Nonresident hunters rights

[Bowedark]

I have watched over the years. It seem that the nonresident hunter is losing his right and they is no one to stand up for the nonresident hunter.
The Lobbyist, outfitters are make the rules. The rules say they are no tags in this unit for you!! But will let you apply for this (one) only.
But yet, we as nonresident supply a larger % of their annual budget.

Is there an organization that represents the nonresident hunter?

If there is an organization I would be glad to donate, in the interest of the nonresident hunter. As nonresidents we need to buy our own lobbyist that represents the nonresident hunter is the only way changes will be made.

For instants (the old )to hunt the wilderness Wyoming you must use an outfitter.
Also that can not apply for this tag. At best 10 % in few units.

In most cases those tags are issued for and used on federal land.

There's a large % of the nonresidents Hunter's out there that would like only the opportunity to hunt some of these units. We all want the same thing the chance to hunt.

 

[Steelhead]

I get the jest of it and I agree. I would support the advocacy group that you are proposing**.

**Just not in my home state, where I want every possible advantage of drawing a tag...as a resident I believe this is a right.

 

[Straight Arrow]

You may draw a Christmas tree permit to harvest a tree from federal land in just about any state that is good habitat for Christmas trees. The trees are entrusted to the federal entity managing the forests in those states.

However, the wildlife are entrusted to each state on behalf of that particular state's citizens. The federal entity managing the federal lands within each state has no authority to issue you a hunting permit to harvest wildlife on those federal lands.

 

[jlmatthew]

Is there an organization that represents the nonresident hunter?

Yes, and I believe that organization is called the Colorado Parks & Wildlife

 

[putm2sleep]

Yes, and I believe that organization is called the Colorado Parks & Wildlife

Yes...it is indeed this organization. Frickin pathetic! Been hunting the same mtn. for almost 20 years, 2 usual suspects, the rest were all NR's???????

And NRs are their own advocacy group.

 

[Bambistew]

There is a group looking out for the non-resident and making sure you get the most opportunity possible. They're called SFW/BGF.

If you want the same "rights" as a resident, become one... pretty simple.

 

[ida homer]

Does anyone know where that article is that Randy wrote encouraging increased resident prices?

 

[jryoung]

Does anyone know where that article is that Randy wrote encouraging increased resident prices?

Jul/Aug issue of Bugle

 

[Deleted member 20812]

It's called your pocket book. It speaks louder than any voice you'll ever have.

It is entirely smart of western states to leverage their natural resources to enhance opportunities for their residents. To what extent is acceptable and fair is determined by the demand on those resources.

I think it is horseshit that MT has it written into law that there is a 3% inrease every year on NR tag prices, but not on resident tag prices. However, I keep buying them, and as long as myself and enough other folks do so it will never change.

 

[Big Fin]

Here is the article. Sorry it gets a little fuzzy when I convert a PDF to a PNG or JPG file.

 

[Jwill]

I'd consider joining that org! The 6% for self guided NRs in NM and no NRs in the wilderness in WY come to mind as quite the sellouts to outfitters at the expense of the average joe NR hunter. Heavily favoring the residents works and is a good idea, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

 

[MTpubliclander]

Even if some of us are residents and some are not we are all hunters who agree that hunting is the key to conservation. I hear so many people complain in MT each year about the nonresidents who come here to hunt but I don't mind at all! I do believe that as residents we should be able to hunt the animals we protect and pay for but in reality I would like to hunt in other states so I don't mind people coming to mine. some residents get upset that the NR hunters fill a tag or 2 with animals that are bigger than the residents, well most out of state hunters hunt for a week as hard as they can, and they usually go home with something and I believe they earned it. Sure we are the ones who watch them, manage herds and pass legislation that pertains to them n our states each year. But the NR hunter makes up for their lack of effort for contributing more money to the research and management that we put in place. So if you want to come to my state and hunt I think its a great idea, I understand that people like to explore so why is that bad?

 

[Corax]

As a non-resident hunter, I have no problem with the way Colorado handles their NR tags. As far as I can tell, they recognize that they finance DOW on non-resident elk tags, so they try to make it a good value for the NR hunter, by providing predictability (preference points), lots of planning information on their web site, and a reasonable NR to R cost ratio. Some other states just seem to be trying to squeeze the most out of the NR hunter.

I try to spend my tag dollars where I feel I am welcome.

 

[sprig86]

First off it is my observation that without the NR tags and opportunities this website, the TV shows, and most of Randy's efforts would not exist. So thank you again Randy for all that you do. But on the other hand I live in TX where there is very little public land and even less public tag opportunity, so with that come the "Hunting Lease." if you want to hunt deer on 1,000 acres you will be paying $1,500-$8,000 per man and joining 8-10 other people. So if you want the place to yourself you get to pay for 8-10 lease spots. I think the same should be true in western states, that being that if you want the place to yourself...you should pay the NR + the resident fee. Seems fare to me sine after all it is PUBLIC land we want opportunity to hunt on and most of us NR's are US citizens. It seems to me like most people want to try something new after all and its the opportunity to do so that makes our nation's public hunting so great. I put in for tags in 4 states this year and would have liked to put in for 3-4 more knowing that my odds of drawing a NR tag in more than one of those states was slim, however I will do it again this year and hopefully add more states. So I agree with and appreciate Randy's article, and I welcome any NR's to my home state of TX, I appreciate your monetary contributions to our fish and game and wish that mine were more appreciated in western states.

 

[Bowedark]

This is not about what cost to acquire a nonresident tag. It is more about the limitations and availability of a tag and I'm just not talking about one state I'm talking about East and West.

The biggest factor is that the nonresidents have no one to represent them in the legislation.

It seems that the outfitters association / ranchers have their representatives in the legislature.

 

[Rat Fink]

MOGA is looking out for the non resident hunter. At the expense of the people with a vested interest in Montana's wildlife and lands.

 

[Ben Lamb]

This is not about what cost to acquire a nonresident tag. It is more about the limitations and availability of a tag and I'm just not talking about one state I'm talking about East and West.

The biggest factor is that the nonresidents have no one to represent them in the legislation.

It seems that the outfitters association / ranchers have their representatives in the legislature.

The issue has been settled. Individual states have the right to limit NR's on tags. If you want to argue for higher percentages that currently allowed, then yes, you should hire a lobbyist and have them in all state legislatures where you want to see an increase. I can tell you though, politically: It's not gonna happen.

Also - we shouldn't be confusing public land management with wildlife management. Wildlife are held in trust by each state for the benefit of their citizens. Federal Public Lands should be managed for the benefit of all. The WY law about Wilderness is ridiculous & should be abolished.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Montana as a relatively sparsely populated state is a "welfare state" and as such, welcomes NR hunters, fishers, recreationists and other visitors who come to our state and enjoy the great outdoors and the bountiful wildlife here. Those NR fees and the other money spent in Montana is a critical part of the state's economy. That being said, the article above makes a good argument for us residents to add more of a "fair share" to ensure the continued good management of wildlife for hunting and viewing.

Point is, most of us do appreciate the NR contributions. Personally, I have found those who travel from other states to pay and hunt here are mostly ethical hunters and good folks and are welcome here.

 

[Oak]

Your argument is invalid, starting with the title. Nonresidents have no "right" to hunt. They have a privilege to hunt if the state deems that they do. I have no right to a deer tag in Wyoming. I have the privilege of applying for one because that state has chosen to set aside a portion of their tags for nonresidents.

 

[bigeasygator]

My experience is that the outfitters tend to be the voice of the non-resident hunter, as that is usually where the bulk of the outfitters' income comes from.