Permit allocation Res/NR

[theat]

I would be fine with Montana going to 15% for nonresidents.

A lot of non residents seem to think they deserve more tags. The problem is there are not enough tags for everyone. I know plenty of Montana residents that have never drawn a MSG tag and probably never will. Seems kind of unfair for them don't you think? In 15 years of applying I drew my first elk permit this fall and have never drawn a deer permit. I don't even apply for any of the coveted low odds units.

Yes, there are plenty of places in Montana that have Moose and Sheep living on private land.

Those advocating more nonresident tags in areas with lots of federal land do realize that just because the animals they are hunting happen to be on federal land during the fall does not mean they spend the rest of the year there? Many elk and deer spend a good chunk of the year on state Wildlife Management Areas as well as private lands.

 

[schmalts]

Yes there may be sheep and goat on private land but good luck hunting them. you would be one of the few, lucky, or lease holders.
No one is advocating more tags, it is just an opinion. I also think a state with ZERO federal land would owe not one nonresident tag to anyone. I also think private landowners owe no one the right to hunt his land. It is his choice, state owned game or not. Just as Ted Turner owes you no hunting of your state game on his land, a state owes no nonresident hunting on state land. But, federal land is NOT owned by the state or those who live in it. They do not own the game but consideration should be taken in who hunts it. The key word is consideration, because your state owned game will not get you hunting if the voters don't like you thinking only you should hunt them on the voters property. Greed bites everyone in the ass eventually.

 

[schmalts]

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. .

What rock you been under.. They been doing that for decades. Don't mean you have to give them everything they ask for

 

[LopeHunter]

20% to NR. Points cap at 10 max so reward loyalty but after a decade even a young person gets even odds with anyone who has been applying for 10+ years yet is still waiting to draw.

 

[1_pointer]

20% to NR. Points cap at 10 max so reward loyalty but after a decade even a young person gets even odds with anyone who has been applying for 10+ years yet is still waiting to draw.

Disagree on the point cap and don't like points at all, though I do play that game, but only out of neccessity. IMO, a completely random draw is the fairest draw system, with different degrees of allocation based upon residency.

 

[sbhooper]

This subject is a no-win. No matter the consensus, someone will always be griping and decide that they were slighted. The states need the income from the vastly inflated nr fees and the people that live in those states want the nr money, but not the nr.

I, for one, will not be in any competition with any resident draws, as I have been priced out of hunting anything with antlers or horns. I have one more antelope hunt left just because I have points to use. Hopefully, the same thing will not happen with the antlerless permits.

I don't have any problem with limits on nr permits, as long as the limits are reasonable and leave a reasonable chance to draw that permit at some point. Somewhere between 10 and 20 percent should be fair by any standards.

 

[thecrittergitter]

But, federal land is NOT owned by the state or those who live in it. They do not own the game but consideration should be taken in who hunts it. .

Which is why it is absolutely absurd that a NR can not hunt any wilderness areas of WY without a Resident.......I don't see how the WYFG can even consider that as an option within their power, but they do.

I don't think 20% is unreasonable in most cases. But it would make sense to me for a variety of reasons why each state would have to allocate tags differently.

 

[Big Fin]

I do think all states should have a pool of tags specifically for non-residents, such as what NV and UT have. That way NRs know they are getting their 10% (or whatever %), rather than "up to 10%."

It is lame for MT to say we give 10% to NRs, when many times they don't get 10%. Mentally, I am already of the mind set that they will get 10%, so let's make sure they are getting that percentage.

Also, by giving them their own drawing and tag pool, we/they would know the real odds for both Rs and NRs.

 

[havgunwilltravel]

Maybe 10-20%, but in the states that have bonus/preference points it would be great to see a split of 50/50 for the tags that go into the random draw pool and for those that go into the pool of those with highest point accumulation. Case in point is the Arizona Strip rifle rut tag for deer for non residents. A little challenging to work out just how old i might be before i ever crawl into that top bonus point pool.

 

[npaden]

I do think all states should have a pool of tags specifically for non-residents, such as what NV and UT have. That way NRs know they are getting their 10% (or whatever %), rather than "up to 10%."

It is lame for MT to say we give 10% to NRs, when many times they don't get 10%. Mentally, I am already of the mind set that they will get 10%, so let's make sure they are getting that percentage.

Also, by giving them their own drawing and tag pool, we/they would know the real odds for both Rs and NRs.

Idaho mountain goat tags are a good example of this. The "up to 10%" generally means 5 tags to nonresidents. Some of the individual units appear to have 15 - 20% drawing odds some years, but it doesn't work out that way for a nonresident. Once the cap of 5 nonresidents are drawn, you are just out of luck no matter what unit you apply for.

If you just want to hunt mountain goats and not hold out for the trophy units, a resident of Idaho could be hunting mountain goats every 5 or 6 years statistically. The nonresident ends up buying a $150ish hunting license each year for about a 3% chance of drawing a tag in any unit. So the average nonresident is going to spend $2,000+ in hunting licenses and wait almost 20 years to draw a tag regardless of the unit they apply for. If they are unlucky it is going to cost a lot more and the wait is going to be 3 or 4 decades.

 

[Bambistew]

All good comments. So far it looks like about 90% of you would be ok with limiting NR to 20% or less of the tags available.

Currently NR take home 40% of the sheep each year in Alaska... Some areas average over 60%, and one area has been hovering around 80%!!! This is mostly due to the unrestricted number of guides who can hunt a remote area. Reducing the NRs to 10% of historic numbers of all sheep hunters (currently NRs make up about 20-21%) will reduce their take to 25%. Most residents I've talked with think this is fair, I would agree. They will always have a higher harvest rate because they're guided.

Some areas of the state are managed by the Feds, such as ANWR and Wrangle, St. Elias NWR. These areas limit the number of guides who can hunt in the refuge through a concession program, and by de facto, limit the number of sheep harvested. They may have a limit on the number of clients they can guide as well, I haven't dug that up yet. The average take by NR in these areas is about 20-25% of the total, while NR hunters account for about 10% of all hunters in those areas.

There are many issues involved besides NR opportunity. Guides make agreements with air transporters to restrict residents from being dropped in certain drainages (see Chugache and Wrangell hunts), thus reducing areas available to hunt, while giving the NRs a near "private" hunting area. Some guides will shoot as many $heep as they can per year with no regard to herd health... This is the biggest one that sticks with me. Through my research so far, I've discovered areas where outfitting pressure/harvest has nearly doubled in the last 10 years, and age structure of rams killed has decreased by as much as one year of age over the last 10 yeras. The take of sub 8yo rams has increased form 3-4% pre-2000 to over 20% today. Sub 8yo rams are dubbed by the F&G as immature... thus are not the animals which should be targeted for hunting. Yet as the herd shrinks they are scrutinized for legality and ultimately taken.

I don't intend for this to be a NR bashing rant. Alaska is more than generous with permits for NR, as basically all animals can be hunted with OTC permits. Most animals are abundant, with ample excess to share. Besides brown bears, all other species taken by NR's harvest account for decent proportion of harvest for other animals each year, with harvest totals remaining fairly stable for the last few decades.

2010 NR harvest percentage of all animals killed.
Moose 11%
Sheep 43%
Goat 27%
Blown bear 58%
Black bear 37%
Caribou 14%

Besides sheep, the animal populations above are stable or increasing across much of their range, which coincidently correlates to MANAGEMENT.

On average 500 NRs come to hunt sheep each year, and take home 350 rams. This is more sheep than are killed in the L48 combined Res and NR. Yes, we have a lot more sheep, but the herds are not as big as they used to be, and the amount of sheep available to hunt (outside National Parks) is about half the total population in the state. Most populations are at 50% of historic averages (pre 2000).

Sheep hunting regulations in AK are set up to allow maximum hunting opportunity while regulating the animals killed to older mature animals near the end of their life span. Hence the full curl or 8 year old rule. Once a ram reaches this age, he is more likely to die, either from fighting, predators, or diseases This approach to management equates to no management or hands off management, the F&G has even admitted this. The money spent to manage sheep each year is pitiful. Some areas haven't had a sheep count in decades (yes decades, multiple). I would venture that the MT governors permit sold for more than is spent on sheep research and management in Alaska each year. This again is another issue all together, unrelated to NR harvest.

Resident preference has been taking a back seat to a small portion of a large industry in this state. Research and references indicate that guided sheep hunters accounts for about $8.5M per year impact to the state. Considering the GDP of Alaska is $44.6B, this drop doesn't even register in the bucket (about 2% of 1%). While the sheep reallocation may not happen this year, it WILL happen, you can count on it. A growing number of residents are fed up with the system as it currently stands; as witness to the increasing number of proposals sent into the BOG each year to limit NR participation for sheep hunting.

The ramifications? More sheep will be left on the mountain, less competition (for everyone), less crowding, older sheep, fewer airplanes circling the sky, and a more robust population. Some guides/outfitters may go out of business, but I doubt it. They'll just sell fewer sheep at a higher price, and take a few more moose hunters.

Yep, sheep hunts will get more expensive for NRs, that's likely a given, but you can still go with the right amount of cash. Step two... piss off enough NR with time and money to lobby the legislature and eliminate the guide preference altogether. Or force the state to resurrect the the guide concession program to limit the amount of guiding pressure in certain areas. For now, the easiest way is to regulate the guides by the number of permits they can pimp.

I know I'm going to have a target painted on my back in the near future... but that's ok.

 

[WapitiBob]

What is the NR allocation of Sheep tags?

Somewhere in the 10-20 range seems about right. Charging NR 10x the resident price for a tag is criminal. The contribution a resident makes to the game dept outside of their license/tag fees is minimal. It's only 4% up here.

I like pretty much everything about WY except the prices, nearly 20% allocation, and seperate draws.

 

[blb078]

Don't residents have the option to hire a guide too? Not sure why you'd want to punish the NRs because they are paying roughly 15k each for those guided hunts, that alone is $7.5 million that goes to the outfitting business in the state, plus the price of tags, transportation to from AK, misc stuff, etc. I think that $8.5 million impact to the state might be a little low. Now I don't have a horse in this race, short of winning the lottery I'm not going to be sheep/goat/bear hunting in AK anytime soon.

Just don't know why you'd want to hurt the outfitters by reducing the number of clients they can have and take away the NR tags simply because they have a high success rate, which like you state is because they are guided. Now if that 500 tags that are given out to NR is too many and effecting the heard then yea I see were you're coming from, but I'd think they'd need to reduce the R and NR tags in that case. From your post you and I guess a lot of people in AK have a lot of dislike for the NR hunter simply due to the fact that they have a higher success rate, which they pay for.

 

[Devil Diver Down]

I think 10% is about right. I appreciate that NR hunters have to pay more for their tag (and licenses where applicable) as well as pump some money into the state via lodging, etc. I'd guess resident hunters have more of a loyalty to putting money in their own state's system for a longer period of time, and are footing the majority of the bill that way. I'm glad to see AZ making NRs purchase the license just to enter the draw for those that want to play the point-building game. I'd like to see more states bump up the charge for resident tags a little bit, so there's not a 10x or 20x disparity on the price between resident and NR.

 

[noharleyyet]

Bambi, you sort of remind me of a dude who moves from New Yawk to Santa Fe and builds a mansion in a gated community.

 

[jlmatthew]

Just don't know why you'd want to hurt the outfitters by reducing the number of clients they can have and take away the NR tags simply because they have a high success rate, which like you state is because they are guided. Now if that 500 tags that are given out to NR is too many and effecting the heard then yea I see were you're coming from, but I'd think they'd need to reduce the R and NR tags in that case. From your post you and I guess a lot of people in AK have a lot of dislike for the NR hunter simply due to the fact that they have a higher success rate, which they pay for.

My personal feelings are the Outfitting industry is more a threat to hunting in Colorado than the idiot voters in Denver. By Colorado being more revenue (OTC elk & 35% of draw tags for NR) than wildlife focused, just about every square inch of private land is outfitted/leased. Then all the guys that cant afford an outfitter or lease crowd the public land to the point its not worth going when you spend more than half your short week long season trying to get away from other hunters. Outfitters hit public land hard too. When I hunted 25/26 a few years back, Winterhawk Outfitters had just about every trailhead blocked with their crap! And the way things are going, Deer hunting in Colorado is going to be an every-other-year thing real soon for residents unless we ditch the 35% of tags going to Nonresidents and put it around 10%

Residents should always have priority in their home state. Hunting out of state is a bonus hunt for nonresident hunters

 

[6speed]

Idaho mountain goat tags are a good example of this. The "up to 10%" generally means 5 tags to nonresidents. Some of the individual units appear to have 15 - 20% drawing odds some years, but it doesn't work out that way for a nonresident. Once the cap of 5 nonresidents are drawn, you are just out of luck no matter what unit you apply for.

If you just want to hunt mountain goats and not hold out for the trophy units, a resident of Idaho could be hunting mountain goats every 5 or 6 years statistically. The nonresident ends up buying a $150ish hunting license each year for about a 3% chance of drawing a tag in any unit. So the average nonresident is going to spend $2,000+ in hunting licenses and wait almost 20 years to draw a tag regardless of the unit they apply for. If they are unlucky it is going to cost a lot more and the wait is going to be 3 or 4 decades.

Your math is a bit flawed those tags are OIL and the hunters who harvest are then taken out of the pool. I would have a hard time agreeing to a 10% NR guarantee for OIL tags and would oppose a 10% NR guarantee for any draws for animals that can be hunted with OTC tags. What I would support is a more reasonable tag and license price structure. It is crazy that residents are willing to spend more money on a weeks worth of beer than a license for a year. I would be happy to spend 5 times more for my license and would have no problem with the cost of NR licenses being cut in half.

 

[Bambistew]

What is the NR allocation of Sheep tags?

Its unlimited, OTC...

 

[noharleyyet]

Residents should always have priority in their home state. Hunting out of state is a bonus hunt for nonresident hunter

Simple fix for all you stateys....cut NR's in half and double their paper prices...or cut NR allotments so you and your buddy can buy tags and raise R prices commensurately. Which one you think your parliamentary functionaries will choose? Either way it's the King's deer for NR's.

 

[Mica Man]

Sorry I'm late tot he party but If I had it my way what ever state I was living in at the time would allow < 5% for NR hunters and what ever state I was applying for would offer > 30% odds. Sorry Just dreaming.