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

[Shō[t]gun]

I've been moving between states every couple years my entire adult life between the military and current job. I've been on both sides or R/NR applications for many states. Never once has anyone in the field asked where I lived or how much I paid for my tag but I do get flipped off on back roads for having the wrong state's license plate even though I live 20 min down the road. At the end of the day, people want less hunters and more animals but the easy button is to blame "them".
-To the ones who want little to zero NR's, expect few signatures when your hunting privileges are under attack.
-To those who want fewer hunters and more animals, expect to pay way more for your tags and wait even longer between opportunities.

There's no solution to make everyone happy, but luckily there's enough variety between the states that we can all pick a flavor.

 

[Rich M]

Not exactly.
I used to hunt Nebraska - OTC deer and OTC turkey.

It became an absolute zoo. When the Neb Game & Parks sent me my yearly survey, I [as a NonRes] repeatedly mentioned there were too many NonRes taking part in the Neb hunting seasons.

Guess what - it musta been heard by me and others.
Now Nebraska has OTC with Caps for NonRes for deer and turkey.

That's easier, for sure.

They do hear and address the situations - whether it be R/NR or R on R or NR on NR.

FL is getting ready to start limiting the NR osceola turkey thing. The locals been bitching and the annual survey was recently sent out. I don't turkey hunt so not following too close.

 

[robby denning]

Goodness if we don't change our attitudes, opinions and views we will all be hunting less. Why the NR hate? Any NR is welcome to my state, I would not even mind if we increased NR tags. This selfishness will lead to all of us losing hunting opportunities. 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. Some will laugh at this, but it is possible, the states bring in more money from NR's.

Let's get it rolling, I just need to figure out how. Any ideas, thoughts?

I'm serious, rokslide has enough following and power to get something like this going. What say you @robby denning

I would head it up anyway I can. I'm just not sure where to start.

we need to make room for NRs, they bring in a ton of conservation money and strengthen our presence across the country. Once I started following HOWL, it became very obvious we can't lose their support. The antis are strong and united!

I don't know what the magic tag allocation numbers should be, I really don't but just marginalizing the NRs is not good for us IMO.

Dan Gates @ C.R.W.M said at Expo they raised more money for this Colorado catfight in 14 weeks than (I think...) the entire time the Colorado wolf inititiave was being fought. I think this is (partly) because Colorado has been very generous to NRs and they'll stand up to support it. That's one of the reasons Rokslide's been donating among others.

 

[HONEYBADGER]

Fact is residents vote. Nr do not.

If Colo had a more equitable split of licensing and 1-.5% more resident hunters the wolf thing would not have passed… Another fact is maybe, maybe 5% of non resident hunter helped by giving money to the wolf vote… Not many of you stepped up.

From where I sit we need more Colorado residents who vote hunting more as realistically most nr do not contribute to a point where they even move the needle politically.

So I would imagine you nr want to do what’s not only best for hunters but right and support what is needed for effective and equitable continuation of hunting in Colo.

Thats why all nr need to step up and support a very fair and equitable 75/25 split on all licenses. Returned tags, 1-4 choices, and youth license. As all hunters need more Colorado voters hunting yearly and voting than we need that nr $$$. Another fact…

In reality nr hunting is undeniably tied in Colorado - to resident voting.. Or the best thing you nr can do is get more resident hunter who vote in the woods hunting regularly.

Looking forward to the nr support!!

Enjoy the last few years you have hunting in Colorado. Your voters will put an end to it.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

The only thing that can fix this relationship is memes.
@WeiserBucks

 

[pirogue]

I get the privilege of hunting all over in alot of different states, and when you get to the root of NR hate it is typically just jealousy.. I really am not sure how to fight that ... it's human nature. They are "stuck" hunting one state and I'm the prick that "lives the perceived dream".

With that said a part of the thing I love hunting all over is getting to meet locals and enjoy the different culters, 90% of "res" hunters are pretty dang awesome people.

This is not said enough. And more times than not, those 10% whiners( who don’t hunt out of state), seem oblivious that many NR(who may not not have a Resident home zip code), own property in that NR state, and pay a lot more in property taxes, than the whiners. And, like said above, they want reciprocation, when it’s apples to oranges.

 

[MTN BUM]

Know what I would love? All Western states form a coalition. To hunt the coalition you have to participate. That means you either donate time, money, or both to conservation. Let the people who want to complain and moan and do nothing do it from the outside. Think of it like the Utah Dedicated Hunter program but for all states. To get in the door you have to have skin in the game. I think overall it would "encourage" more of us to put our money/time where our mouth is, and for those who walk the walk hunting would be less crowded at least. These days I dont have any use for the guy who wants to whine about NR hunting and loss of privileges, but then pays zero attention until next hunting season.

Do something about it, participate, or GTFO.

 

[sndmn11]

we need to make room for NRs, they bring in a ton of conservation money and strengthen our presence across the country.

Colorado has been very generous to NRs and they'll stand up to support it. That's one of the reasons Rokslide's been donating among others.

@robby denning where does support being transactional go next? I am lost on the attitudes of folks who look at something and say, "what can I get out of helping?", rather than, "gosh that's wrong and I will help!". I don't think anyone puts their grocery cart back in cart corral because they think they will get a prize; they do it because it is the right thing to do. It's disappointing to read hunters refer to other hunters as "competition" or state that they will turn their back on other hunters because they aren't catered to. This is a great example of that attitude --->

-To the ones who want little to zero NR's, expect few signatures when your hunting privileges are under attack.

Back to the top quote @robby denning, if more people are hunting, wouldn't that strengthen the presence across the country? Prioritizing the opportunity for people to hunt where they live should mean that more people will hunt. In another thread you were asking about snow goose hunting. If where you lived was full of snow goose hunting, would it be logical that you might partake? I've never caught a redfish on the fly because they aren't any here. Someone who has always lived in Louisiana is less likely to be a ski junky. Localized opportunity leads to involvement and immersion in that opportunity.

I think that taking away local opportunities and giving them to someone who is already hunting immersed, hunting invested, and has full opportunity in their locale, is filling two slots with one person rather than two slots with two people. Essentially, halving potential hunter presence across the country.

 

[Kilboars]

I like to say if you don’t like me coming from Florida to hunt Elk or Whitetail in your state don’t come down to fish in mine state

 

[Trial153]

I look at states that have 40% or more public lands and receive greater than 50% of their game and fish departments budget through nonresident, licensing and matching federal Pittman Roberts funds. They Should have a mandated allocation of NR tags.
The rest of country is supporting the state owned wildlife that resides and is hunted on predominantly public land. In state with number similar to the above there absolutely should be a heavily favored resident to NR ratio. 80/20 seems like a more than fair number on both sides.
The fact is residence greed will not stop until they have 100% of tag allocated.
This why at this point I say let the states pay for everything. If it isn’t a national park or monument give it to the states Fck them let them pay for it all you’ll see how quick they will have the free market step in when they’re footing the bill 100% for administration, fish and wild life budgets and untold other things that cost money to maintain these lands

 

[Customweld]

I look at states that have 40% or more public lands and receive greater than 50% of their game and fish departments budget through nonresident, licensing and matching federal Pittman Roberts funds. They Should have a mandated allocation of NR tags.
The rest of country is supporting the state owned wildlife that resides and is hunted on predominantly public land. In state with number similar to the above there absolutely should be a heavily favored resident to NR ratio. 80/20 seems like a more than fair number on both sides.
The fact is residence greed will not stop until they have 100% of tag allocated.
This why at this point I say let the states pay for everything. If it isn’t a national park or monument give it to the states Fck them let them pay for it all you’ll see how quick they will have the free market step in when they’re footing the bill 100% for administration, fish and wild life budgets and untold other things that cost money to maintain these lands

The politicians would love to gain control of public lands in the western states. They will find a way to pay for it and I guarantee there ain't a GD one of us that want to see how that plays out. The tax burden on states that have large percentages of federal ground doesn't work. 34.5M out of 53.5M acres in Idaho are federal. You can put all that ground under state control, but you aren't going to like the result.

 

[robby denning]

@robby denning where does support being transactional go next? I am lost on the attitudes of folks who look at something and say, "what can I get out of helping?", rather than, "gosh that's wrong and I will help!". I don't think anyone puts their grocery cart back in cart corral because they think they will get a prize; they do it because it is the right thing to do. It's disappointing to read hunters refer to other hunters as "competition" or state that they will turn their back on other hunters because they aren't catered to. This is a great example of that attitude --->


Back to the top quote @robby denning, if more people are hunting, wouldn't that strengthen the presence across the country? Prioritizing the opportunity for people to hunt where they live should mean that more people will hunt. In another thread you were asking about snow goose hunting. If where you lived was full of snow goose hunting, would it be logical that you might partake? I've never caught a redfish on the fly because they aren't any here. Someone who has always lived in Louisiana is less likely to be a ski junky. Localized opportunity leads to involvement and immersion in that opportunity.

I think that taking away local opportunities and giving them to someone who is already hunting immersed, hunting invested, and has full opportunity in their locale, is filling two slots with one person rather than two slots with two people. Essentially, halving potential hunter presence across the country.

Good post but I do not know what you’re asking me.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

@sndmn11
Thats the harsh reality of it. Only shared assets are going to be fought for. Not saying it's right, but people aren't going to get up in arms about losing something they could never participate in anyway. Colorado has a massive backing to support elk and deer hunting because its been so generous for a long time. Meanwhile if South Dakota was voting to shut down elk hunting, very few hunters outside the state would spend any time fighting it since they could never apply in the first place and it was never on their radar. They'd be concerned about the precedent it sets, but they're not going to call or show up.
(SD was just an example, not whining about wanting to hunt their small population of elk)

 

[maxx075]

Nobody has been talking about the actual solution here. We need to thin out the herd of hunters. Hunt the most dangerous game if you know what I mean.

*Strictly saracasm*

 

[Trial153]

The politicians would love to gain control of public lands in the western states. They will find a way to pay for it and I guarantee there ain't a GD one of us that want to see how that plays out. The tax burden on states that have large percentages of federal ground doesn't work. 34.5M out of 53.5M acres in Idaho are federal. You can put all that ground under state control, but you aren't going to like the result.

No shit Sherlock. But if you think hunters are going to keep supporting public lands in states that are increasingly padding there budgets with NR funds while residents of the states take more and more opportunities. You got another guess coming.

Let the market decide. There is no limit to amount of money I can earn. And I guarantee state control will open up free market opportunities.

 

[Customweld]

No shit Sherlock. But if you think hunters are going to keep supporting public lands in states that are increasingly padding there budgets with NR funds while residents of the states take more and more opportunities. You got another guess coming.

Let the market decide. There is no limit to amount of money I can earn. And I guarantee state control will open up free market opportunities.

Keep digging Watson. Hunters will continue to fill NR states coffers until there aren't any animals to hunt.

 

[Sadler]

I think the hate for NRs is just on the internet. I’ve never ran into a resident in AZ, ID, or MT that was a jerk. Funny enough it’s always the NRs that are the jerks.

 

[Archer86]

I look at states that have 40% or more public lands and receive greater than 50% of their game and fish departments budget through nonresident, licensing and matching federal Pittman Roberts funds. They Should have a mandated allocation of NR tags.
The rest of country is supporting the state owned wildlife that resides and is hunted on predominantly public land. In state with number similar to the above there absolutely should be a heavily favored resident to NR ratio. 80/20 seems like a more than fair number on both sides.
The fact is residence greed will not stop until they have 100% of tag allocated.
This why at this point I say let the states pay for everything. If it isn’t a national park or monument give it to the states Fck them let them pay for it all you’ll see how quick they will have the free market step in when they’re footing the bill 100% for administration, fish and wild life budgets and untold other things that cost money to maintain these lands

So does that mean that states that have less then 40 percent of public land should be punished as well for not maintaining enough public land for me as a nr to come hunt on?

I agree 80 20 sounds like a good split between residents and nr.

There are a few residence that are greedy but not all of us and I would say a majority of the ones I am around don't give a crap or really even know what the current split is. Alot of the taking is driven by outfitters trying to get clients easier which are usually wealthy nr hunters.

As far as sending all federal land to the states it's a bad move for the diy guys. states like Wyoming could easily crank up there cost for tags and force everyone to go through outfitter if nr and you would please the residents and give the outfitters all the business they can handle I think you know that is the outcome though just seen your comment above

 

[Trial153]

Keep digging Watson. Hunters will continue to fill NR states coffers until there aren't any animals to hunt.

Totally agree, that why I say let it happen now. As soon as we have more of a free market influx the sooner opportunity’s will open up and the sooner states foot the bill the quicker that will happen.
Or …
And easy fix a clear and fair mandate as part of federal funding packages.
80/20 is fair and keeps NR money flowing into state agency coffers for fish and wildlife.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Funny enough it’s always the NRs that are the jerks.

You must not be looking hard then.