In the vast majority of discussions I read and take part in for tag availability and costs for being a non-resident in CO and WY, locals are very quick to bring up "How much tax money do non-residents pay...." Finally had a little time to read up more on the multiple revenue streams into the state from federal funds. The point of this is NOT private lands. Considering the majority of non resident hunters are on National Forest and BLM lands, there is only a fraction of state public land in comparison.

After diving into state budgets, I can find nowhere that state taxes are used to fund National Parks/Forestry land or BLM. There are a few excise taxes in local municipalities used for the enhancements and maintenances related to a few specific areas like Estes into Rocky mountain Park or Tetons area.

However, out of everyone's federal taxes, the PILT program is paid to the states (Payments in Lieu of Taxes Resource Hub)
https://www.naco.org/resource/payments-lieu-taxes-resource-hub

Secure Rural Schools (SRS): Through the SRS program, the U.S. Forest Service distributes millions of dollars—such as the recent $4.5 million payout to Wyoming—directly to counties for rural school funding, road maintenance, and forest stewardship

https://dlg.colorado.gov/national-forest-payments

The "25-Percent Rule": Authorized by a 1908 Act of Congress, the Forest Service distributes 25% of the revenue generated from commercial activities on forest lands (such as timber harvests and grazing leases) back to the counties where the revenue was earned

While local tax dollars do not fund the forest, local county emergency departments use their tax revenue to handle incidents on public lands. To prevent a financial drain on local taxpayers, the Forest Service signs annual financial reimbursement agreements. For example, the federal government uses its budget to reimburse local Sheriff's offices for the documented hours deputies spend conducting law enforcement patrolling, search and rescue operations, and wildland fire management within forest boundaries.

So my true question is if/and or how much financial reimbursement agreement funding is provided to each states dept of wildlife??? If in fact they are compensated from federal agencies, wouldn't that make hunting on our Federal Land all "resident" opposed to non-resident status??. Naturally that would not include private, state owned or state leased access. The only local tax or fee I see is local money that goes to CPW or WY Fish and game. The "Residents" state taxes do not pay for federal land. Only their federal taxes as does all of us.

Good grief , this has been settled by SCOTUS and Congress via passage of law stating that states have the right to manage wildlife for the benefit of it's residents.
WG&F is funded by license sales, and yes they surely get some Federal funding for studies and the like.

Come on out and hike or camp or whatever but pay the state if you want to hunt, like it should be.

License fees to hunt federal land should be the same for all US citizens regardless of state of residence AND tag allocation should be equal odds of drawing as well.

State land should be whatever the state decides

X2

I have no issue paying to hunt "like it should be" and I expect to pay a higher fee when I'm on state or private land. My real issue is the tag allocations for hunting on Federal land. As for managing wildlife, that's a joke when looked at Federal Forests Vs Units in general. If we ALL pay an equal share to manage the land, we should all have equal opportunities to fish, hunt, camp, trap, and so on. If you want to limit the number of tags for non-residents, on state and private land

Feds don't own the wildlife, it is held in trust for the residents of the state.

Texas charges a state fee to hunt the NF there, licenses are also more expensive for NRs. You going to advocate for same prices NRs and Rs down there?
MO charges more for NR hunting too, what are you doing to change that?

Pack it in and pack it out is all I'm gonna say, leave it better than you found it.

Not accurate

Under the Tenets of the North American Model- Opportunity for All: Every citizen has an opportunity, under the law, to hunt and fish in the United States and Canada.

Additionally, each state received money from the federally collected excise tax on all sporting goods which amounts to billions of the years.

I'm not opposed to paying a reasonably higher tag fee. What I am opposed to is not having an equal opportunity to tags that are for wildlife held in trust for ALL CITIZENS on Federal land.

As for the current legal aspect of who, what, where....It is observed that individual states manage wildlife to an extent, Federal manages the land and habitat, but ultimately the states’ trust responsibilities for wildlife are subordinate to the federal government’s statutory and trust obligations over federal lands and their integral resources.

The real problem is the Federal agencies don't have the balls and take the lazy way through every situation and dump it back on the state level

Some states continue to become more restrictive Both Dakotas on )waterfowl)




Minnesota basically still bans non resident trappers , and prevents their own Minnesota residents from trapping other states .

Minnesotans can trap here. Who manages the wildlife on private land? Same as the Federal land. Except NPS in cases. Somebody wants equal allocation. If you live in a State with a small population, good luck getting drawn if you are in a pool with the rest of the U.S.

• Wildlife as Public Trust Resources: Natural resources and wildlife on public lands are managed by government agencies to ensure that current and future generations always have wildlife and wild places to enjoy.

• Prohibition on Commerce of Dead Wildlife: Commercial hunting and the sale of wildlife is prohibited to ensure the sustainability of wildlife populations. The Lacey Act, which the Service has a role in enforcing, prohibits trade in wildlife, fish, and plants that have been illegally taken, possessed, transported or sold.

• Rule of Law: Laws and regulations developed by the people and enforced by state and federal agencies will guide the proper use of wildlife resources.

• Opportunity for All: Every citizen has an opportunity, under the law, to hunt and fish in the United States and Canada. This differs from many other countries.

• Wildlife Should Only be Killed for a Legitimate Purpose: Individuals may legally kill certain wild animals under strict guidelines for food and fur, self-defense, and property protection. Laws prohibit the casual killing of wildlife merely for antlers, horns or feathers or the wanton waste of game meat.

• Wildlife as an International Resource: Because wildlife and fish freely migrate across boundaries between states, provinces, and countries, they are considered an international resource.

• Scientific Management of Wildlife: The best science available will be used as a base for informed decision-making in wildlife management. It’s important to note that management objectives are developed to support the species, not individual animals.


Gotta leave those horns in the field. That would be the end of non-residents coming.

Those tenets are not laws and every citizen has the right to hunt and fish just not to the level of residents of the state.
Again Congress addressed this with legislation affirming states right to manage NR hunters.

Edit here as I misspoke, some laws do make up parts of the NAWM but also doctrines that agencies work under that are not necc. laws of the land.

Less than one tenth of one percent of my county is owned by the federal government and available for hunting/fishing/trapping. WY is anywhere from 43-48%. National Park fees are the same for all. It would be helpful to the states but I would be for all federal land being given to the states. Never going to happen but would probably be managed/utilized better by the states. Also auction off all the checker boarded land.

If you are hunting federal land - except NWR - and are checked by LEO for license, compliance with game law, littering, etc - who is most likely to do that. Every time I have had that happen, it has been state game warden. Who formulates the consumptive use regs - hunting, fishing, trapping - for fed lands (not NWR)? Generally state dept of natural resources. Who pays the dept of NR to manage the wildlife and the game wardens? The state does. Yes, there are USFS LEO’s, but from what I have seen, they are more interested in timber trespass and drugs.

If you want some examples of what unrestricted hunting use by non residents looks like - go to some of the prime Arkansas green timber duck hunting public areas. It is a god awful three ring circus. Lined up and sleeping in trucks ten days before opening day. Arkansas sells more non-resident waterfowl permits than resident waterfowl permits because they are willing to (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) the resource out to make an extra dollar. I dont really blame the non-residents - I blame the state for not controlling it.

We have elk hunted some prime ground in the Gila NF where something like 10% of the tags go to NR. If the state wildlife dept did not control non resident use, it would be raped just like AR public duck hunting. Same with all the good draw areas across the west.

My property backs up to some Federal land that has alligators. I put up with them year round on that land - fishing, frogging, hunting, trapping, etc. They come off that Federal land and get in my yard and ponds. There is a very restrictive draw for alligator hunts. I quit putting in for the tags because I never was successful in the draw. Many times I have had someone contact me from who knows where - saying they have never been there but they drew a gator permit - and need some help. My property borders that Federal Land, and I have to put up with the gators getting on my land.

Even though I hunt out of state - I am on the side of restricting non-residents. I have seen how willing people are to rape the resources - residents and non residents alike. The big strike against non residents is the potential for there to be a lot more of them.

This is a no-win situation. I was a federal biologist with the BLM and USFS for many years here in NM. Responsibilities were always seen as the federal agencies manage the land (habitat) and state manages most wildlife (those not covered under the Endangered Species Act or international treaties, i.e. Migratory Bird Act). That line has become more blurred as federal agency managers have failed in their legal responsibility in some cases to manage the habitat and are all too willing to dump it on the state. (Sikes Act program here in NM). The Western states are heavily subsidized by the federal government. Even the state school trust lands were given to the states by the federal government. Here in NM those are not public lands in the sense that BLM and FS lands are as you have to have a permit to use them even if you are just hiking. The wildlife department pays an annual lease so hunters can hunt them. The majority of license funding for western state wildlife departments comes from non-resident license fees not residents. Yes, non-residents subsidize wildlife management in the western states. The literal hatred that too many resident hunters have for non-resident hunters is unbelievable here in NM. Non-resident hunters are prohibited by law from even applying for public land cow elk draw hunts (on federal public lands) or from applying for elk and deer hunts on state wildlife areas that in most cases were bought primarily with federal tax dollars. I will probably hear tomorrow at our state wildlife commission meeting how non-residents continue to deprive residents of hunting opportunity. If you think wildlife management in this country is done solely based on science you don't keep up with what's going on across this nation. Pro-hunting and even state wildlife agencies dismiss science just as much as the anti-hunting groups do if it doesn't fit the agenda. Disagree all you want but too much wildlife management in this country is being decided in the courts and by politicians because both sides seek their recourse in those venues. And yes, I support non-resident quota limits but also believe non-residents have a right to expect some opportunity on lands their tax dollars pay for the management of.

Today I will personally witness non-resident owned lodges, who hire non-resident guides take non-resident fishermen fishing for King Salmon in a river that has been closed to King Salmon fishing for at least 5 years due to conservation concerns. Same as everyday. Maybe some Non-residents deserve some hate?

coytrpr I definitely agree with you on both sides not following the science. Here in MO we have antler point restrictions = zero biological basis for that.