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

[roadrunner]

...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.

You'll first have to end "treaty rights" for off tribal lands hunting for any of this to be fair...

 

[5MilesBack]

I get why western hunters are trying to protect their opportunities.

You have to remember that even western hunters are only legal residents of one state. We're still NR's in every one of the other western states. Yet you don't hear us complaining all the time even for those states we're NR's of. And this isn't about "opportunity".......this is about "selective opportunity". Every single NR in the country has the "opportunity" to get elk and deer tags every single year in CO. There are always leftovers as well every year for draw tags. So this isn't just about "opportunity". It's about........"but I want to hunt a different state", "I want to hunt a specific unit that 1000's of guys (even residents) have been waiting for years to try and draw", "I want to hunt all the western states", "I don't want to hunt small bulls or cows"........etc, etc.

 

[Bump79]

I think this is a very interesting concept. I grew up in Montana and now that I moved away a few years back I look at things a little differently.

The OP has been very clear that this is an idea that he wants to discuss. So let's discuss it like adults and keep it civil.

Where I think the biggest valid discussion is regarding federal funds and federal lands. While we might not agree on everything stated there is definitely validity to it. When you're a resident you disproportionately get to use federal lands. Whether that is for hiking, camping, shed hunting, hunting, snow mobiles, atvs, etc. The maintenance of all of these trails, roads and lands are mostly paid for by the federal government. Some things require federal permits but not most.

When it comes to western states the vast majority of the access for hunting is federal lands. States like Montana charge a fee for accessing state lands called a conservation license. This is $8 for residents and $10 for non res. Extremely reasonable right? Now when it comes to federal land there's no access fee that I know of (maybe there is in some areas?).

Would it be reasonable to require a federal lands access fee? This would ensure that residents who are the majority users pair their fair share.

To me, it might need to be one or the other. Restrict license costs for non-residents or have some sort of an access fee for everyone. Doesn't have to be crazy expensive obviously. $15 or something.

 

[ColoradoV]

“The best things in life are inaccessible to all but a select few..”

Each individual choose how their life is set up…. I have set up my life for decades- to scout for mule deer 25+ days a year in the best high country units in the nation - then hunt for another 30 if needed. Gave up better jobs, a bigger house, nice car, and more money to do so.. If you have not made this lowest level of commitment to live where you hunt…. Time to call a spade a spade here or stop the woe is me bitchin as you do not deserve any more than 10% of tags…

I like to see the tags go to folks who will put in the work and 8 or 9 times out of 10 it is a resident putting in the work as they have life prioritized, made the commitment, and have the sand to do so. Or the guys consistently killing the biggest bucks in eagle or gunny live there. Same w region G. Put up or shut up = real simple actually..

Seems most nr I talk to feel cpw “owes” them a 180” buck or a 350” bull dropped whole in their truck.. Or want pm info about where to start as “I don’t have time to scout”… Well if you don’t have the time to scout you just want a handout as most nr seem to want. Then the same guy shoots a forkie and complains about trophy quality ..

With that said your proposal sounds good to me or about time we see 90/10 here in Colorado…..

 

[bsnedeker]

Terrible idea.

"lucky enough to live in a state that has ample big game opportunities"
How about lucky enough to live in a COUNTRY that has the freedom of choice to live in the state one chooses? Like, a free will sort of thing.

Luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. I CHOSE to live in the west. I CHOSE to decrease my earning potential by leaving the city. I CHOSE this because the outdoors and hunting are critical to my quality of life.

You NRs are welcome to spend your money here at our discretion. If you don't like it, stay home and hunt whitetails you greedy, entitled snowflakes.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[bsnedeker]

Hard no! Trust me, the additional cost for your license pales in comparison to the cost of living we have in most of the West.

But these guys want everything! They want to live their cushy lives in the cities, earning twice what the average western resident makes, but also have control over how we allocate our game.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Rifleman86]

Luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. I CHOSE to live in the west. I CHOSE to decrease my earning potential by leaving the city. I CHOSE this because the outdoors and hunting are critical to my quality of life.

You NRs are welcome to spend your money here at our discretion. If you don't like it, stay home and hunt whitetails you greedy, entitled snowflakes.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

I don’t think saying “hey, we will keep giving you several million dollars a year to fund wildlife that resides on land we own as long as we get at least 10% of tags and they don’t cost any more than 10x what you pay” is greedy. But I guess we have different definitions of the word.

 

[bsnedeker]

I don’t think saying “hey, we will keep giving you several million dollars a year to fund wildlife that resides on land we own as long as we get at least 10% of tags and they don’t cost any more than 10x what you pay” is greedy. But I guess we have different definitions of the word.

Are you mentally retarded? Serious question.

No matter how many times you want to connect federal land funding to hunting they are not related. This has probably been explained to you 30000 times in the last week and yet your brain just can't handle it.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Rifleman86]

Are you mentally retarded? Serious question.

No matter how many times you want to connect federal land funding to hunting they are not related. This has probably been explained to you 30000 times in the last week and yet your brain just can't handle it.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

Don’t have a good retort so you resort to name calling, got it.

 

[Rob5589]

I don’t think saying “hey, we will keep giving you several million dollars a year to fund wildlife that resides on land we own as long as we get at least 10% of tags and they don’t cost any more than 10x what you pay” is greedy. But I guess we have different definitions of the word.

As much as you want it to work that way, it doesn't. The land is there for you to enjoy as you see fit, mostly. The animals belong to the state, completely.

 

[Rifleman86]

As much as you want it to work that way, it doesn't. The land is there for you to enjoy as you see fit, mostly. The animals belong to the state, completely.

As they should. All this is saying is they would forgo federal matching a dollars is they don’t give a small percentage of tags to non residents and keep non resident tag costs somewhat reasonable.

The feds have done it before with highway funds.

 

[Rob5589]

As they should. All this is saying is they would forgo federal matching a dollars is they don’t give a small percentage of tags to non residents and keep non resident tag costs somewhat reasonable.

The feds have done it before with highway funds.

Federal money is to manage the land, not the animals on it.

 

[bsnedeker]

Don’t have a good retort so you resort to name calling, got it.

I've responded to each of your points multiple times. As have many others. You are the one who can't respond with anything other than whining and complaining about things that have nothing to do with each other.

And I didn't call you names. I'm seriously asking the question as it would help me to understand how this is so difficult for you to comprehend.

We can explain it to you, we can't understand it for you.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[CJ19]

Buckeye, save your breath. Just keep all this in mind. This crowd cant go more than a month without asking NR for support in some fashion. They will be asking for money to save public land hunting or some sht in the near future. Just remember, the states can manage BLM land better at this point. No need for you to be paying for them.

 

[sndmn11]

I don’t think saying “hey, we will keep giving you several million dollars a year to fund wildlife that resides on land we own as long as we get at least 10% of tags and they don’t cost any more than 10x what you pay” is greedy. But I guess we have different definitions of the word.

It is not greedy, it is understanding the fair market value of what a person who CHOOSES by their own free will to live somewhere will CHOOSE to exchange for what the state has invested in managing.

A person could CHOOSE to not make the transaction.

A person could CHOOSE to move to their destination hunting state. Heck, then that person could CHOOSE to become involved in that state's political process and run on the platform of handing things out to non-residents.

Right now there are states where you can hunt elk without any hassle. Your can CHOOSE to come to my home state of CO and get an unlimited number of elk tags for a several month season, in addition to the two elk tags you can get without hassle in regular rifle seasons. Come on out and quit trying to punish the states that aren't equally giving you handouts.

 

[CJ19]

It is not greedy, it is understanding the fair market value of what a person who CHOOSES by their own free will to live somewhere will CHOOSE to exchange for what the state has invested in managing.

A person could CHOOSE to not make the transaction.

A person could CHOOSE to move to their destination hunting state. Heck, then that person could CHOOSE to become involved in that state's political process and run on the platform of handing things out to non-residents.

Right now there are states where you can hunt elk without any hassle. Your can CHOOSE to come to my home state of CO and get an unlimited number of elk tags for a several month season, in addition to the two elk tags you can get without hassle in regular rifle seasons. Come on out and quit trying to punish the states that aren't equally giving you handouts.

Plenty of folks are doing this. They are mostly from california though. Enjoy.


Handing things out to non residents...that is a good one.

 

[Ucsdryder]

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.

 

[Stubborn_bowhunter]

It will never work, residents of the west are sick and tired of easterners coming in and killing the majority of their game even though they only get 10-20% of tags.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol this is good.

All the people I've ever met that complain about non res taking their tags never kill shit anyway.

 

[tdhanses]

“The best things in life are inaccessible to all but a select few..”

Each individual choose how their life is set up…. I have set up my life for decades- to scout for mule deer 25+ days a year in the best high country units in the nation - then hunt for another 30 if needed. Gave up better jobs, a bigger house, nice car, and more money to do so.. If you have not made this lowest level of commitment to live where you hunt…. Time to call a spade a spade here or stop the woe is me bitchin as you do not deserve any more than 10% of tags…

I like to see the tags go to folks who will put in the work and 8 or 9 times out of 10 it is a resident putting in the work as they have life prioritized, made the commitment, and have the sand to do so. Or the guys consistently killing the biggest bucks in eagle or gunny live there. Same w region G. Put up or shut up = real simple actually..

Seems most nr I talk to feel cpw “owes” them a 180” buck or a 350” bull dropped whole in their truck.. Or want pm info about where to start as “I don’t have time to scout”… Well if you don’t have the time to scout you just want a handout as most nr seem to want. Then the same guy shoots a forkie and complains about trophy quality ..

With that said your proposal sounds good to me or about time we see 90/10 here in Colorado…..

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.

 

[tdhanses]

Luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. I CHOSE to live in the west. I CHOSE to decrease my earning potential by leaving the city. I CHOSE this because the outdoors and hunting are critical to my quality of life.

You NRs are welcome to spend your money here at our discretion. If you don't like it, stay home and hunt whitetails you greedy, entitled snowflakes.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

What’s funny is I did the opposite, family history of 100+ years, I’m probably considered more resident of the state I was born and raised in then all transplants there now, even though I moved away.