Why the NR HATE?? Let's fix it!

[robby denning]

Heck with it, I'm in again too.
View attachment 679780

Lets keep this rollin'.

"everyone gets a donation!!!!" -Oprah

seriously, thanks man.

 

[180ls1]

If I am going to call people out like I do, I better put my money/time where my mouth is.

View attachment 679778

Heck with it, I'm in again too.
View attachment 679780

Lets keep this rollin'.

Boom.

If you're reading this, don't let some non-resident fairy boy from California do something while you didn't...

 

[sndmn11]

"everyone gets a donation!!!!" -Oprah

seriously, thanks man.

At our (attempted) annual archery club meeting it was brought up in annual budget talks that the club should donate. Amounts from a few thousand to several tens of thousands of dollars were thrown around, but there wasn't a quorum of members so no official business could take place.

I am certain the most money donated would be a result of the comfort and education of the members at the rescheduled annual meeting.

Many are archers but not hunters.

@KickinNDishin is the board VP and was wanting to invite someone from CRWM to present/speak/answer questions. Can she text/email you to get the right person's direct contact info?

 

[robby denning]

At our (attempted) annual archery club meeting it was brought up in annual budget talks that the club should donate. Amounts from a few thousand to several tens of thousands of dollars were thrown around, but there wasn't a quorum of members so no official business could take place.

I am certain the most money donated would be a result of the comfort and education of the members at the rescheduled annual meeting.

Many are archers but not hunters.

@KickinNDishin is the board VP and was wanting to invite someone from CRWM to present/speak/answer questions. Can she text/email you to get the right person's direct contact info?

yes, email and give me a day or two (it's bad in there lol)

thanks

 

[realunlucky]

At our (attempted) annual archery club meeting it was brought up in annual budget talks that the club should donate. Amounts from a few thousand to several tens of thousands of dollars were thrown around, but there wasn't a quorum of members so no official business could take place.

I am certain the most money donated would be a result of the comfort and education of the members at the rescheduled annual meeting.

Many are archers but not hunters.

@KickinNDishin is the board VP and was wanting to invite someone from CRWM to present/speak/answer questions. Can she text/email you to get the right person's direct contact info?

I send you a message

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Bump79]

I mean, some of it is that. Then take 2 consecutive droughts, one the worst in recorded history, and you have a 50% drop in numbers.

However, it is really concerning that 50%+ of mule deer buck take in R6 and R7 is by NR, IMO that shouldn't be allowed to happen. I can see regional quotas in the future and perhaps Type 1 and Type 2 tags (public and private, respectively). I think the Type 2 tags will be needed to get MOGA onboard which basically will assure the commission or legislation gets passed. Just saying that makes me want to puke.

Absolutely. I completely agree with that - I'd put that as a another feather in the cap to have the tag numbers managed in that unit. The general tag is the primary problem. I don't personally have too much of a problem with the Type 2 tags - the ranchers aren't giving us access as is for the most part. The places I used to have access to as a kid dwindle away year by year and it's either kept to the family or outfitted. Their right to do so but sucks for us. At least with the differentiation it would manage the pressure between public and private more appropriately.

R6 & R7 is completely predictable to have more pressure from NR. It's the closest for them to get to
Add easier access and more roads (generally) it is easier for people to get to.

 

[dreamingbig]

Heck with it, I'm in again too.
View attachment 679780

Lets keep this rollin'.

I have $100 a few weeks ago. Every hunter should be helping them with monetary support if you can.

If 10,000 hunters give $100 they have a million to spend to advertise for our side.

50k = $5mm. Let’s go folks!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bump79]

The real problem is the idea that hunters residing in a state with less opportunities want a piece of the pie from the hunters residing in a state that have more opportunities.

Some of this is entitlement.

Some of this is a feel of missing out.

Some of this is a MISTAKEN belief that an animal residing on federal public land belongs to all Americans. It doesn't the courts have established this over and over.

This makes absolutely no logical sense. If you actually look at it with an objectivity it's clear who's getting the entitlement. The western state residents. Let's just take one state being Montana that I'm most familiar with. The non-residents are subsidizing the land for access (to the tune of 26,921,861 acres) for residents & non-resident tag prices are significantly more expensive and harder to get. In Montana a combo tag is nearly 20x what a residents tag costs. The non-residents in 2022 made 76% of the revenue. Not even remotely a hand out. Sure the animals are held by the state - but if that access wasn't subsidized a resident tag in most western states wouldn't mean much.

Lol who's subsidizing who? Who's entitled? Residents. Enjoy the benefits and stop complaining.



In my mind the quickest way our style of western hunting will die in the US is loss of public access. If the US government decided that it wasn't going to allow hunting on it's grounds - or sells it - it doesn't matter who owns the animals if you can't get to them. States allowing non-residents to hunt their land with a small tag allocation is a small price to pay to have them be bought in.

I grew up hating non-residents. I now realize it's just a short sided simple view. I don't agree that non-residents should get 35% of tag allocations. But 10-20% seems a reasonable allocation. You get a killer deal as the resident of a western state. I wish I still was one but life doesn't always work that way.

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

I'm not understanding the "NR's are subsidizing federal lands in R's state" argument.

What is that dollar amount and how is it directly being spent to benefit hunters in those states? How much is the average NR contributing to this funding? Are we talking cents per person or hundreds of dollars?

 

[S.Clancy]

This makes absolutely no logical sense. If you actually look at it with an objectivity it's clear who's getting the entitlement. The western state residents. Let's just take one state being Montana that I'm most familiar with. The non-residents are subsidizing the land for access (to the tune of 26,921,861 acres) for residents & non-resident tag prices are significantly more expensive and harder to get. In Montana a combo tag is nearly 20x what a residents tag costs. The non-residents in 2022 made 76% of the revenue. Not even remotely a hand out. Sure the animals are held by the state - but if that access wasn't subsidized a resident tag in most western states wouldn't mean much.

Lol who's subsidizing who? Who's entitled? Residents. Enjoy the benefits and stop complaining.

View attachment 679788

In my mind the quickest way our style of western hunting will die in the US is loss of public access. If the US government decided that it wasn't going to allow hunting on it's grounds - or sells it - it doesn't matter who owns the animals if you can't get to them. States allowing non-residents to hunt their land with a small tag allocation is a small price to pay to have them be bought in.

I grew up hating non-residents. I now realize it's just a short sided simple view. I don't agree that non-residents should get 35% of tag allocations. But 10-20% seems a reasonable allocation. You get a killer deal as the resident of a western state. I wish I still was one but life doesn't always work that way.

Using that graph, was hunting better in MT in 2010 or in 2022.....

Look at 2010, NR and R contribution were approximately equal. I imagine prior to 2010 the revenue swing was in favor of residents, given the trend. Again I ask, show me an instance of a positive correlation between total license revenue and quality of hunting....

If you assume that NR revenue is a mirror of NR opportunity, we have increased NR opportunity at the expense of our resources.

 

[Trogon]

Just pick up your trash, turn off the goddamn generator, and be polite and I don't care what state you come from.

 

[Bump79]

Using that graph, was hunting better in MT in 2010 or in 2022.....

Look at 2010, NR and R contribution were approximately equal. I imagine prior to 2010 the revenue swing was in favor of residents, given the trend. Again I ask, show me an instance of a positive correlation between total license revenue and quality of hunting....

If you assume that NR revenue is a mirror of NR opportunity, we have increased NR opportunity at the expense of our resources.

That's not what I was trying to say at all. I don't think it's a mirror. I'm just pointing out that it's not a giveaway to non-residents. They're definitely paying their fair share - if anything it's the other way around.

Per my other post - I'm in favor of quotas. Manage the tag allocations.

I'm not understanding the "NR's are subsidizing federal lands in R's state" argument.

What is that dollar amount and how is it directly being spent to benefit hunters in those states? How much is the average NR contributing to this funding? Are we talking cents per person or hundreds of dollars?

Federal lands are funded by the country as a whole. Meaning people in other states (hunters or not) are funding the national forests and lands at a higher proportion. Lands that they may never see or step foot on. A very generous situation is my point.

 

[Bump79]

Using that graph, was hunting better in MT in 2010 or in 2022.....

Look at 2010, NR and R contribution were approximately equal. I imagine prior to 2010 the revenue swing was in favor of residents, given the trend. Again I ask, show me an instance of a positive correlation between total license revenue and quality of hunting....

If you assume that NR revenue is a mirror of NR opportunity, we have increased NR opportunity at the expense of our resources.

This tells the story of our experience better. R1 and R2 actually decreased. R6 & R7 bore the brunt of the deer hunter increase. FWP should have been able to see this data and set tag allocations by unit.

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

Federal lands are funded by the country as a whole. Meaning people in other states (hunters or not) are funding the national forests and lands at a higher proportion. Lands that they may never see or step foot on. A very generous situation is my point.

That's not a particularly helpful answer. If you live in Ohio and contribute 2 cents a year towards federal land in Montana I don't see how that should afford you increased privileges for tags on those federal lands.

 

[S.Clancy]

View attachment 679812
This tells the story of our experience better. R1 and R2 actually decreased. R6 & R7 bore the brunt of the deer hunter increase. FWP should have been able to see this data and set tag allocations by unit.

I'd like to see this for the last 30 years, who know if FWP even has that data still. They are all about the 10-yr moving average...

 

[Elkangle]

Are people only allowed to hunt in a state they don't live in?

That's a great argument, I didn't think of that

This is the mind set we're fighting

 

[TVW]

Ya'll saying you deserve equal hunting opportunity because you pay taxes for Federal Land should be thankful that residents are paying taxes to keep the State Highways & Country Roads open so you have access. It'd be damn hard to hunt without the roads that residents pay for.

 

[kaboku68]

The Federal Government violates our state constitution all of the time. They have seized a tremendous amount of the land and seek to eliminate hunting on all federal lands. BLMs might come at me bro but the truth is that Alaska got a raw deal when the feds pushed through the Mineral Mining Act and get a gross percentage of Alaska's Oil Revenue. We get a percentage from the profit as it travels through the pipeline. Terrence Cole who recently died once figured that the feds had taken in between 250-350 billion dollars in revenue from our state.
The federal subsistence boards have been eliminating hunts left and right and there are fewer and fewer areas for residents to go.

This is coupled with big money for air transporters and charters. They will only fly you to places that guides aren't in or that are hunted out or are used by multiple groups. This makes Alaska a place where while it is very big it has less and less places that are more expensive to hunt. This cuts the younger hunters out. We are seeing fewer and fewer diehards all of the time. People crowd the Brooks Range and Alaska Range because of ease of terrain and there are lower numbers of sheep taken and fewer hunters pursuing those sheep. This gives evidence that hunting is dying. Rinse, wash and repeat. We do not have hunter numbers like many of the L48 states but many of our resources are being hunted by NRs annually. I would love to hunt mule deer in the Kaibab strip but it will never happen. However, NRs come to Kodiak annually for deer. While the hunting is decent now, it is not what it was. There are a number of charters and services that are pursuing the NR blacktail deer hunter and the resource is just showing chinks in its ability to produce. Places like Adak are starting to get hunted out. There are a number of nrs that are even coming to Alaska to hunt caribou along the Dalton highway on an annual basis. We treasure our NR hunting brethren but something has got to slow things down on Alaska's use in those areas or they will get hunted out as well.

I may come off as being anti NR but the truth of the matter is that I like NRs coming to our state. I guess that I am a bit bitter because our total drawing numbers went from about 9K tags to 4K tags and they took off the 10% limiter. This is because the Dept of FG gets Pittman funds from $1000 tages and it is seeking to support its commercial guiding industry during a great population swing with declines in Caribou and Sheep.

 

[Bump79]

That's not a particularly helpful answer. If you live in Ohio and contribute 2 cents a year towards federal land in Montana I don't see how that should afford you increased privileges for tags on those federal lands.

My point is that residents are getting access to land funded by the country as a whole. If we want the country as a whole to feel that they should keep funding them we should allow them to partake in activities on that land. I'm looking for data on the funding of the lands to get numbers.

If you switched your argument around my point makes more sense. If both are paying 2 cents a year why should the resident get increased privileges on that land? They are both paying 2 cents a year. Why should the resident get more tags for access on that land?

I'm not saying at all that tags should be equal. By no means. Just that people complaining about 10-25% allocation when the residents are getting by far and away the most benefit from the deal seems ridiculous.

What if a federal bill was put out to sell some federal lands out west to buy some more out east where they don't have as much? To balance the ratio between states and improve conservation. It's a perfectly fair proposition, not one I'm in favor of, but I'm sure people would lose their minds. Why? Because people like their subsidy. I did when I lived in Montana.

 

[TVW]

My point is that residents are getting access to land funded by the country as a whole. If we want the country as a whole to feel that they should keep funding them we should allow them to partake in activities on that land. I'm looking for data on the funding of the lands to get numbers.

If you switched your argument around my point makes more sense. If both are paying 2 cents a year why should the resident get increased privileges on that land? They are both paying 2 cents a year. Why should the resident get more tags for access on that land?

I'm not saying at all that tags should be equal. By no means. Just that people complaining about 10-25% allocation when the residents are getting by far and away the most benefit from the deal seems ridiculous.

What if a federal bill was put out to sell some federal lands out west to buy some more out east where they don't have as much? To balance the ratio between states and improve conservation. It's a perfectly fair proposition, not one I'm in favor of, but I'm sure people would lose their minds. Why? Because people like their subsidy. I did when I lived in Montana.

What ya'll are ignoring when you keep bringing up that you fund Federal Land is that all hunting doesn't happen on Federal Lands.... in North Idaho as an example, a HUGE percentage of it happens on Private Timber lands.