Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 91
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hunting Wife View Post

    A serious question for some of the "more seasoned" folks . My perception is that hunting out of state used to be sort of a once-in-a-lifetime endeavor for most people. They would save up for years to go on an elk hunt or a mule deer hunt or a moose hunt somewhere, and they would hang their trophy on the wall and talk about it for the rest of their lives. The idea that everyone is entitled to hunt out of state, often in multiple states, every year seems like it's a relatively recent development - kind of spurred by the advent of social media and everyone's FOMO. Is my perception off base?
    Are you talking guided hunts or DIY hunts? A lot of people that do not go DIY are still saving for years to do a guided hunt that may only be a once in a lifetime hunt due to the costs, but a DIY hunt isn't going to take you multiple years of saving unless it's an adventure in the north country maybe.

    I think a lot of hardcore DIY hunters have been hunting multiple states each year for decades. It just seems like a recent development because of the internet and social media.

  2. #52

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by timothy.aanerud View Post
    I'm sure there would be plenty of grumbling, but how many folks would really stop hunting? Us out of staters carry more than our share of the water WRT the dollars that Game and Fish will use for conservation programs in the state that we hunt. We pound our chests and say that our license fees go to the conservation ethic but we gripe when in state fees go from 25$ - 30$. Meanwhile the out of stater, still paying the federal taxes that support federal lands in every state gets gouged for an extra $300. Maybe I'm on the outside but i think we all should have an equal opportunity to do so, at a fair price, comparable to the rest of the country. I grew up a Minnesotan but feel on this issue that I'm an American and should have an equal opportunity to harvest an American Elk, Muley, etc.
    Also to consider that most Western States are economically depressed. I could pick up and leave and make double what I make now. One of the benefits of being a resident is cheaper, more available tags, but it comes at the cost of lower wages as a penalty for living in states with elk.

  3. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hunting Wife View Post
    A serious question for some of the "more seasoned" folks . My perception is that hunting out of state used to be sort of a once-in-a-lifetime endeavor for most people. They would save up for years to go on an elk hunt or a mule deer hunt or a moose hunt somewhere, and they would hang their trophy on the wall and talk about it for the rest of their lives. The idea that everyone is entitled to hunt out of state, often in multiple states, every year seems like it's a relatively recent development - kind of spurred by the advent of social media and everyone's FOMO. Is my perception off base?
    Not sure it's any more prevalent now, we just know more about more folks because of things like social media. My home town is about the same size now as it was when I lived there 20yrs ago. I probably knew about as many folks, my parents age, then that traveled to hunt as I do now at my age.

  4. Default

    all I know is im going to keep applying, if I get rejected for a combo tag then ill go elk b tag maybe deer b and upland and shoot some pheasants and still have a great time

  5. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hunting Wife View Post
    Under the laws governing wildlife in our country, there are no "American" elk and mule deer. Wildlife are held in trust by the states, to manage for the benefit of their citizens. One of the benefits to the residents of each state is that nonresidents pay more for the privilege of hunting their wildlife. I happen to agree with that model, given the unique challenges that living with certain species present to residents of various states. I do think resident license fees are too low in many cases, but I don't see it as an affront to my hunting liberties that I pay more if I choose to hunt in a state where I'm not a resident. If it means that much to me, I am perfectly free to move and become a resident elsewhere.

    A serious question for some of the "more seasoned" folks . My perception is that hunting out of state used to be sort of a once-in-a-lifetime endeavor for most people. They would save up for years to go on an elk hunt or a mule deer hunt or a moose hunt somewhere, and they would hang their trophy on the wall and talk about it for the rest of their lives. The idea that everyone is entitled to hunt out of state, often in multiple states, every year seems like it's a relatively recent development - kind of spurred by the advent of social media and everyone's FOMO. Is my perception off base?
    I don't think this is new but more perception spurred on by social media and hunting shows.
    My father guided hunters in the 60's and early 70's. Most of the clients he had would hunt several states. One group form PA would hunt WY and then in MT every year.
    Twenty years ago I was working on the school housing. "the joy of small town school board" when a hunter from Michigan hit me up for info. He was hunting with a local outfitter. It was late November and this hunt was going to be his ninth hunt of the year and when he got done in Montana he was headed to Kansas for hunt number 10. Later found out he was cutting costs by not buying licences every where he hunted.

    One thing about Montana, with our long seasons out of state hunters that have the time and money to hunt multiple states can almost always fit a Montana hunt in and not have scheduling conflicts.
    Last edited by antlerradar; 12-06-2017 at 02:03 PM.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hunting Wife View Post
    Under the laws governing wildlife in our country, there are no "American" elk and mule deer. Wildlife are held in trust by the states, to manage for the benefit of their citizens. One of the benefits to the residents of each state is that nonresidents pay more for the privilege of hunting their wildlife. I happen to agree with that model, given the unique challenges that living with certain species present to residents of various states. I do think resident license fees are too low in many cases, but I don't see it as an affront to my hunting liberties that I pay more if I choose to hunt in a state where I'm not a resident. If it means that much to me, I am perfectly free to move and become a resident elsewhere.

    A serious question for some of the "more seasoned" folks . My perception is that hunting out of state used to be sort of a once-in-a-lifetime endeavor for most people. They would save up for years to go on an elk hunt or a mule deer hunt or a moose hunt somewhere, and they would hang their trophy on the wall and talk about it for the rest of their lives. The idea that everyone is entitled to hunt out of state, often in multiple states, every year seems like it's a relatively recent development - kind of spurred by the advent of social media and everyone's FOMO. Is my perception off base?
    Honestly I'd probably feel the same way if I was you and had the opportunity and privilege to live somewhere with such great hunting opportunity. But as I'm not I don't. For federal land, paid for with federal dollars I think that equal opportunity to draw is a better option. I'm personally not perfectly free to move to your state and I can think of at least 1% of the population who is in the same boat as me. But I know this argument probably won't hold any water here. I do think the funding debate is not a bad one to continue however. I would think that habitat only gets better if we all pay a little more for the opportunity to hunt whether we be NR or residents right? As long as fish and game are managing the resources $$ provided which I have no reason to doubt that they do.

    Thanks all for the responses.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Danbury, Wisconsin
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Not all wildlife are held in trust and "owned" by the states right? Are waterfowl and other migratory species not treated differently? To be honest I find it kind of silly that states "own" the wildlife and it is a "privilege" to hunt in another state.. Where I lived a deer can cross the St. Croix and go from a "Wisconsin deer" to a "Minnesota deer." Wildlife do not follow state boundaries

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Almost North Dakota, not quite Canada
    Posts
    708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwoods Labs View Post
    Not all wildlife are held in trust and "owned" by the states right? Are waterfowl and other migratory species not treated differently? To be honest I find it kind of silly that states "own" the wildlife and it is a "privilege" to hunt in another state.. Where I lived a deer can cross the St. Croix and go from a "Wisconsin deer" to a "Minnesota deer." Wildlife do not follow state boundaries
    Migratory birds are managed by the feds in cooperation with Mexico and Canada in accordance with international treaty (with the states also cooperating). The feds are also charged with managing threatened and endangered species, usually again with some kind of cooperation from the states. Everything else falls under state management.

  9. #59

    Default

    Hunting is a privilege in any state,

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hunting Wife View Post
    Under the laws governing wildlife in our country, there are no "American" elk and mule deer. Wildlife are held in trust by the states, to manage for the benefit of their citizens. One of the benefits to the residents of each state is that nonresidents pay more for the privilege of hunting their wildlife. I happen to agree with that model, given the unique challenges that living with certain species present to residents of various states. I do think resident license fees are too low in many cases, but I don't see it as an affront to my hunting liberties that I pay more if I choose to hunt in a state where I'm not a resident. If it means that much to me, I am perfectly free to move and become a resident elsewhere.
    Do you think land ownership should be considered when allocating permits?

  11. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whiptail View Post
    Do you think land ownership should be considered when allocating permits?
    Nope. mtmuley

  12. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mtmuley View Post
    Nope. mtmuley
    Why?

  13. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HighWildFree View Post
    Also to consider that most Western States are economically depressed. I could pick up and leave and make double what I make now. One of the benefits of being a resident is cheaper, more available tags, but it comes at the cost of lower wages as a penalty for living in states with elk.
    Do you think it's good government policy to reward people with cheap and plentiful permits for living in a place where they can barely make a living?

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Posts
    9,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whiptail View Post
    Do you think it's good government policy to reward people with cheap and plentiful permits for living in a place where they can barely make a living?
    All states have the right to set their fee schedules for hunting as they see fit...and allocate tags as they see fit, and to charge NR's more, and manage the game as they see fit.

    You can continue to argue otherwise, but the courts have already ruled on this.
    "...the world outside, which my brother and I soon discovered, was full of bastards, the number increasing rapidly the farther one gets from Missoula, Montana." -Norman Maclean

    "They were still so young they hadn't learned to count the odds and to sense they might owe the universe a tragedy"
    -Norman Maclean

  15. Default

    Aren't we all residents somewhere? Seems like everyone has the same setup. Cheaper resident fees and the opportunity to apply in other states for a higher cost. I, for one, don't live in the state that I prefer to hunt. In fact, it isn't in my top 5.....but I don't blame anyone for that but me. Luckily, the good job I have in this state helps me afford hunting in other states, including where I grew up hunting in Montana.....

  16. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by forkhunter View Post
    Aren't we all residents somewhere? Seems like everyone has the same setup. Cheaper resident fees and the opportunity to apply in other states for a higher cost. .
    True but the main difference is some states have the vast majority of Federal land while others have very little.

  17. #67

    Default

    Move. Or just whine.
    I'll pass on the Kool-Aid.

  18. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BuzzH View Post
    All states have the right to set their fee schedules for hunting as they see fit...and allocate tags as they see fit, and to charge NR's more, and manage the game as they see fit.

    You can continue to argue otherwise, but the courts have already ruled on this.
    Of course you are correct. The wall street bailouts and Iraq war are over too. Should we stop talking about and questioning those government blunders as well?

    Lots of Federal lands are jeopardy and these types of policies are not helping them. I find questioning the attitudes and decisions that created them is useful, constructive, and educational.

  19. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenhorn View Post
    Move. Or just whine.
    Better yet, I could vote for people who want to sell off federal lands.

  20. #70

    Default

    Bet you cried when Cruz didn’t make it.
    I'll pass on the Kool-Aid.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Gallatin Valley, MT
    Posts
    1,177
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whiptail View Post
    Better yet, I could vote for people who want to sell off federal lands.
    You'll be in good company.

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Central Minnesota
    Posts
    544

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BuzzH View Post
    All states have the right to set their fee schedules for hunting as they see fit...and allocate tags as they see fit, and to charge NR's more, and manage the game as they see fit.

    You can continue to argue otherwise, but the courts have already ruled on this.
    Yep- for me it's this ^^^^ I'm going to try to get a Mt. deer combo next year, but I don't have the time or energy for the deer /elk combo so I won't apply for it.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Three Forks, Mt
    Posts
    954

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whiptail View Post
    Better yet, I could vote for people who want to sell off federal lands.
    Great rebuttal.
    Impressive����

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whiptail View Post
    True but the main difference is some states have the vast majority of Federal land while others have very little.
    So move to one of those states with the vast majority of federal land and then you get to pay the resident fees. Pretty simple fix.

  25. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hunting Wife View Post
    A serious question for some of the "more seasoned" folks . My perception is that hunting out of state used to be sort of a once-in-a-lifetime endeavor for most people. They would save up for years to go on an elk hunt or a mule deer hunt or a moose hunt somewhere, and they would hang their trophy on the wall and talk about it for the rest of their lives. The idea that everyone is entitled to hunt out of state, often in multiple states, every year seems like it's a relatively recent development - kind of spurred by the advent of social media and everyone's FOMO. Is my perception off base?
    From my very limited view, I can only agree on the second half. My grandfather was a blue collar worker and a father of six, yet he still went on at least half a dozen western hunting trips (elk, mule deer, pronghorn), including a Newfoundland Moose hunt, all coming from WNY. Now, they did things a little differently for the trips to the Rockies - they'd have a huge crew that went ( at least 10 guys ), so gear and costs were distributed, but they'd also sometimes hire a freelance guide.

    Social media pushes people to become a single facet - you aren't "real" unless you're dedicated, hardcore, obsessed, which my wife would argue is a mental illness. You can't just hunt, you have to be single species or single weapon, or even moreso, both. IE: Archery mule deer hunter. In order to do that, you're going to have to hunt multiple states, otherwise you're not going to have much to share. Its all a bit scary. I could rant on this for an hour.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •