ORIGINAL: kshunter
Which would be very normal since the given the circumstances. A resident doesn't need to pay the big money for tag like th non-resident that buys it is. The statement makes complete sense. Still with all the state org's. non-resident's still aren't going to pay a vast majority of funds, when they equal 10-20% on the high side. If you went to other org.'s that didn't have the gov. tags, things would be a lot different, as you would see.
However, you disputed my original point that the vast majority of the $ raised by these local species organization come from non-residents. I showed you how you are wrong. Who cares about the resident/non-resident percentage of membership in the Org?
The tag auctions are what make these orgs the money and that money comes from NON-RESIDENTS. Conceed atleast this point already.
ORIGINAL: kshunter
The discrepancy in tag pricing and tag allocation between residents and non-res. does directly effects the deer management. Not agreeing with that is like, limiting the amount of kids that go to school and expect them all to be as smart as before there was a limitation.
I don't buy your argument at all...
I never said that the tags have to be allocated 50-50. I just think that everyone should be in the same pool and have the same opportunity to draw.
Also, I don't have a problem with tags in the better areas being more expensive but just that they be more expensive for everyone.
ORIGINAL: kshunter
Like I said before majority of deer hunters shoot the first deer they see, for meat and sport, not always the rack. When that same "average" hunter has to pay 3-5X the amount to hunt for that tag, then they aren't going to bother. Even with some cheap doe tags(which you suggested) having to be selective in harvesting a deer(for a meat hunter) only lowers the chance of harvest for them.
Again, like I said, I am not for blanket increases... lets me put this way... I'll use Arizona as my example...
I could careless if Arizona charged $500 for a buck deer tag to hunt the Arizona Strip or the Kaibab and sold deer tags in all the areas for $20. Just as long as residents and non-resident pay the same amount and the drawing done from the same pool w/o quotas based upon residency.
ORIGINAL: kshunter
And since the NR hunters are filtering in and leasing the land from the "little man" who is going to be there to even shoot the doe and manage the herd, when the NR hunters won't do it, and Residents can't do it?
So I should care about the little man in Kansas when he sells himself out because of greed?
If the little man wants to hunt his property, maybe the little man shouldn't lease off the hunting rights. Btw, I think that if you spent even an iota of time to research the subject of hunting management, you would find plenty examples of great management of leased property.
ORIGINAL: kshunter
All I'm asking is think about this for a little bit and use a little common sense. Majority of hunters do Not hunt out of state! So the average Joe has to draw for a chance to hunt his backyard. And if Average Joe draws then he or she has to pay 3-5X times as much as they usually do.
Again, this notion that the resident should be able to hunt "in his own backyard" is what is causing poaching to destroy the Pansagaunt Deer Herd.
Look at the Utah Wildlife site, violation after violation for poaching... all by local residents of that Pansagaunt herd...
Under your management method, not only should residents of the state get preference but preference should be giving to residents based upon zipcode and the like...
ORIGINAL: kshunter
Not only that, but since non-residents are hunting their state more, most all the land is now leased, and land is a whole lot harder to find for hunting. But you justify that by saying they have a better chance at getting a lower price tag, in another state, that they don't want to even hunt in. But you're helping the little man?? haha You have got to me kiddin me!!!
You think that the little man isn't getting screwed already?
Private land is just that PRIVATE... what the owner of that land decides to do with it is his business.
Maybe that is why opportunity on public lands should be given equally to everyone.
I am in California right now... tons of the hunting lands here are on private property and/or leased... Is that because of Non-Residents?
ORIGINAL: kshunter
Who in the world hunts for elk in 8 states in one fall?????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????? Or even 2? Maybe, just maybe if that was your full-time job. The little man rarely hunts out-of-state. I don't think you know of the meaning of little man. The "little man" is getting the short end of the stick. Somebody needs a road-trip out of Cal.
Someone needs to get out of Kansas...
The average joe that wants to hunt for quality elk will have to apply 8 states every year to even have a chance of drawing a tag. Even with applying to 8 states, average joe might need a couple of years worth of preference points to draw an elk tag.
Let me put it this way, I haven't hunted elk in New Mexico on a draw permit in 10 years...
One last thing, speaking of the little guy getting the shaft...
If this entire issue isn't about leeching the most money possible from the non-hunter, why do several of these states have guide drawings or outfitter drawing for non-residents willing to hunt with a guide?
Or even worse, like in Nevada, allow non-residents that apply with an outfitter to apply to a guide drawing and, if unsuccessful, re-apply for the general drawing. No the 2 drawings isn't bad enough but the non-resident, that applies with an outfitter, accumilates preference points from each drawing. In Nevada, btw, preference points are exponential (ie. 1 pt = 1 entry in the drawing, 2 pt = 4 entries, 5 pt = 25 entries & 6 pt = 36 entries).
Then what is even more amusing is Wyoming's system of the general non-resident pool and the special non-resident pool. The only difference between the pools? The general costs $273 to apply and the special costs $473 to apply. That is the only difference.