Lowering Non-Resident License Costs
Community
I just got in the mail a letter from B&C doing a membership drive. They were listing the things B&C does for their members and sports folks across the country. That got me thinking about the very high cost of NR licenses. Does anyone know if these different organizations (BC, PY, NRA, SC, REMEF, WU, MDF, etc) engage states regarding the high cost of their NR licenses? To me it would make sense if these orgs examined this major problem, identify solutions and engaged the states on behalf of their members. I think if prospective members read about an org's efforts on something like this, it could be a decision maker about joining and possibly help alot of people.
If the NR demand wasn't high, the tag price would likely come down or nothing would happen to price regardless of NR demand.
Conservation organizations are all about the critter and it's backyard. Not whether or not the tag price is fair...
HDE, The B&C flyer says they're involved in more than just the critter and the backyard. One thing they are involved in is "advising, writing, and influencing policies and legislation that affect hunting and conservation." High NR license cost directly affects hunters. It would seem to me if these orgs want to represent hunters in policies and legislation, then it would make sense to take up important hunter causes such as this.
States can and should charge whatever the market will bear for residents and non-residents alike.
If I'm not a resident of a particular state, I have no business bitching about what they choose to charge NRs who want to hunt there. If I don't like what they charge, I am free to not apply for a license nor buy a tag.
There are plusses and minuses for being a resident in any state. You get to choose where you live. So if you want to live in the state of your choice, you have no business bitching about what some other state charges for anything.
It's like everyone crying for Congressional term limits for Congress folks......you don't live or vote in that state but those same Congress folks can spend decades making rules that affect you in another state but ya can't do anything about these people. It's a similar concept with NR license costs....one might not live there but their rules can affect you. Maybe these orgs could/should advocate for their members on this issue given states get Fed tax dollars for fish and wildlife.
Over $500 to hunt deer in KS for a non-resident. Up $125 from last year. Ouch.
Matt
Maryland charges out of staters what ever they charge for us to hunt there. For many years Maryland was the top deer bow and arrow kill per number of hunters in the states. Delaware ranked up there too. The first year I killed a deer in Delaware there were only six killed the the whole state with bow and arrow. That sure changed in a hurry. No one was complaining about compound bows because they hadn't been invented.
"It's a similar concept with NR license costs....one might not live there but their rules can affect you. Maybe these orgs could/should advocate for their members on this issue given states get Fed tax dollars for fish and wildlife."
I like your way a thinking. I've always wanted to go and shoot a large bull elk on the White Mtn Apache reservation for the same, or greatly reduced, price tribal members pay. Same goes for the Jic Apache and SUIT for mule deer.
Since states charge non resident exorbitant fees their own residents can hunt cheaply. You can't have it both ways. I can guarantee you that residnets in any state aren't willing to double their tag prices to make it fair for non residents. If you want to play you must pay.
NR fees are never going to be cheaper than they are now.
What bothers me the most is really high NR tags so I can hunt ground we all own. BUT, the states own the animals.
The bigger issue is when a state may require you to have a resident outfitter/guide to hunt federal public ground.
“In support of our mission, the RMEF is committed to: conserving, restoring and enhancing natural habitats; promoting the sound management of wild elk, which may be hunted or otherwise enjoyed; restoring elk to their native ranges; and educating members and the public about habitat conservation and our hunting heritage.”
That is a pretty good summary of RMEF’s mission statement. In my eyes they do a great job on everyone of them issues. I don’t see tag fees listed. Which would be a hard slope to climb. Most western states have a very tight budget to begin with. To reduce tag fees would only hurt there budget.
Maybe if the granola grazers contributed some money to states G and F budget we could pay less for tags. I won’t hold my breath though.
Hopefully Wyoming has a Grizzly hunt this fall. I will gladly pay the 6 grand for a tag to hunt one. It would be the cheapest way to go to hunt a grizz.
IMO....state do not charge high NR fees so residents can hunt cheaply. They go after NR's because they are a cash cow for F&G/DNR's that are addicted to revenue due in part to over growth or had their budgets cut by state lawmakers. Plus of course NR's bring in outside revenue and add jobs to the local economies the states otherwise would not have. A couple of examples....a 2014 GoHunt article says NR hunters spend $288 million in Montana. A 2014 Wichita Eagle says NR's bring in $401 million to Kansas. No one has tried to collectively address it. That is where the national hunting orgs come in to help their members and sustain hunting in general. There is no national check and balance to keep state's from outlandish NR license fees. Many know what Wyoming just did with their license increases.
Do anti-hunting advocates apply tiered charges to members based on residency? Of course not, financing and actualizing thier agenda is more important than risking segregating their membership and losing potency..
The hunting communities willingness to exclude membership and thus support is a serious detriment to the maintainence of current and future hunting opportunities.
Anti's are active against X-state's hunt, and the whole membership is treated equally and thus all participate to achieve the goal.... In response, the hunting community can only stir up the residents of X-state to get involved. Non Residents have been priced out of having any skin in what happens here, so they have little to no reason to help in the fight.
The hunting community would be wise to realize segregating ourselves is kin to weakening ourselves. It would be in Hunting's best interest to treat all of our community more equally.
Walking Buff....you bring another great point I had not thought of about NR's being priced out and not having skin in the game against anti's operating in a state. IMO....I think your point make's it's even more incumbent these various groups like BC, PY, NRA, SC, REMEF, WU, MDF, etc take a look at this NR license issue.
They charge non residents because they have no say. They can't do that to residents. Residents freak out over the smallest of increases and they can vote. Considering the average guy never leaves their county to hunt let alone their state NRs get soaked. Even a minimal resident increase makes much more money than the constant NR price increases.
Guys...you can wish all you want but just because you think the state should do this and do that means nothing. They hold the animals in public trust and they legally set the rules to hunt them in their state, regardless of who owns the land. Land ownership means nothing in this case. If you want to hunt another state cheaply, move there.
JL, you bring up Wyoming’s increase. There app’s for any elk are up 10% from 2016 numbers.
There cow/calf apps are up 43% from 2016 numbers.
That’s after the price hike this year. I don’t know if It’s people wanting to burn points and get out due to increased fee’s or if it’s just that many more interested in Wyoming.
I know I won’t build more then the minimum pp’s for a general tag. Problem solved though as long as I keep pulling random tags.
Like Bowfreak said. They charge nonresidents because they don’t have a say. If the orgs lobbied to reduce NR fees wouldn’t that increase resident fees? So they piss off one side to help the other. I think they would do more harm then good in the eyes of there members.
"Even a minimal resident increase makes much more money than the constant NR price increases."
Not even close in Colorado. NR license fees bring in over 5 TIMES the total revenues that resident fees do.
Matt
I wish Montana would raise theirs again. Or lower the number of non-resident tags. There is no way I would want B&C, Pope & Young, NRA, RMEF, any of those groups pressuring my state to reduce non-resident license fees. The organization would never get another dime from me.
....ummmm Matt, NR elk tags are 13X more expensive than resident fees (if Google is correct).
So you are telling me that there are 13X more NRs hunting Colorado than residents?
Matt is correct. NR fees bring in far more then that of Resident fees. Per my link.
Something I found interesting. In 1998 a nonresident elk tag was $250 in CO. Today they are $629. That’s ruffly 2.5 times the increase. My salary has gone up ruffly 2.5 times what I made in 1998 as well.
SmokedT, NR's and their money are a cash cow for Montana. I don't see them lowering their NR tag numbers only. With NMT 10% of the tags allocations going to NR's, the overall tags would have to be lowered to see a NR decrease....of course that means the res tags decreased also. Many of the outfitters want some of the NR tags increased. You would be fighting a loosing battle with your politicians and the MWFP....they're addicted to the NR money. Someday soon you may indeed see those organizations doing something to lower NR license costs.
Of course they bring in more money....they are charged out the nose? Raise a resident tag $50 and a non resident tag $50 and tell me which generates more money.
"So you are telling me that there are 13X more NRs hunting Colorado than residents?"
No, I'm telling you that Colorado would have to raise their resident license fees 5-fold before they'd even approach the total revenues that non-resident licenses bring in. Which is contrary to your claim that "Even a minimal resident increase makes much more money than the constant NR price increases."
And that's just license fees. It doesn't include the dollars non-residents spend on outfitters, lodging, groceries, gas, etc....
I don't like paying $500 to hunt a deer in Kansas, either, but the truth is, every state's fish and wildlife budgets are dependent on NR fees, much more so than resident fees. A political push to lower NR fees without increasing the number of tags allowed would be devastating to those budgets, and to hunting in general.
Matt
That's not true. Using Colorado's own data from their 2017 fact sheet, A $50 increase in some form or fashion on resident license holders yields an increase of nearly $19 million. That same $50 increase on non-residents yields about $5.5 million dollars. To generate nearly $19 million extra dollars from non residents would require a $172 increase.
I know that NRs support fish and game budgets but its simply because they can't vote in that state, not because it is the most efficient way to increase revenue.
Yes, there are 3.5 times as many resident hunters as NR hunters in Colorado, so your math is correct. However, I don't consider a $50 increase on a $46 elk tag "minimal".
That said, I'd gladly pay $50 more for a resident elk tag, IF the DOW limited the number of NR tags by an equal dollar amount.
JL, As you've seen proven out here yet again, the concept of uniting for a stronger hunting community is not even registering on many hunters' minds. They are more concerned about themselves, whether it is money or access to tags.
We have already experienced many losses of hunting opportunity due to this selffish attitude, with much more to come untill this collective mindset is altered.
By a stronger hunting community, do you mean more hunting opportunity for everyone? How? Decreased fees or more available tags?
From an economics standpoint, the price is set because the price setters know the price takers will do just that. There is a set quota of how many tags will be given out for both R's and NR's. A low price will not increase opportunity because it increases the demand that apply. The quota will remain the same, your chances decrease significantly as competition increases.
I think the price of a decked out turbo diesel should be significantly reduced so more average salaried households could afford one. Who ever said economics was fair...?
HDE, I explained this in my first post. Yes, "more" opportunity for everyone, where "more" is compared to the net effect of "Less" opportunity when hunting is banned piece by piece.
No, I am not suggesting your economic/allocation example is effected by my expressed concern.
We (the hunting community) are losing opportunity regionally and globally to anti-hunting advocacy. The point I am getting across (hopefully) is that when NRs are excluded due to low allocations and high prices, the residents lose support when the anti-hunting agenda targets their state. This loss of support from NRs could be the differnce in maintaining, increasing or losing opportunity when battling with well funded and directed organizations.
I would agree with you except that there are seldom, if any, NR tags left over from a draw as that is the one thing truly limited.
OTC opportunities are in ample supply and us NR's that do the OTC hunts will always continue to do so.
I have a hard time thinking that NR hunters would become disinterested in hunting if they cannot go but once every other or third year...
Buff....you explain your point well and it makes sense...to me at least.
"Opportunity" doesn't matter if the quality of the hunting experience declines. Lowering NR fees and increasing the number tags will only serve to lower the quality of hunting for everyone. That is no way to create support for hunting.
Matt
The vast majority of hunters are uniformed when it comes to losing opportunities to hunt. Even worse there are plenty of people in the hunting community that say “it doesn’t affect me so why should I care”.
IMO, far more hunting opportunity for the average hunter has been lost to the commercialization (read leasing and outfitting) of the sport than from increasing tag prices.
I can only speak for myself and the hunting buddies that I know well. The cost of tags hasn’t been the reason our enthusiasm for hunting has diminished. Instead, it’s been the ever declining quality of public DIY hunting that’s been the reason.
Public areas that were once relative secrets, and always produced fantastic hunting, are now inundated with more hunters than game. The animals congregate in safe havens where they see little to no hunting pressure. As a result, private landowners and outfitters continue to profit from a small minority of hunters who can afford their exorbitant prices.
IMO, if you want to create support for hunting, increase the QUALITY of hunting for the average DIY guy. Make ALL public land accesible. Eliminate the “landlocked” public areas that surrounding landowners treat like their own private game reserves. Eliminate outfitting on public ground. Encourage programs that reward landowners for allowing public access, instead of leasing to an outfitter. And promote youth hunts in the best areas for the next generation of support.
Matt
Excellent points GG.
Would love to see more of that in Colorado. Colorado Parks and Wildlife makes more revenue from hunting license sales than any other State - more than any two Western States. They will pass the increases to resident hunting licenses that will increase the revenue even more. Unfortunately, CPW has done little to increase access either across private lands to USF or BLM or open State Trust Lands across the board. I am not holding my breath to see any improvements in access with this latest cost increase.
Lots of resistance to the concepts and from very vocal outfitters and private land owners that want to keep control of the access though. Unfortunately, the private land owners and outfitters can write off their trips to the Wildlife Commissioner's Meetings where "Joe Public Land Hunter" has to take off work and travel at his own expense. We are vastly under represented in those settings and the policies reflect the disparity.
I am actually shocked at what NR's pay every year in Colorado for very sub-par overcrowded elk hunting. I certainly would not hunt elk here if I were not a resident.
"...far more hunting opportunity for the average hunter has been lost to the commercialization (read leasing and outfitting) of the sport than from increasing tag prices."
I agree. This has affected most hunting in most of the good areas making it difficult for both R's and NR's, particularly in NM.
I have been to Colorado one time on an OTC elk hunt. Based on my limited experience, I would never go back. I'd rather hunt a place that has a hint of solitude and very few elk over a place that has elk but just as many people. I am actually shocked that people keep going to Colorado for the rat race that I experienced. I admit, I have an extremely limited set of experiences but if that is the norm it sucks. I would however gladly go back to Colorado if I was with a friend and was hunting an area they were familiar with that traditionally was not saturated with people. I felt less claustrophobic in Disney World in December than I did in the Colorado mountains in September.
Bowfreak,
Unfortunately, you're experience is the norm in Colorado, even for a native who has hunted here all his life, like me. And it continues to get worse, despite increasing tag prices.
Matt
I "think" quite a few of the states allocate NMT 10% of the total tags to NR's. If you're seeing the orange army out there I'll surmise it's composed of the locals (or the other ~90% of the total tags) who are stomping thru the hills. The other curse is unlimited OTC game licenses. Here in Michigan it's like that and can be a depressing cluster during the gun opener on public and some of the private. It's no longer enjoyable.
Almost a third of hunters in Colorado are NR. I'd gladly pay double for resident tags, if they'd limit it to 10% NR.
Matt
CO is even generous to NR in the draw units with a 30% tag allotment.
I have never hunted during the rifle season there but during the archery season the OTC units can get crowded. That’s not to say you can’t get away from the crowds though.
Me personally I wish CO would go 100% draw for elk. It won’t ever happen unfortunately.
Michael,
The rifle seasons are even more of a sh**show.
Matt
Colorado is getting tougher to take. I think I know some good spots still....course I've thought that before and it was ruined by sheep or hunters the next time I went there.
