Utah raised NR fees.

[406dn]

Generally speaking, it is not the obligation of any state to introduce non resident children to the wonders of hunting. It is a kind gesture if they knock some money off the price of tag or give them their own special days afield. But if they chose not to,,,it's fine by me.

The place to introduce a young person to hunting is close to home,, with easier hunts. It's not unlike, you don't expect a child to begin fishing with a fly rod using small dry flies.

Every state has opportunities to ignite the hunting passion. I took our son rabbit hunting on nice winter days, long before he ever hunted for elk. Hunting for squirrels or other small game will work also.

The fact is that big game hunting is beyond the means of a significant portion of the resident population in every state. It should not surprise anyone that non resident licenses price out a portion of interested hunters. But as stated above, if the tags did not cost a dime, there are many who can't swing the travel, lodging, time expense.

Every state with superior big game hunting, sells its non resident tags for a premium. They would be irresponsible to do otherwise. Their first obligation is to the resource, second to the public of the state. Non residents are well behind the first two.

 

[BuzzH]

That's the point you've missed yet again.

There is a proposal to damn the bear river in n Utah.

Doing so will destroy a big chunk of tundra swan habitat.

It's being fought. We can use all the help we can get. If you've never been there, and never experienced it, in the abstract it might matter. But if you have a connection to it, your more likely to advocate for protecting it.

I notice in all the pics you keep posting, I don't see your kids in any of them. Cost must of played some factor I'll suppose.

Good luck, as usual.

I was the OP. I'm a Utah resident. You guys want to keep dropping huge coin to fund my hunting, THANKS. I guess.
I felt that 53% increase was a little brutal. That's why I posted

If you need people to advocate for the bear river "damn"...then ask for help and break down the barriers for commenting, provide the information, links, contact information. The barrier for commenting on that issue, and advocating for the bear river, isn't because I think the price of dall sheep tags are too high.

Cost plays a factor in NR hunts, but its not the price of the NR licenses that's the cost prohibitive factor....obviously.

I also don't think the price increases were excessive in Utah, price should increase in 15 years. Management costs money...

 

[Big Fin]

Damn, guys. If you want to try convince each other of who is "more right," take it to PMs. Right now, the back and forth is derailing any discussion and accomplishes nothing of value to others in this conversation.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

My wife says, "You guys (including me ) knock it off because it's Easter". She has a point....

 

[406dn]

My wife says, "You guys (including me ) knock it off because it's Easter". She has a point....

There is that.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Supply and demand is a bitch, sometimes.

 

[ImBillT]

Looks like there’s no longer a deer in UT that I’m willing to pay for, and I’m really going to have to think hard about OIL. They were one of few states where I could afford a sheep, moose or bison tag if I drew one.

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

about 7 years ago montana upped there combo prices way up to about $1000 ,,at that point montana went way down my "bang for the buck" list and since that time,montana has not seen my n r moneys as i run out before i get that far down my list,,,utah n r deer was near the top of my list and will now be moved down close to montana on my list.i will see if i can afford it or not when it comes time again,,hopefully utah hits this year at the old fee rate.over the last 7 years utah has gotten alot of money for fuel,food,ect from me,,"thousands" of dollars that i will spend elsewhere most likely.

 

[Fredbear329]

Was pretty sneaky to wait until after applications, which would have possibly let dudes burn points this year.

GOHUNT // The Hunting Company

GOHUNT empowers hunters with the tools, technology, gear, and resources they need to get the most out of their time in the field.

www.gohunt.com

Heck, this was my first year applying there! The fees were reasonable, but now I feel like I wasted money buying points. Can't throw good money at bad, I'll try to draw soon and get out.

 

[seeth07]

Really late on this thread but as I had so many thoughts and comments while reading thru the valuable opinions (as well as the pissing match of what can only be described as classic old men grumbling) I wanted to contribute my own personal formulated opinion on the topic of NR vs R as well as cost.

The North American model of wildlife conservation that is used here in the states has seven principles and I want to highlight the first, fourth and seventh one as it applies to this conversation.

"1. Wildlife is a public resource. In the Unites States, wildlife is considered a public resource, independent of the land or water where wildlife may live. Government at various levels have a role in managing that resource on behalf of all citizens and to ensure the long-term sustainability of wildlife populations.

4. Wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate purpose. Wildlife is a shared resource that must not be wasted. The law prohibits killing wildlife for frivolous reasons.

7. The democracy of hunting. In keeping with democratic principles, government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership."

Notice the use of the words "all citizens" "shared resource". The animals aren't owned by anyone but instead by all of us as citizens of this country. If you have ever traveled or hunted in another country, you immediately learn and understand that the USA way of hunting isn't anywhere near the same. In our nations, hunting is a privilege. In America it's a right. Every American should have a right to be allowed the chance to experience a hunting opportunity regardless of which state they reside in. If a state decides to discriminate a NR which cost, that is their choice and also a "right" that each state has as mentioned before with the premise that it allows a state the option to potentially increase their revenue. A state however I don't feel has the "right" to block NR the chance at the opportunity as it clearly goes against the core values of the North American model for conservation.

 

[Jape]

Really late on this thread but as I had so many thoughts and comments while reading thru the valuable opinions (as well as the pissing match of what can only be described as classic old men grumbling) I wanted to contribute my own personal formulated opinion on the topic of NR vs R as well as cost.

The North American model of wildlife conservation that is used here in the states has seven principles and I want to highlight the first, fourth and seventh one as it applies to this conversation.

"1. Wildlife is a public resource. In the Unites States, wildlife is considered a public resource, independent of the land or water where wildlife may live. Government at various levels have a role in managing that resource on behalf of all citizens and to ensure the long-term sustainability of wildlife populations.

4. Wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate purpose. Wildlife is a shared resource that must not be wasted. The law prohibits killing wildlife for frivolous reasons.

7. The democracy of hunting. In keeping with democratic principles, government allocates access to wildlife without regard for wealth, prestige, or land ownership."

Notice the use of the words "all citizens" "shared resource". The animals aren't owned by anyone but instead by all of us as citizens of this country. If you have ever traveled or hunted in another country, you immediately learn and understand that the USA way of hunting isn't anywhere near the same. In our nations, hunting is a privilege. In America it's a right. Every American should have a right to be allowed the chance to experience a hunting opportunity regardless of which state they reside in. If a state decides to discriminate a NR which cost, that is their choice and also a "right" that each state has as mentioned before with the premise that it allows a state the option to potentially increase their revenue. A state however I don't feel has the "right" to block NR the chance at the opportunity as it clearly goes against the core values of the North American model for conservation.

I understand that that is your opinion, however that opinion is very different than the 150 years of caselaw hammering out this issue. States maintain the right to manage the wildlife in their respective jurisdictions and that, hopefully, will not change anytime soon. Ultimately, hunting as a non-resident is a privilege not a right. Here is a link that gives a decent summary of the history behind that law.

American Wildlife Law - An Introduction | Animal Legal & Historical Center

www.animallaw.info

 

[BuzzH]

. A state however I don't feel has the "right" to block NR the chance at the opportunity as it clearly goes against the core values of the North American model for conservation.

Feelings have nothing to do with law...

S. 339

To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and
fishing activities.


_______________________________________________________________________


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 9, 2005

Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska,
Mr. Ensign, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Salazar,
Mr. Craig, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Kyl) introduced the
following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary

April 21, 2005

Reported by Mr. Specter, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL



To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and
fishing activities.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Reaffirmation of State Regulation of
Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL
SILENCE.

(a) In General.--It is the policy of Congress that it is in the
public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for
any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by
means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and
nonresidents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses
or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the
kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees
charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting
or fishing.
(b) Construction of Congressional Silence.--Silence on the part of
Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of
Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the
``commerce clause'') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State
or Indian tribe.

SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(1) to limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law
related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or
to the regulation of commerce;
(2) to limit the authority of the United States to prohibit
hunting or fishing on any portion of the lands owned by the
United States; or
(3) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, supersede or
alter any treaty-reserved right or other right of any Indian
tribe as recognized by any other means, including, but not
limited to, agreements with the United States, Executive
Orders, statutes, and judicial decrees, and by Federal law.

SEC. 4. STATE DEFINED.

For purposes of this Act, the term ``State'' includes the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.




Calendar No. 85

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 339

 

[seeth07]

States maintain the right to manage the wildlife in their respective jurisdictions and that, hopefully, will not change anytime soon.

I don't disagree with that at all and principle 3 is basically exactly that:

"Allocation of wildlife by law. Wildlife is a public resource managed by government. As a result, access to wildlife for hunting is through legal mechanisms such as set hunting seasons, bag limits, license requirements, etc."

It doesn't say state but it really does make the most sense that the state does it which is what happens.

My point is just that if say state X has the ability to support a harvest of 100 Elk, state X can't chose to only let 100 residents get them. Even if only 1 tag goes to a NR, I'm ok with that model. Just can't completely block off a resource.

 

[Jape]

I don't disagree with that at all and principle 3 is basically exactly that:

"Allocation of wildlife by law. Wildlife is a public resource managed by government. As a result, access to wildlife for hunting is through legal mechanisms such as set hunting seasons, bag limits, license requirements, etc."

It doesn't say state but it really does make the most sense that the state does it which is what happens.

My point is just that if say state X has the ability to support a harvest of 100 Elk, state X can't chose to only let 100 residents get them. Even if only 1 tag goes to a NR, I'm ok with that model. Just can't completely block off a resource.

I agree that is probably not the best policy for a state to take, but legally they have every right to allocate all 100 tags to residents. In some instances, that is exactly what happens.

 

[MO Betta]

I don't disagree with that at all and principle 3 is basically exactly that:

"Allocation of wildlife by law. Wildlife is a public resource managed by government. As a result, access to wildlife for hunting is through legal mechanisms such as set hunting seasons, bag limits, license requirements, etc."

It doesn't say state but it really does make the most sense that the state does it which is what happens.

My point is just that if say state X has the ability to support a harvest of 100 Elk, state X can't chose to only let 100 residents get them. Even if only 1 tag goes to a NR, I'm ok with that model. Just can't completely block off a resource.

They can, as a prerogative. A lot of states with Elk that aren't considered part of the West are resident only. Just local to me there is Missouri, Kansas and Arkansas. All resident only, albeit these states have few opportunities even for the residents (and in Kansas, military stationed there). Other states don't have to let us NR's hunt there, but we provide a lot of funding (in some cases the majority) for their budgets so we are sold a limited allotment.

 

[JLS]

My point is just that if say state X has the ability to support a harvest of 100 Elk, state X can't chose to only let 100 residents get them. Even if only 1 tag goes to a NR, I'm ok with that model. Just can't completely block off a resource.

This is not correct.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

I don't disagree with that at all and principle 3 is basically exactly that:

"Allocation of wildlife by law. Wildlife is a public resource managed by government. As a result, access to wildlife for hunting is through legal mechanisms such as set hunting seasons, bag limits, license requirements, etc."

It doesn't say state but it really does make the most sense that the state does it which is what happens.

My point is just that if say state X has the ability to support a harvest of 100 Elk, state X can't chose to only let 100 residents get them. Even if only 1 tag goes to a NR, I'm ok with that model. Just can't completely block off a resource.

You make some great points in your posts. And your thoughts reflect what a lot of people feel. Unfortunately, things will never change until someone, or a group with a lot of money changes the laws. And that won't happen because the guy with the money really don't care. Just because a law is active does not mean it is still effective or right for the current generation.

When the government and it's agencies are allowed to run as a business, the freedoms of the American people are limited. That's how the "state agencies" get the funds, without charging the "residence" to much, to operate. And the states with the premium lands and premium animals will always charge a premium price. And some folks will be "closed out" by an inability to pay that premium. Making it a pay to play system. And nothing that is government run should be a pay to play.

It's just a fact of life and life just ain't fair...

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don't disagree with that at all and principle 3 is basically exactly that:

"Allocation of wildlife by law. Wildlife is a public resource managed by government. As a result, access to wildlife for hunting is through legal mechanisms such as set hunting seasons, bag limits, license requirements, etc."

It doesn't say state but it really does make the most sense that the state does it which is what happens.

My point is just that if say state X has the ability to support a harvest of 100 Elk, state X can't chose to only let 100 residents get them. Even if only 1 tag goes to a NR, I'm ok with that model. Just can't completely block off a resource.

Appreciate you writing a letter to the Wisconsin DNR arguing that I, a NR, should be allowed to participate in the Wisconsin elk hunt.

 

[wyoelkfan15]

I don't disagree with that at all and principle 3 is basically exactly that:

"Allocation of wildlife by law. Wildlife is a public resource managed by government. As a result, access to wildlife for hunting is through legal mechanisms such as set hunting seasons, bag limits, license requirements, etc."

It doesn't say state but it really does make the most sense that the state does it which is what happens.

My point is just that if say state X has the ability to support a harvest of 100 Elk, state X can't chose to only let 100 residents get them. Even if only 1 tag goes to a NR, I'm ok with that model. Just can't completely block off a resource.

The US supreme court will disagree with you

 

[BuzzH]

My point is just that if say state X has the ability to support a harvest of 100 Elk, state X can't chose to only let 100 residents get them. Even if only 1 tag goes to a NR, I'm ok with that model. Just can't completely block off a resource.

Try to apply for a draw to hunt a moose in North Dakota as a NR...good luck with that. Yes, the states can, by law, "completely block off the resource" to NR's.