Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Bugle Article on Resident/Non-resident fees and tags

It is the same in NM.

Have run into landlocked public land alot in CO. The work arounds require 2-3 miles extra walking - which always ends with running into people that have access.

While we're talking about access issues - any hope of ever getting the WY law prohibiting non-residents in wilderness areas w/o a guide overturned? Anyone know the history of how that came to be? I'd conjecture the WY guide association was behind the law. A little enlightenment would help.

You pretty much have it summarized, someone wanted a handout so they lobbied for it. Hard to get it overturned since non-residents don't have a vote. We can only hope our in-state brethren and local business owners would step up for us.

Correct. IIRC having to grant access to federal lands through private went to the Supreme Court. They ruled that the private landowner does not have to grant that access.

Again, I can understand why folks would want to keep it that way but to be consistent with the argument on free markets, this seems a bit arbitrary. And looks alot like a lobbied interest. For my deal, I'd like to hunt the fringes of the wilderness area - just like I've done in a couple other western states. The interior sections will always belong to the outfitter and residents. I'd even be cool with a 5 mile buffer for non-residents. Anything is better than what it is now...........

MT has a ton of landlocked public land. Add to this a very large amount of land that is only landlocked by the fact that it's illegal to "corner hop". You can't legally step from one piece of land to another at adjoining corners. There was recently a bill introduced that would have fixed this stupidity, but it was defeated by the likes of MOGA and other anti-hunting without a babysitter types.

yeah but remember Nate we only dislike MOGA because we dont like nonresident hunters and want to [bleep] them over.....has nothing to do with the actions of MOGA

Thats purty funny.

I've mentioned this before and it's quite logical. If one can't deliver a product capable of surviving in the market place, get the government to mandate its use.

My local representative, Ted Washburn, voted against public access on this bill.
I will lobby against him in the next primary, and have been telling everyone who hunts to do so as well.
Is there anyone putting together a voter initiative on the subject?

+1

Plus we get all manner of 'great' unintended consequences to go with gov intervention.

Thanks saddlesore and slm for your answers.
That is one of them things that while it may be legal by God it just ain't right seems to me.

But like I said it is you alls state and not mine.

Those ranchers want ALL the antelope gone, and they don't want 'em back. Which goes against a couple of the basic tenets of the North American model of wildlife conservation/management. You do understsand that, don't you?

In this case, the "limiting factor" is the population of animals. And the annual take that the population will sustain without declining.

It's not "government."

Bwinters, good post, but I highlighted a couple of your points that need clarification, hope you don't mind. As far as state residents paying state taxes that support the managemnet of wildlife, at least in Colorado no local or state tax money goes to CP&W, the agency charged with managing our wildlife. Most of the money comes from license sales so state/local taxes are a non-issue.

And as far as the claim that the wildlife belongs to the citizens of the US, that is incorrect. Wildlife belongs to the citizens of each state. So it's the citizens of each state, through their elected representatives, who control and set tag fees for residents and non-residents.

The ranches that I know do not want all the antelope gone. Why would they? They charge from $250-$500 for a buck antelope and $100ish for doe antelope. Some places are trying to get $1,000 for a buck antelope.

I am not sure how much cattle feed antelope eat but I am thinking you probably would not have to sell to many hunts to start making money.

I have often heard of the rancher that wants all the antelope killed off but I have yet to run into one that would let me kill any for free.

Dink

"Rancher" and "consistent - logical behavior" are often mutually exclusive.

Take for example the problems with wild hogs in Texas, rancher/farmers hate them and scream bloody murder about wanting them gone and yet many insist on trophy and access fees for anyone wanting to hunt hogs...

I grew up around a couple of ranchers that did noting but bitch about the #@%^&*! deer eating everything and yet leased their ranch out to some outfitter that only shot a couple of bucks every year. All the while the doe population increased geometrically while they refused access to locals even to just shoot does...

My favorite is a nice rancher out east that did nothing but complain about all the bloody antelope/deer that would winter on his property then lease the hunting to an outfitter whose out-of-state clients never shot a doe anything for decades. Then came EHD and the worst winter in a century, 90% of the antelope died along with most of the whitetails. The lease money ceased and now all he does is whine about the lack of antelope/deer and how this is somehow all FWP's fault...

The corner-crossing thing will eventually end up as a ballot initiative, it will pass and the ranchers will scream bloody murder, hold their breath until they turn blue (like they did when the public gained access to School Trust Lands), then learn to live with it. Of course there will be several law suits and half-hearted attempts to overturn it in the legislature like they did I-161.

Has anyone mentioned the costs incurred by F&G depts that aren't offset by tag fees...like wolves? A few states now can sell tags but others are forced to manage the wolves with no income to show for it. I can't say whether wolf tag fee are enough to offset the enormous loss of elk & deer tag sales in states like ID or MT plus the cost of managing them. These wolves were forced on us by out-of-state groups, not by Idahoans.

add grizzlies to that where no hunting in the lower 48 occurs....Montana spends a fair amount dealing with our ever increasing and expanding griz population.....

smoke - not a problem.

A clarification on my part with respect to taxes - I meant taxes in a more global sense, especially State taxes/fees. I was not aware that Colorado recd no funding outside of license sales. Does that apply to vehicles, equipment, and other seemingly generic State expenses? License sales are a big part of most Fish and Game budgets but thought a percentage (25%?) came from general State coffers, hence my statement on the effective cost of resident licenses.

I'm not so sure on the State's animal thing on Fed land. In many State Regulatory schemes, the Fed gives the right to implement regulatory control. So, I understand why the State sets seasons/bags but am still of the opinion that US citizens own the animals contained within Fed lands. State derived money (r.e. license fees, etc) manages the animals but I believe everything else is owned by the Feds. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Another thought on animals on Fed land - if the State owns the animals - how could the woof have been re-introduced on Fed land? I'd be curious how many State F&G programs wanted the woof re-introduced. I'm betting most of Idaho and Montana didn't want them but the Fed (USFWS) did it anyway under the guise of ESA. Any thoughts?