Non-resident Hunting and the North American Model

[SAJ-99]

I don't disagree.

I was just reacting to the "market" lingo you used. This is a govt monopoly, not a market. The prices are set at the sole discretion of the govt. They are less than they could be (while still selling them out), but that doesn't mean they are set "right". But nonetheless, they aren't market price. My guess is they could sell out at $1,750 for bull elk.

True, it isn't a "market" in the traditional sense. But States are still trying to figure out what the elasticity of demand is. And we haven't seen that it even exists. As much as people complain about the prices, they still submit an application.

 

[VikingsGuy]

True, it isn't a "market" in the traditional sense. But States are still trying to figure out what the elasticity of demand is. And we haven't seen that it even exists. As much as people complain about the prices, they still submit an application.

Would be an interesting poll - "All BS and generalized whining aside, how much are you willing to spend at least every 3rd year on a bull elk tag?"

I wouldn't be surprised if it hit $2,000 with enough people to sell out.

 

[SAJ-99]

I know @JLS assumed we all understood this (and how to Google it if we didn't), but here is the core of the NAM. I think most of the discussion is about #7. It sort of feels like states start charging $1500 for a tag you might be allocating indirectly based on wealth. Also, side note, it feels like Montana HB 505 (see thread on the Montana board) would violate #7 too if the state starts giving out 10 tags to landowners owning a certain minimum acreage. If certain principles of NAM have precedent, I wonder where that falls?

1. Wildlife is a public resource. In the Unites States, wildlife is considered a public resource, independent of the land or water where wildlife may live. Government at various levels have a role in managing that resource on behalf of all citizens and to ensure the long-term sustainability of wildlife populations.
2. Markets for game are eliminated Before wildlife protection laws were enacted, commercial operations decimated populations of many species. Making it illegal to buy and sell meat and parts of game and nongame species removed a huge threat to the survival of those species. A market in furbearers continues as a highly regulated activity, often to manage invasive wildlife.
3. Allocation of wildlife by law. Wildlife is a public resource managed by government. As a result, access to wildlife for hunting is through legal mechanisms such as set hunting seasons, bag limits, license requirements, etc.
4. Wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate purpose. Wildlife is a shared resource that must not be wasted. The law prohibits killing wildlife for frivolous reasons.
5. Wildlife species are considered an international resource. Some species, such as migratory birds, cross national boundaries. Treaties such as the Migratory Bird Treaty and CITES recognize a shared responsibility to manage these species across national boundaries.
6. Science is the proper tool for discharge of wildlife policy. In order to manage wildlife as a shared resource fairly, objectively, and knowledgeably, decisions must be based on sound science such as annual waterfowl population surveys and the work of professional wildlife biologists.
7. The democracy of hunting. In keeping with democratic principles, government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership.

 

[idelkslayer]

I know @JLS assumed we all understood this (and how to Google it if we didn't), but here is the core of the NAM. I think most of the discussion is about #7. It sort of feels like states start charging $1500 for a tag you might be allocating indirectly based on wealth. Also, side note, it feels like Montana HB 505 (see thread on the Montana board) would violate #7 too if the state starts giving out 10 tags to landowners owning a certain minimum acreage. If certain principles of NAM have precedent, I wonder where that falls?

1. Wildlife is a public resource. In the Unites States, wildlife is considered a public resource, independent of the land or water where wildlife may live. Government at various levels have a role in managing that resource on behalf of all citizens and to ensure the long-term sustainability of wildlife populations.
2. Markets for game are eliminated Before wildlife protection laws were enacted, commercial operations decimated populations of many species. Making it illegal to buy and sell meat and parts of game and nongame species removed a huge threat to the survival of those species. A market in furbearers continues as a highly regulated activity, often to manage invasive wildlife.
3. Allocation of wildlife by law. Wildlife is a public resource managed by government. As a result, access to wildlife for hunting is through legal mechanisms such as set hunting seasons, bag limits, license requirements, etc.
4. Wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate purpose. Wildlife is a shared resource that must not be wasted. The law prohibits killing wildlife for frivolous reasons.
5. Wildlife species are considered an international resource. Some species, such as migratory birds, cross national boundaries. Treaties such as the Migratory Bird Treaty and CITES recognize a shared responsibility to manage these species across national boundaries.
6. Science is the proper tool for discharge of wildlife policy. In order to manage wildlife as a shared resource fairly, objectively, and knowledgeably, decisions must be based on sound science such as annual waterfowl population surveys and the work of professional wildlife biologists.
7. The democracy of hunting. In keeping with democratic principles, government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership.

As I understand it, the NAM was never a defined set of guidelines or rules that states were required to follow when setting policy for wildlife management. Rather, the term "North American Model of Wildlife Management" came from a study of wildlife policies that sought to identify commonalities in the principles that have historically driven wildlife management in North America.

Basically, generally accepted guidelines but not set in stone. Maybe my memory is not completely accurate.

 

[idelkslayer]

I am not arguing otherwise. I am just asking for the simple honesty of "our house our rules" and to stop with the English common law, "we bear all the costs," "NAM says," and "the constitution commands" rationales - they don't hold water. That and an acknowledgment that the 340 million people who don't live in a mountain west state but pay a disproportionate portion of many western states' budgets may someday interject a new solution - democracy can be a b*tch.

I will completely own the "our house our rules" argument. I think that every state should manage their wildlife for the benefit of their citizens. To go along with that I don't think any state (east or west) should issue a single NR tag if they can't first provide opportunity to meet resident demand. Maybe there are situations where I could be persuaded differently but in general that is my stance.


Taxes from 340 million people may fund federal land management but it doesn't pay for state wildlife management. Their taxes entitle them to enjoyment of the land and there is plenty to do on the land besides hunting. As a resident of Idaho I am entitled to my states wildlife and I'm entitled to 0% of the wildlife in 49 states.

And I agree, democracy can be a bitch. The whole 2 wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for lunch scenario. The majority doesn't always make the right choice.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Taxes from 340 million people may fund federal land management but it doesn't pay for state wildlife management.

Taxes from 340 million fellow citizens pays for 45% of ALL of WY's state government expenditures. My remark wasn't just all about land/wildlife management.



Right now Montana and WY are the wolves and Virginia and Kansas are the sheep.

 

[BuzzH]

Taxes from 340 million fellow citizens pays for 45% of ALL of WY's state government expenditures. My remark wasn't just all about land/wildlife management.

View attachment 177452

I just really enjoy living in a blood red R state.

Keep paying those taxes.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I just really enjoy living in a blood red R state.

Keep paying those taxes.

But would you if others weren't paying your bills? I don't view living off the efforts of others as something to be particularly prideful of, but YMMV.

 

[BuzzH]

But would you if others weren't paying your bills? I don't view living off the efforts of others as something to be particularly prideful of, but YMMV.

Yes you do, because its exactly what you do. Minnesota receives no federal funding for its State Government?

Lobby your State to receive no federal funding if you're so opposed to living off the efforts of others.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Taxes from 340 million fellow citizens pays for 45% of ALL of WY's state government expenditures. My remark wasn't just all about land/wildlife management.

View attachment 177452

Right now Montana and WY are the wolves and Virginia and Kansas are the sheep.

This makes me really curious about what drives these numbers. Intuitively, it's not at all surprising to me that the percentage would be high in Wyoming and low in Virginia, but why is California significantly lower than New York? Why is Utah so low? Interesting stuff...

 

[Handlebar]

Taxes from 340 million fellow citizens pays for 45% of ALL of WY's state government expenditures. My remark wasn't just all about land/wildlife management.

View attachment 177452

Right now Montana and WY are the wolves and Virginia and Kansas are the sheep.

The federal government controls approximately 45% of the land mass inside Wyoming

 

[rwc101]

I don't think we do too bad for being big and unpopulated. Thanks, Mississippi/Louisiana. You make everyone look good in comparison.

 

[BuzzH]

The federal government controls approximately 45% of the land mass inside Wyoming

Yep, and a lot of States beside Wyoming benefit from, financially and otherwise, the resources extracted from this state, oil, gas, wind, coal...etc.

 

[SAJ-99]

The federal government controls approximately 45% of the land mass inside Wyoming

And no reason to have state income taxes when you can take handouts from the feds.
Taking budget advice from MT or WY is like taking financial advice from a 30yr old Millennial living in his parents' basement.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The federal government controls approximately 45% of the land mass inside Wyoming

But UT and NV are over 60% and Oregon over 50% yet they don't get nearly as big a piece? Not sure what drives the differences between states, but fed land ownership doesn't seem to correlate very well.

 

[BuzzH]

But UT and NV are over 60% and Oregon over 50% yet they don't get nearly as big a piece? Not sure what drives the differences between states, but fed land ownership doesn't seem to correlate very well.

Wonder if gambling has anything to do with it in NV?

Utah has a lot of people for an intermountain state...OR has a lot of people, sea ports, etc.

Isn't rocket science.

 

[BigHornRam]

Yep, and a lot of States beside Wyoming benefit from, financially and otherwise, the resources extracted from this state, oil, gas, wind, coal...etc.

What's up Buzz? You thinking about running for political office in Wyoming?

 

[Handlebar]

But UT and NV are over 60% and Oregon over 50% yet they don't get nearly as big a piece? Not sure what drives the differences between states, but fed land ownership doesn't seem to correlate very well.

True. I was not really trying to correlate the % with the %. How much would the feds subsidize Wyoming if a higher percentage was in private hands?

 

[BuzzH]

What's up Buzz? You thinking about running for political office in Wyoming?

I wouldn't run for political office if my salary was tripled...no way. Life is simply wayyyyy too short for that.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Wonder if gambling has anything to do with it in NV?

Utah has a lot of people for an intermountain state...OR has a lot of people, sea ports, etc.

Isn't rocket science.

Nice complete guess - rocket science isn't rocket science when the answer is just to provide more force than you have mass/resistance and make sure you are pointed in the right direction. How do we explain the two Dakotas?