Virginia Mike

Hold on Wyote, why don't I have to buy a $500 tag and get in a drawing for YOUR fish. You just said your state owns the game but I can fish for free. How about you take your states game off of our taxpayers land or maybe you guys could pay the taxpayers for the food and water that your animals have been eating. This is absurd, the higher rates are just going into the state coffers and it is a big money making business plain and simple. If the states actually NEEDED the money to maintain the Animals that you say the state owns, they would just raise your taxes. You say that if I draw a License, hunting on the land is free. You forgot that I have to pay the state for an Non-Res license that is 20 times higher than the state resident who, by the way, has a 90% better chance than me to draw a license. And NO, I don't hear any WY residents screaming to pay less to hunt on Federal Land. You already pay less than everybody else to hunt on Federal Land in your state. This will never be solved because it is all about the $, not what is right and fair. I have to go, a guy from WV just shot a squirrel that lives in VA and we own it. I need to charge him $1000.

enginegrunt

I think a nerve has been touched!!Probably feels he can drive as fast as he wants on Interstates cause his tax dollars go to building it!!Wow! now we are back to grade school wineing about fairness. I live in South Dakota.Also I agree that the states provide 90% of the wardens. Does your Tax dollar go to the State Wardens.NO!!!!
Will I pay to go hunt elk in Wyoming. Yes I would. Just not right now cause of kids and family. I do pay $136 to go hunt family land in Minnesota. Don't here me complaining about paying out of state fees on Land that is family.

Virginia Mike

The National Parks in our state are patrolled mainly by the US Park Police and the US Fish & Wildlife Officers. I guess things are different in your state. I wonder if you would pay $500-$700 for Non-Res license in MN on your family land. $136 is a fair price for a Non-Res license and that probably includes a Buck and Doe tags, not one animal like WY. And speaking of Grade School, you may want to go back and learn spelling. In VA we still believe in Fairness and not cheating people.

enginegrunt

9 out 10 wardens( Ones that can hand out tickets) in Wyoming are state Game and Fish. Also In SD there are probably only a handful of Federal wardens. Stretch way to thin.
Speaking of Fairness maybe we should start complaining that Virginia can shoot 6 of THEIR deer over a season, while us poor westerners can only shoot one. We can go on and on all hunting season about fairness. Come down to it. Land is everybodies but the Animals in the state are the states, Game wardens cost money, There will always be somebody willing to pay that much, and there are two things for certain in this world

Death and Taxes (Be it where ever they go)

spudrow

Well I read all the comments and I must admit most all arevalid. I know for a fact that the ranchers and farmers out west are not receiving a truely fair share of the cost of the tags. When I first came out west, WY, to hunt in the 80's the tag cost me $100. The land owner received $11 dollars. Now the cost is $500 and the land owner doesn'tget fair prorationing.Doesn'tthat tell you what it's all about? $$$Then thereare 2little programs called HRP and CRP. Which to me is a crock.However I believethat the cost of NR tags should be more reasonable. I also think NR hunters are beingover charged to hunt out in the western states. No one likes to get over charged. Most of us are correct in stating that 1.It's all about the money. 2. Government, (feds), should stay out. 3. Something should be done to please the majority.
Luckily I can afford to hunt out west but I still don't want to be gouged, do you? Don't you want to be charged a fair price for a fair deal? I do.
Until we as out of staters stand up for this it won't get any better. I don't have the answer but would like to hear any and allideas.






Spudrow from Mo.

homers brother

The grass is always greener.....

I liked the point made here about the high prices in Orlando. Fortunately, my "uncle" pays for most of my travel, as there's little way I could afford to take my family there (gas is one thing, hotel and entrance passes are entirely another). What a RIPOFF!

But, that's not really the point here. Some food for thought. Let's just say this billpasses and my uncle from WI can now come here to WY andhunt on federal land. I, then, should be able to do the same thing in WI, right?

One problem there in WI, there's NO PUBLIC LAND! I couldn't hunt there unless I paid some landowner off to do it. How does that factor into the "cheap" fee I'd pay there for a nonresident license?

Seems when I lived (as a resident) in Alaska, nonresidents seeking game like Dall Sheep and Brown/Grizzly Bear were required to have a guide. How would you nonresidents feel about that? After all, it's our local Wyoming taxes that pay the Sheriff's office and the National Guard (if approved by the Governor and in a state status) to come looking for you if you get lost?

One point I believe does have merit here. If you want to pay resident tag fees, then you're free tobecome a resident. Heck, I'm not a Wyoming native, either! Of course, that may mean giving up your job and whatever security you find wherever it is that doesn't allow you to hunt. The coal mines and railroadsout here are hiring, so is Wal-Mart. You may not get weekends off and may have to work a lot of night shifts, but hey - at least you can hunt for cheap on federal land!

Maybeour license feesARE too high? How about we set about fixing those, and when you folks fix it so that I don't have to pay a landowner to hunt in your neck of the woods we'll all be happy?!

For the record though, I'm not opposed to nonresident hunting. I think we'd see higher success ratios though if we saw less hunting pressure on public lands. Lowering tag fees will achieve exactly the opposite and you may pay less, but you'll also see less game. There are a couple ways to alleviate this pressure: 1) higher tag fees and/ordraw quotas for nonresidents AND residents (and no more "general" tags), or 2) pressure on private landowners to end the practice ofleasing huntingrights to individuals and to outfitters(you want the public's money for damages, improvements, etc., you let the public in). It's a fine balance any way you look at it, since the future of hunting is also at stake (we want to recruit more hunters, not restrict them from hunting). So, it's obvious to me which of the twooptions make more sense to me - open up more land.

Virginia Mike

Homer, I agree with some of your points, but I don't think you understand what I am saying. Just because you lower the NR license fees does not mean that there will be more pressure (Hunters) in the woods. The state sets the # of NR tags regardless of the price. At the same time, raising the price of a NR tag would not alleviate pressure or decrease the amount of hunters either. The state would still set the # of NR tags available to the public. All I am saying is to make the NR tags a little bit more reasonable for a guy to afford. Although I did go home last night and educate my wife on the fine life style we could have after purchasing a ranch in WY. I think I need Wyote and Engine to give her a call. As soon as I pay taxes in WY I would be argueing on their side probably. Involving our Fed. Gov., regardless who is in office, has NEVER been a good thing. On that we should all agree.

homers brother

Mike,

Actually my point is this: It doesn't matter whether fees are increased or decreased if we don't do something to guarantee access.

Where do we spend our legislative effort? The federal government dictating to the states what they can set license prices at? Or the federal government ceasing subsidies to landowners who don't allow hunting and setting an example for the states to follow?

Now, I'm not against nonresident hunting, nor am I against private landowners receiving a REASONABLE trespass fee. I'm all for limited quotas and no over-the-counter "general" license sales for nonresidents AND residents.

Those here who think high license fees are keeping them from hunting might look at the "no hunting" signs in their own backyards. What's being done to fix that? We have them here out west now, too - thanks to the laws of "supply and demand". If you're going on a "guided" hunt, ask your outfitter if they paid anything to the private landowner(a lease)to restrict anyone else's access? If they did, you're supporting the problem.

That "problem" pushes more and more hunters who can't afford to pay for access to public land, and the pressure on the public lands are already high enough.

We need more access, not cheaper licenses. With more access, it'd be easier to make the case for lowering license fees, but not the other way around.

Virginia Mike

I do understand what your saying but I don't know a good solution. Having the Federal or State Government tell private land owners that they have to open the land they paid for to the public to hunt or that they can't lease to Outfitters is dangerously close to Eminent Domain. If I come out to WY and buy a large ranch with my hard earned money, you can bet that I will choose who hunts on it. Public land is different, everyone pays taxes to maintain and keep it open. Maybe not as much as a resident of the state, but they still have tax dollars that go to it. The more I think of it, the more I just want to move out west. I might miss being able to take 15 whitetails a year, but I do love an Elk steak and Antelope Sausage. OK, which one of you western guys is calling my wife to help out with this?

homers brother

Mike,

I think you're catching on.

So, the next winning lotto ticket belongs to you and that ranch in Wyoming you dream about is now yours.

Maybe you're not a "rancher" in our sense of the word, but you're probably a bright guy and lease out what you aren't using as your garden and your own private rifle range and what you need for the three or four head of beef you keep, as wellas the hay to feed them,to a couple of guys who run cows and a guy across the fencewho wants the alfalfa crop for the year.

That first fall, we'll be a shrewd businessman again, and an outfitter shows up on your door, ready to shell out big cash to lease out the hunting rights (oh "you'll still be able to fill your one tag and those of your immediate family") for the year.

All is well until your first winter, and suddenly all thoseelk cows and calves and does and fawnsthat weren't "trophy" enough for your outfitter's clients to shoot are congregated on your property. They're discovered by a wandering pack of wolves.In their routine panics to escape being eaten, your fences are trampled.

Of course, the wolvesdiscover one of your beef cattle, and you find a bloody ribcage covered in a gang of crows one morning behind the barn, and a couple other bloodied but alive versions wandering around the water tank.

The wolves aren't the end of their worries though, as the elk and deer have discovered the hay lot and your stock of baled alfalfa, which they reduce to nothing in a matter of weeks. Fortunately, for a hundred bucks a week or so, you can keep feedingyour remaining cattlethrough the winter by buying hay and shipping it in from another state.

The wolves aren't done though, and by the end of the winter, you have one harried beef still standing. You have some fence to fix. And you have some accumulated debt for the hay you had to buy and ship in.

Fortunately, the state can not only pay you partiallyfor the damage the public'sdeer and elk did to your winter feed, they can in most cases help arrange some kind of compensation for the three beef you fed to the public's wolves, too.

Of course, you sold your hunting rights off to the slick outfitter last fall though. You didn't let the public, who "owned" the animals, participate in their management (or MIS-management). Do you think youshould still beentitled to any of those damages?

I think it's pretty simple: If you're a landowner and wish to benefit from such payments, you must FIRST have allowed public hunting. That doesn't necessarily mean free of charge, but it doesn't mean a "trophy" fee for bucks and bulls, either. Nor does it meanthe publicroaming your land at will, but there should be a formula for "hunter days" associated with total acreage. Same goes for habitat improvements - give the state's money to those landowners who are committed to improving the hunting public's access, not those who turn right around anduse those improvements to jack up the lease they charge the outfitters to exclude the public who paid forthem in the first place.

You want the public's money? You let the public hunt.

If you thinkyou can manage things better on your own by charging whatever you want, knock yourself out - just don't come running to the state or feds when things don'tquite work the way you wanted them to. Good thing you won the lottery, eh?!

I fine old gentleman rancherwhose property I hunted as a teenager died a few years ago. I was astonished to see how many people - and many people from out of state -came to his funeral. He'd over the years allowed all of us to hunt free of charge, as long as we left gates the way we found them and stayed away from the winter pasture he kept his cattle in. In the last couple years he ran the place, his son said he'd been approached by a number of outfitters who wanted to lease the hunting rights - to which he flatly refused. I still can't help but admire him.