Originally Posted by
AK Jeff
Saluki,
I'm not trying to pick at you man, but I don't think you're really comprehending what you're saying. How exactly is it "fair" for you to get the pricing benefits of residency in Montana when your state can't even offer 9 of the 10 species of big game that Montana has? It doesn't matter if there's any set multiplier because Illinois can't offer non-resident elk tags at any price. How exactly do you find it to be "fair" when you're effectively trying to negotiate a trade, but you don't have anything to offer in return. What it boils down to is you just want something for nothing. You can absolutely get equal treatment, but you'd have to move there and wait 6 months to get residency. From there on you'd be golden. That's as fair a scenario as it can be.
also like I said I apply to "the west" I can't live in 10 states, I really just don't see how paying taxes has much to do with non-residents paying excessive amounts in tag fees.
I pay federal taxes just like everyone else. I pay state taxes, of which I feel very little of our taxes go to fund state wildlife, maybe I'm wrong, but I thought almost all of wildlife was funded through federal or through tag fees/licenses etc...
I also don't feel like everyone is dying to hunt MT, easterners, and non-residents alike, just want to shoot an elk at some point in their life, whether that's MT or CO, or AZ.
I think every state should just adopt a maximum multiplier of 10x. That's still not fair to non-residents, but at least it's more fair.
Just like IL, I'd pay more than I do to shoot a trophy buck in IL, and all I hear about is residents paying $426 or something for a non-res license.