The most accurate draw odds ever
Have a chance to win hunts and gear every month — over $100,000 per year
Access strategy & tips to help you apply & spend more time in the field
Statistics and historical data to find top producing trophy units
Detailed overview of how to apply and hunt in each state
Your quick dashboard for important dates, benefits, and the latest giveaways
New petition to give 25% of Nevada tags to max point holders -
posted 1 month ago
Some good points made in this post below: If you are obstinate about only accepting the single most premium tag in the state, you can end up with 27 points. With Rocky and California Bighorns as well as Mountain Goat, you can really have a problem, the odds are just so bad. Maybe also a bit when it comes to Desert sheep, although you should draw with 20 points if you are being reasonable about your choices. ALL OTHER SPECIES: This is just someone being pigheaded about wanting the best tag in the state. There is no other reason you can't draw an elk within 10 points, antelope within 8, and a deer within 6 points unless you are just being picky. Good on you for holding out for the best tag, but you also can't cry about "poor me" when you are holding out for so long. An idea might be to try this with the Sheep and Goat tags and see how it goes after a few years. The three vs. five choice thing is a non-issue. Also, we need to keep our bonus point system, even if we skim a little off the top for some select preference point hunts.
This may be an idea whose time has come for us here in Nevada. We do have a problem with the poor folks who have 20+ points. I think the 25% proposal is too high. Rather than looking at the current situation, let's decide on what we want forever going forward, and set it there. If we set it at 10% to 15% for the top point holders, with a maximum cap of 25% (for areas with only 4 tags allotted for instance) it may make a lot of sense. I don't see any merit in the three vs. five choice idea. Mathematically, it doesn't really make any significant difference, given Nevada's lottery system.
Idaho considers big changes to nonresident hunting -
posted 7 months ago
I've seen both. As an NR deer hunter I was in 47 during archery season. Circus, but all Idaho folks. Later, helping my Idaho-resident daughter hunt elk in the Frank Church, was about 75% out of state plates on vehicles. That said, I never saw one other human being afield, except one from a distance. Just trucks in camps or on roads. Way fewer hunters than I see most places. Also...a lot less elk (zero).
There aren't any easy answers, Idaho. You guys just need to do what you think is right for your herd and your hunt and we NRs will have to accept it. That's what happens in every state. I love to see NR hunters in NV because I know they are paying for my hunting. I also know that only 10% of tags go to NR here, so it simply isn't an issue for me. Idaho, if you use a system like ours where NRs have to pay $150 just to get a license, and can't return it if they want to retain draw bonus points, you will get to keep the money without really seeing many NRs. Bonus points can be a moneymaker for you and allow you to control numbers better. Best of luck with this!
Idaho considers big changes to nonresident hunting -
posted 8 months ago
Perhaps the concern lies more around elk tags. In 2018 total OTC tags issued was 81,100. In 2019, the NR allotment was 12,800, which represents about 16% of the total tags (2018 to 2019 isn't perfect, but close enough and all I could find). Many of those remaining NR tags get sold to residents on September 1 as extra or second tags. I can see knocking the cap back on NR tags to make things closer to the 10%, but again, this won't move the needle much AT ALL...will change only 4 to 5% of hunters in field after considering the resident buying of NR tags. It will eliminate a lot of revenue and will eliminate the chance for residents to buy up those second tags. Again, us NRs shouldn't really care about all of this. It really isn't much of an impact to us at all.
Marcus, that is an interesting take. I bought an OTC deer tag last year and never got around to hunting it. In fact, instead of hunting my own tag, I took two residents out hunting and helped one guy kill his first Idaho deer rather than punch my own tag. I plan to hunt my OTC tag this year, if my wife gets her NV cow in time, and in between helping my brother and Dad with their NV deer and my daughter with her resident ID elk. Maybe one weekend for me plus possibility of late archery. My own opinion is that you are right. The NR tags are already limited to about 10% for deer in the OTC, and those don't all get sold to NRs. The controlled hunts are officially limited to about 10% on first draw. If Idaho residents are seeing a crowding problem, it simply isn't due to NRs...they have met the enemy and they is they...Idaho is among the most beautiful states and I love it for its mountains, rivers, and deserts. I backpack there. I fish there. I boat there. I tour there. And I hunt there occasionally, but mostly to help out ID residents. With something around 150,000 OTC deer tags and a statewide OTC success rate of 28%, it is simply up to ID hunters and voters to decide whether that system suits them the best or not. It is a generous hunting opportunity, but deer have so many natural predators and higher mortality than elk in general. If I lived in Idaho, I would vote to cap all OTC tags or to move all of the rifle tags into a draw system to better allow the IDFG to manage the hunt units. Raising resident tag prices to $40 or $50 also would provide the IDFG with a better base of resources with which to manage the herd. What Idaho is proposing, however, doesn't really move the needle for us NRs that much, so it seems like much ado about nothing...this article certainly produced some opinions and thoughts, which is so awesome. I'm really glad to get to read about how people think about this subject!!