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

[wannakillabigbull]

2. Allocate less than 10% of all limited entry tags to non resident hunters or fishermen valid on federal land.

I don't understand how this helps anyone. States would just go around this by issuing more tags as PLO and managing the herds that way since such a large percentage spend the late hunting seasons on private land anyway, providing only enough tags on federal land as they have to. That type of management is already being pushed in some states. It would do little to help DIY hunters, much less the non-resident DIY hunters.

 

[dieselchessy]

Wasn’t intended to make any measurable change aside from getting rid of the outfitter preference BS.

More or less a stop gap attempt to keep things from getting any worse. Again we’re headed in a sad direction for American hunting, but everyone is too shortsighted and selfish to see that apparently.

As much as I dislike the idea of outfitters, I can’t really justify my dislike. They utilize public resources just like miners, loggers, wind farms, commercial fisherman, oil companies, Electric companies with dams, ect….
The on thing about wildlife, government don’t care much about it unless it’s valuable. Outfitters and their organizations tend to be good demonstrating to government the monetary value of wildlife.

I’d be for limits on outfitters, guides, ect… but I’d not want to risk PR legislation to get it, and Id not want to pull PR dollars from any state as a punishment for their handling of outfitters.

 

[Gobbler36]

Wasn’t intended to make any measurable change aside from getting rid of the outfitter preference BS.

More or less a stop gap attempt to keep things from getting any worse. Again we’re headed in a sad direction for American hunting, but everyone is too shortsighted and selfish to see that apparently.

what koolaid are you drinking…. Hunting is doing just fine.
most states last two years have had record license or applications sold

what kind of sad state is hunting in?

 

[Rifleman86]

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.

 

[frank church guy]

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!?”

there are a lot of places to hunt in Ohio? Federal tax dollars go to Oho. How do I get a whitetail tag to hunt trophy whitetails and have a right to say what happens in your community and chase them like out west

 

[Rob5589]

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!?”

Why? Because they have a highly desirable limited resource. I'm assuming you're from Ohio based on your name. When was the last time someone came asking for help to hunt there? Ohio has whitetails and hogs. You can go nearly anywhere and hunt deer and hogs. Not so with elk, moose, sheep, antelope.

 

[Rob5589]

And to add on, being in CA and having extremely limited elk, antelope, and sheep tags, I don't think we should allow non residents at all for those species. Giving land owner tags for Tule elk that are sold for 25k irritates the hell out of me.

 

[frank church guy]

Why? Because they have a highly desirable limited resource. I'm assuming you're from Ohio based on your name. When was the last time someone came asking for help to hunt there? Ohio has whitetails and hogs. You can go nearly anywhere and hunt deer and hogs. Not so with elk, moose, sheep, antelope.

Ohio guy, this is from a californian ( no offense to the cal guy)) I like everything you talk about. You make miss what california was

 

[Rifleman86]

there are a lot of places to hunt in Ohio? Federal tax dollars go to Oho. How do I get a whitetail tag to hunt trophy whitetails and have a right to say what happens in your community and chase them like out west

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.

 

[wannakillabigbull]

Killed a (likely, yet to be officially scored) B&C buck out my back door last year.

Was it on federal land?

 

[c670809]

As much as I dislike the idea of outfitters, I can’t really justify my dislike. They utilize public resources just like miners, loggers, wind farms, commercial fisherman, oil companies, Electric companies with dams, ect….
The on thing about wildlife, government don’t care much about it unless it’s valuable. Outfitters and their organizations tend to be good demonstrating to government the monetary value of wildlife.

I’d be for limits on outfitters, guides, ect… but I’d not want to risk PR legislation to get it, and Id not want to pull PR dollars from any state as a punishment for their handling of outfitters.

I want to say - thank you for this explanation. I've never made the comparison between outfitters and the others. I probably don't change my mind as often as I should but you've helped change my mind in regard to outfitters. Thank you.

 

[frank church guy]

You can come hunt Ohio whitetails on federal land for like $200 OTC with no limit. 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.

excatly (spelling) my opportunity as a non resident might be limited. And I am okay with that.
ohio is there own state. You all set your own rules. Let us out here set ours. If you want to change them move out here and become part of the community.

 

[Rifleman86]

Was it on federal land?

Private of course, but plenty of big deer get killed on public. Just like private ranches out west kill big bulls usually. Will gladly open my 20 acres to someone who lets me kill a big bull on their private on an OTC tag.

excatly (spelling) my opportunity as a non resident might be limited. And I am okay with that.
ohio is there own state. You all set your own rules. Let us out here set ours. If you want to change them move out here and become part of the community.

Never asked for the same opportunity as a resident. Just thought it might be a good idea that we all agree as fellow hunters that collectively allocating a small percentage of opportunities to non residents might benefit all of us as Americans.

It’s a crazy concept but all of us might enjoy hunting out of our home state from time to time.

 

[frank church guy]

Private of course, but plenty of big deer get killed on public. Just like private ranches our

Never asked for the same opportunity as a resident. Just thought it might be a good idea that we all agree as fellow hunters that collectively allocating a small percentage of opportunities to non residents might benefit all of us as Americans.

It’s a crazy concept but all of us might enjoy hunting out of our home state from time to time.

its a good idea. but we all live in different states with different rules. And we choose to live in these states for various personnel decisions. Like I said before, I have seven pp's in wyoming for antelope. And I am waiting on a unit In want to hunt. And I like having state rights because it gives us options and freedom. And I have more freedom living Idaho than Ohio. My choice. If I moved to Ohio I would learn there rules and play by them. I am sorry I live in Idaho and play by there rules. (not sorry at all). If I don't like something they are doing i have a better chance as a resident to affect a change than I do if I live in Ohio. Do you really want people in Idaho telling you how to run your state of Ohio?

 

[wannakillabigbull]

Private of course, but plenty of big deer get killed on public. Just like private ranches out west kill big bulls usually. Will gladly open my 20 acres to someone who lets me kill a big bull on their private on an OTC tag.

What are you even rambling on about at this point? Bringing up the fact that you killed a likely B&C buck on private, on a thread you created specifically about fair opportunity on federal land. But I'm glad I know you're such a big shot, I gotta take you seriously now.

For the record I live in a state that's way more generous to nonresidents than this proposal is, so it wouldn't affect my home state much, not for allocations. And as a traveling nonresident hunter myself that applies in a half dozen other western states I only stand to benefit from the idea of this proposal. Doesn't mean I even remotely agree with it; it's poorly thought out and even more poorly justified. If you think what we're lacking out west is more federal government overreach on resources that are clearly owned by the states, frankly I don't even know what to say. I support reasonable nonresident allocations and regulations (as I said, I only stand to benefit), but will not support it being pushed by the feds; give them an inch and they take a mile. Next thing you know and the acting president will get to determine total tag numbers for all species in CO since they live on federal land (your justification). That'd go over well, then hunting would be in real trouble when they cut all tags and move grizzlies and wolves in to manage our herds.

 

[Rob5589]

Private of course, but plenty of big deer get killed on public. Just like private ranches out west kill big bulls usually. Will gladly open my 20 acres to someone who lets me kill a big bull on their private on an OTC tag.

Never asked for the same opportunity as a resident. Just thought it might be a good idea that we all agree as fellow hunters that collectively allocating a small percentage of opportunities to non residents might benefit all of us as Americans.

It’s a crazy concept but all of us might enjoy hunting out of our home state from time to time.

See, that's the thing; you can hunt out of state every year, somewhere for something. Come to CA we have a boatload of bears, fall hunt only.

 

[sndmn11]

You are more than welcome to do whatever the hell you want with your state, you just no longer get a shit ton of money from federal tax dollars (the vast majority of which are collected from non residents) if you don’t provide at least 10% of your hunting opportunities to non residents.

That seems more that reasonable.

I would hope and pray that the state you wish to punish creates a limited entry shed hunting tag that has meets your requirements...and then gets even more money due to selling those tags.

 

[5MilesBack]

More or less a stop gap attempt to keep things from getting any worse. Again we’re headed in a sad direction for American hunting, but everyone is too shortsighted and selfish to see that apparently.

What's making everything worse is too many people all vying for the same tags, the same outdoors, the same activities, the same space. I'll admit.....we had it good the past several decades, but those days are over. Just too many people looking to get in on the same things now. But then again, I was always jealous of my Dad's generation and all the solitude they found "back in the day". As the population explodes in numbers, that's not going to change. Every open space will be filled with people, whether they are hunting or just trying to enjoy getting away from everyone else.

Last night I just watched a documentary about Laird Hamilton, the big wave surfer. When he started out in Hawaii on the Pipeline, it was pretty much a locals only thing. Then it exploded in popularity. So he and his buddies adapted and sought out ways to get to and surf the waves on the outer reefs. That's where "getting pulled into" those offshore breaks started. Then they discovered a great break off of Maui that was deemed "unsurfable".......until they used their jet ski's to pull into it. They had the break all to themselves until they decided to make some movies of them surfing it........they called the break "Jaws". Well.......as soon as the video's hit.......their secret and their solitude were GONE.

That's how I feel about hunting the West. It used to be great, and we had the place to ourselves. And then social media came along and guys ruined it for everyone. Now everyone wants to hunt out west, and they think it's somehow a right instead of a privilege and want it handed to them on a silver platter. I don't think so!

 

[5MilesBack]

Never asked for the same opportunity as a resident. Just thought it might be a good idea that we all agree as fellow hunters that collectively allocating a small percentage of opportunities to non residents might benefit all of us as Americans.

That seems to be exactly what you're railing against......"allocating a small percentage of opportunities to non residents". Yet in this statement, you seem to be OK with that??????

 

[SirChooCH]

I get why western hunters are trying to protect their opportunities. But I also get what you are saying and might be onto something. The way things are going its more like 5% tags for DIY non-residents. The other 5% you have to use an outfitter. So NR hunters are getting screwed.

All the western residents complaining about NR overcrowding and saying just move here aren't looking at just how many people have moved to their state the last 2 years. Resident otc going to be more crowding than NR...

Also the states with the most hunters per square mile (MS, WI, MI, PA) are all OTC all are welcome to all, and even with covid hunter increase I've been able to kill deer on public land in MI. Learn to be a better hunter and move around from "your spot" if it gets crowded.