Wyoming FEES

[putm2sleep]

MN Public Hunter - I would ask the same of you - are you drunk? Fu..'in ridiculous statement. Move west, wait your year, and hunt as a resident. AND, bring your $50k truck with ya.

And to answer pointdogsrule's question : no. Deer are not worth $500+ to the average hunter. Higher prices, fewer tags. Less land. Waiting years to draw tags and be able. As many have stated, they will quit hunting. There will be(are) fewer hunters because of these increases, and the next generation of average DIY hunters will be left to suffer or all together left out.

 

[MN Public Hunter]

MN Public Hunter - I would ask the same of you - are you drunk? Fu..'in ridiculous statement. Move west, wait your year, and hunt as a resident. AND, bring your $50k truck with ya.

What is wrong with that statement? I did not say the Western states, I said EVERY state....

For every state that charges the non-res $400 , the resident should pay half that, yes , $200.. If the tag is $2600 then the resident pays $1300...Spread the cost. There is no reason ANY state should be killing non-residents like this, it's BS...

North...South...East and yes, West....

 

[Straight Arrow]

Like it or not, the state is entrusted with the welfare of wildlife and the hunting that goes along with it on behalf of the residents of that particular state ... not residents of the entire United States.

Admittedly, I am blessed to have lived in Montana my entire life, but if I lived elsewhere and loved the hunting and wildlife as seen in Montana or Wyoming ... I would move there. BTW, I probably have given up alot of income to stay here in Montana and work a couple of jobs to allow my family to hunt and to live a decent life, but that's the deal.

Montana sees many many folks move here because of the outdoor recreational opportunities. Some do well, some take a cut in pay, but it's all a personal decision.

It's like my granpa who homesteaded Montana said, "You like the grass on the other side of the fence? Well, ya don't have any pianos tied to your butt!"

 

[Big Fin]

Every time this comes up, there is always this implied connection to Federal Land and non-resident fees/tag allocation. There is absolutely NO connection between land ownership, whether public or private land, and allocation of hunting opportunity or non-resident fees.

Our status as a US citizen gives us zero standing for beneficial allocation of hunting opportunity to wildlife held in trust by other states. It is held in trust for the citizens of that other state, with any sharing to non-residents being at the descretion of that state.

This argument and lack of understanding of the principles that lead to the argument has been hashed many times. These comments trying to connect Federal land and hunting opportunity shows that many have not been exposed to the history of how wildlife is held in this country, and how land ownership has nothing to do with hunting opportunity.

All of that rant coming from a guy who has advocated raising Montana resident fees in every legislative session. We are laying it to non-residents, no doubt. I hope that changes in Montana, and other western states following our model of milking the non-residents.

That said, there is still no connection to Federal land, or any land, and state trusteed wildlife.

I recently wrote a short piece for Bugle Magazine, trying to show how the 5th Amendment governs property rights and how the 10th Amendment governs wildlife and allocation of hunting opportunity. Both equally important to our country, but completely disconnected when it comes to this argument.

 

[spook12]

Putm2sleep, you don't want Mnpublic to move to Co.! You need him buying NR tags. There in lies the problem your state and many others have set their funding up in such a way that you'' HAVE'' to rely on the NR hunter to fund the management of your wildlife. If you want as you stated above more tags, too not have to wait years to draw and lower prices then you need to find other means of funding so you are not reliant on the NR to fund your wildlife agencies.

 

[JohnCushman]

When I moved to Colorado, I waited the 6 months to get a hunting license to get my residency. Luckily, it put me as a resident just in time for 3rd rifle season and I was able to pick up a couple leftover doe tags and hunt with some buddys. I, for one, wouldn't be opposed to paying a bit of a higher resident fee.

 

[spook12]

John,i hear you if i where a resident of Co. i would want to pay more just so there would be more tags in the R draws. I have probably spent 6 to 8000 bucks on tags in Co. over the years, and i will continue too, but if i was a resident it would drive me crazy seeing how many tags have to be sold to NR's.

 

[JohnCushman]

I would think a large number of the tags sold to NR would be OTC tags...lol The tag allocation for NR in the draws isn't that great, plus landowners get more than the NR do, if I remember correctly. It's the landowner tags that should be the real issue, and not the NR allocation. Just my 2 cents....

 

[spook12]

Good point on the landowner tags. I will bet you a sixpack, that right this very second there is more than one NR up on the mountain chasing an elk or a deer with a primo tag in his pocket, that you or some other R would have loved to have.But the DOW cant afford to let one of you guys have it.

 

[JohnCushman]

A six pack? You Easterners are so cheap

 

[emrah1028]

MNPublic Hunter,

So are you saying we as residents should pay $71 for a whitetail tag for rifle season? Another $70 for ML? etc. I already think the $26 resident tags are quite high enough, thank you very much.

The problem I see with the whole res/non-res thing is similar to what's going on in the rest of the country: too much spending. You can keep raising and raising and raising tag fees every year, but why? What makes a whitail more expensive from one year to the next?

And, speaking locally (MN), what a boondoggle the Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Fund/Legacy Ammendment has been. It was SUPPOSED to be a small tax increase to benefit wildlife, DNR, etc. What has the money been funneled into? $&^%ing "Green Bikes" so the smelly, Che T-shirt wearing scum of the cities can ride around the cesspools of the cities for free. They've raped the fund, just like they've raped all other taxpayer funded monies and channeled it into... well, don't get me started.

Point is, the idea that fees "should" go up every year is ridiculous to me. The DNR (especially in our state) is growing like a damn gov't bureacracy. They used to be here to "help". Now they're growing like a weed and are the outdoor cops encroaching on yet more and more of our privacy. THIS is what needs MORE funding? I think not.

Cut costs. Cut prices. Stop spending.

Emrah

 

[spook12]

Crap John i have to be a cheap prick so i can keep buying those NR tags that you guys dont want.LOL.

 

[TheTone]

Not sure of the other states, but if Oregon were able to respond to, and prosecute half the game violators and really put it to them in the way of penalties, the agencies would have PLENTY of $$ and wouldnt have to stick it to us guys trying to do it legal. Just my .02

I'd be willing to bet that Oregon Fish and Game sees very little of any fines that are collected on game violations. Most fine money is probably go to great things in the local and state court system.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

emrah1028---Have you ever heard of inflation, LOL? Your post makes absolutely no sense when you know dang well that it costs you more every year for food, gas, insurance, utilities, etc. to exist. Do you think your DNR is any different?

 

[idnative1948]

WTF!
I am a resident only sportsman.
I have a $4000 pickup, a $900 ATV, a $400 and a $500 snowmobile. Don't EVEN lump me in with them. So GFY!

One solution to continue funding state agencies is to impose a modest increase on RESIDENT licenses, but resident sportsmen in the West have a propensity to howl long and loudly at such action. They will drive a $50,000 pickup and haul a pair of ATVs or snowmobiles worth many thousands, but an increase of twenty bucks in their resident license makes them apoplectic!

 

[emrah1028]

emrah1028---Have you ever heard of inflation, LOL? Your post makes absolutely no sense when you know dang well that it costs you more every year for food, gas, insurance, utilities, etc. to exist. Do you think your DNR is any different?

Yes, I DO think the DNR is different. Maybe I'm being too Minnesota-centric, but there's an alarming expansion of DNR, both in power and numbers, in this state. They've turned into the woodland gestapo out here. And there is a difference between inflation and jacking up license to the degree they do here. And we have it good it seems, as other states are worse for price hikes.

It's not about inflation or raising fees for the right reason. It's this backward state's shuffling of money around to pay for crap that has nothing to do with the outdoors. They treat it as a slush fund (as they do every other taxpayer dollar) and yet they come back, hands outstretched and ask (force?) you for more.

Guess you have to live here.

Emrah

 

[JohnCushman]

MNPublic Hunter,

So are you saying we as residents should pay $71 for a whitetail tag for rifle season? Another $70 for ML? etc. I already think the $26 resident tags are quite high enough, thank you very much.

The problem I see with the whole res/non-res thing is similar to what's going on in the rest of the country: too much spending. You can keep raising and raising and raising tag fees every year, but why? What makes a whitail more expensive from one year to the next?

And, speaking locally (MN), what a boondoggle the Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Fund/Legacy Ammendment has been. It was SUPPOSED to be a small tax increase to benefit wildlife, DNR, etc. What has the money been funneled into? $&^%ing "Green Bikes" so the smelly, Che T-shirt wearing scum of the cities can ride around the cesspools of the cities for free. They've raped the fund, just like they've raped all other taxpayer funded monies and channeled it into... well, don't get me started.

Point is, the idea that fees "should" go up every year is ridiculous to me. The DNR (especially in our state) is growing like a damn gov't bureacracy. They used to be here to "help". Now they're growing like a weed and are the outdoor cops encroaching on yet more and more of our privacy. THIS is what needs MORE funding? I think not.

Cut costs. Cut prices. Stop spending.

Emrah

You're whining about a $26 deer tag? Dude...you need a different hobby

 

[spook12]

Emrah, not knowing the specifics of your states DNR I'm not going to speak on that. I will say however that i personally don't mind one bit paying for wildlife's management. I figure its like anything else, people always find a way to fund the things that they care about. I think where we chose to invest our money says a lot about what we hold dear.

 

[MN Public Hunter]

MNPublic Hunter,

So are you saying we as residents should pay $71 for a whitetail tag for rifle season? Another $70 for ML? etc. I already think the $26 resident tags are quite high enough, thank you very much.

The problem I see with the whole res/non-res thing is similar to what's going on in the rest of the country: too much spending. You can keep raising and raising and raising tag fees every year, but why? What makes a whitail more expensive from one year to the next?

And, speaking locally (MN), what a boondoggle the Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Fund/Legacy Ammendment has been. It was SUPPOSED to be a small tax increase to benefit wildlife, DNR, etc. What has the money been funneled into? $&^%ing "Green Bikes" so the smelly, Che T-shirt wearing scum of the cities can ride around the cesspools of the cities for free. They've raped the fund, just like they've raped all other taxpayer funded monies and channeled it into... well, don't get me started.

Point is, the idea that fees "should" go up every year is ridiculous to me. The DNR (especially in our state) is growing like a damn gov't bureacracy. They used to be here to "help". Now they're growing like a weed and are the outdoor cops encroaching on yet more and more of our privacy. THIS is what needs MORE funding? I think not.

Cut costs. Cut prices. Stop spending.

Emrah

The answer is yes if that is half of what the non-res price is for MN. Hunting here is not just one license so of course per tag.

Maybe there is some magic number cruncher that says the non-res pay's 6-8 times, OR MORE in some states, than the resident, but I have never seen any rhyme or reason how they magically come up with those numbers.

If anyone can point me to how the come up with them I would be happy to read it.

 

[Slam]

Fin, thanks for the informative read.

Ben Lamb wrote " So how do you propose funding the conservation agency in charge of managing wildlife if not licenses?"

I didn't think the point of the thread was concerning funding, but the rather the large proposed increase in fees. My initial response was WOW!!

When I saw the size of the increase I thought of what my CPA said to me years ago "PIGS get fat - HOGS get slaughtered".

Out of curiousity, does anyone know what affect the MT increase had on non res. revenue and license numbers?