Non-resident Hunting and the North American Model

[Pucky Freak]

If I want to shoot a duck in IA licenses fees and stamps total $71.50 ($20 license & the rest is habitat). It prices a modest percentage of persons out of the pursuit, but I’m fine with that, because if you really value waterfowl hunting and habitat, you will pay the price. I chose to do so when I was making $13/hr working part-time in 2006. I think the cost is appropriate considering the necessary habitat requirements for waterfowl. Similar stamps for trout, etc. exist in other states.

I think it’s important for resident hunters to advocate for habitat fees for themselves, as this can/could potentially protect a national public land hunting legacy. If NR’s are inevitably going to fund the F&G agency that’s fine, but at least choose to protect the treasure in your own backyard. Mule deer is the first species that comes to mind, but maybe there are others it could make sense for too. I’d rather see a MT $25 mule deer habitat stamp than have some poorly administered federal oversight.

I partially disagree with EA on the need for landowner incentives for cervid conservation. I think a “stick” approach is more in order. E.g. the “my elk on my land” mentality is met with a grassroots push to get a state constitutional amendment declaring wild native animals an eternal public trust not to be bought, sold, traded, or transferred on any terms. That’s an ambitious goal, but I’d like to see us shoot for something like that now vs. 20 years from now when there is even less support.

 

[BWALKER77]

Much less likely so than your plan to sell it to high bidder.

I never said anything about bids other than that I was against auctions. And I never said anything about residents other than tags need to increase, which they do in the case of MT as they are stupid cheap. But even the increases I mentioned hardly price the average resident out of the market. An elk tag cheaper than a single months smart phone bill is not crazy.

 

[BWALKER77]

If I want to shoot a duck in IA licenses fees and stamps total $71.50 ($20 license & the rest is habitat). It prices a modest percentage of persons out of the pursuit, but I’m fine with that, because if you really value waterfowl hunting and habitat, you will pay the price. I chose to do so when I was making $13/hr working part-time in 2006. I think the cost is appropriate considering the necessary habitat requirements for waterfowl. Similar stamps for trout, etc. exist in other states.

I think it’s important for resident hunters to advocate for habitat fees for themselves, as this can/could potentially protect a national public land hunting legacy. If NR’s are inevitably going to fund the F&G agency that’s fine, but at least choose to protect the treasure in your own backyard. Mule deer is the first species that comes to mind, but maybe there are others it could make sense for too. I’d rather see a MT $25 mule deer habitat stamp than have some poorly administered federal oversight.

I partially disagree with EA on the need for landowner incentives for cervid conservation. I think a “stick” approach is more in order. E.g. the “my elk on my land” mentality is met with a grassroots push to get a state constitutional amendment declaring wild native animals an eternal public trust not to be bought, sold, traded, or transferred on any terms. That’s an ambitious goal, but I’d like to see us shoot for something like that now vs. 20 years from now when there is even less support.

If $71 prices someone out of hunting they have serious problems and hunting tags are the least of their worries.

 

[Pucky Freak]

If $71 prices someone out of hunting they have serious problems and hunting tags are the least of their worries.

Let me clarify - more Iowans choose to hunt deer over ducks because a deer tag + lisc/habitat ($63.50) is cheaper, and you get more meat, among other reasons. $71.50 to shoot a duck doesn’t price anyone out of hunting, but it does steer them to hunt pheasants instead for $35. Some western game species are in need of critical winter range, migration corridors, etc, and there is no dedicated funding stream to support this.

 

[Trial153]

Sorry the more and more I see the comments and actions of hunters more convinced I am that it's in it death spiral

 

[BWALKER77]

Let me clarify - more Iowans choose to hunt deer over ducks because a deer tag + lisc/habitat ($63.50) is cheaper, and you get more meat, among other reasons. $71.50 to shoot a duck doesn’t price anyone out of hunting, but it does steer them to hunt pheasants instead for $35. Some western game species are in need of critical winter range, migration corridors, etc, and there is no dedicated funding stream to support this.

That's a choice rather than an economic issue.
And your last sentence is 100% spot on. Sadly that winter range is being eaten up by places like Bozeman.

 

[brocksw]

I said it earlier, but hunting as we know it will die, it's just a matter of when. I hope we get a few more generations out of it. But for fawksake everyone needs to quit having kids. And no more IG pics of western mountains. Only... snow or heat.

You might be right....but that doesn't mean we support actions that will accelerate it or just dejectedly toss the towel in.

I've stated before that I believe society is better off when a healthy and diverse population of people can enjoy clean air, clean water, backcountry/wilderness, DIY hunting, putting their own meat in the freezer...the very thing we enjoy today. The opportunity my son experiences throughout his life will probably look different than mine. But that doesn't mean it can't still be good opportunity.

That's going to take participation and advocacy on our part. Just like those before us....

I dunno about you, but I can't imagine what the hell I'd do with myself if I couldn't spend so much time huntin and fishin in the outdoors. How anybody maintains their sanity without it is beyond me.

 

[Irrelevant]

You might be right....but that doesn't mean we support actions that will accelerate it or just dejectedly toss in.

I've stated before that I believe society is better off when a healthy and diverse population of people can enjoy clean air, clean water, backcountry/wilderness, DIY hunting, putting their own meat in the freezer...the very thing we enjoy today. The opportunity my son experiences throughout his life will probably look different than mine. But that doesn't mean it can't still be good opportunity.

Only if you factor in a shifting baseline

That's going to take participation and advocacy on our part. Just like those before us....

Maybe, I've seen a lot of P&A that didn't result in jack squat.

There's a very good chance our kids will get plenty of clear air, clean water, and backpacking/wilderness, in the same quantities you and I will. But by the time they're our age they won't have the same hunting opportunities. The resource is too small, and too many people want to partake in the pleasure of that resource. Hunting in their lives will be more about resident hunting. NR will either become scare in terms of quantity as states populations grow and they are forced to allocate more tags to Rs, or NR tags will trend toward the SWF approach to maximize funding for G&F depts, or-most likely, both.

 

[brocksw]

Only if you factor in a shifting baseline

Maybe, I've seen a lot of P&A that didn't result in jack squat.

There's a very good chance our kids will get plenty of clear air, clean water, and backpacking/wilderness, in the same quantities you and I will. But by the time they're our age they won't have the same hunting opportunities. The resource is too small, and too many people want to partake in the pleasure of that resource. Hunting in their lives will be more about resident hunting. NR will either become scare in terms of quantity as states populations grow and they are forced to allocate more tags to Rs, or NR tags will trend toward the SWF approach to maximize funding for G&F depts, or-most likely, both.

Moore's law tells us that even in our lifetime society is going to look drastically different in the next 30-50 years.

You'll get no argument from me that there's going to be some defining hours of reckoning that are coming down the pipe. But our chances of being on the right side of those decisions are drastically better with participation and advocacy than with none at all. That shouldn't be debatable.

 

[one ate E grain]

Ummm .. Some might not like this, maybe others will, but I see no reason why non residents should pay any more than residents, and I see no reason why anyone should pay more for a hunting license than a driver's license.

If there is too much hunting pressure, sure, limit non residents. I'm happy enough to have non residents hunting in my state as long as it doesn't create lack of opportunity for residents, if it does do a lottery. I think we took a wrong turn long before $600 non resident tags.

Since when is the purpose of a hunting license to make money? and since when is making money part of the NA model. I thought one of the most basic ideas is everyone can hunt. Market hunting to sell the meat or selling the right to hunt private land or selling guided hunts, it's all just trying to make a buck. Wildlife agencies here limit licenses to a very few days so to sell more licenses, and success rates for the places people hunt over the counter are often around 10%. Private land tags last 6 months not 9 days, and success runs more towards 40%.

I sat down on the couch at this rancher's house, and in front of me was a spreadsheet on the table, a simple one, one page. A quick look at the bottom line, barely into six figures and half the profit was from a very modest hunting operation. Ten to twenty hunters per year spread out over the seasons from what I gathered by what he was saying. Not sure why he was leaving that kind of thing lying around. Ranching sure wasn't making him rich. Wife had a good job in Denver probably did the 3 hour commute home on weekends. I support ranchers, and I don't want to deprive them of a good revenue stream, but they close access to national forests and ultimately need to find a different way to make money.

Wildlife agencies should get rid of anyone not a sworn officer and keep a small handful of biologists. When I look at the 2021 big game brochure there are so many different programs and little fiefdoms no wonder it costs millions.

If states are so gung ho over programs they can fund them. All I need is someone to bust poachers. It's long past time to stop making hunting into some sort of money grubbing scheme.

 

[MTLabrador]

Wildlife agencies should get rid of anyone not a sworn officer and keep a small handful of biologists. When I look at the 2021 big game brochure there are so many different programs and little fiefdoms no wonder it costs millions.

If states are so gung ho over programs they can fund them. All I need is someone to bust poachers. It's long past time to stop making hunting into some sort of money grubbing scheme.

I’m sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Let’s say this happened in Montana. You’re now giving up Block Management, all fisheries work, habitat work, wildlife management areas, game bird programs, hunter education, state parks, all the employees who manage license allocation and drawings...

 

[Hunting Wife]

Ummm .. Some might not like this, maybe others will, but I see no reason why non residents should pay any more than residents, and I see no reason why anyone should pay more for a hunting license than a driver's license.

If there is too much hunting pressure, sure, limit non residents. I'm happy enough to have non residents hunting in my state as long as it doesn't create lack of opportunity for residents, if it does do a lottery. I think we took a wrong turn long before $600 non resident tags.

Since when is the purpose of a hunting license to make money? and since when is making money part of the NA model. I thought one of the most basic ideas is everyone can hunt. Market hunting to sell the meat or selling the right to hunt private land or selling guided hunts, it's all just trying to make a buck. Wildlife agencies here limit licenses to a very few days so to sell more licenses, and success rates for the places people hunt over the counter are often around 10%. Private land tags last 6 months not 9 days, and success runs more towards 40%.

I sat down on the couch at this rancher's house, and in front of me was a spreadsheet on the table, a simple one, one page. A quick look at the bottom line, barely into six figures and half the profit was from a very modest hunting operation. Ten to twenty hunters per year spread out over the seasons from what I gathered by what he was saying. Not sure why he was leaving that kind of thing lying around. Ranching sure wasn't making him rich. Wife had a good job in Denver probably did the 3 hour commute home on weekends. I support ranchers, and I don't want to deprive them of a good revenue stream, but they close access to national forests and ultimately need to find a different way to make money.

Wildlife agencies should get rid of anyone not a sworn officer and keep a small handful of biologists. When I look at the 2021 big game brochure there are so many different programs and little fiefdoms no wonder it costs millions.

If states are so gung ho over programs they can fund them. All I need is someone to bust poachers. It's long past time to stop making hunting into some sort of money grubbing scheme.

Um, states do fund programs. Through license sales. In the modern era, that’s the whole point.

Under your plan, you realize there would never have been elk reestablished in the Eastern US, bighorn translocations and establishment of new herds would not be happening right now, we would not be protecting migration corridors or important birthing and wintering areas, you wouldn’t have the information at your fingertips to plan a hunt, there would be far fewer fisheries to enjoy, there would be far fewer public access opportunities, there would be far fewer acres of improved habitat on private lands. Yep, all those programs are worthless.

An interesting read on the history of non-resident licensing, though I have not fact checked any of it.

How did hunting fees start?

Spoiler: Nearly 300 years ago, some New Jersey fishermen were hating on non-residents

www.gohunt.com

 

[antlerradar]

There was a time when ranching was more profitable. I think many branches dont neccesarily want to lease. They have to in order to stay solvent.

Many of them have a banker calling the shots.

 

[JLS]

Some good comments and conversations. I appreciate it. Aside from God and my family, there are very few things in life I hold with as much respect and esteem as the NAM and the Public Trust Doctrine. That was the driving force behind this thread, nothing more and nothing less. At minimum, I hope it creates pause for thought.

Little decisions can have big ripples later, and I fear we won’t realize the consequences until they are staring us in the face. I hope I’m wrong, and if I am and HT still exists in 20 years I’ll gladly resurrect this thread and admit I was full of shit.

 

[antlerradar]

The more we as hunters stray from being meat hunters, the more the bedrock that the NA model sets on turns to sand.
I admit to being part of the problem.

 

[brocksw]

The more we as hunters stray from being meat hunters, the more the bedrock that the NA model sets on turns to sand.
I admit to being part of the problem.

I like big bucks and I cannot lie.

 

[JLS]

The more we as hunters stray from being meat hunters, the more the bedrock that the NA model sets on turns to sand.
I admit to being part of the problem.

Nearly big bull or buck I’ve killed I started the day with the intent of simply making white packages in the freezer. I find myself becoming more of a true meat hunter every year. And yes, this is a very salient point.

 

[brocksw]

The more we as hunters stray from being meat hunters, the more the bedrock that the NA model sets on turns to sand.
I admit to being part of the problem.

Would it though? I mean theoretically, if selling land owner tags was illegal, if paying an outfitter was illegal, if there was no monetization of critters...shooting bigger bucks/bulls would simply be reduced to unconventional, non-monetary hunting practices like; getting lucky, passing up more animals, waiting longer, hiking further, etc.

I would agree the antler chase has been a driving factor behind the justification of monetizing for the seller and the buyer. People won't pay 10k to shoot a cow or spike, it's the perceived better chance of shooting a toad. It's that transaction proliferating that creates the elephant in the room. I've never hunted with a guide or paid above the application price on any tag on in my life. But chasing mature animals seems like something I'd strive towards regardless, more attributed to modern abundance or luxury.

I guess I'm saying I think it's possible to still want to shoot big bucks and not corrupt the NAM beyond repair.

I dunno it's late...maybe I'm yapping.

 

[antlerradar]

Nearly big bull or buck I’ve killed I started the day with the intent of simply making white packages in the freezer. I find myself becoming more of a true meat hunter every year. And yes, this is a very salient point.

Would it though? I mean theoretically, if selling land owner tags was illegal, if paying an outfitter was illegal, if there was no monetization of critters...shooting bigger bucks/bulls would simply be reduced to unconventional, non-monetary hunting practices like; getting lucky, passing up more animals, waiting longer, hiking further, etc.

I would agree the antler chase has been a driving factor behind the justification of monetizing for the seller and the buyer. People won't pay 10k to shoot a cow or spike, it's the perceived better chance of shooting a toad. It's that transaction proliferating that creates the elephant in the room. I've never hunted with a guide or paid above the application price on any tag on in my life. But chasing mature animals seems like something I'd strive towards regardless, more attributed to modern abundance or luxury.

I guess I'm saying I think it's possible to still want to shoot big bucks and not corrupt the NAM beyond repair.

I dunno it's late...maybe I'm yapping.

When I am talking meat hunters, I am mean true meat hunters that value the hunt only for the meat. The kind of guy or gal that goes hunting and shoots the first legal animal that offers a good shot and then goes home. Very few of those hunters exist today compared to when I started hunting and when My dad started hunting they may have been a big majority. Now most of us still value the meat but more value is placed on the experience. Antlers are part of the equation but by no means all of it.

 

[MTTW]

I believe that Montana's squared bonus point system is as negative for the NAM as many of the bills that we oppose in the legislature. If I was going to attack hunting in Mt I would explain that system to the general public and say "look here" this is how they treat their own kids. It is a shining black eye to hunters and most of us can't see it any more than the outfitters and land owners can see the problem with their bills. We are no better than the outfitters.