Non-resident Hunting and the North American Model

[VikingsGuy]

Supply and demand have to set the price intersect.

Since the govt runs the game it isn't really (and shouldn't be) a market based demand (price) curve.

 

[BigHornRam]

This thread is like watching the movie Grumpy Old Men. Entertaining but not very educational.

 

[idelkslayer]

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.

There is a lot more to do on USFS and BLM lands than hunt. Many NR on this forum seem to be of the idea that these lands exist solely for hunting.

On the recreational side, hiking, backpacking, camping, fishing, sight seeing, photography, prospecting, boating, berry picking, etc.

My entire year is filled with activities on public land that are unrelated to hunting. You and anyone else can freely participate and use our public land for any of those activities.

When I advocate for public land, I do it with all of those uses in mind not just hunting. I encourage you to broaden your view of the land and the ways you can get something back for your tax dollars.

 

[VikingsGuy]

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.

Says the man from the state where NR fund 80%+ for F&G and 45% of everything else in the state. Utah only asks for 25% of its statewide budget - maybe WY should give that a try for a while and get back to us dirty NRs.

For me personally the higher the tag price the better, it might improve my odds some. But not good for "democratizing" wildlife and not monetizing wildlife under the NAM, and completely disingenuous for quasi-welfare state residents to lecture the rest of us on how much you fund your wildlife in order to earn your preferential status.

 

[idelkslayer]

Since the govt runs the game it isn't really (and shouldn't be) a market based demand (price) curve.

I agree, the cost of tag should be no more or less than the cost of managing the resource. I can't think of a good reason for residents and NR to have such differing costs.

Using Idaho as an example, I previously showed that Idaho would have to charge $62 for deer tags and $122 for elk tags if residents and nonresidents had to pay the same amount. I'd pay it, and I'd pay it for my kids too. Unfortunately, most Idaho residents whine when the prices go up by $5 dollars every 10 years. The "hunting is becoming a rich mans sport" argument comes out for a $5 increase, imagine a $40 increase.

 

[BuzzH]

Says the man from the state where NR fund 80%+ for F&G and 45% of everything else in the state. Utah only asks for 25% of its statewide budget - maybe WY should give that a try for a while and get back to us dirty NRs.

For me personally the higher the tag price the better, it might improve my odds some. But not good for "democratizing" wildlife and not monetizing wildlife under the NAM, and completely disingenuous for quasi-welfare state residents to lecture the rest of us on how much you fund your wildlife in order to earn your preferential status.

Wrong on the 80% of the GF being funded by NR's but continue the lies...you're getting pretty good at that.

 

[one ate E grain]

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

We've gone one better with a lawyer for Wild Earth Guardians, a professional minority person, land trust manager, an integrated eco social designer, a regional director of a "fighting" conservation group. and an outdoor recreation peak bagger. I think they form a majority of our Wildlife commision. https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/CommissionMembers.aspx

 

[idelkslayer]

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

Yes, because we want to be able to hunt without being required to travel to Oklahoma because NR got all the tags back home.

Why is it horrible to prioritize opportunity for the people who live where that opportunity exists? There are not enough tags to fill all of the NR demand. Many western states are already at the point of not being able to meet resident demand. Should residents have to sit out the season so that NR can hunt?

For the third time on this thread I will ask "Why should I or any other resident have to sit at home without a tag so that a NR can travel in from a thousand miles away to hunt?"

 

[SAJ-99]

Since the govt runs the game it isn't really (and shouldn't be) a market based demand (price) curve.

Sure, but taking out the government hand (state or fed) and you would see that the prices would be MUCH higher. That might not be good for the resource long-term, but there is no denying it would happen in that scenario. My main point to remember would be we can't manage solely to the lowest common denominator. In this case, the NR elk hunter who makes minimum wage. I'm sure that will probably piss some people off. Sorry, but there has to be some cost. I think states generally try to find some middle ground between auctioning at Governors Tags prices and everyone who wins the draw in MT getting charged $20 for an elk permit. The problem we have is that even at these prices, applications continue to increase.

 

[BuzzH]

Yes, because we want to be able to hunt without being required to travel to Oklahoma because NR got all the tags back home.

Why is it horrible to prioritize opportunity for the people who live where that opportunity exists? There are not enough tags to fill all of the NR demand. Many western states are already at the point of not being able to meet resident demand. Should residents have to sit out the season so that NR can hunt?

For the third time on this thread I will ask "Why should I or any other resident have to sit at home without a tag so that a NR can travel in from a thousand miles away to hunt?"

Its no secret, they want to hunt their state on the cheap and now want to hunt every other State they feel like hunting as a NR on the cheap too. Oh, and they want it NOW...because they bought points.

Its crap, and they attempt to justify the crap they preach by complaining about Federal Land, their tax dollars, their license fees, etc.

Complain away...the only thing I assure them that will change is their fees are going to increase and more tags are going to be held by Residents.

I'm good with that.

 

[TOGIE]

We've gone one better with a lawyer for Wild Earth Guardians, a professional minority person, land trust manager, an integrated eco social designer, a regional director of a "fighting" conservation group. and an outdoor recreation peak bagger. I think they form a majority of our Wildlife commision. https://cpw.state.co.us/aboutus/Pages/CommissionMembers.aspx

little hyperbolic

it could be argued that 7 of our 11 voting members are more in the realm of classic hook and bullet types. at least very much pro hunting if nothing else. and to say anyone else on the commission is anti hunting would be conjecture at best and biased at worst i think. honestly i think our commission is generally trending in a good direction as far as representation goes. maybe i don't like the opinions and priorities of everyone on there as far as hunting is specifically concerned. but i don't think it's doomsday just yet.

i'm still more worried about what our outfitters will try to bring down the pipeline (or resist what comes down the pipeline) over the coming years than, say, tutchton's or adam's opinions on mountain lion management to be honest

 

[brocksw]

I think everyone needs to take a step back and depersonalize this a bit so the discussion can go back to focusing on the technical details and merits of the NAM instead of poop throwing at each other.

 

[rwc101]

Yep. Same bad faith, tit-for-tat arguments have cycled through 3-4 times now.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Just curious, so @Oak post over on the raffle thread, *hint* *hint*, how would people feel about a green hunt for MSG?

I'm not sure how I would feel about it... though, I can I kinda see myself 20 years down the road saying... well I have a pile of points and I'm never going to draw so why not.

*Green hunt, go out with fish and wildlife and dart a sheep for radio collaring, and yes my thought is this would be a hunt you apply for and for which you lose your points if you draw.

 

[rwc101]

Just curious, so @Oak post over on the raffle thread, *hint* *hint*, how would people feel about a green hunt for MSG?

I'm not sure how I would feel about it... though, I can I kinda see myself 20 years down the road saying... well I have a pile of points and I'm never going to draw so why not.

*Green hunt, go out with fish and wildlife and dart a sheep for radio collaring, and yes my thought is this would be a hunt you apply for and for which you lose your points if you draw.

Always thought that would be cool, especially moose. Nothing to carry out.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

Just curious, so @Oak post over on the raffle thread, *hint* *hint*, how would people feel about a green hunt for MSG?

I'm not sure how I would feel about it... though, I can I kinda see myself 20 years down the road saying... well I have a pile of points and I'm never going to draw so why not.

*Green hunt, go out with fish and wildlife and dart a sheep for radio collaring, and yes my thought is this would be a hunt you apply for and for which you lose your points if you draw.

Yes. If I had the money. And if not hunting was the only other option.

 

[TOGIE]

Just curious, so @Oak post over on the raffle thread, *hint* *hint*, how would people feel about a green hunt for MSG?

I'm not sure how I would feel about it... though, I can I kinda see myself 20 years down the road saying... well I have a pile of points and I'm never going to draw so why not.

*Green hunt, go out with fish and wildlife and dart a sheep for radio collaring, and yes my thought is this would be a hunt you apply for and for which you lose your points if you draw.

i don't think i would spend 20 years of points on that, or really any amount of points.

i'd apply for a cow first.

i'm highly motivated by filling tags, bringing home meat, the thrill of diy. this doesn't do that. it's a guided educational event at it's most basic that i would maybe pay for given the opportunity, but definitely not substitute for a hunt.

 

[BuzzH]

Just curious, so @Oak post over on the raffle thread, *hint* *hint*, how would people feel about a green hunt for MSG?

I'm not sure how I would feel about it... though, I can I kinda see myself 20 years down the road saying... well I have a pile of points and I'm never going to draw so why not.

*Green hunt, go out with fish and wildlife and dart a sheep for radio collaring, and yes my thought is this would be a hunt you apply for and for which you lose your points if you draw.

Not interested at all...I'd rather just go out and look at wildlife.

I hunt for the whole package and the meat is way over half the reason I hunt.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Sure, but taking out the government hand (state or fed) and you would see that the prices would be MUCH higher. That might not be good for the resource long-term, but there is no denying it would happen in that scenario. My main point to remember would be we can't manage solely to the lowest common denominator. In this case, the NR elk hunter who makes minimum wage. I'm sure that will probably piss some people off. Sorry, but there has to be some cost. I think states generally try to find some middle ground between auctioning at Governors Tags prices and everyone who wins the draw in MT getting charged $20 for an elk permit. The problem we have is that even at these prices, applications continue to increase.

I don't disagree.

I was just reacting to the "market" lingo you used. This is a govt monopoly, not a market. The prices are set at the sole discretion of the govt. They are less than they could be (while still selling them out), but that doesn't mean they are set "right". But nonetheless, they aren't market price. My guess is they could sell out at $1,750 for bull elk.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Yes, because we want to be able to hunt without being required to travel to Oklahoma because NR got all the tags back home.

Why is it horrible to prioritize opportunity for the people who live where that opportunity exists? There are not enough tags to fill all of the NR demand. Many western states are already at the point of not being able to meet resident demand. Should residents have to sit out the season so that NR can hunt?

For the third time on this thread I will ask "Why should I or any other resident have to sit at home without a tag so that a NR can travel in from a thousand miles away to hunt?"

I am not arguing otherwise. I am just asking for the simple honesty of "our house our rules" and to stop with the English common law, "we bear all the costs," "NAM says," and "the constitution commands" rationales - they don't hold water. That and an acknowledgment that the 340 million people who don't live in a mountain west state but pay a disproportionate portion of many western states' budgets may someday interject a new solution - democracy can be a b*tch.