18 replies [Last post]
Location: Utah
Joined: 02/24/2003
Posts: 596
This is bad... Really really really bad..
Bull Buster wrote:
Rather be Hunting and Hawkeye 270, I can see where you are coming from as the state manages the wildlife in that state but, why not have a permit for U.S. national forest and BLM ground. I'm not saying that the permits should be 25 bucks for everyone but, maybe something like 375 vs 550. After all the animals the state are claiming as their own are being fed by grasses grown on the land the U.S. citizens own. Last I knew ranchers are charged to graze their cattle on forst and blm land why don't the fed's send the states a bill for feeding their animals? just a thought from another perspective.

Hawkeye summed it very well but you have to find a way to seperate the land and the animals in your mind. They are managed by very disctinct groups and funding sources.

The only connection that can be made is the land feeds the animals like you said but I just don't think its enough to connect the two so difinitively.

The reason why this makes sense is simply because if it's up to the state to manage each animal then the only way to define clear managment plans is within it's overall borders. They must ignore what land the animals live on because let's face it game crosses from private, to state, and to federal land and don't know the difference or care. If the state tried to plan for each tract of land well then they'd have to make million of managemet plans from the "BLM in the northeast corner" to "Mr Johnsons 2 acre farm".

Trying to managment wildlife from a land ownership perspective would not only be too complex to do, but would also lead to such infighting and polotical battles that nothing would ever get accomplished.

That's my view on it.

Bull Buster's picture
Offline
Location: Nebraska
Joined: 10/12/2007
Posts: 167
This is bad... Really really really bad..

Rather be Hunting, don't misunderstand me. I am totally against federal gov't regulating anything. My intention is to let the state manage. I am a rancher here in Nebraska. I own 19,000 acres and it is my choice to let or not let ppl come in and hunt it. I feed deer and a hand full of antelope year around. When I think there are too many to feed I open it up to hunters. (I do not charge) but, I go with them and they shoot cull bucks or does. I hate the business the hunting has created. The price of the tags don't really make a difference to me. I only feel cheated that I pay 550.00 for a bull tag in Colorado while a resident pays 30.00 (I think) to hunt the same gov't ground that they think have more right to it than I do let alone thowing an outfitter ino the mix that is gaining a profit from a resorce that the public owns. Kind of like me having a banking business in a gov't building and not having any overhead.

I would like to see a permit system that is fair for both resident and nonresident alike. The elk and deer are eating grass on public property. If they were not there the govt could let a rancher put more cows on that tract of land gaining more money. Don't get me wrong I don't want the elk and deer to be gone I just saying if a permit fee for hunting public land could be established so everyone paid the same price for a tag it would be more beniffical for the state that manages the wildlife. So yes the state would sell and receive all proceeds of the permit costs. Think of this....If it were not for nat'l forrest, blm and out of state hunting fees do you think game animals would be managed as good as they are today. The revenue collected from resident permits is next to nothing compared to revenue generated from nonresidents there for it is up to the non resident to pick up the slack for funding state run agencies to manage that states wildlife. And then we share the same public land the residents hunt for a fraction of the price.

I am not upset as I have come to peace with myself that this is just the way it is. I just think nonresident hunters are not appreiciated as much by resident hunters as much as maybe they should be.

Bull Buster's picture
Offline
Location: Nebraska
Joined: 10/12/2007
Posts: 167
This is bad... Really really really bad..

Hawkeye, don't take this wrong it is not a shot at you. you wrote that the high hunting tags allow agencies to manage the wildlife. So do you agree that since we all share the same woods and the same elk, deer, bear, that there should be a private land tag and a public land tag that way the nonresidents are not footing the entire bill for the wildlife agencies?

Good luck this hunting season. Don't take anything I say personal just having some constructive civil conversation.

Location: Utah
Joined: 02/24/2003
Posts: 596
This is bad... Really really really bad..
Bull Buster wrote:

I am not upset as I have come to peace with myself that this is just the way it is. I just think nonresident hunters are not appreiciated as much by resident hunters as much as maybe they should be.

I think your last comment sums up beautifully the central point of this particular dilemna. The bad news is there is no clear black and white lines and it all comes down to the feelings of residents vs non-residents. Feelings are hard to make regulations for and someone will always lose.

I can certainly understand where you're coming from as I am both a res hunter and a non-res hunter in the west depending on the state I want to hunt and the species I want to chase.

As a non-res I can make an argument just as you that we generate a lot of dollars and this is American and as an American I should be able to hunt anywhere I choose as long as the check I need to write can clear the bank.

As a resident I want to be able to hunt in my own state. As it is now non-res's can get OTC tags as easily as I can so that's not a part of the issue. The issue is with limited draw tags. Well for elk, as a resident, it's already taking us 15 years to draw those tags and I would be irrate if more non-res's got an opportunity and it would take me 30 years to hunt my own state!!!

In the end I think the right system is in place. While I feel the pain when wanting to hunt other states I'm glad that I will be able to hunt my own before I'm in a wheelchair.

hawkeye270's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Joined: 06/15/2008
Posts: 1862
This is bad... Really really really bad..

Dont worry Bull. This isn't personal, just good converstation as you stated. It takes shots about my mom, my country or my Detroit Red Wings to get me fired up personaly, ha.

I can assure you that there are hunters out here that do appreciate non-residents. Although as I said earlier, there are definitly naive/ignorant mindsets that residents can get into reguarding non-res's. My rifle season elk camp of on average 12 people appreciates greatly our non-resident comrades. As you said, non-residents do contribute the majority of the cash. And so I understand why you might question that.

Sometimes in these debates, getting that key point to your side is futile especially over a forum but I think what me and Rather can't effectively articulate is the fact that the state owns the wildlife and must manage it. But they don't have any obligation/reason to charge a fee based on whether you're hunting federal land or not. They do have an obligation to keep the residents of that state happy. The public sets the goals and the agencies do the managing. Think about it this way... when a proposal comes up to end spring bear hunting in Colorado, only Colorado residents have the right to vote/petition on it. This highlights the fact that the agencies have to serve the residents of that state. Nebraska's agency's duty is to do what it's residents want done, not what Hawkeye270 from Colorado wants done.

That probably didn't help much but it was worth a shot.

SOBLE's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/12/2010
Posts: 162
I appreciate the non-res

I appreciate the non-res hunter because in the end they keep my tag price low. I do hate that sometimes it is easier for a non-res to draw a coveted tag than a resident but you have to take the good with the bad. I remember when I moved to CO and a lot of hunters wished that CO would run the management system more like Utah. Utah hunters always wanted things done more like CO. It's a funny thing when everyone has an opinion about game management.

Back on topic of the original post. I think this hunter went out to fill his tag with the opinion that the IFG wouldn't care WHERE his wolf was shot, just as long as he shot one. Now that is just my opinion. I also think they should just make it a statewide hunt. For sure the population supports it.

Alamosa's picture
Offline
Location: Southern Colorado
Joined: 03/25/2005
Posts: 245
This is bad... Really really really bad..

The guy made a mistake about his location and then he self reported.

This isn't the most heinous hunting violation I've ever heard of.   
I don't think much of him standing in a truck bed to take the shot, but I'm glad another wolf is gone.

I think confiscating his camera was going a little gestapo.

I am not ashamed to be a hunter today.

Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: NE NV
Joined: 03/18/2010
Posts: 383
Geez, there's a lot to

Geez, there's a lot to comment on with this line. First, This guy doesn't sound like a hunter as I would define it. He's shooting from the middle of a road while in the bed of a pickup. Come on, really? I can't think of a place in the country where that's legal or ethical for anything. Second, he's "hunting" in a closed area in a closed season for one of the most controversial and publicized animals on the planet, and he doesn't think the man with the badge will do much about it. Come on, really? Third, the idea that he may or may not be a resident is a mute point. Just because you a resident of a particular town, county, state doesn't preclude you from being an idiot. Some of the biggest & worst game law violators are residents (actually they all are a resident of somewhere). And by the way Eagle is in Idaho which I'm thinking would make this guy a resident. Fourth, we hunters better appreciate public land.  With all due respect from the gentleman from Nebraska, whether it's hunting, fishing, hiking or just taking a nap in a quite quakie grove, I kinda like the idea that I can do it without going up to some door & begging for permission to do so ( and I'm proud of the fact that said gentleman from Nebraska can come to "my" country and do the same).

It'd be easy to go on with a fifth, sixth , etc. but I'll just say to IdahoPheasants, DON'T EVER be ashamed of being a hunter. Recognize that this guy isn't and recognize toy value to yourself, your community and your wildlife & wild lands.