Fixing Western Hunting

[Trial153]

Utah sounds nice. You got Jimmy John money I think you should get to it.

It doenst take Jimmy John money to buy a LO tag. But it’s sure isn’t the welfare prices that say WY residents enjoy . But you know what, when there are more of them, and a free market model starts looking better and better to people that have the means to hunt often in states that they don’t reside you can bet you will get less and less support when issues like …… Transferable LO tags, and outfitter allocations, auctions, and Federal Land Transfers come down the pike.

 

[DFS]

Same reason we decided to move here 33 years ago. When you consider I took a 30% pay cut and Mrs. Fin took a 60% pay cut, the cost of our resident tags was over $15,000 in our first year of residency; 1992. More every year after that.

When I was at the legislature one time a smart ass Rep asked me why I got so worked up over a $12 elk tag. I told him these were $20,000 elk tags for some of us.

The same applies for people who decide to stay here when they could make a lot more elsewhere. Many living in the west for the outdoor life make some huge financial sacrifices for that, both in terms of lower income and much higher costs of living.

None of that changes the issues that we face that are at the core of these threads. Hopefully it gives some reasoning to the comments of “move here if you want the same hunting.” I understand that comes off as being a smart ass when western residents say it, but there is a good bit of reasoning behind it; they have made, and make every year, a significant financial sacrifice to have that residency status. And as @neffa3 stated, nobody who makes that smart ass comment actually wants 100K people coming to a town near them.

I spent four days in Seattle last week meeting with folks who are fighting that craziness of the game commission out there. In the course of discussions it comes up how they'd like to just leave for ID, MT, and WY. Many of them know someone who already has moved or someone who has a near-term plan to do that. Probably half of them just can't do it because of the financial realities of a higher cost of living in places they could get a job and the job would be at a lower salary, or kids in school, or caring for an aging parent. To their credit, many of them are sticking it out in WA and fighting the fight. I admire them.

As has been said many times, by me and many others, a lot of these problems are lessened if we get back to higher animal numbers, a solution not included in the OP. If we can get back to those higher numbers, a majority of that policy battle and hands-on work will likely be done by residents. Not that non-residents don't want to help, it's just a function of distance, geography, and political residency.

These type of discussions, though well-intentioned and with much thought by the OP, do nothing to solve the bigger problem - smaller and decreasing herd numbers. The suggestions tossed out in this thread and focusing the fight on R v. NR is waiving the surrender flag and resolving to just fight over the remaining scraps. I refuse to succumb to that scarcity mindset. Maybe I'll be proven a fool. I'll go down with that ship before I will fight over who gets to kill the last critter.

The increase in demand as well. The horse was put in front of the cart. Western states were not ready for that and are scrambling to catch up, I’m not sure we can.

 

[BuzzH]

I am sure I will at times, but you can bet I won’t be sucking hind tit with my yearly hunting budget

Plenty of governors tags and commission tags for sale, big shot. Pitter-patter...

 

[Trial153]

Plenty of governors tags and commission tags for sale, big shot. Pitter-patter...

And there will be plenty more when the states coffers are dry.

Like I said before be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

 

[BuzzH]

And there will be plenty more when the states coffers are dry.

Like I said before be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Meh, if that happens, residents will have 95%+ of the available quota.

I'm not the one needing to be careful, I'm the one hunting elk, deer, and pronghorn every year.

 

[DFS]

And there will be plenty more when the states coffers are dry.

Like I said before be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

With the demand of western hunting that isn’t going to happen in the near future. When we shoot the last mule deer on public you could be right. If you quit applying many others are going to take your place.

 

[Nameless Range]

On thing I learned in life. When a guy throws the “money don’t matter “ line around….thats the guy that money matters to. Those that have money know money matters.

All these residents on here that enjoy NR subsidies in the form of fleecing NRs at every turn and then claim they would pick up the full tab…they are first ones that would run to bathroom when the check hits the table.

if it’s isn’t a national park, give it up to the states. Take it off the federal dole. Let’s see how the states handle it. The residents of the state can pick up the entire tab for the administration and management. They can’t afford it? Too bad.

Tongue in cheek? Yer being kind of silly.

Montana manages over 5 million acres of the land they do own, at a net-profit. I’m sure if they were given 30 million more acres they’d jack lease prices up, be more active in management, sell a bunch of it, and watch a lot of it burn. The world would keep turning, and it we would all be worse for it. Keep in mind, I’ve spent a large portion of my adult life being an active opponent of Public Land Transfer, because it’s a terrible idea for a lot of reasons.

As we’ve spoken about in other threads, the NR funding situation could be fixed with a thousand NR auction tags. No one of average means would be hunting in Montana, and to me that would be awful and is not the ideal Residents should seek for NR. There’s virtue in sharing our wildlife with the commoners of the rest of the country.

But really, the repetitive focus on federal dollars coming to the state, or NR funding under the current structure, disproportionately highlights a small part of the story. Things I've lived or seen:

-I never see nonresidents plowing the roads when things are harrowing, fixing the fences, grading the damage done.

-When a NR gets lost in the hills, it’s locals who burn through their vacation time and time with their families to respond. It’s those locals who spent the years training on a shoestring budget almost solely derived from county tax rolls.

-When a NR bowhunter rolls their truck, it’s locals who leave their daughter’s birthday party to respond.

-When a NR hunts elk in my neck of the woods, they are hunting the descendants of elk literally purchased by the local Rod and Gun clubs in the 1930s and 60s. Just dudes from Boulder, MT who dug into their own pockets.

-It's chiefly locals who provide private land habitat for wildlife of all sorts. They provide a hell of a lot of access too – to both R and NR alike.

-It's weird how public lands belong to all Americans, but I never see NRs at Forest Plan Revision Meetings, attending the working groups, engaged in volunteer habitat projects. Hell, I rarely see them comment on the internet on these things.

-When I look at so much of the fantastic land acquisitions in this neck of the woods, it was locals who either donated the acreage or brokered them at extreme markdowns. They did the scoping, the relationship building, the actual work that takes time from family, friends, and passions.

-When a massive increase in both Resident and Nonresident use occurs to our public lands infrastructure – crime, fights, drugs - the guys and gals who go up to the campgrounds a good hour from any response support – strangely, they’re locals.

None of this is a product of the virtue of residents over nonresidents. It's just a product of circumstance of life. Uncomfortably, morality is in part, convenience. All that said, hell yes, residents disproportionately bear the brunt of your vacations. Be you hunting, fishing, backpacking, or whatever – a large portion of your experience is built on a scaffolding provided by the life blood of those who live there. Again, doesn't make anyone better than anyone else, but I never see it mentioned or acknowledged.

 

[huntin24/7]

Not sure why someone who can outbid most everyone on quality tags would spend so much time arguing with people on a public land hunting forum.

 

[DFS]

Not sure why someone who can outbid most everyone on quality tags would spend so much time arguing with people on a public land hunting forum.

Apparently his budget might not quite be big enough.

 

[BuzzH]

Not sure why someone who can outbid most everyone on quality tags would spend so much time arguing with people on a public land hunting forum.

Right, I'd be buying governors tags, landowner tags, etc in NV, UT, CO, OR, NM.

Plenty available every year, just have to bid.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Tongue in cheek? Yer being kind of silly.

Montana manages over 5 million acres of the land they do own, at a net-profit. I’m sure if they were given 30 million more acres they’d jack lease prices up, be more active in management, sell a bunch of it, and watch a lot of it burn. The world would keep turning, and it we would all be worse for it. Keep in mind, I’ve spent a large portion of my adult life being an active opponent of Public Land Transfer, because it’s a terrible idea for a lot of reasons.

As we’ve spoken about in other threads, the NR funding situation could be fixed with a thousand NR auction tags. No one of average means would be hunting in Montana, and to me that would be awful and is not the ideal Residents should seek for NR. There’s virtue in sharing our wildlife with the commoners of the rest of the country.

But really, the repetitive focus on federal dollars coming to the state, or NR funding under the current structure, disproportionately highlights a small part of the story. Things I've lived or seen:

-I never see nonresidents plowing the roads when things are harrowing, fixing the fences, grading the damage done.

-When a NR gets lost in the hills, it’s locals who burn through their vacation time and time with their families to respond. It’s those locals who spent the years training on a shoestring budget almost solely derived from county tax rolls.

-When a NR bowhunter rolls their truck, it’s locals who leave their daughter’s birthday party to respond.

-When a NR hunts elk in my neck of the woods, they are hunting the descendants of elk literally purchased by the local Rod and Gun clubs in the 1930s and 60s. Just dudes from Boulder, MT who dug into their own pockets.

-It's chiefly locals who provide private land habitat for wildlife of all sorts. They provide a hell of a lot of access too – to both R and NR alike.

-It's weird how public lands belong to all Americans, but I never see NRs at Forest Plan Revision Meetings, attending the working groups, engaged in volunteer habitat projects. Hell, I rarely see them comment on the internet on these things.

-When I look at so much of the fantastic land acquisitions in this neck of the woods, it was locals who either donated the acreage or brokered them at extreme markdowns. They did the scoping, the relationship building, the actual work that takes time from family, friends, and passions.

-When a massive increase in both Resident and Nonresident use occurs to our public lands infrastructure – crime, fights, drugs - the guys and gals who go up to the campgrounds a good hour from any response support – strangely, they’re locals.

None of this is a product of the virtue of residents over nonresidents. It's just a product of circumstance of life. Uncomfortably, morality is in part, convenience. All that said, hell yes, residents disproportionately bear the brunt of your vacations. Be you hunting, fishing, backpacking, or whatever – a large portion of your experience is built on a scaffolding provided by the life blood of those who live there. Again, doesn't make anyone better than anyone else, but I never see it mentioned or acknowledged.

There are whole big bunches of truth and rational thought here, worth reading twice.

Unfortunately reality does not appeal to some.

 

[Trial153]

Tongue in cheek? Yer being kind of silly.

Montana manages over 5 million acres of the land they do own, at a net-profit. I’m sure if they were given 30 million more acres they’d jack lease prices up, be more active in management, sell a bunch of it, and watch a lot of it burn. The world would keep turning, and it we would all be worse for it. Keep in mind, I’ve spent a large portion of my adult life being an active opponent of Public Land Transfer, because it’s a terrible idea for a lot of reasons.

As we’ve spoken about in other threads, the NR funding situation could be fixed with a thousand NR auction tags. No one of average means would be hunting in Montana, and to me that would be awful and is not the ideal Residents should seek for NR. There’s virtue in sharing our wildlife with the commoners of the rest of the country.

But really, the repetitive focus on federal dollars coming to the state, or NR funding under the current structure, disproportionately highlights a small part of the story. Things I've lived or seen:

-I never see nonresidents plowing the roads when things are harrowing, fixing the fences, grading the damage done.

-When a NR gets lost in the hills, it’s locals who burn through their vacation time and time with their families to respond. It’s those locals who spent the years training on a shoestring budget almost solely derived from county tax rolls.

-When a NR bowhunter rolls their truck, it’s locals who leave their daughter’s birthday party to respond.

-When a NR hunts elk in my neck of the woods, they are hunting the descendants of elk literally purchased by the local Rod and Gun clubs in the 1930s and 60s. Just dudes from Boulder, MT who dug into their own pockets.

-It's chiefly locals who provide private land habitat for wildlife of all sorts. They provide a hell of a lot of access too – to both R and NR alike.

-It's weird how public lands belong to all Americans, but I never see NRs at Forest Plan Revision Meetings, attending the working groups, engaged in volunteer habitat projects. Hell, I rarely see them comment on the internet on these things.

-When I look at so much of the fantastic land acquisitions in this neck of the woods, it was locals who either donated the acreage or brokered them at extreme markdowns. They did the scoping, the relationship building, the actual work that takes time from family, friends, and passions.

-When a massive increase in both Resident and Nonresident use occurs to our public lands infrastructure – crime, fights, drugs - the guys and gals who go up to the campgrounds a good hour from any response support – strangely, they’re locals.

None of this is a product of the virtue of residents over nonresidents. It's just a product of circumstance of life. Uncomfortably, morality is in part, convenience. All that said, hell yes, residents disproportionately bear the brunt of your vacations. Be you hunting, fishing, backpacking, or whatever – a large portion of your experience is built on a scaffolding provided by the life blood of those who live there. Again, doesn't make anyone better than anyone else, but I never see it mentioned or acknowledged.

I live a park that has over half a million visitors a year. Everything you do we do. When a hiker falls and busts her femur, I am guy patching her up and flying her out..
Again everything you stated we do here as well. And none of means that we should charge NR more a more for less opportunities and then tell them to shut up and be thankful your getting any scraps. All the while while NR funding makes up the majority of the G&F budgets to manage the wildlife that everyone gets to enjoy.

And yes you caught on that it’s mostly tongue in cheek…but there is some truth to it, at some point things will change and you just may find yourself on the outs.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I live a park that has over half a million visitors a year. Everything you do we do. When a hiker falls and busts her femur, I am guy patching her up and flying her out..
Again everything you stated we do here as well. And none of means that we should charge NR more a more for less opportunities and then tell them to shut up and be thankful your getting any scraps. All the while while NR funding makes up the majority of the G&F budgets to manage the wildlife that everyone gets to enjoy

So which state owned resource are folks extracting from your park?

 

[Trial153]

So which state owned resource are folks extracting from your park?

Anyone with a license is welcome to hunt in the park. Deer, bears, Turkeys, untold small game. Fishing, there are hundreds of miles of rivers and shoreline.
1220 square miles. And that’s the smaller of the two. The other is over 6 million acres. Want to go fish? Let’s go. Run hounds? Ran them all day. Hunt? No problem.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

Anyone with a license is welcome to hunt in the park. Deer, bears, Turkeys, untold small game. Fishing, there are hundreds of miles of rivers and shoreline.
1220 square miles. And that’s the smaller of the two. The other is over 6 million acres. Want to go fish? Let’s go. Run hounds? Ran them all day. Hunt? No problem.

That sounds like a legitimately great deal, and I think you should probably prioritize use by residents.

 

[seeth07]

Tongue in cheek? Yer being kind of silly.

Montana manages over 5 million acres of the land they do own, at a net-profit. I’m sure if they were given 30 million more acres they’d jack lease prices up, be more active in management, sell a bunch of it, and watch a lot of it burn. The world would keep turning, and it we would all be worse for it. Keep in mind, I’ve spent a large portion of my adult life being an active opponent of Public Land Transfer, because it’s a terrible idea for a lot of reasons.

As we’ve spoken about in other threads, the NR funding situation could be fixed with a thousand NR auction tags. No one of average means would be hunting in Montana, and to me that would be awful and is not the ideal Residents should seek for NR. There’s virtue in sharing our wildlife with the commoners of the rest of the country.

But really, the repetitive focus on federal dollars coming to the state, or NR funding under the current structure, disproportionately highlights a small part of the story. Things I've lived or seen:

-I never see nonresidents plowing the roads when things are harrowing, fixing the fences, grading the damage done.

-When a NR gets lost in the hills, it’s locals who burn through their vacation time and time with their families to respond. It’s those locals who spent the years training on a shoestring budget almost solely derived from county tax rolls.

-When a NR bowhunter rolls their truck, it’s locals who leave their daughter’s birthday party to respond.

-When a NR hunts elk in my neck of the woods, they are hunting the descendants of elk literally purchased by the local Rod and Gun clubs in the 1930s and 60s. Just dudes from Boulder, MT who dug into their own pockets.

-It's chiefly locals who provide private land habitat for wildlife of all sorts. They provide a hell of a lot of access too – to both R and NR alike.

-It's weird how public lands belong to all Americans, but I never see NRs at Forest Plan Revision Meetings, attending the working groups, engaged in volunteer habitat projects. Hell, I rarely see them comment on the internet on these things.

-When I look at so much of the fantastic land acquisitions in this neck of the woods, it was locals who either donated the acreage or brokered them at extreme markdowns. They did the scoping, the relationship building, the actual work that takes time from family, friends, and passions.

-When a massive increase in both Resident and Nonresident use occurs to our public lands infrastructure – crime, fights, drugs - the guys and gals who go up to the campgrounds a good hour from any response support – strangely, they’re locals.

None of this is a product of the virtue of residents over nonresidents. It's just a product of circumstance of life. Uncomfortably, morality is in part, convenience. All that said, hell yes, residents disproportionately bear the brunt of your vacations. Be you hunting, fishing, backpacking, or whatever – a large portion of your experience is built on a scaffolding provided by the life blood of those who live there. Again, doesn't make anyone better than anyone else, but I never see it mentioned or acknowledged.

Some good points made and I would just like to add that the same is true in most states. Why don't you see NR at your meetings? It's because we are busy working on and attending the ones in our state of residence to ensure that if you chose to visit here, you will have the same benefits a NR gets when visiting your home state.

We are all more alike on this forum than we are enemies. Probably a 90% compatibility match for a bulk of us that regularly use this forum. I know this because occasionally I glance at Facebook or other hunting forums or other social media and they are way more like "brag boards" than heated discussions about wildlife and policy. It makes HT stand out and probably why a lot of us stick around.

 

[Nameless Range]

I live a park that has over half a million visitors a year. Everything you do we do. When a hiker falls and busts her femur, I am guy patching her up and flying her out..
Again everything you stated we do here as well. And none of means that we should charge NR more a more for less opportunities and then tell them to shut up and be thankful your getting any scraps. All the while while NR funding makes up the majority of the G&F budgets to manage the wildlife that everyone gets to enjoy

I get the sense we have common ground. My comment ain't meant to be holier than thou.

You perceive the conversation to be residents saying "shut up and be thankful your getting any scraps." While your own comments came off to me to be a sort of 'you should be grateful for us and good luck without us'. There's a middle ground between the two, but I believe we forsake our past and future by not giving the locals of both their due. I disproportionately hear about federal money that states get, or NR funding that states get, while I watch it all function on the backs of real people who live here.

If I were king for a day, we'd carve out a portion of available tags (10-15%) for NR that would adhere to tenet 6 of the NAM for that pool. You'd pay more, but not so much that it would cross a threshold that was so prohibitive that the "commoner" couldn't make it happen with some dedication. Arguably, we have crossed that threshold. We'd raise prices on residents who take it all for granted, and over time we'd all hunt less because that is the fact of the future.

A model that would be mutually beneficial and reasonable is possible, and there's threads and threads of ideas, as well as actual HuntTalkers working toward it.

 

[SAJ-99]

Tongue in cheek? Yer being kind of silly.

Montana manages over 5 million acres of the land they do own, at a net-profit. I’m sure if they were given 30 million more acres they’d jack lease prices up, be more active in management, sell a bunch of it, and watch a lot of it burn. The world would keep turning, and it we would all be worse for it. Keep in mind, I’ve spent a large portion of my adult life being an active opponent of Public Land Transfer, because it’s a terrible idea for a lot of reasons.

As we’ve spoken about in other threads, the NR funding situation could be fixed with a thousand NR auction tags. No one of average means would be hunting in Montana, and to me that would be awful and is not the ideal Residents should seek for NR. There’s virtue in sharing our wildlife with the commoners of the rest of the country.

But really, the repetitive focus on federal dollars coming to the state, or NR funding under the current structure, disproportionately highlights a small part of the story. Things I've lived or seen:

-I never see nonresidents plowing the roads when things are harrowing, fixing the fences, grading the damage done.

-When a NR gets lost in the hills, it’s locals who burn through their vacation time and time with their families to respond. It’s those locals who spent the years training on a shoestring budget almost solely derived from county tax rolls.

-When a NR bowhunter rolls their truck, it’s locals who leave their daughter’s birthday party to respond.

-When a NR hunts elk in my neck of the woods, they are hunting the descendants of elk literally purchased by the local Rod and Gun clubs in the 1930s and 60s. Just dudes from Boulder, MT who dug into their own pockets.

-It's chiefly locals who provide private land habitat for wildlife of all sorts. They provide a hell of a lot of access too – to both R and NR alike.

-It's weird how public lands belong to all Americans, but I never see NRs at Forest Plan Revision Meetings, attending the working groups, engaged in volunteer habitat projects. Hell, I rarely see them comment on the internet on these things.

-When I look at so much of the fantastic land acquisitions in this neck of the woods, it was locals who either donated the acreage or brokered them at extreme markdowns. They did the scoping, the relationship building, the actual work that takes time from family, friends, and passions.

-When a massive increase in both Resident and Nonresident use occurs to our public lands infrastructure – crime, fights, drugs - the guys and gals who go up to the campgrounds a good hour from any response support – strangely, they’re locals.

None of this is a product of the virtue of residents over nonresidents. It's just a product of circumstance of life. Uncomfortably, morality is in part, convenience. All that said, hell yes, residents disproportionately bear the brunt of your vacations. Be you hunting, fishing, backpacking, or whatever – a large portion of your experience is built on a scaffolding provided by the life blood of those who live there. Again, doesn't make anyone better than anyone else, but I never see it mentioned or acknowledged.

All good points, but we could zoom out and see how a particular state benefits from others from the outside. Examples include seasonal help in tourism industry, firefights flown in to help in an emergency, etc. Hell, most of these states take more from the Fed coffers than they pay in. I think we need to stop this R vs. NR BS. It isn't productive. Not even specific to hunting, we all need each other.

 

[Nameless Range]

All good points, but we could zoom out and see how a particular state benefits from others from the outside. Examples include seasonal help in tourism industry, firefights flown in to help in an emergency, etc. Hell, most of these states take more from the Fed coffers than they pay in. I think we need to stop this R vs. NR BS. It isn't productive. Not even specific to hunting, we all need each other.

I agree.

 

[Trial153]

Not sure why someone who can outbid most everyone on quality tags would spend so much time arguing with people on a public land hunting forum.

I am spending a full month hunting and fishing in Alaska this year. Come visit your welcome to my camps. Mexico was fun last month and British Columbia this fall will be too. Then the deer season starts again your welcome too join.

The rancor I see from Residents towards nonresidents is pretty pathetic considering that if the NR contributions suddenly magically disappeared there are lot of states wildlife agencies would be in the shitter. The only thing you all bitch more about than NR is when your subsidized resident license fees are raised.

I know there are bunch of NR on here that feel the same way I do, if my PMs are any indication. However they dont speak up for whatever reason.
Here is the thing I don’t really give a shit who doenst like what I have to say. And quite frankly if I don’t draw a single tag I am still hunting my ass off from one end of NA to the other where ever I could. I am not standing around hoping for a scrap to fall from the table. Just the way you don’t like hearing that NR pick up most of the tab in licensing revenue being brought in, we don’t like hearing that we should take what we are given and shut up and be happy even if it’s a raw deal.