Screwing over the Non-resident (or not)?

[KingOfTagSoup]

That depends on how you look at it, I guess.

Privatization of the monetary value of the privilege to harvest a big game animal: yes.

Privatization meaning that the hunt must occur on private land, not necessarily.

Privatization is increasingly becoming a serious problem. Here in my home state we have a "nuisance tags" program which gets abused heavily. Basically large acreage owners get 10+ extra tags every year no questions asked because they have a "deer problem" which then get handed out to those willing to front the cash to lease. That's one angle that could be explored to help with access. Restrict "nuisance tags" to only landowners that enroll property in an access program maybe? We're only going to be able to fight against the leasing trend if we refuse to subsidize it and somehow come up with a better incentive to offer landowners

 

[noharleyyet]

NR's for the most part get it...it's like Jose's quote, 'show me the rules so I can figure a way around them'.

I get the technical explanations but the practical description is, you'll get this much chance and you'll pay this exponentially increased fee for it...and that's fine, but it still gonna irk a good many non residents . . . and they're gonna voice their opinion.

Not me, I’m just a stakeholder.

At this time, I have no say in what Western states decide to do with their big game regulations.

NAM isn’t a law, it’s a philosophy. If trustees decide that it is in their best interest to offer these opportunities, who am I to criticize them?

As @Big Fin has correctly pointed out: as a NR, our current options are:

1. Move to a western state and become a trustee or…

2. Assess the situation as a stakeholder and choose to participate or not based upon the regulations decided upon by the trustees.

It is really that simple, despite all of our (NR’s) handwringing over the subject.

Stakeholder with no vote and no dividends?

 

[Treeshark]

Wasn't aware. Just hope we keep it out of Montana. mtmuley

I don’t blame you. If I was in your shoes I would feel that same way. But I’m not.

Therefore, I do hope these opportunities expand to other states- and if they do, I wish for them to be unit-wide. As I have said on here multiple times (because it’s something I’m proud of), I have never shot a big game animal on private land. I would love for that to continue as long as possible.

 

[Treeshark]

Stakeholder with no vote and no dividends?

I know, right? Kind of a stretch to use that word in my opinion as well.

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

I don’t blame you. If I was in your shoes I would feel that same way. But I’m not.

Therefore, I do hope these opportunities expand to other states- and if they do, I wish for them to be unit-wide. As I have said on here multiple times (because it’s something I’m proud of), I have never shot a big game animal on private land. I would love for that to continue as long as possible.

I'll offer one caveat here. I would love to hunt big game on private land.......the old fashioned way. IE, "hello my name is....nice to meet you....would you be willing to let me hunt on your land? You would? Thank you so much" These types of places do still exist but they are getting harder to find.

 

[noharleyyet]

I'll offer one caveat here. I would love to hunt big game on private land.......the old fashioned way. IE, "hello my name is....nice to meet you....would you be willing to let me hunt on your land? You would? Thank you so much" These types of places do still exist but they are getting harder to find.

I'm not asking for your honeyhole but......; )

 

[Treeshark]

the old fashioned way. IE, "hello my name is....nice to meet you

For sure, I get what you’re saying. It would be good if that wasn’t going away like it seems to be.

But there is something freeing about being on public, you don’t owe anyone anything and you can do what you want (within reason obviously).

 

[Trial153]

NR's for the most part get it...it's like Jose's quote, 'show me the rules so I can figure a way around them'.

I get the technical explanations but the practical description is, you'll get this much chance and you'll pay this exponentially increased fee for it...and that's fine, but it still gonna irk a good many non residents . . . and they're gonna voice their opinion.


Stakeholder with no vote and no dividends?

You won’t even get a second spoon of cold oat meal.

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

I'm not asking for your honeyhole but......; )

Gotta buy me dinner first

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

For sure, I get what you’re saying. It would be good if that wasn’t going away like it seems to be.

But there is something freeing about being on public, you don’t owe anyone anything and you can do what you want (within reason obviously).

100% agree, it is quite special being able to just wander and explore

 

[SAJ-99]

Here in my home state...

Says member who doesn't list a location. Get over the "stranger Danger" and list where you are from so we have some context.

I don’t blame you. If I was in your shoes I would feel that same way. But I’m not.

Therefore, I do hope these opportunities expand to other states- and if they do, I wish for them to be unit-wide. As I have said on here multiple times (because it’s something I’m proud of), I have never shot a big game animal on private land. I would love for that to continue as long as possible.

If you frame the argument for LO tags as compensation for supporting wildlife on the property (let's say, a range in on winter range that feeds a lot of elk), then it is hard to be against. But clearly there is line with a lot of nuance. Montana has historically taken a pretty hard stance against it but the 454 program opened the door as long as there was an exchange for access. Like all things in life, that may change. If I see how the politicians encouraged landowners to take advantage of the 454 in recent years, it tells me how the tide may be flowing. But Montana hunters are a stubborn group, so we will see in 10 yrs.

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

Says member who doesn't list a location. Get over the "stranger Danger" and list where you are from so we have some context.



If you frame the argument for LO tags as compensation for supporting wildlife on the property (let's say, a range in on winter range that feeds a lot of elk), then it is hard to be against. But clearly there is line with a lot of nuance. Montana has historically taken a pretty hard stance against it but the 454 program opened the door as long as there was an exchange for access. Like all things in life, that may change. If I see how the politicians encouraged landowners to take advantage of the 454 in recent years, it tells me how the tide may be flowing. But Montana hunters are a stubborn group, so we will see in 10 yrs.

My apologies I am ashamed

NY (not the city)

 

[mtmuley]

I know, right? Kind of a stretch to use that word in my opinion as well.

So it would be OK for a landowner to receive tags, sell them but not allow access to said land? mtmuley

 

[Treeshark]

If you frame the argument for LO tags as compensation for supporting wildlife on the property

That’s the one of the few benefits of being a NR stakeholder in this situation- I am completely unshackled of any explanation for “why” (I currently have no right to have an opinion on that).

I can just focus on the “how.”

 

[Treeshark]

So it would be OK for a landowner to receive tags, sell them but not allow access to said land? mtmuley

In my opinion, that would be bogus. It is not relevant for me to really have an opinion on details like that as a NR stakeholder, though- that is for the resident trustees to decide.

FYI- Colorado and NM mandate that the landowner offering the tag must open up their land even if it’s a unit-wide tag (don’t know about other states).

 

[brymoore]

So it would be OK for a landowner to receive tags, sell them but not allow access to said land? mtmuley

No

 

[Trial153]

So it would be OK for a landowner to receive tags, sell them but not allow access to said land? mtmuley

Depends on state, NV and NM have some unit wide LO tags. Everywhere else is ranch specific. For the most part

 

[Treeshark]

Everywhere else is ranch specific.

Colorado has many that are unit-wide as well.

 

[Trial153]

Colorado has many that are unit-wide as well.

I didn’t know that. All I have hunted have come from the RFW program that the LO received for being in the program. I know they have to give tags, might be like 10% that get allocated to Residents in their draw. However they get to specify when the access happens.

 

[mtmuley]

However they get to specify when the access happens.

Interesting. mtmuley