Non-resident hunting, the controversy

[Shrek]

Key difference is, when youre hunting, your taking (harvesting, whatever you want to call it) a resource from the state. A resource that may or may not be easily replaced. A resource who's management is largely funded by the taxpayers of the state./QUOTE]

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

 

[5MilesBack]

Perilously close to political debate here, but I'd submit that your statement here is so incorrect as to be ridiculous.

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?

 

[T43]

Think hard about the (general) effort and funds a non-resident has to put into a hunt vs. the local bubba in his pickup truck. A guy doing that kinda work is most likely not going to be a schlub. I'd bet a dollar to a donut that local yocals cause more havoc.

I get a chuckle out of posts like this. I am a resident hunter. My effort and funds go on year round, the little gas station/grocery/hardware store that NRs stop at once or twice a year gets my business year round otherwise they would be closed when NRs showed up. I know local land owners, BLM, Forrest Service and Fish and Game by their first names and don't hesitate to call them when some bubba, local or not, is causing havoc. I volunteer, pull fence, attend meetings, make comments and kill predators year round. This legislative session I spoke out and wrote legislators in support of raising resident hunting fees. I have met and hunted with many NRs some were very dedicated and enjoyed the chance to hunt here. Others did nothing but complain about how high the fees were, how many wolves there were (even if they had never seen one) and how they used to fill their tags from the road every year. The bottom line is if it wern't for resident hunters and sportsmen there wouldn't be enough good hunting to bring in any NRs and without NR funding residents wouldn't have the opportunities for cheap tags. Its a pretty good balance right now but it could change fairly easily.

 

[jmez]

Agree T43, it is a good balance currently. Both sides are needed. The stereotyping of both sides is what is ridiculous in this thread. One's residence status has little to no effect on their behavior. People are what they are. If they are a poacher on a NR hunt they poach in their home state. If they have disregard for game laws as a NR they act accordingly at home. If they have no clue how to hunt and mess things up for those around them they don't automatically become a hunter within the confines of their own state. If they moved to your state then they would simply be residents doing the exact same things as NR's. It is just their personality.

 

[DaveC]

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?

Ridiculous is painting with a broad brush and implying that historical and socioeconomic factors don't play a huge role in the ability of folks like Ms. Weems to do what she did. Does a girl the same age born to a meth-addicted mother and raised in 6 foster homes on the Pine Ridge Reservation have an opportunity to start a huge business? Yes. Does she have the same opportunity as a white girl raised in a big city by a birth parents making ~100,000k a year? Of course not. So no, not everyone in the US has the opportunity to do that, unless you're content to hold everyone responsible for the sins of their parents, grandparents, and society at large. Which would be ridiculous.

More to the point, I'd like a generic person who chooses to go into a socially responsible but less lucrative profession to be able to go sheep hunting in Alaska more than once in her/his life. In my book, protecting outfitters is a poor justification for doing otherwise. Or we could continue to discourage bright, motivated young adults from teaching elementary school, being social workers, becoming primary care doctors, and so forth. Which as social policy is, wait for it, ridiculous.

 

[Coyote Commander]

What are the odds of success for most NR hunters, 10-15%? You are saying that they are "taking" or "consuming" a finite resource of the state when in reality just a small percentage of them are. Most NR hunters are simply donating money to the state through higher tag fees and spending money in small towns that depend on them coming to make a decent living. I would say they are "giving" far more than they are "taking". It could even be said that locals who poach do far more damage to the resource than NR's who buy licenses and all do. As for the park statement, you are consuming services, putting wear on trails and infrastructure just to name a couple of things. Same argument could be applied to National Parks, we all pay taxes so why should we have to pay an entrance fee at all? Because we are using the services of the ones we do decide to visit. It would probably be more fair to level out the NR license fees and just charge a trophy fee to those who are successful. That might work, it might not.

Success rates are besides the point.

When you go hunting in a state, you are being allowed to take that states resource. Whether YOU actually do is besides the point, the state is ALLOWING you to do so.

Look at it this way, the state isnt selling you the animal, they are selling you the opportunity at the animal, anything after that is up to you.

And as long as theres a horde of Eastern boys willing to buy those tags every year, prices will continue to be high. Supply and demand. Everyone and their mother "comes West" these days. (Thanks Eastmans).

 

[Coyote Commander]

Personally, I think it takes a lot of damn gall to expect or ask that a NR hunter be treated even remotely equally to a resident hunter as it pertains to opportunity or price.

 

[DaveC]

Success rates are besides the point.

When you go hunting in a state, you are being allowed to take that states resource. Whether YOU actually do is besides the point, the state is ALLOWING you to do so.

Look at it this way, the state isnt selling you the animal, they are selling you the opportunity at the animal, anything after that is up to you.

And as long as theres a horde of Eastern boys willing to buy those tags every year, prices will continue to be high. Supply and demand. Everyone and their mother "comes West" these days. (Thanks Eastmans).

I don't disagree, but the fact that most of those critters are hunted on federal land is an angle worth considering.

 

[realunlucky]

Key difference is, when youre hunting, your taking (harvesting, whatever you want to call it) a resource from the state. A resource that may or may not be easily replaced. A resource who's management is largely funded by the taxpayers of the state./QUOTE]

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

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

 

[Coyote Commander]

I don't disagree, but the fact that most of those critters are hunted on federal land is an angle worth considering.

I dont see an angle.

Federal lands are already managed differently on a state by state basis and the animals residing in them, are still by and large managed by the state agency.

And I for one DONT want more federal involvement with our wildlife management.


Not to mention, can you imagine the enforecement nightmare of trying to manage "federal" animals and tags, and "state" animals and tags? Its hard enough to manage our vague and convoluted game laws the way it is.

 

[tstowater]

The States have been entrusted (if that would be the proper term) with management of the resources (game animals here). Most of the States have given the NR's an opportunity to apply for (a source of funding for some States) and a chance to receive a hunting opportunity (in some cases, a hunt of a lifetime). If you choose to hunt in only one State, then move there and hope the State excludes all NR hunters to give the residents all the hunting opportunities. If you choose to hunt beyond the border of your State of residence (I'm guessing a fair % of the Roksliders either do or would do), then you want a reasonable opportunity to hunt in another State. If you are an "exclusionist", then don't hunt in another State as that would be considered hypocritical in my book. My home state, Iowa, has some wonderful whitetail hunting. There are many resident hunters who would love to eliminate all NR hunters as the NR's compete for hunting opportunites, buy or lease some of the best land for hunting, etc. I understand their frustrations, but I also am a NR in every other State that I hunt in and am appreciative that those States have given me the opportunity to hunt there. As such, I believe that Iowa needs to give NR's a reasonable amount of whitetail tags at a reasonable price in exchange for the chance that I can hunt in another State.

 

[Coyote Commander]

Who defines "reasonable"?

Because ill guarantee you, there are guys out there that think if they cant hunt your state for the same price you hunt your state, youre being unreasonable.


Also, wouldnt demand play into a "reasonable" price? Should a NR whitetail tag for New Jersey or Virginia be priced reasonably close to a NR Elk tag in Colorado? What ones in higher demand?

And thats not even mentioning any "trophy" aspect (a lot of states fine game offenses based on a trophy class scale now). So should "trophy" areas cost more?

 

[16Bore]

I get a chuckle out of posts like this. I am a resident hunter. My effort and funds go on year round, the little gas station/grocery/hardware store that NRs stop at once or twice a year gets my business year round otherwise they would be closed when NRs showed up. I know local land owners, BLM, Forrest Service and Fish and Game by their first names and don't hesitate to call them when some bubba, local or not, is causing havoc. I volunteer, pull fence, attend meetings, make comments and kill predators year round. This legislative session I spoke out and wrote legislators in support of raising resident hunting fees. I have met and hunted with many NRs some were very dedicated and enjoyed the chance to hunt here. Others did nothing but complain about how high the fees were, how many wolves there were (even if they had never seen one) and how they used to fill their tags from the road every year. The bottom line is if it wern't for resident hunters and sportsmen there wouldn't be enough good hunting to bring in any NRs and without NR funding residents wouldn't have the opportunities for cheap tags. Its a pretty good balance right now but it could change fairly easily.

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..

 

[TEmbry]

There is no right answer.

I'm ok w NR paying more (1000%+ increases is a bit excessive though).

I'm ok w NR getting fewer tags (<5-10% of total tags is a bit excessive though when applicants for each side is near equal).

I really only have two game management laws which I find criminal and a direct infringement on our rights.... And that is guide requirements. Wyoming requiring me to use a guide to hunt federal lands that I can otherwise hike, camp, and fish on without a guide is complete BS. Alaska requiring a guide to hunt federal lands for certain species and not others is criminal. It's not about safety, it's about guaranteeing clientele for guides, and it's BS.

 

[tstowater]

Reasonable: Depends on several factors such as general availability of game animal, etc. I'm generally with TEmbry in that there is no right answer, but I can usually see what I see as unreasonable. Utah factors prices on certain species based on perceived trophy quality and I think some other states do to. Colorado restricts NR hunting in high demand units. I don't have problems with this as long as the NR still has a "reasonable" chance. I will pick on New Mexico with the structure of their NR hunts (other than LO tags). A DIY in quality units is up a creek unless you get lucky. Guide preference--you bet there is. The sheep hunts went from too favorable to the NR to too unreasonable the other way. Does a NR even have a chance anymore to hunt sheep in New Mexico? Will people complain if the NR tag is 2X over the resident, yes, but that may not be a reasonable person doing the complaining. Some States have it right, others don't. The west coast in general---NR's have some real hurdles to get much of a chance to hunt, period. I don't have the answer either, but I did say that this is the $1 million question.

 

[realunlucky]

Game management is political, outfitters have lobbyists, hunting is now all about the money. Nothing surprises me. I think all sportsmen must decide how much they value the percentage of the opportunity to apply for good tags. The price will continue to raise as numbers fall and politicians see hunting revenue as a way to make up short falls in other parts of the budget.
the thing that keeps me hunting and paying nonresident rates is the opportunity to hunt different species or different type of terrain. Nothing feels better than hunting somewhere new preparing the best you can adapting to these new parameters and leaving successful. I would never want to exclude someone from that experience

 

[realunlucky]

Of course hunting at home provides quality time with friends and family that can't or won't hunt elsewhere as a non residents. I don't want to trade this experience so more nonresidents get a chance to hunt Utah either. It's definitely a a hard balance to find and in the end those that fail to get an opportunity to hunt will be unhappy and feel excluded about the process

 

[Montanafreak]

Of course hunting at home provides quality time with friends and family that can't or won't hunt elsewhere as a non residents. I don't want to trade this experience so more nonresidents get a chance to hunt Utah either. It's definitely a a hard balance to find and in the end those that fail to get an opportunity to hunt will be unhappy and feel excluded about the process

I get everyones frustration and I share it as getting my dad out here to hunt is hit or miss for special bow elk hunts. OTC tags havent been sold out in the last few years so thats not a problem. But consider this, if in a limited draw area everyone had the same chance NR and res, why should those of us that live here full time have to suffer for the benefit of those who can afford to take vacations and fork out for hunting trips? We suffer throught the weather, the poor pay, the lack of modern conviences, all because we love this place and we love to hunt/fish. This is my home, and I alreay can't get permission to hunt most ranches because they want excessive fees due to the fact they can get them from NR. I mean if its gonna cost you $8000 to hunt Elk somewhere, why not lease a ranch for $2500 and increase your odds? As for federal lands, even in Montana they access is limited, you don't exactly hike back into the Bob for an afternoon hunt. That takes horse and equipment some of us dont have. The few places that are easily accessible are already over run with people on any given day. Living in a place entitles you to certain advantages and privilages. Its no different than people who flock here for school and the complain because their tuition is 4x higher then residents. We have a resource here and in order to protect that resource we must limit those who dont live here access to it or charge for the privilage (and yes its a privilage) to it. Lets face it, if your home had the same or better opportunities as here, why would you come?

 

[realunlucky]

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

 

[5MilesBack]

More to the point, I'd like a generic person who chooses to go into a socially responsible but less lucrative profession to be able to go sheep hunting in Alaska more than once in her/his life.

Personally, I find this statement to be ridiculous. I haven't hunted sheep in Alaska even once, and doubt I ever will........but I'm OK with that. I don't need to see everyone having the exact same opportunities as others just because. I'm of the opinion that if someone wants something bad enough they should work hard for it and go get it.........period. Sheep hunting isn't a right.........it is an extreme privilege.........one I don't believe that everyone should have, just so everyone can feel good about themselves. Same for all other hunting opportunities.