Thoughts on non-resident fees...
06-09-2007 | 09:58 AM
#21
Dominant Buck
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 22,545
Likes: 0
From: Ramsey , Indiana
RE: Thoughts on non-resident fees...
I can understand a state charging a non-res more, but the scandalous rates that some charge borders on the obscene and guarantees that I'll never visit them. I don't care for the notion of a national hunting license, goobermint at the fed level is already too large and bloated, and the states should have some say over the game animals that they have to manage within their own borders. If I were to suggest anything it would be a rate cap on non-res pricing, perhaps double the resident rates, and then let the market dictate access costs on private land.
06-09-2007 | 11:14 AM
#22
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,314
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Thoughts on non-resident fees...
OK now I'll pipe in on my gripe!!
Why in the world do I have to pay a nonresident fee for my hunting tags in a state where I own land and pay taxes. In many cases more taxes then a resident. Just because I am not living there full time is just not right. I pay taxes, work the land and take care of it better then a lot of residents. It just don't make sence.
Why in the world do I have to pay a nonresident fee for my hunting tags in a state where I own land and pay taxes. In many cases more taxes then a resident. Just because I am not living there full time is just not right. I pay taxes, work the land and take care of it better then a lot of residents. It just don't make sence.
06-09-2007 | 03:04 PM
#23
Banned
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,145
Likes: 0
From: IOWA/25' UP
RE: Thoughts on non-resident fees...
Reminds me of some heated arguements this winter whenI sat around with a broken ankle and many said that we should not show blood in our kill photos, use the word harvest instead of kill, etc. etc etc watered downed politically correct BS or we could lose our hunting rights. Hunting is way to much of a money game, it is the only viable way to maintain animal populations, and did I mention that it is a MONEY GAME. In other words show your blood if you wish in your photos and enjoy the whack noise of your arrow as it slices through hide and flesh because your hunting rights are not at stake.If you wish to, shoot a lamb on public tv with a handgun up close or wring a chickens head. Hunting is here to stay baby.
06-09-2007 | 03:43 PM
#24
Super Moderator
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 6,969
Likes: 0
From: Southeast Central Illinois USA
RE: Thoughts on non-resident fees...
I've got a sneaking suspicion they don't limit the tags, either -- even though they claim too. The reason I say that is I've never heard of anyone turned down, and they supposedly
06-10-2007 | 08:13 AM
#26
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,413
Likes: 0
From: Elizabeth Colo. USA
RE: Thoughts on non-resident fees...
My biggest gripe is nonresident fees on National Forest. My FEDERAL taxes pay to fund this land, but I am called a non-resident. $500 to hunt elk in CO on my federal land while the CO resident can hunt the same land my taxes are paying for for $36.00
With a National hunting license, how would management work? In other words, how would states know how many hunters were hunting and how many animals were being harvested? If there is a Nationa game tag, what would keep hunters from all flocking to the same hot spots for certain game animals. I guess I'm having a hard time visualizing how a National tag would even work.
Mike H., I'm right there with ya. I am a NR landowner and Ihave no rights to hunt my own land like the resident landowners do. Doesn't seem right.
06-10-2007 | 10:21 AM
#27
Dominant Buck
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 21,043
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Thoughts on non-resident fees...
I look at this from a different perspective, I guess. TO ME.....states charge the extra fees to act as somewhat of a DETERRENT. If IL, Iowa, Ohio, KY opened their borders to all hunters......then they would have to limit access via a lottery (or some other viable method) or risk the depletion of their resource(s).
In the overall scheme of things......I just don't see the license fees as anything more than a drop in the bucket of a state's DNR budget (and I guess I'm thinking, locally, here).
If I were the IL DNR......I'd rather keep my $4,500.......than to allow 10 more hunters into my state to deplete the resources. If it were rock-bottom cheap to hunt other states.....I'd probably hunt VA, SC, TN and PA, this year. As it is....I might not hunt any of them. If I had to guess.....I'd say they were "just fine" with that.
In the overall scheme of things......I just don't see the license fees as anything more than a drop in the bucket of a state's DNR budget (and I guess I'm thinking, locally, here).
If I were the IL DNR......I'd rather keep my $4,500.......than to allow 10 more hunters into my state to deplete the resources. If it were rock-bottom cheap to hunt other states.....I'd probably hunt VA, SC, TN and PA, this year. As it is....I might not hunt any of them. If I had to guess.....I'd say they were "just fine" with that.
06-10-2007 | 10:32 AM
#28
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,673
Likes: 0
From: Northeast Tennessee
RE: Thoughts on non-resident fees...
ORIGINAL: GMMAT
I look at this from a different perspective, I guess. TO ME.....states charge the extra fees to act as somewhat of a DETERRENT. If IL, Iowa, Ohio, KY opened their borders to all hunters......then they would have to limit access via a lottery (or some other viable method) or risk the depletion of their resource(s).
In the overall scheme of things......I just don't see the license fees as anything more than a drop in the bucket of a state's DNR budget (and I guess I'm thinking, locally, here).
If I were the IL DNR......I'd rather keep my $4,500.......than to allow 10 more hunters into my state to deplete the resources. If it were rock-bottom cheap to hunt other states.....I'd probably hunt VA, SC, TN and PA, this year. As it is....I might not hunt any of them. If I had to guess.....I'd say they were "just fine" with that.
I look at this from a different perspective, I guess. TO ME.....states charge the extra fees to act as somewhat of a DETERRENT. If IL, Iowa, Ohio, KY opened their borders to all hunters......then they would have to limit access via a lottery (or some other viable method) or risk the depletion of their resource(s).
In the overall scheme of things......I just don't see the license fees as anything more than a drop in the bucket of a state's DNR budget (and I guess I'm thinking, locally, here).
If I were the IL DNR......I'd rather keep my $4,500.......than to allow 10 more hunters into my state to deplete the resources. If it were rock-bottom cheap to hunt other states.....I'd probably hunt VA, SC, TN and PA, this year. As it is....I might not hunt any of them. If I had to guess.....I'd say they were "just fine" with that.
06-10-2007 | 10:39 AM
#29
Typical Buck
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
From: Muscle Shoals, Al
RE: Thoughts on non-resident fees...
I live in Nth Al. i'm 30mins from Tn. 30 Mins from Ms and like 100miles from Ga, but can't hunt any of those due to the cost of the licence, i like the idea of so many miles per licence