Screwing over the Non-resident (or not)?

[Nick87]

Do you donate to elk conservation in ND or MN?

Not directly or exclusively to ND or Minnesota. Why?

 

[seeth07]

We're getting closer everyday. Unfortunately we're about as fast to react as Montana management is. Personally I'd be fine with one buck tag with it if it's needed and think we should be there yesterday. I can tell you the majority would probably drown in their own tears.

exactly this. The bulk of people in my area in WI would flip their lid and there would be riots at the capital. Having a deer buck tag in their pocket available OTC is just that valuable it seems to most here.

With that said, WI is extremely liberal to NR in bear draw. There is no NR v R allocation for black bear hunting and our black bear hunting is one of the best locations in the lower 48 for both abundance and size.

Contrary to that, WI is extremely strict to NR in our Turkey Draw. Can you imagine if WY did their draw following this?

 

[Treeshark]

Planning a bull elk hunt in 2025 will require planning and perhaps even some luck Where will it be another 10 years from now?

Very true. And elk are doing well in many areas, think about the species aren’t.

 

[TOGIE]

so would you guys be happy or unhappy if your DNR was forced to restrict buck hunting in an amount of tags equal to the amount of resident hunters that currently hold one each year, but then decided to shave off 10% for NRs, which means 10% of resident hunters go without a buck tag? would you be pro eliminating that 10% for NR? or pro keeping that 10% for NR?

if you can't be honest about your answer to that question then you can't be honest or even be on solid footing to have an opinion on tightening allocations in the west. simple as that IMO.

this is the nuts and bolts of why allocations are tightening in the west. not because we're at that point, but because we're headed to that point.

 

[seeth07]

so would you guys be happy or unhappy if your DNR was forced to restrict buck hunting in an amount of tags equal to the amount of resident hunters that currently hold one each year, but then decided to shave off 10% for NRs, which means 10% of resident hunters go without a buck tag? would you be pro eliminating that 10%? or pro keeping that 10%?

if you can't be honest about your answer to that question you can't be honest about your opinion on tightening allocations in the west. simple as that IMO.

this is the nuts and bolts of why allocations are tightening in the west. not because we're at that point, but because we're headed to that point.

For members of this forum, I'm guessing most of us are going to answer your question with a "yes, that is fair because its how we are in turn treated when we hunt out of state". And its a genuine reply of yes - we get it.

However, poll WI residents that hunt and I would bet that 95% or more would object to that proposal.

 

[rjthehunter]

serious question for you midwesterners:

let's imagine your white tail populations got the point where all it could sustain is one tag per resident hunter. that's it, it just can't sustain a harvest greater than all the resident hunters in a state having one buck tag. then, that means if any number above that number of tags goes to an NR an equal amount of residents then go without a tag. what would you do? how would you feel?

Put it in a realistic perspective. Model it after WY elk.

Let's say as a resident of MN, I'm allowed to shoot 3 deer per year. Any resident can go buy a general tag over the counter.

NR can draw a general tag once every ~5 years. 90/10 split on tags.

Sure, I'd do that.

 

[rjthehunter]

Not directly or exclusively to ND or Minnesota. Why?

You'll never be able to hunt elk in either of those states as a NR.

Can you really call someone "greedy" for donating to areas where they have a realistic opportunity to hunt?

 

[TOGIE]

For members of this forum, I'm guessing most of us are going to answer your question with a "yes, that is fair because its how we are in turn treated when we hunt out of state". And its a genuine reply of yes - we get it.

However, poll WI residents that hunt and I would bet that 95% or more would object to that proposal.

and it's not even a matter of fairness, it's not eye for an eye.

it is this, should you as residents forsake getting to be able to hunt every year so an NR can?

 

[Archer86]

Is it really that farfetched to make the hypothesis that they will go to close to zero in not that far into the future?

Take a bull elk tag for example. 10 years ago, the options for a NR were pretty easy to get a tag across a lot of states. CO and ID you could get a tag OTC. With minimal effort, you could plan on and get a tag in MT, NM and WY.

Planning a bull elk hunt in 2025 will require planning and perhaps even some luck Where will it be another 10 years from now?

Idaho is still otc crappy process yes but still otc. Colorado archery is going to a draw will still be easy to draw but will need to use points big deal. Mt and wy you can still easily get a elk tag. Then there is oregon and washington still otc so tell me again how its hard to get a elk tag just because you cant drive a day before the season and buy it doesn't mean nr are loosing opportunities

If nr are loosing opportunities its because it has become more popular and more nr are applying for the same tags wyoming general is a perfect example elk tags have not been cut to nr yet there is more people apply making them hard to draw. Not any fault of western state residents or the state. It's you other nr applying

 

[The Hedgehog]

Put it in a realistic perspective. Model it after WY elk.

Let's say as a resident of MN, I'm allowed to shoot 3 deer per year. Any resident can go buy a general tag over the counter.

NR can draw a general tag once every ~5 years. 90/10 split on tags.

Sure, I'd do that.

Wait - I thought you could easily come by a WY cow tag as a non-resident every year? Or 2 or 3? At a reduced price..

 

[Big Fin]

And this again brings me back to something that may be controversial but I think seriously warrants consideration. Let's say I own 1,000 acres and @Big Fin lives in an apartment in the same state. We're both residents and thereby both beneficiaries in this hypothetical example. Is it right for me to get more tags than him just because I own land and he doesn't? I don't think so. Let's get even more controversial. There is a certain type of business that quite literally profits off the harvesting of wildlife, especially in the west. If we're concerned about privatization and diy opportunities, maybe we should discuss whether or not that business should be entitled to a certain number of licenses, or whether that business should have exclusive access to certain types of public lands....

In that hypothetical, neither of us get anything more from the Trust than any other Beneficiary.

In that hypothetical, you are also a Stakeholder who owns valuable assets of the best 1,000 acres of mule ground in the state. The Trustees are under obligation to do what is best for the Trust Corpus (wildlife) and Beneficiaries. Your mule deer ground, represents a great opportunity for the Trustees to improve the Trust Corpus, and possibly benefit the Beneficiaries.

Thus, as prudent Trustees, they probably should, or surely can, enter into an agreement with you as a Stakeholder (not as a Beneficiary) to improve the Trust. That might be cash payment like the Block Management Program in Montana. It might be landowner vouchers like in NM, CO, UT, and NV. It might be a non-transferrable landowner tag.

The many programs we see, whether cash payments or payment via tags, are supposed to be how Trustees enter into agreements with Stakeholders who bring value to the Trust as a result of what that Stakeholder offers. The premise is that the Trust Corpus (wildlife) and the Beneficiaries benefit from the transaction Trustees enter into with the Stakeholder(s). We can argue all we want as to whether or not those programs work or don't work, whether they are abused or not abused, whether they should be changed or folded up.

The threshold of burden placed on the Trustee when dealing with Stakeholders is to make sure the Trust and the Beneficiaries benefits from whatever transactions the Trustees agree to enter into with that Stakeholder(s). If not, the Trustees are hanging their butts out there and asking to be sued. They should use "reasonable and prudent" methods to determine that they are benefiting the Trust/Trustee when entering into transactions with Stakeholders.

Now, if your 1,000 acres was nothing but a bunch of plowed up dirt with no wildlife, you might still be a Stakeholder, but the asset you bring to the Trust for consideration likely causes the Trustee to decline your offer, as entering into an agreement with you does little, if anything, to benefit the Trust or the Beneficiaries.

Point being, people can be both a Beneficiary (due to residency) and a Stakeholder (due to what they offer the Trust).

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

How many states had OTC elk opportunities for NRs 10 years ago? How many do today? What is it going to look like in another 10 years?

Maybe if more people "hunted quietly" over the last 10 years NRs would be able to still roll into idaho Sept 8th stop at wal-mart and buy their elk tag on the way to the spot there gonna hunt. But I'm sure there is zero correlation between NR opportunity and social media and instahunters over the last 10 years.

 

[BuzzH]

Is it really that farfetched to make the hypothesis that they will go to close to zero in not that far into the future?

Take a bull elk tag for example. 10 years ago, the options for a NR were pretty easy to get a tag across a lot of states. CO and ID you could get a tag OTC. With minimal effort, you could plan on and get a tag in MT, NM and WY.

Planning a bull elk hunt in 2025 will require planning and perhaps even some luck Where will it be another 10 years from now?

Colorado and Idaho aren't still OTC?

The rest of the states you mention were never OTC in the past 10 years. Tags were also never that easy to get either.

 

[Nick87]

so would you guys be happy or unhappy if your DNR was forced to restrict buck hunting in an amount of tags equal to the amount of resident hunters that currently hold one each year, but then decided to shave off 10% for NRs, which means 10% of resident hunters go without a buck tag? would you be pro eliminating that 10% for NR? or pro keeping that 10% for NR?

if you can't be honest about your answer to that question then you can't be honest or even be on solid footing to have an opinion on tightening allocations in the west. simple as that IMO.

this is the nuts and bolts of why allocations are tightening in the west. not because we're at that point, but because we're headed to that point.

Would I be happy? No I wouldn't be "happy" but if it's warranted then so be it. I'd rather enjoy watching a flourishing deer herd heard and maybe not draw a tag every year than have my two buck tags every year hunting a deer herd that is a shell of what it once was. because everyone makes it about me me me. Which is exactly what we're doing here. We have doubled our firearm season here from years ago and also upped the tags from not always drawing as a resident to most counties issuing so many they don't even sell out.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Your main solution was to put more animals on the landscape. Ending modern day market hunting would help put more animals on the landscape. We’ve seen what market hunting has done in our not so distant past but people are so addicted to the likes and comments and brag boards, they ignore it as an issue today. How many people would quit hunting if they couldn’t film it, put it on Instagram or Facebook, or make money off it? Social media is definitely creating tension between R/NR when large groups of NRs come out, whack a pile of young bucks, film every one, blow up the spot the R has been hunting for 30 years, put it all over YouTube and social media, and the R is left with less deer and more crowding, even if that same NR doesn’t get a tag the next year, seems like it would make some R’s want at least 90-10 splits if not worse for the NR, no matter how unreasonable that is financially. And it only hurts the NR, as it makes it harder for the NR to draw allocated permits with more people putting in because the location was blown up on social media. Like most things on HT, it’s mostly anecdotal. I’m open to having my mind changed though on the whole premise

It’s really rather the opposite.

Influencers magnify the value placed on wildlife through pumping hunting demand. As the value of wildlife is magnified, habitat is prioritized for wildlife so the wildlife can be hunted…by rich people. The collective work of influencers in the social media age has ensured a place for wildlife to exist for generations to come.

Wildlife wins, DIY hunters lose. $$$ grabs the remaining hunting opportunity, siphoning it public lands through an ever-growing body of laws and policies that favor outfitters and large landowners.

I know some forum members on this site are enlightened and don’t care if they can hunt the animals or not - they just care about the wildlife. Fittingly, these tend to be older, lifelong hunters with dozens of big game trophies on their walls.

I am not in that camp. I want wildlife to thrive for its own sake, and I also want wildlife to thrive so I can hunt. It irks me that the prevailing trend is wildlife gets prioritized, but along with the that the opportunity to hunt it moves away from average persons towards the wealthy.

There is an argument that gets floated frequently on this site to counter the complaint that NR hunting opportunity is evaporating: “NR hunting has always been for persons of above-average means.”

That statement is true, but when digging into it deeper, the reality is more nuanced. For over half a century now, NR hunting, specifically NR big game hunting, has been accessible for the top 25-50% income brackets of the US population. Ten years from now, let’s say it is the top 10%, and 25 years from now it’s the top 5%, like it is in most of Europe. All the numbers are “above average”, but the latter leaves out most of the hunters who frequent this site.

TLDR - I’m raising my kids to hunt squirrels and rabbits.

 

[rjthehunter]

Wait - I thought you could easily come by a WY cow tag as a non-resident every year? Or 2 or 3? At a reduced price..

Yeah, that's fine, if there's leftover doe tags in MN, have at them.

You realize this is hypothetical right? I would be more than satisfied as a resident. I wouldn't be trying to take MORE tags from NR hunters.

 

[Nick87]

You'll never be able to hunt elk in either of those states as a NR.

Can you really call someone "greedy" for donating to areas where they have a realistic opportunity to hunt?

You were calling residents greedy for wanting more tags. When all your concerned about is more tags. You never answered my question what's a fair split and price for you?

 

[Hem]

Quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Jeez, you are slighting a chit ton of members who strive for the honor.

 

[Archer86]

You were calling residents greedy for wanting more tags. When all your concerned about is more tags. You never answered my question what's a fair split and price for you?

That's the question everyone crying doesn't like to anwser or they have unrealistic expectations

 

[BuzzH]

It’s really rather the opposite.

Influencers magnify the value placed on wildlife through pumping hunting demand. As the value of wildlife is magnified, habitat is prioritized for wildlife so the wildlife can be hunted…by rich people. The collective work of influencers in the social media age has ensured a place for wildlife to exist for generations to come.

Wildlife wins, DIY hunters lose. $$$ grabs the remaining hunting opportunity, siphoning it public lands through an ever-growing body of laws and policies that favor outfitters and large landowners.

I know some forum members on this site are enlightened and don’t care if they can hunt the animals or not - they just care about the wildlife. Fittingly, these tend to be older, lifelong hunters with dozens of big game trophies on their walls.

I am not in that camp. I want wildlife to thrive for its own sake, and I also want wildlife to thrive so I can hunt. It irks me that the prevailing trend is wildlife gets prioritized, but along with the that the opportunity to hunt it moves away from average persons towards the wealthy.

There is an argument that gets floated frequently on this site to counter the complaint that NR hunting opportunity is evaporating: “NR hunting has always been for persons of above-average means.”

That statement is true, but when digging into it deeper, the reality is more nuanced. For over half a century now, NR hunting, specifically NR big game hunting, has been accessible for the top 25-50% income brackets of the US population. Ten years from now, let’s say it is the top 10%, and 25 years from now it’s the top 5%, like it is in most of Europe. All the numbers are “above average”, but the latter leaves out most of the hunters who frequent this site.

TLDR - I’m raising my kids to hunt squirrels and rabbits.

NR hunting has never had anything to do with income brackets, it was always about priorities.

IMO/E, hunting for a lot of the newbies is one of the many things they do. They want hunting to be cheap enough that they don't have to decide between taking the kids and old lady to Disneyland OR going on a NR elk hunt. They want both, they want it now, and if they dont then they're being "priced out" of hunting. Certainly not priced out of Disneyland though, just their NR hunting license.

If the expectation is that a state should accommodate your broad base of activities to suit your income bracket, so you can do it all...I'm inclined to say tough chit.

If you want cheap hunting AND the trip to Disneyland, that's what resident hunting is there for.

Hunters need to get over this delusional idea they can have it all in every state they feel like hunting.

Some final thoughts, most of the serious NR hunters I know are not in the top income brackets. As it's always been in my lifetime, those that hunt as a NR that want it bad enough make it a high priority.

Many of the chronic bitchers in these threads probably never had to call a GF agency and have them send you the paper regulations and applications you filled out by hand. Nearly every state made you front the money via a paper check as well.

It's dirt cheap and so much easier to apply for multiple states now...I can only imagine the level of crying if they had to apply like NRs did 25 years ago. The cheap fees fronted and ease of application is another reason for the large influx of wannabes.