Another tag fees rant...
 

I posted before about in general the non-res vs. res discrepancy in tag fees.

My latest idea, would be to place certain species in a specialty category in which non-res and residents would pay the same price.

I don't think there is a state in the US where people hunt sheep, goat, perhaps moose on an ongoing basis for meat....I think most if not all of these animals are typically once in a lifetime sort of tags...

I would think even residents of a state would be willing to pay non-res fees for the chance to draw say a desert bighorn sheep tag, am I wrong? and other specialty/once in a lifetime tags.

So why not bring in more money with equality priced specialty tags?

meat hunters would still be able to hunt for elk, deer, antelope etc...for much cheaper resident fees, but what would be the problem asking a resident to pay full price for a once in a lifetime tag?

Personally I would probably put, all bighorn sheep on this list, mtn goat, moose, ibex, Oryx, any other specie suggestions?

Anyone else thinks this makes sense? completely disagree?

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

How about no. Since I can only assume you mean one very large trophy moose, big horn sheep or goat I'd still say no. The application process for a true trophy in a true trophy area can take many years, in some cases 15 or more. The cost to actually get a moose license or for that matter either of the other twois high even as a resident. States that don't necessarily have such trophy hunts still charge a premium for out of state hunters, why shouldn't mine.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

I totally disagree with non residents paying the same price as residents.Residents pay the taxes that pay the wages to manage the game in their state/province,they pay the taxes that maintain the roads and other services,and they support the local economy all year,not just for a week or two each year.As such, they shouldn't have to pay as much as non residents.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

LOL. You can come here to hunt anything you want for under $300 dollars. An elk tag alone in nearly ANY state as NR is pushing $5-600. Want a sheep as a NR? Try $1500-2000 for tag alone.

I will pay, just makes it ridiculous if you want to play the game...how much you must front each year. You could buy a brand new BMW with the amount of money one would be required to front yearly to play in all the draws possible out west.


Let's not even go into the fact that many of these animals are found on FEDERAL land, meaning EVERY US citizen should have equal access to it....logically?

I can see SOME difference being fair for all species. But when you compare less than $100 for residents, when the same tag costs a NR $500-2000?? That is a bit ridiculous.

Saluk, I could be wrong...but I THINK those oryx and ibex hunts in NM are already structured that way where Residents and Nonresidents alike pay the same...double check me there though.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

No, license fees pay those salaries.;)
Many roads are federally funded.
They only support the local economy out of necessity, that doesn't really make sense? Traveling sportsmans BOOST an economy from what it would be if only the locals were there.

Lets not loose sight that this price gouge ONLY applies to hunting. Hikers, Nature Watchers, Swimmers, National Park visitors, trail fees, etc...are all the same no matter where you live. Only the hunting licenses are out of whack, and not out of fairness....out of money. They see where they can greatly increase income revenue, so they exploit it. They realize nonresidents will continue to pay through the nose to get to hunt, pretty much to no limit....which is why the prices keep spiraling upwards.

Its sort of like the WY Nonresident wilderness law. Nonresident hunters can NOT hunt designatedwilderness areas, without the use of a guide. Resident hunters can. Resident birdwatchers and hikers can. NONRESIDENT birdwatchers and hikers can....ONLY nonresident HUNTERS are restricted from using these areas. (to supposedly save risking lives and unnesseary search and rescue missions) I guess every resident of WY and all nonresident hikers just have better survivor skills than some shmuck with a bow in hand?[&:] Its another bogus set of laws, meant only to exploit a situation and create money. NRs will still hunt these areas, only now they have to fork out an additional $5-6k to be accompanied by a local guide, funneling more money into local economy.

Don't think for a second it is about anything more than money.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

I have no problem with the system as I hunt as a resident of my home state and accept the fact I have to pay more to hunt more when I go out of state. Its not just hunting, fishing licenses are the same. Residents pay a cheaper rate than non residents to fish, to bird hunt, etc or atleast the states that I am aware of? Its a benifit to being a resident of the state you pick to live in. I dont always agree with the price the non residents pay, howeversupply and demand I believe have set the rates being much higher.No shortage of people willing to pay.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

i agree i have no problem with the system the way it is. i think residents should pay less because i am more likely to hunt at home every year than i am to travel to another state every year. i think it falls into the "its cheaper to service the customers you have than it is to go out and get new ones". i think the states figure they get more money keeping keeping residents in state. im afraid of what the tag fees would be if everyone paid the same anyway. i think it would be a huge increase for residents and that would stop a lot of people from hunting at all.

i would like the opportunity to hunt other states and the cost is a big reason i dont. time is another but mainly the cost. i like the idea though. maybe we could convice the states to have it so everyone pays resident fees. then i would be all for it.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

Where I live license fees do pay for part of the expenses,but tax dollars make up the difference,which is considerable.The Fish&Wildlife department needs buildings,vehicles,equipment,office supplies etc.as well as paying the C.O.s and biologists salaries,and license fees just aren't enough to cover it all.

And many roads are built or maintained by the state/province or local municipality.

Necessity or otherwise,they do support the local economy all year round,and that is what keeps the local businesses open.

Non Resident hunters do supplement the local economy for a few months each year,but they aren't the people that allow the local businesses to be able to operate year round.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

This subject has been debated for years. The reality is that it isn't going to change, and those who are willing to pay the price will draw the tags. Those who aren't willing to pay the price will largely be left behind. Do I like having to pay non-resident fees for the 60+ out of state tags that my son and I apply for each year, heck no! BUT, I realize that is whatI have to do in order for us to be able to draw great tags in multiple states as the years go by, so I diligently apply for nearly every species in nearly every western state. Perhaps that is why we've drawn Kaibab deer, early Muzzleloader elk in Arizona, unit 9 archery in Arizona, Monroe archery elk in Utah, and I could go on and on. Odds are, over the next ten years, my son and I will draw more quality tags than 95% of the people who big game hunt, and that will be the result of many years of diligently following an application strategy to put us in this position. My son is 21, and he has 13 desert sheep points in AZ, 10 bighorn points in WY, 9 for sheep in NV, and on and on. Wanna bet how many sheep hunts he'll get to enjoy be the time he's fifty?

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

It all comes down to math, if residents and non-residents paid the same price for tags, then the Fish and Game Department would have to increase the price of the tag. If a non-resident deer tag curently cost $350 and they droped the price to say $50 then the Fish and Game Department would have to sell 7 tags to recoup the same amount of money. That means allot more hunters for the same price which would impact the harvest. Most of the Western states could not absorbe adition hunting presure or harvest of our big game animals. I have no problem with the way the system is now designed. If you have a problem with the out of state fees then become a resident.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

Son, it's like this.

Non-residents are a different species than resident hunters.

Non-resident hunters don't get a chance to vote a politician out of office.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

Salukipv1,
IL, now I understand the problem you live in the wrong state! Best idea, "MOVE".

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

There is only 1 reason that NR licenses are so expensive and that is b/c they can be and we still pay for them.MT determined the price of their NR guaranteed licenses by raising them until they didn't sell out, and that is where they left it. I am sure many other states have done similar things to determine their prices. IN did that for their deer licenses and turkey licenses. They are rediculous as well, so it is not all western states.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

If the states really wanted to increase the amount of money brought into their fish & game for their project to better manage the game, they'd lower their non-res. tags, not to the level of resident, but to a level where the average hunter could make it happen more often.
It may seem counter intuitive, but it's like lowering certain taxes that encourage more to invest in capital improvements, buy new equipment, start more businesses, etc., which results in higher total revenue to the gov't.
But the real driving force is the nature of man to prevent this that thinks I want to keep things all to myself, raise non-res. fees,resulting in less total money for such game enhancing projects and less game for all to hunt.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

Nah. That's not true. A situation like that only applies if there is an unlimited supply (or relatively unlimited) of whatever is being sold (or being taxed, as in your example). When there is obviously a precise limit on supply, such as nr big gametags, then optimum revenue will be obtained by charging the highest price possible while making sure that no tags are left unsold because of price refusal...so, as long as demand remains high, the economics are pretty sound.

Now, your example may hold some water when it comes to fishing/bird-hunting and other unlimited licenses for NRs.

Another argument that may seem sound on the surface but underneath is very shaky. Example: If you personally owned 500 acres in MT, and yet did not live there, you STILL could not hunt there without an NR tag. You could however, hike, birdwatch, or cook out...just like federal land So, the owner of the land is irrelevant in this scenario. It matters only where you live.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

I like the way the tag fees prices are set up.

I will gladly pay what ever your home state is asking for a deer tag. Just as soon I get tired of hunting deer in my home state of Montana.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

I kinda think it's crappy that western states get to charge non-residents over 10 times more for licenses; especially considering that most non-residents will be hunting on national forest land, and will have dramatically lower success rates when not using a guide.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

While I just paid well in excess of $600 for a MT big game combo tag (which I am happy and feel fortunate to have drawn for a second year), I also understand why it is the way it is. Sure, residents pay like $12 for that tag and I hunt federal land. However, despite being federal land, the support to MANAGE that federal land is STATE, not federal. Additionally, that same federal land I hunt it the only land all the local residents have to hunt.

Now, MT has a very small population compared to many states. If they charged, say, $50 for NR tags and did not limit them, so many NR would come in that the residents would be overwhelmed and not have a chance. I understand that MT has to take care of MT residents first. I am very happy they let me draw a tag and come in and enjoy the great state. I chose not to live there so I could have a better paying job and afford not jus the $600 tag but other things in life. It was a trade-off between that and the hunting/beauty of MT and I'm ok with that.

If they slashed the price but kept the same number of tags, they kill their revenue. I was told that the huge area of MT I was hunting had only 1 patrolling conservation officer -- we're talking an area bigger than many states. Apparently MT fish and game is not rolling in cash to hire tons of conservation officers, so I can see why they do what they do.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

Come to Pa. A hunting tag will cost you $101 and you can buy it over the counter. I paid 1500 for the combo this year out your way.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

If you want to compare, please do so fairly:

1) If you paid $1500 for a MT combo tag, it was not a regular one but outfitter-sponsored or something, so you can't compare like you're doing. A MT combo tag is about $650 or so.

2) How many deer can you shoot each year in PA? Even residents in MT can only shoot 1 buck. Their deer populations are much smaller and their are far fewer hunters than the densly populated eastern states. You can shoot dozens of deer in Indiana if you get permission in enough counties (1 buck) and many midwestern states allow you to shoot multiple bucks. So the DNR is raking in money from many, many more tags and can allow virtually unlimited non-resident tags to go out. MT limits non-residents to 10% of tags.

It's very hard to make a legitimate comparison between eastern and western states. I think a $650 combo tag in MT is a better value than the $120 whitetail tag in MI.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

So why aren't Residents allowed cheaper tickets to sporting events?
Discounted prices into national parks?
Why aren't NRs charged more at the toll booth, or down at the local diner?

It is based on fairness right?


Any way you look at it, it boils down to money. They know someone out there is willing to pay for it, so they charge it. I wouldn't have a care in the world if they wouldn't all require the money up front, EVEN IF YOU OPT FOR POINTS ONLY. What a crock, technically you aren't even entering yourself into the draw in the first place, yet you still have to come up with the several thousand dollars for the state to hold for you for a few months, then return all but the $20ish dollar fee for your point. Why not just charge for the point?

Why does WY require guides on "wilderness area" for NR hunters, but not for hikers, fisherman, or wildlife photographers..or even resident hunters for that matter? Does state of residency determine one's survival skills? Nope, another crock of bs to draw in more money.[:'(]

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

You know, I'm starting to wonder if I should build PP's at all anymore in some of these states? As one example, I just recently spent $250 to apply (and build points) in Nevada. Doing the math, from a highlevel, applying in multiple states with high fees, I could easily spend $1000 - just for a chance at a low percentage draw/tag....

Maybe I'm better off hunting general units (and cheap states) and then every few years buying a landowner tag or paying a tresspass fee someplace for 3-4000??? At least that way I'm guaranteed to hunt at some point....

Anyone else went that way or thought about it?

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

BS, It is not based on fairness, it is based on supply and demand. If you can front the cash, you have just as good of chance as the next out of state shmoe trying to get a tag. Heres a thought, why should any tags be set aside for non-residents when there is a limited resident draw? Why the hell should somebody from out of state even be allowed to put in for a moose tag, when residents can't even hunt them w/o special draw?

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

Why shouldn't a non-resident have at least a slim chance to come out and hunt on US Forest service land in MT for a hard to draw tag/hunt? After all, isn't Forest Service land in MT just as much mine as it is yours?

I guess all the land in the western states must be private or state owned land??

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

Ummm...they do. Non-residents can apply for the MT drawings just like residents. The real difference is the tag costs them more.

What you people keep failing to realize is that land-ownership is completely irrelevant in this argument. The game animals are owned by the STATE that they live in, and those states can choose who can and can't consumptively use their resources. It doesn't matter if the animals areon Federal, State, or private property they're all owned by the STATE. That state is really no different than a business owner. They have a commodity to offer and a certain inventory that they can dispose of. They set their pricing based on the market so they can maximize their revenues from the finite amount of game that can be harvested. Lower resident tag prices are really no different than employee discounts that many businesses offer. They're just incentives to keep the constiuents happy. People from outside pay full retail. It's that simple. It's not based on anything even remotely close to fairness. It's all business. State game departments need to maximize their profit margins from the tags they sell because that's primarily what funds their game law enforcement, research progams, educational outreach, etc. They're not going to cut back their programs because somebody is butt hurt that non-resident tags are expensive. Reality is that most states probably wouldn't even offer non-resident tags if they could generate the same kind of revenue from just their residents.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

Yeah, I realize that's how game is managed and such - was just making the point that much of the game in western states is on federal land, just an interesting point I think when people are saying I don't have a right to hunt there. And honestly, I don't mind paying more as a non-resident, cause a non-res is going to pay more in my home state too. What irritated me was someone making a comment that just because I'm a non-res, we shouldn't be able to apply for draw tags in their state and the reference to non-residents as a schmoes... IMO - that's just a stupid and rude comment, period.....

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

+1, and coming from a guy paying high fees for these hunts. I don't mind higher non-res fees....what I think is BS is the Wyoming guided requirement on wilderness areas....that is nothing more than BS gov-t subsidy of local businesses. If they can get people to go for it ok for them I guess, but this is one guy that won't set foot in the state as long as that regulation is in place. I will pay the high non-res fee, but I am DIY only.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

Actually most of the game animals, even in western states, are on private lands, not federal. Alaska (and possibly Utah and/or Nevada) would be the exception just because of theprevalance of public land. Regardless they're all state property, even in Alaska where there's seperate federal hunting regulations. You can go to any state and photograph or just casually view the wildlife side by side with the residents. You can camp and hike and take a crap behind a bush in the national forests just like everybody else regardless of your residency. It's when you want to become a consumptive user that all bets are off. The argument that the animals are on federal land has been taken to court repeatedly and it's been shot down repeatedly. Unless a species is protected by the feds...i.e. Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty, etc. its management is up to the state. End of story. If game animals on federal lands belonged to all U.S. citizens then in the same respect the ones on private land would belong to that landowner. We certainly don't want that. Actually that would make it a lot easier for me to hunt the family ranch back in MT...maybe we do want that!!!

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

First I will pay what it takes just the way it is but be carefull of what you wish if these states that charge alot get more for NR with huge price hikes they will take tags from residents so its better to pay a little more at home then charge the NR extreme amounts.


With that said I dont want to take a tag away from anyone in there own state it could be a kids tag you receive.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

I don't agree with the Wyoming Outfitter law of having to have a guide to hunt the wilderness it does belong to all the people.

Lets break it down like this. People live in each state they choose to live. Being a resident should have it's benefits. Say Colorado has 250,000 elk and everyone doesn't have to draw or pay higher fees from out of state. That would be like opening the flood gates on a dam. How long do you think it would be until the number of elk were so low that the odds of seeing an elk in the wild would be slim to none. How many Young Hunters would ever get the chance to hunt in their own state before loosing interest in hunting period? There's a reason for the non resident fee's and limited draws especially in areas where the wild life officials are trying to bring up the numbers for a good hunting experience. The State should control the number of hunters in the field by tag fees and limited numbers by drawing tags in some area's.

I do believe everyone has the right to hunt. And the national forest belongs to us all and it's our playground. But I stand behind the state's for making decisions on keeping good hunting statistic's and not just flooding hunters into the field and wiping out the game. There's a big difference between a state having 250,000 elk and another state having 3 million whitetail deer. You have too understand the whole picture.

Also a Colorado Elk for around $600 is three times the meat for the money versus a Kansas Whitetail for $333. But it's not about meat is it. It's about being able to play and not have to pay. In life we all have to pay to play but some have to pay more. Move to where you want to hunt the game you want to hunt the rest of you life because it's going to get a lot worse in the future with numbers of tags and costs.

Last thing all states that draw for limited licences should be 50/50 so everyone gets a chance.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

Be nice if CO. had 750,000 elk more like 250,000 tho 3,000,000 deer maybe texas but here in Wis. its under 850,000 and we have a large herd according to the DNR.
I have hunted CO. for a long time, Used to be able to draw prime area's with 2 points now over 12, I will never be able to hunt in a prime area again (due to age) probably never be able to get a statewide ML bull tag either. THis year hopefully I will draw 1st rifle season. I cannot walk far enough to get away from hunters in the second season. No I am not going to pay an outfitter to hunt on private land tresspass fee might be an option tho. I am NOT complaining about there system. I was just lucky to be able to hunt when I did. Only problem I have is friends who only put in for points and hunt only once or twice in CO. but get the choice area's. Points are way to cheap IMO.
RC

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

Redclub good catch. Correction on the 250,000 I wasn't thinking when I put 750,000. And Texas has the largest population between 3.5 -4 million. Sad thing to see the draw get so crazy. They have thought about doing away with the points system and go to a lottery but that would be bad for some of us that are unlucky playing lottery games to begin with. I'm just glad Colorado is still an over the counter elk state so far and we have fought hard on making them not over hunt cows in the late seasons to keep the higher population. There's enough elk for all to hunt with out having to go to the draw system for every unit and every season. Hope you have a great 1st season hunt.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

You might consider RFW hunts. There are a lot of really quality hunts that still only take a few points for bullsand 0 to 1 point for a cow. Look at the RFW's on the western side of the state.

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

AreRFW tags for residents only?

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

Yep the free tags are ,but you can pay to hunt on these ranches however for an ol guy on Social security and the stock market taking a dive That is out of the question.
I used to hunt the first season when you could buy over the counter tags, but there were tons of hunters .We would take my horses and pack in to the flat tops wilderness, but there were even a lot of hunters there, Outfitters had all the choice camping spots. One outfitter ran 22 camps in the wilderness but it sure was/is beautiful country up there.
Oh to be a little younger again (for some things)
RC

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

well i am to dang poor i have put in for bout 5 years now the last 2 years i havent even got my money back what do i do

RE: Another tag fees rant...
 

How much for a bear tag,what is the tag limit per season.