Non-resident Hunting and the North American Model

[Dougfirtree]

I agree, the thought of that scares me also.

Ok, so we're all in agreement. New Yorkers are the worst (or possibly second worst).

 

[rwc101]

Ok, so we're all in agreement. New Yorkers are the worst (or possibly second worst).

You're fine as long as you don't threaten to sell public lands.

 

[Dougfirtree]

You're fine as long as you don't threaten to sell public lands.

Whew! Funnily enough, not a common threat in NY.

 

[SAJ-99]

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

I don't know what the solution could be. here is an example of the problem (if I understand the point of this thread correctly).
Arizona example
35,000 elk population
9,000 elk harvest (2019)
26,000 total permits issued (so 2,600 NR permits)
170,000 announced applications for permits this year (some of those might just be antelope and not elk.

I'm not sure what the argument of this thread is anymore. If applications continue to go up and game populations don't increase, the result is a foregone conclusion. Supply and demand have to set the price intersect. The price to participate goes up and starts to exclude people, or people get sick of not drawing and eventually stop hunting.

 

[BrentD]

... The price to participate goes up and starts to exclude people, or people get sick of not drawing and eventually stop hunting.

Exactly. It really is that simple.

 

[idelkslayer]

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...

Tell us why you are so worked up about elk in Montana. Don't you have elk in Washington? Do you have trouble getting a tag in your own state?

Have you and your fellow Washington residents mismanaged your elk? If so, why should Montana or any other state provide opportunity for you?

Do you realize that there are enough hunters in Pennsylvania alone to displace every hunter in Montana, Idaho, Washington and Wyoming if wildlife were managed at the federal level with equal access to all hunters regardless of residence?

 

[SAJ-99]

Exactly. It really is that simple.

Or encourage reintroductions. Donate to RMEF to put elk everywhere. Get the wolf advocates to join in, because RMEF is going to need all the help it can get. Elk will LOVE Iowa and Illinois corn.

 

[BrentD]

Or encourage reintroductions. Donate to RMEF to put elk everywhere. Get the wolf advocates to join in, because RMEF is going to need all the help it can get. Elk will LOVE Iowa and Illinois corn.

As a federal landowner, I see no reason why we should continue to subsidize Montana resident elk and elk hunters for free.

Elk are fully protected here in Iowa. Probably better so that in Montana.

 

[noharleyyet]

And yet we don't have to rape non residents in order to find our budget.
You might learn something

: “If it’s inevitable,” he said, ”just relax and enjoy it.’“ -Clayton Williams

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don't know what the solution could be. here is an example of the problem (if I understand the point of this thread correctly).
Arizona example
35,000 elk population
9,000 elk harvest (2019)
26,000 total permits issued (so 2,600 NR permits)
170,000 announced applications for permits this year (some of those might just be antelope and not elk.

I'm not sure what the argument of this thread is anymore. If applications continue to go up and game populations don't increase, the result is a foregone conclusion. Supply and demand have to set the price intersect. The price to participate goes up and starts to exclude people, or people get sick of not drawing and eventually stop hunting.

Why does price have to necessarily increase. Why couldn't you have just bad draw odds in your example.

I think one of the biggest "fixes" to the system would be just locking in prices. Resident elk $50 Non-Resident $500 tie both to CPI, $100 and $1000, $50 and $1000 you get the point. I think the price changes are a huge problem.

Similarly allocations/draw systems. Systems need to be designed that will hold up indefinitely. Personally I think the hybrid system CO uses for Sheep/Goat/Moose is the best in the country. I might tweak a couple of factors but in general.

Basically your first 3 points are preference points then after that you accrue bonus points.

The system
1. Maintains return customers which is important for funding
2. Eliminates the frustration by some winners having no perceived "skin in the game" when they draw on year 1
3. Works with units in the 1-2 points, allows predictability
4. Works with the 1% units, if you join the game late your not essentially buying points hoping those ahead of you will die.

I'd probably modify it a bit and get rid of the bonus points and make it preferences points up to 5 then a straight lottery, but if you don't apply for 1 year your back to 0 on your preference points, but you can apply as 99-99-999, which holds your points but doesn't actually put you in the running for the draw.

I'd also fix the allocation at 85/15 Deer/Elk/Pronghorn then 90/10 for MSG. All leftover tags or secondary draws or whatever would have no allocation.

No landowner or outfitter tags, but I would restructure the way outfitter licenses/use days etc are set up to help them evolve their business model. I think the full guided model is waning, still there but less popular, I think the DIY+ aka drop camp, llama rental, pack out only, land access, etc etc is booming and IMHO largely untapped. N=1 but there have been numerous occasions where I don't want to go fully guided, but I do need logistical support and I've called around and basically been told it's not worth my time.

Part of that is old crustys not wanting to join the 21st century part of it is regulatory.

Anyway not what you were asking, but I the the NA model is fine. I think it's success is that it's changed over time, I think our problem to some degree is not changing with it. We all need to realize 2030 is going to be different than 2021 and work together on systems that give all stake holders some of what they want.

 

[SAJ-99]

As a federal landowner, I see no reason why we should continue to subsidize Montana resident elk and elk hunters for free.

Elk are fully protected here in Iowa. Probably better so that in Montana.

How much of Iowa is Federal land? 1%. How much general public land? Space is a problem as you move east. And it's not Iowa doesn't take advantage of NRs. Pretty comparable prices on a per lb basis.

 

[BrentD]

What's your point? Iowans pay a lot for federal lands that they are not allowed to hunt. Iowan treatment of nonresidents is not admirable, and I never said it was.

Meanwhile, I still am growing tired of Montanans complaining about nonresidents complaining when it's our money that floats your boat. Pretty plain and simple.

I forgot to add - the " price per pound comment is beyond laughable".

 

[mtmuley]

What's your point? Iowans pay a lot for federal lands that they are not allowed to hunt. Iowan treatment of nonresidents is not admirable, and I never said it was.

Meanwhile, I still am growing tired of Montanans complaining about nonresidents complaining when it's our money that floats your boat. Pretty plain and simple.

I forgot to add - the " price per pound comment is beyond laughable".

When you get here, you can quit bitching. Or you will probly find something else to complain about. You don't even hunt elk here, do you? mtmuley

 

[SAJ-99]

Why does price have to necessarily increase. Why couldn't you have just bad draw odds in your example.

I guess you could, but Game and Fish depth need to be funded and there is zero indication the prices are too high. Hell, I could argue the economics show they should be higher.

What's your point? Iowans pay a lot for federal lands that they are not allowed to hunt. Iowan treatment of nonresidents is not admirable, and I never said it was.

Meanwhile, I still am growing tired of Montanans complaining about nonresidents complaining when it's our money that floats your boat. Pretty plain and simple.

I get your point and am not arguing your view. My point is that every state participates in the process and charges NR a lot more. I get tired of Montana's complaining about NRs too. I also get tired of them/us complaining every time the idea of increasing resident fees comes up. I am basically sick of complaining. Everyone wants the highest quality at the cheapest price, delivered immediately. Any problem in that reverts to the "I Pay Taxes" BS. Is seems people haven't noticed, but we spend more money than we collect in taxes and you can't go through and cherry pick how your taxes were spent to justify an argument.

 

[BrentD]

When you get here, you can quit bitching. Or you will probly find something else to complain about. You don't even hunt elk here, do you? mtmuley

I have hunted Montana and - worse that anything - may even move there. Soon. But in the meantime, I'm paying the freight on your elk nursery and you ain't payin' much of anything for my Iowa whitetails in return. You do get that, right?

 

[BuzzH]

I have hunted Montana and - worse that anything - may even move there. Soon. But in the meantime, I'm paying the freight on your elk nursery and you ain't payin' much of anything for my Iowa whitetails in return. You do get that, right?

Wrong...I pay a shitload to subsidize your farmers where your deer live. We'll call it even...and send me your address, I'll break out the hacksaw and cut a penny in half to reimburse you for your tax dollars you spend feeding elk on federal land.

 

[antlerradar]

I have hunted Montana and - worse that anything - may even move there. Soon. But in the meantime, I'm paying the freight on your elk nursery and you ain't payin' much of anything for my Iowa whitetails in return. You do get that, right?

I hear the Bitterroot valley is nice. Don't be fooled when you drive by Eastern Montana, hot in the summer, cold in the winter and the wind is blowing hard all the time.

 

[BrentD]

Wrong...I pay a shitload to subsidize your farmers where your deer live. We'll call it even...and send me your address, I'll break out the hacksaw and cut a penny in half to reimburse you for your tax dollars you spend feeding elk on federal land.

Nothing compared to what we spend on your federal lands.
We subsidize your logging, grazing (private land crops just like Iowa), mining, and wildlife on USFS and BLM. We get nada back for it.

Sorry Buzz, you missed this boat. And you have been for some time. Purposefully.

 

[BuzzH]

Nothing compared to what we spend on your federal lands.
We subsidize your logging, grazing (private land crops just like Iowa), mining, and wildlife on USFS and BLM. We get nada back for it.

Sorry Buzz, you missed this boat. And you have been for some time. Purposefully.

Really Brent? You want to start posting some facts?

Try this one...

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database put the issue on the map and is driving reform. Just ten percent of America's largest and richest farms collect almost three-fourths of federal farm subsidies; cash payments that often harm the environment.

farm.ewg.org

Wyoming received 1.17 billion in farm subsidies from 1995-2020

Iowa:

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database

EWG's Farm Subsidy Database put the issue on the map and is driving reform. Just ten percent of America's largest and richest farms collect almost three-fourths of federal farm subsidies; cash payments that often harm the environment.

farm.ewg.org

Same time frame Iowa received 35.5 billion.

What boat did you miss?

 

[VikingsGuy]

Do you realize that there are enough hunters in Pennsylvania alone to displace every hunter in Montana, Idaho, Washington and Wyoming if wildlife were managed at the federal level with equal access to all hunters regardless of residence?

Shhhhh - you are "outing" the real reason folks continue to want the western states to maintain control.