Why not direct outfitter welfare?
General Topic
It must be the off-season, and I'm anxious for draw results, and so I'm coming up with random thoughts.
Given some of the different states and their policies that protect outfitters, NM guide draw, WY wilderness law, AK guide requirement, etc., why don't these states just support outfitters directly with $ from draws/licenses?
For instance, why not make the license/tag cheaper if you decide to hire a guide? Or charge an outfitter fee/divert a portion of state draw funds to outfitters.
In Alaska, if goat/sheep/Brown bear went to a total NR draw, with a somewhat steep tag fee, but cheaper for those that register with a guide, would that be a better system? I have to think the state would generate more $.
The basis for these sorts of topics can usually be distilled down to "how could states in which I do not live (but would like to hunt) change policy to better suit me?"
That's one way to look at it. Another would be should states that get the majority of their money for fish & game from Non-residents further handicap Non-resident who choose to go unguided.
I agree with you to a degree Matt, BUT, the Wyoming law really chaps my ass on principle, I don't hunt there and don't plan on it, partly because of that law and because I can hunt every year in Colorado where I live. It chaps my ass because I could go hiking in the same wilderness during hunting season and don't need a guide, but if I wanted to spend money with that state on a hunting license, now all of a sudden I'm in a different boat! The guide lobbiest's are a powerful entity, here in Colorado they succeeded in getting the residents tag quota lowered by a rather large percentage a couple years ago. There were groups that had to outnumber guides lobbying against the reduction and we lost out! It's all about the Benjamin's for the most part!
"Another would be should states that get the majority of their money for fish & game from Non-residents further handicap Non-resident who choose to go unguided."
Name me a state gets the majority of its revenue from non-residents.
Seems to me the bottom line should be "who owns the ground where I'm going to hunt?" If I own it the game should change.
I don’t get that argument at all keepemsharp, are you hunting the ground or the animals? Because you can own a million acres but the wildlife on that million acres belongs to the state. And the state issues the lisc/tags to hunt those animals as they see fit. Really nothing to do with who owns the land. Unless some kind of exotic high fence, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what you are referencing.
But I agree with Matt, I support changing other states laws to fit my needs, why won’t they listen to me!?!?
—jim
"Name me a state gets the majority of its revenue from non-residents." Montana. Thank-you non-residents.
"Hunters are crucial to FWP because license sales account for more than two-thirds of the agency’s funding, with nonresidents paying two-thirds of that amount."
https://www.gohunt.com/read/montana-license-demand-slows#gs.GwC87_M
Gerald, 2/3 of 2/3 is less than 50%.
Yeah the Wy wilderness rule is bull shit...this is my public lands not their private hunting lands... They are federal lands yep I would pay $3500 plus for a Dall Sheep hunt in AK if I could do it myself...don't tell me you need a guide to judge if its full curl or not apparently residents can do it..
I think what chaps people’s ass is that they chose guides over the public. For no reason. I don’t care if you’re a resident or non-resident, when the government puts private parties ahead of the public for public lands, it’s a hard pill to swallow.
You guys will love this. In AK if your outfitter/guide tells you a Dall is legal and you shoot it and it's not: Guess who doesn't get charged for a sub-legal sheep????
I hunt out of state in MN for whitetails and SD for antelope. Over the counter and not prohibitively expensive. I can't see conducting/applying for an out of state hunt that is just going to stress me out due to exorbitant costs or convoluted regulations.
The bottom line is that we're NRs in all but one state and if any or all of those other 49 decided not to allow a NR to hunt or fish within their boundaries we'd be hurting a lot more than we are now with the restrictions we have to abide by! Most western states get well over 50% of their license fees from NRs and that is what Gerald Martin meant in his post. That percentage is a large part of each state's overall game & fish budget.
"Gerald, 2/3 of 2/3 is less than 50%" I never been accused of reading too closely... :) I was assuming you meant 50% of license revenue.
"Gerald, 2/3 of 2/3 is less than 50%." but it's close...... I'm both math challenged and a bit dyslexic, but for dyslexics 44% seems to work, 2/3 of 66% (also a good number for us that are.... challenged =D)..... you throw in some fed money, Pittman–Robertson Act, wolf money, etc. (the vast majority being NR money) and I'd guess it was much much closer. If one were talking about 50% of the tags allocated to NR (or maybe 46-48% or whatever) then there would be some parity as far as balance sheets were concerned......
I do not begrudge residents getting the lions share of tags. Not in any way shape or form. It would suck to have to wait as long as NRs do to go hunting in your own house so to speak.
I do have an issue of preference given in a draw system to those using "guides" that are totally unwanted much less necessary (if at all familiar with these systems the "guide" part likely would bring a good laugh anyway....) And the WY BS is just that.... BS.... I would neither need nor want a guide, but am required to support a guide's family if I want to hunt public (federal) wilderness..... that one is the most blatant rip off of NRs in existence.
No, I do not support any direct "welfare" to guides. Which is what it is in places now. I can fix my plumbing, replace a switch, plumbed and wired both the houses I built. (now if I could just finish the flooring.....heheheheh... ) If those who can't or don't have the time need to hire a plumber or electrician, then do so. Makes good logical sense.... and the reason they are there as the professionals they are. But don't make it Illegal to work on my own house OR my own hunt....
The attached link shows some good stats when it comes to license sold and dollars. It doesn’t cover a states total revenue though.
Wyoming gets almost 3 times the money from NR as it does from residents. Colorado is even higher.
I think outfitters can play a valuable role, especially for those who do not have much time for preparation etc. In the many states I hunt I see more and more residents using outfitters and hunting clubs. They are not just for nonresidents anymore.
These conservative states sell it under the guise of jobs in rural areas. You can dress up a pig and it's still a pig. It's a subsidy/welfare.
What I have noticed are a lot of professionals from the cities such as Billings, Missoula, Bozeman etc who now use outfitters, or lease up their own land for hunting or private clubs. Many are new residents, having come for their job from states elsewhere. They have limited time and connections but enough money to make it happen. Doctor's, Lawyers, Investors, etc, etc, etc.
The state's should cover my lost wages while I'm managing their animals.
The WY wilderness rule is unconstitutional and if anybody with deep pockets ever goes all in on it, it won't survive...
Agree elkman same goes with PA ban on Sunday hunting. Both are mind bogglingly stupid and $$$ is so key to court challenges. I think the discriminatory outfitter tag allocations, to the extent those tags are for public land, is even simpler to attack.
"The attached link shows some good stats when it comes to license sold and dollars. It doesn’t cover a states total revenue though. Wyoming gets almost 3 times the money from NR as it does from residents. Colorado is even higher."
Well, that's pretty telling Michael. Sounds like some of the whining might not have been so off base.
Sorry Elkman, but you're wrong about that because it has been in Federal Court and it was ruled that because the individual states control the hunting and fishing within their state they can do whatever they want and don't even have to issue a single license to a NR if they so choose!
If states can do whatever they want can we have wolf hunting in michigan?
I cant help but wonder can a outfitter (guide seevice) hire a guide’s that is a NR? Does the law in the states that require a guide prohibit this?
I'll bet that Alaska gets the vast majority of their dollars from NR's. Residents pay for a fishing and hunting license and that's it. Nearly all harvest tickets are free to residents, yes I said free!
A non-resident is paying $1000 for a moose tag and the same tag is free for a resident. Goat tags are free, sheep tags are free. Only in rare cases are there fees for some brown bear and musk ox hunts and at that, their very cheap.
In the state of Alaska, I'll bet money that Non-residents contribute more license/tag dollars than residents.
Wolves have been shoved up the state’s keisters from the feds using the endangered species act to exert control.
Most states that have them don’t want them because they reduce revenue generation and cost the states money to manage.
You can work as a guide in a state that you are not a resident of.
Wonder what the rules would be in Wyoming or Alaska if you were a licensed guide in that state and a nonresident? Anyone know how that one works out? Or Canadian Provinces for that matter.
Mossyhorn, per my link Alaska gets 1.6 million dollars more from NR then residents.
Interesting a NR hunter being guided by a NR Guide.
Wow, that looks like a lot more then 50%.
"Well, that's pretty telling Michael. Sounds like some of the whining might not have been so off base."
Another way to interpret that is people who are prone to whining also tend to be bad at math. ;-)
I couldn't find specifics on the WY G&F budget, but quick math based on some budget data I could find (2018 budget cut of $4.6MM represented 6.5% of the total budget) has the total 2018 budget at $70.8MM. $24.6MM in total NR license/tag fees translates to 26% of the total budget.
But all that is beside the point and only serve to confuse the issue. Under the public trust doctrine, the wildlife that lives within a state is managed by that state for the benefit of its residents - not for the benefit of whomever pays a majority of license/tag fees. The status of the land on which the wildlife lives (e.g. privately owned, state-owned, federally owned) is likewise not relevant.
But, as I had intimated in my initial post, folks will obfuscate the issue by suggesting they are in order to justify standing.
From: Factory rat 15-Apr-18 If states can do whatever they want can we have wolf hunting in michigan?
We could if they still weren't listed by the Feds under the ESA (Endangered Species Act). Every time the Feds (USFWS) try to delist wolves in an area the anti nuts find a liberal Judge, politics prevail, and they rule in their favor. That's where we're at right now with wolves in MN, WIS, and MI. They are finally delisted and being hunted in the three western states where their numbers are the greatest (WY, MT, and ID) and each controls the hunting and will as long as they don't go below the agreed upon numbers when they were delisted. The only other thing I can think of that the states have to work with the Feds on is migratory waterfowl. The states control the hunting, but have to work with the USFWS on length of seasons, how many birds should be taken, etc.
:^)
I know the angle you are looking at this on Matt. Can't say that I disagree. Just felt like picking a bit
Have guided in WY for quite a while. Never been a resident. You can't forbid people from working jobs in your state based on residency. My license is a lot more than residents.
If you could, AK would not have all the TX and OK guys working at Deadhorse.
I understand what your saying top gun. Trust me I live with the wolf issue. I have a place in the u.p. My post was in response to treelines post that the feds don't get involved in the states wildlife. In this case they do
How about this. In BC, the Guide Outfitter's Ass. of BC (GOABC) quietly slipped in changes with the previous provincial government. It used to be you had to be a BC resident to hold a Guide/Outfitter tenure. They got changes that allow a Holder to sell to foreigners and use non-resident guides. All this to increase the monetary value of the tenures.
So now we actually have tenures owned by Europeans, guide certificate held by an American and all guides from Germany, Australia and New Zealand. Keep in mind that many of the guides only got to the camp and area, for the first time ever, a few weeks before you. And then the GOABC has the gall to suggest that a seasoned hunter from south of border isn't capable of the challenging terrain and we'd have to rescue them all.
But in theory, and it has been done, you and a buddy can come up, each take the two day course to get a guides licence, buy tags from an outfitter and "cross-guide" each other.
Starting tomorrow you can only visit Arlington National Cemetery if you pay a guide, unless you are a Virginia resident. Lot of poor people in NoVA need JOBS. That would go over well. It's a feasible scenario....if American style democracy has taught us anything it's that unionized efforts can achieve about anything.
It come down to lobbying being used as investment. Pay off enough politicians and if you lobbied for the the correct regulations or subsidy then you can recoup your investments in with dividends attached. How anyone that claims to be free market minded can think this is good practice is beyond me.
I agree you can’t force an industry to hire residents, but you could incentivize them. Outfitter license tripled for those who don’t hire resident guides. Or just finally do away with the guide requirement in the first place and move it to draw state wide for those species. The state would make WAY more money off the resource this way.
"...the Wyoming law really chaps my ass on principle..."
The NM outfitter pool chaps mine.
It is ridiculous that our government would essentially subsidize an entire industry. And even more ridiculous an entire industry would have no issue being on welfare ... JMO
Elkman, it’s unfortunate, but it seems that no matter who you put on welfare, they’ll be willing to take the money and then holler once anyone threatens to take that money away.
Elkman, the Federal govt had been heavily subsidizing farmers since the 1920's. Higher taxes for a lower grocery bill. Not to mention tarriffs which are the flavor of the month for the current clown show and just subsidies by another name.
Tavis,
I know a Master Guide in the Alaska range who lives in the Gila.
