Non-resident hunting license?
 

I've been doing some thinking about this and would like to hear some other opinions on the subject. I believe that every state has the same requirements for purchasing a state hunting license (hunters safety course, ect.). I think that a valid hunting license in Alabama should be a valid license in every other state and vice versa. I understand having to purchase out of state game tags and such, but I don't think it's right to charge for an out of state hunting license, when you already have a valid hunting license.

And in a perfect world...

It's hard to say, I just wish every state had the same or at least very similar online system.

Some states have a ton of instaters, whereas others do not, and therefore some states cater to out of staters or vice versa, least moreso than others...

some states you need a license, tag, stamp, bow license, etc...

I wish they'd just make it, license and a tag, charge whatever the state needs, just make it more uniform...

oh well I make do.

I have to agree and disagree with you on this. Ive hunted a lot more out of state than I have in state in Illinois so Ive paid a lot more for my hunting licenses being out of state. I personally don't think both in state and out of state tags should be the same price, but I do think there should be a limit.

Illinois has a great deer herd and one of the reasons I think it is that way is because some people choose not to come to Illinois because of the tag prices. I think it helps keep the bucks as great as they are here. If they charged the same for everyone than it would be tough for some of the in state people to get licenses for there home state. We pay out taxes to Illinois, we keep up with all the BS that Blago put this state through, we should have a lot cheaper tag than people who come in 3 days a year for shotgun season or Archery season.

I paid $160 for my license in Wisconsin a few years back and I really don't think that is crazy. I recieved both an eithersex and a doe tag. Then any additional doe tag was $20. Im not going to complain about that. Sure I wouldn't mind it to be closer to $100 but if they did that the state wouldn't be making as much money. If they cut prices too much an already depleted DNR would be hurting more.

I do have a problem with Michigan charging $140 for a doe tag when 4 years ago I paid $70. Come on, a doe tag. As an out of stater I wouldn't mnd paying $50 for a doe tag and $100 for a buck, but man, there has to be some limit.

I won't even go for what I paid to hunt out west, they do need to lower that.

If they charged the same for everyone, we'd have people flocking to the good deer states and leaving the ones that are overpopulated with does and only have small bucks. I like how they do it now, but I do think that some of the states have tags that are way too expensive.

Saluki, Great point. At least have states grouped together. Id like to walk into Bass Pro and be able to pick up a Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois (Left over for gun), Indiana, Ohio, etc. I don't expect someone like Illinois to have a Florida tag, but at least the neighboring states that don't have a draw system.

How about a state charging you the same amount for a tag that your state charges for a non res tag??

For a few years Alabama, Georgia and Florida had a reciprocal agreement among game/fish licenses prices, but I don't think they still do it.

I don't see any state ever charging the same for a resident tag and a non-resident tag, or anything even close for that matter. Fastetti makes a good point, the residents pay taxes all year, and therefore our license should be $24, and non-resident license should be more like $160. Out of state hunting is expensive no matter where you go, and I don't think $160 is too much, especially considering some nearby states charge over $500. Heck, a Missouri non-resident spring turkey permit is something like $170 if I remember right. I agree the system of tags, licenses, permits, stamps, etc should be unified, or at least explicitly described by the governing body of each state. Figuring out which tags, permits, stamps, etc you need can be as hard as applying to college!

and they keep on raising...



http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/3074177-post20.html

fastetti wrote "I won't even go for what I paid to hunt out west, they do need to lower that."


after living in idaho for 7 years i think the reason that they charge so much for out of state tags/license is because the low number of residents in the state compared to the amount of state owned land that DNR has to keep up with. it has to cost millions of dollars a year to patrol and manage all that country. also speaking from my own personal experiance i can not stand all of the "city slickers" that flood the hills during the general seasons and drive around shooting at everything that moves(including me a few times) there is nothing more frustrating than scouting a area for months on end just to have some A-hole ride his ATV thru it (off the designated trails) on opening morning and scare all the animals within a few miles out of the area. thats just my 2 cents.

Well think about this. Lets say I buy a 24.00 deer license in WI and I come to Alabama to hunt with my license, how would your state get funding for management programs and such. I know I would welcome the 160.00 for you to come up and by a deer gun license. Answer your question??

The answer is simple, and exactly what I do:

If you don't like the price go somewhere else.

Your scenario overlooks the fact that the state you're hunting in gets federal matching dollars via Pittman-Roberst taxes and others for each licence that they sell, you're asking them to give up major revenue. Do you also complain about the ramp fee at the out of state lake you want to use, but don't support with your taxes? How about the entry fee for that state park or WMA you're also not supporting? It's pretty selfish of you to complain about such small costs for recreation when you aren't paying the rest of the tab.

Good point brasmunky, I didn't think of it that way. I hunt Wyoming a lot and I could see how they don't get the revenue from in state people as most states.

Its not always all of the "City Slickers" thought that drive around shooting anything that moves though, but I see your point. A couple years we had some guy from Denver that happened by us on the ranch, they let loose about 10 shoots that whizzed over our head. We were lucky hunting with the head of security for all the ranches. They were not allowed back the following day. I am from Chicago and can tell you that we have nothing but respect for the people and the land out west. Too beautiful of land to abuse!!!

I would hunt in Iowa with friends and family if the price was right, but $296.50 is totally unreasonable to me, when I would also have to set up and use a slug gun to hunt a couple miles from home.
For that much money as a resident in Missouri, I can hunt way more. For just $89. I can hunt 1 buck or 1 doe in rifle season,antlerless only season or muzzleloader season, 1buck, 1doe, and two turkeys with a bow, 2 spring turkeys,2 fall turkeys and have a hunting/fishing combo for everything else. That would leave me enough money for 20 extra doe tags and change left over for 22 days worth of trout fishing tags, and $1.50 left for a coke.
My friends and family in Iowa have the same problem. They would love to hunt with a rifle in Missouri, but just to kill one deer they would pay $225. Which is $198. more than they would spend to hunt one deer in Iowa.
Being used to hunting with a rifle here, there is no way I would pay $279.50 more to shoot the same deer, with a seriously downgraded weapon. And being used to using a shotgun, my friends would not pay the $198. more for a rifle hunt. There are literally places where Iowa friends will drive deer South for Missouri hunters to shoot on the South side of the fence and where Missouri hunters will drive them North for Iowa friends to shoot on the Iowa side. I love hunting right on the line when Iowa bird hunters are accidently driving deer my way!

Lincense fees are a source of income and that is about it. The requirement for a "Hunter Safety" course is more of an issue to me ... state's should honor that documentation similar as is done with a driver's license.

I hunt out west and sometimes the mid west and throughout the northeast and see that the west and mid west tags are way higher. I look at it as the cost of hunting somewhere that is better than here. I don't mind paying, but that is just me.

One good thing about high non-res. prices is, it keeps our res. prices low, Some tag prices actually went down a few bucks this year for youths. They cut them in half, down to $8.50 for kids 6-15 to hunt one buck or doe, and only $3.50 for extra doe tags, and these same prices for non-res. youths aged 6-15. I like to see the kids get a break, and this means they can contribute the least expensive meat for the freezer, which is much needed by so many.
I just hate it that guys who have been hunting with me for years are being forced to stop because of tag prices going up. I know it's not just the tag prices, it's also the gas prices and lodging prices and gear prices and lease prices and so on. And I know that people will say that if they can't afford it they should stay home,and that will create a spot for someone else. It seems like there are always people with cash waiting to screw you out of every good thing you ever had when you are down. It's just very upleasant business for me to have to tell folks sorry, I can't lower my fees for you, pay up or move on. Don't like it at all!
Local economies where I live can really be helped by hunters coming in, and when they stop coming in all the hotels and lodges and outfitters, farmers and other businesses who count on them, have to stress themselves even more by lowering prices to try and keep them coming. This is less proffit for folks when their expenses are rising and they need the cash flow most.
I would think the Missouri Dept. of Conservation could help out by at least freezing the prices on non-res tags until things get better for tourism, and the hunting industry.

As far as the hunter safety course being accepted everywhere, good luck! They've been trying that with concealed carry permits too and no luck yet. I agree that they should be good anywhere. But states teach different courses and others may never accept them. I'm torn between knowing that these things would make things simpler for me, and believing that states should have the right to decide for themselves whithout federal interferance. I would love to see a reciprocity agreement between more states without the FED's butting in though! Plus many states offer online courses now so it's not as difficult as it once was.

I think that every state should charge non-residents whatever the taxpayers representatives feel is due for the PRIVILEGE of hunting in a state they don't normally reside and pay taxes in. If you don't want to spend the money, hunt in your own state... or move and become a resident of the state you prefer to do your hunting in. Living in Iowa, I pay taxes all year around in Iowa, a portion of which supports the DNR and conservation and game management. Because I live here, I enjoy the privilege of $27 deer tags. If I want to go hunting with at my brother's place in MN, I pay the $141 MN charges for a non-resident firearms deer license. If he comes home to Iowa, he'll pay whatever Iowa charges non-residents for a license and tags. I really don't have a problem with this disparity. Like I said, I pay taxes all year round to Iowa, my brother pays his to Minnesota, and we both enjoy the respective benefits of living in our chosen state.

Mike

The only problem I have with Iowa is how they run their tag system there. My buddy has 140 acres there and hasn't been able to hunt it because he lives in Illinois. If you own a decent chunk of property you should be able to buy a tag no matter what, instate or out of state prices.

This is the first Ive heard of a Hunters Safety card not being valid in other states. Ive hunted 6 states as an out of state hunter and have never been asked for it by the license vendor or by the DNR.

I guess the issue then becomes a question of how much land does one have to own to get resident hunting privileges even when one doesn't reside on that property. Your friend owns 140 acres and feels he should be considered a resident, but what of the guy from Illinois that owns 1 acre? If the law allowed free landowner tags to every person who bought land in Iowa, we'd wind up with non-residents buying up every square inch of timber land in Iowa just to get their yearly tag, but paying very little to contribute to conservation in Iowa. If he wants to hunt on the cheap in Iowa, then he should build a house on his 140 acres and move. Then the IADNR will be happy to sell him resident deer tags and even give him a (nearly) free landowners tag every year.

Mike

NY charges $280 for non-res. Super sportsman. Or $140 for bow. $140 for shotgun... only one tag

People really are up in arms over IL non-res costs, personally one point often overlooked about IL, is we have 1, I repeat ONE big game animal, the whitetail deer.

Also, you're kinda at the mercy of a state, as a guy who hunts many states as a non-res, paying $1000 for a tag that a res prob pays $50 for is kinda nutty to me, or paying 5grand for a tag that costs 750 instate or something, I mean at what point is a tag not worth its price? At that point I think charge non res and res the same price, I think res and non res would both be happy to pay 1500 for a desert bighorn, but an instater paying 250 where a non res is paying 3000 isnt right.

I mean it depends on everyones particular situation, but a guy coming to the midwest for at rophy buck deer hunt, doesn't care about a buck tag in IA costing 250, or in IL for 450, or WI for 150, if he's dropping 5 grand round trip on his hunt at a big buck, he wants to go somewhere quality and if that means spending an extra 100 on his hunt, think he could care less? but ya a guy who owns land in IA and cant hunt it every year because he doesnt live in IA...is a bit obsurd I agree.

In my opinion Illinois would do well to follow Iowa's lead. It would solve a lot of our problems! :wink:

Hunting Lic.
 

get out of La La land! States want $$$ Lic. fees are one of them. The real debate we should have is:

Why do I have to buy a xxxx state lic. and tag when I am hunting on Forest Service or BLM land?

Completely agree with that! I don't think non residents have that much of an impact on our doe population. Tags in Illinois are still pretty expensive but I like the draw systems for non residents.

Driftrider, I agree with you about a minimum of land. Id say 60 acres should gaurentee you a tag, even if it is out of state price. As for the house, hopefully that is down the road, but after buying 140 acres you got to make a little more $$$$ for that ! :)

No, I think you're misunderstanding my point. You should still have to pay the non-resident fee for the big game tags, but you shouldn't have to purchase another hunting license. I live 2 miles from Georgia and thier non-resident license and tags are $299. I think that the license cost $114 or something like that, which would leave the $185 for big game tags. Should you have to purchase an non-resident drivers license to drive in my state? No, you already have a valid drivers license. I know that's apples & oranges, but I think you get the point.

Do you also feel that the state should tax you at whatever rate they feel is due for the PRIVILEGE of living in their state? No, you don't. And get off your high horse. I was simply posing a question of why is a hunting license only valid within the state it is purchased. I think you should have to pay non-resident fees on game tags, but you shouldn't have to purchase another license.

They would just make you required to buy a new stamp etc...if your hunting license covered you nationwide...

also some states require you to buy a non-res license just to get bonus pts, whereas others only require it if you draw, so whether they charge you a $100 to apply, or for a non-res license, you know they're gonna get you coming or going...

So ya 1 nationwide hunting license would be nice, but then you'd be rquired to purchase a non-resident hunting license stamp ya know? haha.

I would like to just see a license, and a game tag, and go hunt, no etra stamps, permits, etc...also some states call a tag, a permit, a license etc...

we need a hunting csar! lol. I'm available for $200k/year...

The same logic applies to the license as the tags... controlling the number of hunters in the state to manage the game in that state. If everybody could buy a cheap resident license in their home state that would be valid in Iowa, then what's to stop a flood of non-resident hunters from blasting the pheasant population into oblivion in Iowa? Not much. This goes beyond just deer hunting, which apparently you don't understand.

Mike

I totally agree that non resident tags should be somewhat higher.I have never hunted outside of missouri but have been trying for 4 years to get a wyoming elk tag.Its been a little dream of mine to hunt elk. personally the dream is starting to sour with the $200 worth of preference points.So if I draw a tag for 2010 I will have a grand total of $850 wrapped up in the tag alone. Kinda takes the fun away a little bit as then I feel pressured to take the first animal I might see over being able to wait for a bull.

So would the same logic apply to driver's licenses? Nonresidents purchase driver's licenses in the state where they pay taxes yet are free to drive all over Iowa's roads. Iowa doesn't have any tollroads so the taxpayers are paying for nonresidents to use their roads. What is the difference between a road and a state park?

So you pay $141 for MN, but this year a NR tag for Iowa (plus hunting license, habitat stamp, etc.) totals over $500. Why is an Iowa deer 4 times more expensive than an IA deer 2 miles apart?

And please tell me you're kidding when you suggest someone move to a state just to be able to hunt there cheaply. That is the most insane thought I've heard in a long time.

I grew up in Iowa and have hunted with my family there for over 20 years. The problem is they've raised the prices and changed the tag rules so that it is very difficult for me to justify coming back for the family hunt anymore. I'm not a trophy hunter and am just as happy with a doe as a buck. Why can't I just pay a reasonable amount (<$200) so I can come hunt with my family? There is more to hunting than just killing something. I enjoy getting out with my friends and family to go hunting. But I'm also not rich so that I can pay $500 just on license fees!

No. Apples and oranges. Roads don't appreciably deteriorate from out of state car traffic, and the economic benefits to Iowans of maintaining the roads for use by all outweighs the costs of uilding and maintaining said roads.

200,000 out-of-state hunters blasting 4-5 pheasants a piece would virtually destroy the flock. As would 100,000 out of state deer hunters. It might take a few years, but it wouldn't be long before Iowa was known as a very bad place to hunt.

The IADNR, at the behest of the representatives of the people of Iowa, have determined that we don't want game in Iowa destructively effected by an "open border" licensing scheme. As such, non-resident hunting has been limited by both higher than resident fees and severe limits on available non-resident big game tags. These measures, while certainly frustrating to ex-patriot non-residents, are in place to ensure that Iowa is a good place to hunt for IOWANS. Every other state does similar things for the sake of the residents of their respective state.

I guess it boils down to this, it is the way it is because the residents of the respective states want it that way. Iowa is a better place to hunt FOR ME, an Iowan, because people like you, ex-pat or otherwise, have to pay more to hunt in Iowa. The same is true for you wherever you live. I pay $141 to rifle hunt in MN because that's how much the law says I must pay. You pay $500 to hunt in Iowa because that's what Iowa law says you must pay. You have no right to the natural resources in Iowa, any more than I have a right to the natural resources of MN. If there is disparity, that's just the way it is. Iowa doesn't care to lower non-resident fees, and doesn't care that you chose to move out of the state when your family didn't.

You can throw yourself on the floor and throw all the tantrums you want, but unless you choose to move back, then it is the way it is. Just think, if you lived here you could petition your representative to work to change the law... but you don't, so sorry about your luck. :violin:

Mike

You know what's really gonna burn your a$$? I have a disabled vet lifetime hunting and fishing license. It cost me $5.50... and I'm forever exempt from paying the annual habitat stamp fee. Would you like my license to be valid in your state?

Mike

I think that Mike just wants to keep the non-resident rates as high as possible, so most hunters can't afford to leave thier state to hunt. And that was never the point of this thread in the first place. The point was, that a valid hunting license should be valid in any state. The non-resident tag fees and the draw would still apply. He just doesn't understand or he doesn't want to understand.

No, I understand completely what your point is, I just think that it's a stupid idea. If you really understood the obvious drawbacks to such an idea, you wouldn't support it, either. Unless you really are that stupid, then it simply wouldn't matter.

Mike

Why would that burn anyones ass? I would have no problem at all for a person that served our country to be able to come to my state on your $5.50 liscense and hunt or fish. You men and women helped to preserve our freedom, so that I am able to enjoy the great outdoors & it's resources. Mike, I want you to go back and read your last post. Do you see how bitter you sound? Nobody is trying to steal your deer away from you, nor are they wanting to hunt for free. Thank you for your service, but you sound like a jerk.

A lot of what was said before maybe might have been posiable in the early years...........like the 60's and 70's. But now days, states realize that Whitetail hunting is a money maker, and they are going to cash in. Espeacialy in the midwest. Hunting Whitetail, espeacialy big Whitetail is quickley becoming a rich mans sport. And I really hate useing that phrase. The way I was raised, we hunted to eat, period. Yes, I love to hunt big bucks, but I put a lot of doe meat in the freezer.