Non-resident Hunting and the North American Model

[Hunting Wife]

Perhaps we should start at the other end and work backwards. What do you want your Wildlife agency to actually do? That’s going to dictate how much money they need to charge.

People keep saying agency budgets are bloated. Ok. Then what do you want them to stop doing?

 

[BrentD]

Perhaps we should start at the other end and work backwards. What do you want your Wildlife agency to actually do? That’s going to dictate how much money they need to charge.

People keep saying agency budgets are bloated. Ok. Then what do you want them to stop doing?

The bloated budget? Must be from some state on Mars. I don't know of a wildlife agency that hasn't been slashed and burned for at least 2 decades if not more.

 

[one ate E grain]

Perhaps we should start at the other end and work backwards. What do you want your Wildlife agency to actually do? That’s going to dictate how much money they need to charge.

People keep saying agency budgets are bloated. Ok. Then what do you want them to stop doing?

Issue licenses, determine seasons number of tags etc, fish cops to keep people honest. That's it. Cut out the rest. All of it. Older officers can do management. Just about everything else is fluff.

 

[one ate E grain]

The bloated budget? Must be from some state on Mars. I don't know of a wildlife agency that hasn't been slashed and burned for at least 2 decades if not more.

If blue collar workers can make less than they did in 78, so can F+G. "Slashed and Burned" LOL. We had an accountant fudging the books to the tune of 5 million per year, not stealing mind you, just fudging, so they'd spend more than they had. I pay like $5 for a driver's license, why pay more for elk.

 

[OverlordBear]

Now maybe one can couple up with a couple examples of folks or residents that would hunt to "survive" or fill the freezer with 6 does they processed themselves to get through the year but I don't think there's many out there in today's day and age.

The amount of money invested in things besides the hunt is absurd and I'm one of them along with many on this site. Which not much of it goes back into wildlife and conservation in the grand scheme of things.

I'd be all about it and fronting the money on draws a 50 dollar elk tag along with others would be fine with me

I did for two years about 6 years ago. Our family had insane medical bills and in order to avoid the poor house and welfare. I picked up a roadkill deer every other month on top of what I hunted as a resident in the fall. I used garage sale equipment and still could shoot a deer with cheap gear. However even after we got back in the black that value of roadkill and how it help my family makes me value the meat more than any set of horns. But even now as a resident I still think we should pay more for resident elk and mule deer bucks tags. I think whitetail does tags should be cheap.

 

[Hunting Wife]

Issue licenses, determine seasons number of tags etc, fish cops to keep people honest. That's it. Cut out the rest. All of it. Older officers can do management. Just about everything else is fluff.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say you have no clue what your state agency ACTUALLY does, do you?

Cut reintroductions, translocations, habitat work, disease work, access programs, fish stocking, etc. Got it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Perhaps we should start at the other end and work backwards. What do you want your Wildlife agency to actually do? That’s going to dictate how much money they need to charge.

People keep saying agency budgets are bloated. Ok. Then what do you want them to stop doing?

Stocking non-indigenous fish via airplane, might be a good place to start.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is a nationally recognized leader in conservation, outdoor recreation and wildlife management. The agency manages 42 state parks, all of Colorado's wildlife, more than 300 state wildlife areas and a host of recreational programs. CPW issues hunting and fishing...

cpw.state.co.us

 

[idelkslayer]

Here is a good start


1)Random draws
2)Everyone purchases the appropriate license every year. For every state they apply in.
3)An application fee that covers the expense associated with conducting that draw. This should be the same for NR and residents as it shouldn't cost any different. This shouldn't be a cash cow.
4)75/25 resident to nonresident quota for both limited draws and general tags that have a cap.
5) Elimination of all auction tags, crony political tags, and raffle tags and outfitter set asides tags.
6) Landowner tags, will be for landowners and their families, no transferable and no unit-wide bullshit tags.
7) 4 to 1, or 5-1 nonresident to resident fee ratio. Base it on a robust budget that fully funds wildlife agency's so we will not only substain wildlife populations but grow them where it's appropriate.
8)Quotas are to be set by professionals in each states wild life departments, not by legislation.
9) Public land access and seasons are the same for anyone holding the tag.
10) No outfitter mandates ( think Alaska )

I like 1, 2, 5, 6, 10

I don't know anywhere that number 9 is a problem. However, this seems like something that could be highly variable and wouldn't work as a blanket requirement everywhere.

Number 3 and 7 seem reasonable enough. Although, I question how you arrived at the ratio of 1:4 or 1:5; why is that acceptable? Why not 1:2 or 1:3? Without some basis for it these are just numbers that "feel" more acceptable. It could and maybe should be 1:1. Let me ask you how much you would be willing to pay for a single deer tag in your home state? Idaho charges residents $24.75 for 1 deer tag. If residents and NR paid the same it would have to be $62 to maintain current revenue, a 250% increase for residents. Would you pay $65 for 1 deer tag in you home state, maybe it already costs that much in some states? I know I would but I also know that most residents would throw a tantrum at that price. Idaho elk tags would have to cost $122 for residents and NR to pay the same and maintain revenue, (330% increase for residents). I know that I would still pay that amount even though buying 1 deer and 1 elk tag each for myself and my kids would cost $552 per year.

Number 8. I don't know of any state that doesn't allow professional wildlife managers to set seasons and quotas. Maybe there are some, but it seems like the majority already do this.
I take issue with number 4.

Why 75/25? Why can you assume that is a ratio that would function well everywhere? As I said in my previous post, the western states are different than the eastern states. While we may have a great variety of wildlife we do not necessarily have high densities of game. Our human populations are growing and with it the number of resident hunters. There are already some western states that have to restrict the number of residents who can hunt and eventually that will happen in more states. It is not a guarantee in every western state that a resident can just buy a tag and go hunt. In states like Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah there are residents that don't have a tag. Why should even more residents sit at home so that someone from New Jersey can travel 2,000 miles to hunt? If I were a resident of those states I would be advocating for eliminating all NR tags in favor of allowing more residents to hunt.

I really don't think that any state, East or West, should sell any NR tags unless every resident who wants a tag can get one. That means that if resident demand uses up 95% of the tag quota determined by Wildlife managers, then NR should only get 5% of the tags. States should only offer NR opportunity if they have excess. Right now there are many western states that can issue a deer and elk tag to every resident and still have enough supply of game to issue tags to NR.

 

[Irrelevant]

I've gotten to the point where I don't think I can support a model that places the public trust wildlife resources in the hands of the individual states. The elk of Montana are no more the property of Montanan's than the federal lands within Montana.

The constant stream requests for help with bad legislative wildlife bills from Rs while NRs continue to see reduced access to that wildlife has pushed me over the edge.

 

[TOGIE]

Stocking non-indigenous fish via airplane, might be a good place to start.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is a nationally recognized leader in conservation, outdoor recreation and wildlife management. The agency manages 42 state parks, all of Colorado's wildlife, more than 300 state wildlife areas and a host of recreational programs. CPW issues hunting and fishing...

cpw.state.co.us

View attachment 177217

i dunno man, there's is some damn fun alpine lake fly fishing to be had thanks to CPW biologists and their air force vets (i imagine them to be in my mind at least) ripping around the mountains in a cessna

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I've gotten to the point where I don't think I can support a model that places the public trust wildlife resources in the hands of the individual states. The elk of Montana are no more the property of Montanan's than the federal lands within Montana.

The constant stream requests for help with bad legislative wildlife bills from Rs while NRs continue to see reduced access to that wildlife has pushed me over the edge.

The problem is that case law + the constitution state that states own the wildlife.

Residents are advocating as a constituent of their representatives.

Non-residents are advocating as consumers.

NR could have some power if they actually tried, but everyone is so excited to hunt that will likely never happen.

I totally understand why this is basically untenable, but in many ways advocacy groups should probably implore NR to boycott when certain legislation passes.

If there was a concerted effort to have NR boycott MT outfitters and they did, you'd get some folks to attention.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

i dunno man, there's is some damn fun alpine lake fly fishing to be had thanks to CPW biologists and their air force vets (i imagine them to be in my mind at least) ripping around the mountains in a cessna

Holy smokes Jeff what are those?

Hippos.

WTF are you doing with Hippos.

Going to drop them into some lakes, they won't make it through the winter but July is gonna be freaking awesome.

 

[TOGIE]

I've gotten to the point where I don't think I can support a model that places the public trust wildlife resources in the hands of the individual states. The elk of Montana are no more the property of Montanan's than the federal lands within Montana.

The constant stream requests for help with bad legislative wildlife bills from Rs while NRs continue to see reduced access to that wildlife has pushed me over the edge.

just thinking down the hypothetical of changing the paradigm to the point where wildlife are wholly owned and managed at the federal level....

that scares me more i think

wildlife managedment is political at the state level, but it's diffused across fifty states. USFWS, DOI, etc can all get intensely political, can be greatly influenced and redirected via the Commander in Chief

i kinda like the idea of 50 wildlife commissions that can be politically redirected in different ways than one supreme wildlife commission that can be politically hacked. feels like risk management to me - one state may totally go down the tubes while many others don't.

 

[1_pointer]

I've gotten to the point where I don't think I can support a model that places the public trust wildlife resources in the hands of the individual states. The elk of Montana are no more the property of Montanan's than the federal lands within Montana.

The constant stream requests for help with bad legislative wildlife bills from Rs while NRs continue to see reduced access to that wildlife has pushed me over the edge.

The more the NR opportunity/accessed is reduced, the more the support for the management of federal public lands will be reduced, nationwide. IME that is not a linear relationship. Folks in states with skads of federal land might be surprised and upset at the direction that relationship is skewed...

 

[Irrelevant]

The problem is that cause law saws states own the wildlife.

That's fine. I was talking about my support alone.

I totally understand why this is basically untenable, but in many ways advocacy groups should probably implore NR to boycott when certain legislation passes.

If there was a concerted effort to have NR boycott MT outfitters and they did, you'd get some folks to attention.

Would you boycott public lands if you didn't agree with their management?

just thinking down the hypothetical of changing the paradigm to the point where wildlife are wholly owned and managed at the federal level....

that scares me more i think

wildlife managedment is political at the state level, but it's diffused across fifty states. USFWS, DOI, etc can all get intensely political, can be greatly influenced and redirected via the Commander in Chief

i kinda like the idea of 50 wildlife commissions that can be politically redirected in different ways than one supreme wildlife commission that can be politically hacked. feels like risk management to me - one state may totally go down the tubes while many others don't.

Why should the mule deer resource be treated different than the public land resource? What is the difference between 1 politically hacked wildlife commission and 50? You still have wildlife managed by politics.

The way I'm beginning to view it, is despite what the fearmongers will tell you, the federal level is simply too big to turn quickly. A state can pivot back and forth much quicker than the feds can. You get inherent stability simply because of all the layers of bureaucracy that people bitch about.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

That's fine. I was talking about my support alone.


Would you boycott public lands if you didn't agree with their management?

Why should the mule deer resource be treated different than the public land resource? What is the difference between 1 politically hacked wildlife commission and 50? You still have wildlife managed by politics.

The way I'm beginning to view it, is despite what the fearmongers will tell you, the federal level is simply too big to turn quickly. A state can pivot back and forth much quicker than the feds can. You get inherent stability simply because of all the layers of bureaucracy that people bitch about.

So you want Mitch and Nancy to be deciding elk quotas?

MT ~18k NR tags,
WY ~13k NR tags
ID ~15k NR tags

If BHA, RMEF, SCI, Go Hunt, Top Rut, and Meateater all got together and said "Don't hunt Montana this year" the entire system would collapse.

If you peeled away just 8000 elk hunters, 2/3 DIY and 1/3 Guided, that's 7.1MM from the state and assuming a guided elk hunt averages 5K, $13MM from the guiding industry.

 

[TOGIE]

Why should the mule deer resource be treated different than the public land resource? What is the difference between 1 politically hacked wildlife commission and 50? You still have wildlife managed by politics.

The way I'm beginning to view it, is despite what the fearmongers will tell you, the federal level is simply too big to turn quickly. A state can pivot back and forth much quicker than the feds can. You get inherent stability simply because of all the layers of bureaucracy that people bitch about.

to me the difference between is that the likelihood of all 50 wildlife commissions entirely tanking and wildlife being tanked along with them is smaller than the likelihood of one wildlife commission tanking or worse, our hunting privilege's tanking through political will.

just some hypotheticals i'm thinking through. and that's all this is, hypotheticals - who can say one way or another. but yeesh, congress treats usfs budget like a shit sandwich. what would stop them from doing the same to a federal wildlife managemetn budget for all fifty states?

what about the anti hunting crowd? one wildlife managment agency to attack, one legislslature/congress to lobby, one public voting group to market to. we just eliminated a huge chunk of the need for their piecemeal approach.

now admittedly, i'm only looking at it this from a potential flaws angle, certainly benefits to be had i'm sure, but i just don't know. i just *personally* see some scary cracks widen going that course,

 

[SAJ-99]

The way I'm beginning to view it, is despite what the fearmongers will tell you, the federal level is simply too big to turn quickly. A state can pivot back and forth much quicker than the feds can. You get inherent stability simply because of all the layers of bureaucracy that people bitch about.

The main problem is that at the state/local level, corruption becomes more common. And it might not even be $ "corruption" but rather just an "old buddy" system.

 

[Duck-Slayer]

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.

Totally agree, well said!
Matt

 

[Irrelevant]

So you want Mitch and Nancy to be deciding elk quotas?

MT ~18k NR tags,
WY ~13k NR tags
ID ~15k NR tags

If BHA, RMEF, SCI, Go Hunt, Top Rut, and Meateater all got together and said "Don't hunt Montana this year" the entire system would collapse.

If you peeled away just 8000 elk hunters, 2/3 DIY and 1/3 Guided, that's 7.1MM from the state and assuming a guided elk hunt averages 5K, $13MM from the guiding industry.

I'm starting to support a more general infrastructure, MT gets 100k tags, no R vs NR. It's a lottery on who gets them. Landowners can get tags for their land only. And I do not think that if the entire "industry" said boycott MT anything would change. One no one would boycott it, I bet they would have even more applicants because people are greedy and would see a potential advantage.

just some hypotheticals i'm thinking through. and that's all this is, hypotheticals - who can say one way or another. but yeesh, congress treats usfs budget like a shit sandwich. what would stop them from doing the same to a federal wildlife managemetn budget for all fifty states?

Versus the State doing it? WA has slashed it's wildlife budget over and over again. We're always talking about alternative ways to fund wildlife, giving more people a say might accomplish that. Or it might not.

what about the anti hunting crowd? one wildlife managment agency to attack, one legislslature/congress to lobby, one public voting group to market to. we just eliminated a huge chunk of the need for their piecemeal approach.

Sure. But I have a say in management of elk in WY vs right now I don't.


Do I get a preference for a camping slot in the Enchantments because I'm a local? No.
Does @MTGomer get a preference for a non-guided trip down the Grand Canyon because he lives in AZ? No.
Why should wildlife be different (other than case law)?