Elk Hunters, are tags to cheap?

[wytex]

Leave tag price alone. State Wildlife Depts are doing great with respect to tag count and pricing (honestly coild be a bit cheaper). More people, same amount of tags, no tags leftover, more competition for tags. Ill buck up. Get in line earlier, hunt harder or earlier or later or longer or elsewheres.

The overall principle of costlier tags will decrease tag acquisition and participation. I agree. Not with the principle.

I like the Fed lands equal opportunity for all hunters regardless of R/NR. We the people pay for the federal lands, and federal land management….despite federal management might be regionally focused and sourced. My federal money is the same as Joe Blow Idaho. His money doesnt count more because he lives closer to the Idaho elk mountain…but apparently it does. Federal lands tags price should be same for Resident and NonResident.

Good discussion MrTracker.

However, the feds do not own the wildlife in any state, just the freakin grizz and wolves now in Colorado.
States have to right to manage their wildlife, fed land or not.
Come on up and hike and camp without a license , you want to hunt our game, go by our rules.

[BuckSmasher]

I'd like to see the data on who really kills elk. I would assume the resident elk hunter has a much greater kill rate than the non resident who doesn't get to scout or in most Texan's case don't really know how to hunt.. Sitting over a pile of corn in a box blind doesn't equate to still hunting or spot and stalk in the mountains. Add in fitness level etc. I know OTC success rate in Colorado is around 10 percent for archery..
Reintroduction of wolves isn't going to help those numbers either..
Instead of charging more let's make it a challenge. Primitive weapons only. There's nothing challenging about shooting 500 yards across a drainage to kill an elk. Foot traffic only. You can get a mental map of a gmu in Colorado by listening to the Side by sides running up and down the roads .Get rid of outfitters on public land. It's public land no one should be making money off of what our taxes pay to maintain..
If it's really about the resource shorten the season especially late season where you just wait on the snow to push the Elk in a pile so you can pick one out and shoot it with your 1000 yard rifle.

Baaically thats what primitive weapons seasons are already accomplishing. If success rates went up tag #s would have to go way down. The crappier you can make the tag, the more you can issue. My question is how do u meet demand without further lowering success rates.

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk

[justletmein]

So you want to price out hunters so those with more money can enjoy more regular hunting and fewer hunters on public land? That seems a bit selfish. Let's take a look.

1. This is the most obvious, tags would be available! Instead of hoping to get a tag, you could reasonably plan on one being available.
*tags would be available to people with money, average Joe there's 0 tags available now.

2. Hunting would be better. Take Colorado for example. They sell OTC unlimited tags for branch antlered bulls. If you buy one of those tags you may be hunting VERY VERY few legal animals. Take a hypothetical unit with bull:cow of 15:100 and a poplution of 1000 elk. Out of those 150 bulls lets say half are legal, that leaves 75 elk out of a thousand AT THE BEGGINING of the season available for harvest. Here is another way to think of it. Every state out west could offer unlimited OTC bull elk tags for elk with 6 points or more per side, and the elk populations wouldn't suffer, so few of the elk meet the criteria.
Hunting would be better, for the people with money. Hunting could also be better if we just reduce the OTC tags available instead of raising the price.

3. Increased revenue for conservation, tags sold would dip, but revenue would soar, without increasing fixed costs.
This is probably a wash, but who really cares anyway? Elk don't need money to survive, they need people and animals to not kill them. Elk can survive without money.

[BrianL]

I agree with the crowd that says it is numbers not dollars that should be the guide to issuing tags.

[jds247]

Baaically thats what primitive weapons seasons are already accomplishing. If success rates went up tag #s would have to go way down. The crappier you can make the tag, the more you can issue. My question is how do u meet demand without further lowering success rates.

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk

I guess it depends on what you think making it crappy means.. I prefer to bow hunt. Infact I haven't picked up a rifle in 15 years.. That's not making it crappy to me.. I have killed 2 Elk in the last 3 years OTC in Colorado with a bow.

So the issues isn't the number of animals being killed ?
It's the number of people in the woods?
I've ran into more hikers than hunters the last 3 years..
Sure there are a ton of people at every trail head but most won't walk more than a mile from the truck or sxs.. 50% of the tags sold are just an excuse to go camping in the mountains. Maybe the state could limit traffic to hunting only during season if there's too many people in the woods.

[Hart8]

Yup.

Nahh they aren’t too cheap. We are just getting to the point where it’s the cool thing to do. Mix that with the lower barrier to entry based on technology and mapping applications, we have far more people hunting out west than tags available.

I like how New Mexico has a true lottery on their tags. I think bonus/preference points have created this monster in most states. A true lottery takes away the need to raise prices. $30 bonus points in Colorado and Wyoming sure don’t help the issue

I like this answer.

[Hart8]

Hmm..

Agreed! Instead, the OP wants to "pay to play" on our public lands.

True🤔

[BETTERLUCKYTHANGOOD]

I work for the state, I don't own the **** thing. I don't have a lot of expendable money, but I love the challenge of the hunt. Taking that away from the others like me by raising the tag prices is just flat out wrong. I would rather get a letter from NM, Col, Wy, Ut, Id that I didn't get drawn than one that tells me I'm to poor to afford to go hunting like some rich snob that just wants a set of antlers to gloat over. Heck, it isn't about the antlers for some of us, some of us love the challenge and will take a cow the first day and be thrilled to death and consider it our trophy to fill the freezer with meat. If you have the money, play the rich man's game and hire a guide and hunt private property, but leave the public land alone. Limit the tags, like NM, they seem to have it figured out the best.....or even Arizona, everyone is on the lottery same even playing field, resident or non-resident.

[Banded Drake Calls]

Not sure how some of yall are getting what you are getting from my original post. Go back and read it, you obviously didn't understand it.





Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk

I did go back and read the original post again, and still don't understand how you can argue with how it's being interpreted here. How bout you further explain your first point, saying that increasing the tag price will increase tags available. What else would that one mean besides pricing out folks so more tags are available to you? It's just selfish to think folks should be priced out of the sport and not get to hunt the same PUBLIC land that you do. If this point has a different meaning, then spell it out. You have yet to further explain this point instead of bashing everyone that isn't agreeing with this one.

I also don't see what gives you the right to attest what Ma and Pa coming out west to hunt would benefit from more. As I said before, it's not always about killing for everyone that goes, for some it's the thrill of the chase alone. Don't go telling people what's more beneficial for them, that's for each person to decide for themselves.

Again, I think the goal that you have in mind is going to be better accomplished by all states actually managing their herds and tag allocations. Unfortunately that might mean and even lesser chance of you getting a tag, as well as me, and everyone else. But in the end, if the Elk are managed and herds are improved, isn't that what you're going for? Better elk populations?

Right now I can't tell what your argument is, I can't tell whether you want herds to improve and be better managed, or if you just want better odds at getting a tag. The price of the tag has nothing to do with the number of tags available. It has everything to do with the decisions that state is making on how many they allocate, and unfortunately I feel they just hand out tags for the sole purpose of gaining more revenue, tags that shouldn't have been given out in the first place.

Don't be bent out of shape because a lot of folks here aren't agreeing with you. You even stated in your original post your prediction of what arguments others would have against you. You started this thread to have a discussion and many folks are discussing their points with you, so if you feel like we're taking this wrong and missing your point of view, then further explain it

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

[BuckSmasher]

I did go back and read the original post again, and still don't understand how you can argue with how it's being interpreted here. How bout you further explain your first point, saying that increasing the tag price will increase tags available. What else would that one mean besides pricing out folks so more tags are available to you? It's just selfish to think folks should be priced out of the sport and not get to hunt the same PUBLIC land that you do. If this point has a different meaning, then spell it out. You have yet to further explain this point instead of bashing everyone that isn't agreeing with this one.

I also don't see what gives you the right to attest what Ma and Pa coming out west to hunt would benefit from more. As I said before, it's not always about killing for everyone that goes, for some it's the thrill of the chase alone. Don't go telling people what's more beneficial for them, that's for each person to decide for themselves.

Again, I think the goal that you have in mind is going to be better accomplished by all states actually managing their herds and tag allocations. Unfortunately that might mean and even lesser chance of you getting a tag, as well as me, and everyone else. But in the end, if the Elk are managed and herds are improved, isn't that what you're going for? Better elk populations?

Right now I can't tell what your argument is, I can't tell whether you want herds to improve and be better managed, or if you just want better odds at getting a tag. The price of the tag has nothing to do with the number of tags available. It has everything to do with the decisions that state is making on how many they allocate, and unfortunately I feel they just hand out tags for the sole purpose of gaining more revenue, tags that shouldn't have been given out in the first place.

Don't be bent out of shape because a lot of folks here aren't agreeing with you. You even stated in your original post your prediction of what arguments others would have against you. You started this thread to have a discussion and many folks are discussing their points with you, so if you feel like we're taking this wrong and missing your point of view, then further explain it

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

Your response is calm and seems in good faith.

Do you have a deer lease, how much is it?

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk

[AggieBowhunter!]

I kind of get where you are coming from but I just do not think raising tag prices is a solution or would even work.

It is already an extremely expensive thing for people to get into. I went on my very first elk hunt in 2019. Non-Resident Public Land OTC Archery. I had most of the basic Texas Deer Lease hunting gear but as you can imagine I needed more gear for a 5 day pack in hunt. My dad let me borrow his old pack so that was a huge help but still I had to get about $500-$800 worth of gear.

Tag was around $800 after taxes and fees. Had to take 5 days of PTO. Food and Gas was another few hundred bucks. And after it was all said and done, we didn't see a single elk but we still had a blast and ran into almost no other hunters.

Now I am a Colorado resident and I almost cry tears of joy when I only have to pay about $80 for an elk tag however it is still expensive and now I probably pay much more overall considering it took me moving to a state that has a 4.5% state income tax to get that rate on an elk tag.

To me it is about the challenge. Go where people don't want to go. Get creative, have a plan A,B,C,D. Overall just enjoy the time spent outdoors. If you want to pay a few grand for a better hunt that's exactly what an outfitted private land hunt is for. Can't afford a $6K hunt every year? Well then maybe you need to save up and just go every few years like you would be suggesting the average public land hunter needs to.

[Kevin]

The problem with your "point" is that landowner tags are extremely limited and therefore priced extremely high. As the general tag count increases, the price would be far lower than landowner tags to a place that is reasonable to the average person.

Because I do not have an idea of what would really happen, it is definitely just for the fun of discussing.
Let's take one state, NM:
Tag is $800
Unsuccessful draw is $80.
Takes 11 years to draw.
Therefore 1 elk hunt costs an average of $1600.
I call this the credit card payment method which is probably why certain people like it.

Change the method above to nonrefundable draw, would the odds increase to every other year, I imagine it would.
Elk tag every second year still cost $1600, the money is simply due up front.
Call this the cash method.

Now, what if the new odds for the cash method won you a tag every three years. Would you pay an extra $800, total of $2400? For those that need to save an extra 11 years, that is only an extra $80/year, hardly impossible if that is your decade goal.

Maybe a change like this would drastically reduce the applications and result in applicants that are truly making a commitment to go elk hunting in a certain state in a certain area and would receive more certain expectation of plans. NM is already starting down this path with the "high quality" fees.

I'm curious to understand the reality of "financially challenged" individuals that actively plan to go elk hunting.


The "self-centered" connotation being thrown around is a cheap/lazy approach at trying to shut down someone else's discussion point. The very fact that this topic is being discussed in an open forum contradicts that very notion. How about spend some quality time discussing the topic to bring those people over to the higher moral grounds, or simply ignore. It's unlikely this discussion is going to change anything in your life anyway.

I’m simply stating that if you want to raise prices to get a higher chance to draw, ie a “pay to play” system, that already exists. It’s the private land and land owners tag game.

Changing how the draw is done is great, but there is no perfect way.

[Banded Drake Calls]

Your response is calm and seems in good faith.

Do you have a deer lease, how much is it?

Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk

I do, it costs me nothing monetary besides feed and fuel as I have worked for the landowner on this land for 25 years. I was on another lease in south Texas for 3 years with some good friends of mine, $2750 plus feed and of course fuel. I let that go for monetary reasons and took up elk hunting. Last years hunt with tag (that I drew), fuel, and food cost I would say was around $1100-1300 total. I did not kill an elk, but saw a few and had the time of my life.

If tag prices went up to the amount you suggested, I don't know that I could justify it, but I would probably try to find a way. To me, it's the principle of raising the price of the price of the tag to improve herd numbers.

The goal of improving elk numbers doesn't match up with the action of raising the tag price, and that's my point. As I've said, I fully agree that the tag allocation needs to be managed a lot different. Like OTC units, I don't understand them at all, I don't see how a herd can sustain that many hunters. I don't see how it isn't harmful to the growth of the herd. Yeah you have certain size restrictions, but it still isn't managing it very well. To me, OTC units are just money pots for the state. Would I hunt one? If it was my only option to go, yes, and knowing I'm going to have to hunt my tail off at hopes of being successful. But that's what I enjoy out of it. The state is the one that chose to give me that option, I'm just taking advantage of an opportunity given. If it all went to a lottery draw for a certain amount of tags, and I didn't get one, then so be it. It sucks to think that tags would need to be limited across the board, but if that's what it's gonna take to manage the herds for years to come, then that's what needs to get done.

And we all know good and well that even if you raised the price and sold the same amount of tags, the extra revenue would never actually be seen in conservation, at least not in our lifetime.

As a non resident I don't feel like I have a dog in the fight against the government agencies to manage their herds better than they are, but I would support that fight any way I could within reason

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

[tx_basser]

Difficult proposition to solve, and there is really no good solution as someone is going to lose. Elk are stessed to the point I think they are on a downward trend from the population surveys I see that Colorado puts out every few years. Calf Recruitment, Wolves, Bears, Cats, Overall Herd Population, Winter Forage, Crop Damage, etc.

[justletmein]

I’m simply stating that if you want to raise prices to get a higher chance to draw, ie a “pay to play” system, that already exists. It’s the private land and land owners tag game.

Changing how the draw is done is great, but there is no perfect way.

They want to change the system to price out those with lower means than them because they're priced out of the current pay to play system by those with higher means than them.