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

[AG8]

And what does this have to do with limiting the right to live in any state? If hunting is that important plan for your kids future. How is it different then limiting people that don’t reside in a state, it’s just another possible qualifier for a limited resource that is a hobby that needs to be managed as there is more demand then supply.

Plan for your kids future but sorry, you’re out of luck for your own? Oh hey kids it would be best if you didn’t ever go pursue the best opportunities in life, let’s just hope it works out here because I got this all set up for you to hunt moose later on. It’s just ridiculous. And really, I’m not even talking about hunting. I’m talking about the general idea that one neighbor has an advantage over the other because of what amounts to their parents choice. Yeah it’s just hunting but that attitude doesn’t stop there. That’s all. I know you won’t agree. That’s ok, but I couldn’t let that sentiment go unchallenged.

 

[tdhanses]

Plan for your kids future but sorry, you’re out of luck for your own? Oh hey kids it would be best if you didn’t ever go pursue the best opportunities in life, let’s just hope it works out here because I got this all set up for you to hunt moose later on. It’s just ridiculous. And really, I’m not even talking about hunting. I’m talking about the general idea that one neighbor has an advantage over the other because of what amounts to their parents choice. Yeah it’s just hunting but that attitude doesn’t stop there. That’s all. I know you won’t agree. That’s ok, but I couldn’t let that sentiment go unchallenged.

Is hunting a limited resource the best you can do for your society? We don’t always get the right to pursue what we want, It’s just a personal desire and enjoyment. Is the state next to you not your neighbor then? How is it different to allow more opportunity for some based on qualifiers then others, especially for very limited resources?

As demand increases, resident or not, and opportunities decrease do you not think things will change? Of course they will, today we limit the easiest option, tomorrow’s choice is a little more difficult but we are talking recreational opportunities here, not the pursuit of a good life in the country and I get many don’t want to hear that.

 

[AG8]

Is hunting a limited resource the best you can do for your society? We don’t always get the right to pursue what we want, It’s just a personal desire and enjoyment. Is the state next to you not your neighbor then? How is it different to allow more opportunity for some based on qualifiers then others, especially for very limited resources?

I’m talking about actual neighbors. Community members. I’m not sure what you are talking about regarding hunting for society, and I think most everyone knows that hunting is a privilege. So I will just circle back to my original point. A “native” resident preference draw is wrong. Two people living next door to each other should have the same odds, in hunting and in all other state matters. Period. “Native residents” are not any better that “ordinary residents”.

 

[tdhanses]

I’m talking about actual neighbors. Community members. I’m not sure what you are talking about regarding hunting for society, and I think most everyone know that hunting is a privileged. So I will just circle back to my original point. A “native” resident preference draw is wrong. Two people living next door to each other should have the same odds, in hunting and in all other state matters. Period. “Native residents” are not any better that “ordinary residents”.

So all Americans aren’t your neighbors, only the people in your state.

So what your saying is you are all for reducing others opportunities but hey don’t talk about reducing mine or my neighbor 15ft from me?

You brought up how it is fundamentally wrong to limit people’s pursuit, I just pointed out these pursuits are always limited by qualifiers and that the game can change the more limited the recreational pursuit becomes.

So do you feel someone that was born in your state, lived there 35 years and moved to the next state is less of your neighbor then the guy from CA that moved there last year and lives next to you?

 

[QuackAttack]

Humans hate one another and often destroy what they love out of jealousy and spite.


Hunters are destroying hunting while hating one another.


What’s old is new again.

 

[AG8]

So all Americans aren’t your neighbors, only the person next door.

So what your saying is you are all for reducing others opportunities but hey don’t talk about reducing mine or my neighbor 15ft from me?

You brought up how it is fundamentally wrong to limit people’s pursuit, I just pointed out these pursuits are always limited by qualifiers and that the game can change the more limited the recreational pursuit becomes.

You’ve missed my point. I think I’ve made myself clear though, so I’ll leave it here for others to read.

 

[tdhanses]

You’ve missed my point. I think I’ve made myself clear though, so I’ll leave it here for others to read.

All I’m saying is more qualifiers can be added to open up opportunities, someone will always have a better advantage and others will not feel it’s fair. Especially when it is hobby related.

 

[JBrown1]

I do wonder if resident demand continues if we’ll see a native resident draw over resident, would make sense to give more opportunities to those born in states for the limited resource especially for big 5 type hunts that many will never draw.

I would assume in every state this kind of change wouldn’t be political suicide since most voters that hunt will be born and raised, the rest that don’t hunt won’t care but would give preference.

I'm not sure that I understand your reasoning. Why would it "make sense" to favor native residents over transplanted residents.

Do states ever favor native born residents over transplanted residents for anything?

 

[JBrown1]

All I’m saying is more qualifiers can be added to open up opportunities, someone will always have a better advantage and others will not feel it’s fair. Especially when it is hobby related.

This thread is an example of the source of nearly all human conflict: the scramble for resources.

No matter if the resource is wild game or gold, everyone wants to satisfy their desires as efficiently as possible. And if that means gaining preference over the competition through questionable means.... well, human nature allows us to rationalize our actions so that we can live guilt free.

 

[BuzzH]

I'm not sure that I understand your reasoning. Why would it "make sense" to favor native residents over transplanted residents.

Do states ever favor native born residents over transplanted residents for anything?

Montana does. If you were born in Montana and are now a non resident and still have immediate family there you can buy deer, elk, upland bird and fishing over the counter for half the normal nr fees.

I have done that ever since the program started including a bunch of years when the price was 4 times the resident fees. Shot both deer and elk there as a nr for $64/deer and $80/elk.

The law changed to 1/2 price a while ago and iirc the deer combo is around $300.

Going to ride that pony until it collapses.

 

[Laramie]

Montana does. If you were born in Montana and are now a non resident and still have immediate family there you can buy deer, elk, upland bird and fishing over the counter for half the normal nr fees.

I have done that ever since the program started including a bunch of years when the price was 4 times the resident fees. Shot both deer and elk there as a nr for $64/deer and $80/elk.

The law changed to 1/2 price a while ago and iirc the deer combo is around $300.

Going to ride that pony until it collapses.

Sure wish Wyoming had that...

 

[BuzzH]

Sure wish Wyoming had that...

I drove 1400 miles round trip to oppose it in Montana.

Would oppose it in Wyoming too.

 

[Laramie]

I drove 1400 miles round trip to oppose it in Montana.

Would oppose it in Wyoming too.

Understandably... but guessing you don't lose any sleep while hunting on those tags.

 

[BuzzH]

Understandably... but guessing you don't lose any sleep while hunting on those tags.

Taking advantage of stupidity passed by the right wing of Montana politics doesn't hurt my feelings.

Told them straight up I would take advantage...can only lead them to water.

 

[tdhanses]

I'm not sure that I understand your reasoning. Why would it "make sense" to favor native residents over transplanted residents.

Do states ever favor native born residents over transplanted residents for anything?

Just another qualifier to give certain groups more of an opportunity at a limited resource.

 

[Laramie]

Taking advantage of stupidity passed by the right wing of Montana politics doesn't hurt my feelings.

Told them straight up I would take advantage...can only lead them to water.

It does seem absurd to reward people for moving away from your state. Especially when those same people would likely pay the full non-resident price to come back home to hunt.

 

[BuzzH]

It does seem absurd to reward people for moving away from your state. Especially when those same people would likely pay the full non-resident price to come back home to hunt.

Totally agree...but the good ol' boy hard core R's don't want their children who left Montana for real wages to have to sacrifice for a full priced NR license...or bother to apply with everyone else.

Their kids might forget the application date and all that fuss.

 

[QuackAttack]

That’s not a new phenomenon. It could be worse. When AR gave in to the low IQ rednecks and banned non residents from the public wildlife management areas, they also banned lifetime license holders that bought an AR lifetime hunting license while they were a resident. That’s a lot of folks as the majority of hunting is right along the TN and MS border, so people move across for work.

A lot of older guys, veterans, and guys who had a dad that bought their son a lifetime…got told to go away by ignorant rednecks that can’t comprehend why they don’t have birds when their oaks are dead from deep man made flooding and their fields were cut and clear months before the migration…habitat loss.

Instead of fixing the habit by doing water control and farming for ducks…they just banned NR hunters.

Now…there’s still no ducks…and the same morons are still complaining.

Same drama, different state.

 

[Bump79]

Or, how many non residents put down money in the recent corner crossing gofundme? Maybe they should have spent their money in their home state instead?

I personally did contribute. As for the distribution of funds I am not sure.

 

[JBrown1]

Montana does. If you were born in Montana and are now a non resident and still have immediate family there you can buy deer, elk, upland bird and fishing over the counter for half the nr fees.

I have done that ever since the program started including a bunch of years when the price was 4 times the resident fees. Shot both deer and elk there as a nr for $64/deer and $80/elk.

The law changed to 1/2 price a while ago and iirc the deer combo is around $300.

Going to ride that pony until it collapses.

The situation you described favors native-born-non-residents over regular non-residents.

The question I was asking was whether or not states have ever favored state born residents over transplanted residents.