The resident short game. Long term consequences?

[robby denning]

If you guys see a HOWL alert for California id appreciate if you’d take action on it even though you’ll never come hunt here.
Thank you in advance

Done!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trap]

You're probably right. I guide hunters full-time and although my professional pursuit of wildlife is commercial, it's probably still defined as a hobby, even though it's my career.

Confused ha ha. I agree that for anyone in the business of hunting it is NOT a hobby. I think for a lot of hunters it’s also not a hobby even though we don’t make a profit or living from it. I was saying for some hunters it’s a hobby for others it’s not.

 

[Mykolaivka887]

Actually, if we take the definition of "hobby" literally, then a career of professional hunting wouldn't be deemed as a hobby. It's definitely not leisure (lol).

 

[BuzzH]

Human nature likes to define things and compartmentalize everything into tidy boxes, that just doesn't work, never has and never will.

 

[MuleyFever]

There has been a ton of changes in the western hunting game the last few years. And it is still changing daily/weekly/monthly. One of the biggest and hotly debated topics is license/tag allocation. Res vs non res.

Anyone that is on SM has seen topics from it. The interesting thing to me is I honestly think residents are shooting themselves in the foot. Sure it will be better short term getting more of the licenses. But what about long term? Or do they even care as long as they get their second moose tag?


I used to (emphasis on used to) donate a lot of money to RMEF, WSF, and MDF. I was a member and would spend $500+ at each of the banquets. I would spend money on the different raffles throughout the year. I haven’t went to one of their banquets this year. I haven’t renewed my memberships this year. The states residents that benefit the most from those donations I used to make, are doing their best to give myself and other non res a smaller and smaller percentage every year. I wonder how many other non res are realizing the same? I know 100% it’s not just me.

That money can be used for guide fees, private land access, copter ride into land locked public, a beach vacation, etc.


Look at all the help wanted posted on this forum when it comes to hunting/wildlife issues. One of the most recent was the area 23/26 caribou closure in Alaska. Please send emails, etc. I wonder how many more people would of sent emails if Alaska didn’t have their guide rule for sheep, goat, and grizzlies? Maybe if they would have gotten 1000+ more emails against the closure the decision would have been different? (I’ll come back to the closure in a few) Residents are always wanting non res help when it comes to wildlife issues. I expect that help to dwindle more and more every year.

One of the dumbest things I see residents post is “These are Our animals. You have zero say in how we manage Our wildlife. If you don’t like it Move here.”

To add to that, the harder you make it for a non res and turn it into a res paradise the more and more non res that will move there. Where are they going to move to? Up in the mountains in the summer range or down on the winter range? Of course the winter range. Less and less habitat. More and more people loving the outdoors to death. (Look at SW Colorado for an example)

Then there will be bitching like there already is because guess what? Residents of most of these states can’t afford what the non res can. So it prices the res and their family out. (Recently read a post from Idaho residents bitching about not being able to afford property taxes) How does that look? Do you want your kids to move away after they grow up because they can’t afford to live on their own there? I mean isn’t that why we changed allocations in the first place? So little Johnny can draw a sheep tag in his lifetime? Too bad he won’t be able to afford to live there.

Which leads me to this part. If it was about little Johnny why are the residents that have already gotten the opportunity to hunt what should be an oil species, still applying and trying to draw? Greed. Nothing else. Most hunters will never get to hunt an oil species. Yet there are a few that have already and are still trying to take that opportunity away from someone that hasn’t.

Next thing you know it won’t be non res vs res allocation. It will be res vs res. The closure for caribou in 23/26 wasn’t just for non res of AK. It was for people that don’t live in that area. Huge amounts of federal land closed to some of AK’s residents for caribou hunting.

What about opening up the late season mule deer hunts to wipe out CWD in Wyoming. I wonder if 100 emails from non res for it, will show that there is public support? If they do add the hunts it benefits non res even if they don’t apply there.

Public land. Most hunters don’t care about public they can’t hunt. It would be nothing to sell off some of the more useless land. Keep the mineral rights of course. Or people could make a push to graze more livestock. That actually helps pay for the land. The state running their wildlife on federal land is welfare. So if there were more cows/sheep out there that will help offset the cost.

Corner crossing. Donate donate donate! Make sure you donate to open up more land for the hunter! “We are all in this together!” While at the same time the residents are doing their best to make the non res pie smaller and smaller.


The short game is to get all these adult residents more tags.

What does the long game look like? Less habitat. More non res moving to your state for hunting reasons vying for the same tags you are. Less donations. Less support for wildlife issues. Less support for public land. Not being able to afford to live where you grew up.

I guarantee I’ll get some haha’s. I know most is true though. Look at Idaho, Montana, (just saw a news clip about another hundred acres getting developed by Bozeman today) Colorado, even Wyoming. Wyoming has the least amount of people. But prices there are shooting up on real estate. It’ll be easy for your kids to afford to live there I’m sure.

If you are a non res to the western states I would try to get what you can as soon as possible or move. The future isn’t looking bright for non res hunting. If you are a resident of a western state I hope you like company, higher cost of living, and loss of habitat. Because you are bringing it upon yourselves.


You guys are lucky I only had my phone

Amazing how few posts in this thread actually follow the point of this post.

 

[RMM]

No, not it at all. Believe it or not there are people out there that do things when there is nothing in it for them.

There's plenty more things I've done to benefit others that I don't discuss.

What good is it and how does it benefit me to tell a bunch of people that could care less?

Your reasoning falls flat.

Didn't you just go on a tangent in post #209 telling a bunch of people how generous you are?

Don't get me wrong, you do seem to be generous, probably much more so than others, but sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.

 

[sneaky]

You have no idea what other people do to manage predators.
Throwing out a blanket statement lIke that highlights your ignorance.

The fact is there are too many predators, in my opinion that’s poor predator management that’s all I said. Regardless of what has been done, more needs to be done. Right? OK then.

How about mountain lion management? is that the Feds too? Or is the State responsible for the obviously high number of cats?
I’ve seen more cats in the last 5 years than the previous 40 combined.

I witnessed a lion chasing deer last Friday morning, and saw two lions last weekend.

As for my personal contribution towards predator management, which you would know absolutely nothing about, I’ve done more than my share of harvesting predators, wolves, lions, bears and coyotes.

You want a gold star or a cookie? I'm not throwing out blanket statements that I haven't researched there genius. You made a blanket statement that I responded to, not my fault your feelings got hurt. I'll say it again just so it sinks in for you. Idaho has the most liberal predator seasons in the country. Wtf else do you want? M44s everywhere killing everything? You haven't offered a single "fix" to any of your complaints. Not one. Straight from the IDFG director Ed Schriever's mouth last week "45,000 hunters purchased wolf tags in 2021. 48,000 total wolf tags. 210 individuals harvested at least one wolf, less than 20 harvested 2 or more, and less than 5 harvested 3 or more ". You wanna control lions? Talk to the houndsmen.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

One big problem with trying to control lions is houndsmen.

They want to run lions and find tracks every time they go out, but they rarely kill any.

Would be nice if they allowed folks to trap them.

Yep, any lion we catch here in Idaho we have to release, even if we have a tag in our pocket. I know trappers that released a half dozen this season alone. I've also heard from houndsmen themselves that they get units closed to take by killing females early in the season. That way they can have cats to chase all winter and work their dogs.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

Honestly do not know. But how much money is really needed to fund hunting? The biologists, wardens and administration are one aspect. The animals and the land is there. How much from NR licenses actually goes back into wildlife specific funding vrs state general fund? In the last two decades it seems there are ten times more eco tourist here in MT, WY and ID than hunters,

You know why Colorado Parks got rolled back in to Colorado Dept of Wildlife? Because they were broke. Not the first time Colorado has been down that road. Your non consumptive outdoor user groups aren't funding anything. They consistently shoot down the backpack tax, their version of PR and DJ, because "I'm not paying more money for a pack or sleeping bag".

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Trap]

Didn't you just go on a tangent in post #209 telling a bunch of people how generous you are?

Don't get me wrong, you do seem to be generous, probably much more so than others, but sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.

I feel he was making a point. Some people contribute to things that they don’t directly benefit from. He provided personal examples to illustrate that fact -not tooting his own horn. Op suggested that not allowing every non resident to draw the tag they want will lead to a massive loss of support for conservation groups. Basically that if nr can’t kill it personally they won’t support it. Buzz example was spot on a lot people support things they will never personally use or get direct benefit from. Providing personal examples of that is just that. A real life example. I might have misinterpreted what you were saying?

 

[Trap]

You know why Colorado Parks got rolled back in to Colorado Dept of Wildlife? Because they were broke. Not the first time Colorado has been down that road. Your non consumptive outdoor user groups aren't funding anything. They consistently shoot down the backpack tax, their version of PR and DJ, because "I'm not paying more money for a pack or sleeping bag".

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Exactly right. Get rid of hunting revenues and any wildlife management is screwed. I’m surprised how many hunters on here don’t understand the North American model of wildlife management.

 

[tdhanses]

You're entitled to your opinion. It's still not a hobby to me. Thank you for your interpretation, I don't agree however.

To you I agree, to society as a whole I would disagree, the popular opinion/view is in the end what matters as it makes the rules. Being viewed as a hobby doesn’t mean it doesn’t do good but don’t kid yourself that the world has the same view of it as you and many others of us.

 

[RMM]

I feel he was making a point. Some people contribute to things that they don’t directly benefit from. He provided personal examples to illustrate that fact -not tooting his own horn. Op suggested that not allowing every non resident to draw the tag they want will lead to a massive loss of support for conservation groups. Basically that if nr can’t kill it personally they won’t support it. Buzz example was spot on a lot people support things they will never personally use or get direct benefit from. Providing personal examples of that is just that. A real life example. I might have misinterpreted what you were saying?

Right, I'm not disagreeing that he posted to prove a point. But to then go on and say that he doesn't discuss these things after he just did seems a little ironic. That's all I was driving at.

 

[Kimber7man]

No, not it at all. Believe it or not there are people out there that do things when there is nothing in it for them.

There's plenty more things I've done to benefit others that I don't discuss.

What good is it and how does it benefit me to tell a bunch of people that could care less?

Your reasoning falls flat.

I agree, what good is it? Why did you list 12 things you’ve donated to? No disrespect and good for you to donate to all those causes. Plus others.

 

[WYhuntshoot]

There are similar issues going on in Wyoming. The only thing I have a hard time with for WY residents vs Non residents is the trophy tag allocation. They have since fixed that. I however wish they hadn’t made it more challenging for non residents to get deer, antelope and elk tags. That is where the bulk of license sales are.

 

[Btaylor]

Every state has the legal right to do it, codified in federal law.

Can you give a link to this codified law? I have been unable to find it. Apparently I am not very good with the google.

 

[BuzzH]

Can you give a link to this codified law? I have been unable to find it. Apparently I am not very good with the google.

S. 339

To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and
fishing activities.


_______________________________________________________________________


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 9, 2005

Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska,
Mr. Ensign, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Salazar,
Mr. Craig, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Kyl) introduced the
following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary

April 21, 2005

Reported by Mr. Specter, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL



To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and
fishing activities.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Reaffirmation of State Regulation of
Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL
SILENCE.

(a) In General.--It is the policy of Congress that it is in the
public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for
any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by
means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and
nonresidents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses
or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the
kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees
charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting
or fishing.
(b) Construction of Congressional Silence.--Silence on the part of
Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of
Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the
``commerce clause'') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State
or Indian tribe.

SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(1) to limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law
related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or
to the regulation of commerce;
(2) to limit the authority of the United States to prohibit
hunting or fishing on any portion of the lands owned by the
United States; or
(3) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, supersede or
alter any treaty-reserved right or other right of any Indian
tribe as recognized by any other means, including, but not
limited to, agreements with the United States, Executive
Orders, statutes, and judicial decrees, and by Federal law.

SEC. 4. STATE DEFINED.

For purposes of this Act, the term ``State'' includes the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.




Calendar No. 85

109th CONGRESS

 

[Squincher]

S. 339

To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and
fishing activities.


_______________________________________________________________________


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 9, 2005

Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska,
Mr. Ensign, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Salazar,
Mr. Craig, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Kyl) introduced the
following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary

April 21, 2005

Reported by Mr. Specter, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL



To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and
fishing activities.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Reaffirmation of State Regulation of
Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL
SILENCE.

(a) In General.--It is the policy of Congress that it is in the
public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for
any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by
means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and
nonresidents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses
or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the
kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees
charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting
or fishing.
(b) Construction of Congressional Silence.--Silence on the part of
Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of
Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the
``commerce clause'') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State
or Indian tribe.

SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(1) to limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law
related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or
to the regulation of commerce;
(2) to limit the authority of the United States to prohibit
hunting or fishing on any portion of the lands owned by the
United States; or
(3) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, supersede or
alter any treaty-reserved right or other right of any Indian
tribe as recognized by any other means, including, but not
limited to, agreements with the United States, Executive
Orders, statutes, and judicial decrees, and by Federal law.

SEC. 4. STATE DEFINED.

For purposes of this Act, the term ``State'' includes the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.




Calendar No. 85

109th CONGRESS

I would have thought you would have posted a federal law to prove something was "codified in federal law." You know what you posted isn't a law and didn't become a law after it passed, right?

 

[BuzzH]

I would have thought you would have posted a federal law to prove something was "codified in federal law." You know what you posted isn't a law and didn't become a law after it passed, right?

I know that states have the right to discriminate against nr hunters any way they choose reaffirmed via s.339. Right?

Fire up the lawsuits and try suing a state that charges a nr more, or only issues nrs 5% of their tags.

Be sure to post up your results, good luck to you.

 

[Squincher]

I know that states have the right to discriminate against nr hunters any way they choose reaffirmed via s.339. Right?

Fire up the lawsuits and try suing a state that charges a nr more, or only issues nrs 5% of their tags.

Be sure to post up your results, good luck to you.

Stop deflecting. Show us where it's "codified in federal law" like you said it was.

I could show you where that authority actually comes from, and even explain to you what "codified in federal law" means, but it's a lot more fun to watch you flail.