Non-resident tag pricing

[A-con]

Some hot threads on other boards are discussing increases in non-resident tag prices. Some people seem to think tags should be sold for as much as non-resident will pay.
Capitalism dictates that things should be sold for “what the market will bare” but tags issued by state governments are a service that should be sold for “what the service costs to provide”. Imagine if points and drawings were done away with and all tags were distributed by auction ? How many of us could afford to keep hunting ? What do you think a general season Wyoming elk tag would go for ? 3 thousand, 4 thousand ? How about some of the better units in Arizona or Utah ? 10 maybe 15 thousand or more ?

I don’t want my grandkids asking me, “what was it like back when people could hunt wild animals ?”

fire away

 

[Nemont]

So how much should tags costs? NR hunters in Montana slit their own throats when they supported the Outfitter set aside. NR get no sympathy from me, they asked for it and got it.

Nemont

 

[MNHunter]

People forget, we're all NR somewhere. Part of the problem like Nemont said is NR supporting outfitter welfare. Another part is the ridiculously low cost of tags in some states for residents. I don' think there is much we can do about it. I figure the best way for me to continue to hunt out of state is to increase my income or limit my expenses. There abou the only things I have control over.

 

[Gunner46]

My debate, on this issue, centers around the funding that the states get from the Fed to support public land, subsitities to land owners, BLM...etc.

Seems to me that ALL of us are contributing to that slush fund, so why are the states allowed to charge me more for a tag to hunt on the same property that the resident and I (the NR) both equally contributed toward?

If the state, or a Land Owner is receiving Fed funds, then I believe the cost of a tag should be the same for all on the property that the funding supports.

 

[Nemont]

My debate, on this issue, centers around the funding that the states get from the Fed to support public land, subsitities to land owners, BLM...etc.

Seems to me that ALL of us are contributing to that slush fund, so why are the states allowed to charge me more for a tag to hunt on the same property that the resident and I (the NR) both equally contributed toward?

If the state, or a Land Owner is receiving Fed funds, then I believe the cost of a tag should be the same for all on the property that the funding supports.

Ummm....did you follow the entire USO deal in regards to who controls the right to allocate tags and such? I believe it is codified in law sponsored by the present Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid.

Just because someone is recieving federal funds does not mean you have access to said land. Case and point would be CRP contracts, CRP is considered rental payments. What in a rental payment would allow you to have access to that private deeded land?

As for the Federal Public lands ie. BLM, Forest Service etc. you have just as much access as any resident but that doesn't mean you should get to jump the line and get a tag. That is a pretty dumb way of looking at the NR tag issue.

If you want to hunt out west every year then move out west.

Nemont

 

[MNHunter]

The tag fee is not so you can hunt on the land, it is so you can hunt a particular animal. All of which, courts have repeatedly ruled, belong to the particular state. Ergo, they are charging you more to hunt the animal, not use the land.

 

[AZ402]

Ummm....did you follow the entire USO deal in regards to who controls the right to allocate tags and such? I believe it is codified in law sponsored by the present Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid.

Just because someone is recieving federal funds does not mean you have access to said land. Case and point would be CRP contracts, CRP is considered rental payments. What in a rental payment would allow you to have access to that private deeded land?

As for the Federal Public lands ie. BLM, Forest Service etc. you have just as much access as any resident but that doesn't mean you should get to jump the line and get a tag. That is a pretty dumb way of looking at the NR tag issue.

If you want to hunt out west every year then move out west.

Nemont

Well done Nemont.

 

[Tom]

I'm with Gunner46. If the animal eats on public land, drinks on public land, lives on public land, and dies on public land, the tags should be distributed fairly according to that land's support of the animal and the people who support that land.

 

[AZ402]

I'm with Gunner46. If the animal eats on public land, drinks on public land, lives on public land, and dies on public land, the tags should be distributed fairly according to that land's support of the animal and the people who support that land.

Thanks A-con......................

 

[MattK]

Tom- You only say that because TX is almost all private...pretty easy to say NR can have equal access to both deer that stay on public land year around. "Here...I'll give you a portion of the public land animals...every five years a NR can get a tag set aside for their use." It's not my fault you live in a state with no public lands.

 

[Nemont]

I'm with Gunner46. If the animal eats on public land, drinks on public land, lives on public land, and dies on public land, the tags should be distributed fairly according to that land's support of the animal and the people who support that land.

How do you prove an animal spends it's entire life on public lands? That statement shows how little you understand land ownership patterns in the Western US.

Also then who decides what is fair and equal? Also then who runs the drawings for that land and those animals? That is the most idiotic idea I have heard of yet.

You need to read the law and the Supreme Court decisions regarding this issue before spouting off without a freaking clue.

Nemont

 

[Tom]

Well, its can be approached pretty simply, if you wanted to. 60% federal land, 20% state land, and 20% private land in a unit, say. 60% of the tags for federal draws, 20% for state draws, and 20% for private use. That would be allocated a lot more fairly than it is now, but it could be improved if the habitat managers actually cared about and measured quality of habitat.

However they decide the number of tags for a unit, that method could be applied to the federal land, or the state land, or the private land in a unit. The cost to determine those quotas would be distributed amoungst the tags, pretty simple, pretty fair.

 

[schmalts]

I see both sides, but cringe when i see prices of res vs nonres get so out of balance. I will only say this since the rest has been beaten to death already..
Slowly the income bracket of those who will be your NR hunters is going up, and that will only bring hardship to everyone on both sides unless you are the upper income NR themselves. Big money NR bring more money and power to outfitters, and stuipid rules will always follow like outfitter preference in many states drawings, and WY totally bullshit wilderness law, and your own states private lands locked up in leases.
It is going in a bad direction and i hate to see what it will be like in 10 years.
Buzz will defend any price hike in his own state, but with the last few percentage hikes between tags and bonus points, what will it be like 15 years from now if we keep going like this? How will it affect the future of hunting? I can only see bad things.

 

[Nemont]

Well, its can be approached pretty simply, if you wanted to. 60% federal land, 20% state land, and 20% private land in a unit, say. 60% of the tags for federal draws, 20% for state draws, and 20% for private use. That would be allocated a lot more fairly than it is now, but it could be improved if the habitat managers actually cared about and measured quality of habitat.

However they decide the number of tags for a unit, that method could be applied to the federal land, or the state land, or the private land in a unit. The cost to determine those quotas would be distributed amoungst the tags, pretty simple, pretty fair.

Tom,

We don't have to work that kind of an idiotic system because the Federal Government doesn't own the wildlife.

Just go and spend a little time reading the law. Please make sure and pay special attention to the Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005,

Then do and read the Baldwin decision http://supreme.justia.com/us/436/371/

So come up with all the schemes and wishes you want because that and $2 will get you a cup of coffee. The law has spoken and it says the several states manage and control access to NR tags not the Federal Government.

Nemont

 

[Tom]

Nemont, if you own some land, can I have my animals come and eat all the food they want off of your land?

 

[Big Fin]

NEMont hit it on the head.

If you don't beleive it, go read the US Supreme court cases and educate yourself before saying things that will make you look uninformed.

Start with Martin v. Wadell in 1846. Yup, 1846. New Jersey case settling a dispute of whether or not a private landowner controlled the shellfish being harvested in tidal flats.

That, and other cases, such as Illinois Central Railroad, Greer v. Connecticut, and many others, reinforce the notion of a Public Trust.

In other words, the state holds the wildlife in trust for the public citizens - a Public Trust.

The courts go on to say that when the US declared independence from King George, all rights George had, became rights of the states, unless in the Constitution, the states granted that right to the Feds.

One of the rights 'ol George had was the "fishings, fowlings, and hawkings" - what we call wildlife. The states were the ones declaring independence and therefore are the holder of that wildlife right previously held by the king.

I was president of an organization that spent many thousands of dollars to hire a leading wildlife attorney to prepare a research paper on this subject. Via our funding, a group of MT organizations hired Susan Morath-Horner to do this research.

All hunters should read it. It is titled - Pubic Trust: Embryo, not Fossil. It lays out all the legal cases and precedent that supports this notion of a public trust. It also tells us why private land is not the basis on which wildlife is allocated in the US, and why private landowners do not own the wildlife that exists, permanently or temporarily, on their land.

A large reason for people coming to the colonies was to escape draconian laws and rules of kings. One of the big issues was hunting and fishing rights. When independence was declared, public ownership of wildlife was a very big issue that our founding fathers adamantly kept in tact.

So many hunters think these laws related to state trusteeship of wildlife started twenty years ago. The reason the courts have given states the right to manage wildlife for the benefit of the citizens is well founded and long-established by the USSC.

I have spent the last ten years helping organizations host seminars on this topic and it surprises me how few legislators, commissioners, and other policy makers know nothing of this concept. Even more surprising is that these people are the trustees of the public trust and have to understand it, if they are to protect our interests as beneficiaries of the public trust.

If we as hunters want to preserve the notion of hunting as we know it, we would all be well served to learn about the public trust. The public trust applies to states, as they have the rights to wildlife. If the states had granted their wildlife interests to the Feds, a public trust for wildlife would apply to the Feds. It does not.

As such, claiming that federal land ownership, or private land ownership, should sever the right states hold in their wildlife is a bunch of bullshit.

If we don't like it, I guess we change the constitution and convince the states to grant their interest and trustee responsibilities in wildlife to the Feds. NOT!

After all, we are the beneficiaries of the public trusts. Wildlife is the corpus of the trust. Our state, via its appointed/elected officials, are our trustees.

If you were the beneficiary of a trust that held money, I bet you would learn about how it worked. Seems reasonable to do the same as it relates to a trust that holds wildlife on our behalf.

And yes, MT should raise resident fees. First though, we should eliminate state-sponsored outfitter welfare and other policies that price both residents and average-income non-residents out of the hunting picture.

Happy Hunting

 

[schmalts]

And yes, MT should raise resident fees. First though, we should eliminate state-sponsored outfitter welfare and other policies that price both residents and average-income non-residents out of the hunting picture.

Happy Hunting

AMEN to that. No state should cater to outfitters, it only breeds more greed.

 

[Tom]

Big Fin, does the report talk about western resident welfare any? western state welfare?

 

[Big Fin]

Big Fin, does the report talk about western resident welfare any? western state welfare?

WTF?

If you want to read the research paper I referred to, Google it, or the author.

If you are asking some other question, elaborate please!

 

[mtmiller]

Tom, please quit while you are way behind.