Has anyone ever argued against non-resident fees for hunting on federal land? I’m just thinking that if it’s federal land then my federal taxes are paying for the management so it seems like I should be able to leave my state with very little public land to go hunt other states with abundant federally managed land and as long as I don’t hunt private land then I should be able to pay the same price for tags as residents. Sure, it may be a pipe dream, but seems logical to me. Just wondering if this has ever been argued or not.
Hunting & Fishing Federal land out of state hunting fees
- Thread starter TheDalmore
- Start date
- Tags
- blm non resident
I get the logic, but all game management is done on a state level and not federally. If the game animals were smart enough to know where property lines were and would stay on National Forest Land I think you'd have an argument, but as they wander freely between private, state, and federal land I think you're SOL...
Yea
yeah I know how that works, I’m just thinking it sucks for us in the eastern half of the country with crap for public land and everybody out west has all that nice BLM land to play on. I know my plan would never work but was curious if anyone has ever heard an argument for it. And some public land is state land that’s managed by state wildlife, but some is federal. I’m only asking to be able to buy president priced tags if hunting on the federally owned lands.
Where are you wanting to hunt??
Trying to set something up for either Utah or Idaho
I take you are not a vet or a disabled vet. So they are set up about the same as elsewhere. You need a license and a tag for the game you seek. UGGGHHHH....those are steep.
Yeah it’s either stay in MS and kill as many deer as you can find for $40 or else go some place new and pay $500+ for one shot. Still going to do it, just going to complain a lot about it.
Last edited:
Got ya. Where in MS? I hope you aren't near the CWD stuff that's happening. I was looking at property in TN, seems as those Western counties near Memphis parts are getting whacked hard.
I'm looking for property in a few states myself. TN and AL primarily....I was thinking of searching MS as well.
I'm looking for property in a few states myself. TN and AL primarily....I was thinking of searching MS as well.
Always wondered how deer could understand those yellow signs so they know where to cross the road.
?
I’m down on the gulf coast so the hunting around here isn’t worth much. I’m from the south western part of the state along the MS river where there is good hunting and larger deer. We did a good bit in Louisiana this year too. We have been trying to find a deer lease along the Big Black River. I haven’t heard of many CWD cases but I think the only ones have been up near southhaven and Tupelo. I may be wrong on that though.
As a trial lawyer I often get questions like this. Back in the 70s the U.S. Supreme Court decided Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission. This basically upheld the state’s authority to manage hunting inside state borders and to charge out of state residents many times more than a state resident for a license. Long story short, challenges to the state’s licensing and regulatory schemes have failed despite the state’s hunting occurring in large part on federal land. A notable exception being endangered species.
Glad to hear it isn’t just me. Thanks for the info!
You wouldn't happen to be from SW CO. The area around Vallecito Reservoir is beautiful and have skied Nordic trails on the east side of the lake, fished the Pine and rode my bike many times up there.
No but I m next door in Northern NM
Let me stop you right there. Outside of in front of a judge, where you don’t want to be, arguing with anyone with a .gov paycheck is worse than an exercise in futility. You will leave dumber and worse off.
Yeah it’s total bullshit that a State controlled process regarding animals that are part of the public trust includes Federal land within said State. You should protest - stop coming out west until this injustice is rectified. While your at it, convince everyone you can out East that they too should stop coming out here....and Californians....we don’t like them either.
It must get confusing hating all of the non residents who go there to hunt while at the same time needing all of those non residents to come out paying the ridiculous tag fees to be able to fund the wildlife programs. I just hope gas prices aren’t too bad this fall. Pulling side by sides and then running them around will make the whole trip even more expensive if fuel prices are up
It must get confusing hating all of the non residents who go there to hunt while at the same time needing all of those non residents to come out paying the ridiculous tag fees to be able to fund the wildlife programs. I just hope gas prices aren’t too bad this fall. Pulling side by sides and then running them around will make the whole trip even more expensive if fuel prices are up
Well dont let facts get in the way of a good story but nr dont fund as much shit as you like to believe.
Here in Wyoming, the state "owns" the wildlife. As a third generation Wyoming native, I am supposed to hate non-resident hunters out of tradition. However, I know that non-resident hunters foot a huge part of the Game and Fish bill, allowing me to play on the cheap. They also give the local economy a shot in the arm. I like non-resident hunters so get your asses out here and bring some friends. Also, if you are from Wisconsin, bring cheese, brats, New Glarus IPA, and I'll show you where to hunt free of charge.
Last edited:
Nice. What will you do for boudin and gator meat?? lol
You may want to relay your info on to some of the heads of fish and game departments since you have the full story because I just heard and interview recently with the head of Montana’s fish and game or WFP (whatever they call it there) and she was talking about how non resident tags is what funds a rather large portion of their programs. And that’s not even taking into account the boost to the local economies that visiting hunters provide. And like I have said, I’m not against paying out of state licenses in general, I just think there should at least be a tag discount for non residents if they are only hunting on federal land. I’ve been pretty Much only hunting across the border in Louisiana this year so that’s out of state for me, but I’m also hunting private land.
Your hunting the animals which are held in trust by the state for the residents. It funds a large part but making it sound like it will fold if nr dont show up is not true. If this is your first time your going to find that the license is the cheap part about this deal. Packs, optics, boots, clothes, shelters, shit the gas and wear and tear on a vehicle. Those roads out there will fuck shit up fast. Then throw in success rates you will be lucky to get a shot. Been out four years to idaho and killed nothing. Success rates on most otc units is low teens to single digits. People would give up their first born and wife before they will tell you where to hunt elk. Who is going to regulate that you only are hunting federal land? I have never seen a warden out there. Its hard to realize how big it is till you get out there. Its not thousands of acres it is hundreds of thousands of acres.
It is always a source of debate, as we are all non-residents of 50 other states and territories. It is the system we have. I am kind of happy that it works this way, though I wish I could get drawn for sheep tags!
Where are you putting in for sheep? That’s something I’ve never put much thought into trying. Seems like pure masochism.
Idaho,wyoming, montana even has unlimited units you can get a tag for. Pretty much all the western states have sheep tags but if you thought elk tags were spendy get ready to shit a brick.
So here is a little background as a land manager for one of those federal agencies. I won't say which, and this is in no way an official opinion of the government or my agency. These are my observations having worked for 3 of the natural resource agencies (2 land based, and one wildlife based). This is the extent of our involvement in the hunting world, I will also cover a few reasons why fees and laws are changing in Idaho.
1. We collect zero revenue from the hunting community in the form of tag/license fees. The extent of federal revenue collection from hunting comes from camp site fees and a few cents from your stamp (most of the revenue goes to the state or the treasury and never goes to the agency). I won't speak to the park service since I haven't ever worked for them, and generally avoid national parks.
2. Other than USFWS we have almost zero say in seasons, tags, units, or how states manage game species. This is to the point that in many ways federal land agencies (other than USFWS) can't even comment on state policies or rules. USFWS can make some comments on certain species, but that is limited to threatened and endangered species, and potential impacts to them (i.e. salmon, sage grouse, etc.)
3. We will regulate OHV or shooting use of public lands. Usually trail and shooting area closures happen because of how people are using the resource. That is very unpopular to many people, but the sad truth is that more people than you realize are damaging the lands. In one year I have found thousands of pounds of garbage, used needle dumps, wire/copper burning pits, asbestos dumps, and other things that would make you sick. These items are getting dumped all over our public lands, and after we blow half our budget doing hazmat cleanups every year, it gets hard not to consider closing areas. Trails are for multiple reasons.. It could be because we have active logging going on, and we don't want a user to get run over by a deck truck. Most of the time it is because people are riding off trail, killing some endangered plant, dumping gas, oil, or antifreeze in the middle of a creek (seen that 4 times now), or just causing a danger to the community (in north Idaho this is usually because of a multi year increase in OHV injury wrecks and drunk/intoxicated driving. If 1 in 3 people drove on the interstate drunk all day long from 0900-1900, would you be surprised if they closed the interstate for a while?).
4. We will temporarily close some permitted activities during hunting season, or limit their operations to increase public safety. This is usually in the form of temporary logging closures, or like funtions.
5. We will increase our law enforcement presence to make sure that folks aren't off trail with their ATVs, aren't driving drunk, aren't squating on the land, and basically just increasing for 5 day to 7 day a week coverage during the week. This also provides support to Game Wardens because they have limited backup as it is.
6. In very few cases, areas have been closed to hunting due to public safety (a recent lodgepole burn where snags are falling every few minutes) or proximity to infrastructure that has been repeatedly damaged by hunters or shooters.
I'm sure I missed something, but in the end the agencies of Uncle Sam tend to treat hunting as any other recreational activity. So in the end, yes they are your public lands but those fish and game resources are managed by the state and we have little to no say in how it's done.
As far as Idaho goes, and the recent change to license/tag fees and a few law changes have all been due to resident public comment and simple market analysis. Idaho had some of the cheapest nonresident tag fees in the western US, and it was being used as a second choice location for people when they didn't draw elsewhere. Idaho realized that they could increase cost of nonresident hunting tags by 50% or more and still be $200 cheaper than many of our neighboring states. People are saying that Idaho will lose money in this deal, and that they wont come here to hunt. Honestly that's not going to happen, it is still cheap enough that the tags will sell out like they have for years. People also claim that residents are buying all the nonresident tags as second tags. This is false. Idaho doesn't even allow Idahoans to buy a second tag until August 1st, while nonresident tags go on sale december 1st of the previous year. That is 8 months of priority over residents getting a second tag, so please don't say that is limiting your ability to get a tag... In 2018 and 2019 nonresident elk tags sold out before Idaho residents could purchase a second tag, and deer tags have been selling out by the end of September since 2017. They also realized that many people were illegally claiming residency in Idaho when they lived elsewhere to take advantage of resident tags, and more so the allocations in the controlled hunt draw system. This has been a massive issue in Idaho, and that is why Idaho changed its residency requirements a while back to say that you had to be a sole resident of Idaho and nowhere else to receive resident hunting privileges. I have been on multiple hunts where we were one of the only Idaho license plates present, but most of the other hunters were claiming residency because they had a bill sent to a friend's house or they rented a studio apartment with a bunch of their friends. That isn't an unsupported claim, that is direct from the other hunters as they bragged about how they played the system... Boy were they surprised when my hunting partner informed then that he is a Conservation Officer (game Warden). HA!
In Idaho the fish and game is funded predominantly from licenses/tags due to an unfriendly political system in Boise that dates back to the Butch Otter days. And as such, I personally wish that they would have doubled both residents and nonresidents alike, I am more than happy to support IDFG or any other state game management agency. Those folks work incredibly hard, and for very little pay, they deserve the extra money. Conservation Officers in Idaho start at $18 an hour and requires at minimum a 4 year degree, biologists start at 18-20 and lately have been requiring a masters degree and multiple years experience. In the end both will be lucky to make $24 an hour, and are sacrificing allot to provide us with the opportunity to hunt and fish. Do I agree with all of their policies? No. But the vast majority of their work is really an awesome resource for the rest of us.
Overall that is a short novel on how federal agencies have very little say or influence on hunting, and why tag prices are going up in the state of Idaho. Thanks for reading, and feel free to ask questions. I don't have much better to do while I heal up, so if I can't answer, I can probably find someone that can.
1. We collect zero revenue from the hunting community in the form of tag/license fees. The extent of federal revenue collection from hunting comes from camp site fees and a few cents from your stamp (most of the revenue goes to the state or the treasury and never goes to the agency). I won't speak to the park service since I haven't ever worked for them, and generally avoid national parks.
2. Other than USFWS we have almost zero say in seasons, tags, units, or how states manage game species. This is to the point that in many ways federal land agencies (other than USFWS) can't even comment on state policies or rules. USFWS can make some comments on certain species, but that is limited to threatened and endangered species, and potential impacts to them (i.e. salmon, sage grouse, etc.)
3. We will regulate OHV or shooting use of public lands. Usually trail and shooting area closures happen because of how people are using the resource. That is very unpopular to many people, but the sad truth is that more people than you realize are damaging the lands. In one year I have found thousands of pounds of garbage, used needle dumps, wire/copper burning pits, asbestos dumps, and other things that would make you sick. These items are getting dumped all over our public lands, and after we blow half our budget doing hazmat cleanups every year, it gets hard not to consider closing areas. Trails are for multiple reasons.. It could be because we have active logging going on, and we don't want a user to get run over by a deck truck. Most of the time it is because people are riding off trail, killing some endangered plant, dumping gas, oil, or antifreeze in the middle of a creek (seen that 4 times now), or just causing a danger to the community (in north Idaho this is usually because of a multi year increase in OHV injury wrecks and drunk/intoxicated driving. If 1 in 3 people drove on the interstate drunk all day long from 0900-1900, would you be surprised if they closed the interstate for a while?).
4. We will temporarily close some permitted activities during hunting season, or limit their operations to increase public safety. This is usually in the form of temporary logging closures, or like funtions.
5. We will increase our law enforcement presence to make sure that folks aren't off trail with their ATVs, aren't driving drunk, aren't squating on the land, and basically just increasing for 5 day to 7 day a week coverage during the week. This also provides support to Game Wardens because they have limited backup as it is.
6. In very few cases, areas have been closed to hunting due to public safety (a recent lodgepole burn where snags are falling every few minutes) or proximity to infrastructure that has been repeatedly damaged by hunters or shooters.
I'm sure I missed something, but in the end the agencies of Uncle Sam tend to treat hunting as any other recreational activity. So in the end, yes they are your public lands but those fish and game resources are managed by the state and we have little to no say in how it's done.
As far as Idaho goes, and the recent change to license/tag fees and a few law changes have all been due to resident public comment and simple market analysis. Idaho had some of the cheapest nonresident tag fees in the western US, and it was being used as a second choice location for people when they didn't draw elsewhere. Idaho realized that they could increase cost of nonresident hunting tags by 50% or more and still be $200 cheaper than many of our neighboring states. People are saying that Idaho will lose money in this deal, and that they wont come here to hunt. Honestly that's not going to happen, it is still cheap enough that the tags will sell out like they have for years. People also claim that residents are buying all the nonresident tags as second tags. This is false. Idaho doesn't even allow Idahoans to buy a second tag until August 1st, while nonresident tags go on sale december 1st of the previous year. That is 8 months of priority over residents getting a second tag, so please don't say that is limiting your ability to get a tag... In 2018 and 2019 nonresident elk tags sold out before Idaho residents could purchase a second tag, and deer tags have been selling out by the end of September since 2017. They also realized that many people were illegally claiming residency in Idaho when they lived elsewhere to take advantage of resident tags, and more so the allocations in the controlled hunt draw system. This has been a massive issue in Idaho, and that is why Idaho changed its residency requirements a while back to say that you had to be a sole resident of Idaho and nowhere else to receive resident hunting privileges. I have been on multiple hunts where we were one of the only Idaho license plates present, but most of the other hunters were claiming residency because they had a bill sent to a friend's house or they rented a studio apartment with a bunch of their friends. That isn't an unsupported claim, that is direct from the other hunters as they bragged about how they played the system... Boy were they surprised when my hunting partner informed then that he is a Conservation Officer (game Warden). HA!
In Idaho the fish and game is funded predominantly from licenses/tags due to an unfriendly political system in Boise that dates back to the Butch Otter days. And as such, I personally wish that they would have doubled both residents and nonresidents alike, I am more than happy to support IDFG or any other state game management agency. Those folks work incredibly hard, and for very little pay, they deserve the extra money. Conservation Officers in Idaho start at $18 an hour and requires at minimum a 4 year degree, biologists start at 18-20 and lately have been requiring a masters degree and multiple years experience. In the end both will be lucky to make $24 an hour, and are sacrificing allot to provide us with the opportunity to hunt and fish. Do I agree with all of their policies? No. But the vast majority of their work is really an awesome resource for the rest of us.
Overall that is a short novel on how federal agencies have very little say or influence on hunting, and why tag prices are going up in the state of Idaho. Thanks for reading, and feel free to ask questions. I don't have much better to do while I heal up, so if I can't answer, I can probably find someone that can.
How is it determined which trails are maintained and which ones are not. I learned the hard way my first year out there just because it is on a map does not mean its passable. Went down into french creek and got out asses kicked haha. With how tight money is I understand not maintaining miles of trails just trying to plan while looking at maps and having an idea will help
Short answer: Call your local office and make a complaint. If users tell us where they want to recreate, that should take priority over areas that haven't had a request. It won't be instant, but most offices take those comments seriously.
Long Answer:
Alright so in an ideal office you would have; 1. A recreation specialist 2. X funds per year allocated to rec improvements/trail maintenance 3. a trails crew (a seasonal crew whose job it is to rebuild or cut new trails) 4. a long enough work season to hit all your trails 5. all your other specialists want to play nicely, and want to get the job done. Unfortunately most offices have number 1 and that's it.
How we prioritize something like trail use is usage level, cost, and access. Do we or the public need it to access something or somewhere? Is it necessary for fire response? Is the level of use so high that we will impact a large group of people? How much will it cost? Can we do this with fire crews or is it a contract? Basically wherever it falls score wise is how we decide to work on something.
Brutal honesty here... The level of attention given to our trails is at the mercy of the resident recreation specialist. I have met allot of them that are very content with their desk, don't really like the outdoors, and don't even know all of the trails or rec sites on their office. If they are lazy then zero trail maintenance will occur without enough people complaining often and loud enough to get a manager's attention. Some are fantastic though, and have a true love of the job and the resource. My biggest recommendation is that if you come across a damaged trail, rec site, shitter, anything.. Take a photo, drop a pin on your phone/gps, and send that to the local office. You can call and ask for the rec specialist or outdoor rec planner, and they will give you a number or email.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease right!
I don't work in the rec shop, I'm over on the forestry/fuels side of things, but if you see me or anyone else out working come up and say hello. We all want to be good stewards and to leave things better than how we got them as land managers. It might not be our program, or we might be too busy to help right then, but i guarantee we know the person to get in touch with. And now multiple folks will know and will bring it up.
Long Answer:
Alright so in an ideal office you would have; 1. A recreation specialist 2. X funds per year allocated to rec improvements/trail maintenance 3. a trails crew (a seasonal crew whose job it is to rebuild or cut new trails) 4. a long enough work season to hit all your trails 5. all your other specialists want to play nicely, and want to get the job done. Unfortunately most offices have number 1 and that's it.
How we prioritize something like trail use is usage level, cost, and access. Do we or the public need it to access something or somewhere? Is it necessary for fire response? Is the level of use so high that we will impact a large group of people? How much will it cost? Can we do this with fire crews or is it a contract? Basically wherever it falls score wise is how we decide to work on something.
Brutal honesty here... The level of attention given to our trails is at the mercy of the resident recreation specialist. I have met allot of them that are very content with their desk, don't really like the outdoors, and don't even know all of the trails or rec sites on their office. If they are lazy then zero trail maintenance will occur without enough people complaining often and loud enough to get a manager's attention. Some are fantastic though, and have a true love of the job and the resource. My biggest recommendation is that if you come across a damaged trail, rec site, shitter, anything.. Take a photo, drop a pin on your phone/gps, and send that to the local office. You can call and ask for the rec specialist or outdoor rec planner, and they will give you a number or email.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease right!
I don't work in the rec shop, I'm over on the forestry/fuels side of things, but if you see me or anyone else out working come up and say hello. We all want to be good stewards and to leave things better than how we got them as land managers. It might not be our program, or we might be too busy to help right then, but i guarantee we know the person to get in touch with. And now multiple folks will know and will bring it up.
With the amount of trails i surely understand that getting to them all is not realistic at all. Thats great info though if i can call and know what we are getting into before setting foot there and go in with a plan is all i need. The trails being a hard to access or use i can use to my advantage as alot of others wont deal with it. Thanks again for the info
- Nov 3, 2010
- 8,778
- 17,880
So why does the federal gubment have a special interest in migratory birds and make me purchase a federal tax stamp to hunt them after I already bought a state license?
Because they fly from Canada to Mexico. The amount of habitat that stamp has provided is the reason there are still birds to hunt. They also have a max of how long seasons can be and what amount of birds can be shot.
USFWS has that stamp because of two reasons. Reason one is what Kurt said. Migratory birds cross state and federal borders multiple times per year. And reason two is to support the national wildlife refuge system. Namely because people come to allot of refuges to hunt waterfowl, and because allot of studies (flu, banding, etc) takes place on the refuges.
The stamp has always been a weird one to me, but also you have to realize where the money goes. And remember, not all states require you to purchase one. Of that "98%...to help acquire and protect wetland habitat and purchase conservation easements for the National Wildlife Refuge System." very little actually goes directly to USFWS. A big chunk gets taken right off the top by the treasury (which happens in all federal transactions). The majority goes back to state agencies or certain groups (ducks unlimited, pheasants forever, etc.) and universities in the form of grants. It is easier for management to occur when that money gets sent out to the folks with the infrastructure and knowledge to make projects happen. They also tend to be looked on more favorably by the comunity when it comes to securing easements or acquiring land (habitat). Honestly what gets back to USFWS for direct use is literally pennies of the $25.
An example is the Bear Lake refuge. They have 3 employees; a refuge manager that does all the planning, admin, and biology. A maintenance worker that works on roads, gates, dikes, water improvements, etc. And a seasonal worker that helps out the maintenance person during the summer. They had partners with IDFG and the UofI and USU to assist with most of their projects, and the majority of the monitoring/biology.
Tag/permit cost is only a small portion of the R/NR Federal lands problems.
In limited entry units the NR is at a huge disadvantage.
All of this is settled case law and tens of millions have been spent litigating it.
There is a real answer. That is Federal dollars. If the NR's could get together with their US Congressman and US Senators and simply cut off school and hiway funds as well any all other Federal dollars until the discrimination ends as well as placing a moratorium on all hunting of federal lands it would end in a matter of weeks. This is being looked at as I type.
In limited entry units the NR is at a huge disadvantage.
All of this is settled case law and tens of millions have been spent litigating it.
There is a real answer. That is Federal dollars. If the NR's could get together with their US Congressman and US Senators and simply cut off school and hiway funds as well any all other Federal dollars until the discrimination ends as well as placing a moratorium on all hunting of federal lands it would end in a matter of weeks. This is being looked at as I type.
Similar threads
Hunting & Fishing Wyoming's Proposed SF0103 & State Tag Limits Generally
