Non-resident Hunting and the North American Model

[Deleted member 20812]

But it ignores the fact that the little guy can't really afford to hunt right now. I'd keep doe tags dirt cheap to answer that line of attack. That is a pure meat hunt for those making the case that they need game meat to feed their family.

For resident hunters I have to call BS on this. I have a hard time believing a resident of a Rocky Mountain state, for the price of a tag, a tank of gas, and a cooler of food, can't put together a very affordable deer or elk hunt.

I had under $100 in my mule deer hunt last year.

 

[Jape]

Some great thoughts, @JLS. It's a difficult balancing act. How do we fund all the conservation efforts without disproportionally seeking funding from the wealthy? How do we ensure that commoner Joe still has opportunities to experience hunting, provide meat for his family, and perhaps even have a chance, even if slight, at a OIL tag sometime in his life?

I too wish I had more answers than I do questions. The only answer I do have is that I think this will be a constant struggle and it will take a healthy dose of sacrifice on the part of all hunters to make sure everyone else has opportunities, not just them. That could be as simple as making OIL tags just that, once in your life. For example, I had a bison tag two years ago in Wyoming. I shouldn't get to hunt bison there again. I could technically apply for a cow tag but I don't because I think someone else should get a chance.

 

[406dn]

For resident hunters I have to call BS on this. I have a hard time believing a resident of a Rocky Mountain state, for the price of a tag, a tank of gas, and a cooler of food, can't put together a very affordable deer or elk hunt.

That is just the cost of one trip. The little guy with a family and a really tight budget, needs to buy a rifle and everything else needed to hunt big game.

There is a reason pawn shops are full of firearms. Many people buy a gun and later realize they need rent money more than they need the gun.

 

[brymoore]

The western states and its residents have forgotten what budgets looked like during the last recession. It was grim.

Idaho had the perfect storm with raising prices just before the bubble burst, bad wolf publicity and the recession. I remember IDFG trying to figure out how to attract NRs at the time. Now, Idaho is creating a complex matrix for NRs. Ugh.

Unfortunately, it’ll probably take another economic downturn before states start trying to recruit NRs again.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

That is just the cost of one trip. The little guy with a family and a really tight budget, needs to buy a rifle and everything else needed to hunt big game.

There is a reason pawn shops are full of firearms. Many people buy a gun and later realize they need rent money more than they need the gun.

I'm not going down the rabbit hole on that aspect of it, but let's get real. If you can't afford the $14 elk tag and/or $12 deer A tag, you can't afford the rest of the hunt either.

 

[406dn]

Las


I'm not going down the rabbit hole on that aspect of it, but let's get real. If you can't afford the $14 elk tag and/or $12 deer A tag, you can't afford the rest of the hunt either.

I agree and it doesn't really change anything if you raise the price of a resident elk tag to $50 or $75.

 

[Jape]

In some ways I feel the economics should dictate how high prices should go, but then I see them ticking every upwards, just like home prices, and I keep thinking there must be an end in sight, right? Or maybe there are just a huge number of hunters out there with an insane amount of money!

 

[Fullquiver]

Looking at demographics of those who hunt and those who advocate for the hunting community then imagine regulatory controls that shut out many who support organizations like RMEF and many other conservation groups.

If these types of issues are not resolved hunting is doomed..

 

[EYJONAS!]

Now maybe one can couple up with a couple examples of folks or residents that would hunt to "survive" or fill the freezer with 6 does they processed themselves to get through the year but I don't think there's many out there in today's day and age.

The amount of money invested in things besides the hunt is absurd and I'm one of them along with many on this site. Which not much of it goes back into wildlife and conservation in the grand scheme of things.

I'd be all about it and fronting the money on draws a 50 dollar elk tag along with others would be fine with me

 

[rwc101]

I hope you don't think I'm saying NR hunting is integral to conservation ethic. I'm not. However, when you look at hunting as a whole, with increased competition for access, and how monetization of access reduces participation, it's not hard to connect the dots and see the same affect with increased tag prices.

Conservation ethic, IMO, requires engagement to keep the fire lit. When people move on to other activities, they may still care about the wildlife resources but they are far enough removed from it that it's no longer occupying high priority space in their world view.

I get what you're saying but it does seem like people are increasingly relying on other states for their engagement with hunting and the outdoors. I would like to see some of the passion expressed in the other thread focused at increasing opportunity for engagement back east. Got no real answers though. You can't tug on the string one way without disrupting the rest of the system in a way that will leave people angry whether they are residents or nonresidents.

 

[thomas89]

This to me is a pendulum swing resulting from the “you can hunt elk (or X) every year! Watch this video to find out how!” A bit of the social media effect if you will, but with big game and residency status thrown in.

 

[mottlet]

I appreciate the new thread.

First thing's first: when the House of Representatives introduces the Recovering America's Wildlife Act later this spring, maybe this month, call your Representative and politely ask them to cosponsor it. I won't get into all the specifics when the google machine is so handy, but it'd be a major step forward in making sure that state fish and wildlife management agencies are adequately funded. The gist of this bill is that it's designed to fund state wildlife action plans which are largely aimed at keeping at-risk species OFF the endangered species list. Funny thing about ecosystems though, by trying to keep common species common, and at-risk species from becoming threatened, game species will also benefit. And on someone else's (sorta) dime, for once. This doesn't answer the question about the future of the NA model, but I do think it's an important PART of answer.

As for the model itself, I think its health depends a whole lot on your perspective. I guarantee that many, probably most, in some states, of the non-hunting public largely see state agencies as businesses mostly dedicated to one client-base: us. For them, the NA model is working perfectly. That may or may not bother them. It definitely bothers some.

One thing I think most on this forum don't understand is the casual relationship with hunting that many hunters are carrying around. Even in the west, some in the east, but definitely in the south where I grew up, hunting was something a lot of folks just did. Wasn't who they were. If the cost of a tag was too high, or they lost permission because somebody's uncle died, or they had kids or whatever, these folks just do something else. I hunt. A lot. It's how I identify. Wyoming throws my preference points into the fire? Whatever, I'm gonna find a way. Hell, I live in Fairfax freaking County, Virginia and bought my first house, a tiny townhouse that needed work AND I AIN'T HANDY, because it sits literally across the street from the woods I bow hunt as part of an urban archery program aimed at whitetail management. So if you're in this neck of the woods and see the weirdo carrying a Lone Wolf and a bow across the street...wave. Lot of folks here can identify with that. But we ain't most hunters. If the opportunity diminishes, for whatever reason, they'll stop. COVID proved it by giving folks something they didn't have before unless they made it: TIME. Ain't an accident the license sales went up.

And not for nuthin, but I think that we (hunters) largely do not understand the massive effort and sacrifice that went in to establishing the NA model, public lands, etc. all those decades ago. We think we do and pat ourselves on the back for it an awful lot, but I'm convinced that the Pittman-Robertson Act could not pass, even out of committee, today. A few weeks ago, there was a thread on 501 c(4)s and how sportsmen need one (probably a bunch, but whole other ball of wax there). I replied that they've been tried here and there and one of the biggest impediments to their success as been...sportsmen. Typically, we only engage once we've been drug, half-asleep, into the fray by the likes BHA, TRCP, pick your species group, or God knows who. I'm as guilty as anyone. Randy has talked about this a ton and more eloquently than I can, but go and listen to his last podcast with Hal. Specifically, listen to the part where Hal talks about his buddies that plug their noses when they kayak, to keep the E. coli from making em sick and Hal's all, "WHO'S PUTTING UP WITH THAT?!?" We are Hal. We all are. They bout ran Hal outta Field and Stream; they did run off Bob Marshall. For what? They talked about conservation all the time I guess, but not the getting drunk and bidding on bad art kind. The hard kind. The keeping the dang crap out of the creeks so you can kayak kind.

That isn't what this thread is really about I guess, but it's part of it. So yeah, I think that assuming the NA model will just keep humming right along, is whistling past the graveyard. I'll shut up now...

 

[Brittany Chukarman]

I'm close to the end of my hunting days but still look forward to a hunt or two in easy terrain. Also wanting to retire but concerned about future inflation. Hunted several states from the 60's through the 80's. In the early 90's I bought a place in Oregon with elk and deer out my front door. I was content just to stay home and hunt. That is until I started reading that dang Newberg. In a Bugle article he stated something that struck a chord in me. He said in so many words " the best way to keep the NAM alive is to participate". I choose Wyoming to spend my money in. Have had some some great hunts and introduced several nephews to big game hunting there. Contributed most every year to the public access fund. I think a lot of non-res do. I have 9 deer points and 6 or 7 antelope points. Not the way I wanted to do it but I'm burning them this year before the increase. It's not just the tag cost but gas and all the other expenses that are rising I need to consider. I'm going to miss those trips but most everyone has a limit on what they can spend on pleasure.

 

[Irrelevant]

The NA model is absolutely doomed. So is solitude on our public lands, or even to a less degree, simple access to public lands.

We're only going to be putting more and more pressure on our public resources. There's no way, 200 years ago people would have believed Denver exists. Or LA. Or Salt Lake. Let alone that there would be tens of millions of people there. Heck there weren't hunting licenses or tags or NRs. In another 200 years we won't be hunting, you'll be lucky to draw a OIL permit to go for a hike.

 

[shrapnel]

One common thread I’ve noticed amongst residents of western states on this board is that most of us would be fine with paying increased fees for resident tags.

What a conundrum. We talk of the cost of hunting permits forcing people out of hunting, yet there is still the discussion of the necessity to raise the cost.

It can’t be both ways. It isn’t about being fair, it is about the funding.

 

[Addicting]

What bothers me with this model and it’s funding source is where does it end? Ok tag prices are raised for R and NR. The FWP budget is set on this new dollar amount. The department with this new found budget does everything they can within it to have a zero balance at the end of the year. 3-4 years later those projects become normal every day business. Now they are operating in the negative maintaining what they have been accustomed to. Ok how are we going to raise the extra money, let’s charge more for the access stamp. The system rinse, washes, and repeats this cycle. It is a never ending rabbit hole that out paces inflation. The NA model is going to have to find a sustainable source of funding to survive. If it keeps up at this pace it is doomed to fail.

 

[Pucky Freak]

I try to keep perspective of how rapidly things change. Interstate system is about 70 y.o., large household freezers became common in the 60’s, previously decimated big game populations came roaring back through the 90s and the www gained mass popularity during that time.

The NA model of conservation was born of a pending crisis of the near extinction of multiple game species in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Support for conservation from sportspersons was small at first, but over time as game populations rebounded and the post-WWII era brought a strong economy, momentum for conservation swelled.

There were good roads to travel to hunt locations, affordable cars to get you there, freezers to store meat, abundant public land, and best of all, repopulated game to hunt. Although it varies by region, I think the golden age of resident hunting was 1970-1990 (WY started later and is still in theirs).

Add in the internet, and NR hunters got their golden age too: 2000-2020.

Let’s declare the sportsperson-driven NA conservation model a success - game populations were brought back from the brink and will likely be part of our landscape for hundreds of years to come.

At this point in living history I think it’s time for us to pass the conservation torch to NC’s. Enough non-hunters care enough about conservation to preserve at least some of the work we have done over the last century or so. The deck is stacked against hunters continuing to lead the way. Rapid population growth in the West, changing demographics, decline of hunters as a % of the population, privatization, ranchettes, energy development, commercialization, etc, are bringing about the death of the appealing and affordable NR DIY adventure for the hunter with above-average means. A lot of people will bow out because it’s not personally worth it to them to pay $1100 for a WY cow elk tag. We will lose participation and we will lose advocates. But I think that’s not a total loss.

The diehards will always be around as @mottlet illustrated, we will find a way to hunt one way or another. We are the crazy 5% or 3% or whatever of hunters who will adjust and adjust and adjust to find a way to have a hunting adventure, even if it’s more expensive, or less likely to bag a trophy, or not our 1st pick of species or whatever it takes, as opportunity diminishes and the cost of what’s left keeps going up.

I’d like to brainstorm more, maybe not on this thread, about how to move forward with a rebranded conservation model in which hunters are still involved but NC’s holding the reigns. Not my preferred vision but at the same time I’m trying to read the writing on the wall too.

 

[Shangobango]

Thanks for taking the time to post this up @JLS.

We seem to be thinking about this in much the same way.

My other concern dealing with opportunity is availability of tags and places to use them. To recruit and retain advocates there must be opportunity in my opinion. The available tags could be dirt cheap but if there are very few of them or the ones that are available have little access those factors would still limit the number of people with enough skin in the game to become and stay active in advocating for conservation and hunting.

It is a complicated issue.

 

[Trial153]

Our hunting Culture is now infested with subsets who are all trying to maintain or establish their own fiefdoms. If the access and allocation of wildlife is divided up into artificially contrived groups. Land Owners, Wealthy, Poor, Politically connected organizations, Residents and non-residents, guides or businesses. And even if the wildlife thrives under successful managment and funding by those groups then the tenant that wildlife is held in public trust finished.
I fear we already traveled down that road to far to turn back.

 

[SAJ-99]

On the positive side, over 3.5m people visit Yellowstone every year and none of them are there to hunt. The majority of Americans see value in wild places and wild things.
I don’t have any different suggestions. The sport has drifted to be a hobby of the higher earners. That is a trend with everything in America. The only way to keep departments funded in a politically acceptable way is to increase NR fees. But what should happens is resident fees need to increase at the same rate as the department costs. Hopefully the NA model isn’t dead, but hunters can’t be expected to fund the entire thing going forward. Maybe camping fees, taxes on backpacks, mountain bikes, etc need to be looked at.