In this analysis you missed proposal 2 which is by the same entity (western arctic caribou herd working group) and proposes to reduce resident harvest from 5 caribou daily to 4 annually, only one of which can be a cow.
Always stunned that hunting-proliferation for-profits like Fresh Tracks, MeatEater, etc, actively sell the concept of non-resident hunting, then act surprised when most people have negative experiences with issues of overcrowding (directly impacted by their massive encouragement of out of state hunters). Shall I draw you a map?
Always stunned when people act like this is a brand new problem and blame a couple personalities for drawing interest when in reality there are many factors at play, including the choices that resident hunters make at the ballot box. In states where hunting interest has dropped over the last 20 years the activity itself is on life support. Residents have too few allies in fighting against misinformation, land grabs, and law changes. The state I grew up in would get absolutely infested with hunters from around the world. By the time I was hunting I was one of only 5 out of 150 students in my grade that hunted at all, and most of the tourist hunters were gone, and access and attitudes were changing. parallel to that was an uptick in horrible behavior by resident hunters including accidental shootings and quasi-poaching, and that made things even worse. Now the last strong hunting generation can't hunt, the following ones are apathetic, and private entities are gobbling up land for speculation and making efforts to change the laws from the roots up. You're certainly not wrong, and you are entitled to be annoyed about having your spot blown up but the fad will wane, and you'll be left with a healthier nationwide community of stakeholders. There are a lot of places where hunting will only be there in 30 years because of influencers getting people excited about it, I honestly believe that.
There is a certain degree of truth but there is also a need for ragging on some of the bs a lot of hunting media is promoting. The fad of long range shooting that only seems to be growing has been extremely detrimental in certain parts of Alaska from both residents and non residents especially when it comes to some of the highly pressured caribou herds. Now what a lot of people are using to their convenience in a lot of arguments about animal populations in Alaska is just quietly ignoring how bad our last 3 winters were for a lot of animals in a majority of the state
Well stated, and you may be on to something, though I would content there is more damage being done by the influencerization of hunting, including Fresh Tracks, MeatEater, etc. Some of the issues you mentioned, such as land grabs, unfavorable law changes, poor hunter behavior are a result of that popularization. If we want to suggest that hunting media is the white-capped hero here to save the future of us all, well... I have my profound doubts, and I certainly don't think their white cape is as clean as they'd like to think. If they are one part hero, they are at least one part villian in this. Either way, I'm glad we're talking, and I appreciate your thoughts@@jcarry5214
Public land is held in public trust and financed by all citizens regardless of state of residence by federal tax dollars as well as taxes on gun and ammo sales. If public opportunities dry up, then America will be like England where the nobility owned and monopolized all hunting. Nonresident licenses are big parts of state management agency budgets as well and the majority of every states’ populations are non hunting, poorly informed, emotional idiots who push asinine legislation only held in check by a united hunting community that crosses state boundaries.
I speak from experience of living in Alaska during the 1970s (71-77) My first caribou came out of the Forty Mile Herd(Taylor Highway Herd). I have taken perhaps 8 caribou total. Some with Rifle , one with pistol and one with Bow. (370 1/8 pts in P&Y). I would like to say that I have hunted 8 of the Caribou herds in Alaska , The Forty Mile herd, The Porcupine herd, The Nelchina herd, the Alaska Peninsula Herd, the Mulchatna herd, the Little Delta Creek herd, the McComb Plateau herd. Some herds migrate many hundreds of miles, and some only 20-30 miles or less. When I got to Alaska in 1971 stationed at REMOTE Ft Greely Alaska, the 656,000 acre military preserve included the Little Delta Creek Herd and the McComb herd ( Game Mgmt 20A -northern Mgmt 13) which had been DECIMATED (down to 3500- 6000 animals, late 1940s to an all time low of 1200 animals in 1968, (SEE Dynamics of Caribou and Wolves in Denali National Park by Francis J. Singer) by the huge REBOUND of the Arctic Wolf population , their predation on the Caribou,, ROSE , ESPECIALLY CALF MORTALITY of about 55%, which reduced the herds, SIGNIFICANTLY and QUICKLY. The Delta Creek herds next door neighbor , the Denali Caribou herd also suffered the SAME during this period from all time lows of 1200 or so. Some of these herds were on average of 25,000 total. They also had to deal with the thriving Grizzly Bear PREDATION also on the Caribou. The Forty Mile Caribou herd suffered almost the same percentile losses in those periods. The MOOSE populations suffered horribly also during those years. The old bumper sticker that was found on many trucks and vehicles during the early 1970s there, including my old 1964 Ford F100, said it all . "EAT MORE MOOSE; 10,000 Wolves cannot be wrong." Of course , Alaska Fish and Game took extreme measures at that time with LEGALIZED aerial hunting of the Arctic Wolf which came in during those years of 1960s to 1972 when the Federal Airborne Hunting Act was passed . The aerial hunting prior to Federal closure reduced the WOLF population significantly. The Little Delta Creek herd, the Denali Herd , and the Forty Mile herd ALL, rebounded significantly as well . From the low of about 1200-6000 of some herd animals in the early 1970s to 15,000 25,000, even 100,000 animals into the 1980s. The Alaska Fish and Game still trying to bring the Wolves into some type of control and yet , get the Caribou herds populations up as fast as they could. Once again Alaska Fish and Game came in with the Authorized Wolf Control in Feb 1975 for Game unit 20A. It did work even to the dislike of the whacko Pita groups and other PSUEDO conservation groupies. However not long after the Caribou herds , started hitting the skids in 1985 to 1995 to less than 4000 animals in many of the above herds and once again WOLF predation from an enormous Wolf population INCREASE the problem. (See Valkenburg ,Mckay Report Alaska Fish and Game). Simply put; MORE WOLVES means a lower Caribou and Moose population where areas combine all to their habitat. Something else to notice is the reports done from 1860-1890 on Caribou State herds. These also noticed the same problems with WOLF and Grizzly predation when those predatory populations INCREASED , PRESSURE on their food sources , (Caribou and Moose) decreased the Caribou and Moose populations accordingly into the 1990s-2000 period. If the predatory problems were left unchecked , then natural selection occurred.(Die off of these predators) and it took over 10 years to start the climb back from the low herd counts of ANY Caribou and Moose herds where the Predators ate themselves out of house and home. Sometimes taking as long as 15-18 years before the Caribou and Moose herds rebounded. And the Wolf populations as well. And the cycles repeated again. Control the predators and the increase of the food source for them increases. This is clearly shown in all of the studies. Finally , the possibility of a "Climate Control," though I speak NOT of any man made one , but of natural controls of temperate multiyear possibles . This also would and could have another SIGNIFICANT IMPACT on ALL Caribou populations not just in Alaska but in other countries (Reindeer included). And that is LOSS of LICHENS habitat.(Cladonia rangiferina) The MAIN food source in ALL Caribou populations. Whether in WINTER or SUMMER. Oh yes the willow leaves, mushrooms , mosses, sedges and other succulent flowering plants make up a percentage of their diets , BUT it is the LICHENS that sustain them all year, especially in the winter ranges. WHEN LICHENS growths are DOWN so are CARIBOU populations anywhere . Throw in the predators and it is a critical mess for the delicate Caribou herds existence. The most serious impact to the range of the Caribou is the GROWING number of natural WILDFIRES found in the Arctic areas. These are NATURAL OCCURING wildfires , such as lightning strikes , or naturally delayed combustionable recurrences. ( Fires that extinguish in years past but reappear sometimes years later) which support the much needed LICHENS can be wiped out by these wildfires and thus reducing Caribou populations accordingly. " Natural Climate Control " which is NATURAL over milleniums could be and should be considered by the leftist , pseudo fake conservationist mentality . But they are ignorant of facts and they continue to blame man and his fossil fuel use and NOT nature for the entire NATURAL SELECTION premise. Of the 369 Fires CURRENTLY BURNING in Alaska as of Dec 13 2023, nearly half of these are found in the areas of the Delta Creek Herd, The Forty Mile herd, the Porcupine herd, McComb Plateau herd , the Nelchina herd and many more. These whacko environmentalists have little if no credentials to support their causes and accusations of man causing all the CLIMATE Problems which God has under His thumb. This CARIBOU problem within Alaska and other countries is going to see more volatile years , especially when the Wolf and Grizzly bear are part of the equation. And the Natural Occuring Wildfires, and the Lichen Loss problems continue . God has given us, MAN, DOMINION over the Earth and its Animals and plant life . Genesis 1: 26-28 kjv, When WE leave God OUT of the equation and place Science into the formula , then we , WE ARE OUT OF ORDER. Just exactly how God said it in I Timothy 6: 20-21 kjv " 20. O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of SCIENCE FALSELY SO CALLED, 21. Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee . Amen . i Timothy 6: 20-21 kjv. We as stewards of the Planet and the animals and such have much work to do and less to do with those who DENY Him who has it all under Him.
This is a pretty fair discussion on the topic. The fact is that many of Alaska’s caribou herds are in drastic decline with higher winter mortality and lower calving. The Nelchina and Forty Mile herds have dropped in population. The Nelchina dropped from 40k animals to less than 9k in two years. That herd will likely not be huntable for almost a decade, whether you hunt subsistence, draw or state Tier hunts.
Subsistence hunting makes zero sense unless you have an absolutely huge and stable game population supported by extremely fertile land and favorable climate. Giving any group preferential treatment can create such a feeling of entitlement in people that their own needs or desire become more important than sound management or conservation. There are a little over 100,000 native Alaskans. If just 1/4 of them hunt caribou that’s potentially a 125,000 animal harvest per day. Humans typically have problems fully comprehending really big numbers as evidenced by how quickly we killed off millions of bison and potentially a billion passenger pigeons.
I hope to see Montana restrict out of state and guided hunting on public land in Eastern Montana. Residents have already lost generational access to private lands to "lease hunting". Quality hunting programs like yours bring even more desire and pressure to our lands, and the landscape is surely changing.
Without in influx of hunters the sport itself is dead within 25 years. We need more people with skin in the game fighting to protect habitat, access, and water.
Without the non resident tags your wildlife department of would go out of business. The millions of dollars that they reap from the high price of tags is what keeps them going as there isn't enough hunters that live in the state to sustain the game department
Hunting media really needs to be reeled into a rational level all of the promotion of everybody taking 50+ yard bow shots and 500+ yard rifle shots should be ragged on to no end how irresponsible it is for 99% of people to do. The number of wasted animals that I have had to call in the last 5 years because of stuff like this is nothing short of sickening to me
Residents that have issues with non residents hunting, are you willing to carry the financial load that the non residents normally do? We get 10% of tags which we pay 10x more for. Not to mention what we bring to the local economy, lodging, food, fuel? Should the two excise taxes I pay only go to the state I reside in?
I would be all for it for a lot of the irresponsible nonsense I have seen in the last five years to let some pressure off for a couple of years personally
@@ThatAngryJho-td3xe I believe you’d be the exception. Highly doubt many Montana residents would be happy paying $1200 for a tag and $500 for a license.
I get the frustration from both sides of the fence but we are hitting a point with a lot of natural resources at the moment. With hunting right now we have to come to a decision do we close things off to outsiders and take the burden or do we go for stricter draw/otc restrictions and both suck, but we have to figure out a balance point in the surge of new interest and decrease of land to use. At the moment I would agree with it being more sensible, but painful in monetary regards to favor those close to the resources until you can get back to what is considered a surplus that won’t be significantly affected by more outside hunters.
@@ThatAngryJho-td3xeYou don’t get to close off your state borders to other country citizens who pay taxes that support both the federal land in your state and the state lands that are also funded by excise taxes and federal grants. Without that money, state game agencies will run out of money and there won’t be any public land.
@gregdenton5282 I'd gladly pay more if I didn't have to see utah, Colorado, Washington, Texas, Wisconsin, idaho plates parked at the trail heads. Most leave empty handed the other half harvest there trophy 2 point, take pics for 5 hours, take the horns and a Back strap or 2 then leave the rest to waste. Some of you get here and see the first griz sign on the trail and turn around and head home, it's comical really.
@@aaronchristiansen9064 As long as you are ok with you being limited in all other states. What’s your opinion on non residents hunting federal land in Montana?
I am frustrated with the number of non-resident hunters on federal land in eastern Montana. And believe there should be a much stricter policey on out of state tags. I hear your point that they have a federal right to be there once they have a state tag. Most have been great to visit with and dedicated hunters willing to duplicate the equipment and effort from the videos they watch. Archery season is the worst. Poop piles at every camp and fence crossing. Rv's dumping waste in the cattle gaurds. Again, the eastern part of the state is easier and smaller than the western forests. As well most people don't want to hunt in Grizzly country.
@@aaronchristiansen9064Nonresidents account for 12% of Montanas elk licenses at just over 22,900 people out of 186,000 total elk tags. Unless Montana is forcing all nonresidents into the same unit you are much more likely seeing other Montana residents.
Having been born and raised in Alaska, I’m glad to see the state cutting back on nonresident hunting. Alaska is unique in that it prioritizes subsistence hunting and fishing for its resident and is able to keep most hunting and fishing opportunities free to residents. Moose, caribou, halibut, Yukon salmon and most king salmon stocks have been declining for years. It’s a good place to start.
What would the Native/remote local residents have done back in the day if/when their food shifted its location/pattern. I reckon they would have moved with it.
Moved, shifted to a different seasonal food source, or starved to death. Humans eat about a ton of food a year per person, subsistence hunting only works for small human populations surrounded by relatively huge game populations. We ate the passenger pigeon into extinction, nearly did the same to buffalo, and almost completely depleted the populations of every native big game species east of the Mississippi in a very short amount of time. It’s only through hunter driven and funded conservation that game populations rebounded in the latter half of the previous century.
Every time I see the comments on a topic like nonres hunting I'm reminded that the number 1 threat to hunting worldwide is hunters. They'd rather lose it forever than accept new blood in the fight against habitat loss, drought, and access. I'm senstitive to people having their way of doing things trashed, but other forces are a much bigger threat than new interest. Remember: Roosevelt, O'Connor, Leopold, Muir, Thoreau, Capstick, Hemingway, Keith, they were all influencers too and probably kept hunting and outdoor rec alive.
Subsistence hunting is only viable for relatively small human populations with moderately high mortality. There are over a quarter of a million households in Alaska which even at one caribou per household you’d need a large enough stable population to cover that much harvest, plus natural mortality, fawn mortality, and predation. The resident harvest numbers mentioned are both insane and completely untenable. Also: Marcus is correct on apathy and its effect particularly on far flung areas. International hunting in Africa brings enough money into local communities to change their thinking from killing any and all nuisance animal to protecting a valued resource. If no one but locals can hunt caribou, expect a MASSIVE hit to the economy in those very isolated communities and watch the dwindle away to nothing as the young flee to where the jobs and money are located.
I'd just like to add that in relation to the comment it's harder for residents to harvest caribou. That alot of no residents donate the meat to the locals.
I’m an Alaska resident and hunt caribou up north. The non resident hunters at least from my experience do have a negative impact on a resident’s harvest. Although only 200 sum non residents harvested an animal how many hunted? Additionally although all residents legally aren’t subsistence hunters the caribou regardless are depended on by many Alaskan’s to feed their family.
@@phild9813I’m my experience the biggest factor is the mind set regarding the hunt. I couldn’t care less about how big a bull is whereas non resident do. I’m just trying to fill my freezer. And I find that not to be the same for non resident hunters. I’ve joked in the past and said that I’m going grocery shopping when heading out for a hunt. But thats really what it’s like. These animals mean to much to the people that rely on them. I would almost bet that if their antler where the size of a coues deer this would be an issue. To be more specific about how it impacts residents hunts. It’s a pain having to navigate around and through areas with non residents. And don’t let them see you on a stalk or glassing. They will be over your shoulder in no time. On multiple occasions at least 5-7 times this year alone this happened. Ok that example, I was very lucky and found a caribou within glassing range (at first about 1500 yards) from an easily accessible area this year. A gentleman from Missouri stop threw his glass up to see what I was looking at (at this time the caribou was about 200 yards) the gentleman proceeded to stop stand in-front of my spotter and ask if I was going to try to harvest the animal. Needless to say the caribou turned and never looked back. This is just one of many examples.
Your experience in Alaska is interesting, as I tend to see the opposite, at least on average, in Wyoming. NRs do want to harvest a good animal, but they tend to be extremely grateful for any opportunity they get. They are generally the more courteous group as well. There are certainly exceptions, and perhaps those occur most when big money is spent. I can see that being the case in AK, as an NR can’t really hunt there without spending big money. Having said that, I can’t personally fathom doing the hunting behaviors you describe, in any state that i might be hunting in. Other than perhaps being interested in harvesting a large antlered animal, which most people are interested in, whether R or NR. I primarily hunt to fill the freezer, and haven’t killed many antlered animals in my life, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t also appreciate the opportunity to do so.
I call BS on your claim that many non subsistence designated residents depend on Caribou to feed their families. You may do it but you are not dependent on it. There are also many designated as subsistence particularly when it comes to Salmon who leave their $800k home in Anchorage or Eagle River, roll down to the river in their $70k truck pulling their $100k 5th wheel and boat to do their subsistence dip netting. Much of this AK subsistence thing is total BS. Are there some who truly are subsistence? Certainly, but that # is very small.
Next time you would like to talk about a state you don't live in, please call someone in. I live here. I don't want to thouse's tags to go away, but you missed a lot of things that could give a better understanding of actual how things work and actual issues.
What has changed with these local populations over the past hundred plus years is the use of high powered rifles, 4 wheelers, snow machines, etc…. The tundra is littered with machines that have broke down
I'm pretty sure that all reasons have been explored, but as Randy said, in the eyes of a politician, someone else needs to take the blame. Has anyone considered the possibility that the caribou have changed their migration patterns and calving locations as a response to LOCAL hunting pressure? Give me break! A few hundred bulls vs thousands taken by subsistence hunters makes me think the reasons are right there but to quote the man that invented the internet, "it's an inconvenient truth"
Stop thinking logically. I work for the federal government gov and always say is if you’re thinking logically you’re probably wrong at least in what will actually be done.
Good luck, hope you find something being a resident and hunting all but 7 of the days season was open for me in the last 3 years and I haven’t seen a bull. Weather has been really hard on significant portions of the state for animals in the last 4 years so I wouldn’t expect to see much unless you are a fair ways out into the western part of the state.
Just so you know, Resident hunters don't buy licenses in some cases....or pay very little for a tag compared to what Non-resident hunters do! So maybe monetarily if resident hunters want to step up pay for tags than ban hunting I'm all for that!!
That is a hoot they are extremely biased despite what they say publicly and they really don’t listen to public information that well a lot of time from my experience. Individuals within ADFG might not be biased and interested in what you have to say but at a management level they are pretty tone deaf.
@@ThatAngryJho-td3xe The departments comments to the board of game are to be neutral on proposals about allocation of resources. They only comment on the biological impacts of proposals.
I get that it is supposed to be straight factual commentary but it very rarely is out of ADFG. Very commonly they use statistics that half the time I have no clue how they would make up some of the ridiculous data they claim then make rulings out of it. The best data they really provide is simple data collection from single point researchers that aren’t working on currently sensitive topics.
Hey Alaska when you need help in the future us lower 48 will be busy with our money,time and votes to help so good luck. But you do have the right to restrict it and I honor your abilities to do so. As a respectful hunter to another though Good luck
The best way to help any wildlife species in any aspect of their natural history is to provide value to that species. No management is not conservation. In fact it is irresponsible.
To end non-resident hunting, something that brings $$ to their state is not going to change anything, specially with the small % they take. Maybe the plan is to limit the residents on their take for 3-5 yrs to see how it affects the population. Residents need to decide if they can live with that, do you try something to save the herd or continue as is and see the herd dwindle to nothing.
As cheap as it is to buy land in Alaska I’d just become a resident and enjoy all the hunting rights and the savings on tags and guides would offset the land cost.
I’m a non resident of AK. Caribous and several sub species have gone extinct due to over hunting. I’m not trying to upset anyone. Certainly wolves may have a roll in the numbers decline but at the end of the day, the wolves never made a species go extinct. As conservationists, we have an obligation to adjust the human detriment to all wild animals existence.
Caribous are definitely not extinct. Exterpated from certain areas? Yes. But the caribou in the area in question are not necessarily doing bad. If they were doing bad the fws and Alaska game department would end hunting or severely limit harvest. But they are not they are just eliminating the minority of hunters.
@@JH-wk9gw also, many of the lower 48 states contained sub species Rangifer tarandus which my apologies for my selective wording, have been completely extirpated* (technically woodland caribou are not extinct, YET) from all lower 48 states.
@@JH-wk9gw I’m not speaking of solely Alaska. I am trying to shout from the rooftops that there is an immediate need to change our direction in the conservation movement towards replacing lost herds of caribou. For example, the Adirondack Park in upstate New York is an absolutely perfect, sustainable place for such a project. There’s lichen there that hasn’t been grazed by its rightful eaters in over 100 years and they belong to be restored like elk are and have been in several lower 48 states
Very little. Most of the guides and outfitters aren’t from here. They take their money home with them at the end of the season. They ship up much of their equipment and supplies. So they buy fuel here, not much else. They take way more than they contribute.
my understanding is that more most people in the region (NW AK) that they hunt when the herd Is close, generally everyone jumps in their boat/snow machine and heads out and almost take turns shooting caribou. the 5 per day is meant to limit overharvest but also give people the opportunity to shoot as many caribou as they need.
This is an area where you can’t go to the grocery store and get food and in this area nonresidents have no business going in that area hunting. You can keep that for the locals for their subsistence rights and feeding their families.
It is a way to legally shoehorn in a community hunt in the way that is reasonable to exist out there. There are certain limitations to how they can regulate a hunt create it and this is the best way for them to do it without breaking the rules that are in place
UNREAL. Probably one of the most dumb ass, mindless, and ill informed discussions I have heard about resident versus non resident hunting. Which is the way all of Senor Newberg's content seems to be heading, off the rails to locoville. Resident hunters in a state where I live, Arizona, pay state and local taxes every single day of the year to support our Game and Fish department and land use management and public roadways and everything else that pop in non residents don't pay for. Every day. We don't dash in for 4 days and dash out. I am strongly in favor of Arizona severely limiting non resident hunting across the board, in other words, no tags for non residents at all unless there are left over tags, and then significantly increasing the cost of non resident tags. I know Randy has a good relationship with Arizona Game and Fish. He milks it. I wish he did not and would stop carpetbagging down here. AZGF is terribly mismanaged and kisses the asses of non residents for no good reason. Non residents exploit resident taxpayers and deny hunting chances for locals and do NOT pay their fair share. Please don't come back to Arizona, ever, Randy and Marcus and all of your ilk.
Arizona has way too many problems for you to fairly blame a couple hunting shows, that's just insincere. Arizona has been a destination for decades and decades. Water and development cash grabs cause more loss than all new hunters. That's true across almost all western states. Up here in Utah people want to blame famous hunters for the loss of mule deer while they make millions selling family farms so developers can build condos on winter habitat, meanwhile fawns don't make it due to the lack of water. And just like in Arizona, we have tags that have been world famous since before Vietnam. There's way too much going on to blame a couple people reviving interest in a sport that will be dead in 25 years without new blood, without more people fighting for access and conservation.
lol well I mean…if you buy points, a hunting license, tag, hotel, gas, food, ice, guide/trespass fee, etc. a non resident will spend more money year in and year out for fish and wildlife…that’s a fact….In Wyoming non residents fund almost 75% of dollars raised for fish and game. I’m sure it’s similar for most other states as well…dollar wise.
@garrettsoper5273 Residents spend every same nickel except for paying a little less for the tag. Non-residents exploit residents in AZ, and I don't blame them personally, the system is what it is. AZ G and Fish just has its priorities and head head up its ass.
@@24kachina Youre claiming that the average resident pays as much extra to hunt as someone who flies in and spends 10 times more for a tag before hospitality and food? You’re just incorrect. Resident hunting is heavily subsidized by the nonresidents just like every other state. How much of your annual tax bill and sales tax goes to fish and game and how much do you spend on food and accommodation and guides compared to a group of Coues hunters from another state?
In this analysis you missed proposal 2 which is by the same entity (western arctic caribou herd working group) and proposes to reduce resident harvest from 5 caribou daily to 4 annually, only one of which can be a cow.
Always stunned that hunting-proliferation for-profits like Fresh Tracks, MeatEater, etc, actively sell the concept of non-resident hunting, then act surprised when most people have negative experiences with issues of overcrowding (directly impacted by their massive encouragement of out of state hunters). Shall I draw you a map?
Always stunned when people act like this is a brand new problem and blame a couple personalities for drawing interest when in reality there are many factors at play, including the choices that resident hunters make at the ballot box. In states where hunting interest has dropped over the last 20 years the activity itself is on life support. Residents have too few allies in fighting against misinformation, land grabs, and law changes. The state I grew up in would get absolutely infested with hunters from around the world. By the time I was hunting I was one of only 5 out of 150 students in my grade that hunted at all, and most of the tourist hunters were gone, and access and attitudes were changing. parallel to that was an uptick in horrible behavior by resident hunters including accidental shootings and quasi-poaching, and that made things even worse. Now the last strong hunting generation can't hunt, the following ones are apathetic, and private entities are gobbling up land for speculation and making efforts to change the laws from the roots up. You're certainly not wrong, and you are entitled to be annoyed about having your spot blown up but the fad will wane, and you'll be left with a healthier nationwide community of stakeholders. There are a lot of places where hunting will only be there in 30 years because of influencers getting people excited about it, I honestly believe that.
There is a certain degree of truth but there is also a need for ragging on some of the bs a lot of hunting media is promoting. The fad of long range shooting that only seems to be growing has been extremely detrimental in certain parts of Alaska from both residents and non residents especially when it comes to some of the highly pressured caribou herds. Now what a lot of people are using to their convenience in a lot of arguments about animal populations in Alaska is just quietly ignoring how bad our last 3 winters were for a lot of animals in a majority of the state
Well stated, and you may be on to something, though I would content there is more damage being done by the influencerization of hunting, including Fresh Tracks, MeatEater, etc. Some of the issues you mentioned, such as land grabs, unfavorable law changes, poor hunter behavior are a result of that popularization. If we want to suggest that hunting media is the white-capped hero here to save the future of us all, well... I have my profound doubts, and I certainly don't think their white cape is as clean as they'd like to think. If they are one part hero, they are at least one part villian in this. Either way, I'm glad we're talking, and I appreciate your thoughts@@jcarry5214
You couldn't' be more wrong@@jcarry5214
Public land is held in public trust and financed by all citizens regardless of state of residence by federal tax dollars as well as taxes on gun and ammo sales. If public opportunities dry up, then America will be like England where the nobility owned and monopolized all hunting. Nonresident licenses are big parts of state management agency budgets as well and the majority of every states’ populations are non hunting, poorly informed, emotional idiots who push asinine legislation only held in check by a united hunting community that crosses state boundaries.
I know a lot of folks hate him but I'm starting to take Matt Rinella's major points more seriously.
Same here! He's a bit extreme 😳 on some points. But some of his opinions are spot on. There needs to be public access
I speak from experience of living in Alaska during the 1970s (71-77) My first caribou came out of the Forty Mile Herd(Taylor Highway Herd). I have taken perhaps 8 caribou total. Some with Rifle , one with pistol and one with Bow. (370 1/8 pts in P&Y). I would like to say that I have hunted 8 of the Caribou herds in Alaska , The Forty Mile herd, The Porcupine herd, The Nelchina herd, the Alaska Peninsula Herd, the Mulchatna herd, the Little Delta Creek herd, the McComb Plateau herd. Some herds migrate many hundreds of miles, and some only 20-30 miles or less.
When I got to Alaska in 1971 stationed at REMOTE Ft Greely Alaska, the 656,000 acre military preserve included the Little Delta Creek Herd and the McComb herd ( Game Mgmt 20A -northern Mgmt 13) which had been DECIMATED (down to 3500- 6000 animals, late 1940s to an all time low of 1200 animals in 1968, (SEE Dynamics of Caribou and Wolves in Denali National Park by Francis J. Singer) by the huge REBOUND of the Arctic Wolf population , their predation on the Caribou,, ROSE , ESPECIALLY CALF MORTALITY of about 55%, which reduced the herds, SIGNIFICANTLY and QUICKLY. The Delta Creek herds next door neighbor , the Denali Caribou herd also suffered the SAME during this period from all time lows of 1200 or so. Some of these herds were on average of 25,000 total. They also had to deal with the thriving Grizzly Bear PREDATION also on the Caribou. The Forty Mile Caribou herd suffered almost the same percentile losses in those periods. The MOOSE populations suffered horribly also during those years. The old bumper sticker that was found on many trucks and vehicles during the early 1970s there, including my old 1964 Ford F100, said it all . "EAT MORE MOOSE; 10,000 Wolves cannot be wrong." Of course , Alaska Fish and Game took extreme measures at that time with LEGALIZED aerial hunting of the Arctic Wolf which came in during those years of 1960s to 1972 when the Federal Airborne Hunting Act was passed . The aerial hunting prior to Federal closure reduced the WOLF population significantly. The Little Delta Creek herd, the Denali Herd , and the Forty Mile herd ALL, rebounded significantly as well . From the low of about 1200-6000 of some herd animals in the early 1970s to 15,000 25,000, even 100,000 animals into the 1980s. The Alaska Fish and Game still trying to bring the Wolves into some type of control and yet , get the Caribou herds populations up as fast as they could. Once again Alaska Fish and Game came in with the Authorized Wolf Control in Feb 1975 for Game unit 20A. It did work even to the dislike of the whacko Pita groups and other PSUEDO conservation groupies. However not long after the Caribou herds , started hitting the skids in 1985 to 1995 to less than 4000 animals in many of the above herds and once again WOLF predation from an enormous Wolf population INCREASE the problem. (See Valkenburg ,Mckay Report Alaska Fish and Game). Simply put; MORE WOLVES means a lower Caribou and Moose population where areas combine all to their habitat.
Something else to notice is the reports done from 1860-1890 on Caribou State herds. These also noticed the same problems with WOLF and Grizzly predation when those predatory populations INCREASED , PRESSURE on their food sources , (Caribou and Moose) decreased the Caribou and Moose populations accordingly into the 1990s-2000 period. If the predatory problems were left unchecked , then natural selection occurred.(Die off of these predators) and it took over 10 years to start the climb back from the low herd counts of ANY Caribou and Moose herds where the Predators ate themselves out of house and home. Sometimes taking as long as 15-18 years before the Caribou and Moose herds rebounded. And the Wolf populations as well. And the cycles repeated again. Control the predators and the increase of the food source for them increases. This is clearly shown in all of the studies.
Finally , the possibility of a "Climate Control," though I speak NOT of any man made one , but of natural controls of temperate multiyear possibles . This also would and could have another SIGNIFICANT IMPACT on ALL Caribou populations not just in Alaska but in other countries (Reindeer included). And that is LOSS of LICHENS habitat.(Cladonia rangiferina) The MAIN food source in ALL Caribou populations. Whether in WINTER or SUMMER. Oh yes the willow leaves, mushrooms , mosses, sedges and other succulent flowering plants make up a percentage of their diets , BUT it is the LICHENS that sustain them all year, especially in the winter ranges. WHEN LICHENS growths are DOWN so are CARIBOU populations anywhere . Throw in the predators and it is a critical mess for the delicate Caribou herds existence. The most serious impact to the range of the Caribou is the GROWING number of natural WILDFIRES found in the Arctic areas. These are NATURAL OCCURING wildfires , such as lightning strikes , or naturally delayed combustionable recurrences. ( Fires that extinguish in years past but reappear sometimes years later) which support the much needed LICHENS can be wiped out by these wildfires and thus reducing Caribou populations accordingly. " Natural Climate Control " which is NATURAL over milleniums could be and should be considered by the leftist , pseudo fake conservationist mentality . But they are ignorant of facts and they continue to blame man and his fossil fuel use and NOT nature for the entire NATURAL SELECTION premise. Of the 369 Fires CURRENTLY BURNING in Alaska as of Dec 13 2023, nearly half of these are found in the areas of the Delta Creek Herd, The Forty Mile herd, the Porcupine herd, McComb Plateau herd , the Nelchina herd and many more. These whacko environmentalists have little if no credentials to support their causes and accusations of man causing all the CLIMATE Problems which God has under His thumb. This CARIBOU problem within Alaska and other countries is going to see more volatile years , especially when the Wolf and Grizzly bear are part of the equation. And the Natural Occuring Wildfires, and the Lichen Loss problems continue . God has given us, MAN, DOMINION over the Earth and its Animals and plant life . Genesis 1: 26-28 kjv, When WE leave God OUT of the equation and place Science into the formula , then we , WE ARE OUT OF ORDER. Just exactly how God said it in I Timothy 6: 20-21 kjv " 20. O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of SCIENCE FALSELY SO CALLED, 21. Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee . Amen . i Timothy 6: 20-21 kjv. We as stewards of the Planet and the animals and such have much work to do and less to do with those who DENY Him who has it all under Him.
This is a pretty fair discussion on the topic. The fact is that many of Alaska’s caribou herds are in drastic decline with higher winter mortality and lower calving. The Nelchina and Forty Mile herds have dropped in population. The Nelchina dropped from 40k animals to less than 9k in two years. That herd will likely not be huntable for almost a decade, whether you hunt subsistence, draw or state Tier hunts.
Have you seen the plummet of the elk herd from Yellowstone.
@@aaronchristiansen9064 I hadn’t heard about that.
Subsistence hunting makes zero sense unless you have an absolutely huge and stable game population supported by extremely fertile land and favorable climate. Giving any group preferential treatment can create such a feeling of entitlement in people that their own needs or desire become more important than sound management or conservation. There are a little over 100,000 native Alaskans. If just 1/4 of them hunt caribou that’s potentially a 125,000 animal harvest per day. Humans typically have problems fully comprehending really big numbers as evidenced by how quickly we killed off millions of bison and potentially a billion passenger pigeons.
Great information as always!
I hope to see Montana restrict out of state and guided hunting on public land in Eastern Montana.
Residents have already lost generational access to private lands to "lease hunting". Quality hunting programs like yours bring even more desire and pressure to our lands, and the landscape is surely changing.
Without in influx of hunters the sport itself is dead within 25 years. We need more people with skin in the game fighting to protect habitat, access, and water.
couldnt agree more!! Matt Rinella is correct regarding the negative impact of media hunters!
😊Alabama should charge out west states the same money to Hunt deer
Without the non resident tags your wildlife department of would go out of business. The millions of dollars that they reap from the high price of tags is what keeps them going as there isn't enough hunters that live in the state to sustain the game department
Hunting media really needs to be reeled into a rational level all of the promotion of everybody taking 50+ yard bow shots and 500+ yard rifle shots should be ragged on to no end how irresponsible it is for 99% of people to do. The number of wasted animals that I have had to call in the last 5 years because of stuff like this is nothing short of sickening to me
Residents that have issues with non residents hunting, are you willing to carry the financial load that the non residents normally do? We get 10% of tags which we pay 10x more for. Not to mention what we bring to the local economy, lodging, food, fuel?
Should the two excise taxes I pay only go to the state I reside in?
I would be all for it for a lot of the irresponsible nonsense I have seen in the last five years to let some pressure off for a couple of years personally
@@ThatAngryJho-td3xe I believe you’d be the exception. Highly doubt many Montana residents would be happy paying $1200 for a tag and $500 for a license.
I get the frustration from both sides of the fence but we are hitting a point with a lot of natural resources at the moment. With hunting right now we have to come to a decision do we close things off to outsiders and take the burden or do we go for stricter draw/otc restrictions and both suck, but we have to figure out a balance point in the surge of new interest and decrease of land to use. At the moment I would agree with it being more sensible, but painful in monetary regards to favor those close to the resources until you can get back to what is considered a surplus that won’t be significantly affected by more outside hunters.
@@ThatAngryJho-td3xeYou don’t get to close off your state borders to other country citizens who pay taxes that support both the federal land in your state and the state lands that are also funded by excise taxes and federal grants. Without that money, state game agencies will run out of money and there won’t be any public land.
@gregdenton5282 I'd gladly pay more if I didn't have to see utah, Colorado, Washington, Texas, Wisconsin, idaho plates parked at the trail heads. Most leave empty handed the other half harvest there trophy 2 point, take pics for 5 hours, take the horns and a Back strap or 2 then leave the rest to waste. Some of you get here and see the first griz sign on the trail and turn around and head home, it's comical really.
This video could well have been named "The Selfishness of Alaskans Runs Amok."
Your ignorance runs amok.
Seems like non resident hunting is getting harder across the country and in States like the one I live in, it’s getting harder for residents as well.
I am ok to limited out of state hunting in Montana
@@aaronchristiansen9064
As long as you are ok with you being limited in all other states.
What’s your opinion on non residents hunting federal land in Montana?
I am frustrated with the number of non-resident hunters on federal land in eastern Montana. And believe there should be a much stricter policey on out of state tags. I hear your point that they have a federal right to be there once they have a state tag. Most have been great to visit with and dedicated hunters willing to duplicate the equipment and effort from the videos they watch. Archery season is the worst. Poop piles at every camp and fence crossing. Rv's dumping waste in the cattle gaurds.
Again, the eastern part of the state is easier and smaller than the western forests. As well most people don't want to hunt in Grizzly country.
@@aaronchristiansen9064Nonresidents account for 12% of Montanas elk licenses at just over 22,900 people out of 186,000 total elk tags. Unless Montana is forcing all nonresidents into the same unit you are much more likely seeing other Montana residents.
Florida has a limit of fifteen coots per day. I cooked one in a pot, threw the coat away and ate the pot😮
Cumin, garlic, Worcestershire, onion, mushrooms, tomato paste, and many others do a amazing job of making one think that they just ate pulled beef bbq
I wish Colorado treated its residents half as good as every other state
Having been born and raised in Alaska, I’m glad to see the state cutting back on nonresident hunting. Alaska is unique in that it prioritizes subsistence hunting and fishing for its resident and is able to keep most hunting and fishing opportunities free to residents. Moose, caribou, halibut, Yukon salmon and most king salmon stocks have been declining for years.
It’s a good place to start.
Coots are actually good flyers. I practice falconry and target them part of the season with a Harris' Hawk.
It's the landing they are not good at.
What would the Native/remote local residents have done back in the day if/when their food shifted its location/pattern. I reckon they would have moved with it.
Moved, shifted to a different seasonal food source, or starved to death. Humans eat about a ton of food a year per person, subsistence hunting only works for small human populations surrounded by relatively huge game populations. We ate the passenger pigeon into extinction, nearly did the same to buffalo, and almost completely depleted the populations of every native big game species east of the Mississippi in a very short amount of time. It’s only through hunter driven and funded conservation that game populations rebounded in the latter half of the previous century.
Every time I see the comments on a topic like nonres hunting I'm reminded that the number 1 threat to hunting worldwide is hunters. They'd rather lose it forever than accept new blood in the fight against habitat loss, drought, and access. I'm senstitive to people having their way of doing things trashed, but other forces are a much bigger threat than new interest. Remember: Roosevelt, O'Connor, Leopold, Muir, Thoreau, Capstick, Hemingway, Keith, they were all influencers too and probably kept hunting and outdoor rec alive.
Subsistence hunting is only viable for relatively small human populations with moderately high mortality. There are over a quarter of a million households in Alaska which even at one caribou per household you’d need a large enough stable population to cover that much harvest, plus natural mortality, fawn mortality, and predation. The resident harvest numbers mentioned are both insane and completely untenable.
Also: Marcus is correct on apathy and its effect particularly on far flung areas. International hunting in Africa brings enough money into local communities to change their thinking from killing any and all nuisance animal to protecting a valued resource. If no one but locals can hunt caribou, expect a MASSIVE hit to the economy in those very isolated communities and watch the dwindle away to nothing as the young flee to where the jobs and money are located.
I'd just like to add that in relation to the comment it's harder for residents to harvest caribou. That alot of no residents donate the meat to the locals.
I’m an Alaska resident and hunt caribou up north. The non resident hunters at least from my experience do have a negative impact on a resident’s harvest. Although only 200 sum non residents harvested an animal how many hunted? Additionally although all residents legally aren’t subsistence hunters the caribou regardless are depended on by many Alaskan’s to feed their family.
As resident myself, you are 100% correct my friend
Could you elaborate on how the non-residents affront residents hunt? I’m truly trying to learn more about this situation. Thanks
@@phild9813I’m my experience the biggest factor is the mind set regarding the hunt. I couldn’t care less about how big a bull is whereas non resident do. I’m just trying to fill my freezer. And I find that not to be the same for non resident hunters. I’ve joked in the past and said that I’m going grocery shopping when heading out for a hunt. But thats really what it’s like. These animals mean to much to the people that rely on them. I would almost bet that if their antler where the size of a coues deer this would be an issue. To be more specific about how it impacts residents hunts. It’s a pain having to navigate around and through areas with non residents. And don’t let them see you on a stalk or glassing. They will be over your shoulder in no time. On multiple occasions at least 5-7 times this year alone this happened. Ok that example, I was very lucky and found a caribou within glassing range (at first about 1500 yards) from an easily accessible area this year. A gentleman from Missouri stop threw his glass up to see what I was looking at (at this time the caribou was about 200 yards) the gentleman proceeded to stop stand in-front of my spotter and ask if I was going to try to harvest the animal. Needless to say the caribou turned and never looked back. This is just one of many examples.
Your experience in Alaska is interesting, as I tend to see the opposite, at least on average, in Wyoming. NRs do want to harvest a good animal, but they tend to be extremely grateful for any opportunity they get. They are generally the more courteous group as well. There are certainly exceptions, and perhaps those occur most when big money is spent. I can see that being the case in AK, as an NR can’t really hunt there without spending big money. Having said that, I can’t personally fathom doing the hunting behaviors you describe, in any state that i might be hunting in. Other than perhaps being interested in harvesting a large antlered animal, which most people are interested in, whether R or NR. I primarily hunt to fill the freezer, and haven’t killed many antlered animals in my life, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t also appreciate the opportunity to do so.
I call BS on your claim that many non subsistence designated residents depend on Caribou to feed their families. You may do it but you are not dependent on it. There are also many designated as subsistence particularly when it comes to Salmon who leave their $800k home in Anchorage or Eagle River, roll down to the river in their $70k truck pulling their $100k 5th wheel and boat to do their subsistence dip netting. Much of this AK subsistence thing is total BS. Are there some who truly are subsistence? Certainly, but that # is very small.
Thanx
You can set your watch to this each year.
Coot are great for getting in retrieving time for a young dog
Any stories about caribou herds, from the elderly? Did the numbers or migration change 100 years ago, 150 years ago?
Next time you would like to talk about a state you don't live in, please call someone in. I live here. I don't want to thouse's tags to go away, but you missed a lot of things that could give a better understanding of actual how things work and actual issues.
Be interested to know how much the resident population has grown in the last ten years
zero. Alaskas population has stayed basically the same since the pipeline boom.
What has changed with these local populations over the past hundred plus years is the use of high powered rifles, 4 wheelers, snow machines, etc…. The tundra is littered with machines that have broke down
Is there ever an update to state public land DIY hunting policy or allocations that is positive!
I'm pretty sure that all reasons have been explored, but as Randy said, in the eyes of a politician, someone else needs to take the blame.
Has anyone considered the possibility that the caribou have changed their migration patterns and calving locations as a response to LOCAL hunting pressure?
Give me break! A few hundred bulls vs thousands taken by subsistence hunters makes me think the reasons are right there but to quote the man that invented the internet, "it's an inconvenient truth"
Stop thinking logically. I work for the federal government gov and always say is if you’re thinking logically you’re probably wrong at least in what will actually be done.
I am going moose hunting in Alaska this year for these very reasons. Not sure if we will be allowed in the future.
Good luck, hope you find something being a resident and hunting all but 7 of the days season was open for me in the last 3 years and I haven’t seen a bull. Weather has been really hard on significant portions of the state for animals in the last 4 years so I wouldn’t expect to see much unless you are a fair ways out into the western part of the state.
If nr hunting has gotten that bad in Alaska, everyone musta listened to Randy and started dumping points. Way to go Randy…….
Alaska does not have a points system.
Just so you know, Resident hunters don't buy licenses in some cases....or pay very little for a tag compared to what Non-resident hunters do! So maybe monetarily if resident hunters want to step up pay for tags than ban hunting I'm all for that!!
in regards to the ADf&G stance of neutral - The state of Alaska doesn't take a stance on the allocation of resources (ie NR vs R).
That is a hoot they are extremely biased despite what they say publicly and they really don’t listen to public information that well a lot of time from my experience. Individuals within ADFG might not be biased and interested in what you have to say but at a management level they are pretty tone deaf.
@@ThatAngryJho-td3xe The departments comments to the board of game are to be neutral on proposals about allocation of resources. They only comment on the biological impacts of proposals.
I get that it is supposed to be straight factual commentary but it very rarely is out of ADFG. Very commonly they use statistics that half the time I have no clue how they would make up some of the ridiculous data they claim then make rulings out of it. The best data they really provide is simple data collection from single point researchers that aren’t working on currently sensitive topics.
Hey Alaska when you need help in the future us lower 48 will be busy with our money,time and votes to help so good luck. But you do have the right to restrict it and I honor your abilities to do so. As a respectful hunter to another though Good luck
Some of the largest environmental disasters have been caused specifically because of the EPA.
5 A DAY!!! Compared to 1 a year? C'mon Alaska. This isn't going to solve anything.
The best way to help any wildlife species in any aspect of their natural history is to provide value to that species. No management is not conservation. In fact it is irresponsible.
To end non-resident hunting, something that brings $$ to their state is not going to change anything, specially with the small % they take. Maybe the plan is to limit the residents on their take for 3-5 yrs to see how it affects the population. Residents need to decide if they can live with that, do you try something to save the herd or continue as is and see the herd dwindle to nothing.
Montana needs to do something about the declining mule deer population.
Glad to see they limited doe tags in many areas this year.
Not hunting them for 6 weeks with a rifle would help
@@jonessportfishing They should cut out the non-resident tags and raise the price on residents....nonrefundable.
As cheap as it is to buy land in Alaska I’d just become a resident and enjoy all the hunting rights and the savings on tags and guides would offset the land cost.
Sure you would
Cheap?😂 Only in places you can’t actually get to. Land in habitable areas is super expensive.
This is complete bs. Our money pays for the federal land but we can’t use it
I’m a non resident of AK. Caribous and several sub species have gone extinct due to over hunting. I’m not trying to upset anyone. Certainly wolves may have a roll in the numbers decline but at the end of the day, the wolves never made a species go extinct. As conservationists, we have an obligation to adjust the human detriment to all wild animals existence.
Caribous are definitely not extinct. Exterpated from certain areas? Yes. But the caribou in the area in question are not necessarily doing bad. If they were doing bad the fws and Alaska game department would end hunting or severely limit harvest. But they are not they are just eliminating the minority of hunters.
@@JH-wk9gw Extinct sub species Dawson’s Caribou Latin, Rangifer tarandus dawsoni
@@JH-wk9gw also, many of the lower 48 states contained sub species Rangifer tarandus which my apologies for my selective wording, have been completely extirpated* (technically woodland caribou are not extinct, YET) from all lower 48 states.
@@JH-wk9gw I’m not speaking of solely Alaska. I am trying to shout from the rooftops that there is an immediate need to change our direction in the conservation movement towards replacing lost herds of caribou. For example, the Adirondack Park in upstate New York is an absolutely perfect, sustainable place for such a project. There’s lichen there that hasn’t been grazed by its rightful eaters in over 100 years and they belong to be restored like elk are and have been in several lower 48 states
@@InTheYear But again you miss the main fact that caribou as a whole are not going to disappear overnight.
Caribou run around with a question mark over their head like in a comic strip they don’t even know where they are going
Maybe they were beamed up.
Maybe logistic companies like huntin fool making things to easy
I know a lot of folks hate him but I'm starting to take Matt Rinella's major points more seriously
Sounds like those non resident $$$$$ must not help local economys
Very little. Most of the guides and outfitters aren’t from here. They take their money home with them at the end of the season. They ship up much of their equipment and supplies. So they buy fuel here, not much else. They take way more than they contribute.
Time to buy some land problem solved.
Haha tell me you have no kids by telling me you don’t have kids…. They had a young child 😂😂
lol. Coots are awful table fair.
5 cariboo a day? There must be more information to further understand that.
my understanding is that more most people in the region (NW AK) that they hunt when the herd Is close, generally everyone jumps in their boat/snow machine and heads out and almost take turns shooting caribou. the 5 per day is meant to limit overharvest but also give people the opportunity to shoot as many caribou as they need.
This is an area where you can’t go to the grocery store and get food and in this area nonresidents have no business going in that area hunting. You can keep that for the locals for their subsistence rights and feeding their families.
@AkMike907 5 a day must mean community hunt though. It doesn't sound like a hunt to support an individual family.
It is a way to legally shoehorn in a community hunt in the way that is reasonable to exist out there. There are certain limitations to how they can regulate a hunt create it and this is the best way for them to do it without breaking the rules that are in place
UNREAL. Probably one of the most dumb ass, mindless, and ill informed discussions I have heard about resident versus non resident hunting. Which is the way all of Senor Newberg's content seems to be heading, off the rails to locoville. Resident hunters in a state where I live, Arizona, pay state and local taxes every single day of the year to support our Game and Fish department and land use management and public roadways and everything else that pop in non residents don't pay for. Every day. We don't dash in for 4 days and dash out. I am strongly in favor of Arizona severely limiting non resident hunting across the board, in other words, no tags for non residents at all unless there are left over tags, and then significantly increasing the cost of non resident tags. I know Randy has a good relationship with Arizona Game and Fish. He milks it. I wish he did not and would stop carpetbagging down here. AZGF is terribly mismanaged and kisses the asses of non residents for no good reason. Non residents exploit resident taxpayers and deny hunting chances for locals and do NOT pay their fair share. Please don't come back to Arizona, ever, Randy and Marcus and all of your ilk.
Arizona has way too many problems for you to fairly blame a couple hunting shows, that's just insincere. Arizona has been a destination for decades and decades. Water and development cash grabs cause more loss than all new hunters. That's true across almost all western states. Up here in Utah people want to blame famous hunters for the loss of mule deer while they make millions selling family farms so developers can build condos on winter habitat, meanwhile fawns don't make it due to the lack of water. And just like in Arizona, we have tags that have been world famous since before Vietnam. There's way too much going on to blame a couple people reviving interest in a sport that will be dead in 25 years without new blood, without more people fighting for access and conservation.
lol well I mean…if you buy points, a hunting license, tag, hotel, gas, food, ice, guide/trespass fee, etc. a non resident will spend more money year in and year out for fish and wildlife…that’s a fact….In Wyoming non residents fund almost 75% of dollars raised for fish and game. I’m sure it’s similar for most other states as well…dollar wise.
@garrettsoper5273 Residents spend every same nickel except for paying a little less for the tag. Non-residents exploit residents in AZ, and I don't blame them personally, the system is what it is. AZ G and Fish just has its priorities and head head up its ass.
@@24kachina Youre claiming that the average resident pays as much extra to hunt as someone who flies in and spends 10 times more for a tag before hospitality and food? You’re just incorrect. Resident hunting is heavily subsidized by the nonresidents just like every other state. How much of your annual tax bill and sales tax goes to fish and game and how much do you spend on food and accommodation and guides compared to a group of Coues hunters from another state?