Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

Has anyont seen this? Aug. 2, 2007. "U. S. Congerssman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) today announced the introduction of the Teddt Roosevelt Bring Back Our Public Lands Act in the U. S. House of Representatives. The legislation seeks th reduce costs incured by out of states American outdoorsmen whp hunt exclusively on federal land."
Says Cong. Hunter, "My bill therefore says this: No state may charge more than $200 for a big game licence, specificlly elk, deer, antelope, and bear for hunting that is carried out excluslly on National Forerest or BLM federal lands."
I don't have a bill number yet, but am looking for it.

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

Lets see inWyo. the feds. do not set hunting season or what the game pop. should be, They've jacked us around with wolves, grizzly's and god knows what else. Our population is around 500,000 people so lets cut the the income to help manage the herds.
Do I like the idea, NO

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

It is H.R. 3255 with currently no co-sponsors, and the bill been referred to House committee on Natural Resources.

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

As a taxpayer in these United States, I think I should be able to hunt federal land for the cost of a resident license in that state.In my opinion, a resident of onestate shouldn't have more rights to federal land in his state than any other US citizen.

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

I like the bill and will be sure to contact my congressman to support it. I agree that I no one should have to pay more to hunt federal land, regardless the state.

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

gotlost, the feds are not setting anything, they just want to put a cap on out of state licences for hunting on federal land. The individual states can still gouge you for private or state land hunts.

I think this is the best thing since chocolate!

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

I just finished emailing my congressman and insisted he get involved and votein favor ofthe bill. It should now pass without any problem. ;)

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

I'm not the most savy on these issues so forgive my ignorance, but it seems that access to land is one issue and access to animals is another. I know that the Fed Gov oversees federal land but I think the maintenance of the herd and animal life is usually left to the states. I'm not opposed to it, but I think that the states should be left to manage the animals and that the rights of those living with in the state should not be diminished by granting lower cost tags to those who don't. We are a republic after all. Whether I live in CO, AZ, NM or any other state, i wouldn't want to be crowded out by folks from out of state. It's tough enough to find good public land to hunt with just the population booms the western states have experienced. Another thought, at face value this seems like it would be a victory for the little guy, for example I might be able to afford to hunt with my brother down in AZ or my other bro in CA, but I'd want to make sure that it doesn't tip the scale too far for the elitest. We definitely have a trend of hunting changing from an "everybody" activity to those who can afford it activity. I'd like to know fully how this would affect that trend before I cast my vote.

spud

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

I agree with spuddog. Perhaps this does seem like a good idea but it really has nothing to do with the land you hunt on, it has to do specifcally with the animal you are hunting and the state should definately have control of that.

I understand that price for non-resident tags do seem exhorbitant at times, but worse, I fear, is the federal governement, which does not have a stellar record for management, will make such a mess out of things, that affected states may start limiting non-resident tags in some other way, which would be at their discretion.

What would happen if the federal government started issuing universal tags to hunt any federal land throughout the U.S., but then later because of antis, decided that hunting was wrong altogether on federal land. I'm not saying this will be a direct result, but what I am saying is once the genie is let out of the bottle and federal government gets its foot in the door regarding hunting regulations, although initailly seeming like a good thing, will probably only get worse....probably a good idea to leave "hunting" instate control.

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

i would like to see out of state tags go down in price; but, in most states you would still have to get drawn in a lottery to even have the opportunity to purchase a tag. if a lottery and lower tag prices, i think it could be a win win situation (just make every state a lottery for out-of-state tags)

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.

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"

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

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?

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

IMHO HUNTING IS NOT A GOVERMENT GIVEN RIGHT BUT A GOD GIVEN RIGHT ...I SAY TO HELL WITH ALL THE LICENSE FEE [:@]

dd

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

Then you probably say to hell with all other regulations that govern hunting as well, don't you???

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

Hillbilly don't put words in my mouth ...but in answer to your question I do not have a lot of faith in our goverment right now ...now I did NOT say our country but our goverment !

dd

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.

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 2¢.

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"?

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

What!! That is absolutely absurd. Has to be spolen from an from someone on the east coast where there is no public land. The western states are mostly public. I'm from the Wyoming originally and alot of the state is Checker board BLM and Forest.Canyou say that aboutthe East. Probably not.
QuickQuestion. So now I want to go down south or back east and huntwaterfowl or Deer. Do I havethe same chance has someone going to Colorado orWyoming. No!!! These states relyon the Out of staters willing to pay.

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

I believe he is talking about federal, not state land.

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

Last time I looked BLM and Forest are federal, unless I missed something and they changed those to State lands. Don't see much yellow(BLM) on the maps once you get east of the Missouri. FOrest yeah, but I would guess put money that there is more national forest and Grassland in the west then the East Also!!

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

Although I see your point in reference to public lands, all this bill is proposing is a FAIR license rate for out-of-state hunters. As for Florida's non-resident rates, I think they are pretty fair ( http://myfwc.com/license/) as opposed to hunting in a state like Wyoming, for example,forMountain Goats, Elk, Moose, etc. ( http://gf.state.wy.us/fiscal/license/index.asp)

We cannot help the fact that these species do not roam the Everglades and should not be unfairly taxed (licensed) for hunting them in land that we pay taxes to maintain.

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

Just responding back to the comment. As for being fair that the western states have animals that Florida does not. Well thats just it. Elk used to thrive throughout the lower 48, but do to human population they now have retreated to the higher elevations.
So I throw this out there. Government steps in and contols hunting in the Western States Bread and Butter. Now should the Federal Government Regulate the tourist traps around the Country for there high prices. Let's say Disney World!!

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

It doesn't cost anyone, anything to hunt on federal land.

BUT..............the states and it'speople own the game. Each state can and does manage their own game herds as they see fit. It's that way in every state, and the federal goverment should stay out of the states affairs.

This has been taken to court and all the courts stand up for the states rights to manage their own game herds.

Do you guys remember several years ago when USO outfitters (George Taullman) tried to dosome thing very similar to thisincourt. It failed big time and he was black balled by all the hunting community.

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

I think this country has suffered too much from attempts to bring change, it's time people face reality, hunting, is generally expensive, and travelling anywhere, by car, is expensive, let's face it, the world is much more expensive than it used to be, that's just the way things are.

Of course, if we had hybrid cars and planes, the travel costs would be less, and weight restrictions on airlines would be lowered, since that's the reason they lower them, the more weight, the more energy required to keep the objects flying.

I think that there's other solutions to this problem, like alternative fuels, which would lower the cost to get to theWest in the first place, so then that gives you more money to be able to spend on the game tag.

Josiah

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

I agree, this seems to be the most logical solution to me.Put a cap onthe fees to FEDERAL land and let the state control the amount of hunters.

From what I'm reading it seems like most talk is about the Easterners coming out west and stealin' guys elk and mule deer but on the reverse, I'd like for some of my family and friends that live in CO be able to come out to VA and hunt w/me and not cost them an arm and a leg.

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

TN, for $120 in VA you can purchase a NonRes Sportsman's license and that includes Rifle, Muzzle loader, Archery, Crossbow, big game, small game and a fishing license. You can shoot and reel until you need a chiropractor for $120. And as for no Fed Land in the east, VA has over 2.5 million acres of National Forests called the George Washington NF and the Thomas Jefferson National Forest. The western states are not protecting anything except their budgets. They are gouging out of stater's and it goes up every year. I guarantee you that it would be a different story on here if the Feds didn't let hunting on the BLM and other Fed. Land out west. I agree that I don't want the Feds getting involved with hunting, but it just is not fair that I pay taxes to maintain and operate Fed land and parks, but I pay 20 times more than a person that lives in that state. How about VA, MD and DC start charging everyone from out west $500 to visit all of the Fed. Monuments and parks here in our area? What would all of the tourists say? NOT FAIR, I pay for those! That is what they would say. Just make this a little more fair. Don't ask for $755 for an Elk tag for Non-Res and $50 for a Resident.

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

VA Mike, I think you might have misunderstood me. I think we agree on this.I realize how expensive licenses are in VA, I grew up and lived for 21 yearsin Craig county which issomething ridiculous like 80% NF.My point is, despite the fact that its cheaper for someone to come east and hunt rather than west, if its federal land I think the price for a license/tagshould be the same. Others may disagree and that's fine that's what makes America so great.

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

I am originally from NH, that absurd place where you can hunt all privately or publicly owned land, that is not posted against hunting or tresspassing, without landowner permission. The tradition there is pro-sportsman, and hunting has not been viewed as a money-making enterprise by landowners. Things are changing there now, with more land being posted every year. I line in Indiana now,where the traditionis 180 degrees different. No access without permission, and nobody really wants to give permissionin the part of the state thatI live.

NH does have a substantial amount of federal land though. The White Mountain National Forest is huge.

Anyway, my point relates to federal land. I agree that the states should manage their game animals, even on federal lands.I don't agree that I should pay more than a resident to hunt federal land in a given state. The animalI shoot doesn't cost the state any more to manage than the one a resident shoots. The primaryreasons for higher out-of-state fees are to raise more money and to limit access. I see no justification for a state limiting access to federal lands. Absurb, I know.

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

You forget who patrols most of these Public Lands. Very few Federal wardens out there. Mostly State Wardens and there are not enoughof them either. You take away the out of state money and guess what less wardens, MORE POACHING and Less Game. Oh don't say that the poaching is the locals only. Around here it is almost even with good old boys and out of staters. Just that when the out of staters get caught they usually have more..

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

So you guys that are for this bill are saying everything on federal land should be equeal for the resident and non-resident?

Be careful what you ask for!!!!! To take this one step farther, George Tallman's lawsuits ask for this very thing. BUT if every thing is equeal then residents are SOL. The reason is since non-residentslive in 49 other states then the number of permits should reflect that number. 49 permits go to non-residents and 1 goes to a resident. GET REAL!!!!!!!!

The states manage "all" aspects of game management period. You have to have a WY permint to hunt WY don't you? Private land, state land and federal land are all in the state aren't they?Then go by their rules. Hunting is good in the west because the G&F dept are doing a good job and have "total" control of the wildlife management, encluding pricing license. IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT!!!

If you don't like the prices don't go or if you want to hunt a certain state.........then move there. Then you will have resident privledges.

As far as prices go, IL charges $366 for a non-resident archery deer tag. That is IL's "going rate" How many western states charge that for a deer license?

This bill can really open up a can of worms. If the states loose control...........where does it all end???? The anti's from other states could just get together and go to the federal goverment and say "no hunting on federal land in MT" BOOM!!! It's done.

Again I'll say this.........KEEP THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT OUT OF A STATES RIGHT TO MANAGE GAME!!!!

Besides all that what gives a non-resident the right to tell another state how to manage game or what to charge inthat or any otherstate!

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

TN, Sorry I misunderstood you. I love to hunt out by Craig County, you guys have some nice deer. Your right, we do agree. I think that is the kicker for most of us on this issue. Why don't they just make the cost the same to hunt on Federal Lands from east to west? The state will still have the right to manage the percentage of out of state tags. The number of out of state hunters would still be controlled. Just because the cost of a tag goes down does not mean that there will be more people in the woods. The state would probably realize more money in the end because more people would apply for tags at a lower rate. I am kind of getting the feeling that this is just an issue of locals not wanting more hunters taking game in their local areas. I understand and would probably feel the same if I lived out west. But as a taxpayer it's still just not fair.

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

Exactly. You guys don't know what you're asking for.

Rediculous to compare VA or FL to WY. It's a matter of scale. Scale of the land and animals that are managed. Anyone who thinks they are similar has not been West, I'd bet. If they have then they must know "inside" how foolish that sounds.

Wow!! Are you hunting Elk in the Washigton Monument??? We're not talking about visiting public land (actaully I bet it costs more to "visit" the Washington Monument than it does Bighorn National Forest.) We're talking about hunting animals that belong to the each individual state.

As was said above, if you guys want to cry about lower license prices, then move to whatever state you want to predominantly hunt in. You probably will experience a substantial economic impact to you own earning power but the tradeoff for awesome wilderness may well be worth it.

Bottom line is that control of hunting is and should be a state issue according to the U.S.Constitution and although others have tried to supplant the authority of the states before, they lost, and hopefully this bill will loseas well.

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

We are talking about Public Land! The land that you are calling public is Federal Land. I guess that you would be OK with the state not getting ANY Federal Taxpayer Funds to maintain and operate the Federal Land in your state. If that were the case, I would feel the state has the right to charge what they want. But when they get Taxpayers $'s, I should have the same standard as the next taxpayer regardless of where I live. And I'll take your bet, the Washington Monument, as well as the Lincoln and Jefferson Monuments and all of the Smithsonian Museums are Federally Funded and Operated and free to EVERYONE 6 days a week. What I think inside is that it is foolish that my tax $'s pay for land that I have to pay anything more than anyone else to hunt on. Teddy Roosevelt set aside these lands so that hunting would be available to EVERYONE for generations to come. Now the west is pricing the normal hunter out of the gamefor a profit. You can argue all you want, but the fact is if you lived somewhere else looking in, you would feel the same way we do. As for moving out west, I'd love to, but it is not in my cards right now and that isn't the issue. I'm sure that you have complained of gas prices like the rest of us, but you have not moved to Saudi Arabia. Simple thinking, just move out here and pay in state prices. You can't take all the Federal Aid and then scream about State rights.

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

Virgina Mike
If you draw a licenese, hunting on federal land is FREE TO HUNT ON. Just like it is for a resident.

Federal land is also free for one and all to camp, hike, snow shoe, take pic's, fish, take a sunday drive, cross country ski snow mobile, etc, etc, for free! Your federal taxes pay for this. ITS YOURS TO USE!!!!!

BUT the game is the states and you have to pay for the privledge to take it!

Do you hear any WY residents screaming "hey this is federal land so I want to pay less to hunt here than I do on private or state land in WY"?

Just because it's federal land doesn't mean you get a break on shootingWY's game. It's WY's property no matter if it's on private, state, or federal land!!!!!!

The game will cost you reguardless if it's on state, private, or federalland...............the cost of using federal land is free.

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

I've been on the inside and now I'm on the outside looking into Wyoming. I have no problem with the states charging to take their animals.

Let's go one step farther then. The Federal government gives out subsidies to Farmers and Ranchers. These subsidies come from Taxes. So now can I hunt on a Rancher's or Farmer's lands. I think not!!!

Also one other thing. The Federal camp grounds charge fees to camp. They shouldn't do that either cause it the peoples land.

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

Even though I'd like to see lower prices, I'd say the boys out in DC need to stay out of this. Any time they interfere, things get worse, not better.

Federal land yes, but the game is managed by the State, yes?. Therefore, state fee to participate in their hunt.

RE: Reduction of out-of-state fees
 

LOL, I live in and am from WV. So I am "looking in" as far as western hunting is concerned and am not acting in my own self interest assome others here are. I have lived in the west though, so I think it's a lot easier for me to see this issue more clearly than some.

You win that bet.Admission is free to the Washington Monument, just likeadmission isfree to the Beaverhead national forest (MT).Although hunting in MT is not free.Mike, even if you yourself owned 100 acres in MT but lived in VA, you COULD NOT HUNT THERE WITHOUT a regular non-resident license. Why not? It's your land, right?? Because it's the states animals, and although you can go to any federal national forest land and frolic for free, you have to pay in order to pursue the state's game.