Wyoming proposal to slash Non-resident hunters

[tdhanses]

My original response to him was because he was expecting states to treat R and NR equally in regards to prices and quotas.

He wrote: "On Federal property - there should only be one license, one cost, one quota, one draw. The state can set the tag limit to manage the widlife, that is their job. They can set the price, but only one price. Everyone that wants to play- pays the same for the same chance to play."

Ahh, i missed that, yeah that won’t happen.

 

[25orSo]

I don’t think anyone expects states to treat NR equally in pricing and tag allocations, just to not keep reducing our already limited opportunities.

Correct. My thoughts are the same.

My original response to him was because he was expecting states to treat R and NR equally in regards to prices and quotas.

He wrote:

You are correct in that I did say that earlier.

Your assumption was that I was expecting the one price to be resident. At the time I made that statement, I was thinking the price should be what the state game department needs for funding and that would be more along the lines of the NR cost.

While I did say that earlier, others, you included, have provided thoughts and information that has changed my prospective.

Again, for states to be forced to treat NR the same as residents financially for draws, it would mean changing the constitution. Read the post.

Typically States manage the game. I say manage because I do not believe that anyone or any level of government "owns" the game. I say typically because there are instances where the Fed's over-rule the states. Migratory birds and prevention of extinction come to mind.

I agree with you that the State gets to set the costs & the process for getting a license/tag. They also set the harvest limit.

I do not agree that it would require a change to the constitution to persuade the state to change its rules. The Fed's own the property. It wouldn't be hard for them to say "If you want to keep using Federal Property, we strongly suggest that you consider....". No state with 30 million plus acres of Federal Property that they make significant revenue from is going to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Does the constitution say that the Fed's have to allow hunting on federal property?

There is a limit to how far the NR will go before they say screw it. You have to keep the carrot worth chasing.

 

[sneaky]

Thanks for the info. I knew there was some out there.


I have for several years. Not a member of some lobby group though.

When my state wanted to increase fees & lower harvest limits, I responded to the survey, signed the petitions and attended the regional meeting & spoke to oppose the changes.

Mostly what I do is take non-residents hunting. A good friend that lives in Nevada now will be my non-resident guest in Kentucky as well as Tennessee this year.


Not thinking the Fed's are gonna save anything, nor will I be the one near as bummed when they try.


That sucks and I'm not saying all residents are being greedy. Some states.....


We do the same on this side as well. Indiana gun season laws are screwy. I see quite a few IN plates on the south side of the Ohio. Don't blame them one bit.

My bad, missed the k.

Military installation.

I was talking about land that is considered publicly accessible. Not military installations, capital buildings etc.


48.19% of Wyoming is Federal Property. That is 30,043,512 acres out of a total of 62,343,040.
That is a lot of our (all US citizens) property.
There are 7 other states that have more Federal Property than Wy. I didn't look up those numbers.

In comparison, 4.25% of Kentucky, or 1,083,104 acres is owned by the federal government. A big chunk of that will be Fort Knox and Fort Campbell, so not public access land.




The property can be closed and/or sold without modifying the constitution.

When someone like Jeff Bezos comes along and wants to stroke the Fed's a check......... your gonna need some non-resident help.

That change will only effect a few non-residents. It won't effect anything that happens in our back yard per say.

You have to keep the hook baited well enough to keep even us small fish looking and interested. There are a lot of us small fish in the pond.

I've hunted hundreds of days on Ft Campbell, no different than any other federal land. They make the rules, I play by them, and everything is good. They allow a lot of public access on base property actually.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[25orSo]

I've hunted hundreds of days on Ft Campbell, no different than any other federal land. They make the rules, I play by them, and everything is good. They allow a lot of public access on base property actually.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I wasn't sure about Knox or Campbell. Back when I was in the Corps, the few bases that were open to hunting were not necessarily open to the general public.

I know at one time the rifle range at Ft. Knox was open for competition however I understand that the current Base Commander is not very favorable to that. I wonder if that applies to hunting there as well?

When you say 'they make the rules", are you talking about the state or the Army or both. I'd imagine it is both.

Do you stay on the Kentucky side of Campbell or do you also hunt the Tennessee side?

I see in the regs that you can get a bonus antler tag for Reelfoot, Campbell, Knox & Blue Grass Army Depot "as determined by the governing agency for each area". So it seems the state allows "the governing agency" some extra latitude to manage the game.

 

[npm352]

Correct. My thoughts are the same.



You are correct in that I did say that earlier.

Your assumption was that I was expecting the one price to be resident. At the time I made that statement, I was thinking the price should be what the state game department needs for funding and that would be more along the lines of the NR cost.

While I did say that earlier, others, you included, have provided thoughts and information that has changed my prospective.



Typically States manage the game. I say manage because I do not believe that anyone or any level of government "owns" the game. I say typically because there are instances where the Fed's over-rule the states. Migratory birds and prevention of extinction come to mind.

I agree with you that the State gets to set the costs & the process for getting a license/tag. They also set the harvest limit.

I do not agree that it would require a change to the constitution to persuade the state to change its rules. The Fed's own the property. It wouldn't be hard for them to say "If you want to keep using Federal Property, we strongly suggest that you consider....". No state with 30 million plus acres of Federal Property that they make significant revenue from is going to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Does the constitution say that the Fed's have to allow hunting on federal property?

There is a limit to how far the NR will go before they say screw it. You have to keep the carrot worth chasing.

No entity, including the federal government, can force them to make the tags fees and opportunities equal, which has been tried and failed in US Supreme Court Baldwin vs. Montana Fish and Game Commission (1978).

However, I would agree with you that the feds could coax/persuade state governments to comply with whatever by holding federal land usage over their head...or many other things, especially federal funding. I do not think that is a good idea at all though, even if the end result benefited some hunters. I do not like the idea of the feds even thinking about taking away hunting access on federal lands, even as a threat and persuasive tactic.

I am really against the federal government taking things over that states are doing. It does not turn out well. Consider states such as Idaho, Utah and Wyoming. These are conservative states with a lot of public land where hunting is a huge part of the culture. Handing over management of game on federal lands to the federal government would in no way benefit these states, their hunters, or non-resident hunters in general. The federal government as a whole is not nearly pro-hunting as the state governments in those states.

If I was a Californian hunter and user of federal lands, ehhh, maybe I'd think it was a good idea in theory because the federal government as a whole is probably more pro-hunting than California as a whole.

The less the federal government is involved in game laws the better. The enforcement and ramifications of the Endangered Species Act are a great example of the federal government managing wildlife. That has been a disaster at every corner. I think that handing over what states are doing, even in the name of making hunting out of state more affordable, would do more harm than good in my opinion.

I would also like to see a trend where residents have a bit higher fees and NR fees can stay more affordable, but I don't know if federal takeover is best way. Most solutions simply involve residents paying a bit more for tags than they are now, but everytime a state wants to add $3 to a resident elk tag people start rolling on the ground kicking and screaming.

 

[sneaky]

I wasn't sure about Knox or Campbell. Back when I was in the Corps, the few bases that were open to hunting were not necessarily open to the general public.

I know at one time the rifle range at Ft. Knox was open for competition however I understand that the current Base Commander is not very favorable to that. I wonder if that applies to hunting there as well?

When you say 'they make the rules", are you talking about the state or the Army or both. I'd imagine it is both.

Do you stay on the Kentucky side of Campbell or do you also hunt the Tennessee side?

I see in the regs that you can get a bonus antler tag for Reelfoot, Campbell, Knox & Blue Grass Army Depot "as determined by the governing agency for each area". So it seems the state allows "the governing agency" some extra latitude to manage the game.

If you have either a current TN or KY license you can hunt either side on Campbell. Just have to get an area permit, no matter which side it's on.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[PA Hunter]

Might be a better idea to tag out on some grizzlies and wolves since I see them ever time I hunt the Thorofare. Also my last elk tag was pretty expensive in Wyoming. This will just push more people to other areas and maybe Newfoundland for moose.

 

[25orSo]

I do not like the idea of the feds even thinking about taking away hunting access on federal lands, even as a threat and persuasive tactic.

Neither do I and I agree with the rest of your thoughts in your post as well.

I don't want to see any Federal involvement, especially the current Federal government.

If I get priced out as a NR, I simply won't go. Others....... hard to tell.

I don't think it is a stretch so say Federal Land is all of our land and while the states get to manage the game on it, the farther they push NR's with limited tags and higher prices - at some point someone is gonna cry foul and then it will go south from there and everyone looses.

Perhaps if the few prized western states go to far, the NR revenue will drop and they (the states) will relax a bit. A small handful of western states have the biggest portion of the most sought after game in the country. I hope they don't get too greedy and end up spoiling it for everyone.

Keep the dream alive - for everyone.

 

[25orSo]

If you have either a current TN or KY license you can hunt either side on Campbell. Just have to get an area permit, no matter which side it's on.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Sweet. Since I hunt both states and my wife's current job site is Cumberland City................. Go Army!

 

[TexasCub]

So funny watching Non-Res hunters get so damn butt hurt when a state makes a move that benefits the residents of the state not those who don’t live there. If you want to kill a moose, a goat or a sheep move to Alaska!

 

[ChrisS]

Non-Res hunters get so damn butt hurt when a state makes a move that benefits the residents of the state not those who don’t live there.

You should see the residents get all butt hurt when people start moving there.

 

[sneaky]

You should see the residents get all butt hurt when people start moving there.

I would rather have hunters move to hunt, than a bunch of Californians hellbent on changing things.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Rob5589]

I would rather have hunters move to hunt, than a bunch of Californians hellbent on changing things.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Well, if they are no longer in California they aren't Californians, they're now Wyomingites. Might be time to start blaming your own residents instead of blaming where they moved from. Just a thought...

 

[Aginor]

You should see the residents get all butt hurt when people start moving there.

Ding ding ding. Sick of all the threads b******g about all the people moving into such and such state while just as many threads proclaiming “iF YOu dON’T likE It MOvE sOMewhERe ElSe”

 

[CorbLand]

Ding ding ding. Sick of all the threads b******g about all the people moving into such and such state while just as many threads proclaiming “iF YOu dON’T likE It MOvE sOMewhERe ElSe”

As long as they move here and dont try to turn this place into the shithole they just left, I dont care. It does piss me off when people move here for the low taxes, affordable housing (not so much anymore), low crime and small town feel but then vote to change it to the direct opposite.

 

[BuzzH]

Well, if they are no longer in California they aren't Californians, they're now Wyomingites. Might be time to start blaming your own residents instead of blaming where they moved from. Just a thought...

Wyoming is losing population....come on, the weather is awesome, jobs scarce and low paying, and houses in Baroil, Hanna, and Wamsutter are down-right affordable...they even throw the tires on the roof in for free.

 

[tdhanses]

As long as they move here and dont try to turn this place into the shithole they just left, I dont care. It does piss me off when people move here for the low taxes, affordable housing (not so much anymore), low crime and small town feel but then vote to change it to the direct opposite.

But in retrospec, don’t they have that right? They have equal rights to vote on their own desires. People born and raised have no more rights then those that move to said state. Can’t say move here if you want to hunt but leave all your other bs where you came from. Fact is nothing residents can do when other residents have different beliefs and ideals, eventually one will overrule the other.

 

[tdhanses]

Wyoming is losing population....come on, the weather is awesome, jobs scarce and low paying, and houses in Baroil, Hanna, and Wamsutter are down-right affordable...they even throw the tires on the roof in for free.

Thing is many with good jobs in today’s market can work from anywhere, no need to have a job from a WY company. Great thing tech has brought us is this ability to not be locked into an office or location. I think in time you’ll see more people move there that retain their employment from where they moved from. Heck in my office I have co workers that live all over the world working from home.

Covid has really shown that there is less of a need to house people in an office and that with that comes savings. Heck I haven’t been in my office but a handful of times in the last year.

Land prices aren’t too crazy high yet either, a million will buy a lot in WY.

 

[AlaskaMark]

This whole discussion really revolves around whether one believes in states's rights or not, and an individual state to hold its wildlife resources as a public trust for its residents. Fed law is clear that state's do have the right to manage their own wildlife and to limit nonresidents and charge higher fees to nonresidents. Even on fed lands states have the right to set seasons and bag limits and allocations etc that favor residents. It's understandable there will be differences of opinion among residents of a state and nonresidents, but in the end the state's do have the right to do what Wyoming is doing.

 

[robby denning]

This whole discussion really revolves around whether one believes in states's rights or not, and an individual state to hold its wildlife resources as a public trust for its residents. Fed law is clear that state's do have the right to manage their own wildlife and to limit nonresidents and charge higher fees to nonresidents. Even on fed lands states have the right to set seasons and bag limits and allocations etc that favor residents. It's understandable there will be differences of opinion among residents of a state and nonresidents, but in the end the state's do have the right to do what Wyoming is doing.

I agree. But it’s been a good debate to have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk