Non-resident Hunting and the North American Model

[VikingsGuy]

I'm not the one bitching about paying higher prices for tags or being limited to a low allotment in the 10 or so other states I apply in either.

That would be all you...

I am not bitching about that. I point out the errors in the "legal basis" often offered as trump cards when others raise fair concerns, I object to the "victim card" played by the residents (as you rightly do with the NRs), and I believe that at some point states have crossed into "monetizing" wildlife and de-democratizing it in contradiction to the NAM.

 

[BigHornRam]

Can you honestly say you would support this if you were from Montana, Wyoming, or Idaho? Defending something you have grown up with and loved your entire life is not being “pissy”.

Never mind the lawyer. He is just talking out his butt.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I disagree...if it wasn;t a big deal to the Western States, I doubt it would have had the bi-partisan co-sponsor list it did.

Sorry, but I said the majority of people -- the western states don't even come close to making up that number.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Never mind the lawyer. He is just talking out his butt.

When in doubt, make it personal - a classic HT move.

 

[BuzzH]

Sorry, but I said the majority of people -- the western states don't even come close to making up that number.

Even the States outside the West realized that State control of wildlife was important and why there was ZERO objection to S.339...and sorry, not sorry, that is the majority.

Name one Federal Representative of ANY state that was opposed to reaffirming the States Right to Manage its wildlife within its borders...I mean if a majority didn't care, certainly a few would have objected to it as at the very least a waste of time.

 

[BigHornRam]

When in doubt, make it personal - a classic HT move.

Listen to yourself dude. You are making an ass of yourself here. Give it a rest.

 

[BuzzH]

When in doubt, make it personal - a classic HT move.

Right, because calling State Residents of Montana and Wyoming welfare cases akin to kids living in their parents basements...isn't personal.

Friggin' hypocrite.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

325 million Americans wouldn't even know or care. And for 10 million it would improve their chances. For 2 million vested incumbents I am sure they would be pissy, but maybe we need a @wllm1313 pie chart to point out how imbalanced those numbers are - "thunderous backlash" is monumental hyperbole. How big was the backlash when waterfowl were taken away or wolves protected? Life moves on.

There are ~137,000 ish NR elk hunters. I can almost guarantee no one who applies for elk out of state doesn't also apply for Mule deer, pronghorn and MSG as well (or vice versa). So I think we can safely use 137,000 as the top end for people who would gain by Fed ownership, in terms of draw systems. That's also likely our max pool of traveling US hunters. Maybe a bit bigger for your including folks who go from CO to WY to hunt pronghorn or CT to NY for deer, but in terms of the folks that are playing the points game and traveling around lots... absolutely Max at 137,000 people.

There are ~670,000 resident elk hunters, that's probably the number of "vested incumbents" per your comment.

The other 14 MM hunting license holders are chasing birds or whitetails and could probably give a chit, likely they would only care so far as they like or dislike the fed doing anything.

In the context of US the western big game conversation is very pretty niche.

CO total NR sheep applications =9,000
WY total NR sheep applications = 2,587
Total NR who hunt Alaska every year (for anything) = ~9,000

There are literally more people who follow Ralph Macchio on instagram than who go elk hunting or likely care about elk hunting.

We need to improve the well and stop bickering about the pump. Make a system that everyone can live with it and move on.

And buy some more freaking sheep tags from @Oak

 

[BuzzH]

There are ~137,000 ish NR elk hunters. I can almost guarantee no one who applies for elk out of state doesn't also apply for Mule deer, pronghorn and MSG as well (or vice versa). So I think we can safely use 137,000 as the top end for people who would gain by Fed ownership, in terms of draw systems. That's also likely our max pool of traveling US hunters. Maybe a bit bigger for your including folks who go from CO to WY to hunt pronghorn or CT to NY for deer, but in terms of the folks that are playing the points game and traveling around lots... absolutely Max at 137,000 people.

There are ~670,000 resident elk hunters, that's probably the number of "vested incumbents" per your comment.

The other 14 MM hunting license holders are chasing birds or whitetails and could probably give a chit, likely they would only care so far as they like or dislike the fed doing anything.

In the context of US the western big game conversation is very pretty niche.

CO total NR sheep applications =9,000
WY total NR sheep applications = 2,587
Total NR who hunt Alaska every year (for anything) = ~9,000

There are literally more people who follow Ralph Macchio on instagram than who go elk hunting or likely care about elk hunting.

We need to improve the well and stop bickering about the pump. Make a system that everyone can live with it and move on.

And buy some more freaking sheep tags from @Oak

Ever consider that even people that don't hunt still have concern about wildlife?

Why is the concern only with people who want to run a hook or bullet through one?

I would guess that a vast majority of Americans have some level of concern or care about wildlife. Remember when the tax was passed for funding the MO DNR (or whatever their wildlife agency is) through a ballot initiative? Over-whelming support of that ballot initiative.

I actually don't have to guess, a vast majority of US citizens absolutely do care about wildlife enough that they even aren't afraid to tax themselves to pay for the management of it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Ever consider that even people that don't hunt still have concern about wildlife?

Why is the concern only with people who want to run a hook or bullet through one?

I would guess that a vast majority of Americans have some level of concern or care about wildlife. Remember when the tax was passed for funding the MO DNR (or whatever their wildlife agency is) through a ballot initiative? Over-whelming support of that ballot initiative.

I actually don't have to guess, a vast majority of US citizens absolutely do care about wildlife enough that they even aren't afraid to tax themselves to pay for the management of it.

Not sure what prompted your comment stems from Buzz?
"than who go elk hunting or likely care about elk hunting" ??

Yeah I agree people care about wildlife life, never said anything to the contrary. My point was Brian from Akron who likes to come out to WY to take pictures of elk could give 2 chits about the allocation of elk tags between you and Vikingsguy.

And yes a tax for funding, like Missouri, does improve the pump and I'm all for it.

Probably the only thing I would say about hunter's caring more, is that hunters tend to care more about ungulate populations being robust throughout their range. Most folks are stoked they can take a picture of a goat on Quandary but don't really care about how large the total population is... obviously hunters really care.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I would guess that a vast majority of Americans have some level of concern or care about wildlife. Remember when the tax was passed for funding the MO DNR (or whatever their wildlife agency is) through a ballot initiative? Over-whelming support of that ballot initiative.

I actually don't have to guess, a vast majority of US citizens absolutely do care about wildlife enough that they even aren't afraid to tax themselves to pay for the management of it.

Here we fully agree. But I would guess many on the east and west coasts would think these important matters would be better handled by the feds, or at least view it as a toss-up and not lose sleep if the feds played a bigger role.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

Here we fully agree. But I would guess many on the east and west coasts would think these important matters would be better handled by the feds, or at least view it as a toss-up and not lose sleep if the feds played a bigger role.

I'd hazard a guess that the majority of folks here don't even know about the state public trust doctrine. Many think USFS/ USFWS manages wildlife.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I'm increasingly of the mind that the current system, fair or not, even death spiral or not, is less risky than upending any major portion of how we manage wildlife in consideration of the NAM. The likely exception being an adjusted funding model that incorporates other recreational users who might not be currently contributing to management. Even if those dollars are earmarked for non-game and ESA species programs within state agency budgets, at least it's something. My pessimism doesn't mean I'm not going to oppose outfitter handouts, transferrable tags, etc., just that I'm not sure the current overall trajectory can be really be changed at this point.

In honor of @neffa3 I tried to be open minded about federal management, but I see more cons than pros at every turn. We are all going to have to be content with less as long as demand/harvest efficiency/technology is going up and wildlife populations/opportunity are going down, even within our own states.

 

[406dn]

It is FAR more likely, as western states gain population, that non residents will lose some of their share of the elk pie than it is that the Feds step in and make everyone, everywhere on an equal footing, regarding the hunting of elk, bighorn, etc.

There are many hundreds of more pressing issues that need Federal action before they tackle non resident hunters having a chapped ass about their plight.

There is a solution available to all, if they are really serious about hunting big game in the west. Pick a state and move to it. Earn your living there, send your kids to school there, pay taxes there, yada, yada yada. Many people have done that, myself included, forty years ago this summer.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

It is FAR more likely, as western states gain population, that non residents will lose some of their share of the elk pie than it is that the Feds step in and make everyone, everywhere on an equal footing, regarding the hunting of elk, bighorn, etc.

There are many hundreds of more pressing issues that need Federal action before they tackle non resident hunters having a chapped ass about their plight.

There is a solution available to all, if they are really serious about hunting big game in the west. Pick a state and move to it. Earn your living there, send your kids to school there, pay taxes there, yada, yada yada. Many people have done that, myself included, forty years ago this summer.

I would literally vote for allocation 80/20 in favor of NR if 30% of Colorado would move back to the Midwest.

Come to CO every year, ski/hike/hunt, but please don’t move here.

 

[BWALKER77]

Interesting you would interject the term “trophy hunting“ into this discussion. Needing more hyperbole are we?

Am I wrong?

 

[BWALKER77]

If you were willing to pay 75% of your bills like North Dakota or Utah I would take the deal in a heartbeat, and thank you for the savings.

It's people like you that really sour residents on NR hunting.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It's people like you that really sour residents on NR hunting.

My snark was simply in response to your snark - but I guess only MT & WY folks have opinions that matter and can argue what ever they wish. Us dirty NRs should just learn our place.

I'm out on this one - I avoided the first 17-18 pages on purpose, but was dumb enough to respond to a question mid-thread from another member.

Take care all - stay safe and shoot straight.

 

[406dn]

I would literally vote for allocation 80/20 in favor of NR if 30% of Colorado would move back to the Midwest.

Come to CO every year, ski/hike/hunt, but please don’t move here.

I hope you won't hold it against me if I hope newcomers prefer Colorado to say,,,,,,,, Montana.

 

[BWALKER77]

My snark was simply in response to your snark - but I guess only MT & WY folks have opinions that matter and can argue what ever they wish. Us dirty NRs should just learn our place.

I'm out on this one - I avoided the first 17-18 pages on purpose, but was dumb enough to respond to a question mid-thread from another member.

Take care all - stay safe and shoot straight.

Of course the only opinions that matter are those of the residents. After all we are the ones that live here. And yes you should absolutely learn your place. You are not entitled to anything. You are a guest and nothing more.