AlaskaMagnum

This is a STRAWMAN!!! PERIOD.

You do not PAY to hunt on LAND. You pay to harvest an ANIMAL. Many states like Colorado have a constitution that says the STATE owns the animal.

If it were about property rights, any private land owner could say they did not need to purchase a license, follow game laws, etc.

Taulman is just out to line his own pockets and doing it in states he knows he can. He knows about Colorado, so he is not taking it on.

RandyA

You hit the nail on the head AlaskaMagnum. The entire post, prior to this one, was started about states rights as granted by the constitution, but the whining, sniveling, crybaby, etc:,etc:, nonresidents want more, they want tags for the same price and equal tags. THen they only want to come visit for a week or two each year and not spend any money. I don't have a problem with the state of Wy raising my tag fees.


I have yet to meet a NR in the field that wasn't a pretty good person. I have enjoyed thier company and even taken total NR strangers hunting., In fact two retired farmers are going elk hunting with me next fall. I told them to just show up, bring your clothes and gun, the rest is on me. WHy? Because I enjoy sharing Wy with anyone.

But to use the federal land as an excuse is as lame as George Taulman using the interstate commerce act as basis for a law suit!

AlaskaMagnum

Randy,

You are so correct. Up here in Alaska, there are so many people and businesses that depend on NR hunters for their income, I think they are pretty much welcomed with open arms. Still, there are a lot of people, myself included, that do not hunt for fun (well that is part of it), but actually live a subsistence lifestyle. There is a difference between having a vacation hunt and hunting your own backyard for winter meat. There should be a distinction. As for the NR, that say they should have equal access to subsitence as well....MOVE if you want to live that lifestyle.

hillbillyhunter1

exactly--by far the most clear and concise post yet
thanks

MarkIIVT

There is a lot of anti-NR sentiment out there, and it must stop, period! I hear the same thing at almost every KDWP meeting, and one of the reasons I stopped going to them. One of the biggest critics in the State of Kansas against NR hunters is the Kansas Bowhunting Association, clear as day. But then again they are against ANYONE getting a tag other than archery hunters.

I have endeavored to expand RESIDENT access and resident hunter length of season in an expanding herd population. Currently in Kansas, the centerfire hunters have 10-12 days and are limited to one of 16 units. I was met with the same criticisms as NR. In fact our legislature tied NR to a % ratio of each type of hunting done (ie archery, centerfire) BY UNIT. But that means the archery guys will now be managed by units and select one (instead of statewide for 2.5 months). For some reason the archery hunters (RESIDENT mainly KBA) feel that they need the whole state and other hunters do not deserve the access, and make the argument as KsHunter did, a management decision. Can't take 2 different positions on the same issue when it suits your cause. They mounted an effective legislative effort and almost passed...until I pointed out to the committee the NR stated:

SB 2115 section L (2) "tags will be issued as a percentage of resident archery issued for such unit for such tags. So if the resident archery is not tied to a unit...neither can the NR. Lawsuits will follow either from the resident hunters or the outfitters if SB 2115 change is passed.

This is where the argument and anti-hunting, anti-NR sentiment comes from in Kansas...the KBA.

I do want to get rid of transferrable tags, but Kansas has been behind the curve with hunter access, keeping it only for the archery hunter crowd, which is connected at high levels to the KDWP.

Hell, all the federal land and NWR in Kansas all 4, do not allow centerfire on them.

The bowhunters in Kansas are our biggest problem in anti hunting, if they had their wah centerfire would be eliminated, and I have the documentation too.

I have nothing but contempt for those KBA #%$@ole's, and their KDWP lackies who put special interest above the good of all and proper management techniques.

And NO kshunter I do not want to hear your window on the world, as usual it is wrong.

Cougar Mag

He is already doing that and Taulman's purpose is to make himself rich at the expense of wildlife and residents. The government and courts have no business in wildlife management. Most state's wildlife managers have done just fine on their own because they truly understand sound game management and the loss of available hunting land to residents and the regular guy. I fully support this legislation. By the way, I will be bowhunting in Colorado for elk this fall. I will treat and respect Colorado the same way as non-residents I have met here in Illinois......they all were great people.

MarkIIVT

I don't like Taulman's antics either, but would like to see NR access expanded to what the game can sustain in states. And eliminate the Kansas Transferrable tag. As for doing it through the legislature, in Kansas it is the only way to do it. Our KDWP "management" of the resource is laughable. They still do deer population indexes on car/deer accidents for petes sake! They are a laughingstack, and NOT to be Trusted with a shared resource.

Our state at one time did do a fine job of management prior to the late 70's, but since then it has taken an anti rifle, anti NR, and totaly pro archery slant on all management decisions. And btw, the NR's and Rifle pay historically 5:1 in revenues and monies for hunting over the Kansas archery Louts. This note applies ONLY to KANSAS ARCHERY LOUTS, the rest of the United States Bowhunters are just fine. It is the KBA that sawed the legs of most of the resident hunters.

AlaskaMagnum

Mark,

It seems like what you oppose, one group of hunters with a self-serving influence dictating game management, is exactly what most of us who oppose Taulman are worried about...namely, a group of non-resident hunters with special interests taking over game management in a state to suit their own needs.

Pace Maker

Reading this whole post is making my head spin! I wasn't going to write, but it seems every person on the huntingnet has contributed so I felt left out. I just want to hunt, harvest and eat, I hate politics. But, I can understand we have to get involved. It's bad enough living in the most confusing state in the union (Massachusetts). Paying $977.50 for an outfitter sponsered deer and elk tag in Montana this year was a little hard to swallow. I can't imagine spending much more for a hunting license than that, myself. To go along with the $1000 for license and tags you have to add in the cost of the outfitter and guide. It's already above most common folks means! What ever it takes to stop the increase in tag costs has to be addressed. Or soon all you'll have hunting out west is people who wear suits and ties and smoke $100 cigars!
I can understand the non-residents licenses costing more and certainly don't have a problem with that. I'm just saying it's a lot of money, and I hope the money goes where it's suppose to and not into some general fund, like a lot of fees we pay here in Massachusetts go. I new this post was going to divide hunters. As the post of Non-resident vs resident did. I have no answers to the draw problem, I've been confused by the draw ever since I started looking at hunting out west. I understand they need a system to better manage the herd, but it does get a little overwhelming to someone not involved in it. All I can say is I don't trust too many politicians and certainly don't want them regulating wildlife. I had to put in my two cents, couldn't stand it any longer.

Nemont

While hard to swallow you were willing to pay that price. So are are over 13,000 other people. You tell me what incentive the state of Montana has to change the price of their tags.

I advocate doing away completely with the outfitter set aside tags and placing those tags directly into the NR draw quota. The price of tags would come down and the price of outfitting would come down if the outfitters had to compete every year for your business. I am not anti NR hunter and have met numerous quality people from all over the world. I have hosted guys I met on site such as this free of charge and hunted elk, deer, turkeys, antelope, ducks, geese, pheasant, sage grouse even coyotes with NR hunters. But don't come in and demand that all us lowly residents stand aside and bow down to you because you grace us with your presence and drop a couple hundred or even a couple of thousand dollars into our economy.

Nemont