67 replies [Last post]
Location: Utah
Joined: 02/24/2003
Posts: 596
non-residents no more?
jshutah wrote:
Sorry Captchee but hunter numbers are way down in my state.

There was a time in the late 80's when opening day of the Utah deer hunt drew over 250,000 deer hunters. Since then our state has gone to a quota system but still has a very hard time selling less than 100,000 permits. Usually we have left overs in some areas.

I would bet that Utah now has the most expensive resident tags in the west or at least ranks right up among the top 3 and we just received another hike for next year.

I dont know the whole picture in your state but I can say that a few drawings that were once over-subscribed are now undersubscribed (Southeast Non-Resident Deer)

Happy Huntin

"Applauding" Yep, the state of Utah is really getting it together. A resident deer tag was $35 last year. Hardly breaking the bank. I think its going to go up another $5. Back when they sold 250,000 permits you couldn't beat a bush without a hunter coming out of it. Now that Utah is under 100,000 hunting is so much more pleasant and the game was starting to recover until the drought hit.

We need to quit crying about cost of tags and realize this is what its going to take to keep this heritage alive and at least a little pure. Costs are rising in todays world and I'd say $35 to $40 to hunt deer is more than acceptable. If they lower the price they have to up the number of tags sold. That means more hunters killing more deer. Thats not good for hunters and thats not good for the deer.

I don't understand why anyone would be oppossed to what Utah is doing?!?

I don't understand why Colorado would want to cut the number of NR tags though. As mentioned a lot of revenue is generated there.

Offline
Location: Missouri
Joined: 02/14/2004
Posts: 62
non-residents no more?

Rather_be_huntn

Quote:
I don't understand why anyone would be oppossed to what Utah is doing?!?

2nd

Quote:
"Applauding" Yep, jshutah wrote:
Sorry Captchee but hunter numbers are way down in my state.

Now that's a conflict of terms eye roll

Now something don't make sense here? It looks to me like you are a little selfish? That you don't care about the future of hunting.
Let me say this, Missouri can't kill enough deer. They lowered their price on bonus tags and made them unlimited. We had a big die off a few years back because of to many deer. The landowners and insurance companies are going to the legislature to do away with the Conservation Dept because we have to many deer. The bill is in committe now and will be voted on next week. Our hunter and sportsmen numbers have been dwindling for the past few years now. They done a study and if they don't kill more deer the population will grow to the point where the habitat won't support the herd. The vehicle, deer related accidents and crop damage will explode. They are going to manage to kill more does and put antler restrictions on bucks because people are not killing enough female deer now. To many deer are more of a problem then not enough. People complain there are to many bucks and not enough big bucks. Go figure eye roll
Granted,,, Missouri is not Utah or Colorado. I understand they are different, but,,,,deer herds are not. There is only so much that land can substane and only so many people hunting. Less people hinting means less seeds planted for others to follow.
So,,,you tell me how all that is good for deer and sportsmen if they look past their noses? If they have kids? If they want hunting to fade away like trapping is? Look what's happening in Yellowstone? They have bangs desease in the elk herd and the calf ratio is way down. They introduced wolves to control the elk and deer. Hunting is a management tool as well and a pleasure to people.
Society is made up of all kinds. The left and right. The selfish and the generous. The good and the bad. I guess that's how we get the middle.

As far as breaking the bank,,,I have 4 kids, If our tags were $35 then my and the wife that would be $210 for our resident tags. That means we probably wouldn't spend as much on other hunting related items, which means less money for the local economy. If I spend more meney here at home for hunting related expenses then the western hunting trips would be lessened too. That may put a smile on your face but, Since you all are big sportsmen out there and have passed outfitter laws and made drawing for permits difficult and expensive,,,it all ties together. Someday you may wake up and wonder what happened? Or maybe your kids will,,,,or maybe your kids won't even care.
When I refer to you and your,,,,that means all the selfish, near sighted "sportsmen" who want it all to theirselves. (at whatever costs)

cowgal's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 03/10/2002
Posts: 1787
non-residents no more?

Ferguson, our deer herds are different out west. For one thing we have mostly mule deer and they've been on a decline in recent years. We now have to put in for draw hunts on mule deer in Colorado. We no longer can buy our tags OTC like we did 20 years ago. So tags are more difficult to get, and many years we don't even get to hunt mule deer at all.

Not sure what your problem is with Colorado, but its unfair to lump everyone in the state together with your derogatory comments. We don't all live in Boulder or even Denver, many of us live on the western slope where there is little population and our livelihoods depend on ranching and hunting, either directly or indirectly. Visit northwest Colorado someday, and you will see what true western hospitality is all about!

Our mule deer herds may be down some, but I can tell you we have the most fantastic elk herds in the nation! ... and pronghorn too!

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
non-residents no more?

Hey Ferguson,

All of the anti-trapping, anti-hunting laws that have been approved in CO have
been by voter initiative (not government sponsored bills in legislature).

These initiatives wind up on the ballot because of special interests coming to
the state, stirring up the pot and getting enough signatures to have a vote.

They target states that have a strong urban/rural divide. This has been going
on for nearly two decades and they are a hit squad that goes from
state-to-state doing the same thing over and over again. WA, OR, CO, CA, etc.
The name of the group is the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and
their affiliates.

So go ahead, call us bunny huggers, but if you think your safe, just wait until they come to your state.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Wa.
Joined: 03/31/2004
Posts: 1300
non-residents no more?

I've been trying to follow this forum.
It's a shame when the management or mismanagement of game is desided by any one person or any group of persons for personal or monetary gain.

Game hunting is an activity enjoyed by people from all walks of life and should be left available to anyone who may desire to participate. As long as it's done responsibly.

If greed, money and politics are the primary movers. These would be the wrong reasons!

I enjoy hunting have hunted in several of the western states and would like to continue to do so. I will not support an action that is led by greed, selfishness or self indulgent political control.

The best way that I have found to make my point is to not support the action. If it's designed from greed, control, etc... it will change because, it would not have the support. Don't tell them they're wrong. Show them they're wrong.

example:
If I don't like what I have to pay for gasoline. I don't stop buying gasoline. I stop buying gasoline from the big conglomerates, Mobil for one. When their sales are affected. They clean up their act and everyone else follows suit.

As hunters and fisherman who enjoy the outdoor sports, we need to make sure that these activities stay a part of our heritage.

Good hunting to all.

Offline
Location: Missouri
Joined: 02/14/2004
Posts: 62
non-residents no more?

Cowgal, I apologize for lumping all of you Colorado folks together. I know there are good folks outs there. The ranching comunity has been there years before the bunny hunggers. I don't envy your situation.
Sorry though,,,I won't be coming to Colorado. If I buy a gallon of gas in your state, that means your government will get some money to spend as they see fit. To bad you all can't send Denver and Boulder to Southern Kalifornia so they would fit right in?
Reckon the Nonresident hunters are to blame for your mule deer decline? Hmmm, Surely the NR hunters don't kill more deer than residents? Reckon it may be land management problems. Reckon that ties back to funding and special interest groups. What about private lands? Does the Wildlife agencies promote and fund private land programs? If not, reckon they don't have enough money? Lets see here,,,,,,if a NR hunter goes to COLORADO? Does he have the right to hunt private property? I figure they generally hunt public ground? Does ranchers graze public ground? Probably. Is public ground land of the Feds? Yes, that means all US citizens fund management! NR hunters pay for permits and taxes on goods purchased in the local economy to your government plus profits on good purchased to the local businesses. What I'm trying to say is the selfish attitude of this game belongs to residents and not NR is a sorry attitude. If I lump all you COLORADO voters together then it's just as a majority, not as 100% in agreement.

Bitmasher

Quote:
All of the anti-trapping, anti-hunting laws that have been approved in CO have
been by voter initiative (not government sponsored bills in legislature).

So what does that tell you about the general public? Even if it was the politicians, you folks vote them in.
When I refered to Missouri politicians voting to take away the funding for the Conservation Department. They are wanting to send it back to the vote of the people. The people of the state voted in 1976 for a constitutional admendment to fund the MDC with 1/8th of 1% sales tax. That is what I'm refering to.

Fuzzybear,,,,great reply!

The reason I replied to this post was the nonfavorable comments about Nonresident Hunters and game management.
It's the numbers of game taken and funding received. That is management. The only politics that should be involved is figuring a (good) balance in local and NR opinions. Not selfish, short sighted, uncaring opinions. If Colorado residents can manage their game without NR money then more power to them! But,,If Missouri is like Colorado,,,hopefully not,,, But,, Missouri gets matching funds and grants totaling up to around $20 million annually. That money comes from "ALL US CITIZENS"
Now I believe Colorado has considerably more federal ground so I'm just guessing here but I'd say 1/4th of your wildlife agencies funding is from the feds? I'm just guessing here though.
Missouri is said to be the best conservation agency (matter of opinion) Field & Stream article. It's annual budget is around 130 Million. I'm not sure what Colorado has.

Offline
Location: Idaho
Joined: 09/20/2003
Posts: 138
non-residents no more?

That might be true furg
if all public lands were federal but however they are not there is allot of land that state owned and under state jurisdiction.

Also what you say would be true if a % of all sales tax went to wildlife management in every state, which it dose not.
What I am saying is management should be don for what in the best interest for the wildlife, not the hunter and defiantly no for the purpose of drawing out of state hunters

While im not against NR hunters I have to ask this from your post I don’t understand why it is that because you go to any given state for say 1 week a year you would think you would have as much say as a resident that lives there 365 days a year and spend probably something like 99% of there income there ?
OH and lol I don’t hunt in Colorado either LOL

Offline
Location: Missouri
Joined: 02/14/2004
Posts: 62
non-residents no more?

I don't deserve the say that a resident has. I should never have that say either. I just posted on the wolf post along that line.
What I'm getting at is, There should be a balance in resident and nonresident hunting. What that balance is I'm not to say, That is for the state and the people. What is lost sight of is there shouldn't be an across the board thought that nonresident hunters are taking privlages from residents. This may be the case in a few instances but,,,,,,if the funding is balanced and appropriate so that the wildlife isn't suffering and management is at it's best then this question wouldn't be coming up. Evedently it's not because wildlife populations are getting smaller and so it hunters. Is this the trend that is managed for? Probably not. Everything is dependant of money. Elk is dependant of money if you get right down to it. If there wan't "any" management at all. None what so ever? Then where would the elk population be today? It takes money to manage. Now if it's not managed correctly then that's a different story completely. Before there was conservation, wildlife , fish and game departments across this nation,,,,,,where was the wildlife? In Missouri there wasn't a deer to be seen back in the turn of the century. I remember old folks telling about riding for hours just to look at a track. They established the Conservation Department over 70 years ago and now there is to many deer for humans to deal with. So many that it may be the demise of the Department. I guess you could say the managed themselves right out of their jobs? That's hopefully not the case but,,,,,it could happen. The one things consistant with Humans,,,,,,,their not satisfied with "status quoe" As a whole that is. There is some the fight change tooth and nail. The only thing definate in this ol world is "CHANGE" The sooner we accept that the better.

Now as far as your statement

Quote:
What I am saying is management should be don for what in the best interest for the wildlife, not the hunter and defiantly no for the purpose of drawing out of state hunters

Management of wildlife "HAS" to have the human factor involved. Yes, it shold be best for wildlife but,,,,,if it is bad for humans then it won't last. Humans dominate this world. If it conflicts with us then it will go by the way side. Eventually.

Location: Utah
Joined: 02/24/2003
Posts: 596
non-residents no more?

Ferguson I'm not really sure what point you were trying to make when you included my quotes but even though I got off topic a little my original point was this.

In Utah the mule deer population numbers are down right now. We definitely do NOT have an overpopulation problem. I have always felt that the state sold way too many tags for the local population. I also felt that was motivated by money and revenue. And that many less tags should be sold. Like fuzzybear practices I eventually stopped buying tags. The quality of hunts went so far down that the state opened its eyes and had to do something. Now less than half of the 250,000 tags they use to sell are now sold.

Due to this we are now seeing quality bucks go up and many less hunters in the field. Unfortuneatly many factors have contributed, like drought, but mule deer populations are still declining in my state. However if 250,000 people were still in the field I'm sure mule deer would be in extreme danger here.

I'm sorry but I'll be flat out honest. $35 is NOT too much to to pay for a tag. I am perfectly willing to live with the increase in tag prices to decrease hunters and increase mule deer numbers. $35 is reasonable to any financial situation. It costs that much to drive to a hunting spot and back. If you can't afford that then we can't afford to have you taking these valuable resources. You want your cake and eat it too. These management programs cannot survive without funding. Nothing in this world is free and anyone who thinks this is too expensive does not care about the big picture, only how much it effects thier pocket book.

Offline
Location: Missouri
Joined: 02/14/2004
Posts: 62
non-residents no more?

RatherB

Quote:
I am perfectly willing to live with the increase in tag prices to decrease hunters

I kinda agree with part of what you are saying. The part about numbers and drought and funding. But,,,,,,,,,You could be understood saying that hunting is for only the rich? Kinda like in Old Germany, India or England? Where the elite have the right to the game. That is fine for now,,,,,and the $35 is not that bad,,,,I kinda agree but,,,,,,what is the next step? Lets see,,,,NR Tags are around $350,,,,lets make all tags $300 and open it up nationwide because the local folks don't want to pay that much. Lets take in a step farther and say make the tags $500 and only sell a very limited number. Make it a trophy state? It won't be long till there's mule deer eating the giraniums out of the yards.
Like I said earlier, money is what makes management work. Tag numbers manage and control populations. Once you take the common hunter out of the picture you have lost the reason for hunter based management.
This is happening in other states. Let me use Missouri as an example. There is no way to manage the programs we have in Mo with permit sales alone. We are dependant on fed grants, sales tax revenue, timber sales, etc. Permit sales are only a minor portion of the revenue. The price of permits are irrelevant to funding the Department programs. Sales Tax is the main portion. With Sales tax based funding, You are influenced by every person that spends a dime on milk, diapers, cars, toys etc. Now, raise the prices and you'll start the loss of the lower income hunting folks. Then you'll start loosing the base voters it takes to keep hunting alive and healthy. Think about the number of weathly people and their power and then the numbers of not so wealthy people? Which income class people have the strongest voting base for hunting and trapping wildlife management.? I believe we already covered this in another reply. Colorado has voted towards the bunny hugger ways more than the sportsmens views. The special interest animal rights groups have more money to fight than the middle class hunters. Every hunting and fishing sportsman needs to stick together and not seperate theirselves because it will be the demise of our sport.
Think about it? Would you vote for something you couldn't afford to do? Would you vote to support a rich mans game if you couldn't play? The first step down a road is easy to take. Once you get down that road and see a curve coming it's hard to get turned around and get back where you was.
This whole topic started about Colorado not wanting any Non Residents hunting in their state. eye roll

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
RESIDENTS OF GALENABazz004/15/2013 08:06 am
non resident black bear hunting in bcconceit13309/21/2007 04:06 am
Nova Scotia Moose?groovy mike605/24/2011 11:05 am
Michigan Elk and Bear ApplicationsWhelland005/17/2008 10:53 am
If you hunted elk in Colorado...thesis surveyCedarLodge412/25/2008 10:23 am