Nonresident hunters rights

[bowedark]

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 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.

 

[elks96]

Don't like it move to the state where you want to hunt... Resident have the upper hand and will always have the upper hand. Sorry!

 

[bowedark]

Not possible to be a resident in all 50 states.

 

[txhunter58]

Like it or not, the state OWNS the animals that reside there. They own them and they get to set the rules. The only vote we have is our wallets. The fact that we provide 70% of their budgets is why they still allow us any tags. But states like Montana went too far with price hikes and now they can't even sell all the nonresident tags. So if you have enough money, you can go to Montana every year! Won't see me there though

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[HornedToad]

This is a common mischaracterization of the law. Under the law, America's wildlife belongs to the PEOPLE. The law then grants the states stewardship rights to manage the wildlife within their borders. This stewardship right can then be applied so one-sidedly that it feels to some as though the state OWNS the wildlife in its borders.

Unfortunately, if you want to start a war on MM, all you have to do is to press this subject, particularly when it comes to hunting the PEOPLE'S wildlife on Federal land, which belongs to all the PEOPLE. Of all uses on Federal land, the only use that currently experiences a state residency preference is hunting. Imagine if the state of Wyoming applied a residency quota on visits to Old Faithful. Or if Arizona restricted all non-resident users of the Grand Canyon to a maximum of 10%. The PEOPLE would be outraged.

For my part, when the day comes that some greedy groups try to restrict all hunting of wildlife on federal land in their state to residents only, that will be the day I support disallowing any hunting on any federal land in that state, just as is currently applied in the National Parks.

This will be my only post on this subject, as I am sure this will provoke the haters into repeating that their states OWN the wildlife, and that non-residents hunters should be grateful to receive any quota, no matter how small. I have lived in a Western state, and still own property in that state. I believe it would be in the best interest of all concerned with hunting rights in the Western states, in the face of increasing anti-hunting pressure, to have a reasonable and mutually respectful discussion of this matter, but unfortunately, that has never been the case on the MM forum.

'nuff said

HT

 

[Grizz]

Unfortunately as hunting demands increase so the does the battle for access to those scarce resources. We have seen the rise of many special interest groups that ultimately have a self-interest component invested regardless of their claims to improve habitat, pay for research and so forth. Bottom line, money talks in a political system that is driven by economics. The loser has been the everyday DIY hunter. Generally the DIY doesn't engage in the political and barter side of the process. They work hard and play hard. They expect fairness and transparency. Boy have they been disappointed with the mismanagement & graft in the whole process. I can certainly relate with the non-resident who pays out the nose for the scraps. They rightfully pay for Federal resources and should have a fair shot at participation. Solutions............................. well that long pause is just that. Few solutions when your not part of the money changers. Even though I care deeply about the hunting tradition and the great outdoors, and even though they say my vote and voice counts..... I no longer count. It's about money. It boils down to this on both a State and National level. Big money has bought big government. When the Supreme Court ruled for the Citizen's United act which gave corporations citizen status, I knew it was all over.

 

[txhunter58]

>This is a common mischaracterization of
>the law. Under the law,
>America's wildlife belongs to the
>PEOPLE. The law then grants
>the states stewardship rights to
>manage the wildlife within their
>borders. This stewardship right can
>then be applied so one-sidedly
>that it feels to some
>as though the state OWNS
>the wildlife in its borders.
>
>
>Unfortunately, if you want to start
>a war on MM, all
>you have to do is
>to press this subject, particularly
>when it comes to hunting
>the PEOPLE'S wildlife on Federal
>land, which belongs to all
>the PEOPLE. Of all uses
>on Federal land, the only
>use that currently experiences a
>state residency preference is hunting.
>Imagine if the state of
>Wyoming applied a residency quota
>on visits to Old Faithful.
>Or if Arizona restricted all
>non-resident users of the Grand
>Canyon to a maximum of
>10%. The PEOPLE would be
>outraged.
>

>
>HT

Thanks for correcting me on semantics. Yes, the people own the animals (not the state), but legally you are not correct to say that we the people of all 50 states own the wildlife. Legally the PEOPLE of THAT STATE own the animals that reside there and the state regulates "taking" of the animals.

Unfortunately, legally, your examples of old faithful or the grand canyon don't have legal footholds either. In those examples, we are only allowed access to federal lands/parks. We are not taking anything that belongs to the state. So legally, they can't restrict us from accessing the lands with quotas, only "taking" something. Not sure if that term is really the proper legal jargon, but you get my dift.

Yes, we the people of the 50 states own federal lands, but the people of that state own the wildlife, regardless of if we wish it were otherwise. Just like a guy who owns a 50,000 acre ranch within that state doesn't own the wildlife on his ranch and can't set the quotas or seasons.

Again, as stated, it all comes down to money. The states want our license money and our tourism dollars. They have to come up with a happy medium that the game commission can live with (licnese moneys), the business owners can live with, and the hunters of that state live with. Not an easy job.

The biggest threat to nonresidents as I see it is not quotas but pricing. States like Montana allow their reisdents to buy over the counter tags while raising nonresidents pricing to the point that regular guys are priced out of the market. I fear other states will continue to follow that course. Even states like Colorado, who is arguably nonresident friendly quota wise, has an automatic price increase every year while residents sit pat.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[sageadvice]

HToad, one of the best replies i've ever heard on the subject. Thanks!!

Grizz, Scraps? The only state that has only scraps for non-res guys is Utah that i know of and this isn't a Utah specific thread. Unless you can draw like Marley or have 20 points... i gave up on Utah years ago and glad of it!

The States i hunt seem to care. For the most part they do a good job. I understand the OP's concern but the Only Rights i need is a tag once in awhile and decent access to public land.

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"

 

[nontypical]

Anyone remember a guy named George Taulman? He brought up a lawsuit about this very subject....and lost. He is an outfitter based in New Mexico( I think), but hunts other states as well. His lawsuit was based on what HT posted; that our wildlife belongs to everyone in the U.S. If memory serves me, this went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Taulman's lawsuit, in my opinion, was based on personal greed as much as it was that he wanted "fairness" for nonresidents in other states.

If you guys are so worried about fairness on this issue, do something about it. You're right, Grizz- money talks, and bs walks. Money makes the world go 'round. Doesn't matter whether you like it or not.(not calling you out, Grizz, just sayin..)

I'm a nonresident in 49 states. It sucks to have to play the points game, or whatever rules apply in each state. Oh well.

Life ain't fair. Deal.

 

[HornedToad]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-24-13 AT 09:10AM (MST)[p]
I'm no fan of Taulman, but his lawsuit actually won in court. This prompted a group of Western states Senators to pass new legislation solidifying the rights of states to manage wildlife within their borders, including wildlife found on federal land, to the extent no superior federal law was in place. For example, the Arizona legislature has the right to regulate hunting on national forest and BLM land, but no right to override federal law to open the Grand Canyon to hunting. One of the reasons this legislation passed in the U.S. congress is that there was no effective lobbying effort opposing the bill. SCI had initially put out a statement calling for "fair" treatment of non-residents in the allocation of hunting resources on federal land, but quickly backed down when threatened with expulsion from its office in Arizona. To date, no group has sought to challenge the new law in court. Who wants to tilt at windmills?

The new legislation did not speak in any way to the "ownership" of wildlife, only to the process by which wildlife resources would be managed. If someone can find any reference to any law granting the states "ownership" of wildlife within their borders, as opposed to stewardship rights to manage that wildlife, I'd like to see a reference to the particular bill containing such language. Good luck.

And regarding the semantical splitting of hairs between "taking" and other uses of federal land, including trespass and viewing rights, the federal government retains the right to regulate all of these uses on federal land. There is no carve-out for the taking of wildlife. If the federal government wanted to ban access to federal public land for the purpose of hunting, it could do so, just as it does in the national parks. Now that would be an extreme measure, and a shame, but as we approach the point where access rights to hunt on federal land is effectively limited to a few of the people in this country, while denied to all others, then I will certainly have little reason to stand against that change. The greedy few will be on their own.

All right... two posts.

HT

 

[Zeke]

I'm sure we must all be talking about some special tag because there's always something to hunt.... somewhere and at a reasonable (whatever reasonable is) price.
Some guys whine about never getting a tag or that the youth will never draw a tag and to all this I say BS.
If a guy wants to hunt he can and will. Some of the special tags will never be within reach for everyone simply because there's way more demand than supply.
Since the States have stewardship for the animals I suspect you'll continue to see residents garner most of the tags and pay a much lower fee. While there are few things we can go to change the game at least we owe it to ourselve to learn to play.
We are all Americans but the 50 States have right too.
Zeke

 

[txhunter58]

Here is some light reading on the subject:

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arusfavrewildintro2003.htm

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[txhunter58]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-24-13 AT 10:20AM (MST)[p]And to be honest, do we really want the government in Washington telling us what we can and can't hunt? Same people who brought us wolves and obamacare???

Not me.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[Triple_BB]

LAST EDITED ON Nov-24-13 AT 11:16AM (MST)[p]"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."

Unless you can come up with an organization that would be more powerful than the resident voter, your money will be wasted.

Hunting is a privilege not a right. How states choose to manage their hunting laws is their business, not that of an outsider. If you disagree, hunt somewhere else or pick your favorite state and move there...

 

[Zeke]

>Here is some light reading on
>the subject:
>
>http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arusfavrewildintro2003.htm
>
>txhunter58


Quite an interesting and enlightening read. (kinda made my head hurt though)
We've ended up with a control system more like the English than the Romans. Thank goodness or we'd have very few animals left to even worry about.

I'll sum it up (from my perspective):
1)
The States "own" or more appropriately "control" the wildlife and as such can decide who, where, when and how we hunt. (and decide how much we pay too)
2)
The Federal government can trump State's power and come in and screw the whole thing up just like they do with everything else they touch. Period!

It's an interesting topic and one I've thought about often.

Zeke

 

[Zeke]

>
>And to be honest, do we
>really want the government in
>Washington telling us what we
>can and can't hunt?
>Same people who brought us
>wolves and obamacare???
>
>Not me.

+1
I can garuantee that there are tons more anti's working for the USFWS (feds) than there are at the State level.

The last thing we want is more Federal intrusion into our lives!

Gawd, I hope we never get all the Federal government that we pay for!!!!!

Zeke

 

[Gunnie3035]

Isn't there certain species and certain tags where the odds for the nonresident is better than the resident? Maybe not for the premium tags, but there is opportunity as a nonresident in many if not all states. I'm not saying there isn't price gouging, but there are some choices.

 

[Gator]

If the Fed's figure out that they can get a license(Aka cash cow) from everyone that hunts on Fed land or charge States to graze those state owned animals on Fed lands then maybe everyone license will cost the same.( A Bunch)

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]

 

[nontypical]

HT- Thanks for the correction! You are, of course, correct. Memory doesn't serve me as well as it once did.

 

[bowedark]

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 areas.

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