Non-Res Federal Lands

[IdahoBeav]

You, my friend, are not everyone.

It's not as easy as you think it is, especially today with the Rape of the real-estate market...

Pick your rape from either real estate or tag prices.

 

[Lowell]

FOIA results summary from WY GFD regarding actual enforcement of the NR Wilderness Rule. WY Statute 23-2-401(a)

In the past 10 years:
1. 12 NR hunters were cited for violating WS 23-2-401(a) (a few warning tickets also issued)
2. No hunter was required to return to WY for a court appearance and total cost of violation was the bond amount, $150. Same as all the other simple traffic type tickets
3. All of these misdemeanor tickets were marked "no court appearance required" - just like a speeding ticket.
4. No hunter lost WY hunting privileges or was reported to another state for loss of privlieges.
5. No hunter had any property seized (gun, atv, vehicle, etc).
6. Of those 12 violators, 4 hunters were in possession of an animal that was harvested in a wilderness area. Three of those 4 hunters were allowed to keep antlers, cape and meat. One of those 4 harvesters had antlers confiscated as his group hadn't tagged the animal and tried to pass it off as a resident kill. Despite the dishonesty, the warden only took the antlers - and then donated the meat back to the hunter.

Good info.

 

[displacedtexan]

FOIA results summary from WY GFD regarding actual enforcement of the NR Wilderness Rule. WY Statute 23-2-401(a)

In the past 10 years:
1. 12 NR hunters were cited for violating WS 23-2-401(a) (a few warning tickets also issued)
2. No hunter was required to return to WY for a court appearance and total cost of violation was the bond amount, $150. Same as all the other simple traffic type tickets
3. All of these misdemeanor tickets were marked "no court appearance required" - just like a speeding ticket.
4. No hunter lost WY hunting privileges or was reported to another state for loss of privlieges.
5. No hunter had any property seized (gun, atv, vehicle, etc).
6. Of those 12 violators, 4 hunters were in possession of an animal that was harvested in a wilderness area. Three of those 4 hunters were allowed to keep antlers, cape and meat. One of those 4 harvesters had antlers confiscated as his group hadn't tagged the animal and tried to pass it off as a resident kill. Despite the dishonesty, the warden only took the antlers - and then donated the meat back to the hunter.

Non-res hunting wilderness without a guide?

About as relevant as corner crossing.

 

[roadrunner]

Pick your rape from either real estate or tag prices.

Hardly one in the same...

 

[wyogoat]

You, my friend, are not everyone.

It's not as easy as you think it is, especially today with the Rape of the real-estate market...

I did too. And know a few others that made western hunting a priority instead of just whining and trying to change things in a state they don’t reside in.
Real easy actually.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Hardly one in the same...

You’re right. Had I bought my same house in the South or Midwest, I would have had enough money left over to buy several sheep hunts.

Maybe the NR prices out west aren’t so bad.

We each make our own choices.

 

[MountainTracker]

I’ve always been confused as to why a non res can’t hunt specific areas but a non res guide can guide non res hunters in that same area probably for another thread


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mtwarden]

Yeah

Since this corner crossing issue may be getting fixed, is the next fight getting rid of non-res fees for hunting federally managed public lands?

Do state run agencies not also getting federal funding?

They should have a separate lottery for federally managed lands eliminating res and non-res applicants.

Pitch fork me…I don’t care. These fees to hunt are getting sickening.

Yeah that’s a great idea!

Keep me in the loop and let me know how that goes for you.

 

[roadrunner]

I did too. And know a few others that made western hunting a priority instead of just whining and trying to change things in a state they don’t reside in.
Real easy actually.

Sure, as long as SOL is the same. For many it's not.

First, you have to replace income.
Second, you have to secure housing in the new state.
Third, you have to sell your house in the state you're leaving at a price that doesn't make you look like an absolute financial idiot by taking a huge loss.

And, you have to pull that off in 2025's economy.

Believe me, I check regularly. Nothing would please me more than to leave NM. In order to do so, I would acquire new debt that I don't need.

 

[rogerdoger]

For some it’s easy to move, for some it is not.

I have left the Midwest and moved to the mountains, move was easy, getting ahead not so much.

What it all boils down to is one’s priorities, some want to have the outdoors 2 minutes away, others want whatever they want, or feel comfortable with. If your priority is having a lot of federal land at your doorstep you will find a way to make it work. If it is not a priority then you will have hurdles to enjoy it, like non resident hunting fees.

 

[roadrunner]

For some it’s easy to move, for some it is not.

I have left the Midwest and moved to the mountains, move was easy, getting ahead not so much.

What it all boils down to is one’s priorities, some want to have the outdoors 2 minutes away, others want whatever they want, or feel comfortable with. If your priority is having a lot of federal land at your doorstep you will find a way to make it work. If it is not a priority then you will have hurdles to enjoy it, like non resident hunting fees.

And then there's the thread about what a good salary is and posts are made about how expensive things are (houses in particular) and that you need to make $200k per year to sustain a decent lifestyle.

$200k year jobs aren't on every street corner, every town, and every state...

 

[jmez]

The self entitlement mindset is something!


Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2024 using Tapatalk

 

[Predator_SD]

You have received an idiotic post award.

You opinion has been noted and now discarded in the “useless” file.

Cheers

 

[Predator_SD]

They know and routinely publish how many animals.

Well, i’ll agree they think they know and they routinely report to us what they think they know as fact, but they don’t know how many of any given animal is there. They estimate and like all govt work are way off.

They used to say there were only 1000 wolves in Northern WI too. That is until 2021 when hunters went 82% over quota killing 216 of them in only 24 hours and they had to close the season. They gave out double the tags they ever gave out too. So they definitely didn’t know how many animals there were and severely mismanaged the hunters, tags given, and season length.

In that case though the states incompetence was pretty helpful as a lot of wolves bit the dust.

 

[Predator_SD]

That’s wildly incorrect.

You think the Feds are tracking harvest rates? You think the feds are flying winter, areal surveys? You think the feds are radio collaring game? Think the Feds are Conducting winter feeding?

Seriously my man…educate yourself.

Your post is WILDLY incorrect.

Please point out where i in any way stated the feds are tracking harvest rates, doing aerial surveys, radio collaring game, or winter feeding?

Go on Dave, read it over a couple more times, digest it, think it over real carefully and then get back to me.

 

[Predator_SD]

Umm, yes they do. Evert heard of winter counts.
This has been decided by the courts and with a federal law, like years ago.

Sorry to inform you but winter counts provide a rough estimate only requiring math to come up with a final number stating “we have x number of elk”. We all know govt workers or anyone under 40 cannot do math.

Or do you really believe they manage to see and accurately count every single animal within a states borders? Their estimates have a large margin of error in the magnitude multiple tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands based on the animal. Meaning they DONT know how many of x animals they have.

They manage hunters and tags, period.

 

[rogerdoger]

Isn’t hunting a method of controlling wildlife numbers? So issuing tags is game management.

Feds give very little money to the state for wildlife management, this money must be matched by the state or it does not get funding.

Main point is that the states are doing all the leg work to try and manage game numbers through hunting. These cost are paid by the state through license fees. Could resident fees increase to lower non resident fees? Yes, but the politicians know they may have a rough chance of getting elected next term. Also, since non resident demand is so high they have no incentive to lower the non resident fees.

In the end land ownership has nothing to do with hunting fees. Anymore in Montana most of the elk are not on federal land, they are all sitting on private land sanctuaries.

Last is if we expect Feds to manage license fees and wildlife we are in trouble as a lot have been fired. If they did manage I’m sure it would go up to help support the sovereign wealth fund.

 

[KurtR]

You’re free to live in any state. It’s as simple as that. Just because someone won’t sacrifice to live where there is hunting doesn’t mean residents should subsidize there needs.

 

[goathunter]

You’re free to live in any state. It’s as simple as that. Just because someone won’t sacrifice to live where there is hunting doesn’t mean residents should subsidize there needs.

It will probably be a more cost effective solution for many to stay where they are and pay NR prices due to cost of living, housing, average wage, uprooting life, etc. Save a few pennies a month for it, to pay these "crazy fees" and bonus - have something to complain about. But some want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[idahodave]

Your post is WILDLY incorrect.

Please point out where i in any way stated the feds are tracking harvest rates, doing aerial surveys, radio collaring game, or winter feeding?

Go on Dave, read it over a couple more times, digest it, think it over real carefully and then get back to me.

Do you know what obtuse means?

When you’re looking up the issue of who owns (and manages) wildlife on federal lands as per court ruling(s) LONG ago,…look that meaning up as well.

If you don’t believe the state manages wildlife, and now you’re implying you don’t believe the Feds do either…who do you think does?

All of the aforementioned methodologies (aerial surveys, radio collaring, winter feeding, etc.) ARE what constitutes game management. The state does those things…the Feds do NOT.

I’ll throw in enforcement responsibilities since the obvious seems to escape you. The STATE is responsible for enforcement of hunting/fishing laws as well.

Why you ask?…because they (animals) belong to the state. Thusly, their harvest and associated tag costs are the purview of the STATE…not the feds.

Not sure how to dumb this down anymore, so hopefully you can follow this line of logic. If not, best of luck getting laws changed in your non-native state I guess?