Reduction of out-of-state fees
08-09-2007, 10:56 PM
#11
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: LaPorte, IN
Posts: 1,111
RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
I am glad this bill came about if nothing else just to bing attention to the problem of runaway raping of nonresidents in all states. It's all about drawing lines in the sand and greed. I predicted such a bill would come about 5 years ago and got hammered on Bowsite by westerners. If such a bill ever did actually pass the states would immediately run and try to figure out some way around it to continue their gravy train. Maybe a special tax for any nonresident crossing the state line with aweapon in possession or some other BS. It's federal land, for crise sake. Somebody needs to do something to stop the king's hunting we are on track for.
08-10-2007, 06:29 AM
#12
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WY
Posts: 2,056
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"
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"
08-10-2007, 09:37 AM
#13
Fork Horn
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Colorado
Posts: 335
RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
You can control the number of hunters and thus the game population by the number of tags, but that should stay firmly in the hands of the state. I usually tend to be more of a federalist by nature, but this is one that I strongly believe should be left to the state. Maybe they could just mandate a maximum percentage difference between local and out of state tags, that would be less invassive and create less of a presidence for federal interference. Again, I have family in AZ, NM, UT and CA and would love to be able to afford to go hunting with them, not paying through the nose. But, I also am very wary of Federal interference in this situation and what it might lead to, as well as tiping the scale to the side of the outfitter and purchased hunts. That would end much of what hunting means to me.
spud
spud
08-11-2007, 06:04 AM
#14
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WY
Posts: 2,056
RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
Just a couple more thoughts here....
I'm not wholly against increased access for nonresident hunters. We have game here in Wyoming that simply isn't available to some of them at home, and specifically I'll cite elk and antelope.
Deer, however, abound in these United States. I'm appalled when I hear from them things like "everything's private land at home, I just can't afforda lease". In my opinion, that's a bigger problem than nonresident tag fees in states where public lands abound, and it's a problem that's shown up here in the west now, too.
My family used to own quite a bit of land suitable for hunting. But because of some irreconcilable differences over its management between those who inherited it, it was forced to sale. Now, the bright spot of all of this is that we received WELL more than the appraised price. The sad spot is that the guy who paid so much more for it? Well, his only interest in it is as a private hunting reserve. So, the average joes who used to show up in the fall to ask permission to hunt are out of luck there now.
It isn't just the individual with money who's chasing us out. I see more and more private land sales involving interestgroups like the Nature Conservancy who often try to place restrictions (no motorized travel, no hunting) on the ground they'll "help" you come up with the cash to buy as a condition of "helping you".
We're not going to see American hunting go the way of European hunting as long as we have public lands. But - we have to stop and reverse this wave of lost access EVERYWHERE. I wonder if the bill's sponsor here has considered how much of his home state has been closed to public hunting due to private land sales?
I'm not wholly against increased access for nonresident hunters. We have game here in Wyoming that simply isn't available to some of them at home, and specifically I'll cite elk and antelope.
Deer, however, abound in these United States. I'm appalled when I hear from them things like "everything's private land at home, I just can't afforda lease". In my opinion, that's a bigger problem than nonresident tag fees in states where public lands abound, and it's a problem that's shown up here in the west now, too.
My family used to own quite a bit of land suitable for hunting. But because of some irreconcilable differences over its management between those who inherited it, it was forced to sale. Now, the bright spot of all of this is that we received WELL more than the appraised price. The sad spot is that the guy who paid so much more for it? Well, his only interest in it is as a private hunting reserve. So, the average joes who used to show up in the fall to ask permission to hunt are out of luck there now.
It isn't just the individual with money who's chasing us out. I see more and more private land sales involving interestgroups like the Nature Conservancy who often try to place restrictions (no motorized travel, no hunting) on the ground they'll "help" you come up with the cash to buy as a condition of "helping you".
We're not going to see American hunting go the way of European hunting as long as we have public lands. But - we have to stop and reverse this wave of lost access EVERYWHERE. I wonder if the bill's sponsor here has considered how much of his home state has been closed to public hunting due to private land sales?
08-11-2007, 01:39 PM
#16
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WV
Posts: 4,485
RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
ORIGINAL: DoctorDeath
IMHO HUNTING IS NOT A GOVERMENT GIVEN RIGHT BUT A GOD GIVEN RIGHT ...I SAY TO HELL WITH ALL THE LICENSE FEE [:@]
dd
IMHO HUNTING IS NOT A GOVERMENT GIVEN RIGHT BUT A GOD GIVEN RIGHT ...I SAY TO HELL WITH ALL THE LICENSE FEE [:@]
dd
08-11-2007, 05:12 PM
#17
RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
ORIGINAL: hillbillyhunter1
Then you probably say to hell with all other regulations that govern hunting as well, don't you???
ORIGINAL: DoctorDeath
IMHO HUNTING IS NOT A GOVERMENT GIVEN RIGHT BUT A GOD GIVEN RIGHT ...I SAY TO HELL WITH ALL THE LICENSE FEE [:@]
dd
IMHO HUNTING IS NOT A GOVERMENT GIVEN RIGHT BUT A GOD GIVEN RIGHT ...I SAY TO HELL WITH ALL THE LICENSE FEE [:@]
dd
dd
08-11-2007, 06:57 PM
#18
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WV
Posts: 4,485
RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
I can understand that feeling. That is just another reason why the "fed" should not interfere with state control of hunting.
Although, I sometimes wish I lived as a Hudson Bay trapper in the 1700s with all of the wilderness as my own personal hunting oyster, it doesn't seem rational to think, that, nowadays,there shouldn't be fees to fund management and protection of wildlife.
Although, I sometimes wish I lived as a Hudson Bay trapper in the 1700s with all of the wilderness as my own personal hunting oyster, it doesn't seem rational to think, that, nowadays,there shouldn't be fees to fund management and protection of wildlife.
08-12-2007, 11:54 AM
#19
Spike
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location:
Posts: 74
RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
As a teacher and a Florida hunter new to the sport I am glad about the timing of this proposed legislation. I don't see it as Federal interference with the state's control on hunting. I see it as the government giving back to the americans a benefit that they should have had in the first place. Federal dollars collected from all of our taxes are used to maintain these lands therefore access to these lands should be the same for any taxpayer regardless of their state of residence.
If the government was trying to interfere with hunting on state or private land I would have a problem; but this is not the case in this proposal.
As far as having an influx of out-of-state hunters, this may or may not happen since the licences are not the only financial factors to consider when planning a hunt. If a statedoes havean influx, think about the financial benefits to the small businesses surrounding the forrest areas. Hunters have to eat, sleep, use gas, etc. The money is better spentby consumers supporting the local communitiesthan on a trumped-up state licenses which often end up misused.
Just my 2ยข.
If the government was trying to interfere with hunting on state or private land I would have a problem; but this is not the case in this proposal.
As far as having an influx of out-of-state hunters, this may or may not happen since the licences are not the only financial factors to consider when planning a hunt. If a statedoes havean influx, think about the financial benefits to the small businesses surrounding the forrest areas. Hunters have to eat, sleep, use gas, etc. The money is better spentby consumers supporting the local communitiesthan on a trumped-up state licenses which often end up misused.
Just my 2ยข.
08-12-2007, 12:34 PM
#20
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 72
RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
omarrh, I agree woth you 100%. Why should we little guys be prevented from hunting public (read federal) lands by some money grabbin state orginization who wants to cater the more affluent "sportsman"?