Based on the above post I will play the Devils advocate here. Even more in states like Oregon who allow little nonresident hunting opportunities on federal land some nonresidents may look at this as a good thing. They may say that if federal land in those states cost him tax money but he is given little opportunity to hunt it put the ownership to the state because maybe there is an advantage to him. I recently read a long thread on MM about NM screwing the nonguided hunters and someone posted that it will get to a point where voters will stop caring about hunting rights on federal land since they're excluded anyway.
Once again this is a devil's advocate post but it is also food for though when nonresidents are getting priced out to cover the cost of residential hunters fees.
Unfortunately, you are on to something that is going to rear its head in this discussion. I think you are correct that the way non-residents are treated in western tag pricing and tag allocation certainly helps foster the sentiment you stated.
If I was a NR and felt I was getting the pipe laid to me at every turn, you would have a hard time convincing me to get too worried about this issue, at least until you gave me a lot more explanation of what I have to lose. Such is a consequence to be accepted for treating NRs the way we do. And, my home state of MT has written the book on how to do it.
That being said, once the "teach them to screw me over" feeling subsides, the NR will hopefully realize that they are losing a lot, also. Take some examples.
Colorado host more non-resident elk hunting than any other state. And probably hosts as much non-resident deer hunting as any state. Suppose all 23 million acres of USFS and BLM land become State Lands in Colorado.
In Colorado, you cannot hunt state lands, unless CPW has acquired the hunting rights. They can hardly afford the little bit of critical hunting access they currently lease from the State Land Board. Now, add 23 million acres of new state lands opened to leasing for hunting and outfitting, and look at what the NR gets out of that. Not much, other than the opportunity to bid on some leasing or to hire one of the outfitters who will build a business model around this new dynamic.
Assume you don't hunt, you just camp or hike public lands. The 31 millions acres of USFS/BLM lands in MT are now heavily restricted on your camping. Suppose you want to backpack hunt. Guess what, the MT State Land recreation rules state you must camp within 200 yards of the access point to such lands. So much for backpack hunting some of our high country. Wonder what the backcountry outfitter will think of that idea?
And, on most of the MT lands you can only camp for two days. I can see a NR finally drawing a Break archery elk tag, and now the public lands of the Breaks is state land. He drives 1,500 miles, only to find out he can camp for two days and must camp within 200 yards of the access point.
Here are the MT rules. Gonna be a lot of people having to apply for the Special Recreation Use License, just to camp or hunt in the same manner they and their families have for generations.
http://dnrc.mt.gov/trust/REMB/statues/recreationaluse.asp
I regret that NRs have been treated the way they have, such that it will be difficult to convince them that they have a lot to lose. NRs don't like it when they are told that the states can do whatever they want with wildlife, whether it lives on public or private ground, but that is how the US Constitution allows for states' rights to manage wildlife opportunity.
That said, just because states have that right, doesn't mean it is good practice to lay the pipe to NRs. States do that both in pricing and in allocation of opportunity. For residents of western states to now ask the NR to come to their aid is going to be a tought ask, though I hope the NR can see through the first cloudy layer and see what is really at risk for all hunters, resident and non-resident alike.
If the NRs sit idly by and the residents of the western states are able to defeat the fringe operators promoting this idea, which I think will be the case, I suspect residents of those western states will look around and see that the NRs sat silently by, or worse yet, joined the "sell the land crowd" and once the smoke clears, getting residents to treat NRs in a manner that is better than it is today, will have vaporized. If that is how it unfolds, I would expect NRs to get treated even worse as a result. I hope that is not the case. Regardless of the outcome of this issue, I hope that residents of the abusive states reconsider the manner in which they treat NRs.
