Fixing Western Hunting

[Mountain Man]

This is going well. It’s just a matter of time before NRs lose all access. I personally would be okay with that. Either move out west or hunt whitetails elsewhere. Even though I have points in multiple states, I’d be okay giving them up to have better hunting in my own state and not have to deal with this devolving saga. This debate is annoying as chit.

 

[rjthehunter]

This is going well. It’s just a matter of time before NRs lose all access. I personally would be okay with that. Either move out west or hunt whitetails elsewhere. Even though I have points in multiple states, I’d be okay giving them up to have better hunting in my own state and not have to deal with this devolving saga. This debate is annoying as chit.

Pretty easy to not participate... Don't click on the thread.

 

[BlakeA]

Pretty easy to not participate... save your money and don't apply

Fixed it for you. See how easy it is?

 

[rjthehunter]

Fixed it for you. See how easy it is?

You do you pal. But I'm going hunting.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

 

[Elky Welky]

I do like this “if I were king for a day” concept though. Of course I’d want it to be me, and the first thing I’d do would be working to fix a broken criminal justice system by releasing nonviolent offenders, providing them more services to help with mental health and addiction and to not reoffend, and of course, incarcerating trophy poachers to double life-sentences with no possibility for parole.

I’d then turn towards habitat, access, etc.

But none of us will be king for a day. Instead, we have to work within our respective systems. Learn what we can, write to our elected representatives, join conservation orgs who advocate for most of what we care about, testify at legislative hearings, committee meetings, commission meetings. Pay attention to what our biologists have to say, keep asking questions, learn about the species, learn about complex ecosystems, how state budgets work, draw systems, the NAM, how politicians put their party and money before all else, how some people are trying to do good, how some are out just to make a quick buck, how some are out just to kill a big buck...

And, because the work will never end, we can also stop and just go hunting sometimes and enjoy it while we can.

 

[DFS]

The argument that some of the land is federal so they should get to hunt is the one that gets me. Nobody is preventing anyone to go enjoy the federal lands, there are so many more activities than just hunting. There are a ton of out of state tags I want that I will never draw, that’s just the reality of it.

 

[Elky Welky]

The argument that some of the land is federal so they should get to hunt is the one that gets me. Nobody is preventing anyone to go enjoy the federal lands, there are so many more activities than just hunting. There are a ton of out of state tags I want that I will never draw, that’s just the reality of it.

I couldn't agree more @DougStickney. There is a misconception that because we all own the land that we also all own the wildlife. We do all own the land, yes. We do all have a right to be on it and enjoy it, true. But as I emphasized above, the wildlife goes to the citizens of the state.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

The argument that some of the land is federal so they should get to hunt is the one that gets me. Nobody is preventing anyone to go enjoy the federal lands, there are so many more activities than just hunting. There are a ton of out of state tags I want that I will never draw, that’s just the reality of it.

I couldn't agree more @DougStickney. There is a misconception that because we all own the land that we also all own the wildlife. We do all own the land, yes. We do all have a right to be on it and enjoy it, true. But as I emphasized above, the wildlife goes to the citizens of the state.

It feels just one step short of 'I should be able to hunt anything anytime anywhere.'

Oregon will give a nonresident a statewide fall blackbear tag for $16.50. Heck, I think you can get a second tag for the same price. Plenty of opportunity out there.

 

[brocksw]

I don't really agree with the items listed in the OP for a variety of reasons, but the first one did make me think of an idea I've had before, a Federal hunter ID number. Not necessarily for additional regulations or tag limitations (though I suppose it could be used for that), but I think it would be super useful for data. Knowing how many hunters are out there, which states/species they apply for and hunt, which demographics obtain the most tags, etc. Kind of a pipe dream I guess, and I'm sure there would be all sorts of anti-hunting conspiracy theories floated around if someone tried to actually implement it, but it would seem useful nonetheless. Just a thought....

 

[Mallardsx2]

 

[Mallardsx2]

 

[Mtrimble]

The ideas I put forward in the original Post where not necessarily meant to expand NR hunting opportunities. I do advocate for the Federal Public Land license wherein hunters would compete for tags on a near equal basis, at an equal cost, regardless of residence. This idea is meant to reach the hunter who can't otherwise afford a western hunt. Of course, the number of tags issued would be determined by the State. All other licenses should be allocated as the States see fit, with a vast majority going to State residents.

Here is a sample of how such a system would work:

Hunter #1 - Wyoming Resident

Wants to hunt in his/her home State and should have drastically better odds to draw an Elk and/or Mule Deer Tag than any non-resident of Wyoming. Will have much better access to "Boots on the Ground" preference, and hopefully a better chance of gaining private land access.

Hunter #2 - Ohio Resident

Can apply for a NR Elk tag in each of the coalition States, either Federal Public Land Only license (if the hunter can't afford a typical western Elk hunt), or a regular license in a unit of his choice - per State. Applicant would have to list his order of preference, and once selected, would be removed from any other Elk applications in any State. Hunter #2 could increase his/her draw odds by participating in a "Boots on the Ground" approved project during the off season.

Hunter # 3 - Montana Resident

Can apply for an Elk tag in any coalition State, including Montana, and would list his/her preference. Once selected for a tag, would then be removed from any other Elk license drawing. Can apply for a Mule Deer tag in Montana (or other State), and should have a much greater chance than a resident of another State.

Again, these are just ideas meant to elicit fair and open discussion. I'm not hurt in the least by any of the comments above. I'm older, and probably not very smart. I was a working man (now retired), who was lucky to experience the four western hunts over the last 30 years. I desperately wanted to hunt out west every year, just couldn't swing it financially, or with a family that I prioritized over everything else.

I'm an optimist by nature, and just feel like the current system is not working. I'm well aware that some of these ideas would be very difficult to implement. I'll shut up now.

 

[BuzzH]

How would you determine if a NR was actually able to afford a tag they normally wouldn't be able to in the West on public land? Provide a tax return with their application?

Should we do the same with a new truck?

 

[npaden]

I'm not sure which side of the argument comes off as more entitled and whiny. Seems like a pretty even split to me. Both sides seem to be acting like the 5 year old that wants to take their ball and go home because things aren't going exactly the way they want it.

I see it somewhat like the response to the declining caribou herd in the brooks range where the answer is to stop the 250 nonresident tags and do nothing about the "subsistence" hunters who are killing dozens of animals daily and several thousand each year. Maybe the answer is to stop the 250 nonresident tags but without doing something about the subsistence hunting as well the population of those animals is going to continue to decline.

The answer for declining populations is to work on improving the habitat and quit shooting as many of them. Pretty basic. It doesn't matter if a resident shoots them or a nonresident shoots them. For species that are currently thriving like elk it seems that the answer is to work to keep that heading in the right direction.

The ugly part is that real conservation takes money and sweat. Most want to contribute the least of either as possible.

 

[SAJ-99]

Kind of a pipe dream I guess, and I'm sure there would be all sorts of anti-hunting conspiracy theories floated around if someone tried to actually implement it, but it would seem useful nonetheless. Just a thought....

It would turn into a 2a concern. i.e. "Gov coming to take my guns"

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

The ideas I put forward in the original Post where not necessarily meant to expand NR hunting opportunities. I do advocate for the Federal Public Land license wherein hunters would compete for tags on a near equal basis, at an equal cost, regardless of residence. This idea is meant to reach the hunter who can't otherwise afford a western hunt. Of course, the number of tags issued would be determined by the State. All other licenses should be allocated as the States see fit, with a vast majority going to State residents.

Here is a sample of how such a system would work:

Hunter #1 - Wyoming Resident

Wants to hunt in his/her home State and should have drastically better odds to draw an Elk and/or Mule Deer Tag than any non-resident of Wyoming. Will have much better access to "Boots on the Ground" preference, and hopefully a better chance of gaining private land access.

Hunter #2 - Ohio Resident

Can apply for a NR Elk tag in each of the coalition States, either Federal Public Land Only license (if the hunter can't afford a typical western Elk hunt), or a regular license in a unit of his choice - per State. Applicant would have to list his order of preference, and once selected, would be removed from any other Elk applications in any State. Hunter #2 could increase his/her draw odds by participating in a "Boots on the Ground" approved project during the off season.

Hunter # 3 - Montana Resident

Can apply for an Elk tag in any coalition State, including Montana, and would list his/her preference. Once selected for a tag, would then be removed from any other Elk license drawing. Can apply for a Mule Deer tag in Montana (or other State), and should have a much greater chance than a resident of another State.

Again, these are just ideas meant to elicit fair and open discussion. I'm not hurt in the least by any of the comments above. I'm older, and probably not very smart. I was a working man (now retired), who was lucky to experience the four western hunts over the last 30 years. I desperately wanted to hunt out west every year, just couldn't swing it financially, or with a family that I prioritized over everything else.

I'm an optimist by nature, and just feel like the current system is not working. I'm well aware that some of these ideas would be very difficult to implement. I'll shut up now.

I'll give props that this is an interesting idea that might work to relieve nonresident pressure. It's likely that some of the application pressure is artificially inflated because so many folks are applying in multiple states to ensure that they get what they consider to be a decent tag.

Theoretically interesting. Practically untenable.

 

[406dn]

The ideas I put forward in the original Post where not necessarily meant to expand NR hunting opportunities. I do advocate for the Federal Public Land license wherein hunters would compete for tags on a near equal basis, at an equal cost, regardless of residence. This idea is meant to reach the hunter who can't otherwise afford a western hunt. Of course, the number of tags issued would be determined by the State. All other licenses should be allocated as the States see fit, with a vast majority going to State residents.

Here is a sample of how such a system would work:

Hunter #1 - Wyoming Resident

Wants to hunt in his/her home State and should have drastically better odds to draw an Elk and/or Mule Deer Tag than any non-resident of Wyoming. Will have much better access to "Boots on the Ground" preference, and hopefully a better chance of gaining private land access.

Hunter #2 - Ohio Resident

Can apply for a NR Elk tag in each of the coalition States, either Federal Public Land Only license (if the hunter can't afford a typical western Elk hunt), or a regular license in a unit of his choice - per State. Applicant would have to list his order of preference, and once selected, would be removed from any other Elk applications in any State. Hunter #2 could increase his/her draw odds by participating in a "Boots on the Ground" approved project during the off season.

Hunter # 3 - Montana Resident

Can apply for an Elk tag in any coalition State, including Montana, and would list his/her preference. Once selected for a tag, would then be removed from any other Elk license drawing. Can apply for a Mule Deer tag in Montana (or other State), and should have a much greater chance than a resident of another State.

Again, these are just ideas meant to elicit fair and open discussion. I'm not hurt in the least by any of the comments above. I'm older, and probably not very smart. I was a working man (now retired), who was lucky to experience the four western hunts over the last 30 years. I desperately wanted to hunt out west every year, just couldn't swing it financially, or with a family that I prioritized over everything else.

I'm an optimist by nature, and just feel like the current system is not working. I'm well aware that some of these ideas would be very difficult to implement. I'll shut up now.

I'm glad you are not king for a day.

While residents in the intermountain west gripe about how wildlife is being managed in our states, we also know that we enjoy a richly blessed wildlife resource.

For ANYONE on the outside looking in and hoping for a better shake, there is such an obvious answer. Pick the state that most appeals to you, and move there.

The system is still working for resident hunters, most of the time. I can see why non residents don't think it is working. But asking resident hunters to concede a greater share of the wildlife resource is a total non starter.

 

[Elky Welky]

I'm not sure which side of the argument comes off as more entitled and whiny. Seems like a pretty even split to me. Both sides seem to be acting like the 5 year old that wants to take their ball and go home because things aren't going exactly the way they want it.

I see it somewhat like the response to the declining caribou herd in the brooks range where the answer is to stop the 250 nonresident tags and do nothing about the "subsistence" hunters who are killing dozens of animals daily and several thousand each year. Maybe the answer is to stop the 250 nonresident tags but without doing something about the subsistence hunting as well the population of those animals is going to continue to decline.

The answer for declining populations is to work on improving the habitat and quit shooting as many of them. Pretty basic. It doesn't matter if a resident shoots them or a nonresident shoots them. For species that are currently thriving like elk it seems that the answer is to work to keep that heading in the right direction.

The ugly part is that real conservation takes money and sweat. Most want to contribute the least of either as possible.

The reality is that one side actually is entitled to the management of wildlife, in the literal sense of the word "entitled" and the other feels entitled in the derogatory way you describe here because of misconceptions and the bad management practices of the states they are exploiting. By giving an inch, those states have lost miles.

I don't disagree with your ultimate point, and an even bigger point worth making is that we keep getting trapped in this R/NR dispute, which distracts from the bigger picture. Too many people, regardless of residency status, being thrown at a limited resource. That doesn't work and is unsustainable.

But it is also a mistake to rely on false equivalency and disregard valid arguments as "entitlement."

 

[perma]

The answer for declining populations is to work on improving the habitat and quit shooting as many of them. Pretty basic. It doesn't matter if a resident shoots them or a nonresident shoots them. For species that are currently thriving like elk it seems that the answer is to work to keep that heading in the right direction.

The ugly part is that real conservation takes money and sweat. Most want to contribute the least of either as possible.

Thank you!!