Non-resident Hunting and the North American Model

[SAJ-99]

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.

I think the premise for R/NR disparity is based on the budget for the game agencies being paid for out of general tax revenues. But I’m not even sure that is the case in all states. MT FWP’s is heavily dependent on revenue from fees. WY doesn’t have state income taxes so any general fund $ is coming from O&G revenues. Every state is different, but they all have figured out how to charge NR a lot more.
We could let economics solve the problem and just blind auction a bunch of tags, much like they do for Governor’s tags, but for all LE zones. Make all MSG tag OIL. People will complain, but no solution is going to please everybody.

 

[1_pointer]

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.

Judging from your screen name, I assume you live in ID. While I will not discount your stance on the impacts of NR pricing or to whom the State is responsible for management decision. From my experience hunting in ID, the ability to do so is largely dependent upon access to federal lands. The backbone of support for keeping those lands federal and open to all is not just the residents. An unintended consequence of the increased costs and reduced opportunity for NRs will be the loss of support for federal lands staying how they are. The recent and pending changes for NRs in many western states is quite the marketing opportunity for the PLT movement. I support the states right/ability to make the decisions they are making, but there will be consequences for those decsions and some of those will come as a shock to residents of those states. More so in the states that depend on a large amount of federal public land.

 

[JLS]

Some people are struggling with their reading. I never once said “hunting” is doomed. I think the NAM is doomed. There is a huge difference.

The real winners are not quitting...

I’d prefer it if we keep arrogance out of the discussion. .

 

[MTTW]

One thing that has changed in the last 40 years is the need to defend the NAM on a regular basis, and residents can't do it on their own. The majority of us vote for people who don't believe in it. They whittle away at it trying to stack the odds in their favor. Access to game is getting to be more pay to play every year.

Block management is a social program designed to alleviate the access to game issue. It has had some success. Other programs are being considered as I understand.
The future of hunting is largely pay to play, either collectively through access programs, or individually.

The people who want things to stay the same are going to be disappointed. I don't think that there is a solution to the majority of game being on private. Access to that game will be sold more each year. When access to game is sold to the highest bidder the general population loses. Going forward this will be more and more the case. The land owners will control and effectively manage the game as they see fit as many of them do now.

The way I see it we collectively buy the hunting rights on private land or watch as it is sold individually.
In my mind access to public land is of far greater value than access to game on private land.

The kid in my above post was not priced out of hunting by the price of a resident tag, and if the tag was twice as much he still would not be priced out of hunting by tag prices. He was not screwed out of a big 3 tag by the price of applying for it. He was priced out of hunting by rent prices. He was screwed out of a reasonable chance at a big 3 tag by a squared point system that steals his chances and gives them to the same guy who bought his house for a years gross pay.

If access to public land exists in the future he has a chance of hunting. He can pick up the crumbs off the edges of private and the NAM exists for him, and he may love it. If he has no access to public land The NAM ceases to exist. Hunting goes on. Look to pretty much any other country outside North America to see what it looks like.

 

[brocksw]

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.

I agree, there's a lot at play here, more than just the increasing price of a tag. There's NR tag costs vs resident tag costs, there's the nuances of prioritizing money in decision making versus recognizing money is a necessary part of the formula for modern day conservation. THere's increasing costs of depredation, increasing cost of access, increasing cost of land, increasing wages, increasing cost of research. There's monetization and privatization of wildlife, access conflicts, habitat issues, incentive programs not being able to pay enough to incentivize GOOD habitat which equals dwindling habitat (see CRP). Then those incentive programs have to try and compete with subsidized crops, increasing yields, etc...hell I heard of some small grains fetching twice the yields with new GMO seeds last year. How is wildlife habitat supposed to keep up with that? There's lots of variable playing roles in what's going on in our country right now when it comes to hunting.

There's also a problem on a local level (maybe the biggest part of this problem) with the wrong people being in government, of course not all are bad, but a lot of these bad bills are coming from the same individuals or the same demographic. If they aren't doing it, it's their buddy who's in charge of the grazing association or the cattle association, or the ag group, or the county commissioner who's got a ranch, or maybe he's the with a group called MOGA. So we shouldn't be surprised when they make decisions that will prioritize and benefit their interest over the guy who works in town and only comes out in the fall to hunt deer. That's not an indictment of landowners, some are great, some are "pro-hunter" and supportive of "city folk" getting out and using the land, some aren't trying to monetize every god damn thing under the sun. Unfortunately it seems like those nice guys aren't very loud, especially when it comes to driving policy in state government.

A common theme I recognize is everything seems to tie back to $$$$$$$ or control....

These days there might be more "DIY hunters" willing to go deep into the backcountry or start a youtube channel, but there are less and less DIY hunters who are in positions in government and/or that can actually advocate for our interests and what will benefit or protect the guy who doesn't own a bunch of land. I know of very few politicians who actually represent a DIY public land hunter. I know of a lot who represent farmers, ranchers, businessmen, 2a, specific industries, free healthcare, pro life, and on and on.

Another issue as I see it, is that both political parties have done a pretty good job of dividing hunters. Conservatives do it on purpose, Democrats do it on accident. BHA is the perfect example. The Green decoy Richard Berman campaign was highly effective for his targeted demographic. Many conservatives are truly scared of BHA being some undercover operation that is actually there to play the long game of taking hunting away. Think about how much mental gymnastics you have to do to put all that together....yet go over to rokslide and start a BHA thread and let the bashing ensue. I've even seen the site owners or moderators jump in. Yet look at all these issues going on this year where RMEF, WSF, MDF are no where to be found. That's not saying those are bad groups or that they don't deserve your membership money. It's simply saying, look at how effective that campaign against BHA was...and yet, it's basically them and the Wildlife Federation that are fighting all these battles that have everyone so up in arms. And half the hunters won't support them because they're some liberal undercover op orchestrated by the clintons. I mean....you can't make this shit up. Then, to make matters worse, it seems like a lot of national politicians (Democrats) who support public lands also seem to be anti 2a, and some are even against hunting, and oil, and coal. To pour more gas on the flame, part of the campaign strategy is now to nationalize local elections on both sides...and even the moderate democrats in state government (whose voting record seems to favor the DIY hunter) start losing elections. What's the result of that? Well, look no further than MT this year.

The issue goes beyond the price of tags in my opinion....but price is still a factor.

 

[idahohuntr]

Judging from your screen name, I assume you live in ID. While I will not discount your stance on the impacts of NR pricing or to whom the State is responsible for management decision. From my experience hunting in ID, the ability to do so is largely dependent upon access to federal lands. The backbone of support for keeping those lands federal and open to all is not just the residents. An unintended consequence of the increased costs and reduced opportunity for NRs will be the loss of support for federal lands staying how they are. The recent and pending changes for NRs in many western states is quite the marketing opportunity for the PLT movement. I support the states right/ability to make the decisions they are making, but there will be consequences for those decsions and some of those will come as a shock to residents of those states. More so in the states that depend on a large amount of federal public land.

I hear ya...but I can't quite make the leap you do between NR participation in big game hunts and stopping transfer of federal lands. I think that misses just how much interest there is in federal/public lands from the resident hunters as well as the extraordinary number of non-resident, non-consumptive users who enjoy those public lands.

A counter argument could be made that the high NR prices for tags demonstrates to agencies and policy/elected leaders the critical importance of sound wildlife and land management practices in their respective states. With high fees and high demand in most western states...I think there is also a case to be made that rather than auction some tags to high bidders, just raise the NR tag price another $20 and more than offset the revenue from that auction tag. I would gladly pay more than the already high fees for NR tags in other states if it led to them eliminating governor/auction tags...that would be a great counter punch to those who support these practices that are, in my view, not consistent with the NA model.

 

[shrapnel]

Some people are struggling with their reading. I never once said “hunting” is doomed. I think the NAM is doomed. There is a huge difference.

I’d prefer it if we keep arrogance out of the discussion. .

That isn’t arrogance, I consider hunting into the future winning. What you consider a winner is obviously something else.

 

[Jc2020]

I do some hunting out west where I’m not a resident and I do believe as a non resident I should have to pay more than a resident for a tag and I believe there is going to be times where states need to raise licensing fees to keep up with growing costs And fees that go into land management. but to me it seems like hunters are the ones expected to cover these extra expenses. I personally would like to see someway to spread it out to others that use the resources like campers and hikers people that float the rivers that use the Public land maybe thru some sort of permit for public land use for people with out a valid hunting or fishing license. If I travel out of state to hike and disperse camp on National forest land or blm or what ever I’m using the land that is managed by a government entity with out Paying in. I think Requiring a little bit from everyone that uses it not just hunters could go a long ways.

 

[BigHornRam]

I've heard all these complaints for as long as I've been hunting. I'm sure the same complaints existed before I started hunting. Yes the NA model has some problems. Differing opinions on what those problems are. Is it over? My opinion no, but I'm a glass half full person so take that for what it's worth.

 

[David Gough]

For resident hunters I have to call BS on this. I have a hard time believing a resident of a Rocky Mountain state, for the price of a tag, a tank of gas, and a cooler of food, can't put together a very affordable deer or elk hunt.

I had under $100 in my mule deer hunt last year.

Rocky mountain state, sure. Other states in the west, such as my home state of Nevada, it would be nearly impossible for someone to fill an antlerless deer tag for under $100 unless you live in the northeast quadrant. The deer tag is $30 for residents and you would spend over $70 in travel.

Cow elk tags are $120 for residents.

I've never shot a female animal out of my home state, which may make my point mute. I would travel to certain states for a rifle cow elk hunt though.

 

[rwc101]

I personally would like to see someway to spread it out to others that use the resources like campers and hikers people that float the rivers that use the Public land maybe thru some sort of permit for public land use for people with out a valid hunting or fishing license.

I would like to see them chip in through an excise tax. I'm not sure how well implementing fees for all public lands would go over or if it is even possible.

 

[Jc2020]

I would like to see them chip in through an excise tax. I'm not sure how well implementing fees for all public lands would go over or if it is even possible.

Yeah I’m not sure either excise tax would work too just something so everyone is contributing.

 

[1_pointer]

I hear ya...but I can't quite make the leap you do between NR participation in big game hunts and stopping transfer of federal lands. I think that misses just how much interest there is in federal/public lands from the resident hunters as well as the extraordinary number of non-resident, non-consumptive users who enjoy those public lands.

A counter argument could be made that the high NR prices for tags demonstrates to agencies and policy/elected leaders the critical importance of sound wildlife and land management practices in their respective states. With high fees and high demand in most western states...I think there is also a case to be made that rather than auction some tags to high bidders, just raise the NR tag price another $20 and more than offset the revenue from that auction tag. I would gladly pay more than the already high fees for NR tags in other states if it led to them eliminating governor/auction tags...that would be a great counter punch to those who support these practices that are, in my view, not consistent with the NA model.

Didn't say NR participation would stop PLT. But, folks on your side regarding PLT today may not be so in the future with increased costs and reduced opportunity at tags. The idea of a mule deer or elk hunt (or a repeat of those)is something that keeps them on your side. When you make that more rare/expensive, why would a guy in SW Indiana care about USFS or BLM land going to the highest bidder? The "western" fix could be had in a National Park...

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Shifting baseline syndrome coupled with the construction of an environmental model devoid of humans.

Shifting baseline
We see these folks as putting together the North American Model. TR/Pinchot/Grinnell/Leopold/Pittman/Robertson.
I don't think the idea was "Wow there are no buffalo, lets bring back buffalo, so that middle class and wealth Americans can shoot them". My understanding is that they wanted to protect wild places and restore ecosystems that had been lost as we "conquered" the frontier. I don't think there was anyone who thought this would happen over night.

Looking at CO as a case study. Between 1800-1910. Bison removed, elk and deer almost extirpated by market hunting, sheep devastated by hunting + wool industry, war on predators wide spread use of poison to kill everything.

1899 "The wilderness has been conquered and all the game killed off." -Teddy
1900 - CO population 539,000
1907 - 18 National Forests created -TR

1929 - 17,000 elk and 45,000 deer, elk hunting reinstated, deer hunted with antler point restrictions 4,000 harvested
1930- Population 1,000,000

1945- Last Wolf killed
1963- 147,000 deer killed (peak harvest)
1979- Last Grizz killed - Moose introduced - Goat Introduced/Re-introduced
1980 - Population 2,900,000
1990 - 600,000 deer

2019- 36,389 Deer Taken - Population 418,310 : 37,095 Elk Taken - Population 292,760
2021 Population 5,759,000

So depending on how you look at it deer peaked in the 1960s, bringing back elk devastated the deer herd as they competed for them in winter range. The deer and elk were awesome, but we also had basically no predators. Then we added other game species which competed with Deer and elk, then we allowed predators to come back, all along the way we added more people and took away habitat. Populations have gone up and down as we have change the variables.

I think TR and Aldo would be called green decoy's today and would be booed off any wildlife commission. I think their idea was we try to restore things and a lot of folks want us to hit the pause button on a certain spot on the journey.

IMHO the NA model is a fully intact suite of animals. It's not maximized deer harvest. So yes wolves, lions, bears as well as deer and elk.

Environmental model devoid of humans

Humans are part of the intact landscape, we've be a part of the predator prey interaction for 30,000+ years. Humans have hunted all animals, not just the ones with hooves and wings.

IMHO the NA model on the 2021 --> needs to recognize that the goal is a full suite of animals, that we need to manage the system with hunting, that opportunity will change but should be available to everyone, and that since wildlife are held in trust for that states citizens it's absolutely the states prerogative to prioritize residents, and to have a management component be non-consumptive use. Examples, no hunting goats on popular mountains on the weekend, no shooting the moose that everyone like to take pictures of... those animals are being used by other groups. That use is important and should be managed.

Funding, needs to be a bigger group than just hunters. The current model of funding agencies on NR elk tags is getting pretty reminiscent of market hunting, and incentivizes bad management practice, i.e. putting money before herd health.

 

[4ohSick]

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.

This isn't really panning out across the border here in MT, but I like the optimism.

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.

But are there more elk and deer on public land than there were 20 years ago?

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.

Technology may have increased job opportunities, but I also think it's raised the price of admission. The loss of manufacturing jobs has devastated the Midwest and sure, the total number of jobs in the US may be more with the growth of the technology sector, but those jobs require a higher level of education.

 

[JLS]

Funding, needs to be a bigger group than just hunters. The current model of funding agencies on NR elk tags is getting pretty reminiscent of market hunting, and incentivizes bad management practice, i.e. putting money before herd health.

This is a very key point. Hunters live under the illusion that paying the bills grants exclusivity when it comes to wildlife decisions. As @wllm1313 correctly pointed out, everyone is part of the public trust doctrine regardless of how many tags you buy.

 

[mplane72]

The majority of us vote for people who don't believe in it.

I'm still catching up on this thread and will try to put together all my not so rosey thoughts but this statement right here has a lot to do with where we find ourselves in many states this year.

The only other hunting forum I participate in or follow any more is one pretty much geared to Iowa. Every legislative session that forum has had a lot to do with stopping what most hunters who pay attention to the big picture would consider bad legislation. This year it's pretty much been crickets and bills are making it to the floor. I expect it has something to do with being tired of politics after the last few months combined with the realization that many of them voted to put those people in office. I'm sure many of them also now feel they have theirs so screw everyone else.

I'm sorry to get political but with exception of the California bear bill I can't think of one bill I've seen from any state this year that gives me heartburn that didn't come from the right side of the isle and that really sucks. When you're party introduces a bill mandating a no tree stand "buffer area" on public land that joins private you're telling me you don't give a turd about the little guy.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I admit I can't fully wrap my head around this subject in any type of coherent way. So I just have random thoughts.

I think a limited resource, that is becoming more rare all the time, is inherently going to increase in value. If quality and/or access were better across the West, or even across the country, we might not be facing this conundrum. But I keep seeing people move to these states, buying up their 20 or 30 acres of winter range or calving ground to build their dream home, yet demanding their access to the resource as residents remain unhindered because dammit, that's why they moved here. That is unsustainable, but NR are absolutely going to bear the brunt of that increased scarcity (at least in the beginning) because those new residents aren't going to vote to reduce the opportunity they came here for. I suppose it's little consolation to NR's, but I think you can rest assured that residents are going to get theirs, eventually.

When I keep seeing people commenting that their advocacy for wild animals and wild places comes with selfish strings attached, it kind of bothers me. I did not grow up hunting, but I am a lifelong Westerner and can't remember a time that my family did not recreate on public lands. If I ended up in a wheelchair and would never, ever set foot on public land again I would still advocate strongly for it because it's such an incredible thing. I can't even describe the feelings I've had at times while camping, hiking, fishing, photographing, hunting on public land. Maybe it's just the fact of growing up surrounded by it. I can't comprehend how someone can see the value of it only if they can hunt on it, and if they personally can't hunt on it then they don't care what happens to it. I guess I have my doubts that those people ever really advocated for public lands to begin with. I realize that is probably a distorted view based on my experiences, but there it is.

I guess that's probably my view of wildlife resources, access to them, and conservation as well. It just seems like everyone is so selfish. I don't see how the NAM exists into the future if we keep doing down this path of "as long as I get mine, screw everyone else".

 

[mottlet]

This is a very key point. Hunters live under the illusion that paying the bills grants exclusivity when it comes to wildlife decisions. As @wllm1313 correctly pointed out, everyone is part of the public trust doctrine regardless of how many tags you buy.

Sorta surprised that four pages into a discussion on the future of the NAM, more widespread adoption of legacy funds hasn't come up. Missouri showed everybody how to do it way back when. Course, everybody wants a piece of the pie now, but Minnesota showed us that can still work. Getting a tax passed is never easy and will always be less popular to a state legislator than sticking another zero on the total for NR hunters. But if anybody can show me how it'd be worse in the long run, I'm all ears.

 

[BWALKER77]

I agree with JLS in as much as game agency's are seriously under funded. In my home state I would love to see resident tags increase 300%. I would also raise NR tags by 150% and cut the number in half.