Well-known member
Dec 9, 2015
Aurora, CO
this is the biggest crock. Feds need to step in and say we regulate tags on BLM and we will take the license fees for BLM. Like an indian reservation. Its not "their" land
Might want to rethink you position.
In AK the Feds actually get some say hunting in regs on federal land... and drum roll, they sided with local tribes and for a while banned all non residents from hunting federal land in some units.

Unit 23 Caribou, it was proposed in 26A and B,
They evolve over the years and I've yet to see one reversed. Once we lose opportunity it seems to be gone for good, especially true for NR. Pretty soon the only caribou you can hunt "OTC" will be the 40-mile herd, then it will just be a matter of time before further restrictions/drawing due to increased pressure, or elimination of the hunt under "subsitince" preference. Much of the 40-mile herd home range is federal land.

About the only good thing to come from the State owning so much land, is the locals can't interject their subsistence preference/priorty on State lands. The state can allow subsistence, but it is managed by them, not the feds. Something to be very thankful for res and NR. The land settlement is still being hashed out almost 40 years later. The Feds still owe the state ~15 million acres, and another 4-5 million to native corps. The state owns about 28% and native corps own about 12% of all land in AK. The rest is owned by the feds, minus less than 1% that is private.

At some point in the future about 60% of all lands in AK could be off limits to hunting/fishing for everyone except for "locals" with subsistence preference. This Brooks Range bill is just the latest in a long string of efforts.

The whole "keep it public" drum doesn't beat quite so loud in Alaska, IMO.



Well-known member
Feb 15, 2016
From the article:

"The resident has incredible opportunities to hunt big game and in fact Wyoming only has 70,000 residents hunting big game or 12% of our states population. Wyoming does not have enough big game hunters to harvest the amount of wildlife that’s needed to be harvested annually. In fact right at 40% of the resident hunters only buy one big game license per year. So Wyoming has to rely on nonresidents not only to fund our department but also harvest the amount of game needed each year."

The article implies there isn't this pent up frustration with NR hunters because there aren't enough resident hunters. Is this true? Seems like a biased statement but I don't know the figures.