Email Response About nonresidents hunting SOA’s and Mentor hunts.

Dear Alabama Resident,

We received your email expressing concern over nonresidents being eligible to participate in the Alabama Wildlife & Freshwater Fisheries Division’s Adult Mentored Hunt Program. Out of state hunters are also eligible for permit selection in the limited quota hunts at Fred T. Stimpson and other Special Opportunity Areas. Permit selections are made by a computer-controlled, random process from a pool of both Alabama residents and nonresidents.

Your inference that only tax-paying Alabama citizens should benefit from these programs reflects a potential misunderstanding of how we are able to provide them. We develop, maintain, and manage over 750,000 acres of public land using funds derived from hunting license sales and federal allocation of Pittman-Robertson Act dollars. An Alabama resident’s taxes do not support these programs as our Agency receives no Alabama General Fund tax dollars. Therefore, a nonresident who purchases an Alabama hunting license supports Alabama’s public land acquisition, wildlife management, and conservation enforcement efforts more than the average Alabama taxpayer. In addition, many Alabama hunters are license exempt (under 16, over 65, landowners and their immediate family), and so our programs are often supported more by one nonresident hunter than an entire Alabama family hunting their own land. Looking at numbers, nonresident hunters are as essential as resident hunters when it comes to enabling the management, protection, and conservation of Alabama’s wildlife resources.

In addition to funding considerations, our sincere desire is for any sportsman to consider hunting Alabama, and we are eager to provide opportunities to our state residents and nonresidents alike. Please feel free to call me if you’d like to discuss this further or if you have any other questions about our programs. Thank you for your interest in the Alabama Wildlife & Freshwater Fisheries Division’s offerings and for your continued status as a valued hunter.

Sincerely,

~Marianne

Marianne Hudson

Alabama Department of Conservation & Natural Resources

Division of Wildlife & Freshwater Fisheries – Wildlife Section

334-242-1814

cid:image001.jpg@01D30206.5E2C3090

Eric, this is America. united we stand divided we fall. May of the Out of State hunters were born and raised in Bama too. Still own land there and pay taxes, yet we still have to buy out of state license. What about all the Bama hunters going fishing or hunting out of state. Do you want doors closed on them too? Think about it. Licenses and sportsmen fund the Dept of wildlife. They paid to bring whitetail back to Bama after they were nearly wiped out years ago. ALL SPORTSMAN must be united to continue to enjoy our favorite pastimes.

Heck yeah, let's close all these hunts to 'current' Alabama residents, they don't contribute enough.

Exactly what part of that response don't you understand Eric?

Who said I didn’t understand it. I don’t agree with it.

All they're saying is that non-residents hunters contribute just as much as resident hunters (technically more from license sales per person), which is why they're allowed to hunt SOA's. I agree with it. You're allowed to apply for draw hunts in almost every state as an out of state resident.

Yes ma'am may we have another!!

Basically a "screw you residents" and they will do what they want because Chuck says so! Good government mentality there Marianne!

Fair enough. We just disagree.

You guys that don't agree with this, please state a logical argument as to why non-residents shouldn't be allowed to hunt SOA's.

It's basic economics. The state is about the $$$ and out of staters bring in way more than the locals.

You want to know what I dont agree with..... I lived in AL for 30 years and own land in AL. My 21 yr old son, who is no longer an Alabama Resident, has to get an AL out of state license $306, to hunt on property that he grew up on and his daddy still owns, that he will end up inheriting some day. That's some BS right there. There is an exemption for immediate family members but only if they are AL residents.

You should’ve bought a lifetime license for your son before he moved.

I've had a lifetime license in AL since probably before you were born. Didnt think about getting him a lifetime because he was 3 yrs old when we moved.

I'm a resident who has absolutely no interest in the SOA hunts.
I'll proudly relinquish my position to an out of state hunter

And I'm now an out of state hunter that has absolutely no interest in the SOA hunts.

I'll proudly relinquish my position to an in state hunter.

Some of you goobers are just self centered. What about the draw hunts Bama hunters partake in in Illi or Kansas. You must live in a hole. This is America. You also have the right to spend your money in other states. SMH, I grew up thgere and every freaking year I've paid over $300 to hunt in Alabama. tell you what, why not a minimum requirement. You have to live there longer than ten years to qualify for a license? More small minded ideas. That please you?

My position is not whether it is okay or not, it is the condescending attitude that is communicated from the State towards the residents, which by the way seems to come from the top down. Or, maybe that is just the general governmental employee attitude towards those that pay for their job!

Dang man, haven't you also been talked down to when trying to buy a car tag? They always get an attitude when they work for the Gobment. Twelve people in the room. 8 to ten standing drinking coffee and the remaining working do the job, very slow! They get that way because it's almost impossible to fire crappy Gobment workers. you should visit the VA sometime, Soc Sec is terrible too.

I’ve hunted several states, and never was I treated like I was a resident. In most states residents are treated a notch above nonresidents. Not here. Nonresidents are equal to, or above.

The people that are opposing this obviously don't understand the Pittman-Robertson act and how it works. It's federal money that comes from a "tax" on sales of bunting, sporting related items. It's the entire basis of the argument that conservation is funded by hunters. The state isn't paying for it

I'm not an Alabama resident but I've hunted in Alabama my entire life. Grew up hunting in bama and will probably continue hunting in bama until I die. I pay my $300 non-resident license fee to hunt every year which gives me the ability to hunt on land just the same as a resident of Alabama. I think these SOA hunts are great and its no different than what many other states do. I did get selected for one of the SOA hunts but it wasn't the one that I really wanted to do so I declined but I will be applying next year as well.

It blows my mind that someone would have a problem with non-residents being able to participate in these hunts. Especially since none of the "resident" taxes fund these programs. These programs are funded by both resident and non-resident hunters and not general fund tax dollars.

If you really believe that nonsense your spouting, read the Bud Meadows thread in the serious forum and how he was treated last week. I can assure you he wasnt treated better than an AL resident.

I've hunted in IL, GA, TX, LA, KS, MS, KY, and the great state of duck hunting Arkansas. Never been treated any different as a non-resident than I have been as a resident by any govt employee, game check station employee or agency. Locals are a different story. I can tell you with 100% certainty that the locals over in Arkansas dont like the boys from surrounding states hunting their ducks. GW's, shops, check stations etc all treated me with the same respect that i would get and expect from someone at home. As long as you're where you're supposed to be and have the proper licenses and paperwork, it's no different in my experience.

So do other states that deny/limit hunting opportunities for non-residents (e.g., Tennessee and elk, Florida and public land Osceola draw hunts) not use federal dollars to support their elk/turkey hunting endeavors? I know that some areas in Illinois limit the number of non-residents that can hunt on certain public land tracts, but place no similar restrictions on residents during the same time period.

Should non-residents be eligible to hunt, sure, should limits and/or preferences be given to residents ... maybe.

It they pay for a license they can hunt just like a resident IMO. Same for me in another state. I have no issues with it. Also would not have an issue with residents getting better odds in a draw, as other states often do. Since this is the first year for the SOA, I wouldn't be surprised to see it tweaked a little the next few years

Exactly!!

There is NOTHING condescending in Marianne’s response. She stated facts and y’all don’t like it so you blame it on something other than your hurt feelings. If it wasn’t for OOS license sales the state would have to cut a lot of what it does. They contribute to conservation in this state no different than a resident, who don’t even have to pay to hunt their own land if you need a reminder. They’re taking the same resource and the OOS hunter contributes MORE than a resident. You’d better be glad we have people willing to spend their money to hunt here.

X2 what Matt said.

I read the email before I read any post. My initial thoughts after reading it was 1). DAYUM, I can't believe he actually got a response. I don't know how common or rare that is with DCNR, but in the corporate world its as rare as hens teeth. 2). The woman came off professional and knowledgeable. 3). I didn't care personally before, I see both sides, and it really doesn't bother me now.

I do have one question though. When the license exempt are mentioned publicaly why is the active military and handicapped people never mentioned with the group?? If you're going after them for a license, be an adult and say we want active military and handicapped pulling their own weight in Alabama, no special perks, or just stay away from Alabama. We don't want your kind if you don't pay.

Out of state veterans and Elderly get a high license fee too. I recently paid $130 something for three freaking days. Here I get hunting and fishing annual for $5. Everything!

Annual Resident Handicap license for hunting, fishing and Saltwater fishing combined is $12.50. Best deal of my life. But I have paid full price for all for approximately 36 years prior. Thats still not exempt but it does help.

Logic arguement is that it should be weighted towards Residents just like the majority of nationwide draws.

Here's the math based on 2005 license numbers at today's prices of $306 for an out of state and $26 for an in state license.

Out of state licenses sold in 2005 - 44,002 = $13,464,612 revenue to AL

In state licenses sold in 2005 - 255,022 = $6,630,572 revenue to AL

These numbers aren't close to being exact and assume everyone buys an all-game license but they definitely prove exactly what Matt is saying. Without the out of state hunters $$$, the Bama residents would have a lot less hunting opportunities.

I will add this to the conversation. Mississippi has a 3500 acre public land draw area called “canemount” that is open to RESIDENTS only.

Can you elaborate on that statement? Out of state hunting license is $306.25 per year, and a resident is $26.60, so how is a nonresident "equal to, or above" a resident?

I hunted Canemount before it became a WMA and any resident here would love to hunt that place, promise.

Canemount is similar to President's Island in Memphis, right? Resident only, draw or SOA type deal?

Funny story about Canemount for those familiar with it. Had a buddy that hunted it before the state bought it when it was a guided hunt place. Anyhow, he killed a nice 146" 9 point on his last morning there. He threw it in the back of his truck and started back to Natchez. He decided to stop at the country store there in Lorman to get a drink and snack for the short 45 minute drive home. While he was in the store (what we assume was) couple of locals pulled up and stole his deer.

He never saw the deer again and all the fellas standing around outside the store said, "we ain't seen nothin" when they were questioned.

It wasn't funny back then, but now I chuckle every time I think about it.

My understanding is it's a draw and then you have to pay $300 to hunt it if you are drawn. And yes, resident only.

As an out of state hunter who got drawn for an SOA hunt this year, I appreciated it.

I also got a hotel room, ate at local restaurants, bought fuel. It seems like common sense that they bring in more $$ from out of state hunters.

It would be like saying all Florida beaches are closed to non-residents, Gulf, etc.

OP, if you don't mind telling what was the reason/question you asked to get that response?

After reading response from dcnr and reply's to post, some observations
1. thought it was spot
2. replies really got me to thinking if the answer was spot on
3. is a follow up in the making with idea's, suggestions, etc., with tweaking the SOA hunts, leaning a little to in state hunters, maybe an area/hunt for in state only, similar to hunts that go on in other states?

Very good point. All of those huge condos and attractions werent paid for by the locals. It was paid for by the tourists. Im glad that some OOS hunters still think Bama has good enough hunting to pay $300+/year to hunt here.

I think we should limit the non-resident to no more than 10 percent of SOA hunt slots, following the lead of our sister state Kentucky and its elk tag lottery.
I’ve long thought Alabama non-resident license fees should mirror whatever it costs an Alabama resident to hunt in that state.
For example, If it’s $200 for a Tennessee license for an Alabaman to hunt there, we charge them $200. If it’s $700 for an Alabama guy to hunt in New Mexico, it costs the New Mexican $700 to hunt here. It’ll never pass, but seems fair to me.

I thought the response was very thorough, honest, and professional. Don't see how anyone could honestly ask or expect anything more from a public service department.

I guess a lot of folks really do like the blow smoke, tell me what I want to hear even if it ain't true approach.

The truth is painful sometimes.
Looking around, If I read it correctly a non-resident license in MS. to hunt deer with a bow/muzzleloader/primitive weapon would cost $300 big game, $75 bow charge, $5 deer permit and all 3 each carry some processing fees of just under $5(total of $15), so just under $400.

I am an out of state hunter although I own a place and property in Alabama and pay property taxes. I buy out of state license for about $300 each year and I believe that to be fair. If I were "Alabama resident" hunting on my own property I would not have to buy license, The state is $300 ahead each year.

could you explain that to me? I would think with less out of state hunters, residents would have more hunting opportunities.

Pretty simple. Did you see how much $ NR hunters contribute to the budget? Without those funds we would have to cut programs, public lands and opportunity.

but wouldnt that pale in comparison to the amount of hunting land that was freed up from out of state hunters?

I don’t think it would. How would taking NR hunters out of the equation increase resident license sales? You’d have to replace Each NR hunter with 14 resident license buyers to make up the difference. That ain’t happening.

only if you was trying to break even financially. That money might help with the wma's and such. But it it free up a pile of land, that locals could hunt on leased land. So for a person like me who dont hunt management land, I would have alot more opertunites for leased land.

I'll give an example. A few years ago i checked on a club in barbour county. The whole club was FL hunters and they only wanted folks that lived a good ways away. So the 2 retired Fl guys who camped on it all of deer season could hunt it for themselves. He was telling me about all the clubs around their club, all Fl clubs. Same thing in my area, probably over half the land is out of state folks leasing.

I just dont see how the out of state money benefits me, the least little bit.

But the point of this thread is regarding SOA's...public land.

A little selfish???

Ya, just forgot about all the Alabama residents who hunt public land and can’t afford to lease a place.

i agree it does create some opportunities. But i dont think it provides more opportunities than it would without O.O.S.'s. In your case it might benefit you more, but I'm saying as a whole.

In regards to op. I would have probably felt the same way, but on the outside looking in. I think the lady has a point.

I also think the dcnr is more concerned about money than the resource.JMO

On the contribution of dollars....You also have to take into consideration the matching power of the license revenue.. Thanks to the PR act, a lot of license revenue is eligible for a 3:1 federal match... Effectively turning $1 of license revenue into $4 (up to a certain extent)... Makes that non-resident dollar pretty valuable!!!!

Ultimately it's always more about the money. There is no difference between the public or private sectors in that regard.

OH SNAP!!!!!!! No you didn't!!!!