Why Non-Resident Hunters Pay More | Week of May 5

Capitol switchboard number: [phone]. This week we’re taking a closer look at why states are legally allowed to discriminate against non-resident hunters. Randy joins to explain the legal and historical background of this system and what it could mean for the future of hunting access. We also cover some major news stories affecting public lands and hunters: A controversial budget amendment from Mark Amodei (NV) and Celeste Maloy (UT) could result in the sale of at least 11,000 acres of BLM and Forest Service land in Nevada and Utah. The amendment passed committee without public input. Cuts to key federal land and wildlife agencies are also in the proposed budget, including major reductions to the Forest Service, BLM, Fish and Wildlife Service, and more. These cuts could significantly impact habitat research and conservation efforts. In Colorado, the Attorney General clarified that corner crossing from federal land to federal land is legal—though not when it involves state land. We break down what that means for public land users. In California, a bill that would have allowed hounds to haze bears in urban-wildlife conflict zones failed by just one vote but may return next year. Stick around for the deep dive discussion on the legal standing of non-resident hunting restrictions and what it means for access across the U.S. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices