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

[JBrown1]

Montana does. If you were born in Montana and are now a non resident and still have immediate family there you can buy deer, elk, upland bird and fishing over the counter for half the nr fees.

I have done that ever since the program started including a bunch of years when the price was 4 times the resident fees. Shot both deer and elk there as a nr for $64/deer and $80/elk.

The law changed to 1/2 price a while ago and iirc the deer combo is around $300.

Going to ride that pony until it collapses.

The situation you described favors native-born-non-residents over regular non-residents.

The question I was asking was whether or not states have ever favored state born residents over transplanted residents.

 

[tdhanses]

The situation you described favors native-born-non-residents over regular non-residents.

The question I was asking was whether or not states have ever favored state born residents over transplanted residents.

I don’t think there is but there is always a first.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

That’s not a new phenomenon. It could be worse. When AR gave in to the low IQ rednecks and banned non residents from the public wildlife management areas, they also banned lifetime license holders that bought an AR lifetime hunting license while they were a resident. That’s a lot of folks as the majority of hunting is right along the TN and MS border, so people move across for work.

A lot of older guys, veterans, and guys who had a dad that bought their son a lifetime…got told to go away by ignorant rednecks that can’t comprehend why they don’t have birds when their oaks are dead from deep man made flooding and their fields were cut and clear months before the migration…habitat loss.

Instead of fixing the habit by doing water control and farming for ducks…they just banned NR hunters.

Now…there’s still no ducks…and the same morons are still complaining.

Same drama, different state.

That is really frustrating. It seems resident hunters want to ignore all the other factors affecting their perceived quality of hunting and place the blame for all their woes and grievances on non-resident hunters. Really sad. Honestly though are there really that many non resident lifetime license holders hunting a specific WMA on a specific day enough to drastically affect a resident’s hunt? Oh well Oklahoma is the new Arkansas anyways.

 

[Rifleman86]

I feel like this sums up my feelings on this issue…

NR hunters-“Hey resident hunters, we keep paying more for tags, keep facing decreasing draw odds and outfitter preference, fund the majority of your F&G budget, have zero say in your legislative process, yet have stood by you time and time again at the federal level to protect public land and access… Can we at least agree to stand together as hunters not let anything worse for us than it is currently? We want our kids to be able to enjoy some of the same awesome opportunities we had, and keep fighting with you for the wild places and wild things we all love.”

Resident hunters-“F@ck you you entitled assholes! Quit trying to tell us what to do! All you NR are the root cause of all my states issues!!”

NR-

 

[sneaky]

I feel like this sums up my feelings on this issue…

NR hunters-“Hey resident hunters, we keep paying more for tags, keep facing decreasing draw odds and outfitter preference, fund the majority of your F&G budget, have zero say in your legislative process, yet have stood by you time and time again at the federal level to protect public land and access… Can we at least agree to stand together as hunters not let anything worse for us than it is currently? We want our kids to be able to enjoy some of the same awesome opportunities we had, and keep fighting with you for the wild places and wild things we all love.”

Resident hunters-“F@ck you you entitled assholes! Quit trying to tell us what to do! All you NR are the root cause of all my states issues!!”

NR-

Your summary is about as off- base as your whole premise has been throughout this thread. At least you've been consistently wrong.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[mossyoak52]

Sure it would. It could take tags away (potentially) from residents. Take a look at WY and MT, you'll find that outfitters have a ton of clout within those states.

outfitters in montana & wyoming take away from non residents not residents

 

[mossyoak52]

I feel like this sums up my feelings on this issue…

NR hunters-“Hey resident hunters, we keep paying more for tags, keep facing decreasing draw odds and outfitter preference, fund the majority of your F&G budget, have zero say in your legislative process, yet have stood by you time and time again at the federal level to protect public land and access… Can we at least agree to stand together as hunters not let anything worse for us than it is currently? We want our kids to be able to enjoy some of the same awesome opportunities we had, and keep fighting with you for the wild places and wild things we all love.”

Resident hunters-“F@ck you you entitled assholes! Quit trying to tell us what to do! All you NR are the root cause of all my states issues!!”

NR-

no not all non residents just the ones from ohio

 

[Rich M]

Your summary is about as off- base as your whole premise has been throughout this thread. At least you've been consistently wrong.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Not really. A little whiney but not far off base.

 

[DoubleDropMuley]

Hmmmm just thinking and how bout every resident get a tag first then if quotas not reached nonres can apply

 

[Yarak]

What Im reading reads like you want to make hunting so expensive for out of state hunters that no one could afford leave their home state to hunt
If this is the case then I have one question
Do you work for the Biden Admin ?

 

[cuerro viejo]

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.

Not to distract from agruement but I’ve killed a ton of Deer(Bucks and does), axis and a few other exotics on public in TX.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I was reading a report that said 97% of sheep conservation and revenue for NM was NR. Yet they are going to probably vote a zero allocation.

My biggest issue with NR allocation is eventually you get generational mind set that they don’t care because it’s never going to be an option for them. When that happens conservation and worse legislation support goes away.

I’m a pretty big advocate for public land in places like TX. Even though there is only roughly 2 million acres of it, most people think there is virtually none. Is there any one from out side of texas that would support conservation or legislative protections for TX public land even though it’s has the least barriers of entry to hunt in the US? Not on this forum most state that Texas has zero public land.

Just something to ponder. I know I would pull all my conservation funding from any state or conservation group that supports states with Zero NR allocation.

I put applications in a 11 states. Only two dont require me to buy a hunting license to apply. I use to put in for 14. Those other three see very little money if any from me

 

[cuerro viejo]

If capitalism rue the day with regards to wildlife, hunting as we know it would cease to exist.

Big fan of the whole capitalism stuff, believe me, it just sucks when it comes to wildlife management.

The guys advocating for no or minimal NR allocation don’t care about long term support in any form, nor care about out of state conservation money. They know they can always find some NR to spend mega bucks for Gov tags to help offset conservation.

It’s human nature to support stuff you have a vested interest in, and look past that which you have none.

 

[JjamesIII]

All the residents of the UNITED STATES of America should have the right (not privilege) to hunt the game they own. It’s not the state’s right to restrict non residents from hunting. The government doesn’t own anything- we own it, realize that as fact.

Allowing residents more opportunities for hunting in the state they reside in makes sense, but sometimes the disparity of tags issued and the exorbitant cost of them to non residents is a joke. The nr tags should be the same price as resident tags and a simple lottery for all nr entries. That’s fair for everyone. Screw this point creep game, or taking out a second mortgage to get one of the two f-ing sheep tags available to the other 49 state’s residents.

 

[mossyoak52]

. It’s not the state’s right to restrict non residents from hunting.

Ummm actually yes it is and the courts have upheld that right
Try hunting wilderness as a non resident in Wyoming without a guide and see what happens .

States have the right to regulate the gme within it's borders for the benefit of it's RESIDENTS
You have no say or right to any of it .

There is not 1single state that HAS to allow non residents to hunt fish or recreate with in their borders

 

[Wyobohunter]

Ummm actually yes it is and the courts have upheld that right
Try hunting wilderness as a non resident in Wyoming without a guide and see what happens .

States have the right to regulate the gme within it's borders for the benefit of it's RESIDENTS
You have no say or right to any of it .

There is not 1single state that HAS to allow non residents to hunt fish or recreate with in their borders

Mostly agree. Though everyone from every state does have the right to recreate on federal land in every other allowable way. The land belongs to everyone regardless of residency. The animals belong to the state, just as they should.

I really don’t understand why these guys are so up in arms. No one is forcing them to live where they are. If hunting western species was really that high of a priority there is no law stopping them from moving. If staying put is their choice why don’t they just enjoy the yearly whitetail hunt and be glad for the occasional opportunity to hunt in the mountains? If they just enjoy the mountains they can come spend time in them every year. There is more to the mountains than just a place to kill stuff.

 

[JjamesIII]

Ummm actually yes it is and the courts have upheld that right
Try hunting wilderness as a non resident in Wyoming without a guide and see what happens .

States have the right to regulate the gme within it's borders for the benefit of it's RESIDENTS
You have no say or right to any of it .

There is not 1single state that HAS to allow non residents to hunt fish or recreate with in their borders

I, and everyone else on here understands that. A lot of laws can be interpreted as unconstitutional. Just because a freedom has been denied, and excepted by complacent people, does not mean it right. Wilderness area residents restrictions, that’s a joke. Wilderness guide restrictions, that’s a joke- are you kidding me? Oh, I’ll entertain the concept of “it’s just for my safety” lol. I’ll take care of myself and accept the risk of the big, bad, scary wilderness zone arbitrarily marked off by the government. Please.
Again, we are all UNITED states citizens.

 

[Wyobohunter]

I, and everyone else on here understands that. A lot of laws can be interpreted as unconstitutional. Just because a freedom has been denied, and excepted by complacent people, does not mean it right. Wilderness area residents restrictions, that’s a joke. Wilderness guide restrictions, that’s a joke- are you kidding me? Oh, I’ll entertain the concept of “it’s just for my safety” lol. I’ll take care of myself and accept the risk of the big, bad, scary wilderness zone arbitrarily marked off by the government. Please.
Again, we are all UNITED states citizens.

I do agree with you on the NR wilderness hunting rules in WY. It is welfare for outfitters. Not much different than the outfitter by species requirements in AK. It benefits me as a resident but I wouldn’t be all that bothered if it was changed.

Other than that, where does it say anything about hunting in the constitution? A states right to manage its game has been challenged in the courts and your point of view has lost several times. You getting upset doesn’t change that.

There are benefits to living where you live. I’m not going to get upset that I don’t have those benefits. If they were more important to me than the benefits of where I live I’d find a job and move to Ohio. There is no law stopping you from doing the same. Otherwise, enjoy your huge whitetail and be glad of the occasional out of state hunt when you are allowed the privilege. If you get an elk tag in WY and we see eye to eye on hunting styles I’d be happy to help you out. I even think you could hunt in wilderness areas so long as you are with a resident.

 

[mossyoak52]

Mostly agree. Though everyone from every state does have the right to recreate on federal land in every other allowable way. The land belongs to everyone regardless of residency. The animals belong to the state, just as they should.

But the states have the right to limit any activities and where they take place for resiidents & non residence there is nothing in the constitution of any state saying it HAS to allow ayone regardless of residency unlimited access to the lands with in it's borders
Regardless of weather it's state or federal lands
That was my point.
People think they have unlimited rights to do whatever they choose on land in states they do not live in it just doesn't work that way
Ife isn't fair that's just how it is

 

[mossyoak52]

There are benefits to living where you live. I’m not going to get upset that I don’t have those benefits. If they were more important to me than the benefits of where I live I’d find a job and move to your state. There is no law stopping you from doing the same. Otherwise, enjoy your huge whitetail and be glad of the occasional out of state hunt when you are allowed the privilege.

THis I 100% agree with but some just don't get it