Non resident costs

[dino]

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.

[John Krause]

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?

[BMN]

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

[jcar315]

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!

[Orion]

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?

[Bowwild]

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.

[Tsalagi]

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.

[Ragnarok Forge]

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.

[crotch horn]

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.

[kadbow]

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.

[Ia Hawkeye]

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 !

[shbne]

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.