14 pages and have mostly gathered there are 4 or 5 nr that feel that don't get enough opportunity when there are guaranteed nr tags in IDAHO, MONTANA, WYOMING, COLORADO, ARIZONA, NEW MEXICO, NEVADA, WASHINGTON, OREGON UTAH. if you can't plan accordingly and get multiple tags then you are a fool. There are more then enough nr opportunities across the west currently.
Screwing over the Non-resident (or not)?
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
- Status
BrentD
Well-known member
What a pile of BS. Sorry, but that's just BS. Still can't believe Randy started this thread.
KingOfTagSoup
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2022
- Messages
- 91
And this again brings me back to something that may be controversial but I think seriously warrants consideration. Let's say I own 1,000 acres and @Big Fin lives in an apartment in the same state. We're both residents and thereby both beneficiaries in this hypothetical example. Is it right for me to get more tags than him just because I own land and he doesn't? I don't think so. Let's get even more controversial. There is a certain type of business that quite literally profits off the harvesting of wildlife, especially in the west. If we're concerned about privatization and diy opportunities, maybe we should discuss whether or not that business should be entitled to a certain number of licenses, or whether that business should have exclusive access to certain types of public lands....
Nick87
Well-known member
While your not wrong, it still sucks. The golden era isn't just on its way out for the NR public hunting either. It's on its way out the door all over, which in turn is a big contributing factor to what we're seeing in western states the last 10 years. That and the fact that by social media standards, your not even a real hunter if your not doing at least 3 hunts a year that 20 years go were considered the trip of a lifetime by most out of town hunters.
When following up my average "Joe Hunter" research primed by @Big Fin related to various SCOTUS cases and the various rabbit holes to explore beyond - This SCOTUS statement hit me the most as to our Resident vs Non Resident (Privileges and Immunities Clause contention), Public Trust Doctrine, and more specifically State's "rights" to manage their wildlife as they see best;
"Does the distinction made by Montana between residents and nonresidents in establishing access to elk hunting threaten a basic right in a way that offends the Privileges and Immunities Clause? Merely to ask the question seems to provide the answer. We repeat much of what already has been said above: elk hunting by nonresidents in Montana is a recreation and a sport. In itself -- wholly apart from license fees -- it is costly and obviously available only to the wealthy nonresident or to the one so taken with the sport that he sacrifices other values in order to indulge in it and to enjoy what it offers. It is not a means to the nonresident's livelihood. The mastery of the animal and the trophy are the ends that are sought; appellants are not totally excluded from these. The elk supply, which has been entrusted to the care of the State by the people of Montana, is finite and must be carefully tended in order to be preserved.
Appellants' interest in sharing this limited resource on more equal terms with Montana residents simply does not fall within the purview of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Equality in access to Montana elk is not basic to the maintenance or wellbeing of the Union. Appellants do not -- and cannot -- contend that they are deprived of a means of a livelihood by the system or of access to any part of the State to which they may seek to travel. We do not decide the full range of activities that are sufficiently basic to the livelihood of the Nation that the States may not interfere with a nonresident's participation therein without similarly interfering with a resident's participation. Whatever rights or activities may be "fundamental" under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, we are persuaded, and hold, that elk hunting by nonresidents in Montana is not one of them."
supreme.justia.com
Page 436 U. S. 388
"Does the distinction made by Montana between residents and nonresidents in establishing access to elk hunting threaten a basic right in a way that offends the Privileges and Immunities Clause? Merely to ask the question seems to provide the answer. We repeat much of what already has been said above: elk hunting by nonresidents in Montana is a recreation and a sport. In itself -- wholly apart from license fees -- it is costly and obviously available only to the wealthy nonresident or to the one so taken with the sport that he sacrifices other values in order to indulge in it and to enjoy what it offers. It is not a means to the nonresident's livelihood. The mastery of the animal and the trophy are the ends that are sought; appellants are not totally excluded from these. The elk supply, which has been entrusted to the care of the State by the people of Montana, is finite and must be carefully tended in order to be preserved.
Appellants' interest in sharing this limited resource on more equal terms with Montana residents simply does not fall within the purview of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Equality in access to Montana elk is not basic to the maintenance or wellbeing of the Union. Appellants do not -- and cannot -- contend that they are deprived of a means of a livelihood by the system or of access to any part of the State to which they may seek to travel. We do not decide the full range of activities that are sufficiently basic to the livelihood of the Nation that the States may not interfere with a nonresident's participation therein without similarly interfering with a resident's participation. Whatever rights or activities may be "fundamental" under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, we are persuaded, and hold, that elk hunting by nonresidents in Montana is not one of them."
Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978)
Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Montana: The Privileges and Immunities Clause requires only that a state treat all resident and non-resident citizens equally with respect to privileges and immunities that relate to the vitality of the nation as a single entity. Recreational hunting does not...
supreme.justia.com
Page 436 U. S. 388
D_Walt
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2020
- Messages
- 666
I don’t think opportunities are going to “0”, but just like you said, the opportunity to do multiple hunts is likely to be gone for the NR. I have no real opinion on that other than I wish I could have taken advantage of it a little more, it just is what it is.
BrentD
Well-known member
When following up my average "Joe Hunter" research primed by @Big Fin related to various SCOTUS cases and the various rabbit holes to explore beyond - This SCOTUS statement hit me the most as to our Resident vs Non Resident (Privileges and Immunities Clause contention), Public Trust Doctrine, and more specifically State's "rights" to manage their wildlife as they see best;
"Does the distinction made by Montana between residents and nonresidents in establishing access to elk hunting threaten a basic right in a way that offends the Privileges and Immunities Clause? Merely to ask the question seems to provide the answer. We repeat much of what already has been said above: elk hunting by nonresidents in Montana is a recreation and a sport. In itself -- wholly apart from license fees -- it is costly and obviously available only to the wealthy nonresident or to the one so taken with the sport that he sacrifices other values in order to indulge in it and to enjoy what it offers. It is not a means to the nonresident's livelihood. The mastery of the animal and the trophy are the ends that are sought; appellants are not totally excluded from these. The elk supply, which has been entrusted to the care of the State by the people of Montana, is finite and must be carefully tended in order to be preserved.
Appellants' interest in sharing this limited resource on more equal terms with Montana residents simply does not fall within the purview of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Equality in access to Montana elk is not basic to the maintenance or wellbeing of the Union. Appellants do not -- and cannot -- contend that they are deprived of a means of a livelihood by the system or of access to any part of the State to which they may seek to travel. We do not decide the full range of activities that are sufficiently basic to the livelihood of the Nation that the States may not interfere with a nonresident's participation therein without similarly interfering with a resident's participation. Whatever rights or activities may be "fundamental" under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, we are persuaded, and hold, that elk hunting by nonresidents in Montana is not one of them."
Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978)
Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Montana: The Privileges and Immunities Clause requires only that a state treat all resident and non-resident citizens equally with respect to privileges and immunities that relate to the vitality of the nation as a single entity. Recreational hunting does not...
Page 436 U. S. 388
I am not entirely sure what all of this means, but I think it might imply that "influencers" that make their livelihood with hunting videos, should be guaranteed tags.
It's not bs it's a fact if you cant get a tag as a nr SOMEWHERE you are just whining
Nick87
Well-known member
No I totally agree. It's not zero or anywhere near it, just missed out on a lot of more opportunity. Look at how much more often you used to be able to pull a WY gen tag for example. I'm not complaining I'm happy to get the opportunities I do. It's not like they took "my tag" and gave it to just outfitters or whoever. It just boils down to more people after less tags whether it be R or NR. I'd be pretty upset if I had it start sitting out here at home so that a NR could pull a tag. Don't get me wrong If I could pull my WY or NM tag every year I'd care less if I ever had a deer tag here again. That's not the way it works though and shouldn't for obvious reasons. More people less critters. Pretty simple math.
rjthehunter
Well-known member
All you people who say "I'm just happy with what I can get" are the same people that will land NRs into a smaller and smaller percentage of tags. As greedy residents want more and more, you'll still just be "happy" with what you can get.
How many states had OTC elk opportunities for NRs 10 years ago? How many do today? What is it going to look like in another 10 years?
I love the idea of increasing elk populations. I'm going to focus my efforts in the most accessible states to NR hunters though.
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
NWTF focuses heavily on access, habitat, healthy populations, and has opened hundreds of thousands of acres to hunting.
RMEF puts elk back in historical habitats, and protects winter ranges through key property acquisitions and exchanges.
Nick87
Well-known member
Right, because that means more hunting for you. Sounds pretty greedy yourself RJ. What do you think a fair split is and price for you every year? Or do you just want residents to be charged more?
Your main solution was to put more animals on the landscape. Ending modern day market hunting would help put more animals on the landscape. We’ve seen what market hunting has done in our not so distant past but people are so addicted to the likes and comments and brag boards, they ignore it as an issue today. How many people would quit hunting if they couldn’t film it, put it on Instagram or Facebook, or make money off it? Social media is definitely creating tension between R/NR when large groups of NRs come out, whack a pile of young bucks, film every one, blow up the spot the R has been hunting for 30 years, put it all over YouTube and social media, and the R is left with less deer and more crowding, even if that same NR doesn’t get a tag the next year, seems like it would make some R’s want at least 90-10 splits if not worse for the NR, no matter how unreasonable that is financially. And it only hurts the NR, as it makes it harder for the NR to draw allocated permits with more people putting in because the location was blown up on social media. Like most things on HT, it’s mostly anecdotal. I’m open to having my mind changed though on the whole premise
BrentD
Well-known member
Quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read.
seeth07
Well-known member
Is it really that farfetched to make the hypothesis that they will go to close to zero in not that far into the future?
Take a bull elk tag for example. 10 years ago, the options for a NR were pretty easy to get a tag across a lot of states. CO and ID you could get a tag OTC. With minimal effort, you could plan on and get a tag in MT, NM and WY.
Planning a bull elk hunt in 2025 will require planning and perhaps even some luck Where will it be another 10 years from now?
serious question for you midwesterners:
let's imagine your white tail populations got the point where all it could sustain is one tag per resident hunter. that's it, it just can't sustain a harvest greater than all the resident hunters in a state having one buck tag. then, that means if any number above that number of tags goes to an NR an equal amount of residents then go without a tag. what would you do? how would you feel?
let's imagine your white tail populations got the point where all it could sustain is one tag per resident hunter. that's it, it just can't sustain a harvest greater than all the resident hunters in a state having one buck tag. then, that means if any number above that number of tags goes to an NR an equal amount of residents then go without a tag. what would you do? how would you feel?
seeth07
Well-known member
The 2nd tenet reads:
• Prohibition on Commerce of Dead Wildlife: Commercial hunting and the sale of wildlife is prohibited to ensure the sustainability of wildlife populations. The Lacey Act, which the Service has a role in enforcing, prohibits trade in wildlife, fish, and plants that have been illegally taken, possessed, transported or sold.
I'm not sure that social media and making money off of it quite qualifies but its something interesting to think about and what could be legally done to end it? Where do you stop though. Outfitters make money off the wildlife right? How about landowners leasing land to profit from the wildlife?
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
The Nature Conservancy is the global heavyweight. In the US, they focus on national and state policies that benefit wildlife habitat and populations. They pour a massive investment into wildlife ecology through scientific research. They also focus heavily on private land habitat development. Landowner participation in the programs is sometimes incentivized by more landowner control of hunting, which works against the DIY hunter. However, DIY hunters likely have a net overall benefit from TNC’s overall work.
APR is slowly transitioning ranchlands back to native wildlife habitat.
Nick87
Well-known member
We're getting closer everyday. Unfortunately we're about as fast to react as Montana management is. Personally I'd be fine with one buck tag with it if it's needed and think we should be there yesterday. I can tell you the majority would probably drown in their own tears.
rjthehunter
Well-known member
Call it what you want. Spending my money how I see fit doesn't seem greedy though.
Do you donate to elk conservation in ND or MN?
- Status
Similar threads
