Resident vs. Nonresident
#51
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW Wyoming
Posts: 312
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
Lol, ok fine... Then this Californian can hunt circles around you. Does that make you feel better?
Yada yada yada! I didn't come on here to change the world or brag! I just wanted to post a news item that will affect us all and will maybe shut down George Taulman. The post is about states rights, a right, not a privelege. By the constitution. I know in Kalifornia you don't recognize the constitution or respect it. And if you read the origanal post, Ben Nelson is also a co-sponser, from Nebraska. That's a big game mecca! Lots of federal land there!
The wildlife belongs to the states, Wyoming law clearly states and supports it. Your claim to federal land and wildflife is a lame round about way to circumvent states rights. Keep trying, it ain't gonna happen. Residents should have some privelege for living in a state, other wise why have individual states???? Hmmmm, like the old Russia! One union, one country, yes comrad, you might be on to something.
Wirehair, we pay Pitman Robertson taxes here to. Regardless the the majority of funds to the WYG&F come from license sales. Over 85% of thier budget.
#52
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Williamsport Md USA
Posts: 419
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
RandyA, I never said you didn't pay PR taxes, but a lot of posts have the "our state gets nothing from the federal government" or " all our money comes from license and tag sales". Everyone who buys outdoor products pay into it.
According to their annual report PR funds account for about 50% of WYG&F budget not 15%. Their wildlife division budget for 2004 was $14,407,986 and they recieved $7.1 million from the fund.
According to their annual report PR funds account for about 50% of WYG&F budget not 15%. Their wildlife division budget for 2004 was $14,407,986 and they recieved $7.1 million from the fund.
#53
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Arcadia Ca USA
Posts: 210
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
ORIGINAL: Wirehair
According to their annual report PR funds account for about 50% of WYG&F budget not 15%. Their wildlife division budget for 2004 was $14,407,986 and they recieved $7.1 million from the fund.
According to their annual report PR funds account for about 50% of WYG&F budget not 15%. Their wildlife division budget for 2004 was $14,407,986 and they recieved $7.1 million from the fund.
The scary thing is that of that $7 million that comes from license and tag sales... Non-Resident sales contribute more than 60% of it.
So basically, the Residents of Wyoming contribute a total of $3,000,000 of their Game Department's $14,500,000 budget.
But they are supposedly owed something...
It is Wildlife Welfare...
A complete handout...
#54
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
Why should your benifit for living there be cheaper tags and licenses?
Because residents have been putting in time and money into their own state. There are many small organizations, from the state that fund projects for wildlilfe projects, which in return support the State and Federal resources. Every state has them. Whether it is the Nevada Bighorns Unlimited who continue to raise money for wildlife projects, or the Arizona Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, they're made up almost entirely by residents(I'm sure there are a few non-res.). The benefits made from these organizations now will be reaped of them, due to the much more limited access. These are "Residents" putting into the system and doing the work, not "Nonresidents". If the Fed's want to manage the states resources, then rid of the State G & F dept., otherwise, let them do their job.
Residents should also have the advantage of the tags system for game management. Majority of the resident hunters do not hunt out-of-state. They hunt in the same places every-year(as long as the outfitters don't get them). With that being said, the majority of hunters will pay more and many will not want to pay 2-3 times the amount to be "equal" to non-resident tags. Many people hunt because it saves them money in the long run. The rise would have to happen to keep the same amount of income. So the decrease of resident hunters, especially meat-hunters, would mean less deer. Maybe the state would then increase the non-resident permits. But the vast majority of non-residents do NOT shoot anything but bucks. Does anybody already see the deer population on the increase? And guess who will be liable to the lawsuits, from the insurance agencies and lobbyist? You guessed it, the State Wildlife and Parks. And all of this for a some greedy out-of-state hunters. Give me a break! Why would the Wildlife and Park do that, theyd be stupid? Taulman found a loophole on the Fed. land, with no more ambitions than filling his pockets full.
And some think that not making residents and non-residents hunters equal is unfair to non-residents? No, making it equal would be unfair to majority of all residents. Remember, majority of hunters don't hunt out of state. Think about it. Majority of resident hunters will have to pay more for hunting their own land and have a lesser chance at getting a tag, and you justify it by saying they are more likely to get a tag in another state for less money, when they don't even want the tag.
Discrimination between residents and non-residents should continue to happen. Complaining about not getting enough tags or being too expensive is ridiculous. But that is my opinion, everybody has their own. Discrimination is everywhere. Maybe next time, rifle hunters will sue the state for not having as good of seasons as the bowhunters. Maybe bowhunters will sue the state for having units where as rifle hunters do not. Maybe a rifle hunter will sue Iowa for not being able to use a rifle. This is all discrimination. Where does it stop. Everywhere you look is discrimination. And lawsuits are down both paths of the road. There's is always going to be some Lawful Loophole, that people like Taulman will find, to meet their needs, which in his case $$$. Hunting Regulations are a right given to the state. The state manages the land a resource, whether it be Federal, Public, or Private. So let them do their job.
#55
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Arcadia Ca USA
Posts: 210
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
ORIGINAL: RandyA
By the constitution. I know in Kalifornia you don't recognize the constitution or respect it. And if you read the origanal post, Ben Nelson is also a co-sponser, from Nebraska. That's a big game mecca! Lots of federal land there!
By the constitution. I know in Kalifornia you don't recognize the constitution or respect it. And if you read the origanal post, Ben Nelson is also a co-sponser, from Nebraska. That's a big game mecca! Lots of federal land there!
Nuff said... Senators trying to protect the handouts for their residents.
ORIGINAL: RandyA
The wildlife belongs to the states, Wyoming law clearly states and supports it. Your claim to federal land and wildflife is a lame round about way to circumvent states rights. Keep trying, it ain't gonna happen.
The wildlife belongs to the states, Wyoming law clearly states and supports it. Your claim to federal land and wildflife is a lame round about way to circumvent states rights. Keep trying, it ain't gonna happen.
ORIGINAL: RandyA
Residents should have some privelege for living in a state, other wise why have individual states???? Hmmmm, like the old Russia! One union, one country, yes comrad, you might be on to something.
Residents should have some privelege for living in a state, other wise why have individual states???? Hmmmm, like the old Russia! One union, one country, yes comrad, you might be on to something.
Act like an intelligent individual and don't misrepresent the opposition's stance to draw comparisions to communism.
ORIGINAL: RandyA
Wirehair, we pay Pitman Robertson taxes here to. Regardless the the majority of funds to the WYG&F come from license sales. Over 85% of thier budget.
Wirehair, we pay Pitman Robertson taxes here to. Regardless the the majority of funds to the WYG&F come from license sales. Over 85% of thier budget.
Hey atleast you don't need to stand in line for your wildlife welfare...
#56
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Arcadia Ca USA
Posts: 210
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
ORIGINAL: kshunter
Because residents have been putting in time and money into their own state. There are many small organizations, from the state that fund projects for wildlilfe projects, which in return support the State and Federal resources. Every state has them. Whether it is the Nevada Bighorns Unlimited who continue to raise money for wildlife projects, or the Arizona Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, they're made up almost entirely by residents(I'm sure there are a few non-res.).
Because residents have been putting in time and money into their own state. There are many small organizations, from the state that fund projects for wildlilfe projects, which in return support the State and Federal resources. Every state has them. Whether it is the Nevada Bighorns Unlimited who continue to raise money for wildlife projects, or the Arizona Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, they're made up almost entirely by residents(I'm sure there are a few non-res.).
1) Charity work should be done for just that CHARITY. Not for some personal gain.
2) I belonged to several of these small local organizations and about 10%-20% of their membership was from non-residents.
3) The VAST majority of the funds raised by these small local organizations were not from residents. They were from auctions, more importantly Governor's Permits, to NON-RESIDENT hunters. Most of the hunts that were donated to these banquets were from OUT-OF-STATE outfitters.
ORIGINAL: kshunter
The benefits made from these organizations now will be reaped of them, due to the much more limited access. These are "Residents" putting into the system and doing the work, not "Nonresidents". If the Fed's want to manage the states resources, then rid of the State G & F dept., otherwise, let them do their job.
The benefits made from these organizations now will be reaped of them, due to the much more limited access. These are "Residents" putting into the system and doing the work, not "Nonresidents". If the Fed's want to manage the states resources, then rid of the State G & F dept., otherwise, let them do their job.
ORIGINAL: kshunter
Residents should also have the advantage of the tags system for game management. Majority of the resident hunters do not hunt out-of-state. They hunt in the same places every-year(as long as the outfitters don't get them).
Residents should also have the advantage of the tags system for game management. Majority of the resident hunters do not hunt out-of-state. They hunt in the same places every-year(as long as the outfitters don't get them).
ORIGINAL: kshunter
With that being said, the majority of hunters will pay more and many will not want to pay 2-3 times the amount to be "equal" to non-resident tags.
With that being said, the majority of hunters will pay more and many will not want to pay 2-3 times the amount to be "equal" to non-resident tags.
Non-residents generally pay 10 to 25 times of the resident price for the tag.
ORIGINAL: kshunter
Many people hunt because it saves them money in the long run. The rise would have to happen to keep the same amount of income. So the decrease of resident hunters, especially meat-hunters, would mean less deer. Maybe the state would then increase the non-resident permits. But the vast majority of non-residents do NOT shoot anything but bucks.
Many people hunt because it saves them money in the long run. The rise would have to happen to keep the same amount of income. So the decrease of resident hunters, especially meat-hunters, would mean less deer. Maybe the state would then increase the non-resident permits. But the vast majority of non-residents do NOT shoot anything but bucks.
ORIGINAL: kshunter
Does anybody already see the deer population on the increase? And guess who will be liable to the lawsuits, from the insurance agencies and lobbyist? You guessed it, the State Wildlife and Parks. And all of this for a some greedy out-of-state hunters. Give me a break! Why would the Wildlife and Park do that, theyd be stupid?
Does anybody already see the deer population on the increase? And guess who will be liable to the lawsuits, from the insurance agencies and lobbyist? You guessed it, the State Wildlife and Parks. And all of this for a some greedy out-of-state hunters. Give me a break! Why would the Wildlife and Park do that, theyd be stupid?
But we should let them do what they are doing...
ORIGINAL: kshunter
Discrimination between residents and non-residents should continue to happen. Complaining about not getting enough tags or being too expensive is ridiculous. But that is my opinion, everybody has their own.
Discrimination between residents and non-residents should continue to happen. Complaining about not getting enough tags or being too expensive is ridiculous. But that is my opinion, everybody has their own.
But they should be able to do that right because they are the ORIGINAL RESIDENT and we are all non-residents, right?
ORIGINAL: kshunter
Discrimination is everywhere. Maybe next time, rifle hunters will sue the state for not having as good of seasons as the bowhunters. Maybe bowhunters will sue the state for having units where as rifle hunters do not. Maybe a rifle hunter will sue Iowa for not being able to use a rifle. This is all discrimination. Where does it stop. Everywhere you look is discrimination. And lawsuits are down both paths of the road.
Discrimination is everywhere. Maybe next time, rifle hunters will sue the state for not having as good of seasons as the bowhunters. Maybe bowhunters will sue the state for having units where as rifle hunters do not. Maybe a rifle hunter will sue Iowa for not being able to use a rifle. This is all discrimination. Where does it stop. Everywhere you look is discrimination. And lawsuits are down both paths of the road.
ORIGINAL: kshunter
Hunting Regulations are a right given to the state. The state manages the land a resource, whether it be Federal, Public, or Private. So let them do their job.
Hunting Regulations are a right given to the state. The state manages the land a resource, whether it be Federal, Public, or Private. So let them do their job.
#57
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
SpyroAndes,
You missed a lot of points, with your selective cutting and pasting. Paragraphs are there for a reason.
By using your ex.: 10-20% of the organizations Nonresidents put a vast(vast means 90%+) majority of the funds into the state organization. I don't buy that(per avg. state org.), and I doubt anyone else here does.
All you have to do is read a little further down on my paragraph. You point is fabricated out my a point which was only stated in a Copy/Paste. If you read further down, you'll answer you're own question.
Nope you're wrong. For a hypo. example. If a NR tag in KS cost $400 and a Res. tag cost $40, and your "equal theory" were to occur, Residents tags would not jump to $400 per tag, but instead the overall equal tag between the 2 would lower the NR tag and raise the Res. tag making the 10-12X you're talking about more like 3-5X. It would only be 10-12X higher if all tags went to $400. But that would defeat the purpose of what you want, wouldn't it.
Just think maybe good management is a declining deer herd. Take Kansas for example. KS is trying and has been trying to lower the herd for "Management" practices. A declining deer herd is not always bad, and your "equal tag/price theory" would only do the opposite of Kansas's deer management by leaps and bounds.
Wrong again, see above. You may be fighting the tag allocation and pricing, but also fighting management. The two are directly linked together. Just read the paragraphs above, and if you're smart enough,(which I'm sure you are), it's easy to figure it out.
Must I really respond to this one? See above, again.
I'm using Kansas as an example because it is a state I am most familiar with. Making the tags and prices equal for Kansas, would be disaster. Not only for Game Management also for liability of many many potential lawsuits against the State W&P, that would most deffinately happen. Even besides all of that, the ethical stance of eliminating the "little man" in hunting, is something I will stand up against anyday, to preserve to sport of hunting.
You missed a lot of points, with your selective cutting and pasting. Paragraphs are there for a reason.
Let me address this with a couple of different points...
1) Charity work should be done for just that CHARITY. Not for some personal gain.
2) I belonged to several of these small local organizations and about 10%-20% of their membership was from non-residents.
3) The VAST majority of the funds raised by these small local organizations were not from residents. They were from auctions, more importantly Governor's Permits, to NON-RESIDENT hunters. Most of the hunts that were donated to these banquets were from OUT-OF-STATE outfitters.
1) Charity work should be done for just that CHARITY. Not for some personal gain.
2) I belonged to several of these small local organizations and about 10%-20% of their membership was from non-residents.
3) The VAST majority of the funds raised by these small local organizations were not from residents. They were from auctions, more importantly Governor's Permits, to NON-RESIDENT hunters. Most of the hunts that were donated to these banquets were from OUT-OF-STATE outfitters.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kshunter
Residents should also have the advantage of the tags system for game management. Majority of the resident hunters do not hunt out-of-state. They hunt in the same places every-year(as long as the outfitters don't get them).
Please tell me how a resident shooting a deer is different than a non-resident from shooting a deer... both serve that same purpose in managing herds.
ORIGINAL: kshunter
Residents should also have the advantage of the tags system for game management. Majority of the resident hunters do not hunt out-of-state. They hunt in the same places every-year(as long as the outfitters don't get them).
Please tell me how a resident shooting a deer is different than a non-resident from shooting a deer... both serve that same purpose in managing herds.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kshunter
With that being said, the majority of hunters will pay more and many will not want to pay 2-3 times the amount to be "equal" to non-resident tags.
You only believe that non-resident tags are 2 or 3 times more expensive? Are you naive?
Non-residents generally pay 10 to 25 times of the resident price for the tag.
ORIGINAL: kshunter
With that being said, the majority of hunters will pay more and many will not want to pay 2-3 times the amount to be "equal" to non-resident tags.
You only believe that non-resident tags are 2 or 3 times more expensive? Are you naive?
Non-residents generally pay 10 to 25 times of the resident price for the tag.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kshunter
Does anybody already see the deer population on the increase? And guess who will be liable to the lawsuits, from the insurance agencies and lobbyist? You guessed it, the State Wildlife and Parks. And all of this for a some greedy out-of-state hunters. Give me a break! Why would the Wildlife and Park do that, theyd be stupid?
So basically, you are claiming that your local Wildlife Department is already mismanaging your deer herds because every herd is on the decline?
ORIGINAL: kshunter
Does anybody already see the deer population on the increase? And guess who will be liable to the lawsuits, from the insurance agencies and lobbyist? You guessed it, the State Wildlife and Parks. And all of this for a some greedy out-of-state hunters. Give me a break! Why would the Wildlife and Park do that, theyd be stupid?
So basically, you are claiming that your local Wildlife Department is already mismanaging your deer herds because every herd is on the decline?
That is MANAGEMENT and nobody is fighting that.... We are talking tag allocation discrimination and tag pricing discrimination.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kshunter
Hunting Regulations are a right given to the state. The state manages the land a resource, whether it be Federal, Public, or Private. So let them do their job.
You just told me that they are doing a poor job of management because all the deer herds are on the decline.... Why do you want them to continue to do the same job that they are doing?
ORIGINAL: kshunter
Hunting Regulations are a right given to the state. The state manages the land a resource, whether it be Federal, Public, or Private. So let them do their job.
You just told me that they are doing a poor job of management because all the deer herds are on the decline.... Why do you want them to continue to do the same job that they are doing?
I'm using Kansas as an example because it is a state I am most familiar with. Making the tags and prices equal for Kansas, would be disaster. Not only for Game Management also for liability of many many potential lawsuits against the State W&P, that would most deffinately happen. Even besides all of that, the ethical stance of eliminating the "little man" in hunting, is something I will stand up against anyday, to preserve to sport of hunting.
#58
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Arcadia Ca USA
Posts: 210
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
ORIGINAL: kshunter
By using your ex.: 10-20% of the organizations Nonresidents put a vast(vast means 90%+) majority of the funds into the state organization. I don't buy that(per avg. state org.), and I doubt anyone else here does.
By using your ex.: 10-20% of the organizations Nonresidents put a vast(vast means 90%+) majority of the funds into the state organization. I don't buy that(per avg. state org.), and I doubt anyone else here does.
Not once did I see the Governor's tags being purchased by a resident. It was always some non-resident, bidding by phone, that was buying them.
When a banquet raises $300,000 and $200,000 alone is raised on the sale of 3 Governor's permit to non-residents, I'd definitely say that the non-resident monetary contribution is much greater.
ORIGINAL: kshunter
For a hypo. example. If a NR tag in KS cost $400 and a Res. tag cost $40, and your "equal theory" were to occur, Residents tags would not jump to $400 per tag, but instead the overall equal tag between the 2 would lower the NR tag and raise the Res. tag making the 10-12X you're talking about more like 3-5X. It would only be 10-12X higher if all tags went to $400. But that would defeat the purpose of what you want, wouldn't it.
For a hypo. example. If a NR tag in KS cost $400 and a Res. tag cost $40, and your "equal theory" were to occur, Residents tags would not jump to $400 per tag, but instead the overall equal tag between the 2 would lower the NR tag and raise the Res. tag making the 10-12X you're talking about more like 3-5X. It would only be 10-12X higher if all tags went to $400. But that would defeat the purpose of what you want, wouldn't it.
In Arizona, residents are allocated 90% of the tags.
So lets take a sample of 10 hunters (9 residents and 1 non-resident)
Residents pays roughly $22 for a deer tag on the Kaibab or 9 x $22 = $198
The non-resident pays roughly $1250 for the same tag or 1 x $1250 = $1250
So lets add them together... $200 + $1250 = $1450
If everyone was going to pay the equal amount for a tag, it would be $145 per tag or $1450/10 = $145
For a price increase of 700% for the arizona resident hunter.
We can do Nevada, Wyoming and New Mexico... they all follow suit...
ORIGINAL: kshunter
Wrong again, see above. You may be fighting the tag allocation and pricing, but also fighting management. The two are directly linked together. Just read the paragraphs above, and if you're smart enough,(which I'm sure you are), it's easy to figure it out.
Wrong again, see above. You may be fighting the tag allocation and pricing, but also fighting management. The two are directly linked together. Just read the paragraphs above, and if you're smart enough,(which I'm sure you are), it's easy to figure it out.
What people are not fighting is what price the state sets for tags or how many tags are issued BUT the discrepancy in tag pricing and tag allocation between residents and non-residents.
There is no legitimate basis for the discrimination...
ORIGINAL: kshunter
I'm using Kansas as an example because it is a state I am most familiar with. Making the tags and prices equal for Kansas, would be disaster. Not only for Game Management also for liability of many many potential lawsuits against the State W&P, that would most deffinately happen.
I'm using Kansas as an example because it is a state I am most familiar with. Making the tags and prices equal for Kansas, would be disaster. Not only for Game Management also for liability of many many potential lawsuits against the State W&P, that would most deffinately happen.
You ever stop to think that is why your state is exploiting the NON-RESIDENTS? Because whenever your State W&P needs to generate more revenue, they just hike up the prices for non-residents because they are unable to vote in that state?
ORIGINAL: kshunter
Even besides all of that, the ethical stance of eliminating the "little man" in hunting, is something I will stand up against anyday, to preserve to sport of hunting.
Even besides all of that, the ethical stance of eliminating the "little man" in hunting, is something I will stand up against anyday, to preserve to sport of hunting.
Frankly, unless you make $100K per year or more, hunting in the west, as a non-resident, is essentially over...
By the time all my non-resident applications are submitted, I'll have more than $25,000 tied up in tag fees. Sure, I'll get 99% of it back because I won't draw but, to get drawn for something, that is what you have to do as a non-resident.
Let me put it this way, lets just do Elk apps for a non-resident in the West... lets say a cop from Georgia that makes $45K per year...
Arizona - $2400
New Mexico - $800
Nevada - $1200
Utah - $800
Montana - $600
Wyoming - $900
Colorado - $500
Idaho - $350
That would be a total of $7550 in just Elk Tag Appications to hopefully draw a decent tag somewhere and does NOT include the purchasing of licenses for many states which are between $100-$150.
You guys have already cut out the little guy...
#59
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
Not once did I see the Governor's tags being purchased by a resident. It was always some non-resident, bidding by phone, that was buying them.
Besides, I think that particular issue is getting off the track of the real issue on hand.
Lets talk about reality out west and the states involved right now... Nevada, Arizona and Wyoming...
What people are not fighting is what price the state sets for tags or how many tags are issued BUT the discrepancy in tag pricing and tag allocation between residents and non-residents.
Who would sue the State W&P? Pissed off residents? They might even vote those b@stards out of office come next election!
And since the NR hunters are filtering in and leasing the land from the "little man" who is going to be there to even shoot the doe and manage the herd, when the NR hunters won't do it, and Residents can't do it?
quote:
ORIGINAL: kshunter
Even besides all of that, the ethical stance of eliminating the "little man" in hunting, is something I will stand up against anyday, to preserve to sport of hunting.
That is a pure and simple load of bullsh*t because you are all for eliminating the non-resident little man.
ORIGINAL: kshunter
Even besides all of that, the ethical stance of eliminating the "little man" in hunting, is something I will stand up against anyday, to preserve to sport of hunting.
That is a pure and simple load of bullsh*t because you are all for eliminating the non-resident little man.
You speak of this situation:
Let me put it this way, lets just do Elk apps for a non-resident in the West... lets say a cop from Georgia that makes $45K per year...
Arizona - $2400
New Mexico - $800
Nevada - $1200
Utah - $800
Montana - $600
Wyoming - $900
Colorado - $500
Idaho - $350
Arizona - $2400
New Mexico - $800
Nevada - $1200
Utah - $800
Montana - $600
Wyoming - $900
Colorado - $500
Idaho - $350
Why can hunters unite as one and preserve our sport??? It used to be easier until minds like Taulman came around. I guess greed can get the best of some.
#60
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WV
Posts: 4,484
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
I think you bring up a very good point kshunter,
It is the little guys that would suffer because of rulings that supported Taulman and others.
Specifically, the little guys that live in areas under a high demand from "trophy" hunters. If these little guys had to wait to draw tags or pay higher prices (like non-residents), They would probably have to give up hunting (God forbid) or become illegal. Now I'm sure that little guys that lived in areas that were not in that high of a demand would probably be relatively unaffected. Hunting has always been a very personal thing for most and has generally been a local pursuit until this past generation. Its unfortunate that some now want to change the very structure that has made hunting so popular with the average joe. Average joe has probably hasn't even considerded, until recently, that it might one day be other hunters that push him out of his own backyard.
It is the little guys that would suffer because of rulings that supported Taulman and others.
Specifically, the little guys that live in areas under a high demand from "trophy" hunters. If these little guys had to wait to draw tags or pay higher prices (like non-residents), They would probably have to give up hunting (God forbid) or become illegal. Now I'm sure that little guys that lived in areas that were not in that high of a demand would probably be relatively unaffected. Hunting has always been a very personal thing for most and has generally been a local pursuit until this past generation. Its unfortunate that some now want to change the very structure that has made hunting so popular with the average joe. Average joe has probably hasn't even considerded, until recently, that it might one day be other hunters that push him out of his own backyard.