Contributors to this thread:
Non Resident Sportmans Assn
Piggybacking off a few other threads here lately. You hear it said “we’re all non residents in 49 states”. Why isn’t there a unified voice with a pile of cash to speak out/fight the outfitter welfare, one sided price hikes, quota math, must-be-guided rules, etc. Would it do any good if there was such an organization? I understand states are responsible for management of their wildlife resources in a way that maximizes resident benefit (excluding Kansas of course), but that thought process was probably adopted long before NR preference point monies were outdoing overall resident sales and four digit license prices. Obviously our involvement in any state’s system is 100% voluntary, and one has no choice but to play by the rules, but it seems like the NR ought to have some sort of a seat at the table these days.
Probably because there isn't a huge pile of cash?
So if I hear you right, this thread is about taking away 1 groups entitlement and giving it to another? I think I have a solution but it probably wouldn’t go over too well for the eastern guys who feel entitled to hunt game on National Forest lands because they pay federal taxes. We are all guests in other states but many seem to ignore that fact or have forgotten.......
At the first meeting, I'll be circulating a petition to allow nonresidents to hunt elk in Kansas :^)
Also because the bottom dollar of nr hunters funds each and every DNR heavily...
Kaleb, the main reason is purely 100% political IMO. Game and fish commissioners are often political appointees or somehow politically connected. NR’s aren’t registered voters for those that would appoint them. As such our opinions matter as much as our votes.
Kansas pronghorn would be a more worthy adventure than elk Glunt, and they sell about six tags to NR last I checked.
I’m not really advocating for such a group. I moved to Alaska to take advantage of some residency opportunities and wouldn’t mind a few changes further in our favor. Just curious why the disgruntled don’t band together and attempt to do something. If there’s anything to be done, as most have insinuated. Just seems like there’s never been a better time for the NR hunter to stand up for themselves and let it be known they carry a far bigger load in a handful of western states than residents do. And that pricing/managing their systems largely into once in a lifetime opportunities won’t bode well long term.
It's called the "outfitters association"
Our first order of business should be removing the guide requirements for non-residents in Alaska for sheep, goat, and grizz.
I think alot of it is number control. Soooo many people everywhere nowadays. How many people would be in the woods if tags were cheap.
I do agree that there's a collective amount of disappointment from NR hunters everywhere. However, I wonder if the issue is too idiosyncratic to support a single organization advocating for NR hunting voices across many states. Some people may primarily be concerned about prices, while others care more about tag allocations/outfitter welfare. Some people only care about certain species while others only hunt certain states.
The so called “sportsman’s” groups out there right now are so focused on global warming and killing access, I don’t believe there is such a thing as a true sportsman’s group out there.
I don't believe that such an organization would work, because as soon as a members home state was under fire a large % will abandon the cause. I believe that there needs to be, but the wedge has been driven, ties severed, etc. Its just like the state that doesn't want non residents hunting their velvet deer. Two of the members here wrote letters to the legislature which are public record stating destain for nonresidents, Yet when crossbows were being proposed for use in their state, they came asking for nonresident help. Another state, out west just went to limits on elk areas, raised tag costs and then limited tags to 100% Service Connected Disabled Veterans. These changes to nonresident participation affect rehabilitation programs for disabled veterans in the states limiting opportunities. I think that and am working with the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus to modify the Pittman-Robertson Act and to add to the Wounded Veteran Recovery Act to include legislation to open these opportunities up to Disabled Veterans in any state receiving funding from the Federal Government from moneys generated through the RP act. Which takes me to my next point. Nonresidents should contact their Congressional representatives and demand that the states that limit nonresident participation only receive the % of taxes from the PR Act that they, themselves generate. Instead of them benefiting from nonresidents indirectly, while limiting them directly.
Anyone that would want to be a part such a org does not live in a state that is currently being run over by out of state hunters or that has the potential to be.
I wanted to add that I am okay with NR being limited IF residents are limited in that opportunity. But if it's a general tag, because the science supports it, then it should be general for NR's.
Leave it alone so it doesn’t get ruined.
Money talks. When your NR organization donates to the re-election campaigns in (whatever state) they'll listen. Problem is, you'll be trying to influence an awful lot of state legislators. Costly! Plus you'll be dealing with the local 'sentiment' which might well be "Screw them flatlanders!" or however it's phrased. (I walked out of one such state and never looked back.)
Im with ya Tony the WVR Act need to happen and happen quick. I will be send my Rep in Congress and demand for his support.
Idaho had a 40% Service connected, they did not need to drop tag allocation just up the % a bit is all. Maybe they have it fixed in 2022. But Yes, all states that seel tags for Fedral lands should have a allocation for our Veterans. Deek
Real warrior, that's how elk tags are structured in CO. Now, according to CPW stats, more nonresidents than residents hunted many OTC elk units. That isn't right.
Let me get this straight, you want people to fund an organization that will fight against them in their home state - whether right or wrong - because it will benefit them in the other 49?
Lou, real warrior’s just mad at me for not letting him hunt SD’s velvet mule deer bucks with unlimited NR licenses . He still has unlimited opportunities to shoot SD’s bucks, just not in September. He keeps buying one of the only unlimited state wide mule deer licenses available anywhere in the lower 48 however without regard to the science that shows our dwindling mule deer population suffers from over harvest from all forms of hunting, resident included. Also overlooking the fact that I have written letters promoting limiting resident and NR opportunity as biologically necessary to support a rebound in mule deer recruitment in the supportive habitat. I’m not afraid to call a spade a spade. He can feel free to use my handle in future posts.
Brotsky, I'm not mad at you but since you called me out, I will respond. Limiting nonresidents was not about Mule Deer harvest it was about perceived overcrowding on public lands. Secondly, you complain about nonresident bowhunters, including writing your game commission ( letters which became public record) but then when the use of crossbows were proposed in SD, you come asking for help from those same nonresident bowhunters. Reminds me of the saying "Don't step on the toes today that are connected to the butt that you have to kiss tomorrow. Oh and btw, as a Disabled Veteran, I can hunt Mule Deer affordably in CA, TX, ID, Wa, & OTC in Nb & Az. The fact is that 2 bowhunts in SD for Wounded Veterans had to be cancelled because of the change. The state legislature introduced a bill to alter the pheasant hunting regulations as a consolation. Keep in mind that lower extremity injuries are more limiting in pheasant hunting than bowhunting. The part that is so bad about this is that a Veteran, who is a member here, was partly behind this. Furthermore, these nonresident limiting changes violate the funding stipulations from the Modernizing the Pittman-Robertson Fund for Tomorrow’s Needs Act. Look it up.
Realwarrior, I guess you missed this part of my letter?
“ This also does nothing to reduce the burgeoning archery mule deer harvest which has doubled in only the past 5 years. We must address the issue of NR archery now by limiting the number of any deer licenses available to NR archers similar to ND and by placing a cap on total NR archery licenses available.”
I specifically call out the reasons I supported our change and it still hasn’t been addressed and we’ll continue to fight for that. It’s unfortunate those disabled vets weren’t able to move their hunt back a few weeks to take advantage of the other 3 months of archery season that were available to them. The tags are still unlimited and the season is 3 months long. Sorry you don’t get that 4th month to shoot the state’s velvet bucks on public land. I’d also like to point out that these changes only applied to public lands. Were your disabled vet hunts scheduled for public lands? If they were on private ranches the season still opens September 1 for NR for those hunts. The other vet you mention here probably would have been happy to host those hunts on his own property as a matter of fact knowing that and knowing what a good guy he is. You’re just pissed you can’t shoot SD’s velvet bucks on public land and the evidence supports it. I’ll continue to fight for bowhunting rights in our state for residents and nonresidents alike based upon my opinion of what is best for herd health, quality of the hunt, and future viability of archery tags and seasons. Lastly, thanks for your service, I served as well. If you need help with future disabled vet hunts I’d be happy to help out if I’m able, as I know the other veteran you mentioned would be likely to as well. My last post on this topic, on this or any other thread. Our positions are well stated at this point and we can agree to disagree. Enjoy your weekend.
Lots of folks who probably never think twice about non resident influence in their own states Matt. Quite a few hunters east of the plains in states that don’t garner much interest from outside crowds I imagine. At least for big game anyway. Again, I’m not really advocating for it. Not surprised it doesn’t exist either. But would makes sense if it did based on all the outrage each time one of these issues comes up... As far as Alaska goes, I’d be all for doing away with the must be guided rules in favor of a self guided limited quota only opportunity. 90/10 split and no NR tags if 10 or more aren’t available. Plus no NR’s in Alaska Wilderness without a guide. Sounds fair! :)
I suspect the non-res plight will only worsen in the short term. There are many factors impacting hunting opportunities in western states. The beginning of the end were systems and newsletters which demystified the application process and channeled everyone to apply for the same tags. Some folks turned this into a lucrative business and all res/non-res applicant pools skyrocketed. Combine this with static or diminishing harvest objectives, growing resident populations, wolf introductions, disruption of wintering or migration routes, hard winters, droughts, etc. All of this leaves resident hunters screaming at in-state officials and politicians whom they can directly impact over what they see as decreased hunting opportunity. This makes non-residents a convenient scapegoat, as it gives the local politicians cover (appear to be doing something) with minimal political risk. However, further limiting non-res access does nothing to improve herd or habitat management or increase long term hunting quality/opportunity, but it makes a good headline in the local paper. On the downside, it will also further isolate the state from the broader hunting community. At some point big $ contributor organizations, SCI, etc will firmly begin challenging why they are spending so much money continually defending assaults on hunting in those states when only residents appear to benefit (those voices are already getting louder).
This was supposed to attach to my post.
I’m surprised NY is that high. I have a hard time believing that unless they are excluding the urban population centers.
Pat, the map does not represent % of population that hunts, just hunters (imagine that is licenses sold) per square mile, combined resident and non-resident. It might surprise some folks that although PA is likely the most hunted state in the US, it has a good number of non-resident hunters from NYC, major population centers in NJ, etc. Also, several of the eastern states shown have Elk Draws - PA, TN, KY, etc, and Moose Draws in New England that non-res can apply for.
Indeed the per square mile is a little misleading. But looking at these numbers KY, IL and ME are about the only states I can come up with that have comparable res/NR spending. Most are $2-$6 spent by residents to every $1 for NR. Contrast that with some of the numbers in the west. Even if there are disgruntled NR’s with regard to eastern management systems, I’m not sure they’d have much of a leg to stand on.
Your kind of onto something that is part of the core of the NR argument. In a state like PA (the most densely hunted in the nation), a non-resident or non-resident landowner can just go online any buy a license to go hunt deer, bear or turkey. There is also nowhere near the price differences as we see in western states and the vast majority of PA wildlife programs are paid for by residents. Contrast that with Wyoming, where ~75% of license fees come from non-residents, and the vast majority of wildlife projects, programs and studies are paid for by non-residents, big-nationwide conservation organizations or the Federal Government. Been reading a lot here about outfitter welfare - what does it look like when the group that contributes the least $ and currently gets the lions share of the benefits demands an even bigger cut from the scraps it gives outside of their pride?
A NR PA elk license does cost 10x what it costs a resident. $25 vs. $250. Still cheap I realize, but the difference is comparable to out west. I'd support raising both those costs 3x what they currently are.
That maps does not really say a lot. In parts of Oklahoma where I am from two guys can hunt a week on 80 acres and still have good hunting. In other parts of Oklahoma that still has good hunting but you need 1000's of acres to hunt. In CO I have access to many 1000's acres of private to pronghorn hunt, but you likely need that much because they are so spread out and there may only be a couple water tanks they are using. Elk and most deer hunting is very similar in you need a lot of ground to be able to consistently find animals. Much of the west is vast wide open country. It can be some the greatest hunting you can find but the critter density looks similar to the map above.
File this under, “Someone aught to do something about this, but not me...I’m to busy!”
You may be onto something. But here is how I read those in favor vs those against
Residents who have elk, mule deer, antelope, bear sheep,.......already in their state, will be against this idea.
Those of us non-residents that don’t have those animals in their state: hmm, kind of an interesting idea.
All the fighting for rights that don't exist isn't going to change the fact that states own the wildlife within their boundaries and can make law regarding the management of their wildlife as they see fit.
Like it or not WY's wilderness laws and AK's guide requirements are legal. Unless you can convince a state to change its laws they can't be forced to.
A few thoughts regarding the above posts:
1. You can't look at those NR money totals and believe that all those NRs would be on your side when it comes to outfitter welfare (tags, wilderness restrictions, and outfitter-for-species restrictions). Outfitter welfare benefits hunters who use outfitters. It only hurts the DIY guys.
2. Many DIY guys who can afford to play the game and don't want more competition, would not go for this either. Look at what happened to the draw odds in CO when they reduced the cost to apply.
3. While the species restrictions in AK are sorta BS, they serve a function: Those animals (many of which are on OTC tags) are finite and cannot withstand the sort of hunting pressure that allowing any NR to hunt them would bring. The population of AK is only 730,000. If the outfitter restriction were removed, all sheep, goats, brown bears, and most grizzly tags would need to go on a draw for at least NRs. Fun fact: Currently - 85% of the legal rams that are killed in AK, are killed by NRs... it is though that this is largely because they have guides.
4. More NRs would certainly get killed by grizz if hunting grizz was OTC, especially those far left in the Bell Curve amongst our ranks, although I don't see that as a bad thing because I don't believe the government should be trying hard to protect idiots from themselves - just make all NRs pay a S&R fee like CO does.
5. You could draw a line from Dallas to Minneapolis and 95+% of your members would be to the east of it, although that's where most of the country's population/hunters live. This would possibly create a stigma for the group and decrease their lobbying power in the Western States, which is where the members would probably want the bulk of their efforts to go.
6. WY's wilderness rule is ridiculous in their justification, but there is already very heated anti-NR sentiment in WY and MT. The wilderness rule is not going anywhere, no matter how much $ you throw at lobbying because the people that make the calls are beholden to the residents of Wyoming and the outfitters. And both want more restrictions on unguided hunters, not less.
Would be another joke of and organization to take your money and do nothing for you...NRA and a few others already do that for you!
I love living in the west. We do have all those animals plus some. The one thing I don’t see in my home state are world class whitetail bucks. Is anyone in Texas or Ohio willing to let a bunch of westerners come and hunt some whitetail bucks for the price of a western mule deer hunt? And no I’m not talking public land because y’all have bought most of that up. I want to sit in your stands over the mineral blocks that have the oats and corn and all those other goodies stuck to it with a feeder on a timer so I can sleep in and set my watch ;) the only catch is no high fences so Keith Warren is out ;)
When Dallas, Texas decided it needed a new place for the Mavericks to play, they financed it with a tax on Nonresidents. Hotel tax, car rental tax, etc. They made Nonresidents pay for it.
I guess I was not raised that way. If you own something and enjoy it, you pay for it. Maybe with a little help from your friends that enjoy it too, but it is yours and you bear the biggest responsibility.
But that doesn’t happen with western hunts. Yes, you “own” the resource. But why is it fair to charge NRs 10x as much to enjoy it. It’s the same a Dallas: we want to enjoy our resource but want others to pay the lions share.
I have always said the state owns the game, and has the right to limit our numbers. But to charge so much more is in my mind a Jr High mentality of ownership.
You own the hotels in your state, should NRs pay double? You own the roads, should NRs pay a fee to use? Etc. etc.
So yes, I like the idea of a NR association. But like others, I really don’t see how we would have any impact. We don't have a seat at the table and don’t get a “vote”.
But remember that price is a double edge sword. In Colorado, residents would like to limit NRs more and I might very well feel the same way if I lived there. But the CPW won’t because the money we bring in has grown so large it would cut their throat financially.