Bambistew
Well-known member
What do you think is a fair permit allocation for draw, or highly sought after permits in your state?
Permit allocation Res/NR
- Thread starter Bambistew
- Start date
spook12
New member
I think it depends. Are the citizens of a state willing to fund the management of their wildlife? It seems to me that the NR covers the bulk of the funding for a great many states,How much of the Wildlife habitat is Federal land?
I'm sure your question was more for the guys in the western states,but I'll chime in anyway. My States G&F dept would still have plenty of funding without the NR,however we have so much habitat that is Federally owned that I am of the opinion that we ''Owe'' opportunity to those who assist us in providing this habitat for our wildlife.
I'm sure your question was more for the guys in the western states,but I'll chime in anyway. My States G&F dept would still have plenty of funding without the NR,however we have so much habitat that is Federally owned that I am of the opinion that we ''Owe'' opportunity to those who assist us in providing this habitat for our wildlife.
mdunc8
Well-known member
Depends on the critter. I hate to see opportunity taken away for moose and sheep when some of the old timers have been trying their entire lives to draw a tag for a critter that could be sitting right outside their back door. I'd be much more willing to wait a few extra years to draw an elk, deer (if we had more decent limited units), and antelope though. With that said, I'd say no more than 10% for moose, sheep, and goat while possibly pushing 20% for the other three. However, I probably need to do the math to see how that influences things before I commit to anything.
WapitiBob
Well-known member
I'd rather see the NR tag price come down vs the allotment going up.
wyoming556
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2010
- Messages
- 1,242
Just depends on the makeup of the state. Places with higher existing populations likely have more than enough demand form residents for hunting and can't spare tags for NR's should probably allow a low % of tags for NR's. California for example.
Others like Wyoming, Montana, and Alaska don't have nearly as many residents and need the income from NR hunters. States like that should allow a higher % of tags to go to NR's IMO.
Others like Wyoming, Montana, and Alaska don't have nearly as many residents and need the income from NR hunters. States like that should allow a higher % of tags to go to NR's IMO.
I agree w/this. I think also the makeup of huntable land should be taken into consideration, amount of federal vs state land. Most states that rely on NR should allow for at least 20% of those tags to go to NR, but I know that's a pipe dream at best and I'm sure there's a lot of residents hunters of that states that would disagree.
AZ402
Well-known member
Where are the numbers that say NR contribute more to funding than resident hunters? Just curious.
putm2sleep
New member
It's not a numbers ($) poll / question. And WGAS what NR's contribute versus residents?
Bambistew
Well-known member
Interesting comments so far... I didn't break down the percentages further, mostly just to get a feel for what range is reasonable, the actual number is always up for debate.
Ponder this question for the land ownership argument.
If tags are dolled out by land ownership %, wouldn't it be pretty tough to get a tag to hunt in the states that are primarily private land? I mean you can't have it both ways, can you? Those private LO should get a heck of a lot of tags since they graze the animals. This isn't a system I would want...
Alaska doesn't depend on tag sales from NR to fund our game agency, hence the reason tags are so cheap, and resident tags are free... NR tag sales including hunting/fishing licenses is like 4-5% of the total F&G budget, if that. Losing NR tag sales wouldn't be more than a bump in the road.
The main reason I posed this question is to garner input from NRs for how they feel animals should be allocated by residency.
What if I said percentage of animals harvested instead of tags issued. Say 20% of the hunters are NR, but they're taking 80% of the game because they have the means. Would 20% of the tags still be fair?
Ponder this question for the land ownership argument.
If tags are dolled out by land ownership %, wouldn't it be pretty tough to get a tag to hunt in the states that are primarily private land? I mean you can't have it both ways, can you? Those private LO should get a heck of a lot of tags since they graze the animals. This isn't a system I would want...
Alaska doesn't depend on tag sales from NR to fund our game agency, hence the reason tags are so cheap, and resident tags are free... NR tag sales including hunting/fishing licenses is like 4-5% of the total F&G budget, if that. Losing NR tag sales wouldn't be more than a bump in the road.
The main reason I posed this question is to garner input from NRs for how they feel animals should be allocated by residency.
What if I said percentage of animals harvested instead of tags issued. Say 20% of the hunters are NR, but they're taking 80% of the game because they have the means. Would 20% of the tags still be fair?
Last edited:
putm2sleep
New member
i am a 5%
putm2sleep
New member
I was going to state that any one of the United States of America should not depend on funding. SO. I am like Alaska - feel DOW's or agencies should not depend on tag sales from NR's to fund wildlife. Budget - period.
Good info Bambi.
Good info Bambi.
Frenchy
Well-known member
I'm a 10%'er, and voted in the 10-20% block. I do fell 20% is a little high, but would not be against more that 10% for certain species/locations.
I will say that I do not feel the percentange of Federal/State lands should have any bearing on tag allocation. The two are not related in any way shape or form if you ask me.
Bambistew pointed out the trouble with that mind set perfectly. What about the percentage of land that is privately owned. Slippery slope for sure!
I will say that I do not feel the percentange of Federal/State lands should have any bearing on tag allocation. The two are not related in any way shape or form if you ask me.
Bambistew pointed out the trouble with that mind set perfectly. What about the percentage of land that is privately owned. Slippery slope for sure!
Chances are if it is "highly sought after tags" and it is private land your not hunting it anyway already so what is the slippery slope you speak of? Are Sheep, goats and moose in your state on private land that you can hunt?
Frenchy
Well-known member
You are trying to relate land ownership to tag allotment. Granted in your argument, you are relating Federal to State, but if that comes to be how long do you think it will take the land owners and outfitting indistry to start asking for landowner tags based on land ownership. I mean they are going to want their share as well. The animals graze on their land so aren't they due a little extra consideration.
If I ever draw a tag for any of the species mentioned, I'll let you know if I find a private landowner that will let me hunt. I'm sure they exist, if only in a very small minority. But again, I fail to see the point of the question as it pertains to tag allocation.
If I ever draw a tag for any of the species mentioned, I'll let you know if I find a private landowner that will let me hunt. I'm sure they exist, if only in a very small minority. But again, I fail to see the point of the question as it pertains to tag allocation.
http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/HuntingIsConservation/NorthAmericanWildlifeConservationModel.aspx
I believe in the NAM, I understand that wildlife are held in the public trust by the states, but I believe that as Americans we should have have a reasonable opportunity to hunt across state lines. In my opinion reasonable opportunity starts north of 10%. I haven't looked into it too much as far as other examples go, but NM's 6% for the unguided NR hunter and WY's ban on unguided NR hunters in wilderness areas, don't meet my standard for reasonable opportunity.
I believe in the NAM, I understand that wildlife are held in the public trust by the states, but I believe that as Americans we should have have a reasonable opportunity to hunt across state lines. In my opinion reasonable opportunity starts north of 10%. I haven't looked into it too much as far as other examples go, but NM's 6% for the unguided NR hunter and WY's ban on unguided NR hunters in wilderness areas, don't meet my standard for reasonable opportunity.
I'd like to see Colorado become a 10% Nonresident tag state like many other western States. Then perhaps the seasons could be lengthened a little and we wouldnt be forced into choosing our method of take. For me 9 days (rifle) is just too short in my opinion, and with less Nonresidents, the outfitters might not be able to tie up as much land so perhaps we could have something like Montana's Block Management program too.
35% of draw tags for nonresidents is just too high, especially now with the CPW cutting tag quota's the past few years and giving landowners a larger slice of the tag pie
35% of draw tags for nonresidents is just too high, especially now with the CPW cutting tag quota's the past few years and giving landowners a larger slice of the tag pie
