Has western hunting become a wealthy man's sport?

[Jon Boy]

DEHusker, you go man!
Riddle me this, why do I, a non-resident of whatever state, have to pay non-resident fees to hunt federally owned land?
We all payed for it. I would argue that the revenues from non-western state liscences ect paid more than the states that said land is in
to procure that land. Am I wrong? (question is for everyone not directed at husker in particular)
Anyhow, dam good rant. Carry on.
JT

Your right we all paid for the federal lands and that is why we get to trespass on the land for free. You have to pay to hunt the game on the said land because the game is managed by the state .

 

[Rucker61]

MattB, I totally agree, as I have posted, I started with whatever old clothes, a borrowed 1917 Lee-Enfield .303, NO optics and a cheap folding knife given me by a neighbour.

I happen to enjoy fine guns, lots of them and I grew up in real poverty, due to the effects of WWI and WWII upon my family; so, as hard work and my ability to find and deal in "carriage trade" guns and gear increased as I aged, I just bought what I wanted....as most would, IMO.


We can discuss the excess in gear, etc., that so many seem to buy, BUT, there are some posts here that go too far and seem to advocate using minimal gear and sketchy stuff; here in BC, that can get your azz in a sling, PDQ.

There, IS a "happy medium" and that is where we all should be, but, I have wanted a Kimber Montana or Mountain Ascent in, probably, .280Ackley, for about two years and.....wellllll.....

Today, I just said. "f**kit" and ordered the damned thing...what can I say, eh!?

Where is the "like" button?

 

[5MilesBack]

Riddle me this, why do I, a non-resident of whatever state, have to pay non-resident fees to hunt federally owned land?

Because you're not hunting the "land", you're hunting the "animals" on the land.......whether state land, federal land, or private land. The state owns and manages the wildlife, not the Feds........thank goodness. That would be a fiasco.

 

[JCT]

Now that makes sense. True I am hunting the wildlife not the land.
Simple and surprised I had't thought about it that way.
Feds managing the wildlife ? Good grief ! My head hurts just thinking about that.
JT

 

[DaveC]

The states manage the critters, within an umbrella of federal rules and mandates, and often with a whole heap of federal dollars helping with secondary and tertiary aspects of wildlife management.

An easier question is; why as a non-resident do I have to hire a guide to hunt the most interesting parts of Wyoming, which happen to be federal land (that had the state had it's way in the 1890s would probably have been logged extensively)?

 

[DEHusker]

The states manage the critters, within an umbrella of federal rules and mandates, and often with a whole heap of federal dollars helping with secondary and tertiary aspects of wildlife management.

An easier question is; why as a non-resident do I have to hire a guide to hunt the most interesting parts of Wyoming, which happen to be federal land (that had the state had it's way in the 1890s would probably have been logged extensively)?

I'm sure it has something to do with the "danger" factor. They'll tell you it is to protect against a bunch of amateurish Non-resident idiots going out and playing Daniel Boone with guns for awhile in a blizzard and either getting killed or, worse, having to be rescued costing tens of thousands of dollars. The reality is that it is probably that along with the fact that guides and others get bookoo bucks showing you the nicest parts of their state...with the biggest animals and fewest hunters, ironically. Alaska has the same rules for certain animals. Again, probably the "danger" factor. Funny how the general non-hunting public can traipse around all they want (unguided) in those same areas, at the same time of year, or any other part of the year. Difference is, they don't have guns/bows/ML's (or deep pockets willing to shell out tons of money for their passion). LOL!!!!

 

[Poser]

I'm sure it has something to do with the "danger" factor. They'll tell you it is to protect against a bunch of amateurish Non-resident idiots going out and playing Daniel Boone with guns for awhile in a blizzard and either getting killed or, worse, having to be rescued costing tens of thousands of dollars. The reality is that it is probably that along with the fact that guides and others get bookoo bucks showing you the nicest parts of their state...with the biggest animals and fewest hunters, ironically. Alaska has the same rules for certain animals. Again, probably the "danger" factor. Funny how the general non-hunting public can traipse around all they want (unguided) in those same areas, at the same time of year, or any other part of the year. Difference is, they don't have guns/bows/ML's (or deep pockets willing to shell out tons of money for their passion). LOL!!!!

Yeah, I used to go backcountry alpine and rock climbing in the Cirque of the Towers in a WY wilderness area. -no permit, no nothing.

 

[DaveC]

Yep, that was a rhetorical question on my part! It's certainly all about the $$ in both the Absaroka/Tetons and in AK. Didn't see any safety rangers in the Thorofare when I skied through there in May five years ago. Just elk and grizzlies.

 

[Poser]

I'd also add that an AK nonresident could book a flight and attempt to climb some of the most savage and dangerous peaks and faces in Alaska without so much as a free permit. It would seem that the element of danger in hunting certain species wouldn't hold much water considering anyone with airfare money is free to attempt a suicide route on the East face of Mt Foraker. In order to be consistent, any argument for required guiding has to be built around the consumptive nature of hunting. (I have no doubt that AK nonresidents can easily get over their head in terms of safety, but that aspect is not unique to hunting and other pursuits do not have such requirements).

 

[MattB]

The states manage the critters, within an umbrella of federal rules and mandates, and often with a whole heap of federal dollars helping with secondary and tertiary aspects of wildlife management.

An easier question is; why as a non-resident do I have to hire a guide to hunt the most interesting parts of Wyoming, which happen to be federal land (that had the state had it's way in the 1890s would probably have been logged extensively)?

The simple answer is "because that is what the state government mandates on behalf of its residents". Wildlife isn't managed by the state only for those who hunt (which a lot of hunters seem to forget when it does not benefit them), but for all residents. In states that have a high resource to population ratio, it is common that the wildlife is managed in a way to drive broader economic benefit from the wildlife. It is not just the guides/outfitters, but the hotels, car rental businesses, restaurants, gas stations, gift shops, etc. etc. which benefit economically from NR hunters.

This reminds me of the big stink in NM a few years back between the UBNM and the guides/outfitters association. To listen to the UBNM, the outfitters were whoring out the wildlife for the benefit of non-resident hunters and to the detriment of resident hunters. I personally looked at it more that the state wanted to allow a broader base of New Mexico residents to benefit economically from the wildlife - even if they did not hunt.

 

[luke moffat]

It is funny and stupid that in Alaska a non-res can go and hunt caribou or black bears in the same country as sheep and mountain goats, but no require a guide so long as you aren't hunting the white critters. I don't buy the safety aspect of things due to this reason. There are just as many YAHOOs that live up in Alaska as residents as the lower 48. The mandatory guide thing for brown bears, sheep, and goats is just a state sanctioned subsidy to the guiding industry IMO.

I don't believe for a second that just cause someone lives in Alaska for 12 months they become that much safer and have the much more knowledge to keep them safe than someone from the lower 48 that has been hunting all their life in the western states. Its different than hunting in the lower 48 certainly in some aspects, but not nearly enough to justify any sort of guide requirement.

 

[bergnp]

It is funny and stupid that in Alaska a non-res can go and hunt caribou or black bears in the same country as sheep and mountain goats, but no require a guide so long as you aren't hunting the white critters. I don't buy the safety aspect of things due to this reason. There are just as many YAHOOs that live up in Alaska as residents as the lower 48. The mandatory guide thing for brown bears, sheep, and goats is just a state sanctioned subsidy to the guiding industry IMO.

I don't believe for a second that just cause someone lives in Alaska for 12 months they become that much safer and have the much more knowledge to keep them safe than someone from the lower 48 that has been hunting all their life in the western states. Its different than hunting in the lower 48 certainly in some aspects, but not nearly enough to justify any sort of guide requirement.

Yes, what Luke said.

 

[tipsntails7]

I'd like to see:

-NR tags capped at 5x the resident cost
-25% of tags open (but not guaranteed) to non-residents, irregardless of circumstance
-no mandated guiding, ever
-trepass fees outlawed, charging for accommodation and guiding is fine, but no money should change hands purely for hunting access of private land, after all the public owns the animals
-anyone who landlocks public land must provide open and free access to said public land in a timely fashion (obviously relevant beyond hunting)
-no Governor's tags, raffles are ok

Clearly you don't own land.

 

[good2eat]

Clearly you don't own land.

He jumped the shark on the unfettered access to private lands "stuff"

 

[5MilesBack]

Well, shouldn't everybody have access to YOUR private land? And also be able to dictate how you use said property, or how you allow people access to the property? Oh wait.....this isn't the liberal forum.

 

[Brandon Pattison]

I love this thread. I have been on both sides of the isle; first off with ALICE gear and Korean War-era wool then on to the new stuff. Personally, I hate having too much stuff and prefer to sell the pile of junk to buy one nice one, whatever that may be. New bows and their accessories plain shoot better than the older ones. We can go on and on. Most new gear is lighter too.

 

[DaveC]

Private land rights is indeed one of America's larger sacred cows. I'm eternally thankful that Montana has been liberal/socialist enough to have the stream access laws it does. The landlocking issue applies in a tiny minority of cases, and almost always to folks who had plenty of time to know better and will hardly be economically inconvenienced by being obliged to work with the state on easements. See the ongoing Durfee Hills and Spotted Dog WMA controversies (both in MT) for examples.

 

[tipsntails7]

Private land rights is indeed one of America's larger sacred cows. I'm eternally thankful that Montana has been liberal/socialist enough to have the stream access laws it does. The landlocking issue applies in a tiny minority of cases, and almost always to folks who had plenty of time to know better and will hardly be economically inconvenienced by being obliged to work with the state on easements. See the ongoing Durfee Hills and Spotted Dog WMA controversies (both in MT) for examples.

 

[DEHusker]

Well, shouldn't everybody have access to YOUR private land? And also be able to dictate how you use said property, or how you allow people access to the property? Oh wait.....this isn't the liberal forum.

In Colorado, we have the "corner to corner property law." In this law, even if 2 sections of public land are touching at a corner, you absolutely cannot cross from one parcel to another if there is private land on the other two sides (Think Arizona/Colorado are public and Utah/New Mexico are private - the four corners). Why in the world is this illegal, you ask? Well, because the lovely people who make the laws here decided that property ownership applies to 500 feet of the airspace directly above the land as well as the land. Therefore, by crossing from one legal piece of public land to another legal piece of public land, even though you are always in contact with the ground you are ILLEGALLY going through private airspace and, officially, trespassing. You can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law up to and including seizure of your firearm, vehicle, loss of license, fines, etc. Awesome, huh?!?! This effectively landlocks tons of public land here in Colorado and, even more ironically, allows the private landowners full access to that public land essentially adding it to their private land while shutting out the taxpayers (you and me) who legally have a right to access that land. They get to use it and not even have to pay taxes on it, etc.

Furthermore, I'd like to see a "fair exchange" system whereby the landowners vouchers that are whored out to the landowners for big game here in Colorado (a HUGE business for guides, selling the vouchers, etc) would only be given out if the landowners would give reasonable access to hunt big game for a reasonable number of hunters. Sure, you can have your land but YOU ARE DIRECTLY BENEFITING FROM THE STATE OWNED WILDLIFE OCCUPYING YOUR LAND WITHOUT HAVING TO DO ANYTHING IN RETURN. That more than anything chaps my hide. You want to OWN the wildlife yourself?....Fine....You put a game fence up around your entire property....now they are your game animals and all tradeoffs are off. Too much money and under the table goings on are taking place for that to ever change, however. The DOW here caters to the landowners and guides because of the money aspect. There again we see how commercialization and capitalism is corrupting our sport....killing it (no pun intended).

 

[AXEL]

Gawd, you guys down in "the land of the free" are even MORE screwed than we are here in BC. I find this CO law-policy just appalling and it seems that the %%$@!* Guide/Outfitters, a group whom I am learning to just loathe, have decent, taxpayers at their mercy in ANY region of western North America.....guess that "bullshit walks, but, MONEY talks" is all too true everywhere, eh?!

Here, until the past 20-30 years or so, we never worried about so-called "trespass" on anyone's property as most BCers were pretty relaxed and friendly to our fellow citizens; then, the flood of foreigners and immigrants and "UN refugees" and illegal aliens started and now we live in a much less enjoyable society, a microcosm of North America, it would seem............