Generosity to non-residents

[hossblur]

NRs' access to quality western big game hunting can keep them invested in advocating for public lands. Without the support of voters and legislators in more populated states w less public land, western federal lands @ least will suffer politically. I'm struggling to think of a public land user group more passionate and w fewer access alternatives than elk, MSG and predator hunters.

Living in the heart of "transfer" country, the opposite is true as well.

Guys can't draw tags in there own state(not LE, or OIL, but deer or elk tag), only to find the hills full of NR plates, gives them a bad taste. Lot easier to convince them that without the feds owning that land, be fewer NR taking tags from them.

Especially in the current political climate. Seeing California plates, just pisses people off. The fear being the anti gun, anti hunting crap, is invading their state.

Data and statistics don't matter, perception is reality.

 

[PrairieHunter]

View attachment 222846


Yeah I mean the comment was "losing NR Hunters" so yes if you lost all NR hunters that would probably be 500 guide jobs, and then maybe here and there a couple other positions if people scaled slightly. Not many.

I actually think it just depends as the way Colorado structures their season over multiple gun seasons, along with a muzzleloader, archery, etc.. a business might get a month or more of work from a NR hunter. That could very well maintain/create jobs in areas that are not popular among the outdoor crowd. But to a place like Steamboat it probably makes little to no difference as they will be busy with tourist both R and NR regardless of the hunters.

Wyoming a bit different as say in Lusk Wyoming the deer and antelope season really only gives you about a week of good business and a second week that tapers off. Their economies are more based on the railroad, oilfield, agriculture, etc so in many cases hunters cause more problems for businesses as they struggle to keep up with waitresses, cooks, bartenders, for that week or two. Laramie you see some hunters here but between the college and others passing through the NR hunters are not a big factor for the businesses that I can tell.

For a place like Nebraska where deer season is only a week the NR hunter impact is even less, but there are situations where some sleepy towns do appreciate the business even if it is just for a week. I suspect the waterfowlers and pheasant guys may have a bigger impact due to longer seasons.

I have done plenty of hunting as a NR and I appreciate the opportunity but I certainly don't think people would end up on the street if I didn't show up. I do know of a old motel in Oshkosh NE that lost the waterfowl outfitter who booked their rooms in the fall and you could tell it hut them really badly. The guys who rent llamas might be another. So there certainly are some examples out there.

But if we are being honest the other tourist (summer, ski, snowmobile, raft, etc) are what is really supporting most of these western mountain towns where hunters go in the fall. But for little less appealing towns off the beaten path where tourist do not like to go I can see NR hunters having a bigger impact especially if the hunters are there for 4+ weeks.

And for the record I am good with NR hunters. I rarely see any of them as I barely get to hunt any more since that's my busy season.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I actually think it just depends as the way Colorado structures their season over multiple gun seasons, along with a muzzleloader, archery, etc.. a business might get a month or more of work from a NR hunter. That could very well maintain/create jobs in areas that are not popular among the outdoor crowd. But to a place like Steamboat it probably makes little to no difference as they will be busy with tourist both R and NR regardless of the hunters.

Wyoming a bit different as say in Lusk Wyoming the deer and antelope season really only gives you about a week of good business and a second week that tapers off. Their economies are more based on the railroad, oilfield, agriculture, etc so in many cases hunters cause more problems for businesses as they struggle to keep up with waitresses, cooks, bartenders, for that week or two. Laramie you see some hunters here but between the college and others passing through the NR hunters are not a big factor for the businesses that I can tell.

For a place like Nebraska where deer season is only a week the NR hunter impact is even less, but there are situations where some sleepy towns do appreciate the business even if it is just for a week. I suspect the waterfowlers and pheasant guys may have a bigger impact due to longer seasons.

I have done plenty of hunting as a NR and I appreciate the opportunity but I certainly don't think people would end up on the street if I didn't show up. I do know of a old motel in Oshkosh NE that lost the waterfowl outfitter who booked their rooms in the fall and you could tell it hut them really badly. The guys who rent llamas might be another. So there certainly are some examples out there.

But if we are being honest the other tourist (summer, ski, snowmobile, raft, etc) are what is really supporting most of these western mountain towns where hunters go in the fall. But for little less appealing towns off the beaten path where tourist do not like to go I can see NR hunters having a bigger impact especially if the hunters are there for 4+ weeks.

And for the record I am good with NR hunters. I rarely see any of them as I barely get to hunt any more since that's my busy season.

Those are really good points. I didn’t consider how different season structures played into it.

CO has like 6+ “opening weekends”. Very different from WY or MT

 

[BrokenArrow]

This has been a very interesting thread. I appreciate the knowledge and have learned a lot. I just want to bring forth a hypothetical situation I was thinking about.
Situation - I am coming into this year with a 53-9 tag that I somehow got in the preference points pass. Situational circumstances in area 53 are such that I am facing dense griz pops, large country requiring horses to be efficient and effective, non-wilderness DIY without a guide, very little experience in the unit, etc...
Experience - I have stated before that i have guided deer/elk for 16 years, very successful with repeat clients, and am personally 70% success in out of state areas. I hunt hard and love every second.
Economical - I am a single dad who works 50-80 hours a week and counts every penny. I can just as easily sleep in my camper shell in the parking lot of a trailhead and think this is luxury compared to my VI AM tarp tent. But, I choose this route to save money, not the normal NR. Conversely, we only live once and I heard someone say on occasion, "You're gonna run out of health before you run outta money." I've been known to love small town cafe's and ocasional hotels if its crappy outside. And believe it or not my hunting food is usually bought at any local grocery store to ensure I actually support the local area and make friends. The grocery store is the best barometer of any town in my opinion.

I can say that I am very happy to be cashed out in points considering a mostly likely 90/10 split forthcoming for EDA. What I will say is that even though I could go DIY in 53 and figure out horses, logistics, hunting buddies, griz factors, I had the CHOICE to put a deposit down with an outfitter and happily support the industry that has supported me in the past, paying for local area experience and logistics in place. But that is just it, I had the CHOICE. I think after the split is adopted and 50% of NR tags or 5% of total tags must use an outfitter is detrimental to NR's ability of freedom of choice.
If that is the intended effect, I will be not put in for any more points in WY and you have effectively run me off. The R's plan worked. Yes you will have the woods to yourselves, but you will also not have another future potential hunter asking themselves if they want to consider/incur the cost of an outfitter. Maybe the slack will never matter and you will have the gap filled by other hunters lining up to pay into the NR outfitter pool.

And that leads me to my real question/commentary. Too get to the original premise of this thread, If CO hypothetically goes 90/10 (which is being talked about seriously down here) and effectively displaces a very large part of NR hunting in the west (~30% I believe). The 90/10 split draw in WY (and every other sate) will be saturated by NR's wanting any piece of the 10% pie, outfitted or DIY. If so, then the WYOGA plan is brilliant. Guaranteed revenue for the foreseeable future and every NR has to take bite of the crap sandwich. Outfitter fees skyrocket, etc...
Again, I do NOT want to talk about the possibility of a CO 90/10 split and hijack this thread, but I do want to ask you all: what will theoretically happen to app demand in WY or other states? Would a 90/10 split be too restrictive (?) in WY and you would be throwing away out of state money as solid revenue? Would a 80/20 or 85/15 make more sense and not "overcrowd" your trailheads?
I think the extra revenue alone would be worth a couple extra folks in the woods and dollars spent in local towns. Just think if I needed tires chains for all 4 wheels on my rig and needed to buy them local? That actually happened once, lol. I do believe that supporting local economies as much as i can afford is very healthy. But, it will be extremely difficult to participate as this becomes more of a rich man's game. Hell, I might even be in favor of a 90/10 split if that ridiculous Wilderness restriction was compromised into the past and never talked about again.

I know how extremely lucky I am to receive this tag at the perfect moment. It will be on my mind the whole hunt and when i pull my bow back. Especially when I'm grilling a steak for friends, if successful.

Great thread and would love to hear your opinions. Again, I learn a lot from you all.

 

[Muledeerchaser]

Interesting thread, “Generosity to Nonresident Hunters” , are you kidding. As Wyoming cuts nonresident tags for trophy species, Wyoming residents seem to be forgetting a few important facts. Most all of big game hunting done by nonresidents in Wyoming is done on Federal Land, National Forest, Bureau of Land Management and Wilderness areas owned by all Americans…. Nonresident license fees fund a majority of their State Game and Fish…. But the real picture includes the fact that Nonresidents fund Wyoming’s General Fund to the tune of 25%. A quarter of Wyoming’s budget for roads, schools, hospitals, police and the like come out of Nonresidents pockets….. Sounds fair that Nonresidents should get only 10 % of the licenses…??. To Wyoming hunters who want to get rid of Nonresidents I have to ask why? When your son was on a mountain in Afghanistan was it not a Nonresident fighting next to him…. How about that Nonresident Surgeon at Mayo Clinic in Minnesota that saved your father’s life when they did a Whipple Procedure to remove his pancreatic cancer… No Surgeon in Wyoming has that skill.. And yes, Minnesota heavily funds Mayo Clinic and they do not ask what State you reside in, charge you more or limit the numbers of nonresidents. Perhaps fairness is no longer a virtue that many people have any more… And yes, I know that the Federal Government gave the States the right to ”Manage” the wildlife within their borders but that is not an absolute right and has been modified by the Supreme Court multiple times… I think another modification might be coming within a few years….. We are all in this together, lets try to be fair to each other…….

 

[Bam Bam]

Interesting thread, “Generosity to Nonresident Hunters” , are you kidding. As Wyoming cuts nonresident tags for trophy species, Wyoming residents seem to be forgetting a few important facts. Most all of big game hunting done by nonresidents in Wyoming is done on Federal Land, National Forest, Bureau of Land Management and Wilderness areas owned by all Americans…. Nonresident license fees fund a majority of their State Game and Fish…. But the real picture includes the fact that Nonresidents fund Wyoming’s General Fund to the tune of 25%. A quarter of Wyoming’s budget for roads, schools, hospitals, police and the like come out of Nonresidents pockets….. Sounds fair that Nonresidents should get only 10 % of the licenses…??. To Wyoming hunters who want to get rid of Nonresidents I have to ask why? When your son was on a mountain in Afghanistan was it not a Nonresident fighting next to him…. How about that Nonresident Surgeon at Mayo Clinic in Minnesota that saved your father’s life when they did a Whipple Procedure to remove his pancreatic cancer… No Surgeon in Wyoming has that skill.. And yes, Minnesota heavily funds Mayo Clinic and they do not ask what State you reside in, charge you more or limit the numbers of nonresidents. Perhaps fairness is no longer a virtue that many people have any more… And yes, I know that the Federal Government gave the States the right to ”Manage” the wildlife within their borders but that is not an absolute right and has been modified by the Supreme Court multiple times… I think another modification might be coming within a few years….. We are all in this together, lets try to be fair to each other…….

I am the rare WY resident who hopes that Non-residents continue to get 25% of the deer, elk, and antelope tags. The revenue WY earns from the annual influx of hunters is substantial. I am fine with hunting fewer trophy hunts, as long as Residents don't go without meat for their freezers.

 

[thusby]

I’d love to say I get bent out of shape about states changing their systems, but I’d be lying. I would love it if only 10% of the hunters in my state were non-residents.

 

[BuzzH]

I am the rare WY resident who hopes that Non-residents continue to get 25% of the deer, elk, and antelope tags. The revenue WY earns from the annual influx of hunters is substantial. I am fine with hunting fewer trophy hunts, as long as Residents don't go without meat for their freezers.

You're wrong...nrs have never received 25% of deer, elk, and pronghorn in the initial draw...deer and pronghorn are 20%, full priced elk 16%.

Might want to get the facts straight.

 

[Jdp010]

….. Sounds fair that Nonresidents should get only 10 % of the licenses…??. To Wyoming hunters who want to get rid of Nonresidents I have to ask why? When your son was on a mountain in Afghanistan was it not a Nonresident fighting next to him…. How about that Nonresident Surgeon at Mayo Clinic in Minnesota that saved your father’s life when they did a Whipple Procedure to remove his pancreatic cancer… No Surgeon in Wyoming has that skill.. And yes, Minnesota heavily funds Mayo Clinic and they do not ask what State you reside in, charge you more or limit the numbers of nonresidents...

Minnesota issued many moose tags over many years - 100% of them to MN residents. ~300 tags per year - exclusively to MN residents.

Perhaps 0% NR allocation on MN moose tags is more relevant here than the Mayo clinic?

 

[Bam Bam]

You're wrong...nrs have never received 25% of deer, elk, and pronghorn in the initial draw...deer and pronghorn are 20%, full priced elk 16%.

Might want to get the facts straight.

Roger that, you are correct. 25% was only for the Bighorn Sheep and Mountain Goat.

 

[Muledeerchaser]

Minnesota issued many moose tags over many years - 100% of them to MN residents. ~300 tags per year - exclusively to MN residents.

Perhaps 0% NR allocation on MN moose tags is more relevant here than the Mayo clinic?

Moose have not been hunted for a decade due to declining populations. But if no nonresident licenses were granted I would have to agree with you they should have been. But, there is no species hunted in Minnesota where a nonresident can not obtain a license over the counter….. I do not know how curious you are about the issue of State Ownership of Wildlife on Federal Lands but the legal concept is not standing on good legal ground. A NEW case brought in Federal Court will most likely throwout or modify concept….. A very good legal brief on this can be found in the Journal of “Environmental Law” Vol 47, no. 4 2017 (Fish and Wildlife on Federal Land Debunking State Supremacy)……. I think what gets most nonresidents is the fact most of the nonresident hunting in Wyoming takes place on Federal Land that everyone owns…. Wyoming is also a State heavily dependent on the Federal Government for it State Budget revenues…………. The Federal Government being all 50 States……..

 

[Jdp010]

Moose have not been hunted for a decade due to declining populations. But if no nonresident licenses were granted I would have to agree with you they should have been. But, there is no species hunted in Minnesota where a nonresident can not obtain a license over the counter….. I do not know how curious you are about the issue of State Ownership of Wildlife on Federal Lands but the legal concept is not standing on good legal ground. A NEW case brought in Federal Court will most likely throughout or modify concept….. A very good legal brief on this can be found in the Journal of “Environmental Law” Vol 47, no. 4 2017 (Fish and Wildlife on Federal Land Debunking State Supremacy)……. I think what gets most nonresidents is the fact most of the nonresident hunting in Wyoming takes place on Federal Land that everyone owns…. Wyoming is also a State heavily dependent on the Federal Government for it State Budget revenues…………. The Federal Government being all 50 States……..

Many years of ~300 Minnesota moose tags and Minnesota residents kept every single tag for themselves. When MN moose numbers return, MN residents will likely continue to benefit from 100/0 unless you lobby your agency for a broad 90/10 regulation to share with your neighbors. WY and others have fewer than 300 MSG tags, but many always found the generosity to share ~10-25% with NRs.

SD & ND also have trophy species tags in quantities sufficient to be shared 90/10. But, they keep all tags for RES, 100/0.

MN, SD & ND residents (and others) who care about allocation in WY/CO and elsewhere might want to work instead on their own agency/regs to require 10% NR sharing. Show WY & CO that you know how to share and maybe you can help quell 90/5/5 (or worse). Today, WY looks to its immediate east and finds three selfish, 100/0 states (SD/ND/MN).

Or, just go fill out online surveys if you think WY/CO appointees will actually listen to your words and not notice that you are 100/0 in your own state.

The federal land argument is interesting, but not new. State management of all wildlife/hunting is the pretty clear & long-standing American rule.

 

[Muledeerchaser]

Many years of ~300 Minnesota moose tags and Minnesota residents kept every single tag for themselves. When MN moose numbers return, MN residents will likely continue to benefit from 100/0 unless you lobby your agency for a broad 90/10 regulation to share with your neighbors. WY and others have fewer than 300 MSG tags, but many always found the generosity to share ~10-25% with NRs.

SD & ND also have trophy species tags in quantities sufficient to be shared 90/10. But, they keep all tags for RES, 100/0.

MN, SD & ND residents (and others) who care about allocation in WY/CO and elsewhere might want to work instead on their own agency/regs to require 10% NR sharing. Show WY & CO that you know how to share and maybe you can help quell 90/5/5 (or worse). Today, WY looks to its immediate east and finds three selfish, 100/0 states (SD/ND/MN).

Or, just go fill out online surveys if you think WY/CO appointees will actually listen to your words and not notice that you are 100/0 in your own state.

The federal land argument is interesting, but not new. State management of all wildlife/hunting is the pretty clear & long-standing American rule.

I agree with you on ND,SD and MN thinking. If the hunting is on Federal Land tags should be shared. You were pretty quick reading all 100 and some pages of the legal brief…… I am sure when the tags are cut for Wyoming a law suit will follow and this matter wil be tested in Federal Court….. It is not just about tags it will also be about the huge amount of aid received by many Western States and an issue of fairness.

 

[jlmatthew]

I think what gets most nonresidents is the fact most of the nonresident hunting in Wyoming takes place on Federal Land that everyone owns…. Wyoming is also a State heavily dependent on the Federal Government for it State Budget revenues…………. The Federal Government being all 50 States……..

you can access the land in Wyoming just as much as the resident hunter with a tag in his pocket. So go enjoy your federal public lands.

 

[R.K.]

you can access the land in Wyoming just as much as the resident hunter with a tag in his pocket. So go enjoy your federal public lands.

Incorrect. Nonresidents are locked out of hunting Wilderness Areas due to some dubious state laws, unless they have a registered resident guide to take them. And that is a substantial amount of land. So nonresidents can't even hunt all of the accessible federal land they own, yet residents can.

 

[jlmatthew]

Incorrect. Nonresidents are locked out of hunting Wilderness Areas due to some dubious state laws, unless they have a registered resident guide to take them. And that is a substantial amount of land. So nonresidents can't even hunt all of the accessible federal land they own, yet residents can.

A nonresident can go and enjoy the wilderness area, just cant hunt there without a guide, but they are able to access the public land.

don't disagree that it is stupid

 

[Muledeerchaser]

I agree with you on ND,SD and MN thinking. If the hunting is on Federal Land tags should be shared. You were pretty quick reading all 100 and some pages of the legal brief…… I am sure when the tags are cut for Wyoming a law suit will follow and this matter wil be tested in Federal Court….. It is not just about tags it will also be about the huge amount of aid received by many Western States and an issue of fairness.

Hotels, guides, sporting goods shops, coffee shops, restaurants, taxidermy, the fish and game department, tire shops, grocery stores.

If a particular business loses 10% of their sales, that doesn’t mean their profits went down by 10%. Their profits may have turned to losses because they can’t cover overhead. You have to get over your break even point.

A small restaurant can be making good money at 100 orders per day, but losing their butt at 90 orders per day. Now that waitress can’t get the new car and on down the web of the economy.

To put another point on it, the “severe” recession in 2008 shaved 4.8% off of gdp. Not 48%, just a measly 4.8%. That resulted in huge job losses.

So how big of a hit would Wyomings gdp take? I don’t know, but it’s more than zero.

 

[Muledeerchaser]

I am glad you understand business and economics, very few people do. A loss of just a few percentage points of revenue could result in the business generating no profits for the owners……. It is surprising how you have to pay all those fixed costs before the owner takes ANY MONEY HOME TO SUPPORT THE FAMILY.

 

[blackbeard]

Many years of ~300 Minnesota moose tags and Minnesota residents kept every single tag for themselves. When MN moose numbers return, MN residents will likely continue to benefit from 100/0 unless you lobby your agency for a broad 90/10 regulation to share with your neighbors. WY and others have fewer than 300 MSG tags, but many always found the generosity to share ~10-25% with NRs.

SD & ND also have trophy species tags in quantities sufficient to be shared 90/10. But, they keep all tags for RES, 100/0.

MN, SD & ND residents (and others) who care about allocation in WY/CO and elsewhere might want to work instead on their own agency/regs to require 10% NR sharing. Show WY & CO that you know how to share and maybe you can help quell 90/5/5 (or worse). Today, WY looks to its immediate east and finds three selfish, 100/0 states (SD/ND/MN).

Or, just go fill out online surveys if you think WY/CO appointees will actually listen to your words and not notice that you are 100/0 in your own state.

The federal land argument is interesting, but not new. State management of all wildlife/hunting is the pretty clear & long-standing American rule.

I totally agree SD should do a 90/10 split for tags, sadly I'm one of the few. I also think SD should do that for deer as well since non-residents have to wait until the 4th draw. Kind of like the state is saying come for the pheasants and not the big game.

 

[ZBB]

I totally agree SD should do a 90/10 split for tags, sadly I'm one of the few. I also think SD should do that for deer as well since non-residents have to wait until the 4th draw. Kind of like the state is saying come for the pheasants and not the big game.

South Dakota already does 8% of deer tags, in the initial draw.
They’ll never give elk tags away to non residents other than maybe a hunt for habitat raffle. The odds are terrible for residents already for any elk and any deer.