Devaluing Non-Residents

[rjthehunter]

Interesting article.

If a states DNR/G&F is receiving so much federal and non-resident funding, who really is "entitled" to the animals?

What Happens If Nonresident License Prices Keep Climbing?

It’s supply and demand. The state’s residents own the game, full stop. States should cater to residents first. These statements pop up in every conversation and on every hunting forum when it comes to the resident/nonresident debate. The precedent set decades ago in the courts set up the system...

www.themeateater.com

Straight from Wyoming...

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/About%20Us/Commission/WGFD-Revenue-Fact-Sheet_FINAL.pdf

If states keep shitting on Non-Residents, why would non residents help where possible? Why should I donate to a corner crossing cause when WY and the residents want to keep all the tags for themselves? When it comes to conservation efforts, could WY really survive on 1/3rd of what their current revenue is?

Makes you wonder.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The massive outpouring from DIY Nonresidents stopped the bill in '21 to give 60% of deer licenses to outfitters in MT.

NR's aren't the enemy.

 

[DFS]

The massive outpouring from DIY Nonresidents stopped the bill in '21 to give 60% of deer licenses to outfitters in MT.

NR's aren't the enemy.

Was this better for the resource?

 

[MITCHMO]

Non-residents are never going away. The cost will just keep going up. I agree with the part about it being a rich persons game at some point. That’s the worst part to me. The talk about “market price” of a non resident tag is gross. This is a natural resource, not a used car. I could go on, but I’m not looking to stir the pot. It’s all been said before.

 

[MITCHMO]

Was this better for the resource?

I’m scratching my head on this one. Are you saying that if it’s not better, it’s worse?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Was this better for the resource?

Ultimately, yes.

Since then there has been large cuts in hunting opportunity in 2023, along with the removal of doe hunting on public land in R6 & R7, as well as SB281 passed to limit NR's to no more than 2 doe tags.

I think that continued effort is a big part of why so many outfitters and hunters are sitting down together on Sunday.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I’m scratching my head on this one. Are you saying that if it’s not better, it’s worse?

Most of the people who would have gotten the set aside wouldn't be hunting public land. Doug has a legit point.

 

[Nameless Range]

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.

 

[BuzzH]

Interesting article.

If a states DNR/G&F is receiving so much federal and non-resident funding, who really is "entitled" to the animals?

What Happens If Nonresident License Prices Keep Climbing?

It’s supply and demand. The state’s residents own the game, full stop. States should cater to residents first. These statements pop up in every conversation and on every hunting forum when it comes to the resident/nonresident debate. The precedent set decades ago in the courts set up the system...

www.themeateater.com

Straight from Wyoming...

https://wgfd.wyo.gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/About%20Us/Commission/WGFD-Revenue-Fact-Sheet_FINAL.pdf

If states keep shitting on Non-Residents, why would non residents help where possible? Why should I donate to a corner crossing cause when WY and the residents want to keep all the tags for themselves? When it comes to conservation efforts, could WY really survive on 1/3rd of what their current revenue is?

Makes you wonder.

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.

 

[rjthehunter]

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.

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?

 

[FI460]

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?

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.

 

[Oak]

Ah yes, dwindling nonresident opportunity. Your $500 deer license is not saving the species. Altruism aside (because it is generally in short supply), who is more invested in ensuring that wildlife populations don't wink out?

There was a mostly unsavory poster on MM in the past who had a saying that kind of rings true. To paraphrase, the average hunter is more concerned about arguing over who gets to kill the last mule deer than they are about doing something.

We can all start being less concerned about what's in it for the individual and more concerned about saving our wildlife, or we can have the argument above until it's all gone.

 

[Mallardsx2]

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?

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.



Meanwhile, back in real time:

 

[rjthehunter]

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.

I guess hunting is my passion. I'd rather put my money into something that I have an opportunity to benefit from vs donating a bunch of money to benefit resident hunters.

Ah yes, dwindling nonresident opportunity. Your $500 deer license is not saving the species. Altruism aside (because it is generally in short supply), who is more invested in ensuring that wildlife populations don't wink out?

There was a mostly unsavory poster on MM in the past who had a saying that kind of rings true. To paraphrase, the average hunter is more concerned about arguing over who gets to kill the last mule deer than they are about doing something.

We can all start being less concerned about what's in it for the individual and more concerned about saving our wildlife, or we can have the argument above until it's all gone.

I can understand $500 not saving a species. But what about $43.6 million? That helps right? How about $40 million every year?

This doesn't really have anything to do with the number of tags. This has to do with opportunity for non residents. Why is the tag allocation dropping all the time for non residents when they're doing the heavy lifting of funding the conservation efforts?

 

[Nick87]

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.

 

[rjthehunter]

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

Even if every single resident of WY bought a elk tag, they still wouldn't make enough money to cover what the NRs are giving them per year...

 

[rjthehunter]

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.

I think the residents would blow a gasket if you tried to do that...

 

[QuazyQuinton]

Your $500 deer license is not saving the species.

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

 

[FI460]

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.

Oregon gives 5% of deer and elk to nonresidents. Tags are $30 and $50.

 

[Nick87]

I think the residents would blow a gasket if you tried to do that...

Yah that's what everyone says when they raise the nonresident prices and it doesn't phase too many people after the bitching stops (I'm no exception) they step right back up to bat with the credit card.