An End to Outrageous Non-Resident Fees?

>Triple - you sound like the
>typical idiot that thinks the
>money only funds certain things.
>It's complete morons like you,
>the kool aid drinkers, that
>will never get what we
>actually do for you. You
>should welcome us with open
>arms. You folks out west
>are such hypocrites.

Nope, you don't do chit for me. Stay in yer own state and we'll never miss a dumb azz like you in the least...
 
Fdhunter,

No we don't know much about you...only what you post on this site and most of that is name calling and trashing others.

We all heard you and understand your opinion. Others have expressed their opinion, and most of those have avoided calling you names and running you down.

Why don't you back your opinion up with facts? Tell us where you can buy a non-resident over-the-counter bull elk for less than $480?

and I live in Colorado.

I'm starting to think I know what the fd stands for in fdhunter...:)
 
Now now Tough. That's not nice. FD are my initials. Yeah, I like arguing on some of these sites. I'm glad you heard my point and understand where I am coming from. Thats all I was trying to get across. CO besides MT is where I hunt. Lets get together and I'll buy you a beer.
 
Ropinfool - " So be it. I don't care what you nr's think. NR's shouldn't have equal odds & pay equal fee's to hunt out of state. Since you don't hire an outfitter, you can afford to pay for the tag. If that's too much to ask then hunt in your own state. "

First off, you haven't a clue just how many people in your state make a living or subsidize their incomes from non-res hunting. its a HUGE business and the scope of it obviously is beyond what you can understand.

Boskee - " The fact that will remain constant is that you & I will have to pay whatever any state wishes to charge and we aren't going to change that no matter what "

You and I both know that changes come and it aint always good, wanted, or needed.


I think Kansas will have unlimited archery tags next season - unheard of and thought impossible even as little as 2-3 years ago.

Why ?

Outfitters. They know non-res brings in money. The cities, counties and even state officials know that non-res income is a must have. Residents don't pour in NEARLY the revenue that visitors do, thats why tourism is such a big thing in every state and every country even.

You give unlimted tags in KS, people will come, they'll lease lands, pay trespass fees, stay in motels, buy food, gas, entertainment ....... its a huge huge business.

You REALLY think Colorado can live without that income ?

" Think about this a very small sales tax would generate many many times nonresidents fees and that has been discussed in many western states "

Why hasn't it passed then ?

Arkansas DID pass one - and it helped - but the cash cow of money that the G&F have become dependent on will never be enough.




Triple_BB Wow, you're a dreamer, good luck with those thoughts


proutdoors - " I guide NR hunters every year "

Then you know the significance of non-residents. Without them you have little business, am I correct ?



Look, I dont know where the compromise is. I know no one has yet to tell me why state ran and owned parks, museums etc doesn't charge 10-15 times more for entry fees and usage fees - but G&F charges that for a license/tag
 
Brad, one more time, I in no way desire to do away with NR tags. I just don't believe a NR should pay the same as me. The compromise is, if the prices are to high for you to hunt 'our' wildlife, then don't. You can even come and spend time on state land for the same fee as me, just not kill a deer/elk/moose for the same amount. Apples and watermelons, that is what you are comparing. Either way, Brad you are welcome at my fire anytime, we may not agree, but atleast you have been civil.

fdhunter, I may not know you as a person, but I honestly can't think of ONE positive thing you have said, EVER. Therefore, the offer to sit at my fire is not advanced. As for my worrying about future business because of my 'spat' with you, rest assured, I won't be losing any sleep over it. My results on what I put on the ground gets me plenty of biz, so need for your concerns for my well being.

PRO
 
"Brad, one more time, I in no way desire to do away with NR tags. "

many people here ARE saying that though - they have no clue just how dependent G&F is on non-res license revenues out west or how great the impact on local economy hunting is. It makes discussions with them impossible !


"I just don't believe a NR should pay the same as me. The compromise is, if the prices are to high for you to hunt 'our' wildlife, then don't. "

Thats not a compromise, thats a demand, an ultimatum, a "if you don't like it tough" ....... and it won't ever work. Like I have been saying, hundreds of millions of dollars of tourism is at stake here, 50%, 60% or more of YOUR State's revenue comes from non-resident licenses. Your whole G&F structure would collapse without that money !



"You can even come and spend time on state land for the same fee as me, just not kill a deer/elk/moose for the same amount."

Why not ? I can go to your museums for the same price, go to your state parks for the same price, your city zoo for the same price, your paid for by the city and state professional team sports games ...... why is it that only a tag for game and fish costs so much more ?



"Apples and watermelons, that is what you are comparing. Either way, Brad you are welcome at my fire anytime, we may not agree, but atleast you have been civil"


A campfire between us would go wayyyyyy into the night methinks :)

I lived in Colorado for 3 years as a resident. I've hunted a lot of western states as a resident and a non-resident. I know that the G&F of western states did great jobs building the game they currently have, using in large part non-resident revenues to do it. The way nonres hunters, local economoy, outfitters, game and fish commissions revenues etc ..... the way its all entwined is complex, but I promise you this - without the non-res money, the G&F would go bankrupt in states that are dependent on that money (mostly western states)
 
The game belongs to the state. Does anyone not in that state have a "right" to take ANY of that game? No, regardless of the dirt that game is walking on.

Why are museums and parks lousy analogies for pricing? Because they aren't a limited resource. A park isn't limited by both a short and specific season of use nor by a specific and high demand number of tangible saleable units (game). There's no need for pricing competition when the museum/park may go under-capacity for large stretches of the year AND when the use of those facilities do not create a corresponding SHORTAGE or restriction on the residents of the state!

When a NR gets a tag an R does not. The game belongs to the R, it's a limited, very high demand resource. Leaving alone matters of funding including that state general budgets have funding for game and any of a litany of other hidden taxes. There should be a compelling interest when a state tells its citizens that the public's resources will not be accessible because it's been made available to a non resident. That compelling interest is the ability to collect disproportionate fees that fund more activity to produce additional opportunity in the future. If it weren't for that pricing disparity, there'd be no incentive to allow NR's to take any game at all, at the expense of residents. I'd bet hands down most any state's hunters would be willing to increase license/tag fees if that meant no NR hunting and a larger pool of tags for res. I'd bet hands down the hunters of any state would offer to buy into a pool of LE tags and pay the rate that the NR pays now on the same 10%. States can walk away from NR without walking away on the $, there's far more than enough demand.

Most private business, aside from guiding, is not going to shrivel up if the people showing up to hunt become 100% residents rather than NR. Most residents have to travel at a distance to hunt the best units so they have the same needs for Gas/Hotels/restaurants etc. Guides I guess would do some pencil sharpening, but they'd be there like they were the year before.

The best way to approach this is to have a reciprocal agreement between states that your state will charge what the state of the NR applicant charges for the same species. That way if you hate what you pay in CO, you'll pressure your own state to lower its fees rather beach to the other states. On the other hand, if you live in CO you don't need a reciprocal. You can already hunt every species there is with greater quality and opportunity than most anyplace, what do you care what IL or PA will charge you to hunt there... you're never going to do it.
 
"Why not ? I can go to your museums for the same price, go to your state parks for the same price, your city zoo for the same price, your paid for by the city and state professional team sports games ...... why is it that only a tag for game and fish costs so much more ? "

You don't 'consume' the art, or kill the zoo animals. Just like you can 'look' at the big stinky bulls for FREE, but if you want to shoot one, now it is a whole new ball game, because then you desire to 'consume' something that costs money to replace.

I would be more than happy to stay up debating this by the campfire into the wee hours. Sooner or later you would see the 'light'. I'll bring the apples, you bring the watermelons.

PRO
 
Well said Colville!

"Thats not a compromise, thats a demand, an ultimatum, a "if you don't like it tough" ....... and it won't ever work"



It working right now. There are many people who don't like it yet have to deal with it. There are many who boycott states that charge high fees. So yes, it is working.


It's Bush's fault!!!
 
Brad the reason it hasn't passed is simple it wasn't needed. We offer less than 1/2 the tags we used to yet the department still functions. Given that the western states game populations in general are in a state of decline they are researching many ways to generate income because the reality is that tag sales will be declining in the future. Factor in lack of predator controls and future wolf introductions and those numbers just keep heading south. Ranchers are in opposition to increasing herd size because the animals compete for graze with their cattle. Fawn and calf survival in wildlife are dropping as a result of the drought so things really aren't looking too rosey.

The states must manage wildlife for all endusers so they more than likely will head in this direction (sales tax) to maintain their funding. Given that so many surrounding states actually offer less opportunity than we do those percentages can drop at any time. Don't think for a minute the residents wouldn't cut things back if needed. There'll be some bumps and bruises but in the end the state will survive. Look how well California does with very minimal nonresident opportunity and has done so for years. The directions the departments will be taking in the west will be changing in the future and tags are going to get a lot harder to come buy. Hell the federal laws changing land access and travel alone will knock the hell out of opportunity. Given that this is reality, I seriously doubt the prices will drop. They haven't dropped in the last 50 years in much better times, so I think we can fairly accurately predict what the future holds. Things aren't going to get any easier in more ways than just from a nonresident tag standpoint.
 
Fun thread poking the gay bear! Tell me I didn't read something about Kansas having unlimited tags and that was going to be a windfall. I know, let's open up elk tags to over the counter at $200 each and see how many elk we have left the next year. We could get 35000x$200 and not have to worry anymore about our whiney snivelling neighbors. Sorry but I do care a lot more for my grandson having a chance to hunt than either the money or some whiney non-resident pounding his fists on the floor and crying.
 
"First off, you haven't a clue just how many people in your state make a living or subsidize their incomes from non-res hunting. its a HUGE business and the scope of it obviously is beyond what you can understand."

I know exactly how much money you bring in and I still say SO BE IT! I've guided and made money off of you Nr's. I have to say most of you are great people and are appreciative of the opportunity. It's the one's like you who feels like we owe you more and will in time ruin things for the average hunter. If that's you attitude then stay home because your not welcome.
 
"First off, you haven't a clue just how many people in your state make a living or subsidize their incomes from non-res hunting. its a HUGE business and the scope of it obviously is beyond what you can understand."

So Brad,
Lets see those numbers of how many people make a living off the NR hunter. IF you are the one with the clue, you should be able to provide these numbers so the rest of us who are clueless can have a clue!!!








It's Bush's fault!!!
 
These whiny, eastern hunters crack me up! Ya'll live back east in huge,crowded, noisy cities and think you should legislate the wide open west from twothousand miles away. We westerners have been here since the mid 1800's and we kinda think (Know) how to manage our own affairs. You don't see us asking (telling) you idiots to bulldoze long island, N.Y. and build a national park do ya? Let us manage the wildlife in OUR states and ya'll keep your selves busy where you live. If you want to come hunt in Utah,then ante up and quit yer bit#@*&! If I want to come east of the mississippi or go to Idaho I'll bring my checkbook. Fair in my book. Or we could completely do away with limits, fees, privateproperty rights, procalamations, game departments, common sense and sanity and kill everything that walks free of charge!!!
Go back and think a little more HILLARY and maybe you'll see the error of your ways.
 
Colville - so in states that have over the counter, unlimited tags ....... those should be same price then ? Because it isn't.

Its not a supply and demand issue - if it was ? More tags would go to non-res, remember, big money involved. more tags to non-res = more revenue, = more people for outfitters to make money from, = more income for local economies etc etc

There is a balance, and I think we're at the point where that balance is going to be lost, and then what will happen ?


The analogies aint that far off. Why ? Many tags go unfilled. Fishing certainly isn't a resource that is quota filled, is it ? Yet tags are higher. Why ? Some places have daily limits on how many people can visit ...... yet none descriminate between res and non-res do they ?


Its all about money guys. Residents don't have to travel, and don't ahev teh money to finance the G&F. Non-res most always means people willing to spend the money, willing to pump needed money into the economy. Its been that way for years, but I'm seeing a change.

Fewer people going out west. Animosity thats NEVER been there before, from non-res and residents alike. Nothing like I see now.

And whats it all about ? Money, the overpriced tags.
 
Brad Lantz,

Why does one public golf course charge more than another? Why does the water park in my city charge non-city residents more than city residents?

As fees go up, some will not come back. That goes for gasoline, motels, food, you name it...including the cost of the license. The wildlife folks know that but will raise fees until they start to see negative consequences to their budget.

Why do Alaska residents get money from the government from oil prodution from public lands? WHere's my check.

All States charge non-residents more than residents to hunt or fish. Good luck trying to change that.

Again, elk hunting fees in Colorado are in line with other States. And most other States DO NOT sell non-resident over-the-counter tags, period.
 
Brad, Pressure is part of the equation. You can have unlimitted tags but part of the experience that the residents of the state have(and have an interest in protecting) is a limitted supply of hunters. Raising the price on those who can easilly drive from the neighboring states and would as long as the price is cheap, but now won't because the OTC tag is NOT for a trophy caliber hunt and is not dramatically better than what they can do at home keeps a bunch of NR guys AT HOME. That too is a benefit to state hunters in general season non LE units! Not that many NR's are going to pay $500 at to shoot a meat buck when they can do that at home for $100. The game itself is not the only resource at hand, pressure and experience quality is also in play.

If a state does nothing to disincentivize NR's from hunting and offeers CO's quality, there'll be no where a guy can find a good experience in a non LE unit.

Residents do have to travel. They don't have to fly. Unless you think all residents live where they can walk from their houses into exactly the units they want to hunt? I drive 7 hours in my state for some of my hunts. They do have the money to fund the G&F. They've decided though that it's wiser to let YOU pay 30% of the whole budget while only impacting 10% of the resource. The residents have done a good CBA and said the return on equity for that resource is a net good! It has a deminishing returns though because you can't grow an ever increasing number of game animals just by raising more dough. So even if you raise a gazillion dollars doing 50% NR tags, you can't grow enough more game on that money to make up for the lost oportunity to your residents. Game managers aren't idiots! They've figured out how to squeeze a large block of reource funding out of a loss of oportunity figure that is palatable. You get to subsidize hunting for residents without substantial lost opportunity. It's a win win, considering you have exactly 0 right to shoot any game ever in another state.
 
Brad, you act like the west is dwindling. We are booming and it is not from hunting. Hunting is and always will be a privelege and not a right. You and I have no "right" to hunt. The state allows us to do so and charges a fee. The animosity you sense is real and it is because of George Taulman and his dumbass buddies who keep trying to figure a way to force the states to give him equal access to big game tags so his tag whore business can make more money. You also have the SCI crowd sniffing the same paint and they certainly don't represent the poor hunting family. The animosity is also due to people like you spouting off some lame arguement and making threats to take over someone elses home. Home invasion is illegal and you should be happy to pay a measely $500 to hunt trophy elk in my state. You and your buddy Frank wouldn't like my camp 'cause I cook pork quite a bit.
 
Brad it's time you become a man of conviction! Please exercise it and boycott us that'll show us I'm sure....... Next
 
Part of what led me to move my family from Northern Cal. to Idaho was the opportunity to be able to hunt deer and elk at reasonable prices. I couldn't afford to hunt out of state so I moved to a state that had the kind of game I wanted to hunt and fish for. I am now living my dream every hunting season. If you are unwilling to move to where the game is then you will have to pay the market price for nonresident tags and licenses.
 
I posted on another thread about this whole mess. As I said before it has been BEATEN TO DEATH over the years. Simply, You NR's can complain all you want. In the long run, looks like things won't change. Except I would add a whiners tax if I could. I believe there was a law passed, at least here in Montana, that gives the STATE the rights and control over the wildlife resources in our state. Pay or don't play. I wouldn't expect anything different if I went out of state. Just because you live in an area with limited hunting resources, does not mean you should use someone elses privledges as your own. mtmuley
 
This is my first post on Monster Muleys and I have been following this topic on several forums.

In 1978 the supreme court rule about non resident fees in Baldwin vs Montana Fish and Game Commission, Now read this: I think that this has already had it's day in court.

Appellant
Lester Baldwin, et al.
Appellee
Fish and Game Commission of Montana
Appellant's Claim
That Montana's state game regulations violated Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
James H. Goetz
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Paul A. Lenzini
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun (writing for the Court), Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell,Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart
Justices Dissenting
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Byron R. White
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
23 May 1978
Decision
Montana's state fish and game laws were constitutional, and the appellant wasnot entitled to any relief from them.
Significance
The ability of states to regulate hunting, fishing, and environmental protection was upheld, even if such regulation discriminated against nonresidents ofthe state in question.
The state of Montana has long been renowned for its hunting and fishing, andmaintains a thriving industry based on the outfitting and guiding of huntingand fishing parties. In the early 1970s, Lester Baldwin, a resident of Montana, was a state-licensed hunting guide specializing in the pursuit of elk. Themajority of Baldwin's clients were from other states and traveled to Montanafor the express purpose of elk hunting. In 1975, Montana's hunting regulations that required state residents pay $4 for an elk-hunting license, while nonresidents were required to purchase a combination hunting license, entitlingthem to shoot two deer and one elk, for $151.
Four of Baldwin's clients, who traveled from Minnesota to Montana each year to hunt elk, balked at the discrepancy between license fees for residents andnonresidents and, along with Baldwin, filed suit against the state in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. The plaintiffs sought relief from Montana licensing requirements, claiming that the state game laws violatedtheir rights as set forth in Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitutionand reiterated in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court ruled against Baldwin, et al., and the group appealed theircase to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments on 5 October 1977.
Attorneys for the appellants argued that Montana's game laws, by discriminating against nonresidents in their fee structures, violated Article IV, Section2 of the Constitution, which states in part that "citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states," as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states in part that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
The respondents countered that Montana residents already paid for game conservation and regulation programs through their state taxes, and that the stateitself, by emphasizing wildlife conservation, had sacrificed economic development for the benefit of all and was due compensation from residents of more economically developed and environmentally degraded areas. Finally, the appellees presented evidence that nonresident hunters, by virtue of their general lack of experience, were a more difficult enforcement problem for state game wardens than resident hunters.
On 23 May 1978, the Court upheld the decision of the district court. In rejecting the appellants' claim that the Montana game laws violated Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution, the Court noted that this passage had "been interpreted to prevent a state from imposing unreasonable burdens on citizens ofother states in pursuit of their common callings within the state," and thatthe game laws as they existed posed no threat to the right to hunt elk. The Court also found that the state game laws did not violate the Equal ProtectionClause of the Fourteenth Amendment, since the laws' primary intent was the maintenance and improvement of the hunting conditions that drew the appellantsto Montana in the first place. Chief Justice Burger, in a concurring opinion, noted that the right of states to regulate and preserve wildlife for the common good had long been recognized in U.S. law.
Justices Brennan, Marshall, and White dissented, noting that states should only be allowed to discriminate against nonresidents if "the presence or activity of nonresidents was the source or cause of the problem or effect with which the state sought to deal." They added that, "the discrimination practiced against nonresidents bore a substantial relation to the problem they presented." They did not feel that the presence of nonresident hunters had caused anyextraordinary elk conservation problems for Montana.
Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission confirmed the ability of states to regulate hunting and fishing and environmental quality within theirborders, even if such regulation is applied unequally to state residents andnonresidents. Environmental and wildlife management legislation was judged tobe both a substantial state regulatory interest and a means of preserving finite resources for the public good, and as such, is beyond the purview of theEqual Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
 
Before this thread dies I want to thank Brad and Frank for entertainment that was just priceless. Most fun in a long time. Both of you homos are welcome here if you get drawn and if you will PM me I will do what I can to help you on your hunts. We like flatlander money here.
 
Another aspect to this is skiing. In the west all major ski areas are on federal lands with the exception of Big Sky, that I know of. The other day on the news, Aspen Ski Corporation's new 2007-08 lift ticket prices will be the highest in the nation at $87 a day while Vail will have $82 a day.

The comparison: A ski area that is on federal lands is lease from the forest service for a number of years and the infrastructure belongs to a private of public corporation and they have the right to set lift ticket prices. Now the wildlife lives on federal land and the states own the wildlife and they have the right to set hunting license fees.

In the early 1970's one of Jack O'Connor's last articles for Outdoor Life was about non resident hunting licenses fees. He proposed that states have a 5: 1 ratio on fees so if a resident elk tag was $20 dollars then a non resident tag should be $100. I agree.

In my State of Montana a non resident elk/deer combination is $653 and I pay $73 for a Sportsman's license which is a 8.94 ratio and includes the same as a elk/deer combo. I feel that the resident Sportsman's license should cost $130 or a 5:1 ratio. The extra money could be used to increase Block Management as the number of land owners exceeds the funds and better and more complete inventory of game which could lead to more tags.

The only non resident license that I have ever purchase were British Columbia and Alaska. In 1972 I was 21 years old and pay $105 for my hunting and fishing license, a bear, moose and caribou tag in Tok, Alaska and I was proud to be able to buy them over the counter. In 1972 I was working road construction in Yellowstone National Park for $3.35 an hour with 32 hours a week overtime. After taxes, that was 35 to 40 hours of work and a lot of money for a college student. I never though that I was rip off or paid to much -- the memories of that trip will be with me my entire life.

I have wanted to apply for a non resident goat in Idaho but $1700 and a $100 plus hunting license is a lot of money but to 7:1 odds maybe worth it.
 
MT Muley

I bet my family has been in Montana long before yours but big deal. My paternal greatfather came into Montana in either 1883 or 1886 and was one of the first medical doctors in the state. I was born in Billings in 1951, my father was born in Great Falls in 1924 and my grandmother was born in Great Falls in 1898. My grandmothers husband came to Montana in 1914 selling lumber. On my mother's side she came with my father in 1950. I think that we both live in Bozeman. I am 4th generation and there are very few fifth generation of my age.
 
Idabigbuck - Idaho must love you coming and ruining there state from N.CA. We know how they love you coming and moving there.

All you westerners love us "flatlanders, homos...etc" coming out and spending our money and then going home.

Prooutdoors - Screw you. I wouldn't use a guide, especially your guide services because of what you think of differing opinions. Sit at my fire...I'd piss on your fire.

Gleninaz - I will look you up if I ever get the chance to hunt your state.

Brad - you're a stand up guy that has hit the nail on the head. These other westerners just don't get it. I wish more flatlanders were on here to help support our argument.

The rest of you - may all of your arrows be bent and your bulletts fly erratic.
 
"The rest of you - may all of your arrows be bent and your bulletts fly erratic."

Thats very mature.


fd,
Why can't you have a civil conversation without flinging BS insults and stupid sh-t like this? Is it really that hard for you? So people disagree with you. Doesn't make you right, nnor does it make them right. You do nothing but fling crap and insult people when you post. Like mentioned before, that shows a great deal about who you are and your character. Grow up a little bit and learn to have a conversation like an adult, not some punk teenager who thinks he knows everything in the world.






It's Bush's fault!!!
 
Exactly my point. Must be rough being you. I'd like to apologize for all the a$$ whoopings you obviously recieved growing up, afterall, to me that explains why you are the way you are. Were those bullies mean to you? :)







It's Bush's fault!!!
 
It makes dumb asses like you harder to talk to, so yes it is hard at times. Whoopings were never part of the equation but if you think I need one I'll let you know the next time I'm in CO. We drive right through Ft. Collins.
 
I am guessing you would burn some short hairs squating to piss on my fire and try keeping your panties out of harms way.

PRO
 
Wow fd, you really do drive home every point I make about you and the way you act. It really is amazing.











It's Bush's fault!!!
 
Wow!Leave for a couple days and what happens!?I guess my little comments about 70 posts ago really fanned some flames!While I won't resort to name calling(like FD),it is amusing.I'll bet you'd like to take a poke at me right now!LOL!Brad,thanks for being at least halfway civil.At no time did I bad mouth the non-resident.I love non-res.They pay the bulk of Wyo G&F dept monies!Also,I find them to be(in many cases)much more appreciative of our fabulous resource than most residents.I am going to be a non-resident twice this season(Utah and Iowa).Iowa is forcing me to buy a doe tag,even though I don't really want it.That sucks,but it's just part of the game.If you want to play,you have to pay.Frank,don't think all residents hate all non-residents because of a few comments made here.You kind of fired up a few people with your name-calling,so they are just firing back.Also,it wouldn't bother me in the least to pay more to hunt my home state.No matter what the cost,I will pay it,because hunting is what I do.
 
Colville - you touched on another subject, and that is "trophy" hunting. I dont go to Colorado "trophy" hunting, many people don't, but I pay the same price tag as guys drawing 14 PP units. I HATE the concept of trophy hunting anyway though :(

" If a state does nothing to disincentivize NR's from hunting and offeers CO's quality, there'll be no where a guy can find a good experience in a non LE unit. "

Good gawd, I've had amazing experiences in non LE units. OTC, public, well known areas. I've even killed animals in there on top of my fantastic hunting trip ! I 100% disagree that the hunting experience is tied directly to the big antlers that can be killed. Thats not what hunting is


Again, your States G&F gets a very large portion of its revenue from non-res license. You can say all day long that residents can flip the bill for it if need be - but at the end of the day, they don't and never have

Ropinfool - LOL I mean seriously, tell me what state you live in and how much of that G&F revenue is from non-res license. Then tell me the local economies in the big units that get a lot of non-res hunters, and how much impact that out of state money has. Now ....... remove all that money. Think long and hard, do some research, I think your eyes will open a bit to just how much money we're talking about here

sremim - your'e from Colorado ? Lets use that state for an example then

�� Non-resident hunters and anglers spent more money per day, on average, than residents did. For example, non-resident big game hunters spent an estimated $300 per day, while resident big game hunters spent about $35.

�� Non-resident hunters and anglers contributed $332 million, or 42 percent, of the statewide trip and equipment expenditures.


........... the secondary impact of the dollars that are re-spent within the economy. The secondary economic impact of hunting and fishing dollars during 2002 is estimated at $660 million, yielding a total estimated impact of just over $1.5 billion. This level of activity supports an estimated 20,000 full-time jobs in Colorado.

www.cde.state.co.us/artemis/nr6/nr62f522004internet.pdf


Its not hard to find facts and stats on the economic impacts of hunting and fishing. Why ? Because its huge, its a large portion of tourism for many states.


" Why does one public golf course charge more than another? Why does the water park in my city charge non-city residents more than city residents? "

I'd say the reasons are because taxations pay for the above activities. You, as a resident, do not pay more for wildlife than I do, do you ? Through the Robertson/Pittman act and other ways do G&F and wildlife raise money. The "public" doesn't pay for wildlife, does it ? License sales are a large part of a G&F budget, right ? And non-residents are the ones that pay the largest portion of those revenues.

Thats not a blanket statement, every state is different and I could be wrong, we're talking very general stuff here

" All States charge non-residents more than residents to hunt or fish. Good luck trying to change that. "

No one has yet to say they want to make it same price, have they ? But $35 compared to $550 ? C'mon ....... thats ridiculous, and so is the stupid WY laws on requiring outfitters on public land. That one really gets me !


gleninaz - your big game and fishing were made by my non-resident money. Like it or not, thank a non-resident for that.

The economic impact of non-resident hunters in AZ in 2001 ? 300 million in retail sales, 561 million in multiplier effect, 136 million in salaires and wages ....... thats according to

www.ohec.org/PDFs/Hunting Economic Impact.pdf



Boskee - " Brad it's time you become a man of conviction! Please exercise it and boycott us that'll show us I'm sure "

actually I've never hunted AZ. But I gaurantee you AZ does NOT want non-residents to quit coming, and they don't want the missed money, regardless of how you might feel personally



idabigbuck - wow, you moved your family so you could hunt ? I wouldn't move my kids from their schools, away from their family and friends just so I could hunt. I wouldn't do that to them.

gleninaz - " Both of you homos are welcome here if you get drawn and if you will PM me I will do what I can to help you on your hunts. We like flatlander money here. "


ahhhhhhhhh we've come down to calling people "homos" ...... brilliant




Elk375 - do non-residents pay more for lift tickets ? I can't remember .......
 
Nontypical - I've had great experiences in the western states that I have hunted in and met many good people. Most actually got along with me.

Brad - you have the facts. I just wished others would understand.

Sremin - you are a #####. Sorry for the name calling to you other civilized people.

Pro - you're just plain boring and have no sense of humor. I hope you keep talking to NR's like you do. You'll be surprised how fast you're out of business.
 
Brad-You need to rush to the doctor and have a sense of humor implant. I have nothing against non-residents or homos. You guys both keep whining about $35 vs $500 but never mention that we in Arizona asked for an increase from $70 to $122 in one year so your tag costs could be held down to chump change. If you don't feel it is worth $500 to hunt elk in Arizona then you don't understand the quality and small number of animals here. Another fact here is we have outfitters but there are no private tags and no one can buy one from a tag ho so although the multipliers for NR impact are nice the amount here is very replaceable. Of course it has never happened because we have never had any discussions about cutting out the NR in this state and doubt we ever will. Back to the original subject. If you people would just realize you are pissing into the wind by whining to some moron congressman and stop threatening people your welcome would be much warmer. Later.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-15-07 AT 09:57AM (MST)[p]All this arguing over a bill that won't even make it out of committee. Any of you guys ever pay attention to the actual nuts and bolts of how bills become laws in this country?

I believe that during the USO fiasco the current Majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, draft a bill called the "Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005." Senate Bill 339. Which has since been signed into law. It was cosponsored by a bipartisan group 14 other western Senators.

Duncan Hunter's bill is DOA in the House committee. A Republican sponsored piece of legislation in the Democrat controlled House is not going to make it onto the house floor. Let's say a miracle happens and it does make it out of the house. Harry Reid will bury it in the Senate so that it will never come up for a vote. There is NO WAY a Western Senator from either party will allow such a bill to get any traction. And when it comes to Senators States like MT, ID, WY, ID, CO, NM, AZ, ND, SD etc all get the same number as States with bigger populations. Man the Founders of this country were some smart guys.

Why not find some common ground?

Nemont
 
Good post Nemont, but it is so much fun getting fdhunter riled and letting him make a fool of himself.

fdhunter wrote:

"Pro - you're just plain boring and have no sense of humor. I hope you keep talking to NR's like you do. You'll be surprised how fast you're out of business."

First, I have plenty of sense and humor, you missed my humor on you "squating" to piss, which was implying you are missing the tool to piss standing up, that thar is funny.

Second, I get plenty of business and I am not concerned about losing potiental clientele if they are of your ilk. I guide mostly for enjoyment, not torture. See, thar is more humor, and you wouldn't know sense if it bit you on your shaved arse!

PRO
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-15-07 AT 10:17AM (MST)[p]Brad nobody ever said they didn't want nonresident's coming that is your conclusion.In fact the two guys your arguing with went before the commission to support nonresident hunting!! I have family that hunt here from out of state. I told you to be a man of conviction because it became very apparent reason was out of the question. A guy has to stand up for what he believes in at some point. Are you wrong no and I told you that but it's out of our control! It is what it is, accept it or not it's your choice.

Here's a little something for you to ponder. I haven't been drawn for a tag for anything here in 4 years. I have over 40 bonus points accumulated. Yet there are thousands of nonresident hunters hunting here annually. So while you're complaining about the price understand this. It's the opportunity to hunt thats worth far more than the price of any tag you will ever buy today or in the future.
 
Pro - you are right...I had no idea what your implications were in that "thar" funny statement you made about squatting. You are so quick witted it's scary.

You guide mostly for money, funny guy. You know the funniest thing is..I'm going to book a hunt with you. You'll have no idea that I'm even there. Oh, what fun that'll be.
 
gleninz " I have nothing against non-residents or homos. "

wouldn't know that from your posts to be honest

"You guys both keep whining about $35 vs $500 but never mention that we in Arizona asked for an increase from $70 to $122 in one year so your tag costs could be held down to chump change."

still a very big differnece, isn't there ?


"Back to the original subject. If you people would just realize you are pissing into the wind by whining to some moron congressman and stop threatening people your welcome would be much warmer. Later. "

Who threatened ?

I won't come to AZ, or at least, I don't see that anytime in my future.

Example - I am not going to Colorado this fall. I canceled what was probably going to be about $1500 put from me into the economy of Colorado and I am going to go to Quebec on a caribou hunt.

Does Colorado care ? YES THEY DO ! They don't care about individual, but loss of tourism, loss of hunting income/revenue is a huge deal.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe its not all about money. maybe the outfitters don't have the pull I think they do. Maybe western states don't care about non-res income to their local economies.
If so, then yes gleninaz, piss on us, who needs us ?




Boskee - things change, besides, I like to talk about WHY things are as they are. currently I don't see any sound argument why non-res prices are what they are other than the states can do it.

That can change too. I do not see it far fetched that in the future, because non-residents spend so much more than residents do, that G&F will allocate more and more license/tags for higher and higher prices. The rich will hunt, the poor will not. Hunting will become a rich mans game and we're already seeing that now with govenor tags etc.

Outfitters want MORE non-res hunters. They'd love to have their camps booked every day of the season to max capacity.

Ask people from KS how outfitter affect hunting and how outfitters can sway the G&F
 
fdhunter, the "thar" was intentional, try and keep up.

As for you booking a hunt with me, unless you got the jack to buy a conservation tag AND pay my guide fees, which will put you well over $30,000, you CAN'T afford me. If you could, you wouldn't be complaining about NR prices. Snap!

PRO
 
Why do some of you assume the NR is the only person keeping a guide in business? I know plenty of guides who's clients are 90% resident hunters. Wake up, the NR hunter is not the savior of western hunting and guiding. Don't flatter yourself.










It's Bush's fault!!!
 
you never know how much jack I have "thar" pro. I thought your state was screwing people until I heard what you charge. Talk about buying an animal. I'll stick to pitching a tent on federal land and taking home my meat.
 
you are such a tard. What "hunter" needs a guide ? Especially a resident hunter. Understandable somewhat coming from out of state but you live there and need somebody to show you where all the animals are ? I guess I'm not too worried about seeing you in the woods.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-15-07 AT 10:55AM (MST)[p]"you are such a tard. What "hunter" needs a guide ?"

Well you were the one spouting off at Pro about being nice to NR HUNTERS who needed his service so he could stay in business. Then you spout off about hiring him.


Wow fd, you really are dumber than I thought.

Where in my post did I refer to myself as someone who uses a guide? Perhaps in a tiny little state barely bigger than some western counties you may know where every tree is. Most people don't drive around the large states out here looking for animals behind every tree in every unit. Most people choose particular units in a state to concentrate on, and are rewarded for it. They learn it like the back of their hand. Then, when they draw a top unit, they will utilize the help of someone else. Wow, amazing how that works isn't it? Its called common sense. It takes more than 2 hours to drive even half way across most western states, unlike the measly little one you come from.








It's Bush's fault!!!
 
Frank-You are wrong at least for AZ. I know plenty of people who pay outfitters every year here and a few buy the $20000 reservation bulls every year. Lots of money in the state and lots of those people have no time to really hunt or scout so they are more than willing to pay. If you can afford your own Lear jet then I guess you can afford to pay a guide. That said it is pretty easy to score a dumb elk here on public land so I do it myself.
 
scremin " Why do some of you assume the NR is the only person keeping a guide in business? I know plenty of guides who's clients are 90% resident hunters. Wake up, the NR hunter is not the savior of western hunting and guiding. Don't flatter yourself. "

prove that please
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-15-07 AT 11:00AM (MST)[p]Prove that? Ok let me get the names of the guides, and the people they have guided and where they were from. Keep in mind the post said guides I know, not all guides.








It's Bush's fault!!!
 
Rewards are from hunting hard and doing it on your own. Whether you are rewarded with an animal or not, dope.

Oh, and by the way, it takes 7.5 hours to drive across my state.Douche.
 
I can't afford a Leer jet and really have no problems with guides. They have a job to do. I prefer doing it myself because it is much more rewarding that way. I love big dumb elk.
 
scremim - post the link that shows the economic breakdowns for Colorado guides for resident vs non-resident. Sorry, you saying its true isn't fact, post some proof
 
scremim - let me show you

I THINK MORE THAN 60% OF COLORADO DNR REVENUES COME FROM NONRESIDENTS


http://www.coloradowildlife.org/advocacy/residentlicensefee.asp


Recent data has 83% of total hunting revenue coming from non-residents, and 68% in combined fishing / hunting license revenue. Suffice it be concluded that non-residents money spent hunting big game in Colorado is very important to wildlife management.


See, I just backup up the above in caps statement.

So when you say outfitters use a lot of resients instead of non-residents as clients ? SHOW ME
 
"Ropinfool - LOL I mean seriously, tell me what state you live in and how much of that G&F revenue is from non-res license. Then tell me the local economies in the big units that get a lot of non-res hunters, and how much impact that out of state money has. Now ....... remove all that money. Think long and hard, do some research, I think your eyes will open a bit to just how much money we're talking about here"


New Mexico.....and it's a lot. I never said it wouldn't have an impact. But the majority of our local economies aren't drivin soley by hunting. We're not a rich state, but loosing income from Nr's wouldn't break us. The influx of Nr's is a fairly recent thing. We were fine before......actually better! The fact is we don't need you Nr's. Now i'm not against Nr's, just the ones who want to get greedy. If you want to hunt here then pay up, good luck, and have fun.....but DON'T COMPLAIN!!!
 
Settle down there Brad,

Maybe you should re-read my post. Firt of all, I didn't say it as applying to all guides. I said it as applying to guides I know. Re-read the word I. Get it? Good. Second, the majority of the guides I know are from AZ. I don't know about CO nor do I care. I didn't know I needed to snap my fingers and poof what you ask for is there.






It's Bush's fault!!!
 
you settle down semen. You are buried in the facts that Brad counters you with and have nowhere to run except down your miserable little leg.
 
"you settle down semen. You are buried in the facts that Brad counters you with and have nowhere to run except down your miserable little leg."

Ooohhh, that was a good one with my name fd, did a little 5 year old tell you that one. Thats original.


Maybe you and Brad should learn to read. I never claimed anything I can't back up. I never claimed it was for all guides. I said guides I know. Not sure how else I can spell that out for you.








It's Bush's fault!!!
 
In many conversations with NR hunters, of whom, very few were whining about the price of tags, most were just glad to be able come here and hunt all this federal land for nothing, taking animal from the state might cost them, but just being able to walk for days without seeing another human, hearing an elk bugle, watching a griz in a scree slope, seeing a mule deer, was all worth much more than the price of the tag. Many were grateful these areas were all still here. I ask the ones that whine about tag prices, why they don't move to Montana and be able to get all this for a song, and almost to a man, they all said they couldn't make the wages they make here, or the business they were in doesn't exist here at all. The price of living here in western MT is skyrocketing, wages are not going up, property taxes are going way up, gas prices are not falling, etc. Sacrifices are made by the majority to live in this place. Sacrifices that would probably cost you a lot more than the price of a flipping elk tag.
 
With facts Oh Knowledgeable one. You haven't backed up squat.

No 5 year old, it was YOUR MOTHER.
 
fdhunter, talk about 'running', you sure did a sh$^%$er didn't you when I let you know how much it would cost you to share my fire. Why do I charge so much? Because I get results and people are lined up waiting for my services. The price of guide fees and the pros/cons of using guides is a fun topic, but has NOTHING to do with this thread.

Brad, you are slipping and sliding down the slope to fdhunterdom, put the brakes on before you are lumped with him, you are smarter and better than that.

I love NR hunters coming to Utah, I just strongly believe they SHOULD pay more to kill/hunt a state owned resource. On that note, I will simply agree to disagree with you on this and move on to 'real' issues as this bill will go NOWHERE in DC.

PRO
 
Pro,
Don't even try to get through to fd. All he does is call names and sling BS when he can't dispute what has been said or knows he's wrong. Its not worth it. I will no longer acknowledge or respond to idiotic posts. I have much better things to do with my time.

Go ahead fd, say it.










It's Bush's fault!!!
 
Pro - you are correct sir. I heard that price and bolted. Way above my level. You should be sharing your wife's and your girlfriend for that price. Not just your fire. I'm glad that you get results. I also get results on my own, paying 1500 dollars. Meat taste the same if not better, I get a hell of a workout, and I have not been able to figure out the whole horn soup thing.

I disagree on your last statement and agree to disagree with you.
 
Like start learning the facts and appreciating us NR hunters, oh limp wristed fella.
 
proutdoors this thread has degraded to the point of worthlessness now I think.

Like I have posted, facts say that the majority of revenue from western states G&F Departments come from non-res money. Facts say that along with these non-residents, hundreds of millions of economic impact comes with them, meaning your local stores and businesses prosper off a resource that is NOT paid for by any taxations in your state.

And BTW, you do not want the general public paying for your right to hunt, because with that comes the right to vote that you CAN'T hunt.

Thank a non-resident westerners, they paid by and large for the resource of wildlife and fisheries you so proudly call your own.

Next time you drive through the national forest highways in Colorado, take a look at all the closed businesses from the 40% reduction in hunters that came after teh $250 to $450 tag increase that occurred a few years back. Those places are great reminders of just how important tourism is - hunting tourism

In the future, I predict much, MUCH higher tag prices and the continual migration away from hunting towards killing big antlers. Yes, there is a difference, and once its lost, I don't know if it can ever be recovered.

I'm out of this thread, its no longer worth anything
 
> >
>Thank a non-resident westerners, they paid
>by and large for the
>resource of wildlife and fisheries
>you so proudly call your
>own.
>
> I agree with what you are saying except the above. You do not pay for the resource, the resource is here, your money pays for all those biologists, and game wardens salaries, gas in their tanks, basically running the office. You could argue about monitoring, but don't make it sound like the resource wouldn't be here if it weren't for your money.
Your comments about the ripple effects of a hunter coming to the state are correct, but even those effects are not a blanket. NW MT economy is not floated by hunters, we are summer tourism and winter skiing based.
You are spot on about hunting becoming trophy based, but not throughout the entire West. Utah and AZ might have gotten their own nuts in sling with those dealings. Like I said in a previous post, most come to MT for the experience, and its worth more than the price of the tag.
 
171 posts and I bet nobody has actually read the legislation. I wonder why Mr. Hunter limited it to just Deer, elk, antelope and bear? I guess the rest of the big game animals don't count. Interesting.

No way is this going to pass as written. Will not happen period. Simply a publicity stunt. If you beleive Duncan Hunter cares about the public access to hunting do a little research on the stunts he has pulled on Santa Rosa Island. Real defender of public access. :-(


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3255
To prohibit a State from charging an individual more than $200 for a permit or license to hunt big game on Federal public lands within that State.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 31, 2007
Mr. HUNTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources


A BILL
To prohibit a State from charging an individual more than $200 for a permit or license to hunt big game on Federal public lands within that State.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the 'Teddy Roosevelt Bring Back Our Public Lands Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON FEE.

A State may not charge more than $200 per year for the issuance to an individual (regardless of the State of residency of such individual) of a permit, license, or other similar document granting to such individual the right to hunt big game on Federal public lands in that State.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) BIG GAME- The term 'big game' means deer, elk, antelope, or bear.

(2) FEDERAL PUBLIC LAND- The term 'Federal public land' means any land or water (other than any land or water held in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe or member of an Indian tribe) that is--

(A) publicly accessible;

(B) owned by the United States; and

(C) managed by an executive agency for purposes that include the conservation of natural resources.

(3) HUNT- The term 'hunt' means the lawful pursuit, trapping, shooting, capture, collection, or killing of big game or the attempt to do the same.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-15-07 AT 02:29PM (MST)[p]>fdhunter wrote:
>
>"Maybe no one should visit your
>state to hunt or help
>your business with the above
>attitude. Howe much of your
>business is from NR Pro
>?"
>
>Almost all my 'business' is from
>NR's, so what is your
>point?
>
>Like I said, I have no
>problem with NR hunters, just
>don't expect to pay what
>a resident who invests money/time/sweat
>year after year to the
>animals we hunt. I hunt
>out of state, and if
>I don't like the cost
>to hunt in a state,
>get this, I DON'T HUNT
>THERE. Problem solved.
>
>Of all the great hunting available
>in states like Arizona and
>Utah, how much have YOU
>contributed to making our elk
>world class? Have you been
>in the trenches pushing thru
>management practices that improve quality?
>Have you been out putting
>in tanks and guzzlers for
>dry periods? Have you been
>out reseeding burnt areas? Have
>you been out working w/landowners
>for easements to keep critical
>habitat from being developed? If
>you can honestly say yes
>to ALL these questions, then
>I will say you DESERVE
>to pay what I pay
>for a tag.
>
>PRO
Id, like to say just a couple things.. First, if you actually help out with projects as a resident or nonresident, your just a very small percentage that does.
Second, to another post someone made, Living there pretty much contributes nothing more for funding for F&G if you do not buy a tag. No one that has ever been challenged on that statement has ever shown proof that anything over a turd's worth of F&G funding has come from state taxes and state citizenship of any kind.
Bottom line, there needs to be a compromise, and a limit set to what the res/nonres percentage is for hunting on Federal land because it has gotten out of hand in many states. For many states A nonresident contributes far more than any resident just in bonus points. Look at WY, if a guy buys points for deer, elk, sheep, and lope and moose, how much did he contribute to the F&G WITHOUT EVEN hunting that year. Now compare that to what a resident spent and contributed in funding.
I do not think many states are charging too much or giving too few tags but there are a few that are, and need to be ##### slapped for doing so, so things dont get even worst. WY went from one of the best, fairest states to one of the worst, and then lock nonres out of wilderness areas for that private business of selling hunts of private livestock on federal property. MT has a resident/nonresident price percentage that is terrible, what a MT resident pays for elk and deer is not much more than a few cases of good beer. The states that are made up of mostly Federal land should be the most considerate with the allocation and price of tags to show a "thanks" for US taxpayers for letting them graze their private animals without getting charged grazing rights for their private business.
No one here is asking for the same amount of tags, or the same price, at least I am not but i sure would like to see an end to the madness that some states are doing and getting worst every year so the next generation of hunters will afford to do it as well.
You guys think it is great to only have the wealthy come to your states but then whine that the same wealthy and scumbag outfitters "bought out" your private land honeyhole you used to hunt with leases. It is only bad that comes of a welfare style hunting lisence system. Hell if the residents of UT would cough up a few more bucks for their tags they could eliminate the auction tags and hunt more often instead of the rich guys stepping in front of the line every year.
 
Brad said

"Next time you drive through the national forest highways in Colorado, take a look at all the closed businesses from the 40% reduction in hunters that came after teh $250 to $450 tag increase that occurred a few years back. Those places are great reminders of just how important tourism is - hunting tourism"

First of all there are no businesses in the National Forest in Colorado. And secondly, contrary to your uninformed opinion, the economies are fine in the mountain towns, ESPECIALLY in good hunting areas. Try to get a motel reservation in Craig Colorado for one of the rifle seasons...you are too late. Yet these towns are folding because of the fee increase to non-residents? Hogwash, plain and simple.

Brad, you keep complaining about the $200 increase like DOW took food from your table. Fact is, you can still buy and elk tag for less than $300 so now your arguement really starts to lose any meaning. What's the deal? Can't shoot a cow? Hunting for antlers are ya? Comes across loud and clear. Most times when I am cow hunting I have a nice bull in gun range on public land but that's how it goes with hunting.

You just sound cheap, that's all. Work a little harder and amke an extra $200 bucks and come have some fun. Many people here want your money...just like the DOW. I think that's how things work and in the end, if you let the money ruin it for ou, you'll regret it.
 
Quote "what I consider fair is paying the same price. We are aalready at a disadvantage of getting an opportunity. I'm not bitching about residents getting 90 % of the tags. Thats fine, you live there.
Maybe whats really fair is 50 % of the tags and the same price. After all it is federal land that I pay taxes for."


No frigging way. It shouldnt be the same, but just kept "reasonable" Just cap the amount of percentage that the states charge the Res VS Nores and maybe that should depend also on the amount of federal land that makes up the state. This wouldnt all have come up if a few states havent gotten so out of proportion with thier percentage.
Here is a question for the western state resident..
What percentage more do you feel that enough is enough and it is time to raise you fees instead? I am just wondering to see where you guys draw the line and care only about what happens in your state lines and not the big picture.
 
Brad says. "gleninaz - your big game and fishing were made by my non-resident money. Like it or not, thank a non-resident for that.

The economic impact of non-resident hunters in AZ in 2001 ? 300 million in retail sales, 561 million in multiplier effect, 136 million in salaires and wages ....... thats according to

www.ohec.org/PDFs/Hunting%20Economic%20Impact.pdf"


Brad, you're skewing those numbers to fit your argument. Those numbers for Arizona that you quoted are for Residents AND non-Residents. Not just Non-residents as you're implying. A bit of a fabrication. Might want to re-read those figures regarding economic impacts. Pay close attention to the table name: All Hunting, Residents and Non-residents.

You need to scroll down further for just Non-residents. The numbers are much smaller, and make more sense. See following:

"Economic Contributions Per State From Non-Resident Hunters"
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-15-07 AT 03:52PM (MST)[p]I just called the University of Montana box office and inquired about the cost of season tickets to the Grizzlies home football games. There will be 7 home games this season and the cost of season tickets is $190 per ticket or $28 a game. If you want better sitting then one will have to pay an addition $112 for bronze, $225 for silver or $419 for gold which is on the 50 yard line. All tickets to the grizzly games are sold out this year and it is a couple of years on the waiting list for season tickets.

We Montanan's pay $73 for a Sportsmen's license which includes fishing, bird hunting and a elk and deer tag. If one spends 20 days in the field hunting and fishing then the cost per day of recreation is $3.65 per day or slightly more than a gallon of gas. If one wants to attend at U of M or MUS home game a ticket cost $28 plus the accoutrements that go with it should equal about $50 a game or 2/3 the cost of a home game. Most of Montana fans will be Montana residents and they are willing to spend the money for there football. Then it is time for residents of all states to pay their fair cost of their hunting and fishing and outdoor recreation actives.

The worst case is Alaska where a $25 license allows one to shoot moose, caribou, bear, dear, elk, sheep and goats. Brown bear and grizzly require a separate $25 license. I do not mind paying the non resident Alaska fees and am happy to be able to purchase them over the counter. When I was a resident of Alaska in 1974 to 1978 I paid the same $25. I do not like the guide law since I have shot all of the animals as a resident and have demonstrated my outdoor and hunting skills but that is a different story.

I think the Western States are doing an excellent job of man ageing the wildlife and should be able to charge what they are currently charging non residents but maybe additional license fees should come from residents. From reading the above posts a Colorado non resident elk is $450, totally fair. After hunting season comes ski season and with the average lift ticket price in major ski area at $75 a day, six days of skiing equals one elk tag. Yes, I know skiing cost money but so does hunting. Maybe a resident could pay $75 for an elk tag or the cost of a one day lift ticket that is fair.

My opinion is that non residents should not get upset about the cost of non resident licenses and residents should not be so cheap not to allow a reasonable increase.

One last though on this if we have a $200 non resident federal lands license this is what could happen. I hunt elk south and east of Dillon, Montana and the lands are checker boarded with state, private, and federal lands both BLM and Forest service. Now Remenber that you license is only good for federal lands and with a map one can find federal lands. Southwest Montana has lots of Block Management which is private land that the state has acquired permission on and state land.

Well you have found some federal lands but to access them you must cross state or open block management land. You grab your rifle and pack and start walking half way to the federal lands are elk -- bang bang -- oh well we are close enough and who can tell. Ninety nine times out of 100 you will be ok -- get in the truck and go, no one will know. That one time a game warden is hot on your trail oh well you have just cross Monida Pass and are in Idaho headed home. You have committed a federal felony via the Lacey Act. Or if I was a state that had to issue a $200 federal hunting license then I would make the find $5,000 for shooting the elk off of federal lands, a 30 day jail sentence and 10 years loss of hunting privileges, you are done hunting the west.

The situation is not broke and crybabies will be crybabies. Now I got to get to work so I can afford to go hunitng.
 
Thanks AZ...I noticed that as well. An old tactic of flinging the BS against the wall and seeing what sticks...:)
 
Thanks for the link! Gee, is Brad a politician or do the facts really matter? Looks like Non-residents contributed a whopping 7.3% in each category to Arizona so guess we should reduce the tag allocation to that from 10% and accept Brad's whole arguement. Looks good to me. Thanks Brad and I will forward that data to the crook politician who started this whole thing.
 
AzHunter8 - yessir, I did make a mistake there. I assure you I didn't do it on purpose, I do not make arguments based on lying, thus me coming back to this thread once again and posting as much.

The numbers should be retail sales of almost 22 million, multiplier affect of 41.5 million, salaries and wages of 11.6 million etc from non-res hunters.


Non-Resident Expenditures

Hunting, All Types $ 3,183,973,725
Deer Hunting $ 1,285,060,650
Migratory Bird Hunting $ 443,652,740
Upland Game Hunting $ 406,473,793



Non-Resident Expenditures

Hunting, All Types $ $24,708,970,000
Deer Hunting $10,673,990,535
Migratory Bird Hunting $2,674,856,184
Upland Game Hunting $1,854,750,978


That money isn't chump change guys. Its a HUGE shot in the arm to local economy.




Anyway, I'm sorry for posting that incorrectly. I do my best to backup my arguments with fact. You'll not catch me posting wrng info often
 
>
> Here is a question
>for the western state resident..
>
> What percentage more do
>you feel that enough is
>enough and it is time
>to raise you fees instead?
> I am just wondering
>to see where you guys
>draw the line and care
>only about what happens in
>your state lines and not
>the big picture.

Well, your question is kind of accusatory in itself. But I don't think there is an answer to it. As long as the NR licenses are bought up, the prices must be OK. Maybe our state game agency needs to cut some fat, if they have some. And again, I can only speak for MT. If hunting here is what you(someone) wants, move here and pay the two cases of beer price. But I am telling you, it will probably cost you your good wages and cheap living, and dollar for dollar you may be worse off, than if you just payed the $1500(seems to be the amount that was thrown out for a DIY hunt in the west). I know it seems like BS, but there are not jobs here with high pay and benies like you find in the larger metro areas. If you really look at THAT "big picture", we aren't getting away with anything here.

But you guys have to drop the federal land thing because it works both ways. If hunters want perks because there is X amount of federal land, then the antis will want their share of federal lands set aside for no hunting. And you have to admit, if you go down that road, its only fair!!! And there are A LOT more of them than us.

And schmalts, I see many of your posts on other forums, and I respect your thoughts and opinions, so I am just trying to answer your questions, enough poo has been flung around this thread already.
 
Not a problem Brad. Just thought it needed some clarification.

And yes, you're right, it is a chunk of change, I'll agree to that. About 22 million more than I have! :)
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-15-07 AT 05:51PM (MST)[p]"But you guys have to drop the federal land thing because it works both ways. If hunters want perks because there is X amount of federal land, then the antis will want their share of federal lands set aside for no hunting. And you have to admit, if you go down that road, its only fair!!! And there are A LOT more of them than us.

And schmalts, I see many of your posts on other forums, and I respect your thoughts and opinions, so I am just trying to answer your questions, enough poo has been flung around this thread already."

first off thanks for the reply without the usual name calling and usual factless statements.

As to the Antis having thier share of federal land, well they do. National parks, and such are just that. Take a place like Estes Park, where they will snipe and trap elk before they allow hunting. But you nailed it on the head, it needs to work both ways and that has always been my point but when a State charges a totally unfair amount for a Nonresident to hunt federal land there isnt much of a both ways. Like I said once before, Yes the state owns the animals but there needs to be a slight bit of payout to federal taxpayers for the use of the land that those "private elk and deer AKA livestock" are living. Hey, i am not asking for much compared to others, i just want a cap on a percentage and some states should go backwards a bit with it.
Like i said, I bet i have given WY more funding for wildlife in the past 3 years than 95% of WY residents and have not set foot in that state and even hunted yet once in my life, so there is no argueing that nonresidents don't pay more than their share for wildlife funding there.

Keep in mind that the price cap isnt only going to effect Western states. I live in Wisconsin and while i feel that we have a VERY fair price for NR (160$ for deer) don't think no one wants to come here??? guess what, in 2004 WI sold 34,000 Nonresident deer tags alone!! Lest see how your state compare t that! so, dont think i am just wanting cheap hunting in your state, this goes both ways and fully know that if we had to lower our prices for guys that want to hunt deer on federal land i would have to pay more in my own state as well, and yes we do have a good chunk of federal land here.
 
Kinfish - way to rile them up. I'm not whining but it sucks paying so much more being a NR. I love hunting out west. I love everything about it. The hunt, the animals, the mountains, the old west feel and for the most part the people but the cost still sucks. If it cost less for a tag I would be out every year. I've got a wife and 3 kids. They understand my need to hunt but the cost is a great argument for the wife.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-16-07 AT 09:42AM (MST)[p]For schmalts

2004 Colorado Nonresident Hunter Numbers

95,220 Elk Tags

26,535 Deer Tags

I had the 2006 numbers which were higher, but I cant find my paperwork from the last SAG meeting.

And now you know why a lot of Coloradoans want a cap on the number of nonresidents.
 
Wow, I was trying to follow this thread, but it grew way too fast. The proposal is junk, but the intention is starting to get people to think of how to set tag pricing fairly. No I don't think all tags should cost the same amount of money, and that is ridiculous to think so since game management varies based on state and location within! Here's what makes sense in my mind:

State owned AND managed wildlife, on federal land. Seems to me like the tag fee should come from a constant federal fee for land (or access, or call it whatever federal cost) + the state management cost, which will vary based on unit! Every unit does not cost the same amount of $ to manage, its obvious. Since only residents pay state tax all year, they are exempt the state fee. Nonresidents do bring in money to the economy, but residents do as well, we all eat out and get a motel, however these contributions cannot be accounted for since they are not directly recoverable to state management. The state managed divisions of wildlife cannot base a budget on predicted contributions. Pretty simple to me, but then some want to make it more difficult or the other extreme, constant which is not really a true cost for each tag.
 
That sounds way high. We give out tags for around 50% of the total elk population each year. If you have 200000 elk and are giving out 50% just to non-residents then how has that impacted the herds? How is the quality improvement over ten years? Guess you have so much great habitat vs Arizona that it can manage the hunting pressure. We have 35000 elk and give out 17000 tags with 1700 of those going to NR so very different here.
 
I agree with Schmalts, Residents should pay less and have more opportunity but the difference has gotten out of hand as far as the price of tags.

Earlier it was posted "If Utah upped the tag price for next year by double EVERY non-res tag would still be sold. That tells me our prices are NOT too high".

Is that really the opinion out there? Do we just keep raising the prices to see how much people are willing to pay? I think this type of attitude is going to be the end of hunting for the average person.
 
SO I'm gonna sum up my thoughts and sign out.

For those of you who think the cost is out of hand, what you are telling the rest of us is that $480 tag fee to hunt a bull elk is too high. But most of you agree that Non-residents should pay more. So let's say your Colorado hunting trip will cost $1500. If the State heard your voices and agreed to knock the tag price down to $380, you would be out here every year?

You have got to be kidding...a lousy $100 makes or breaks your vacation to do something that you love to do. Work some overtime, sell a gun, tighten your budget, whatever. But whining about $100 bucks? Come on...

The truth is, the proponents of lower tag fees want to pay exactly the same as residents, and then they would still be griping about the high cost of hunting, too many hunters, too few animals, roadless areas, rules, pine beetles, you name it.

Suck it up, get over it, and enjoy hunting while you can. Non-residents will NEVER pay the same as residents and the costs are NEVER going to go down. Jeez....
 
I see no one wants to answer my question about what you guys think is fair, and what and when has it gone too far. Cmon, lets here it. 10X more, 50X more? I want an honest answer because i know a lot of western guys border hop as well. So when do you think a line needs to be drawn is more of a productive arguement than what is being hashed out now.
 
schmalts,
Nobody will answer your question with what they think is fair. The question has been asked before, I believe in this same thread. Its funny because all these guys want lower prices, yet they can't come up with a price that is "fair" so in reality, they don't even know what they are fighting for. When that happens, it just becomes whining.

Here's another question, would it make those of you happy to have residents pay $350 for a tag in CO and the NR still pay $500? Do you want the residents fees to come up to that level? Would it make you feel better about spending $500? The prices will never come down, so thats the only way it will ever be close.


Another thought; You all complain about it being so much more to pay as a NR. One reason may be because when it comes down to it, voters may have the power to prevent the above from happening. Think about it, we vote for governor, state reps, senators. When the gov. appoints someone to the commission, or the legislature votes on increases, do you really think they will get re-elected if they decide to charge residents the same as NR. And of course they know the NR can't do chit about it because they can't vote. This whole pricing thing does not just come from the G&F departments, but the whole lawmaking system in each state.








It's Bush's fault!!!
 
I posted earlier about the Supreme Court case of Baldwin VS The Montana Fish and Game Commision. No one but me has referenced this case.

The court opined that states have a right to set the cost of hunting licenses fees. THAT SETTLES IT. THE STATES ARE ALLOWED TO SET THE LICENSE FEES. The cost of non resident licenses are not that HIGH anywhere in the west compared to other sporting opportunies.

Some individuals have said that they would be out west every year hunting if the fees were lower. In Montana there are 17,000 non resident license combination licenses sold with outfitters having perference for 5,500 plus which I voted against and feel that it is unfair.

For the remaining 12,000 plus licenses there is draw which over 25,000 people apply and it takes one bonus point to generally draw. There are more people that have the money than tags -- so those that don't have the money work a second job.

I have an idea maybe it will work and maybe it won't. Montana should do away with the outfitter set aside and put all 17,000 licenses on e bay. Starting the frist of the Janurary, 1,000 licenses a week will be put on e bay and the highest bidder will win the tags. This will continue for 17 weeks. The licenses will sell for market value and there should be no bitching. The market has set the price which is the American way. That way there are no under value tags that subsidizes a hunter or a hunter that overpays for a tag.

As of Monday, Montana had over 20,000 doe/fawn antelope tags available and approximately 500 either sex antelope tags and thousands of both mule deer and white tail doe/fawn tags. There were less that 100 cow elk tags available at $273. Non residents pay $50 and residents pay $14 for either antelope and deer doe/fawn tags and are allowed 2 antelope and 7 deer tags. There are tags available and they are cheap. Go hunting.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-16-07 AT 11:17AM (MST)[p]schmalts,

I think it is fair nonresidents pay higher fees ($300-$400 to hunt deer) but agree some of the tag prices are getting out of control. The oil companies are still making more money off guys who hunt western states every year than western states make from tag sales.

Now that I have answered your question, answer mine. Do you think it is fair for someone to buy nonresident tags so they can kill 2-5 muley?s every year?
 
we B huntin wrote:

"Earlier it was posted "If Utah upped the tag price for next year by double EVERY non-res tag would still be sold. That tells me our prices are NOT too high".

Is that really the opinion out there? Do we just keep raising the prices to see how much people are willing to pay? I think this type of attitude is going to be the end of hunting for the average person."

Since I am the one that said this, let me attempt to clarify what I thought was obvious, but apparently isn't. I am saying IF the price was doubled(notice I did NOT say it should be), they would still sell every tag. My point is the price is not too high or they wouldn't have more willing to buy the tags than there are tags available. Get it????? This indicates to me that the prices are reaonable to ALOT of hunters, therefore, the complaining of a few is just that, complaining.

I think the woe is me complaining and biching, along with hunters creating animosity between residents vs NR's and guides vs DIY hunters, and rich 'trophy' hunters vs 'meat' hunters, are THE REAL THREATS TO HUNTING FOR THE 'AVERAGE' HUNTER. Whatever the average hunter IS. But, that is just my take on it.

PRO
 
Pro - keep thinking that way about the fee being reasonable and you will start seeing less and less average hunter. You know, the one's that really hunt and don't buy a tag just to kill.

Why do you care about us average hunters? It costs 30 grand to hunt your operation. You like the rich boys.
 
What is an 'average' hunter? Am I one? I make peanuts for wages and have to budget to by a tag, some years I don't even buy one, so am I an 'average' hunter? Who gets to decide who/what is 'average'? You or me? I sit a road hunter, a die hard DIY hunter, one who uses horses, one that use atv's, one that uses trailcams, one that uses gps and topo's, one that is obsessed year around about hunting, one that just thinks about it a few days before the season starts, one that makes $30,000-$100,000 a year, $5,000-$30,000, millionares who are DIY hunters, hunters who can only afford WalMart stuff? Who/what exactly is the famous 'average hunter'?

PRO
 

Similar threads

Simpleton
Mule Deer Proposal
2 3
Replies
218
Views
5k
Vanilla
Vanilla

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

2FFD4DC2-A5DE-42C0-9C7F-C6069931CBC0.jpeg
20190204_125833.jpg
IMG_4228.jpeg
B6ED4B70-4956-45F9-9AC6-C0774727290B.jpeg
20201205_162446.jpg
IMG_0288.JPG
Screenshot_20220107-151831_Gallery.jpg
3217bbb.jpg
CB8EB0A6-E23C-426A-A60D-EE2395D07ADE.jpeg
12.jpg
AC699075-D216-42D1-865C-4400BDCDD292.png
Desert Mule Deer in Sonora Mexico
Back
Top Bottom