I have watched over the years. It seem that the nonresident hunter is losing his right and they is no one to stand up for the nonresident hunter.
The Lobbyist, outfitters are make the rules. The rules say they are no tags in this unit for you!! But will let you apply for this (one) only.
But yet, we as nonresident supply a larger % of their annual budget.

Is there an organization that represents the nonresident hunter?

If there is an organization I would be glad to donate, in the interest of the nonresident hunter. As nonresidents we need to buy our own lobbyist that represents the nonresident hunter is the only way changes will be made.

For instants (the old ) to hunt the wilderness Wyoming you must use an outfitter.
Also that can not apply for this tag. At best 10 % in a few units.

In most cases those tags are issued for and used on federal land.

There's a large % of the nonresidents Hunter's out there that would like only the opportunity to hunt some of these units. We all want the same thing the chance to hunt.

Why don't you start one? You could be the next H. L. Richardson or Rob Keck.

Bow--nonresidents don't have any rights, where have you been? And that's the way they like it!

Residents want your money but they want to keep the best tags for themselves . My advice is don't support their states with your dollars and let the Games Dept raise their fees to support the Game.

Just move to Wyoming, and be a resident.

Tim

FWIW, I am a resident of Wyoming and I can assure you I don't have ANY "rights" when it comes to game tags, I have to apply for the draw just like everyone else, some highly desireable areas the odds are less than 10%. I have not even drawn a pronghorn tag in three years, took me 13 years to build up enough points for a moose tag.

You don't have a "right" to a tag. Put in for one and take your chances like the rest of us.

Nobody has hunting "Rights".

People get that mixed up with "Gun Rights".

Yes, you DO have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms within the U.S. (Or most of it...now the way things are going.)

Hunting is a PRIVILEGE extended by the state where you hunt. You are issued a license that you pay for that goes to the state of issuance. Much like a driver's license.... Driving is not a right, but a privilege also.

I agree that hunting or harvesting for yourself and your family the food sources nature makes available should have more "rights" than getting controlled by a political machine called the government.

Here we go again. Who the [bleep] besides RESIDENTS should have ANY say in how the game of THEIR state is managed? Holy [bleep] entitlement mindset.

Rights? For VISITING hunters? In regards to tags? For [bleep]'s sake.

Wait for it....I know it's coming if this thread remains alive for any length.

I'm sure by the time I come back in from skinning my doe it'll be here. Chum in the water....

Tags to hunt game in any state aren't a "right" for anybody, resident or non-resident. I'm not sure where that notion came from.

Tanner

Entitlement mindset. It's all around us.

Hey Rancho, since I live in America, I think I have the right to come hunt your state just like you do. So give up your deer tags next year for me.

Tanner

[quote=rockinbbar]Nobody has hunting "Rights".

People get that mixed up with "Gun Rights".

Yes, you DO have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms within the U.S. (Or most of it...now the way things are going.)

Hunting is a PRIVILEGE extended by the state where you hunt. You are issued a license that you pay for that goes to the state of issuance. Much like a driver's license.... Driving is not a right, but a privilege also.

I agree that hunting or harvesting for yourself and your family the food sources nature makes available should have more "rights" than getting controlled by a political machine called the government. [/quo



Actually. I believe Pa just made hunting a right under the stat const.

Lots of states LOVE Non-Resident Hunters...

They will sell you a hunting license that costs ten times that of a resident license all day long...

If you like hunting out of state you might try New Mexico. The draw is easy for non-residents. You just won't see many deer... But they will have your $300~

I love how people think that if it's federal land, it belongs to us, and we should be allowed on it at any time to do whatever we want.

They should try that on one of those little fenced in places up where I'm working.

where is Dink.....

Or you can try Colorado, with our chopped 4 "seasons" each 4 to 9 days long designed to sell 4 times as many licenses to out of staters, but not really give anyone more then two weekends to hunt.

hunting in all the states is nothing but big business and a money game, where you buy resident or nonresident license . You pay if you want to play, regardless .

Hey Sheridan, just saw your avitar. Happy Birthday.

Really, I'll have to look into it, used to hunt a bit there at times. But had heard NR got 10% of the tags. Which doesn't bother me really. But if the odds are higher, then we might have to try again.

I agree that hunting permit distribution has gone crazy for hunting on federal land.

Seems to me the states manage the wildlife and the feds own the land and both are required for hunting. For a hunting unit with 100% federal land, why not allocate 50% of the permits to the residents and 50% to nonresidents? And for a hunting unit with only 50% federal land, 75% go to residents and 25% to nonresidents?

I hunt on public land here in California, I don't think 25% of the hunters are residents ANYWHERE in the US.

The answer is to buy some land and then you don't need a license at all to hunt on you own property

Only if you don't get caught.

you do in Montana.....

HEY!!!!! Happy B-Day Rattler.

Gunner

Not in Virginia , no license needed on your own property

TY gunner.....not really any different than any other day....went and played with my niece and nephew up at my parents, that was about it....

keep in mind we have critters that have lot lower numbers, both in total and per square mile, than eastern whitetail and black bear....

AND a money-grubbing fish&game dept�.

=================

Sure you do.

i think thats pretty universal country wide.....granted ours has issues over and above that...

no you don't

License Exemptions
All persons, except those listed below, must purchase the proper licenses before hunting or trapping. Where exempt, the exemption means the individual is exempt from the basic hunting license, bear, deer, turkey license, archery license, crossbow license, muzzleloading license, and Virginia Migratory Waterfowl Conservation Stamp. All seasons, bag limits, and checking requirements apply.

Resident or non-resident landowners, their spouses, their children and grandchildren and the spouses of such children and grandchildren, or the landowner's parents, resident or nonresident, do not need a license to hunt, trap or fish (on inland waters) within the boundaries of their own lands.
Tenants, on the land they rent and occupy, are not required to have a license, but must have the written permission of the landowner. Persons that lease property and do not permanently reside there are not exempt from license requirements.
Residents, 65 years of age and over, do not need a license to hunt or trap on private property in their county or city of residence.
Resident hunters under the age of 12 are not required to have a hunting license or hunter education. Nonresident hunters under the age of 12 need a hunting license but do not need hunter education to purchase one. All hunters under the age of 12 may not hunt unless accompanied and directly supervised by a licensed adult.
Residents under the age of 16 are not required to have a license to trap when accompanied by any person 18 years of age or older who possesses a valid Virginia trapping license.
Any person who is not hunting, but is aiding a disabled person to hunt when such disabled person possesses a valid Virginia Disabled Resident Lifetime hunting license or a Virginia Resident Disabled Veteran Lifetime license is not required to have a license.
Any Indian who "habitually" resides on an Indian reservation or a member of the Virginia recognized tribes who resides in the Commonwealth is not required to have a hunting or trapping license; however, such Indian must have on his person an identification card or paper signed by the chief of his tribe, a valid tribal identification card, written confirmation through a central tribal registry, or certification from a tribal office.
Stockholders owning 50 percent or more of the stock of any domestic corporation owning land in Virginia, his or her spouse and children and minor grandchildren, resident or nonresident, do not need a license to hunt, trap and fish within the boundaries of lands and inland waters owned by the domestic corporation.

Don't forget the "Game Unit" thingy too....

You don't get to hunt the entire state. Just the small area of it called a game unit.

Rost, regardless of what the numbers say about percentages, I have buds that have never had a problem getting drawn. Year after year. Talked to lots of out of state hunters and get the same story..."Been hunting this canyon for 15 years now....the draw didn't slow us down a bit. We always get drawn."

The funny thing is, the only people bitching are the ones that think hunting a dink whitetail is worthy of swapping for an elk or mulie hunt. You want to hunt out west, move out west.

When did they change it to all rather than just those 65 and older?

Personally i would rather kill a Trophy Whitetail Buck than any Elk

It has been this way for a while

I have thought for years, they sell you a license, then use the money to hire someone to make sure you have a license.

Kind of works out this way

Sweet...I bet we're one of less than 10 states which permit such a benefit. Wish West Va would follow suit.

What is the rule for Tennessee?

I believe you have to apply for a no cost permit to hunt on your own land without buying a license . I do most of my Big Game Hunting in VA

http://www.tn.gov/twra/pdfs/farmlicense.pdf

Yea, and many are cut in such a way that if the weather isn't just right, the elk will be at a different altitude just outside your GMU.

Don't worry, your new dimocrate governor will fix that for you.
Wasn't he the one who said, "Never let a source of revenue go to waste"?

That is a cool law, as long as there's a provision for you to actually LIVE there to reap the benefit. Elsewise you just get a gay hippy negro from out of state who has no desire to live in the one where she wants to hunt, but by God they hold (or the bank holds) a title for a couple acres in there name so bam, come on free license!

You may only hunt the land you own. It doesn't give you a license to hunt all of Va without a license.

I own around 100 acres in Va , but still buy Non-Resident License because i hunt other parts of the State and don't want to be handicapped by being able to only hunt on my own property .

Tennessee is the same. Property owners can hunt wihout a license, but I think there is an acreage requirement. Has to be X amount or bigger, maybe 10 acres.

By state constituional amendment hunting is a right in the state of Louisiana.

No license required to hunt your own property in GA either. Pretty sure you have to actually be a GA resident, not just own the land.

Hunting in the Western states is a big deal for a lot of Easterners. It is for me anyway. I wish it were easier, but understood that when I was hunting in Colorado I was a visitor. I'm pretty lucky here. A license means as many as a dozen deer and a 3 1/2 month season if archery is included. Still lots of public land too.

Overall I think the system is still pretty fair considering. I just hope it never becomes a matter of it just being a money racket. I understand, and don't mind paying more for a non-resident tag than a resident. And I don't mind getting the left over tags after residents have had 1st choice. I'm just asking for the opportunity to hunt. Not trying to buy success.

If Georgia were being run over by rich non-residents who were paying more than I could afford to push me out of my favorite spots I'd not be happy. That is happening in many places.

Virginia past the same amendment

In iowa I had to buy a year license for a 6 day hunt. I did it with the attitude of I wish they had a week pass but they don't and tennesse doesn't have wild pheasants and no where near as many ducks so I paid for a year with a smile on my face.

What sux is Maryland has a law that non residents can't freelance. That makes a trip for me unaffordable. Sucks cause I don't want or need a guide. If you can kill ducks in east Tn. (the duck desert) you can kill them anywhere if only the law would allow.

I use to hunt Maryland for geese a while back but is has been a while . I don't care to buy license if the state has good hunting i can't find at home .

Man you're nuts You keep the whitetails and let me have the elk.

I have been out killing a few rabbits. Some of us still hunt.

Rattler did you fill a tag this year?

There are 1.3 million people in St.louis county and St.Louis city. More than in the entire state of Montana. According to the median income the people of St.Louis county and city are welthier thus pay more federal income tax than the residents of Montana. But let's call it even.

That leaves a additional 113 counties in Missouri, Kansas City and 48 states that pay more in federal taxes than the state of Montana.

In any game unit that consist of more than 50% federal land why should residents get 90% of the tags? Residents damn sure aren't paying for it. But they sure think they are entitled to it.

There is a entitlement attitude but it sure is not non-residents.

Things are going to change when it comes to non-residents tags issued for units that are mostly federal land. Everyone tired of leeches and it does not matter if it's EBT card holders or being fleeced on non-residents tags.

Dink

And there she is.

yep.....

and once again flies over your head that the FEDS and supreme court say the game animals and game animal management belong to the people of the individual states......

did hunt, didnt fill my deer tag....critters are still on the rebound after a bad winter several years ago so horn size is still down and i aint gonna shoot a dink to say i shot a deer and sure in the hell aint shooting a doe when we need every fawn we can get....

Laws/rulings change everyday. I think the game departments will always get to set tag quotas. It's the way those tags are issued and the price they get to charge is what will change.

The western states won't have the money to fight (or buy) the votes they need to keep screwing non-residents.

Dink

and starting in a few weeks when all the major hunting seasons are done reguardless of what the land ownership split of the state is the game populations are going to be heavily biased towards private land which is why its not gonna change....after all you guys go home we have to deal with them for the rest of the year and the damage they cause....

'


good way to get the hunting you want, turn over the vote to New York City and LA.....no one will be hunting federal land....

Don't forget San Freako. Lots of PITA, Green Peace, and Sierra Club members by the tags in California with the intent to limit hunting opportunity. I'm sure my state is not alone, but we do have a large number of wealthy and misguided whackos.

It's been this way for eons. Non-residents continued to pay the fee increases until we have finally been priced out. Now it really don't matter to us what New York or San Fran or anyone else wants done with federal land because we can't afford the tags to hunt it. Might as well make it a refuge so no one can hunt it.

A few wealthy ranchers won't stop what's coming. They can buy the votes at state level but not at the federal level when all the average hunters pool their money.

It may be awhile but things will change.

Dink

yah know what if cheap elk and mule deer tags are whats important to you, move out west.....ive got over a page worth of help wanteds in my paper.....my wife and i took stock of what was important to us and decided easy access to lots of hunting and fishing was it so when she was offered a large paycheck to move to the east coast it was a 30 second deliberation and we staid where we were....

prices for everything has been going up....hell tag costs still are but a small part.....next year im likely putting in for Wyoming for speed goat cause our numbers are still way down and not bouncing back fast and thinking bout maybe trying hunting in AZ aswell just for a change of country and guess what.....your not going to see me hear beotching bout the prices like you for what year 3 now?

Mississippi is this way. If you're a resident you can hunt your own land without a license, a non-resident can't hunt his own land without a license. I'd change the second part if I were King, residency status shouldn't make a difference if you own the land, you should be able to hunt your own land without a license regardless.

If I were King I'd get the state out of game management all together. Game should belong to the landowner, they're the only ones who should have a right to decide what's killed on their land. The western states have shown that game management is just a money grab scam anyway.

So sayeth the gentry..........

TFF

Non resident + hunting rights = zero

Hunting is big business here. We don't have to buy a license or tag to hunt land we own....but I always do. I hunt on land I don't own too.

My county is small. We don't have any state or federal land in the county. Out of state money changed the game for us. It's at the point if you don't own it or lease it, you don't hunt it...period. Our area is known for quantity and quality. Out of state groups figured this out and started waiving big money at landowners. I know of two 500 acre tracts that lease the hunting rights for $20,000 per year. One is leased by a group from Mississippi and the other is leased by one of the Whitetail Properties guys.

Things started changing in the early 90's, about the time when bucks started being judged by inches instead of weight or points -- at least that's when it hit here.

I don't hate out of state hunters. In fact, I invite a few every year. I do hate the fact that that's it's turned into such a big business measured by inches and dollars instead of smiles, tradition and full freezers.

Call Obama. The wildlife is managed by the state.

Here in Idaho we can take one deer usually, most of the elk hunts are draw & the non-residents get 10% of those for all hunts including trophy hunts for Mountain Goat, Big Horn Sheep, Moose, etc. Took me 17 years to draw a moose tag. In many of the eastern states you can shoot a deer a day, sometimes for a month or more, here in the west the season is less than 2 weeks. We live here year round, work for less money, put up with long, hard winters & deal with non-residents (some) that cut fences, drive through private fields, leave their trash behind & catch all the trout! Compare the wages where you live to the average wage in the Rockies & move if you think we've got it easier.

Dick

States have rights, until some don't like it.

I've paid my dues for half a century here in my native State. You haven't. Go pizz up a rope.

Very funny, any one living in the west, that is dumb enough to listen to complaints about NR tag fees(usually from eastern Tenderfoots) should price out a Iowa whitetail tag where you will be hunting on public acreage about the size of a western town park.

Hint: the NR tags fees for a Brown bear in Alaska are similar. What is a better deal?

perhaps we should have reciprocity with game fees?

all you guys back east who want to hunt mule deer out west will have to pay the same fee if we were to hunt Mulies in your state? what if you offer no Mule deer hunting? does that mean no opportunities out here either?

I say leave it up to the states, they have done fairly well so far.
besides, do you REALLY want the feds governing that too?

lots of folks forget the reason WHY they want to hunt out west if the number of game available, and the reason is (drum roll) the states regulate it.

and really, how often do you hear of people heading in droves from the west to hunt deer on the east coast?


entitlement mindset completely

We've got several guys from Oregon that come to my hunting camp in Mississippi nearly every year to hunt deer. Over the last few years they've killed more deer here than they'll get a chance at in their entire life in Oregon. (Yea, I know Mississippi isn't on the east coast.)

might not be a drove, but it's a start

Up to 10% in Units with fewer than 10 tags..Not a big deal but the moose unit I apply for only has a NR tag pulled every 2-3 years.You see we are in the same draw pool as residents, and if the 10 or whatever tags get pulled without a NR it doesnt matter,cap has been reached, tough luck.

I aint complaining, if the NR tags were separate it wouldnt improve odds, good draw odds dont go unnoticed and the area would soon be over run with new applicants.

But the 2K NR price tag kinda hurts,again not complaining (much)..I'll gladly pay it for a moose,sheep,goat tag.

I'll take a true monster whitetail (175"+) over any mule deer on the planet and before about 99.5% of the elk taken every year. I'd love to have a nice elk, but I've been chasing whitetails all my life and have yet to get a real monster. I've got several pretty good ones, but none of the real behemoths that make your heart skip. With elk and mule deer I think you fight the terrain as much as you hunt them, it's a matter of working hard and being in the right area as much as out thinking them. Whitetails you have to outsmart and the big old ones are almost like hunting an entirely different species, they just don't act like the rest of them. I have a lot of respect for folks that consistently kill big elk and mule deer, I know they work and hunt their butts off to get them. A fellow that consistently kills big whitetails I respect because I know he's one smart SOB in addition to working hard at it.

If I want to get pulled for a Kodiak Brown Bear hunt or have good odds on a Dall Sheep hunt in 14C or TMA I would have much better odds of drawing the tags if I was a non-resident. They have close to %70 chance to draw Kodiak and 40% on some of the sheep tags while we in Alaska have less than 1%.

I used to think the west was nirvana if you want to hunt...I don't think so anymore. Yes it has the glamour species but from what I am told some folks go years without a deer tag in some states anymore.

One thing about New England is our deer hunting can be pretty tough but we have miles galore to wander and hunt in,and our deer license are OTC.

This is because a western mule deer herd would wither under the pressure that a New England herd can withstand easily....it's just harder to hunt here than any mule deer hunting I've bumped into anywhere.

I generally gave up on Western mule deer hunting years ago,except for Wyoming, and will go to Canada any old day before I stand in line for years for a coveted tag in some of the better western units....waste of time IMHO.

That said, the more of the West that is NOT controlled by the Feds, the better.Leave it to the states to manage their borders and get the Feds out of the equation....they just screw things up.

Travel around to hunt enough, you will discover one thing.....you aren't entitled to shidt.

No acreage requirement.

Good post.

I actually thought the OP was being sarcastic or just trolling a little.

Non res rights... christ. That's ALL we need. Then every yahoo from MT, Wy, TX, and who knows where else will be vying for my favorite spots in NW Jersey!

No! Never! USF&W is the largest clusterphuck of environmentalists I have ever witnessed. The wolf debacle has shown that.

There would be NO hunting of anything if the feds took over.

No one said anything about cheap tag prices. The west has finally priced the average guy with a family out. This is what will get this pissing match going and into the courts.

If tag prices need to be high they need to be high for everyone in units that are more than 50% federal land. Not cheap for residents and then 40+ times as much for a guy living some where else.

If your having trouble hiring people I suggest you raise the salary. Money seems to make people want to work.

Dink

Dink, I am seeing that you really may not have a correct concept of how hunting works out west.... Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like you keep claiming stuff about percentages of areas with "federal land". What I don't think you get is the fact that the state doesn't give a flying schit WHERE the deer is located...Private land, Public land, State land...It ALL the same, and they issue licenses for the animal, not the type land it happens to be running on...

Now if you draw a tag for a deer, and you hunt on public land, your hunt is indeed cheaper than if you hunt that same deer on private land across the fence. The reason is, aside from low cost habitat stamps added to your license to hunt on public lands, your hunt is FREE. They don't charge you to hunt there. Comprende?

Now if you want to hunt my private, deeded land, I'm going to charge you about $2750 on top of what you pay for your hunting license to let you hunt on my deeded land. Why? Because I control what goes on, and who hunts on my land. PLUS.... I get you a landowner tag so that you don't have to put in for the draw. Your license is guaranteed.

You want cheap hunts on public lands, you enter the draw. You get drawn, you hunt on public land with everyone else that drew a tag.

You want a guaranteed tag with possibly better bucks to hunt in an area with less pressure, you hunt private land.

You get what you pay for. Either way, the state will get THEIR money for your license. Beyond that, if you follow the laws, they don't give a [bleep]. It has nothing to do with percentages of who owns what.

Well, it's settled then. You guys don't have to complain anymore because hunting whitetails is a way better hunt than chasing a high country muley or rutting bull. What a relief.

Tanner

Providing hunting opportunities to the next generation

Nonresidents as well residents could benefit from a program like I am proposing. They are also matters such as making access to landlocked public land.
All hunters need representation in legislation not just nonresidents on public land access. You know the rancher and the outfitter in the have their representatives just not the West.

And this is where the heart of the matter is rancher & outfitters have their representative.

We've all seen and heard reports and I've experienced. States give ranchers tags with an allocation of public tags in the drawings. And the rest are open to the highest bidder.You are allowed no time for scouting the unit and the area is less than prime.

The nonresident as no one representative his/hers interest legislature. We send and spend millions of dollars to states each year.


I've hunted some great trophies unit,got some and some I didn't, but that makes the trip worthwhile. It will make me smile on my deathbed

I'm older now. I have a decade and a half of points in a lot of states I know I can choose my tags. So I don't think it will affect me much.

In some states it's a constitutional right to hunt. Vermont has one of most hunter friendly state (laws) that have had a chance to hunt

By would by the way a little footnote. I have found more prime hunting areas, talking to the women in the grocery store checkout lines. They have put me on many a Bulls and bucks. by the way don't tell my husband

This "pissing match" has already been to the SCOTUS. You've apparently never read Baldwin v. Fish & Game Commission of Montana so here you go.

Two questions- what will you base your argument on that land ownership should dictate how a state manages its wildlife and when can we expect to see DINK v. Fish & Wildlife Commission of Montana?

cutting and pasting your OP doesn't really add to the conversation.

I understand your reasoning, and I completely disagree with it.

Used to be we had to worry about liberal weenies telling us what to do within our borders, now its conservative weenies, too.

Rulings change all the time. No one ever thought the communist state of Illinois would have CCW but guess what...they do now.

The state will continue to set tag quotas.

Let's take Wyoming antelope unit 60. It's entirely federal land (if I remember correctly). Let's say they issue 100 buck antelope tags. Non-residents shouldn't be limited to 20% of the tags. Everyone should have the same "rights" to those 100 tags. This is what is going to change.

Also all of those 100 tags should be the same price for everyone.

Game and fish have went to the cash well to many times. Not only that but give it a few years they will be right back gigging non-residents yet again because it's the only way they know to raise money. Residents support this because it cost them nothing.

Dink

Resident weenies started this.

Remember the saying "no ones guaranteed a job" when referring to outfitter tags? Of course now they want to bring back the buffalo ranchers are going to go out of business and that's bad.

Dink

TFF!

You keep repeating yourself..

Whine, whine, snivel, snivel...The constitution was designed to protect State's rights. Within that comes the ability to govern that property within the state, ie game animals. The state is regulating the game animals, not the ability to hunt on public land.

If I go to Alaska to hunt, I pay Alaska a bunch of money to do it. If I don't want to pay the price, I stay home, you might consider doing the same...

Is it pretty easy to get permission to hunt in Alaska? I've been having a tough time here.


Travis

What is Permission???

Something I read about online. Probably all BS.



Travis

Game Commissions are appointed through the state. Usually the governor. While politics has NO place in proper game management, at least it is the states rights to do so, and ultimately, they control the wildlife within that state, and who hunts what there.

So, you are saying that "someone" is going to come in and take over the way western states run their wildlife management, and give non residents that have no vested interest in anything within that state equality in drawing tags?

I only have two questions:

1) Who would that be, that takes over from the state, all the game management? A new bureau from the Obama Administration?

2) Do you really think the states affected, or any other state that enjoys separate state rights from the federal government will allow that?

Bear in mind that the U.S. Constitution is VERY clear about what powers the federal government has, and those delegated to the state. Remember that it wasn't slavery that stated the war between the states.. it was a "states rights" issue.

So what's going to be the basis of your lawsuit? Yes, the SCOTUS can rule differently than it did earlier. But you better have a rather compelling argument. Mostly I see references to previous rulings when reading why they ruled the way they did on a case. IMHO, stomping your feet and claiming unfairness due to land composition isn't going to cut it when the SCOTUS has ruled time and again that wildlife management is in the States' control, to include tag allocation and price.

The SCOTUS didn't seem too concerned about the average guy with a family in its Baldwin decision:

Does the distinction made by Montana between residents and nonresidents in establishing access to elk hunting threaten a basic right in a way that offends the Privileges and Immunities Clause? Merely to ask the question seems to provide the answer. We repeat much of what already has been said above: elk hunting by nonresidents in Montana is a recreation and a sport. In itself -- wholly apart from license fees -- it is costly and obviously available only to the wealthy nonresident or to the one so taken with the sport that he sacrifices other values in order to indulge in it and to enjoy what it offers. It is not a means to the nonresident's livelihood. The mastery of the animal and the trophy are the ends that are sought; appellants are not totally excluded from these. The elk supply, which has been entrusted to the care of the State by the people of Montana, is finite and must be carefully tended in order to be preserved.

Appellants' interest in sharing this limited resource on more equal terms with Montana residents simply does not fall within the purview of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Equality in access to Montana elk is not basic to the maintenance or wellbeing of the Union. Appellants do not -- and cannot -- contend that they are deprived of a means of a livelihood by the system or of access to any part of the State to which they may seek to travel. We do not decide the full range of activities that are sufficiently basic to the livelihood of the Nation that the States may not interfere with a nonresident's participation therein without similarly interfering with a resident's participation. Whatever rights or activities may be "fundamental" under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, we are persuaded, and hold, that elk hunting by nonresidents in Montana is not one of them.

Next thing that will be discussed is how we should have the right to hunt Africa for resident rates.

C'mon! If you go out of state, you pay their rate. If you don't want to pay that, then stay home.

And if you think the west hunt is out of reach for the 'average guy with a family' then you may need to take a budgeting class. Just saying...

Let's let Obama make the game rules.
Then only poor blacks will be allowed to hunt, and since they can't afford transportation and lodging to the sites the government (us) will pay for it.

I see this thread going about the same direction as the "Neighbor Fenced Me Out" thread....

Liberalism and Socialism is alive and well at the 'Fire!

This interesting but well argued issue has been discussed at length over and again by many. The NR vs. Res. issue has been decided by the individual state. The state has the right to govern these issues. Not the federal government or some entity that would intervene in states rights. Many would have the constitution changed to serve their own purpose. That is not what the founding fathers had in mind. MTG

Exactly.... Until those that feel entitled have their own world encroached upon...

So should states dictate the number of residents and nonresidents that can hunt on private land?

They don't.

If a landowner has private land tags, they can sell those to whoever they want to. Only those entering the draw for tags on public lands are subject to the percentages of draw tags available.

If the landowner sells the tag to a non-resident, or a resident, the state still gets the amount of money for the license for either a resident, or non-resident. Tags on private land are not subject to the draw. The rules, and number of tags issued, etc. ARE subject to state law though.

The hunters are not hunting the land, are they?

Wow, if a Californian had started this thread, wonder how many GFY's it would have by now?
How the hell someone can think that the Feds telling the states who is going to hunt what, where, and for how much is one F'n scary thought.

NO, private land owners can decide who can and should hunt their property. Only private land owners should decide this particular issue. Private land owners pay the taxes, work the land, improve the land, maintain access and egress of their land. This has no issue of wildlife governance. The individual state by means of biologist, wildlife experts, those that actually study the wildlife populations and overall health who work together with the individual state government have the right to set target numbers for all who hunt a private or public land. Do not attempt to blur the issue of private land vs. public land. Private land owners do not make the decisions of how many or what species can or cannot be hunted. Nor should they make these decisions. Yet, if private land owners do not want a particular animal hunted on their land they can deny anyone access to their land, residents or nonresidents alike. We have entities that strive to protect our hunting, fishing, recreating pursuits such as the NRA, SCI, DSC and others. Yet, these entities treat all as equals without regard to membership. Now rockinbbar, Dink, others would have another non bipartisan entity muddy the waters more. I think not!! BTW, I have hunted many other states, will do so in the future. Yes, times change and prices will rise to all of our distain. But, keep this squabbling BS Res. vs. NR up will not solve the issue. More division will solve nothing. My two cents. MTG

Rockinbbar, in Montana tags on private land are indeed subject to draw areas. Be a bit more specific in regards to which state you speak of. MTG

If you don't like the way we do things here in Wyoming, feel free to just stay the [bleep] out of Wyoming.

Jnyork, I am sure there are many of us who 2nd your sentiment. We will not be governed by those who would have us live our lives as they may see fit. MTG

The fine state of Alaska. You can go to Kodiak island and hunt deer, camp or hike but if you want to hunt brown bears you have a master guide. I guess brown bears don't attack deer hunters, campers or hikers.

It's chit like that and Wyoming wilderness area that is going to get challenged.

Dink

good luck with that.

I' not saying that nonresident should have control of the states and the way they issue tags . Nonresident should have a spokesperson / lobbyist representative in the Legislature someone to look out after the nonresidents interest Considering the millions dollars of support the nonresident contributes to Game fish commissions.

I think the argument will be that everyone that wants to hunt, in units made up of mostly federal land, have equal chance at drawing a tag. It will be a equal "right" held by everyone that wants to participate. The state will get to set the tag number but everyone will go into the same draw.

I also believe there will be a cap on what they can charge a non-resident. Charging non-residents 40x the amount of resident will not be held up.

Dink

Is that your only argument?

Dink

So we've got 100 antelope tags in Unit 60 & everyone should have equal access to them right? Wyoming is the least populated state in the nation right? So now we allow everyone in the country to apply for that low cost tag & who is the big loser....maybe Wyoming. The other several million hunters would probably get 80 of the tags & Wyoming residents, if lucky might get the other 20, hey DINK are you listening! You want this fair, right?

Dick

yes you are.

You're just not very smart, are you?

That's what this all boils down to.

You are arguing apples/oranges. What you need to realize is that States are regulating State-owned game, not access to federal land. You have your right to access all the federal land you want, you just need to recognize the Game is regulated by the state. What can be more clear???

The issues of resident, non-resident, & outfitter licenses has been argued on many forums. I'm an old guy & for many years hunted many Western states, especially Montana. Some hunts were guided, a few were drop camps or semi-guided, & many were DIY. Where ever the hunt & type of hunt I was respectful to the locals & I met some very nice people. Totally different from many of the liberal Winnies in my area. Tags out West were abundant & reasonably priced in the 70's & 80's. Outfitted hunts grew in popularity & squeezed out or competed with many of the locals from some of their favorite areas. Obviously, this created animosity with the locals some of which began to resent out of state hunters. The state game commissions began to raise out of state license fees to pay for most of their operating costs. Despite the costs non residents snapped up licenses & flocked to Western states, especially Montana & Colorado. Montana raised their non resident license fees to a ridiculous price & they still sold out. I remember reading where a Montana G & F official bragged that they would increase license fees until non resident sales declined. I wrote a letter to Montana F & G officials advising I would no longer purchase licenses or hunt their state. While I am sure most residents wish more NR's would do the same thing it just might affect the economy. I'm not sure where license fees are in Montana presently since I no longer hunt there. I do believe Federal lands should be treated differently than state or private land with some sort of common sense license that would cover hunting. I do not believe we need a federal agency to try & regulate hunting on Federal land. My understanding is that all Americans own Federal land, yet states charge the same license fees regardless where you hunt.

apples and oranges again.

License and tags both requisite in Idaho before hunting on private land, yours or otherwise.

I guess I'm not being clear...

I would NOT have outside influences on state rights t manage their own wildlife. Not in the least!
(To be specific about my location that I mention, it is land owned in NM, and in Texas.)

I further would have NOBODY tell me who I have to let on my private land to hunt.

True, the state wildlife biology departments usually dictate the number of animals harvested. That is true, even in Texas.

To have the feds come tell the states how to manage their wildlife resources is unconstitutional in my opinion.

To have the state come and tell me that I have to let draw hunters hunt my land, and seize control over who I let hunt my deeded land would be an open invitation to a gunfight s well.

If you have private land and someone is dictating who hunts there and takes control of the freedom you have as a property owner, then you need to change that. If I couldn't change that law, I would move somewhere where it is not an issue, and the state respects private property ownership rights.

One side of the coin that nobody has looked at in this discussion is the influence BUNNY HUGGERS have on hunting of public lands. If what folks like DINK have their way, and others control the land, hunting, and animals hunted on public land.....What is to stop the anti-hunting morons from banning hunting in any fashion? Why couldn't they? They have as much vote as any other tax payer...

Don't think they are not trying to get hunting shut down. They are. Especially in the western states where there is large amounts of public land.

Well, it's settled then. You guys don't have to complain anymore because hunting whitetails is a way better hunt than chasing a high country muley or rutting bull. What a relief.

Tanner

I will agree with your sarcasm, i would much rather hunt Trophy Whitetail , than any Elk or Mule Deer . I have killed six Elk out of seven trips to Colorado on Public Land and probably won't go on another Elk Hunt . I like Whitetail Hunting much better. I have been trying all my life to kill a Monster Whitetail Buck and am now 62 and still haven't accomplished this feat and seriously dough i ever will, they just aren't in the areas i hunt. Keep your Elk you are welcome to them . The only difference hunting out West over the East is more public land and watching the sun come up over the Rocky Mountains at 12,000 ft . Everyone who hunts should experience this at least one time in their life's , this alone is worth cost of a out of state tag.

You have got to be the densest person I have ever ran across.

I will always be smarter than you.

Remember your the 50+ old that had to pay someone to insure your mortgage.

You have tried to derail this discussion several times now into a name calling contest. Since it's obvious you don't have a valid argument just go on.

Don't forget to get that PMI check in the mail....lol.

Dink

I am specifically referring to hunting units made up mostly federal land.

Not private land or state owned land.

Dink

Says the EBT cardholder.

The rancher wouldn't take it for payment on the lease for another haystack forky you didn't eat or even plan to eat this year?

No matter how many times this comes up, I still can't grasp the mindset of wanting schit given to you. It would help Dink if you would just admit it. You don't have a "right" to the game animals in other states. I don't know where this kind of nonsense even comes from.

I think you are entirely mistaken in the direction any changes will go.

As the Feds continue to TOTALLY mismanage any and all lands to which they claim title. As the Feds continue to LOSE billions of dollars per year via the mismanagement of said lands. As the Feds continue to expose our homes, fields, and livelihoods to dangers from out of control wildfires, because they have prohibited proper management, thinning, and grazing of USFS or BLM lands.

Those lands will be coming under individual State control. Perhaps not this year or next. But as you have pointed out, it is Eastern dollars supporting the economic losses currently occurring on Federal Lands. Those losses are happening because of pressure from Eastern voting blocks. Easterners will soon tire of supporting Federal mismanagement of Western lands and be eager to give control to the State in which the land lies.

If we can eliminate the feds from management of Public Lands in the West, the states can once again turn a profit on those lands, and at the same time manage the lands for the betterment of the environment, game animals, residents, and adjacent property owners.

How can game be state owned when it lives on federal land with no private land in the entire unit?

If it were not for the land the animals could not exist.

States can manage the game on federal land. The question is who has the right to manage it through hunting. I think everyone should have the same chance.

Dink

So it's okay for states to dictate the number of resident/nonresident hunters on federal land but not private land?

Maybe it is time to spread the wealth and do away with Game Dept and Hunting License all together and hunt any state and any place you like . Obama agrees with me on this , except he wants us to give up our guns and use Rocks .

So the liberal, Anti-Hunting, Anti-Gun, Bunny Huggers in NYC should have an equal voice in what goes on in the state game department of a western state they have never even been to?

They just like the idea of NOBODY HUNTS ANYTHING.

Do you not see what a slippery slope you are on?

Every time one of these threads comes up it's started by some self-entitled jack-hole who lives where the hunting sucks balls.

End of topic right there.

Rights are God given, privileges regulated by licenses. You need a license to shoot game, drive a car etc. It is your right to access public ground but you still need a hunting license to hunt there, a driver's license to get there.

How hard is this to understand???

Minor point.....
In Alaska the feds do in fact control who shoots some animals. If they don't like what the State wants to do, they just shut down access to THEIR land. Do some research on Bear and Wolf hunting on the Kenai Peninsula.
Also, the feds control who shoots ducks/geese on the Yukon delta area and Polar bears, Walrus and Sea Otter. See the 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act.
You might be surprised.

Via the wolf programs, the feds have definitely changed hunting in this state.

Feds DO control a lot of what goes on with hunting and such issues within states.

Take the Mexican Wolf clusterphuuck that is spearheaded by USF&W... They impose the will of bunny huggers on the rest of the hunters and ranchers that know better, but still cram it down their throats much like Obamacare.

Not only do their dumbazz laws affect public lands, but private lands as well. And private industry.

Or they think they do til a pack seeks refuge on my land, or some friends I know...

To expand on your "minor point", the feds have the ultimate say on hunting wolves in Wisconsin. They turned the management over to the state DNR, but could yank that responsibility in a heart beat.

I don't want anything given to me.

I pay my share of taxes and am tired of being told I only have a chance at 10% of tags in a unit that is mostly or all federal land.

I am tired of paying for your schools, roads, bridges, etc. and then being told I can only have a chance at 10% of the tags. And those tags will cost you 40x what a resident pays.

I am tired of the western state game departments only way to raise money is to raise non-residents tag prices.

I am tired of residents thinking that federal land is "theirs". Somehow because they live there they are entitled to it.

Talk about welfare mindset...
Dink

I understand the slippery slope. But if something does change I won't be able to afford to hunt out west so it won't matter.

Residents want non-residents priced out.

Dink

New Mexico Game and Fish withdrew from participation in the wolf program there.

Liberal Governor Bill Richardson had things screwed up royally by the time he left office. He had appointed a liberal director to Game and Fish...(who incidentally got caught red-handed shooting a deer on private property he had no right to hunt...while in the position of Director) Richardson also appointed 3 liberals to the Game Commission.

It was a mess.

Until hunters and landowners and ranchers come together and lay down the law about control of land like the liberals want dictated, there will be a continual FUBAR.

can someone draw a picture for dinky?

Good gawd,,,,, sixteen pages "tag redistribution".

The world really has gone mad, hasn't it?

I really not trying to be rude here, but with all due respect... It sounds like a "personal problem" to me.

If hunting out west is such a big priority, then change your life to get-'er-done... Either switch careers that will let you afford that luxury, or move to the state you want to hunt in, and have the odds go more to your favor.

Want to hunt the west? Move to the west! Stop pissing and moaning about it! Your argument doesn't hold water!! MTG Gone.

The world is always a bit askew on this forum.

Every year this topic comes up. At least one big long thread, then minor appearances in others.

I guess I am having a hard time understanding where DINK is coming from. One of my major desires in life is to hunt sheep of some sort every year, so I've made it a goal to live somewhere that allows that, after I finish my education. It seems natural that if you want something, you make it happen. I don't expect Alaska to give me the same shot at dall sheep that their residents get. And I know I'll only get 1, maybe 2 shots at a sheep here in Colorado. So, I'm going to change that as soon as I can. Maybe I'm weird.

Tanner

Feel free to recreate within the green/red/orange colored areas all you wish:





Do contact appropriate state agencies prior to hunting however.

Dink,

Such a crybaby when you don't get your way, then such a bad azz mutha [bleep] when it comes to your police power.

Sad little man

I'm just shocked that grown men that enjoy hunting and own firearms have this entitled, selfish stance.

I'm also shocked that they have to have it explained to them...

I guess I shouldn't be. Goddam liberals.

Oh,,,trust me,,, nothing surprises me around here. (rolling eyes)

rockinbbarb sums it up pretty well.




Can't wait to see what's next.
Hope it's something that makes sense like Mini Mag redistribution.

I always get a kick out of these kind of threads. Each group accuses the other of being greedy, entitled, selfish, and socialist because they want the government, whether it be federal or state, to intervene on their behalf when it comes to hunting rights. The other group makes the exact same accusations but comes from a different angle to support their argument.

The non-resident hunters want the feds to intervene and force the states to lower prices on the basis that the federal government (and thus the American people) own most of the land where the hunting is taking place so the non-resident should have as much access as a resident since they own an equal share of the land.

The resident hunter believe states rights reign supreme and the feds should butt out since they're residents and the state has dominion over game management. Since they're residents of the state then obviously (to them) it's more their game than a non-resident who doesn't live and pay taxes there. The greedy landowners should be made to open up their land to hunters since they're pursuing the state's (and thus their) game across it and by limiting access to the land they're unjustly limiting access to their game. They should also get first (and cheaper) dibs on hunting and the non-residents should be glad they get a chance at all.

Both are greedy, entitled, selfish, socialistic positions but no one seems to see it that way. It's only the OTHER guy that's greedy. Both guys want the government to come in and limit the other guy's access so theirs can be enhanced, the only difference is the residents want the state to do it and the non-residents want the feds to do it.

The only difference is who's ox happens to be getting gored that day.

Add to the mix effete wealthy landowners that think their schit doesn't stink and by rights of monetary wealth their wishes supersede all others. Not only to do as they wish, but by hook, crook, or bought votes they seek to limit others abilities.

Specifically by herding game onto and keeping them on private land, leasing up other land, and illegally denying access to public land.

Exactly where has that been posted?

The way I see it, it's supply and demand that dictates prices. I'm baffled how many people are willing to cough up big bucks to go hunt a deer, and pay a state year after year to put in for the opportunity to hunt a freakin deer.

I say have at it.

Who coulda guessed the way this thread went...

As an example, the post just above yours.

If you can't read between the lines and see that then your reading comprehension needs some work. Go back and look through the last 10+ times this pissing contest has come up over the last couple of years and you'll find plenty of it in there. I'm obviously paraphrasing but there's plenty of it out there. I'm not going to go back and research it for you, it's there for you to go find.

FWIW, I'm not taking either position. I'm just point out the silliness of both sides standing there pointing at the other while proclaiming that they're big government/socialist/greedy/communist because they want the government to come in and limit the other guys hunting access, while at the same time they're doing the exact same thing just from another angle.

Welfare mentality, plain & simple.

I pay what I want to pay and if the price is too high I pass up the opportunity. Just like when shopping other things. The owner has the right to charge what he will, and I have the right to pass by their wares for a better value.

I love free market economics, but disappointing how few (presumably) conservative people grasp its basics?

Mr. resident hunter you misunderstand me, I don't want to live in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming, I just want one week to hunt in your state & pay the same price you do!!! You can have that cold weather, slick roads, low wages & blowing wind the rest of the year, yup, makes sense.
I've hunted Idaho, Alaska, Utah, Nevada, Montana, Arizona, Texas, Wyoming & Africa & I paid a much higher fee than a resident & I knew that going in. If you're using the excuse to feed your family by hunting out of state you need to get out your calculator. Beside's, some of those Montana boys might decide they don't like you & then it would be a very long winter....just saying!

Dick

If you live in a state, you get the privileges of living in that state, period. If that means resides get the tags and non don't, then that's the way it should be.

Yeah, sometimes we do see things eye to eye.

Next time just say it came out of your azz.

I don't have a dog in this fight. It is what it is and if I want to hunt out of state I'll pony up the money and do it. I've been on quite a few out of state hunts and it's just the cost of doing business. Otherwise I'm perfectly happy with 4 months of whitetail hunting here in Mississippi. Now if they start telling me that as a non-resident I can't shoot prairie dogs then we'll have a problem.

From a purely outsider's point of view I'll say that I like the landowner tag system best. The landowner should be the ultimate say in who gets to hunt what on their property so I think that system comes the closest to being fair.

I gave you an example of the post right above yours. Learn to read, it'll serve you well in the future.

In NY you have to be farming it and you still need a license for big game.

I'm having a hard time understanding what paying Federal taxes has to do with anything. It isn't like the Feds use our tax dollars to pay the mortgage or property taxes on Federal land. There isn't a whole lot of upkeep that goes into it is there?

Actually the cost isn't the biggest issue in my opinion. Many states are completely excluding nonresidents from even being able to get a permit(try getting a cow elk tag to hunt on federal land in New Mexico via the public draw or a DIY deer hunt on a Wilderness area in Wyoming).

Like I said originally, it seems like a fair deal for a hunting unit with 100% federal land that 50% of the tags should be allocated to residents and 50% to nonresidents. Nonresidents should probably pay more but not 29X more.

Unfortunately, like the OP stated nobody is advocating for the nonresident DIY public land hunter and the current situation is the result.

I161 was the dividing point for me. It showed clearly what side residents were on.

Now I am for the buffalo, wolf or whatever else needs reintroduced or protected.

Residents give non-residents the finger and I would like to return the gesture.

Dink

It showed me that the folks in MT wanted more land for the DIY hunter to hunt as removing the guaranteed tags gave the guides/outfitters FAR less future deposit $$ to lease up land with.

Ok, I've changed my mind, you're an idiot.

Like I and many others have told you countless times, use the federal lands all you want, just leave our critters alone unless we say you can kill one.

You ever notice how you and I pay the same rate at USFS campgrounds, National Parks?

Ding ding ding.

Now, explain to Dink how you came up with that reasoning. Or don't. He'll never understand it.

I can't think that slow. (grin)

Are Dink, TRH, and Jeff'O, all the same persons?

Both of you liberal corksuckers can GFY's. [bleep]' idiots.

While I'm not here to make enemies, you socialistic MFer's are what is ruining our country, and I goddam sure don't mind pissing off a liberal. So once again...GFY.

Dink is a communist.


The day the Feds take over the State's right to control and regulate hunting is gonna be a sad one. I hope it never happens.

They won't have to. The leasers are going to do it for them.

Blame the outta staters for that problem.....grin!

If only it were the out of staters.........

You guys that keep harping on the point that Federal land heavy units should give a higher % to nonresidents keep forgetting that the game is managed for the benefit of the residents of the state. The game on federal land or private land does not belong to the landowner.... Let me repeat that for the Texans, Virginians,etc. the game belongs to the citizens of the state not the landowner.

In the case of many species, an animal may live on public land for only part of its life... What then? Also, this is a basic supply and demand issue, more nonresidents would like to hunt than can be supported as based on the management preferences of the residents.
Out here we manage for certain sex ratios in our herds, as requested by our citizens. In order to do that we have to limit licenses.
Private land heavy states can have differing management styles on different parcels. Most of those states also have much higher game densities.
So I get why you think you should be entitled to hunting someone else's game, your state has given you the impression that game on your land belongs to you or even a ranch owner ( through no license, or DMAP type programs). However, that game, owned by the citizens of that state is managed for the benefit of those same citizens. And those citizens have decided to put the burden of the price of mangement on you, the nonresident, instead of themselves because at least some people are more interested in elk, deer, sheep, moose etc hunting here than in their other options. Until that changes, you will most likely continue to bear an "unfair" share of the price to hunt our wildlife. Maybe wildlife out west will attain pest status like it has in some eastern states, but for now we value it highly, but don't want to gouge ourselves.
So we gouge you because you'll pay it. Don't like it? Sorry? It's not yours.

You can have a say in how that federal land is managed if you want. You can challenge road closures and timber management programs, but not wildlife management because the wildlife isn't yours

Anyone want to chip in for a new hunting hat for DINK?

Non-Resident land buyers?

They're paying, both for access and actual land.


Frack brothers, Ted, some big working ranches, whoever else, they lock chit up.

The problem spread all over the state.



I remember the old days of hunting.




How about this?


No hunting license unless you live in the actual state for more than half the year.


That would settle this chit right down....grin

And leasing for hunting purposes made illegal.

You may remember Kansas in the not too distant past did not allow nonresident deer hunting. What was it? 93 or 94 when that changed?

Some good points exbiologist.

As in the case of Texas landowners thinking the game belongs to them...I have not seen that at all. Some breeders DO own some deer, and the state has upheld the right of private landowners to high fence and manage their own herds. But, in all, they all still have to follow the state game laws, and really don't begrudge them at all. In fact, lots of large ranches readily support Texas Parks and Wildlife...both the Game Warden division, and the biologists.

What the hell have you contributed to the hunting here? Not a damned thing. Why do think you have some divine right to be in the same line as the longtime residents who have poured their money in fees and sweat in building guzzlers or improving habitat on the public lands? You're just fugging ignorant and have a real entitlement attitude.

I am laughing at all the easterners, a lot from VA, who think federal lands have had the game managed by federal money. Your TAXES have been a small piddle in a big ocean, regarding what gets done to manage and improve a western State's wildlife. The RESIDENTS pay for the ride that you want for peanuts.

We in this State manage the game and habitat with OUR money. What have you done for us beside complaining that we really don't like or want you? Who would?

How did that work out for you guys? The last I heard was more ground was leased than ever but that was a year or two ago. Just as you were warned.

Dink

Where's a pic of your forky from this year Dink?

Dink, serious question.


Why did you pay for a private land lease buck?


You are complaining about wanting equal access(tag opportunity) and the same tag prices as a resident for YOUR Federal land yet payed someone else to hunt private property? Have you ever even set foot on Federal land in MT much less hunt it?

Probably not but I'm sure "you have"......


You want cheap tags, cheap outfitters and cheap hunting all across the whole USA.


Keep dreaming you big mooch.

Kentucky Landowners don't have to purchase a license.

IMO the worst ones are from WI or MI. no offense to anyone from there, just my experience. we get them out here by the dozen, and more often than not they feel either privileged because they paid more for a tag, or they are a dick to those hunting on public land because they want their animal and don't care who they cut in front of to do it. had guys walk up on me and give me the finger because I was already there before them. I don't begrudge nonresidents, but damn, have a little respect for fellow hunters.

Roger that. Doesn't matter if it's big game, upland, waterfowl, summer fishing, or ice fishing, if you see a rig from WI you can well be assured its full of self-important, entitlement minded jack-holes.

I hunt at least one other western state every year. I always feel lucky to be a guest in their state, and am grateful for all their hard work in managing their game well enough that they will share some of it with me.

I bought an Az license for hunting as non Resident, Even though I was there to take photos.
Had no problem with that at all , We were using hounds , that is classed as hunting
I was happy with the trip I had , meet some great people, saw some critters , Enjoyed AZ and the rest of the country for that matter

I can say to anyone that claims the benefits of the N.R. hunter to the state they are visiting, come hunt the antelope season in north central Wyoming. Especially Areas 22 and 23. I have never seen such behavior from so called sportsman in my entire life. And that is a BOLD statement as I grew up hunting in Eastern Pa. Between Fence damage liter, and complete disrespect for the land I see small patches of BLM with Camp villages on them and the like. As a result most all the public land signs are missing, the gas companies Illegally post public land and the ranchers are completely put off on hunters looking to find access. Everyone is guilty and no one excepts the blame. The Game commission sells way too many tags to everyone. Then all the goats head for the private land an hour after sun up on the first day. The non residents can not find goats, the ranchers complain because the goats eat all the grass off there land and the local hunter is left with his mouth a gap.......I believe there is a fix , just do not know where to start to mend it!
The only one that benefits is the Game dept. because they sold a bunch of tags and a bunch of fine money is racked in.
Just my humble opinion.

I killed a half rack buck this year. He had five points on one side. Of course he stopped a 130 grain TTSX bullet at 94 yards.

Dink

GFY

^^^^^ This

Life's too short to read all the "it's my right" bullschitt contained in this thread. Whether it's Montana, Colorado, Utah, or Wyoming, I consider myself fortunate to have hunted in your wonderful states (I say "your" since I was a guest!). I only hope that I am lucky enough to return next year, and many years after that. And if you want to buy a nonresident tag in Kansas, I'll welcome you as a guest in my great state, just as you have me.......

I pay a trespass fee to not be bothered. I put up with peoples bullchit everyday at work. I don't want to when I am hunting. I have hunted plenty of public ground and the ranch I hunted had large sections of BLM that a lot of people hunted.

The tag is the one thing you must have to hunt. Whether you pay to hunt a ranch or not does not matter. you have to have that tag.

I think if a I have to pay 1k for a combo tag to hunt federal land than you should too. It's worth it right?

I pay taxes and it's proven that Montana gets way more money from the Feds than they pay in (like most states).

I161 really pizzed me off. One of the arguments used was no more leased hunting and how locals would be able to hunt these large ranches that were leased by outfitters. It was ok when you wanted free/cheap hunting but it's not ok for a non-resident to want a fair shake at tags and prices.

Dink

I'll type real slow for you....you are NOT paying 1K to hunt on federal land.

If your state is using only resident money to manage wildlife why is 70% to 80% of western state game and fish made up by non-resident tag sales?

Resident hunters are the same everywhere. 99.5% buy their tag and box core loks a few day before season. Any other time they are doing other things with their time and money.

Dink

You give us a shout next time you head up this way. Drinks are on me.

If the unit is made up of federal land you are.

You can play words and push bullchit. The simple fact is if you are hunting a unit that is mostly federal land you are paying to hunt federal land.


Dink

Again you fail. You can walk around federal land all day any day with a rifle for free.

Did I ever post the picture of the deer I shot on the way to the range???

Nice.

Look at my Sig line to see how much stupid dink has packed into himself.

+1 USMC

That ain't funny shrapnel, I bet that guy is a resident. COMPLETELY UNFAIR!

Tanner

After reading 21 pages of this thread, I seem my diagnosis is right on . Everyone is to blame and no one is at fault.

Of course he is a resident, we don't let NR's hunt because we charge too much...

I theorize that public schools in WI teach classes themed thusly:

"Posted signs and how they DON'T apply to WI folks hunting states other than WI"

"How to set decoys between the party of hunters already in the field and the roost, while hungover"

"How long can we sit on the road while that party of hunters pushes pheasants/deer out towards our pickup without being in any real danger?"

"Binoculars, how to spot other folks catching fish and then how to surround them with your entire party and finally push them off of the spot."

"The art of bucket-peeking and ice-hole pirating"

"Binoculars, how to spot the deer that other guy is stalking, and how to blow that stalk for him in hopes the deer will at some point get close enough to the road for you to shoot"

"Gravel roads, no really, there is no speed limit, chase critters at will"

"Snowmobiles, just cause the law says you can't use them to chase down furbearers, that doesn't mean you can't get really really close"

"Public land upland hunting and how to get indignant when you're there 2nd but think you deserve to hunt there anyway"

"It's wet down this trail and you'll leave ruts, but, that's the farmer's problem"

We should gift WI to France.

Huge +1 to that!

I have thoroughly enjoyed my experiences out West and have 1 per yr planned through '18!

I wonder how many non-res hunters there are here who are having wet dreams over a trip to hunt Michigan? None. Why? We sell unlimited tags OTC to anyone and everyone with very little harvest restrictions until very recently.

There is a reason Western states can demand a premium and make me jump through lottery hoops and I wish I could move to Rapid City to cut out the long drives but will keep wakin up w/ crusty shorts till I can.

And no, I ain't jealous...

This all sounds like sour grapes from a person that has been out hunted, out fished and anti-social. Kind of sad.

Last summer a WI rig pulls up @ the hotel. I'm squaring away my boat pickup for the evening and notice that he's still got the plug in his boat. Last summer was the 1st that ND G&F was actually handing out tickets for leaving your plug in. I very nicely let the guy know that ND G&F is ticketing for that this yr and in fact they've been downright zealous about it. I get from the Sconni, "Mind your own [bleep]' business, I've been fishing here for years."

Last fall I head out into the small piece of CRP my dad and I started pheasant season in since '03 or '04. I'm there alone. The other 3 quarters of the section are posted. There's 1/2 section of PLOTS (Private Land Open To Sportsman) across the road, I'm parked on an approach that's on the same side of the road I'm hunting. I let the dogs out and get roughly 1/2 way through my hunt and I hear a vehicle slide to a stop on the gravel and a volley of shots ring off in my direction as I hear the BB's falling ~50-75yds short of me, they can't see me, but, they did drive right past my truck and are now about 150yds from it. They spend the next 15min looking for a downed bird and are somewhat surprised to see me as I work my way back to my pickup. The one who comes over to talk to me says they're pretty sure they were far enough from my truck to be safe. I tell him that perhaps when they see that a particular parcel of land is being hunted, they should find another, to which he gets huffy, rounds up his crew and storms off, telling me that I had to have started hunting before legal shooting hrs, which I didn't.

I could go on and on, and on, and on about dumbphucks from WI specifically, how they think they're entitled to catch fish, shoot birds, and bag a deer with their bow simply because they bought a tag and traveled, not because they're any good at any of it, but it'd take up the bulk of the bandwidth Rick pays for.

So when I pay a NM landowner $3500 to hunt I'm also not paying to hunt on private land?

Wow... +P+ as Larry would say......
Feds own the PUBLIC land (for the most part) and the Feds allow access to those lands. The STATE manages the wildlife in THAT state, for the good of the wildlife FIRST, hunters/hunting is a wild life management tool used for culling purposes.

Funding for at least CO operation is funded primarily by hunter dollars, and the Pittman Robertson monies from the Feds. Most comes from hunters (which also funds the fishing which is a loser as far as money is concerned). The hunters primarily served and funding from are the resident hunters, non-resident may pay more per tag, but look up the funding for the department you have a complaint with.

So with that in mind, quit whining... I have done non-resi myself when I had the bucks, when I didn't I didn't go out of state. Same for in my state, if I didn't have the bucks, well sucks to be me.... and if you don't have the bucks to hunt out west.. well sucks to be you, get a better job.

Yes, the $3500 you pay the LO is for access to his property and the authorization to purchase a lic. The money you pay the state for the lic allows you to take an elk.

Notice how you don't have to pay that fee on federal land?

That about sums it up. Anything else is just explaining the facts to those who could easily look them up on their own.

I camped near 4 guys from WI part of this elk season. They had two bull tags but were plainly party-hunting with those from the way they talked. Big difference in price between a bull tag and cow tag. One guy shot a bull and lost it, said he hit it good but it went up a slope that was too steep to follow. He later tagged another. Another guy killed one probably a mile and a half from camp (downhill back to camp) and spent a day and a half dinking around in town looking for an outfitter with horses to pack it out, while the elk lay there gutted. With four guys (and packframes) right in camp.

Totally unprepared. Thought it would be no problem to just ride into town and find someone to haul horses up the mountain to haul his elk out. The only way he found someone was to call the outfitter I told him about, one I knew was licensed to work the area.

Entitlement, plain and simple.

So you want to pay the same price for tags as a resident, using Federal land as justification, yet won't even be hunting Federal land?

All of this! ^^^^

I've applied in numerous western states for nonresident tags since 1983 and have been grateful for every tag I've drawn.

As an aside, on a Wyoming trip with my son a few years back, we were ate a Game & Fish check in station and the warden looked at our nice muley and antelope bucks and made an unexpected comment.
He said in a dumbfounded kind of way "You California guys seem to be among the most successful nonresidents that I check each year".
Using verbage I explained to him that when we hunt in California it's like this...



Not like this...

Ever seen a big mule deer buck on the hoof?

When I get on the cardio machines at my gym I turn the TV to the Outdoor Channel, for no other reason than to avoid music videos. Seems that almost every time I watch, there's some bubba killing a really nice whitetail, usually from a blind on private land. Big mule deer, not so much. And if they get a nice elk, it's always with a guide.

Most of the "hunters" on TV are guys that have a good sized bank account and wanted to make a hunting TV show.

The vast majority of them are taken by the hand and guided throughout the hunt by the folks that are real hunters. Not all the guys are like that, but most of them are.

I know that. Just pointing out that if big mulies were easier than big whiteys, more would be killed on those shows.

NONRESIDENT HUNTER NEED REPRESENTATION. Again we pay millions of dollars to the states we hunt each year and support I'd large percentage of their annual wildlife budget with no voice.

It is not limited just to the western states. (a big head of some of you guys that live in the west, and most likely hunt in their home state only)

I cannot be resident in all states and I'm not let state boundaries limit my hunting so I will pursue tags and other states and countries.

Nonresidents are not entitled 50% on federal land tags.

Nonresidents hunter were to organize. We could possibly have a large say.

I know residents are all for the tags that they give to the big game banquets and most likely they come out of them most prime areas of the state or their statewide tags.

Mr. Ms. resident has that help you personal on your hunts.

The nonresident hunter is a wealth of cash flow for your state.

I know that the state legislatures, have no reason in helping the nonresident hunter.

If hunter could organize it would represent all hunters.
Lawsuits are not going to get anything done they tried that. Legislation is area changes are made not in lawsuits.

The nonresident hunter just wants a chance to hunt each year just like you because life is too short for a 20 year wait for a tag that residents buy over-the-counter.

License prices don't scare me if I want to hunt I'm going hunt.

In Vt. you have a right to hunt any land you want to as long as it isn't posted. If a private landowner doesn't have it posted he or she can hunt it without acquiring permission. That's in the state constitution.

Having lived in Alaska and seeing the flood of tourists every year during the summer fishing season it's easy to understand why non-residents don't have the same privileges as residents.

There wouldn't be any fish left to catch. Virtually all of the fishing is done on public water/land and that has absolutely no bearing on anything.

Same thing goes for BG.

Grow at least one nut.

You and all 6 of your friends could boycot.

Not buying tags where you don't like the regs is your ONLY voice.

By your way of thinking one could just buy a "Federal Land Tag" and hunt on any federal parcel of their choosing, state lines be damned. Just buy a Federal elk tag and hunt whatever federal parcel you want in MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, TX, CO, UT, NV, CA, OR, ID, WA, or OK.

Your voice is your wallet.

Would I be able to hunt. My title private land that I pay taxes on my royalties and property & personal property taxes on. As a nonresident.

I'm still trying to figure out what tag NRs wait 20 years for that I can buy OTC. I don't know of any in CO.

Tanner

Life is filled with difficult choices. Where I choose to hunt isn't one of them.

Check the record books and see what a real trophy is. Pope and Young whitetails: 45,000: Mule Deer 3500.

That is why whitetails are preferred, they are everywhere and easy...

What be such a horrifying thing to have a representative for the nonresidents in the legislation??

I'd concentrate my efforts on grammar/spelling if I were you.

Yeah, those pesky details about state lines and each state managing their own game and fish keep getting in they way of things don't they?

How DARE they charge a higher fee and allow less non-resident hunters than their citizens?

Perhaps all of you that feel entitled ought to get the main organizer, Obama to create a welfare permit that allows you to hunt whatever land you want to hunt, anywhere you want to hunt whatever game you want to hunt?

Or you could get on the schedule to speak at several Game Commission meetings in several states you want to hunt, and try whining to the game commissioners about how unfair the draw is, and that the state having a large amount of federal land entitles you to hunt there, even though you wish they wouldn't charge you as much as they do now because you are a non-resident.

See how far that gets you.



Well, by all means why don't you start an organization geared toward that? Much like the NRA, but only for entitled hunters with sand in their puzzies, put there by the mean ol' state game commissions....whose job it is to manage the wildlife in their state for residents of their state.

I cannot believe that grown men have to get this schit explained to them time and time again, but it still doesn't sink in...

Rick ought to add an IQ test before someone can become a posting member. Or at least a third grade spelling test...

No one said anything about cheap tag prices. The west has finally priced the average guy with a family out. This is what will get this pissing match going and into the courts.

If tag prices need to be high they need to be high for everyone in units that are more than 50% federal land. Not cheap for residents and then 40+ times as much for a guy living some where else.

If your having trouble hiring people I suggest you raise the salary. Money seems to make people want to work.

Dink [/quote]

Cold and hunger are better incentives.

A couple interesting points... Alaska Non-resident tags cost far less than most western states for similar tags.

A nonresident hunting Kodiak brown bears has a virtually guaranteed tag but residents have to wait for years to draw. In all draws nonresidents are eligible for the odds for nonresidents are exactly the same as for residents. In nonresident only draws the NR has better drawing odds in almost every case than residents do in drawings for the same species.

Illinois wants more for a nonresident archery deer tag than AK charges for three deer tags, or a moose tag, or a caribou tag, or a mountain goat tag, and nearly as much as a Dall sheep tag, or a brown bear tag.

CO charges more than four times as much for a NR sheep tag as AK gets for a Dall tag... and almost seven times as much for a mountain goat...

I have always thought reciprocity would be a good thing... AK should charge as much for the same license as the home state of the NR hunter...

Another huge issue is the fact the Feds did step in and take over management of our wildlife on Federal lands under ANILCA. There was a lawsuit sitting on the SCOTUS docket (Katie John vs Norton) which would have potentially settled the States' Rights issues but it was dropped at the eleventh hour by then POS Gov Tony Knowles.

Art, Ak.'s tag costs are low relative to the species and the variety, no doubt. It's the "getting there" costs that really matter for NR's as well as the costs for transportation to the "site" and back once in-state. Good hunting there almost always involves bush planes, guides, boats, etc. and it does add up quickly, you well know.

jus sayin not a backatcha.

Stop it, you're killin' me!!

GFY, azzhole. I hunt and fish out of state and I don't need "representation", lawyers, or the feds to [bleep] things up to their liking.

Trolls or trolling I can dismiss as entertainment.

But these guys are SERIOUS, and that fact disturbs me.

What, exactly, do you want?

The only way I can see the rights of non-residents being 'represented' in all states would involve the intervention of some federal agency?

No thanks.

They already [bleep] things up enough as it is....

Rancho Loco, this was not directed to you. Just showed up as a reply to your post.

Personally I think it is ridiculous the way out of state hunters are treated....I think the price of tags is assinine especially for out of state hunters...

and most Fish and Wildlife Agencies are totally out of control, and usually controlled politically, which is also ridiculous...

I also respected, those states that recipocate each others hunting tag prices... don't know if they still do it, but states like WVa, MD and PA use to have reciprocity with each other...

hunting is no longer a right of the public, it is more like a privilege for the wealthy....

even in state practices and political control.. Oregon for example, east of the Cascades is all draw hunting... people who live there can't get tags, yet the Potland-Salem-Eugene crowd always seem to get draw tags...

the locals can't hunt on Forest Service land 3 miles from their house, where there is plenty of game.. but these city people can come down and hunt there, because they got the draw tags again..

I believe when they do these draw hunts, it ought to be giving first priority to the locals, without having to apply for a draw tag, and then the draw tags are available to people from elsewhere...

and there needs to be more interstate reciprocity for hunters, period...

There it is!!!
Liberal idea of bringing everybody down together to be "fair"

Hunting is "no longer" a right because it never was one.

I strongly disagree....

I look at that as bureaucrats saying driving isn't a right, it is a privilege...

all I know if it is not a right, then that means that you have some bureaucrat giving you permission to do something... and do you agree with that concept?

I certainly don't...

As with Gun Rights I can quote the second amendment as my right to keep and bear arms.

Perhaps you can enlighten us about where this "right" is found, and what states ratified it?

Don't be shy now....Step right up and show us all.

think about what you just said....

basically are you saying that unless something is written down on paper and passed by a group of politicians.. we as the public have no right to do anything, much less hunting being one of them, without the permission of politicians?

so that in theory, explain your 'right' to breathe.... show me where the government of any sort has has granted you permission to do so?

Don't be shy, step right up and enlighten us all on that one...

you're turn...

WOW!!!

I with Tanner, what tag can I buy over the counter you have to wait 20 years for?

Some of you will stroke out when NM gets the Terk ruling reversed.

If Seafire is on your side,you know your on the wrong side.

And residents fly free in your mind? Our gas doesn't cost anything because it is from a local pump?

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." comes to mind...

Entitlement mentality here makes it easier to understand how the present administration was elected.

Breathing is life. Here ya go:

The Declaration of Independence enshrines three basic rights: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life is the only fundamental right, from which all other rights are derived.

It used to be a right, or at least treated as such, but 100 years of abuse changed all that and it is a privilege today with the restrictions of a license. Licensing anything changes the dynamic of the issue and today with licensing, hunting has become a privilege that is regulated by the state.

All those guys that don't like it can test their right and hunt without a license and not even worry about federal, state or private land. When questioned about it by the authorities, you can then make a case for rights vs privilege and you will also be able to argue that in court.

Give it a try...

Isn't that the truth? If it weren't so serious, it would be nearly comical.

I can get behind that statement.

Beyond that, when hunting was required for survival of one's family, then the act of hunting could be viewed as a big part of the "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" rights outlined in the Declaration.

No longer is that the case in the U.S. though... No matter how you figure it, cost per pound of meat to feed a family is more expensive if hunted rather than bought. Especially when you drive out of state...

Driving is a privilege. Not much doubt about that.

So is firearm ownership/possession, much less "hunting".
If you think you have the gun "rights", just piss your significant other off enough to call the police and them want a restraining order against you.
Don't gimmie that women beater shouldn't have guns anyway, so it is ok crap , "significant other" can be between people of the same sex nowadays.
Chick slaps her live in girlfriend, no gun privileges for you darlin.

Especially if you live in Calioto, cause they will come like Nazis in the night, and take them.

Have read, but can't seem to find it again, where simple litter in the right places (was a beach in Calif. IIRC) can bring felony charges.
Felony? no more gun privileges for you.


Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, as long as you remain within the parameters provided by the state. Otherwise you've lost that privilege.
Pretty simple when you get right down to it

Rights azz.

You're kidding right. States make millions of dollars off suckers every year playing them for fools with [bleep] like the points system.

If you don't like the hunting in your state, then move or shut up about the cost of out-of-state hunts.

GFY

Now that is something I would like shown. Let's see, at 3 bucks a try. ... millions huh.... let's see...... That would be approx 333,333 persons lining up for points in CO for 1 mil in money.

99% of stats are made up 89% of the time when 100% want to whine.

Being a non-resident is a pre-existing condition - therefore an entitlement can't be too far off.

LOL

NONRESIDENT HUNTERS RIGHTS.

You have the right to stay home if you don't want to go by the rules of the state you want to be a guest of.

If nonresidents did that, block management would not be in place in the great state of Montana. And you would have to dig in your pockets a lot more.

We just want dumbasses like you and dink to stay away.

Not exactly.

There would/could be two tags. One tag would be a federal land tag that would cost the same for everyone. The other tag would/could be a private land/state owned tag.

The public land tag would remain fairly low priced because residents would complain if it were priced to high. Thus it would remain affordable to everyone.

The private/state owned tag could be priced anyway the state wants. Cheap for residents and $1000 apiece for non-residents if that's land owners wanted.

For guys that hunt both public and private land. Residents would need the public land tag(because it should cost more than a resident private land tag)and non-residents would have to have the private land tag (again because it will be the more expensive tag).

With that set up no one should be priced out and private/state issued tags would bring market value.

Dink

Did you get that PMI check in the mail. Got pay them to make sure you don't default....laughing.

Dink

Amen. BTDT. I don't understand why anybody would go somewhere they're not welcome.

Haven't hunted a Block Management unit yet. I just pay the price of the resident or non resident tag and don't whine about it.

If and when I find that I can't afford to apply for a tag for what ever big game animal I want to hunt I either find a different state or save a little longer.

Poor dink. Can't read a spread sheet or a supreme court ruling.

Its like he got a double dose of stupid in his DNA.

But I ain't ever had to pay a insurance company so I could get loan. Talk about being stupid...

Tell me again how much money you save by renting......

Dink

I showed you the spreadsheet.

Evidently meter maids don't know what they are.

Or what supreme court rulings mean.

There's an expired meter! Go get 'em, dink!!

Just one problem with this theory. Residents (the only ones with a vote) won't complain about higher prices for nonresident tags.. So that won't change.-

Quoted Right out of the manHarem Manifesto.... Article 18, Section A35m2
as amended Aug 2012, page 338...

check it out.....

back on topic...

guess there is a group on here that just love to have big government to tell them exactly what to do... and charge them for permission to do so...contributing to an engineered society... but engineered by who, for who's conveniences...

complying with laws is one thing, but blindly supporting everything these politicians come up with... and all the charges they can milk for them to create job security for themselves....

you boys want to sing their praises knock yourself out...

If I don't like something enough, I just won't do it... so no, I wouldn't pay enormous prices to go hunt out of state... nor do I think out of staters should be charged what many states, particularly in the west charge folks...

you boys want Big Government.... Obama is giving it to you...

do you boys think we should pay a daily access fee just to go out for the day on Forest Service or BLM land?

guess that doesn't belong to we the public, does it..

sort of like the old English status, "The King's Land and the King's Deer...." doesn't belong to the public...

Here's your chance, dink! No more whimpering about NR tags.

http://www.montana.edu/jobs/classified/14-170

Seafire, you have it exactly backward. The only way for dink and bowedark to get what they're asking for is for the federal government to step in and dictate to the states.

If you truly believe what you said about just not paying for something that you think is too high priced, then just don't do it. Let the laws of supply and demand work like they're supposed to. The simple fact is, the states will charge what the market will bear. If some don't like that, then don't pay.

It's really a simple equation, and surprising that some can't grasp it.

You're right. The attitude of the States ,in general, are reflected in these matters. If one goes to a State where NR's are considered to be tourists, he can expect to be treated like one.

Or you could say if a nonresident acts like a tourist, he should expect to be treated like one.

Sure, but I'm not talking about the individuals making a buck. I'm talking about the governments.

I don't believe it's anything other than a state government charging what the market will bear. If enough nonresidents decide that tags are too expensive and stop buying, and tag revenues decrease significantly, then the states will respond by lowering the prices. Simple economics.

Thats all fine and dandy , except here you can not get on federal land , because most is land locked or gated up like a prison. Gas and Oil companies have posted(ILLEGALLY) lots of BLM land and Most any signs have been removed. Granted you can find access points with GPS and such but you will still be up to your arse with trespassing accusations. Good luck on fixing the whole system. Dink. The only places to find satisfactory comfort while hunting is in the National forest. But even then I go hike the hardest country I can find to avoid the 4wheelers and out of shape types, both resident and Non resident alike.

That's why it will have to change at the federal level. States will have to be forced to do it.

It will also make game fish look for other funding instead of continued gouging of non-residents.

Dink

I could take that job and still make more than you.

If I had that job I could go around taking pics of other peoples cars and post them on the net. Just like you do with other peoples houses.

Dink

Have you been a victim your whole life Dink?

Has whining and playing the unfair I'm being picked on (even though you aren't) card gotten you through life?

Sharpton and Jackson et al have made millions off schmucks like yourself. [bleep] self reliance, or earning anything. Get it given to you! Yeah, that's the spirit!

I don't understand why Alaskan residents get PFD checks and I do not. We need a lobby on that one too, so we can all get some of that PFD money.

[bleep] yes! We need non-resident advocation on that issue! [bleep] that's America too and we DESERVE some of that money! It's bullschit the folks that actually live there get it and we don't!

I have never been a victim.

If I don't like something I am not afraid to voice my opinion. My opinion my not be popular but it's mine. No one else has to like it or agree with me.

The people of Montana showed the did not care how much money they cost me. I will aggravate them every chance I get.

You never know when enough people will agree with me to change something.

Dink

I also don't think it's right that some poor schmuck in NY state has to pay $7K a year in property taxes on $175K house and a guy in MT pays $700 a year for the same value house.

Much of that property tax is supposed to support schools and local infrastructure.

Seems it should be the same EVERYWHERE for like valued houses. Why does a guy in NY have to pay 10x the amount as a guy in Montana for education/police etc. Seems a teacher should be paid the same everywhere.

They should come up with a national average on property taxes so everyone pays their fair share. We can all pay it to the feds and they can hand it out equally to the states.

Speaking of which, why are wolves in MT but not MO? Seems MO should get a couple hundred wolves too. The winters are far more mild there so the deer population does better, that will mean more critters for wolves to eat.

States can do whatever they want

Snake

The way the Feds work, going by observed history, is that they would raise the resident fees to match the nor resident, not bring them down.
You have to be a liberal or crazy (same thing?) to want them involved.

you are perfectly right Smokey, but the fact is, that equation has gotten poluted with so many bureaucrats, anti hunting tree huggers and corruption in so many states, they "leverage" ..'whatever the market will bear'... and I admit, I have issues with that...

if they made it more affordable for out of state hunters, it would be the local businesses that made more money off the increase in out of state visitors... instead of the states' governments making the money and then spending it all on more Tree Hugger Crap, and anti hunting agendas of the leftists....

I for one am getting sick of governmental corruption, and in places like Fish and Game Depts ( or whatever each state calls them), that corruption seems to pass under the radar, with little to no accountability...
a favorite scenario for Democrat politicians...

Everyone knows them MT guys are dousch bags.

Tell ya what Dinky, bring your money over here to Idaho. You wll have to pay the very reasonable NR fee's but we'll pat ya on the ass and tell you what a great hunter you are while we take your coin.
And if you fish, even better, we love Steelhead fishermen. Feel free to park anywhere you dam well please and throw your garbage everywhere. It's all good. Just leave lots of money.

Oh,,, and tell your friends too.

That is the same way you can tell native Oregonians from California Transplants...

Real native Oregonians, may not love Californians, but the money they bring is always welcomed....

the ones who complain about Californians are usually the CA Transplants... ya asked them why they hate Californians so much, the normal response is " why do you think I left there in 19XX?"

So I usually think to myself... "oh, I should have known, YOU were the last good one across the state line... EVERYONE AFTER YOU is an assswhole..."

yeah Oregon gets real user friendly if you bring lots of cash.... just like Idaho...

Here, I call them slob hunters and and they don't give two schits about courtesy, the ends justify their means. Had a one set up on my 80 year old father who'd scouted the area and set his spot months prior. He set up with a bait pile with dad in a direct line of it after they flagged me down and asked if we were in the area. I pointed out the general area thinking they were like us and didn't want to infringe on someone else. I was wrong.



Yep hopefully soon to change.



No, probably because there are 30 million whitetails with millions hunting them compared to a lot fewer mule deer and hunters after them. Does and small bucks are easy here...P & Y/B & C is a whole 'nother ball game (mostly due to the regs). I have a few good areas where I know a few are but it's cedar swamps and thick forested areas. You're welcome to join us next Oct and see if you can get an arrow in one.

Seems like the natives sure have been taking our friend Spano for all he's worth since he moved to Oregon to start up his wine making venture.

Wow, sounds like it's really bad out there. We don't have many tree huggers in the DOW here, actually none that I've seen or heard of. They are the most pro-hunting state agency I've seen, and they put a lot of time, money and effort into promoting hunting and getting more people involved. Particularly youngsters and women. Hunting is big business in Colorado, and we probably have more non-resident hunters than any other western state. Somehow, they all seem able to afford tags.

True story, I was once fly fishing a prairie lake. A DOW truck pulled up, the guy got out and started walking toward me and I realized that it would be the first time I'd ever been checked in the field by a DOW officer. He walked up, we shook hands, and he asked me how the fishing was. I told him I hadn't been catching much. He told me he'd hammered them a few days earlier, and advised me to switch flies. Then he left without checking my license.

Then I started hammering 'em.

But hay who voted those POS into office? But hay they were good electable moderate right LOL