MountainMann
New Member
- Mar 14, 2011
- 12
- 0
my vote is c.. the wildlife in each individual state belongs to the residents... non residents should have to pay to come take advantage of the resource
Non-resident tag fees out of control!
- Thread starter HuskyMusky
- Start date
Old Hunter
Banned
That's what I do with elk. I alternate between a cow and bull. I'm fine with doing that. I'm actually fine with just hunting for a cow every year now.
It doesn't work for deer though. We can only hunt for bucks in my unit. So, the best I can do is hunt for a buck every other year, because it takes a minimum of 1 point for deer. They stopped doe tags awhile back to build up the herd. I've read the herd is about as good as it's going to get now. Maybe they'll start giving doe tags again. That would solve my problem.
Old Hunter
Banned
Big Sky
Active Member
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20120122/NEWS01/201220321/FWP-looking-raising-fees-make-up-lagging-revenues
Saw this this morning and thought that I would share.
Saw this this morning and thought that I would share.
CrimsonArrow
Very Active Member
Thanks for sharing, Big Sky. The article states that non-residents license fees account for 2/3 of the game management budget in Montana. Is that a good enough reason to keep the non-residents happy?
rickinnoco
New Member
Old Hunter
Banned
That's a long drive from me. No mountains over there?Fort Collins. Always looking for an excuse to get to the mountains
CoHiCntry
Veteran member
This is an interesting thread with some good comments. Here's my two pennies... Non res tag fees are steep, that's for sure. Steep to me is anything over about $500. I'm a resident of Colorado but I apply in several western states for different species like a lot of you guy's. I can understand the frustration of shelling out more and more cash for tags or the privilege to apply like in pref. point fees and useless licenses you won't use, and they know you won't, they just want your money! The other side though is this... if they were cheap, the draw odds would be even more horrific than they already are for trophy units and species. I sure wouldn't want that. If it's a priority, you'll find a way to pay for it. If it bothers you that much that you have to pay way more than a resident, then don't apply. That's what I did with Wyoming sheep and moose once they raised the pref point fees along with the tag fees. I don't want hunting to turn into a rich man only game any more than anybody else but it's happening anyway. I say apply for all you can afford, and don't worry about what you can't afford, and most importantly have fun!
I have had my say about this on other forums for years, and I'll throw my 2 cents out on here as well.
Non resident tag fees are getting outrageous.
They should stop it at 10-12 times the resident price, and if more revenue is needed, then raise tag prices across the board.
Just like other items, there will be inflation, but it should not all fall on the non-resident hunter to SUPPORT the division of wildlife in a state.
A lot of residents argue that a NR does not support the economy locally, which may be true, but that does not make it okay to charge 40 times the regular fee to hunt.
Unfortunately, not every resident is going to get to hunt out their back door every year.
That being said, I would be in favor of some sort of "preference" being given to those applying for units/zones that they live in.
Any state where I have studied the tag allotment, a resident can get a tag and hunt every year. The problem is when that tag is not the one that the resident wants. They don't want to travel, or learn another area to hunt, or have to find other accommodations for staying the night somewhere else. Due to the limited tags in some areas, they can't let all of the residents in that area hunt.
Like OLD TIMER said, I know the area around Buena Vista is an area like this. Two years ago a resident and I as a NR applied for unit, I drew the tag since there was very few NR's applying for the tags, but there were a lot of residents applying. Residents(187 of them) had a 96% draw and the few NR's (36) that applied all drew a tag. This was a unit 48 archery deer tag. The resident wasn't happy about it, and I understood why, but at some point they should still give NR's an opportunity to draw a tag.
I also agree with a preference given to youth and senior citizens, there are times of your life when a tag means more than other times. that first or last hunt is invaluable.
Non resident tag fees are getting outrageous.
They should stop it at 10-12 times the resident price, and if more revenue is needed, then raise tag prices across the board.
Just like other items, there will be inflation, but it should not all fall on the non-resident hunter to SUPPORT the division of wildlife in a state.
A lot of residents argue that a NR does not support the economy locally, which may be true, but that does not make it okay to charge 40 times the regular fee to hunt.
Unfortunately, not every resident is going to get to hunt out their back door every year.
That being said, I would be in favor of some sort of "preference" being given to those applying for units/zones that they live in.
Any state where I have studied the tag allotment, a resident can get a tag and hunt every year. The problem is when that tag is not the one that the resident wants. They don't want to travel, or learn another area to hunt, or have to find other accommodations for staying the night somewhere else. Due to the limited tags in some areas, they can't let all of the residents in that area hunt.
Like OLD TIMER said, I know the area around Buena Vista is an area like this. Two years ago a resident and I as a NR applied for unit, I drew the tag since there was very few NR's applying for the tags, but there were a lot of residents applying. Residents(187 of them) had a 96% draw and the few NR's (36) that applied all drew a tag. This was a unit 48 archery deer tag. The resident wasn't happy about it, and I understood why, but at some point they should still give NR's an opportunity to draw a tag.
I also agree with a preference given to youth and senior citizens, there are times of your life when a tag means more than other times. that first or last hunt is invaluable.
rickinnoco
New Member
Sure, there are mountains here Pete. I look at a 14er (Long's Peak) everyday. One thing I've learned since living out here, "far" is a very subjective term. You're about 3 hrs away, which in the west does not seem very far. This state is more than twice the size of Pennsylvania. To get just about anywhere I want to go, I'm looking at a few hours minimum.
CoHiCntry....very good points in your post. If it ended up that I had to move back to PA and could only hunt whitetails again, I would make do and just be happy that I could still hunt.
Old Hunter
Banned
I need to stop whining. That's not what i'm all about. I'll just suck it up and hunt whatever I can get. I can pretty much get a cow elk tag every year. Pretty good meat, so no complaints. If it takes me 10 trips to get the meat out. So be it.
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
Thanks, that is different information than I have been told previously. Of course, it doesn't mention how much is from angling license fees, and how much is from hunting.
In any case, keeping non-residents happy and buying the licenses is important. Like I said earlier, all of the non-resident hunting licenses were sold, so they must not be too high for the market.
A big issue in MT is the MT Constitution gurantees the right to hunt and fish to its residents:
Constitution of Montana -- Article IX -- ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Section 7. Preservation of harvest heritage. The opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state and does not create a right to trespass on private property or diminution of other private rights.
With all of this said, I wouldn't mind paying more for my resident licenses in MT to help make up the revenue shortfall. BTW, I also apply for tags and points in other states as well.
Not sure MT limits NR's to 10%, but that article says NR's pay 2/3 of the total revenue!
So we're limited to 10% of tags usually, we pay more than 10x more for the same tag, in MT's case 40x more!
and ie 1/10 of the total tags sold pay for 2/3 of the states revenue!!!
residents should be giving us foot massages when we show up in town!
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
Well, I am not cool with the foot massage, but I would be glad to buy you a beer and talk hunting.
There are no limits to NR fishing license sales, and MT sells a lot of them.
I should also say, who comes up with these prices?
half the time they're weird numbers, $19, $543, $794, etc...
can we just stick to, $25, $50, $100, $800, $825 etc...
half the time they're weird numbers, $19, $543, $794, etc...
can we just stick to, $25, $50, $100, $800, $825 etc...
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
Yeah, they are weird. I know they did some studies years ago on how much people were willing to pay, and structured pricing based on the results.
I feel kind of bad about this thread. I didn't mean to come across as anti-NR. My original post was just to point out that MT had some breaks for visitors, like no sales tax, and not just high license fees.
We also have some pretty good fishing and local microbrews, so come on over!
I feel kind of bad about this thread. I didn't mean to come across as anti-NR. My original post was just to point out that MT had some breaks for visitors, like no sales tax, and not just high license fees.
We also have some pretty good fishing and local microbrews, so come on over!
Colorado Cowboy
Super Moderator
Several have mentioned that NR's do not support the local economy. That sure is not the situation here. Once hunting season starts (summer camping & fishing also), I see lots of out of state plates on rigs shopping at local markets, WalMart and gas stations. During hunting seasons there are tons of trailers loaded with camping eq, OHV's, and horses all over town just before the seasons open. One thing our Wildlife dept did was to spread out the seasons, keeping the crowding down. Archery starts in August and we can still hunt elk in December. We get NR hunters coming here for 4 months. Our local economy really depends on this.
Old Hunter
Banned
I mentioned it, but I was responding to a post saying what NR hunters contribute to the local economy should be considered if the tag fees. I said it shouldn't be considered, because even though the NR contributes. It's not near what a resident contributes to the economy year around.
Of course a NR spends money when they come here. It really can't compare to what fisherman and especially rafters spend in my town. This town really depends on rafters, and it goes from spring to fall. The hunters may help some, but the season is very short compared to fishing and rafting. Plus, as I already mentioned. A lot of hunters will go right to camp when they come here. Rafters and fisherman will stay in campgrounds, motels, and eat in the restaurants. The fisherman will almost always go into the fly shops and buy flies etc. The think hunters generally will bring what they need with them.
Overall, small towns like mine depend on every NR who comes here to spend money. For whatever the reason. It's appreciated.
As long as they don't find my honey holes.