Fixing Western Hunting

[Mtrimble]

Im going way out of character in making this post. I know there is a good chance that I will regret it. I've been a member here for many years, and have been reading the forum on a very regular basis for that entire time, although I rarely post. I recently read carefully the long thread regarding "devaluing non-resident hunters" and agree with Randy's last post wherein he concluded that not much was resolved on these issues.

I'm a resident of Ohio and a typical mid-west whitetail enthusiast going on 40 years. Over that same time frame I've been blessed to participate in four western hunts (two Colorado and two Montana). I care deeply about wildlife to include the various game species that inhabit the west. In addition to the western hunting trips, I've been taking an annual fly fishing trip to Montana/Wyoming for several years. I have also visited Montana and Wyoming on non-fishing/hunting trips on at least three occasions in the last few years. Put simply, I love the area.

So, if I were king for a day, here are some of the things I would recommend for the benefit of all hunters and outdoorsmen.

1) Form a western States coalition wherein the States would share information regarding hunting license sales, herd health and population, and other critical factors related to licensing. As part of this effort, I would recommend that hunters only be eligible for one western State license per year for the following species - Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Goats, Moose. In the more rare species, I would recommend long intervals - up to one in a lifetime. Hunters would be eligible for a total of two licenses per year for different species, i.e, Elk and Mule Deer.

2) As part of this coalition, I would form an incentive (like draw odds) for first time western hunters, and hunters under age 18. (Get more stake-holders)

3) I would recommend that States issue a "Federal Public Land Only" license, to be allocated without regard to resident/non-resident status, following the theory that as federal tax payers, we all support Federal public lands equally. State public land licenses should be reserved for residents to a very great extent.

4) States would still have full control over the number of licenses made available, and cost. They would also control the idea of land owner tags and outfitter tags. Because they would be competing with other States in the Coalition for out-of-State dollars, this system would hopefully be self regulating.

5) I would recommend a strong incentive (again, draw odds) for persons who participate in "boots on the ground" wildlife projects, with each State recognizing agencies and organizations that would sponsor qualifying events.

These are just a few ideas that crossed my mind as a read the above noted thread. Notice a few things - I left out whitetail deer, bear, and possibly a few more game species. Over the last few years particularly, I have come to the conclusion that nobody really needs to kill three or more Elk in one year (even two is excessive). We all love hunting and the pursuit of game is a true passion, but in my opinion, and for the future of our passion, we all need to show a little restraint.

So, there it is. Let me have it.

 

[howl]

I'm not taking issue with your proposal, except in increased costs and practicality. There are 200 million more people in the US than there were in 1940. Any scheme has to address that in the future there will not be enough hunting for everyone interested to have quality hunting regularly. Reduced harvest, with tags issued by no-points straight lottery at low cost is the most practical. Or it would be if .gov wasn't addicted to tax by license.

 

[Mallardsx2]

As much as I enjoy the fact that that a proposal like this may create some opportunity for me, and I do agree with parts of it, I get a strong sense of socialism in the air.

I CAN'T WAIT to see what the Wyoming Narcissist has to say about this one. lmao.

 

[Treeshark]

Awesome post @Mtrimble, I think you hit it out of the park

 

[brymoore]

F&G’s are working on limited budgets. Who’s going to pay for all of this busy work?

 

[perma]

in before the lock

 

[hunter49]

Love the thought u put into it.

1. What about undersubscribed hunt codes that no one really is chasing. Agencies issues them because they need someone to pull the trigger. Some anterless hunts come to mind.

5. So I should I get better draw odds because I managed invasives or planted pollintor plots on private ground?

 

[Nick87]

This should go well.

 

[BuzzH]

Im going way out of character in making this post. I know there is a good chance that I will regret it. I've been a member here for many years, and have been reading the forum on a very regular basis for that entire time, although I rarely post. I recently read carefully the long thread regarding "devaluing non-resident hunters" and agree with Randy's last post wherein he concluded that not much was resolved on these issues.

I'm a resident of Ohio and a typical mid-west whitetail enthusiast going on 40 years. Over that same time frame I've been blessed to participate in four western hunts (two Colorado and two Montana). I care deeply about wildlife to include the various game species that inhabit the west. In addition to the western hunting trips, I've been taking an annual fly fishing trip to Montana/Wyoming for several years. I have also visited Montana and Wyoming on non-fishing/hunting trips on at least three occasions in the last few years. Put simply, I love the area.

So, if I were king for a day, here are some of the things I would recommend for the benefit of all hunters and outdoorsmen.

1) Form a western States coalition wherein the States would share information regarding hunting license sales, herd health and population, and other critical factors related to licensing. As part of this effort, I would recommend that hunters only be eligible for one western State license per year for the following species - Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Goats, Moose. In the more rare species, I would recommend long intervals - up to one in a lifetime. Hunters would be eligible for a total of two licenses per year for different species, i.e, Elk and Mule Deer.

2) As part of this coalition, I would form an incentive (like draw odds) for first time western hunters, and hunters under age 18. (Get more stake-holders)

3) I would recommend that States issue a "Federal Public Land Only" license, to be allocated without regard to resident/non-resident status, following the theory that as federal tax payers, we all support Federal public lands equally. State public land licenses should be reserved for residents to a very great extent.

4) States would still have full control over the number of licenses made available, and cost. They would also control the idea of land owner tags and outfitter tags. Because they would be competing with other States in the Coalition for out-of-State dollars, this system would hopefully be self regulating.

5) I would recommend a strong incentive (again, draw odds) for persons who participate in "boots on the ground" wildlife projects, with each State recognizing agencies and organizations that would sponsor qualifying events.

These are just a few ideas that crossed my mind as a read the above noted thread. Notice a few things - I left out whitetail deer, bear, and possibly a few more game species. Over the last few years particularly, I have come to the conclusion that nobody really needs to kill three or more Elk in one year (even two is excessive). We all love hunting and the pursuit of game is a true passion, but in my opinion, and for the future of our passion, we all need to show a little restraint.

So, there it is. Let me have it.

Whats your plan for getting NR's of Ohio and the midwest more opportunity at quality hunting there?

You firing up the midwest coalition yet?

 

[seeth07]

So, there it is. Let me have it.

Although I may not agree with some of those points or would rather tweak/alter them, I appreciate the thought and ideas you bring to the table. You don't deserve to be abused as you are possibly expecting.

Item 1 I do like and item 4 is a valid point made to expand on it. No one can deny that supply in general hasn't been going up and demand is increased for that supply. Its a way to "try and make it fair" to share the resource.

 

[TOGIE]

meh

 

[BuzzH]

meh

Right, nothing new just the same old retread ideas because hunting out West is so unfair to NR's on vacation.

 

[brymoore]

Right, nothing new just the same old retread ideas because hunting out West is so unfair to NR's on vacation.

T minus 1, 2 , 3…..

 

[idelkslayer]

Item 1 might sound good but in practice probably would have little effect. This is something that is already self limiting. Most hunters don't have the time to go on multiple week-long hunting trips each fall. I bet the number of hunters that have elk tags in more than 2 states is so small as to be beyond statistically insignificant.

Item2. Drawing schemes are an entire topic of their own. I'm a fan of random draws.

Item 3. Access to private land is difficult to come by for resident hunters in western states. There is far less state land than you might think and is usually scattered with few contiguous pieces larger than 640 acres. That's small for hunting western big game. The federal land issue is a non starter. I recreate on federal land a lot more for non-hunting activities than I do for hunting activities. The land is available to everyone. The animals belong the residents of the state.

Item 4. no comment.

Item 5. An incentive program to get more hunter involvement in conservation projects could be a good thing. Maybe set aside a few statewide tags for separate drawing where you get one entry in the draw for every hour of volunteer conservation work. But then you need the funding to monitor the program.

Every time these discussion come up it is the same old crap. Opportunity is more limited in the west than in the east/south/Midwest. I am only guaranteed 1 deer tag per year as a resident in my state, and 1 elk tag. And I'd be willing to bet that success rates in the west are lower than the east. How many deer can you kill each year in your eastern state and what are the average success rates? If NR demand was high enough in your home state how many tags are you willing to give up in order to be "fair"? There is enough NR demand that if tags were allocated equally it would mean many western residents sitting at home without tags while easterners drive thousands of miles to hunt the mountains I can see from my front porch. What are the disenfranchised Western hunters supposed to do in that scenario? I guess we will have to turn our eyes eastward and drive thousands of miles to hunt your back yards.

Take a second to think about the unintended consequences of what you're asking for.

 

[howl]

F&G’s are working on limited budgets. Who’s going to pay for all of this busy work?

Agencies always work with excess budget. They always provide less than covered by budget, wasting excess. They keep excess available in instances were they are requested to do additional work before additional funding can be requested and attained. That's government funding 101.

 

[Elky Welky]

So, if I were king for a day,

1) Form a western States coalition wherein the States would share information regarding hunting license sales, herd health and population, and other critical factors related to licensing. As part of this effort, I would recommend that hunters only be eligible for one western State license per year for the following species - Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, Sheep, Goats, Moose. In the more rare species, I would recommend long intervals - up to one in a lifetime. Hunters would be eligible for a total of two licenses per year for different species, i.e, Elk and Mule Deer.

2) As part of this coalition, I would form an incentive (like draw odds) for first time western hunters, and hunters under age 18. (Get more stake-holders)

3) I would recommend that States issue a "Federal Public Land Only" license, to be allocated without regard to resident/non-resident status, following the theory that as federal tax payers, we all support Federal public lands equally. State public land licenses should be reserved for residents to a very great extent.

4) States would still have full control over the number of licenses made available, and cost. They would also control the idea of land owner tags and outfitter tags. Because they would be competing with other States in the Coalition for out-of-State dollars, this system would hopefully be self regulating.

5) I would recommend a strong incentive (again, draw odds) for persons who participate in "boots on the ground" wildlife projects, with each State recognizing agencies and organizations that would sponsor qualifying events.

So, there it is. Let me have it.

Greatly appreciate the time and thought that went into this post. Taking note that this is hypothetical and based on the premise of "if you were king for a day" I'll only add a couple notes for clarification:

1. The right to manage wildlife lies exclusively with the citizens of that state. The only exception, to my knowledge, is migratory birds.

2. Nothing wrong with trying to bring more folks into the fold, but would be met with significant resistance from those who have been applying for many years. I don't subscribe to the "I had to suffer therefore so should you" mentality, but that's where this runs into a problem.

3. The right to manage wildlife lies exclusively with the citizens of that state. Just because someone's taxes go to federal lands, and they have a right to be there, that should not be conflated with harvesting a species on that land.

4. This would only increase landowner tags and outfitter tags as part of that competition. Those states would want that money, and landowner tags and outfitter tags create more of a guarantee. Many of the problems we are seeing with hunting becoming exclusively for the landed gentry and those who can afford guides would only accelerate under this model.

5. I don't mind anything about this idea, although I think playing with draw odds is less of an incentive than simply making tags available for those who participate. For example: come work on this project, and everyone who is there helping out will be eligible for a tag we've set aside. Basically, instead of paying into a raffle, a person would be paying with their volunteer time.

Thanks for taking the risk @Mtrimble !

 

[BuckRut]

I think we really need to move away from the ideas that what will save hunting is to make it "fair" and start focusing on how to maintain the most robust animal populations we can. Life is inherently unfair. Everything that lives does so at the expense of something else. There are no ties or participation trophies. Rather there are winners and there are losers. Making things "fair" so everyone can have an equal part of a diminishing resource will inevitably end in the resource being gone.

 

[BuzzH]

Greatly appreciate the time and thought that went into this post. Taking note that this is hypothetical and based on the premise of "if you were king for a day" I'll only add a couple notes for clarification:

1. The right to manage wildlife lies exclusively with the citizens of that state. The only exception, to my knowledge, is migratory birds.

2. Nothing wrong with trying to bring more folks into the fold, but would be met with significant resistance from those who have been applying for many years. I don't subscribe to the "I had to suffer therefore so should you" mentality, but that's where this runs into a problem.

3. The right to manage wildlife lies exclusively with the citizens of that state. Just because someone's taxes go to federal lands, and they have a right to be there, that should not be conflated with harvesting a species on that land.

4. This would only increase landowner tags and outfitter tags as part of that competition. Those states would want that money, and landowner tags and outfitter tags create more of a guarantee. Many of the problems we are seeing with hunting becoming exclusively for the landed gentry and those who can afford guides would only accelerate under this model.

5. I don't mind anything about this idea, although I think playing with draw odds is less of an incentive than simply making tags available for those who participate. For example: come work on this project, and everyone who is there helping out will be eligible for a tag we've set aside. Basically, instead of paying into a raffle, a person would be paying with their volunteer time.

Thanks for taking the risk @Mtrimble !

1. Add endangered species and anadromous fish.

 

[seeth07]

And I'd be willing to bet that success rates in the west are lower than the east.

Cherry picking an example but:

This year in WI there were 774,369 licenses sold authorizing the take of a whitetail buck. This includes all 4 forms of which a person can obtain a buck tag (archery/crossbow, gun, sports and conservation). This number does not indicate that there were 774,369 hunters because many people buy both an archery license and a gun/sports license. A conservation license automatically comes with both buck tags.

Due to mandatory reporting required for every harvest, the total buck reported harvest this season was 85,864. That's a success rate of only 11.09% which includes a 9 day rifle hunt. Crazy state - the opening weekend, Sat and Sunday, there were 51,870 bucks registered. That's 60.41% of the total season harvest!

I guess we will have to turn our eyes eastward and drive thousands of miles to hunt your back yards.

I have often wondered why this hasn't happened yet. Well maybe @TOGIE has started it and he is a pioneer on the front of the NR invasion to the Midwest. As he can attest to, the opportunities and experience here is no doubt extremely good. He typically hunts CO and yet he has stated that he will be coming back to WI because the whitetail fever of the animals here has him hooked. It however is not the same experience as mule deer hunting and thus why people around here like to head to the mountains and experience it even though we have top notch whitetail hunting around here.

 

[idelkslayer]

Cherry picking an example but:

This year in WI there were 774,369 licenses sold authorizing the take of a whitetail buck. This includes all 4 forms of which a person can obtain a buck tag (archery/crossbow, gun, sports and conservation). This number does not indicate that there were 774,369 hunters because many people buy both an archery license and a gun/sports license. A conservation license automatically comes with both buck tags.

Due to mandatory reporting required for every harvest, the total buck reported harvest this season was 85,864. That's a success rate of only 11.09% which includes a 9 day rifle hunt. Crazy state - the opening weekend, Sat and Sunday, there were 51,870 bucks registered. That's 60.41% of the total season harvest!


I have often wondered why this hasn't happened yet. Well maybe @TOGIE has started it and he is a pioneer on the front of the NR invasion to the Midwest. As he can attest to, the opportunities and experience here is no doubt extremely good. He typically hunts CO and yet he has stated that he will be coming back to WI because the whitetail fever of the animals here has him hooked. It however is not the same experience as mule deer hunting and thus why people around here like to head to the mountains and experience it even though we have top notch whitetail hunting around here.

Interesting info about Wisconsin. Thank you. If I understand you correctly, a hunter in Wisconsin can buy 4 deer tags valid for a buck each season. One for each weapon type. A hunter could in theory kill 4 bucks. How many does can they harvest? I wonder what the success rate is if you could take the number deer killed divided by the number of hunters. In other words the percentage of hunters that killed at least one deer.