Non-resident Hunting and the North American Model

[mtmuley]

And if it is broken let's find ways to repair it before someone burns it down.

Do you really think this is possible? mtmuley

 

[bayoublaster7527]

It’s so endearing how anytime a NR hunter merely questions the continued decrease in quality big game opportunities or tag price hikes, they are quickly labeled as “butt-hurt”, “whiners” and/or “cry-babies”.

 

[timmy]

It's never crowded where I hunt in Wyoming on public land...home field advantage I guess.

Our crowds never leave the road.

I have been lucky enough to hunt in Wyoming a handful of times and you are correct you don’t see hunters. Montana you see just as many in deep as you see by the road.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Do you really think this is possible? mtmuley

Unfortunately, unless there is a virtue-signalling spin no one in DC or the many state legislatures gives a damn about any issue these days - so, no, I am not optimistic on very many fronts - this issue being the least of them.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It’s so endearing how anytime a NR hunter merely questions the continued decrease in quality big game opportunities or tag price hikes, they are quickly labeled as “butt-hurt”, “whiners” and/or “cry-babies”.

You think that's bad, you should try to argue with some of these guys about the merits of Maximum Point Blank Range zeroing for your average hunter, that recoil reduces accuracy for most shooters or the viability of 6.5 creedmoor at 400yds hunting ellk.

 

[rwc101]

NR hunters lose their endearing qualities when they start to mull handing over wildlife management to Californians and New Yorkers.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

NR hunters lose their endearing qualities when they start to mull handing over wildlife management to Californians and New Yorkers.

I agree, the thought of that scares me also.

 

[Irrelevant]

As to the rest of the discussion watch Randys video "the king's deer"... tons of case law, the arguments made by a whole slew of butt-hurt nonresidents over tag fees and allocations that they lost. Also recently passed federal legislation reaffirming the states rights to manage wildlife within in its borders...including specific language that states can discriminate against nr hunters any way they want. S.339 specifically.

To quote from Mr. Newberg in that video, "that may not be how it should be, but that's how it is." [3:30] my comments and thoughts in this thread are not regarding the current state of affairs, but the "should be" part of his statement. I do not accept that what we have is the best system, simply because it's better than the what we knew previously (strict privatization).

In term of the NAM the idea that by granting ownership of the wildlife resource to a group of people, they will seek to maintain it because they see value in it, the exact opposite of the tragedy of the commons model (commercializing wildlife). It worked in the sense that wildlife generally rebounded. But that's not to say it was the only system that would have allowed wildlife to rebound.

The first tenant of the North American model is the public trust doctrine. Yet, wildlife is not completely public. Ignoring hunting, I have zero say in the management of MT elk as a WA resident. If the MT legislator passes x bill to poison all elk within the state, there's no duty of any legislator to represent me or my interests. It is not my resource, and I am only granted access to it as the luxury of the residents of that state, a luxury that could be taken away at anytime, something you've pointed out before. Heck, some states, and for some wildlife try to "hold in trust" that resource at the lowest levels possible (northern pike minnow here in WA, coyotes basically everywhere). If I disagree with how... say ID is managing wolves, let say they want to aerial gun all wolves in the Frank Church, I have no say, it's not my wildlife. Even if I have access and say in the general management of federal wilderness lands in ID, lands that I place more value on because they have wildlife, there is no mechanism to value my opinion.

That situation is exactly the same as Trust Lands. They are not public lands, they are property of the state.

To those that point to the past as evidence that the States can't manage lands but they can manage wildlife. The NAM damn near extirpated grizzlies from the lower 48, it did wolves (close enough to warrant reintroductions). While many western state currently have MORE state lands than were granted as statehood. WA has a constitutional amendment that states trust land cannot be sold unless the proceeds are used to by more land. Neither system is fool proof nor entirely foolish. There are faults with each. Hell, that feds had to pass the ESA to bailout the NAM because the states didn't place sufficient value on all wildlife that the rest of the US did.

I have yet to hear a compelling reason why public lands should be held by the feds but wildlife should be held by the states. Why wildlife can be managed at the federal level when they fly to Mexico in the winter, but not if they walk to Canada in the summer; or that the Feds know how to manage small populations but not large ones...

 

[Irrelevant]

I can't help but think "taxation without representation". If I choose the hunt in another state, they charge me a tax to manage that resource (a perfectly just action). But I have no say in how that tax is spent, what it goes to, how those critters are managed. While it is a voluntary tax, I must pay it to utilize that resource. Similar to any private enterprise, and a very not public situation.

 

[BuzzH]

To quote from Mr. Newberg in that video, "that may not be how it should be, but that's how it is." [3:30] my comments and thoughts in this thread are not regarding the current state of affairs, but the "should be" part of his statement. I do not accept that what we have is the best system, simply because it's better than the what we knew previously (strict privatization).

In term of the NAM the idea that by granting ownership of the wildlife resource to a group of people, they will seek to maintain it because they see value in it, the exact opposite of the tragedy of the commons model (commercializing wildlife). It worked in the sense that wildlife generally rebounded. But that's not to say it was the only system that would have allowed wildlife to rebound.

The first tenant of the North American model is the public trust doctrine. Yet, wildlife is not completely public. Ignoring hunting, I have zero say in the management of MT elk as a WA resident. If the MT legislator passes x bill to poison all elk within the state, there's no duty of any legislator to represent me or my interests. It is not my resource, and I am only granted access to it as the luxury of the residents of that state, a luxury that could be taken away at anytime, something you've pointed out before. Heck, some states, and for some wildlife try to "hold in trust" that resource at the lowest levels possible (northern pike minnow here in WA, coyotes basically everywhere). If I disagree with how... say ID is managing wolves, let say they want to aerial gun all wolves in the Frank Church, I have no say, it's not my wildlife. Even if I have access and say in the general management of federal wilderness lands in ID, lands that I place more value on because they have wildlife, there is no mechanism to value my opinion.

That situation is exactly the same as Trust Lands. They are not public lands, they are property of the state.

To those that point to the past as evidence that the States can't manage lands but they can manage wildlife. The NAM damn near extirpated grizzlies from the lower 48, it did wolves (close enough to warrant reintroductions). While many western state currently have MORE state lands than were granted as statehood. WA has a constitutional amendment that states trust land cannot be sold unless the proceeds are used to by more land. Neither system is fool proof nor entirely foolish. There are faults with each. Hell, that feds had to pass the ESA to bailout the NAM because the states didn't place sufficient value on all wildlife that the rest of the US did.

I have yet to hear a compelling reason why public lands should be held by the feds but wildlife should be held by the states. Why wildlife can be managed at the federal level when they fly to Mexico in the winter, but not if they walk to Canada in the summer; or that the Feds know how to manage small populations but not large ones...

First, Like I've said, you're free to think what you want.

But, as to this specific post of yours, I just don't agree with most any of it.

I don't believe its right or proper for me as WY resident to meddle in your business in regard to WA wildlife decisions, any more than you should meddle in mine. The wildlife in Wyoming does not impact the wildlife in Washington, nor do the decisions that Wyoming choose in regard to wildlife impact WA wildlife either.

Land ownership and wildlife ownership are also mutually exclusive, even private land owners have no ownership of the wildlife found on their land. They cant set their own seasons, issue their own tags, that's all decided by the Legislature and/or commissions of the various states. That makes good sense, including as it applies to the Federal Lands as well.

So while you want to still attempt to somehow have a say over a state asset as a NR, its not the way it is, and not the way its ever going to be, IMO/E.

The few exceptions to that general idea are migratory waterfowl and that's wayyyy different than an elk from Wyoming crossing into Canada. Migratory birds are migrating thousands of miles, sometimes over several countries in the course of a year. Plus, as has been stated, the Federal Government is much better suited into entering into agreements with other countries, than asking every state along a flyway to have to enter into treaties and agreements with other countries. You know this, and you know your comparison is as lame as it is impractical.

As to the NAM being the reason for the declines of grizzlies, not true at all. For starters, the bears in the Yellowstone Ecosystem were about wiped out by crap policy from the Park Service, a Federal Agency. They failed to recognize the research done by the Craighead's when they denied the science that showed a vast majority of grizzlies there were feeding in garbage dumps in the Park. The Feds made the decision to kill those bears, by shutting down the dumps fast, rather than phase them out over time. They also denied the science that a majority of the bears in the park were reliant on garbage. Their belief was that there was a separate population, in fact a majority of the population that only utilized the backcountry. Well, their decisions severely impacted the grizzly population. It was NOT the NAM or State Management that caused that. In contrast, where state Management of Bears was still being applied in the Bob and Northern Ecosystem, hunting continued on until the mid 1990's and a case of where state management has never failed to work.

If anything your example is a case study in the Feds interfering with and making things worse in regard to wildlife management.

The ESA was not put into place to bail out the NAM, it was put into place for the same reason as migratory birds. It doesn't work to pass an act of congress that allows designating of imperiled wildlife but provides an undue burden on the various States financially as well as creating no incentive for the States to cooperate with each other. It makes sense for the Feds to be the mediator or central figure to recover the species as a whole instead of each state having to deal separately with the Feds. That's why the ESA was enacted, there had to be an Act that granted the Federal Government control of wildlife. It wasn't a bailout of the NAM and I've never read, heard, or even seen it implied that it was. That's your spin and in my opinion, hogwash.

Lots of people are pretty convinced of the compelling reasons why Federal Lands should remain Federal and State Wildlife Management should remain with the States...its your opinion that isn't compelling me to see a good reason to change either model. Unless I look at it from your selfish standpoint of wanting to live in one state and have equal access to another State's wildlife in regards to allocation and price...I see nothing compelling at all.

You've totally failed to convince me that NR hunters should even have a say in another States Wildlife Resources. Work on keeping hunting affordable for Residents in your state, and I'll do the same in mine. Anything beyond that is pure gravy...

 

[VikingsGuy]

Frankly, I don't think when wildlife is managed by feds and when by state is based on careful consideration of particular competency or deep assessment of federalism. I believe it is driven by states being left to the historical status quo until significant concerns arise on an issue in large population states. Birds, wolves and bear preservation had stronger and broader public sentiment than pronghorn tag prices.

Also, it is not an all-or-nothing question. The feds could prohibit discriminatory licensing practices as a matter of interstate commerce while still leaving overall quotas and day-to-day management to the states. But as said before, I see no pressing drive at the federal level to address this issue and I can live with that. Our society has far bigger citizen to citizen equities to solve for than NR tag fees.

Finally, by any objective definition, big game has already been monetized by its owners. Not sure "who" the owner is changes that. $40 is an administrative fee. $900 is monetization.

 

[antlerradar]

To quote from Mr. Newberg in that video, "that may not be how it should be, but that's how it is." [3:30] my comments and thoughts in this thread are not regarding the current state of affairs, but the "should be" part of his statement. I do not accept that what we have is the best system, simply because it's better than the what we knew previously (strict privatization).

You lost me with the strict privatization in the past. Just when do you think that the past was more privatized than today?

 

[Dakotakid]

While it is a voluntary tax, I must pay it to utilize that resource. Similar to any private enterprise, and a very not public situation.

A states sales tax is a voluntary tax that a NR participates in when they visit(not Montana) but NR have zero say in how it is spent. I don’t think taxation without representation overrides federalism.

Additionally, we have several federal refuges. I know the local federal warden well. He has tried to get the state to prosecute refuge violations because the feds system is inadequate.

Layout your vision for federal wildlife management.
Is it only on federal lands,
Or state wide takeover?

Does it entail all wildlife or just the tastiest?

 

[tillicant]

Agree with most(didn't read them all). As a nr hunting couple, my wife & I treat our hunts as a vacation. Used to hunt with a group of friends, still do once in a while but some of them squabble over the $ to hunt west. Wife & I don't overspend on our hunts, non guided and try to find an outfitter/trespass fee hunt. That was my way of keeping my wife interested. If we wanted to hunt all season and see one deer, would stay in WI. Over the last couple of years, seemed to be a change in that type of hunt with with some of the area codes from PA,LA,... not local, reserving multiple properties . We normally do a combo elk/deer and try to hunt a full 7 days but have run into some of these hoarders cutting the season in half. Oh, sorry, they are "Discounting" the hunt.
Guess what it boils down to, don't mind the license fee increase if it is spent correctly.

 

[SAJ-99]

People hate the fed, they hate the state too but it’s the evil they know.

But states don’t have any problems taking funds from the Feds. Look at how PR funds are allocated, or Highway Trusts, or... shit, just anything.

 

[VikingsGuy]

But states don’t have any problems taking funds from the Feds. Look at how PR funds are allocated, or Highway Trusts, or... shit, just anything.

WY and MT are grand masters at this game - almost half of all of their state funding (not conservation funding, ALL funding) comes from the feds - so much for the rugged individualist persona. When it comes to paying the bills, they are all hat and no cattle.

 

[Dakotakid]

WY and MT are grand masters at this game - almost half of all of their state funding (not conservation funding, ALL funding) comes from the feds - so much for the rugged individualist persona. When it comes to paying the bills, they are all hat and no cattle.

Here is a study regarding Montana’s federal funds. Healthcare continues to be the largest federal weapon influencing the state.

https://leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/fiscal/2021-Interim/Jan-2020/Federal-Funds-Risk-FINAL.pdf

 

[brocksw]

Here's a really good bit of reading I found while debating some of this stuff internally. It might add some insight or substance to the conversation.

https://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ptd_10-1.pdf

https://www.law.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2351/f/downloads/TheEvolutionofthePublicTrustDoctrineandtheDegradationofResources.pdf

 

[VikingsGuy]

Here's a really good bit of reading I found while debating some of this stuff internally. It might add some insight or substance to the conversation.

https://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ptd_10-1.pdf

https://www.law.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2351/f/downloads/TheEvolutionofthePublicTrustDoctrineandtheDegradationofResources.pdf

The public trust doctrine is spot on. States being the proper/only level of govt to manage that trust is not required to still fully support PTD - many common resources have a variety of governance bodies. Also, the funding of state F&G primarily through high NR fees is neither required by PTD nor in my opinion consistent with the non-monetizing and democratization principles of NAM.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

To quote from Mr. Newberg in that video, "that may not be how it should be, but that's how it is." [3:30] my comments and thoughts in this thread are not regarding the current state of affairs, but the "should be" part of his statement. I do not accept that what we have is the best system, simply because it's better than the what we knew previously (strict privatization).

In term of the NAM the idea that by granting ownership of the wildlife resource to a group of people, they will seek to maintain it because they see value in it, the exact opposite of the tragedy of the commons model (commercializing wildlife). It worked in the sense that wildlife generally rebounded. But that's not to say it was the only system that would have allowed wildlife to rebound.

The first tenant of the North American model is the public trust doctrine. Yet, wildlife is not completely public. Ignoring hunting, I have zero say in the management of MT elk as a WA resident. If the MT legislator passes x bill to poison all elk within the state, there's no duty of any legislator to represent me or my interests. It is not my resource, and I am only granted access to it as the luxury of the residents of that state, a luxury that could be taken away at anytime, something you've pointed out before. Heck, some states, and for some wildlife try to "hold in trust" that resource at the lowest levels possible (northern pike minnow here in WA, coyotes basically everywhere). If I disagree with how... say ID is managing wolves, let say they want to aerial gun all wolves in the Frank Church, I have no say, it's not my wildlife. Even if I have access and say in the general management of federal wilderness lands in ID, lands that I place more value on because they have wildlife, there is no mechanism to value my opinion.

That situation is exactly the same as Trust Lands. They are not public lands, they are property of the state.

To those that point to the past as evidence that the States can't manage lands but they can manage wildlife. The NAM damn near extirpated grizzlies from the lower 48, it did wolves (close enough to warrant reintroductions). While many western state currently have MORE state lands than were granted as statehood. WA has a constitutional amendment that states trust land cannot be sold unless the proceeds are used to by more land. Neither system is fool proof nor entirely foolish. There are faults with each. Hell, that feds had to pass the ESA to bailout the NAM because the states didn't place sufficient value on all wildlife that the rest of the US did.

I have yet to hear a compelling reason why public lands should be held by the feds but wildlife should be held by the states. Why wildlife can be managed at the federal level when they fly to Mexico in the winter, but not if they walk to Canada in the summer; or that the Feds know how to manage small populations but not large ones...

Well for starters, it’s real important ya’ll understand that my being a 4th generation Coloradan trumps whatever your 2 PhD Commiefornian has to say about elk.



Pragmatism its not about the best solution it’s about the best solution that will work.