western states pushing nonresidents out
General Topic
It's time we all come together to save our sport. I've been watching the western states push nonresidents out at an alarming rate. As fast as I find a good spot to hunt it gets eliminated by reduced nonresident quotas. My latest spot is Idaho where they are proposing to reduce nonresident tags in my unit by 184 tags. Three years ago you could buy an extra tag because they couldn't sell them all. We all know these fees support a large portion of fish and game budgets. These guys are putting these customers out of the income stream. RMEF likes to raise funds nationwide but has no regard for keeping nonresidents in the loop. For that reason I am no longer a member. Please post your thoughts and remember we're all in this together
Think the tag reduction has anything to do with animal population or do you think they just want to miss out on additional revenue that NRs bring in?
They want to add those tags to resident pool. I've been a loyal customer for years and wonder where it all stops
This is interesting.. because as a Colorado resident, we see the state allocating more and more tags to non residents. Not to mention, every September I see endless out of state license plates at trail heads and driving around. The fact is most western states prefer non resident hunters, simply because it creates greater revenue for the same licenses. If anyone should be up in arms, its the resident hunters to who suffer from limited tag allocations and have to compete in the woods with guys who have never elk hunted and walk around hitting that damn hoochie mama every other step.. Ok, that last part is a little bit of a frustrated rant, but seriously, non residents have ample opportunities to hunt in western states
I wish CO would get on the band wagon and start limiting non residents at "an alarming rate". Especially in over the counter units.
Reallocation of opportunity is not a real threat to hunting.I think you mean it is a threat to *your* hunting, which is not the same thing.
Residents trump loyal customers. The RMEF is a land trust and not a hunter advocacy organization, so your rant is terribly misguided. I do give you high marks for consistency.
I don't know about Idaho, but Colorado is way too crowded during hunting season. Tag limits for nonresidents would be great here.
Quit complaining....it’s a limited resource for the amount of hunters pursuing them. If you want better odds of securing a tag do like I did and become a resident of the state you hunt the most. JMO
Agree with everyone...except the OP! Lol.
Jakemike, Looks like we hunt the same unit as NR's. That particular unit has had a generous allotment of capped tags for NR's (35%) They're reducing it to 25%. I've hunted there every year since 2012. I just BARELY got my archery tag before they sold out this year. None of my hunting buddies got a tag. Crazy how popular it's become. Next year you better be quick on the keyboard when they go on sale! It all comes down to the residents just flat out wanting more tags. I understand that. If you don't think there is a genuine disdain for non-residents in that area...just checkout some threads on Monster Muleys. Of course, maybe that's also because I've turned so many of them in for illegal ATV activity over the years too (yes I've turned in NR's as well)!
Their logic of it being a net neutral revenue stream is flawed because I doubt all the NR's that don't get the tag will go somewhere else in Idaho. I made an articulated argument during the comment period but a NR has little influence.
Good luck. I'll be bringing my kid along for his first back country experience this year.
On a side note, did you see how many extra controlled rifle tags they're adding to the unit for 2019????!!!! Better make the most of your archery hunt this year!
X2-“Agree with everyone...except the OP! Lol.“
If states are reducing NR tags, it’s undoubtably because of game populations. They are not giving up $500-1000 in tags fees per hunter, plus all the other revenue that hunters bring, unless there is a very good reason.
“my unit by 184 tags.
.....Idaho unit by 184 tags.
There fixed it for ya that should reduce the sting for the next application.
I prefer to thank the states I hunt as a non resident.
I am a non resident in 49 states. Plenty of states to hunt. But I did give up on Illinois elk long ago.
It seems to me the eastern states should start increasing or starting their own huntable/sustainable elk, muley and antelope herds. That way those NR's who go west could stay in their own eastern states to hunt those animals and keep themselves and their money "back east". Everyone wins....less NR's out west for the res's to compete with, NR's don't need to go west and can keep their money local. Plus it will be much cheaper for the NR's to hunt the same animals as res's in their own state. Everyone wins....until NR revenue streams dry up in the west. I suppose the western states will figure it out thru higher res tag fees or higher res taxes.
This year to apply for PP in colorado is an extra 84$ for non resident
Imagine if you couldn't hunt whitetails or in your home state due to sharing a limited amount of tags with nonresidents.
It would be great if there was a enough supply for everyone out west but there isn't. Here in CO nonresidents can hunt elk every year but Bowhunter numbers have tripled since I started.
Glunt, hunting is a dying sport and numbers are down. Except at every trail head and dirt road in the Colorado back country!
CO catches the western bound eastern hunter due to distance and, ability to buy over the counter. Other states west from there are not on the radar of these eastern hunters due to these circumstances. I have zero problems with NR caps in OTC units in CO either. As long as the resident gets the fee increase they most certainly deserve.
To putting the NR out, I don't think economics would allow that. I would find it funny as all get out if the residents that moan about NR hunters had to pay the fees we do. Which is what is going to happen when NR's participation gets reduced. Or, at least a heavy increase. Which is no big deal to the bowhunter that resides there. Where the complaining will get unbearable is from the rifle hunters. Residents no doubt deserve more consideration for the resource found within its borders. The question is, are they ready to make up the difference in revenue.
So, I don't see much changing anywhere due to this. In any state. As long as the new craze of predator protection doesn't reduce herd numbers below goals, no state is going to due away with NR revenue.
FYI in this unit they are actually INCREASING tags significantly for both bulls and cows but also reducing NR archery tags.
"Imagine if you couldn't hunt whitetails or in your home state due to sharing a limited amount of tags with nonresidents." Even worse, imagine if you couldn't hunt deer on your OWN property. Imagine you just want to eat some venison, but can only hunt every other or third year. The tags are for guys from Wisconsin who want to come and hunt antlers. Stay home and eat your fat whitetails, or move here if you want big mulie antlers.
Well Said Glunt!
I encourage NR to stay home in protest!
I gotta say, If you quit RMEF over the stated issue, you are not in this with me....you are only in this for you.
Hunters lucky enough to live in states that have mountains want the trailheads all to themselves.
Hunters living in the midwest/east spend absurd amounts of $ just for the opportunity.
Sounds a lot like those trad hunters who want all the compound guys out of the woods.
Just looked it up, Wisconsin elk tags......wait for it .... Wisconsin residents only......
https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/wildlifehabitat/elk.html
48 percent of Otc elk hunters in Colorado are nonresident. OP should rethink things
I don't believe this went as planned.
No, not at all. But it went as it should.
I'm a non-ressy in every state I apply for except 1 state, my home state.
I play the cards dealt me and go forward/apply from there.
Our RMEF, has Nothing to do with setting tag allocations in Any state......my hell man.
Good luck, Robb
Maybe we should be more fair... and figure in reciprocal opportunity for other states. Every state should survey their total hunting opportunities. Say, each species times the size of the habitat for that species with UNRESTRICTED public access, times total number of tags issued. Do that for each big game species and add them together. That would be each state's total hunting opportunity. Then figure that in when allocating NR licenses. The states that have more to offer us, would get a larger allocation of NR tags.
If CO did not have as many elk as it does (more than any other western state) it would be quite different for NR opportunity. They have trouble meeting their management harvest goals as it is. Everyone resident and nonresident can hunt elk their every year if they wish to. Not true for most other Western states. Heck in AZ we residents are waiting better than seven yrs on the average to draw an archery bull tag. Simply the result of more demand than what sound management will allow, given the much lower numbers of that species in our state. In our case that fact resulted in the regulation of NR tags for those hunts to a limit of 10%.
Eliminate NR hunters from the income stream? There are certainly other units to hunt. So if you really want to hunt you won’t be eliminated... you’ll go with the flow, live and learn other areas. Putting all of your eggs in one basket was your mistake not the states fault. And if it’s either that unit or Colorado for you then you must not think much of the state you choose to hunt.
Personally I’d feel better about losing an opportunity to resident hunters than to anti hunters via the wolf method.
Most of you drool over getting an elk tag in AZ. Why is that? Because the quality of the hunt plus the size of the bulls rival any other state.
Now, what made AZ so good? Because tags are limited so severely that residents wait several years for that one chance to hunt and, NR wait even longer. Az does a great job on elk management especially in the top tier units by limiting the tags and trying to get older age class bulls. Maybe other states are doing the same?
Other states have done the same. Yes, AZ is the holy grail. But, many states offer a great compromise and pick up guys that aren’t tying up funds on the AZ draw process. Every state is ebbing and flowing to find the best compromise for its situation. Play along or don’t. It’s all choice. But, it is reality. Things change.
Wv you’re right, except Colorado. Colorado is a whore to the mighty dollar! Haha
One day Colorado will be 100% draw..Non resident tag allocation will probably increase to 40-50% to deal with reduced revenue and all license fees will likely increase too. The only good thing to come from that is Colorado won't be the state everybody comes to when they don't draw and it might thin the amount of guys in the woods
I think a lot of guys would be surprised what class animals they would find in lower/mid tier areas, if the would just scout prior to the hunt. Some of those hard to draw areas often hold the same animals, Just at different dates!
Where the hell are you guys hunting in CO that you keep bumping in to so many hunters? I’m from PA and hunted CO OTC elk 4 times, total number of hunters I’ve seen in the woods? Zero. I saw more moose hunters in Wyoming while on a NR cow moose tag and they didn’t bother my hunt at all. In fact I swapped info with several locals looking for a bull and they pointed me to the cow I was looking for.
I am a committee member in RMEF in my area and truly believe in their cause. If you want to find someone to fight for more tags, that is not their job. They don’t lobby on anyone’s behalf. Their ONE purpose is to conserve habitat to elk and all other creatures that live there now and in the future. They have limited funds and they spend it all on habitat. If they start spending for this or for that 101 other “good causes” then that dilutes their mission. I like them just the way they are but I also belong to other orgs. that fight other battles.
Lost Man, try anywhere around Routt County if you want to see a crowd. Gunnison and the units down south around Durango are pretty packed as well, but making 55 a draw for elk has helped a bit.
Colorado May have much bigger problems with the new governor. Totally anti hunting and especially rabidly anti predator hunting.
Having meetings at the drop of a hat this week to push for ending all hunting of lions and bobcat are on the list as well.
Our own CPw has to stay on the sidelines and will say nothing.
Colorado is going down the tubes fast. Gotta love those Democrats.
I know the OP was complaining about Idaho, but for Colorado, look at the license fees differences. The NR Bull tag is $661.75; Res $54.75. That is a 12:1 ratio in revenue. Colorado has made it so the DOW cannot survive without the NR revenue. They have 12 resident hunters sitting around waiting to elk hunt when one Non-Res stays home? Really? For now, non-res who hunt CO have little to worry about getting shut out. That is too high of a revenue base counting on NR income. Colorado residents will fight that ratio in the tag wars until the CO DOW finds an alternative source of income. Perhaps all those wildlife watchers will step forward? Perhaps a $600 NR fly fishing license? I've seen what some of those guys carry around for rods and reels. They can afford it.
Lost man, "Where the hell are you guys hunting in CO that you keep bumping in to so many hunters?"
Please PM me where you're hunting and I'll tell you where I'm hunting. :)
"I wish CO would get on the band wagon and start limiting non residents at "an alarming rate". Especially in over the counter units."
No joke...
Lost man must really be lost. Maybe hunting in a draw unit or another state...
I have no issues paying Iowa, Ohio, Wyoming and other states this higher fees. I think it’s fraud that I drew a moose bull tag before those that live and put more into the local economy annually than out of state hunters.. sorry but not on board with this..
I can understand the frustrations the OP has with respect to the specific unit he is trying to buy a capped OTC archery tag. My kids and myself as well as other families have made that particular unit a traditional archery hunting trip. With that said, I understand from a resident perspective wanting to reduce the tag allocation to mirror other units and states. I've been building points, analyzing tag quota and sell out timing and planning for alternatives for the time when the tag won't be available. It's not really a surprise. Disappointing for sure but it's part of the game.
The hordes have to go somewhere. If CO goes all draw, ID, MT, OR, and WA will be over run.
The quality in CO will go up and the quality everywhere else will go down, although at least MT and ID have some hard caps.
Additionally, more OTC hunters will enter the draws.
Someone has to take one for the team and that currently is CO.
"Colorado residents will fight that ratio in the tag wars until the CO DOW finds an alternative source of income." There will not be an "alternative" source of income, only an "additional" source of income.
People are still free to move, right?
There was a trend 10+ years ago to limit NR in many states with quotas set at 10% or less to NR. Colorado has always depended on NR to fund the CPW budget. There is Direct evidence in the Colorado Big Game brochure illustrating the bias toward NR starting in 2009. Look at page 5, bottom right corner NR License Allocations- all limited draw deer and elk are capped at 35% NR tags, unless it took 6+ PP for a resident to draw then its capped at 20% NR. HOWEVER they stopped doing that after 2009! The last couple times they had the chance to enforce that rule and limit more hunt codes to the 20% NR cap because point creep many more hunts take 6+ PP, CPW/outfitters wanted to reverse it and go back to 35% for all hunts. For now they kept the Status Quo and left the NR allocations frozen from 2009. will see what happens in 2020...
""Colorado residents will fight that ratio in the tag wars until the CO DOW finds an alternative source of income." There will not be an "alternative" source of income, only an "additional" source of income."
The only way I can see CPW changing the ratio to favor Residents over Non-Residents is if they charged the same amount of $$ per tag for both groups!! That way it wouldn't matter who drew the tag! Notice that the Leftover draw is not subject to any NR quotas, that was an additional source of income.
The only other additional source of income they can get from NR tags would be the Utah model. UT caps NR tags at 10%? then puts them in a separate draw. HOWEVER they take from that 10% allocation to provide all the tags for the many, many auction tags, masterminded by $FW to appease the residents. So ultimately there are less than 10% available in the NR draw, and Utah, $FW makes a lot more $ off the auctions.
Utah does not have the elk population that Colorado does for license sales. Utah did not build it's DOW around a model of NR income quite like CO has. Years ago, they jacked up the NR elk licenses, and people still came. Now, they cannot remove massive funding amounts provided at a 12:1 ratio without deep cuts to the wildlife programs and personnel. Start charging the other consumptive users; fly fisherman; rafters; boat registrations; mtn bikers; hikers; etc, etc. They all benefit from the wildlife funding currently provided by hunters and to a lesser extent, fisherman. Until that funding situation changes, NR licenses will remain somewhat static with OTC units in CO. It has to; you can't change the license ratios without a change in the funding ratios. All those east slopers pouring into the mountains every weekend have to pony up at some point.
Montana caps draw permits at 10% for NR hunters.
States don't owe non-residents any hunting opportunities (tags).
Isn`t most of the land being discussed in the thread actually Federal land....not state land. I`m sure as these issues arise it will be settled in some court down the line....just like everything else in America.
"States don't owe non-residents any hunting opportunities (tags)."
This statement is certainly correct. Unfortunately, it is also rather short sighted. The reality is that NR pay a large proportion of the DOW budget. The more you limit NR's, the more cash strapped the DOW becomes. You can try to make up for this by raising NR fees, but eventually this will drive NR's out (like it has in Idaho and Montana) and thus leave the DOW in the same situation. Additionally, limiting NR's will also have a negative effect on local economies in places like, Craig, Meeker, Gunnison, etc. It seems everyone is trying to protect their piece of the "turf", and I get that. Any change in the status quo can probably only benefit the resident hunter, but it needs to be looked at from a lot of angles and likely include increased resident fees. The DOW is accustom to a certain pot of money. Like any gov't agency, it's unrealistic to believe they can become more "lean" or fiscally responsible, which would be required to offset loss of revenue from NR's. As a result, I doubt things will change much. If they do, it will require some "giving" on all sides of the debate.
PTarcher, 'give' me less nonresidents, and I'd 'give' CPW a little more money for tags...happily
But eventually this will drive non-residents out like it has in Montana and Idaho.
Living in Montana and hunting in Idaho every year . There is no shortage of non residents here. In Montana last year the big game combo was a 50 percent chance. 4 years ago there was over 2000 leftover tags. Times are good people are hunting !! Hunt
Surfbow, that’s so true. What was an elk tag last year? 50 bucks? I’d happily pay 100, 150, 200 if it meant less pressure.
And the thread owner was never seen again! Lol
Really backfired on OP. Maybe he should just become an Idaho resident. Can't beat them join them scenario?
To Franklin: States own and are responsible for managing the wildlife regardless of land ownership. A bill was passed years ago as a response to US Outfitters getting non resident quotas raised in AZ and then attempting to push their agenda to other western states, most notably NV. It’s also been discussed on past Bowsite threads.
Franklin.... It doesn't matter what land you are hunting on. You are hunting state owned and managed wildlife, therefore the state can tell you when, how, how many. If it were based on where the animals happen to be private land owners would be able to do what they want when they want with wildlife.
>>Franklin.... private land owners would be able to do what they want when they want with wildlife.<<
Sadly this is exactly what some legislators in Oklahoma are trying to accomplish in addition to letting non-resident landowners pay LESS than residents for tags. There are some ridiculous bills being introduced in our state.
What we have here is a quiver divided! One thing we should all be able to agree on is that hunting is a dying sport. Recruitment will restock trailheads with residents and non residents.
After looking at the 2019 Wyoming NR Elk database, it appears that "pricing the nr out" is not happening in that state, not even close. That special gen license is $1,300 with the Conservation stamp.
In 2018 there were 27,566 total NR Elk apps; 4,467+- were reduced price CC, and 2,545 were special gen.
In 2019 there were 28,470 total NR Elk apps; 4,720+- were reduced price CC, and 2,790 were special gen.
Additionally, because of the nr Elk draw process, if WY dropped their Elk/Deer/Antelope allocations to 10% from 16/20/20, the dept would actually see an increase in revenue.
It may be a different kind of non resident hunter. There will always be people out there willing to pay 1300$ for an elk. As long as they will pay it the price will only increase. No matter if it’s on public land that we all own or not. The common man will be priced out at some point
Have these cases been run through the courts lately. I`m just waiting for someone to sue the state based on the "Federal Land" deal. If an animal is born and lived on Federal land why is it considered state property....sort of thing.
These days people sue for far less and sillier ideas. This may also be the way in on some of these predator season cases. Takes some creative thinking.
I know discussing things on Bowsite is the end all be all but may the SCOTUS could take a peek....:)
Simple google search shows it has been before the courts. The States own the wildlife!!
It a crappy situation and we should all play nice........Us NR are not going away. What difference does it make to a RES if the hunter that blows the elk out of a drainage lives in the state or not?
320, I think the point is when there’s an unlimited number of nonresidents to blow out those elk. Thank God Wyoming has a cap!
And yes, Franklin, this has been upheld in the courts many times. The wildlife belong to the residents of the state regardless of ownership status.
In this day and age there is no excuse for people who call themselves hunters to not be familiar with the Public Trust Doctrine. It is the basis for the North American wildlife conservation model.
Matt's got it. The animals aren't "owned" but held in public trust.
Arizona was sued by non- residents and I think they won that case.
It`s all about bringing the right case...the right plaintiff and in front of the right judge.
I've read similar things before about who owns the countries natural resources...in this case the wildlife. As I under stand the law, the fed govt "owns" the wildlife but it is held in trust and the mgt and care of that wildlife is delegated to the states.
In NM the DIY NR really dont get a fair opportunity to hunt. Alongside them the NM DIY residents are next to get shorted. Almost 50% of our elk tags are given to landowners and never enter the draw. So diy NM residents get 84% and DIY NR get 6% of the 50% that make it I to the draw. So in reality residents draw is for 42% and NR draw is 3% of the total elk tags. Rancher welfare in NM is way out of control.
I'm off for Colorado pushing the non-resident elk Hunters out then charging the residents $750 a tag to make up the income shortfall for the CPW
"Rancher welfare in NM is way out of control."
Rancher/Outfitter welfare in NM is way out of control.
-Fixed
At least Don Peay isn't drawing a paycheck in NM. That's the only way it could get worse than it is. It's really too bad because NM is such a great hunting destination.
Probably to a high fence operation where things are done fairly. Hehe
"Arizona was sued by non- residents and I think they won that case. It`s all about bringing the right case...the right plaintiff and in front of the right judge."
The NRs did win the case when brought before "the right judge", but then it was overturned on appeal when the actual law was applied.
OK. I give up. If you Colorado guys don't want me out there, hell with it! Giving my bow and boots away. Tired of keeping your herd in control.
