# Non-Resident restrictions National Forest



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Texbow59 said:


> It seems that it's getting harder and harder to hunt out west unless your a resident. I can understand state owned land but National Forest should be equally available to all tax payers who choose to hunt. I think it's unfair to favor residents on National owned land. Colorado is getting out of hand.
> 
> Any thoughts or views?


I have a few thoughts on the matter, and I must say this appears to be yet another attempt to curb hunter access, especially to public lands, Federal or State.

Have you seen any legislative alerts concerning use of these public lands? If not, I would recommend you perform a few bill searches on your State Legislature web site, and find out.

On the Federal level, many millions of acres have been opened up for hunting across our Nation. However, I do believe the Feds left it up to each State as to who can access and how to enforce. Although I do believe that every American citizen has the right to use any and all public (Federal) lands, enforcement of the game laws falls to each State (unless its waterfowl and other migratory birds) and therefore the right of control should fall on each State, so long as they are not restricting access to hunters, trapper, anglers trail riders, etc.

Check on the recent statutes. Let me know what you find out. Also, you may wish to speak with your State's Conservation Council/ Federation/ Union, etc. and see what they are doing to address this issue.


----------



## Texbow59 (Nov 30, 2004)

*Access*

I think the problem is providing access to residents and restricting access to non residents. An elk cannot tell the difference between a resident and non resident. If they are going to let 100 hunters into a unit, it should be allocated out fairly. Not weighted towards residents.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Texbow59 said:


> I think the problem is providing access to residents and restricting access to non residents. An elk cannot tell the difference between a resident and non resident. If they are going to let 100 hunters into a unit, it should be allocated out fairly. Not weighted towards residents.


I understand where you'r coming from now, and you are correct in the view of National lands should be public to all citizens of the US, not jaded to the residents of the State the National land in question resides in. I gotcha. Agreed.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Residents should receive preferential treatment with respect to hunting in their home state. If you wish to be treated the same as a resident of Colorado, there's a simple solution...move there. I'm not trying to sound rude, but the people who actually live there should get first dibs, so to speak, at the resource they pay for and "own".

Besides, there are millions of acres of federal and state land in CO that NR's can hunt for the price of an unlimited OTC tag. Where else out west can you say that? Personally, I'm thankful to Colorado for being as gracious to NR hunters as they are.


----------



## bow weevil (Oct 31, 2005)

doctariAFC said:


> I understand where you'r coming from now, and you are correct in the view of National lands should be public to all citizens of the US, not jaded to the residents of the State the National land in question resides in. I gotcha. Agreed.


I am not sure about other states, but Here in CA not only is it the fishing and hunting license purchases that go toward fish and game management, but all of the sales tax from any fishing or hunting related product. So basically, we are paying to maintain wildlife populations throuout the year, where someone coming to hunt for a week doesn't kick in his "fair share". 

I can certainly understand Tex & doc's point of view, and I am sure there is a better way, but I probably supply at least a grand in sales tax for what I purchase per year on hunting and fishing gear. So I could say that each deer costs me about a grand in sales tax, thirty something for my license, and 27 for the deer tag bringing the total cost (very roughly) 1,057 dollars. I think that maybe out of state hunters should have to pay more to make up for this.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Typically, resident licenses are far less costly than non-resident licenses. Although I cannot speak for other states, a combo small/ big game hunting license for a NY resident (firearms only, not the additional bowhunting) is a whopping $19.00 for the season. Non-residents cannot purchase this type of combo license, rather they can buy a big game license for $110.00, or purchase the small game as well for an additional $55.00.

Fishing licenses - res and non-res 1 day are equal at $15.00
7 day Fishing - res - $12.00, non-res = $25.00
Season Fishing - res $19.00, non-res - $40.00

From what I understand, NY offers some of the "cheapest" non-resident sporting licenses in the Nation, so I do not believe the issue is "paying their fair share". State lands, I agree, Federal lands, I disagree. We all pay federal taxes, and we are all entitled to access these federal lands.

For addition information, please view the license pricing in NY by following the link below:

http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/license/sportlic.pdf


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

> We all pay federal taxes, and we are all entitled to access these federal lands.


We all already have access to these federal lands. "Access" isn't the issue here.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

J. Wesbrock said:


> We all already have access to these federal lands. "Access" isn't the issue here.


If one cannot hunt these Federal Lands due to resident status in a particular State, I would disagree. If you are from a foreign country, that's a different matter. However, this is Federal Land. In other words, property of the United States of America. Unless you are not a citizen of the United States, hunters should access these lands to hunt them. State lands are a different matter, but Federal, by meaning, is public for all US citizens, is it not?


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

bow weevil said:


> I am not sure about other states, but Here in CA not only is it the fishing and hunting license purchases that go toward fish and game management, but all of the sales tax from any fishing or hunting related product. So basically, we are paying to maintain wildlife populations throuout the year, where someone coming to hunt for a week doesn't kick in his "fair share".
> 
> I can certainly understand Tex & doc's point of view, and I am sure there is a better way, but I probably supply at least a grand in sales tax for what I purchase per year on hunting and fishing gear. So I could say that each deer costs me about a grand in sales tax, thirty something for my license, and 27 for the deer tag bringing the total cost (very roughly) 1,057 dollars. I think that maybe out of state hunters should have to pay more to make up for this.


Robinson Pittman Act. Applies across all 50 States, I do believe. Check your own State's license fee structures. Are resident and non-resident licenses priced the same, or do non-residents pay a higher fee. Your question gets answered there.


----------



## bow weevil (Oct 31, 2005)

doctariAFC said:


> Robinson Pittman Act. Applies across all 50 States, I do believe. Check your own State's license fee structures. Are resident and non-resident licenses priced the same, or do non-residents pay a higher fee. Your question gets answered there.


Non residents pay a higher fee. My point is only that if Residents are paying sales taxes year round to improve hunting and fishing, why not charge a higher rate to the people that aren't. 

like I said in my first post, I am sure there is a better way, but allowing out of state residents to pay the same fees would cost local residents more once you figure in sales tax.

I will check out the robinson pittman act after I return from lunch.:thumbs_up


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Please show me one single acre of federal land that you are not allowed to access solely based upon your state of residence. Once again, "access" isn't the issue here.

The issue here isn't whether or not people can access land, but about who gets to hunt the animals on that land. And those animals are a resource owned and managed by the state. So preferential treatment regarding the use of that resource should and mostly does go toward the residents of that state. Those residents fund the resource and the agencies entrusted with its care. It's their game, and I for one am thankful for whatever oportunity they give me to play along.

But again, we always have a simple solution for those wanting the same privledges as residents of a given state...move there.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

J. Wesbrock said:


> Please show me one single acre of federal land that you are not allowed to access solely based upon your state of residence. Once again, "access" isn't the issue here.


We are talking about accessing a lands for a specific purpose, aren't we? Or is this thread not indicating that. Access, or walking around looking at the trees is not what we are discussing. We are talking about preventing American Citizens from HUNTING Federal Lands due to their status as non-residents of the STATE the lands are in.

That is an access issue. Or, should I be more clear, hunting access issue.... If I wasn't clear, I apologize.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

bow weevil said:


> Non residents pay a higher fee. My point is only that if Residents are paying sales taxes year round to improve hunting and fishing, why not charge a higher rate to the people that aren't.
> 
> like I said in my first post, I am sure there is a better way, but allowing out of state residents to pay the same fees would cost local residents more once you figure in sales tax.
> 
> I will check out the robinson pittman act after I return from lunch.:thumbs_up


Cool. Although portions of State sales taxes on huting equipment, et. al, get funneled into the relative State's Conservation Fund, a portion of the SALE of this equipment gets funneled into the National Conservation Fund. I believe.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

bow weevil said:


> Non residents pay a higher fee. My point is only that if Residents are paying sales taxes year round to improve hunting and fishing, why not charge a higher rate to the people that aren't.
> 
> like I said in my first post, I am sure there is a better way, but allowing out of state residents to pay the same fees would cost local residents more once you figure in sales tax.
> 
> I will check out the robinson pittman act after I return from lunch.:thumbs_up


The actual title of the law is the *Pittman Robinson Wildlife Restoration Act*. Robinson Pittman deals with Duck Stamp. This is a National Law, not simply state by state.

I do understand your concerns regarding the sales tax and the like. However, do some math and try to calculate out whether you think the difference in license fees would be lesser, equal to, or greater than the sales tax potentially paid during a year in your state on hunting equipment. If the average hunter spends $1300.00 per year, and the sales tax rate is 10%, that means $130.00 is spent in sales tax (I have backed out $56.00 for the license spend in their home state.) What is the difference in price between res and non-res. Is this an equitable variance?


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

> We are talking about preventing American Citizens from HUNTING Federal Lands due to their status as non-residents of the STATE the lands are in.


No...

We are talking about regulating American citizens' consumption of state-owned and managed resources due to their status as non-residents of the state the resources are in.

It's about the resource, not the land, because you're free to access the land itself whenever you like. Right? Thanks.


----------



## Duke12 (Jun 24, 2004)

I am a Louisiana Resident and hunt in Mississippi. I have hunted the national forest there. My beef is that as a non resident I can't shoot a doe in Mississippi unless I own or lease the land. I guess since they own the deer they can do that but I think it bites especially since I pay $400 to hunt there


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Duke12 said:


> I am a Louisiana Resident and hunt in Mississippi. I have hunted the national forest there. My beef is that as a non resident I can't shoot a doe in Mississippi unless I own or lease the land. I guess since they own the deer they can do that but I think it bites especially since I pay $400 to hunt there


And we wonder why hunting is taking a beating in participation Nationally.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

J. Wesbrock said:


> No...
> 
> We are talking about regulating American citizens' consumption of state-owned and managed resources due to their status as non-residents of the state the resources are in.
> 
> It's about the resource, not the land, because you're free to access the land itself whenever you like. Right? Thanks.


Those are good points, and at the same time shows a definitive inequity when it comes to Federal Lands. Although I can certainly understand the perspective of a State paying for the management of the resources contained on these lands within their borders, the cost of this management and enforcement of game laws is partially paid for through higher non-resident license fees and through a portion of the Federal Conservation Fund, under the Wildlife Restoration Act. Some states restrict a non-res hunter's ability to hunt, while others do not. Examples of this are pointed out in the post by Duke12. He is not a resident of Mississippi, yet hunts there, and cannot secure a doe permit unless he spends his lungs out on land purchase or lease. Non-resident hunters in NY are entitled to apply to receive a doe permit, just like residents may, and if the non-res purchases a non-res Super Sportsman's License, the application is Free. Otherwise, they may apply along with a fee of $10.00. Inequities and differences state by state. These exist, and that's what we have to contend with, in accordance of how our Nation governs. 

My best advice to those sportsmen who are caught in the inequity scenarios to contact US SPortsmen and go from there. Ultimately, each State has the final say as to what the rules are regarding hunting within their borders (with the exception of Migratory Waterfowl, where seasons are set and dictated by USF&W,) and you will need to work within the framework of the State Conservation Councils and County Federations to accomplish any change, as you will need their support to get anything considered and passed.


----------



## slinger09 (Oct 11, 2004)

[
Besides, there are millions of acres of federal and state land in CO that NR's can hunt for the price of an unlimited OTC tag. Where else out west can you say that? Personally, I'm thankful to Colorado for being as gracious to NR hunters as they are.[/QUOTE]
So non-residents fund 70 percent of the wildlife budget in Colorado and in exchange we get to hunt a bunch of over crowed OTC land? Having trouble seeing the fairness. Now residents in Colorado have raised cain and in 06 nonresidents will receive even fewer limited entry tags. We pay for the federal land and majority of wildlife funds and the enjoy all the hunting.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Give some people an inch and the whine about deserving a mile. Show me one other western state where NR's can hunt millions of acres of public land on unlimited OTC elk tags. Are there any other states that allow such things?



> So non-residents fund 70 percent of the wildlife budget in Colorado...


Could you please provide a source for that claim?


----------



## swivelhead (Apr 6, 2004)

The recently enacted Reid bill addresses states rights pertaining to hunting federal lands within state boundaries. In essence, states can do what they please. Most currently allow NR hunters.


----------



## txhunter58 (Jan 8, 2005)

Quote:
So non-residents fund 70 percent of the wildlife budget in Colorado... 


Could you please provide a source for that claim?

Try the Colorado division of wildlife website. Nonresidents do provide close to 70% of the revenue that the DOW takes in for hunting licenses. You can look it up.

Fact: All american citizens have equal access to federal lands.

Fact: Legally, the state owns the wildlife within its boundaries, not the federal government and therefore gets to decide how the tags are split up.

Fact: The national Congress has just passed a law that pretty much gives the states the authority to discriminate agasinst Nonresidents in tag numbers.


I do believe that residents should have a bigger share of the licenses than nonresidents. I think that anyone living in a Western state, including those of us complaining would think the same thing if we moved there. On the other hand, to limiting our tags severely and then charging big fees so that we pay 70% of the budget in spite of getting less tags seems to me to be somewhat unfair.

At least with limiting our numbers hopefully the big rises in fees will slow down. If we truly had equal access to the tags, they would simply raise prices to limit us. How many of us could afford it at $1500 or more for an elk tag? Not me.


----------



## Texbow59 (Nov 30, 2004)

*Non Resident*

I'm not of the opinion that the state owns the resources (game animals). I think the state is trusted to manage the resources within their borders. I even think that the game management in Colorado has improved but I still do not feel that residents should get substantial access over non- residents. My federal tax dollars are still assisting Colorado with those National Forest.

Think outside the box a little. If you were born in Colorado, all your family is there but you have been transfered with your work. As a non resident you now have to take a back seat. It could become difficult to draw a decent tag, and just look at the decrease in OTC tags for elk. Yes you can get them still but not in the good units. As far as deer, no OTC.

I've hunted Colorado since 1976, love it. The DNR needs to manage the game and not have a voice in who gets to hunt those game animals. I can understand restricting the ability of those with excess cash in their pocket to dominate a hunting area, allowing equal hunting access to those that do not have deep pockets but restricting non residents is not the answer. 

If I live in Texas all my life and move to Colorado this spring, why should that give me an advantage over someone who was born in Colorado but found it necessary to relocate out of state? 

The state controls the natural resources like coal, oil and natural gas on BLM land but you can bet that the Feds have control of those resources on federal land. I just think no one has pushed this issue high enough in the courts. I really don't have a bone to pick with Colorado, I just know the state well and use it as an example. I think other western states are doing the same thing. I recall something about US Outfitters sueing Arizona over this issue.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

> > > So non-residents fund 70 percent of the wildlife budget in Colorado...
> >
> >
> >
> ...


70% of the funds they take in for hunting licenses is hardly the same as 70% of the entire wildlife budget. Hunting license sales are only *one* part of the total funding for states' wildlife budgets. So I'm still waiting for that source...


----------



## txhunter58 (Jan 8, 2005)

"I'm not of the opinion that the state owns the resources (game animals)."

Texbow: Unfortunately, your and my opinion as Texans is not what counts. It is a fact that the law is written the other way. The state owns the wildlife within its boundaries. That is the law.

Think of it another way. I own land in Texas and provide year round habitat for whitetail deer, turkeys, etc. However, I don't get to decide who gets tags for the deer on my property. They are not my deer, they are "owned" by the state of Texas (i. e. the people of Texas).

J: I am not sure if nonresidents provide 70% of the total wildlife budget or not. They do provide 70% of the license revenue budget though. However, most of the other funds other than licesne fees come from the federal budget, so that money is probably weighted more than 70% from nonresidents. This info has been printed many times, and should be out there for you to find, but I will try and track you down a source.

Also, as I understand it, the DOW doesn't get any general money taken in from the state. In other words, they don't get any money from property taxes, income taxes, sales tax, etc. Therefore, the Colorado residents don't contribute to the wildlife fund except through hunting/fishing licenses, etc.


----------



## txhunter58 (Jan 8, 2005)

Here is a link that shows a breakdown of the DOW budget: http://wildlife.state.co.us/AnnualReport/2003/report.pdf 

2003 is the latest data they show. I realize this doesn't break it down by res/nonres. I will try and find the data that shows how much of the license revenue comes from nonresidents.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

The law defining "ownership" of wildlife is one of arrogance and mental ******ation, IMO. This conceivably opens a can of worms, doesn't it? Think about it. As a car owner, if I cause an accident with my vehicle, am I not liable for the damages? Am I not vulnerable to lawsuits?

Once ownership is defined (in this case, game animals) doesn't this then define a responsibility for this "property"? Does this mean that in each State, the game animals are therefore property of each state and any damage caused by the State's property (be it damage to cars, landscaping, agricultural crops, etc.) become the liability of each State?

Let's take it a step further. Individuals who own pets are responsible and liable for any damage caused by their pets to other people's property or persons. If I own a pit bull and the dog tears up a neighbor, am I not held responsible for these damagae?


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

txhunter58,

Interesting data. It states that 70% of the total wildlife budget is from lisence sales, but shows no breakdown of resident versus nonresident. 

What's also interesting is that Colorado seems to be the most friendly western state for NR's to hunt, but they also seem to catch the most flack from NR over not catering to them enough. It's kind of like having only one neighbor on the block who's happy to invite you over for a cookout, and then whining that the burgers aren't big enough.


----------



## Texbow59 (Nov 30, 2004)

*Non Resident*

My issue is tag allocation. Tag allocation is not game management, it's political. Regardless of how well you think your being treated by one state in comparision to other states, the ability of a non resident to hunt federal lands in western states has been reduced and continues that trend.

I guess the next thing will be allocation to only native colorado residents, then only those who make more then 100K a year and then only those who are white. 

I just don't understand how game management has anything to do with whom can obtain the tags. A hundred tags are just that. It should be equal and fair at least on federal land.

Why do we not see this problem in the east?


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Texbow59,



> My issue is tag allocation. Tag allocation is not game management, it's political.


Game management decisions are often made for a variety of reasons: biological, political, social etc. Otherwise, conservation departments would just open up one big free-for-all hunting season and only allocate sufficient tags to kill the appropriate number of animals. 

Bowhunting seasons in and of themselves are a perfect example of this. If a game department needs, for example, 10,000 animals killed, what's the difference if they die from a bullet or an arrow? 



> Regardless of how well you think your being treated by one state in comparision to other states, the ability of a non resident to hunt federal lands in western states has been reduced and continues that trend.


Well, you can always move west...



> I guess the next thing will be allocation to only native colorado residents, then only those who make more then 100K a year and then only those who are white.


Nothing like blowing things *WAY* out of perportion.



> I just don't understand how game management has anything to do with whom can obtain the tags. A hundred tags are just that. It should be equal and fair at least on federal land.


Asked and answered.



> Why do we not see this problem in the east?


Probably because, with very few exceptions, there are no huntable populations of wild elk, mule deer, blacktail deer, sheep, mountain goats, bison or mountain lion "in the east". It's a simple case of supply and demand. 

Last September I was buying my CO elk tag at the Wal*Mart in Silt. When the lady behind the counter gave me the total, I jokingly said something along the lines of "ouch". Her response, equally friendly by the way, was that I could always hunt elk in Illinois.

Point taken.


----------



## Texbow59 (Nov 30, 2004)

*Non Resident*

The difference between bowhunting tags and general tags from a game managers view is success rates. I think everyone understands this. Take the number of archery tags, now how do you decide who gets them? Who decides? A game biologist? State officals, who. This I question.

Some are asked to bend over more and more each year, some end up enjoy being bent over, smile back and continue to go back for more, some question the trend. 

I know my example was extreme, trying to get a point across. I need someone to provide me with the logic behind the allocation. I don't buy into the "you have to move there" to have equal access to those decided number of tags. Is the logic, native born, native rights? State taxes collected that contribute to wildlife management that non residents do not pay? I once seen some financial data provided by small business owners showing the economic impact that non resident hunters provided to the state. Non residents stop hunting and the state suffers.

I know a little about the west, I lived in Washington State for 3 years and Idaho for 7. I never felt that I should have a stronger advantage then other hunters from out of state. The real funny thing about this debate is that I will be relocating to Denver within the next two months if I accept a new position, and I most likely will. One thing is for sure, I will not lobby for the ability to have an advantage over non resident hunters. It's not right.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Texbow59 said:


> The difference between bowhunting tags and general tags from a game managers view is success rates. I think everyone understands this. Take the number of archery tags, now how do you decide who gets them? Who decides? A game biologist? State officals, who. This I question.
> 
> Some are asked to bend over more and more each year, some end up enjoy being bent over, smile back and continue to go back for more, some question the trend.
> 
> ...


On Federal Lands, I agree with you. ON State Lands, I do not necessarily agree with you. Since NYS has no tag allocation rules, beyond DMPs and the lottery to get these (have the same chance res or non-res, unless landowner or you have preference points). 

Tag allocation may be the responsible thing to do for game whose numbers are low, and managed by stricter control of the population. Look at it this way, if you have a small population, but you know you want X number of animals harvested, and the success rate per hunters is, say, 25%, then you can reasonably project that, if you want 100 animals culled from the herd, 400 permits must be issued. 

How to allocate these becomes the rub, and we should look at the resident vs non-resident license sales in that state. In NY big game hunting is 87% resident, 13% non-resident. Since the majority of hunters in NYS are resident, demand for the tags will be higher from residents. You can effectively distribute the tags you desire to issue through these ranks, rathern that hope the non-res numbers and applications can fill additional tab issuance goals. Further, this is a business decision. Do we piss off 87% of the hunters, or 13% of the hunters? You make the decision.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Texbow59,



> The difference between bowhunting tags and general tags from a game managers view is success rates. I think everyone understands this.


You either missed the point or I wasn't very clear. Your line of thinking was that a dead animal is a dead animal and it shouldn't matter for game management purposes whether it was killed by a resident or nonresident. And my response was that along those same lines, it wouldn't matter if that dead animal was killed by an arrow or a bullet. Dead is dead, and so long as the necessary number of animals are killed what's the difference?

As bowhunters, we seem to like game management decisions that are based on social concerns (i.e. weapon-specific seasons) so long as they work to our benefit. But as soon as one comes down the pike we don't like, all of a sudden we demand a biological justification?



> Take the number of archery tags, now how do you decide who gets them? Who decides? A game biologist? State officals, who. This I question.


Have you contacted the CDOW with those questions? It would seem logical to go straight to the source. I'm guessing those decisions aren't made right here on ArcheryTalk.com.



> Some are asked to bend over more and more each year, some end up enjoy being bent over, smile back and continue to go back for more, some question the trend.


Some realize they are guests in nonresident states and act accordingly. Others think it's acceptable to walk into their neighbor's house and start criticizing the furniture.



> I know my example was extreme, trying to get a point across. I need someone to provide me with the logic behind the allocation.


It's very simple actually. Residents should receive preferential treatment with respect to consumption of state-owned and managed resources. Not much more to it than that.


----------



## Texbow59 (Nov 30, 2004)

*Disagree*

I'm not walking into my neighbors house, I'm walking onto federal lands that my tax dollars support and expect to be treated the same as all tax payers regardless of which state they happen to reside in.

We all equally pay the price of admission but some can only enjoy the show from the cheap seats or once every few years. 

I would rather see tags allocated out fairly. Not the case today. I would even go so far as to agree that residents should be protected from hordes of out of staters coming in and pushing them out just because they can or are willing to pay more. The key is a fair allocation. As far as I know, residents do not provide one dollar more to the management of elk that reside on national forest then non residents. It most likely is the other direction. The current process is political. It's an attempt to protect hunter access for residents over non residents. Some would say, if I pay more then I should get more. If residents are paying more then non residents then I would like to see the data. Game managers are trying to satisfy residents and that effort has nothing to do with game managment.

I suspect we will have to agree to disagree. I'm a fair minded person but I'm not a bend over and enjoy kind of person. The non residents ability to hunt out west has deminished over the past several years. I know, I've hunted out west for over 25 years. This is not an all of a sudden issue. Cost has increased, not a problem, I can understand that fact. 

When a state agency tries to limit hunting, like bear hunting in NJ or many other simular situations, hunters across the country stand up and voice their concerns, we all have a stake in these decisions and I view hunter access out west in the same light.


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

> I'm not walking into my neighbors house, I'm walking onto federal lands that my tax dollars support and expect to be treated the same as all tax payers regardless of which state they happen to reside in.


The problem is that the resource you want to consume is owned and managed by the state. And since you're not a resident of the state you're not entitled to resident privledges. It's just that simple really.



> We all equally pay the price of admission but some can only enjoy the show from the cheap seats or once every few years.


Sure, and you're free to come in and pull up a chair. You may have already paid for the movie, but the popcorn's extra. :moviecorn


----------



## Mouflon (Dec 3, 2005)

As was feared, since the adoption of the Reid Ammendment, which leagalized discrimination against out-of-state hunters through higher fees, lower tag numbers and exclusive permits, the rate of exclusion by some states has grown exponentially.

The number of nonresident hunters outnumbers the number of resident hunters in any two states. Nonresidents number two million per year, which is one out of every seven licensed hunters per annum. Yet their voice was ignored in favor of party politics on the local level, trying to protect local interests at the expense of local hunters who ultimately will be prevented from accessing their neighboring states hunting grounds as the license fee war escalates.

For anyone who has had the privelage of hunting the wide-open big country, you will know what you are going to miss when you are confined to your own backyard.

Our game animals are national resources, and they need the protection of hunters nationwide, through reasonable access and tag fees. This war among the States is a dream scenario for the Antis as they "prove" that we can not manage our own resources effectively.

Teddy Roosevelt should be rolling in his grave. I hardly think we would have the precious hunting legacy we do today if he had been restricted from accessing our nation's treasure of game - the game that was and is still spread accross all 50 states, for us all to enjoy.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Mouflon said:


> As was feared, since the adoption of the Reid Ammendment, which leagalized discrimination against out-of-state hunters through higher fees, lower tag numbers and exclusive permits, the rate of exclusion by some states has grown exponentially.
> 
> The number of nonresident hunters outnumbers the number of resident hunters in any two states. Nonresidents number two million per year, which is one out of every seven licensed hunters per annum. Yet their voice was ignored in favor of party politics on the local level, trying to protect local interests at the expense of local hunters who ultimately will be prevented from accessing their neighboring states hunting grounds as the license fee war escalates.
> 
> ...


:beer: :beer: :beer:


----------



## vermonster13 (Sep 18, 2004)

I don't know of any states that do fish and game management with state taxes. The money comes from licenses, federal taxes, grants and donations. Hunters pay for 95% of all wildlife management in most states. Supply and demand is a driving factor in western permit prices as well as home politics. Small population western states do receive a large percentage of their wildlife budgets from nr and many of the nr never even hunt there period (federal taxes paid out compared to collected). Most residents dislike nr hunters, but they generate huge revenues for the states, guide fees, lodging, food etc, many jobs are generated by nr hunters for many states. A careful balance needs to be maintained, hunter recruitment is horrible as it is and the pricier it gets to hunt the lower the recruitment. I would hate the U.S. to become like Europe in concern to hunting. If you're not wealthy your opportunities are very limited there.


----------

