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 2 weeks ago
I apply in multiple states with point systems. The Preference Point and Bonus Point systems have the same point creep problem. However, I have hunted premium areas in Wyoming and Colorado under the preference point systems, and will draw a premium elk permit in Colorado with the same number of elk points that I currently have in Nevada. However, in Nevada I still have a minimum chance of drawing an elk tag, about the same chance I had before the Bonus Point system was implemented, due to the increase of hunters applying for permits.
I would recommend reducing the number of hunts on the application, and segregating hunt application options like Idaho. For example, if you want to apply deer, elk, antelope you cannot apply for bighorn sheep or mountain goat. That will eliminate a lot of applicants in each group, improving the odds in those groups. I also have no problem with allocating 25% of the tags to the top bonus point holders. One thing I am adamantly opposed to is allocating a portion of the non-resident deer tags to the Guide Draw. Obviously, something has to be done to improve the drawing odds for hunters that have invested huge amounts of money before those hunters realize the huge investment in Nevada will never pay off, because their drawing odds never increase.
ALERT: Idaho House approves decrease in nonresident tags, but increase in fees -
posted 1 month ago
Maybe nonresident fees and tag allocations should be tied to the amount of federal public land in Idaho! Many of their big game herds reside on federal land habitat that all U.S. citizens already pay for through our taxes. So, Idaho is already receiving support from nonresidents because much of their big game resides on these federal lands. My experience with hunter numbers in Idaho is not a nonresident problem, especially with multiple kills by a single hunter! Maybe the federal government should be charging Idaho, and other western states an AUM fee for the big game on federal lands just like they do for livestock grazing! Fair is fair!
ALERT: New bill will severely impact nonresident hunters in WY -
posted 1 month ago
I think a reevaluation on restricting non-resident hunters needs to be implanted that takes into consideration the amount of federal public land in the state, and the percentage of the big game population in that state that depends on federal land habitat for survival. Many of the western states contain a huge amount of federal public land that all citizens in the U.S. provide tax money to manage that land and provides habitat for the states big game herds. A formula should be devised that takes the percentage of federal public land into account, and I guarantee non-residents would get considerably more than 10% of the tags. Many of these states rely on nonresidents to fund their big game management programs, that could soon change. Also, the guide-outfitter quota should not come from the non-resident allocation.
Nez Perce Tribe bighorn sheep not recognized as state record -
posted 9 months ago
Having lived and managed wildlife in the Blue Mtns. of Washington (36 yrs), I have seen the problems with unregulated tribal hunting. The tribe has no season or bag limits, and branched bulls are managed on a permit basis. The tribe does not adhere to permits or bag limits, and in the area they hunt, bull ratios have never reached management objective because some tribal members focus on big bulls, some taking multiple big bulls per year. This is not subsistence hunting, even tribal elders have complained about young hunters killing big bulls. Another problem is, what is a tribal member? Is it 1/4, 1/8 tribal blood. Some tribes have blood requirements lower than 1/8. If they are not 50% tribal blood, they should not be eligible for tribal hunting rights. Allowing tribes unrestricted hunting takes away the states rights to manage wildlife, and causes many problems for wildlife managers because there is no accountability for tribal hunters!
INSIDER Update: Washington is now live! -
posted 11 months ago
You missed some quality ML hunts in draw odds: Blue Mtn. Foothills
Might recheck hunts in 2019 regs
Kristen A. Schmitt