Reply
Go Back   TexasBowhunter.com Community Discussion Forums > Topics > Around the Campfire
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-11-2022, 09:21 PM   #51
Wits_End
Ten Point
 
Wits_End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Palmer
Default

Unless you've won the lottery I am not sure how you can afford a lease now but not 15 years ago.
Most have been priced out of standard private texas deer hunting, definitely not the other way around. 15 years ago we had a great family lease at $500/year, that price was not uncommon. Most spent more on beer those years.

The conversation has been on elk and I don't consider that a "young" hunter entry level type adventure. Yea, they can tag along and/or pull the trigger, but it's certainly not solely for them. Acting like it's going to impact youth introduction to the sport goes against reality of what it is and what it takes to elk hunt.

Families joining in on a hunt and camping in the elk woods is free. It only takes one tag for a family to get together on. The thought above is you can buy 4 tags for the family right now and have the opportunity to shoot one elk or you could double the price, buy 2 tags and have a much better opportunity of getting two elk.

Texas hunting is the perfect example of the market that elk hunting is colliding into. Way more hunters than leases which drive up lease costs. Go to public woods and it's overcrowded. As the supply remains constant and the demand increases, something has to restrict demand, that is always money.

As far as elk hunting goes I'd prefer that the tags were priced higher and quality of hunt increased. I'd enjoy the heck out of tagging along with friends for a few years in between my hunts and being in a quality hunt every year.
Wits_End is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-11-2022, 09:24 PM   #52
Wits_End
Ten Point
 
Wits_End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Palmer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Could you address why land owner permits are not an option. That is the pay to play route.
From what I've seen, landowner tags are 3x what he is suggesting. Do you have a different experience?
Wits_End is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-11-2022, 09:29 PM   #53
GWHunter
Ten Point
 
GWHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Greenwood
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wits_End View Post
It's a tough topic that I've had in my mind a long time. I generally lean that tags should be more expensive to reduce pressure, forming a higher quality hunt. Basically let the market fix.
I'm also not a fan of the youtubers killing more animals than they or their extended family could eat in several years.

All in all there should be a balance between a unrealistic draw and $10k landowner tag.

- Get rid of points everywhere, NM style
- Nonrefundable draws, yea it may cost you a bit but your odds are way better. Prevents applications going in to 10 different states.
- Higher tag costs
- Rest periods for the successful
With this train of thought $10k is about what it will cost to hunt elk, maybe more…Say you put in for 10-12 years before you get drawn. It seems like that’s what it takes in New Mexico with no preference points and their out of state tag allotments, this is just for a standard unit not quality/ high demand. During that time you received no refund for not drawing, that’s around $800 a year for a quality tag plus fees, even more if you raise the price of tags… that’s insanity. I believe there are ways to help the problem but trying to make elk hunting a rich man’s game isn’t one of them, in my opinion.
GWHunter is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-11-2022, 09:35 PM   #54
Wits_End
Ten Point
 
Wits_End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Palmer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWHunter View Post
With this train of thought $10k is about what it will cost to hunt elk, maybe more…Say you put in for 10-12 years before you get drawn. It seems like that’s what it takes in New Mexico with no preference points and their out of state tag allotments, this is just for a standard unit not quality/ high demand. During that time you received no refund for not drawing, that’s around $800 a year for a quality tag plus fees, even more if you raise the price of tags… that’s insanity. I believe there are ways to help the problem but trying to make elk hunting a rich man’s game isn’t one of them, in my opinion.
Your math doesnt include the concept that odds would drastically increase and you'd likely draw every few years. You would severely reduce the huge swarms of hunters putting in for 5+ states, they would be forced to go all in on one. The rich are rich and would continue 5+ states anyway.

Just throwing out thoughts, not saying they are facts or from someone who has studied this for years.
Wits_End is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-11-2022, 09:53 PM   #55
landman650
Four Point
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedernal View Post
Would you feel and propose the same if you lived in Texas?
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.
landman650 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-11-2022, 09:55 PM   #56
landman650
Four Point
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWHunter View Post
With this train of thought $10k is about what it will cost to hunt elk, maybe more…Say you put in for 10-12 years before you get drawn. It seems like that’s what it takes in New Mexico with no preference points and their out of state tag allotments, this is just for a standard unit not quality/ high demand. During that time you received no refund for not drawing, that’s around $800 a year for a quality tag plus fees, even more if you raise the price of tags… that’s insanity. I believe there are ways to help the problem but trying to make elk hunting a rich man’s game isn’t one of them, in my opinion.
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.
landman650 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-11-2022, 09:57 PM   #57
flywise
Pope & Young
 
flywise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Tx
Hunt In: Blanco, Nacadoches,NewMexico,Colorado
Default

Lol, more expensive……that’s just stupid. Maybe they can also charge an access fee so I can go drive around on my land
flywise is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-11-2022, 10:04 PM   #58
diamond10x
Ten Point
 
diamond10x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Helotes
Hunt In: Kinney and Bexar counties
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by muddyfuzzy View Post
Dude is trying to have a proactive conversation about resource management and you subscribe to the “take your ball and go home” approach. That’s why these conversations never make any headway, people are just too worried about who is going to move their cheese.


I gave a reason as to the increased amount of hunters and specifically elk hunters. The OP agreed. Where I have a rub is the raising of prices to keep only those of a certain income able to hunt or acquire tags. Prices of tags have already increased enough since I started doing this a number of years ago.
diamond10x is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-11-2022, 10:07 PM   #59
flywise
Pope & Young
 
flywise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Tx
Hunt In: Blanco, Nacadoches,NewMexico,Colorado
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadHatter View Post
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 have hunted Co and NM probably 25 times since 1989 and taken a 4 wheeler 1 time. I sure have logged a lot of miles on my feet. Loved every step
flywise is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-11-2022, 10:25 PM   #60
wytex
Ten Point
 
wytex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Wyoming
Hunt In: Wyoming , Texas, Colorado, Nebraska
Default

Why not just limit the number of hunters?
wytex is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-11-2022, 11:21 PM   #61
Kevin
Pope & Young
 
Kevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort Worth
Hunt In: Fannin and Argentina, Zambia, Kyrgyzstan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wits_End View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-11-2022, 11:23 PM   #62
Kevin
Pope & Young
 
Kevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort Worth
Hunt In: Fannin and Argentina, Zambia, Kyrgyzstan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wytex View Post
Why not just limit the number of hunters?
Agreed! Instead, the OP wants to "pay to play" on our public lands.
Kevin is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-11-2022, 11:25 PM   #63
Kevin
Pope & Young
 
Kevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort Worth
Hunt In: Fannin and Argentina, Zambia, Kyrgyzstan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadHatter View Post
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.
Kevin is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-11-2022, 11:35 PM   #64
Banded Drake Calls
Ten Point
 
Banded Drake Calls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edna, Texas
Hunt In: Jackson Co.
Default

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
Banded Drake Calls is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 12:36 AM   #65
CaptBarbary
Nubbin' Buck
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Hunt In: Hill Country - Deer
Default

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.
CaptBarbary is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 05:46 AM   #66
GWHunter
Ten Point
 
GWHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Greenwood
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by landman650 View Post
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.
GWHunter is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 06:00 AM   #67
Pedernal
Pope & Young
 
Pedernal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Del Rio
Hunt In: Amistad
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by landman650 View Post
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.
Pedernal is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 08:13 AM   #68
Wits_End
Ten Point
 
Wits_End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Palmer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
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.
Wits_End is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 08:52 AM   #69
Briar Friar
Pope & Young
 
Briar Friar's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Default

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.

Last edited by Briar Friar; 01-12-2022 at 08:59 AM. Reason: ResidentNonResidentEqualTagPriceSpake
Briar Friar is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 09:08 AM   #70
hopedale
Pope & Young
 
hopedale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Williamson county
Hunt In: WMAs
Default

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.
hopedale is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 09:28 AM   #71
flywise
Pope & Young
 
flywise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Tx
Hunt In: Blanco, Nacadoches,NewMexico,Colorado
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
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.
flywise is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 09:31 AM   #72
Wits_End
Ten Point
 
Wits_End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Palmer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Briar Friar View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 09:31 AM   #73
Wits_End
Ten Point
 
Wits_End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Palmer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hopedale View Post
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?
Wits_End is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 09:36 AM   #74
jds247
Ten Point
 
jds247's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Bridge city Texas
Hunt In: Voca, Jasper county, newton county and sabine county
Default

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.
jds247 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 09:46 AM   #75
BuckSmasher
Ten Point
 
BuckSmasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Coeur D'Alene, Idaho
Hunt In: All Over
Default

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
BuckSmasher is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 09:51 AM   #76
wytex
Ten Point
 
wytex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Wyoming
Hunt In: Wyoming , Texas, Colorado, Nebraska
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Briar Friar View Post
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.
wytex is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 09:52 AM   #77
BuckSmasher
Ten Point
 
BuckSmasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Coeur D'Alene, Idaho
Hunt In: All Over
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jds247 View Post
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
BuckSmasher is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 10:01 AM   #78
justletmein
Pope & Young
 
justletmein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Antonio \ POC
Hunt In: Public lands
Default

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.

Last edited by justletmein; 01-12-2022 at 10:06 AM.
justletmein is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 10:02 AM   #79
BrianL
Pope & Young
 
BrianL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Paris
Hunt In: Lamar and Dickens
Default

I agree with the crowd that says it is numbers not dollars that should be the guide to issuing tags.
BrianL is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 10:16 AM   #80
jds247
Ten Point
 
jds247's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Bridge city Texas
Hunt In: Voca, Jasper county, newton county and sabine county
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckSmasher View Post
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.
jds247 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 10:25 AM   #81
Hart8
Pope & Young
 
Hart8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waxahachie,Tx
Hunt In: concho co. tx
Default Yup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaker_cc View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 10:34 AM   #82
Hart8
Pope & Young
 
Hart8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waxahachie,Tx
Hunt In: concho co. tx
Default Hmm..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Agreed! Instead, the OP wants to "pay to play" on our public lands.
True🤔
Hart8 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 10:57 AM   #83
BETTERLUCKYTHANGOOD
Ten Point
 
BETTERLUCKYTHANGOOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Burnet
Hunt In: Have bow will travel
Default

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.
BETTERLUCKYTHANGOOD is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 11:13 AM   #84
Banded Drake Calls
Ten Point
 
Banded Drake Calls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edna, Texas
Hunt In: Jackson Co.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckSmasher View Post
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
Banded Drake Calls is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 11:38 AM   #85
BuckSmasher
Ten Point
 
BuckSmasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Coeur D'Alene, Idaho
Hunt In: All Over
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banded Drake Calls View Post
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
BuckSmasher is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 12:09 PM   #86
AggieBowhunter!
Four Point
 
AggieBowhunter!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Hunt In: Colorado
Default

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.
AggieBowhunter! is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 12:14 PM   #87
Kevin
Pope & Young
 
Kevin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Fort Worth
Hunt In: Fannin and Argentina, Zambia, Kyrgyzstan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wits_End View Post
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.
Kevin is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 12:14 PM   #88
Banded Drake Calls
Ten Point
 
Banded Drake Calls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edna, Texas
Hunt In: Jackson Co.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckSmasher View Post
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
Banded Drake Calls is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 12:18 PM   #89
tx_basser
Eight Point
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sachse, TX
Hunt In: Any place Public
Default

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.

Last edited by tx_basser; 01-12-2022 at 12:24 PM.
tx_basser is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 12:54 PM   #90
justletmein
Pope & Young
 
justletmein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Antonio \ POC
Hunt In: Public lands
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
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.
justletmein is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 12:56 PM   #91
wytex
Ten Point
 
wytex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Wyoming
Hunt In: Wyoming , Texas, Colorado, Nebraska
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tx_basser View Post
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.
That is why there is a push by some residents there to end OTC elk.
Wyoming has OTC for residents only and it works quite well due to our population of hunters. Colorado may well benefit from going draw only for NR and OTC for residents just see if it helps with crowding and elk numbers.
Unfortunately what is best for the elk herds may not be favorable to NR hunters as all states will put their resident hunters first.
wytex is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 01:33 PM   #92
Wits_End
Ten Point
 
Wits_End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Palmer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by justletmein View Post
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.


I can't say I agree or disagree with it, more curious of the entire situation than anything. I can't quite understand the comment about "changing the system" in regards to simply increasing the prices. What about the system is being changed? Same system, increased price. There were comments about a different system, but that doesn't align with your comments.

Do you advocate for decreasing tags across the board for both Res and Nonres to increase the numbers of draw applicants, to increase "perception of opportunity" for those that can't afford now? What if they dropped the tag cost to $5/$50?
Wits_End is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 01:39 PM   #93
justletmein
Pope & Young
 
justletmein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Antonio \ POC
Hunt In: Public lands
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wits_End View Post
I can't say I agree or disagree with it, more curious of the entire situation than anything. I can't quite understand the comment about "changing the system" in regards to simply increasing the prices. What about the system is being changed? Same system, increased price. There were comments about a different system, but that doesn't align with your comments.

Do you advocate for decreasing tags across the board for both Res and Nonres to increase the numbers of draw applicants, to increase "perception of opportunity" for those that can't afford now? What if they dropped the tag cost to $5/$50?
Raising tag prices to price out competition is changing the system in effect because it's converting it to a pay-to-play system, which as was pointed out in the reply I quoted that system already exists but it's above the level of means for those advocating for a lower threshold pay-to-play system that they can afford.

Tag allocation needs to be about Elk herd goals, not hunter opportunity. If I were to advocate anything I'd say set tag allocation appropriately and go 100% random draw everywhere. Make it fair for everyone. *edit* With separate random pools for appropriate R and NR allocation of course.

Last edited by justletmein; 01-12-2022 at 01:42 PM.
justletmein is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 01:42 PM   #94
warrenm0624
Four Point
 
warrenm0624's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Antonio
Hunt In: Campbellton
Default

Tradbows is the answer. Make the first week of archery season traditional only and OTC at the current price. Then allow wheel bows (no crossguns) the second and third week with a draw. Now nothing dies in the first week but opportunity to be in the woods drastically increases if you want to learn to shoot a single string bow.
warrenm0624 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 01:51 PM   #95
WRasco
Ten Point
 
WRasco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Magnolia, TX
Hunt In: TX NM & CO but open to suggestions
Default

Interesting discussion. I will place my votes and continue to read responses.

Cost - No need to artificially increase the cost. It will continue to increase on its own
Special interest - I do not mind the lottery systems but they need to be fair to all. No outfitter, of landowner loopholes. If they want/need to purchase these they should be in separated pools.
Herd management via restricting hunting - This is the biggest lie of all. When did any of the states in this discussion become a high fence leases. More elk are killed by Wolves, Bears, Cats, Cars, Ranchers & Weather than hunters each year.

For the record I have enjoyed the experience of bow hunting elk in New Mexico 1980's, Colorado 1980's & 2014-2020 and Montana 1995-96. Though I have never killed an elk with a bow some of the guys I have hunted with did. I enjoyed every hunt.
WRasco is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 02:13 PM   #96
WItoTX
Pope & Young
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Hunt In: Wisconsin, New Mexico, Colorado, Montana, Idaho
Default

There isn't an easy solution, but here is mine. Stop this designation of NR vs resident. I should have just as much of a chance of drawing a tag as any resident in any state I want to hunt. Especially considering I pay substantially more than any resident does for tags. And while we are at it, get rid of the point system. It's already gotten out of control, and is going to continue to get worse. And if we HAVE TO keep the point system, let's make some very select units points only (Like Unit 1 in CO).

NR's should definitely pay more. It's the cost of not living in the state but reaping its rewards. I get that. But they should have at least an equal chance of drawing a tag as a resident.

AND none of this takes into account the game management by consensus route that so many western states now use (CO with bears for example). Let the biologists determine how many elk should be in a stand of trees, how many, if any, predators should be there, and stop allowing the Karen's and Kyle's of the world, who have never held a bow (Much less go to a nation forest) get a say in what does and doesn't get killed.

Last edited by WItoTX; 01-12-2022 at 02:16 PM. Reason: .
WItoTX is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 02:22 PM   #97
DRT
Pope & Young
 
DRT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Fort Worth, Tx
Hunt In: Jones County and Missouri
Default

Hunting is already becoming a privileged peoples activity.
Personally I think it will collapse a lot sooner than most think. The number of people involved for the resource available has and will continue to increase and there is enough disposable income for enough people to allow pricing to soar.
Social media has just expanded the number of people who are hunting for the ego trip, not for the meat in their freezer to the point where the majority of those who are mainly freezer fillers are priced out as they won't spend a stupid amount of money to hunt elk. When you buy a tag for hundreds of dollars, use a large portion if your annual vacation to go and spend a significant amount of your family budget to go do it and see plenty of hunters but not game it becomes time to reassess how you spend those resources.
For me it was easy. Good deer leases here at home and then land of my own here and in Missouri.
Yeah it's just deer and pigs. But I see game, have a reasonable chance at success and unwanted hunters aren't walking by me.

The more people are willing to spend the higher the resources will go up in price. Like a cattleman overgrazing land, a day lease operator selling more hunts than he has deer or an airline selling more tickets than they have seats. At some point it's gonna leave someone short changed, hungry or left behind.
Just part of the evil that men do.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
DRT is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 02:42 PM   #98
BuckSmasher
Ten Point
 
BuckSmasher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Coeur D'Alene, Idaho
Hunt In: All Over
Default

Some of you are getting bogged down in elk herd health tag allocation etc. I am asking are we ok with cheaper tags we cant get or would we rather have more expensive ones that are availablle for purchase.

Here are the facts:
- The new year is less than two weeks old.
- Tags are not available for non point holders in three of the biggest elk population states, WY, MT, ID. Forget NM, AZ, UT. They have been tight draws forever. That leaves VERY low success hunts in Oregon and CO.
- This wasnt the case 7 or 8 years ago.
- The nation has not seen a huge surge in hunter recruitment or a drastic decline in available elk tags.
-Elk hunting is not now, or in some distant halcyon past a cheap 'opportunity' hunt. Roughly as many whitetail deer were shot in Texas last season as elk that EXIST in North America.

As someone that is a passionate elk hunter and saw the writing on the wall I moved to ID because I could. Elk tags weighed heavily in our decision. If the status quo continues you may be able to "afford" an elk tag but you will not be able to buy one. I lived and hunted in Texas for 37 years, I know what yall are paying for deer leases. You are swallowing flies and choking on gnats.



Sent from my SM-G781V using Tapatalk
BuckSmasher is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 02:47 PM   #99
justletmein
Pope & Young
 
justletmein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: San Antonio \ POC
Hunt In: Public lands
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckSmasher View Post
Some of you are getting bogged down in elk herd health tag allocation etc. I am asking are we ok with cheaper tags we cant get or would we rather have more expensive ones that we can't afford.
fify
justletmein is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 01-12-2022, 03:22 PM   #100
wytex
Ten Point
 
wytex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Wyoming
Hunt In: Wyoming , Texas, Colorado, Nebraska
Default

Sorry but I can not wrap my head around the" I should have as much chance as a resident to draw tags in their state." It is the states wildlife, not yours .

And Wyoming does have a draw for those with 0PP , the random draw. 25 % of the elk licenses allocated by statute are for a random draw that all have the same chance in. Your application goes right into it if you don't draw in the PP pool.
wytex is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 1999-2012, TexasBowhunter.com