile of points in WY, MT, UT, CO... but if you told me that I could only use them if I became a resident in one of those states I wouldn't lose any sleep.

I think reducing NR opportunity is myopic, but I can't come up with a good argument (apparently) for why it should be kept.

I don't see people leaving western states soon...and there are plenty of CO and WY residents who don't think shooting 2+ elk, a deer, a bear.... a year is enough so...

In the end it doesn't matter what I think, it matters what you, Buzz, Prarie Hunter, WyTex ect think... you're the one's who need to decide the value (if any) of non-residents, and argue for their inclusion in the system.

 

[noharleyyet]

Hatfield/ anonymity/firewall /McCoy . . . & vice versa

 

[Treeshark]

but I can't come up with a good argument (apparently) for why it should be kept.

$

 

[Deleted member 28227]

$

Oh come on that WY Oil money will pay for them elk

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Just like I feel that intact ecosystems and wild places have inherent value, sharing a unique hunting experience with family and friends does as well. That's my touchy feely reason for maintaining some NR opportunity.

If NR's want to make that experience some version of a medium-term guarantee instead of a decreasing chance in a lottery, maybe they have to move.

If the department just needed to backfill funding, they could drastically cut NR tags and reach some bastardized agreement with WYOGA that puts dollars in the bank. I guess that's not erasing all NR tags, but functionally so for the regular guy/gal. I would hate see something like that, for the reason above. It is true that legislators, commissioners, and the taskforce will bend an ear to the economic impact argument. I'm not convinced it's that big of an issue, but it doesn't really matter if it's real or not...if it has the attention of the legislature it's a factor to work through.

 

[Shangobango]

. you're the one's who need to decide the value (if any) of non-residents, and argue for their inclusion in the system.

I have came a long ways on my understanding of this issue.

It seems to me, from the outside looking in, that the main value of NR’s is that the higher license fee we pay allows residents to pay a lower license fee. The respective game agencies are going to get that money from someone.

Add in the some level of economic activity and some added advocates for the habitat and wildlife and that is all of the value items I can think of.

 

[Big Fin]

To @SnowyMountaineer @wllm1313 @wytex @PrairieHunter and a few others who added great perspective on this thread, thanks. It is educated discussion with adult behavior that makes Hunt Talk a useful platform.

I appreciate you taking a heated topic and debating the merits of many different perspectives in this way. We all benefit from the discussion. The tone shows how these topics can be debated without grade school-type rants pointed at others with different perspectives.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I have came a long ways on my understanding of this issue.

It seems to me, from the outside looking in, that the main value of NR’s is that the higher license fee we pay allows residents to pay a lower license fee. The respective game agencies are going to get that money from someone.

Add in the some level of economic activity and some added advocates for the habitat and wildlife and that is all of the value items I can think of.

AK- NR license and tag fees make up only 7% of the AFGD budget, it's mostly general fund dollars from OG severance taxes+ royalties

Many states could use their general funds.

 

[elkduds]

AK- NR license and tag fees make up only 7% of the AFGD budget, it's mostly general fund dollars from OG severance taxes+ royalties

Many states could use their general funds.

The more license fees contribute to wildlife agency funding, the more influence licensees have in management, but only to a point. Balloted wolves in CO is an example past that point, as is suing the state in MT.

 

[wytex]

Well stated Snowy.

 

[RobertD]

I favor a hard quota for NR in their initial draw in the very least, no resident rollover to the NR draw. Start there before going 90/10 on deer and pronghorn , imo.

I haven't spent as much time with deer but I think this is the right idea for pronghorn. If the goal is giving residents a better chance at a quality tag, a new mechanism for dividing by quota and giving residents more opportunity to mine their side of the total number of tags will probably make a more tangible difference for the average resident than going 90/10 with no other change.

Change the way the rollover functions or give residents more choices on an application, some combination of things like that.

 

[Shangobango]

AK- NR license and tag fees make up only 7% of the AFGD budget, it's mostly general fund dollars from OG severance taxes+ royalties

Many states could use their general funds.

Makes sense, at least for some states.

I assume there are western States that derive a relatively large share of their game department budgets from license sales? What could be done in those cases.

Wouldn’t there possibly be legislative hurdles to using the general fund to supplement the difference? Thinking a Montana type situation…

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Makes sense, at least for some states.

I assume there are western States that derive a relatively large share of their game department budgets from license sales? What could be done in those cases.

Wouldn’t there possibly be legislative hurdles to using the general fund to supplement the difference? Thinking a Montana type situation…

That would be a @Ben Lamb questions, in CO it would be a ridiculously difficult process.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Most western states have around 70% of their lisence sales revenue from nonresidents.

So, if you want to quit sharing the resource with your fellow travelers, pony up.

I will come out of retirement from lobbying to kill a bill that puts wildlife management under tax dollars. That way lies only political management as you give every western state legislature complete control over the wildlife.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

It seems that the norm is for states to build their herds and conservation departments largely on nonresident fees...once they build the pie up, they give NR a smaller and smaller piece.

But states do what they want and it is their right to do so.

I don't think it is good for hunting and public land advocacy, but most only care what tag is their pocket that year and look no further than that.