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

[tdhanses]

And what we're saying is no one cares about your opinion. I'm sure that's tough to hear but it's true.

If applications in the west start going down then things might change, but with the demand at an all time high the states can pretty much do whatever they want because for every one guy that drops out 5 guys will try to grab his spot.

It's supply and demand. It's not complicated. Go ahead and cry to the feds if you want. They'll tell you that states manage their wildlife. End of discussion.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

Good thing the states that prop up so many western states don’t have your attitude, otherwise life might be vastly different.

 

[tdhanses]

We do....you pay no more for land management than I do. No bigger percentage of your federal taxes go to land management than mine.

My state does though, but maybe you should pay more, you use the resource way more do you not?

Also my federal dollar go to states like WY that need help because they aren’t willing to collect more taxes to reduce their need for federal aid, your federal dollars just come straight back to WY as it takes in more federal funding then it gives.

 

[BuzzH]

My state does though, but maybe you should pay more, you use the resource way more do you not?

Nobody is stopping any resident of Kansas from using public lands all they want, here, or in any other state.

 

[JjamesIII]

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.

The system is working really well at generating a crap load of money for the government/states, who are setting the rules. Why would they ever change? I’d like to see a break down on some tags (sheep, moose) from what the average revenue was for each tag sold in relation to the money spent from the aggregate of applicants???

As hunters, we line up to throw money into the system, year after year, chasing the proverbial carrot of a “permission slip” to hunt game we supposedly own. Not the animal, but just the mere opportunity to hunt it. It’s been past the point of ridiculous for a long time. Point creep is basically the 401k for the states wla $$$$.

Then we got these “guides”. Sure, they work hard, I’m not saying they don’t. But they have found a way of cashing in on the public domain. If a private ranch wants to sell outfitter rights, ok. Outfitters shouldn’t be allowed to operate on government lands exploiting the resources. Let alone being mandated on some states wilderness areas for non-residents, how many politicians pockets were padded for that law to come to fruition? Guides are a lazy man’s way to success anyway. If you can’t do it without someone holding your hand, you don’t deserve it in my opinion. Cut them out of the picture and more “opportunity” Would be available also.

 

[diamond10x]

You have no idea...we have boatloads of snowmobilers that come from the Midwest just to ride their sleds here on public land. Just last night drove by a local hotel with several dozen enclosed trailers from Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, the Dakota's, etc.

Sounds like overcrowding to me. It’s been getting out of hand the last 10 years. What about the residents who wanted to ride the trails those NR are riding and they can’t cause there are too many NR plowing through the snow? Using up other states resources. Why doesn’t BHA and their leadership step up and lobby for legislation to start limiting these NR that are taking away snowmobiling from R?

 

[bsnedeker]

Good thing the states that prop up so many western states don’t have your attitude, otherwise life might be vastly different.

Sigh.... one again, 8 states are tax positive but you're only concerned about the ones in the west. This point is absurd.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Bump79]

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

Yes, it's not solely used for hunting but isn't that what we're talking about? Tag allocation and cost?

You keep dodging that while federal land is multi use residents get the benefit of hunting it more often. Again, I'm not saying this isn't right. What I'm saying is isn't it a reasonable exchange to expect to have a certain small tag allocation and a reasonable cost for non resident tags? I'm not saying that it should be a cheap or 25% tag allocation. Just affordable for the average guy. Some states are very fair. Wyoming is extremely generous and the tags aren't too crazy expensive. Others are outrageous.

My primary concern is this. In the current and every changing political dynamic it is not out of the realm of possibility that public land gets sold. Or just as likely that hunting of certain species gets banned on federal lands. Say wolves. Think these guys you've been fighting with are going to have your back? We should be building a coalition. Not driving a wedge.

If we continue down this path making western hunting out of reach financially for normal working class non-resident hunters. Who's going to be fighting for these small but golden 2 section parcels where the road just BARELY cross that corner allowing access? Mountain bikers? Cross country skiers? Backpackers? I doubt it. But that non resident that came out west one time and got his first Antelope buck might. Or he might donate to conservation organizations that fight for us.

I'd also be interested to see some usage stats on the backcountry. In my experience the other users are typically on established trails, campsites, ski resorts or 4 wheeling. When it comes to areas where I hunt with limited access I see very little recreation outside of hunting seasons, shed hunting or pre season scouting.

There's a ton of public land that hunters access regularly that hikers would never go out of their way to. I think specifically of the peice milled checkerboard lands.

 

[jimh406]

AFAIK, all states charge nonresidents a lot more. Like most things, people won't buy the product if it has no value to them. Maybe you should stick it to the best hunting states by refusing to hunt there.

On a more serious note, the residents pay state taxes/fees year round. I think it makes sense for them to get a break on the hunting licenses/tags.

 

[tdhanses]

Nobody is stopping any resident of Kansas from using public lands all they want, here, or in any other state.

Never said that, just don’t see the need for them to not be reduced, if 80% went away there would still be plenty for all recreation users.

 

[bsnedeker]

Yes, it's not solely used for hunting but isn't that what we're talking about? Tag allocation and cost?

You keep dodging that while federal land is multi use residents get the benefit of hunting it more often. Again, I'm not saying this isn't right. What I'm saying is isn't it a reasonable exchange to expect to have a certain small tag allocation and a reasonable cost for non resident tags? I'm not saying that it should be a cheap or 25% tag allocation. Just affordable for the average guy. Some states are very fair. Wyoming is extremely generous and the tags aren't too crazy expensive. Others are outrageous.

My primary concern is this. In the current and every changing political dynamic it is not out of the realm of possibility that public land gets sold. Or just as likely that hunting of certain species gets banned on federal lands. Say wolves. Think these guys you've been fighting with are going to have your back? We should be building a coalition. Not driving a wedge.

If we continue down this path making western hunting out of reach financially for normal working class non-resident hunters. Who's going to be fighting for these small but golden 2 section parcels where the road just BARELY cross that corner allowing access? Mountain bikers? Cross country skiers? Backpackers? I doubt it. But that non resident that came out west one time and got his first Antelope buck might. Or he might donate to conservation organizations that fight for us.

I'd also be interested to see some usage stats on the backcountry. In my experience the other users are typically on established trails, campsites, ski resorts or 4 wheeling. When it comes to areas where I hunt with limited access I see very little recreation outside of hunting seasons, shed hunting or pre season scouting.

There's a ton of public land that hunters access regularly that hikers would never go out of their way to. I think specifically of the peice milled checkerboard lands.

Sweet baby Jesus this is exhausting. I'm done explaining this. I have dodged nothing, I have explained this, at length, multiple times, as have others. If you don't understand at this point it's honestly depressing.

You go ahead and start a change.org petition, see how the greater, non-hunting public who, by the way, fund WAY more federal land than hunters by about a factor of 10 respond. See how that works out for you.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[tdhanses]

AFAIK, all states charge nonresidents a lot more. Like most things, people won't buy the product if it has no value to them. Maybe you should stick it to the best hunting states by refusing to hunt there.

On a more serious note, the residents pay state taxes/fees year round. I think it makes sense for them to get a break on the hunting licenses/tags.

But what if those taxes only fund half the states budget, then do they really pay more? Maybe they need to pay more state taxes?

 

[jimh406]

But what if those taxes only fund half the states budget, then do they really pay more? Maybe they need to pay more state taxes?

Nope, that's what nonresidents are for. .

 

[JjamesIII]

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.

Ohio guy here, our dnr has long since turned their backs on us. They only seem to spend money on the enforcement side of the house. If you exclude the put n’ take trout and pheasants programs used to recruit youth sportsmen. The little public land we do have is way over crowded. On the bright side: At least we give our tags away, so if you do decide to come over, you’re not out much money.

 

[BuzzH]

Never said that, just don’t see the need for them to not be reduced, if 80% went away there would still be plenty for all recreation users.

The federal estate should be expanded...no such thing as too much public land.

 

[tdhanses]

The federal estate should be expanded...no such thing as too much public land.

I used to agree.

 

[woods89]

Yes, it's not solely used for hunting but isn't that what we're talking about? Tag allocation and cost?

You keep dodging that while federal land is multi use residents get the benefit of hunting it more often. Again, I'm not saying this isn't right. What I'm saying is isn't it a reasonable exchange to expect to have a certain small tag allocation and a reasonable cost for non resident tags? I'm not saying that it should be a cheap or 25% tag allocation. Just affordable for the average guy. Some states are very fair. Wyoming is extremely generous and the tags aren't too crazy expensive. Others are outrageous.

My primary concern is this. In the current and every changing political dynamic it is not out of the realm of possibility that public land gets sold. Or just as likely that hunting of certain species gets banned on federal lands. Say wolves. Think these guys you've been fighting with are going to have your back? We should be building a coalition. Not driving a wedge.

If we continue down this path making western hunting out of reach financially for normal working class non-resident hunters. Who's going to be fighting for these small but golden 2 section parcels where the road just BARELY cross that corner allowing access? Mountain bikers? Cross country skiers? Backpackers? I doubt it. But that non resident that came out west one time and got his first Antelope buck might. Or he might donate to conservation organizations that fight for us.

I'd also be interested to see some usage stats on the backcountry. In my experience the other users are typically on established trails, campsites, ski resorts or 4 wheeling. When it comes to areas where I hunt with limited access I see very little recreation outside of hunting seasons, shed hunting or pre season scouting.

There's a ton of public land that hunters access regularly that hikers would never go out of their way to. I think specifically of the peice milled checkerboard lands.

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?

 

[Super tag]

Lol, I can’t really wrap my head around a proposal like this, makes no sense at all to me.

 

[BuzzH]

Sounds like overcrowding to me. It’s been getting out of hand the last 10 years. What about the residents who wanted to ride the trails those NR are riding and they can’t cause there are too many NR plowing through the snow? Using up other states resources. Why doesn’t BHA and their leadership step up and lobby for legislation to start limiting these NR that are taking away snowmobiling from R?

Because wildlife and land ownership are mutually exclusive. Nrs have no say in how our wildlife is managed, but do have equal say in how federal lands are managed.

That's why NR snowmobilers pay the same price as residents to snowmobile here.

Simple as that.

 

[CJ19]

We do....you pay no more for land management than I do. No bigger percentage of your federal taxes go to land management than mine.

Youre really something buzz. One of the all time great hunting forum trolls. I must admit that i am highly disappointed if you dont get involved in a thread.

 

[BuzzH]

Youre really something buzz. One of the all time great hunting forum trolls. I must admit that i am highly disappointed if you dont get involved in a thread.

Show me where you personally pay a larger percentage of your taxes than I do for federal land management and I'll never post on this board again.

Posting lucid responses and facts is not trolling.