Resident vs. Nonresident
 

The battle goes on, but maybe some closure is coming. Go suck a big one, George Taulman!

Bill protects resident hunting preference

By JEFF GEARINO
Star-Tribune staff writer Friday, March 04, 2005




U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., has joined a group of lawmakers seeking to ensure the right of Wyoming and other states to limit nonresident hunting and fishing licenses.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department officials called the bill an important measure to preserve the state's right to regulate hunting within its borders.

Enzi said Thursday he is cosponsoring the measure in the Senate along with Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Max Baucus, D-Mont.; Ted Stevens, R-Alaska; John Ensign, R-Nev.; and Ben Nelson, D-Neb.

Enzi said the bill would protect the traditional authority of the states to regulate hunting and fishing. It would allow states to continue distinguishing between residents and nonresidents when issuing hunting and fishing licenses.

Enzi said in a press statement the bill was introduced in direct response to a recent court ruling in Arizona by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"This legislation represents a reality check for the 9th Circuit," Enzi said. "We are not going to give control to the federal government of one of Wyoming's most important assets."

The 9th Circuit Court tossed out Arizona's 10 percent cap on nonresident big game licenses after a New Mexico outfitter and other hunters sued over the state's cap, which was set in 1990.

A U.S. district judge originally upheld Arizona's assertion that hunting was recreation and sport, not commerce, and let the cap stand. But the appeals court overturned the 2002 ruling, calling the cap discrimination against nonresident hunters.

The court concluded that charging different prices for licenses for nonresidents and state residents, and by limiting the number of nonresident hunting licenses, the states could be violating federal interstate commerce laws.

The ruling sent a ripple of concern throughout the West, where many states, including Wyoming, have similar rules.

"Wyoming's wildlife is Wyoming's wildlife, and it's worth our watching out for who manages it," Enzi said. He noted "it's the state that bears most of the cost of wildlife management, even for species like the wolf and grizzly bear."

Game and Fish deputy director Bill Wichers welcomed the legislation and said the bill, if passed, would firmly uphold Wyoming's right to limit nonresident license sales.

"This legislation would very clearly state, through an act of Congress, that our limitation on percentages of licenses allocated to residents and nonresidents -- and the cost differential between the two -- is the state's prerogative and not a violation of interstate commerce," Wichers said in an interview.

Meanwhile, Wichers said Wyoming is waiting on a ruling in another case challenging the state's requirements on nonresident hunters. That case is now before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The lawsuit was brought by former Wyoming resident Donald J. Schutz, a Florida attorney who at one time attended Laramie High School and the University of Wyoming.

Schutz's lawsuit alleges that the state's system of allocating nonresident licenses violates equal protection laws and interstate commerce laws. He further alleges that the guide requirement for nonresident hunting in Wyoming wilderness areas is unconstitutional.

"This is still a very big case for us... That (appeal) decision could come almost any time now," Wichers said.

U.S. District Judge William Downes ruled in favor of the state in the Schutz lawsuit, which was filed in September 2002. Downes agreed with state attorneys who argued in briefs that nonresident hunters are not a suspect class, that hunting is not a fundamental right, and that Wyoming statutes are rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Many of the Game and Fish big game license allocations are set by the Legislature through state statutes.

For example, the 20 percent of deer and antelope licenses and the 25 percent of bighorn sheep licenses going to nonresidents are statutory. Other license allocations are done by Game and Fish Commission regulations.

Wyoming won a similar court case and appeal in 2000 in a lawsuit that was filed by the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association in 1998.

Outfitters had complained for a number of years before the suit that a limited number of hunting licenses available to hunters from other states hurt Wyoming's outfitters and guides and prevented them from making as much money as they could on hunting revenues.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

I have nothing against non-resident hunters. I just hope western states can control how many non-resident hunters are awarded tags in the draw?
Seems only fair to me that resident hunters have better odds.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Amen Wolf Killer. Thanks for the post Randy A

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

I've long held the opinion that the best thing for the Ninth Circuit Court would be the refusal of Congress to fund it. [:@]

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

OK then you guys in the western states need to write checks back too Washington for the BILLION$ we have spent in your states through the various Federal restoration/management programs like Dingell-Johnson, Wallop-Breaux and that GOLDEN GOOSE that brought the plains and mountain game back known as the Pitman-Robertson Act.

Go ahead, get those checks ready... (Otherwise be quiet and move over, its ALL our game!)
RA

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

The wildlife belongs to the states. It is on the books here and has been so since the state was founded.

We have ventured far away from the intent of our founding fathers which envisioned a confederation of independent SOVERIGN STATES under the umbrella of a federal government which was to act on their behalf only in certain restricted areas of common interest or concern.

As you recall, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states "Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
For those of you who haven't read it lately , Section 8 of THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION enumerates most of the specific duties of the federal government.
IMHO most of the federal judges today either have not read these basic documents upon which our nation is founded or they have taken the words and letters therein from them and rearranged them as necessary to satisfy their own desires and prejudices.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

I don't quite understand Red. Are you saying that people here in the West didn't contribute part of that federal money already?--as much as you or anybody else through their own federal taxes? Or did you mean that you live in Washington and you and some of your buddies paid for that stuff?:D

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

You open federal lands here, everyone equal, then all federal lands in every state need to be the same. Wetlands and marshes included. Same fee, same opportunity.

Just because an elk is on federal land doesn't make it federal property, a very small percentage of the big game here, stays on federal land all year long.

Nope we ain't giving up states rights!

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Using the interstate commerce act as a game management tool and regulation for hunting is just a ploy by lame lawyers much the same as suing gun manufacturers for people killing people with guns! It has nothing to do with wildlife and hunting, it is about money. Commerce has no place in hunting. If it does then bring back market hunting!

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

The only thing I agree with is the appeal of the requirement for a guide or resident in wilderness areas of Wyoming. You can trap, fish, hike, ski, snowshoe,ride horses, and skip around naked in Wilderness areas, 365 days a year here, but you can't hunt. I have a problem with that as a resident.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

AMEN....Brother!!

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Here we go with the money thing again. It is not all about money. I will back your comments 100% when I see you planting bushes on the winter range, volunteering for radio collaring projects to track mortality rates, cleaning up miles of forest service trails, spending time at game check stations, shoveling hay to starving elk that was bought by local RMEF chapters. Federal dollars manage forests. The only federal dollars being spent on wildlife here in my state right now is killing off elk populations. You can have the wolves back, We don't want them. We are all too familiar with politics these days. The thing that I can tell you is that the herds are what they are because people volunteered their time to give back to animals. Are you a member of an anti wolf coalition? If not I would be joining one because they are effecting YOUR animals more than any non-resident rule. But you probably already knew that since it is on OUR property.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

if i have my #'s right, the last 2 years there has been leftover tags for deer in 8 out of 13 regions in the state of wy. for 2004 there was 4299 leftover tags for deer in wy. so if u wanted a tag u can get one!
and as far as elk tags the area i hunt for elk, in 2003 for resident it was 19.02% chance of draw, while a non-resident on the special draw had a 20.00% chance! i don't like the fact i pay taxes to this state and i have a lower chance of drawing an elk tag than nonresidents do for the same area!!
AND WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME IOWA HAD LEFTOVER NON-RESIDENTDEER TAGS?
AND WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME WASHINGTON HAD NON-RESIDENT BIGHORN SHEEP TAGS?
UNTILL THEN QUIT CRYING ABOUT WYOMING USING IT'S RESOURCES!
RIGHT ON RANDYA!!!!

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

elkcrazy, pretty much correct on that one, very little federal money spent here on game. Wolves and grizzly bears is where most of it is spent. The rest of game management in Wy comes from the WY G&F dept. not the state or feds. And where does Wy get thier money? From license sales. A burn or habitat enhancement on federal land, paid for by the WG&F, RMEF, Sportsmans groups, not the feds!

The game belongs to the state! It has nothing to do with federal land. What makes you think that an elk on federal land today is on it tomorrow? Any clue? About the only game animals in Wy that stay on federal land most of the time would be antelope and mountain goats. The majority of the rest come and go.

If game on federal land is to be shared equally with eveyone, then every endeavor, on federal land in "EVERY state" needs to be the same. Then why have states, just one federal entity, No individual rights or priveleges. Just what ever uncle sam wants to let you have and do. You can not just single out hunting, if it's federal it's all or nothing.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

I am not picking on Wyoming. I GREATLY enjoyed a muley/lope hunt there last October in an area that is basically a guaranteed draw (in the Buffalo, WY area). I am talking about ALL states be them western or wherever keep on trying to put caps or even abolish non-resident tags yet still gladly take available Federal monies for various projects. For years the same thing went on in Kansas, the locals fought out of state interests from coming in and partaking in their obvious bounty. FINALLY someone realized that by using Federal monies while still preventing non-residents from coming in amounted to taxation without representation. And look at the price of land leases in KS, farmers/land owners now have a new profit center and reason to manage their land for quality game habitat. I'm not saying money is the answer too everything, but under certain circumstances it certainly is a plus. And with respects to non-residents hunting sheep, the vast majority of sheep programs are funded by Federal monies and the limited sale of tags at astonishing figures. The states play a very limited role in sheep management. I have NEVER heard of a sheep hunter that saw gamewardens up around 10k-12k feet!

Manboy would you please put up your numbers in terms of actual license apps/sales, not simple percentages? Thats flawed mathematics and typical of people with a political agenda that isnt going their way. (Its akin too Democrats in Washington when they cut 5% from nextyears spending increases that were slated for a 10% increase and then turn around and pat themselves on the back and clamour on about how they cut the budget! Nevermind the fact that they are still gonna spend 5% more than lastyear on their pet projects.) If it is decided that X number of animals need to be removed annually and Y number of applicants represents residents and Z number represents non-residents than it only makes sense that Y is a far greater number of people than Z. Yet you simply put up percentages that while similar in stated value, the net totals are FAR from equal or even similar. I bet Y is 10x or greater than Z.

I know its a hot topic and causes devisiveness in the hunting ranks. Here in TN we have deer out the ying-yang and few people who want to come in and hunt them, so who cares how many license's are sold too out of staters? Out there in the Rockies you only have so many elk and EVERYONE wants a crack at em, same for the giant whitetail states in the cornbelt.

But thats the way the mop flops,
RA

ps
I have heard it twice now about how animals on Federal Lands are NOT Federal property. Shoot an elk on Yellowstone and see if you are only brought up on local charges or if you are dealt with through the Federal system!!! ;) BTW Yellowstone is one of the BIGGEST economic boons to the state of Wyoming. By somes flawed logic about wanting to shut everything down except too locals, what would happen to the economy of NW Wyoming if for some reason suddenly the gates of Yellowstone were SLAMMED SHUT??? And who funds the park? I seriously doubt its the taxpayers of Cody, WY.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

I have no problem with quatos, what I do have a problem is how dang expensive non resident tags are, gheez how about knocking those tag prices down so it doesnt cost an arm and leg.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

RED,I am not sure where the sheep topic came in???? But sheep migrate from federal land to private land in most of the sheep range in Wyoming every winter. If there is a winter. The issue to me isn't about nonresidents getting tags or nonresident prices. Wyoming gives 20% of all tags to nonresident draws, with sheep being the exception at 25%. I was saying the majority, that being 51% or more, of antelope and moutain goats, spend most or all of the year on federal land. Deer, elk, moose, sheep, lion, come and go. From private, state, county, and federal, both BLM and Forest.

If you kill any animal in Yellowstone, or even take a gun in, you are violating federal law. But you are sentenced in state courts not federal court. Wildlife in every National Park, not national forest, is strongly protected. The parks still relinquish that the wildlfie belongs to the state in which it resides.

You can go on and on about wildlife on federal land belonging to everyone, all I will say is, to bad, it doesn't and won't! Get over it!

I don't have a problem with raising resident prices either. I would gladly pay $200 for an elk or $1000 for a sheep, goat, or moose!

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

I might also add that here in Colorado the Div. of Wildlife DOE'S NOT RECEIVE ANY FEDERAL MONEY to manage wildlife or aquire hunting lands!!!!!! AND....... The Federal gov. doe's not help in the management of such!!! So in effect the federal gov. is saying and has stated that the states are the sole propieter of the game that is within their bounderies. Not a private land owner and not the Federal Gov. But the states. So who should be sending who checks????? Unless you pay for a tag in Colorado....... You haven't paid for !@#$%. If this all opens up I surely think I will be in Iowa hunting whitetails on my newly aquired non-resident tag!!!!!!!! I would also add that I do think that non-resident tags ARE TOO EXPENSIVE no matter what state it is and that I would have a problem paying $200.00 for a resident elk tag..........A BIG PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!
The basic principle in hunting is to provide...........NOT..... To see how much money one can spend to kill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS REALLY GETS MY !@#$%^&
Bill

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

You are paying for a privelege, not a god given right! Some pay to golf , some pay to bowl, some pay to fish! I will pay to hunt.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Her we go with the Red/Rebel flatlanders whining about the socialist crap of everyone owning the game regardless of who grew the herds and worked their butts off keeping them up. PR funds money back to states based on a formula and most of it is generated by resident sporting good purchases. Can't wait until legislation passes to clearly give the states the right to control hunting. The whining will be just like Michael Moore after the last election. The bills will pass as republicans are for state's rights and the dems are shocked that USO claims to have commerce clause rights to sell beautiful animal parts. LMAO.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

I have no problem with the states setting license allocations for non resident hunters.
I do have a problem with the outrageous fees being charged in most of the western states. In some states the fees have almost doubled.
I do not excempt alot of the outfitters either for my scorn. Now I do not use outfitters when I go out west. I know the area I hunt well and haver no need, but for those who do I feel pitty. I look at most of the outfitters as like the TUNAFISH CANNING COMPANIES. let's increase the cost of our product and also decrease what we actually give. I realize prices have gone up on everything ,including access fees paid by outfitters & guides.
A cost increase is to be expected and indeed warranted ,but in all do repspect cost increase and a cut back in amount of days of hunting is screwing over thier clients.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

i live in BC canada, and i have mixed feelings about non residents having the right to hunt here, i mean, i feel that i myself should be able to hunt anywhere i want, so of course they have a right to hunt too, but what bugs me, and i am not saying that this happens is that i feel that the province or state should only allow a certain amount of tag to be drawn for the non resident, i mean i have been tryingto land a moose tag for about 4 years now and havent got it, luckly for me i was able to shoot a moose every year legally, but you know i still want to be able to get that 10 pionter, but it seems alot of people outside of where i live, and even in the same provine as me but they live 8 hours south of me seem to get the tags, i know it is luck of the draw, but it gets frustrating when you live about 30 min from prime moose hunting areas, and these out of towners get the draws and you dont. so like i said i have mixed feelings on this subject, i think what the wildlife guys should do (maybe they allready are) is that if you get a draw one year you should be exempt from next years draw to give other people a chance, and then of course the following year after that they can apply again, seems fair to me dont you think? i know of people that have gotten a draw 2-3 times in a row and know of others that have been applying for 10 years and havent got one, so i dontknow what system they use but i think it should change. phew, i guess i needed to vent a little, thanks for listening to my opinions.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

You want equal then come to Maryland. We don't care if your from the west, nonresidents pay $130 for a hunting license and can shoot an UNLIMITED number of deer same as a resident. We don't even make you hire a guide.:D

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

can we elk hunt in maryland? how about mountain goat ? what about bighorn sheep?
i bet a resident does't pay $130 for a tag? lets face-it every state is the same, THEY ALL CHARGE MORE FOR NON-RESIDENT TAGS. so if u don't like it don't pay it! stay home and hunt!

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Ever think about why YOUR state seems to be "selling-out" to the non-res hunter???
Easy to see why. When I buy my non-res Colorado Elk tag, I am paying what? 8,9,10 times more than a resident pays??
All about the money. Always about the money. We should never kid ourselves otherwise.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

I will also agree that the states should be able to allocate the number of permits issued to the nonresident, but the fees are becoming outrageous. I'm a police officer in Indiana and by the time I've purchased a nonresident tag and paid for the rest of my trip (without a guide) we are talking about $1000. Now don't get me wrong if I have to pay $1000 for anything I prefer it to be a hunting trip. However, I don't make much money and I have a family at home to take care of. The cost of this trip could have paid for an entire beef, enough meat to feed my family for a year. I think the thing that bothers me the most is that the price of the tag takes away so much of the enjoyment that we all strive for on a hunting trip and adds unwanted pressure and stress on the "kill" to justify the tag price. Ya, a couple of you might shoot off at the mouth and tell me to just stay home, but thats my two cents worth.

P.S Someone give me a couple GOOD reasons why I can't hunt w/o a guide in some of the Western wilderness areas. Thanks.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

The Wilderness is a rough area for city folks and even tough for residents who live there.
I personally have no problem with non-residents hunting the wilderness alone as long as they leave a deposit or bond and the name and number of the next of kin, so the local people get compensation for rescuing the lost hunter because of his inexperiance.
In my area it is common for an out of stater to get into trouble in the woods whether it be hiking,biking,camping or even fishing.
I think it's good insurance for a state to require a guide for the inexperianced out of state hunter instead of a deposit on a rescue.
The way I see the price of the Non-Resident tags... You are paying for a portion of the back state and local taxes as well as other expenses that I as a resident of the state have paid for years for management of the land and animals you wish to hunt in my state.
My opinion;)

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

People are being completely foolish by not believing that this thing is 100% about MONEY!

The states are robbing the non-residents because what are they going to do, vote them out of office?

USO is suing the states so he can have more guide hunts to generate more revenues.

Lets talk about reality here for just one fricking second...

In the vast majority of all western states, if not all, the body in charge of hunting (be it the Fish & Game Dept, the Wildlife Dept or what ever they call it in that state) are funded completely by revenues generated from tag fees and hunting license purchases.

The state is not appropreating funds to these departments from the State's General Fund. These Deparments are NOT like the public university system that uses monies from the State's General Fund to operate and thus that is how they explain non-resident tuitions being 3 times more.

The bodies that control hunting in these states do not follow this model of funding. A non-hunter or non-fisherman living in Tucson is not contributing to operating budget of the Arizona Game and Fish.

The Arizona Game and Fish's operating budget comes from the purchase of fishing licenses, hunting licenses and big game tags.

Now lets take it a step further, since the operating budgets of these state wildlife management bodies are not receiving funding from the state's general fund, the only monies that a resident hunter is giving this body is monies from license and tag purchases.

A resident hunter that is drawn for a deer permit north of the grand canyon will contribute a total of $48 ($25.50 license and $22.50 deer tag) to the Az G&F department's budget.

Under the new 2005 rates, a non-resident hunter that is drawn for a deer permit north of the grand canyon will contribute a total of $1319 ($113.50 for license & $1205.50) to the Az G&F department's budget. In other words, the non-resident would be paying 24 times the rate of the non-resident.

A non-resident that is UNSUCCESSFUL in drawing that same deer permit will contribute a total of $113.50 to the Az G&F operating budget. Which is more than twice as much as the successful resident contribution.

The non-residents applicants and non-residents that successfully draw tags generate much more revenue for these state bodies than the resident hunters. In Arizona, 10% of the tags are allocated for non-residents, so on a hunt with 100 tags, 90 are for residents and 10 are for non-residents. Revenues generated on that hunt, just from successfully drawn hunters...

90 residents x $48 = $4400

10 non-residents x $1320 = $13,200

What would happen to the state politicians in Arizona if they increased resident deer tags from $22 to $240?

What would happen to the state politicians in Arizona if they increased resident elk tags from $76 to $500?

What would happen to the state politicians in Arizona if they increased resident sheep permits from $184 to $1000?

You know that their days as state politicians would be numbered, HOWEVER, the VERY SAME RATE OF INCREASE happened to non-residents in Arizona.

$100 deer tags jacked up to $1200

$400 elk tags jacked up to $2400

$900 sheep tags jacked up to $5000

Here is what the more populace states should do...

I went to UCLA, a top 25 university nationally, whose current tuition is $9,000 for residents and $22,000 for non-residents (which they only pay for 1 year if they are smart and declare residency), I think that they should jack up the non-resident tuition of all the state universities from $22K to $140K per year. We will see how many kids from these western states are left in the UC and Cal State system after that rate increase.

I think that all public universities in the United States should do the very same thing. Jack up the prices for non-residents.

We will see how many people in Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and the like are trying to justify the highway robbery of their game and fish departments when their state university admission become highly competitive and little Johnny can't get a college education because he didn't have the grades to get into the local state school and pop's doesn't make the $ to send him to a $35+K per year private school.

These limitations on the number of tags for non-residents, like Arizona's 10%, are rediculously low.

The mega-inflated prices for non-resident tags are criminal.

To be quite honest, while hunting is not considered "a requirement" by some, this type of taxation without representation is what caused colonies to revolt.

Nevermind that these states greed is going to be the end of hunting... once you eliminate a large number of hunters because it has become rediculously expensive to hunt, hunting will only be for the financially elite.

SA

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

You are a non-resident coming to my state to use my resources.
Why come here? The animals you want to hunt not where you live?Don't have enough where your from?
It seems simple to me that you seek an area with less people and/or more animals.
Less People = Less Residents to buy Licenses and contribute to the Keepers of the animals.
Most of these Western States with good game populations don't have the resident population of people and/or hunters to contribute and benefit from the non-resident and in turn my area is kept pristine and full of animals for you to hunt.........At a Price.
Seems simple. Play here, Pay Here!
You are coming here because we offer something you don't have and you wish to.
Seems like simple economics to me. You want to drive the Benz you will pay.
If you can't afford or don't wish to pay, stay at your own state and use your own resources from your state at a resident price if you don't think it's worth it to play here.
For you non-whining non-residents who do hunt here and contribute Thanks... It your $$ that helps keep this place a fine place to hunt.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

mybridgeford, I agree with you,but it all goes back to Money.When I use to go to Alberta,
last time in 1995, it cost me over 6k.That's all including,Trip cost,Outfitters,$800 t0 $1000 to have
it mounted, Tips for the guides and all the rest we spent in Alberta.Now count all the nonresident
hunters that go every year,it's in the Millions of $$$'s..
Tell all the Outfitters,Guides,Taxidernmist, Hunting Tags and all that make a living at it, in BC and other parts,that you want to controll nonresidents...I wonder what they have to say!!
WE feel the same as you here in Florida,about the Salt Water Sport Fishing.But the State and everybody
is making Millions.Half the time we half to move out further to fish,cause of the nonresident's bunched up
where the easy fishing is best.I don't care how much they have to pay,they will still come!!
It's not the hunters Fault....You have to have your Law's changed,but they are making MILLIONS with
Nonresidents!!!!

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

yeah i know rebel hog, money talks. like i said it is just frustrating thats all. i have never gone out of my province to hunt, never had too, everything is here that i ike to hunt for, moose, deer, elk, grouse, geese and ducks. i have also never hired a guide, dont have to. but i feel that if i wanted to go to alberta i am sure i will have to pay through the ying yang. so i guess it doesnt matter where you go, you want to play you got to pay!! iam just glad i am fortunate enough that i only have to go about 30 min out of town and i am in prime hunting area. i guess it is good the money goes into someones pocket, haha, hopefully the right pocket, but i think i am most sore on the limited entry hunting draws (LEH) and the non residents that gets them thats all. but i guess they are paying more than 6 bucks to enter the draw like i do.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

I see you know where I'm comming from on this!!!
Wish you the best in the future!!!

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Show your support for manufacturers against USO against USO and Taulman...

The below link is a quick way to show your support of manufacturers who pulled their sponsorship of Taulman.

If you have time, click on the link below and email the manufacturers and thank them for doing the right thing.

http://www.seazsc.com/new_news.htm

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

First off, you need to refrain to "my" in your posts... you don't own the state, the animals or the area.

All you are is the recipient of a Wildlife handout from the State of Montana...

Anytime the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks needs more money, they bleed the unable to vote in the state elections non-resident.

If the City of Missoula decided to set up Toll Booths at every entrance into the city and charge Missoula non-residents $40 per car as a "City Street Usage Fee", how long do you think that they would be able to do that before a judicial body decided to step in. According to your argument, the City of Missoula would not only be justified in doing it, since they would be "the keeper of the streets", you would support their decission to do it.

Frankly the only reason that residents of these "hunting desitination" states justify the absolutely unfair pricing of the hunting opportunity to non-residents is because they want to keep receiving their handout.

Because if it was about giving the resident the most opportunity to hunt possible, these residents would want all non-resident hunting eliminated. Of course they don't want that because the resident license and resident tag prices would go up atleast 2-3 times the current rate.

It is all about the handout... You even said it yourself in not so many words... non-residents should pay for the Benz but residents should get it for next to free.

SA

PS. Why should non-residents have to pay more to hunt waterfowl? I hope that you are not claiming that Montana is the "keeper" of this migratory game bird.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Do you actually believe that half of those manufacturers are against USO and Taulman?

What those manufacturers are against is getting into a heated dispute and losing money because of it.

Heck, I read most of the e-mails and honestly... over half of them came out and said that very thing.

In fact, most of them talked about how great USO guides and USO Tag Service was prior to announcing their seperating from USO because they don't want to be associated with such a heated topic.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

You think that local RMEF chapters are the only ones funding the presevation of habitat and maintance of the Elk herds?

Where do you think that all of the monies generated by the RMEF goes to? Elk Habitat in Flordia or Louisianna?

Non-resident RMEF donations are going to help perserve your state's elk...

Frankly, over the last couple of years, I have done alot of thought about revoking my support to alot of these organizations... I have revoked my sponsorship of the Arizona Mule Deer Association and a few others. I'll probably chop a few others out this year.

Kinda seems stupid for me to support an organization that benifits the wildlife of a state that doesn't want to let me hunt it and rapes me for thousands in the process. Sort of like raising a herd of cattle for the rancher, then having to pay a premium for a steak or two. Doesn't make sense...

Since the states claim that they own the wildlife and want to charge non-residents a ton to hunt them, the state can foot the bill for the wildlife...

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

No one is forcing you to hunt out of your state. Stay home. It's a simple solution for all!

Gotta love those opinions and arguments of the typical Kalifornian.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Lmao, so if I live in a bungalow outside the University of Montana for 6 months... I am more adept for an experience in a Wilderness Area?

It is about expertise and skill, not about where you live

You think that state and local taxes fund the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks?

I would be shocked if that is the case.

The state bodies in charge of wildlife, in all of the states that I am familiar with, receive 100% of their funding from the sale of licenses and big game tags. Not from state or local taxes.

As for the public lands that they are on, the vast majority is national forest or blm...

As for private lands, the state subsidizes them with landowner permits that the user still pays the state for of course...

If a cattle rancher runs cattle on National Forest or BLM lands, he pays the feds for grazing rights... Since the states claim to own the wildlife, maybe the should pay the feds for grazing rights since other federal revenue producing activities are not pursued or limited because of the impact on the "state's wildlife".

Pay to Play...

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Funny, I was born in Alaska... Grew up in California... Went back to Alaska... Currently a legal resident of Idaho... Working in California...

But it was cute how you tried to dismiss my opinion as that of a typical Kailfornian. Nice generalization...

Pigeon holing people and the validity of their opinions by their physical location is foolish... Would you like it if I dismissed your opinion as that of a barely literate country boy straddling the poverty line because you live in a small town in Montana?

Generalizing is a dangerous practice...

How about addressing the issues and points that I raised rather than going for the cop out of attacking a poster?

That would almost be refreshing...

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Spyro, you are on a roll here. What I was getting at with my post, has nothing to do with money. I give MY time and effort to the state and its animals. I have worked check stations, done radio collaring projects with the biologists, fed the hungry elk and deer on the burned out winter ranges, packed endless bags of garbage out of the hills, Used MY resources to get alot of this done. I was born way out of state and this is where I chose to live as others can do the same if they want. I left home with a duffle bag 2400 miles from here and understood that the mountains were to be home for me. Why should I not get a break on the lisc. fees. My question is why should someone who does not do any of that get the same breaks as me?