Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

Screwing over the Non-resident (or not)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Non Residents pay higher license fees and spend more money to help support the ability to have places to hunt.
I’ll bite how so? I’ve killed more elk in Colorado than tanks of fuel I’ve bought in Colorado. I really gave a lot to that economy while I was down there
 
DIY hunting faces many threats, and the threats vary widely from state to state. Maybe we could adopt “DIY big game hunting platform” to help preserve what we all cherish. Instead of fighting with each other, why don’t we fight with each other against all erosions of DIY hunting? The NA model of wildlife conservation covers a lot of that already, so add the following?

A. 90/10 R/NR tag split for common species. 100/0 for OIL/uncommon species.

B. No transferable tags.

C. No outfitter welfare.

D. Reaffirm states’ rights to manage their own wildlife.

E. Random Draw > Bonus points > PP

F. Tag Raffles > Tag Auctions

G. 1:10 Resident to Nonresident tag price ratio.

H. Put time, money, and effort towards growing wildlife populations, rather than jockeying to shoot the last buffalo.

I. Oppose the sale of public lands.

J. Oppose closing public lands for energy development.
 
Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve never felt wronged by another state charging me way more than they would a resident to hunt/fish, and im certainly not swimming in cash, or maybe taking 10 years to draw what a resident can every year or two. But I also don’t feel owed anything by anyone either I guess. It feels like a privilege every time I get an opportunity to hunt or fish in another state/province.
 
You can stick it to the DIY NR, but it’s a whole lot harder to stick it to the NR landowner and the NR who relocated to your state. I hear the “if you don’t like it, move here” and have to laugh a little. At least the whiny NR is still a NR, who has no rights. When they move to your state and start buying OTC tags, suddenly they have rights to the pie.
 
DIY hunting faces many threats, and the threats vary widely from state to state. Maybe we could adopt “DIY big game hunting platform” to help preserve what we all cherish. Instead of fighting with each other, why don’t we fight with each other against all erosions of DIY hunting? The NA model of wildlife conservation covers a lot of that already, so add the following?

A. 90/10 R/NR tag split for common species. 100/0 for OIL/uncommon species.

B. No transferable tags.

C. No outfitter welfare.

D. Reaffirm states’ rights to manage their own wildlife.

E. Random Draw > Bonus points > PP

F. Tag Raffles > Tag Auctions

G. 1:10 Resident to Nonresident tag price ratio.

H. Put time, money, and effort towards growing wildlife populations, rather than jockeying to shoot the last buffalo.

I. Oppose the sale of public lands.

J. Oppose closing public lands for energy development.

I'm all in favor of maintaining diy hunting for big game, to every extent we can.

Most of your list, I could hop on the train.

I think all draws would be most fair, if they were random...no points of any kind, period.

Governor's tags and their cousins should be ended. You can make up the money by raising the tag price and having an application fee.

You have the resident to non resident tag price ratio, pretty close to fair, I think.

I'd love to grow big game herds, the land use changes are not making that easier, at all. So, I'd like to see the various states more active in purchasing crucial parcels of land, so that wildlife needs are preserved.

I'm not certain what you mean with the last item, concerning energy development. Generally speaking, I'd like to see wildlife considered more importantly when making public land policies.
 
Last edited:
It would be silly to assume that some NR that are aware enough to have observed what has been taking place and think they haven’t already hedged some of their bets.
Everyone saying, you don’t like it move, be-careful what you wish for. The barrier to entry isn’t same as isn’t the same as it was 30 years ago. We live in world we’re information and technology has made it viable for people to carry their skill sets and earning potential with them wherever( in reason ) they go. Furthermore dont discount the financial resources they already accumulated and will carry with them.
 
You can stick it to the DIY NR, but it’s a whole lot harder to stick it to the NR landowner and the NR who relocated to your state. I hear the “if you don’t like it, move here” and have to laugh a little. At least the whiny NR is still a NR, who has no rights. When they move to your state and start buying OTC tags, suddenly they have rights to the pie.
And likely won’t cease their whining.
 
Greatly appreciated this one @Big Fin, thanks for laying it out.

I predict we are going to see more states adopting percentage splits, although that is a recipe for certain death in MT, as far as getting it into law. SB 525 in the last session was an attempt to ask FWP to place caps on currently unlimited NR tags, and the fiscal note misinterpreted the language surrounding permits being the 90/10 split that already exists to be a 90/10 split across the board. Because of this misunderstanding, it made it seem that NR funding was going to plummet, and the bill died a swift death. As you pointed out, the big game combo tag is statutorily capped at 17,500, but as far as B tags and other opportunities, the sky is still the limit.

Regardless, I have no doubt we're going to start seeing unlimited NR tag loopholes start to close in the coming years. Limiting NR doe tags was a start.

At the end of the day, the resource can only handle so much. As much as I love to believe better habitat and more animals on the landscape can solve the issue, in a place like central MT, landowner tolerance of elk only goes so far and the numbers are significantly over-objective (under the new EMP: "Goal") And until we stop throwing bodies on the public and herding elk onto the private, we have to address the problem from all angles, hunter pressure being one of them.
 
100% correct. I have been saying the same on thing on here for a few years now, much to the chagrin of most of HT.

Transferable landowner tags are the way of the future for NR DIY hunters, I can’t see a way around that at this point.


Don’t be surprised if things morph into a Canadian type system with the NR tag allocations being sold to commercial entities. Then all non residents will be forced to use those services .
Furthermore all residents will be drawing for almost everything, good bye general tags. And we all seen residents stomachs tolerances for 700 deer tags and 1500 dollar elk tag…so better believe the G&F will keep NR allocations flowing to were they bring in the most money. Always count on people working for their own best interest.
 
Don’t be surprised if things morph into a Canadian type system with the NR tag allocations being sold to commercial entities.

I would actually be very surprised if Montana went to that model. As I posted earlier, we had a similar limited program for a few years. Some resident hunting groups gathered the signatures needed to get it on the ballet. The initiative passed, even with considerable pushback, by the outfitting lobby.

It is interesting that concurrently with the resident non resident tensions, there are resident vs outfitter tensions in the western states. An oversimplification of that battle, is outfitters want to monetize wildlife, and resident hunters do not.
 
Don’t be surprised if things morph into a Canadian type system with the NR tag allocations being sold to commercial entities. Then all non residents will be forced to use those services .
Furthermore all residents will be drawing for almost everything, good bye general tags. And we all seen residents stomachs tolerances for 700 deer tags and 1500 dollar elk tag…so better believe the G&F will keep NR allocations flowing to were they bring in the most money. Always count on people working for their own best interest.
Best interest isn't the same in everyone's eyes. I'd be fine paying $300 for a resident elk tag to go 90/10 in Colorado, doesn't mean the next hunter feels the same way
 
I would actually be very surprised if Montana went to that model. As I posted earlier, we had a similar limited program for a few years. Some resident hunting groups gathered the signatures needed to get it on the ballet. The initiative passed, even with considerable pushback, by the outfitting lobby.

It is interesting that concurrently with the resident non resident tensions, there are resident vs outfitter tensions in the western states. An oversimplification of that battle, is outfitters want to monetize wildlife, and resident hunters do not.

Maybe so. However the economic of the situation are going to dictate the course of things. And unless residents all of a sudden develop an appetite that they haven’t had to part with a hell of a lot more money for their fish and wildlife pursuits than your not stopping it.
 
Don’t be surprised if things morph into a Canadian type system with the NR tag allocations being sold to commercial entities. Then all non residents will be forced to use those services .
Furthermore all residents will be drawing for almost everything, good bye general tags. And we all seen residents stomachs tolerances for 700 deer tags and 1500 dollar elk tag…so better believe the G&F will keep NR allocations flowing to were they bring in the most money. Always count on people working for their own best interest.
The Canadian-type system is based on completely different laws than we have in the US and has a history dating back to the British Commonwealth granting exclusive fur and other commerce rights to the Hudson's Bay Company, the oldest Corporate entity in North America, dating back to 1670. It is hard to imagine that system morphing into a viable US model, given the huge differences in laws and views on monopolies.

(side note, if one wants a great book on this history of Hudson's Bay Company and how it paved the way for Canadian commerce, this is it. I read it last summer and was fascinated in the history and politics along with how it was influence by indigenous people - https://www.amazon.com/Company-Rise-Fall-Hudsons-Empire/dp/0385694075)

To your point on resident changes coming to general tags, I agree, and history supports, that states with booming populations and shrinking herds go to limited entry tags for residents. Often that LE system comes into place following other "softer" blows to resident opportunity, such as choose your weapon and shorter season dates.

Agree that people will work for their own best interest. That self-interested work is allowed to exist within the sideboards of law, which in the US would be very unlikely to allow a Canadian-style system where allocation of a resource, which in the US is a state-trusteed resource, is granted to select private businesses.
 
I'll use up the points I have then will focus on hunting abroad. Would like to kill a moose in canada and then maybe Africa or Ibex in Austria.
You know, right here in NM you can get into Ibex, Aoudad, and Oryx. Saves you gun permitting, PH fees and the like.
 
The Canadian-type system is based on completely different laws than we have in the US and has a history dating back to the British Commonwealth granting exclusive fur and other commerce rights to the Hudson's Bay Company, the oldest Corporate entity in North America, dating back to 1670. It is hard to imagine that system morphing into a viable US model, given the huge differences in laws and views on monopolies.

(side note, if one wants a great book on this history of Hudson's Bay Company and how it paved the way for Canadian commerce, this is it. I read it last summer and was fascinated in the history and politics along with how it was influence by indigenous people - https://www.amazon.com/Company-Rise-Fall-Hudsons-Empire/dp/0385694075)

To your point on resident changes coming to general tags, I agree, and history supports, that states with booming populations and shrinking herds go to limited entry tags for residents. Often that LE system comes into place following other "softer" blows to resident opportunity, such as choose your weapon and shorter season dates.

Agree that people will work for their own best interest. That self-interested work is allowed to exist within the sideboards of law, which in the US would be very unlikely to allow a Canadian-style system where allocation of a resource, which in the US is a state-trusteed resource, is granted to select private businesses.


Money talks. There are plenty of historical examples of states that have sold or leased assets that were entrusted under the premise that the funding they garnered was in the best interest of the public.
I don’t see situations like that so far fetched to think that tag allocations will not be allotted to new found lease holders. After all plenty of states now give LO tags, for animals that are held in the “public trust” to commercial entries that dispose of the how they wish. These are not non for profit orgs we are talking about for profit commercial enterprises that happen to own land.

Unless we been bullshitted, by groups and people is there not a significant political faction that supports PLT to the state? . If NR hunters are continued to be shut out I don’t see a reason why they should be apposed to shuffling the deck and fighting for a better hand. And in fairness I think other non resident “ stake holders” would be doing the same if they were cast in the same lot as NR hunters Go tell a hiker that needs to pay for permit to hike and since he is from Indiana he has the privilege of paying 20 times a resident to access the same public land.

It’s easy to say it’s not going to happen till it happens. And there is a lot of shit happening that 20 years ago you would have said it will never happen because….. XYZ
 
Last edited:
If you look at the odds on the powerball, it's kind of a scam, tax on stupid as some refer to lottery tix. People spent $105 billion on lottery tix last year, humans just see an opportunity, not sensibility. There will never be a shortage of NRs buying tags, even at double the current cost of tags here in Co. I'd be willing to bet Wyoming could add another 1k to a special elk tag and they would still sell every single tag
After seeing the price tags on sh!t the “DIY” hunters are buying at the sportsman shows….I agree with this.
 
I’m going to put this out for consideration. Many of we HTers throw down app fees, bonus point costs every year in the hope of drawing a permit in which to pursue game on public lands. Over time it becomes thousands of dollars. Well now, follow these links to see how much it costs to pursue the King’s deer in a Scotland red stag hunt on private land this year. I would ballpark a grand for airfare (Dallas to Edinburgh) and maybe three for everything else including gratuity. $4000. Let that marinate in your brain a bit. It’s cheap, right? Considering everything included, it is very “affordable” over donating the same to various State game agencies over several years. Then driving ourselves, lodging/food expenses. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t need to hunt Scottish red deer, but considering the expense to hunt in my own country, we then ask why the hell not?


You clearly aren't aware what the Scottish Government are planning, a red stag might be a rare thing in the not too distant future, I'm glad I'm in England! (but sometimes I do shoot your ElK and Deer;))
BTW, I looked at that site, you can get it way cheaper than that!
 
Maybe so. However the economic of the situation are going to dictate the course of things. And unless residents all of a sudden develop an appetite that they haven’t had to part with a hell of a lot more money for their fish and wildlife pursuits than your not stopping it.
Arizona is an up to 10% state for NRs, have no landowner tags, and they get by just fine.

Your economic theory isn't holding water there...at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
110,977
Messages
1,942,199
Members
34,946
Latest member
SCCWP
Back
Top