Nonresident hunters rights

[Ben Lamb]

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.

Kind of. My experience has been that outfitters tend to be voice of their own industry, rather than the voice of NR's.

While most of their clients are NR's and increased NR opportunity should increase their client base, they tend to appear that way but in reality, they're pursuing what they feel is in their best interest first. Nothing wrong with that, it's what every trade group does.

Closest I've seen is State Wildlife Federations who usually have a fairly substantial number of NR members. They tend to advocate for the resource first, which benefits all hunters, resident or not.

With certain exceptions, of course.

 

[sbhooper]

Non-residents have historically been screwed on tag prices-so what is new and different? If you can't or don't want to go, then don't. The only thing that I have a problem with is the banning of non-residents from public wilderness areas and the allowing of ranches to lock off public land.

Rat Fink, if you think that non-residents don't have a vested interest in wildlife then you better take a closer look. If they had no interest, then the non-resident funds that keep your wildlife afloat would not exist. Get real! Does it bother you that some non-residents are better hunters, or do you have some other reason for disliking the cash cows?

As far as I am concerned, outfitters are a scourge and are the biggest single problem for the future of hunting. They make it strictly a money proposition. They don't care about non-residents. They care about their bank accounts. We are headed quickly toward a European system where only rich guys can hunt.

 

[Mule Deer]

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.

Unless the mule deer hunting improves within the next few years and offsets that negative feeling of price increases, then Montana is going to lose a lot of money here soon. People aren't going to keep going. In 2009 you were basically guaranteed a 160-170 Mule deer. I understand their were bad winters, but the herd is in poor shape, and I don't think they are doing enough.

 

[MTpubliclander]

In 2009 you were basically guaranteed a 160-170 Mule deer. I understand their were bad winters, but the herd is in poor shape, and I don't think they are doing enough.

Dang it I must have missed that guarantee!

 

[SFC B]

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.

X2 on this one. I am lucky enough to have residency in two states (where I am stationed and my home of record) but I can tell you that while NRs pay higher tag fees they do not pay all of the many different taxes that residents pay to support the entirety of the state. I pay income taxes at home (IN) and I pay property, sales, license plates et al here in CO. Just because you are willing to drop $500+ on a tag to hunt another state means squat in the grand scheme of things. It is truly a priviledge extended to you by the fine people of whatever state you choose to hunt with the sole purpose of garnering them revenue and furthering their wildlife management goals. That is it. Your rights are where you vote and are conveyed to you through the constitution of that state. For instance, in IN the legislature has a vote this year to add a constitutional RIGHT for citizens to hunt and fish. We already have a state constitutional right to bear arms in defense of ourselves and the state. These rights don/will not extend to non-citizens and shouldn't.

 

[the nikster]

On a trip to the Hermitage in Russia I was astounded to see that the Russians were charged 15 rubles for entry and I was charged 200! I asked why and was told that everybody pays the same, but locals get a discount!
So look at it this way, non-residents and residents pay the same, but locals get a discount.
If I want more opportunity then I will move. I pay more as a non-resident, and I sleep just fine.

 

[JLS]

X2 on this one. I am lucky enough to have residency in two states (where I am stationed and my home of record) but I can tell you that while NRs pay higher tag fees they do not pay all of the many different taxes that residents pay to support the entirety of the state. I pay income taxes at home (IN) and I pay property, sales, license plates et al here in CO. Just because you are willing to drop $500+ on a tag to hunt another state means squat in the grand scheme of things. It is truly a priviledge extended to you by the fine people of whatever state you choose to hunt with the sole purpose of garnering them revenue and furthering their wildlife management goals. That is it. Your rights are where you vote and are conveyed to you through the constitution of that state. For instance, in IN the legislature has a vote this year to add a constitutional RIGHT for citizens to hunt and fish. We already have a state constitutional right to bear arms in defense of ourselves and the state. These rights don/will not extend to non-citizens and shouldn't.

Except that taxes in and of themself don't have any bearing whatsoever on ownership o of the wildlife. I could be unemployed and not paying a dime in income taxes and still have as much vested ownership and privilege to my state's wildlife as a CEO paying $20k a year in income taxes.

Likewise, I could be an absentee landowner paying a huge chunk of dough in both property taxes and income taxes, and I may not be considered a resident for the purposes of hunting and fishing.

It's like being pregnant. You're a resident or you're not and it has nothing to do with how much (if any) you pay in taxes, property taxes, vehicle tabs etc. All of those will certainly contribute to the quality of life in that state through schools, emergency services, etc. but they mean nothing for fish and wildlife management as a general rule.

Now, factor in that each state gets a 3:1 match ono license revenues, and that money that a NR pays for his/her tag becomes so much more important to the state. My $1000 NR combo actually brings in $4000 to the state of Montana. A resident elk tag for $28 brings in $112. Which do you think has more impact on the state's ability to manage it's fish and wildlife?

Does the resident benefit to a greater degree? Probably, depending on how ambitious they are, and they should.

 

[Bowedark]

Providing hunting opportunities to the next generation

Nonresidents as well residents could benefit from a program like I am proposing. They are also matters such as making access to landlocked public land.
All hunters need representation in legislation not just nonresidents on public land access. You know the rancher and the outfitter in the have their representatives just not the West.

And this is where the heart of the matter is rancher & outfitters have their representative.

We've all seen and heard reports and I've experienced. States give ranchers tags with an allocation of public tags in the drawings. And the rest are open to the highest bidder.You are allowed no time for scouting the unit and the area is less than prime areas.

The nonresident as no one representative his/hers interest legislature. We send and spend millions of dollars to states each year.


I've hunted some great trophies unit,got some and some I didn't, but that makes the trip worthwhile. It will make me smile on my deathbed

I'm older now. I have a decade and a half of points in a lot of states I know I can choose my tags. So I don't think it will affect me much.

In some states it's a constitutional right to hunt. Vermont has one of most hunter friendly state (laws) that have had a chance to hunt

By would by the way a little footnote. I have found more prime hunting areas, talking to the women in the grocery store checkout lines. They have put me on many a Bulls and bucks. by the way don't tell my husband

 

[Mule Deer]

Dang it I must have missed that guarantee!

Well region 7 in peak rut I should have added. Was there 3 days, saw 50+ bucks a day. Most on private obviously.

You don't have to take my word for it though, take fish and games. In 2009 they were 18% above objective, and right now they are 32% below objective.

To me it doesn't seem like it's going to get much better very soon. All the young bucks are now getting cropped. While it would never happen, my dream for Montana would be a statewide 3 point mule deer antler restriction, 4 point whitetail antler restriction, youth only doe tags, and landowner doe tags to keep landowners happy.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You really want to help mule deer, kill all the whitetail you can find.

 

[Bambistew]

You really want to help mule deer, kill all the whitetail you can find.

Care to share a study that relates to the correlation of the species? I've heard this many times over (same with elk) but haven't read anything about it.

The area I grew up in SW MT had a solid MD population until about the mid 90's then it crashed. I would say 60-70% die off, from incidental observations made of winter ranges on a regular basis as well as hunting, hiking, horn hunting etc. There was a healthy population of whitetails, but the population exploded after this, with the peak I would say about 10 years ago. In recent years the WT population has since crashed.

It will be interesting to see if the MD come back into the areas they once inhabited prior to the die off and subsequent WT infestation. My dad told me the first WT he saw in the valley was when he was 16 years old, so about 1965. Neither grandfather could remember ever seeing a whitetail prior to that, or hearing about one. One family has been in the valley since 1887, the other 1865...

IMO, if you want to help mule deer... improve habitat, and shoot fewer of them for a while and see what happens.

There isn't enough of them to go around, and I'm not convinced the F&G has much of a clue on how to manage deer (or any animal for that mater) given the limited amount of population/harvest data they gather. Better management means more $, and good luck getting MT residents to cough up a couple more dollars for a tag. They'll keep blaming the "out-a-staters" for their woes.

 

[Bowedark]

Unit 6 & 7outfitter came out of Canada using block management and BLM public land, for his clients are filling their tags with 2 1/2 year old bucks and does just make the kill that's real management for you. Was block management design for outfitters outfitter
gain??

 

[Nemont]

Unit 6 & 7outfitter came out of Canada using block management and BLM public land, for his clients are filling their tags with 2 1/2 year old bucks and does just make the kill that's real management for you. Was block management design for outfitters outfitter
gain??

You can't outfit on the vast majority of Block Management land. If you know of an outfitter using the BMA's for his clients do everyone a favor and turn him in.

Q. Is outfitting allowed on BMAs?
A. Only a very few BMAs, under strictly-regulated circumstances. BMAs with authorized outfitting are identified in regional tabloids. People observing suspected unauthorized outfitting activity are encouraged to report it to an area FWP employee.

http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/hunterAccess/blockman/faq.html

Nemont

 

[smarandr]

They'll keep blaming the "out-a-staters" for their woes.

I thought it was all the wufs fault.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's the innernet. I just get to say whatever I want. I'm not aware of any study that's been done that could quantify the belief that WT outcompete MD and therefore a remedy would be to smack all the WT out of specific drainages.

WT is SW MT were brought in by the Sidenstickers to the Beaverhead & Ruby valleys in the early 60's. They're non-native as far as I know.

WT have also expanded their range significantly into areas that used to be mule deer heavy. TWT are notoriously more aggressive than MD and will drive them out of specific areas, etc. Ruby River is a great example. You used to be able to hunt mule deer on the river bottom until the WT were introduced and took up all the available habitat.

As far as habitat goes: There is a lack of studies that look at soil conditions on public land. It's all fine & good to say "improve habitat," but until we know what that means, no amount of chaining, fire or whatever will bring critters back if the soil lacks the basic materials needed to grow the groceries. We are seeing more and more critters selecting high protein foods found in irrigated private land.

 

[OriginalOscar]

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.

Not true!! Their goal is to create the Kings Forest where we serfs are locked out. Privatization of wildlife contradicts the American model of sportsmen taking the lead to protect and propagate wildlife.

The anti nonresident position of some residents is just mean spirited. I feel blessed that I was born in the U.S and Utah. What if god dropped me in Uganda or Syria? Think about it!!

We are blessed to live in the country we do and resident hunters are blessed to live near hunting opportunity. The nonresident tied to CA, FL, TX or other states by family, job or other considerations should be treated better.

I would support increased opportunity for all hunters based on ethics and involvement. Not money but hunters who demonstrate good in their local areas and are involved as sportsmen.

 

[----]

It's the innernet. I just get to say whatever I want. I'm not aware of any study that's been done that could quantify the belief that WT outcompete MD and therefore a remedy would be to smack all the WT out of specific drainages.

WT is SW MT were brought in by the Sidenstickers to the Beaverhead & Ruby valleys in the early 60's. They're non-native as far as I know.

WT have also expanded their range significantly into areas that used to be mule deer heavy. TWT are notoriously more aggressive than MD and will drive them out of specific areas, etc. Ruby River is a great example. You used to be able to hunt mule deer on the river bottom until the WT were introduced and took up all the available habitat.

As far as habitat goes: There is a lack of studies that look at soil conditions on public land. It's all fine & good to say "improve habitat," but until we know what that means, no amount of chaining, fire or whatever will bring critters back if the soil lacks the basic materials needed to grow the groceries. We are seeing more and more critters selecting high protein foods found in irrigated private land.

Mule deer used to use the cottonwood/willow jungles that whitetail use now? Or do you just mean ag fields?

Seems odd to me that mule deer and whitetail can coexist so well in the mountains of western MT where resources are limited, but not in the river bottoms where food's plentiful.

 

[Southwind]

X2 on this one. I am lucky enough to have residency in two states (where I am stationed and my home of record) but I can tell you that while NRs pay higher tag fees they do not pay all of the many different taxes that residents pay to support the entirety of the state. I pay income taxes at home (IN) and I pay property, sales, license plates et al here in CO. Just because you are willing to drop $500+ on a tag to hunt another state means squat in the grand scheme of things. It is truly a priviledge extended to you by the fine people of whatever state you choose to hunt with the sole purpose of garnering them revenue and furthering their wildlife management goals. That is it. Your rights are where you vote and are conveyed to you through the constitution of that state. For instance, in IN the legislature has a vote this year to add a constitutional RIGHT for citizens to hunt and fish. We already have a state constitutional right to bear arms in defense of ourselves and the state. These rights don/will not extend to non-citizens and shouldn't.

Which begs the question of how many states have in their constitution the right of it's citizens to hunt?

 

[1_pointer]

It's the innernet. I just get to say whatever I want. I'm not aware of any study that's been done that could quantify the belief that WT outcompete MD and therefore a remedy would be to smack all the WT out of specific drainages.

WT is SW MT were brought in by the Sidenstickers to the Beaverhead & Ruby valleys in the early 60's. They're non-native as far as I know.

WT have also expanded their range significantly into areas that used to be mule deer heavy. TWT are notoriously more aggressive than MD and will drive them out of specific areas, etc. Ruby River is a great example. You used to be able to hunt mule deer on the river bottom until the WT were introduced and took up all the available habitat.

As far as habitat goes: There is a lack of studies that look at soil conditions on public land. It's all fine & good to say "improve habitat," but until we know what that means, no amount of chaining, fire or whatever will bring critters back if the soil lacks the basic materials needed to grow the groceries. We are seeing more and more critters selecting high protein foods found in irrigated private land.

Both of the main federal land management agencies as well as NRCS have manuals that describe how to collect data for vegetation and soil health. However, it is quite labor/time intensive and there is often little to no budget allocated for the collection of the data.

IMO/E unless an area is very, very highly eroded and/or has a very bad infestation of non-native species that are drastically different than what occured there naturally (ie perennials vs annuals) soil health is most often not an issue. These areas are fewer and farther between than most folks would think. The soils change and degrade much, much slower than the vegetation. Not saying that many areas on public land the soil health can't be improved or that productivity has not been decreased. Take a look at the State and Transition Model of an Ecological Site for an area you are interested in. These are used to describe the different types of vegetation that occur at various "states" of soil health as well as the restoration activities to improve them and the causes to transition them to a lower state. If the plant species growing in an area are those of the reference community, even if their relative proportions are off, I highly doubt the soils have changed to the point of drastically changing the nutritive quality of the forage.

 

[sbhooper]

The one thing that allows white-tailed deer to flourish, is that fact that they are very prolific. When mule deer crash, it is harder for them to come back. They are not as adaptable to changing conditions as are the white-tails. After the white-tails take over, the mule deer have a harder time coming back due to the higher level of competition. White-tails come back with a vengeance after a die-off due to the fact that the does usually have twins or even triplets in good conditions.

Mule deer cannot withstand the same level of harvest that white-tails can and it seems to me that many fish and game people do not understand that and are only concerned with selling permits to make money.

Just my twist on it.