Your Opinion

[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.

[joey46]

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.

[Prospector]

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

[joey46]

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.

[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?



 

[joey46]

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.

[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.

[joey46]

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.

[merriamsman]

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.

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.

[arkrem870]

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


 

[joey46]

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

[joey46]

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


 

I'd be the first to like and subscribe. 

[Spurs Up]

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".

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/