Turkey hunting forum for turkey hunting tips

With more and more states restricting the number of nonresident hunters, do you think they should be able to do so on Federal land, unless they also limit the number of residents?


Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

It would depend on how you define "restrict nonresident hunter". If the restriction on nonresident hunters is the number of tags allowed is a set amount, then they should be able to hunt any open lands, exception being if the draws are by zones. What I am trying to say in a not very eloquent way is if a non-resident has a tag then they should be able to hunt any open area.

Yes. Outside of migratory game birds, game animals aren't regulated on a federal level. Turkeys are regulated by the state. So the fact that it's federal land, sure you have a right to be there as an out-of-stater just like you have a right to be on any other public land. But the state does not have the responsibility or requirement to grant you the privilege of hunting turkeys on that land. That's the state's resource and they can grant or restrict those opportunities in any way they see fit for management.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: ChesterCopperpot on June 22, 2024, 02:03:45 PMYes. Outside of migratory game birds, game animals aren't regulated on a federal level. Turkeys are regulated by the state. So the fact that it's federal land, sure you have a right to be there as an out-of-stater just like you have a right to be on any other public land. But the state does not have the responsibility or requirement to grant you the privilege of hunting turkeys on that land. That's the state's resource and they can grant or restrict those opportunities in any way they see fit for management.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are correct, sir!

Quote from: ChesterCopperpot on June 22, 2024, 02:03:45 PMYes. Outside of migratory game birds, game animals aren't regulated on a federal level. Turkeys are regulated by the state. So the fact that it's federal land, sure you have a right to be there as an out-of-stater just like you have a right to be on any other public land. But the state does not have the responsibility or requirement to grant you the privilege of hunting turkeys on that land. That's the state's resource and they can grant or restrict those opportunities in any way they see fit for management.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, except for the fact that, by and large, restricting nonresident hunter numbers is not, in my opinion, a game management tool, but rather a way to placate residents. A dead turkey is still a dead turkey whether the guy who killed it lives across the road or on the opposite coast.

Reduced bag limits, restricted shooting hours, later season scheduling and shortened seasons are all legitimate methods to manage the resource. Nonresident quotas, aren't. If they were, then the residents of the state should be restricted in numbers as well. I realize in certain areas, and especially with some other game species, that actually happens, but when resident tags are over the counter and unlimited, I feel like nonresident quotas have only one purpose, and that's to keep the locals happy.


Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

Quote from: Neill_Prater on June 22, 2024, 03:56:42 PMI agree, except for the fact that, by and large, restricting nonresident hunter numbers is not, in my opinion, a game management tool, but rather a way to placate residents. A dead turkey is still a dead turkey whether the guy who killed it lives across the road or on the opposite coast.

Reduced bag limits, restricted shooting hours, later season scheduling and shortened seasons are all legitimate methods to manage the resource. Nonresident quotas, aren't. If they were, then the residents of the state should be restricted in numbers as well. I realize in certain areas, and especially with some other game species, that actually happens, but when resident tags are over the counter and unlimited, I feel like nonresident quotas have only one purpose, and that's to keep the locals happy.

It could certainly work as a management tool. A state that has a very clear understanding of and ability to estimate annual in-state hunter harvest might have an estimate that nears the number of birds they believe should be harvested in a given year. If they knew 10,000 in-state hunters were killing birds each year and they believed 10,000 was the management goal then why would they sell additional tags to out-of-staters? The goal is being met with opportunity biased toward resident hunters. And I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the practice, just that it can certainly coincide with management objectives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Using your scenario, you certainly have a point regarding hunter numbers. Of course, some states have instituted quotas with little data because they haven't required birds to be checked until very recently.

Part of what prompted my original post is the attitude many express towards nonresidents and an incident here last year. Friend of mine lives next to a local reservoir, Corps of Engineers lake. Some of the hunting areas surrounding the lake are leased to the Missouri department of conservation, some isn't. The area across the road from my friend's house used to be a campground/recreational area. As such, it was restricted to archery methods only. Budget cuts caused it to be shut down several years ago. All that is there now is a public boat ramp in the middle of probably a thousand acres, but, for some reason, the archery only regulations stayed in place.

At the end of the road in front of my friend's house is a parking lot. Go east, statewide regulations, go west, archery only, well marked with new yellow signs last year. One morning, my friend was outside and heard a shotgun blast to the west, followed by another a short time later. He had been seeing two gobblers and suspected they had been shot. He yelled at his wife to call a conversation agent and jumped in his car and headed to the parking lot.

When he got there, there were 2 vehicles, one with Missouri plates, the other, I think, from Illinois. He immediately assumed it was the out of state guys shooting, but they came walking up from the east, and told him they had met the other guys from Missouri there that morning and told them that area was closed to firearms, but they told him to mind his own business.

Eventually one of the hunters came out carrying a bird, and a few minutes later, the other guy with no bird, claiming they shot twice at the same bird. Confronted by my friend who told them he had contacted the conservation agent and they had better not leave until he got there.

He did arrive, but, he couldn't ticket them because the archery restriction was imposed by the Corps, and was not a state regulation. Surprised the heck out of me.

Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk

No, federal land should be the same for everyone.

He could have called a ranger tho if he had wanted too. They would have issued the ticket.

I guess the question I would have is wouldn't managing game animals on federal lands for the benefit and unrestricted use of residents while at the same time restricting non residents be a form of discrimination?

Quote from: Paulmyr on June 22, 2024, 09:36:29 PMI guess the question I would have is wouldn't managing game animals on federal lands for the benefit and unrestricted use of residents while at the same time restricting non residents be a form of discrimination?

Yes it is discrimination but so many States have done this for so long it is now an entrenched practice.  Never expect to see it ever change. :deadhorse:

Colorado just got rid of otc archery elk tags for non residents and have gun season otc tags in their sights now.

Kansas screaming over non resident turkey/deer tags

Nebraska dropping the hammer

Quota this. Permit that...

The anti hunters were going to come for our hunting rights!

When actually it's was us hunters coming to take our hunting rights.

Loose lips sink ships. 

The "placating the residents" comment pretty much nails it.  The certain state that allows their residents the first two weeks on NATIONAL FOREST lands supposedly to save the turkey but still has a three bird limit pretty much turns this into a bad joke.  I personally have no problem with quota hunts BUT if they occur on nationally owned federal lands the quota draws and season lengths should be the same for all citizens of the United States.  Always been my IMO that it is going to take just one federal judge to throw this all into a frenzy.  Hope I live long enough to see it.

Yes, but I am big on States rights.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

I think if a hunter has the desire and willingness to travel (and of course the funds...), they should be able to hunt on any federal, state land that turkeys are in season. This is America. However I would limit hunter participation in other ways- namely making it more challenging to access and be successful on said properties. How? Long walks in. No autos, e bikes, pedal bikes, swamp buggies, atvs etc. Then I'd work on the crutches that make it easier for us to be successful. Anotherwords, these "advances" that kill farther, hide us better and or bring turkeys into range without calling.
I can also see limiting anyone having to purchase a NR tag be they travelers or even landowners there to a single gobbler tag.
I will not ever be in favor of the old English take that only the fortunate should hunt our National Forests but I will gladly trade ease and convenience to weed out the unwilling.

Quote from: Prospector on June 23, 2024, 07:17:39 AMI think if a hunter has the desire and willingness to travel (and of course the funds...), they should be able to hunt on any federal, state land that turkeys are in season. This is America. However I would limit hunter participation in other ways- namely making it more challenging to access and be successful on said properties. How? Long walks in. No autos, e bikes, pedal bikes, swamp buggies, atvs etc. Then I'd work on the crutches that make it easier for us to be successful. Anotherwords, these "advances" that kill farther, hide us better and or bring turkeys into range without calling.
I can also see limiting anyone having to purchase a NR tag be they travelers or even landowners there to a single gobbler tag.
I will not ever be in favor of the old English take that only the fortunate should hunt our National Forests but I will gladly trade ease and convenience to weed out the unwilling.

I would support a lot of these restrictions on all public lands

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Quote from: ChesterCopperpot on June 22, 2024, 02:03:45 PMYes. Outside of migratory game birds, game animals aren't regulated on a federal level. Turkeys are regulated by the state. So the fact that it's federal land, sure you have a right to be there as an out-of-stater just like you have a right to be on any other public land. But the state does not have the responsibility or requirement to grant you the privilege of hunting turkeys on that land. That's the state's resource and they can grant or restrict those opportunities in any way they see fit for management.

This.  Non-migratory wildlife in each state is "held in trust" (OWNED) by/for the residents of the state.  This is existing wildlife law across the country. In addition, that wildlife, whether it be on public land or PRIVATE land is still OWNED by the residents (all of them...hunters and non-hunters alike) of the state. 

Simply stated, it is the responsibility of wildlife managers to 1) firstly, protect the resource by managing it properly, and 2) secondarily, protect the interests of those residents of the state for whom the resource is "held in trust". The status of the public land (state or federal) does not come into play in that formula.

Now, I am not saying it is right or wrong...but, it is what it is. To change the system, existing wildlife law has to be changed. But beware, changing the system as it now exists is a very slippery slope.  There are potential ramifications to that beyond those being discussed...and they are not necessarily good for us "consumptive users". 

Reciprocity solves much of this.  Your state screws with non-residents of certain, or all  states, then my state screws with your residents equally. For example no MS boys/girls in Big Cypress National Preserve the first two weeks of the Florida season.  A simple concept. Fair is fair.
When I saw this post I thought oh boy here we go again. Must be the off season. Lol

Quote from: GobbleNut on June 23, 2024, 10:11:49 AM

Quote from: ChesterCopperpot on June 22, 2024, 02:03:45 PMYes. Outside of migratory game birds, game animals aren't regulated on a federal level. Turkeys are regulated by the state. So the fact that it's federal land, sure you have a right to be there as an out-of-stater just like you have a right to be on any other public land. But the state does not have the responsibility or requirement to grant you the privilege of hunting turkeys on that land. That's the state's resource and they can grant or restrict those opportunities in any way they see fit for management.

This.  Non-migratory wildlife in each state is "held in trust" (OWNED) by/for the residents of the state.  This is existing wildlife law across the country. In addition, that wildlife, whether it be on public land or PRIVATE land is still OWNED by the residents (all of them...hunters and non-hunters alike) of the state. 

Simply stated, it is the responsibility of wildlife managers to 1) firstly, protect the resource by managing it properly, and 2) secondarily, protect the interests of those residents of the state for whom the resource is "held in trust". The status of the public land (state or federal) does not come into play in that formula.

Now, I am not saying it is right or wrong...but, it is what it is. To change the system, existing wildlife law has to be changed. But beware, changing the system as it now exists is a very slippery slope.  There are potential ramifications to that beyond those being discussed...and they are not necessarily good for us "consumptive users".

This is correct and has already been litigated in the courts. Resident wildlife is under the legal jurisdiction of the states. Most states, including Montana where I live, explicitly state that resident wildlife is to be managed for the benefit of the citizens of that state. Non-residents are allowed to particpate but only in a way that does not harm the interests of the residents of that state.

Quote from: Happy on June 23, 2024, 07:08:00 AMYes, but I am big on States rights.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

X2.  Nailed it. 

I should clarify that it is up the the state legislatures to determine how non-residents fit into the overall wildlife management programs in their state. Various states allow differing levels of non-resident participation, but this is determined by the legal apparatus of each state.

Refer back to the "placating the residents" theory.  Not about the resource as much as it is about the votes.  Too bad on many levels.

Many good points here and I tend to agree with most of them. One thing to consider is the implementation of the online purchase of non resident licenses. By allowing me to sit in Minn and purchase a hunting permit for Miss invokes the interstate commerce clause whereby the state forfeits it's regulatory rights to the federal govt.

If I were forced to cross state lines and go into Miss to purchase the permit the state would retain the right to regulate how it seems fit but since I am allowed to purchase a permit for another state while sitting on my couch in my home state the interstate commerce clause reserves the right of regulation to Congress.

Not saying that's a good thing just throwing it out there as food for thought.

The " where and how you buy your tag" is an interesting point. I could get behind a system that requires you to buy a tag a certain amount of time before a hunt AND ( esp) have to do so in person in the area or zone you plan to hunt. Logistical nightmare but again weeds out the  unwilling without saying,  " you can hunt now, but you can't".
Fellas, do you realize how slippery this draw hunt quota is? How much closer we are to jolly ol English rule and no New World to sail to?

Just remember how we ended up here..... and adapt of course.

Loose lips sink ships. FACT

And the solution is
????
Those that don't adapt are doomed to year's of future frustration.  FACT.

Haha....ive been traveling for a lot of years. I wrote the book on adapting. But that doesnt mean I have to turn a blind eye to those pimping public land turkeys for profit. Loose lips sink ships. If you can't see it by now you are blind.

Quote from: Prospector on June 23, 2024, 07:17:39 AMI think if a hunter has the desire and willingness to travel (and of course the funds...), they should be able to hunt on any federal, state land that turkeys are in season. This is America. However I would limit hunter participation in other ways- namely making it more challenging to access and be successful on said properties. How? Long walks in. No autos, e bikes, pedal bikes, swamp buggies, atvs etc. Then I'd work on the crutches that make it easier for us to be successful. Anotherwords, these "advances" that kill farther, hide us better and or bring turkeys into range without calling.
I can also see limiting anyone having to purchase a NR tag be they travelers or even landowners there to a single gobbler tag.
I will not ever be in favor of the old English take that only the fortunate should hunt our National Forests but I will gladly trade ease and convenience to weed out the unwilling.

This right here is basically my view!

This thread went exactly as the original poster expected.  Always fun to play.  Bottom line for me is that the genie is long out of the bottle.  If I enter "turkey hunting " into my YouTube app I'll get hundreds of options. I have adapted.  I play the Florida quota system, have limited private land access, and have built up preference points for another out of state hunt. Thanks to these forums I have multiple contacts that only respond by PM . They have long tired of the incessant whining. When all realize that the good old days are gone the better off we will all be.

Sitting around hoping to get drawn is far from adapting. It's accepting failure and less time afield.

I put 7500 miles on my truck this spring. That's adapting

Since the English model has been brought up so often, maybe I can chime in with a Commonwealth perspective.

In Canada, essentially all public land is Crown land - owned by the monarch, but its use is turned over to the provinces - sidestepping the Federal government completely and making hunting regulations on that land (with the exception of Migratory game birds, which require a Federal duck stamp as a license) strictly the purview of the Province. They own all the public land, all the game animals and control all licensing.

I've hunted and fished in 3 provinces, and they all have separate regulations to control access to their game populations that, frankly, show that the wishes of non-residents are immaterial to their considerations. Access to Crown land, however, is open to all Canadians - only provincial and national parks charge fees for access and prohibit hunting. One province mandates the hiring of a guide for all hunting and fishing done by a non-resident, unless the non resident owns property in excess of $20 000, in which case they can apply to be personally exempt. Most all other provinces regulate turkeys as small game - non-residents have to buy a higher-priced license, but can otherwise hunt turkeys with the same bag limit as non-residents on Crown or private land.

I should add, however, that there is virtually no Slam Culture, Advertisement by the Province for Turkey hunting opportunities, or ease of transit for major hunting expeditions. If pressure ever developed, as it has for big game, the Canadian model is to mandate all non-residents to hunt through an outfitter.

Again no real solutions mentioned or proposed.  That ship sunk by the loose lips buried so deep even Bob Ballard won't find it. Much easier on the blood pressure to be a realist.  I'll play the hand I'm dealt.

No choice but to do that( play the hand...). To change we gotta change the hand before it's dealt

Does anyone honestly think much will be done other than some state's trying to placate their residents with as many non-resident restrictions they can think of. Two southern states have taken "knee jerk reaction" to a new level.

Without "spot burning" there are several public areas in obscure northern areas that if one will wait until the season is well underway and one is willing to hunt weekdays can be virtual ghost towns.

No Mr Joey I do not. It's nice to talk about but truthfully deep down I believe we are well on our way to reduced opportunity. It's easy to complain about it but it's also easy to say" buy your own land and stop complaining ". That ship has long sailed for most of us as well- if you don't already own it it is far too expensive to buy a large enough tract to make a difference and if you can afford it you most likely are working all the time to pay for it. Doom and gloom I know but the only solace I get is wishful conversation with like minded individuals on the subject of how we would "fairly" handle it rather than continue to move towards only the elite getting to hunt.
You Sir are right. At this point we play the (losing) hand we are dealt because people who do not care one whit about the game own the deck and deal the cards.

What are game managers suppose to do when the amount of licensed turkey hunters (particularly traveling hunters) has grown near exponentially over the last 5 years?



 

A whole other subject that would be an interesting thread.  I'm guessing the word "ban" would often pop up in many replies.  When I first started chasing the big birds in the late 1970s/early 80s (Ohio) the limit was one and the tags very limited. Will day's like that return?  Hope not although a one bird limit may in many areas.  The non-resident "problem" is being easily solved in many states by simply pricing the average guy out.  IMO that will accelerate throughout the southern states.  A $500 non-resident buy in will soon be the norm.   That price and a one bird limit would discourage most.  Problem solved.

I must admit that I'm a bit shocked at the traveling hunters who think they have some 'right' to hunt in any state they choose. Your sense of entitlement is over the top. Residency in a state brings with it privileges that accrue to the citizens of that state by virtue of their living and paying taxes in that state. This applies to all sorts of things other that just hunting. But hunting is a privilege, not a right. If you want to enjoy the privileges that citizens of a particular state enjoy, then move to that state. Sorry to sound so harsh, but I live in Montana and put up with low wages and high taxes. But I do so to enjoy the things that Montana provides and that I highly value such as great hunting and fishing.

I hunt 7-10 different states yearly and have for a long time. That said....i feel residents are more entitled to hunt than non residents. Though this hurts my spring tradition of traveling / hunting I believe it's the right thing. 

This boom in turkey hunting is a relatively new phenomenon and game managers are having to make some hard decisions and not everyone is going to be included or be happy. Turkey hunting and specifically traveling turkey hunting is undergoing growing pains. And there is no definitive right answer on the fix and very well won't be anytime soon.

While individual states traditionally can and do make their own regulations regarding this subject I still have a big problem with the definition of "National" when the National Forest are involved.  The same for any other properties owned by the federal government such as BLM.  It's either National or it's not.  Allowing only a state's residents to hunt a National Forest is obviously flawed and designed to appease the locals whether they be MT locals or MS locals or any other state you wish to name.  When more and more quotas are necessarily implemented this will become a bigger concern.

Quote from: joey46 on June 26, 2024, 01:35:15 PMWhile individual states traditionally can and do make their own regulations regarding this subject I still have a big problem with the definition of "National" when the National Forest are involved.  The same for any other properties owned by the federal government such as BLM.  It's either National or it's not.  Allowing only a state's residents to hunt a National Forest is obviously flawed and designed to appease the locals whether they be MT locals or MS locals or any other state you wish to name.  When more and more quotas are necessarily implemented this will become a bigger concern.

Anyone from any state already can access and recreate on BLM and National Forest lands, so there is no discrimination against nonresidents. Hunting for non-migratory animals is not a 'national' issue. Thus hunting on any land in a state is under the jurisdiction of that state. Most states allocate numbers of licenses and costs of licenses in a manner to benefit the residents/citizens of that state. This has already been litigated in the courts and isn't likely to change.

Make sure to like and subscribe

I'll be picking up some extra gigs to pay for those $500 licenses.

Or maybe I'll just start a channel and become rich & famous


:TooFunny:  :TooFunny:

I always enjoy the "anyone can access the national land but not everyone can hunt it equally".  That's a cop out and everyone knows it.  So it would perfectly ok for some non-residents to walk around a MS National Forest the first two weeks of the resident only season asking anyone they bump into hunting how things are going?  Maybe practice a few owl hoots or talk real loud on a phone. Compliment their well placed decoys. Just sort of enjoy that privilege of just being there even though they could not hunt this National land.  Would work out well wouldn't it?  Lol

Quote from: arkrem870 on June 26, 2024, 03:29:39 PMMake sure to like and subscribe

I'll be picking up some extra gigs to pay for those $500 licenses.

Or maybe I'll just start a channel and become rich & famous


:TooFunny:  :TooFunny:

I'd be the first to like and subscribe. 

Quote from: GobbleNut on June 23, 2024, 10:11:49 AM

Quote from: ChesterCopperpot on June 22, 2024, 02:03:45 PMYes. Outside of migratory game birds, game animals aren't regulated on a federal level. Turkeys are regulated by the state. So the fact that it's federal land, sure you have a right to be there as an out-of-stater just like you have a right to be on any other public land. But the state does not have the responsibility or requirement to grant you the privilege of hunting turkeys on that land. That's the state's resource and they can grant or restrict those opportunities in any way they see fit for management.

This.  Non-migratory wildlife in each state is "held in trust" (OWNED) by/for the residents of the state.  This is existing wildlife law across the country. In addition, that wildlife, whether it be on public land or PRIVATE land is still OWNED by the residents (all of them...hunters and non-hunters alike) of the state. 

Simply stated, it is the responsibility of wildlife managers to 1) firstly, protect the resource by managing it properly, and 2) secondarily, protect the interests of those residents of the state for whom the resource is "held in trust". The status of the public land (state or federal) does not come into play in that formula.

Now, I am not saying it is right or wrong...but, it is what it is. To change the system, existing wildlife law has to be changed. But beware, changing the system as it now exists is a very slippery slope.  There are potential ramifications to that beyond those being discussed...and they are not necessarily good for us "consumptive users".

Sorry but that's a widely-held myth. Case law is firmly on the side of the feds and their primacy when we are talking about management of wildlife on federal properties.

https://wildlifeforall.us/myth-busters/do-states-have-primary-jurisdiction-over-wildlife-on-federal-lands/

Quote from: Spurs Up on June 26, 2024, 06:56:44 PMSorry but that's a widely-held myth. Case law is firmly on the side of the feds and their primacy when we are talking about management of wildlife on federal properties.

https://wildlifeforall.us/myth-busters/do-states-have-primary-jurisdiction-over-wildlife-on-federal-lands/

Not wanting to be argumentative about it, but I suggest anybody that is interested in this issue take a look at the mission statement of the organization (and article) referenced ("Wildlife For All"). it seems apparent to me that this is an organization that is promoting the concept referenced above (federal autonomy over wildlife on federal lands) in a covert effort to curtail hunting on those lands. 

Simply stated, anybody can form an organization and take a position on a subject...as well as have some "authoritative figures" state that their position is factually based. If anybody truly believes that the feds have cart blanche autonomy over wildlife on federal lands, I suggest you organize and sue the government and see how far that position gets you. Based on the historical and existing interpretation of wildlife law in this country, I think you will be disappointed.

It is true that on certain federal lands such as federal refuges, monuments, corp lands, and such, that the feds have some level of autonomy. Those properties are the exception, not the rule. In addition, the feds also may take authority over certain species that are considered to be threatened and endangered in some cases.

Not on federal lands unless they want to give up any and all federal funds and rights/benefits. Even then I am not sure they have the ability or right to mess with federal lands. I do not feel they should.

The longer this thread has gone on the more abundantly clear it's become that some amongst us care much more about their own selfish interests than they do the resource. The "slam" mentality marked a very pronounced shift in our ranks. I really do think we, the overwhelmingly obsessed few, the tenth legion, used to be better than that. And with declines happening almost across the board the timing couldn't be worse. ME ME ME ME ain't just the call of a lost poult.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If "selfish interest" means wishing for equal footing on federal lands than I guess I'm guilty. My latest trigger was a certain state cutting two weeks from a non-residents opportunity on federal land while still allowing a three bird limit.  Who's kidding who?

To clarify a position and give an example The Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area is within the boundaries of both Kentucky and Tennessee.  This 160,000 acre + area has quota hunts for both turkey and deer.  When, as a now resident of Florida, I apply in February for a turkey quota my application and any preference points are given equal consideration in the selection process.  A resident of KY or TN gets no extra credit.  Since this is Federal property and I'm a resident of the U S that is how it should be.  I am of the opinion that if turkey hunting continues in popularity more and more public areas will, by necessity, have limited draw quota hunts.  If the land involved is federally owned all citizens should receive equal consideration.  No more no less.  If more and more states continue the "it's all about appeasing the residents", even on federal land,  the more chance the obvious motives will be easily seen and it could eventually bite them in the butt. 

It's a complicated issue. I would prefer the states continue to control wildlife on federal land. The local wildlife agencies are in a far better position to know what is best in their local area, not some bureaucrat in DC.

There are tons of issues related to federal lands and the states role with those lands.

Federal control of western land: two perspectives

The Conversation
https://theconversation.com › federal-control-of-wester...

Merriamsman, you live in a beautiful state. And as a resident you do absolutely deserve perks because you live there... but not exclusive or mostly exclusive rights to public NF. That's my opinion I realize but being from MS myself I feel that way despite my home state being virtually raped by NR and R hunters every spring. NR tags should go up AND NR bag limits esp should go down. Everybody's ease of access and participation difficulty should get harder. Every AMERICANS opportunity should stay exactly the same- or else let me choose to keep whatever miniscule portion of my income that goes to the whole Natl Forest falsehood.

As far as having a "Slam mentality " I deny that absolutely. I love to Turkey hunt. I have only hunted Easterns. I have traveled to other states and only hunted Easterns which btw are readily available in my home state. Would I enjoy an Osceola hunt? Sure. What about sunshine on a Merriams fan? No doubt. But I am mostly about just plain ol spring turkey huntin. And I believe since I am an American. And I live in these 50 states ( and not 50 separate small countries). And it's called NF and Public land- that I and any other citizen should be able to utilize said acreage the same as any other American. IMHO.

So what's the proposal here? A nationwide quota system on all federal lands for all game species with equal opportunity draw odds? "Screw the fellow half a mile down the road who doesn't own private land and can't afford to travel. If he draws he draws."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no "proposal".  Just a discussion and opinions. The entire system needs a tweak. If quota hunts happen on Federal land living within a mile should not get a gimme access.  We are now a very mobile nation and Federal land should be equally available to all.
BTW - at this time there is no need for a national quota system on all federal land but when some states decide to limit access to only their residents that is a problem and very discriminatory. 

Quote from: joey46 on June 27, 2024, 05:49:45 PMThere is no "proposal".  Just a discussion and opinions. The entire system needs a tweak. If quota hunts happen on Federal land living within a mile should not get a gimme access.  We are now a very mobile nation and Federal land should be equally available to all.

Some are, "a very mobile nation." The whole air of this conversation reeks of privilege. And that in a nutshell has been the course of America's hunting culture of late, which I guess makes sense in so much as it tracks with pretty much everything else in this country at this point. The fact that an, "I'll take away that persons only opportunity because I want more," mindset doesn't strike anyone as selfish self-interest likewise tracks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jeez!  A very socialistic view. Maybe we could include the National Forest system into the welfare system.

Quote from: joey46 on June 27, 2024, 06:13:32 PMJeez!  A very socialistic view.

No, its decency. If the turkey population in the state of Mississippi cannot support tags for every turkey hunter in the United States, which of course it can't, and the turkey population got low enough in Mississippi that it couldn't support any out of state hunters, I'd be fine with not hunting turkeys in Mississippi knowing that someone who is there can take their son or daughter afield. I'm good with that. I'll stay home. Now I'd hope the state was actively working to mitigate and reconcile that population decrease, and I'd hope that one day it'd reach levels I could, but until it reached a number sustainable for outside pressure again, again, I'm fine staying put. If that makes me a socialist in your mind, have at it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 You've missed the whole point. Have a good evening.

Quote from: joey46 on June 27, 2024, 06:39:36 PMYou've missed the whole point. Have a good evening.

No, I get you absolutely. And we fundamentally disagree. You believe you have a right to all opportunities allowed on federal land as an American citizen regardless of whether or not you have residency in the state where that federal land is located...and regardless of whether or not the opportunity you're taking advantage of may strip that same opportunity from someone who actually lives there. In the end, the law disagrees with you, for now, and for that I'm thankful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: joey46 on June 27, 2024, 05:49:45 PMWe are now a very mobile nation and Federal land should be equally available to all.

How would this federal land be accessed? Would one be able to hunt on federal land, but not on state land? Who would be tasked with patrolling the federal land to ensure that rules are followed? State patrol? Federal patrol? What type of license would be necessary? A state license? A federal license? Both? Would someone who has a license to hunt the federal land (if a federal license would be required) also be considered a nonresident or be considered a US resident? If the hunter would be considered a non resident, then there would be no difference and that one could hunt state wide. If they are not considered a non resident, but a US resident, would the state have to reduce the non resident tags to account for the US resident tags?

We've entered the :deadhorse: phase. Relax it will all work out.  "National" obviously doesn't really mean National. It only means "sort of" National when the forest are concerned.  Don't have one season for some U.S. residents and less for others on federal land.  Not the American way.   Private land and State land is in a state's purview.  Federal land should not be.  For a state such as MS to happily sell high dollar non-resident licenses and then deny hunting privileges on NF land for the first two weeks was a real eye opener on how screwed this system nationally really is.  Of course it was all for the good of the turkey and not a resident appeasement cave in.  What a hoot and a bold faced lie.

Why not address my questions?

Quote from: Dougas on June 27, 2024, 08:05:22 PMWhy not address my questions?

The logistics are not my concern. The fairness to all U. S. residents is.   The current trend is to appease the state's residents at all cost

The convolution of "privileges" as "rights" is the braidwork of entitlement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: joey46 on June 27, 2024, 08:44:20 PMThe logistics are not my concern.

Why not make it your concern and be a part of the solution? You seem to be passionate about this, why not do something about it?

I would like to see how your idea would work at a government level.
Here in Oregon, hunters lobbied for the right to use government lands that were landlocked by private land. Now, in most cases, all people can use a right of way through private property to access them. People who enjoy our public lands had a desire and did something about it beyond complaining on a website. The people took action and accomplished that goal.

Good for you. Oregon's problems solved. To repeat the logistics not my concern.  The end results are.
I am intrigued about the Oregon easement solution to landlocked public land.  The lack of access to BLM land throughout the west has been a decades long conflict.  Please give us detailed information on the Oregon situation as it now stands.  I'm sure hunters in MT, WY, CO and others are all ears. 

Quote from: ChesterCopperpot on June 27, 2024, 09:00:47 PMThe convolution of "privileges" as "rights" is the braidwork of entitlement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is that a Bernie Sanders quote?

Quote from: ChesterCopperpot on June 27, 2024, 06:56:07 PM

Quote from: joey46 on June 27, 2024, 06:39:36 PMYou've missed the whole point. Have a good evening.

No, I get you absolutely. And we fundamentally disagree. You believe you have a right to all opportunities allowed on federal land as an American citizen regardless of whether or not you have residency in the state where that federal land is located...and regardless of whether or not the opportunity you're taking advantage of may strip that same opportunity from someone who actually lives there. In the end, the law disagrees with you, for now, and for that I'm thankful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well said.

Quote from: ChesterCopperpot on June 27, 2024, 09:00:47 PMThe convolution of "privileges" as "rights" is the braidwork of entitlement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chester, you are just making too much sense.

You know, we just arguing to be arguing. Our conversations aren't gonna change a thing. "For that you are grateful"- absolutely- right up to the minute you don't agree with it either or it doesn't protect your personal intrest. Truthfully, I could see closing Mississippi to all NR hunters. It would actually be personally better for me if it did. BUT it is  a step in the wrong direction to limit a citizen in one way while telling another it's ok based only on where they live. Please don't throw the word " elite" at others when you believe that is the right way to handle this.
As a resident you get proximity, cheaper tags,and the beauty of your state all year. As a NR, I'll gladly pay more, incur travel costs etc to expierance the beauty of your state for a limited time.
Sorry, but not sorry

Quote from: merriamsman on June 28, 2024, 01:54:57 AM

Quote from: ChesterCopperpot on June 27, 2024, 09:00:47 PMThe convolution of "privileges" as "rights" is the braidwork of entitlement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chester, you are just making too much sense.

Selfishness is always shortsighted and the saddest part of all of this is that they can't see far enough down the line of their own "logic" (evidenced by the, "The logistics are not my concern," type statements) to realize they're arguing for bigger government. They're arguing for federal hands clenching its fingers around a game species. And that's the very last thing any of us should want for any species. When the federal government steps into game management that game species is in dire straits. They can't see it so won't admit it, but that's the inevitable end of that line of logic if game population and hunter demand continue at their current opposing trends. In the now it's, "I want access to the same privileges of resident hunters on federal lands in a given state." And that's perfectly fine if the resource can sustain that pressure. It can't. The answer to that is quota hunts. Quota hunts with equal opportunity granted to residents and nonresidents (which is why I asked that question a ways back, because like it or not that IS what they're proposing) is a burden that cannot be expected for states to carry. So who carries it at that point? That's the inevitable end to that line of logic. And it's not just arguing to be arguing here. This is a very real threat and it's something that we're already witnessing as opportunities are stripped away as a result of nonresident demand exceeding population thresholds. It's happening in certain states with turkeys (that demand issue being greatly compounded by steep and so far unalterable population decline). It's happening in places like Colorado with elk. So to be clear, I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm arguing because this line of thought is a very real threat. But none of that will matter to the ones spewing this nonsense because as Captain Hook said of children, "He took my toy! She hit my bear! I want a party! I want a cookie! I want to stay up! I want, I want, I want, me, me, me, me, mine, mine, mine, mine, now, now, now, now!"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How is saying it's ok for the STATE government to make the rule not more government?!? The way it is or was is less government! That is Americans can all use American lands the same as any other American! And the dissidents, err, I mean Americans,have every right to travel to utilize americas land in other states as well.

and while we are spouting the differences between privileges and rights, it it still a privilege for a resident to hunt their home state..... not a right. No more, no less

Yes "the logistics are not my concern" but at the very least realize that many no longer will accept the status quo when federally owned land is in play.  There are many options available to insert fairness into the federal system but few accept them depending on who's ox is being gored.  I am now a Florida resident that lives within 90 minutes of the Big Cypress NATIONAL Preserve.  It is a non-resident circus during March and some sections are now in a quota system.  These quotas are available equally to ALL.  I get no special edge on an application.  Since this is federal property I should not.  A simple concept.  I can't even imagine the screaming if Florida decided to reserve the first two weeks of the spring season in Big Cypress to residents' only. I once shared a camping area at BC with a couple from Washington State who flew in for that once in lifetime Osceola. They were thrilled with the opportunity.
By necessity more and more areas of federal land will require quota hunts (even for residents) to level the pressure and harvest numbers.  A state that tries to reserve "their" National Forest for only their residents' is asking for trouble.  As I've said before it will only take one federal judge to throw this into a real scramble for control.  BTW - if God gives me another few weeks I'll turn 78 so most of my long range trips may be over.  I'll hope to continue to hunt Florida and one other state as a non-resident.  I have hunted the big birds since the late 1970s but do not have the coveted slam.  Still short that Rio.  Oh well.
No you aren't arguing for the sake of arguing but as we will soon see you will display the last word syndrome.  I'm most likely done on this subject but please reread post #50 that details how quota hunts on federal land should be done.  I lived within sight of this area for nine years and only drew an early quota twice.     

I personally prefer allowing government closest to the people they serve to be making most decisions.

The last time I checked, it is state wildlife agencies that monitor and manage wildlife on federal lands such as USFS and BLM land, not the US Fish and Wildlife Service. State wildlife agencies are funded by the citizens of that state, not citizens of the US at large.

Since those state agencies are managing wildlife on federal land, I'm fine with those same state agencies deciding what are the best policies for managing wildlife and that includes hunter access, both resident and nonresident.

Much of the west is owned by the federal government and western residents have less access to private land than many of us back east.Those citizens are funding their wildlife agencies and I feel should have an advantage over nonresidents.

I say all of this as one who loves hunting out west on public land. In a lot of the western states it's hard for even the locals to draw big game tags.
I drew an AZ elk tag years ago and had a great hunt. I may not live long enough to draw another tag, but I'm cool with that if some AZ young man gets drawn over me.

As far as turkey hunting goes, most states are still accessible for NR hunters, but rather than turning wildlife management over to the feds and licensing to the feds, I would prefer to leave things up to each state as they know far better what is best rather than some DC bureaucrat.

I wonder what influenced so many non resident hunters to converge on big cypress all of the sudden.

Quote from: arkrem870 on June 28, 2024, 09:18:35 AMI wonder what influenced so many non resident hunters to converge on big cypress all of the sudden.

Gee I don't know.  The WA couple I met at BC was in about 2006.  THP was still in short pants.  Meateater was still a concept.  Nobody even heard of YouTube.  I was the only one at the Bear Island camp with a Florida tag on my truck.   LOL at the "all of a sudden".

Mississippi is a prime example of the squeaky wheel gets the grease. We have a whole bunch of that here for sure.
Mississippi and Florida residents I think have more dog in this than most other states- at least in regard to turkeys anyway. Oh well, guess I'll just be content with my poor MS easterns and give up dreams of expierancing other states... just be sure yall return the favor🙄

Quote from: joey46 on June 28, 2024, 09:08:13 AMI am now a Florida resident that lives within 90 minutes of the Big Cypress NATIONAL Preserve.  It is a non-resident circus during March and some sections are now in a quota system.  These quotas are available equally to ALL.  I get no special edge on an application.  Since this is federal property I should not.  A simple concept.  I can't even imagine the screaming if Florida decided to reserve the first two weeks of the spring season in Big Cypress to residents' only.

Funny you mention this, because this could be changing soon to the benefit of residents. Then you'll be living in a commie state that restricts NR access to federal lands. :icon_thumright:

Hmm?  The spring 2025 Big Cypress regs already posted on the FWC site.  Must have missed any major changes.  Florida loves the non-residents cash.  They won't be restricted to any real degree and a resident won't get one extra second of hunting time over a non-residents. Bet ya.

Quote from: joey46 on June 28, 2024, 10:01:16 AMHmm?  The spring 2025 Big Cypress regs already posted on the FWC site.  Must have missed any major changes.  Florida loves the non-residents cash.  They won't be restricted to any real degree and a resident won't get one extra second of hunting time over a non-residents. Bet ya.

Maybe not in spring 2025, but its being considered for future seasons. Bet ya.

The entire quota system needs a tweak. Screwing with non-resident money won't be a big part. Too much money involved.

Quote from: joey46 on June 28, 2024, 10:52:04 AMThe entire quota system needs a tweak. Screwing with non-resident money won't be a big part. Too much money involved.

As a NR who has been playing the quota game there since 2007, I whole heartedly agree. NR need to be limited to 10-20% of the available quotas. There was motion in the past year to make NR buy a turkey permit before even applying, but I guess that fell through?

Quote from: joey46 on June 28, 2024, 09:24:48 AM

Quote from: arkrem870 on June 28, 2024, 09:18:35 AMI wonder what influenced so many non resident hunters to converge on big cypress all of the sudden.

Gee I don't know.  The WA couple I met at BC was in about 2006.  THP was still in short pants.  Meateater was still a concept.  Nobody even heard of YouTube.  I was the only one at the Bear Island camp with a Florida tag on my truck.  LOL at the "all of a sudden".

I'd laugh but it's not funny. Enjoy your quota hunts. I'm out

LOL

  I cant wait till the states say camping , hiking , driving roads , boating , bird watching , sightseeing , entering , leaving , climbing , taking pictures on federal lands is regulated and restricted  to you differently because your house is on the other side of the line . Even though they used the resources from your house side of the line in the federal land for camping , hiking , driving roads , boating , bird watching , sightseeing , entering , leaving , climbing and taking pictures . They already have a name for me , called non resident , proud to be a citizen , I still have that. 

Quote from: dah on June 29, 2024, 12:32:54 AMI cant wait till the states say camping , hiking , driving roads , boating , bird watching , sightseeing , entering , leaving , climbing , taking pictures on federal lands is regulated and restricted  to you differently because your house is on the other side of the line . Even though they used the resources from your house side of the line in the federal land for camping , hiking , driving roads , boating , bird watching , sightseeing , entering , leaving , climbing and taking pictures . They already have a name for me , called non resident , proud to be a citizen , I still have that.

States have been regulating wildlife on federal lands for many years. The scenarios you propose represent a strawman argument. It is not a new phenomenon for state wildlife agencies to regulate and restrict NR hunting on federal lands.

Everyone is paying taxes for the upkeep on federal lands, so no one's access for non hunting or non fishing activities will be restricted. No one is paying the freight to maintain non migratory wildlife in a state other than their own whether on private or federal land.

Quote from: dah on June 29, 2024, 12:32:54 AMI cant wait till the states say camping , hiking , driving roads , boating , bird watching , sightseeing , entering , leaving , climbing , taking pictures on federal lands is regulated and restricted  to you differently because your house is on the other side of the line . Even though they used the resources from your house side of the line in the federal land for camping , hiking , driving roads , boating , bird watching , sightseeing , entering , leaving , climbing and taking pictures . They already have a name for me , called non resident , proud to be a citizen , I still have that.

For any of those things mentioned, restrictions are increasingly being put in place in a lot of places. The common thread in almost all of those instances is that there are too many people doing too many things that are negatively impacting the landscape and resources to a degree that managers have no choice but to put those dreaded restrictions in place. That is not just related to federal lands, but also to any public lands, federal or state, that need protection. It is also not restricted just to nonresidents. Most of those types of restrictions apply to everybody. 

Regarding equal hunting access to all on federal lands, that issue is waaayyy more complicated than many seem to believe it is.  ...And it also opens a waaayy bigger "can of worms" than any of us might think it will. Again, be careful what you wish for... 

Quote from: GobbleNut on June 29, 2024, 08:16:37 AM

Quote from: dah on June 29, 2024, 12:32:54 AMI cant wait till the states say camping , hiking , driving roads , boating , bird watching , sightseeing , entering , leaving , climbing , taking pictures on federal lands is regulated and restricted  to you differently because your house is on the other side of the line . Even though they used the resources from your house side of the line in the federal land for camping , hiking , driving roads , boating , bird watching , sightseeing , entering , leaving , climbing and taking pictures . They already have a name for me , called non resident , proud to be a citizen , I still have that.

For any of those things mentioned, restrictions are increasingly being put in place in a lot of places. The common thread in almost all of those instances is that there are too many people doing too many things that are negatively impacting the landscape and resources to a degree that managers have no choice but to put those dreaded restrictions in place. That is not just related to federal lands, but also to any public lands, federal or state, that need protection. It is also not restricted just to nonresidents. Most of those types of restrictions apply to everybody. 

Regarding equal hunting access to all on federal lands, that issue is waaayyy more complicated than many seem to believe it is.  ...And it also opens a waaayy bigger "can of worms" than any of us might think it will. Again, be careful what you wish for...

Yes, I agree. Be very careful what you wish for. I also was not clear. While there are and may well be more restrictions on access to federal lands, there will not be restrictions for those non hunting activities based on residency status.

The management and maintenance of the National Forest is the responsibility and payed for by the US Forest Service. They manage the forest and provide infrastructure that allows the public to access the national forests.
For the state the regulate wildlife on these federal lands solely for benefit of residents definitely reeks of privilege.

The Same can be said for management on BlM land, corps land, or any other federal land. The management and maintenance is the responsibility of these entities respectively.

Now we're going to get into the weeds here. Let's take Ms as an example. Not necessarily a representation of the west but a good example east of the Rockies.

Pre 1900's the resident loggers and farmers decimated the forest and left a degraded worthless landscape. Does the Dust Bowl sound familiar? In the early 1900's the federal govt came in and offered to buy this worthless land, much of which had been abandoned and left to sit in a state of degradation and decay. The  land owners and the state were more than willing to sell this worthless land to the federal gov't who In turn planted trees to stop erosion. Built  a series of inpoundments to hold back flood waters allowing for the infrastructure to make the state economically viable and dragging Ms into the 20th century.

Now that the land has been revitalized and is being maintained by the US Forest Service the Residents of Ms have the audacity to claim the wildlife on this federal land as their own and regulate it on behalf of the residents who's ancestors destroyed it.

Before we go about calling non residents selfish because they want equal privileges on  land revitalized and maintained by the federal gov't maybe take a look back at why the land was purchased in the 1st place. Ms should be thanking non residents for helping them become an economically viable state instead many get black balled for a period of time from the privileges allowed  residents on this federal land and the lucky few that get to enjoy these privileges are treated like a pariah and harassed by  residents.

The claim that wildlife on federal land is held in trust for the benefit of residents of that state is a grey area. Here's an excerpt from a 2003 publication from the Animal Law Web Center.

"While the state government is the sovereign, the powers and the responsibility of the federal government do come into play.  While the U.S. Constitution does not mention animals or wildlife specifically, in the exercise of some of the federal powers, the federal government will trump the power of the states, circumscribing their authority.  The first area of federal authority impacting wildlife is the power to negotiate and adopt treaties with other country.  There is no constitutional limitation on the subject matter of a treaty.  Migratory birds and endangered species clearly are acceptable treaty topics for federal action as they represent issues about which other counties have concerns.  Another area is authority is that of federal land ownership.  If the federal government owns land, then as a general rule, it is not bound by laws of the state as federal agencies make decisions about the use of federal land.  Finally, there is the powerful commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. While the primary use of this power is to justify new federal laws controlling some activity, it is also the basis for limiting state laws, like those that deal with capture and transportation of wildlife."

I'm not familiar with the author but he seems to give a thorough analysis of the powers given to state and federal governments pertaining to this matter. You can read all  of the publication here
https://www.animallaw.info/article/american-wildlife-law-introduction

Wildlife managers definitely have their work cut out for them and where it applies they need to manage wildlife for all the vested interests of said wildlife. Just because the Federal gov't doesn't or hasn't exercised it's authority in the matter doesn't mean it's not there.


Resident sportsman need to consider this authority while lobbying the state for special treatment on federal land and the state needs to be careful when regulation is put in place because they may invoke a response  that's not inline with the interests of sportsman resident and non resident alike. The same can be said for non residents. Tread lightly because as Gobblenut stated it's a slippery slope.

I misunderstood this entire thread until yesterday. I thought that the gist was that one should be able to access federal land in any state without going through state licensing channels and getting a state non resident tag.

Now that I understand that it is about equal opportunity for both resident and non resident hunters on federal land, I think that sounds OK with me. There should be equal opportunity for both. In Oregon, we have state forests, national forests and BLM land. I was not aware that residents in some states had more opportunity on federal land than nonresidents. I won't hunt out of state, so I didn't know about this.

Guys, this issue has already been litigated in the courts. A case concerning differential fees for elk licenses in Montana went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court reaffirmed Montana's right to regulate resident and nonresident hunters as the state sees fit regardless of land ownership. While this case specifically dealt with license fees, if you read to the bottom it's mentioned that this may be used to regulate hunter numbers. I've attached a screenshot of a summary of the case. I've also attached a link to a more detailed article about the case.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/436/371/

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240629/97e969c9d3f98bf2d015071c15899e19.jpg)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

As long as we are diving into the weeds on this issue, here's another matter to consider when speaking of unintended consequences.  Many states have added some sort of phrasing into their state constitutions protecting the right of the citizens of the state (and nonresidents who come there) to hunt.  As far as I know there is no such provision on the federal level (perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong about that).

So, what happens if the feds take authority over wildlife management on its lands within a state?  Does that provision of state-constitutional rights apply on those federal lands? Personally, I would doubt it...and if not, how long do any of us think it is going to take until the anti-hunting crowd is pushing for an all-out ban on hunting on federal lands? (The fact is that they are already doing so, but with management of wildlife currently being the purview of each individual state, their influence at the state level is lessened).

With our (hunter) numbers being in the 5%-of-the-population range...and anti's being in the 25% range, the odds of protecting any of our rights to hunt on those lands would be questionable, at best. 

Again...and again...and again...be careful what you wish for... 

Quote from: PalmettoRon on June 29, 2024, 08:05:17 AM

Quote from: dah on June 29, 2024, 12:32:54 AMI cant wait till the states say camping , hiking , driving roads , boating , bird watching , sightseeing , entering , leaving , climbing , taking pictures on federal lands is regulated and restricted  to you differently because your house is on the other side of the line . Even though they used the resources from your house side of the line in the federal land for camping , hiking , driving roads , boating , bird watching , sightseeing , entering , leaving , climbing and taking pictures . They already have a name for me , called non resident , proud to be a citizen , I still have that.

States have been regulating wildlife on federal lands for many years. The scenarios you propose represent a strawman argument. It is not a new phenomenon for state wildlife agencies to regulate and restrict NR hunting on federal lands.

Everyone is paying taxes for the upkeep on federal lands, so no one's access for non hunting or non fishing activities will be restricted. No one is paying the freight to maintain non migratory wildlife in a state other than their own whether on private or federal land.

 



I don't see the strawman argument . We have been loosing our rights before the ink dried on the paper granting them . You know the list . I was an Inspector for 17 years in the capitol of Oklahoma and saw the peoples rights taken away just to replace a ceiling fan , water closet or fix a leak in their own yard . On and on. Restrictions for all to protect the recourse might be warranted as long as it is enforced equally .
  Federal land hunting and tribal land hunting are very similar. The tribes in Oklahoma challenged the state on their hunting rights on tribal land . They stated they never gave up the right to hunt  on tribal land , therefore , no license is required on their lands . Went to court and they won . Therefore they are granted non fee hunting license with some tags . I have never heard anything restricting a hunter who is not native American from hunting tribal land . This is land that was regulated by the Department since the agency was formed and changes were made . Because an agency has been regulating something does not mean  that it is untouchable.
  You admit that everyone is paying taxes for upkeep on federal land but yet support regulating its use differently to the citizens . 
  I just don't feel we bend the knee on property owned by the people for the people to 50 different agency's to restrict as they see fit. I worked for one and saw where that gets you.

[/quote]

Quote from: merriamsman on June 29, 2024, 11:27:49 AMGuys, this issue has already been litigated in the courts. A case concerning differential fees for elk licenses in Montana went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court reaffirmed Montana's right to regulate resident and nonresident hunters as the state sees fit regardless of land ownership. While this case specifically dealt with license fees, if you read to the bottom it's mentioned that this may be used to regulate hunter numbers. I've attached a screenshot of a summary of the case. I've also attached a link to a more detailed article about the case.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/436/371/

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20240629/97e969c9d3f98bf2d015071c15899e19.jpg)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Just because the supreme court states the argument isn't supported by the immunities and privileges clause doesn't mean the litigation has been finalized. It just states that the specific clause used in argument is not valid. It means the entity bringing argument before the court chose the wrong basis for its argument. It told them to go back to the drawing board and bring a valid argument.

"Just because the supreme court states the argument isn't supported by the immunities and privileges clause doesn't mean the litigation has been finalized. It just states that the specific clause used in argument is not valid. It means the entity bringing argument before the court chose the wrong basis for its argument. It told them to go back to the drawing board and bring a valid argument."

Well, that case was in 1978 and no one has successfully challenged the outcome, so...

As we are seeing on several recent issues the SCOTUS isn't afraid to rethink issues some thought were written in stone. When I think of a non-resident on federal property I think Canadians and Mexicans. IMO MS blatantly selling high priced non-resident licenses then cutting the non-resident out of the first two weeks on National Forest land was such an obvious resident appeasement scam that they may have shot themselves in the foot  This screams for federal intervention.  We are headed for quota hunts being the norm on federal lands.

Quote from: merriamsman on June 29, 2024, 12:45:08 PM"Just because the supreme court states the argument isn't supported by the immunities and privileges clause doesn't mean the litigation has been finalized. It just states that the specific clause used in argument is not valid. It means the entity bringing argument before the court chose the wrong basis for its argument. It told them to go back to the drawing board and bring a valid argument."

Well, that case was in 1978 and no one has successfully challenged the outcome, so...

Read the 2003 publication in the the link I posted and get back to me.

Quote from: merriamsman on June 29, 2024, 12:45:08 PM"Just because the supreme court states the argument isn't supported by the immunities and privileges clause doesn't mean the litigation has been finalized. It just states that the specific clause used in argument is not valid. It means the entity bringing argument before the court chose the wrong basis for its argument. It told them to go back to the drawing board and bring a valid argument."

Well, that case was in 1978 and no one has successfully challenged the outcome, so...

That's a far cry from

"the court reaffirmed Montana's right to regulate residents and non residents as it see fit."

"Read the 2003 publication in the the link I posted and get back to me."

I read it and it does nothing to change the current system that states have control over the management of resident wildlife within their borders regardless of land ownership. The feds do have the authority to override state authority on federal land but only when the resource is threatened. How does limiting nonresident hunting threaten the resource when it's being done to protect the resource? The authority of the feds is to make more restrictive regulations, not less restrictive as some are advocating regarding nonresident hunting on federal land.

If the Mississippi situation ever did become an issue (it won't), the state could simply regulate ALL non-residents with a statewide non-resident draw. Boom, problem solved. Just like Kansas recently did. Like Iowa has done forever. Then non-residents may not even get to hunt the land they own or lease in MS. Like someone mentioned, be careful what you wish for.

Whatever MS and a few other states does should never be a surprise.  Resident appeasement is their only goal.  A three bird limit makes that obvious. It really isn't about the turkey.
You do realize this is about non-residents on FEDERAL land. What happens on private land and leases is a different situation but do you honestly think a non-resident landowner would give a rat's butt if not "allowed" to hunt his land?  Be realistic.

Oh boo hoo.  Times change. Ships sink.

Quote from: GobbleNut on June 29, 2024, 08:16:37 AM

Quote from: dah on June 29, 2024, 12:32:54 AMI cant wait till the states say camping , hiking , driving roads , boating , bird watching , sightseeing , entering , leaving , climbing , taking pictures on federal lands is regulated and restricted  to you differently because your house is on the other side of the line . Even though they used the resources from your house side of the line in the federal land for camping , hiking , driving roads , boating , bird watching , sightseeing , entering , leaving , climbing and taking pictures . They already have a name for me , called non resident , proud to be a citizen , I still have that.

For any of those things mentioned, restrictions are increasingly being put in place in a lot of places. The common thread in almost all of those instances is that there are too many people doing too many things that are negatively impacting the landscape and resources to a degree that managers have no choice but to put those dreaded restrictions in place. That is not just related to federal lands, but also to any public lands, federal or state, that need protection. It is also not restricted just to nonresidents. Most of those types of restrictions apply to everybody. 

Regarding equal hunting access to all on federal lands, that issue is waaayyy more complicated than many seem to believe it is.  ...And it also opens a waaayy bigger "can of worms" than any of us might think it will. Again, be careful what you wish for...

I think it was clarified earlier that the Feds may own the land, but the critters and hunting are regulated by the states on those lands.  That has been the recognized law in every state for a long time.
I don't see letting the Feds change that as being a benefit.  Not much the Feds touch gets better for the public, at least the way I see it.
I get the sentiment of Federal lands should be open to all, but unregulated numbers of hunters on any and all Fed land wouldn't end well for the game.

Quote from: merriamsman on June 29, 2024, 01:36:41 PM"Read the 2003 publication in the the link I posted and get back to me."

I read it and it does nothing to change the current system that states have control over the management of resident wildlife within their borders regardless of land ownership. The feds do have the authority to override state authority on federal land but only when the resource is threatened. How does limiting nonresident hunting threaten the resource when it's being done to protect the resource? The authority of the feds is to make more restrictive regulations, not less restrictive as some are advocating regarding nonresident hunting on federal land.

I don't see where the info in the publication limits the power of the federal govt to restriction only. I see a avenues for future litigation and regulation imposing federal authority on states especially on federal lands of  which may open the doors to outcomes that may not be desirable to all sides of this discussion.

The states do not have the ultimate authority on managing wildlife and the publications points this out in the introduction. That's an assumption taken by states based on vague language in the state ownership doctrine and for the most part has not been contested by the federal govt. The authority is there whether it's the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment, the endangered species act,  the interstate commerce clause, or just the general authority for the feds to manage federal lands.

Just because the Feds don't impose authority over the states doesn't mean its not there

"Just because the Feds don't impose authority over the states doesn't mean its not there."

I didn't mean to say that the feds can't impose their will on federal lands - they certainly can. But the only times they have done that is to impose more restrictions than a state when they felt that the resource needed more protection than what the state was providing. What some folks here are suggesting is that the feds would impose a more liberal regulation than the state by allowing more hunters than the state would allow. That is highly unlikely because that could jeopardize the resource they are trying to protect.

As long as yours, mine, anybody's tax dollars are used as part of the "pot" for Federal lands a state should have no right to say who legally hunts it. The state sets the season and the bag limits- that's it. I do not agree with MIS-it-SISSIPPIs way of doing it. I do not agree with any provision that favors one citizen over another- that's discrimination. Take NR tax dollars out of it then do what you want. Rest assured I'm betting NR fees to states like Fla, MISS, Montana etc challenge or exceed what's paid by Resident hunters.
Again, nothing I can do but just because it's a law in many places does not make it right. Conversely just because I personally may not like the rape of Miss public lands every spring by NR does not make me right because I may favor limiting opps. The law may be on your side but it is wrong pure and simple.

Of course, we are referring to turkey hunting in this discussion. As of right now, there are very few limitations to any of our opportunities to hunt turkeys on federal lands in most states. Whether or not that will change over time...we will see.

Here's another factor to be pointed out that many of you might not consider...or even understand from the point of view of us western-states hunters:
Many of the western states are comprised of a much greater percentage of federally-owned public lands than those in other parts of the country. Those lands are also where most resident hunters must pursue their hunting opportunities. In addition, for most game species, those opportunities are allotted through limited drawings, many with very low odds. On the average, nonresidents are restricted to about 10% of those permits. Yet, resident hunters are faced with the reality that their odds of drawing a permit...even with those nonresident limitations...are often astronomically low.

Having briefly reviewed that fact, here is the deal: If you want to see an uprising of western resident hunters against hunters from other parts of the country, just keep pursuing the idea of allowing nonresidents the opportunity to further reduce any chance of resident hunters being able to hunt their own states by giving those nonresidents equal opportunity for those permits.

...I can assure you it will not go over well.

Quotas are coming for these states practicing nothing more than resident appeasement on federal land. You don't try and claim it's all for the turkey and leave a three bird limit in place as some have done.  There is plenty of room for reasonable compromise on these issues but as "forum normal" the lines have been drawn.

Quote from: joey46 on June 30, 2024, 11:16:10 AMQuotas are coming for these states practicing nothing more than resident appeasement on federal land. You don't try and claim it's all for the turkey and leave a three bird limit in place as some have done.  There is plenty of room for reasonable compromise on these issues.

Qualifying my comment by stating that I personally understand some level of "resident appeasement" in specific cases (see my prior post), I agree entirely with the concept that it is counterintuitive to limit hunter participation while at the same time allowing for (what might be considered to be) excessive bag limits for those that do get to hunt.  Also agree with the premise that reasonable compromise can be achieved...just got to let those that have the ability to be reasonable have a bit more control over things...  ;D  :D  :angel9:

Kansas is going after non resident waterfowlers next. The process is partially done but it would limit non residents to 3 days a week on all public including federal reservoirs, NWRs, etc. The feds actually asked for steeper restrictions than the state proposed.

Quote from: nativeks on June 30, 2024, 08:28:48 PMKansas is going after non resident waterfowlers next. The process is partially done but it would limit non residents to 3 days a week on all public including federal reservoirs, NWRs, etc. The feds actually asked for steeper restrictions than the state proposed.

Quick everyone, grab your pitchforks! Don't worry about adapting.

If it is true that KS is looking to limit NR waterfowl hunters on federal property, that is indeed a bridge too far.

Migratory birds are a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

I doubt a court challenge to that would fail.

Migratory birds in their purview .  Be interesting how this all turns out.  If some of you may not have noticed most non-resident's are asking for no more than a fair shot on federal land and an elimination of rules made for only resident appeasement.  In so many places now resident appeasement is the sole motivation.  Well past the point of obvious in many areas. It is either federal property owned by citizens of the USA or it's not.  Could not be simpler.

North Dakota and South Dakota already limit non-resident waterfowl hunters without regard to land ownership. South Dakota has a quota system for non-resident waterfowlers and North Dakota limits non-resident hunters to 14 total days of hunting. Neither law has been successfully challenged in court.

Quote from: merriamsman on July 01, 2024, 04:36:20 PMNorth Dakota and South Dakota already limit non-resident waterfowl hunters without regard to land ownership. South Dakota has a quota system for non-resident waterfowlers and North Dakota limits non-resident hunters to 14 total days of hunting. Neither law has been successfully challenged in court.
[/quot]

Yet

Don't forget Arkansas and Missouri too. All the court cases thus far have not been friendly for the traveling hunter per wildfowl magazine.

It does appear that "resident appeasement" is many state's true goal.  Actual game numbers are playing but a minor role in these wildlife decisions IMO.  Should not be a big surprise since the residents vote and are really good whiners. Too bad but it is what it is.
 
Add - since this apparently has become a personal issue to some I'll throw in that in my near 45 years of turkey chasing I've hunted OH, KY, WV, TN, WY and Florida.  Never more than my home state and one other state as a non-resident in any given year.  That's far from excessive and any threat to a turkey population.  Getting squeezed from federal property galls me now and will in the future but I'll live with it.  "Adapt" is my middle name.  Lol