Hunting Washington Forum

Big Game Hunting => Out Of State Hunting => Topic started by: Naches Sportsman on February 07, 2017, 04:59:10 PM

Advertise Here

Title: Which states are better at catering to non residents?
Post by: Naches Sportsman on February 07, 2017, 04:59:10 PM

I am trying to get an idea on which states cater better to non-residents. I think Colorado is out already, but wan't everyone's opinions. Thanks.

Title: Re: Which states are better at catering to non residents?
Post by: Bob33 on February 07, 2017, 05:27:08 PM

I voted Wyoming but have been treated well by Idaho and Montana also.

Title: Re: Which states are better at catering to non residents?
Post by: vandeman17 on February 07, 2017, 05:55:34 PM

I voted Montana but have nothing bad to say about Idaho and Wyoming. Feel like all three states actually appreciate my money and all that hunting brings along with it.

Title: Re: Which states are better at catering to non residents?
Post by: Bigshooter on February 07, 2017, 11:48:35 PM

Wyoming has the most friendly game department I have ever talked with.  I like the residents of MT best.  Idaho would be last of all of the states.  Game department sucks to talk with and residents are atv riding jerks.

Title: Re: Which states are better at catering to non residents?
Post by: westside103147 on February 08, 2017, 12:27:28 AM

I've had an overall great experience with Montana Fish, wildlife and Parks. The locals in Montana have been nothing be great to me. All of the Idaho Wardens (Idaho County) have been good to deal with, the locals on the other hand are not always the most gracious to non-locals. 

Title: Re: Which states are better at catering to non residents?
Post by: grundy53 on February 08, 2017, 04:41:14 AM

I've had nothing but good experiences with the Idaho locals.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Which states are better at catering to non residents?
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 08, 2017, 05:05:53 AM

Catering in what way? Just nice people or the game department is favorable in way of tags, permits. Some places like WY don't allow you to hunt the wilderness without a guide. MT allows you to hunt the different seasons archery, rifle, etc  but limit the number of special permits given out. Some require a hunt lisc to apply, some like WY make you front the money to apply for a sheep permit($3k+). Just examples

Title: Re: Which states are better at catering to non residents?
Post by: theleo on February 08, 2017, 08:29:56 AM

I hunt Idaho and love it, been considering Montana since I have some friends that hunt there and it isn't to hard to get some nice animals. I can't say anything bad about Colorado but Wyoming will never get my money for deer and elk because of non residents being required to be guided in wilderness areas, that's just stupid to me.

Title: Re: Which states are better at catering to non residents?
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 08, 2017, 08:41:44 AM

I've only hunted in Idaho, but have been buying points in colorado and Wyoming. Hoping to hunt in colorado and Montana this year.
Wyoming has been more than easy to talk to both on application questions as well as speaking with bios about different areas or hunts to apply for. Much easier than when I talked to a bio in Idaho about moose... :twocents:

Title: Re: Which states are better at catering to non residents?
Post by: ballpark on February 08, 2017, 09:43:28 AM

Hunted Idaho - With Washington plates, local farmers waved at us everyday :tup:  It didn't sway my vote that my son and I both got Elk. :chuckle:

Title: Re: Which states are better at catering to non residents?
Post by: bobcat on February 08, 2017, 10:16:52 AM

I've only hunted Idaho once, and that was for bear, while I've hunted Montana a few times, and most recently Wyoming, for the last three years in a row. But my vote for "catering" to non residents is for Idaho. You can hunt deer and elk in Idaho every year, with a rifle, with over the counter tags. Montana and Wyoming require that you draw a tag, at least for elk, and if you do the cost is quite a bit more than Idaho. Wyoming and Montana are great states to hunt, but overall I'd have to say Idaho is better for the non resident hunter. No point system, no draw necessary for good deer and elk hunting. Bargain prices for non resident youth licenses. And a higher proportion of public land than the other two states. I know very little about Colorado so I won't comment on that.

Title: Re: Which states are better at catering to non residents?
Post by: ballpark on February 08, 2017, 10:32:29 AM

Quote from: bobcat on February 08, 2017, 10:16:52 AM

I've only hunted Idaho once, and that was for bear, while I've hunted Montana a few times, and most recently Wyoming, for the last three years in a row. But my vote for "catering" to non residents is for Idaho. You can hunt deer and elk in Idaho every year, with a rifle, with over the counter tags. Montana and Wyoming require that you draw a tag, at least for elk, and if you do the cost is quite a bit more than Idaho. Wyoming and Montana are great states to hunt, but overall I'd have to say Idaho is better for the non resident hunter. No point system, no draw necessary for good deer and elk hunting. Bargain prices for non resident youth licenses. And a higher proportion of public land than the other two states. I know very little about Colorado so I won't comment on that.

And Idaho gives a significant discount to military vets with a disability rating of 40% or more :tup:

Title: Re: Which states are better at catering to non residents?
Post by: Ghost Hunter on February 08, 2017, 11:27:43 AM

I voted WY because that's the only one I've hunted so far, and I have a resident guide.   Looking hard at Idaho.  Just another nonresident going in green.

Title: Re: Which states are better at catering to non residents?
Post by: Naches Sportsman on February 10, 2017, 10:51:24 AM

Thanks for the input you guys.

I decided on Idaho this morning even though I got some sweet opportunities in Montana.

Time to start Google Earthing the area I'll be in this year :tup:

Title: Re: Which states are better at catering to non residents?
Post by: Stein on February 17, 2017, 11:48:41 AM

If you are talking about catering to out of state hunters, I think you have to talk about price.  Every state will have friendly and unfriendly people (although MT seems to have a much higher proportion of license plate focus guys) and in general all business will like the color of your money.  I have seen no difference in the enforcement side, all that I have encountered have been professional.

The cost varies from slight difference to massive difference.  There are also differences in out of state tag allowances and outfitter/landowner options.  Also, there are big differences in season dates and animal nubmers.  Finally, there are big differences in the cost to put in and the cost of points (if available).

In short, you really have to narrow it down for the conversation to be meaningful.  What animal and guided or not.

That said, if I had to rank them just on the overall appeal from an out of state perspective, it would be:

Wyoming - best pricing, long seasons, tons of otc options (antelope possible every year), least density of hunters I have encountered
Colorado - huge season options, decent pricing, probably best otc options
Idaho - shortest drive by far, good otc tags, higher license costs
Montana - highest prices, longer seasons, good otc tags