Devaluing Non-Residents

[Forkyfinder]

I wish NR and R tag prices would rise in Montana. FWP is thin on resources - and most hunters spend a lot more on nearly every other expense hunting.

As far as NR hunting - they also add a lot of value to the local economy in a lot of litte towns and wildlife themselves - espeically to land owners who outfit. Its a balance....

 

[BuzzH]

I think a state like SD reserving certain species for residents is better than selling preference points to people who will literally have 0% odds of drawing a tag in their lifetime. Right?

So if WGFD suddenly only brought in $32 million per year instead of $88 million, they'd be just fine? I don't know what they're spending all the money from non residents on, but I imagine some of it is being used better hunting across the state.

Wouldn't dwindling NR opportunity down to little to nothing reduce the care NRs have for WY land and access? If I can't hunt it, or if a state makes it near impossible, why wouldn't I spend my time and money somewhere that I can make a difference that impacts me and my access?

What makes you think they'll only continue to bring in 32 million? We could raffle or auction a tiny portion of our available tags and likely increase revenue well past 88 million.

If you only care about public lands and wildlife so you can run a bullet or hook through something, I'd rather you find a new "passion" because you're an imposter to what you claim to be, lying to everyone, including yourself.

Some of us spend a lifetime working on behalf of public lands and wildlife. Further, we would continue to do so no matter how small or large a portion of available tags there are to NR's. Not even worth talking about.

 

[BuzzH]

I have been saying this for years now.

Personally, regardless of what internet chatter we hear, I don't think Wyoming would be just fine with NR walking away. Unfortunately, they have crybaby canaries in their ear screaming that their 9 (NINE) big game tags aren't enough and that they need ALL the tags.

View attachment 313433

Meanwhile, back in real time:

View attachment 313434

And yet, you wonder why your NR opportunities are evaporating...nicely done!

 

[BlakeA]

is better than selling preference points to people who will literally have 0% odds of drawing a tag in their lifetime. Right?

At what point do people take responsibility for their own poor investment choices though? Nobody is forcing you to play a stupid game. It's on the applicant to do some research and decide whether or not it's worth applying for. It's pretty simple, don't apply.

 

[Nameless Range]

How much would a state have to raise there resident tags to make up the difference if they cut it from 10% to 5%?. I'm sure it could be done.

If I recall correctly, Non-residents contribute 70% of FWP's total revenue. NR typically purchase around 18,000 elk licenses, and 30,000 deer licenses, between both sexes.

As @BuzzH point's out above, in terms of raw funding of Fish and Game, a state could cut out tens of thousands of licenses and probably make the difference up with auction/raffle tags fairly easily. Of course there's more to it - communities that benefit from hotel sleepers, restaurants, outfitters, etc. Additionally, I wouldn't want that. I see a lot of virtue in someone having the opportunity to come to Montana and hunt our game. I'm not anti-NR, but in terms of hunters on the landscape, we are way the hell out of whack. Across all hunting opportunity, nearly a third of the licenses sold in MT are NR. In any other Trustee/Beneficiary relationship, that would be scrutinized.

 

[seeth07]

A few observations I've made in regards to the financing - the where does this money go part.

There are states where they are operating on a surplus from the funds they bring in. There are a few reasons why this is happening but there was an article I read awhile back that pointed out just how many job positions are available in the wildlife management industry and the colleges offering degrees in these fields are seeing less people go through their programs. Not a coincidence as our society in general grows further away from rural living to city living. It will only get worse. My hypothesis is that many states are simply just struggling to find people who can actually contribute to physically helping wildlife in their state, its not because they don't have the money to do it.

Another observation I learned is that in some states - WI for example - not all of the money raised by the natural resources division is kept within the division. I was especially mad when I found out how little of the money raised by license sales, state park admissions, etc. are actually held and kept to be used by the natural resources division! I'm guessing WI isn't alone in this state budget approach.

 

[rjthehunter]

What makes you think they'll only continue to bring in 32 million? We could raffle or auction a tiny portion of our available tags and likely increase revenue well past 88 million.

If you only care about public lands and wildlife so you can run a bullet or hook through something, I'd rather you find a new "passion" because you're an imposter to what you claim to be, lying to everyone, including yourself.

Some of us spend a lifetime working on behalf of public lands and wildlife. Further, we would continue to do so no matter how small or large a portion of available tags there are to NR's. Not even worth talking about.

Here you go again.

Why don't you auction off some tags? Enough money can solve almost any problem.

Lastly, yeah, I get it. You have worked on behalf of public lands in WY. You're also a resident there. How much have you done in Minnesota? Or how about Wisconsin, or Texas, or Washington, or Maine, or Illinois, or Michigan? You probably stick pretty close to your area of Wyoming, and maybe a little in Montana?

 

[rjthehunter]

If I recall correctly, Non-residents contribute 70% of FWP's total revenue. NR typically purchase around 18,000 elk licenses, and 30,000 deer licenses, between both sexes.

As @BuzzH point's out above, in terms of raw funding of Fish and Game, a state could cut out tens of thousands of licenses and probably make the difference up with auction/raffle tags fairly easily. Of course there's more to it - communities that benefit from hotel sleepers, restaurants, outfitters, etc. Additionally, I wouldn't want that. I see a lot of virtue in someone having the opportunity to come to Montana and hunt our game. I'm not anti-NR, but in terms of hunters on the landscape, we are way the hell out of whack. Across all hunting opportunity, nearly a third of the licenses sold in MT are NR. In any other Trustee/Beneficiary relationship, that would be scrutinized.

Has that taken opportunity away from residents being able to get tags and hunt?

 

[Big Fin]

I think @Oak has hit the real issue with the charts he posted.

Look at the changes in numbers. The same pattern would be found if you posted the 2005 v. 2022 comparison for mule deer in just about every western state, for pronghorn in Arizona and Wyoming, for sheep in MT, for moose in MT/WY/ID, and a lot of other species.

It should force us to ask the question - Are we going to spend our effort increasing wildlife numbers through habitat and other management, or are we content to fight over the scraps until such time there is nothing left to fight about.

As a non-resident in 49 other states, I'm very concerned about wildlife in every one of those states. And for my own selfish reasons, I am very concerned about wildlife numbers in the states I apply for hunting tags as a non-resident, knowing any opportunity I might have a chance to apply for is a function of two things; 1) Herd numbers and what harvestable surplus exists, and 2) generosity of the residents of that state to share some of the surplus with non-residents. Both of those are driven by higher herd numbers.

I have used a chart similar to what Oak has provided when I talk about mule deer in Nevada and pronghorn in Wyoming. I am somewhat confused as to the "meh" response from most non-residents who might provide comments. Many discount it and go back to arguing about how their points have been devalued.

I know folks get tired of hearing it, but if we want to double our draw odds, the easiest route is to double the number of animals on the landscape.

If we want to make it about fighting over tags, point schemes, and other shiny distractions, I suspect non-residents will be the first to take the hits. I am growing more and more convinced that point schemes have contributed to our focus on how to improve our odds without thinking of the herds. Almost as if buying points and licenses entitles us (res and non-res) to something that doesn't exists; a harvestable surplus.

Marcus and I did a Fresh Tracks weekly on this same topic on Monday. I think it publishes today or tomorrow. I fully expect to get hammered for saying once again, build a bigger pie and a lot of the problems are solved.

I'm good friends with the author of the article in the OP, Tony Peterson. We talk about this a lot. We both agree that there are no immediate solutions, but without rebounding herd numbers, non-residents should expect less opportunity at higher cost.

 

[jt13]

Another observation I learned is that in some states - WI for example - not all of the money raised by the natural resources division is kept within the division. I was especially mad when I found out how little of the money raised by license sales, state park admissions, etc. are actually held and kept to be used by the natural resources division! I'm guessing WI isn't alone in this state budget approach.

Most states keep DNR budgets safe from general state budgets due to the Pittman Robertson Act. Any diversion of conservation funds make you ineligible for millions in federal grant money.

 

[tillicant]

Never hunted Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, Washington, Arizona, or New Mexico but I still care about the game management and access in each of the states. I have no aspirations about ever hunting half of the states I listed, but I may want to take a camping trip there and cast a line once or twice in my life and it would be cool to see some well managed wildlife while I'm there.

Why are so many hunters only interested in things they can blow a hole in? As conservationists shouldn't we be invested in conservation for conservations sake.

How many points does it take to camp?

 

[FI460]

How many points does it take to camp?

Random draw for the Three Sisters Wilderness.

 

[Nameless Range]

Has that taken opportunity away from residents being able to get tags and hunt?

From the quality of our experiences as well as the amount, class, and distribution of animals on the landscape? I'd say Absolutely. Further, I'd argue it has eroded the relationship Montanans have with the trustees of their wildlife. It's just not made up, and I could pull up numerous tables that show it. Relative to resident hunter numbers, NR hunters have skyrocketed. When I am out there, I can see it, and I am not alone.


I agree with BigFin about the best way to increase opportunity being increasing animals on the landscape, but those things are in flux, and I'd argue ratio of allocations are the best proxy for representation, and residents increasingly don't feel represented. I'm well aware NR feel they are getting fleeced and priced out, and I'd agree with that too.

 

[Oak]

This is a catchy phrase for NGOs trying to raise money, but if my 500 bucks isn't contributing to wildlife monitoring and management, why am I paying 500 bucks?

QQ

That's not what I said. Some of you are wielding your $500 license fee like a hammer over the collective head of our wildlife populations. That's not the way it works. Our populations continue to slide despite what you pay in if you're successful in the draw. And opportunity for both residents and nonresidents is decreasing. If conservation hinges on "what's in it for me," our wildlife populations are doomed. I've never applied for a mountain goat permit in MT and never will. But I made a $100 donation to tjones' mountain goat survey effort this morning because it's local volunteers trying to do something good for their wildlife. I do care whether mountain goats persist in the Bitteroots, even though I'll never hunt them. So I think that effort is worth supporting. There is work like that being done at the local and state level all across the West. And it is largely supported by local sweat and local money. But nothing prevents any of us from scratching a check to support the efforts if we care about the future of wildlife.

 

[TheGrayRider]

I think @Oak has hit the real issue with the charts he posted.

Look at the changes in numbers. The same pattern would be found if you posted the 2005 v. 2022 comparison for mule deer in just about every western state, for pronghorn in Arizona and Wyoming, for sheep in MT, for moose in MT/WY/ID, and a lot of other species.

It should force us to ask the question - Are we going to spend our effort increasing wildlife numbers through habitat and other management, or are we content to fight over the scraps until such time there is nothing left to fight about.

As a non-resident in 49 other states, I'm very concerned about wildlife in every one of those states. And for my own selfish reasons, I am very concerned about wildlife numbers in the states I apply for hunting tags as a non-resident, knowing any opportunity I might have a chance to apply for is a function of two things; 1) Herd numbers and what harvestable surplus exists, and 2) generosity of the residents of that state to share some of the surplus with non-residents. Both of those are driven by higher herd numbers.

I have used a chart similar to what Oak has provided when I talk about mule deer in Nevada and pronghorn in Wyoming. I am somewhat confused as to the "meh" response from most non-residents who might provide comments. Many discount it and go back to arguing about how their points have been devalued.

I know folks get tired of hearing it, but if we want to double our draw odds, the easiest route is to double the number of animals on the landscape.

If we want to make it about fighting over tags, point schemes, and other shiny distractions, I suspect non-residents will be the first to take the hits. I am growing more and more convinced that point schemes have contributed to our focus on how to improve our odds without thinking of the herds. Almost as if buying points and licenses entitles us (res and non-res) to something that doesn't exists; a harvestable surplus.

Marcus and I did a Fresh Tracks weekly on this same topic on Monday. I think it publishes today or tomorrow. I fully expect to get hammered for saying once again, build a bigger pie and a lot of the problems are solved.

I'm good friends with the author of the article in the OP, Tony Peterson. We talk about this a lot. We both agree that there are no immediate solutions, but without rebounding herd numbers, non-residents should expect less opportunity at higher cost.

I would argue that the US Supreme Court could overrule the Baldwin vs Montana Fish and Game case (1978) to put residents and nonresidents on equal footing for tags, fees, and costs.

Will that ever happen during our lifetimes? Interesting question. [Case cite below if you want to read further.]

That still wouldn’t solve the decrease in wildlife populations. Happy hunting, TheGrayRider a/k/a Tom.

Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978)​

Decided:May 23, 1978​

PRIMARY HOLDING
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 fall within this category.​

 

[RunNGunSC]

I hate that some respond to NR hunters by pushing further privatization of a national pastime. Opportunities are decreasing and both residents and NR have committed years and valuable resources in lots of states. Does that entitle anyone to a glory tag? No, but it sure entitles them to some respect and a seat at the table. The treatment of that loyalty and investment/contribution to “your” state comes off as if some residents and legislators are no better than con artist. I would love pure random systems with low fees and high participation, but that is not the world we live in. Hunters need to show each other respect. Residents being able to draw multiple tags or shorten waits for glory tags is not worth pulling a bait and switch on thousands of loyal NR that now care about your state’s habitat and wildlife.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I think a big part of this is accessing sufficient resources and commitment to grow a common good (the herds). If a given state’s hunters can do it all by themselves, then do it - no quibbles from me. But in reality, given the costs involved in doing this right, and the political support needed at local, regional and national levels the relatively small number of in state hunters won’t get it done. Maybe you triple in state tag prices, but I doubt it. Maybe you triple state general fund spending, but I doubt it. And even if you do those things, what about the small towns and jobs that benefit from NRs. What about the anti-hunting crowd moving to CO, ID, MT - their funds to push anti-hunting legislation is not small. Let alone the out of state NGOs. Their funds and number of voters dwarf anything a small population state hunters group could match. And what about at national level? Someone in NY could easily support more wildlife funding but not care if hunting was prohibited on federal lands, or dramatic increases in species protection, etc. Losing the interest of NRs would not be good for big game hunting in general.

The act of hunting is under pressure from animal numbers and political dogma - a large well funded cohesive voting block is going to be needed to work on either. Splitting NRs out of the coalition will have dramatic negative long term ramifications. We should be supporting one another - which despite some of the fiery words on the topic, I know folks like @BuzzH have done a hundred times. So, let’s quit pretending NRs are victims or that Rs can really keep this lifestyle without NR support and focus on working together for common advantage.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Nonresidents hunt at the pleasure of residents - at least in theory.

When it comes to NR hunting, we are approaching a King's Deer model. And I don't like it.

That said, as it is written in our constitution: "The opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state." To Montanans, wildlife is Public Trust to which they are the beneficiaries. From the MCA - "A public officer, legislator, or public employee shall carry out the individual's duties for the benefit of the people of the state."

Montana treats non-resident opportunity as a commodity they can leverage, because the law allows them to.

I can only speak to Montana, but the issue becomes incredibly complicated by resource constraints (deer and elk numbers and acres on which to hunt them) and an explosion in both non-resident and resident hunter-days on the landscape. I think we need to put a hard stop on non-resident hunter number growth (as well as resident), through different means, but also guarantee a large portion of those available non-resident opportunities in an affordable set aside, outside of guaranteed outfitter tags. We need to carve out a perpetual pool for the DIY NR - which are friends and family of many residents. The funding issue is a problem to be solved, but is absolutely solvable. I don't buy that we are a slave to nonresident funding, but I certainly do think some contingents leverage that narrative to their favor.

You should care about corner-crossing if you care about federal land access in general I suppose. I don't for a second find the fact that many western states receive a disproportionate amount of federal funds, or even non-resident hunting dollars, compelling in relation to the duty Montana has to the Public Trust. I could expound.

The phrase Benefit of the people of the state can have a myriad of meanings.
Are outfitters individual citizens of the state, and do their desires matter in this? What about landowners who are individual citizens of the state or even anti-hunters? Is a county that receives significant revenue from outfitters who pay property tax, etc and run their economic enterprise in that place a benefit to the state? What about open lands preservation - what benefit to the state is that?

What defines benefit to the state? If your definition is solely about the allocation of the resource to put an arrow or bullet in it, I doubt that it fulfills the intent of the constitution which holds wildlife to be a condition of the land, not owned by anyone and held in trust for the people of Montana.

 

[The Hedgehog]

Wake up call to the whiny poor unentitled non-residents who don't think it's fair... If you go on "strike" and "not gonna pay".. there's 10 guys behind you that will. Those high-priced NR permits will never get cheaper, and they're still going to get sold, every last one of them. For a soon to be revealed illustration of this fact - stay tuned for the 2024 drawing odds are for the WY "Special" NR elk licenses are this year, as they've risen to $2,000+ a pop. It's 2024 and the King's Deer is in high demand.

 

[LopeHunter]

Yes, Wyoming and every other state would be fine with limiting NR's more.

Most every Western State limits NR's to 10% or less of their LQ tags. In some cases, like ND, SD, etc. certain species are reserved entirely for Residents.

Non Residents tend to over-play their hand and start sounding like entitled whiners.

Not sure someone complaining about being mugged is a whiner. Wyoming set up a points scheme for non-residents when residents had no such scheme. Restricts where I can carry a gun while holding a hunting tag yet I can walk anywhere with a fishing tag, a birdwatcher's book or a pair of hiking sticks.

Buy points they said. I did as a non-resident. Wyoming is an amazing place to drive around and take pictures, share a beer with locals and unwind. I have spent money there. I have paid as much in state income tax as any WY resident, too.

Wyoming eventually raised the price of points, of the application and the tag. All these increase as a percentage exceeded any increases to resident costs to apply (no points fees to bother with either, eh?). Now Wyoming has cut the percentage.

Is that sequence which started over two decades ago something I should cheer as a non-resident? I am done with applying in Wyoming. Don't cry for me Argentina but to call me a whiner is a bit much. Also, the next time Wyoming is on fire, don't pick up the phone to call non-resident firemen and water tanker pilots. Whining about "oh, our forests are burning up" is not any more acceptable than how you view your wildlife as your issue to manage and solve.

Don't send you kids to a medical school out of state or any out-of-state college. We, as residents, paid for the schools and you can keep your kids inside your state to gain education post-high school.

Stay out of our professional arenas and stadiums, too. We own those.

I sort of like tribalism. And, whining.