Non-resident Hunting and the North American Model

[MTTW]

In my opinion the thing that prices out the little guy is loss of access to game, big and small in their own back yard.

I graduated high school in 1980 and have an uncut resident elk tag from that year that cost $8. We lived in a 2 bedroom house that we rented for $200 per month in 1978.
My mom and dad purchased a low end 2 bedroom house in town in 1979 for $15,000.


I went to work for the local sawmill the summer of 1980 and started at $7.10 per hour with full benefits.
Sooooooo. 1 hour pay would just about buy an elk tag. 1 year gross pay would buy my parent's house. Health insurance was free with my job. There were elk and mule deer on public land in the mountains. We shot gophers on the weekends. WE put in for goat tags and drew them. We fronted the money it was $25.

Today starting wage is about 12 bucks an hour at the sawmill. Some of the guys that I worked with when I left still work there and make about 15 to 16 dollars an hour.
1 year gross pay is a down payment on the same house which is worth about $250,000 to $280,000.
Rent on the same house is about $1,100 to $1,200. Rent is about 100 hours pay per month, where it was 28 hours pay in 1980. The sawmill job is still a competitive wage for this town.

Soooooo. The NA model is absolutely doomed, not because the $20 dollars is too much for an elk tag but because that kid just out of high school doesn't have enough money to get to the mountain, which has 10% of the accessible game on it that it did in 1980. When he goes to apply for a permit he has 1 chance where the oldsters have 400. His odds are ridiculously poor.

On the weekend this kid can't even find a place to shoot gophers and if he could he can't buy a 22 shell. He does not give money to conservation, and he thinks $20 for an elk tag is enough.
Soooooooo. We sell out our principles and auction a few tags to the highest bidder. We go along with absurd point schemes. We look to the non resident to foot the bill for us. We accept poor game management. We lease hunting ground with more game. We apply for permits in other states.

There is an all out assault on the NA model in the legislature. The kid doesn't know it. When the NAM goes the way of the dodo bird the kid won't mourn it. He never knew what it was. He was born too late.

 

[Bambistew]

@JLS I agree with everything you wrote. I spent a lot of time contemplating this topic after reading through the WY increase thread. Most of those that can afford to hunt as a NR will continue to do so, but I think as the prices continue to increase, the numbers that can afford will decline but I doubt there will be unsold tags anytime soon. I agree that as participation wanes, advocacy will go along with it.

 

[JLS]

@JLS I agree with everything you wrote. I spent a lot of time contemplating this topic after reading through the WY increase thread. Most of those that can afford to hunt as a NR will continue to do so, but I think as the prices continue to increase, the numbers that can afford will decline but I doubt there will be unsold tags anytime soon. I agree that as participation wanes, advocacy will go along with it.

I'm guessing you and a number of others on this site are in the same boat as me. I'll be 50 in September. I am in a good enough financial situation that I will figure out a way to satisfy my desires to hunt elk. It'll involve overtime, side work, and may be cow tags some years, bull tags the others, but I'll go. If elk tag prices jump obscenely, I have other plans in the hopper. If in 10 years I still feel like hunting elk, I’ll move to a state with good elk hunting and live out my days there. I'm good, but younger generations are screwed.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I try to keep perspective of how rapidly things change. Interstate system is about 70 y.o., large household freezers became common in the 60’s, previously decimated big game populations came roaring back through the 90s and the www gained mass popularity during that time.

The NA model of conservation was born of a pending crisis of the near extinction of multiple game species in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Support for conservation from sportspersons was small at first, but over time as game populations rebounded and the post-WWII era brought a strong economy, momentum for conservation swelled.

There were good roads to travel to hunt locations, affordable cars to get you there, freezers to store meat, abundant public land, and best of all, repopulated game to hunt. Although it varies by region, I think the golden age of resident hunting was 1970-1990 (WY started later and is still in theirs).

Add in the internet, and NR hunters got their golden age too: 2000-2020.

Let’s declare the sportsperson-driven NA conservation model a success - game populations were brought back from the brink and will likely be part of our landscape for hundreds of years to come.

At this point in living history I think it’s time for us to pass the conservation torch to NC’s. Enough non-hunters care enough about conservation to preserve at least some of the work we have done over the last century or so. The deck is stacked against hunters continuing to lead the way. Rapid population growth in the West, changing demographics, decline of hunters as a % of the population, privatization, ranchettes, energy development, commercialization, etc, are bringing about the death of the appealing and affordable NR DIY adventure for the hunter with above-average means. A lot of people will bow out because it’s not personally worth it to them to pay $1100 for a WY cow elk tag. We will lose participation and we will lose advocates. But I think that’s not a total loss.

The diehards will always be around as @mottlet illustrated, we will find a way to hunt one way or another. We are the crazy 5% or 3% or whatever of hunters who will adjust and adjust and adjust to find a way to have a hunting adventure, even if it’s more expensive, or less likely to bag a trophy, or not our 1st pick of species or whatever it takes, as opportunity diminishes and the cost of what’s left keeps going up.

I’d like to brainstorm more, maybe not on this thread, about how to move forward with a rebranded conservation model in which hunters are still involved but NC’s holding the reigns. Not my preferred vision but at the same time I’m trying to read the writing on the wall too.

I agree that non consumptive users could potentially provide a valuable part of the funding base for wildlife conservation and management. However, one reality of that might be a very diluted hunter voice. I think one of our greatest arguments for a seat at the table is that our lifestyles and hobbies fund so much of the meaningful conservation on the ground—game and nongame—and have for a century. What if we are only funding 20% of that instead of 80%? (arbitrary numbers). Not a a reason not to do it, and on the whole I’d like to see it in some form, but it does feel a little like a catch-22.

 

[Jcour4]

This is a pretty complicated topic and there are no answers. But what is happening in these western states is nothing new. It started in the East with loss of access and lower quality experiences.

Take traditional whitetail states, a 500 acre property use to support 10+ hunters. Now it is more likely to only have 1 or 2 on it because exclusivity is what people want and money is how you get it.

What the East went through in the early 2000’s is what the west is going through now; except for the large amounts of public land. There are two ways to create exclusivity on public land: 1. Reduce tags 2. Make public land essentially or even literally private.

These states will continue to push until they go too far and NR demand drops. This might be next year or in 25 years but it will happen eventually. Some states will manage the resource correctly and others will fail miserably.i will continue to fight issues I don’t agree with but you can’t win them all.

 

[Bambistew]

I'm guessing you and a number of others on this site are in the same boat as me. I'll be 50 in September. I am in a good enough financial situation that I will figure out a way to satisfy my desires to hunt elk. It'll involve overtime, side work, and may be cow tags some years, bull tags the others, but I'll go. If elk tag prices jump obscenely, I have other plans in the hopper. I'm good, but younger generations are screwed.

Honestly, my desire to hunt out of state has dropped off substantially in the 5-6 years. There really isn't much in the L48 that interests me hunting wise anymore, outside mule deer. I really haven little desire to hunt MT anymore, and I used to plan out weeks of trips well in advance. Its too over-hyped, over commercialized, and over hunted, over filmed and the "adventure" of it just doesn't seem all that adventurous anymore. There is more wild country within 50 mile radius of my house than there is left in all of MT. The roads, the trails, the internet scouting, the OnX, etc, Its re experiencing someone else's experience. I'm sure I'll take my kids down to hunt when they are older so they can see what they aren't missing, but to be honest I'd rather take them on an adventure here.

I thought about the recent issues that have popped up where hunters in some states need support from NR. At some point (I think we are well past it) people will just stop caring. Just go to a wildlife management meeting. The amount of public participation is painfully small. A handful of guys show up regularly, but most of the participants are members of some org. I'm guilty of not attending more. I spent 3-4 years going to lots of meetings and being active. I still try to keep up with events, send off letters, talk to board of game members, comment on proposals, etc, but life gets in the way, and being an advocate for a population of people that don't really care about anything but themselves is depressing... If it wasn't for special interest groups nothing would get done. I also feel like being a member of some XYZ org is just an excuse to not do anything. Let the greater group do the heavy lifting.

Look at how much residents care about NR tag prices, while they use the change from the beer and pizza they bought to pay for their elk/deer tag and then complain that it was still too expensive. How does that make a NR feel? Does it matter? Those with plenty of extra couldn't care less, as they pay for their private land hunt or go on a guided hunt. Its the other guys that don't that are getting left in the dust, and no one cares.

When the time comes they need an advocate from all walks of life (i.e.MT Outfitter welfare tags) good luck getting those same NRs that were pissed on to give a crap. I honestly couldn't care less about the outfitter mess brewing in MT. I could afford a guided hunt if I wanted to go shoot a dink buck or bull, but really have little desire to hunt private land or wade through the piles of hunters on public land. I can also get the "native" tags if I want, but even if I couldn't... I still wouldn't care. The typical resident hunter would just as soon piss on a NR as help him out, that's a fact. I've listened to the rhetoric since I was old enough to understand it. Door swings both ways.

Like I said I spent a lot of time contemplating this, and found that I'm no better than the next guy when it comes to caring or being selfless. I have no idea how we can fix this, and I doubt its even fixable. I really am not sure if the cost of a tag is the litmus test, or if its just a small symptom of the bigger issue, apathy. Even if tags were the same price, I don't think it would matter, but it would go a long ways to promoting advocacy in the way of treating people equally, even if they were on limited quota. Your 3 non-negotiable bullet points maybe the place we need to start, negotiating the non-negotiable. I don't know. All I know is that at this point I'm not sure I can be an advocate for the future of hunting, because I feel like its a lost cause.

 

[JLS]

Your 3 non-negotiable bullet points maybe the place we need to start, negotiating the non-negotiable.

Interestingly enough, one aspect mentioned in the legal review unlinked said the one wildcard that would negate these would be a federal constitutional right to hunt and fish.

 

[SAJ-99]

I'm good, but younger generations are screwed.

Why do you say that? Because of cost? I don’t want to turn this in an economic thread but kids today need to look at the world around them and make decisions regarding their future based on what they see, not on what dad or grand dad did (in most cases).

this thread is about a bunch of different but related topics- NR cost, too much demand for not enough supply (both hunting tags and outdoor space generally), inability of states to manage a budget, etc. I can say that a lot of hunters I see have ATVs and drive pretty expensive trucks and stay in nice campers. You can’t manage the allocation process off the 5% of people who depend on hunting for food. Maybe give out hunting tags for free to those people.

 

[Shangobango]

this thread is about a bunch of different but related topics- NR cost, too much demand for not enough supply (both hunting tags and outdoor space generally), inability of states to manage a budget, etc.

This is spot on IMO.

I sit here and ponder on ways to just simply sustain the public lands and hunting opportunities we have now across this nation, but I can’t see where it is possible. Boggles my mind and frustrates the hell out of me.

There are plenty of folks more knowledgeable on these topics than me and I hope that they can help find the answers.

 

[idahohuntr]

This is an interesting topic, but I'm not inclined to believe the NA model is in a death spiral. I think it is largely alive and well and I don't see all the increases in NR prices (and/or decreases in quotas) as an attack on the model. As noted by the OP, resident tag prices remain at very low levels. The residents of these states are the backbone of this model, and will ensure the wildlife are largely managed in a manner consistent with the NA model. State agencies becoming increasingly reliant on NR fees and pricing out NR's is unfortunate from some perspectives, but I also think its in line with the fiduciary responsibilities of the State. Really high NR fees basically subsidize resident tags, which ensure the lowest income residents can still buy tags, which is ensuring equitable access (and interest) in the state's wildlife among it's residents. I get that higher prices and lower quotas reduce NR 'commoner' access to wildlife, but I don't think that ultimately leads to a death spiral of the NA model.

I do get the overall point that any funding mechanism where wildlife goes to the highest bidder or private entities certainly chips away at the NA model. Things that do cause me concern - governors tags, SFW/Utah expo tags, transferable landowner tags, etc. I strongly reject the use of these as a method for funding agencies - its a net loss for the public on so many fronts and in my view represents the biggest threat to the NA model. However, with a robust resident population, I don't think even the abuses of auction tags, transferable tags etc. can send the NA model into a death spiral. I do see all aspects of hunting only getting more expensive over time.

 

[MTLabrador]

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking on this. I don’t think we are in the death spiral yet, but I think we are standing at the edge of a very slippery slope looking down. Hunters need to realize that the little cuts that chip away at the NA model are nothing to take lightly.

I’m going to go fishing tomorrow, enjoy the amazing resources we still have, and think about this some more.

 

[huntnpack]

At this point in living history I think it’s time for us to pass the conservation torch to NC’s.

Edit: NAM and NC conservation have never been mutually exclusive. There is a reason NAM filled that vacuum and NCs have yet to show a remotely comparable desire or involvement. To hand over the reigns now is to acquiesce. Until there is comparable effort, North American wildlife and landscapes are better off in the hands of the NAM, even if renewable consumptive users are a dwindling minority. Maybe I’ve downed too much of the NAM kool aid, but I don’t see a better alternative at this time. Especially on the margins of scenic landscapes, wildlife corridors, and winter ranges.

 

[JLS]

Thanks for taking the time to post this up @JLS.

We seem to be thinking about this in much the same way.

My other concern dealing with opportunity is availability of tags and places to use them. To recruit and retain advocates there must be opportunity in my opinion. The available tags could be dirt cheap but if there are very few of them or the ones that are available have little access those factors would still limit the number of people with enough skin in the game to become and stay active in advocating for conservation and hunting.

It is a complicated issue.

Thank you for chiming in. You’ve offered some insightful thoughts in both threads, and I appreciate that.

 

[Nunyacreek]

Leaving the death of the NAM aside for a moment, it's intersting to contemplate that we are talking about two things, access to hunting period and then access to hunting as a non-resident. With the obvious exception of a few eastern states like NY and PA, I have to think that non-resident hunting was not the norm 50 years ago. I grew up in an era where NR hunting was aspirational but attainable. I think it probably still is for the most part. Working in a taxidermy shop in CT in the '80's there were a few guys who went to Quebec to hunt caribou but I only dreamed of seeing elk or mule deer. Even now, the refrain of older generation hunters who travelled to hunt was " there were so few resources, it took a lot of legwork and planning". Now, with a subscription to GoHunt and OnX it is easier than planning a family vacation to Disneyland. We all benefit from this change as NR hunters but maybe not so much as residents.
What puzzles me is that the NAM arose in a time of relatively scarce resources. Small game was all there was to hunt for many people who supported conservation at the time. I can't reconcile in my mind why relative superabundance of game and and then declining access to that game should lead to the demise of the model. While this effect may be the canary in the coal mine, perhaps the erosion of the model could be pinned on a population increasingly disconnected to hunting in general, at least as a percentage of the population. As people increasingly value outdoor recreation they don't always value it in the same way that I do. A tourist driving through Montana is happy to see a large intact ranch, not concerned that there is no longer access that they never availed themselves of anyway. I bet there's a lot of places a guy could still get permission to squirrel hunt or chase rabbits, but I want more and bigger. Perhaps we have just increased our appetites beyond our capacity to provide for them.
I don't know, but I am intrigued by all the folks chiming in. THanks for the thread.

 

[shrapnel]

I don’t buy all the doomsday feelings of the future of hunting. Forecasting has always been sketchy, not only with the weather. People from Alaska complain about Montana, and yet they have some of the highest out of state tag prices and restrictions on NR hunters needing guides. Arizona has drawings for most big game, yet you can get a tag and sign it over to someone else.

The list of regulations for states and game laws is long and varied. As a lifetime resident of Montana, I am not as alarmed and depressed as it seems to appear on HuntTalk. I also realize that with all the complaints about Montana’s poor FWP policies, there are more elk and deer to hunt in 2021 than there was in 1965.

On a similar point, McDonalds restaurant chain predicted they would reach saturation point somewhere near the early 1980’s, 40 years later they are still growing. There was also the fear that technology would put people out of work due to how much more a single person could accomplish, making it unnecessary for others to continue in the workplace. Today we see that technology has increased job opportunities and early predictions were wrong.

My point:
We have been able to adapt, beyond our scope of reading the future, and I believe we may not see what we experienced in the past, but the hunting world will still continue to thrive well past what most of the predictions of failures seem to indicate.

I am certainly in the minority here that isn’t as upset with hunting and Montana’s opportunities to hunt, yet most will criticize that outlook and still cry foul. The real winners are not quitting...

 

[Trial153]

Is wildlife managed for all the citizens of a state or only those with a with a hunting license?

 

[F250]

Certainly I agree that residents of any state should should pay less for a hunting license and tag than a nonresident. How much though ? How about pricing the nonresident 75% more than a resident ? Certainly, I agree that resident hunters should receive more tags than the nonresident hunters. How many though ? How about 25 % of the given tags go to nonresidents ? I think this math is especially fair in the western states where much of the hunted land is owned by the US Government. It is difficult for me to get involved in land access issues and game conservation issues in the west if there really isn't much chance for me to hunt there. I'll now grab my helmet, Kevlar vest, and retreat to my foxhole

 

[Redman]

From a non-resident that lives in a state with little public land access. I completely understand and support raising the price of NR tags. A low population state like WY or MT can not support funding for the states wildlife and all the goes into management of it. Is it fair to the residents of that state that pay yearly taxes to provide the funding so that NR can come for a week or two to use that states resources? NO.. Yes I remember the days of getting a cow elk tag for 300.00 for a NR and each year watching that $$ for the same tag go up. Will the cost of a tag price me out. I doubt it. Will it price others out? Maybe. I take my family on a beach vacation yearly. The price over the condo is 1600.00. We eat out several times but mostly by groceries and utilize the condos kitchen, so there is another 600 + what about the souvenirs, the I forgot to bring items, the let's go to the "add your wallet burner place here". By the time I figure the beach vacation the elk hunt seems like a deal! My family is always invited on my hunting trips as well but there is never a hotel fee, eating out, stopping off to buy souvenirs. They know it and still enjoy it when they go.
I want to support the Western states as a NR the best I can. Face it folks the last thing I want is the Federal government in charge of wildlife management. If that ever happens then talk to some teenaged gamers and see if they can show you how to use the Xbox and play the latest greatest hunting game..because that is the only way you will be allowed to hunt.

 

[Trial153]

Maybe NAM needs a good infusion of capitalism to it?
Complaining about underfunded game departments while 90% of tags are given out at subsidized welfare pricing, all the while there is a multi year waiting list to sell the remaining 10% at market value which is in some cases is 20 to100 times as much seems oxymoronic . Seems to be system that only benefits the hunting residents while remaining residents getting a bill.

 

[ChaosOneZero]

I don’t buy all the doomsday feelings of the future of hunting. Forecasting has always been sketchy, not only with the weather. People from Alaska complain about Montana, and yet they have some of the highest out of state tag prices and restrictions on NR hunters needing guides. Arizona has drawings for most big game, yet you can get a tag and sign it over to someone else.

The list of regulations for states and game laws is long and varied. As a lifetime resident of Montana, I am not as alarmed and depressed as it seems to appear on HuntTalk. I also realize that with all the complaints about Montana’s poor FWP policies, there are more elk and deer to hunt in 2021 than there was in 1965.

On a similar point, McDonalds restaurant chain predicted they would reach saturation point somewhere near the early 1980’s, 40 years later they are still growing. There was also the fear that technology would put people out of work due to how much more a single person could accomplish, making it unnecessary for others to continue in the workplace. Today we see that technology has increased job opportunities and early predictions were wrong.

My point:
We have been able to adapt, beyond our scope of reading the future, and I believe we may not see what we experienced in the past, but the hunting world will still continue to thrive well past what most of the predictions of failures seem to indicate.

I am certainly in the minority here that isn’t as upset with hunting and Montana’s opportunities to hunt, yet most will criticize that outlook and still cry foul. The real winners are not quitting...

Business analysts at McDonald's couldn't possibly have forecast that Americans would embrace becoming morbidly obese by eating garbage food at rock bottom prices. And technology, here in America and in the developing world, has indeed eliminated entire sectors of the manufacturing industry. Has it created additional sectors? Sure. But entry-level manufacturing and labor jobs were replaced by process/automation engineers and other jobs that require more skills and education. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Regarding game populations, I don't know that herd size matters as much when you account for reductions in opportunity and resultant increases in opportunity cost, which are real.

I don't know how you can call it "forecasting" when legislation restricting access and opportunity are being proposed and passed on a fairly regular basis. America, generally speaking, is becoming more progressive over time, not less. When coupled with special interest lobbying, which puts more power and influence in the hands of people with the deepest pockets, I think we are looking at a scenario wherein substantive demographics of the American public will be priced out of the pursuit in certain places. I don't have a problem, as a NR, paying more to hunt western states, because, like many folks, I think I'm paying for the experience, but I understand the perspective of folks of lesser means who see it differently.