Trad Gang
Main Boards => PowWow => Topic started by: Friends call me Pac on August 27, 2010, 03:56:00 AM
-
I've been in invited to hunt with TG members in other states and have been checking the cost for a non resident hunting license. For the most part all I can say is egads!!
Ohio was about the same as Arkansas and TN was looking good until I started seeing all the other things I think you have to buy.
Guess I'm not going anywhere anytime soon unless someone can point me in the right direction. Any suggestions?
-
its just the way it is......pay up or stay home. I usually hunt MD,OH, and PA and have several hundred invested in tags alone....this year add 350 for montana...but I hunt in different places with different people so its much worth it.
-
It's pretty insanely out of control if you ask me.You can archery only hunt in VT for 75 dollars.Others states you can't even touch that price.Those of us that make less than peanuts are the worst hit.But that's life.I'm headed to OH this year.Gotta pay to play.
-
Tis why I've been hunting at home more instead of going else where, too much money for me right now.
-
I know it just cost me $549 for a non res either sex Elk tag for Colorado plus another $380 for a bear tag. Will be worth it what ever happens when I come over from Australia in a couple weeks and trust me, earning peanuts over here is the same as in the US
-
Even resident licenses in Ohio are out of control. I really love my WVa lifetime license.
-
I can tell you NJ has some ridiculous license fees for residents. And what a non-resident would pay is extremely high for a chance to not see anything. :laughing: In some states maybe it's cheaper use a buddies address and get a resident drivers license and then get a resident license.
-
i think s.c. out of state is $175, the fine for hunting without a license is $180. just looking at the math...
-
High fees?
I would not complain about the cost of a hunting tag.
Try golf if you want to compare the cost of hunting vs another sport. Greens fees will stand you up for sure. Or down hill sking. Most tickets for a day start around 60 dollars. For one day!
Costs for resident tags (for the most part anyway) are a long way from being outrageous. And why wouldn't a state charge a premium for non-residents to access their game resource. Try out of state tuition for your kids if you want to really know what expensive can be... :0)
The glass is half full...
Joshua
-
Non resident costs ARE outrageous, especially for those states out west that have a TON of public land where the majority of the hunting takes place. It is a total rip off and abuse of their power. Taxation without representation at its finest. But we want to go hunting and take it.
Wyoming, as an example, receives more than half of their funding for their DNR (whatever they call it) from non-resident funds. That is from their web site information.
ChuckC
-
Iowa tags are off the charts for white tailed deer, somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 bucks! You also stand a chance of seeing a magnificent mature white tailed buck. Im gonna guess though that if you are hunting out of state, with the exception of living close to your states border and hunting the neighboring state, the cost of non resident tags probably isnt the only big hit to your hunting budget. Take a look at guided hunts for almost any critter and out of state do it yourself hunts suddenly start looking pretty smart even with the cost of non resident tags.
-
Mazzoura is pretty cheap for NR. Alaska is way below average.
-
Kansas is pretty high.
If Missouri is the "Show Me" state then Kansass is the "Give Me" state... ;)
-
Kansas is worth every penny.. I paid $630 the year I didn't draw and $330.00 when I did.. Yes you could have a 200" deer walk under you any day! I didn't see any that big but for sure 170"+ deer...
You get ONE turn in life.. Spend the money and go enjoy it!
I leave tomorrow for South Dakota. I have three Antelope tags and paid $245.00.. A value everyday.
John III
-
anyone who thinks Ohio is high just does not get out enough.
-
And to think I get mad when the wind is wrong and I have to walk the extra 200 yards to the "other" stand behind the house...RC
-
Originally posted by ChuckC:
Non resident costs ARE outrageous, especially for those states out west that have a TON of public land where the majority of the hunting takes place. It is a total rip off and abuse of their power. ...
ChuckC
From the perspective of someone comes from Maine and now lives "out west" I can tell you that all that public land you think is out here just teaming with game waiting for more hunters to ease their pain is quite the misconception. I know for sure you won't pay to hunt on private land, where the odds are improved, (places I can't access either), so how is it that you should hunt in my neighborhood for near what we as residents pay? After all, we are the ones who are left with the place after you go back home when the vacation is over.
We have to save up preference points ourselves for the better units and maybe a couple times in a long life get to hunt them. Its a reality that the resource is heavily sought after already and that trend is only going to increase.
Things that are of value usually are limited in number and therefore have some kind of worth placed upon them. And out of state tags reflect that premium.
Funny no one gripes about the cost of hunting tags in the District of Columbia. But wait a minute- theres nothing of value to hunt there....
Joshua
-
All that public land is just that. . . public. federal land in most cases. and that's right.. I get it for a week or two and you get it all year long.
You get to hunt all the game on it cause you can afford the tags, plus, you have a much better opportunity to even GET the tags in the first place. I have no problem with limits.. residents should get first dibs.
But the "its the only game in town so lets get their money while we can" mentality is plainly seen.
I sure don't see folks out there complaining when I belly up to the cash register and pay for my rent, my food, my gas, and everything else that about 25% of the folks out there count on each year.
If nobody from out of state showed up out there for a year or two how many of those businesses would still be there ?
Joshua. . you talk about 60 dollar a day lift tickets. . if I buy a bear tag and an elk tag in Colorado and I hunt for a week, that is over 100 dollars a day !
ChuckC
-
I think hunting licenses are of the best buys in the outdoor world. In most states you can buy a resident hunting license for the price of three, broadhead-tipped arrows.
A hundred years of sportsmen and women buying these licenses have secured very strong wildlife populations of all kinds -- hunted and non-hunted. With the science-based wildlife management and enforcement we have today it wouldn't take long to take huge strides backwards.
The NR license permit is daunting until I put it in perspective. I'll spend $150 on a deer permit in Indiana again this year for the privilege to hunt in Hoosier-land. I'll spend, I hope, about 9 days hunting in Indiana on three trips. I'll drive 750 miles (at least). The gas will cost me nearly $150.00. I won't have lodging costs and I don't count meals because I'd spend that at home.
I was going to hunt Roosevelt Elk in Oregon this year. I would have had about $2,000 in fuel, lodging, and the permit. The permit would have been about $640 of this amount. Had I flown it would have cost about the same because of extra and overweight luggage to bring the beast's steaks and rack home.
The license fee is the only part of my hunting that is a bargain. I own only one bow that cost less than a western NR license.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I may be biased and am certainly blessed with lots of inside knowledge about fees and their value -- I'm a retired wildlife biologist who worked in IN, KS, MO, and KY. But, I was a hunter before and after this career.
-
Whoops...."without the science based wildlife management...we'd take huge strides backwards". Sheesh, when these brain cells die they take some of my words with em.
-
The animals you want to hunt are owned by each state, not the federal government. The animals are owned by the people of each state and are regulated by that state. I pay $72 for my hunting license and tags for Bear, Cougar, Deer, and Elk as a group tag purchase. Out of staters pay $720. I pay all of my taxes here, gas tax, sales tax, Pittman Roberts Tax, etc.. etc... etc... This as a resident allows me the benefit of not having to pay as much to hunt.
While I personally and my state Game Department welcome out of state hunters they are going to pay to play. No non-resident has the right to tell another state what to charge. That is up to the voters of each state to decide. I am hosting a couple of out of state hunters in prime elk country in a couple of weeks to help them get on animals and lower their costs by not having to hire a guide. Just my way of helping fellow trad gangers out.
If you don't like the prices and want to hunt here on the cheap. Then move here. Problem solved. Nonresident hunters are guests of the state and are choosing to hunt there, ipso facto they have no right to claim their not being represented. By "choosing" to hunt there they are by default agreeing to the decision on the charges they pay. If you don't like the prices in a state, voice your protest by spending your hunting money in another state.
-
Originally posted by ChuckC:
...
Joshua. . you talk about 60 dollar a day lift tickets. . if I buy a bear tag and an elk tag in Colorado and I hunt for a week, that is over 100 dollars a day !
ChuckC
Point taken.
Don't think we don't want you out here or don't appreciate that you work for your money- we do. I think we disagree on whether your cost is of fair value or not. I still think its a good value regardless of the affordibility issue, which is another subject.
Regarding whether or not public land means we should not charge some fees to access the game. I just don't have a problem with game regulations in general. A lot of people have input in how they are designed. Some of them are smart. Not all of them, but some of them. I like to think they get it right some of the time.
J-
-
States are careful how much they charge for their fees. The states want NR hunters to come to help support the tourism economy and of course the agency. States will generally keep track of what their "competitor" states (neighbors) are charging. They don't usually like to be the "cheapest" or the highest (of course some one has to be).
A few years ago a western state raised its NR fees too much. They experienced too large a drop in NR hunters the next year. Because the NR fees also help to keep Resident fees lower, this state reduced its fee a bit for subsequent years.
Resident license fees are especially sensitive. In the east (I don't know as much about the west) conservation economists determined a few years ago that for every $1 hike in the price of a resident license fee 4% of the resident hunters will drop out. So, states have to be very careful or raising fees can actually reduce available revenue. This boggles my mind -- how can $1 cause anyone to drop out of hunting? Then I have to realize that many hunters are not nearly as avid as most of you and I. The only thing that can keep me from hunting is a closed season! You'd be surprised to know what the "churn" rate is in your state for hunting and fishing. Churn is the number of people who skip hunting from one year or every two years to the next. It is as high as 40% for fishermen and 20% for hunters in many states. One of the things agencies are trying to do these days is to reduce the churn rate -- keep people buying licenses every year. This is why "sportsmen-all-in-one" (bundled) licenses are becoming common place -- offer a discount to get us to buy a license covering everything we might hunt as early in the year as possible. Many states make thousands of dollars in increased interest (if they are allowed by their state laws to do so) with these early in the year dollars.
-
Interesting conversation...but there is a thread in here that animals are owned or are products of a capitalistic market system. There are not. They are wildlife that are cared for by each state. Big difference. BTW: If they were a product then they would be covered by the interstate commerce clause which would mean we all would pay the same.
Nonetheless, clearly it takes money to manage the resource, but the huge imbalance between res and non-res fees is getting way too much.
And Bowwild, I thought your information was interesting, but maybe states should worry less about churn. Set fair fees and let the level water mark be found. That way they have a more consistent budget from year to year, there is a clearer balance between non-res and res fees, and tourism doesn't suffer.
-
Josh please don't read me wrong. . I am complaining, but I still come out there whenever I can. I hunt federal land when out west. We all pay taxes on that property and frankly, the land is used for nearly free or for some rediculously low fee by the ranchers in the area. Talk about subsidies. The difference in fees is, in my mind very wrong.
We have argued this point before, ad nauseum. Search for earlier threads and you will see. All these points were brought up, but the fact is, as a non-resident hunting on federal land, I get to pay as much as ten times, or even more, than a resident.
For the big ticket items, like moose, goats and sheep, we are talking 1,500 or more dollars just for a chance to go chase them.
Heck, I hear (am I wrong ?) that it costs me 70 dollars a year just to get a preference point in Wyoming for a moose or a goat. . each mind you ! I am gonna guess I need ten or more points. Add 700 dollars to the already 1500 or more for the tag. Cha ching cha ching
Yes, hunting and fishng licenses are a great deal. . . for residents.
ChuckC
-
I live in California, and hunt out of state a fair bit with my son. So no stranger to the big non resident fees. In our case we could wait till we finally get an Elk tag here,-how long might that take? I'm 65 and want to hunt while I'm still alive.
I can get OTC tags in nearby UT, WA and OR; so that's what we do for ELK. This year my son will be in school and I'm hunting SW WA with Ragnarok Forge, and stickandstring-how cool is that?
-
The folks who intermittently hunt and fish from year to year have many reasons. They will say no time, lost hunting land, lost friend, doing other things, rained opening day, etc. Of course these days lost job is going to be a big one, and rightfully so because it a rare person who needs money only for a hunting license when they decide to hunt.
States are trying to get better at marketing hunting instead of just taking for granted that hunters and fishermen will keep coming. In 2009, hunting licenses in 34 states were lower -- some by 20-30% than they were in 1999. To inspire us to hunt every year they try to remind us how fun, rewarding, and necessary hunting is. Again, it is difficult for most on this site to imagine anyone inspiring us to hunt because we are hard-wired for it.
In 2004, the Outdoor Writers of America reported that only 25% of the children of hunters and fishermen were taking up these pursuits.
It would be really interesting to see states narrow the gap between resident and NR license prices. Even if they were equal the NR would still spend much more on travel expenses than residents. However, you can bet to narrow the gap the resident fee would have to come up a lot as the NR license went down. Residents would really squawk. In fact, much of the pressure for higher nonresident fees comes from the resident who doesn't want the NR competing for available hunting space.
Others have written above. The people of the state owns the wildlife, not the nonresident and not the landowner. The wildlife agency is required (in most cases) to provide for the perpetuation of all wildlife species in the state. Things that cause the NR license to be more expensive include: residents want this to be the case, the agency figures the NR can afford or is willing to pay more, and that's been the standard procedure.
I understand and support this system and these strategies. I've been part of these kinds of decisions. Frankly, I'd love more of a chance to draw rare tags such as Shiras Moose, Bighorn Sheep, and Goats but they aren't available in my state -- heck, according to current odds it will take my 51 more years to draw one of the new KY Elk tags! But like someone wrote above, if I want to improve my chances a little bit I could move to another state. In fact, when my son-in-law gets reassigned (Air Force) to the U.S. in 1.5 more years he intends to head to the Pacific NW. They are holding one of my grandchildren "hostage" so I might have to follow them.
-
I think MD is 130.for nr
-
Originally posted by Hill Hunter:
anyone who thinks Ohio is high just does not get out enough.
I agree completely. If you ask me the Ohio non resident fees aren't quite high enough. Aside from the higher small game license all of the large game tags are the same price as for residents.
-
I got to looking at Michigan's, for a resident deer license, it's $15, and an out of state deer tag is $138. I would gladly pay that as a resident. It's just chump change when you look at the whole big picture.
-
Originally posted by Ragnarok Forge:
The animals you want to hunt are owned by each state, not the federal government. The animals are owned by the people of each state and are regulated by that state. I pay $72 for my hunting license and tags for Bear, Cougar, Deer, and Elk as a group tag purchase. Out of staters pay $720. I pay all of my taxes here, gas tax, sales tax, Pittman Roberts Tax, etc.. etc... etc... This as a resident allows me the benefit of not having to pay as much to hunt.
While I personally and my state Game Department welcome out of state hunters they are going to pay to play. No non-resident has the right to tell another state what to charge. That is up to the voters of each state to decide. I am hosting a couple of out of state hunters in prime elk country in a couple of weeks to help them get on animals and lower their costs by not having to hire a guide. Just my way of helping fellow trad gangers out.
If you don't like the prices and want to hunt here on the cheap. Then move here. Problem solved. Nonresident hunters are guests of the state and are choosing to hunt there, ipso facto they have no right to claim their not being represented. By "choosing" to hunt there they are by default agreeing to the decision on the charges they pay. If you don't like the prices in a state, voice your protest by spending your hunting money in another state.
Couldn't be said any better! :thumbsup:
-
Yeah, Non Resident liences and tags can and are high..but . like others have posted, golf and other sport activies can and are very expensive….
Hunters who hunt out of state can experience a hunt of a lifetime and what kind of a rice tag do you put on that.
I do not agree on the outrageous fees but I guess that's the way it is….
:( :( :( :( :(
-
I've always dreamed of hunting other states, getting out to the wide open of the west etc. etc. blah blah blah. I hunt PA and NJ. As a resident of PA I don't pay a whole lot and I get what I pay for. In NJ I pay a bit more, but I also get what I pay for. I can't really afford a big trip out west and If I could, there are other things holding me back as well. If your state sucks, then I see why you really want to go some other place to hunt. I have a great time hunting around home, so it doesn't bother me much to stay on my home ground.
-
agreed, out of control high prices.
at least if you go skiing or golfing you are guaranteed to make it up the hill or hitting a ball. I am not looking for a guaranteed kill, but just the entry fee is getting crazy.
-
How about this for a fee. When Gator hunting in SC every one in the boat has to have a hunting license. If you are a nonresident you have to have a $200 gator license on top of the nonresident hunting license just to be a spectator in the boat!
You can not apply together so one person in your group may get drawn and no one else :banghead:
Where did that come from :dunno:
Benjy
-
As a trad gang member I agree with some and disagree with others; Arkansas now charges 300.00 for NR licenses that takes care of everthing except duck stamps(another 22.50)which you also get the next years spring turkey tags; residents pay 25.00 for the above;
With that said, MO now charges 225.00 for bowhunting only and another 225.00 if you want to gun hunt; ILL, 400.00 just for the buck tag not counting the license;
NOW my question, IF states, including Arkansas, would charge a reasonable fee, don't you think more people would hunt and the local economy would prosper? would not more jobs be created by doing this? more eating places, hotels,sporting goods stores, ect ect be built? hunting is a BIG business but it would be even bigger if states would allow hunters the chance to buy license at reasonable prices;
It's ok to disagree with this statement but it sure would be nice if an ol' country boy like me could afford to hunt more states; but I must be honest, my pocket book just isn't big enough;
-
I have always lived in Illinois but have hunted as a nonresident of Colorado every year since 1966. In '66 and '67 a nonresident deer or elk tag was 10 dollars. A resident paid 3 bucks for the same tag. That is a 3 and 1/3 to 1 ratio. I am sitting in camp here in the San Juans of Colorado as the season opens tomorrow. I bought my elk tag a few days ago and paid $544 for it. A resident pays $49 for the same tag so the ratio is now close to 11 to 1. That being said, a non resident is paying almost $500 more to hunt the same animal. This is a little steep in my opinion but I have decided long ago that it is worth it. I own property here and pay taxes on it but that makes no difference.
My home state started gigging nonresidents several years ago with outrageous prices because of the possible chance to take a "big Illinois buck". It will eventually get to where only the hunters in the upper income brackets will be able to afford it, like European hunters.
-
I usually have liscenses for two to four states. Just the liscenses are steep, so I usually go with the basic doe tags except for whichever state happens to be the home state at the time. I'll splurge for a rack tag then, although I seldom get one. ;) It's stupid expensive, but I'm going to hunt legal as long as it's possible. When it finally becomes illegal, I'm still going to do it on the odd days that I'm not fighting agianst whomever made it illegal in the first place.
-
Wow! What a can of worms. I think some people misunderstood what I was getting at. What I was trying to get across was I sure would like to hunt with other TG members but the cost and my small pension will not allow it. And moving somewhere every time I want to visit sure doesn't make much sense to me.
-
Pac, Save your pennies and come see me in a year or two. I have some areas that are thick with elk and deer. Bjorn is going to be up in about two weeks for a great elk hunt.
-
There lies the problem. Big money for hunting is killing the ability for many to enjoy hunting other places with other folks. Even when invited a guy has to count pennies. How will your kids pay for their trips 10-20 years from now? Fewer & fewer people can afford to go. Plus it is almost impossible to make it a family affair and buy multiple tags. I hunt a couple of states and pay for it. Love to go and plan ahead every year. I have no problem paying extra but how about making it doable for more people. I live in NY and have a great friend in WY that I have hunted with. Back in 05 I paid $272 for a deer tag and was litterally going to book my flight that night when I ended up in the hospital. My wife and buddy finally talked me out of going because I may have died but eating that tag was big big deal to me. My point is we are not all equal and must decide what we are willing to do. Paying to play is fine but for some it is not even an option and I feel their pain.
-
This is can of worms Pac. I fell like has been posted, that hunting is becoming something for the rich. I live 6 miles from the Ar. line, I was born and lived in Ar. for 40 years. I work in Ar. spend most of my money in Ar. I can't see paying alot of money for any hunting license. If the tags were reasonable I would buy other state tags. 40% or less of bow tags are even filled.
-
There's no right or wrong answer. Mo is $225 for NR tag, which include 2deer and 2 turkey's, which is a pretty good price compared to other surrounding states. I'd love to hunt in some other state, but can't do it right now.
I plan to hunt for elk someday when I can afford the expensive tag. If I drive several hundred miles and pay several hundred dollars, I would expect to see a few other hunters. I don't think it would be worth it if I traveled that distance and was able to buy a cheap tag and have hundreds of other hunters to contend with due to affordability. Pay the high price and enjoy lower hunter density.
-
Having been part of the internal debate in four states, the first place you can go to look for the pressure for higher NR fees are the resident hunters of that state.
-
States make WAY more money from out of state hunters relative to in state hunters. I think we would all agree with that. The reason why is simple math.
Pennsylvania charges $128.40 for an out of state hunting license with an archery tag.
They charge a resident hunter $37.40 for the same license and tag.
For the year 2009 approx. 51,000 non-resident hunting license + archery tags were sold in PA for a total of $6,548,400
To generate the same total $ amount PA would have to sell 175,090 resident licenses + tag.
States as a whole love non-resident hunters: pay a lot more for licenses, generate way more $ for local economies (hotels, meals, etc.), and on average they hunt less often (and harvest less game / meaning they are less of a drain on the resource) than in state hunters.
And by the way....non-residents don't vote in that state either. What resident is against raising non resident fees???
-
Originally posted by Bill Kissner:
I have always lived in Illinois but have hunted as a nonresident of Colorado every year since 1966. In '66 and '67 a nonresident deer or elk tag was 10 dollars. A resident paid 3 bucks for the same tag. That is a 3 and 1/3 to 1 ratio. I am sitting in camp here in the San Juans of Colorado as the season opens tomorrow. I bought my elk tag a few days ago and paid $544 for it. A resident pays $49 for the same tag so the ratio is now close to 11 to 1. That being said, a non resident is paying almost $500 more to hunt the same animal. This is a little steep in my opinion but I have decided long ago that it is worth it. I own property here and pay taxes on it but that makes no difference.
My home state started gigging nonresidents several years ago with outrageous prices because of the possible chance to take a "big Illinois buck". It will eventually get to where only the hunters in the upper income brackets will be able to afford it, like European hunters.
i used to be a two state (MO,IL) deer hunter. non resident IL tags were only $126 and i work in St.Louis. i would leave work and hunt across the Mississippi River in IL a few evenings a week. it took 20 minutes to get there, very convenient. the farms i hunted had no hunting pressure. then IL sent me a postcard in summer 2001 saying that they were capping NR licences at 12,000 and raising fees. it doubled then tripled in a few years. i quit hunting over there as it's only whitetails and they are everywhere and MO has great hunting anyway. it's not that i can't afford IL NR fees but the attitude that raised them. in 2000 i killed a buck in IL and drove to the archery shop which was also the check station. i walked in the door and on the walls of the shop were flyers that said things like "non residents are stealing YOUR hunting" and other ridiculous stuff. while getting the employee to check my deer some of the "locals" who ventured outside to admire my buck became kinda indignant when they found out that i was from MO. the interesting part about this is i visited those IL farmers in 2006 and asked them if anyone had asked to hunt their land since i was last there in 2000. the answer in both cases was no. there was no leasing involved when i hunted there, it was old school knock on the door, introduce myself, ask permission, and gain access.
-
I think more states should be reciprocal. Non-resident for MO is $225. But I have to pay well over $400 to hunt Iowa or IL. Kansas tags are healthy also. And I have to draw for all of them. Yet anyone from those states can just come a buy a tag for a lot less.
-
This is a very interesting discussion. I personally do pay the high NR fees, and am fortunate that I am able to afford to do so. I feel bad for those that can't and miss out on the opportunities.
I know that those who live in the western states with the vast majority of public land in this country feel they shouldn't have to pay on the same basis out of staters do. And I do understand that to some degree.
But the fact remains, that the land we are talking about is federal land, million of acers of it, and each and every one of us pays taxes for the use of it. US forest service workers maintain it, and funding for improvements, maintenance, etc, comes from federal money, the majority of which comes from the areas of the country with the highest populations.
Funding to run state game departments does not come from income, sales, property, or other state and local taxes. It comes from licences sales and revenues generated by the people who use those services.
In the state of Wyoming for example, I found this from the department of Fish & Game:
Currently, over 60% of the funding allocated by the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission to the Wyoming Game and Fish Department comes from sales of licenses, stamps, preference points, application fees, etc. About 18% comes from federal excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment. Much of the remainder comes from interest received on funds from these sources. About 80% of license-related revenues come from nonresident hunters and anglers.
So I don't quite follow the arguement that western state residents pay more in local taxes to support it.
Pittman Robertson funds go into the pot, but those funds are derived from taxes collected from the rest of us as well. We all pay into that fund, and the dollars generated are divided up based on population and land area in proportion to the nation as a whole. Your western state Pittman Robertson dollars go into the same pot as my Wisconsin dollars do, and are all divided up the same. So I pay just as much, or just as little, as any western state resident.
Those federal lands were set aside for the enjoyment of all of us. I don't expect that I will pay the same as a resident, but the explotation of the NR hunter and the huge dollars we are forced to pay to hunt land that belongs to all of us is really unfair.
I suppose that since I can and do afford the out of state fees I should be happy that some people can't. It keeps more people out of the applicant pool and improves my odds of drawing the out of state tags that I desire so much. But it really is sad that so many average working class people have been completely priced out of even being able to consider one of these trips on land that was set aside for and is owned by all of us equally.
My appologies to my friends in western states ;) , but I'd love to hear your thoughts.
-
IPCJON2,
What you said about using a buddies address to get a resident licence in another state is illegal, dishonest and unehical!!!!!!
What other laws do you advocate breaking if they don't meet with your approval?
Geeze....
-
Great points Whip. Thanks for the legwork.
Even when I owned land in PA (living in MD) I had to pay out of state license fees.
-
I'm behind Whip 110%. Of course the thing that bugs me most is Wyoming's rule about having to hire a guide/outfitter to hunt on designated wilderness areas... The Forest service even moved the wilderness boundaries, making access even more impossible a few years ago. I've killed elk in places a few years ago that I can't go to anymore.
Any hippie dippy, city liven, backpack toten, tree hugger can traipse off into the wilderness for free, start a forest fire and ride out with the Forest Service chopper, but as a hunter of that same ground (and in many cases much better prepared for the experience) I've got to pay through the nose.
-
That's another great point Charlie. That rule is simply a way to increase business for guides and outfitters and has nothing what so ever to do with "hunter safety". The assumption that I am more of a danger to myself than some yuppie tree hugger is insulting. If you don't have thousands of dollars to shell out to a guide you are effectively shut out of the most remote, beautiful, and some of the best hunting areas. That stinks to high heaven!
-
Shut out of federal land your tax dollars pay to support and maintain.
Seems like a law any first year law student in the country could get repealed.
Piracy is alive and well on the High Sage.
-
I've leaned a few things from this thread. Maybe I need to amend my views concerning non-res tag prices.
I do think this conversation is one worth having on a continuing bases, given the changing pressures on the resource from every direction.
Joshua
-
Haven't read all the responses, but from my perspective, NR fees and travel expenses to spend time with other TGer's have been one of the best things I've ever spent money on. I have hunted in GA, IL, IN, PA and headed to CO tomorrow, all with other TG folks.
The money can be replenished, the meat will be eaten, the time will be gone regardless, but the friendships I've gained are priceless and irreplaceable.
-
Just a quick observation. In areas where tags are drawn, each non-resident tag drawn is a resident that doesn't get drawn. Yes, on federal lands, it's a moot point as, yes, those lands are national areas. But out-of-state hunters in draw-only areas should realize that some state resident didn't get drawn for the tag they hold---and they might have been putting in for three years and never been drawn. So, appreciate what you've got.
-
I understand what you are saying Tsalagi. And unfortunately in some states NR's are not even allowed to hunt. But we are talking federal land, and the western states have the vast majority of federal land in the country.
More than 36% of Colorado is federally owned. (Most of it in the western half where we would all like to hunt)
More than 42% of Wyoming
More than 48% of Arizona
More than 57% of Utah
More than 84% of Nevada
Yet NR's are allocated a far lower percentage of tags, excluded from wilderness areas in WY, and charged 10 or more times as much for a license if they are lucky enough to draw.
As I said before, I should be happy that so many other NR's don't even bother to apply. It just boosts my odds of getting one of the tags I covet. But it certainly doesn't seem to be fair.
-
It is very well established in case law that game animals belong to the state. The Forest Service and BLM are LAND managers and do NOT manage wildlife resources, that is the individual state's job. The one exception I am aware of is subsistence in Alaska and that is a freakin' mess. Are you REALLY sure you want Federal management of wildlife? You better think long and hard before you really wish that on us!
-
Oh, I absolutely would NOT want the federal government managing game animals Steve. We sure don't want to go there.
I haven't done the research on all states, but in my example of WY NR's pay the majority of the costs to run the programs through NR licence fees and Pittman Robertson funds. We are more than paying our share of the costs to manage the game already. I'm guessing that is the case in most western states. Anyone have info. on how other states game programs are funded?
-
WHIP,
You are correct that most state FW agencies derive their funding from license dollars and PR/DJ funds. This number in most states would be 80-90% of the agency's funding. Most get other forms of revenue in other fees, mineral leases, etc. A few states; VA, AR, and MO have another alternate source of revenue that is huge. AR and MO receive a portion of the state sales tax (1/8th of a penny) and VA receives part of the sales tax on sporting goods sold in the state. A few states receive large general fund (taxes) contributions -- Washington state is one of these--one of the largest state FW agency budgets in the U.S. by the way.
NR fees are a big deal in the west. They are of relatively minor importance to states in the east. Only 7% of hunters in KY are nonresidents. In fact, some timmes eastern states might like to forbid out-of-state hunting of some species (KS didn't allow NR deer for a long time)but the western states would hammer us if we did that -- reciprocity would certainly kick in then!
Fees, especially NR are affected by many pressures, most stated above.
1.Many residents want to curtail NR competition by jacking up fees.
2. Agencies want to charge what the market will bear to supplement their budgets without raising resident fees -- after all, the NR folks don't vote in their states or call legislators. They must keep the Resident (voter) happy.
3. Guides and Outfitters like NR fees to be high because this filters out some of the rif-raf like ME who can't afford the guide to save the NR tag for a better-heeled fellow who can pay the guide.
Of course the PR and DJ are also paid by you and I, the consumer -- (excise taxes paid by the manufacturor and passed on to you and I the consumer.
Bottom line, the price of the license or permit has had no bearing on my decision to hunt or not in a state.
I support the agency and its Mission. I realize and appreciate there are costs to maintain and provide enforcement and access to federal lands that I don't pay because I'm not a resident.
Frankly, I am most deterred by the near impossible odds of drawing a permit I might like. ZOf course I understand that also, populations of some game animals are limited due to habitat issues and residents should have the greatest access.
I wish I had started appying for certain permits (sheep)a couple of decades ago. However, in those days the end of the week arrived after my pay check was used up I couldn't imagine hunting these beasts if I drew a tag so I didn't apply. Now, that I could swing it, I may not have enough time left to draw one.
By the way, I've heard there are some units in western states where the NR has a better chance of being drawn even though the permit numbers for NR are lower but there are fewer NR applying than residents.
I wouldn't like to live in Arizona. Many residents of that state have no choice but to hunt neighboring states because even resident opportunity is too low.
I'm sure IPCJON2 was being rhetorical in his note that borrowing the residential i.d. of a frend/relative would be a way to get around NR rules. I've seen some folks try to do this very thing at Walmart license sales counters. I've been quick to point out that the breaking of any game law defines that person as a poacher. I've lost two private hunting spots for "enforcing" game laws.
Most hunters are extremely honest and law-abiding. In KY our officers will check about 150,000 hunters and fishermen per year (some multiple times). Only 13,000 of these checks result in a citation. Pretty honest clientele!
-
Originally posted by Tsalagi:
Just a quick observation. In areas where tags are drawn, each non-resident tag drawn is a resident that doesn't get drawn. Yes, on federal lands, it's a moot point as, yes, those lands are national areas. But out-of-state hunters in draw-only areas should realize that some state resident didn't get drawn for the tag they hold---and they might have been putting in for three years and never been drawn. So, appreciate what you've got.
That has not been the case in draws that I have been in. Maybe there are some, but all of the draws that I've been in there is a percentage allocated to NR tags. I was in a draw this year in an Idaho mullie hunt as a NR and did not draw as the percentage of NR tags were given out with over 50 resident tags in the draw left. Because I'm a non-resident I'm not even eligable to but a tag that residents didn't want. I don't like the percentages, but I see a need for them but I don't buy the arguement that I'm keeping a resident from getting a tag.
-
I bought some land in Mo in 2007. The state gave the non resident landowner a break on tags. $175 for archery, $175 for a gun tag. They did away with that in 2009. Now I pay the same as a non resident. They didn't even ask me about it, can you believe it :)
Tags are way too high. It's rediculous. Even though it would never happen, hunter's should threaten not to buy tags and then if prices don't go down just not go. That would be a wake up call.
Where will it stop?
-
John,
I'm in the same boat as you. I live in Kansas but have owned property in Missouri since 1994. Now I pay full non-resident fees just to hunt on my own property while missouri resident landowners pay zero for their tags. Just not right.
Bill
-
NR landowners having to pay NR full price for licenses and tags is indeed robbery. Same is true here on east coast guys.
As has been mentioned before....NR don't vote!
-
Bowwild: I concur with most of your post, except for the conclusion in the last paragraph. Your statistics indicate that nearly one out of 10 (8.6%) of hunters/fishers checked are cited for a violation. I wouldn't call that honest. Maybe 1% or less being cited, but one out of ten?
-
Orion,
I see your point. Please remember many of these aren't random checks. Many were doing something to draw attention to themselves (no life vest, no hunter orange if gun season, casting rays of light across fields or spending time with people doing these things). Many of the citations were boating related (alcohol). Some were also stopped and cited more than once.
-
Dino, in Arizona, you can put in for a deer tag (I'm not talking archery here, to be clear, as archery deer is OTC here) and not get drawn three years in a row. So, if non-residents get deer tags, there is a non-resident who didn't get that tag that could have were there no non-resident hunting. I understand what you're saying about allocation. But there's already a shortage of tags in Arizona as has been noted by one person here. I'm not saying you're keeping a resident from a tag. I'm saying be glad you have one because some resident won't.
Now, given my druthers, I'd assess the same excise tax on the sale of backpacks, mountain bikes, camping gear, and so forth that we pay on hunting weapons and ammo. We hunters have been carrying this load by ourselves for too many years. And a lot of "outdoor enthusiasts" who don't hunt, enjoy photographing the wildlife we technically pay for. And that's fine. But they ought to pay their fair share of upkeep.
-
As stated by Steve H the states own the animals and manage them. You can go use any federal land you want and use it just like the dippy hippys can. You have to pay to hunt the states animals. NR's pay a lot higher prices. Sucks for the NR for sure. I do have to say I don't mind non-resident hunters but would feel a lot different if there were 75,000 more here because of low NR tag prices. One of the benefits of living here is not having a hunter on every stump in the woods.
-
IMHO we do not want bird watchers, hikers & such paying the price with us. That just gives them more influance on where and when you hunt there. At least if we are footing the bill we should have more say to who and what goes on there. Just something to think about.
-
It seems simple to me, I don't know who determined this but the wildlife is the property of the state. You are free to use the federal land as much as you want. If you want to hunt the wildlife, you pay what the state is asking. I hunt IL and pay close to $500 for a tag and don't even get any federal land to hunt on.
-
The NR landowner in Mo, and KS. and perhaps other states, can at least get a license every year, even if they have to Nr prices for it. If you are NR landowner in Iowa, you have to enter the Draw just like all the other NRs. You may only get a tag every 3 years or so. So comparetively, you guys really don't have it bad.
After all NR means non-resident, which is what you are !
-
Supply and demand.
Its never going to get better.
Make sure your kids get good grades. They won't hunt without serious money when they're our age.