9 replies [Last post]
Offline
Location: Georgia
Joined: 08/13/2003
Posts: 29
Nonresidents?

I guess there is always more than one way to look at an issue.
For example, lets forget that I am a resident of Georgia, and instead imagine that through increasing Government control I now carry a card identifying me as a United States Citizen.
Due to the new changes inacted by the Gov, this card grants me equal rights to all licenses at the same costs of any other citizen on ALL US Forest Service lands, all BLM Lands and any other propertys owned and administered by the avereage US taxpaying citizen. It also requires that any landlocked US property be granted unrestricted access rights by the lawful owners (US Citizens) of said property.
All game on US property is now owned and administered by the Gov.
All game, license allocation and fees, are administered by the State on private property or State owned lands.
In a way the anti nonresident crowd now gets what they want.
And also the average citizen from the east, who pays out of his pocket to maintain these propertys, also gets what they want.

It could happen. Think about it.

I think you guys in the western states have it pretty good just the way it is. Try hunting in states that has no BLM land and little NF land. And what NF there is is totally unregulated as far as numbers of hunters. If you want quality hunting you must pay for it in leases and often the rich Nonresidents can afford the best leases and the working class locals get the pickins.
It seems to me there is a silent majority out there that collectively pays out a lot more than the sum of state license fees for the benefit of a few state residents.
If the silent majority ever gets ticked off and becomes the Vocal Majority, then things will change.
For somebody, the change will not be for the best.

Location: Utah
Joined: 02/24/2003
Posts: 596
Nonresidents?

I'm with you on all of your points except this. If everyone had equal opportunity at all licenses then if you live in a Colorado or similar state you may have a hard time hunting your own state. Everyone in the country would start putting for the hunts and locals wouldn't have a certain allotment. Thats just not fair to those who live in that state and elect the officials who manage the local wildlife.

This may not be a big deal for general hunts, then again it may I don't know. But I know it would be huge when you're talking the limited entry or other hard to draw hunts.

Offline
Location: Georgia
Joined: 08/13/2003
Posts: 29
Nonresidents?

If my little scenario ever actually came to pass then it would change everything and not for the better.
The way some of the states manage their wildlife leaves something to be desired. Imagine the fiasco that would ensue if the Feds managed wildlife on one property boundary and the state managed across the line?
The Feds would say "It is fair to Residents because now the State can choose to open their hunts only to Residents, no NonResident hunting allowed."
Never mind that the majority of the hunting will be first drawn first chosen, regardless of state of origin. According to Fed language everybody has been treated fairly.
I only mention this little scenario because sometimes we can't see the big picture because what is right in front of our eyes blocks it out. There are a lot of disgruntled people, both in the east and the west concerning the land access issue. I know of letters and petitions being sent to elected officials complaining of private land blocking access and financially benefitting from this.
I think US Outfitters also took Arizona to Federal court concerning nonresident hunters.
I guess the point I'm making is, if the Feds ever see that money can be made by declaring federal ownership of game animals living on federal land, then what the law says now won't matter. They will simply enact legislation making their wants Law. And if they should decide to do such a thing, I am afraid there would not be a united front to dissuade them.

Offline
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2003
Posts: 394
Nonresidents?

I think you're right, Darkhorse. Maybe that's because I've lived and hunted in places like Florida, North Carolina, and Iowa where there is very limited federal land (well, NC has a lot, but Iowa has practically none).

One of the repeating themes I hear from the folks who don't like non-residents hunting in their state is that they long for the "good old days" when they could go hunting and not see anyone outside of their party for days at a time. They assume that the crowding in the woods is all the result of non-residents coming to their state. I think this assumption is a big stretch and, while it may hold a kernel of truth, is largely flawed.

Offline
Location: Appalachian Mtns
Joined: 03/22/2004
Posts: 23
Nonresidents?

donmillion
I guess it has been a while since you lived in NC- most of the game lands are land locked in the west- and what is not has a hunter on every tree! or you need to be a mtn goat to get up into them-
it is getting to where there is more and more houses and the hunting lands are shrinking- if you know where the Blue ridge Parkway is, going south overlooking Averys creek to the left 'south Buncombe co.' on the ridges are houses not trees- Biltmore Forest 'that is the housing dev.' hired "professional hunter" to come in an kill a bunch of deer off-
the non locals complain about the deer- but when asked if someone can come in and hunt them -"I asked one of them" 'NO I DON'T ALLOW ANY HUNTING-I JUST GUT SHOOT THEM AND THEY RUN OFF AND DIE'

Offline
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2003
Posts: 394
Nonresidents?

Well, it has been more than 10 years since I lived in NC, but even then I did all my hunting in the Piedmont and Coastal areas. Never did hunt the mountains.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Nonresidents?

Interesting theory Darkhorse, although I think it is highly unlikely. Consider the recent attempt by congress to ban bear baiting on federal land, forcing federal policy on state game management. It was rejected because most felt that game management should remain a local issue. An attempt to federalize game management as you describe I think would meet strong political resistance and not just in western states. Consider the midwest states that produce trophy whitetail, they are tough to get into as well. While I'm not a bow hunter, I hear that trying to get a NR whitetail archery tag in Iowa is very tough, do to the strengh of the iowa bow hunters association.

Now about the USO versus Arizona case. While I strongly disagree with AZ's continual pushing out of NR's, I believe USO's case is terribly flimsy. They are suing to open up more NR AZ tags on the condition that states setting NR tags artifically low is a breech of interstate commerce (the fed's domain). However there is nothing in any U.S. charter that says a state has to allow any NRs. The interestate commerce issue can be negated by AZ blocking all NR's, since then there will be no interstate commerce in tags at all.

I'm strongly against federation of game management simply because it could be lever by which animal rights activists break the back of hunting. As is, the AR has to fight in every state court where they want to roll back some form of hunting (like baiting), this is costly and time consuming. If game management was federalized, it would take only one concentrated effort to tell all states exactly what to do.

[ This Message was edited by: bitmasher on 2004-03-26 23:00 ]

Offline
Location: Idaho
Joined: 09/20/2003
Posts: 138
Nonresidents?

. I was about to mention the same thing BIT. The hunting lobby can hardly agree now. We have archery, center fire, bird hunters big game hunters black powder traditional against new fangled black powder guys , we cant seem to realize that each of us has a place in hunting and if hunting was federalized we just couldn’t stand against the anti / animal rights groups for long.

The other problem with federalization is landowner rights not only federal but also state and private. State land and its resources for instance is not under federal
Jurisdictions.

I think maybe Darkhorse is more offended by private landowners who block his hunting or sell leases to their land.
Now if that’s the case I agree with him 100% but on a deeper motive.
If a landowner post NO HUNTING then that should mean NO Hunting for them as well.
If a land owner chooses to close his property or lease his land that’s fine as long as they realize that by closing their land to the public hunter they forfeit any and all public subsidies for wildlife damage or improvements.
I also believe that if the property is large enough then the landowners surrounding that lot of land should also Then be able to make the large landowners responsible for damage done to their land and not have go to the state for public reimbursements. Thus making the corp. land companies open their land for management.

In turn the states should then have to reimbursed land owners for all proved damages done by hunters. hunters who abuse the land should then be hit with maximum fines and penalties to include trespassing laws and littering and all other laws that would pertain if they had been bared from access to the property.

Many of us here remember as you say “THE OLD DAYS” when you could have a good quite hunt. Those days are gone ,, however those who remember are not miss guided but are IMO only showing proof of what everyone can see ,that hunter numbers are not and have not dropped

I however will say this again NR are not the problem the management of public land for the purpose of producing a trophy herd is the problem . that in turn goes back to cost of NR tags, the supporting tax base for state F&W and the Perceived need for a trophy to validate a good hunt.

[ This Message was edited by: captchee on 2004-03-27 11:03 ]

[ This Message was edited by: captchee on 2004-03-27 11:09 ]

Offline
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2003
Posts: 394
Nonresidents?

"however those who remember are not miss guided but are IMO only showing proof of what everyone can see ,that hunter numbers are not and have not dropped"

Fewer hunters on much less land would also explain it.

Offline
Location: Idaho
Joined: 09/20/2003
Posts: 138
Nonresidents?

granted

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Over the counter mule deer?EF504/21/2011 10:31 am
Snow - I hate itgroovy mike2103/31/2011 13:16 pm
elk muzzy draw in colorado?huntin fool303/04/2010 19:07 pm
New york Doe permitsDcmnts51108/24/2008 17:59 pm
Colorado Point Creepexbiologist3006/24/2012 14:12 pm