Breakfast

1
Resident / Non-Resident Data Collection
North American Wildlife Natural Resources
Conference Columbus, Ohio March 23, 2006
2
Background

• Multiple Lawsuits
• Legal Challenges to Resident/Nonresident
  Disparities in Access and Cost of Hunting
• States Ability to Allocate Hunting Opportunities
  Threatened
• Congress Responds with the Reid Bill

3
Background

• Reid Bill or "Reaffirmation of State Regulating
  of Resident and Non-resident Hunting and Fishing
  Act of 2005
• says
• Commerce Clause Does Not Interfere with States
  Ability to Regulate Hunting and Fishing

4
Background

• But . . .Reid Bill Does Not Fix Everything
• New Law Does Not Limit --
• (1) applicability or effect of any Federal law
  related to the protection or management of fish
  or wildlife or to the regulation of commerce
• (2) authority of the United States to prohibit
  hunting or fishing on any portion of the lands
  owned by the United States

5
Background

• Litigation Continues . . .
• Must Courts Listen to Congress?
• Minnesota v. Hoeven
• Congressional interpretation of what is and is
  not interstate commerce is not controlling on the
  judicial branch. (On Appeal to the 8th Circuit)

6
Background

• Litigation Continues . . .
• Moving Past the Commerce Clause
• Taulman v. Hayden (Kansas)
• Privileges and Immunities
• Private Land Ownership

7
Background
SCIs Involvement In March 2005, SCI released a
statement in support of the Reid Bill
reaffirming state control over wildlife, even on
Federal lands. (For SCIs complete statement on
this issue, visit www.safariclub.org under Where
We Stand)
8
Background

• SCI commissioned research on state resident/non
  resident hunting opportunities.
• Phase I Research
• Cost and Tag Allocation
• Bear, Moose, Elk, Sheep and Goats
• All States With Seasons

9
Research

• Phase II Research
• Cost and Tag Allocation
• Deer
• All States

10
Research

• Survey Information Sources
• state fish game websites,
• hunting magazines (i.e. Hunting Fool),
• agency personnel
• WAFWA

11
Research

• Obstacles to Process
• Huge Volume of Information
• Data Required from Multiple Sources
• Difficulties in Comparing Differences in State
  Approaches

12
Data

• Four Typical Resident/Non Resident Disparities
• Costs (Licenses, Permits, Tags)
• Allocation (License, Permits, Tags)
• Access to Areas
• Hassle Factor (Hunting courses, state
  reciprocity, guide requirement, etc.)

13
Examples of Cost DifferentialElk
5x
8x
20x
15x
14
Examples of Cost DifferentialBear
8x
17x
10x
6x
15
Examples of Cost DifferentialMoose
19x
6x
13x
10x
16
Examples of Cost DifferentialSheep / Goat
5x
17x
19x
8x
17
Examples of CostDifferential
Average costs for elk hunting in Western states
is 4x higher for non-residents vs.
residents. Avg. Price for Residents 93.08 Avg
. Price for Non-Res 433.35 Average cost for
moose hunting in Western states is 3x higher for
non-residents vs. residents. Avg. Price for
Residents 308.00 Avg. Price for
Non-Res 1083.05 Data from the Western
Conservation Administration Officers Association
as of 7/31/05
18
Examples of Tag Allocation Differences

• In 2005, one states resident hunters received
  80 elk tags vs. none for non-residents.
• In another state, of 86 sheep tags issued, only 6
  went to non-resident hunters.

19
Example of Allocation Differences

• One state sets a cap at 10 for all non-resident
  moose hunters.
• Another state awarded 575 resident moose tags and
  only 12 non-resident tags.

20
Examples of Access Differences

• Resident moose hunters in one state have full
  access to all 19 state units, while non-resident
  moose hunters hunt in only six.
• In another state, non-resident moose hunters
  have access to only 56 of 116 available hunt
  units.

21
Examples of Access Differences

• The majority of elk units in one state are not
  even open to non-resident hunters.
• Non-resident elk hunters in another state are
  restricted to one zone and private land only.

22
Examples of Hassle Factor

• In one state, bear tag applications must be
  filled out in person at state fish game
  offices.
• Another state requires non-residents take a
  bear ID test before purchasing a license. (A
  score of 80 or better is mandatory).
• One state will only issue permits to hunters
  that attend in-state bear hunting seminars.
• Another state requires that non-resident
  mountain sheep hunting is done through licensed
  guides.

23
Research Plans and Goals

• Continue Survey
• Work with state legislators via the National
  Assembly of Sportsmens Caucuses (NASC).
• Encourage cooperation between legislators of
  different states. (e.g. regional committees).
• Coordinate efforts with IAFWA
• Discourage future litigation.

24
Research Plans and Goals

• Analyze Data for Comparison Value
• Make data available for use by SCI members.
• Make data available for use by the larger
  conservation community.