Bill Introduced to Lower Cost of Out of State License/Tags Across the U.S.

[BlacktailBowhunter]

Press Release/Statement
For Immediate Release
July 31, 2007 CONTACT: Joe Kasper
(202) 225-5672

HUNTER INTRODUCES TEDDY ROOSEVELT BRING BACK OUR PUBLIC LANDS ACT

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) today announced the introduction of the Teddy Roosevelt Bring Back our Public Lands Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. The legislation seeks to reduce costs incurred by out-of-state American outdoorsmen who hunt exclusively on federal property.

Congressman Hunter’s statement of introduction follows:

“In 1909, when President Theodore Roosevelt signed the last piece of legislation successfully creating over 42 million acres of national forest, the American outdoorsman came into his own. Our great “Outdoor President,” with a stroke of his pen, dedicated more land to American citizens for hunting and fishing than all the royal estates of Europe combined.

“From the Adirondacks and the Blue Ridge of the East to the Sierra Nevada of California, every outdoorsman could now be the master of enormous sporting opportunities. The only price was a stretch of the legs and an investment of time and a modicum of woodsmanship.

“Because of Teddy’s Roosevelt’s leadership and efforts, the public land of the federal government became truly the “estate” of the average American.

“A carpenter in Indiana or Iowa could saddle up the old Chevy pick-up and take his sons elk or deer hunting on a long weekend in Colorado. A steel worker in Pennsylvania could drive “straight through” with his pals to that certain Aspen grove in Western Wyoming where big bucks always abounded on opening morning. Thus, until a few years ago, the outdoor legacy of Teddy Roosevelt and the birthright of outdoor Americans were secure.

“Not any more.

“Today, bureaucracies in state governments are closing down the outdoor opportunities for average Americans. They are slamming the door on outdoor families the old fashioned way: with outrageous fees for non-resident hunters, even when the hunting is done exclusively on federal land.

“For example, the out-of-state license fee in Wyoming is $281 for deer, $481 for elk; in Colorado it is $301 for deer, $501 for elk; in Montana, it is $643 for both. In New Mexico, if two sons decide to take their dad on a weekend getaway, they each face fees of $355 for deer and $766 for elk.

“What makes these high prices so unfair is that they are applied to out-of-state American outdoorsmen who hunt exclusively on federal property. The 190 million acres of national forest and 258 million acres of BLM are the birthright of all Americans. The notion that they are viewed as the domain of state legislatures runs against the principle of public usage of federal property.

“Certainly, individual states have the right to regulate the private land and state-owned property within their boundaries. No one quarrels with that. But placing prohibitive fees on hunting that is conducted on federal public lands quickly becomes a method of exclusion.

“What happens, for example, if New Mexico should raise its out-of-state fees to $2,000 for bull elk? This increase would have the same effect as a locked gate for thousands of average Americans who want to hunt elk on any of the six national forests in New Mexico, over 11 million acres of federally owned land.

“The bill I am introducing today will restore acres for all American hunters to Theodore Roosevelt’s “Great Estate” of national forests and other public land. I acknowledge that some small amount of states’ wildlife resources are expended on federally owned and managed lands. Therefore, it is only right that out-of-state hunters share in this minimal expense.

“My bill, therefore, says this: No state may charge more than $200 for a big game license, specifically, elk, deer, antelope or bear, for hunting that is carried out exclusively on national forest or BLM federal land.

“The $200 fee strikes a balance between two interests. The first interest is the state’s legitimate need to recoup the few dollars that it expends in the management of federal land. The second, and most important, is the interest of helping that father with two teenagers who does not have the $2,300 the state of New Mexico will charge this year for a family of three to hunt on national forest for bull elk.

“In most cases, even a $200 fee will be a windfall for states; far out-pacing any help they give the federal government for wildlife management in national forests. Any American, from any state, should be allowed to earn a fall morning hunting elk in the Rockies with a healthy hike and a good shooting eye, regardless if he has a large bank account. My bill restores that opportunity.”

The Teddy Roosevelt Bring Back Our Public Lands Act has been referred to the House Committee on Resources for further consideration.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speec...ing_bill.shtml

[steelheadslayer]

ra y:

[gonfishenagin]

its about time i hope the rest of congress agrees i will send a note to defazio,smith,and wyden asking for their support as well

[Opportunist]

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by Opportunist

I like it! Also remove the restriction of mandatory guides. WY makes you get a guide to hunt wilderness. Alaska its just mandatory.

[RAGHORN!]

I think this good? There is always hidden pros and cons! If the states truly used our money for habitat restoration, or more youth programs, ect. then this could be bad? But I, feel like most of the states are probably miss managing the money! Don't get me wrong, I'd be happier than a cat in a bird cage if I could buy tags in Montana for $200, but the States aren't gonna take that kind of loss with out getting some of it back from somewhere. They probably would raise the resident's tags to make up for that loss ! I don't think I would like that at all, as much fun as it would be to go to other States and hunt every year, I can't for one, and wouldn't want to either! I love my home State (OR) and I love hunting here!

[James in Idaho]

As if New Mexico isn't already overrun with trucks with Texas plates. It's still cheaper to hunt in NM than it is to hunt in Texas, due to the cost of leasing. I really don't think this will be good in the long run.

[TheRogue]

Nope, don't like it.

Anyone from any state can toodle around through federal land in any state for the same price as a resident. No extra charge there. The only charge is on hunting game that BELONGS TO THE STATE THAT IT LIVES IN. It is the state's responsibility to set the seasons, prices, tag numbers, etc. Feds don't have any business being involved in this one.

I do wish the Wyoming Wilderness guide requirement would go away, I think it's BS, but again, it's probably a state issue.

TR

[Klamanite]

I think it would be great to make it more affordable for the "average joe" to hunt anywhere he wants to. But in doing so, my impression is that it would drastically increase the number of non-resident hunters and quite possibly force lotteries and draws that didn't exist before. Look what happened to our lottery when the requirement to pre-pay was lifted. Many more applicants resulting in longer wait times and reduced odds for drawing tags. I would expect similar results if this passes.

Don't get me wrong, anything that results in a cost reduction is generally good. But, will the trade-off's be worth it in the long run?

I'm still on the fence. I don't know what to think of this one.

[seadog]

I hope this does not pass, as I see way too many out of state plates already when I'm hunting. The state that starts with a "C" is the worst. Those people don't mind crowding you like they were in an LA traffic jam!

[Washington Hunter]

This is a very, very bad idea! If a guy can afford the gas, the vehicle to get him there, and all the other expenses of hunting a long ways from home, then he can afford to pay the price of a non-resident tag. The license and tag is the least expensive part of the hunt when you're going out of state.

[Lured In]

What I see coming out of this is a new 'federal land non-resident general season tag'. Not necessarily a bad thing, but could be a challenge for states to manage hunters where units cross over the same stretch of national forrest land. It essentially divides land by state v federal as opposed to units as we currently know them

As far as good or bad, I don't see a rush coming and there is nothing that would prohibit that rush currently. General season tags are limitless, at least that I am aware of.

Of course there is nothing in this bill that would prohibit the current style of program for state lands.

In reality, I don't see this changing much, it would simply curtail the extortion of out of state hunters. Who knows it could potentially generate a renewed interest in hunting and spur a growing outfitting industry in the states.

[Chrome Bumper]

Bad, bad. When the road hunters from Beaverton run into all the new hunters from California its going to be gridlock.

[The_Duck_Master]

Bad idea. Unless this mandates how MANY tags are allowed (which would be foolish) all it will do is increase the WAIT for any out of state tag. Where there are now 1,000 applicants for tags it will be 50,000. It will not change how many out of state hunters there are.

[mtn300]

I think it could be a good thing but limiting it to 200 dollars is a little extreme. Put price caps on tags say elk tags can be sold up to 400 dollars deer tags 300, sheep, goat, and moose no more than 1000, antelope 200 something like that might go over a little better. yes I would love to only have to pay 200 dollars when I eventually draw a utah elk tag but not likely. Just my

[toas243]

At first it sounds good ,but loking deeply you see the problems ,like the yahoos from the "C" state ,road hunt and throw their beer cans and treat the who process of hunting into a new game ,I see it as a bad idea ,Like said if you can afford to drive /fly you can pay the extra 200-300 bucks ,if not stay home

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by TheRogue

Nope, don't like it.

Anyone from any state can toodle around through federal land in any state for the same price as a resident. No extra charge there. The only charge is on hunting game that BELONGS TO THE STATE THAT IT LIVES IN. It is the state's responsibility to set the seasons, prices, tag numbers, etc. Feds don't have any business being involved in this one.

Good point, you are right. I don't think the feds have the right to do this. I think they would have the right to abolish the rule on wilderness guides however.

[Backlash2]

I don't necessarily think this bill is the answer...but something has to change. Non-resident fees are going up every year. Sooner or later, regardless of what you make, it will be too expensive for you too to hunt out of state.

I have a feeling that those of you who are ok paying current prices will change your tune once the costs exceed your ability to afford them.

And yes, Wyoming's guide requirement inside the 'wilderness' is nothing but outfitter welfare. Luckily, my party has resident 'guides' available to us, but most people do not.

[tailchaser]

Honestly, I think it's much to do about nothing. The states regulate these things, and even though it's a novel idea which I'm not against, to say I'm only going to hunt government property is pretty limiting for people to do. I guess they'd have to make units into borders that make this law comply but regardless of the price, the states control the number of tags given out. What it would do is eliminate over the counter tags completely to control the number of people. Not sure I want that in return for my 100 bucks I just saved.

tc

[Idahoan]

Originally Posted by toas243

At first it sounds good ,but loking deeply you see the problems ,like the yahoos from the "C" state ,road hunt and throw their beer cans and treat the who process of hunting into a new game ,I see it as a bad idea ,Like said if you can afford to drive /fly you can pay the extra 200-300 bucks ,if not stay home

This would really end up hurting the residents of the states that have general hunts. I think if you really enjoy hunting that much the person should move to the state if they aren't willing to fork over the dough for the non-resident price. just my opinion....I now buy a non-resident deer and elk tag for Idaho each year.....that is my vacation....not anymore expensive the going to Disneyland or Mexico for example.

[BlacktailBowhunter]

I recently negotiated an Ohio Whitetail hunt for the second week in October. I was amazed to find out that the deer tags were the same for non-residents as they are for residents($24 for either sex and $15 for antlerless), and the out of State license was $125. I can purchase 7 deer tags and legally harvest 7 deer for less than the cost of the license and 1 tag here in Oregon for a non-res.

I know the deer here are worth more $$, because there are prettier.

I don't know exactly where to stand on this. One thing that is ringing in the back of my head is the negative impact this is going to have on current management practices. I don't see how it would be cost effective for a State like Idaho to go from an $1800.00 moose tag down to $200.00 and still give the Fish and Game management money.

Maybe this bill would raise the hunting rate to $200.00 for every hunter in every State regardless of whether you are a res. or non-res. The money has to come from some where. I would have to talk to a wildlife manager before I could take a position.

It sounds good, but I don't know. I just posted this as an FYI. I thought it would be good for you folks to write your congressmen and let them know where you stand.

This is suppose to only be for public land and not private ranches, that is the catch.

[Hunt'nFish]

Well I'm of the opinion that game within a states' border belongs to the people of that state. Fed's can't tell a state what to do with their game, management of the game, fee's, etc. (except the ESA, seems to be a exception).
So....it's a big no for me out of principal.

Personally I think this is a case of: "I live in a state with too many people and not enough game..and the game we do have, I can't shoot, because of all the touchy, feelly, bunny lovin, treehuggers have convinced everyone that killing is wrong, cruel and inhumane. Soooo why not lobby to go hunt my neighboring state's game cheap? :grin:"

If they don't like the state they live in, they can move or change it. Going and raiding your neighbors just because you screwed up your place is wrong.
We all make sacrifices to live where we do. You all know how I feel about the PDX migration to E.Oregon...the local gets screwed. This is the same thing on a FEDERAL scale.
Hunt'nFish

[dla]

It would be a great first step to bring hunting back to the common folks. Hunting was never intended to be a general revenue source for the States, like logging or mineral extraction.

Many states stick it to the out-of-state hunters with the notion that they can make up for their revenue shortfalls in their Fish & Wildlife agencies. I think this is a mistake.

Oregon hunting license sales have been in decline since 1981. Oregon creates a lot of silly 5-day hunts that open on Wednesday, so that they can sell more tags. What I see is a revenue grab.

Over the last 30 years, it seems to me that hunting opportunity has decreased, while fees increased. Something seems wrong with this picture.

I hope this bill passes.

[mtn300]

Oregon hunting license sales have been in decline since 1981. Oregon creates a lot of silly 5-day hunts that open on Wednesday, so that they can sell more tags. What I see is a revenue grab.

need to go back to 9 day hunts.

[Ni!]

This is a terrible idea, plus, as others have pointed out, it's no business of the feds. I think each state should be able to determine it's own pricing and tag allocation scheme and non-residents should learn to live with the outcome.

Here in Oregon I'd like to see non-residents limited in the OTC tag numbers as well as pay higher prices.

[Hunt'nFish]

Originally Posted by dla

Oregon hunting license sales have been in decline since 1981.
..... <Snip>....
Over the last 30 years, it seems to me that hunting opportunity has decreased, while fees increased. Something seems wrong with this picture.

I hope this bill passes.

It is not my intent to flame or be confrontational as I agree with much of what you said......

BUT,....Given what you said above, do you think that MORE people coming to our state from all over the country
and getting cheap non-res tags is going to improve your hunting opprotunity???? I Think Not.
Hunt'nFish

[James in Idaho]

Not to mention the enforcement nightmare. In Idaho, NM, and most other states even on "Federal" land there are a lot of state held parcels. So I can hunt portions of the Jornada del Murte desert in NM (my old deer hunting spot there) for $200, but if I cross some unmarked boundry I better have the state preimum license in my pocket??? Yeah, right. Not to mention the historical view (backed up in court)that states have the right to manage all non migritory wildlife (one of those constitutional issues btw), not the feds. Gee, the last great wildlife management decisions here in Idaho by the feds involve our salmon (that's worked well, not) and wolves. Hmmmmm. No matter who's running it, lets face it the feds can't orginize a 3 car parade.

I don't like having to pay hundreds to go hunting with my dad, but that's a decision I made when I left NM. If you really don't want to pay out of state fees but feel you have to hunt there, then pack up and move there.

ps: this is all about more bucks for outfitters and I can't spell in Spanish any better than I can spell in English!

[Don Becker]

I first read this thread early this morning and, initially, it seemed like a good and fair thing to do. However, I also felt personally and selfishly like RAGHORN!'s final point . . .

Originally Posted by RAGHORN!

. . . I don't think I would like that at all, as much fun as it would be to go to other States and hunt every year, I can't for one, and wouldn't want to either! I love my home State (OR) and I love hunting here!

Now that I've had more of a chance to ponder this and the advantage of having read others' input, put me in the definite no column. I'm very much behind the game belonging to the state's residents.

Originally Posted by TheRogue

Nope, don't like it.

Anyone from any state can toodle around through federal land in any state for the same price as a resident. No extra charge there. The only charge is on hunting game that BELONGS TO THE STATE THAT IT LIVES IN. It is the state's responsibility to set the seasons, prices, tag numbers, etc. Feds don't have any business being involved in this one.

I do wish the Wyoming Wilderness guide requirement would go away, I think it's BS, but again, it's probably a state issue.

TR

Well said.

Don

[LuckyStrike]

Bad Idea! If you guys think you are crowded now, wait until this! What I see happening is a severe limitation on the number of out of staters. Otherwise the states will look like the one that is proposing it!

[baltz526]

nonresident hunter numbers are important and more of the tags available should be given to nonresidents say a fixed 10% with no outfitter tags at all. but these tags should be expensive, not ridiculously high but definatly not some federaly mandated low fee.

[nehalemguy]

Originally Posted by Hunt'nFish

Well I'm of the opinion that game within a states' border belongs to the people of that state. Fed's can't tell a state what to do with their game, management of the game, fee's, etc. (except the ESA, seems to be a exception).
So....it's a big no for me out of principal.

Exactly my thought but you beat me to it. This bill is going nowhere anyway. My bigger fear is that the Feds will begin to expand their access fee programs like the insane Mt. Hood Forest Pass.

E

[dla]

So everyone agrees that the only reason the States like Out-of-State hunters is for the money. So there is no other reason than money.

Public piggies like money and out-of-state rich folks are fair game.

[Rank Amateur]

Thinking this one over.

Interesting, on the Life in General page there is a discussion about charging the out of staters more money to camp in our state parks, but currently we do not.

My gut feeling is that there should be a cap on federal lands. Maybe not cheap, but not so high to price the average Joe off of HIS land.

The catch side is that us locals will have to make up the rest of the bill, we will not support more hunters to make up the difference.

I thought that part of that OSU outfitters case down in Arizona or some place the judge ruled something about monetary discrimination????

[RoscoeP]

Personally, I don't mind paying a little more to hunt in another state, but some places are getting totally out of hand with their prices. I do like the idea of eliminating guides in WY in wilderness areas.

[BlacktailBowhunter]

The more I have thought about it and read ifishers thoughts, the less I like it. After all, this is my state, and I do realize that Federal land belongs to US citizens, the game animals in the state belong to Oregonians. Therefore, it does not seem feasable to allow an out of stater to come here and kill our game for that little of a cost.

[BrianMaguire]

Originally Posted by Rank Amateur

Thinking this one over.
My gut feeling is that there should be a cap on federal lands. Maybe not cheap, but not so high to price the average Joe off of HIS land.

I knee jerked in support. I thought great, when I go to Wyoming it will be cheaper. But after reading the posts I think it boils down to this. The wildlife in a state are the states. The moment the feds start managing game is the moment hunting gets way too political. Administrations change, probably the reason for the bill, to drum up sportsmens support after the thrashing we have taken, and the next admin could be anything, good or bad. You just don't know until it is too late.

The game belongs to the states, or as Roosevelt said, the people. As much as I would like to afford to apply to every western state I can just imagine the can of worms in the future.

The residents of the US own federal land, and there is nothing stopping people from hunting it regardless of where they are from. That should suffice. Prehaps Mr Duncan would be better serv us by stopping the 1 well every 10 acres on the Wyoming range winter range.

[Bill Monroe]

Originally Posted by BrianMaguire

The game belongs to the states, or as Roosevelt said, the people. As much as I would like to afford to apply to every western state I can just imagine the can of worms in the future.

Be interesting to hear from a lawyer on this. There's a pretty gray gap between "the states, or as Roosevelt said, the people."

No question about managing migratory waterfowl under the migratory bird treaty, but I wonder whether other wildlife is owned by individual states or by the American people as a whole? Not managed, but owned.

[B-RUN STEELIE]

Bad idea. I live in Idaho and have never hunted in another state ( why would I need too ??) You live in Oregon so this would affect you guys as well. This won't affect hunters in say New Jersey, California or any of the other places with poor hunting.

There seems to be the thought the the moneys generated by out of state tags etc goes into some big pork barrel fund. Not so, not here anyway. It goes to the fish and game.

If anyone could just go by a tag in any state they want the very first thing it would do is eliminate over the counter tags in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon.

People pick where they live. If they choose to live in a state where hunting sucks then thats the choice they made. While this idea is being passed off as a " help the poor man out" type deal, its for certain being pushed by people with money. Out of state hunters are a fact of life here in Idaho, probably in Oregon as well ?? They pay more because they deal with none of the issues within the state, don't vote in the state etc.

I don't see how this has anything to do with the make out of staters pay more to stay in state parks idea. People who come and stay in state parks take nothing away from the states resources. In fact, they dump a whole bunch of money into the local economy. Does not matter where they live. If these people who come and camp in the state park want to use one of the states resources ( hunting or fishing for example) they have to pay extra for that, and they have to pay more than a resident of that state. Its really that simple.

I imagine the folks in Cali think this is a great idea. This one has Zero chance of happening.

[Joe Schwab]

Now if the Feds want to really even the score for non- residents they should require the states to allow non resident licensed hunters to vote on hunting issues anywhere in the US. In other words if I buy a non resident license in Kansas, I can vote on issues affecting hunting there. I know it's a pipe dream but maybe we could outvote the bunny huggers moving in and dictating F&W policy..

[lor]

Originally Posted by Capt. Hook

Now if the Feds want to really even the

If they really want to do something, they should establish some type of heritage protection on hunting,fishing, etc and keep these wacko's at bay
we will only be happy when we are all eating tofu, tofurkey, and other tasteless crap.

[Rank Amateur]

Originally Posted by B-RUN STEELIE

I don't see how this has anything to do with the make out of staters pay more to stay in state parks idea. People who come and stay in state parks take nothing away from the states resources. In fact, they dump a whole bunch of money into the local economy. Does not matter where they live. If these people who come and camp in the state park want to use one of the states resources ( hunting or fishing for example) they have to pay extra for that, and they have to pay more than a resident of that state. Its really that simple.

.

They take up the state resources, in other words they compete with the residents for space in the state parks. It is the same thing, and from all the grumbling I have seen on this forum about how hard it is to get into our state parks I'm not surprised to see the movement to increase fees for out of staters. But my point was the difference between the two, up to this point we haven't even batted an eye when it comes to non-resident usage of our parks, but we sure do when it is our wildlife. But as Mr. Monroe pointed out, are they really ours??? We have the right to manage, but do we really own them as Oregonians? I don't know.

Rich people will hunt in our state regardless of how much it costs or how restrictive the draws are. They simply will go to the private lands and buy what they want. What we are really talking about is financial discrimination between the lower income wage earners and the upper middle class. Simply it is a mechanism to keep the number of applicants down and to put big bucks in the game departments.

If a study was conducted to see the actual cost of ODF&W's cost to manage (we manage by killing) the wildlife, it would be hard pressed to justify the difference between resident and non-resident fees.

Like I said, I am still pretty much on the fence on this one. Yes, I like our state the way it is and know if we lower the non-resident fees we may get more hunters in the general seasons and end up having to go to more controlled hunts. Controlled hunts wouldn't change. Yet, there is something wrong about charging more for something that is not really costing us more to produce (since a lot of the animals eat on everybodys land).

[B-RUN STEELIE]

Well, if you guys want to charge out of staters 2 more bucks a day for a camping spot in a state park, thats fine. Allowing the rest of the united states to buy an over the counter tag and licence.. never happen.

What ?? we would all buy a federal hunting licence ??? how could anyone be on the fence on that ??? Let Washington D.C decide ???

Quit talking about the "poor people".. they can't afford to do lots of things. Cheap hunting tags in other states is not going to do anything for them. They are not losing any opertunity because they have never been in the first place. Its not some dudes "heritage" to jump in his truck and drive three states away and go hunting. It has never been that way.. ever. Some states don't allow out of state hunters period ( unless they pay huge bucks to a land owner / out fitter

Right now we have our hands full in Idaho keeping the tags availiable to the public. There are those ( land owners) who want to be able to sell them and lock the public out. Thats not going to happen either. There are those ( me ) that think a tag should cost 1,000 dollars. Like I said before, people can't have anything. They choose whats importaint to them and live in it. This thing has zero chance of going anywhere. The sky is not falling.

[scottishsetter]

If Private Landowners already charge up to $5000.00 for a bull Elk then why should out of state residents pay ONE DIME LESS?

[Hunt'nFish]

I don't understand your point. Clarify.

In Oregon a landowner can't charge for an animal, it doesn't belong to him.

But the landowner can charge any "tresspass fee" he want's for any period of time. If that period just so happens to coincide with elk season so be it. I also don't think landowners should be allowed to high fence game in....remember wild game in Oregon belongs to the people of Oregon, r3egardless of who's land it's on. Sure the landowner can enhance the attractivness of his land to the game. He can control hunter pressure, he can enhance feed and habitat.
Shouldn't he be able to charge whatever he wants??
But he shall not high fence it.

So it's a matter of symatics. The $5000 is an access fee. The non-res still has to pay the additional state elk tag fee.
Hunt'nFish