Lobbying Wyoming game and fish negatively affecting non-resident elk hunters

[sndmn11]

It’s time to amend Pittman-Robertson and apply a fairness test to states, one that removes federal dollars from states that discriminate against non residents who are clearly paying the bulk of those PR dollars.


Write your rep and directly ask for it.

Is there a state that has license allocation and prices between residents and non-residents the same?

 

[Wyobohunter]

Is there a state that has license allocation and prices between residents and non-residents the same?

I think they only see it as unfair because most of us (in the West) have no interest in what the leastern states have to offer. So, for example, I really don’t care if Missouri makes it expensive or difficult for me to hunt. I have no interest in trading what we have for what they have. I think if they fealt the same way and loved it where they live these threads wouldn’t exist.

The only recourse they wishfully mention is defunding public lands. Again, sorry about your luck Illinois, it’s a bummer we let all of that land go to private hands but there’s no taking it back. You are welcome to come hike, camp etc on our public lands. Those belong to you as well as they do me.

 

[sndmn11]

I think they only see it as unfair because most of us (in the West) have no interest in what the leastern states have to offer. So, for example, I really don’t care if misery makes it expensive or difficult for me to hunt. I have no interest in trading what we have for what they have. I think if they fealt the same way these threads wouldn’t exist.

I was asking to learn if every person was supposed to write their Rep. asking for all 50 states to be punished.

 

[Wyobohunter]

I was asking to learn if every person was supposed to write their Rep. asking for all 50 states to be punished.

I gotcha. I was using your question for momentum to reply to quack attack.

 

[gonhunting247]

I think changing PR dollars, selling public land etc. is a terribly slippery slope. The last thing I'd do is give up public land.
One of the amazing things about the west is the amount of space we are all free to roam. In the USA we are afforded so much opportunity to hunt. With more and more people, poor habitat, less habitat, disease, predator issues etc. it is a given that with more demand for less resource, we will all have a little less opportunity. That doesn't mean we should throw in the towel, just look at it from all sides and do what you can to make positive changes. I've been putting in for out of state hunts for a long time and every system has changed along the way.
I understand both sides frustration, but IMO we all need to be careful what we wish for. I have 19 points for moose in WY, so of course it's a little frustrating, but I get the residents wanting a R/NR split more in line with other western states too. If I had a great answer I'd be the first one to give it, but I don't think there is a good answer for everyone at this stage. WY is still a great place to hunt with a lot of opportunity, so I'm going to enjoy it while I can, as well as do what I can to see that my kids and grandkids can also.

 

[tdhanses]

Is there a state that has license allocation and prices between residents and non-residents the same?

I doubt it but truthfully there may be one. I would be all for everyone paying the same, states would have to set their own prices obviously but that wouldn’t be fair to the lower income residents.

Although hunting started out as a means to feed ones family, not sure it’s cheaper then a grocery store anymore for most and many just donate the meat because they aren’t fond of it which is insane to me, not that it doesn’t go to a good cause but I just don’t see how anyone would not eat what they kill and just kill to kill.

 

[QuackAttack]

I was asking to learn if every person was supposed to write their Rep. asking for all 50 states to be punished.

If you call equality, punishment…but that seems to be a foreign concept to a few people…equality.


The bulk of your PR dollars come from highly populated eastern states…the ones folks with your attitude mock. Ok, pay your own bills.


Now watch your precious license costs and access fees.

 

[sndmn11]

If you call equality, punishment…but that seems to be a foreign concept to a few people…equality.


The bulk of your PR dollars come from highly populated eastern states…the ones folks with your attitude mock. Ok, pay your own bills.


Now watch your precious license costs and access fees.

Is there a state that has the same license costs for both residents and non-residents?

You are asking people to lobby for ending the PR act because that answer is "no". Every state charges non-residents more to hunt and fish than residents.

Equality already exists. Every state has the right to manage its own wildlife. Every adult (ignoring those bound by corrections or military servitude) has the opportunity to reside where they wish. I chose the word punishment because it would be an action in response to the rights above being exercised.

 

[QuackAttack]

No. Equality includes equality of access under the law.

it’s not about license cost- it’s the abject inability entire segments of American citizens to access a public resource that they are being taxed to fund.

The solution is to give states like WY exactly what they ask for- control…but that means no outside money because you don’t get to fund your “public” resource but deny the public access.

 

[3forks]

The Federal government provides funding to state colleges and universities by way of federal student aid, grants, and contracts. Yet, these institutions have in-state and out of state tuition based on a student’s residency as well as enrollment caps also based on residency.

Because these institutions receive federal funds, should non-residents be provided an equal percentage of the total enrollment? A state’s universities are chartered to provide education to its resident students, but if we’re applying the same logic non-resident hunters are trying to apply to western state’s license allocation and fees, I suppose we should try to get those state schools federal funding ended.

 

[sndmn11]

No. Equality includes equality of access under the law.

it’s not about license cost- it’s the abject inability entire segments of American citizens to access a public resource that they are being taxed to fund.

The solution is to give states like WY exactly what they ask for- control…but that means no outside money because you don’t get to fund your “public” resource but deny the public access.

The wildlife in each state belongs to that state. That is the law for EVERY state. The fact that applies to every state is called equality.

Your state can manage its wildlife as it chooses, my state can do the same. Equality.

Every state can choose methods to earn PR dollars, withholding what has been earned by a state because they didn't appease folks who are not stakeholders. If you want to be a stakeholder in WY, move there, you have the opportunity to exercise the equality you are pining for.

I don't see any state denying access to federal resources. You can come to Colorado anytime you wish, for as long as you wish, at zero cost to access the same federal land a Colorado resident can. Equality.

After you are done visiting federal land in Colorado, can you bring some of Colorado's marijuana across state lines to your state of residency? Probably not, because each state has the equality of choosing their own laws. Just like some people like shoes off at the door in their house, and some don't care. The state manages wildlife how they see fit, and every state has that power as equally as the next. No state is discriminated against.

 

[BuzzH]

If you call equality, punishment…but that seems to be a foreign concept to a few people…equality.


The bulk of your PR dollars come from highly populated eastern states…the ones folks with your attitude mock. Ok, pay your own bills.


Now watch your precious license costs and access fees.

A vast majority of pr dollars don't even come from hunters.

 

[wytx]

I guess you all could just quit buying all that "stuff" that sends money to the western state then couldn't you ?

 

[tdhanses]

I guess you all could just quit buying all that "stuff" that sends money to the western state then couldn't you ?

Get it from China instead?

 

[wytx]

Get it from China instead?

Not at all, just don't buy.

 

[tdhanses]

Not at all, just don't buy.

So stop using anything from WY, I’d think if all NR did that it would be horrible for jobs in the state from energy to tourism. Guess that’s a good way to improve resident odds.

 

[Rifleman86]

It’s time to amend Pittman-Robertson and apply a fairness test to states, one that removes federal dollars from states that discriminate against non residents who are clearly paying the bulk of those PR dollars.


Write your rep and directly ask for it.

I was probably the one who brought this up first, but I think it’s something we have to be careful with. Used correctly it could be a tool that could help all of us, used incorrectly it could greatly harm us.

I know bringing it up pissed off a lot of residents, but yet to my knowledge nobody has said the feds couldn’t use PR dollars to incentivize states in certain ways if legislation were to pass congress. So I think doing so is plausible, but the question remains whether or not it would be a good idea. Despite it being my idea I’m not convinced it would be. Are we shooting ourselves in the foot by pitting us against ourselves?

If it were to happen, I’d probably like to limit it to the really egregious stuff that most residents and nonresident hunters could agree on. Wyoming wildernesses rule would be a good example in my mind.

By and large we’ve still got it pretty good, for now at least. Maybe the realization that it could happen is enough to keep a decent amount of nonresident opportunities available and within the realm of reality for most people.

I don’t think nonresident hunting will ever go away. There is too much money and funding tied in. My worry is that it becomes out of reach of most Americans financially. That goes against the principle of the North American model where wildlife is managed for the benefit of all.

Right now there is nothing we could do to stop a state from turning every nonresident tag into an auction tag, maximizing their profit, saying everyone needs an outfitter, and just like that big game hunting in more than one state would be a thing of the past for 99% of us. I don’t think most of us posting here, resident or nonresident wants that to happen, and it’s best we work together to ensure it doesn’t.

 

[Bighorner]

I really think you need to keep things in perspective. Things dont happen in a vacuum. A lot of the resident in here are active in conversations with the governing bodies of wildlife and land. I personally don't want my states wildlife managed at the federal level. I want to be able to talk to the people making decisions.

I keep hearing about tag allocation, but the fact of the matter is when we have better populations and more access everyone wins. When access and number decline we see competition for the resource.

I can see that this important to you, but I some of you guys that are really ticked off are not going about in the best way.

The resident are not going to get rid of NR tags, there is a substantial industry that caters to them. We also have friends and family that come here. But when i hear people talk about using federal land and PR dollars as a stick it makes me less sympathetic. The whole whole idea that I'm pissed and now I want a pound of flesh is not furthering the cause. Put your time into building relationships and learning about regulation, not just making empty threats online.

 

[dukeball33]

“My worry is that it becomes out of reach of most Americans financially.”

Hey Man, I think hunting across state lines is there already… and the US is at an all time high for disposable income and free time. 200 pounds of elk meat off a bull or 50 pounds off a deer, you do the math on if it makes sense financially from a sustenance standpoint after paying for transportation, tags, etc.

People have stated it multiple times, hunting across state lines is a luxury and shouldn’t (IMO) be lumped in with the heritage of hunting. I probably won’t ever kill an alligator, elk in the east, moose or sheep (financial factors, other life factors, supply, timing). Doesn’t mean I can’t hunt each year…

 

[Behlftball]

I think something that can be missed is that the more people who are exposed to the "west" the more people that appreciate these animals and conserving the land. There's a lot of people east of the rockies that represent a lot of votes and politicians. I don't think hunting is the only way this is done, but I think it can impact some people in a unique way.

I think the laws are within reason right now and people can get tags in multi states if they want to. I don't think states need to share equal amounts of sheep tags with nonresidents. I'd just hate to see it get to a point a nonresident can't hunt elk once a fall somewhere