I understand your feeling Fabrosman. It can get pretty problematic having out-of-state hunters competing with locals. But there are other solutions. Colorado, for instance has the seasons set up so that residents get first opportunities. The other problem is that, as several court cases currently running suggest, if a state "commodifies" thier game, then interstate trade laws would demand that ALL americans be given equal footing. Or, alternativly, since non-resident fees are the lion's share of funding for conservation departments, some lawyer could succesfully argue that the Non-resident hunters have a greater moral and legal claim on the game than the residents do. Not entirely unthinkable, since courts and activists are challenging the "Western Welfare" concept of resource management with low stumpage fees for loggers, grazing leases for ranchers and mining leases. Adding Game management into the list publicly-funded, privately-priviliged resources would suit certain lawyers and politicians eminantly...
As for myself, I have no real quarrel with residents having an advantage to hunting and fishing opportunities. I just think that the non-resident sportsmen should have a REASONABLE opportunity to participate. Not only do they pay for the resource in a level that outstrips the residents, they bring money into local economies that resident hunters do not. America has a democratic tradition to hunting, an egalitarian sense that all sportsmen have equal opportunities to succeed or fail on thier own. Excessivly exclusionary actions to certain participants though, is more like the old "king's deer" concept from the Old World.... Where it's not the hunter's skill that counts, just the circumstances of his birth... or residency...
ah well. enough soapbox.
Oh, and landowners? They have to own 3,000 acres or more to be included in a seperate draw pool, which still uses preference points.
