Fees keep rising

[BuzzH]

Exactly! Well said! I will still pay to go hunting,but it's just irritating when they need money they turn to nonresidents.
Like CC said what would they do with out the millions nonresidents bring in?

To clear up some things, when you hunt in another State, expect to pay more for your license. Be appreciative of the fact that states like Wyoming allow you the privilege of hunting here as a NR, we aren't required to by law or regulation, except the 7250 full price elk tags. Every other NR tag issued is at the discretion of the GF commission.

At the same time, I think that Residents should be appreciative of the fact that Non Residents do pay a pretty large percentage of LICENSE FEES, not to be confused with the overall GF budget. As a resident, take the time to talk with NR hunters you meet, thank them for making Wyoming their choice of a hunting destination, they have lots of choices and other states they can hunt. Hell, maybe even offer up some advice and help if they need it...you know, be a decent human being.

There has to be mutual respect, and frankly, the whining and "arguments" of both sides of the issue get old. I grow weary of residents taking the isolationist approach, as much as I grow weary of NR's whining about tag fees.

I'm grateful for NR hunters, and I'm also grateful that other states allow me the opportunity to hunt their states as NR as well. I've never felt the prices I pay in AZ, NM, CO, ID, MT, NM, WA, AK, TX, etc. etc. are too high.

Finally, while certainly Resident fees in many states are low, keep in mind that there is a lot more that residents of those states do, that NR DO NOT do. I haven't seen many Non Residents spend vacation days testifying in front of State House and Senate sub-committees on wildlife/public lands issues. I don't see NR serving on various working groups, being board members of wildlife and public land advocacy groups, etc. etc.. Point being that even though you may pay 10x more for your elk tag, for many of us here, it would be cheaper, in time and money, if I just paid the NR fees for an elk tag and let someone else pack my water to the legislature, serve as a volunteer on advisory committees, etc. etc. etc.

Its a mutually inclusive relationship between R and NR hunters, that really, needs to be nurtured, to benefit public lands and public wildlife resources. Rather than people being at odds with each other, crying about "rights" and tag fees, why not appreciate the money and work we ALL put into wildlife?

 

[mnhoundman]

To clear up some things, when you hunt in another State, expect to pay more for your license. Be appreciative of the fact that states like Wyoming allow you the privilege of hunting here as a NR, we aren't required to by law or regulation, except the 7250 full price elk tags. Every other NR tag issued is at the discretion of the GF commission.

At the same time, I think that Residents should be appreciative of the fact that Non Residents do pay a pretty large percentage of LICENSE FEES, not to be confused with the overall GF budget. As a resident, take the time to talk with NR hunters you meet, thank them for making Wyoming their choice of a hunting destination, they have lots of choices and other states they can hunt. Hell, maybe even offer up some advice and help if they need it...you know, be a decent human being.

There has to be mutual respect, and frankly, the whining and "arguments" of both sides of the issue get old. I grow weary of residents taking the isolationist approach, as much as I grow weary of NR's whining about tag fees.

I'm grateful for NR hunters, and I'm also grateful that other states allow me the opportunity to hunt their states as NR as well. I've never felt the prices I pay in AZ, NM, CO, ID, MT, NM, WA, AK, TX, etc. etc. are too high.

Finally, while certainly Resident fees in many states are low, keep in mind that there is a lot more that residents of those states do, that NR DO NOT do. I haven't seen many Non Residents spend vacation days testifying in front of State House and Senate sub-committees on wildlife/public lands issues. I don't see NR serving on various working groups, being board members of wildlife and public land advocacy groups, etc. etc.. Point being that even though you may pay 10x more for your elk tag, for many of us here, it would be cheaper, in time and money, if I just paid the NR fees for an elk tag and let someone else pack my water to the legislature, serve as a volunteer on advisory committees, etc. etc. etc.

Its a mutually inclusive relationship between R and NR hunters, that really, needs to be nurtured, to benefit public lands and public wildlife resources. Rather than people being at odds with each other, crying about "rights" and tag fees, why not appreciate the money and work we ALL put into wildlife?

Like I said, I will still hunt and have a lot of respect for people like yourself. It's the ones that say they would rather have no nonresidents! That's the wrong attitude, but I'm sure some nonresidents don't deserve to hunt other states the way they treat the land and people. Not all nonresidents are bad.
There will always be people willing to pay and they know that, Montana always sells all there tags I guess!
Dammit I just need to move to Wyoming!!

 

[Wyoming Hart]

but these are the same people who put a 4,000$ lift kit on a truck and 1200$ set of mud tires and never get off the pavement or leave town, they just want to "look" cool. I will take that same money and hunt out of state, hell maybe a few times. But i know the experience, memories and hopefully a mount will be on the wall LONG after that truck has been scrapped and those mud tires are worn out. .

This right here says a lot. I live as minimally as I can so that I can afford to go west and hunt. I can't tell you how many of my friends think nothing to be indebted $50,000 or more for a truck or like you say $1,200 for even 2 tires let alone 4 and scoff at the thought of $40 for a preference point for deer or over $500 for a tag. My memory and experience will out last anything that that truck or whatever else it is will bring them. I don't make big money, but I know where to put my money that I do make. Do I like the higher costs of being a non-resident, no. But I understand that I should pay a little more for than residents. Sometimes the difference is too much, but it is what it is. Here in PA, non-residents don't pay that much more than us residents, but of course we don't have the amount of people wanting to hunt here, like Wyoming does.

 

[rammont]

You can't be serious! If non residents were to boycott a state and not hunt (or fish) there for a year, the game & fish department would go bankrupt. To keep the state department from going bankrupt, the resident fees would skyrocket in price and you would be begging the nonresidents to come and hunt! The state does not "own" the fish & game, they manage them for the benefit of everyone, not just "there for the residents". Do you propose that the state borders be fenced to keep "your" animals in your state.

States should beg the nonresidents to came. They contribute millions to the states economy, not just license fees! Get real...........

I can't be serious about what?
The fact that nobody has a right to go to another state to hunt?
The fact that states tend to manage game resources for the benefit of residents over out-of-state people?

I said pretty much the same thing as you said about the financial needs of the state.

"I'm sure that resident prices will go up if the non-resident numbers decrease since no bureaucrat is smart enough to figure out that lowering the price slightly will entice more out-of-state hunters to pay the fee but for right now things are good for a resident hunter."

As for your attempt at redirecting my comments in to an argument about animal ownership, I never said that any state owned the animals but since you brought it up lets clarify your phony issue. According to the United States Government, all game are owned by the Federal Government and the states are given the authority to manage the game within their borders. If you don't like the fact that those rules are biased to benefit residents then I guess you need to go to the Federal Government and complain, quit trying to put words in my mouth.

 

[rammont]

I'm willing to bet that you would not be pleased if you had to fork out $1,000+ to hunt deer and elk in your home state, to make up for the lack of non resident contribution. What do you pay now for an elk and a deer tag, about $40?

I'm willing to bet that if you would slow down and read my post more closely you'd realize that I referred to out-of-state hunters as the reason why I'm paying so little for my hunting. Why do so many people on forums initiate their responses by being belligerent.

 

[rammont]

I do not agree with you. What about the federal owned lands? I think Wyoming has quite a bit of federal land does it not. I have a pretty good size check ready to mail to the IRS. I do think residence hunters should receive some advantage due to proximity.
As long is the demand stays high the price will increase. We all know that. That is why it is important that the license money goes to support sound management of the game we love to pursue.

What about federally owned lands - any game hunting privileges on those lands are still in accordance with federal and state laws and you have to buy licenses and such from the state game management organizations in accordance with the fees that they set.

 

[Alabama]

You can't be serious! If non residents were to boycott a state and not hunt (or fish) there for a year, the game & fish department would go bankrupt. To keep the state department from going bankrupt, the resident fees would skyrocket in price and you would be begging the nonresidents to come and hunt! The state does not "own" the fish & game, they manage them for the benefit of everyone, not just "there for the residents". Do you propose that the state borders be fenced to keep "your" animals in your state.

States should beg the nonresidents to came. They contribute millions to the states economy, not just license fees! Get real...........

Boom! CC you nailed it.

 

[Alabama]

To clear up some things, when you hunt in another State, expect to pay more for your license. Be appreciative of the fact that states like Wyoming allow you the privilege of hunting here as a NR, we aren't required to by law or regulation, except the 7250 full price elk tags. Every other NR tag issued is at the discretion of the GF commission.

At the same time, I think that Residents should be appreciative of the fact that Non Residents do pay a pretty large percentage of LICENSE FEES, not to be confused with the overall GF budget. As a resident, take the time to talk with NR hunters you meet, thank them for making Wyoming their choice of a hunting destination, they have lots of choices and other states they can hunt. Hell, maybe even offer up some advice and help if they need it...you know, be a decent human being.

There has to be mutual respect, and frankly, the whining and "arguments" of both sides of the issue get old. I grow weary of residents taking the isolationist approach, as much as I grow weary of NR's whining about tag fees.

I'm grateful for NR hunters, and I'm also grateful that other states allow me the opportunity to hunt their states as NR as well. I've never felt the prices I pay in AZ, NM, CO, ID, MT, NM, WA, AK, TX, etc. etc. are too high.

Finally, while certainly Resident fees in many states are low, keep in mind that there is a lot more that residents of those states do, that NR DO NOT do. I haven't seen many Non Residents spend vacation days testifying in front of State House and Senate sub-committees on wildlife/public lands issues. I don't see NR serving on various working groups, being board members of wildlife and public land advocacy groups, etc. etc.. Point being that even though you may pay 10x more for your elk tag, for many of us here, it would be cheaper, in time and money, if I just paid the NR fees for an elk tag and let someone else pack my water to the legislature, serve as a volunteer on advisory committees, etc. etc. etc.

Its a mutually inclusive relationship between R and NR hunters, that really, needs to be nurtured, to benefit public lands and public wildlife resources. Rather than people being at odds with each other, crying about "rights" and tag fees, why not appreciate the money and work we ALL put into wildlife?

Well said BuzzH. I definitely don't like the fee increases but what can you do? I can't afford to do the "boots on the ground" work in 10 or so states that I apply in every year and I want to keep hunting these great places so I'll keep applying and paying the fees. We appreciate you guys who jump in and work to keep our way of life going throughout the west and even here back east. I try to do all I can to be involved here in my home state with any and all wildlife issues.

The thing that bothers me most is that our tag fees won't be allocated directly to the wildlife department. This money should be go where it can benefit wildlife and wildlife habitat, not the general fund.

 

[jkean949]

Seriously guys, some of you seem to think that you have a right to go in to another state and hunt, you don't. The game animals are there for the residents, it's a privilege for an out-of-state hunter to come to another state and hunt and if you want to take advantage of that privilege you have to pay for it. As for the possibility of price, not as long as the out-of-state hunters keep paying their price. I'm sure that resident prices will go up if the non-resident numbers decrease since no bureaucrat is smart enough to figure out that lowering the price slightly will entice more out-of-state hunters to pay the fee but for right now things are good for a resident hunter.

Rammont, we had a bill recently in KS where the attempt was made to make hunting a "right" and it failed by a landslide. Just curious, is it actually a "right" in your state?
I gladly pay my non-res fee and appreciate the opportunity to hunt in a host of different states; upkeep has costs. Sucks sometimes, but I could choose to move there if it is that important.

There was a comment about speaking to the states legislature about needs...thank you for the work you've done. Please keep in mind the way our government works though and since this is governed at the state level there isn't an opportunity for non-res to participate. If you are that politically active though...how about introducing a bill that lowers NR tag costs if the hunter participates in "X" # of activities for the area which they are hunting.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

The thing that bothers me most is that our tag fees won't be allocated directly to the wildlife department. This money should be go where it can benefit wildlife and wildlife habitat, not the general fund.

That depends on the state. Here in Colorado the state legislature passed a law a few years back making the Parks and Wildlife an "Enterprise". That is, they receive no taxpayer money. The survive on license fees, court judgements (fines for breaking game laws), lottery grants and other permit monies. No monies generated by P&W goes in the general fund.

When I lived in California (I was born & raised there until I retired 17 years ago and moved to Colorado), the Fish & Game was funded by the legislature annually. All $$$ generated by F & G went into the general fund. You can't believe the games that were played to screw F & G (and the state's sportsmen) out of money that they generated.

 

[Alabama]

That depends on the state. Here in Colorado the state legislature passed a law a few years back making the Parks and Wildlife an "Enterprise". That is, they receive no taxpayer money. The survive on license fees, court judgements (fines for breaking game laws), lottery grants and other permit monies. No monies generated by P&W goes in the general fund.

When I lived in California (I was born & raised there until I retired 17 years ago and moved to Colorado), the Fish & Game was funded by the legislature annually. All $$$ generated by F & G went into the general fund. You can't believe the games that were played to screw F & G (and the state's sportsmen) out of money that they generated.

I was specifically talking about the new fee increases in WY. Good points though, I think Colorado definitely has it right. I can imagine the games played out in CA. There seems to be a shortage of science based management and common sense in that state. No offense to you Cali guys, I know there are still good people there.

 

[gman1]

Thanks to everyone for all the comments on my posting re: fee increases. Everyone had good thoughts and a healthy debate from all angles. Good hunting everyone and happy trails.
Gman

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

The thing I like about this forum is that I get a wide variety of ideas and comments without a lot of rude criticism from people who disagree with each other.

 

[Tim McCoy]

The thing I like about this forum is that I get a wide variety of ideas and comments without a lot of rude criticism from people who disagree with each other.

Amen. Adult dialogue is fast becoming a lost art. Glad it exists here, for the most part.