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

[Jethro]

Starting with what I've written might give you an idea of what I'm talking about. Try that first.

I have read. Your posts just seem to be all over the place. You're advocating for "small proportion" of tags for non residents. Which is what we already have. You make is sound like residents are trying to cut out all non residents, which isn't true. Residents want more tags. Non- residents want more tags. Everybody wants more tags. We can't just print more tags.

There is statute, case law, rules, what ever you want to call them, that grant Res more hunting rights than NR.

You claim NR are more restricted than R from accessing federal lands. Not true, only 1 exception.

Then that stuff about NR being vested in federal land and hoping to one day have a chance to maybe hunt, but most won't. Not sure what that even means. If someone isn't hunting elk this year, that is their choice. Can't blame that on any western resident or govt agency.

 

[3forks]

Who's arguing for 50/50? I haven't seen that post yet. All I've seen said is that allocating a small proportion of tags to non-residents is perfectly reasonable. You're making the opposite argument I am at all. I'm not saying that residents shouldn't get the vast majority of the tags in the realm of 90%-80% or so. I just think it's silly to get mad at that small of a proportion when they pay 20x the cost and only get a small portion of the tags. The residents are getting a hell of a deal I'm just saying stop complaining about non-residents when you're the one getting the best deal.

Again - I'm playing devils advocate. I don't think we should cut off federal funding at all or transfer federal lands to the state. I disagree with that position. It's just ironic that residents of western states pretend that they aren't getting subsidized by the rest of country then the moment someone says lands should be transferred to the state panic erupts and everyone says the state can't afford it and it will be private in no time. That's cognitive dissidence at it's finest. I posted my example to provide some insight into another aspect of what the federal government funds and in hopes of

I didn‘t direct my post specifically at you.

 

[S.Clancy]

I guess it just boils down to entitlement isn't just for Democrats...

 

[Bump79]

I have read. Your posts just seem to be all over the place. You're advocating for "small proportion" of tags for non residents. Which is what we already have. You make is sound like residents are trying to cut out all non residents, which isn't true. Residents want more tags. Non- residents want more tags. Everybody wants more tags. We can't just print more tags.

There is statute, case law, rules, what ever you want to call them, that grant Res more hunting rights than NR.

You claim NR are more restricted than R from accessing federal lands. Not true, only 1 exception.

Then that stuff about NR being vested in federal land and hoping to one day have a chance to maybe hunt, but most won't. Not sure what that even means. If someone isn't hunting elk this year, that is their choice. Can't blame that on any western resident or govt agency.

It's tough the stay linear when you're replying to comments, especially ones that misquote you or misrepresent your position. Start from the beginning with the OP - what I'm saying is right in line with this. The point of this thread is discuss this position. 10-20% tag allocation is completely reasonable. 10% is on the low end - 15%-18% might be ideal in my opinion.

We have got to get out of our own way and stop shooting ourselves in the foot. My state is 90-10, others are far more giving, I know and I get it. Maybe just maybe we should be pushing for states like Utah, Nevada etc. To move to 80-20 instead of pushing every other state to go to 90-10

I'm not claiming at all the NR are more restricted to access federal lands. I never said that. I'm saying that we're limiting their tag allocations when federal lands are very very generous for access to non-residents.

People like the idea of being able to go out west and hunt. If people know it's not real option they won't be there advocating for you when these lands swaps come up, checkerboarded land that they'll never draw a tag for, etc. If we continue to limit it and go lower than 10% as many people would like - good luck keeping our access.

 

[100 others]

I can’t even tell this bloody pile used to be a horse anymore.

 

[goathunter]

It's tough the stay linear when you're replying to comments, especially ones that misquote you or misrepresent your position. Start from the beginning with the OP - what I'm saying is right in line with this. The point of this thread is discuss this position. 10-20% tag allocation is completely reasonable. 10% is on the low end - 15%-18% might be ideal in my opinion.

I'm not claiming at all the NR are more restricted to access federal lands. I never said that. I'm saying that we're limiting their tag allocations when federal lands are very very generous for access to non-residents.

People like the idea of being able to go out west and hunt. If people know it's not real option they won't be there advocating for you when these lands swaps come up, checkerboarded land that they'll never draw a tag for, etc. If we continue to limit it and go lower than 10% as many people would like - good luck keeping our access.

You actually have said 25% several times in this thread. Why stop there? And again... federal land is utilized for much more than hunting.

 

[robby denning]

Looks like this discussion has ran it's course?

 

[Bump79]

You actually have said 25% several times in this thread. Why stop there? And again... federal land is utilized for much more than hunting.

Fair - I missaid it once (not several). Sorry about that. My position as I said more times is 10-20% and inline with the OP.

My only hope is that we as a community are fair and generous to each other. We should be focused on expanding opportunity for all - not limiting it.

 

[Archer86]

My intention is that a 10-20% allocation - even if it's an increase to 20% in states like Wyoming, MT, etc is completely reasonable.


Is it your position that the lands shouldn't be federal? Should they be state land? Or just that you like that you get this huge benefit and don't want to share it for hunting access even at a 80/20 rate. My point is that 20% is still a small fraction.

Another way to look at it nr hunters As a group get guaranteed tags in wyoming, montana,idaho,Arizona, new mexico,nevada , utah, coloarado. For just one group of hunters thats alot of tags. Add it up and it likely more then any states residents receive

Wyoming deer and antelope are 20 percent elk is 16 percent that tag allocation will likely ever change and I don't think it should

 

[CorbLand]

Looks like this discussion has ran it's course?

Please tell me this was you when posting this…

 

[Dos Perros]

I guess it just boils down to entitlement isn't just for Democrats Residents.

FIFY

 

[Dos Perros]

All I know is when I don't kill that big buck or big bull I'm going to spend the rest of the year figuring out who's fault it is and then Ima gripe about it hard on Rokslide.

 

[CorbLand]

All I know is when I don't kill that big buck or big bull I'm going to spend the rest of the year figuring out who's fault it is and then Ima gripe about it hard on Rokslide.

That’s pretty easy.

If your a resident of the state your hunting, it is all the nonresidents.

If your a nonresident of the state your hunting, it is all the residents.

 

[87TT]

 

[CorbLand]

You know, one thing that always stands out to me with all these threads…there is one state that you can hunt pretty much any animal you want, any time of the year and don’t you worry one bit, your taxes ain’t paying for much land there. Why is it that people don’t go hunt there?

 

[S.Clancy]

FIFY

I had to look up FIFY....God, the world is passing me by.

 

[Dos Perros]

That’s pretty easy.

If your a resident of the state your hunting, it is all the nonresidents.

If your a nonresident of the state your hunting, it is all the residents.

Oh cmon this shit is chess it aint checkers! You haven't even mentioned the wealthy ranchers, or outfitters, or poachers, or wildlife and parks! Or my boss, or my wife and kids! Or my shitty genetics!

 

[87TT]

In the words of the late Rodney King,
“can’t we just get along?”

 

[CorbLand]

Oh cmon this shit is chess it aint checkers! You haven't even mentioned the wealthy ranchers, or outfitters, or poachers, or wildlife and parks! Or my boss, or my wife and kids! Or my shitty genetics!

I generally just go straight to the beginning and blame them damned red coats.

 

[87TT]

Don’t you know? It’s climate change!