RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
Does this bill really do anything for hunting, though?
Just some food for thought, since appears to apply only to public lands (not private, not state), can we expect to see a flood of non-resident into these areas, now that license fees are "more reasonably priced"?
What will that do to hunter success ratios? Let's just say we reduce the price by half and double the number of hunters. If the overall (which includes private and state land) success ratio now for elk is 33%, does it go down to 16%? Hmmmm....
I live in a state derided across the country for its high non-resident hunting license fees. But, comparing those with my non-resident relatives in states like WI, they'd still spend less here than they do at home, not being required to LEASE hunting ground from some greedy private landowner.
Used to be thatone could find a landowner (even out here west), help out at branding time, help fix some fence in the summer, and you're welcome to hunt in the fall. Somewhere along the line, big-money-hunters (among them writers who need a kill for their story or video - which they then SELL to us) show up and offer cash to keep everyone else out and increase their odds of success? A couple seasons ago, I drove past some private land on my way to the public land I hunt, just before sunrise and before legal shooting light, and here are idling SUVs with an "outfitter" decal on each door at every gate on this property, just waiting for their "trophy buck" to come out of the trees in front of them. In the meanwhile, they have the engine heat going and a cup of coffee. I really did feel sorry for them,THAT - ishunting?
Folks, our real problem is that the public animals on private lands have been placed off-limits to ALL of us, because the landowner's able to get exorbitant trespass fees (because we'll pay them) or lease the hunting to an "outfitter" (more like "taxi driver with a skinning knife").
Increasing hunting pressure on public land will only drive the game to places we can't hunt (private land that is closed to us). This is the wrong solution primarily because it attempts to solve the wrong problem.
If landowners wish to lease out their lands, fine - let THEM manage them, too - which includes paying for it. Don't ask the state for subsidies for crop damage. In fact, make them ineligible as wellfor any subsidies related to habitat improvement, predation, etc. Makes sense to me - if you charge to hunt and don't get enough hunters because you set your price too high, it's you're own fault if the deer herd you didn't culldecimates your hay lot this winter.
(Now, I'm not against the idea of hunting guides. I have a number of friends in the business who work dang hard - but they all "guide" hunters in National Forest Wilderness Areas. That's an entirely different ball game than buying the rights to some farmer's alfalfa field next to the creek and highway)
Put the "hunt" back in "hunting"