PDA

View Full Version : Non-resident tag fees out of control!



HuskyMusky
01-20-2012, 02:30 PM
All states should agree to a multiplier of 10x or less.

ie resident elk tag, $50, then a non-res elk tag would be $500.


1 horrible example is MT, resident elk tag $20, non-resident $794, that's a 40x multiplier!!!
That means if you sell 1 non-resident an elk tag, you need to sell 40 residents an elk tag to generate the same amount of revenue!

Also once-in-a-lifetime type tags should be the same price as non-residents or at least more than they currently are, tell me a resident wouldn't apply for a desert bighorn sheep if the tag cost $100 vs. $30?? after 30+ years of applying I think a resident could fork over $100 for that tag.

There's no reason non-residents should be forced to subsidize resident's tag fees.

I'd love to see Eastmans' Poll this

What should non-residents pay?
A. The same as residents
B. 5x or less
C. 6-10x
D. More than 10x, Anything they want, the max they can get, 43x in some cases.

T43
01-20-2012, 06:27 PM
What should non-residents pay?
A. The same as residents
B. 5x or less
C. 6-10x
D. More than 10x, Anything they want, the max they can get, 43x in some cases.


D.

CrimsonArrow
01-20-2012, 08:25 PM
I vote "A", and challenge anyone to voice a logical argument to that

Joe Hulburt
01-20-2012, 08:47 PM
"What should non-residents pay?
A. The same as residents
B. 5x or less
C. 6-10x
D. More than 10x, Anything they want, the max they can get, 43x in some cases."

I would vote C


I vote "A", and challenge anyone to voice a logical argument to that

Residents often fund programs that benefit game in their state or make sacrifices that benefit game and they should be entitled to hunt the game more freely and for less cost because of that. Allow non-residents to have the same access and tag price and wildlife would loose.

Does that count as a logical argument??:)

I don't mind paying more to hunt somebody else's critters. Someone has to pay to manage the resources.....

T43
01-20-2012, 08:55 PM
As a resident I have been paying into the system for years. I have also volunteered my time and money to preserve and benefit the wildlife in my state. If you want to come here once and hunt then I have no problem with you paying more for it. Why should you be able to pay the same as a resident? What's your logical arguement for that?

This did give me an idea though. I wonder if any state would ever create a buy down program for return hunters. If you hunt the same state for 20 years maybe you should get a resident deal.

CrimsonArrow
01-20-2012, 09:22 PM
Why should somebody be rewarded for using the resource more?

CrimsonArrow
01-20-2012, 09:30 PM
"What should non-residents pay?
A. The same as residents
B. 5x or less
C. 6-10x
D. More than 10x, Anything they want, the max they can get, 43x in some cases."

I would vote C



Residents often fund programs that benefit game in their state or make sacrifices that benefit game and they should be entitled to hunt the game more freely and for less cost because of that. Allow non-residents to have the same access and tag price and wildlife would loose.

Does that count as a logical argument??:)

I don't mind paying more to hunt somebody else's critters. Someone has to pay to manage the resources.....

Other than the few good people like yourselves who volunteer at some benefits, or help eliminate noxious weeds or barbed-wire, most residents don't do anything to fund wildlife outside of buying a license. Not to mention a majority of big game resides on federal land, which is owned by all of us. Sure, take some license money to 'manage' game, but don't rape the non-resident.

RUTTIN
01-20-2012, 09:37 PM
I wouldn't like to pick an answer because I see it from both sides. Here I will sit at home this year because I cannot afford non res prices in the states I love to hunt this year. That being said, if states charged non residents the same as residents, there would be no need to give out any non resident tags at all. The state could just offer more tags for residents. I think a lot of states benefit not only on the tag fees, but also the revenue non resident hunters can bring to a town, like hotel rooms, or groceries. Just my two cents.

Ikeepitcold
01-20-2012, 09:51 PM
My vote is C

Joe Hulburt
01-20-2012, 10:45 PM
Other than the few good people like yourselves who volunteer at some benefits, or help eliminate noxious weeds or barbed-wire, most residents don't do anything to fund wildlife outside of buying a license. Not to mention a majority of big game resides on federal land, which is owned by all of us. Sure, take some license money to 'manage' game, but don't rape the non-resident.

You make some good points and I can't disagree with them. I don't want to see hunting become too expensive for the average working American but on the other hand I don't expect it to be dirt cheep and cost less than the gas to get to camp. We are very fortunate in this country to have the opportunity to hunt public land! If all fees were comparable to non-resident fees I would find a way to afford them.

HuskyMusky
01-20-2012, 11:12 PM
I feel like we all pay to hunt our own states, so when a non-res comes to my state and vice versa it shouldn't be how much can we charge each other. 10x would at least make things fair(er) than these states that are way over 10x. I mean really where should it stop? 100x? 1000x? I mean let's have residents pay $1 for an elk tag, and I'm sure we can find enough non-residents to pay $1000, or $2000. I mean really if you could buy a non-res elk tag for $3000, and it would mean that for every non-res elk tag sold, 100 less hunters would be in the field with you at that time? I'm sure many would pay for that... that's an extreme obviously though.

I think 10x would demand both residents and non-residents to pay a legit tag fee.

Honestly my home state archery deer tag, for a buck and a doe I think is something like $27 I'm not even sure, it's so cheap I never ever notice/care, I remember the first time I bought the tag I thought, really? that's it? I had to check to make sure it wasn't for just a doe tag. I htink our non-res deer tags are over $400, and I'd happily pay $50 for an archery buck deer tag, and that would make our non-res deer tags less than 10x/$500, and less like 8x multiplier or so, or you could just lower the price of non-res tags while you're at it if you raise resident tag prices.

Old Hunter
01-20-2012, 11:23 PM
I'm sure most of us residents would give up hunting if we had to pay NR fees. A NR has a choice to hunt his own state instead of coming to the elk states. As a Colorado resident I don't hunt any other states. If they were to make it so I couldn't afford to hunt my own state. I'd have to give up hunting.

Then hunting would become a rich mans sport. That would be pretty sad. A lot of us are meat hunters to feed our family's.

BigSurArcher
01-20-2012, 11:33 PM
Allow non-residents to have the same access and tag price and wildlife would loose.

Does that count as a logical argument??:)



I don't see how wildlife would lose at all when it came to draw tags. Quotas would be the same, so the number of hunters would be the same. The "loss" of funds from lower NR tag prices would be easily made up for by a much larger number of people paying application fees who didn't apply before because they couldn't afford it. Really the only ones who would lose out would be the people who applied previously that could afford the high NR price tag. Their odds would be much much lower with such an increase in new applicants. So then the new question would be: Allow a broader demographic of hunters to apply with lowered odds? Or continue to leave out a large population of hunters who lack the funds, and have better odds for those who do? I don't really see how the residents or the wildlife would be affected at all either way. Say an elk tag is $600, and the application fee is $15. If that elk tag was reduced to $300, it just takes 20 application fees to make up the difference. With the more affordable price on the tag I think it's safe to say you could expect an extra 20 hunters to apply for each tag. Just like that, the state is making their money and more people are having the opportunity to afford to do something that they couldn't before. But again, draw odds drop. It depends if you support the utilitarianism viewpoint, i.e. greatest good for the greatest number of people, or if you are more of a survival of the richest type. Honestly, I'm somewhere in between. I feel for those who dream of hunting out of state but can't afford it, having been fortunate enough to go on a number of trips myself. By no means can I financially do multiple trips each year or apply for many of my dream hunts. But I do enjoy the ability to apply for the small number of tags I can afford; and I enjoy doing so knowing that I have a decent chance at drawing sometime in the near future.

HuskyMusky
01-20-2012, 11:48 PM
Ya you'd have to assume the same amount of revenue $$ would be generated by the state, ie a break even, just fees would change, ie residents would pay a bit more, and non-residents would pay less.

and if residents paid the same as non-residents, that wouldn't mean a resident who use to pay $20 is now going to pay $800. It would be more like everyone would pay $50 or $75, something to that affect, not everyone paying $800.

So wildlife wouldn't lose, as the state would still generate the same amount of revenue $$.

Also this multiplier is meant more for trophy tags, bucks, bulls, not necessarily meat tags, does, cows, etc... honestly I'd like to see cheap "meat" tags, or bonus tags for both residents and non-residents, I've been on an elk hunt and if I wanted a bonus tag for a cow elk it would cost me over $200, to me that's a lot of money for a "bonus" meat tag just in case I get a chance to take a cow. Although If a state wanted to charge mroe to non-res in hopes of keeping meat tags for residents, that makes sense to me. But if a state thinks a non-res is going to pay over $200 for a bonus tag, a meat tag, a "just in case" tag, they're crazy! It's like the wolf tags, a non-res on an elk hunt in MT/ID/WY for $30 every non-res elk hunter would buy a wolf tag "just in case" they see a wolf they could take it, but if that tag is $300, no way would every non-res elk hunter spend an extra $300 just in case they see a wolf.

Jerry
01-21-2012, 12:18 AM
I may have a very unpopular view of Non Res tags, but for what it's worth here is my humble opinion.
If it were up to me, I would seriously curtail all non res tags. Almost across the board, big game species are dwindling, due to everything from poor management to unchecked predation resulting in fewer and fewer hunting opportunities. In the case of once in a lifetime tag like Oregons sheep and goat hunts, why should I have to compete with a non res for the few tags available. I am at a loss to understand how so many people can afford to hunt many different states each year and shoot several different species while a resident hunter may only have an opportunity every couple of years in his home state because of the lack of available tags. Every year you hear and see about non residents taking trophies for species that I have been trying to draw for generations. True this is just the luck of the draw and life isn't always fair but having even a few more tags available to residents wouldn't hurt my feelings.
I do realize that this may seem very short sighted to some of you, and I am in no way trying to knock anyone for doing multiple hunts, but I am in favor of limited non res access and see no real problem with a 30 or 40% premium like currently is being charged.
Sorry everyone just my humble opinion!

Bitterroot Bulls
01-21-2012, 12:41 AM
Husky,

I think you make some valid points, from the viewpoint of a non-resident.

I would also remind you that when you come hunt in Montana you don't pay sales tax like you would in other states. You aren't paying thousands in local or state income tax either. That revenue for MT is coming from the residents.

While the residents are paying year round for all the state and county roads, fire protection, law enforcement, and other essential services and infrastructure you are using to, from or on your hunt, you end up paying more for your tags.

Old Hunter
01-21-2012, 06:40 AM
I'm with Jerry. I'd like to see them triple the NR fees. We have too many hunters here as it is. Lowering the fees for NR hunters is ridiculous. I can only get a tag in my home unit every other year now. (If i'm lucky) If you want to hunt here. You can move here, and contribute to the economy year around.

rickinnoco
01-21-2012, 07:20 AM
I'm with Jerry. I'd like to see them triple the NR fees. We have too many hunters here as it is. Lowering the fees for NR hunters is ridiculous. I can only get a tag in my home unit every other year now. (If i'm lucky) If you want to hunt here. You can move here, and contribute to the economy year around.

That's what I did Pete!!! I wanted to hunt more out west, so my wife and I packed up our daughter and moved from Pennsylvania to beautiful Colorado. Now, they should pass a law to keep people from moving here! :D

Seriously, I think tripling the fees is a bit extreme though. And lowering them probably doesn't make sense. Then the people who do apply would just have more competition. I'd apply EVERYWHERE if the tags were all dirt cheap. That wouldn't be fair to residents at all. What annoys me are the programs like Cabela's TAGS. I think the odds for drawing some of those trophy species would go up significantly if people had to put out several thousand dollars every year instead of just a couple hundred in fees to Cabela's. But that's capitalism I guess...while I'd love to hunt multiple states every year, the truth is I only have so much time. Money isn't really the issue. And if the non-residents on here really looked at their expenses for a hunt, they would see that the tag is typically the least amount of money. At least it was for me. When you figure in airfare or gas, lodging, guide/outfitter, processing, equipment, etc, etc. The system is what it is. Polls and forum posts aren't going to change it.

Colorado Cowboy
01-21-2012, 08:03 AM
I knew this subject would get a lot of play! Let me begin by saying I am 70 years old and have hunted big game since I was 12. I have hunted California (where I was born and lived until I retired to Colorado 12 years ago), Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and Arizona for big game. I've seen the gamit...great to terrible hunting due to a lot of factors. I think we can all agree that we need to regulate and manage big game hunting. I remember when we had general tags in Ca and some of the areas in the Sierras absolutely got hammered. Used to buy tags in most states over the counter. We have big game populations at large, sustainable populations in almost all states and a lot of species (sheep for example) in areas that they been gone from for 100 years.

Game & Fish departments need to exist and need $$$ to operate. Since most state governments have determined that the user (US) needs to pay for the work that they do, both Res & NR "get" to pay. Here I Colorado the state legislature has determined that our Dept of Wildlife is an "enterprise" and must be treated like a business entity....pay your own way without state $$$. We have a Commission that dtermines how this is done. They hold meetings and hearings throughout the state. I know as I have attended some and spoke on a number of issues in the last 12 years I have been here. If you have not done so...shame on you!

A little longwinded but I needed to say this so I could express some of my views and you would understand where I'm coming from. Here in Colorado NRs are generally have a set asside of up to 40% of the tags. Our NR fees are probably the most reasonable of any state. I really have a problem with the premise of an application fee. I also have a problem with the landowner tag system here. Landowner buys tags from state at a normal resident rate and resells them out an outlandish profit. The game animal does not belong to them, it only lives there and lots of time only part time!

For the most part,I think our G&F folks are doing a good job. I know everyone has gripes, but thats life. If we didn't have structure and limits on our big game tags & hunting, some areas would be overrun with hunters, over hunted and there would be no animals. I really don't have a problem with paying more to hunt out of state, but there are limits. I can afford to and do hunt out of state and sometimes with outfitters just so I can hunt where I want to, as otc tags are not available or I don't have enough pts to draw one. My days hunting are numbered...just getting old!

You are right about the tag being only a small part of the cost of a hunt... Just got back from a wilderness hunt in Wyoming for Elk. My total cost was about 8,000, tag was less than 600!
Just my take ....an oldtimer who has been there!

CrimsonArrow
01-21-2012, 08:11 AM
Husky,

I think you make some valid points, from the viewpoint of a non-resident.

I would also remind you that when you come hunt in Montana you don't pay sales tax like you would in other states. You aren't paying thousands in local or state income tax either. That revenue for MT is coming from the residents.

While the residents are paying year round for all the state and county roads, fire protection, law enforcement, and other essential services and infrastructure you are using to, from or on your hunt, you end up paying more for your tags.
Those services and infrastructure you refer to are funded from entirely different sources than game and wildlife management, so I believe that part of your statement is non-valid. That's like saying you should pay a state $500 for the privilege of driving through it. Other folks have mentioned here that non-res should pay more because there are too many hunters in their areas. That argument lacks any logic. The answer to that is to reduce the number of tags, not increase the price of tags. Why is it that some residents are so quick to blame the non-res for increased hunting pressure or low game numbers, when in fact, non-res hunters make up a small percentage of the hunters in the field?

Bitterroot Bulls
01-21-2012, 10:18 AM
Those services and infrastructure you refer to are funded from entirely different sources than game and wildlife management, so I believe that part of your statement is non-valid. That's like saying you should pay a state $500 for the privilege of driving through it.

I am fully aware of where funding for wildlife management comes from. The bulk of wildlife funding comes from residents and their license fees, a small fraction comes from non-residents and their license fees. License fees are a tax, and residents pay taxes in MT in a lot of ways other than hunting/fishing licenses. While non-residents complain about paying high license fees they are using the infrastructure for free. You can believe my argument is invalid if you want, but ignoring the necessity of infrastructure for hunting doesn't make that necessity invalid.


As far as paying for the privilege to drive in MT. That is my point exactly, residents do pay for the privilege to drive in MT, and they pay for your privilege to drive here too. A lot of states charge visitors for that privilege through tolls. Other states offset non-resident infrastructure use through a sales tax. MT does not. MT welcomes non-residents, and asks them to invest in the wildlife they are enjoying in MT.

I am not trying to argue, just giving my point of view.

Joe Hulburt
01-21-2012, 11:34 AM
I don't see how wildlife would lose at all when it came to draw tags. Quotas would be the same, so the number of hunters would be the same. The "loss" of funds from lower NR tag prices would be easily made up for by a much larger number of people paying application fees who didn't apply before because they couldn't afford it. Really the only ones who would lose out would be the people who applied previously that could afford the high NR price tag. Their odds would be much much lower with such an increase in new applicants. So then the new question would be: Allow a broader demographic of hunters to apply with lowered odds? Or continue to leave out a large population of hunters who lack the funds, and have better odds for those who do? I don't really see how the residents or the wildlife would be affected at all either way. Say an elk tag is $600, and the application fee is $15. If that elk tag was reduced to $300, it just takes 20 application fees to make up the difference. With the more affordable price on the tag I think it's safe to say you could expect an extra 20 hunters to apply for each tag. Just like that, the state is making their money and more people are having the opportunity to afford to do something that they couldn't before. But again, draw odds drop. It depends if you support the utilitarianism viewpoint, i.e. greatest good for the greatest number of people, or if you are more of a survival of the richest type. Honestly, I'm somewhere in between. I feel for those who dream of hunting out of state but can't afford it, having been fortunate enough to go on a number of trips myself. By no means can I financially do multiple trips each year or apply for many of my dream hunts. But I do enjoy the ability to apply for the small number of tags I can afford; and I enjoy doing so knowing that I have a decent chance at drawing sometime in the near future.

I wasn't talking about tag revenues so much as general stewardship of the land and the resources by residents. I think if there were so many non-residents hunting that the residents lost interest in hunting they would loose interest in the resource.

I think license and tag revenues are secondary to limiting the number of non-residents when it comes to setting prices. I think there needs to be a balance.......there are too many states with no game and if the price was the same to hunt the ones that have game it would cause immediate overcrowding. My opinion anyhow.

Old Hunter
01-21-2012, 11:38 AM
That's what I did Pete!!! I wanted to hunt more out west, so my wife and I packed up our daughter and moved from Pennsylvania to beautiful Colorado. Now, they should pass a law to keep people from moving here! :D

Seriously, I think tripling the fees is a bit extreme though. And lowering them probably doesn't make sense. Then the people who do apply would just have more competition. I'd apply EVERYWHERE if the tags were all dirt cheap. That wouldn't be fair to residents at all. What annoys me are the programs like Cabela's TAGS. I think the odds for drawing some of those trophy species would go up significantly if people had to put out several thousand dollars every year instead of just a couple hundred in fees to Cabela's. But that's capitalism I guess...while I'd love to hunt multiple states every year, the truth is I only have so much time. Money isn't really the issue. And if the non-residents on here really looked at their expenses for a hunt, they would see that the tag is typically the least amount of money. At least it was for me. When you figure in airfare or gas, lodging, guide/outfitter, processing, equipment, etc, etc. The system is what it is. Polls and forum posts aren't going to change it.


I'm the opposite of you. I have all the time in the world, but no money. I'm 69 and retired ans single. My passion is hunting and fly fishing. I'm too old to camp, and I always hunt alone. So, I need to hunt my local unit and come home every night. I don't know how many years i've got left hunting big game. I get pretty annoyed that I can't hunt my home ground, and a NR can come in here and hunt. He has the whole state to choose from, plus other states and his own state. I have one option. My unit. I can't build up any points without skipping a year or two of hunting. I can't afford to miss years of hunting anymore. This year could be my last to hunt for all I know.

It would be nice if Colorado would give tags to resident hunters over 70. Even if it's just for deer. They could even make it for does. The NR hunters can have the trophy's. I was never interested in trophy's my whole 60 years of hunting. I love the hunt, and the meat is reward enough. The kill is just a reward for a good hunt.

I really don't care how many hunters are in my unit, or if they're local or NR. I have my honey holes that nobody knows about. I never see hunters where I go, but they do me no good if I can't get a tag.

HuskyMusky
01-21-2012, 12:36 PM
Husky,

I think you make some valid points, from the viewpoint of a non-resident.

I would also remind you that when you come hunt in Montana you don't pay sales tax like you would in other states. You aren't paying thousands in local or state income tax either. That revenue for MT is coming from the residents.

While the residents are paying year round for all the state and county roads, fire protection, law enforcement, and other essential services and infrastructure you are using to, from or on your hunt, you end up paying more for your tags.

I hear ya there, and all I can say is that I do the same in my home state, and wish it were more like one hand washes the other.
Sure not everyone is going to hunt another state, but many do, and many hunt many states. All I'm saying is I'll pay the taxes in my state, and others can pay their taxes in their states, and when we buy tags in each other states a reasonable fee would be nice.

HuskyMusky
01-21-2012, 12:42 PM
I may have a very unpopular view of Non Res tags, but for what it's worth here is my humble opinion.
If it were up to me, I would seriously curtail all non res tags. Almost across the board, big game species are dwindling, due to everything from poor management to unchecked predation resulting in fewer and fewer hunting opportunities. In the case of once in a lifetime tag like Oregons sheep and goat hunts, why should I have to compete with a non res for the few tags available. I am at a loss to understand how so many people can afford to hunt many different states each year and shoot several different species while a resident hunter may only have an opportunity every couple of years in his home state because of the lack of available tags. Every year you hear and see about non residents taking trophies for species that I have been trying to draw for generations. True this is just the luck of the draw and life isn't always fair but having even a few more tags available to residents wouldn't hurt my feelings.
I do realize that this may seem very short sighted to some of you, and I am in no way trying to knock anyone for doing multiple hunts, but I am in favor of limited non res access and see no real problem with a 30 or 40% premium like currently is being charged.
Sorry everyone just my humble opinion!

30-40% premium would mean a multiplier of 1.3 or 1.4x, not 10x, not 40x.
So we're talking actually a 1,000% premium would be "nice" and "fairer" than current prices, in some cases 4,300%.

Also I find many hunters out west refuse, refuse to apply in another state, a state they could draw and hunt every year, or more often, ie when they don't draw their home state tag. I find them all saying, why would I apply in WY for $700 when I can apply in OR my home state for $25?? well to easterners we have no "home state elk tag for $25"

Also if I moved west, I'd still only be a resident of 1 state, not 10, and I'd still continue to apply in many states.

Old Hunter
01-21-2012, 01:16 PM
Well, a lot of eastern/southern states you can get a lot of tags for whitetails. I know 10-12 deer in some states. We get 1 mule deer here if you're lucky enough to win the draw. I'd swap my elk tag for 10-12 deer tags every year if it was an option.

If it's not enough for you, and you just have to have an elk. You're going to pay for it.

I was born and brought up in Mass. I was happy hunting for deer. They filled the freezer just fine. Then I moved to Calif. and hunted there. I also came to Colorado to hunt elk most years. I never complained about the costs. I was young and working, and that's how I chose to spend my money. I knew when I retired that I wouldn't be able to hunt out of state anymore. So, I moved to Colorado to make sure I could always hunt. Good plan, but sometimes plans don't work out like you think they will. I never dreamed as a resident that some years I wouldn't be able to hunt.

BigSurArcher
01-21-2012, 01:30 PM
I'm the opposite of you. I have all the time in the world, but no money. I'm 69 and retired ans single.... This year could be my last to hunt for all I know.

It would be nice if Colorado would give tags to resident hunters over 70. Even if it's just for deer. They could even make it for does.

I really don't care how many hunters are in my unit, or if they're local or NR. I have my honey holes that nobody knows about. I never see hunters where I go, but they do me no good if I can't get a tag.

I totally agree. Honestly, I really don't have any gripes with the way each state allocates it's NR tags or the price they charge for them. But if one thing were to change, I would like to see things be a little more economical for juniors and seniors. We were all juniors at one time, and we will all (hopefully) be seniors in the future. Having better out of state opportunities to look forward to in the future would be nice, even if you couldn't get after it quite like you could in the past. And I'm sure there are a lot of dads and kids out there who would love to have the opportunity to go on a hunting trip. It seems like these two groups of hunters, juniors and seniors, are on average just looking to get out and enjoy the outdoors while they still can or while they're still learning. Perhaps if there were just a few more of these types of hunters in the field it wouldn't ruffle the resident's feathers quite as much as having more hardcore guys in their prime running all over the place. I could be wrong though, just food for thought. Obviously much of this stuff is just theoretical but it makes for good discussion non the less.

Kevin Root
01-21-2012, 01:42 PM
Courts have held that states may enact discriminatory nonresident hunting regulations if the type of hunting being regulated is typically a recreational activity. Nonresident hunters have challenged these regulations since the 1800s.

Hunting has yet to be recognized as a constitutional right. Hunting is a privilege. A state can favor its residents for state benefits. Many state constitutions have guaranteed the right of their citizens to enjoy their states' resources. In some states this implicitly or explicitly means hunting. If states gave equal access to nonresidents and residents for hunting licenses, the probability of residents drawing a tag diminishes to a very small percentage or the fee becomes too high for resident hunters, then some states would be denying their residents their state constitutionally protected hunting rights.

States use six types of regulations to restrict nonresident hunters.
(1) The fee regulation
(2) The quota regulation
(3) The license regulation
(4) The season regulation
(5) The guide regulation
(6) The weapon regulation

Pitting hunter against hunter only hurts hunting opportunities for both nonresident and resident hunters.
Continuing the fight over discriminatory nonresident hunting regulations hurts hunters for three reasons: (1) It pits hunters against hunters. (2) It limits a state's ability to protect wildlife; and (3) It provides incentives for states to retaliate.

I don’t like paying more money for anything, however I look at it, as the money is going for a good cause, the betterment of our wildlife and future hunting. To fight against other hunters in court battles just does not seem like money well spent. There are more important fights to fight, like anti-hunting movements or anti-gun ownership movements to name a couple.

Old Hunter
01-21-2012, 01:42 PM
BigSur,

I don't mind paying for the tag. Just let me have one every year. I love hiking the mountains, and scout a good 250 days a year from 8000ft to 11,000ft. It's a labor of love, but depressing when I can't enjoy all that work with no tag in the fall.

I'm friends with the local warden, and he agrees with me, but he can't do anything about it.

It could be done without any other hunter losing anything. There's 7 days between the end of archery season and the start of the 1st rifle season. They could make it the senior season, and we'd still pay for our tags. It could work, and I know a lot of senior hunters who would love the idea.

rickinnoco
01-21-2012, 02:11 PM
I agree as well Pete. I'd vote for a "senior" tag anytime. I say god bless you "more experienced" guys who are still out there climbing these hills. I only hope I can do it when I'm pushing 70...

kingfish
01-21-2012, 02:19 PM
B, I agree non-residents should pay a little more but only a little. WE already bring a bunch of money into each state with hotel, restaurants, and gas that normally wouldn't be sold without the nonres.

Old Hunter
01-21-2012, 02:50 PM
B, I agree non-residents should pay a little more but only a little. WE already bring a bunch of money into each state with hotel, restaurants, and gas that normally wouldn't be sold without the nonres.

This is an old argument that i've never agreed with. I will agree that they bring in some money. Do they bring in more than the resident hunters? I can't see how. First off the residents have bigger numbers. Second we spend money here all year. Third we all spend our money here. compared to a NR who might drive here and go right to camp. A NR might buy 1-2 tanks of gas here. I buy over 50 in a year.

So, the bottom line is the NR may spend some money here, but it is small compared to a resident. I don't believe it should be considered in the price of tags.

My .02

CrimsonArrow
01-21-2012, 03:30 PM
I am fully aware of where funding for wildlife management comes from. The bulk of wildlife funding comes from residents and their license fees, a small fraction comes from non-residents and their license fees. License fees are a tax, and residents pay taxes in MT in a lot of ways other than hunting/fishing licenses. While non-residents complain about paying high license fees they are using the infrastructure for free. You can believe my argument is invalid if you want, but ignoring the necessity of infrastructure for hunting doesn't make that necessity invalid.


As far as paying for the privilege to drive in MT. That is my point exactly, residents do pay for the privilege to drive in MT, and they pay for your privilege to drive here too. A lot of states charge visitors for that privilege through tolls. Other states offset non-resident infrastructure use through a sales tax. MT does not. MT welcomes non-residents, and asks them to invest in the wildlife they are enjoying in MT.

I am not trying to argue, just giving my point of view.
I don't really want to argue either, but the fact remains that maintenance on those roads and other infrastructure would be paid for whether or not a single game tag was sold to residents or non-residents. Those funds are entirely separate, and using that as a basis for your argument for increased tag costs is questionable.

CrimsonArrow
01-21-2012, 03:34 PM
BigSur,

I don't mind paying for the tag. Just let me have one every year. I love hiking the mountains, and scout a good 250 days a year from 8000ft to 11,000ft. It's a labor of love, but depressing when I can't enjoy all that work with no tag in the fall.

I'm friends with the local warden, and he agrees with me, but he can't do anything about it.

It could be done without any other hunter losing anything. There's 7 days between the end of archery season and the start of the 1st rifle season. They could make it the senior season, and we'd still pay for our tags. It could work, and I know a lot of senior hunters who would love the idea.
Aren't there numerous units in Colorado where you can buy an elk tag over the counter after the 1st rifle season?

Old Hunter
01-21-2012, 03:54 PM
Aren't there numerous units in Colorado where you can buy an elk tag over the counter after the 1st rifle season?

Yes, but not in my unit. I know my unit, and I can come home at night to a bed and shower. Plus i'm talking about deer. It's all draw in Colorado. I have no problem getting an elk tag if I alternate year to year with bull and cow, but elk are getting hard for me to get the meat out alone. I'm ready to just hunt for mule deer if I can do it every year. One answer is to hunt for a calf, but I don't think I could shoot one.

Bitterroot Bulls
01-21-2012, 05:06 PM
I don't really want to argue either, but the fact remains that maintenance on those roads and other infrastructure would be paid for whether or not a single game tag was sold to residents or non-residents. Those funds are entirely separate, and using that as a basis for your argument for increased tag costs is questionable.

Well, I guess the wildlife would get managed without fee revenue from non-resident hunting, too.

It sounds like everybody agrees it is OK to charge non-residents more, it is just how much more. From a resource perspective, getting the most you can from non-residents and still meeting management objectives would be the most beneficial. The current prices must not be too high, as they sold all of the tags last year.

I reread Kevin's post, and agree we shouldn't be turning hunter against hunter. So I propose this CA: if you can swing the steep license fee, I will do my best to point you to an enjoyable hunt here in MT, and maybe make your investment in MT's wildlife seem like it was worth it.

Kevin Root
01-21-2012, 07:32 PM
Well, I guess the wildlife would get managed without fee revenue from non-resident hunting, too.

It sounds like everybody agrees it is OK to charge non-residents more, it is just how much more. From a resource perspective, getting the most you can from non-residents and still meeting management objectives would be the most beneficial. The current prices must not be too high, as they sold all of the tags last year.

I reread Kevin's post, and agree we shouldn't be turning hunter against hunter. So I propose this CA: if you can swing the steep license fee, I will do my best to point you to an enjoyable hunt here in MT, and maybe make your investment in MT's wildlife seem like it was worth it.

Thanks Bitterroot Bulls. I've been privileged to hunt in MT as a non-resident a time or two. For me, those hunts have always been enjoyable adventures and well worth the price of the non-resident tag. I also was one of those tags last year you mention this past year that sold out. For me, all I can say is the cost of the tag was well worth it and I feel the money was well spent.

rickinnoco
01-21-2012, 09:02 PM
Hey Pete. You want to shoot an elk this year and need help getting it out, let me know. I'd come in a heartbeat.


Yes, but not in my unit. I know my unit, and I can come home at night to a bed and shower. Plus i'm talking about deer. It's all draw in Colorado. I have no problem getting an elk tag if I alternate year to year with bull and cow, but elk are getting hard for me to get the meat out alone. I'm ready to just hunt for mule deer if I can do it every year. One answer is to hunt for a calf, but I don't think I could shoot one.

Colorado Cowboy
01-21-2012, 09:05 PM
Yes, but not in my unit. I know my unit, and I can come home at night to a bed and shower. Plus i'm talking about deer. It's all draw in Colorado. I have no problem getting an elk tag if I alternate year to year with bull and cow, but elk are getting hard for me to get the meat out alone. I'm ready to just hunt for mule deer if I can do it every year. One answer is to hunt for a calf, but I don't think I could shoot one.

I solved the problem on deer tags by requesting my prefered unit as first choice and a doe tag as 2nd choice. If I don't get 1st choice, I almost always get the 2nd choice doe tag and a pref pt. The next year with the PP I usually get my buck tag and have enjoyed eating the meat from the doe!!!

packer58
01-21-2012, 09:14 PM
Well said BB and Kevin R, I just dropped $1,400 on a Nevada bull tag and liecense, did it smart a little.......you bet, then add feul, food and time off work (if you don't get paid vacation time) Add all that up and thats a pretty darn expensive DYI hunt in the lower 48. I guess where i'm heading with all of this is that once you start trying to justify the cost's of these ADVENTURES you are missing the boat. Are non res tags expensive....YES....cut corners where you can, save your nickles and get out there and enjoy what other states have to offer.

I'm done now,:)

MountainMann
01-21-2012, 09:44 PM
my vote is c.. the wildlife in each individual state belongs to the residents... non residents should have to pay to come take advantage of the resource

Old Hunter
01-22-2012, 08:50 AM
I solved the problem on deer tags by requesting my prefered unit as first choice and a doe tag as 2nd choice. If I don't get 1st choice, I almost always get the 2nd choice doe tag and a pref pt. The next year with the PP I usually get my buck tag and have enjoyed eating the meat from the doe!!!

That's what I do with elk. I alternate between a cow and bull. I'm fine with doing that. I'm actually fine with just hunting for a cow every year now.

It doesn't work for deer though. We can only hunt for bucks in my unit. So, the best I can do is hunt for a buck every other year, because it takes a minimum of 1 point for deer. They stopped doe tags awhile back to build up the herd. I've read the herd is about as good as it's going to get now. Maybe they'll start giving doe tags again. That would solve my problem.

Old Hunter
01-22-2012, 08:52 AM
Hey Pete. You want to shoot an elk this year and need help getting it out, let me know. I'd come in a heartbeat.

Works for me. Where do you live? We'll split the meat in half.

Big Sky
01-22-2012, 01:38 PM
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20120122/NEWS01/201220321/FWP-looking-raising-fees-make-up-lagging-revenues

Saw this this morning and thought that I would share.

CrimsonArrow
01-22-2012, 02:40 PM
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20120122/NEWS01/201220321/FWP-looking-raising-fees-make-up-lagging-revenues

Saw this this morning and thought that I would share.
Thanks for sharing, Big Sky. The article states that non-residents license fees account for 2/3 of the game management budget in Montana. Is that a good enough reason to keep the non-residents happy?

rickinnoco
01-22-2012, 05:56 PM
Works for me. Where do you live? We'll split the meat in half.
Fort Collins. Always looking for an excuse to get to the mountains :)

Old Hunter
01-22-2012, 05:59 PM
Fort Collins. Always looking for an excuse to get to the mountains :)

That's a long drive from me. No mountains over there?

CoHiCntry
01-22-2012, 07:07 PM
This is an interesting thread with some good comments. Here's my two pennies... Non res tag fees are steep, that's for sure. Steep to me is anything over about $500. I'm a resident of Colorado but I apply in several western states for different species like a lot of you guy's. I can understand the frustration of shelling out more and more cash for tags or the privilege to apply like in pref. point fees and useless licenses you won't use, and they know you won't, they just want your money! The other side though is this... if they were cheap, the draw odds would be even more horrific than they already are for trophy units and species. I sure wouldn't want that. If it's a priority, you'll find a way to pay for it. If it bothers you that much that you have to pay way more than a resident, then don't apply. That's what I did with Wyoming sheep and moose once they raised the pref point fees along with the tag fees. I don't want hunting to turn into a rich man only game any more than anybody else but it's happening anyway. I say apply for all you can afford, and don't worry about what you can't afford, and most importantly have fun!

A3dhunter
01-22-2012, 07:55 PM
I have had my say about this on other forums for years, and I'll throw my 2 cents out on here as well.

Non resident tag fees are getting outrageous.
They should stop it at 10-12 times the resident price, and if more revenue is needed, then raise tag prices across the board.
Just like other items, there will be inflation, but it should not all fall on the non-resident hunter to SUPPORT the division of wildlife in a state.
A lot of residents argue that a NR does not support the economy locally, which may be true, but that does not make it okay to charge 40 times the regular fee to hunt.
Unfortunately, not every resident is going to get to hunt out their back door every year.
That being said, I would be in favor of some sort of "preference" being given to those applying for units/zones that they live in.

Any state where I have studied the tag allotment, a resident can get a tag and hunt every year. The problem is when that tag is not the one that the resident wants. They don't want to travel, or learn another area to hunt, or have to find other accommodations for staying the night somewhere else. Due to the limited tags in some areas, they can't let all of the residents in that area hunt.

Like OLD TIMER said, I know the area around Buena Vista is an area like this. Two years ago a resident and I as a NR applied for unit, I drew the tag since there was very few NR's applying for the tags, but there were a lot of residents applying. Residents(187 of them) had a 96% draw and the few NR's (36) that applied all drew a tag. This was a unit 48 archery deer tag. The resident wasn't happy about it, and I understood why, but at some point they should still give NR's an opportunity to draw a tag.

I also agree with a preference given to youth and senior citizens, there are times of your life when a tag means more than other times. that first or last hunt is invaluable.

rickinnoco
01-22-2012, 08:43 PM
That's a long drive from me. No mountains over there?
Sure, there are mountains here Pete. I look at a 14er (Long's Peak) everyday. One thing I've learned since living out here, "far" is a very subjective term. You're about 3 hrs away, which in the west does not seem very far. This state is more than twice the size of Pennsylvania. To get just about anywhere I want to go, I'm looking at a few hours minimum.

CoHiCntry....very good points in your post. If it ended up that I had to move back to PA and could only hunt whitetails again, I would make do and just be happy that I could still hunt.

Old Hunter
01-22-2012, 09:16 PM
I need to stop whining. That's not what i'm all about. I'll just suck it up and hunt whatever I can get. I can pretty much get a cow elk tag every year. Pretty good meat, so no complaints. If it takes me 10 trips to get the meat out. So be it.

HuskyMusky
01-22-2012, 09:19 PM
Non resident tag fees are getting outrageous.
They should stop it at 10-12 times the resident price, and if more revenue is needed, then raise tag prices across the board.
Just like other items, there will be inflation, but it should not all fall on the non-resident hunter to SUPPORT the division of wildlife in a state.

Perfectly said.

Bitterroot Bulls
01-22-2012, 10:32 PM
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20120122/NEWS01/201220321/FWP-looking-raising-fees-make-up-lagging-revenues

Saw this this morning and thought that I would share.

Thanks, that is different information than I have been told previously. Of course, it doesn't mention how much is from angling license fees, and how much is from hunting.

In any case, keeping non-residents happy and buying the licenses is important. Like I said earlier, all of the non-resident hunting licenses were sold, so they must not be too high for the market.

A big issue in MT is the MT Constitution gurantees the right to hunt and fish to its residents:

Constitution of Montana -- Article IX -- ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Section 7. Preservation of harvest heritage. The opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state and does not create a right to trespass on private property or diminution of other private rights.

With all of this said, I wouldn't mind paying more for my resident licenses in MT to help make up the revenue shortfall. BTW, I also apply for tags and points in other states as well.

HuskyMusky
01-22-2012, 11:08 PM
Thanks, that is different information than I have been told previously. Of course, it doesn't mention how much is from angling license fees, and how much is from hunting.

In any case, keeping non-residents happy and buying the licenses is important. Like I said earlier, all of the non-resident hunting licenses were sold, so they must not be too high for the market.

A big issue in MT is the MT Constitution gurantees the right to hunt and fish to its residents:

Constitution of Montana -- Article IX -- ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Section 7. Preservation of harvest heritage. The opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state and does not create a right to trespass on private property or diminution of other private rights.

With all of this said, I wouldn't mind paying more for my resident licenses in MT to help make up the revenue shortfall. BTW, I also apply for tags and points in other states as well.

Not sure MT limits NR's to 10%, but that article says NR's pay 2/3 of the total revenue!

So we're limited to 10% of tags usually, we pay more than 10x more for the same tag, in MT's case 40x more!

and ie 1/10 of the total tags sold pay for 2/3 of the states revenue!!!

residents should be giving us foot massages when we show up in town!

Bitterroot Bulls
01-22-2012, 11:23 PM
Not sure MT limits NR's to 10%, but that article says NR's pay 2/3 of the total revenue!

So we're limited to 10% of tags usually, we pay more than 10x more for the same tag, in MT's case 40x more!

and ie 1/10 of the total tags sold pay for 2/3 of the states revenue!!!

residents should be giving us foot massages when we show up in town!

Well, I am not cool with the foot massage, but I would be glad to buy you a beer and talk hunting.

There are no limits to NR fishing license sales, and MT sells a lot of them.

HuskyMusky
01-22-2012, 11:34 PM
Well, I am not cool with the foot massage, but I would be glad to buy you a beer and talk hunting.

There are no limits to NR fishing license sales, and MT sells a lot of them.

Ha, will gladly take a beer over the foot massage, haha.

HuskyMusky
01-22-2012, 11:40 PM
I should also say, who comes up with these prices?
half the time they're weird numbers, $19, $543, $794, etc...
can we just stick to, $25, $50, $100, $800, $825 etc...

Bitterroot Bulls
01-23-2012, 12:05 AM
Yeah, they are weird. I know they did some studies years ago on how much people were willing to pay, and structured pricing based on the results.

I feel kind of bad about this thread. I didn't mean to come across as anti-NR. My original post was just to point out that MT had some breaks for visitors, like no sales tax, and not just high license fees.

We also have some pretty good fishing and local microbrews, so come on over!

Colorado Cowboy
01-23-2012, 06:58 AM
Several have mentioned that NR's do not support the local economy. That sure is not the situation here. Once hunting season starts (summer camping & fishing also), I see lots of out of state plates on rigs shopping at local markets, WalMart and gas stations. During hunting seasons there are tons of trailers loaded with camping eq, OHV's, and horses all over town just before the seasons open. One thing our Wildlife dept did was to spread out the seasons, keeping the crowding down. Archery starts in August and we can still hunt elk in December. We get NR hunters coming here for 4 months. Our local economy really depends on this.

Old Hunter
01-23-2012, 09:52 AM
Several have mentioned that NR's do not support the local economy. That sure is not the situation here. Once hunting season starts (summer camping & fishing also), I see lots of out of state plates on rigs shopping at local markets, WalMart and gas stations. During hunting seasons there are tons of trailers loaded with camping eq, OHV's, and horses all over town just before the seasons open. One thing our Wildlife dept did was to spread out the seasons, keeping the crowding down. Archery starts in August and we can still hunt elk in December. We get NR hunters coming here for 4 months. Our local economy really depends on this.

I mentioned it, but I was responding to a post saying what NR hunters contribute to the local economy should be considered if the tag fees. I said it shouldn't be considered, because even though the NR contributes. It's not near what a resident contributes to the economy year around.
Of course a NR spends money when they come here. It really can't compare to what fisherman and especially rafters spend in my town. This town really depends on rafters, and it goes from spring to fall. The hunters may help some, but the season is very short compared to fishing and rafting. Plus, as I already mentioned. A lot of hunters will go right to camp when they come here. Rafters and fisherman will stay in campgrounds, motels, and eat in the restaurants. The fisherman will almost always go into the fly shops and buy flies etc. The think hunters generally will bring what they need with them.

Overall, small towns like mine depend on every NR who comes here to spend money. For whatever the reason. It's appreciated.

As long as they don't find my honey holes. :)

Wapiti slayer .270
01-23-2012, 10:55 AM
Not going to endear myself to alot of guys on this.

I vote C and D.

Its true that its federal land. Everyone both Res and Non Res can come and go as they want. The game belongs to the state and that's just the way it is. Like many here I will not be able to hunt my home unit yearly during my season of preference due to the changing of the tag allocations. It truly sucks since we've been doing it from 2 decades onto 4 plus depending on which guy you talk to in camp. Like many others I volunteer to help any way I can both through organizations and on with local ranchers/farmers.

I have said it on other forums and I'll say it here. I think that if many of the non residents from the east had to face what us residents have to face when it comes to tags and being able to hunt, these conversations wouldn't crop up very much. Just in case that is a bit murky, ask yourself how you'd feel if you couldn't hunt your own state, country, town every year since your tag was allocated to someone else. I know CO has OTC tags and we are unique in that regards. However, guys in MT, WY, UT, NM, AZ and such run into that issue a ton. Granted a few have general tags but you are often times forced to hunt somewhere you don't normally do.

Personally I feel they could open the flood gates to NR's provided that the residents are guaranteed the hunts of their choice. Trophy Units notwithstanding.

BTW, Ric and Old Hunter,

IF you guys ever meet up in the Fort, let me know. I wouldn't mind joining into the meet up if possible.

xtreme
01-23-2012, 05:51 PM
My problem is I have property In Colorado, my jeep is tagged in Co. I pay a lot of taxes in Co. I use to spend at least one monthof the year in Co. I still have to pay full non resident fees.
Last year I had a NM bear tag and mule deer tag. I drove to Co to hunt in NM but an illness caused me to cancel hunting before the season opened for deer and the bear tag had only been good for 4 hours before seasoned closed. I cant afford these cost on a gamble that everything will work out. I can get into the woods/mountains with a camera and have almost as much fun as hunting with a gun. I can also kill lots of paper and not have to drag/carry a game animal. All I would be doing is opening a slot for someone else. Thats okay I had over forty years of nonresident hunting and enjoyed it.
Some states have landowner tags, that would be more fair.

Fink
01-23-2012, 07:38 PM
I have said it on other forums and I'll say it here. I think that if many of the non residents from the east had to face what us residents have to face when it comes to tags and being able to hunt, these conversations wouldn't crop up very much.

I would blow a gasket if I were unable to deer hunt my farm on an annual basis... Although, there are probably more whitetails in Missouri than there are elk in the US.. It is unfortunate that the resource is so limited, but I think that overall states do a fairly good job of managing the resource, and providing opportunity for both the resident and non resident hunters.

Old Hunter
01-23-2012, 08:27 PM
Not going to endear myself to alot of guys on this.

I vote C and D.

Its true that its federal land. Everyone both Res and Non Res can come and go as they want. The game belongs to the state and that's just the way it is. Like many here I will not be able to hunt my home unit yearly during my season of preference due to the changing of the tag allocations. It truly sucks since we've been doing it from 2 decades onto 4 plus depending on which guy you talk to in camp. Like many others I volunteer to help any way I can both through organizations and on with local ranchers/farmers.

I have said it on other forums and I'll say it here. I think that if many of the non residents from the east had to face what us residents have to face when it comes to tags and being able to hunt, these conversations wouldn't crop up very much. Just in case that is a bit murky, ask yourself how you'd feel if you couldn't hunt your own state, country, town every year since your tag was allocated to someone else. I know CO has OTC tags and we are unique in that regards. However, guys in MT, WY, UT, NM, AZ and such run into that issue a ton. Granted a few have general tags but you are often times forced to hunt somewhere you don't normally do.

Personally I feel they could open the flood gates to NR's provided that the residents are guaranteed the hunts of their choice. Trophy Units notwithstanding.

BTW, Ric and Old Hunter,

IF you guys ever meet up in the Fort, let me know. I wouldn't mind joining into the meet up if possible.

Is the hunting any good on your property? If it is. You should be able to get a voucher, and use it yourself. I believe you get 1 voucher for every 160 acres.

CasNed
01-23-2012, 08:40 PM
Even if game is on federal land, letting them choose the price of tags...scary thought..
Whats the advantage of living in a norther state if you have to pay the price of a non-res, but why should non-res have to pay 43x that is steep.
My vote C.

Murdy
01-23-2012, 09:37 PM
Tough call. I get the point that you don't want non-residients overrunning your local hunting areas. As an Illinois resident, we attract a large number of NR's, and gouge the heck out of them to be able to hunt whitetails here. But then I think, we're all Americans. Why is it that someone from Chicago, who has no real ties to the area I hunt, be able to hunt it for less than $40, but someone from Milwaukee, who's just across an artificial border, has to spend over $400. Why does state residency trump Amercian citizenship? If a state wants to insure locals have adequate access, it can do it by controlling permit numbers rather than gouging NR's.

200/400
01-23-2012, 10:53 PM
I'm new to forum and really liked all the comments and points of view. One has to ask what you get for your $ when plunking down serious amounts for a nr tag. Here in Colorado you get 17 to 18% success ratio on bulls, you get to fight crowds you get an outfitters camp on practically every drainage and many other fun things to contend with. For similar tag fees you can have a much better hunt in other states. I put in for wyo and utah (much better everything) and for the life of me can't understand why so many nr's put up with the poor hunting experiences here in colo. Yes you get ripped-off everytime you buy a nr tag here but it doesn't stop you does it? CPW did a "Willingness to Pay" study several years ago. This study provided valuable data on just how much a nr will or will not pay. There is your science behind colo's recent fee increase. There really never will be any correlation between res and nr fees the way I see it. The fees you pay are high because you are willing to pay it mine are low to keep me and other res's from full scale rioting!

Wapiti slayer .270
01-24-2012, 07:53 AM
Is the hunting any good on your property? If it is. You should be able to get a voucher, and use it yourself. I believe you get 1 voucher for every 160 acres.I do not personally own any land as of yet. I hope I didn't give that impression.

For a long time I helped out other members of the RMEF that I knew. Nowadays there is a small group of folks who kind of watch out for each other and one of them is a guy I used to work for. He owns 160 acres but doesn't hunt.

Old Hunter
01-24-2012, 08:45 AM
Sorry Wapiti. I meant to quote xtreme.

Wapiti slayer .270
01-24-2012, 08:54 AM
Sorry Wapiti. I meant to quote xtreme.No worries.

I think you are on a good thought though. If he owns enough property he can get that voucher!

Doe Nob
01-24-2012, 09:24 AM
I don't mind paying a lot of money for a good tag. I don't mind paying a decent amount for a preference point.

I do mind paying a lot of money for a hunting license I won't use if I don't draw and I also mind paying a bunch of money for a tag in a crummy area where there are way too many hunters and not enough game.

I think the answer to this is to have a sliding price scale on tags in the state. The best tags cost the most money, the tags that aren't so great cost a lot less. Apply this both to residents and non-residents. Residents have the ability to learn the less popular units and still have a good season year after year. As a non-resident I don't, I can spend maybe a week scouting or I can hire a guide to help me out. Seems fair to me

I would guess most Eastman's subscribers apply in multiple states every year.

Old Hunter
01-24-2012, 09:33 AM
I don't mind paying a lot of money for a good tag. I don't mind paying a decent amount for a preference point.

I do mind paying a lot of money for a hunting license I won't use if I don't draw and I also mind paying a bunch of money for a tag in a crummy area where there are way too many hunters and not enough game.

I think the answer to this is to have a sliding price scale on tags in the state. The best tags cost the most money, the tags that aren't so great cost a lot less. Apply this both to residents and non-residents. Residents have the ability to learn the less popular units and still have a good season year after year. As a non-resident I don't, I can spend maybe a week scouting or I can hire a guide to help me out. Seems fair to me

I would guess most Eastman's subscribers apply in multiple states every year.

I don't like that idea. That would flood some areas with applications, and leave the good areas for the rich.

Doe Nob
01-24-2012, 01:38 PM
Yep - free market economics - supply and demand. When demand exceeds supply, prices must rise. Not every tag in every state is over subscribed, mostly we are talking about the trophy units where people can't get tags.

A lot of people, myself included, would be happy to just get to go hunting every year. Throw in a trophy hunt every now and then when i can afford it, but to me its just as good to get out there. Now if the odds of filling my tag are something like 18% and there's 400 other hunters in my unit, then I don't think its fair for me to pay out the nose for that privilege.

And I don't want to sound elitist, but at 69 if you can still get around the mountains and pack out a deer, there are a lot of seasonal jobs you could do during the spring/summer to get enough money to be able to at least drive to a different unit. Not trying to be a jerk, I've just found if you want something bad enough, you will find a way to make it happen.

Wapiti slayer .270
01-24-2012, 01:50 PM
Sorry, didn't realize a jab was being thrown...

I've erased my 2 cents and will not post further.......

Old Hunter
01-24-2012, 02:02 PM
Yep - free market economics - supply and demand. When demand exceeds supply, prices must rise. Not every tag in every state is over subscribed, mostly we are talking about the trophy units where people can't get tags.

A lot of people, myself included, would be happy to just get to go hunting every year. Throw in a trophy hunt every now and then when i can afford it, but to me its just as good to get out there. Now if the odds of filling my tag are something like 18% and there's 400 other hunters in my unit, then I don't think its fair for me to pay out the nose for that privilege.

And I don't want to sound elitist, but at 69 if you can still get around the mountains and pack out a deer, there are a lot of seasonal jobs you could do during the spring/summer to get enough money to be able to at least drive to a different unit. Not trying to be a jerk, I've just found if you want something bad enough, you will find a way to make it happen.

Do you understand what retired means? I worked my ass off for 45 years to take it easy in my later years and enjoy hunting and fly fishing. Which btw is what I do in the summer.

Maybe you don't want to sound like a jerk, but........

xtreme
01-24-2012, 02:59 PM
I am trapped again Old Hunter. I only have one acre so no land owner tag for me. I am only 25 feet from the national forest and have to cross the Conejos to get to my house, all that is good. I have seen bear in my yard, several. We had a gaint of a bear three years ago and a giant mule deer. They were seen for three years and now they are both gone. Lack of a tag kept me from trying to shoot either one. I am not bitter about it. Either animal would have been the trophy of a life time. Btw, I still work pretty hard as I have a small herd of registered Beefmaster cattle to take care of.
I hope to make it to Dipping Lakes this summer, thats one of my goals, won't need a tag to do that, just camera.

buckbull
01-24-2012, 07:45 PM
Fish are Game departments have budgets they have to deal with. Much of their budget comes from Non-Resident license fees. Based on the article mentioned earlier, Montana's fish and game department is ran with 2/3 of their budget coming from Non-Residents and I would guess other states like Idaho, Wyoming and Colorado are simliar. When these game departments have needed increased funds they always stick it to the Non-Residents. Its quite obvious why. The demand is still higher than supply for these tags so there is little fear that they will not have a measurable net gain in revenue. Also, non-residents can't vote for state legislature. Can you imagine someone within the fish & game department or even within the state legislature proposing fee increases for residents. Political suicide. So, if residents want more say in what goes on they probably need to kick in a little more jack. Twenty or thirty dollars for a deer tag in my opinion is ludicrous when you compare the amount of entertainment and potential protein that tag can buy. I can't take my family of 5 to the movies for under $60 just for tickets and would spend $20 in gas to go get there and back. We have the same horse $hit going on here in Illinois. Deer permit is $20 but nonresident tags are like $500. Then all the residents raise hell when the conservation department wants to increase fees, so the conservation department raises non resident fees and increases number of tags to make up for budget shortfall. Now all the residents complain about not having places to hunt anymore because of all the leasing going on to outfitters who cater to the non-residents.

Old Hunter
01-24-2012, 08:28 PM
Supply and demand. We've got the elk. You don't! :)

buckbull
01-24-2012, 08:46 PM
Yeah, and Money talks and BS walk :p

Nobody wants to pay more than they have too. Your right Old Hunter, you have the Elk so non-residents are going to have to pay the price to hunt them. Even though the fees are high, they could be a helluva lot higher than what they currently are. Guys still have to wait 5, 10, somtimes 20 years for premier Elk units so no doubt the ceiling hasn't been hit for non-residents. Sheep tag in Wyoming is over $2000 for a non-resident and there's a chance a guy could never draw the tag. I have in the past paid the "special" fee in Wyoming to just draw a tag in a reasonable amount of time. Fish and Game departments are walking a tight rope between residents and non-residents trying to keep both sides content all the while having to deal with tightening budgets. Just need to be thankful we all have an opportunity to hunt at all; even if it means we need to pay more out of pocket.

Old Hunter
01-24-2012, 08:53 PM
That's why i'm glad my dad taught me to not be a trophy hunter. Nothing wrong with it if that's what you like. I enjoy the hunt and the meat. I pay no attention to the best units, and wouldn't wait to hunt them. Makes life easy.

Funny though. I've shot what some might consider a trophy. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.

Doe Nob
01-25-2012, 09:10 AM
Do you understand what retired means? I worked my ass off for 45 years to take it easy in my later years and enjoy hunting and fly fishing. Which btw is what I do in the summer.
Maybe you don't want to sound like a jerk, but........

I'm sorry, but its hard to engender sympathy with that kind of attitude. I guess if you can't afford to drive to a different unit and camp out for a week, you did a poor job of retirement planning and saving to be able to retire in the lifestyle you desire. You're telling me you can't enjoy hunting because you can't drive to a different unit where you could get a tag? I'm not suggesting you dig ditches, maybe guide a couple fly fishing trips during the summer since you like to do it, get a few hundred bucks from tips and now you have the funds to more fully enjoy your hunting season. I'm sure with the experience you have you'd have a lot to offer other fly fishermen who are new to the sport or the area.

We paid $1100 for 2 elk tags in a CO OTC unit, $1300 to rent a cabin for a week, drove 1250 miles each way getting 9 mpg towing a trailer with 2 atv's to come hunt Colorado this fall and ate tag soup. Not complaining at all, just saying a lot of us sacrifice quite a bit as non residents to be able to hunt, its hard for me to be sympathetic, heck you even got a sherpa out of this thread to pack out your elk for you! :p

Old Hunter
01-25-2012, 09:36 AM
I had an industrial accident at 55. I was a truck driver making good money. It turned out my boss never had workmans comp on me. It took all my savings to pay my medical bills. During my recovery which took 6 months. I got glaucoma in my right eye, and lost it's sight. I lost my ability to keep my commercial license. Plus, my injuries never did heal to the point that I could have done the job anyway. I was forced into retirement and broke.

It's been a struggle ever since. I live on SS and a little money I get to tie flies. I couldn't give up hunting, and learned to shoot left handed. I moved to Colorado, because I knew I would never be able to hunt here again unless I did. I spent a ton of money coming here to hunt when I lived in Calif. I have too many injuries to camp, and I don't have the gear to do it anyway. I do the best that I can, but I have to hunt my unit, or not hunt at all.

I hunt alone, but can get help getting the meat out if it's close. Which means my unit.

I don't like talking about this, but you won't let it go. I'll work it out.

Bitterroot Bulls
01-25-2012, 09:41 AM
Guys,

This kind of bickering is the same hunter-on-hunter fighting that Kevin mentioned earlier isn't productive.

I think this thread needs to fade into the sunset.

Old Hunter
01-25-2012, 09:59 AM
I never wanted any part of it, but I won't be talked down to by someone who doesn't even know me.

Wapiti slayer .270
01-25-2012, 10:08 AM
Pete,

I hunt a hop, skip, jump away from you most years. If I'm in the area I'll help you pack your elk.

I can set up camp and include my nonresident buds for $250 a guy. That includes all gas and food. So the idea of spending big money just to hunt is invalid to me. If folks plan they sure can cut the costs big time.

sjsmallfield
01-25-2012, 01:27 PM
Guys,

This kind of bickering is the same hunter-on-hunter fighting that Kevin mentioned earlier isn't productive.

I think this thread needs to fade into the sunset.

I couldn't agree more at this point.

jenbickel
01-25-2012, 02:25 PM
http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/1641/deadendm.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/535/deadendm.jpg/)


CAN I GET AN AMEN?!

sjsmallfield
01-25-2012, 02:39 PM
That's AWESOME Jen! Well said. Lol

jenbickel
01-25-2012, 02:44 PM
Lol I'm glad you think so!! :) Hahaha it made me laugh! I thought it was quite fitting.

Drhorsepower
01-25-2012, 03:29 PM
That's awesome

Doe Nob
01-26-2012, 03:41 PM
Apologies extended to Old hunter.

(And if you haven't sued your old boss yet get an attorney and get some retribution)

NDHunter
01-26-2012, 07:02 PM
http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/1641/deadendm.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/535/deadendm.jpg/)


CAN I GET AN AMEN?!

Well put Jen!!!!! And damn that looks like a good place to throw out a line, sit down in a chair and crack open a beer.

Old Hunter
01-26-2012, 09:20 PM
Apologies extended to Old hunter.



Thanks....

cacklercrazy
01-27-2012, 10:00 PM
if they only give 10% or less of the total tags then they should be the same price. If they want to take the tag % quatas off then let them charge what ever they want.

HuskyMusky
01-28-2012, 01:19 AM
if they only give 10% or less of the total tags then they should be the same price. If they want to take the tag % quatas off then let them charge what ever they want.

I never really understood this limiting to 10% either, never made much sense, ie if they issue 100k tags, and only 10k non-residents apply then naturally only 10% of the tags would be to non-residents in the first place.

I'm willing to bet that more residents always apply for tags than non-residents. Let the draw just work itself out, if one year it's 12% great, if the next year only 8% get lucky fine. But why set a limit before the draw even occurs. # of applicants alone should kinda solve this problem in the first place.

Colorado Cowboy
01-28-2012, 06:59 AM
Can't remember which one of the state's hunting pamphlet I read this in, but the policy was if resident applications did not use their quota, then the NR tags could increase to fill the total quota. Guess that meant that the NR quotas could actually float and reflect demend rather than a strict quota.

HuskyMusky
01-28-2012, 01:13 PM
Can't remember which one of the state's hunting pamphlet I read this in, but the policy was if resident applications did not use their quota, then the NR tags could increase to fill the total quota. Guess that meant that the NR quotas could actually float and reflect demend rather than a strict quota.

I know ID gives some resident hunters the option of a 2nd bull elk tag but they must purchase the 2nd tag at non-resident prices. At least when there are left over non-res elk tags.

Actually I think this is what happened in NM, reducing NR tags from 22 to 16% or whatever, I think in certain cases non-residents had better draw odds than residents, which goes back to why even separate the tags/pools, but it makes sense if 100k residents are applying for a certain unit, vs. only 2k non-residents, there will always be more residents applying in a state than non-residents.

In God We Trust
02-08-2012, 01:55 PM
10% of tags for non residents unless there are left over tags. Non residents should also have to pay more than residents. Most people can't afford to travel to other states and allowing the whole country to put in for tags and have the same shot takes oppourtunities from residents of that state. I want to be able to hunt my own state as a resident every year and if I have some extra cash I will spend it going to another state. Everyone should quit whinning about expensive non resident tags. Enjoy your home state and if you think the grass is greener on the other side than MOVE!

Old Hunter
02-08-2012, 02:05 PM
Absolutely.

4590bpcr
02-08-2012, 05:10 PM
If you find yourself coveting the resident prices in another state then quit with the excuses and move there. It's the same old saw; that somehow the resident needs to extend the priveledge of an in-state tag to a non-resident. You move to that state, pay taxes, invest in the community, put up with a shortage of services, etc. --THEN you can get some benefits, i.e.; a resident price tag. I have no sympathy for the jerks who think the world owes them something, when all they can think of is to hold out their hand. Get a life.

4590bpcr
02-08-2012, 05:18 PM
The goddess of the hunt is a fickel mistress. The day when you can no longer keep up with the pack and run down your prey --is the day you become food for something else. Survival of the fittest; the law of tooth and fang. None of us are getting out of this life alive. Now some will try to prolong the process; asking for more roads in roadless areas, special perks to drive in where no one else can, freebies, special tag prices, hire an outfitter to tote your tired carcass and do the work for you...but that doesn't keep you in the game forever.

Midwest to Outwest
02-11-2012, 10:33 PM
All residents should certainly be able to hunt their own state, without high fees. Some families need to hunt to put meat on the table. Hunting another state is a luxury and should demand a higher price. That said, it should not be a luxury for only the wealthy. Out of state hunters already put a good bit of money into the local economy. This should be welcomed. If a state wants more NR money they should bump up the NR tag quota a few % points instead of raising the price of the tags. This would both bring more money into the State's revenue AND into local economies.

Old Hunter
02-12-2012, 10:24 AM
That probably won't happen. They give out the number of tags according to to size of the herd in that unit. So, everybody has a chance for a kill without shooting each other.

Midwest to Outwest
02-12-2012, 10:57 AM
Same mount of tags. Just a few more NR and a few less Resident. Just a thought, if their concern if money. 10 more non residents in a unit could generate thousands of dollars for the locals and thousands for the state. VS. just a few hundred dollars for 10 residents to hunt there.

Old Hunter
02-12-2012, 10:59 AM
Will you accept that? Will you not hunt one year to let in a NR who can pay more money?

HuskyMusky
02-13-2012, 01:56 AM
Imagine if everyone had to pay non-resident fees, and tags were just, if you want one, pay the money, anyone a resident or a non-resident could get a tag every year, if they wanted to pay the tag price!

so sure you can hunt elk in your home state every year for $750.

sounds like a win-win to me, 100% drawing odds for residents and non-residents right? what's not to love?

after all "if you're not rich, blame yourself"


hopefully you can detect my sarcasm, seems most people support fairer tag fees, and if not, then we might as well make them unfair, ie non-resident fees for everyone, and 100% draw odds for all who apply, ie... full tag fee must paid in full up front.

Old Hunter
02-13-2012, 09:17 AM
Your plan is perfect if your goal is to eliminate the herds.

Going to another state to hunt is a luxury. If you can't afford it? Hunt at home.

Zim
02-13-2012, 10:16 AM
I'd rather pay 15X more than have "non-profit" wildlife orgs like SFW plant their boys in F&G Dept's and legislatures to steal the tags for auction. That is a MUCH bigger issue than the BS squabbling I'm reading here. People can't see the forest for the trees.

http://www.hcn.org/blogs/range/alaska-wildlife-woes-raise-red-flags-outside

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=249798

If people don't take action you won't have to worry about 10X or 15X, because every tag out there will be on ebay sold to the highest bidder.