Who deserves a tag?

[Pucky Freak]

It seems that every time the demand of big game tags outstrips supply, we as hunters overwhelmingly gravitate the conversation towards the question of “who deserves a tag?”

Variously,

Locals. “We should be able to hunt our own backyard.”

DAV’s. “They served our country, and paid a price.”

Youth. “The next generation of conservationists.”

Landowners. “They provide habitat for the wildlife.”

Ultra-wealthy. “Tons of money towards conservation is great.”

Guided clients. “Our local economy is dependent on their patronage.”

High-point holders. “They invested more $ into a system than others.”

Never held a tag for the species. “Rare tags should be OIL, or require a wait to draw again.”

Many others, too: Active duty military, out-of-state college students, come home to hunt, etc.

I’d guess that the majority of hunters would concede that focusing on how to grow the resource is a more pertinent matter than arguing over who gets to shoot the last buffalo.

While we are in the process of working towards creating a bigger pie, maybe it would also be helpful to adopt a philosophy to deal with the present reality of tag scarcity. I’ll take a stab.

No one deserves a tag more than anyone else. Tag carveouts erode the democratization of hunting opportunity. OTC with caps is a reasonable system for tag allocation when demand slightly outstrips supply. Random drawing is a reasonable system when demand significantly outstrips supply. Any state permitting NR hunting opportunity should demonstrate how NR dollars provide a greater benefit to resident natural resources than the alternative if no NR opportunity existed. While private landowners are no more deserving of a tag than others, a landowner who voluntarily maintains wildlife habitat on their property for the benefit of a public trust resource, e.g. migratory wildlife, should be entitled to compensation of some kind by the state.

 

[LopeHunter]

I support a state setting its tag allocation as wants. I prefer any species with over 10 tags set one aside for an auction and one for a lottery with $100 the max anyone can spend in the lottery on any species.

The rest of the tags should be split 90% residents and 10% non-residents with the non-resident bucket actually set aside and guaranteed to go to a non-resident.

No tags for any special group. Offer a discount to groups for license cost or tag cost but no tag bucket.

No tags for guides. No tags for outfitters. No tags for landowners. F&G can create incentives for landowners but no tags.

Hunting licenses for residents and non-residents should be at 1:2 cost so if resident pays $100 then the non-resident pays $200. Tags at 1:5 so if resident pays $500 for a sheep tag then non-resident pays $2500.

No point system.

If you draw a tag then the waiting period in years to apply is determined by the total applications for that species / tags issued. Harvest or not then you wait. You draw an elk tag in a year when were 10,000 applicants for 2,500 elk tags then you wait four years to apply for elk again.

No restrictions on using public land that only apply to non-resident hunters.

 

[Flatbrimmer]

It seems that every time the demand of big game tags outstrips supply, we as hunters overwhelmingly gravitate the conversation towards the question of “who deserves a tag?”

Variously,

Locals. “We should be able to hunt our own backyard.”

DAV’s. “They served our country, and paid a price.”

Youth. “The next generation of conservationists.”

Landowners. “They provide habitat for the wildlife.”

Ultra-wealthy. “Tons of money towards conservation is great.”

Guided clients. “Our local economy is dependent on their patronage.”

High-point holders. “They invested more $ into a system than others.”

Never held a tag for the species. “Rare tags should be OIL, or require a wait to draw again.”

Many others, too: Active duty military, out-of-state college students, come home to hunt, etc.

I’d guess that the majority of hunters would concede that focusing on how to grow the resource is a more pertinent matter than arguing over who gets to shoot the last buffalo.

While we are in the process of working towards creating a bigger pie, maybe it would also be helpful to adopt a philosophy to deal with the present reality of tag scarcity. I’ll take a stab.

No one deserves a tag more than anyone else. Tag carveouts erode the democratization of hunting opportunity. OTC with caps is a reasonable system for tag allocation when demand slightly outstrips supply. Random drawing is a reasonable system when demand significantly outstrips supply. Any state permitting NR hunting opportunity should demonstrate how NR dollars provide a greater benefit to resident natural resources than the alternative if no NR opportunity existed. While private landowners are no more deserving of a tag than others, a landowner who voluntarily maintains wildlife habitat on their property for the benefit of a public trust resource, e.g. migratory wildlife, should be entitled to compensation of some kind by the state.

To some extent, and i appreciate your omniscient outlook in the above. But some peckerweed with money who just happens to buy land along the migration route should not be compensated for the very same land management practices that ANY of us should practice. This will certainly be interesting, no doubt!

 

[np307]

I deserve all the tags. In my generosity I'll let yall squabble over the last Buffalo, I'll take the second-to-last.

Seriously though, unilateral solutions are stupid. The whole point of state management is that the state knows better what its herd needs than the fed. Don't limit how we in the southeast handle deer tags based on the limitations Montana faces.

 

[JohnCushman]

I guess I should feel like a dick for getting my DAV moose tag.....

 

[Dave N]

I guess I should feel like a dick for getting my DAV moose tag.....

Nope.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Seriously though, unilateral solutions are stupid. The whole point of state management is that the state knows better what its herd needs than the fed. Don't limit how we in the southeast handle deer tags based on the limitations Montana faces.

Agreed. I was thinking more along the lines of a guiding philosophy to inform stakeholder discussions at the local level. IA legislative bills this session variously petitioned for more NR deer tags carved out for the ultra rich (conservation group auction tags), guided hunters, outfitter pool, NR landowners, veterans, and a higher total # of NR tags with zero corresponding benefit to Iowans. I oppose the bills. I’d also like to get better at clearly articulating why I oppose them.

Different situations in different states, for sure. But if you look at the attacks on public land DIY hunting, it’s more or less the same playbook being used everywhere.

 

[HuntTalk Freak]

Nope.

Double nope.

 

[Nameless Range]

I’ve said it half a dozen times on here:

If we held immutable, the principal of equal opportunity in all drawing processes for those for whom The Wildlife is held in trust, if we held it as sacred, we would wipe away a large percentage of the bull chit instantaneously, and could get to actually working toward solutions to many, many issues.

We need to view the allocation of tags and opportunity at the chances to acquire them in the same spirit that we view equal application of the law.

It’s a pipe dream I know

 

[Pucky Freak]

No tags for any special group. Offer a discount to groups for license cost or tag cost but no tag bucket.

I really like this concept. Perhaps it’s time to put the nail in the coffin of using tags as currency. I’m all for giving steep discounts to groups who we’d like to encourage to be afield and might otherwise struggle with the full price tag.

 

[Pucky Freak]

I guess I should feel like a dick for getting my DAV moose tag.....

I hope you have the hunt of a lifetime in ID, and enjoy every second of it. Thank you for your service to our country.

 

[Jack Ryan]

It seems that every time the demand of big game tags outstrips supply, we as hunters overwhelmingly gravitate the conversation towards the question of “who deserves a tag?”

Variously,

Locals. “We should be able to hunt our own backyard.”

DAV’s. “They served our country, and paid a price.”

Youth. “The next generation of conservationists.”

Landowners. “They provide habitat for the wildlife.”

Ultra-wealthy. “Tons of money towards conservation is great.”

Guided clients. “Our local economy is dependent on their patronage.”

High-point holders. “They invested more $ into a system than others.”

Never held a tag for the species. “Rare tags should be OIL, or require a wait to draw again.”

Many others, too: Active duty military, out-of-state college students, come home to hunt, etc.

I’d guess that the majority of hunters would concede that focusing on how to grow the resource is a more pertinent matter than arguing over who gets to shoot the last buffalo.

While we are in the process of working towards creating a bigger pie, maybe it would also be helpful to adopt a philosophy to deal with the present reality of tag scarcity. I’ll take a stab.

No one deserves a tag more than anyone else. Tag carveouts erode the democratization of hunting opportunity. OTC with caps is a reasonable system for tag allocation when demand slightly outstrips supply. Random drawing is a reasonable system when demand significantly outstrips supply. Any state permitting NR hunting opportunity should demonstrate how NR dollars provide a greater benefit to resident natural resources than the alternative if no NR opportunity existed. While private landowners are no more deserving of a tag than others, a landowner who voluntarily maintains wildlife habitat on their property for the benefit of a public trust resource, e.g. migratory wildlife, should be entitled to compensation of some kind by the state.

I've always been for something I've never seen done in any state.

Let the hunters in that state decide. Put up the proposal to hunters, then let the hunters in that state who FILLED A TAG the previous year vote any propose changes in hunting regulations or game management up of down.

 

[HuntTalk Freak]

Hard to say exactly. As a nonresident, resident, landowner, lease hunter I fall into a bunch of categories.
As a nonresident I believe I should be last chosen over residents.
As a resident landowner I believe I should be allowed a tag for myself and nuclear family for the species that reside on my land.

As a TX resident I get five deer tags on my license but may be limited by what county/counties I hunt and self restraint. No way would I want to fill every tag on my license and my wives license on our lease. I don’t see enough deer on our property to even want to shoot one.

Probably gonna piss some people off but disabled vets should get pretty much whatever tag they want if wounded in combat vs having toe ran over by floor buffer in barracks. I’ll even go a step farther and say combat veterans should get preferential treatment as well.

I’m split on youth hunts because I know people do take advantage of that and the kid isn’t always the shooter.

It’s a complex question with no easy answer from state to state and perhaps I had a long day.

 

[BuzzH]

Hard to determine who deserves a tag...if anybody.

 

[kiwi hunter]

me pls as any usa hunter can come here to nz and hunt 24/7

 

[Gerald Martin]

Me. I deserve a tag. I didn’t read any previous replies. Please pm for the address to send my tags to…

 

[ImBillT]

Land owners deserve some level of access to the wildlife they steward. Beyond that, the rest of us deserve an equal shot. Points don’t matter. Apply in a random system for 50yrs and you’ll draw more tags than someone who only applies for 3 years.

 

[IEATELK]

Good thread.

 

[WoodMoose]

It seems that every time the demand of big game tags outstrips supply, we as hunters overwhelmingly gravitate the conversation towards the question of “who deserves a tag?”

Variously,

Locals. “We should be able to hunt our own backyard.”

DAV’s. “They served our country, and paid a price.”

Youth. “The next generation of conservationists.”

Landowners. “They provide habitat for the wildlife.”

Ultra-wealthy. “Tons of money towards conservation is great.”

Guided clients. “Our local economy is dependent on their patronage.”

High-point holders. “They invested more $ into a system than others.”

Never held a tag for the species. “Rare tags should be OIL, or require a wait to draw again.”

Many others, too: Active duty military, out-of-state college students, come home to hunt, etc.

I’d guess that the majority of hunters would concede that focusing on how to grow the resource is a more pertinent matter than arguing over who gets to shoot the last buffalo.

While we are in the process of working towards creating a bigger pie, maybe it would also be helpful to adopt a philosophy to deal with the present reality of tag scarcity. I’ll take a stab.

No one deserves a tag more than anyone else. Tag carveouts erode the democratization of hunting opportunity. OTC with caps is a reasonable system for tag allocation when demand slightly outstrips supply. Random drawing is a reasonable system when demand significantly outstrips supply. Any state permitting NR hunting opportunity should demonstrate how NR dollars provide a greater benefit to resident natural resources than the alternative if no NR opportunity existed. While private landowners are no more deserving of a tag than others, a landowner who voluntarily maintains wildlife habitat on their property for the benefit of a public trust resource, e.g. migratory wildlife, should be entitled to compensation of some kind by the state.

You have good points

 

[WoodMoose]

I guess I should feel like a dick for getting my DAV moose tag.....

No