Your Opinion

[Neill_Prater]

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

[NCL]

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.

[ChesterCopperpot]

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

[merriamsman]

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

You are correct, sir!

[Neill_Prater]

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

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

[ChesterCopperpot]

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.

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

[Neill_Prater]

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

[highball]

No, federal land should be the same for everyone.

[Bottomland OG]

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

[Paulmyr]

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?

[arkrem870]

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. 

[Happy]

Yes, but I am big on States rights.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[Prospector]

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.

[Happy]

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.

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

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[GobbleNut]

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.

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".