BuckeyeRifleman
WKR
I think the vast majority of us posting here believe in a few fundamental things, one being access to our vast federal lands for recreational opportunities as well as state management of wildlife via the North American model. However we’re seeing a worrying trend in American hunting, specifically non resident big game hunting opportunities are becoming more and more monetized, greatly benefiting the coffers of state fish and game agencies, subsidizing resident license sales, and giving increased preference to politically connected outfitters. This comes at great detriment to the average American hunter. It might benefit him to a minor degree if he is lucky enough to live in a state that has ample big game opportunities, but it comes at his great cost if he chooses to explore opportunities in the 49 other states.
Along with state management of course comes states rights. Bottom line the federal government has no right to come in and tell a state what to do with its management of wildlife outside the bounds of the ESA. In my mind nor should they. Likewise states should and obviously do give great preference to their residents through both costs of tags and opportunities to hunt. However in many states hunting as a non resident is becoming an onerous task out of reach of many. Most of these opportunities however occur on federal lands that the rest of the country in large part pays for and owns.
That said the federal government provides millions to the states each year through matching funds through the Pittman Robertson Act, the excise tax we pay for through hunting and fishing equipment. These funds are only allocated if states meet certain requirements such as keeping fish and game sales dollars out of the general fund and put back into wildlife management. (If I’m getting any of this wrong, apologies, I’m by no means an expert.)
I propose this be amended to at least give a left lateral limit to all states with their non resident opportunity.
“A state shall not receive Pittman Robertson Funds if they,
1. Charge a non resident more than 10 times the resident cost of a hunting, fishing, or trapping license or tag valid on federal land.
2. Allocate less than 10% of all limited entry tags to non resident hunters or fishermen valid on federal land. If 6-10 tags are allocated for said unit, at least one of those tags shall go to a non resident. If 1-5 tags are allocated, at least one tag must be issued to a nonresident every other season. If tags valid on federal land are sold over the counter to residents, at least 10% of the sale amount for the previous year must be provided to nonresidents.
3. Provides any differing rules or regulations to nonresident hunters, fishermen, or trappers compared to that required of residents while utilizing federal land. (Eliminates nonresident guide requirements on federal land or wilderness areas.)
4. Proves any preference in drawing to outfitted non resident hunters for tags valid on federal land, or allows outfitted hunters to purchase additional points compared non outfitted hunters.
5. If preference or bonus points are utilized in tag drawing process, these points will not cost more than 10 times that of the resident cost, or 10% of the nonresident tag cost, whichever is less.”
Bottom line the idea above is a dumb fireman’s idea of how to tackle the problem after a finger or two of bourbon. I’m sure it’s far from perfect, and I anxiously await it getting torn to bits by people who are way smarter than me. But it’s at least an attempt at tackling an issue that is barreling down the neck of all of us who enjoy hunting all across this great country. Maybe it will start a conversation that refines itself into something good for all of us.
I’m sure some residents of western states can’t wait to angrily type into their keyboards or smartphones after reading this. That’s fine, all I ask is you stop for a moment and consider the big picture. We’re all non residents in 49 other states after all.
Along with state management of course comes states rights. Bottom line the federal government has no right to come in and tell a state what to do with its management of wildlife outside the bounds of the ESA. In my mind nor should they. Likewise states should and obviously do give great preference to their residents through both costs of tags and opportunities to hunt. However in many states hunting as a non resident is becoming an onerous task out of reach of many. Most of these opportunities however occur on federal lands that the rest of the country in large part pays for and owns.
That said the federal government provides millions to the states each year through matching funds through the Pittman Robertson Act, the excise tax we pay for through hunting and fishing equipment. These funds are only allocated if states meet certain requirements such as keeping fish and game sales dollars out of the general fund and put back into wildlife management. (If I’m getting any of this wrong, apologies, I’m by no means an expert.)
I propose this be amended to at least give a left lateral limit to all states with their non resident opportunity.
“A state shall not receive Pittman Robertson Funds if they,
1. Charge a non resident more than 10 times the resident cost of a hunting, fishing, or trapping license or tag valid on federal land.
2. Allocate less than 10% of all limited entry tags to non resident hunters or fishermen valid on federal land. If 6-10 tags are allocated for said unit, at least one of those tags shall go to a non resident. If 1-5 tags are allocated, at least one tag must be issued to a nonresident every other season. If tags valid on federal land are sold over the counter to residents, at least 10% of the sale amount for the previous year must be provided to nonresidents.
3. Provides any differing rules or regulations to nonresident hunters, fishermen, or trappers compared to that required of residents while utilizing federal land. (Eliminates nonresident guide requirements on federal land or wilderness areas.)
4. Proves any preference in drawing to outfitted non resident hunters for tags valid on federal land, or allows outfitted hunters to purchase additional points compared non outfitted hunters.
5. If preference or bonus points are utilized in tag drawing process, these points will not cost more than 10 times that of the resident cost, or 10% of the nonresident tag cost, whichever is less.”
Bottom line the idea above is a dumb fireman’s idea of how to tackle the problem after a finger or two of bourbon. I’m sure it’s far from perfect, and I anxiously await it getting torn to bits by people who are way smarter than me. But it’s at least an attempt at tackling an issue that is barreling down the neck of all of us who enjoy hunting all across this great country. Maybe it will start a conversation that refines itself into something good for all of us.
I’m sure some residents of western states can’t wait to angrily type into their keyboards or smartphones after reading this. That’s fine, all I ask is you stop for a moment and consider the big picture. We’re all non residents in 49 other states after all.
