Screwing over the Non-resident (or not)?

[cgasner1]

The reality is if the NRs don't like the rules they don't need to play the game. Why you guys jump on Buzz makes no sense. He has probably done more to open up access and support NRs in WY than any NR has. Even if you don't agree with the result. Move on to legitimate and rationale discussion.

90/10 is coming. As you pointed out, maybe start ass-kissing WOGA because they are the ones most likely to oppose and be listened to.

It’s easier to tap the the keyboard and attack him. Be curious how many of them got on a plane and showed up. Love or hate him buzz shows up and has been for along time

 

[406dn]

After reading this thread I realize that we have met the enemy and he is us.

NRs were generous when supporting the corner crossing case and it was probably a mistake considering how ungrateful NRs are according to this thread.

I am convinced I will live to see the end of hunting for the common person and that only the elite will have the privilege in the future and we can see in this thread exactly why. Selfish assholes and the inability to operate as an effective group will be at the root cause of the downfall for public land hunting.

No, I do not think so. Will it change certainly. There is deer hunting in some quantity in nearly every state. Most of them will continue to provide opportunity for the person of average means.

The battle to have elk and other big game hunting remain still remain available to a wide swath of the hunting public is more challenging. In truth, it has always taken some wherewithal to hunt big game out of state. The licenses have never been inexpensive, and certainly the time and expense involved with the travel, it prices it out of the reach of quite a few hunters.

Elk are really the only truly big game animal realistically available in any amount, to offer non residents very much opportunity to hunt big game without going on an outfitted hunt. Outfitted hunts are out of reach for many hunters.

I have met many non resident hunters over the years. All of them seemed excited to actually being on an elk hunt. None of them came across as being entitled in the way some of the comments on this thread read.

I can say that any whiff of entitlement from a non resident hunter is an immediate turn off, to most resident hunters.

 

[Treeshark]

Is WI ripping everyone off with their 200 dollar whitetail tags?

$200 for an OTC tag ($165 for archery if I’m not mistaken) is on par or significantly less than our neighboring states depending on which one you compare us to- I personally think it’s a reasonable cost, but that is just my opinion.

What do you think? Is it out of line? I’m not playing a “gotcha” game by asking, I’m genuinely curious to hear your perspective.

 

[Forkyfinder]

First things nonresident should learn is no amount of ass kissing is going to stop a residents from keeping every tag their state owns. If you’re lucky and that’s a big IF they may keep you around to pay the freight and lower cost for themselves.

FIFY.

What would you think as a R? Seriously?

$200 for an OTC tag ($165 for archery) is on par or significantly less than our neighboring states depending on which one you compare us to- I personally think it’s a reasonable cost, but that is just my opinion.

Eh - whitetail are in how many states? What is that - 8 times what a resident tag is?

200 bucks for 40 lbs of whitetail meat, and if i hunt public land - i probably will have a miserable experience compared to wy/mt.

 

[Treeshark]

i probably will have a miserable experience compared to wy/mt.

I would hope you would have a great experience, and if you ever decide to do it I would be happy to help make sure you do have a good time. Lots of public here, and I hunt it 100% (never shot a big game animal on private land in any state and hope that never changes).

Maybe you’d be surprised- it’s different but it’s still a lot of fun, can’t decide which one I like better. @TOGIE did a cool write-up, it sounded like he enjoyed his time here.

 

[SAJ-99]

I can say that any whiff of entitlement from a non resident hunter is an immediate turn off, to most resident hunters.

IMO, entitlement is a turnoff regardless of who it comes from and can be seen in many forms in many states (see MT Rs with 5wk seasons over the rut and $25 tags). I have found that it is usually more prevalent on the internet. Like most, I find most people in the field to be pretty nice. It gives me some hope.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I would hope you would have a great experience, and if you ever decide to do it I would be happy to help make sure you do have a good time.

Maybe you’d be surprised- it’s different but it’s still a lot of fun, can’t decide which one I like better. @TOGIE did a cool write-up, it sounded like he enjoyed his time here.

Hoping to go back for a hunt with an old teacher someday. Appreciate the offer, genuinely.

You have to follow what I am saying though. Its that way in every state. Being able to harvest fish/game and use state owned facilities is a privelege that the trustees are not required to provide.

I dont want it to happen to you NR guys, but if there was a bill to cut NR and increase R fees to make up for it - a lot of people would be happy. I want you all to be involved in conservation and public land access, whether you hunt or not - and wish you all the opportunity in the world.

 

[Treeshark]

But this fight has already been going on for decades with tiny non resident hunter involvement the whole time

I don’t know man, it sure seems to me that things have taken a drastic turn in the past few years. There is a reason @Big Fin made the video and started his thread, things appear to be changing rapidly.

Who know where things go in the future, but as a NR it doesn’t give me the warm n’ fuzzies to think about.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I would hope you would have a great experience, and if you ever decide to do it I would be happy to help make sure you do have a good time.

Maybe you’d be surprised- it’s different but it’s still a lot of fun, can’t decide which one I like better. @TOGIE did a cool write-up, it sounded like he enjoyed his time here.

Hoping to go back for a hunt with an old teacher someday. Appreciate the offer, genuinely.

You have to follow what I am saying though. Its that way in every state. Being able to harvest fish/game and use state owned facilities is a privelege that the trustees are not required to provide.

I dont want it to happen to you NR guys, but if there was a bill to cut NR and increase R fees to make up for it - a lot of people would be happy. I want you all to be involved in conservation and public land access, whether you hunt or not - and wish you all the opportunity in the world. It just requires a level of realism that seems to get lost.

IMO, entitlement is a turnoff regardless of who it comes from and can be seen in many forms in many states (see MT Rs with 5wk seasons over the rut and $25 tags). I have found that it is usually more prevalent on the internet. Like most, I find most people in the field to be pretty nice. It gives me some hope.

Absolutely. I gave some guys from SD who hadnt seen elk all week several elk pins who were polite to me and my teenage BIL as we were taking off.

 

[Nameless Range]

After reading this thread I realize that we have met the enemy and he is us.

NRs were generous when supporting the corner crossing case and it was probably a mistake considering how ungrateful NRs are according to this thread.

I have never hunted Wyoming, and likely never will. The court decision there will affect the laws in my state no more or less than yours.

To Wyoming, I’m as much of a non-resident as you.

Yet I sent a bit of money that way. More interested in public land principle than quid pro quo. I think that was a lot of folks’ motivations.

 

[Treeshark]

I dont want it to happen to you NR guys, but if there was a bill to cut NR and increase R fees to make up for it - a lot of people would be happy.

For sure, I would feel the same way.

We all just need to understand the consequences of doing so, and in my opinion this changes the alignment of support doesn’t serve either party particularly well. I am speaking in terms of the long term goal of preserving the opportunity to hunt big game, at decent populations, DIY on public land (or private land via free or inexpensive access).

 

[BuzzH]

It’s sad to say, but it’s hard to disagree.

@Big Fin is correct when he points out that nonresidents are merely stakeholders in these battles. We have no say, and legally we don’t deserve to have a say based upon the current legal precedent that has been established.

However, once we are defeated, the real battle for resident public land hunters in some of these western states will really begin. The leverage will change significantly, as this next battle takes on other trustees- landowners, outfitters, non-hunting residents that outnumber them (and you can add nonresident hunters financial support to this team soon as well).

Good luck.

You can't threaten to take away something you never provided.

Please expound on your financial contributions to causes impacting public land involvement. If nothing financially, then a list of comments on land exchanges, RMP's, FP's, travel plans, etc. etc.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Also the financial support of buying tags, application fees, etc as a NR is the most over played hand in the deck.

I apply all over and writing checks is by far and away the easiest gdamn thing anyone can do.

Ohh, ohh look at me, I bought a $1600 NR desert sheep tag in Arizona, I should get my way on everything. Without me desert sheep would perish.

Big phuckin' deal, I funded sheep there enough to pay for the fittings on a guzzler I didn't help install.

I spend enough in app fees, points, and licenses as a NR in NV, UT, etc to cover a tank and a half of fuel....better give me what I want or I'll take it away!

FFS...your threats have such an impact, in your mind anyway.

 

[Treeshark]

Buzz, I know guys on several other sites may accuse you of hovering over projects until they’re about done and then swooping in (like buzzard…) to claim more credit than you really should claim. But I always thought that was unfair for them to say that.

I would never hold my contributions up against a true conservation hero like you. We all very proud of you

 

[Bigjay73]

I think somebody needs some help with a future wy elk tag

 

[seeth07]

I believe that as opportunity to do something diminishes, support for the activity goes down right with it.

In the case of hunting in recent history, all states seem to follow this path:
1) Everything is OTC, anyone come and have fun.
2) Too much pressure on the resource leads to the first restriction, NR are limited.
3) Both R and NR are limited.
4) This step the anti hunt crowd sees their opening and starts to push their agendas. Species and methods get limited.
5) Complete removal of hunting a species.

All states pretty much at this point are at least at step 2 and some states as far as 5 (California, Washington).

@Treeshark's point is just that as step 2/3 happens, removing the support aspect that follows suit with those restrictions hurts the ability to fight against step 4 and 5. All you have to do is look at states where this has already happened.

 

[Caseknife]

You should be treated great when you travel to another state to hunt...

99.82% of the population in the US is non residents in Wyoming. I don't think turning your back on NRs would end well.

Resident hunters are declining, NR hunters are increasing. Why try to take more tags?

I have been treated very good the 6 times that I have been hunting as a NR in WY.

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz, I know guys on several other sites may accuse you of hovering over projects until they’re about done and then swooping in (like buzzard…) to claim more credit than you really should claim. But I always thought that was unfair for them to say that.

I would never hold my contributions up against a true conservation hero like you. We all very proud of you

Do I strike you as the type of person that gives a shit what "guys on several sites" think and pretend to know?

If so, I'll clarify any confusion, I don't.

 

[Treeshark]

Do I strike you as the type of person that gives a shit what "guys on several sites" think and pretend to know?

Not at all. You are clearly way too busy single-handedly saving western big game hunting to be engaging in such childish online quarrels.

That’s my quota for the day, fly high big baller

 

[BuzzH]

Not at all. You are clearly way too busy single-handedly saving western big game hunting to be engaging in such childish online quarrels.

That’s my quota for the day, fly high big baller

Ok, you fly high too, big "bawler"...

 

[Trial153]

I believe that as opportunity to do something diminishes, support for the activity goes down right with it.

In the case of hunting in recent history, all states seem to follow this path:
1) Everything is OTC, anyone come and have fun.
2) Too much pressure on the resource leads to the first restriction, NR are limited.
3) Both R and NR are limited.
4) This step the anti hunt crowd sees their opening and starts to push their agendas. Species and methods get limited.
5) Complete removal of hunting a species.

All states pretty much at this point are at least at step 2 and some states as far as 5 (California, Washington).

@Treeshark's point is just that as step 2/3 happens, removing the support aspect that follows suit with those restrictions hurts the ability to fight against step 4 and 5. All you have to do is look at states where this has already happened.

Are you implying that there’s a correlation between the amount of outside support that Washington, Oregon, and California have received recent history from outside sportsman is indicative to the amount of nonresident hunting that takes place there? No way I’m shocked.