They're squeezing non-residents too, charging more and more, when 10% of nonres generate as much as 100% of resident, seems tags increase in cost while more and more goto residents or they're paying 1/38th of what a nonres is for that same tag.... MT Elk...
I'd like to see a multiplier of 5-10x at most for resident tag fee vs non-res.
Also once in a lifetime tags should cost the same across the board IMO.
Honestly if money is the only issue states might as well sell every non-resident a tag before selling any residents.
Residents should pay a fair price for an elk tag, etc..., not a subsidized discounted tag fee.
I really don't like posts like these, for several reasons.
When you look at the total revenue for any Western GF agency, you will quickly notice that there are a lot of funding sources, not just NR license fees. There are PR/DJ funds, federal and state grants, license fees, etc.
The states are always going to charge more for NR's and have the absolute right to. While I agree that the fees should remain within reach of hunters of more average means, I don't find NR fees that out of line. In particular when you factor in all the other expenses related to a NR hunt...rifles, clothing, optics, fuel, food, etc. etc. etc. The cost of the tags is not prohibitive to those that really make hunting a priority.
The thing I take most exception to is the "resident subsidized discount tag fee"...that's a pretty narrow view of things, to say the least. The States provides significant funding through general fund appropriations for things related to the operation of the various GF Departments.
Plus, there are thousands of volunteer hours spent by residents of each state for things like habitat improvement, being active in legislation, involvement on various Land Management committees, GF committees, and the list goes on and on.
Plus in the case of Wyoming, things like the WWNRT have been funded almost entirely through general funds.
Then there is all the local support financially, through the various wildlife groups that are comprised largely of residents that go toward wildlife as well.
I just think its unfair to say that Residents are subsidized, when I see the extensive efforts that go into habitat, wildlife, etc. through the hard work of primarily Residents.
I also feel fortunate that Residents of other States allow me, as a NR, to hunt their states and are willing to share their resources. I almost feel guilty at times when I think of all the good Residents do for their wildlife, monetarily as well as with their free time, and all I do is scribble a check for a NR tag and go hunting. Paying more for that opportunity is the very least I can do as a hunter/conservationist.
