Non-resident hunting, the controversy

[Montanafreak]

What if it was once home and you want to return to hunt with your dad shouldn't that be an option? This isn't strictly a Western problem it's a problem on quality units no matter where they are located. Residents must have a higher consideration but non residents should also be afforded an opportunity. It's complex and no percentage split will satisfy all parties

Thats why I love MT, they have a Coming home to hunt program just for that.

 

[realunlucky]

Yea I know I use to live there. Lived in three forks and plenty of times I saw graffiti that said " out of staters go home" . I'm just saying non residents come to hunt for many different reasons and some may be pretty much the same reasons residents are hunting. You would want to share with your brother if he was non resident but not some one else's brother that's a non resident. It's just a perspective to consider

 

[Bonedalien]

The point you missed was that those paying 10x the fees are taking a much higher risk (time/funds/return) to seek game as a non-resident. With about a 10% chance in a DIY situation, you can bet I'm 110% committed to getting it right. Granted there are those with deep pockets that don't give a schit either way. I say the average guy taking on that kind of coin (like some here) are generally on the up and up....

Hats off for your involvement..

you ,16Bore are 110% into your hunt,and thats awesome. the kind of hunters any state wants.but anyone who lives in the west knows a lot of "hunters" are just guys on vacation,here to drink beer and cruise roads on atvs,and escape the wives with bros for a week. to imply most harm is done by local bubbas in trucks is insane.
stick around after season,and see how good all the roads and campsites look.doesnt look trashed like that the rest of the year.

 

[Coyote Commander]

you ,16Bore are 110% into your hunt,and thats awesome. the kind of hunters any state wants.but anyone who lives in the west knows a lot of "hunters" are just guys on vacation,here to drink beer and cruise roads on atvs,and escape the wives with bros for a week. to imply most harm is done by local bubbas in trucks is insane.
stick around after season,and see how good all the roads and campsites look.doesnt look trashed like that the rest of the year.

You said a mouthful.

Most of the guys I see here, are just on a "guys vacation". The hunting almost takes a back seat to the card playing and beer drinking in the RV or wall tent.

They camp on the road, hop on the quad every morning (which I just dont understand the quads, youre on the ROAD, use the truck!), go a half mile down the road. Get off and do their 1/2 mile loop. And are back at camp by 11 for sandwiches, beer, and a nap.

 

[Lukem]

These funds are based on license sells and are match type system. Do you have a link as which states collect the most tax for this. Would love to see who back people are riding on

http://www.fws.gov/budget/2013/PDF Files FY 2013 Greenbook/24. Wildlife Restoration.pdf

Look at pages 9 and 10 to see how much money each state gets. 2012 and projected 2013 $'s. The formula for allocation is based upon licenses, population and area of each state.

EDIT: sorry, you're looking for collection instead of allocation. I'll see if I can dig that up.

EDIT2: I forgot, the taxes are collected at the manufacturer level, so there's really no way to track buying by state by the time all those products get spread across all the distribution channels.

It's mostly federal Pittman Robertson funds that pay for the majority of state game management programs.

That really isn't true. If you dig through the budget #'s for state agencies federal money isn't even close to a majority.

Take CO for instance. It takes a little digging http://dnr.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/BUDGET/BudgetRequests/FY2012Overview.pdf page 138, the overall DOW budget is $87million, which includes fisheries, LE, etc., you can see who is all included in that budget on that page. Federal funds (P-R and D-J) only account for $10.8 Million of that budget.

In Nebraska, which I'm more familiar with, see page 6 http://outdoornebraska.ne.gov/admin/annual_reports/annualreport.pdf the Wildlife Division expenditures for 2012 were $16 million, but only $1.6 m were fed funds. The USFWS doc says NE got ~$5m in PR funds in 2012, so who knows what the exact # is, regardless, it definitely isn't a majority.

Besides, Shrek, with your love of wolves, why would you advocate any federal involvement in wildlife management anywhere...

 

[Coyote Commander]

Looks like TX, AK, PA, MI, and CA round out the top five with all over $10 million.

Didnt see any western states with all that "public" land really in the top end.

 

[TEmbry]

Federal land is owned equally by ALL citizens of this country, not just of which ever state happens to surround that land. I'm of the opinion access to these lands should be equal.

 

[Shrek]

Lukem , if you read my first post you would see that I think the states do a pretty good job of managing game and that if a state were to move to exclude nonresidents I would only support economic pressure to reconsider not direct federal management. I firmly support states rights to manage game and do not support direct federal involvement in licensing and allocation. Wolves are the poster child for why the feds shouldn't be allowed to manage the office fish tank much less game.

 

[Lukem]

No, I know, just giving you a hard time.

 

[sneaky]

Not at all. Just look at MANY immigrants that came to the country with absolutely nothing in their pockets when they got here, and now are multimillionaires. And many of those are even modern immigrants. I would say that every American has at least something in their pockets, so we're already ahead of where these successful businessmen were at the start. Where does "ridiculous" come in?

Have you read about the 17yo high school girl that owns a $250 million company? She started out making and selling jewelry in a kiosk in her local mall, and it exploded into what it is now. Tell me how ANYONE in this country didn't have the same opportunity to do that?

A) Immigrants are given tax breaks that natural citizens aren't, to deny that is to deny facts
B) Who bankrolled that girl to rent her kiosk at the mall? Most likely great support from her parents, not everyone has that luxury.
C) We have to face facts, not everyone will have the skill, intelligence or the opportunity to become highly successful, or even moderately successful. To say that everyone can is painting with far too broad of a brush. There are lots of people in this country who have nothing and most likely never will because of various mitigating factors and that's just a fact of life. Some will achieve the American dream but a lot won't.

 

[5MilesBack]

Some will achieve the American dream but a lot won't.

I won't argue this statement at all. As for the rest, we'll just have to disagree. People crying that sheep hunts and hunting in general should be affordable for all, is like crying that everyone should be able to afford a house in Rancho Sante Fe, or a cruise around the world, or luxury automobiles. Either play the hand you're dealt in life, or change your cards. I agree........most people will never get to the point of financial independence.

Federal land is owned equally by ALL citizens of this country, not just of which ever state happens to surround that land. I'm of the opinion access to these lands should be equal.

As far as I know, "access" is equal. Every single person in this country as well as foreign visitors even, can "access" federal lands. But if they want to hunt the state's animals on those federal lands, they still have to follow the state's rules and regulations and pay the required fees.

 

[tstowater]

Access to Federal lands are not equal as there seems to be quite a bit of it without access due to the neccesity to cross private property to get to the Federal land...but that is a whole different issue.

 

[mmw194287]

I'm not sure that we should view having the opportunity to harvest a state-owned animal in the same light as we do a big house or a cruise around the world. It's a public resource, not a luxury good or someone else's property. No one is saying that the people who can afford sheep hunts now pay for those who currently can't--just that a PUBLIC resource managed for the PUBLIC GOOD should be accessible (even through astronomical draw odds) to a greater percentage of the PUBLIC.

 

[DaveC]

It's a public resource, not a luxury good or someone else's property. No one is saying that the people who can afford sheep hunts now pay for those who currently can't--just that a PUBLIC resource managed for the PUBLIC GOOD should be accessible (even through astronomical draw odds) to a greater percentage of the PUBLIC.

Exactly.

 

[5MilesBack]

just that a PUBLIC resource managed for the PUBLIC GOOD should be accessible (even through astronomical draw odds) to a greater percentage of the PUBLIC.

I don't know of many people at all that are excluded from applying for tags........and that includes those with astronomical draw odds. So now I have no idea what you guys are referring to.

 

[mplane72]

My home state, Iowa, is very tough on NR deer hunters. A draw, an expensive tag (IMO at least for a whitetail) and a NR landowner is not even guaranteed a tag to hunt their own property. I like it this way, I contact my reps every time there is a bit of talk about relaxing these regs. As a result I play by other states rules when looking for an out of state hunt.

 

[mmw194287]

Well, this thread in large part is about financial barriers to experiencing some of the different hunts this country has to offer. You made the analogy between a hunt and a fancy car or a big house. Obviously certain financial barriers to hunting are unavoidable--taking time off of work, getting yourself there, equipping yourself with the right gear. No argument there. But I think it becomes problematic when the state itself is creating new financial barriers through the licensing process. I'm not disputing that there are benefits to having NRs pay more, but we're all talking about a sliding scale here. You've emphatically stated that if someone doesn't like what the government is doing with a public resource, they should suck it up and make more money and then they can go on whatever hunt they want to. Would you say the same thing if NR license fees doubled? Quadrupled?

It's not a simple question or a black and white issue. We're talking about the democratic principle of the North American model of wildlife management. I'm just suggesting that there might be larger questions at stake--questions that are pretty relevant to the future of our sport.

 

[5MilesBack]

Well, this thread in large part is about financial barriers to experiencing some of the different hunts this country has to offer. You made the analogy between a hunt and a fancy car or a big house. Obviously certain financial barriers to hunting are unavoidable--taking time off of work, getting yourself there, equipping yourself with the right gear. No argument there. But I think it becomes problematic when the state itself is creating new financial barriers through the licensing process. I'm not disputing that there are benefits to having NRs pay more, but we're all talking about a sliding scale here. You've emphatically stated that if someone doesn't like what the government is doing with a public resource, they should suck it up and make more money and then they can go on whatever hunt they want to. Would you say the same thing if NR license fees doubled? Quadrupled?

It's not a simple question or a black and white issue. We're talking about the democratic principle of the North American model of wildlife management. I'm just suggesting that there might be larger questions at stake--questions that are pretty relevant to the future of our sport.

Yes, we were talking about the financial barriers for some, but then you posted this "just that a PUBLIC resource managed for the PUBLIC GOOD should be accessible (even through astronomical draw odds) to a greater percentage of the PUBLIC". That's two different issues. One is being able to afford to hunt, and the other is having access to tags, or the ability to apply for tags. Everyone has the same opportunity to apply for tags. NR's may not have as great a chance of drawing those tags as residents, but they have the access and ability to apply nonetheless.

Then getting back to the financial ramifications.........I don't care what the different states charge for NR's........it's their state, they can charge whatever the heck they want. If I or anybody else doesn't like that.......hunt another state, or move there. Sure you can complain about it all you want, but NR hunting is not a right. It is a privilege, and if you can afford that privilege.......then go for it. If not, then hunt elsewhere. It's really pretty simple. I could live anywhere in the country, there's a reason why I choose to live in the West and specifically Colorado.........and it has everything to do with my recreational activities. If I was hellbent on hunting Alaska, and couldn't afford it as a NR, I'd move there. We all pick our priorities in life, and where we live is just one of them. If golf was my number one priority, I'd move to Florida or Arizona........pretty simple.

 

[tstowater]

If it was all about money, then put all the tags up to the highest bidder and see the fallout. Really bad idea for the long term hunting community. We all need to give a degree of consideration to someone other than our selfish little selves. At that point we may value this issue in a different light.

 

[DaveC]

That's two different issues. One is being able to afford to hunt, and the other is having access to tags, or the ability to apply for tags. Everyone has the same opportunity to apply for tags.....

...but NR hunting is not a right. It is a privilege, and if you can afford that privilege.......then go for it. If not, then hunt elsewhere. It's really pretty simple. I could live anywhere in the country, there's a reason why I choose to live in the West and specifically Colorado...

Simply put, the government is not a for-profit entity. Economics are vital in a democracy, which is why it used to be "...and the pursuit of property." Public land fees, especially federal land, should be sufficient for management and no more. Legislating access via cost is a sad thing to see, whether it is in tag fees or river permits.

Citizens can indeed curry opportunity with their feet, but it shouldn't be the only practical option to access a given resource.

Edit: I have enjoyed this thread. Thanks everyone.