Non-resident tag pricing

[The Hedgehog]

Tom, isn't it cattle season down there?

 

[Dinkshooter]

I would love for a eastern/southern crybaby to trace one single penny from the taxes he paid, to the benefit of the elk I shot this year. Spreadsheets, flow charts whatever you need. If you can prove it I will support 25cent NR elk tags in Colorado. Just one penny.

 

[Nemont]

Nemont, if you own some land, can I have my animals come and eat all the food they want off of your land?

I have no idea what a question like that has to do with NR hunting fees?

Nemont

 

[A-con]

Big Fin, I understand the concept of public trust and state ownership of wild life, but your post spells it out as good as or better than I have ever seen. Thank you, good stuff.

Schmalts, my thoughts exactly


Az, what can I say, I’m here to serve. Besides, it makes you laugh when a Texan talks about public land, doesn’t it ?

Tom, the idea of distributing tags by percentage based on land ownership is an interesting concept. A terrible idea, but an interesting concept.

 

[AZ402]

I see both sides, but cringe when i see prices of res vs nonres get so out of balance. I will only say this since the rest has been beaten to death already..
Slowly the income bracket of those who will be your NR hunters is going up, and that will only bring hardship to everyone on both sides unless you are the upper income NR themselves. Big money NR bring more money and power to outfitters, and stuipid rules will always follow like outfitter preference in many states drawings, and WY totally bullshit wilderness law, and your own states private lands locked up in leases.
It is going in a bad direction and i hate to see what it will be like in 10 years.
Buzz will defend any price hike in his own state, but with the last few percentage hikes between tags and bonus points, what will it be like 15 years from now if we keep going like this? How will it affect the future of hunting? I can only see bad things.

 

[BuzzH]

AZ402,

My thoughts exactly....bunch of crybabies.

In particular Schmalts...the guy acts like you're taking his last 12 cents for him to apply for NR permits.

 

[TLC]

have seen this discussion elsewhere, and everyone here has good points. not sure how all the western states decide who gets what with all these draws and such, but have to throw a couple things out there.

first, if all tax payers support the federal lands that they have more of out there than here, why do states get to charge for non resident tags for people who in theory, own the land?

second, be careful how you approach this stuff. governor rod, here in illinois, just decided in his infinate wisdom, that control over hunting should go to the individual city governments. not necessarily tags, but where and when and how. still waiting to see the print out of the exact wording of this.

and after becoming a non resident hunter in idaho last year, can honestly say, didn't think the prices were out of line at all. 141 or so for a non resident? and then the 32 for the bear tag. seemed pretty reasonable consider illinois charges that for deer here in illinois. and they have deer everywhere in this country. and the only bears we have here are at the zoos. and they frown at hunting up there.

 

[schmalts]

Now when did you that that picture of me? was it right after you said I couldn't have my Miller Lite cooler back?
Buzz, your opinion means nothing, your a Democrat so therefor you cannot think and we all are aware of your handicap

 

[pa mt man]

"As for the Federal Public lands ie. BLM, Forest Service etc. you have just as much access as any resident but that doesn't mean you should get to jump the line and get a tag. That is a pretty dumb way of looking at the NR tag issue.

If you want to hunt out west every year then move out west.

Nemont[/QUOTE]

That is not quite true. I don't have as much access as any resident. When I hunted in Wyoming,I wanted to hunt a wilderness area in my unit and my friend said I couldn't without a guide. I think a few other states are like that. I don't think that's fair.

I'm hoping to take your advise some day and move northwest to Alaska. My wife is going to retire in the next few years and she said she would move up there for a while.

As far as the NR tag prices go,the only way they are going to go down is if we don't buy them and that's not going to happen.

 

[mtmiller]

: Buzz, your opinion means nothing, your a Democrat so therefor you cannot think and we all are aware of your handicap

Schmalts, could you give me specifics about what makes Buzz a democrat (I will assume you mean liberal).

 

[justdada]

I'm a bit suprised by the reactions here. This type of quibbling is why I don't spend much time on MM.
And the question has been lost...

As for 'how much is too much'?
For me some states are getting close.
I understand that due to inflation, things must become more expensive, but a 20% jump in one year is beyond reason.
Most of us are also guilty of pressing for more trophy areas, which by default demands increased tag fees. Lower numbers of hunters in the field is great for finding wall hangers, but hurts the local communitee...
Far too many variables involved to simply dismiss the issue to something as simple as supporting outfitters, or a feeling of Right due to federal tax distribution.

 

[BuzzH]

Schamltsteinbergman,

Shake the dust out of your wallet...crybaby.

 

[Nemont]

That is not quite true. I don't have as much access as any resident. When I hunted in Wyoming,I wanted to hunt a wilderness area in my unit and my friend said I couldn't without a guide. I think a few other states are like that. I don't think that's fair.

I'm hoping to take your advise some day and move northwest to Alaska. My wife is going to retire in the next few years and she said she would move up there for a while.

As far as the NR tag prices go,the only way they are going to go down is if we don't buy them and that's not going to happen.

You could go into those wilderness areas if you weren't hunting, without a guide. Guess who pressed for that little gem of a law, the Wyoming guide and outfitters association primarily funded by NR hunters.

It is a stupid law but again NR hunters slit their own throats by supporting Outfitter welfare.

Nemont

 

[A-con]

TLC, you have articulated a point that I wanted to address with this post, the “I can afford it, so I think it’s OK” point of view.

can honestly say, didn't think the prices were out of line at all. 141 or so for a non resident? and then the 32 for the bear tag. seemed pretty reasonable consider.

I guarantee you right now there is someone thinking “I could afford $5,000 to hunt elk, if only I didn’t have to compete in that drawing”.
If we let ourselves get into this “what the market will bare” frame of mind, sooner or latter the market will out pace most of us.

 

[BuzzH]

A-con,

Do you think the WYG&F is thinking they'll be jacking the price of an elk tag to 5k in a few years?

Do you think 5% a year increase over the last 4 year period is out of line?

By what percentage has the dubya administration and his oil baron buddies increased their prices in the last 4 years? Only 20%?

Quit the whining.

 

[BigHornRam]

Can't argue (quibble) with a thing you posted Justdada. You obviously can see more than one side of an issue. Wish more people could. The infighting is going to be the end of hunting long before the dollar issue will, IMO.

 

[schmalts]

Schamltsteinbergman,

Shake the dust out of your wallet...crybaby.

I can't, I am saving up to buy a collection of gay hats like you have.

 

[Tom]

The price of the tag is only a small part of the picture. With small percentages of tags going to non-residents, e.g. doesn't Oregon give like 3% of their tags for something or other, I forgt, to non-residents. 100/3, that means it takes 33 years of applying on average for a non-resident to get a tag. They make 33 times what one resident pays to apply on average.

Some states now make non-residents buy a liscense to apply for a tag even.

Half of the Pittman-Robertson funds we all pay, (like the million hunters in New York , the million in PA, the million in MI, the million in TX, etc.), are distributed based on numbers of hunting liscenses sold.

Many states are abusing the system in my opinion, big time. Its possible because the non-resident doesn't vote in the state and people are, so far, afraid to let the feds do more.

 

[Nemont]

The price of the tag is only a small part of the picture. With small percentages of tags going to non-residents, e.g. doesn't Oregon give like 3% of their tags for something or other, I forgt, to non-residents. 100/3, that means it takes 33 years of applying on average for a non-resident to get a tag. They make 33 times what one resident pays to apply on average.

Some states now make non-residents buy a liscense to apply for a tag even.

Half of the Pittman-Robertson funds we all pay, (like the million hunters in New York , the million in PA, the million in MI, the million in TX, etc.), are distributed based on numbers of hunting liscenses sold.

Many states are abusing the system in my opinion, big time. Its possible because the non-resident doesn't vote in the state and people are, so far, afraid to let the feds do more.

Tom,

Do ever read the stuff people post in answer to your rantings? Oregon does what it feels is right for their residents. In some states NR cannot even apply for certain species. Again the there is ample case law and laws passed by congress giving the right to the several states to manage wildlife and determine tag allocations. People are afraid of the Feds getting involved because what is good for Georgia isn't good for Montana, ect.

The Pittman-Robertson money is also a null void because your description of how funds are distributed is an over simplification. There are limits to anyone state recieve more then it's share.

DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS: Formula-based apportionment; 50-percent on the basis of land area of the and 50-percent on the basis of paid hunting license holders. No State may receive more than 5-percent or less than one-half of 1-percent of the total apportioned. Puerto Rico is apportioned up to one-half of 1-percent; Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands are each apportioned up to one-sixth of 1-percent of the total apportioned.

Funding for hunter education and shooting ranges (section 4(c) hunter education under the Wildlife Restoration Act) is derived from one-half of the 12.4-percent excise tax on archery equipment, 11-percent on other firearms, shells, and cartridges, and 10-percent excise tax on handguns, pistols, and revolvers. The other one-half of the excise tax is used by for wildlife restoration purposes. Hunter safety (Section 4(c) hunter education) funds are formula-based apportionment on the basis of population of the States. No State may receive more than 3-percent or less than 1-percent of the total hunter safety funds apportioned. Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands are each apportioned up to one-sixth of 1-percent of the total apportioned.

MATCHING REQUIREMENTS: The program is a cost-reimbursement program where the State covers the full amount of an approved project then applies for reimbursement through Federal Assistance for up to 75-percent of the project expenses. The State must provide at least 25-percent of the project costs from a non-federal source. Commonwealths and territories do not have a minimum non-federal matching share. The non-Federal share may be derived from license fees paid by hunters.


So what states are abusing NR hunters? If hunter numbers through out the U.S. are falling how come more and more people are coming west to hunt every year? Montana's Outfitter set aside tags sell out every year. They have a market based component to them and the biggest champions of these guaranteed tags are NR hunters who are guaranteed a tag every year. So tell me why I should feel sorry for NR hunters? I go to North Dakota most years to hunt and often to Canada I don't whine about what they charge and if I don't like what they charge I don't go. Kind of a simple thing if you don't like the system don't participate or move to the state you wish to hunt in the most.

Nemont

 

[Tom]

Nemont, the crutch of the old laws is a dieing argument to me, get it? New laws are needed, that's what I"m talking about.

Others keep pressing for a change, trying to sue some state, based on some old law, sometimes from a new viewpoint. Congress can just make a new law, that's another approach to get back to the idea of all the animals for all the people.