Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wjschmaltz" data-source="post: 229847" data-attributes="member: 6150">Man, I could write a book on this topic.  Sorry for not providing a direct answer, but I will point out several points to ponder.  It’s such a complicated issue that I really can’t suggest one way or another in good conscious without being a hypocrite.  I obtain preference points in nearly every state west of the Mississippi that lets me and I respect that ND plays pretty fair on deer.  It’s a clear-cut discussion for someone that only hunts in their home state.  For people that enjoy and are blessed enough to travel around and experience new hunting areas in different states, it’s almost impossible to not be hypocritical while having this discussion.  The more doors that are closed to non-residents, the more they will lobby within their own state to close similar doors.  Again, I’m a hypocrite.  I am pretty frustrated that I cannot hunt antelope, moose, and elk in a place where I spent the majority of my life but it sure is nice now as an AK resident to be able to hunt Dall’s, goats, and grizzlies OTC knowing that I won’t have to worry about a NR that has never experienced a thermal blowing up every other valley.  We all want to bash on NRs, but in most cases, they are the ones paying the majority of the budget for almost every state.  I bought a hunting/fishing license this year for $70 and I was able to dip net 45 salmon and obtain 5 deer tags, 5 caribou tags, 2 mtn goat tags, 1 moose tag, 1 sheep tag, 3 black bear tags, and I don’t even need a tag to saw down a general season griz or 10 wolves a day.  Total cost is an additional $0.  At the same time, I want to lock out the guys paying $1,000 per tag.  Makes me a hypocrite.  No matter which state you live in, you need to pay more to play if you want to lock out and/or restrict non-residents.  That is a good starting point in the original discussion.  How much more are we willing to pay to further restrict non-residents?  I find what people call the entitlement generation (people like myself, 31 years old) are very willing to pay more as a resident while it is the older people that often act entitled to big game tags because of the way it used to be.  (not a direct jab at the original poster or anyone on here for that matter, I don’t have a clue on anyone’s age.  Also, this is obviously a gross generalization, there are plenty of people that would fall in the category of older that are more than willing to pay up; and they do through donations).  We all remember how much groaning happened when they raised ND resident deer tags a whooping $10!Restricting anything is an extremely slippery slope.  Especially when everyone has a different definition of non-resident.  For now, a non-resident is someone that lives outside ND.  As the resource and land becomes even more limited, it is likely that the definition of non-resident will change to anyone living outside of the hunting unit.  If you are OK with limiting the resource and access based on the current definition, then you need to accept it in the future when they change the regulations based off future definitions.  This has already happened in large portions of AK and the fight continues every year.  There are several portions of federal-owned land (yeup, owned by you and me) where you cannot hunt several species unless you live in the unit.  So I am already a non-resident in my own state, thus putting even more pressure on other portions of the state.  This WILL continue to happen in other states.  Sorry for another rambling post with no answers.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA