tigerwerkes
Well-Known Member
Jasonco your state is a liberal ripoff. The kill rates in the otc areas are hunts for people bad at math. More hunters than animals...km tx *** with your otc.
what Western state would you recommend other than Colorado?
- Thread starter Jpron
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
Jasonco your state is a liberal ripoff. The kill rates in the otc areas are hunts for people bad at math. More hunters than animals...km tx *** with your otc.
epoletna
Well-Known Member
You have to draw for all big game animals in NV, and the populations have been hit the past several years by weather and fire. I'm a NV resident, thinking of hunting NM or AZ.
It's not the 82, it's the where does it end? I've been to co many times and have been successful a few. It's more of a meat for the freezer and experience with my son, and in a few years my daughter kinda thing. I'm not rich but not poor either, but when I'm being forced to buy a license that I will not use, what's the point. And how convenient for them to raise that license over $30 from last year. All these little extra fees really start adding up. My son shot a cow last fall, it was the one of the best memories I have ever had. I don't want that to end, but eventually there comes a point when you just have to say it's to expensive. If they want to get away from point creep, make it so after 10 points everyone is entered in a draw for the trophy units, 5 enters you into the litttle better than average unit, and 1 or 2 should get a a tag in an ok unit. The the otc the way it is. Charge $50 for a point per year, no extra habitat stamp, or small game license if I'm not going to hunt or state this coming fall. Have all youth points be a simple $10 and be done with the games. I know I might get flamed but make up the difference in money in resident license fees. It's national forest, everyone in the country's taxes help support it. Why one guy gets to hunt for 50 and I'm 675 because I live a few extra miles away is absurd.
yogibearmech
Well-Known Member
I live in Colorado and agree it is getting pricey. I am changing hunting units this year because of the crazy locals and out of state people figuring out that the GMU is easy to hunt. Game wardens cracking down on the unit too. Several local private pay to hunt outfits that are pressing DOW to crack down on the slaughter
Rhino Hunter
Well-Known Member
It "didn't" keep me from applying.
When I started this game years ago I think it was $7.00 per preference point. Trust me, I've been applying longer than most.
But it's still a money grab.
Good job on your elk hunting success!
Colorado is a beautiful state with a lot of very nice people. I have made some friends out there over the years hunting . The state of Colorado and the way they conduct their business has left a bad taste in my mouth so I quit hunting Colorado years ago. They are other states that will be glad to have you . Good luck
waspocrew
Well-Known Member
Idaho is a great option - OTC tags for both deer and elk. Success will depend on the unit and how much time you're willing to invest. WY is another great state but be ready to pay $700 for a NR bull tag and $300 for NR deer or pronghorn. WY is draw as well, but there are OTC options once the draws are over.
No , they aren't any easy answers and yes the demand has overwhelmed the supply. Although that has nothing to do with the state over charging and requiring you to buy a lience before you can apply . It took me ten and twelve years to draw my last to tags. It was not worth that in the long run for me so I have moved on to other states .
I have had good luck in New Mexico, Montana, and Wyoming.
wildcat455
Well-Known Member
I quit hunting Colorado due to the CWD problem.
They can keep their sick animals and high prices. I don't like hunting or consuming sick animals.
M T Roberts,
If they want to keep their game management programs alive, they need to do something to increase health and numbers of all their herds, and quit spending money like it's going out of style on equipment, personnel, or anything else that doesn't increase herd numbers and health.
They are getting so much money from other sources they have essentially disregarded what their original intent and purpose is. They are managing a department and it's resources, not wildlife. They are taking a "Let nature take its course" "hands off" management strategy and attitude when it comes to the animals. They want more money to support all this, and not a thing have they done has increased animal health or quantity. That is not why these agencies exist. They are supposed to actively do something for the animals.
They are supposed to interfere to the benefit of the animals, not to the benefit of the department.
Don't even get me started on introducing the wolf back into areas.
That was a real bonehead move, and if they didn't know it when they did it, they aren't smart enough to manage a wildlife herd, and should step aside and let someone who is get in there and do it.
Herd numbers are down, hard to get drawn, causes allot of hunters to become frustrated and fed up.
My state is the WORSE for this. We used to have a pretty decent antelope population in this state, now you have guys with 25 bonus points not drawing a tag! Don't believe me, ask Lancetkenyon.
Elk and deer in this state are soon to follow. The number of tags issued for herd management has not increased in years, and yet the number of hunters has.
These departments rely on PRIVATE intervention to actually do something for the animals. RMEF, etc.
Recently, AZGFD Relocated 50 or so antelope from the Prescott valley herd to down south to infuse the herd down there. I'll make a prediction here that those animals will end up feeding illegal immigrants and drug cartels moving through the area.
Hard to support an agency bent on growing and spending without actually doing anything for the animals they are there to help.
Kind of sounds like something the government would do doesn't it?
They can keep their sick animals and high prices. I don't like hunting or consuming sick animals.
M T Roberts,
If they want to keep their game management programs alive, they need to do something to increase health and numbers of all their herds, and quit spending money like it's going out of style on equipment, personnel, or anything else that doesn't increase herd numbers and health.
They are getting so much money from other sources they have essentially disregarded what their original intent and purpose is. They are managing a department and it's resources, not wildlife. They are taking a "Let nature take its course" "hands off" management strategy and attitude when it comes to the animals. They want more money to support all this, and not a thing have they done has increased animal health or quantity. That is not why these agencies exist. They are supposed to actively do something for the animals.
They are supposed to interfere to the benefit of the animals, not to the benefit of the department.
Don't even get me started on introducing the wolf back into areas.
That was a real bonehead move, and if they didn't know it when they did it, they aren't smart enough to manage a wildlife herd, and should step aside and let someone who is get in there and do it.
Herd numbers are down, hard to get drawn, causes allot of hunters to become frustrated and fed up.
My state is the WORSE for this. We used to have a pretty decent antelope population in this state, now you have guys with 25 bonus points not drawing a tag! Don't believe me, ask Lancetkenyon.
Elk and deer in this state are soon to follow. The number of tags issued for herd management has not increased in years, and yet the number of hunters has.
These departments rely on PRIVATE intervention to actually do something for the animals. RMEF, etc.
Recently, AZGFD Relocated 50 or so antelope from the Prescott valley herd to down south to infuse the herd down there. I'll make a prediction here that those animals will end up feeding illegal immigrants and drug cartels moving through the area.
Hard to support an agency bent on growing and spending without actually doing anything for the animals they are there to help.
Kind of sounds like something the government would do doesn't it?
Hespco
Well-Known Member
Any state that has huntable numbers of elk that allow non residents is going to be expensive & much more difficult to draw. No such thing as a cut rate elk hunt any more for non residents in any state. . I live in SW Colorado & try to draw an early hunt so as to avoid the crowds. Over the counter elk hunts have been bringing more & more out of state hunters with each new season because they can't get in to hunt other states.. That's the reality. The increasing pressure to hunt elk from out of state hunters is going to eliminate OTC hunts before long. The population of Colorado has also expanded so there are more residents hunting. Here in SW Colorado we have increasing resident hunters from Denver & other large cities in Colorado. With this increased demand comes more strain on resources which means prices will continue to rise. Five years from now today's prices will look like a bargain. The main reason I hunt is to put meat on the table not horns. i understand your frustration but also understand my frustration & other Colorado residents with the deluge of out of state hunters.
For a nonresident it's even more expensive than Colorado. You have to purchase a nonres hunting license just to apply. Only 10% of AZ tags are set aside for nonresidents.
