Non-Resident Draw Caps
- Thread starter Craig S.
- Start date
mdunc8
Well-known member
I don't have a problem with them. I think residents should have a greater chance of hunting within their own state than nonresidents. I wouldn't have a problem if Montana bumped up there allotment to maybe 20%. However, there's still plenty of OTC or easy to draw tags in most states for the nonresident who does their homework, so maybe 10% is a good number.
10% seems fair. How the folks in WY and CO put up with giving so much opportunity to us non-residents is a mystery to me, but if they want to continue being so generous, I am willing to send them my money.
Even though I benefit from the AZ rule where 20% of the tags go to hunters with the highest bonus points, I think it is a bad idea for non-residents. So many of the units end up with the NR quota filled in the first 20% pass, that it has essentially turned AZ into a preference point system for NR's in most units, even the average units.
If that is what they want, fine, but I don't think NRs like that part of it. That being said, next year I will be hunting elk again in AZ, as when I party app with my son, he has enough points that we will draw in that 20% pass. So, even though it helped me this year and will help me next year, I think it is a bad idea.
Just from a revenue standpoint, I think AZ would sell more NR hunting licenses to people applying and building points if this rule was changed. As it is now, people with few or no points look at the system and say, "Hell with it, I won't live that long with this many NRs in front of me." So they don't ever start applying and AZ loses that revenue.
Even though I benefit from the AZ rule where 20% of the tags go to hunters with the highest bonus points, I think it is a bad idea for non-residents. So many of the units end up with the NR quota filled in the first 20% pass, that it has essentially turned AZ into a preference point system for NR's in most units, even the average units.
If that is what they want, fine, but I don't think NRs like that part of it. That being said, next year I will be hunting elk again in AZ, as when I party app with my son, he has enough points that we will draw in that 20% pass. So, even though it helped me this year and will help me next year, I think it is a bad idea.
Just from a revenue standpoint, I think AZ would sell more NR hunting licenses to people applying and building points if this rule was changed. As it is now, people with few or no points look at the system and say, "Hell with it, I won't live that long with this many NRs in front of me." So they don't ever start applying and AZ loses that revenue.
blue devil
Member
Wishing SD had a Lower NR Quota. As a resident, I can't seem to draw a good buck tag where I want, but the NR have it pretty slack here, from what I've realized. Especially East River
Bambistew
Well-known member
I wish AK had some sort of cap other than limiting by $$$ guide fee.
to me,10% is too low.I think NR should get somewhere between 15-20%.I don't get how a NR who gets to hunt for a week maybe two could be much of a threat to resident hunters.thats how I feel about states like Co.,Wy, Mt tht have huge general or otc areas for residents
States where residents have to draw just to hunt anything,then I think 10% is fair for NR
States where residents have to draw just to hunt anything,then I think 10% is fair for NR
mdunc8
Well-known member
It would make a huge differences for the big three (moose, sheep, and goat). At 10%, you need at least 10 available tags to be drawn, which excludes nonresidents from being able to draw tags in many units in Montana. If you bump that up to 20%, it opens up a ton of units that are already difficult for residents to draw. Sure, it might not be that big of a deal for a unit that historically has had 50/50 odds, but my sheep odds would go down the sh#($er if nonresidents started applying too.
Khunter
Well-known member
10% seems about right. And my home state of Colo is way too generous to NR. Most of my hunts are NR hunts so I have no issue with NR coming to my state. They pretty much pay for our wildlfe management, so that is not to be sneezed at.
Now that Colo, in its infinite wisdom merged the parks dept with the wildlife dept, I am sure the wildlife dept will be rolling in dough
Oh yeah, the just fiund a $32 million shortfall due to an accounting error. whoops.
Agree AZ's 20% pass rule is a mess. They could restructure that, IMO.
Now that Colo, in its infinite wisdom merged the parks dept with the wildlife dept, I am sure the wildlife dept will be rolling in dough
Oh yeah, the just fiund a $32 million shortfall due to an accounting error. whoops.Agree AZ's 20% pass rule is a mess. They could restructure that, IMO.
I agree with you guys the majority of the permits should go to Residents within a given state. With 150K non-resident hunting licenses sold Colorado definitely pimps out the permits.
Arizona's 2011 Pronghorn & the best September Bull Elk hunts did not meet the 10% cap. 7% of these permits went to Non-Residents & I am pretty sure it was around 6-7% last year. It's obviously not the cap cutting off Non-Residents from reaching the 10% & we supposedly have around 30K Non-Resident hunting licenses sold. Luck of the draw?
I don't like New Mexico's new cap, but they don't have a point system either.
Arizona's 2011 Pronghorn & the best September Bull Elk hunts did not meet the 10% cap. 7% of these permits went to Non-Residents & I am pretty sure it was around 6-7% last year. It's obviously not the cap cutting off Non-Residents from reaching the 10% & we supposedly have around 30K Non-Resident hunting licenses sold. Luck of the draw?
I don't like New Mexico's new cap, but they don't have a point system either.
Last edited:
blue devil
Member
I think my ordeal is that our rifle season is only 2 weeks long anyways, so as a resident, I'm competing against everyone for 2 weeks. We don't have those 5-6 week seasons like some of the other states and our NR license fees are nowhere close to being high enough.
npaden
Well-known member
I think it should be based on the % of federal land in the state.
I think it should be based on the % of federal land in the state.
Now that's funny.
My buddy argues it should be based on the amount of Federal land in the state in which you live. Since that determines how much public hunting opportunity your state provides to other NRs, that should determine how much NR opportunity you get.
I think 10% is about right. I am in the same boat as Big Fin about Wyoming and Colorado, not sure why they give out so many non-resident tags. Do the residents there complain a lot about that or do most of them not realize that so many tags go to non-residents??? I would think that they would be yelling and screaming to cut the non-resident allocations.
sweetnectar
New member
I'm pro hunting. I like to encourage hunters to hunt. We seem to be a dieing breed so if the resources are their then use them. And I mean sustainable resources. Unfortunately, a few of Montana's game commissioners are too concerned that NR might have too much hunting times in the field so in a July 14 meeting there was a hunting district (798-15) that elk number grew even stronger and they voted to limit hunting again. They sited they were concerned that NR would participate more then R in the district. Choices like these, when the resources are there, ignore science and discourage hunting.
That said we all have areas we like to hunt and we try to protect them for ourselves and keep others out of them. I figure this is why we say things like 10% or 15% is tolerable. I suppose the question is similar to how much do you like to share? "Oh 15% or so?" For me it depends how I feel about the guy I'm sharing with. If he is greedy and all about me I'm less inclined to share, but if he is like me then it is pretty easy. So if the NR is from California and has a pro Obama and pro marijuana sticker then I'm thinking 1% is tolerable for NR. But if the guy has and NRA bumpers sticker and a RMEF sticker and a big heart and a love for the outdoor experience then 50%.
That said we all have areas we like to hunt and we try to protect them for ourselves and keep others out of them. I figure this is why we say things like 10% or 15% is tolerable. I suppose the question is similar to how much do you like to share? "Oh 15% or so?" For me it depends how I feel about the guy I'm sharing with. If he is greedy and all about me I'm less inclined to share, but if he is like me then it is pretty easy. So if the NR is from California and has a pro Obama and pro marijuana sticker then I'm thinking 1% is tolerable for NR. But if the guy has and NRA bumpers sticker and a RMEF sticker and a big heart and a love for the outdoor experience then 50%.
pointingdogsrule
Well-known member
I think it should be based on the % of federal land in the state.
Iowa has 0% Fed. lands. No non-resident tags for this state.
good luck to all
the dog
I think overall 20% would be fair and for states that restrict Colorado residents to less than 20% of their tags, I’d like to see the percentage reciprocated.
It is no secret that Colorado is in it for the money. They won’t make any management decision regarding Elk unless it is revenue neutral at a minimum and the Wildlife Commission doesn’t hide from that statement. That is why we are crammed into all these different and very short seasons. Colorado is a great state to hunt as a nonresident, but downright sucks if you live here. I would love to have the opportunity to hunt both archery and rifle with the same tag like residents from WY or MT and have a season that lasted more than a week!
Another downside to unlimited OTC Elk tags and 35% of Deer and draw Elk tags is leasing. Just about every stitch of land is leased because all these out of state hunters can make long term deals and turn the hunting into something that resembles the Texas model.
And if our overly generous percentage of tags wasn’t enough, we have this wonderful “Landover Voucher” program to allow nonresidents access to even more tags, but that’s another issue altogether.
It is no secret that Colorado is in it for the money. They won’t make any management decision regarding Elk unless it is revenue neutral at a minimum and the Wildlife Commission doesn’t hide from that statement. That is why we are crammed into all these different and very short seasons. Colorado is a great state to hunt as a nonresident, but downright sucks if you live here. I would love to have the opportunity to hunt both archery and rifle with the same tag like residents from WY or MT and have a season that lasted more than a week!
Another downside to unlimited OTC Elk tags and 35% of Deer and draw Elk tags is leasing. Just about every stitch of land is leased because all these out of state hunters can make long term deals and turn the hunting into something that resembles the Texas model.
And if our overly generous percentage of tags wasn’t enough, we have this wonderful “Landover Voucher” program to allow nonresidents access to even more tags, but that’s another issue altogether.
Heard this same complaint about New Mexico. Are Colorado residents not allowed to use "Landowner Vouchers" ?
DavidKeenan
New member
I think 10% is a fair amount. Although, my home state lets as many NR buy a license, that wants to hunt. Also we don't have all the big game that the western states have either. The points/draw is a money maker for each state and then the price of each tag and license.
tarheel
Well-known member
My buddy argues it should be based on the amount of Federal land in the state in which you live. Since that determines how much public hunting opportunity your state provides to other NRs, that should determine how much NR opportunity you get.
I tend to disagree with your buddy Fin. The simple fact that a state has little or no public land makes it equally difficult on residents to find somewhere to hunt. His idea is totally self serving to those residents of states with ample Federal land; land that belongs to us all.
Non residents are at a serious disadvantage to be successful due to the fact that they can't be there in the area to scout, hang game cameras, be familiar with herd habits and migration info if that is a factor, as would a resident. It would be interesting to compare the success ratio of residents to non-residents.
I can't speak for all states, but when I lived in CO it seemed that the Div. of Wildlife was out to get every dollar that they could squeeze from NR's in order to keep their resident fees as low as possible, and yet the cost per animal for game management was the same, no matter where you came from. What if the Feds took over control of all Federal land and set the fees the same for anyone who wanted to hunt Fed land; can you imagine the stink that would stir up!!
No right answer, no good answer, just whatever works for the individual states.
A man or woman can be the greatest sportsperson in their home state. Cross the state line and they become a "nonresident" . Somewhere along the way hunting has become greedy and selfish. Limiting good Americans from using national lands is wrong. When NR tags get down to 0% congress will decide whats fair. Lets not go there.
