Seems every few years enough non-resident fee increases accumulate to cause a surge of emails and comments to us. Many of them are venting and frustration, which I understand. And many of those venting demonstrate a pretty low level of understanding about the history of how we go here.
How we got here mostly originates from the Baldwin case of 1978, the many cases lost by states from 2002-2005, and the Federal legislation to exempt states from the Dormant Commerce Clause when it comes to wildlife that was passed in 2005 as a response to the western states losing court cases on non-resident allocation
With significant prices increases in the last few years, along some recent smaller issues, such as Oklahoma now making WMAs/NWR more expensive and restricted to non-residents, or Kansas passing a bill (that was eventually vetoed) to restrict NR waterfowlers, our inbox is full of messages about the resident v. non-resident issue. So, Marcus and I felt adding some history might help some of this discussion.
That being said, when I raise caution about the western states' tendencies to continually lay the pipe to non-residents, the residents of western states have some comically colorful descriptions of me and my intelligence. I stand by the last part of this video - that western residents are not doing themselves long-term benefit by continually placing more costs on non-residents while leaving their own fees laughably low. My home state of Montana being most recent, by increasing the NR base hunting license from $15 to $100, as if the elk tag cost ratio of $20 to $1,078 wasn't enough.
I'm all about each state setting whatever tag allocations work for them. In my home state it is "up to 10%." For states that are more generous, such as CO and WY, I'm grateful. For states that are more restrictive, such as NM and OR, or ND providing no NR moose tags or SD providing no NR elk tags, I accept that. Their decision. I adjust my applications accordingly.
Once the allocations are set, the pricing seems to be a big issue I struggle to understand. If a state has a NR cap, that cap is going to determine how many NRs will get a license. Pricing has nothing to do with resident v. non-resident opportunity or crowding by NRs. Pricing is more to do with residents taking a stance on how much of their own agency do/don't want to fund.
It will be interesting to see how many people actually listen to the history of how we got here, the court cases and legislation that has steered us to this point, of if they will just use it as a reason to vent about western hunting costs and further hammer the resident v. non-resident nail.
I am not foolish enough to think that folks will reason themselves away from their personal biases, mostly guided by where they live and what hunting opportunity they desire. The goal is to lay out the basis for what exists and hopefully get people to think about the topic in a bigger sense than just their own lens.
How we got here mostly originates from the Baldwin case of 1978, the many cases lost by states from 2002-2005, and the Federal legislation to exempt states from the Dormant Commerce Clause when it comes to wildlife that was passed in 2005 as a response to the western states losing court cases on non-resident allocation
With significant prices increases in the last few years, along some recent smaller issues, such as Oklahoma now making WMAs/NWR more expensive and restricted to non-residents, or Kansas passing a bill (that was eventually vetoed) to restrict NR waterfowlers, our inbox is full of messages about the resident v. non-resident issue. So, Marcus and I felt adding some history might help some of this discussion.
That being said, when I raise caution about the western states' tendencies to continually lay the pipe to non-residents, the residents of western states have some comically colorful descriptions of me and my intelligence. I stand by the last part of this video - that western residents are not doing themselves long-term benefit by continually placing more costs on non-residents while leaving their own fees laughably low. My home state of Montana being most recent, by increasing the NR base hunting license from $15 to $100, as if the elk tag cost ratio of $20 to $1,078 wasn't enough.
I'm all about each state setting whatever tag allocations work for them. In my home state it is "up to 10%." For states that are more generous, such as CO and WY, I'm grateful. For states that are more restrictive, such as NM and OR, or ND providing no NR moose tags or SD providing no NR elk tags, I accept that. Their decision. I adjust my applications accordingly.
Once the allocations are set, the pricing seems to be a big issue I struggle to understand. If a state has a NR cap, that cap is going to determine how many NRs will get a license. Pricing has nothing to do with resident v. non-resident opportunity or crowding by NRs. Pricing is more to do with residents taking a stance on how much of their own agency do/don't want to fund.
It will be interesting to see how many people actually listen to the history of how we got here, the court cases and legislation that has steered us to this point, of if they will just use it as a reason to vent about western hunting costs and further hammer the resident v. non-resident nail.
I am not foolish enough to think that folks will reason themselves away from their personal biases, mostly guided by where they live and what hunting opportunity they desire. The goal is to lay out the basis for what exists and hopefully get people to think about the topic in a bigger sense than just their own lens.
