Your Opinion

[Old Swamper]

States wildlife should be regulated by the State. Piss on the Federal Government and the cry baby non residents. You don't like it, stay home.

[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". 

[joey46]

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

[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.

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.

[Ihuntoldschool]

Yes, but I am big on States rights.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

X2.  Nailed it. 

[merriamsman]

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.

[joey46]

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.

[Paulmyr]

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.

[Prospector]

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?

[arkrem870]

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

Loose lips sink ships. FACT

[joey46]

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

[arkrem870]

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.

[Hook hanger]

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.

This right here is basically my view!

[joey46]

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.