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

[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

 

[Rifleman86]

Western non-resident hunters , fngs, and lurkers I know your out there or looking at this thread and frustrated. You have had goals of a western hunting trip and looked at the insanity. The first thing I would like to say is there are some great people on this sight helpful ,generously willing to share info etc. Dont kid yourself there are also some that feel 1 non-resident in there state is too many . You are viewed as the enemy, competition. They do not want non-resident hunting. I respect their opinion.
Non -resident western hunters do we have a leg to stand on , bargining chips, negotiating power ? Are we working from a position of strength or weakness ? Obviously MONEY is the best one. Most western game/fish departments rely heavily on non-resident license fees. At what point and how do we use that bargining chip ?Other thoughts on Federal land use ? Contacting state senators / congressman involved in office of tourism. There must be lawyers/ politicians looking at this situation scratching their heads looking at legal angles. Throwing thoughts /options out there. Any other western non-resident hunters have any ideas

I don’t think anyone would say that it isn’t a luxury now.

I probably spend close to $2k in tags, preference points and fees to do one western hunt a year for 10 days. That’s not including the probably $1000-1500 I’ll spend on the trip in gas and a hotel on the way out and back.

Is it doable on a middle class salary? Sure. Is it expensive? You bet. I don’t do much else for entertainment despite myself and my wife making 100k plus.

Luckily a moose or sheep tag is as of now, within the realm of reality to most people I’d they are lucky enough to draw one. Same with an eastern elk tag.

Hell hunting itself is a privilege. I don’t like to play the class warfare card, I’m better off than most. But I don’t want us to enter a world where an elk tag costs 5-10 grand.

We’re already seeing this happen in the east where the days of a door knock and a handshake we’re all you needed is long gone. Now a quality lease costs 5k minimum and the sport is dying.

I don’t want to see the same thing happen to the west, even if the draw odds need to come down for biological or social reasons.

There are lots of countries where you can pay big money to shoot trophy game on a private ranch. In the US the average dude can pay a reasonable amount to hunt them on millions of acres of public ground.

That’s pretty awesome and I want to keep it that way.

 

[Paul_E_Hunter]

Being a FNG -albeit an old FNG...I wonder how this will affect hunter numbers in the future? It is only NR in the western states, much land in the east is being leased up & becoming inaccessible. It just seems to me that at some point the limited opportunity due to access and/or cost are going to decrease the number of hunters...and then the anti-hunters will be there in the courts and in the legislatures. As a few mentioned above, it is an economic system - supply and demand and as with any economic system it will self regulate. I'm blessed living in northern MN with many acres of public...course no elk yet here.

 

[bsnedeker]

Being a FNG -albeit an old FNG...I wonder how this will affect hunter numbers in the future? It is only NR in the western states, much land in the east is being leased up & becoming inaccessible. It just seems to me that at some point the limited opportunity due to access and/or cost are going to decrease the number of hunters...and then the anti-hunters will be there in the courts and in the legislatures. As a few mentioned above, it is an economic system - supply and demand and as with any economic system it will self regulate. I'm blessed living in northern MN with many acres of public...course no elk yet here.

I'm sure you are aware that there are elk in northern Minnesota. I'm sure you're also aware that MN does not allow NRs to apply for those tags. 0% NR allocation...not 1 single tag for NRs. They take some MONSTERS from that herd on a pretty regular basis.

As you said, it's supply and demand. Very few tags, very high demand, state decides to limit the opportunity to it's residents.

In the west, if/when the supply increases, or the demand decreases, you will see increased opportunity. It's pretty straight forward.

As far as the reduction in hunter numbers, yes, the percentage of people who consider themselves hunters in this country is declining in theory, but that has nothing to do with what is happening in western states. It's entirely driven by what's happening east of the Mississippi. Demand for Western hunting tags is at an all time high and continues to grow every single year. This is why prices are going up, and opportunities are going down. Again, very straight forward.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[tdhanses]

I'm sure you are aware that there are elk in northern Minnesota. I'm sure you're also aware that MN does not allow NRs to apply for those tags. 0% NR allocation...not 1 single tag for NRs. They take some MONSTERS from that herd on a pretty regular basis.

As you said, it's supply and demand. Very few tags, very high demand, state decides to limit the opportunity to it's residents.

In the west, if/when the supply increases, or the demand decreases, you will see increased opportunity. It's pretty straight forward.

As far as the reduction in hunter numbers, yes, the percentage of people who consider themselves hunters in this country is declining in theory, but that has nothing to do with what is happening in western states. It's entirely driven by what's happening east of the Mississippi. Demand for Western hunting tags is at an all time high and continues to grow every single year. This is why prices are going up, and opportunities are going down. Again, very straight forward.

Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

How many elk in the MN herd?

 

[bsnedeker]

How many elk in the MN herd?

A small enough number that the state has made the decision to only allow residents the opportunity to draw. It's a great example of a state doing the best it can with an extremely limited resource and prioritizing the people who reside in that state over non residents, as it should be.

Hopefully some day the herd will grow enough to allow more opportunity for residents, and maybe some day non-residents as well.



Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Gutshot007]

How many elk in the MN herd?

Estimated number 126 February 2020. Like "fleas on a hound" over running all that private land they're on. I think Minnesota last draw handed out 2 bull tags, 8 either sex and 20 cow. Seriously I really think it would be great to open it up to non residents. Start a point system. Send $100 /year to the state. Odds are after 142 years you can draw a coveted "cow tag " for $5000. You get the tag, but oh wait there's non-where to hunt because it 99%private !

 

[Wyobohunter]

Estimated number 126 February 2020. Like "fleas on a hound" over running all that private land they're on. I think Minnesota last draw handed out 2 bull tags, 8 either sex and 20 cow. Seriously I really think it would be great to open it up to non residents. Start a point system. Send $100 /year to the state. Odds are after 142 years you can draw a coveted "cow tag " for $5000. You get the tag, but oh wait there's non-where to hunt because it 99%private !

I believe the point was that the state of MN is managing that little herd as they see fit. That’s exactly what they should do. The fact that there is more public land in WY is irrelevant. You are allowed to come use the public land here just like any resident. WY has the elk numbers to support resident hunting and allow some NR to come hunt elk as well. That’s exactly what we do. You’re welcome.

 

[tdhanses]

A small enough number that the state has made the decision to only allow residents the opportunity to draw. It's a great example of a state doing the best it can with an extremely limited resource and prioritizing the people who reside in that state over non residents, as it should be.

Hopefully some day the herd will grow enough to allow more opportunity for residents, and maybe some day non-residents as well.



Sent from my SM-G998U1 using Tapatalk

Yeah but is it a few hundred animals or thousands? Hard to compare a NR op in a state with only a few hundred animals, if there were only 100 mt goat or bighorns in MT there understandably wouldn’t of ever been a NR op.

I doubt the herd is ever allowed to get big, like here in KS it’s managed to keep a few hundred on the military base and wipe out everything off it, therefore it never grows. Too much development and people, I wish they would try to expand the herd and stop all hunting outside of the military base but the AG business is too loud since it’ll be them feeding the herds not the feds.

Also if MT ever only gave out 20 tags for anything, I’d expect them to 100% go to residents, but I doubt you want to see that few of tags issued even though a few years of that would vastly help the elk herds decimated by wolves, same for mule deer.

 

[tdhanses]

I believe the point was that the state of MN is managing that little herd as they see fit. That’s exactly what they should do. The fact that there is more public land in WY is irrelevant. You are allowed to come use the public land here just like any resident. WY has the elk numbers to support resident hunting and allow some NR to come hunt elk as well. That’s exactly what we do. You’re welcome.

But on the flip side, if half the public was sold in WY and replaced in KS, MN, MO, KY, TN and WI these elk herds could be managed to grow and increase resident opportunities.

Fact is if there was more public land in every state and less in the west, people wouldn’t really be too upset about allocations in the west, if they can hunt most of the same animals in their home state as easily. Be greatfull the rest of the country see’s a need for so much public land in the west that provides amazing outdoor opportunities in the west.