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

[5MilesBack]

It’s almost like the class field trip gets to go to the petting zoo and the teacher says all the kids with last names A-F don’t get to touch or pet the animals but feel free to enjoy their time.

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.

 

[bohntr]

Yes you go there to hunt and fish. Like every other non resident. The point I was getting at and asking for honesty ,which I appreciate you coming forth with, is you go there to recreate to do the things that are legal that you love to do. People are arguing well “we’re not taking away your public lands you’re still welcome to come visit them”. Well technically no you didn’t take them away per say but you can’t enjoy all the activities that a certain group gets to even though you’re just as much an owner of it as they are. Make sense? It’s almost like the class field trip gets to go to the petting zoo and the teacher says all the kids with last names A-F don’t get to touch or pet the animals but feel free to enjoy their 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.

 

[HandgunHTR]

I don’t even know how to respond to this, pretty much all states have small opportunity for Non resident in regards to most species if not than it’s because the resource can’t sustain the pressure. whitetail states back east and western big game aren’t even close to the same comparison in terms of demand

Again, in the interest of keeping the discussion to the facts, the "whitetail states back east and western big game aren't even close to the same comparison in terms of demand", you are correct, but not in the way you think.

For example in PA in 2020 there were 885,595 general hunting licenses sold (which is what is needed to hunt whitetails). In MT the total number of applicants for Elk, Deer, and Antelope was 206,678. So even if only half of the PA hunters bought the license to hunt deer, that is still 2X as many people actually hunting deer than there were applicants in MT.

The demand for Eastern whitetails is getting just as bad or worse than the demand for elk and mulies out West and we have less land to hunt them on. That is also why some are deciding to go out West to hunt.

Again, I don't have an opinion either way, just trying to make sure that the argument stays factual.

 

[diamond10x]

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.

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.

 

[BuzzH]

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.

Why should I get, or demand, a single tag from a state I'm not a resident of?

Its not my wildlife, it's not held in trust for me as a nr...all I am is thankful that states give me any amount of access to their wildlife. They owe me not a damn thing as a nr.

I blame no state that severely limits nr hunting.

What nr hunters should be doing is taking actions to improve hunting in the states they live in.

 

[tdhanses]

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.

Why should I get, or demand, a single tag from a state I'm not a resident of?

Its not my wildlife, it's not held in trust for me as a nr...all I am is thankful that states give me any amount of access to their wildlife. They owe me not a damn thing as a nr.

I blame no state that severely limits nr hunting.

What nr hunters should be doing is taking actions to improve hunting in the states they live in.

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.

 

[ddd-shooter]

How about no federal funding if you ban a long-standing tradition of pursuit?

I. E. Washington, New Jersey bear hunting..

 

[tdhanses]

How about no federal funding if you ban a long-standing tradition of pursuit?

I. E. Washington, New Jersey bear hunting..

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.

How about no federal funding if your percentage of nonresident wildlife tags doesn’t match your percentage of federal funding received by the state?

For example if a state gets 50% of it’s funding from the feds then 50% of its tags, at a minimum, go to nonresidents that provide that funding.

 

[bsnedeker]

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.

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.

The reality is that if you added up all the hours people spend hunting public land compared to the hours people spend doing everything else, hunting would not even be close to number one. This website is a group of hunters and all the NRs on this site probably have most of their experiences on these lands during peak hunting season so in your minds you may think the woods are just full of hunters year round...it's simply not true. The amount of hikers, bikers, atv/snowmobilers dwarfs the numbers of people hunting.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[BuzzH]

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.

How about no federal funding if your percentage of nonresident wildlife tags doesn’t match your percentage of federal funding received by the state?

For example if a state gets 50% of it’s funding from the feds then 50% of its tags, at a minimum, go to nonresidents that provide that funding.

For the 101st time, land ownership or federal funding levels have absolutely not a thing to do with wildlife resource allocations.

Not only does it make sense, it's the law.

 

[tdhanses]

For the 101st time, land ownership or federal funding levels have absolutely not a thing to do with wildlife resource allocations.

Not only does it make sense, it's the law.

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

 

[Rainyday]

I’m really confused by the people saying we should sell off public lands. I don’t see how that could ever be a good thing

 

[TheWhitetailNut]

the problem is state to state. Texas is all private. Ohio I will never hunt. I understand everyone complaining about wilderness and federal tax payer lands. It makes sense to me. But as far nonresident hunters, no. If you want to hunt in state, play by there rules, Yes Idaho has a hell of lot of wilderness, all open to the public to hunt. But if you are not a resident to bad. I can't go hunt in texas or ohio. Even if I bought a tag for those states, I really couldn't hunt. Maybe us out here in the western states should start bitching about access to hunt areas in your states.
Remember your tax dollars don't go to state lands they go to federal lands. Things like us naval bases in lake ponderay (i know spelling), nuclear research centers(arco), federal airforce bases. Maybe if you all keep complaining will make the wilderness areas state run, just like your eastern states, I have 7 pp points in wyoming for antelope. I am not bitching because i cant draw. I am waiting for the place I want to hunt. It is wyoming rules. I understand and if I want to hunt there I play by there rules. If I don't want to play, them I don't hunt there. I don't live back east/ I have no say in how eastern states set there rules. If I want to hunt there I play by there rules. If you want to hunt in wyoming, play by there rules or move there, be involved in the community and help make the rules.

Are there a lot of states out east that have massive amounts of federally funded land you cant hunt?

 

[BuzzH]

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

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.

Not at all complicated and makes total sense.

 

[CJ19]

I’m really confused by the people saying we should sell off public lands. I don’t see how that could ever be a good thing

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.

Oh and if you dont move there your selfish. Thats my favorite one. As a lot of people would love to just drop everything and go west, but you know, they have actual commitments in life other than themselves.

 

[svivian]

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

 

[tdhanses]

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.

Not at all complicated and makes total sense.

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?

Seems like WY is ripe for some tax changes to not be so reliant on other states to prop it up.

Still would be worth it for the hunting.

 

[bsnedeker]

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

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! "

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[BuzzH]

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?

Seems like WY is ripe for some tax changes to not be so reliant on other states to prop it up.

Still would be worth it for the hunting.

We will make decisions on how we manage our wildlife.

 

[bsnedeker]

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

8 states in the entire country are tax positive.

Are those the only 8 states that should be able to set their own tag allocations?

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk