Differential tag fees

[JoseCuervo]

Tom, that makes more sense than anything you've said on here in a long time.

But it is negated by the statement immediately prior....

A resident elk tag for $20 comes out like $0.02 / lb if someone gets a 1000 lb elk. That's a welfare hunter, they should pay more of the actual costs to raise that elk.

|oo |oo :BLEEP: |oo

 

[sreekers]

Nothing personal Tom, but I wouldn't sell my resident tag for anything. I enjoy being able to hunt every year way too much to give it up just for a buck.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Nothing personal Tom, but I wouldn't sell my resident tag for anything. I enjoy being able to hunt every year way too much to give it up just for a buck.

If Tom offered you $1500 (the Utah top price) would you take the cash?

That could buy you 1/2 of a trip to Alaska each year....

 

[smalls]

In order, from the top of your head.....

How much "across the board" are you willing to pay more? What about your Redneck Neighbor who party hunts for the family of 6? Should he have to pay more for all 6 tags he is gonna fill? What about the Senior Citizen, doesn't he deserve the cheaper tags? What about the disabled? What about the Active Duty Military? Don't they deserve discounts? What about Kids, shouldn't kids get to keep getting cheap tags?

Idaho doesn't have "surplus" cows/does, we have Wolves and they ate all the surplus animals. And, "real men" don't shoot cows/does, Idaho has created a God Given right to blast Spikes and Forkies every year.

The tax has been in place 70 years.... And, that just "punishes" new people to the sport.

How the %#* did you know I had a redneck neighbor?! You forgot about women, shouldn't they get cheaper tags? And guys with one nut, shouldn't they get cheaper tags too?

If faced with the decision to create a system that A) has a slightly higher cost for everyone yet equitable opportunity or B) a drastically higher price for premium tags and lower priced tags for not-so-premium tags, I choose option A.

For my redneck neighbor, a $20.00 per tag increase if he shot 6 animals would be $120.00 increase in costs for him. Really, that is probably less than the cost of one of those Edelbrock stickers that come with a free 4-barrel carb. Definitely less than a months worth of Marlboro Reds.

Let's face it, most resident fees are a bargain and very, VERY few people rely on hunted game for sustanance. For those people that rely on wild game to feed the family, I am sure that it would be less expensive to put an ad in the pennysaver that they would take donated meat than burning the gas to hunt themselves. So I don't buy that argument.

As far as P-R is concerned, it is a Federal program...I am talking about a state program. Would it create higher costs to start hunting...yes, but only marginally. And I would bet that the amount of gear purchased would fall under the old 80:20 rule, or that 80% of gear sold is purchased by only 20% of sportsman.

Your view of entry-level sportsman being "punished" is interesting, because the same could be said for sportsman who would love that longshot opportunity at a high quality hunt, but can't even apply because of the outlandish tag costs. You are punishing those who don't have excess disposable income and limiting them to hunt areas of tertiary quality (hmm....that would probably include alot of active duty military, kids, seniors...you don't want the people in those groups to be treated like second-rate citizens do you?).

 

[JoseCuervo]

How the %#* did you know I had a redneck neighbor?! You forgot about women, shouldn't they get cheaper tags? And guys with one nut, shouldn't they get cheaper tags too?

Are you proposing some sort of "per nut" charge??? Wimmin get the cheapest, then the 1-Nutters, then 2-Nutters? Are you going to charge those with the biggest balls the most? What about the blue ones?

If faced with the decision to create a system that A) has a slightly higher cost for everyone yet equitable opportunity or B) a drastically higher price for premium tags and lower priced tags for not-so-premium tags, I choose option A.

It is never a good idea to piss everybody off with an across the board tax increase. Try and find a way to cause pain to a minority group that you don't like. I would, personally, charge based on the home state. Alaskans would pay $100 for a Elk Tag, Texans would pay $2000 for a Elk Tag.....

For my redneck neighbor, a $20.00 per tag increase if he shot 6 animals would be $120.00 increase in costs for him. Really, that is probably less than the cost of one of those Edelbrock stickers that come with a free 4-barrel carb. Definitely less than a months worth of Marlboro Reds.

You priced Keystone Light lately? Times are tough, we don't want to hurt people in these economic times.

Let's face it, most resident fees are a bargain and very, VERY few people rely on hunted game for sustanance. For those people that rely on wild game to feed the family, I am sure that it would be less expensive to put an ad in the pennysaver that they would take donated meat than burning the gas to hunt themselves. So I don't buy that argument.

We rely on Venison and Elk and other wild game for our red meat. We don't buy pork or beef. I should get a discount on my tags, 'cuz we eat the meat.

As far as P-R is concerned, it is a Federal program...I am talking about a state program. Would it create higher costs to start hunting...yes, but only marginally. And I would bet that the amount of gear purchased would fall under the old 80:20 rule, or that 80% of gear sold is purchased by only 20% of sportsman.

But, 100% of all gear bought for a new person would be applicable. That is a regressive tax and hurts the new person.

Your view of entry-level sportsman being "punished" is interesting, because the same could be said for sportsman who would love that longshot opportunity at a high quality hunt, but can't even apply because of the outlandish tag costs. You are punishing those who don't have excess disposable income and limiting them to hunt areas of tertiary quality (hmm....that would probably include alot of active duty military, kids, seniors...you don't want the people in those groups to be treated like second-rate citizens do you?).

Whoa..... Back up the truck!!! What are you saying? That I should not get rewarded for working hard, being more productive, and making more money than Joe the Plumber. Are you suggesting a Socialist idea like "spreading the tags around" and we all get equal? Why should I work hard if I don't get the benefits of hard work??? Next thing you will propose that the State should own all the game????? Dohh......that is right, the STATE does own the game, uhhhh... wouldn't that be MARXISM????

Damn, Bush and McCain were Marxists!!!

 

[brymoore]

The bastards want to increase the wolf tags by 85% to $18.

 

[BillyGoat]

When was the last time ID had res tag fee increases? AZ just recently had significant price hikes across the board which is probably why it sticks out in Oak's table. I think the tiered fees suck. *If* more money is needed, then it's simple -- raise the fees across the board and let the crybabies whine. $20 for an elk tag?!... are you kidding? As smalls suggested, you just spent how much on gas, ammo, gear, clothing, etc?

Speaking of Pittman-Robertson, as a side note, some of you may have heard of the "wooden arrows" thrown in with the recent bailout legislation...

Arrows stand out on list of 'sweeteners'
Tax package adds fuel to debate over bailout
Friday, October 03, 2008
By Jonathan Tilove

WASHINGTON -- Dave White, the owner of Cajun Archery, began the day Thursday with a visit to the chiropractor in his little city of Logan, Utah. But before he could get his musculoskeletal system aligned, he got an earful about the latest outrage from Washington.

In passing the historic financial rescue package Wednesday, the Senate, it seemed, had larded the bill with all kinds of oddball pork, and seemingly irrelevant tax breaks. Case in point: "Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children."

White was stunned. Cajun Archery, all eight full-time time employees (White included), makes most of those arrows produced in the United States. That provision was there to help him. White said he told the chiropractor, " 'This is me. I can afford to come here because of these arrows. This is Main Street.' "

Easy to mock, the break for wooden arrows was perhaps the way many millions of Americans learned that the momentous Wall Street bailout didn't pass the Senate as a standalone piece of legislation.

Before it passed the Senate on a 74-25 vote it was joined with a tax package -- including significant disaster relief for the Gulf Coast and Midwest -- and added to an entirely separate measure intended to require that insurance companies treat mental health claims the way they treat other claims.

--- Strategy carries risk ---

Senate leaders decided to combine the rescue and tax packages for a couple of reasons. It's getting late in the session, and the Senate has been in a long standoff with the House over the tax package because the House wants more of the tax breaks to be paid for with tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere. By attaching their version to the must-pass bailout, the Senate might have its way.

Then too, there is the view that some of the tax provisions, the disaster relief and a provision relieving 22 million taxpayers from having to pay the alternative minimum tax, would "sweeten" the deal, and get some of those on the fence about the bailout to vote "yes" and rouse a battalion of lobbyists on behalf of the legislation.

But there is a risk in that strategy that they might, in the process lose the votes of some fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats, like Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-Napoleonville, who so object to the deficit implications of the tax breaks in the Senate version, that it might tip their vote against the whole relief package when it comes to a vote today.

"How are we ever going to get this government back in the black," said Melancon, who was one of only two members of the Louisiana congressional delegation to vote in favor of the bailout when it failed in the House on Monday.

"Now I'm faced with what was turning out to be an easy vote for the right reason becoming a complicated vote for the wrong reason," said Melancon, who said he is leaning toward voting against it when the Senate version comes to the House floor. The world financial system hasn't collapsed since the defeat of the House bill earlier in the week, and Melancon said he was prepared to work through the weekend for yet another iteration of the bailout.

Among Louisiana lawmakers, only Rep. Jim McCrery, R-Shreveport, who is not seeking re-election, joined Melancon in voting yes on Monday. Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-Quitman, who liked the package of "tax extenders" and the revision in the alternative minimum tax, was still considering how to vote, as were Rep. Don Cazayoux, D-New Roads, who said he had not seen anything to change his mind, but he was still examining the legislation, and Rep. Charles Boustany, R-Lafayette, who was reviewing the bill. Rep. Steve Scalise, R-Jefferson, an outspoken opponent of the measure, and Rep. William Jefferson, D-New Orleans, who is in a tight primary Saturday, are expected to remain in the "no" camp.

--- Aiming to help youth groups ---

The Senate-passed bill is 451 pages of obscure bureaucratese.

"There are exemptions for RICs; I don't have a clue what a RIC is" said Melancon, adding that he had been informed that a RIC refers to a regulated investment company.

The reason why the exemption for the makers of wooden arrows became an object of national scorn was mostly because "wooden arrows" stick out amid the mumbo jumbo of the legalese, and sounded silly in the context of portentous business before the Senate.

So, when Taxpayers for Common Sense issued its list of "Top ten Sweeteners in the Bailout Bill," there, at number one was wooden arrows, followed by breaks for motor sports race tracks and Puerto Rican and Virgin Island rum.

But, on closer inspection, Sec. 503 appears less a poster child for congressional shenanigans and more like the kind of benign legislation that Mr. Smith might have proposed when he went to Washington.

What happened was that a few years ago, Congress changed the tax on the production of arrows from a percentage to a flat excise tax of 39 cents an arrow, a figure that has since risen to 43 cents an arrow. The tax is collected by the IRS and distributed among the 50 state fish and wildlife agencies to be used for projects from conservation to bow safety.

The unintended consequence, though, was that while the excise tax didn't seriously affect the market for most arrows, which are priced between $8 and $12, it devastated the market for the cheaper arrows used by youth groups -- schools, camps, scouts, boys and girls clubs -- which generally run in the $1 to $1.50 range, but which now had to contend with an excise tax that could inflate its price by as much as half.

The national market for youth arrows, according to White, plummeted from 1.4 million in 2004, to about 300,000 a year now. Cajun, which White relocated from New Iberia when he bought the company in 2004, went from being a middling producer to the industry giant, not because he was producing any more than before, but because his competition could no longer afford to stay in business.

--- 'Shockingly tame' ---

No one really opposes exempting the youth arrows from the excise tax. It will cost the state fish and wildlife services about $20 million over 10 years, but they unanimously voted in favor of lifting the tax because it was having a deleterious impact on youth archery programs.

"It's pretty shockingly tame," said Jay McAninch, president of the Archery Trade Association, after a long day of explaining Thursday.

 

[Tom]

Nothing personal Tom, but I wouldn't sell my resident tag for anything. ...

Those tags must be worth a lot to you then, eh?

 

[sreekers]

Yup, they are worth far more to me than the actual "price" of the tag.

 

[schmalts]

two tier pricing in any state is no better or worst than what UT and Don Peay have done with auction tags. It all comes down to giving those with more money more advantage to hunt public hunts. As someone mentioned, if the need for more money comes up tag fees should rise acrosss the board with opportunity remaining the same.

 

[Moosie]

I think they should charge more for some Units. Like Bennet Mnt. Why not raise that tage to $1,000 ? It would make the drawing odds easier and F&G would get their moeny. Leaving the 2 point area and general tag buyers a lower cost. Hunting has always gone toward the Rich, or those that prioritize.

Like Jose said, the majority of Idahoins like hunting every year and also complain about the cost of a tag. Even at the $30 it is right now. But they plop their Fat Arsh on a 5k 4-wheeler pulled by a 40k truck.

My thoughs are Jack up the Price. I'd pay.

 

[smalls]

Heck Moosie, why not $10,000 or $50,000 for a Bennet Mtn. tag, that would really increase the drawing odds. For most guys graduated pricing sounds like a great idea until they are the ones that are eliminated from the pool of (financially) qualified applicants.

 

[Tom]

Yup, they are worth far more to me than the actual "price" of the tag.

Nothing personal, but don't most people value the instate tag much more than they had to pay for it?

Then, the next point, nothing personal, is that their very own fish and game department needs more money, so, shouldn't they pay more of the value to them for the tag, at least more of the actual cost?

They are supposed to be sportsman, supporting hunting, right? If they don't support it, for what its worth, what the hell are they worth? (nothing personal)

If its cost is 40K, the price should be 40K, but I doubt its that much. We could tally the fish and game cost and the harvest numbers and then its simple division, that's what a tag with a harvest ought to cost, on average. An idea like that would be moving toward something more appropriate for the cost of a tag.

 

[sreekers]

Tom,

There are several ways that the price for growing our RM Elk(to borrow your language). One of the ways to generate revenue is for Elk hunters in areas that contain feed grounds have to buy a tag that goes directly into feeding the elk. For the first few years this tag was on $10.00. This season it went up to $12.50. I don't know the final revenue figure, but that is a cost that was given to the sportsmen directly to cover the animal that we enjoy.

Next our conservation tags, which went up again this year, do much of the same.

I will venture to say that soon every species will have a second tag, such as the Elk Feedground tag, except applicable to each species.

The reason that Wyoming keeps the numbers as high as they do is because there are that many people who want to hunt the animal.

All that said, we pay our fair share for the animal.

 

[Tom]

That sounds like a good system in WY, it really is cheap, spread out that way. That pays a "fair" share of feed ground costs. It might should be expanded, if its not, to non-feed grounds, as the animals eat other food also, eh? Oak is saying the fish and game departments are coming up short somehow, and I've read that too.


Do they do it for other species or in other states that you know of?

 

[sreekers]

I can't speak much for other states, but will tell you what I know about Wyo.

One of the problems that you run into here is that there are varying degrees of public land in different areas. Case one: Wind River/Wyoming Range- very easy to set up feed grounds in natural elk wintering grounds on BLM Public Land that does not cost much to set up.

Case Two: Eastern Slope of the Big Horn Mountains- Not a lot of attainable public land to set up as a feed ground. Instead they have to find areas that are state land that are natural traveling points for Big Game animals. What tends to happen there is Elk will spend the majority of their time on a ranchers land during the winter, competing with the cattle for food. Solution there is Access Yes. This program gives hunters access to private lands to hunt on. The problem is that this program is a voluntary donation, and not required. It has kind of backfired to some extent as well because I see more non-Residents who don't know to donate hunting on these lands than I see residents who have given to make sure that the populations are at consistent level. A new solution is needed to funding the support of those animals.

All this said, I believe that hunters who want to see the animals thrive, should carry the burden of supporting the animal. A tiered system may be one part of many that may be used to come up with more revenue for local F&G entities, but I do believe that more solutions will be needed to keep hunting affordable as well as available to the average guy such as me.

 

[1_pointer]

I'm not against the tiered systems too much, but if anything it should just buy one better odds. The most effective way to increase revenue for F&G is to increase the price of resident license. In this way a small increase can pay bigger dividends. A $5-10 increase in a resident tag fee will generate alot more money than a $100 increase in non-resident tags. Another way to increase revenue is through auctioning of tags. If done right, and I don't think UT is doing it right, this could generate big bucks for F&G. IMO, the biggest fault in UT's program is that the F&G farms out the auctioning of the tags to someone else! Way not keep all the money in the F&G??? That'd keep them from paying quite a bit of Don Peay's salary. Similarly, I think a tax or surcharge couldn/should be placed on tags that are transferable and sold, even landowner tags.

very easy to set up feed grounds in natural elk wintering grounds on BLM Public Land that does not cost much to set up.

Surprised to hear that there are feed grounds on BLM lands...

 

[Wyodeerhunter]

Surprised to hear that there are feed grounds on BLM lands...

I can't recall of any feedgrounds in WY that are on BLM land ( correct me someone if I am wrong). A lot of people think that public land = BLM land. All the feedgrounds I know of are on private land or National Forest/Park land.

 

[mtmiller]

Another way to increase revenue is through auctioning of tags. If done right, and I don't think UT is doing it right, this could generate big bucks for F&G.

I lied Tyler, no jobs up here. Utah sounds like your place.

BTW, tried to call you the last couple days, but to no avail. Feds not paying their phone bill?

 

[1_pointer]

Something's been screwy with our work phones the last couple of days... Good thing is I haven't gotten any phone calls!

Good luck in SoDak and sorry I missed your call I was in St. George for a meeting from Wed thru Fri.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1_pointer
Another way to increase revenue is through auctioning of tags. If done right, and I don't think UT is doing it right, this could generate big bucks for F&G.

I lied Tyler, no jobs up here. Utah sounds like your place.

Oh yeah, the outfitter garanteed thing is much better...