I propose the “Fair opportunity in America’s Outdoors Act”

[cmahoney]

Holy cow! You guys convinced me. I feel bad that I have a better chance at drawing a tag where I live and I don’t even have to drive across the country to hunt. I’m going to see if NDOW will let me transfer whatever I draw this year to someone from a state with 3% public land that I will never visit in my lifetime.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tdhanses]

Show me where you personally pay a larger percentage of your taxes than I do for federal land management and I'll never post on this board again.

Posting lucid responses and facts is not trolling.

Do residents get more use out of these lands? Maybe an access fee is worth while, then those that actually use the resource can contribute more to actually keeping it viable.

I would be perfectly fine paying an access fee every year, $50 a week or $2k a year sounds reasonable for having millions of acres to play on.

 

[CJ19]

Show me where you personally pay a larger percentage of your taxes than I do for federal land management and I'll never post on this board again.

Posting lucid responses and facts is not trolling.

Reframing an argument from the amount states contribute to federal resources to how each individual pays does not mean youre being lucid. Youre just reframing the argument, nothing more.

 

[BuzzH]

Reframing an argument from the amount states contribute to federal resources to how each individual pays does not mean youre being lucid. Youre just reframing the argument, nothing more.

It means we all pay the same amount, as a percentage for federal land management.

Our elected officials determine funding for same.

Everyone is equally represented. It's the way our system works.

 

[BuzzH]

Do residents get more use out of these lands? Maybe an access fee is worth while, then those that actually use the resource can contribute more to actually keeping it viable.

I would be perfectly fine paying an access fee every year, $50 a week or $2k a year sounds reasonable for having millions of acres to play on.

Sure and when you come here to use federal lands as a nr it should be $500 per week and $4k per year.

I'm good with that and all proceeds go to purchase more federal land.

 

[3forks]

I think I sort of get the disconnection. I have no clue where you live, but would you drive 15 hours to go ride your dirt bike on a trail in Southern Arizona, camp on blm land in eastern Wyoming, or hike some place? I personally never would, it’s pointless as I can do all that on our ranch here at home and not have to abide by anybody’s rules but my own.

The ones saying you’re not losing anything live by these public lands so therefore use them for other than hunting because that’s the closest place they have. If I lived close by these public lands, sure I’d rip around on my four wheeler but I’m not going to drive 15 hours to do it, and I highly doubt they would either.

Since you brought up the subject of dirt bikes and traveling and you‘re also from Texas, I have to ask if you’ve ever heard of Taylor Park in Colorado?

In case you didn’t know, Taylor Park is an area in Colorado that has been popular with Offroad recreational users for decades due to its extensive trail system. The area recently had to close the majority of the dispersed camping in the area due to the volume of campers. A large amount of the users of Taylor Park are non-residents because there are very few area in the country that offer the kind of riding that Taylor Park does,

Also, A LOT of the users come from Texas.

You may not have the desire to travel to Colorado to ride your four wheeler, but I guarantee the majority of the people coming from Texas to ride Taylor Park have a different opinion of the value of public land to them than you do. Some of them may be hunters, too.

I‘m pointing this out because ALL recreational resources in Colorado are strained to the point that it’s not just non-resident hunters that are being affected. Even privately owned ski areas are under tremendous scrutiny right now due to the pricing of their passes and the congestion the numbers of skiers are causing on federal highways going to the resorts. And, the amount of skiers trying to recreate is straining the infrastructure of the resort towns and making the experience of skiing generally pretty bad.

I could provide more examples, but the point is there are way more recreational users than the resource can sustain and both residents and non-residents are facing changes to how we’ve used public lands previously.

 

[cuerro viejo]

States should manage wildlife based on a sustainability model in regards to tag numbers, not license plates.

If I was President any state with a capped allocation of <20% would forfeit PR money at the very least.

I’d also do away with auction tags also if you had less then 20% cap on NR.. not that that one would survive in court but nonetheless might wake some people up

 

[CJ19]

It means we all pay the same amount, as a percentage for federal land management.

Our elected officials determine funding for same.

Everyone is equally represented. It's the way our system works.

Buzz and for the record, i would never want you to stop posting. You bring tons of helpful information and oodles of fun. Forums would be a far less interesting place without you. Even if i think you troll sometimes and especially bc i disagree with you on somethings.

 

[jimh406]

States should manage wildlife based on a sustainability model in regards to tag numbers, not license plates.

If I was President any state with a capped allocation of <20% would forfeit PR money at the very least.

I’d also do away with auction tags also if you had less then 20% cap on NR.. not that that one would survive in court but nonetheless might wake some people up

The percentages seem arbitrary. Also, you might to look up what is done with PR money and how it is already being allocated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman–Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act

 

[sneaky]

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.

Ok. I'll pay $150/ea for elk and deer if it means you pay $1500/ea. Problem solved. Oh, and if your state has a stupid reciprocity law against nonresidents, then that still stands here too.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[gabenzeke]

I think you're setting up the potential to basically ALWAYS be charged ten times the resident prices. I get the sentiment, but what we've got going works to an extent and we should actively seek to keep the feds out of it.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[diamond10x]

Since you brought up the subject of dirt bikes and traveling and you‘re also from Texas, I have to ask if you’ve ever heard of Taylor Park in Colorado?

In case you didn’t know, Taylor Park is an area in Colorado that has been popular with Offroad recreational users for decades due to its extensive trail system. The area recently had to close the majority of the dispersed camping in the area due to the volume of campers. A large amount of the users of Taylor Park are non-residents because there are very few area in the country that offer the kind of riding that Taylor Park does,

Also, A LOT of the users come from Texas.

You may not have the desire to travel to Colorado to ride your four wheeler, but I guarantee the majority of the people coming from Texas to ride Taylor Park have a different opinion of the value of public land to them than you do. Some of them may be hunters, too.

I‘m pointing this out because ALL recreational resources in Colorado are strained to the point that it’s not just non-resident hunters that are being affected. Even privately owned ski areas are under tremendous scrutiny right now due to the pricing of their passes and the congestion the numbers of skiers are causing on federal highways going to the resorts. And, the amount of skiers trying to recreate is straining the infrastructure of the resort towns and making the experience of skiing generally pretty bad.

I could provide more examples, but the point is there are way more recreational users than the resource can sustain and both residents and non-residents are facing changes to how we’ve used public lands previously.

Yes I’m aware of that place and have buddies that have been there. I love public lands, I spend several days a week on them hunting and fishing. The main issue is that it’s public lands but we are trying to exclude people from certain activities because their license plate even though they are just as much an owner as anyone else. Then those same people want to turn around and ask for support on said public land they exclude you on things you enjoy, because why? Oh, you have a different license plate than me. Would you expect somebody to ban together for a cause in your state for a piece of land they may have used once or will never go to but were told we don’t want you here We just want your money?

And to the point of all outdoor activities increasing, yes right now it’s just a trend as half the country was hardly allowed to leave their homes for a year and a half and people are desperate to get out and live again.

 

[sneaky]

I think all the wailing and gnashing of teeth thus far is the realization that probably 38 out of 50 states would look at something like this and be like “sure why not? All our nonresident licenses are OTC and cost 3-4 times that of a resident tag, why is MT and WY charging my constituents 50x their residents to come hunt and still getting all this federal tax money!?”

The proposal, on its face, seems extremely reasonable. Most western states offer far better than 10% opportunities to non residents. Yet you would think based on the responses this far I was asking I should be able to show up to Walmart and buy a general tag for the resident price.

There is also the carrying capacity of the land here in the west that isn't getting through to your simpleton idea. There's a reason that tags are hard to get out here for both residents and nonresidents. There simply aren't the same numbers of animals. Ohio doubled nonresident license prices a couple years ago and has a pitiful amount of public ground to hunt. You don't like the system to utilize a finite resource? Stay home and hunt whitetails, no one is stopping you. Just like they aren't stopping you from bird hunting, camping, hiking, boating, small game hunting, or trapping on federal lands out west. It really isn't a difficult concept, except for Ohio State fans it seems.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

You can come hunt Ohio whitetails on federal land for like $200 OTC with no limit (Wayne NF.) We’re one of the top whitetail states in the nation. Killed a (likely, yet to be officially scored) B&C buck out my back door last year.

If you are coming here to hunt federal land you own, then yes to some degree I think you have a right to hunt on that land. Your opportunity might be limited compared to a resident, and it might cost more, but I would want you to have some right to that opportunity as an American citizen who pays for it.

No limit? Now you're just straight up lying. It's $250 for hunting license and one tag. Additional doe tags are $75 each and aren't even legal in a lot of counties.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[tdhanses]

Sure and when you come here to use federal lands as a nr it should be $500 per week and $4k per year.

I'm good with that and all proceeds go to purchase more federal land.

Why you use them more, you should pay more but i’d agree on a fee equal for all, $50 a week is reasonable.

 

[tdhanses]

Buzz and for the record, i would never want you to stop posting. You bring tons of helpful information and oodles of fun. Forums would be a far less interesting place without you. Even if i think you troll sometimes and especially bc i disagree with you on somethings.

I agree i like the back and forth, keeps things interesting.

 

[sneaky]

Do you do this all on your own land?

While I agree it might be time to limit NR tags I also agree it’s time to look back at selling off 80% of public lands and look at keeping only the most utilized places that are multi use.

All the residents talk about the state owning wildlife and then get all butt hurt at the concept of selling off public lands, I think it’s great many made a choice to sacrifice for hunting and all, as long as they have free land to do it on, the land welfare concept.

Where do you intend to hunt once public land gets sold off? Probably to a Chinese company who won't allow access. What are you going to do then? Hope to hop on a lease? That want you want the West to turn into? That's an idiotic take.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

I see plenty of selfish reasons but 99% of those that use the lands only use 10% of public lands. Kinda funny you want continued land welfare because you made a choice where hunting is priority but yet want taxpayers to prop up your choice by providing free land. Most land owners in the west are all for selling public lands.

Of course they are, they can expand their kingdoms for cheap. The LDS church would own all of Utah if they could.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[cuerro viejo]

The percentages seem arbitrary. Also, you might to look up what is done with PR money and how it is already being allocated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittman–Robertson_Federal_Aid_in_Wildlife_Restoration_Act

I know exactly how it’s allocated. There is a reason NR have to buy a license to enter into a draw or build points in most states, not only is it a direct revenue source it also falls in to an appropriation criteria

End of the day it’s a federal tax. There for the fed has jurisdiction over its dispersal.

Fed can’t make states change allocation of tags, but it can influence it.

Yes 20% is arbitrary but socially acceptable based on past trends. In reality I’d pull a slick willie and do 30% once in office.

I’d be real curious what happens to poorer states like NM… IF they stop all NR tags and all LO tags…. Wonder what resident tags would jump to

 

[sneaky]

OP like someone else said earlier, save your breathe. There is a huge disconnect in all of this. If you disagree with the new changes in WY and the direction things are headed then all the professional hunters on this forum who took huge pay cuts to live in a van down by the river with their family so they can hunt mule deer and elk you’re automatically an entitled city slicker brat apparently. Never mind you may have been hunting out west long before they ever moved there or that your family has been hunting out west before they were even a thought in their daddy’s mind. Never mind the fact they’re complaining you take their tags in the unit they want to hunt because it’s close to a population center and they’re too lazy to put in for something 2 hours away instead of 20 min down the road, and you’ve been waiting and playing the game by their states rules and drove 15 hours.

A lot of these responses aren’t surprising one bit especially after dealing with a number of residents on public land when I’m out of state. Heck I propose any resident who wants non residents to be kept out should therefore forfeit their right to hunt any other state, it’s only fair right?Soon enough they’ll all be asking for help and money for public lands they like to call THEIR’S and nobody will pay them any mind or attention.

Pretty typical response from a Texan

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk