Non-resident tag fees out of control!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrimsonArrow

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigSurArcher

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickinnoco

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bitterroot Bulls

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jerry

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Hunter

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.

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.

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.

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...