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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Joe Hulburt
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.
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!
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'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
Originally Posted by Old Hunter
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 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!
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?
Originally Posted by Bitterroot Bulls