M16,

Tom is right. In Colorado, 40% of draw tags go to non-res, and non-res purchase many more private landowner tags, anyone can get unlimited # of over the counter bull tags in many units. Non-res at the end of the day get close to 1/2 of our tags (maybe more????).

Gato,

The US Constitution gives states the right to manage their own resources. Not all of the land within Colorado's borders is owned by Colorado (Nat Forests and Parks, my property, etc.), but all game whether in my private back yard or anywhere else is the state's property.

Now, those of you in states that are guaranteed a deer tag, why do you have the right to be guaranteed a license to hunt deer in your home state, but you want to deny me (intentionally or unintentionally) the same?????

Deke.

Colorado is not the problem. I don't agree with any quota but the 40/60 is about as fair as can be expected. I like the RFW program because if you have the money you can hunt every year. It also benefits the ranchers and encourages them to manage the wildlife on their property.

The problem states are ones like Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon. At least Nevada issues landowner tags so if you can't get drawn at least you can buy a tag.

Arizona will probably come around. If they raise the non-resident tag fee for elk to $1000 or $3000 eventually that will raise the non-resident quota. The state will see the financial benefit of selling tags to non-residents at an inflated price. Then they will lower the number of resident tags. Landowners in Arizona will wise up and demand they be issued landowner tags that they can sell. The ball is in motion and only time will tell. But I'm willing to bet that in the end it will be the golden rule. You know, he who has the gold makes the rules.

Deke;

You wrote:

quote:

Gato,

The US Constitution gives states the right to manage their own resources. Not all of the land within Colorado's borders is owned by Colorado (Nat Forests and Parks, my property, etc.), but all game whether in my private back yard or anywhere else is the state's property.

You are absolutely wrong, the state absolutely does NOT own the game. Please see my first post in this thread and if you wish, I'll send you links to the relevent court decisions.

I'm not trying to deny you the right to get a deer tag, under whatever system they are issued. However, much of the hunting in Colorado is done on Federal land. If you want to hunt on Federal land, then you should have no more preference than a resident of any other state to do so. You can call that denying you a tag or not. I call it basic fairness. The state of Colorado and the hunters of Colorado emphatically DO NOT own the game while it is on Federal land, if you want to use the term "owning" which is incorrect anyway. Again, see my original post and the NM v Udall decision.

quote:

Alot of people whining about this have no problem getting a deer tag in their home state

_______________
Ain't so, Deke. I've put in for 6 years straight for a specific area in my state and have yet to draw for it. Same on a duck hunt area but 3 yrs running on that one.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Deke;

You wrote:

quote:

Gato,

The US Constitution gives states the right to manage their own resources. Not all of the land within Colorado's borders is owned by Colorado (Nat Forests and Parks, my property, etc.), but all game whether in my private back yard or anywhere else is the state's property.

You are absolutely wrong, the state absolutely does NOT own the game. Please see my first post in this thread and if you wish, I'll send you links to the relevent court decisions.

I'm not trying to deny you the right to get a deer tag, under whatever system they are issued. However, much of the hunting in Colorado is done on Federal land. If you want to hunt on Federal land, then you should have no more preference than a resident of any other state to do so. You can call that denying you a tag or not. I call it basic fairness. The state of Colorado and the hunters of Colorado emphatically DO NOT own the game while it is on Federal land, if you want to use the term "owning" which is incorrect anyway. Again, see my original post and the NM v Udall decision.

I can see a unit tag just for federal land and a general for the balance of the state. I don't feel that I should champion your cause but would suggest that you come up to some of the dept meetings or contact them by mail and tell them how you would like them to run the Colorado Division of Wildlife. I'm sure they would be real interested.

So if there is a federal tag split 50/50 and then the rest of the state what? 0% maybe 25% like it is now? I would fight for the 0%. If you take a particular area such as the one I elk hunt, there are 100 elk tags. 16 go to landowners, 21 to nonresidents, and 62 to residents. Now that same area is 30% private, state, and county,and 70% federal. So then I must assume 70% of the tags should be federal tags, thats 70 split 50/50, then thats 35 for nonresidents just on federal land and none, if we put up a fight, on the rest of the area. So you get 35 instead of 21. Not complicated at all. But if the majority of the elk are on the private and state and not on the federal, then the state or feds must determine how many tags for each protion. SO you might actually see fewer tags for the federal area and more in the private, which would be the case where I hunt. The elk are primarly on the private and state. But then every nonresident must know where the lands stop and start, and the feds will have to hire wardens to patrol the land. It is do able! Good luck! Your dreaming!


But on another note, during the Klinton era, ol slick was in favor, as were many western senators, to give all the federal lands back to the states in which they lay. Man I wish they would have gotten more support.

Gatogordo, the states own the wildlife. It is on the books and lawsuits have been fought and won in Wyoming over the issue.

I'll chime in here...

ISSUE #1 - The Tag Quotas in many states for non-residents is absolutely unfair.

States like Nevada, which is 93% federal land, issues miniscule percentages, like 5%, of tags to non-residents. A state like Oregon issues 1.5% of antelope, 2.5% of deer tags and 2.5% of elk tags to non-residents despite being over 50% federal land.

Some states, like Colorado, have quotas for non-residents that I believe are 100% FAIR!

Wyoming is pretty darn fair as well althought I'd like to see the 25% moved to 30% or 35%.

ISSUE #2 - Tag pricing for non-residents is astronomical.

There is no good reason why resident hunters should be subsidized by non-resident hunters. These game departments are funded by PW Federal Monies and tags sales. Not from the state's general budget.

You want to charge non-residents a little more? fine... But 10x or 20x the resident price is rediculous.

I reluctantly support Taulman's view for one reason...

These game departments have had decades to make fairer systems and stop their exploitation... They could have done the right thing by their own free will.

However, like a freaking crackhead, they won't let go of the crack pipe unless someone steps on their hand and makes them drop it.

SA.

PS. Make that TRUE QUOTAS... don't make every tag... like landowner permits, governor tags and any other tags... automatically come out of the non-resident pool.

PPS. No seperate guided and unguided quotas either.

Sure the states own the wildlife Kudu. All those court decisions, including the one which precipitated this thread don't exist. And the mooon is, in fact, made of green cheese.

Howl on.

Another voice of reason heard from. Well put, Spyro.

I can only speak of what I know of Wyoming laws, I won't just throw retoric up about every state, here in Wy landowner tags and governors tags don't come out of the nonresident pool which in Wy they don't. Those tags come out the same as all the tags, 25% for NR and 75% for residents after landowners and the govenor gets his.

Here in Wy even federal courts have sided with the state on wildlife issues, publicly stating the wildlife is the states responsibility to manage.

Spyro Andes, glad to see you here, very well put.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Another voice of reason heard from. Well put, Spyro.

Let me understand this Texas charges for a resident hunting licesnse a $23 fee but the non resident has to pay $300 am I missing something here must be the water you all drink in Texas. We charge 10x more and that is unfair you all charge 15x more but that is OK. Is the dollar worth less in Texas?

Yeah he was spreading his bullshit wisdom on hunting.net that he will bless us with it here!

Kudu

Your head must be made of the strongest material known to man.....'cause NOTHING gets through to you!

We aren't asking for 50/50 resident/non-resident tag splits for federal land.......we want EVERYONE to have equal opportunity to draw a tag......that means EVERYONE draws from the same pot!!! No splits, no quotas, no percentages ......just a simple, fair drawing of applicants. We don't want ANY distinction between res/non-res in the drawing for federal land tags! Depending on the luck of the draw, residents may get a HIGHER percentage of tags than they do now!

If the game is mostly on state and private lands......that just means those people who drew a tag for federal land may not be successful .......nothing different than the way things are now......if most of the game is on land you can't hunt.....well, you go home empty handed...

There would be no need for federal game wardens.....the same guys that enforce trespassing laws on federal, state and private lands, now, can continue to do the job. You seem to think that a change in the way tags are awarded would automatically bring on an avalanche of game violations.....you sound like an old woman wringing her hands and worrying about figments of her imagination!

As was pointed out earlier......the idea of the feds "giving back" state lands is silly......you can't give something back that never belonged to the states in the first place!

Before you tell Gato that he doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to ownership of game animals.......you might want to look at the evidence he submits......maybe you would care to quote case law that supports your assertion????

No Tom the dollar is the same in Texas, it's the attitude of the Oklatexans. It's the screw you I want everything for nothing, I want what you have and I want it like it is back home!

Gonhuntin, I never said he doesn't know what he is talking about, I said the cases that have came up in WY pretty much got thrown out both in state and federal court, reason, state owns the wildlife. Are you going to tell 50 state legislatures that they have to with draw that law on the books? Go ahead and try!

You also keep saying we this and we that, no most of the posters on here want equal tags for the same price on federal land. I am ok with that, but in reality if you leave the quotas the same in certain hunting units there would actually be fewer tags on the federal land than that is allocated now.

OK....what cases??? Give us some facts that we can research......

I don't think you really know what people that disagree with you want.....because you don't really care to know what they want and that keeps you from considering what they have to say!

I think I can spell it out for you very simply.

1. Equal opportunity for all US citizens to draw a tag for use on FEDERAL land.

2. Equal cost for all US citizens that draw a tag to hunt on federal land.

Before you go off on another rant about living there and blah, blah, blah......FACT: we all pay taxes that support federal land......FACT: the wildlife we are talking about hunting would not exist without the habitat that exists on that land......FACT: residents and non-resident hunters alike pay to support the wildlife in every state through the 11% Pittman Robertson tax that we pay on most of the hunting gear we buy.......

Kudu56:

Perhaps you have a reading impairment. I have never said that a state cannot charge what it wants to for hunting on non-Federal lands. Indeed, I have specifically stated that proposition.

For the record, I don't agree with Texas charging non-residents so much more than they do residents, but I don't run the TX Wildlife Dept either. And, on the very few, if any Federal lands available for hunting in Texas, I feel exactly as I have stated above, the license fees, quotas, etc should be the same for everybody regardless of state of residency.

Now, for the last time, there is NO COURT in Wyoming that has precendence over the Supreme Court. See my first post, if you can read it. The state, any state, DOES NOT OWN the game. That is a fact. And, I don't give a damn how many court rulings you dream up that say otherwise because the Supreme Court is the law of the land, not the ones you THINK you know about. BTW, cite the cases involved.

quote:

Let me understand this Texas charges for a resident hunting licesnse a $23 fee but the non resident has to pay $300 am I missing something here must be the water you all drink in Texas. We charge 10x more and that is unfair you all charge 15x more but that is OK. Is the dollar worth less in Texas?

Let's see. Wyoming non-resident deer license $261 for one deer. Texas non-resident license with tags for seven deer is $300. Let compare apples to apples. Plus if you hunt MLD you can shoot 100 or more deer legally if you like. No drawing. No application fees. No non-resident discrimination. So you are dead ass wrong as usual.

quote:

But on another note, during the Klinton era, ol slick was in favor, as were many western senators, to give all the federal lands back to the states in which they lay. Man I wish they would have gotten more support.

_________

Kudu,
You cant give to "one" or "each" what all own. And if the State(s) did get this and get hard up for monies,,,,,, reckon they might start selling chunks and pieces of it to the likes of say, Turner, Forbes, et. al.? Soros, maybe?

If I were King for a day Federal ownership of land would end and all lands would be turned over to the states. I'm getting real sick of Eastern politicians meddling in Western issues. I think Montana offers enough out of state tags. I believe a state should let it's residents have first shot at most tags with any surplus then to be offered to non residents.

The idea a state would get hard up and sell public land to individuals doesn't fly. We'd make a hell of a lot more money off natural resources if the Feds didn't meddle.

So maybe I'm coming in a little late here (I have read most of the previous posts) but it seems there are 2 competing ideas:

1) Non-residents should just "buck up" if they want to hunt in a state that they do not reside.
vs.
2) Its federal land, so they should have equal access and costs associated to hunt on FEDERAL land regardless of state of residency.

I tend to side with those who want to support equal access to federal lands.

1) States do not own wildlife in their state. This has been clearly established in the United States Supreme Court [Hughes v Oklahoma (1979)]. (But states are given the right to MANAGE wildlife within their state)
2) It is federal land! Here in Idaho we have a HUGE amount of federal land. I don't necessarily like the fact that politicians in New York or Miami or Philadelphia have an equal say in what goes on, but I accept the fact that they do.Of course it is still part of the state in which it is geographically located but their are examples of different standards throughout various legal codes all over the U.S. This is just a matter of debating what standard should be applied and the majority wins, whichever way it goes. But, keep in mind, when arguing "states rights" that all states benefit in many ways from other states. Should planes that leave from Mountain Home A.F.B. only defend the state of Idaho? What about McChord or Fairchild in Washington state? Why have one currency system? Just some questions....

IV

I've scanned the posts since my last entry, and read but a few...

I thought I'd share some info here, as some folks seem to think that hunting on Federal lands would be a shortcut to most State regulations, like non-resident tags fees and the requirement to use a Guide in some cases.

Here is a link the the Federal Fish and Game regs for Federally owned land in the State of Alaska...

Fed Subsistence Management Information

...and the first thing you should note is the word subsistence in the title.

That's because the Feds are only concerned with subsistence issues not sport hunting issues. If you think sport hunters would benefit from this Utopia you guys are wishing for, your wrong.

The Feds follow State rules nearly to the tee, except they do allow some extra hunting days and a few more critters to rural residents. Not all rural residents, just those that live in whatever Game Management Unit is being addressed. I live in a rural area as classified by the Feds, and we get to hunt the month of January for deer when eveyone else must stop December 31st. No added deer tags, just 30 more days.

I am NOT authorized to hunt using Fed subsistence rules anywhere else in the State.

So think about where you live now. Would it be considered 'rural'? Great if it is, but you still couldn't hunt Alaska using 'rural subsistence' regulations.

Check out this quote from the Fed website...

Subsistence hunters and trappers are required to possess State hunting and trapping licenses. Subsistence hunters also are required to possess and comply with the provisions of any tags, harvest tickets, or permits required by the State, unless superceded by Federal regulations. For example, use of State resident brown bear tags are required, unless superseded in unit-specific provisions (see brown bear permit and tag requirements on page 130).

The Feds work closely with the States and don't even address fees and Guide issues. They don't have to because they write rules for the locals who live on or near the Federal land.

You can have your dream, but reality isn't all that hot and I think the idea of asking the Federal goverment for more involvment in our sport is a stupid thing to do.

Hunters should have priority to hunt where they live, simple as that. Hunting should not be about who has the most money. It should not be for the guy who can afford to take a week or two off work and fly across the country and pay $3000 to hunt with an outfitter. Everything was fine the way it was, before USO got involved. Where people get this idea that they should have equal rights to hunt on federal land I have no idea. The states have the right to manage the wildlife however they so choose. Why is that so hard for some to understand?

WH: I don't think it's hard to understand at all. Certainly states have the right to manage wildlife as they see fit. For me I think the argument for an equal playing field with respect to access is quite simple. As you state, it should not be for the guy who can fly across the country and pay $3000 to hunt with an outfitter. In many states it is becoming exactly that for non-residents. I would completly agree with the idea that "you play, you pay" and let the market set the price; but hunting decreased in popularity with middle class America during the 1990's. I believe in 2002 or 2003 the trend stabilized and may even be growing again (hopefully) Fact is, if hunter numbers were to go down, political suport for hunting will go down and eventually hunting will only be for the very affluent in society. I don't think opening up all Federal lands is the answer. But couldn't you agree that hunters would benefit by maintaining the levels of people who participate, and maybe finding a solution somewhere that addresses the disparity between resident and non-resident access?

It seems so often that people become for something or against something and draw a line and say don't cross it. Whatever happened to the American ideal of open debate and compromise?

IV

Well, I'm with BW on this. Look at the small communities or homesteads inside the National Parks. Residents of those communities can subsistence hunt inside the Park. Other state residents and non-residents cannot.

If a state that has a lot of federal land can provide the opportunity for all state residents that want to hunt do so and still offer excess tags to non-residents without a quota, that would be fine. As with Arizona and Nevada, for many state residents federal land in their state is the only place they can hunt. With wildlife populations less than the demand for state residents, it doesn't seem appropriate to me that a resident of the state not be allowed to hunt while non-residents are given the opportunity. Even here in Alaska, there are some species that I may never get to hunt, though non-residents draw tags every year. Same with some drawing areas. I just don't think it is right for some residents to be effectively locked out of areas in their own state while non-residents are allowed to hunt those areas. I certainly wish Alaska had a preference point system.

Game population densities in the mountain west are nowhere near what they are for whitetailed deer in Texas or in the eastern U.S. The demand far exceeds the supply for sustainable harvest. I do believe residents should get a preference.

BW made an excellent post concerning federal lands and the management of wildlife for consumptive uses.

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
Gonhuntin, I never said he doesn't know what he is talking about, I said the cases that have came up in WY pretty much got thrown out both in state and federal court, reason, state owns the wildlife.

Are you still making the false argument that "WY owns the wildlife on federal lands"?

Listen up...

If Wyoming OWNED the wildlife, why aren't they controlling of the fishing in Yellowstone?

Why aren't they getting their grubby little fingers into that money pie? Do they not want the money?

What do residents of Wyoming pay to fish Yellowstone per day?

What do non-residents of Wyoming pay to fish Yellowstone per day?

The bottomline Kudu is that the feds ALLOW the states to manage the wildlife on Federal Lands.

In the case of Yellowstone, the feds figured it was worth milking that cash cow for all it is worth. Bye Bye Wyoming Game & Fish... Hello Feds...

Btw Kudu...

Notice that Yellowstone doesn't have any quotas for resident/nonresident fishermen.

Notice that Yellowstone doesn't charge residents of wyoming less than nonresidents.

However, you can continue to cite non-existant case law and etc.

Fact is that if there was such a precident, Wyoming would be managing and profiting from the Yellowstone Park fishery.

Again, I am not against residents receiving some preference. I actually think that many of the "no non-resident fishing" rotating blocks that happen during the weekends on like the Bevarhead in Montana is a good thing. Non-Residents will more than likely be fishing on Sat & Sun and/or during the less crowded work week as well.

SA

quote:

Originally posted by M16:
[QUOTE]Let me understand this Texas charges for a resident hunting licesnse a $23 fee but the non resident has to pay $300 am I missing something here must be the water you all drink in Texas. We charge 10x more and that is unfair you all charge 15x more but that is OK. Is the
Let's see. Wyoming non-resident deer license $261 for one deer. Texas non-resident license with tags for seven deer is $300. Let compare apples to apples. Plus if you hunt MLD you can shoot 100 or more deer legally if you like. No drawing. No application fees. No non-resident discrimination. So you are dead ass wrong as usual.

I was talking about the cost of the license not where or how many animals that are taken.

Idahovandal:



Well, boys and girls (if any) I'm off to Nueva York for a business trip (I'd rather be fishing), y'all do like Idahovandal said and play nice while I'm gone.

Okay, respond to this one Andes and Gatagordo:

If the Fed owns the game on federal land, how come I don't own the game on mine?

Look, I can't get the USDA the least bit interested in banning shooting glass bottle on public land - or charging an access fee to shoot on natl forest so we can clean up the mess of some slobs. Do you think they are interested in taking on more responsibility? I would be surprised...

I'm leaving but looked one more time. The quick answer is no one "owns" the game, it is like the air free until reduced to possession. We breathe free air, but if someone compresses and bottles it, it ain't free no more and has an owner.

For a writer you don't seem to read very well. I don't think anyone has argued that the Feds own the game, but we/they do own the land on which much of it is hunted in the West, therefore being treated as poor relations in regards to both costs and access to said lands by the various states in which said Fed lands are located is probably unconstitutional under the priviledges and immunities clauses. All the arguments for maintaining the status quo remind me of the century(ies) of arguments about why some people are more equal than others.

Now I'm really gone, got a flight to catch.

Good shooting.

BW and Washington Hunter,

RIGHT ON THE MARK!

Gato,

So now you say that every decision the Supreme Court makes is correct...... Next thing you will say is that the Supreme Court allways rules to the letter of the law..... Yeah right! If so, there would not be decisions drawn along philosophical/partisan lines. The partisan judiciary is a BIG problem in this country. It hope it will get better, but now we are experiencing its shortcomings on a too frequent basis. The best (most expensive to buy....) argument wins, not necessarily the true one.

Dungbeetle,

This may not be so in your state/case, but it is in others (check out the regs in the states of some posters).

Deke.

quote:

Originally posted by IdahoVandal:
WH: I don't think it's hard to understand at all. Certainly states have the right to manage wildlife as they see fit. For me I think the argument for an equal playing field with respect to access is quite simple. As you state, it should not be for the guy who can fly across the country and pay $3000 to hunt with an outfitter. In many states it is becoming exactly that for non-residents. I would completly agree with the idea that "you play, you pay" and let the market set the price; but hunting decreased in popularity with middle class America during the 1990's. I believe in 2002 or 2003 the trend stabilized and may even be growing again (hopefully) Fact is, if hunter numbers were to go down, political suport for hunting will go down and eventually hunting will only be for the very affluent in society. I don't think opening up all Federal lands is the answer. But couldn't you agree that hunters would benefit by maintaining the levels of people who participate, and maybe finding a solution somewhere that addresses the disparity between resident and non-resident access?

It seems so often that people become for something or against something and draw a line and say don't cross it. Whatever happened to the American ideal of open debate and compromise?

IV

When I lived in Calif before we moved to Colorado I always like the drive and the hunt plus the ides that my money support the the wildlife that I hunted and the same applies today when I have to apply in another state since I may not get a deer tag in my home state. I never once looked at who owns what I just like the idea that those fee's support what I was hunting. I have always figure if something is so wrongly unfair the market place will take care of it. The last few years we have lost the number of resident and non resident hunter alike so to me it's not a money issue. Hunting is one of the few things that pays it's own way no matter what state it is. Part of the money comes from the tax placed on guns and certain sporting gooods plus the fee's from license. Political support has aways been the key here since positions are appointed and not elected and as sportman we support those appointed that have our best interest. If a ballot was put up to stop hunting in this state I think it might pass. It has almost at times an uphill battle to keep those rights and I've never support the idea of the Director of fish and game as an elected offical or the board since this would allow the chance of anti-hunters to get on. I realized after I posted about the cost of non resident fee's in Texas and the come back was you get one deer in Colorado for this cost and maybe 100 in Texas so and you are wrong and my comment was that I was talking about fee's so I'm suppose to think $3. per deer for a non resident and .13 cents per deer for a resident as comapred to the fee here in Colorado. I've always supported the sportman in my 63 yrs but if this is what the hunter think I've never put a dollar amount on any wildlife and I'm not about to now.

quote:

Originally posted by Spyro Andes:

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
Gonhuntin, I never said he doesn't know what he is talking about, I said the cases that have came up in WY pretty much got thrown out both in state and federal court, reason, state owns the wildlife.

Are you still making the false argument that "WY owns the wildlife on federal lands"?

Listen up...

If Wyoming OWNED the wildlife, why aren't they controlling of the fishing in Yellowstone?

Why aren't they getting their grubby little fingers into that money pie? Do they not want the money?

What do residents of Wyoming pay to fish Yellowstone per day?

What do non-residents of Wyoming pay to fish Yellowstone per day?

The bottomline Kudu is that the feds ALLOW the states to manage the wildlife on Federal Lands.

In the case of Yellowstone, the feds figured it was worth milking that cash cow for all it is worth. Bye Bye Wyoming Game & Fish... Hello Feds...

Btw Kudu...

Notice that Yellowstone doesn't have any quotas for resident/nonresident fishermen.

Notice that Yellowstone doesn't charge residents of wyoming less than nonresidents.

However, you can continue to cite non-existant case law and etc.

Fact is that if there was such a precident, Wyoming would be managing and profiting from the Yellowstone Park fishery.

Again, I am not against residents receiving some preference. I actually think that many of the "no non-resident fishing" rotating blocks that happen during the weekends on like the Bevarhead in Montana is a good thing. Non-Residents will more than likely be fishing on Sat & Sun and/or during the less crowded work week as well.

SA

Spyro Anddes, I saw your post on looking for bear hunters to fill your week spot for those that cancelled. Who owns the wildlife were your going to be hunting bears? I didn't see you talking about those fee's. Just a different set of rules?

Everyone who wants to hunt the West please head to Idaho

quote:

Originally posted by dempsey:
Everyone who wants to hunt the West please head to Idaho

NO-NO...Haven't you herd about Idaho's Elk herds?There all gone and there are just a few Deer left.The Wolves ate them all and the rest are dieing from contaminated water and air pollution.Montana/Colorado and Wyoming are a much better place to hunt.

Jayco

quote:

Originally posted by tom holland:

Spyro Anddes, I saw your post on looking for bear hunters to fill your week spot for those that cancelled. Who owns the wildlife were your going to be hunting bears? I didn't see you talking about those fee's. Just a different set of rules?

Since it is the Tongass National Forest, I'd say the FEDs own the bears but the State of Alaska MANAGES the resource.

I never said that I was not hunting out-of-state because of the unreasonable fees or because of the quotas.

However, when the average American has to use 2 weeks of paychecks, post tax, to buy a non-resident elk permit in New Mexico, the system is broken.

I am lucky that I do ok financially and don't have the expense of kids.

But still, to fork out $20,000 every season to enter the western states' "Wildlife Lottery" every year has grown tiring.

I'll let you in on a secret, when the most die-hard of big game hunters starts growing weary of the work it takes to hunt in the west as a non-resident... You should worry.

When the non-resident stops footing the bill for these states' wildlife management... Who is going to be the next sucker to keep them wallowing in cash.

The problem is not the non-residents...

The problem is not George Taulman... He is just a bad symptom of a bigger disease.

The problem here is the State Politicians that are only out to get re-elected or re-appointted rather than doing what is right.

When money needs to be raised by these departments, why would they try to squeeze it out of the vote wielding resident?

Why not just squueze it out of the "can't do a darn thing about it" non-resident.

SA

You have the right to stay in your home state, anything you want to do outside your home state will be used as a excuse to screw the hell out of you in our home state. You have the right to go elsewhare, if you give up that right than bend over and take whatever screwing we decide to give you.......do you understand these rights as I've explained them to you?

WOW! This is great! Being from the great state of Alaska, all I can say is good luck on federal land! I think it is great the way it is. Like BW said earlier, we are entitle to subsistence hunt only on certain federal land that we live. That is fine with me as it should be that way. For anyone trying to get that changed, good luck, as ANILCA pretty much took care of all federal land in ALaska. Our susbistence use WILL always take precedent of anything else. Just part of the deal to get the pipeline built and pumping oil. Personally there are plenty of people that would like to see federal land in state control, but that isn't going to happen.

Personally non-residents hunters should get no more than 10% of any draw tags in any state. I as a non-resident of Montana, should never have even close to the same opportunity to hunt there as a resident of that state. I really don't care which state it is. If it was up to me, non-residents would have to have a guide for moose in Alaska also. Maybe I'll put a proposal to get that changed.

As for all you hunters in the great west (Montana, Idaho,etc.) You can count your blessings that you have any animals left to hunt. Once the wolves get rolling, you are going to be limited to no hunting. A bad situation all around. States should have the rights to all game on their land.

quote:

Originally posted by Northway:

States should have the rights to all game on their land.

I agree!

Too bad federal land isn't the states' land.

If the states want to manage the game of federal land and profit from the game on that land, land that belongs to ALL Americans, then maybe they should have to make some concessions to the PEOPLE.

Outfitters pay permit fees to hunt federal land.

Ranchers pay grazing fee to have cattle on federal land.

How about the States fee should be no more screwing the non-resident???

quote:

Originally posted by Northway:

If it was up to me, non-residents would have to have a guide for moose in Alaska also.

Funny thing...

This whole concept of residents not needing a guide while nonresidents do, like living in Alaska makes them better hunters, is quite laughible.

It is like saying that all Asians are good at the martial arts because they are Asian.

Btw, do you know who wants moose to be a guide-only species for non-residents and keeps on trying to get it passed?

Alaskan Guides and Outiftters...

SA