Non resident costs

[crotch horn]

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.

[huey]

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.

[kevin braun]

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.

[Bowwild]

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.

[jcar315]

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???

[fredhill]

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.

[dnovo]

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.

[Whip]

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.

[Ia Hawkeye]

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....

[jcar315]

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.

[Charlie Lamb]

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.

[Whip]

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!

[shbne]

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.

[jhg]

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

[Hackbow]

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.

[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.

[Whip]

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.

[Steve H.]

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!

[Whip]

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?

[Bowwild]

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!