Non resident costs

[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.

[jhg]

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-

[Bowwild]

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.

[lt-m-grow]

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.

[ChuckC]

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

[Bjorn]

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?

[Bowwild]

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.

[Plumber]

I think MD is 130.for nr

[Buckeye Trad Hunter]

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.

[Mike Vines]

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.

[Buckeye Trad Hunter]

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!  

[ArrowCrester]

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….
   :(    :(    :(    :(    :(

[Jerry Jeffer]

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.

[Overspined]

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.

[Benjy]

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  
Where did that come from    

Benjy

[Arkansaslongbow]

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;

[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.

[sweeney3]

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.

[Friends call me Pac]

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.

[Ragnarok Forge]

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.