Federal land and State animals

[cmahoney]

Come hunt in Michigan. We offer the same tag opportunities on federal land to nonresidents as we do to residents. Michigan (the lower peninsula) also has a lot of deer, just not many mature deer (by percentage) compared with the western states. We offer most of the same opportunities on state owned lands as well. Will you be as successful as the average resident on private land? Maybe, maybe not, but you have otc opportunity. At some point if public land pressure increases enough that may change, but I doubt it. I remember the 90s and early 2000s when the orange army would descend on every public land parcel like a plague of locusts. Finding solitude was often difficult for the first week of the season, but I don't remember anyone proposing limited opportunity on public lands.
Disclaimer- I'm no longer a Michigan resident, but I still hunt there every fall as a nonresident. For the last several years on opening day or the day after (firearm deer season) I've driven past state land parking areas with few or no vehicles parked. It seems like an odd trend to me, but I appreciate having a large area to hunt with little or no pressure.

I think Nevada and any other western state is a little more generous to Michigan residents than Michigan is to non residents. The equal opportunity for deer there is directly related to supply and demand. You can come here and hunt coyotes without a hunting license, the supply is there and the demand isn’t.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fordguy]

I think Nevada and any other western state is a little more generous to Michigan residents than Michigan is to non residents. The equal opportunity for deer there is directly related to supply and demand. You can come here and hunt coyotes without a hunting license, the supply is there and the demand isn’t.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This always makes me chuckle. The elk herd in Michigan is on state owned and privately owned lands, not federal. To the best of my knowledge it has never been federally funded. Similar to the situation in Minnesota IIRC. Pretty sure that for the rest of those animal species, you can apply for or buy otc just like a Michigan resident. The only one I haven't looked at in a while is bear.

 

[WalterH]

Incorrect. ANILCA has full authority on all federal lands in Alaska. Been that way since President Carter signed it into law.

Your post didn't say federal lands, it said "all of Alaska's fish and wildlife."

Yes the feds have the authority on fed-managed land to "manage" fish and wildlife and users thereof, not just in AK but elsewhere, but they cede that authority and responsibility to the states when there is no superseding law or obligation for them to manage these things. ANILCA/AK subsistence being one example of a superseding responsibility or law.

Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Policy - State Federal Relationships

The way this plays out in AK, is that fed and State biologists work very closely on the things that bios typically do, habitat monitoring, population surveys, etc. But by and large the state makes the management decisions with regard to things like seasons, bag limits, etc. and those apply for all non-subsistence hunters on state and fed lands.

There are obviously times when issues pop up and feds and state folks butt heads over game and fish management on fed lands (yukon kings, predators in preserves) etc. But those are the exception and not the norm.

When I, as a non-rural resident who doesn't qualify for subsistence rights, go hunting on fed-managed lands open to me in AK, I am using the ADFG hunting regulations book and playing by the wildlife rules that they set.

 

[cmahoney]

This always makes me chuckle. The elk herd in Michigan is on state owned and privately owned lands, not federal. To the best of my knowledge it has never been federally funded. Similar to the situation in Minnesota IIRC. Pretty sure that for the rest of those animal species, you can apply for or buy otc just like a Michigan resident. The only one I haven't looked at in a while is bear.

Same chuckle I get every time white tail and black bears are compared to the animals that live on the public lands here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mykolaivka887]

Yes the feds have the authority on fed-managed land to "manage" fish and wildlife and users thereof .

ANILCA/AK subsistence being one example of a superseding responsibility or law.

ANILCA authorizes the US Interior Dept to not provide hunting opportunities for non-area (out of area) hunters and fisherman, including other Alaska residents and nonresidents, when they (Interior Dept) deem it necessary to do so, and therein lies the crux; the US government controls allocation in Alaska on all federal lands and can, and will, and does exclude any and all out-of-area consumptive users as they feel necessary.

The State of Alaska capitulates to the federal government on all things management related, on federal lands. As we go into the future, the situation will become worse than we've seen in the 40-year history of ANILCA, whereas more and more other Alaskans and nonresidents will lose consumptive use opportunities on federal lands in Alaska.

Similar legislation for the Lower-48 states, if it were to happen, would almost effectively kill big game hunting in the Western United States. So, the point I'm driving at is that we, as hunters, absolutely DO NOT want the United States government managing wildlife anywhere, and definitely not in control of allocation(s).

 

[Fordguy]

Same chuckle I get every time white tail and black bears are compared to the animals that live on the public lands here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only difference is that if the elk in Michigan were on federally owned public land, I'd be the first in line to support every nontesident's right for equal opportunity (to residents) in hunting those animals.

 

[ReaptheHeat]

I appreciate this, this is all I ever want is for someone to be honest with themselves about how it would feel to not be able to hunt your back yard or hunt land you own, it is a real thing for lots of Co folks. Partially from giving overly liberal NR tags out

State should have allocations for people that live in the GMU. I cant imagine living in a northwest unit and never ever getting to hunt it when the population density is negligible.

 

[S.Clancy]

There are prob 1

Like it or not, team public land will lose team members if nonres hunting opportunities ever get to 0%. Saying you can still hike, camp, fish, etc., doesn't help. PETA will use that same argument to resident hunters. I see a short term gain and long term loss for resident hunters.

Hope it never gets to that point. I'll advocate for public land until then.

There are prob 50:1 public land advocates that don't hunt to those that do. In the past it used to be different, today, not so much.

 

[S.Clancy]

Like it or not, if all NR opportunities disappeared tomorrow, every western state would still figure out their management. I would imagine most states would simply double or slightly more the cost of resident tags and move about their business. Yes, NR licenses foot a disproportionate amount of the bill compared to opportunity. Yet, demand continues to increase. The residents of western states continue to hold resources (game animals) that are in absurdly high demand for NR. I bet we could cut tags to NR by 50% and double NR tags and still sell them out, with less demand on the resource.....legislative session 2025.....

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

So using some folks' logic....

Option 1
Since my tax dollars were used directly or indirectly to benefit all of your legal-aged biological females, I therefore should have regular free-use access to all of them (at least the ones I want) no matter whose house they live in. They better like sweeping up dog hair and picking up dog poop (have to be rated G).

Option 2
Then we'll go a different direction with the "paid taxes" approach. Your ability to hunt will be directly proportional to the dollars paid in taxes at the federal level. So if Jeff Bezos wants to hunt, he has more of a right to hunt that several of the folks who chimed in the UPS Strike thread, as an example.

Hunting season is upon us. Folks should focus more time on prepping for that rather than bitching about whatever the topic de jour is.

 

[pirogue]

Now if you want to talk about NR being locked out of hunting WY wilderness, I can provide the pitch forks!

No state has a Game and Fish Commission in bed with the state’s guides and outfitters’ assosciation, any more than WY

 

[txjustin]

Like it or not, if all NR opportunities disappeared tomorrow, every western state would still figure out their management. I would imagine most states would simply double or slightly more the cost of resident tags and move about their business. Yes, NR licenses foot a disproportionate amount of the bill compared to opportunity. Yet, demand continues to increase. The residents of western states continue to hold resources (game animals) that are in absurdly high demand for NR. I bet we could cut tags to NR by 50% and double NR tags and still sell them out, with less demand on the resource.....legislative session 2025.....

CO would have to increase substantially more than double or triple for residents where they’re at now. More like 10X


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wytx]

The only difference is that if the elk in Michigan were on federally owned public land, I'd be the first in line to support every nontesident's right for equal opportunity (to residents) in hunting those animals.

I wonder where those elk came from that boosted your current herds?

 

[TXRM1280]

I don’t think most NR’s are asking to hunt as cheap and/or as much as residents. We simply want the chance to do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would agree with this. I’ll pay tenfold more for maybe ten days of hunting out of the entire season, drive 18 hours in one jaunt (twice), and spend more money with an outfitter for a drop camp, or pack service. All that to enjoy the outdoors when it’s not a 100 plus degrees and turn my cel phone off for an extended time. Yeah I could go hike for free but I’d rather chase animals over the next ridge. Even though there is less than 10% chance I even take an animal, I’ll keep paying, and I’ll keep coming. I’ll also respect it….sorry I’m not sorry I happen to be from Texas. Don’t the NR tag,licensing, and draw fees go to the state?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mykolaivka887]

I would agree with this. I’ll pay tenfold more for maybe ten days of hunting .... Don’t the NR tag,licensing, and draw fees go to the state?

Yes, that's how public trust resources are managed -- proceeds from the sale of privileges to have access to extract natural resources are given to the managing entity. In this instance, relative to this thread, a state game department.

 

[OKHunter84]

The thread about Colorado keeping OTC for residents petition got me thinking. All you people who keep advocating your “right” to hunt Federal land as much and as inexpensively as residents might just be shooting yourselves in the foot. Forget about the fact that residents pay all year for the infrastructure in the State that allows you to access the Federal land. Forget about how the cost of living may be lower for those living there. Forget about the fact that the laws and rules have been litigated and settled for years and years.
The thing that could happen and what you should be concerned about is the Federal Government giving the land to the States. or selling it off to private interests which is what can happen if the Federal Government divests itself of the land. There are a lot of politicians just salivating at the chance to do just that. If it happens, you will no longer be able to access the land for free and will pay dearly to do it.
Just be careful what you wish for.

Rant over ………………..

I see what you're saying and I agree that the states having control of the land would be bad. I don't think that's exactly how federal funding works though. BLM, national forests and all that aren't funded by your state taxes. You're local infrastructure, schools, government and all that are where your property taxes go.

In the case of most western states they wouldn't be able to take care of all the funding for the federal land without federal funds. You could make a very strong case that there is a large portion of those funds that are misappropriated, but that's a different rabbit hole.

I've read and contributed to the thread you're talking about and what I took away was that NR get rubbed the wrong way by resident hunters thinking they should be the only ones that get to hunt most the time. Resident hunters don't like the thought of outsiders coming in and hunting in their locality as easy as them.

OTC is going to go away I think very soon for everyone with western game. Idaho and New Mexico most likely have the most sustainable models. I really think the 10% allocated to outfitters in NM is BS though.

 

[Fordguy]

I wonder where those elk came from that boosted your current herds?

I don't. Michigan's elk haven't needed boosting. The herd is small, and they keep it that way deliberately. The elk in Michigan today are descended from some transplanted animals in the early 1900s. If I remember correctly there were fewer than 10 original animals. The elk herd is small today maintained on state lands, and occasionally on private. They issue a very limited number of tags each year. I know people who have applied every year since they were eligible, and others who started much later. I still don't know anyone who's drawn a Michigan elk tag.

 

[Gobbler36]

I don’t think most NR’s are asking to hunt as cheap and/or as much as residents. We simply want the chance to do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Plenty of chances
should be about a 10% chance or less in most places….
quit telling everyone on your block or county road to come out and do it and your chance will be better.
and yes I’m a NR applicant in other states too

 

[Gobbler36]

I think most of this never-ending debate comes from real, or perceived, over-crowding. There's not many of us that trust State agencies or federal agencies to manage ANY public resource in the best interests of the people that pay the bills (i.e. taxpayers). In this case, hunters. We've seen gross negligence and mismanagement at times that shattered our trust and made us leery of believing the agencies rhetoric, and rightly so. There's never going to be enough opportunity for everyone to get the chance they want. The resident hunter that has a tough season and happens upon non-res license plates in his/her spot is most likely going to be fired up about non-residents being allowed too much opportunity. Or a state that reduces non-resident tag allocations is going to draw a lot of negative press from out of state hunters whose childhood dreams have been dashed. There's multitudes of electronic tools that have removed much of the mystery from hunting in places that used to only be known to locals. Just look at the hundreds of complaints on this forum of people's honey holes being plastered all over YouTube by someone looking for "likes" and subscribers.
Our industry and favorite pastime is a very cannibalistic beast, and is all based upon a resource that is in limited supply, and that Mother Nature can snatch away with one hard winter, or one new subdivision, or regulation changes, etc. I do believe that most people, resident or non-resident, deserve the chance to enjoy this resource. However, litigation, state agencies, and state constutional ammendments have always leaned towards the residents of said state receiving the lions share of the access towards the wildlife resources in that state. It will continue to be that way for the foreseeable future. Many of the states that hold the prized Western big game resources have seen huge influxes of new residents, and huge influxes in the number of "visitors". Cities haven't responded quickly with new infrastructure leading to congestion and frustration for the people that are long time residents of that city. They hear "I just moved here from (insert Left Coast state)" more times in a week than they used to hear in a year.
My point is...there isn't an answer. Sorry, but that's the truth. I said it. Give more tags to non-residents, the tax-paying, city-supporting residents will come unhinged. Take away non-resident tags, and the State game agencies have to raise tag prices on residents or increase resident tag allocations to satisfy the state bean counters who demand more revenue daily.
Bottom line is, not everyone is going to get the chance they want. In fact, very few are going to get the chance they truly want to hunt bighorn sheep, or rut-crazed mules, ect. The only solution is to lobby whoever or wherever you can to make your hunting experience the best you can. All of us would like to hunt Henry Mountains mulies, or Missouri Breaks bighorns, but most of us will be hunting the equivalent of Colorado OTC in the October pumpkin patch. Be glad these opportunities still exist and that you have the means to enjoy a Western hunt of any sort. The time will come when development, poor management, and unharnessed greed will steal most of those opportunities from normal hunters, and only then will we collectively realize "how good it was".

Mostly agree besides one part
I would gladly pay Idaho 5x my current sportmans package if it meant me and my sons had more opportunities and less people that come to town for a week to pillage our resource. but yes this all is a sad reality

 

[Gobbler36]

The only difference is that if the elk in Michigan were on federally owned public land, I'd be the first in line to support every nontesident's right for equal opportunity (to residents) in hunting those animals.

East to speak to hypotheticals, but until that day comes and there are 15 other new trucks in the area you hunt elk we’ll come back and let us know if you still feel that way because it’s a nice sentiment on the internet but until you’ve lived it its pie in the sky