Non-resident Hunting and the North American Model

[Deleted member 28227]

Back to the subject; 10% NR and 90% resident is fair for all states.

I support raising resident fees and hold the line on the NR.

MSG sure 90/10

R v NR should be a fixed percentage and tied to CPI

Elk and Deer are complicated.
Most of the states MT/WY/CO where residents are having a coronary about allocation are focusing on limited units. It’s about Unit 10, The bighorns and the breaks. No one really gives a crap if NR buy a pile of cow tags/spike only/ or “crappy” units. The “point creep is so crazy on those units there are getting into the MSG leveled sillyness. So sure limited units 90/10.

General tags that’s a whole different can of worms.

 

[Trial153]

Then the NAM is completely broken.

https://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/ptd_10-1.pdf

I found this interesting line in the public trust doctrine. It speaks about disenfranchisement, which is very german to this conversation of non-residents role in NAM.




When those decisions are viewed as being made mostly by agencies
in consultation with limited constituents (e.g., farmers and hunters), the remainder of the stakeholders (usually a majority) may feel disen- franchised. If the beneficiaries of the trust cease to value the trust assets, the trust becomes vulnerable to those who wish to take it from
them. Indifference by the public for their wild- life resources makes the trust’s assets valueless, eliminating the need for trusteeship. Therefore, the trustee has an important role in ensuring that the beneficiaries’ interest in the trust’s as- sets is maintained.

 

[OntarioHunter]

That is just the cost of one trip. The little guy with a family and a really tight budget, needs to buy a rifle and everything else needed to hunt big game.

There is a reason pawn shops are full of firearms. Many people buy a gun and later realize they need rent money more than they need the gun.

Or rather "need rent money more than they need a bunch of guns." Very rare that someone pawns his one and only deer rifle.

 

[rtraverdavis]

I’ve been thinking about this a lot for the past few days. As a qualifier to my comments I’ll admit that I’m a relatively new hunter (grew up with a dad who hunted but only really got deep into it myself about six years ago) and therefore lack the institutional knowledge and experience that many of you have. I’ve always been deeply in love with the outdoors though, just never thought much about or got involved in the politics of conservation before I became a hunter. More than fishing or camping or backpacking or any of the things I did growing up in the West with wild places around wild things, hunting has created an urge in me to invest in the future of these things and become involved. I think there is something to this.

Successful, legal, diy hunting requires an understanding of complex rules. It requires detailed planning and financial investment, obtaining permits and finding spots, and a willingness to be persistent through trial and error and lots and lots of time. More than anything it requires an understanding of the natural world far deeper than just going out and looking at it. Someone is either willing to put themselves through that because the drive within them tells them it’s worth it, or they give up. But going through it and finding success lights a fire. Even as a little kid I had a thing for mule deer. I had some exposure to them, and thought they were cool. I liked the way they stotted. But they never kept me up at night and I’m not sure I would have went to bat for them until I became a hunter.

I say all that because I’m not sure the same understanding of or commitment to wildlife (at least to those species that hunters care most about) is likely for most people without this context, though there are no doubt some. Others have shared that more stakeholders need to brought to the table to contribute to funding management and in many ways I agree. If the goal of the NAM is to conserve wildlife in trust for the benefit of the people, broader contributions to that goal are now necessary. However, sharing more of the burden of funding wildlife management with the broader spectrum of outdoor enthusiasts, it’s easy to imagine hunting becoming rapidly diminished as a tool in wildlife management. More voices at the table means the potential for wildly differing views in approach, and no doubt some of those voices would advocate for more of a hands-off (no/less hunting) approach to wildlife management. That is the slant coming from Oregon at least, where many people enjoy the outdoors but have an antagonistic leaning toward hunting. This trend would likely grow with increased and more urbanized populations in Western states.

On the other hand is the ever-growing commodification of game species, in which hunting becomes unattainable to most through either price or access or both. I prefer the former to the latter, but IMO if that’s going to work we’re going to need to be damned smart and unified as a hunting community in the ways we portray hunting and its intrinsic benefits if we have any hope of it lasting into the distant future.


TLDR: @neffa3 might be right—we might be screwed.

 

[Shangobango]

all tags would be auctioned to the highest bidder, and thus make it a rich man’s only game. So I’m curious as to whether you think that’s the best end result?

I wanted to speak to this.

I don't want to see hunting end up a rich man's game. i think that is a horrible result. But I feel like that is exactly where it is headed and it is headed there with ever increasing velocity.

There has to be solutions. The only one I see is increasing accessible game populations. We are headed in the wrong direction if that is the case.

For resident hunters in the west it will probably get there later than it will for other people.

 

[BWALKER77]

You conveniently forget that the $10/hr guy is a co-owner in the habitat that keep those little elks fat and sassy.

The $10 an hour guy is a net drag on the country, So in reality he owns nothing.

 

[rwc101]

The $10 an hour guy is a net drag on the country, So in reality he owns nothing.

I'm glad public lands don't work that way.

 

[Shangobango]

The $10 an hour guy is a net drag on the country, So in reality he owns nothing.

This is wrong on more than one level.

 

[kylemcintyre67]

The $10 an hour guy is a net drag on the country, So in reality he owns nothing.

Am I now?

 

[BWALKER77]

I'm glad public lands don't work that way.

Your right they dont. The idea that the public owns government lands is a real stretch. The lands serve a purpose that benifits the government with the side benifit of being held in trust for the public good. This isnt ownership at all.

 

[Hunting Wife]

The $10 an hour guy is a net drag on the country, So in reality he owns nothing.

He’s making more than minimum wage in nearly 70% of this country. How is that a drag? I must have missed the part of the Constitution that sets the income limits for being considered a citizen.

One of the stupidest comments I’ve seen in a long time.

 

[MTTW]

The $10 an hour guy is a net drag on the country, So in reality he owns nothing.

The beauty in public land is that on it, you are no better than him. That is why we must protect it, to save it from people who think like you.

 

[BWALKER77]

He’s making more than minimum wage in nearly 70% of this country. How is that a drag? I must have missed the part of the Constitution that sets the income limits for being considered a citizen.

One of the stupidest comments I’ve seen in a long time.

We are straying off topic now..
A person making $10 an hour best case scenario isnt paying income taxes at all and is actually receiving money from the government via the earned income tax credit. Worst case scenario they are on food stamps, section 8 housing, Medicaid ,etc. So yes they are a net drag and should expect hunting licenses priced so they are affordable for them.

 

[BWALKER77]

The beauty in public land is that on it, you are no better than him. That is why we must protect it, to save it from people who think like you.

We are talking hunting licenses and the resulting funding of game departments here.. anyone can go out on public lands, but they cant hunt on those lands without paying up.

 

[TOGIE]

We are straying off topic now..
A person making $10 an hour best case scenario isnt paying income taxes at all and is actually receiving money from the government via the earned income tax credit. Worst case scenario they are on food stamps, section 8 housing, Medicaid ,etc. So yes they are a net drag and should expect hunting licenses priced so they are affordable for them.

dude just give it a rest.

most the people making 10 bucks an hour are in high school anyway. but glad to know the only value you see in a person is tied to the money they make.

quit diggin your hole. you help verify my general contempt for outfitters. you're one of those aren't you?

 

[BWALKER77]

dude just give it a rest.

most the people making 10 bucks an hour are in high school anyway. but glad to know the only value you see in a person is tied to the money they make.

quit diggin your hole. you help verify my general contempt for outfitters. you're one of those aren't you?

Not an outfitter...
And a persons value is mostly certainly tied to the money they make for their labour.

 

[JLS]

Not an outfitter...
And a persons value is mostly certainly tied to the money they make for their labour.

Take this shit to your own thread.

 

[TOGIE]

Not an outfitter...
And a persons value is mostly certainly tied to the money they make for their labour.

my mistake. i guess you just kinda talk like a lot of outfitters....

oh well, you've at least made it clear what kind of person you are.

sorry JLS to further that distraction

 

[Trial153]

I hate to say but this does bring up a Germane issue to the topic.

Should resident fees be geared to the lowest common denominator. That seems to be a prevailing attitude when it comes to resident game license prices, and hence puts pressure on make up the short falls.

Maybe cost should be more market driven so that our wildlife resources arent being held back because we turned wildlife management into a social welfare program.

If we want to set up programs to help lower income people buy licencses let set that up separately instead of lowering the baseline and hurting our resources

 

[406dn]

Not an outfitter...
And a persons value is mostly certainly tied to the money they make for their labour.

Damn, I'm glad that I only know you at all because of the internet.

Your high horse is not as great as you surmise.