Frankly I do support the 90/10 for the Big 5 but the way they have gone about implementing it does not sit well. More time should have been given for the few max PP holders to use their PPs.

Not sure how I feel on the 90/10 for E,D and A. I would love to draw the licenses we are "entitled " to under our laws.
We are limited by those same laws in how we can apply so the leftover draw is what residents have used for years to get those extra licenses. Now more NRs are applying and taking those "leftovers" in their draw. That is what is pushing the move for lower NR quotas. That and numbers are down so licenses are down.


I would like to see a hard quota for NR is their 1st draw, 15-20% would be ok with me but no rollover from the Resident draw.
Have either a resident leftover draw before NR or a leftover draw for all with those licenses.
I think right now NR get about 35% of our pronghorn licenses due to the rollover from the resident draw.

Moose is the only animal affected by this that I have points for. I have 15. If they go to a bonus point draw I will be better off even with the 10% tag allocation. If they do this to pronghorn I will continue buying points, but when I draw I will be done. I recently burned my Elk and deer points, so I will not be buying points or participating in those draws anyway.

This has to be revenue negative decision for Wyoming G&F. But it is Wyoming’s decision to make.

not quite apples to oranges. The wildlife lives and is managed on Federal Land by mine and your's tax dollars. So to say that Animals living on Federal Land, being helped out by Federal Tax Dollars is property of the residents of the state is a bit of an over-reach in my opinion. Texas is 98% privately owned land so its a bit different here.

Again, state owned Land they can do as they see fit. But using my money to dictate my use and procurement of a resource from Federal land I have a issue with when its weighted in favor of residents of that state.


My opinion isn't going to change anything....what its going to do is force my hand to stop applying for and buy landowner/outfitter tags in states where I can easily acquire them. I will stop applying for tags period in Wyoming, eat my bonus points for Mule Deer and try and draw next year for Antelope, and then be done with the Draw system in that State. If Colorado follows suit then I'll be done with the draw in that state as well.

You could just apply for a mule deer tag, draw it, and go hunting, almost every year. Instead of accumulating points. There are region tags that could provide a great experience and have the possibility for a 160"+ buck. But eastmans don't write articles about easy to draw tags........

OR spend the 65 bucks (or whatever it is now) for your super combo license, get your deer tags, then pay 5k for a lease, and shoot a mule deer in texas.

The units I prefer to hunt take at least 4 points or better in Colorado to draw. The units in Wyoming 6-7 points. Good units but not the Super Trophy units. I'm not interested in Hunting a unit that they dump a ton of tags and seeing a buck over 3 years old is a rarity.






And I've been hunting Mule Deer in Texas for some time now.....this isn't about me being able to get a Mule Deer in and of itself. Its about further erosion of hunting opportunities in different areas

Also, I would like to mention that two seasons ago Wyoming stripped me of several points for both Mule Deer and Antelope. Glitch in their system. They acknowledged the problem, admitted that it happened but would not refund or reinstate the missing points.


Wonder how many other hunters lost points?

This about you being upset that every state doesn't cater to you specifically.

If that was your takeaway from what I wrote, then we are too far apart to continue this conversation

txtrophy feels that animals on federal land belong to all , not the states. It has been litigated but that is ok, that attitude is out there by lots of folks.. Doesn't make him a bad person or greedy in my view , just misinformed imo.

Folks just need to realize states have the right to manage their wildlife as they see fit, for the most part, for the benefit of it's residents.
Come on up and hike and camp but hunting is regulated by the state.

With populations expanding in most states and wildlife being a finite resource, states are looking out for their residents, as they should.. Fewer animals, more residents looking to hunt makes for less opportunities for NR.
I just still find it interesting that NR think they have the same rights to our animals as residents, it just isn't so according to the courts.

Well, the courts, including both the state and federal supreme courts DO NOT AGREE with you. You can whine, cry, scream and pout all you want but the courts have ruled the game in every state belongs to the individual states. Nothing is preventing you from moving to WY.

So word floating around is your PP for sheep and moose will be converted to Bonus Points some time soon. Bison and mt goat will be added to BPs too, no PP at this time for either.
Means higher PP guys will probably loose their better draw odds , lower BP folks will now have a chance to draw a license.

Any changes for elk, deer and pronghorn will have be initiated by some legislators. All the talk about the Task Force is they will not make any recc. for changes for those 3.
Don't know how residents will push for changes but we shall see.
It will not happen very soon.

Outfitters want changes to landowner licenses so they may get something pushed into one of the houses of legislature.
Quite e few outfitter operate in General elk areas so changes to allocation of LQ licenses to NR would probably not affect them very much , or maybe help if they get more General licenses in the NR draw.
They may well push for 90/10 with some kind of outfitter benefit included.

We'll all be watching.

I’m well aware of the court ruling. Courts rule one way then will turn around years later and reverse it….so the court being the decider of what is ethically and morally “right” isn’t my baseline to go off of.

I’m not saying states shouldn’t have authority to control their game animals. My issue is when they create a split that is so biased towards Residents vs. Non-Residents when being in an area where majority of units are comprised of federally owned land.

Im not suggesting a 50/50 split, but a 90/10 is ridiculous. New Mexico is only 6% to non-residents but they are a true lottery and not on a point system.


Wytex, I agree that we are dealing with a finite resource and that a growing number of people moving to western states has increased the number of hunters who previously didn’t utilize these area. Also agree that OTC units probably need to go to draws as the number of hunters in OTC ground has increased tremendously. Also thank for you for making the current situation clear, and for explaining it in simple terms. Your advice and comments are always welcome here

txtrophy85 we disagree and that is all. No disrespect meant or taken. We're good as they say.

I may support the argument that 90/0 is too extreme but listening to NR talk about how they are just as entitled to our game as residents does not sit well, that's all.
Move here, pay our taxes, support our local businesses year round, vote as residents in our elections, then you'll have the right to hunt our game. Now, as a NR your have the privilege to hunt it.

I used the word entitled, not as a poke at you, more so to show as residents our state law gives us the right to hunt and fish on public lands, it does not mention NRs, so we are "entitled" by state law to hunt our game. NRs have the privilege to hunt it as I said above.
To me it is a state's rights issue, that is why I get defensive. Not personal at all, just a NR trying to tell Wyoming how to manage their wildlife and license allocations. The Supreme Court has upheld it and funny enough only the Democratic appointees took your side.

I get that public land belongs to all and agree with that, just firmly believe that our game belongs to our state and as such we get to make the rules for hunting it. I really don't know any residents that don't welcome NR hunters to Wyoming, and I'm the same .

Anyway, it stayed a civil conversation. Not so much on other forums.

Just wondering what percentage of non-residents are drawn to hunt in say Big Bend
National Park?

0% Don

Hunting isn’t allowed period in Big Bend National Park

Ok. That's how it reads to me. You want more opportunity as a non-resident, and if you don't get it, the system is wrong.

I consider hunting other states a privilege, and play by their rules. I don't complain about how unfair it is. I guess I don't have a sense of entitlement towards other state's resources.

And based off of the "I'm not interested in Hunting a unit that they dump a ton of tags and seeing a buck over 3 years old is a rarity. ", I would suggest looking at your own signature line. There's some wisdom in it....

I hunt 3-5 states almost every year, and apply in atleast10. The non-resident allocation out side of once in a life time draws is trifling. It’s makes it a pay to play sport. Which erodes hunting even more.

Essentially NM, Okla, CO, Utah, NV, WY, and MT are fasty becoming pay to play states

I get once in a life time tags but pronghorns/mule deer/whitetail/elk is just stupid

It’s werid that Texas is the most equality opportunity drawing in NA. Doesn’t even require a license to enter

As long as we continue to auction tags to highest bidder, NR allocation will continue to fall until non-existent

Texas is very much a pay to play state due to leasing. If you want better opportunity to draw tags, I would suggest petitioning TPWD to change things.

It's still pretty easy to get a Gen elk tag or region deer tag, but those are "undesirable" for some. Oddly enough, that's the only tag us "spoiled" residents can actually count on getting lol.

I don't know where you got that I have a sense of entitlement? All I wanted was equal opportunity or at least more equal opportunity to draw a tag to hunt on property that is mine ( Federal Land ) regardless of what state I live in. State land, I'm not asking for nor expectant of anything. Texas is 98% privately owned. I pay taxes on the property that I own and I have free reign over what happens on my property but am bound to local and state game laws, and in the case of certain species federal laws.

On Federal Land owned by the Public ( me and you and everyone else) we are bound by local state and federal laws but the state is dictating that more people that are residents of that state get opportunity than the same taxpayer/landowner who resides in other states. I'm not saying I should be guaranteed a tag every year. I'm stating I should have a more equal chance to draw a tag on units comprised of mostly Federally owned Properties, such as Nat. Forest and BLM. State WMA's or land leased thru the state like an Open Gate program, Its state land and they can issue tags to whoever they see fit.

I've stated this several times, you don't have to agree with it, but you seem to have a real axe to grind with me because I'm disagreeing with the states ruling. Calling me entitled because I want an equal opportunity to draw a tag to hunt on land that my tax dollars pay for is not entitlement.

I stated that I don’t have a sense of entitlement towards other states resources. I don't have an axe to grind.

I'm sorry, I didn't intend to anger you by simply disagreeing with your beliefs/opinions.

TX isn’t really relative to the discussion, as vast majority of Wildlife is managed by private land and nor do NR fund any significant amount of our DNR/wildlife

Like I said I actually hunt several western states a year. When you factor in the Fact the WY, CO, NM etc require NR to purchase a hunting license to apply so that they can maximize not only revenue and tax dollars like Pittman Robertson you are taking advantage of NR.

I’d like for WY to exclude all NR in raffle and auction tags. Would be pretty funny watching DNR and conservation revenue plummet

Pay ta play Sports Hunting started in
& it tis relative ta the discussion..

When has Texas ever raised well over $300k off a single tag… let alone 600k to 1 million off 20 tags..

Out side the fact TX was deeded out well before most Western states statehood, I get your fake persona doesn’t allow you to acknowledge the concept of any kind home ownership much less the correlation between private land and conservation. In other words, this conversation is way over your persona’s head.

If you want to have an actual conversation and dispute NR’s funding a large share of many western states budgets then by all means refute that.

If you are going to insist on a NR quota then it should be relative to ALL direct and indirect wildlife specific income; Auction and Raffle tags, Application costs, PP purchase, license costs and Pittman Robertson appropriation, etc.

Fancy words dont change it...
Just like ya'lls
Guns dont kill...
Yet, threw out history man has made impovements on guns for that purpose...

Why are you on this forum? You cant even take the time to even muster a semi-thought out response?