Legislation To Reduce Nonresident Hunting Fees
Congressman Introduces Legislation To Reduce Nonresident Hunting Fees
WASHINGTON, D.C.-California Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter announced the introduction last week of his "Teddy Roosevelt Bring Back our Public Lands Act" in the U.S. House of Representatives. Hunter says his legislation seeks to reduce the cost of nonresident hunting licenses for hunters who hunt exclusively on public land.
"Today, bureaucracies in state governments are closing down the outdoor opportunities for average Americans," Hunter said. "They're slamming the door on outdoor families the old fashioned way-with outrageous fees for nonresident hunters, even when their hunting is done exclusively on federal land.
"The bill I am introducing will restore acres of land 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 nonresident hunters share in this minimal expense.
"My bill, therefore, says that no state may charge more than $200 for a big game hunting license-specifically for elk, deer, pronghorns or bears-for hunting that is carried out exclusively on national forest or BLM federal land. "This $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 bull elk on national forest land."
The Act has been referred to the House Committee on Resources for further consideration.
For more information, visit www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/ca52_hunter/hunting_bill.shtml.
I'm voting for him [^].
WASHINGTON, D.C.-California Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter announced the introduction last week of his "Teddy Roosevelt Bring Back our Public Lands Act" in the U.S. House of Representatives. Hunter says his legislation seeks to reduce the cost of nonresident hunting licenses for hunters who hunt exclusively on public land.
"Today, bureaucracies in state governments are closing down the outdoor opportunities for average Americans," Hunter said. "They're slamming the door on outdoor families the old fashioned way-with outrageous fees for nonresident hunters, even when their hunting is done exclusively on federal land.
"The bill I am introducing will restore acres of land 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 nonresident hunters share in this minimal expense.
"My bill, therefore, says that no state may charge more than $200 for a big game hunting license-specifically for elk, deer, pronghorns or bears-for hunting that is carried out exclusively on national forest or BLM federal land. "This $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 bull elk on national forest land."
The Act has been referred to the House Committee on Resources for further consideration.
For more information, visit www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/ca52_hunter/hunting_bill.shtml.
I'm voting for him [^].
0
-
I'll be watching that and voting against it. Arizona has a small Elk herd, it takes approx 10 years for a resident to get drawn for bulls in a good area with a rifle. I dont want to share it with millions of Californians and Texans. I dont believe his motive either. Arizona Game and Fish was sued a few years back because we didnt set aside enough tags for out of state hunters. The company that filed the lawsuit was a professional guide service that made big bucks in AZ guiding out of state clients. That company was out of CA I dont doubt their behind this.[:(!] 0 -
Steve45,
I spent 4 years in Davis Monthan AFB in the early 1990s and was lucky enough to draw a bull elk tag for the Hannagan Meadow area in my first year. Whether you like it or not you are going to share it with out of state hunters ... the only difference is, only the "well-to-do" can afford it ... not the average hunter like I am.0 -
I'm with FEENIX on this one! Part of my tax dollars paid from VA goes into the NATIONAL COFFERS and the Federal Land is just that.........."this land is your land, this land is my land".......I have as much right to it as anyone else! And if you want to come to VA and hunt in the JEFFERSON NATIONAL FOREST or the GEAORGE WASHINGTON NATIONAL FOREST then you should be able to do that without increased costs over residents of ths state!! Private land...............let the outfitters and lanowners charge what they may!! GHD 0 -
Arizona lost the lawsuit that I mentioned earlier. Everyone has equal access to AZ public land and AZ big game tags. As a defensive measure AZ game and fish increased the fees on non resident tags in an effort to give resident hunters a better chance of drawing a tag. Ive put in for the last 15 years for Pronghorn antelope, muzzleloader and rifle and have never been drawn. With the size of our game herds, if you open up Arizona public land to everyone countrywide on an equal basis very few Arizona residents will be able to get a tag. If this law passed I would'nt be able to hunt big game in my own state anymore. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by steve45
Arizona lost the lawsuit that I mentioned earlier. Everyone has equal access to AZ public land and AZ big game tags. As a defensive measure AZ game and fish increased the fees on non resident tags in an effort to give resident hunters a better chance of drawing a tag. Ive put in for the last 15 years for Pronghorn antelope, muzzleloader and rifle and have never been drawn. With the size of our game herds, if you open up Arizona public land to everyone countrywide on an equal basis very few Arizona residents will be able to get a tag. If this law passed I would'nt be able to hunt big game in my own state anymore.
I am sorry that you have not drawn antelope tag for the last 15 years but your chances has nothing to do with the non-resident tags regardless of how much the state or fish and game charges. You are only competing with the AZ residents.
Luck however has a lot to do with it. For instance, in 1991, I and three of my friends put in as a group for the Hannagan Meadow area (as our first choice) without any points - we got very lucky. We shared a camp with a hunter with 11 points . Here in MT, a friend put in for antelope either-sex tag in Unit 450 with 3 bonus points (had to pay extra for it too. I in the other hand got drawn 2 years in a row with zero bonus points.
Perhaps, I need to start playing the lotto [:p]!0 -
That would be great if it actually made it.
As a reply to steve, there are those of us that do not live in a state that has an indiginous population of certain game animals. For us, the only option to hunt animals like mule deer, elk and pronghorn is to go out of state. Due to the expense of the trip and tags, this becomes a once-in-a-lifetime thing. If they were to lower the price, it may become a twice-in-a-lifetime thing. As for having to give up all your tags to out-of-staters, they can just reduce the number of tags available to them. Problem solved. However, they probably won't because most of the western states rely heavily on the bloated fees that they collect from those same out-of-staters.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
6 comments