D
Deleted member 16014
Guest
I genuinely missed connecting about 7 dots here. What does the map etc. have to do with what we're supposed to do?
Non-resident Hunting and the North American Model
- Thread starter TheJason
- Start date
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Redistribution is inversley proportional to college football success.
Handlebar
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 303
As a UWY grad that hurt
thebestusernamesaretaken
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2021
- Messages
- 361
One bit of thought here; the Fed could place further limits on how fed funds are distributed to States to increase a sense of fairness to the non-resident population as well and providing benefit to the most participant hunters and that State's wildlife. Look at it this way, I presume that the excise taxes are mostly incurred from those areas where high levels of population meet higher level of qualified purchases for the Pittman-Roberson act. Now this means that if a highly populated Eastern US State where the citizens buys a lot of 5.56 ammo for the range, could have contributed more to the fund than a less populated Western State with large amount of public land. These monies collected are then redistributed to all the States. The Western States have very, very low population levels as compared to the East. The majority of the need of these funds (for the wildlife's benefit), would likely be in the Western States because the massive amounts of public land habitat available to the wildlife. Western expansion was built on Eastern resources and the East has long been depleted to the point where it wouldn't be realistic to try to put Elk back in MD for example. So it makes sense that the best use of this money could go to areas that have large areas of wildlife habitat as well as conserving what little the East has. Currently those funds are distributed in part based on hunting licenses sold, hunter education courses ect (why do you think AZ gives you a point for a hunter Ed course). There are a lot of legal stuff about public lands and wildlife held in trust to benefit the people ect. Folks think that that's the end of it but all of that could be retried in a different court for anyone who wanted to fund it and it could also be proposed in congress to simply amend the law. Most would agree that States rights is a hallmark of our Union and there isn't yet a political advocacy group to push this effort anyway. However, it would not be out of limits to use a ratio of resident to non-resident licenses sold and the ratio of the disparity of the two prices to distribute those funds to those States where the wildlife need is and who also discriminates the least. This wouldn't affect States rights at all and would provide more fairness to the resident, non-resident and benefit the wildlife. If the State didn't want the money sharing, they would be free to set their non-resident tags and pricing to suite their needs and fund their State's projects soley from the funds they have taxed the residents or from license fees.
thebestusernamesaretaken
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2021
- Messages
- 361
One bit of thought here; the Fed could place further limits on how fed funds are distributed to States to increase a sense of fairness to the non-resident population as well and providing benefit to the most participant hunters and that State's wildlife. Look at it this way, I presume that the excise taxes are mostly incurred from those areas where high levels of population meet higher level of qualified purchases for the Pittman-Roberson act. Now this means that if a highly populated Eastern US State where the citizens buys a lot of 5.56 ammo for the range, could have contributed more to the fund than a less populated Western State with large amount of public land. These monies collected are then redistributed to all the States. The Western States have very, very low population levels as compared to the East. The majority of the need of these funds (for the wildlife's benefit), would likely be in the Western States because the massive amounts of public land habitat available to the wildlife. Western expansion was built on Eastern resources and the East has long been depleted to the point where it wouldn't be realistic to try to put Elk back in MD for example. So it makes sense that the best use of this money could go to areas that have large areas of wildlife habitat as well as conserving what little the East has. Currently those funds are distributed in part based on hunting licenses sold, hunter education courses ect (why do you think AZ gives you a point for a hunter Ed course). There are a lot of legal stuff about public lands and wildlife held in trust to benefit the people ect. Folks think that that's the end of it but all of that could be retried in a different court for anyone who wanted to fund it and it could also be proposed in congress to simply amend the law. Most would agree that States rights is a hallmark of our Union and there isn't yet a political advocacy group to push this effort anyway. However, it would not be out of limits to use a ratio of resident to non-resident licenses sold and the ratio of the disparity of the two prices to distribute those funds to those States where the wildlife need is and who also discriminates the least. This wouldn't affect States rights at all and would provide more fairness to the resident, non-resident and benefit the wildlife. If the State didn't want the money sharing, they would be free to set their non-resident tags and pricing to suite their needs and fund their State's projects soley from the funds they have taxed the residents or from license fees.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Hard carriage return is useful. Good info, but hard to keep up in that paragraph.
I am leery of trying to change the current formula because once you open the P-R act someone else will want to change another part of it.
How is P-R funding distributed?
P-R funds are annually apportioned according to a formula prescribed by the Act:
- ⊕ 50% based on land area of the state, commonwealth, or territory;
- ⊕ 50% based on the number of paid hunting license holders in the state, commonwealth, or territory;
- ⊕ No state may receive more than 5% or less than 0.5% of the total apportionment;
- ⊕ Grants for hunter education and safety programs are based on a state’s population. No state may receive more than 3% or less than 1% of the available hunter education funds.
Shangobango
Well-known member
I was gone for a few days and this thread exploded into a roller coaster ride.
Saw that my State was brought up again.
We win at food, that's something.
Saw that my State was brought up again.
We win at food, that's something.
I find spending policy interesting as well, but don't have a direct answer as to where exactly federal aid is spent in a given state's budget.
Worth noting that throughout the country the bulk of federal aid dispersed to states goes to healthcare. (source)
Also worth noting that federal grants contribute a significant amount some states' transportation infrastructure, particularly in the front four Rockies states. (source)
Not sure that amount of federal land in a state has much to do with federal grant levels as open space is relatively inexpensive to maintain compared to other big ticket state budgetary sectors.
Still looking for a more detailed dataset on state by state breakdown of spending of federal aid.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
In the states of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, the overwhelming philosophy is to "starve the beast". It appears to me, the rest of the countries philosophy is to feed the beast, then whine about unfair redistribution. 
Actually the elk of Montana are held in trust for the residents of the state. This has been held up in court multiple times..
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I get the "starve the beast" scenario - but that's not really happening here. This isn't about whether WY/MT citizens reduce what they are paying into DC, it's about their propensity to overspend what they have and look for the fed (i.e. other states to make up the gap). It also doesn't explain while equally "conservative" states with a similar philosophy actually pay their way to the same extent as other states (ND, KS, UT for example). I think the feds should stop differentially funding states that seem to be willing to overspend their means. That would inturn reduce the DC beast (it would need less if it was subsidizing less).In the states of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, the overwhelming philosophy is to "starve the beast". It appears to me, the rest of the countries philosophy is to feed the beast, then whine about unfair redistribution.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Only because the fed has not instructed otherwise. So you are right - it is the status quo. But the status quo is not protected by the courts, but rather the feds inaction - which is likely to remain the course for now, but not always.
Handlebar
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 303
If you have the time could you expand on that? Confused as to what the fed could instruct.
On a side note if the fed was to assert jurisdiction over the states I think the whole take control of public lands from the feds would gain significant support.
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,300
I am confident that the past precedent of each state managing and owing its wildlife will stand long after I'm gone. One exception is carved out for waterfowl, which are managed within guidelines of an international treaty. The other is Federal oversight of endangered and threatened species. In the second case, no management rights are given to a neighboring individual state.
Every state has long managed its deer herds, upland birds, without input or consideration of another state's interests.
There would have to be a very compelling Federal interest to upend this applecart. Much bigger that hunters from one state thinking they are getting an unfair shake from another state. There is NO constitutional right to hunt in other states. Politically, a constitutional amendment addressing this issue, will never happen. Does anyone really think the states with diverse big game herds are going to cede their present rights?
I do not want to gouge non residents but I also damn sure don't want them thinking they have the same rights to Montana's big game as every Montana resident.
Every state has long managed its deer herds, upland birds, without input or consideration of another state's interests.
There would have to be a very compelling Federal interest to upend this applecart. Much bigger that hunters from one state thinking they are getting an unfair shake from another state. There is NO constitutional right to hunt in other states. Politically, a constitutional amendment addressing this issue, will never happen. Does anyone really think the states with diverse big game herds are going to cede their present rights?
I do not want to gouge non residents but I also damn sure don't want them thinking they have the same rights to Montana's big game as every Montana resident.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I agree that in practice there is no push for a change, but let's be clear it could happen without any amendment to the constitution and without any consent of the mountain west states. The commerce clause already grants the feds the authority and equal protection could be re-considered to do the same (happens all the time). As for state's consent, first of all, the mountain west does not alone have a filibuster-proof number of senators, and many states get bribed to go along. Just look at the 55mph speed limit and DUI-related federal rules to see how the game is played and the states dance to the tune of federal $$.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Montana is required by law to balance our budget. The beast not so much.
So what states are over spending their means?
9 States Struggle With Long-Term Fiscal Imbalances
Even after two recessions, most states amassed sufficient revenue—predominantly from taxes and federal funds—to cover their expenses between fiscal years 2004 and 2018. But total revenue in nine states fell short.
"Aside from Montana, which was the only state to end each year with a surplus,"
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I am referencing that some states self-fund 70-80% of their own spending through their own revenues while some states only fund 55-60% of their own spending with their own revenues and relying more on federal subsidies to make up a bigger gap. It's obviously a very complex and dynamic situation (except to Buzz), but the point some of us are trying to make is that the "we pay for it" saw grows old when some states rely a lot more on others than their rhetoric suggests.Montana is required by law to balance our budget. The beast not so much.
So what states are over spending their means?
9 States Struggle With Long-Term Fiscal Imbalances
Even after two recessions, most states amassed sufficient revenue—predominantly from taxes and federal funds—to cover their expenses between fiscal years 2004 and 2018. But total revenue in nine states fell short.www.pewtrusts.org
"Aside from Montana, which was the only state to end each year with a surplus,"
MT & WY are two of the least self-sufficient states. Montana could not have ended each year with a surplus without taking a disproportionately high amount of fed $$. For example, my wife and I could both quit our jobs and spend $900,000 a year and if the government gave us a million a year we would end each year with a surplus - but that would not be a sign of either hard work or frugality on our part.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Yes, it complex and dynamic. Latest example of how the beast's redistribution to the states works.
How much money will your state get if Biden's COVID-19 relief bill passes?
Republican governors have slammed the bill's funding formula based on unemployment as 'biased.' But a breakdown shows only small differences.
www.usatoday.com
SAJ-99
Well-known member
All the numbers in Montana's budget are influenced by Federal $s. Hence why the Legislature is looking at their Covid check and figuring out how to allocate it.
