Again....you're confusing wildlife ownership with land ownership.
As long as you know that ahead of time like most NR's do.......then at that point you have to make a choice. If your intent is to hunt the animals in WY, that's fine.......as long as you have the proper license. If you don't have a license, then you have to limit your activities to what IS legal and available for you to participate in. I don't see the problem here. If you're set on hunting but can't get the tags in one state, then try a different state........or go OTC wherever you can. Again, I don't see the problem. It's not like you took a class field trip to WY to go elk hunting and then got there and found out you had to draw a tag. You should know that ahead of time.
You are able to do any/all activities afforded to you by paying federal tax dollars (camping, hiking, photography, etc.) on federal lands. You can’t apply that same logic to activities that require one to pursue or take animals owned by the state.
And then half way there they change the rules on you. I’m not saying I’m sitting out and having major issues getting tags, I’m saying I’m not going hunting, I’ll still play the game because hunting is as much a part of me as my left arm is. The rub, with myself and so many others, is that this is headed in the direction to cut the DIY hunter out that doesn’t live in a specific state. That isn’t good for anybody resident or non resident. For some reason there is a huge disconnect between R and NR and I don’t understand why there can’t be some sort of understanding and an actual constructive conversation.
Then you aren't paying attention. All states need to look out for their residents first, their youth, their long time hunters, and all other residents of their state.
And all of that is only possible with public lands right? Otherwise while you’ll have a tag you’ll have nowhere to actually use it if public lands weren’t there.
Good luck getting states like CA, NY, WA etc on board for that to ever pass, more likely to see hunting banned on federal lands then that.
yeah, there is some cognitive dissonance... so I'll say this ONE MORE TIME FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK: FEDERAL PUBLIC LAND ISN'T THERE SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF HUNTING! If that were the case I would agree with you 1 million percent.I feel like there's some cognitive dissidents here. You accurately state that if federal land is given to the states it tends to be privatized. Then you say we don't owe you a thing while you hunt federal land. It seems like it's the other direction right? Does the country owe you this? State land often isn't viable financially so the federal government holds the property. Which I support it staying federal. However, this effectively is subsidizing resident hunters access is it not? If so shouldn't we respect that non-residents are helping support public lands staying in public hands? I'm definitely not saying we do everything he said in the OP. But non-residents are frustrated and I think they have some valid points.
What stake would most non-resident hunters have in keeping our land public if they know they'll never be able to afford a tag? It seems like putting our middle finger up to them is short sided and when we need them to fight for our access they won't forget conversations like this.
I'm most familiar with Montana so I'll use them as an example. They charges $935 for a non-resident archery elk tag and if you're a Montana resident you get a big game combo deer/elk/bear for something like $85. I'm definitely not saying it should be the same or even close. But over 10x more is a little out of line in my opinion.
The frustration I hear most is over pressure. Which is in my view a state management issue. They need to manage quotas better and do their job. Not reduce tags and increase costs necessary but get more creative. At least in Montana all the non-residents are there in archery opening day or whenever Corey Jacobsen says is the best week. So I just avoid that week. Maybe they should assign a week when you get a tag as a non-resident. Idk.
We're all in this together. I don't agree with everything the OP stated but its a fun thought experiment. I don't believe things are perfect the way they are and I hope we can improve on our practices. For the benefit of wildlife and those pursuing them. Really all I was hoping to see here was some valid discussion of points. All you seem to do is attack people and if you're trying to convince us watching this conversation of your opinion... it's not very effective.
Oh i get that, but if nonresident prop up a state why not get more of that states resources?
Are there a lot of states out east that have massive amounts of federally funded land you cant hunt?
Because, it's the law...your state controls your wildlife, my state controls ours. We get to decide how much of our wildlife we keep for our residents and how much, if any, we choose to share with nrs. Some states, like Alaska even differentiate between residents, non residents of the U.S. and non residents from places outside the U.S.Oh i get that, but if nonresident prop up a state why not get more of that states resources?
I mean I get it if WY only needed 10% in federal funding but it need 50% for it’s overall state budget, not just wildlife.
States can easily manage the wildlife and number of license available.
WY can’t even afford itself.
The States That Are Most Reliant on Federal Aid
MoneyGeek’s analysis identified the states most reliant on federal funding and found an intriguing correlation between dependency and political leaning.www.moneygeek.com
We want to turn them over to the states so they can properly manage. Residents of these western states dont want to pony up the tax dollars to do that. Instead, they want the rest of the country to do it. They will give you a big shpeel about how you can still hunt squirrels and look at birds there. Mean while they are going continually cut your tags at the same time they tell you how you arent needed. Buy our products, send money, but dont bother applying for tags basically.
So why not put the burden of supporting your residents on your state, even make it so they fund 70% of the states overall budget?
yeah dude, it's unreal. I would love to see someone press this issue. I can almost promise you the response would be "Wait, are you saying that people travel to other states to trophy hunt? WE NEED TO PUT A STOP TO THIS! "Laughable that a country made up of 330million people, that people think 15 million hunters account for all the public land use and that states should get reduced funding over hunting privileges. Yeah that 5% is really holding things together
We will make decisions on how we manage our wildlife.
. Maybe they should assign a week when you get a tag as a non-resident. Idk.
