Fight for Nonresidents rights...

[Spyro Andes]

Guess what I got in the mail today?  A letter from Mr Taulman...

Congress Attacks Hunter's Rights

Dear Fellow Hunter:

Your right to hunt and fish on federal public lands, lands you and I and every other American own, is about to be taken away from us via legislation by our very own Congress.

A Bill introduced in Congress by Nevada Senator Harry Reid (S # 339) and another by Colorado Representative Mark Udall (H.R. #731) will allow the Rocky Mountain States to exclude you from hunting and fishing on National Forests, BLM and other public lands soley because you are a nonresident.  In fact, every State could keep you out if this law pases.

This bill will allow states to discriminate against you, to treat you like a second-class citizen, and to deny your right to apply and hunt for elk, mule deer, antelope, sheep and every other specie on public land.  States could and would impose strictor nonresident limits than on residents on public fishing areas.

Senator Reid calls it "A bill to reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities."  Its' real purpose is to circumvent recent court decisions that favored nonresidents and allow states to again discriminate against nonresidents in allocating licenses, limits, and setting license fees.  In other words, States could restrict nonresidents, like you, from receiving any licenses to hunt or fish on public lands, or allow States to charge you thousands of dollars for the same hunting licenses that residents would pay only a few dollars for.

This isn't make believe.  Even though the US Supreme Court has ruled in Hughes vs Oklahoma, that the wildlife belongs to all Americans equally, nonresidents are still subjected to severe discrimination today.  Let me give you just a few examples:

Colorado no longer allows nonresidents to apply for the Ranching for Wildlife Areas.  Once nonresidents were removed from these high quality elk and deer areas, the State passed a quota on nonresidents to keep them from drawing too many of the few remaining high quality tags left to apply for in the State.

New Mexico's highly prized Valle Calderas National Preserve was bought for $101 million in Federal money just a few short years ago.  Now the NM Game and Fish Department has put a strict quota on nonresidents.  Last year non residents donated over 65% of the application money for these elk tags, but only received 19% of the tags.  New Mexico's sheep license is $3000 for a nonresident and $100 for a resident.

Utah, just in the past few weeks, passed a regulation starting in 2006 that will give 25% of the existing nonresident tags and a paltry 5% of resident tags to a yearly convention in Salt Lake City.  The rules allow you to have chance of getting one of these tags only if you travel to Utah in person and apply.  They know you won't.  In other words, they will transfer these nonresident tags into resident hands.  In more discrimination, Utah does not allow any nonresidents to apply for the draw to obtain the high quality Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit tags, only residents.

The Montana process keeps you from drawing the quality tags; they only allow nonresidents "up to 10%" of the sheep, moose and mountain goat tags.  When applying for the quality limited elk areas, you have to first apply for the low quality combination tag which is guaranteed to be drawn every two years.  Residents get to apply yearly as their combination tags are over the counter.  Once you have drawn the combo tag at a cost of $660, then you reapply for the quality limited areas.  At one time, if you did not draw the quality tag, you simply sent the poor quality combination tag back to them for a refund.  Montana did not want the nonresidents to return these licenses so they passed a regulation that you can only get a 50% refund for the poor quality combination tag.  So it costs you $330 for a 1 in 20 chance of drawing a quality tag or you are stuck with the combination tag.  Not a tough decision for nonresidents to not apply, so the residents win... again.

In Wyoming, nonresidents apply nearly blind at the quality limited entry tags.  Wyoming give up to 20% of the elk tags to nonresidnets, but deducts 2 nonresident tags for each nonresident landowner who qualifies and owns as little as 2000 acres in that unit.  But when they calculate the draw odds, they act as if each tag was in the drawing.  Trying to get this information on the real numbers is time consuming, usually inaccurate, and often exasperating.  For added discrimination, Wyoming uses an outdated true preference point program and quota system for their sheep and moose that gives you virtually no hope of drawing unless you started years ago.  Wyoming also forces you to hire or use a resident to hunt wilderness areas.

Arizona and Nevada were highly discriminatory toward nonresidents until the recent Montoya vs. Manning decision by the Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals which forces these states to treat all hunters equally.  Arizona is no looking for ways to dodge the law and actually advertised for ideas on how to discriminate against nonresidents.  They may try to take elk licenses up to an outrageous $3200 each.  Nevada already charges $1200 for an elk tag to nonresidents.  Nevada is also attempting to defy the court system by only opening up certain units to nonresidents and excluding nonresidents altogether from millions of acres of federal lands.

On top of all this discrimination, nonresidents already pay the majority of the budgets for the Rocky Mountain States' game and fish departments, even though we get only a fraction of the licenses.  In addition, Arizona, Nevada, Montana, and Idaho collect millions of dollars from nonresidents each year for general hunting licenses.  They basically extort money from the nonresident because the nonresident is forced to purchase a general hunting license in order to either apply and/or obtain a bonus point.  This general hunting license rarely gets used so it is free money to the State.  Little does the nonresident know that the quota is the main deterrent to his drawing a tag.  It is about to get worse if S.339 and HR.731 becomes law.  This Bills expressly permit unlimited discrimination on price allocation on all lands and waters.

If these bills pass, it won't be a matter if you have family in one of these western states or own property in the state.  It does not matter if you hire a guide or not, does not matter if you are a bow, muzzleloader, or rifle hunter, and does not matter if you have served your country in the armed services.  As long as you are residing in another State you will feel the sting of discrimination.

Ranchers and farmer won't be able to sell hunting opportunities to nonresidents.  So much for private property rights!

This is bad.  Very bad.  This is un-American and the greatest threat to the hunting tradition to come along in a very long time.

We must act now, together, to protect our right to hunt, fish and travel in our own country.  As American citizens and the bill payers, we have the right not to be discriminated against because of the State we live in.  We live in the Untied States of America, remember!  This isn't about States rights.  This isn't about conservation!  This is about selfish and politically influential local hunter wanting to keep everyone else out of our federal public lands in their State, nothing more.

Due to many years of litigation and personal sacrifice, courts are now supporting the nonresident.  Now only the politicians, like reid and Udall, can pass legislation to continue the discrimination against us.  If residents of the states outside the Rocky Mountains don't speak up against this legislation, you stand to lose your right and your children's right to ever hunt in a quality unit in the Rocky Mountains.

You and your friends must call and mail your States' US Congressional Representatives and US Senators.  Tell them to oppose S.339 and HR.731.  This is the most important task you must do.  Attached is a sample letter.  Lift out the paragraphs that you like and send it to your own Representative.

Contact your local and national hunting organizations and tell them the importance of defeating this legislation.  Don't let them use any excuse, even if their headquarters is in one of the Rocky Mountain States trying to take your rights away, they are supposed to be representing you, not trying to obtain tags and hunting opportunities for themselves.

Non-taxable donations can be sent to the Conservation Force and label them "Nonresident Legal Fund".  For more information, call or e-mail:

Conservation Force
3900 N. Causeway Blvd. Suite 1045
Metairie, LA 70002-1746
504-837-1233
504-837-1145 FAX
cf@conservationforce.org

Here is the included letter for your Senator and Representative...

Date _______, 2005
RE: My Rights as a Non-Resident

Dear (Your Senator and Representative),

    Senator Reid has introduced a Senate Bill S.339 and Congressman Udall has introduced House Bill H.R. 731 to transfer to states unlimited authority to discriminate against non-resident hunters and anglers.  The legislation expressly authorizes states to discriminate against non-residents in both allocation and pricing of licenses.  It includes both recreational sportsmen and women and those who commercially ply related trades from state to state.

   The legislation would deprive me and my family from equal access and fair license fees on federal lands in the West.  This is not truly a states' rights issue as it is being represented.  I have no say in Western states' legislatures or before their commissions, so I have to turn to you, me representative to protect my right to equal treatment on federal lands.  Please, please protect my rights to hunt and fish on federal lands and waters.

  There are 2 million hunters and 12 million fishermen who hunt and/or fish out-of-state each year (National Survery 2001).  We should at least be entitles to equality on federal lands and waters.

  The resident hoarding and discrimination has been worsening which, in turn, has led to litigation.  The litigation was necessary to discourage worsening practices by the Western states.  There will be no return to equal treatment on federal lands because the states have refused to treat non-residents fairly and that has been worsening.  This legislation would eliminate that last avenue of protection.

  It will worsen the reciprocal price warring between the states that is so un-American.  We are supposed to be one indivisible nation.  In fact, foreigners may have greater rights to equal access on federal lands than me and my family.  Aren't we all Americans?  Please protect my interest as a citizen of the United States.

  This issue is not wildlife management.  It does not matter to conservation where a hunter lives.  Many of the game species are migratory, particularly waterfowl.  They cross state lines, live on federal lands, and cannot be claimed solely for the citizens of one state.  Americans should have equal rights to enjoy their federal public lands, and hunting opportunities provided by those lands.

Most sincerely,

[Redhawk1]

This whole thing has non-resident and resident hunters battling each other. It is a shame that hunter is agents hunter. I have been going round and round with other hunters about the whole can of worms. It is a double edged sward. Yes the non-residents get more tags, but at what cost to the non-resident hunters. AZ game & fish want to increase fee's so high the average hunter will not be able to hunt out of State. I personally pulled out of USO because of all the hassles.  :evil:

[tscott]

I think there should be a national hunting / fishing license, for veterans.
Am I the exception who thought his service, was for all good citizens of our nation?

[redneckd1]

tscott,
 I would certainly be up for that, but doubt it would ever happen, there is too much money to be made by charging non-res. folks big bucks to come hunt in their state. Many military get stationed in certain parts of the country and get interested in hunting different species, they may get shipped across the country and want to go back to hunt that species, then they have to pay the non-res.
 Just in Alabama(live in Fl), I have to pay $260 per year for a non-res. license, when if I could pay res. prices I could get a lifetime hunting license for $300.
 I do think the states are great for allowing military personnel permanently assigned to that state to buy resident licenses, now tackling a national license or even allowing non-res. veterans to pay res. prices, all I can say is good luck!
Cheers,
R

[Thomas Krupinski]

He's at it again! Back in the history of our country commercial hunting of game animals depleted and almost drove a number of specie to extention. Sport hunting was eliminated until a number of game speci were reintroduced into the west and subsequent management keeps these populations viable to hunt.

This was the excuse (sport hunting as a commercial business involving interstate trade) this character (an outfitter with a background of very questionable practices) used in a court to overturn some nonresident limits on some highly prized hunts. Although those caps were not being reached, this outfit was out to destroy the process so they could sell more business. Now we lost the online draw capability this year till Game & Fish can get this mess he created straightened out.

You would be fooled to think he is out for your rights, it's strictly a money making scheme for them. As the populations of the western states grow, the demand for hunting opportunities increases. Nonresidents have always been welcome in Arizona, and it's hard even for residents to to get drawn for big game hunts.

Most resident hunters don't have the time off or resources to hunt out of state, so it really ticks them off when someone applies in every western state to get drawn and eliminate their big game hunting for that year. I don't know about other western states, but here in Arizona, resident hunters have been pretty helpful to nonresident hunters often eliminating the need for a guide or outfitter. There are both resident and nonresident slobs and some slobs engaged in commercial activity primarily for their own enrichment.

[New Hampshire]

I guess Im lucky.  New Hampshire mostly goes un-noticed by the rest of the countrys deerhunters (even though we have some very beautiful deer come from the woods every year.)  Add to that the Moose lottery gives out 5000 tags, and I think 1500 are set aside for non-residents (The F&G states these are the best odds for ANY moose lottery system in other states.)  But since our Moose aint very big we once again get overlooked.  Thats fine I guess.  Im content to hunt deer in my state till the day I die. My buddy keeps telling me I absolutly HAVE to go to that swanky, bowhunting only county in NY, that has all kinds of huge bucks in it with him.  He keeps saying it would blow my mind.  But I keep telling him I could care less.  Id rather haunt the White Mountains then drive hours out of my way to hunt and pay BIG bucks to do it (hey I aint exactly rich after all.)  Since the nukber of non-resident hunters is low I could really care less.  We have a low deer kill every year, so the population is not in danger.  But I understand the resident hunters point of view.  I guess I would feel a little mad at having to share more and more land with out of state hunters.  And the whole financial part is a bit saddening.  I guess we will never really be able to settle this once and for all.  Both groups have merit to their argument, their rights and their opinions.  Me?  Im heading up to the North Woods, and y'all are welcome to join me  
Brian M.

[cvixx]

As a resident of Utah, I have lost out on the drawing for several years, although the state does collect my $5 fee each year.  The reason is that a fair number of slots go to non-resident hunters, who are willing to pay the big bucks to hunt southern Utah.  State wants money, but those of us who live here can't get drawn.

I have no objection to out of state hunters, but would prefer that all in-state hunters get a chance first, then open it up to non-residents.

[JPSaxMan]

As a resident of Utah, I have lost out on the drawing for several years, although the state does collect my $5 fee each year.  The reason is that a fair number of slots go to non-resident hunters, who are willing to pay the big bucks to hunt southern Utah.  State wants money, but those of us who live here can't get drawn.

I have no objection to out of state hunters, but would prefer that all in-state hunters get a chance first, then open it up to non-residents.

I couldn't agree more, and furthermore are my opinions on the matter.

If you live in Texas, and you want to hunt in Pennsylvania, I have no objection to it. But you better be danged sure you know the rules inside and out and obey them, show sportsmanship, and be courteous. I've seen too many non-residents (mostly from NJ) who tromp in, shoot deer illegally (tresspassing, without required tags), then snitch and groan when they break a law, exclaiming that they were non-residents and didn't know of such law and etc and etc. BS  :evil: . I did run into a New Jersey hunter while at Forkston, and he was a nice guy who was courteous and seemed like he almost deserved to hunt there. Those people I have no problem with.

Field and Stream ran an article not long ago about how maybe out-of-staters should also have a say in how conservation is run in the state. Now I think that's a load of bull. If you don't live in the state, then how do you know what goes on with habitat and ecosystems year round? You don't. Therefore, any such opinions on how the conservation of a state you don't live in is complete idiocy.

All of this is my :money:. If you disagree, I'm sorry, and my opinion is not omnipotent.  

[victorcharlie]

States rights......wasn't that what the war of Northern aggression was fought over?.........Heck we've been trying to teach you yankee boys about states rights for a 145 years.........I think you finally got it!  Only thing is.....you've got to convince your neighbors........

[rickt300]

Thats funny, all nonresident hunters are residents somewhere.  You have to admit though that nonresidents have been getting screwed thoroughly for years and federal land is for all of us not just Colo greenies and Nevadites.

[longwalker]

When we demand more game, more land and better access it costs money. How do we get this money? In America we are led to believe if it comes from somewhere else thats a good thing. Like "federal money" it's free.  When the free money dries up, like nonresident licence fees they will drop. In an effort to regain the lost revenue, or they will have to raise the money some other way.

The choices we make about the way we send our hard earned money is going to see some big changes in the years to come. We had better be ready to pay our way or else someone else will.

longwalker

[Robert]

I frankly do not want a bunch of Rich Doctors and Lawyers coming into Oregon and taking my chances of getting a tag.  I have NO PROBLEM staying in my state.  Others should do the same.  All this is about is big guide services soliciting outsiders to make money and they can Kiss My Donkey.

[Redhawk1]

I frankly do not want a bunch of Rich Doctors and Lawyers coming into Oregon and taking my chances of getting a tag.  I have NO PROBLEM staying in my state.  Others should do the same.  All this is about is big guide services soliciting outsiders to make money and they can Kiss My Donkey.

Man you miss the point of the whole thing. Who cares what there back round is ie Doctors or Lawyers, or where they are from. They are fellow hunters and are fighting for the same cause as the rest of us hunters.

OK, seeings how you don't understand this small concept, I will try to shead some light on it.

Some of us only have deer as big game in our State, so we as hunters go to other States to hunt Elk, Sheep, Pronghorn, etc.

What if Africa, Canada and other Countries we go to had your mentality of,  I don't want you here because I might not be able to get my tag. We would miss out on some real great hunting.

Could you imagen only hunting in just your State or just the United States.  :eek:

We are hunters, and we go where the game are.  If the guys here quit being greedy and so hard headed maybe this could be a win win situation.

With all the fighting among resident and non resident hunters, the only ones that are going to loose is all of us hunters.

Robert, you need to check your attitude in at the door and leave it there.

[JPSaxMan]

Redhawk,

I don't mean to flare tempers here but it seems to me that a majority of the non-residents that come into resident states have an 'attitude' of their own that makes them repugnant to resident hunters. Maybe if the non-residents 'checked their attitude at the door', maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion on non-resident rights.

The only thing I can't argue about is outfitters. Even if they do steal tags, they have to make a living. And they would help a guy like me who would have no clue about elk or moose hunting.

One more think Redhawk, I'm not calling you any of the things I listed above, but I've seen plenty of it from other out of staters. Something that isnt' getting brownie points for out-of-state rights.  

[Spyro Andes]

I frankly do not want a bunch of Rich Doctors and Lawyers coming into Oregon and taking my chances of getting a tag.  I have NO PROBLEM staying in my state.  Others should do the same.  All this is about is big guide services soliciting outsiders to make money and they can Kiss My Donkey.

Wow, you sound like a real peach...  Did a Dr. give your wife a great boob job and she left you for a guy with money then a divorce lawyer took you to the cleaners?

[Don Fischer]

I wonder if we could get someone to lock this thing?

[JPSaxMan]

Or just get rid of that really nasty comment about the job and the lawyer? Otherwise the topic is fine IMO.

[Redhawk1]

Redhawk,

I don't mean to flare tempers here but it seems to me that a majority of the non-residents that come into resident states have an 'attitude' of their own that makes them repugnant to resident hunters. Maybe if the non-residents 'checked their attitude at the door', maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion on non-resident rights.

The only thing I can't argue about is outfitters. Even if they do steal tags, they have to make a living. And they would help a guy like me who would have no clue about elk or moose hunting.

One more think Redhawk, I'm not calling you any of the things I listed above, but I've seen plenty of it from other out of staters. Something that isnt' getting brownie points for out-of-state rights.  

Fishman029, you may be right about some of the non-resident hunters, and I am sure there may be a few bad apples. But I have run into more people breaking the game laws that were residents. even in my own State.

Most non-resident hunters pay good money to hunt and don't even think about making themselves look bad in any way. I would have to say 98% of the non-resident hunters are very ethical and law abiding hunters, and the only way you may tell them apart from resident hunters is if you asked them where they are from or you happen to see the truck they arrived in.

All hunters deserve to have the privilege to hunt anywhere and should be treated just like everyone else.  

And no this thread should not be closed. We have had to many closed.  :?

[Greybeard]

And if some folks can't learn to be more civil in their responses we're gonna have more closed and/or deleted.

[Don Fischer]

I hate this discussion, it bring's out the worst in us. Let me see if I can put this a way so you'll, maybe not accept our view's, but hopefully understand.

Joseph, Oregon is a small town way up in the N.E. corner of the state. It is absolutely beautiful there. Many people struggle to make a living there because that's where they want to live. It's also an eastern draw unit and very desireable. If you live there and don't draw a tag then you have to drive about 400 plus miles, one way, so you can go deer or elk hunting. On top of that you may only have weekend's to do it on.

So you miss out on the draw and what do you see? People now only from the Willamette valley (Portland, Salem & Eugene) that if they miss the draw can have over the counter tag's and hunt within a few mile's of home. After work if they want! And then the people from out of state show up. They do not care that some local's are left out, not their problem. Then the local people start seeing private land they used to hunt get leased up by big club's, both in state and out of state. And hunting right's bougth up by outfitting service's from out of the area.

Are we upset? Your damn right we are. Are we alway's reasonable about it? Hell no! Hunting is a privledge, a privledge being denighed to some by economic factor's while they are required to sit by and watch other's invade their home's. If they need the meat and go shoot it illegally, someone from a long way's off label's them a poacher and accuses them of "stealing our game", labled "game thiefs".

If you want to live where you do, hunt where you live. Or at least allow that every area resident that wishes to hunt in his own area has first right's. And leave that attitude that your doing us a favor at home. We're not bad people nor even selfish.

[Don Fischer]

I hate this discussion, it bring's out the worst in us. Let me see if I can put this a way so you'll, maybe not accept our view's, but hopefully understand.

Joseph, Oregon is a small town way up in the N.E. corner of the state. It is absolutely beautiful there. Many people struggle to make a living there because that's where they want to live. It's also an eastern draw unit and very desirable. If you live there and don't draw a tag then you have to drive about 400 plus miles, one way, so you can go deer or elk hunting. On top of that you may only have weekend's to do it on.

So you miss out on the draw and what do you see? People now only from the Willamette valley (Portland, Salem & Eugene) that if they miss the draw can have over the counter tag's and hunt within a few mile's of home. After work if they want! And then the people from out of state show up. They do not care that some local's are left out, not their problem. Then the local people start seeing private land they used to hunt get leased up by big club's, both in state and out of state. And hunting right's bougth up by outfitting service's from out of the area.

Are we upset? Your damn right we are. Are we alway's reasonable about it? Hell no! Hunting is a privilege, a privilege being denighed to some by economic factor's while they are required to sit by and watch other's invade their home's. If they need the meat and go shoot it illegally, someone from a long way's off label's them a poacher and accuses them of "stealing our game", labeled "game thiefs".

If you want to live where you do, hunt where you live. Or at least allow that every area resident that wishes to hunt in his own area has first right's. And leave that attitude that your doing us a favor at home. We're not bad people nor even selfish.

Probally gonna get my spelling and grammer corrected again. Hope I've done gooder this time!

[New Hampshire]

As all know I live here in New Hampshire.  I am a man of meager earnings.  I would absolutely LOVE to go on a special hunt for Elk, Bison, Caribou or pronghorn.  BUT if I were to do so it would come at the cost of years of hard, long saving.  For me it would probably be the ONLY trip I could ever take.  I would hope that, while not being easier, I would have at least a hecks chance at being able to get a tag for one of these hunts.  I would have to also turn to an outfitter or guide of some sort as I would have no clue as to overall hunting of these animals in terms of where they are and more specific ways of hutning them.  I have no attitude, my respect for land, animal and fellow hunter is probably one that equals the folks posting here.  So this would be a case for why I would say closing the borders to folks like me would be unfair.  However, Im gonna be dead honest, like I posted above, I see no need to hunt outside of my state for an animal I can get here.  I know its just me, but thats hoe I feel.  If I lived in a state that had elk, I would most likely never go outside the state to elk hunt.  Same for any of the other game animals I mentioned.  As I said, it sad that money has to be the big factor in all this, but outfitters do need to work also.  So, I said it before and Ill say it again, I dont think this subject will ever not be a hot topic for many.  But hopefully EACH side can understand the others point of view.
Brian M

[Redhawk1]

It is obvious that most people will disagree on this subject. It is a shame it can't be worked out in a more civil manner, and the Courts have to make the decision for each State that is being unfair.

It is the greed and unfair treatment of non-residents that bring all of this on. I guess it is called fighting for your rights.  :?

[Don Fischer]

It is the greed and unfair treatment of non-residents that bring all of this on. I guess it is called fighting for your rights

Is it greed that a local area resident that, for financial or other reason's, feel's he/she should have first right to hunt in their own backyard? Is it greed that state resident's feel they should have first choice on tag's in their own state? Is it unfair that different states charge extra for non-resident's that stop in to say "Hi", use our resources and leave? Nobody say's you have to pay the price.

Seem's that the price of elk tag's in Arizona started this whole thing. Will whoever was dragged kicking and screaming into Arizona and was forced to purchase a tag please step forward. Then came Colorado, was that same person made to suffer the same humility there? Hunting is a privilege. The willingness of many to pay outrageous fee's set's market price's and Fish & Waste is not a public service, they run a business selling game. You may not like that but that's the way it is. I know, if your offended by it, boycott that state, I certainly would.

[Don Fischer]

An after thought. "Fight for non-resident right's". That's what this is about. You have every right in someone elses state that they do, every right! That's the problem, hunting is not a right, it's a privilege.

You have no right to come into my house, to tresspass on my property, to hold a job, ect, ect, ect. These thing's are priviledge's. And I am free to charge for them any rate I choose or not to as I choose. Those are called priviledge's, not right's. They can be terminated at any time for any reason.

[Spyro Andes]

I hate this discussion, it bring's out the worst in us. Let me see if I can put this a way so you'll, maybe not accept our view's, but hopefully understand.

I understand your view completely and there really is no need for you to put it any other way.

Your view is one that lacks reason, one that is irrational and one that is based upon greed.  

You believe that you should be the recipient of hunting welfare, not because of economic status, but due to your physical proximity to the hunt area.

Are we upset? Your damn right we are. Are we alway's reasonable about it? Hell no! Hunting is a privilege, a privilege being denighed to some by economic factor's while they are required to sit by and watch other's invade their home's.

First, in many states, hunting is a right.

Second, nobody is invading your homes.  Honestly, this delusion that locals "OWN" the land is what makes you irrational, completely unreasonable and sound like a whiner.  

The State of Oregon is 52.4% FEDERAL LAND and, thus, land that EVERYONE OWNS.  Not just the guys that live down the street from it.

Lastly Don, you're killing me with your apostrophe usage.  The plural form of a word requires no apostrophe.

Here is a LINK for you.

factors not factor's

others not other's

homes not home's

Plural...  There are many homes in the community that are in disrepair.

Possessive...   The home's value has increased drastically since they painted it and made other repairs.

Btw, "your" is the possessive of "you".  The word that you should have used is "you're".  It is short for "you are".

Otherwise, rather than telling me that you are angry, you are telling me that it is my right to make you angry.

Anyway, here is another LINK for you.

If you want to live where you do, hunt where you live. Or at least allow that every area resident that wishes to hunt in his own area has first right's. And leave that attitude that your doing us a favor at home. We're not bad people nor even selfish.
 

I doubt that you are a bad person but you're being selfish.

Frankly, you believe that you should have more access to tags in your area than other residents of your state.  You believe that public land is part of your 'home' and people, from outside the area, are invading your home.  However, you claim that you are not selfish?

I just find this whole topic amusing at this point.  

We have one guy that hates doctors, lawyers and, I assume, all other professionals because they have money.  He uses hate to justify screwing all non-residents.

Then we have another guy that believes that he should receive preference to public lands, in his general area, over other residents and non-residents, because of his proximity to those lands.  Nevermind, his belief that everyone that isn't from around there is 'invading his home'.

You couldn't come up with stuff this good.

SA

[Don Fischer]

Please tell me in which state hunting is a right and not a privilege.

If we are to follow the constitution, the government control's only that land in each state required for government offices.

For the rest, no answers will do, those above probally haven't.

Thanks for the ongoing english lessons. I'm having a tuff time but I'm trying. unfortunally Greybeard did not look forward far enough to see that some of us can't spell very well, but lack other refinement's in english also. Shame on you Greybeard, any more of that and we'll have to lock this thing down.

Am eyes doin beter now?

[Spyro Andes]

Please tell me in which state hunting is a right and not a privilege.

Well, several states have right to hunt and/or fish amendments to their state constitutions... for starters...

California
Georgia
Indiana
Minnesota
Missouri
New Hampshire
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin

Several other states have amendments currently in committee.  While a couple of other states failed to pass amendments.

[Don Fischer]

Those are state constitutions (is that right? No '). They spell out the right's of citizens (was that right?) of that state. I suspect your are a citizen of only one of those state's (oops!)

Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, New Mexico, Nevada, Alaska and a whole bunch others (?) aren't (as in ain't) on your list. So other than California, your presumed home state, where do you have a right to hunt?

I better spell check this.

[Spyro Andes]

Those are state constitutions (is that right? No '). They spell out the right's of citizens (was that right?) of that state.  I suspect your are a citizen of only one of those state's (oops!)

Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, New Mexico, Nevada, Alaska and a whole bunch others (?) aren't (as in ain't) on your list. So other than California, your presumed home state, where do you have a right to hunt?

I better spell check this.

Don't worry Don, when the dust has settled, Oregon's tag allocation will be completely re-worked.  You'll be whining until pigs fly about the evil non-resident invading 'your home'.

Oregon is one of the worst discriminators against non-residents.  Currently, Oregon only issues 1.5 % of the antelope tags and 2.5% of the deer and elk tags to non-residents.  

The majority of the state is FEDERAL LAND (over 52%) but an even greater percentage of the hunted/fished land is FEDERAL LAND.  It is utterly ridiculous...

Btw Don, I mentioned the "Right to Hunt" amendments to disprove your delusions that you should have preference to tags in your area over other RESIDENTS because it is your privilege.

SA

PS.  Even in your attempt to be cute, you got it wrong.  RIGHTS not RIGHT'S