More Canada Restrictions Against US Hunters

Don

ND, SD, KS, AR, MO in the US and MB and AB in Canada have non-resident/alien waterfowling restrictions. I may have missed a few but the number is growing. If the state/province is wealthy in terms of waterfowl resources they either already have restrictions or probably will soon as more non-residents are locked out of other states and looking for opportunity away from home. IMHO this is the dawning of a new age in waterfowling. Outfitters are gaining control of the lands and laws thus squeezing freelancers out. Now I recognize a lot of this in Canada is due to US unlicensed outfitters setting up business in Canada and guiding illegally, but the freelancers are paying for these crimes when laws pass that restrict their access to the resource. The long term impacts to our continent's waterfowl populations and to the sport of waterfowling will be negative IMHO. That being loss of hunters and the support and political influence that benefit ducks and wetlands.
 
Last edited:
ND & SD have had non resident restrictions for many many years. To think that would not spread to other places is foolish thinking. It was just a matter of time. We are now living in that time.

As far as waterfowl hunting in PA. Move to another state and you will find out that PA is far better than ya think it is. The wealth of Pubic Hunting puts is up there. You can have waterfowl up to yer eyeballs, but with limited public hunting it does ya no good. I hunted waterfowl in PA from 1962 until 2009 and hunted Ohio for many years as I lived 5 miles from the state line. Neither place is like Canada but there is good hunting in each state if ya work at it. $200 for a non resident license with no time limits in this new age is a deal that may not last long.

Waterfowling has always been expensive and heavily regulated for a host of reasons. That is not going to change as long as hunting is permitted.

my 2 cents
 
I'm not sure where you live now Vince or where you lived in Pa., but it's gotten much worse over the years. The last several years with little to no winter has really hurt the hunting. I am in the extreme NW corner at Erie. Presque Isle is a shadow of what it once was even 10 years ago.
 
Don, for 60 1/2 years I lived in Shenango Valley very close to the river, and the dam. Mercer Co., Crawford Co. and further east has plenty of public hunting. Ohio in the west also lots of public hunting. Took lots of scouting to find where the birds were as the flight lanes are somewhat specific as are the time frames the birds are there. Took me years to learn that. I did spend time hunting your area many years ago, lots of time sitting and waiting. Presque Isle was always a feast or famine crap shoot.

I now live in western NY were there is very little public hunting and the total opposite of living in a Commonwealth. Thank goodness the fly fishing is so good, as is the deer hunting. A good amount of waterfowl here but a PITA to hunt and get permission most times. Antler Worship rules the roost.... Everything in life is a trade off. A few Wood ducks, teal and a Canada goose for Gumbo once in awhile, and I'm OK in Geezerhood.


Best regards
Vince
 
I find this really disappointing. I have been hunting in Canada since the early 1990s. Hunting license sales in Canada to residents have declined dramatically over the last 30 years. A few years ago the number of licenses sold to Americans exceeded those sold to Canadians.I guess the guides want that action. Many landowners that I've met in Saskatchewan and Alberta were perfectly willing to give permission to hunt on their land, but they made it clear that permission was only if we were freelancing. They didn't want guides profiting from hunting from the landowner's permission. But I have slowly seen that change, more guides (both Canadian and American guides) around and staying all fall in some locations and getting season long permission from landowners. The guides may profit but the small town motels, diners and gas stations will not be seeing the business from freelance hunters but they aren't likely to fight the guides at the natural resources ministry or in parliament. Some of this also may be the increasing number of American guides offering guides in Canada without the proper authorizations.

I doubt that this has to do with freelance "ugly Americans" running around and being disrespectful to the people or land. I am sure it happens, and maybe increasing with the generation of "YouTube hunters". I have only once heard of a landowner having issues with hunters hunting without permission. We have always made it clear that we will leave the land as we found it, we don't dig pits, we police our brass, we leave fences as we find them. We never take the permission for granted and ask for permission each day. It could be possible that attitudes have changed due to recent hunter behavior but I suspect you can find the real issue by following the money.
 
It's depressing and frustrating reading about the parade of states and provinces going this route. No doubt bad apples bear some responsibility for poor landowner relations, but as Brad said the bottom line is money. Is it ever anything else? It's going to be the death of hunting and fishing, even though conservation money has historically been a savior in restoration of wildlife and their habitats.

While on my soap box, I'll toss out my usual gripe about the existence of guides for hunting or fishing. In addition to selling fish and game to the highest bidder, a side effect is these types of restrictions for the hunter and the loss of free access. And by hunter, I mean the guy who does it himself (many of you guys call it freelancing). The paying sport is a shooter, period. It can be argued that the leases paid by the guides help the landowner keep his farm, and possibly maintain nesting habitat if the farmer is so inclined so that's in the plus column for guides.

I wish there was a way to put a halt to the OOS restrictions, at least in the states. No doubt there are various constitutional states rights and other legal issues in the way, but it would be nice if there was a federal law or regulation requiring states to permit equal season access to migratory birds. The local stuff, pheasants, deer, turkeys, squirrels, rabbits etc. are the states purview to regulate as they please.
 
One must include LITIGATION concerning todays hunting on someone else's property. We live in the age of "Sue Happy". Farmers and ranchers especially are very aware of that. Does leasing reduce that? I dunno, but it should be included in Follow The Money. I do know that in some places if ya pay to hunt the property (freelancers as well as guided hunts) for even one day you must show proof of Medical Insurance, and sign a waiver with many conditions. These are the times we now live in. The days of asking for and getting permission that many of us enjoyed for so many years in the past with a handshake are getting to be very rare.
 
I agree with Brad, money is the driving force behind this. Look what happened to the Eastern shore in Maryland. The money game ruined the hunting down there... either you have lots of money to lease a place or pay a guide to take you. Just my 2 cents.
 
SJ

There is one thing the feds have in their authority to do and that is pull back funds to states that deny equal access to non-residents. I don't know if we are alone in our concerns about these walls being built, but should folks at the fed level take a dim view they do have financial levers to exert force on states. For example the feds pulling transportation funds away from states who didn't raise their drinking age to 21. I doubt this issue is making waves at higher levels, but there are means when the higher powers want change.
 
Last edited:
One other comment I have on this topic stems from my observation of how Kansas changes came about. I watched some of the process online as they record and publish public hearings with the state G&F commission. The power and influence these governor appointed commissions have cannot be underestimated. These commissions are commonly made up from successful businessmen or people otherwise well connected. During the KS hearings I saw just a couple commissioners push hard for the non-resident restriction. State employees were providing data and info to the commission and to me it appeared the state employees were servants to the commissioners. It didn't look like the commissioners were an advisory board, rather they were in charge of the G&F employees and dictating new policies. Bottom line is on this topic I saw big changes at the hands of just a few. Makes me wonder if the public has much influence, or do these commissions have power that rank and file hunters have no means to counterbalance.
 
Eric Patterson said:
SJ

There is one thing the feds have in their authority to do and that is pull back funds to states that deny equal access to non-residents. I don't know if we are alone in our concerns about these walls being built, but should folks at the fed level take a dim view they do have financial levers to exert force on states. For example the feds pulling transportation funds away from states who didn't raise their drinking age to 21. I doubt this issue is making waves at higher levels, but there are means when the higher powers want change.
Click to expand...
Eric,

I was thinking the same about funding. The question is, does anyone with the power to do it believe as we do, or do they side with those who would restrict access?
 
SJ Fairbank said:
Eric,

I was thinking the same about funding. The question is, does anyone with the power to do it believe as we do, or do they side with those who would restrict access?
Click to expand...
I think we are in the minority. I also think it is a viewpoint that us older hunters outside of these states hold because we have a deeper understanding of the relationship between access and participation and the importance of hunter numbers for managing the resource.
 
Eric Patterson said:
One other comment I have on this topic stems from my observation of how Kansas changes came about. I watched some of the process online as they record and publish public hearings with the state G&F commission. The power and influence these governor appointed commissions have cannot be underestimated. These commissions are commonly made up from successful businessmen or people otherwise well connected. During the KS hearings I saw just a couple commissioners push hard for the non-resident restriction. State employees were providing data and info to the commission and to me it appeared the state employees were servants to the commissioners. It didn't look like the commissioners were an advisory board, rather they were in charge of the G&F employees and dictating new policies. Bottom line is on this topic I saw big changes at the hands of just a few. Makes me wonder if the public has much influence, or do these commissions have power that rank and file hunters have no means to counterbalance.
Click to expand...
I spend several nights each month in local commission meeting representing my clients projects. Been doing it for more than forty years. As far as I can tell, the majority of people on commissions get on for one of three reasons:
1. They are idealists who believe they can make a positive difference.
2. It's a political steppingstone.
3. They have an axe to grind and want to exert their power to obtain their objective.

The people in #3 are the ones who usually run the show. The idealists are long view people, settling for incremental changes without making too many waves. The aspiring politicians tread lightly for the most part, they just want a check box on the CV. Every once in a while somebody is appointed or elected who doesn't fit the 1, 2, or 3 mold, but not often.

So best guess from afar is that the KS deal was done long before the meeting by people with an agenda. The state employees are just toadies to their bosses, if the governor appointed the commissioners they know who's calling the shots.
 
Eric Patterson said:
I think we are in the minority. I also think it is a viewpoint that us older hunters outside of these states hold because we have a deeper understanding of the relationship between access and participation and the importance of hunter numbers for managing the resource.
Click to expand...
It occurs to me that most of the states with such restrictions have little to no navigable waterways, save the big rivers. Waterfowlers such as myself enjoy "freelancing" in large measure because of the vast public trust areas available to us. In states without big water, maybe they just don't have the same traditional sense of free access that we do.

Think I'll stop by the Post Office today and pick up a few duck stamps. Then I'll be thinking about hunting and I'll feel better. :)
 
SJ

That last part very much matches what I observed. It was eye opening how major changes were driven by just a few who wanted a change for reasons that to me came across as self serving. That's how I perceived it.
 
Eric Patterson said:
I think we are in the minority. I also think it is a viewpoint that us older hunters outside of these states hold because we have a deeper understanding of the relationship between access and participation and the importance of hunter numbers for managing the resource.
Click to expand...

I agree with you Eric. Not understanding the effects of legislation on managing the resource is much more common these days. Here in NY they have new laws pertaining to background checks for all guns & ammo (muzzle loaders included) that can take days to verify. So many folks just do not buy. I can only imagine the effect that is going to have on Pittman Robinson funds. It appears that conservation & hunting are going to suffer dearly with no good answers in sight. A balance and understanding of those folks concerned on all sides of the issues must be struck and ASAP.
 
Vince Pagliaroli said:
One must include LITIGATION concerning todays hunting on someone else's property. We live in the age of "Sue Happy". Farmers and ranchers especially are very aware of that. Does leasing reduce that? I dunno, but it should be included in Follow The Money. I do know that in some places if ya pay to hunt the property (freelancers as well as guided hunts) for even one day you must show proof of Medical Insurance, and sign a waiver with many conditions. These are the times we now live in. The days of asking for and getting permission that many of us enjoyed for so many years in the past with a handshake are getting to be very rare.
Click to expand...
One thing that keeps so much private land in Maine open to hunting, fishing, and other recreation is a landowner liability law that a friend who is a personal injury attorney calls a travesty. Essentially, if you allow the public to recreate on your land, you are pretty much immune from liablity for any injury or harm they may suffer while there. We are still seeing an increase in posted land. That's mostly in the higher population parts of the state, but there are a handful of long-standing private hunting and fishing leases in more remote areas, and we seem to be seeing more of that. Fortunately, we are also seeing more and more ownership by conservation groups--the Nature Conservancy, Appalachian Mountain Club, and many local landtrusts--that ensure public access, including hunting and fishing, in perpetuity. https://www.maine.gov/IFW/hunting-trapping/accessing-private-land/landowner-liability.html
 
Jeff Reardon said:
One thing that keeps so much private land in Maine open to hunting, fishing, and other recreation is a landowner liability law that a friend who is a personal injury attorney calls a travesty. Essentially, if you allow the public to recreate on your land, you are pretty much immune from liablity for any injury or harm they may suffer while there. https://www.maine.gov/IFW/hunting-trapping/accessing-private-land/landowner-liability.html
Click to expand...

That's the way it should be. Would open up more land.

I'm curious about the Canadian provinces in question and maybe somebody knows. Do you have to have a guide for big game, and if so is that new or prior to the waterfowl hunting rules?
 
greg setter said:
That's the way it should be. Would open up more land.

I'm curious about the Canadian provinces in question and maybe somebody knows. Do you have to have a guide for big game, and if so is that new or prior to the waterfowl hunting rules?
Click to expand...
I seem to remember Yukon Mike talking about this, it seems like, at least in certain areas, non-citizens did need guides for big game. But that could be only for limited draw species. Wonder what Mike is up to these days??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top