Elk Hunters, are tags to cheap?

[Kevin]

From what I've seen, landowner tags are 3x what he is suggesting. Do you have a different experience?

EXACTLY THE POINT!

If you want to pay market price for an elk hunt, get a land owner tag. I dont care what it costs because at that point you are at the "pay to play" stage. Don't bring that to public land hunting.

I am completely OK with reducing the number of hunters that draw, but these are PUBLIC lands that should be an opportunity for the vast majority of the public.


All I read in the original OP's message, is he wants more opportunities for himself, so he wants to limit others' possibilities to join. That is ridiculous and self-serving.

Its like when you were a kid and that one guy always tried to change the rules so they would win. Y'all know that guy.

[Kevin]

Why not just limit the number of hunters?

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

[Kevin]

Let's not make public land elk hunting an X games sport for everybody with a SxS .
In 28 yrs, I've pulled a 4 wheeler maybe 10 times, and only had it off the trailer twice.
The ridiculousness it has become is about to kill it for me.
If the few remaining locations I have, ever get opened up to anything other than walk in access, I'll be done with it.
It's being ruined by people who could really care less about killing a elk.
Turn it back into wilderness, shut down motorized access, and half of em would drop off the first yr.
IMO.

I dont understand your comment based on the person you quoted?

I dont have a problem with foot access, I just dont get why you quoted that person.

[Banded Drake Calls]

Not sure I really like it agree with the argument of raising the cost of tags to reduce the amount of hunters. Why should I be out priced to hunt public land elk because you want less hunters to compete with in low number areas? Why not lower the amount of tags available? Get a true census of numbers each year and set the limit of tags available, and that's it. You don't get a tag, you don't get a tag, better luck next year. I don't think it's right to limit others opportunities by pricing them out to accommodate what you want because you can afford it. I don't know, this thought just really rubs me the wrong way and makes you appear selfish, however I'm not saying you are by any means.

I do agree that there needs to be better management of tag allocation at some point to protect the resources. I think the cost of tags is far from the best choice. Let's take your example of the Colorado OTC units. Say by raising the cost you decreased the amount of tags sold by 35%, so for simple math, instead of 1000 hunters going after those 75 legal elk, you only have 650 hunters going after them. Besides reducing some pressure by a hair, what did it really accomplish in the end?

Just for the record, not everyone needs high success odds to go hunting elk. Some of us actually enjoy the challenge, enjoy the chase, and just genuinely enjoy being out there. That shouldn't be taken away from them by raising the price because others don't want that level of challenge.

Again, I do agree something needs to change, but I think it needs to actually be on the management and number of tags side of things more than price. Even though odds are low for NR, I do like how NM draw is straight up lottery. Maybe if all states would go to a draw like this, get rid of the points, and limit number of tags available based on actual census numbers, actually start managing the herds, maybe then we could begin to see some improvement?

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

[CaptBarbary]

Elk hunting is not really cheap for most Texas deer hunters. The extra gear and equipment needed for DIY is steep. Little different hiking in the mountains vs sitting in a box blind and the quality gear you have can make the difference in an enjoyable memory or complete misery.

[GWHunter]

I'm pretty sure NM is a bad example if we're talking about NR tags. From what I remember you couldn't draw a bull tag as a NR and maybe not even for cows (or there was at least incentive not to as a NR). Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yessir, you can draw bull tags…I used NM because he said he liked New Mexico’s draw system. In their system NR are only allotted 6% of the tags or 10% if you go through an outfitter. Those are awful odds. Considering the amount of money NR hunters bring in, especially to a state like NM where the economy is pretty awful, I just don’t get it.

[Pedernal]

The problem with the question is the general lack of public hunting opportunities here versus elsewhere.

The sales tax generated from non-resident hunters from travel and lodging make up for the higher cost of tags. The argument is negligible I think to say that higher tags for non-residents will overcome the revenue brought in by hunters.

I'm in oil and gas and as such, I understand natural resources and state's rights a bit better than most people. No matter what side of the fence you're on, it's up to the state to decide on these issues and those people being placed into positions of power I believe have less and less interest in doing what's right for hunters.

Not sure the natural resources are the topic of discussion at all. We have someone wanting to stack the odds in his favor. This is about me, me, me and only me attitude….

Let’s make it so it’s financially impossible for regular none residents to come hunt my state so I can have a better time hunting elk. That’s what I get from the OP.

[Wits_End]

EXACTLY THE POINT!

If you want to pay market price for an elk hunt, get a land owner tag. I dont care what it costs because at that point you are at the "pay to play" stage. Don't bring that to public land hunting.

I am completely OK with reducing the number of hunters that draw, but these are PUBLIC lands that should be an opportunity for the vast majority of the public.


All I read in the original OP's message, is he wants more opportunities for himself, so he wants to limit others' possibilities to join. That is ridiculous and self-serving.

Its like when you were a kid and that one guy always tried to change the rules so they would win. Y'all know that guy.

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.

[Briar Friar]

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.

[hopedale]

OP, instead of raising the price of a non-resident tag, how about restricting that hunter from that state for 5 years?

You get a tag (draw or OTC) for that state, and you are not eligable for 5 years?

Think about it. You would immediately reduce the number of hunters next year, and offer more oppertunity for those that haven't drawn.

You would achieve what you want which is less hunters in the woods at the same time.

Now 5 years may be a bit much, but you get the point.

[flywise]

EXACTLY THE POINT!

If you want to pay market price for an elk hunt, get a land owner tag. I dont care what it costs because at that point you are at the "pay to play" stage. Don't bring that to public land hunting.

I am completely OK with reducing the number of hunters that draw, but these are PUBLIC lands that should be an opportunity for the vast majority of the public.


All I read in the original OP's message, is he wants more opportunities for himself, so he wants to limit others' possibilities to join. That is ridiculous and self-serving.

Its like when you were a kid and that one guy always tried to change the rules so they would win. Y'all know that guy.

[Wits_End]

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.

Would the one system be based on the current R or NR prices?

[Wits_End]

OP, instead of raising the price of a non-resident tag, how about restricting that hunter from that state for 5 years?

You get a tag (draw or OTC) for that state, and you are not eligable for 5 years?

Think about it. You would immediately reduce the number of hunters next year, and offer more oppertunity for those that haven't drawn.

You would achieve what you want which is less hunters in the woods at the same time.

Now 5 years may be a bit much, but you get the point.

Basically the point system, right?

[jds247]

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.

[BuckSmasher]

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