Your Opinion

[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.

[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

[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!

[arkrem870]

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

[Loyalist84]

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.

[Prospector]

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

[Prospector]

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.

[arkrem870]

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?



 

[merriamsman]

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.

[arkrem870]

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.