Non-resident Hunting and the North American Model

[brocksw]

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.

We are on our way...

How Europe Turned Hunting into a 'White Collar' Sport

According to Sheridan, the average hunter in Europe spends between 25,000-30,000 Euro per year to hunt.

www.gunsamerica.com

Hunting in Europe: A Rich Man’s Sport

This year I’ve decided to take up hunting. My goals in this endeavor are two-fold. First, I for the longest time have wanted to take ownership of the overall process of taking the life of an animal…

iuwest.wordpress.com

 

[JLS]

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

I really struggle with this premise. Wildlife trusts are not intended to be a revenue maximizer (is that a term?). When we view them as such, then we have directly violated the NAM by making wildlife more accessible to the affluent members of society. Setting up a program to help the less affluent afford licenses just introduces another layer of complexity that really doesn't solve anything.

In my ideal world, funding wildlife and resource management wouldn't fall solely on hunters and anglers. As I stated earlier, many businesses and industries benefit from healthy natural resources. It increases quality of living and allows industries to attract more qualified applicants. It benefits the services industry. It benefits the outdoor equipment industry, and so on.

The city/county I live in has been rather aggressive in its approach to outdoor recreation and access development, and as such has really upped the appeal of living here. The county conservation department just enrolled a recent purchase into a public hunting program. The parking lot in November will be 95% Subarus with racks on top, but the mountain whitetail hunting is fantastic.

Where am I going with this? The benefit is there, on a myriad of levels. So why aren't we as a society all chipping in a little more to fund conservation, wildlife and fisheries management, and access programs? Why is it just the hunters? And why in some states does that burden fall so heavily on NR hunters?

The funding system is antiquated, and is trending hunting directly to a white collar sport (see @brocksw's link). When hunting becomes solely white collar, our NAM is broken and the blue collar folks become increasingly disenfranchised from the system and the resource.

Basing access to resources on a capitalistic model directly alienates a huge portion of the population base the public trust doctrine was intended to serve.

 

[TOGIE]

i agree JLS. we need to widen the net of funding from a diversity of users standpoint. but i think an elephant in the room is the fact that every time there is an attempt to get another user base that is not paying into wildlife conservation to pay up you get resistance from both sides.

i.e. none of the other user bases wanna pay and none of the hunters want to share.

 

[JLS]

i agree JLS. we need to widen the net of funding from a diversity of users standpoint. but i think an elephant in the room is the fact that every time there is an attempt to get another user base that is not paying into wildlife conservation to pay up you get resistance from both sides.

i.e. none of the other user bases wanna pay and none of the hunters want to share.

Absolutely, and given our current political climate I question whether we could ever achieve it. Someone recently made the statement the PR Act would never pass today. Maybe they are right. I do hold out hope, however, given how much bi-partisan support there was last year with Great American Outdoors Act.

Think of how much revenue would be generated for natural resource management across the nation if we instituted an excise tax (even a very small one) on things like mountain bikes, snowshoes, XC skis, backpacking gear, and so on?

The possibilities boggle my mind.

 

[Eric Albus]

Like it or not wildlife does have a value, but each and every single one of us had better learn like it. Were it not for value there would be nothing left alive in Africa to sport hunt, and damn little North American wildlife left. Those who saw the value in wildlife did something about it, they protected it. Is the value I speak of monetary? Is the value to which I speak intrinsic? It is both. It is difficult for idealists to want to realize the monetary value is real and not going away. Montana's Gov. sheep tag is proof of the value, if you need more look at the fine for poaching a "trophy elk or buck deer". Wildlife as been monetized by our game dept.. Does this violate the NAM? Not as I see it. Having value both intrinsic and monetarily is what is best for the wildlife. If deer and elk held no value what would landowners do who have depredation issues? They would do as they did back in the 70's, shoot them off haystacks by the 100's, public trust be damned.

What all should realize who cry wildlife is owned by the public, when you can't get access what good is it? Kind of like having the cake locked inside a safe you have no combination to. You might have the cake, but you can't eat it. Perhaps it is time to negotiate with the people who have the combination. The landowners are key to managing the wildlife. Hopefully the new commission will work with the public and the landowning communities to give the folks with the combination INCENTIVE to open the safe. The commissions over the last 16 years did very little to make the combination holders want to help out.

 

[JLS]

What all should realize who cry wildlife is owned by the public, when you can't get access what good is it?

This topic was directly addressed in the link I posted above in reference to the Public Trust Doctrine.

 

[Irrelevant]

i agree JLS. we need to widen the net of funding from a diversity of users standpoint. but i think an elephant in the room is the fact that every time there is an attempt to get another user base that is not paying into wildlife conservation to pay up you get resistance from both sides.

i.e. none of the other user bases wanna pay and none of the hunters want to share.

I fear that if we widen that funding net we're adding accelerant to the demise of hunting. I can only support more board based funding after states pass constitutional amendments regarding the right to hunt and fish.

 

[JLS]

I fear that if we widen that funding net we're adding accelerant to the demise of hunting. I can only support more board based funding after states pass constitutional amendments regarding the right to hunt and fish.

This is a very good point. Often it is written into statute that public use is a primary component of management, but as we know this can be changed rather easily.

 

[Nameless Range]

What all should realize who cry wildlife is owned by the public, when you can't get access what good is it? Kind of like having the cake locked inside a safe you have no combination to. You might have the cake, but you can't eat it. Perhaps it is time to negotiate with the people who have the combination. The landowners are key to managing the wildlife. Hopefully the new commission will work with the public and the landowning communities to give the folks with the combination INCENTIVE to open the safe. The commissions over the last 16 years did very little to make the combination holders want to help out.

Other states who have already headed the direction some folks currently want us to go tell the tale of how access to private lands will change for the average hunter, and it aint the picture you paint here.

This isn't a mystery and it isn't theory.

 

[TOGIE]

I fear that if we widen that funding net we're adding accelerant to the demise of hunting. I can only support more board based funding after states pass constitutional amendments regarding the right to hunt and fish.

i agree, and it's exactly my fear as well. it's another big conflicting thing for me that i don't fully know how to personally address. but it does seem the "hunters fund it all" program rears it's weaknesses in our modern world more and more every year.

 

[Irrelevant]

Like it or not wildlife does have a value, but each and every single one of us had better learn like it. Were it not for value there would be nothing left alive in Africa to sport hunt, and damn little North American wildlife left. Those who saw the value in wildlife did something about it, they protected it. Is the value I speak of monetary? Is the value to which I speak intrinsic? It is both. It is difficult for idealists to want to realize the monetary value is real and not going away. Montana's Gov. sheep tag is proof of the value, if you need more look at the fine for poaching a "trophy elk or buck deer". Wildlife as been monetized by our game dept.. Does this violate the NAM? Not as I see it. Having value both intrinsic and monetarily is what is best for the wildlife. If deer and elk held no value what would landowners do who have depredation issues? They would do as they did back in the 70's, shoot them off haystacks by the 100's, public trust be damned.

What all should realize who cry wildlife is owned by the public, when you can't get access what good is it? Kind of like having the cake locked inside a safe you have no combination to. You might have the cake, but you can't eat it. Perhaps it is time to negotiate with the people who have the combination. The landowners are key to managing the wildlife. Hopefully the new commission will work with the public and the landowning communities to give the folks with the combination INCENTIVE to open the safe. The commissions over the last 16 years did very little to make the combination holders want to help out.

Eric, I liked your first comment, but I get the impression you'd prefer private lands to be managed like fiefdoms. Complete autonomy. Public must pay to access the kings deer, or hell, pay just to have the king allow deer to exist.

 

[JLS]

i agree, and it's exactly my fear as well. it's another big conflicting thing for me that i don't fully know how to personally address. but it does seem the "hunters fund it all" program rears it's weaknesses in our modern world more and more every year.

If that's your fear, the general non-hunting public already have equal ownership of the public trust. Hunters solely funding it isn't changing that.

 

[TOGIE]

What all should realize who cry wildlife is owned by the public, when you can't get access what good is it? Kind of like having the cake locked inside a safe you have no combination to. You might have the cake, but you can't eat it. Perhaps it is time to negotiate with the people who have the combination. The landowners are key to managing the wildlife. Hopefully the new commission will work with the public and the landowning communities to give the folks with the combination INCENTIVE to open the safe. The commissions over the last 16 years did very little to make the combination holders want to help out.

i just think the historical examples of how landowners typically behave in the world of wldlife matters makes absolutely no one but large landowners with exclusive access to wildlife agree with what you're saying here.

why would the landowners suddenly feel compelled to unlock the safe for anyone but themselves when they're suddenly given a larger and larger slice of the cake inside it?

 

[mottlet]

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service just announced that they're distributing over a billion dollars to states through WSFR via Pittman-Robertson, Dingell-Johnson, and Wallup-Breaux, based on excise taxes collected in 2020. That's up about $120 million from 2019. I don't think that letting other streams of income into the conversation is the end of hunting boogeyman some are afraid of.

But, even if it was, there are a lot of ways to skin a cat. Or write a bill.

 

[TOGIE]

If that's your fear, the general non-hunting public already have equal ownership of the public trust. Hunters solely funding it isn't changing that.

yes, that is correect.

but i'm thinking of it in the sense of representation on commissions and what not. we can say generally, that outfitters and hunters run every commission in the west. makes sense because outfitters and sportspersons fund the systems.

when other user groups do more to fund the system, logically, more representation of the other user groups will filter their way into those running the show, in my mind.

 

[88man]

When I look back on my life hunting/fishing played a roll on basically everything I did. Seriously, from the sports I played and fully committed to, college attended and the vehicles I bought, jobs and work I took heck even the friends I made. The career and business path I choose and the female relationships all revolved around a hunting way of life. House and job locations all set up around hunting. Having money to hunt drove me to work longer and harder than needed and it directed my career path. I could go on and on but even wedding date and my daughters birth were planned around hunting season. I am a commoner who takes hunting serious and has made it a priority in my life.
Its easy to not have the money to do things when your not fully invested in said thing. NAM provides opportunity its up to the person to make hunting a priority.

License and tags fees will increase for NR they have too as expenses keep going up and I am guessing the pie of what game & fish departments do keeps getting larger as now they have media and marketing and legal expenses more than ever before.

Does the hunting industry market to the commoner? Those $500 jackets and pants.

The NAM will not die in our lifetimes as to many sportsman are fully committed to a lifestyle around the Nam and willing to pay for it regardless of the monetary price or sacrifices needed & it works.

A $500 to $1000 tag can be the greatest value of a family vacation ever. When those recreational funds are low people find a way to maximize their dollars. Always gonna be places to go hunt and tags to buy that a commoner can afford if they are committed to hunting. I am personally glad that all game management is not for maximum opportunity and that we have a balance of quality and high quality hunts.

I don't like the every player gets a trophy and equal playing time either. I truly believe commoners who are fully committed to hunting are not priced out.

 

[JLS]

yes, that is correect.

but i'm thinking of it in the sense of representation on commissions and what not. we can say generally, that outfitters and hunters run every commission in the west. makes sense because outfitters and sportspersons fund the systems.

when other user groups do more to fund the system, logically, more representation of the other user groups will filter their way into those running the show, in my mind.

Quite honestly, they already deserve to be there IMO. I may not like their thoughts or what they represent, but that's life. As I posted on the Colorado/Tutchton thread, one of the best commissioners I've ever worked with was a non-hunter/Audubon Society board member.

 

[Mtrimble]

Should an Elk tag intended for public land only, cost the same as an Elk tag intended for private land with or without a guide?

Should a first time non- resident hunting license be discounted in an effort to increase opportunities and get more people invested?

 

[TOGIE]

Quite honestly, they already deserve to be there IMO. I may not like their thoughts or what they represent, but that's life. As I posted on the Colorado/Tutchton thread, one of the best commissioners I've ever worked with was a non-hunter/Audubon Society board member.

i also agree with that. they do deserve to be there.

my fears still exist though. maybe justified maybe not. i mean if broad public support of hunting remains the way it is in national survey's there shouldn't be much to fear.

 

[88man]

There are alot of similarities for reference sake if we look at east coast saltwater fishing.
What if a guy from the mid west or west wanted to do a 7 day east coast fishing trip on the cheap no private charters.
No license fees however
> same transportation costs as a east coaster going on an elk hunt
> 7 days at $80 a day for a head boat $560 if you targeted inshore species
> what if you targeted off shore species again on a cheap party head boat $125 to $200 a day to the boat!
Can a commoner afford a fishing trip for offshore species? The well to do guy run offshore in a faster 6pack boat @ $500 to $1000 a day