Your Opinion

[Tail Feathers]

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.

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.

[Paulmyr]

"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

[merriamsman]

"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.

[Prospector]

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.

[GobbleNut]

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.

[joey46]

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.

[GobbleNut]

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.

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...     

[nativeks]

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.

[deerhunt1988]

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.

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

[PalmettoRon]

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.

[joey46]

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.

[merriamsman]

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.

[joey46]

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.
[/quot]

Yet

[nativeks]

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

[joey46]

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