Non-resident hunting, the controversy

[Shrek]

Do you think the Federal Lands should be manged different that then state land?

Personally no. I think the states do a pretty decent job and recognize that they manage the lands and game in trust for all Americans. At least most do. If a state were to move towards shutting out citizens of other states I would hope and encourage my states federal representatives and the other 49 states to collectively discouraged the state by cutting off federal funding and cooperation. I wouldn't support the stripping of the states sovereign rights but a firm reminder that we are all one nation and going it alone has real costs. Close all federal lands in the offending state to hunting until it is allowed to be enjoyed by all Americans. When a state gets down to around 10% or less then I think we the people of the other 49 states should take some kind of punitive action. I can think of a couple of states that may need to be reminded of their responsibilities to all Americans not just the citizens of the state. A state getting no federal tax money returned to the states game and fish would probably shake up a few game and fish departments.
It's sad to me that there is even a wish by some to exclude others.

 

[realunlucky]

Wow. I don't want to close my state off but I sure hope we wouldn't bow to pressure from places that think they can run our state better than we can ourselves. Places with to many electoral votes are already screwing everybody. That said I wish everyone could enjoy Utah's beauty at lest once and we really have some great hunting for a lucky few. Being unlucky guess I will continue to hunt neighboring states as long as they let me

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

IMO the only federal land should be DC, but that's another subject. I tend to agree with shrek that all Americans should be afforded the same opportunities and while the state manages the game, equal hunting rights should be given to everyone. I have no problem with Canadians or other foreigners hunting as well as long as they are legal and respectful.

 

[5MilesBack]

Wow. I don't want to close my state off but I sure hope we wouldn't bow to pressure from places that think they can run our state better than we can ourselves.

Exactly. If someone has a big enough problem with being excluded from a specific state, then they should move there and become a resident.....problem solved. I don't know of a single state that "excludes" non-residents from hunting. They may require higher fees, or the use of an outfitter, but I don't know of any that completely exclude NR's.

 

[wyelkhunter]

Do you think the Federal Lands should be manged different that then state land?

Not at all.... the state for lack of a better word "owns the wild life" and pays for the management of the wild life. So the state should decide how to manage all wildlife no matter what land it is on.

should wildlife on private land be managed different than on state or public?

 

[Backstrap]

I think I depart from the herd on this one. With 75% of the funds that a state uses for game management coming from the federal excise tax revenues generated by the Pitman Robertson Act (the other 25% comes from in state hunting license sales revenues). I don't think there should be such a thing as a non-resident hunter. We should all have equal access to hunting, regardless of residency, when the bulk of each state's game management revenues come from a federal program that we all pay into through the purchase of our guns, bows, and other gear. Something similar occurs with fishing through the Dingle Johnson Act.

 

[William Hanson (live2hunt)]

I think I depart from the herd on this one. With 75% of the funds that a state uses for game management coming from the federal excise tax revenues generated by the Pitman Robertson Act (the other 25% comes from in state hunting license sales revenues). I don't think there should be such a thing as a non-resident hunter. We should all have equal access to hunting, regardless of residency, when the bulk of each state's game management revenues come from a federal program that we all pay into through the purchase of our guns, bows, and other gear. Something similar occurs with fishing through the Dingle Johnson Act.

×2 I agree

 

[Matt W.]

Buster , you and the rest of the Canadians should feel lucky the King even lets you hunt his game lol. I'm proud that America offers you the opportunity to hunt and fish here on terms about equal to a Citizen . It's regrettable that Canada doesn't reciprocate . It's also un American to me that Wyoming restricts access to wilderness areas and Alaska to some game without hiring a guide. I feel we should all be free to get in over our heads or killed while hunting. Obama care mandates and Wyoming and Alaskan guide mandates are all socialist planned economy bs.

I understand your frustration on the Alaska Guide Mandates, changes in how that all works are probably needed, but hunting in Alaska is completely different than anything most folks have done. I don't know what the answer is, but turning a bunch of "new to Alaska hunters" loose in the Alaska wilderness would raise a whole new set of issues. Our search and rescue guys would sure be busy! The learning curve here is steep and can be expensive. The quasi rule of thumb for guys moving up here is: 1) Befriend a local hunter, 2) Be Prepared (earthquakes and volcano prep kits), 3) find a doctor 4) etc. etc. Numbers 2-X always vary, but Number 1 is critical if you are a hunter...

It would also bring a flood of hunters that are currently limited by the cost of such hunts, creating a whole new set of issues around wildlife management and resident vs. non-resident opportunities. Definitely would end up changing up the current draw system. Not saying it should or should not change, just trying to point out its a complicated issue.

Fish and Game are managed by the State and answer to State elected officials who answer (theoretically) to local voters. Its a national system that is biased to locals. I am ok with that, but any responsible Wildlife management program should recognize the impact that out of "area/state" users can have on the program and provide reasonable opportunities for participation. Its a complex issue that is for sure...

I think I depart from the herd on this one. With 75% of the funds that a state uses for game management coming from the federal excise tax revenues generated by the Pitman Robertson Act (the other 25% comes from in state hunting license sales revenues). I don't think there should be such a thing as a non-resident hunter. We should all have equal access to hunting, regardless of residency, when the bulk of each state's game management revenues come from a federal program that we all pay into through the purchase of our guns, bows, and other gear. Something similar occurs with fishing through the Dingle Johnson Act.

This one is a tough issue. Say a guy pulls up roots and move to Colorado to fulfill a life long dream of hunting Monster Muleys. He moves near a great area and gets to chase his dream every fall. Then we go national and everyone has access to this area. Now due to changing fish and game regulations he only gets to hunt his area every 5-6 years because of an influx of "out of area" hunters who can buy a tag for what once was his yearly passion. This is really a tough issue for wildlife management. I think providing locals the ability to economically hunt in their back yard is critical to the future of hunting, yet at the same time this must be balanced with providing reasonable opportunities to those who can afford to travel and branch out.

 

[jmez]

I think the state's do a pretty good job as well. I think there should be some benefit to living and paying taxes within a state as apposed to being a non resident. I don't have a problem with limiting the tags and charging more for non residents. There has to be some limitations somewhere and I believe these to be fair.

I don't like the exclusionary polices in AK and WY. These are political decisions and nothing more to protect the guides and outfitters. I'm not a fan of the state "protecting" me from myself.

 

[DaveC]

I don't like the exclusionary polices in AK and WY. These are political decisions and nothing more to protect the guides and outfitters. I'm not a fan of the state "protecting" me from myself.

Agreed. The Wyoming wilderness law is a special grade of BS.

I don't have an issue with residents having slight preference, among other things its a reward for living in a place which tends to be less economically lucrative. That said, non-resident tags, and tags generally, are way too high. It's pretty appauling how much of a rich person's game hunting has become.

 

[HardcoreHunter]

Agreed. The Wyoming wilderness law is a special grade of BS.

This is the issue I have. So a soldier can go to Afghanistan, but cant go into the wilderness because hes a "non-resident" I wish all military members would be considered residents of all 50 states. We fight for all of them, right?

 

[realunlucky]

I was in Iraq with a man from Scotland and he wasn't even a citizen of the USA but still protecting others freedoms. He did get his citizenship after our deployment but his service did not speed up the process. Thank you for service but I don't think that alone should grant resident privileges I also want you to help pay the taxes

 

[sakalmon]

Agreed. The Wyoming wilderness law is a special grade of BS.

I don't have an issue with residents having slight preference, among other things its a reward for living in a place which tends to be less economically lucrative. That said, non-resident tags, and tags generally, are way too high. It's pretty appauling how much of a rich person's game hunting has become.

Could not agree more

 

[HardcoreHunter]

I was in Iraq with a man from Scotland and he wasn't even a citizen of the USA but still protecting others freedoms. He did get his citizenship after our deployment but his service did not speed up the process. Thank you for service but I don't think that alone should grant resident privileges I also want you to help pay the taxes

I agree with taxes, but why only a resident of one state an not the country? For arguments sake?

 

[Buster]

So despite increased fees for non-residents, limited tags, and other restrictions, how many of you still hunt out of state? How many states? What is your limit? Any hunts that you really want to do, but just have a hard time putting in for? What about the ones you just can't pass up?

 

[jmez]

I hunt Montana. If I didn't have little ones I would likely hit a couple more on a yearly basis.

 

[BRobertson]

If I did not hate leaving home so much, I would probably try to hunt Mule deer somewhere, and as strange as it sounds, I would try to go at least once every
year to somewhere that had a good population of jackrabbits. That is about the most pure fun that I have had with a handgun!!!

Bob

 

[realunlucky]

So despite increased fees for non-residents, limited tags, and other restrictions, how many of you still hunt out of state? How many states? What is your limit? Any hunts that you really want to do, but just have a hard time putting in for? What about the ones you just can't pass up?

I personally probably hunt outside my state than in it. We have limited options in Utah with fairly short seasons and I try to maximize my vacation time. I have a strategie to try and draw decent tags every year, of course it sucks so I have back up plans for easier to acquire tags so i can get out and hunt. I also put in for long shots draws but only in places where I've already invested in a license for other draws or where the odds make it cost feasible

 

[Lukem]

I think I depart from the herd on this one. With 75% of the funds that a state uses for game management coming from the federal excise tax revenues generated by the Pitman Robertson Act (the other 25% comes from in state hunting license sales revenues). I don't think there should be such a thing as a non-resident hunter. We should all have equal access to hunting, regardless of residency, when the bulk of each state's game management revenues come from a federal program that we all pay into through the purchase of our guns, bows, and other gear. Something similar occurs with fishing through the Dingle Johnson Act.

Not entirely true. There are a whole host of things that do not qualify for Fed Aid PR money that each game agency is the sole payer. The 75% for the most part is a reimbursement as well so the state must front the entire cost or find a "match" to start with. Additionally, the amount of money that is given back to state is based upon a formula that considers the number of licenses sold within the state. So while it is a federal collection of money it is essentially remitted on a level based on the hunters in each state. Yes, NR are counted in that, but they're counted consistently across states.

 

[shanevg]

I have no problem with non-residents having limited tags and increased fees to hunt out of state but I would like to do away with WY wilderness, AK guide, and Canada's laws that don't allow non-residents to hunt without a guide. It is pretty lame that Canada does not reciprocate the open hunting laws allowed by the US.