Bowsite.com

2016 you will pony up $442.50 PLUS paying $97.50 for the license plus a convenience fee of doing it online ...

$550 for a whitetail tag

wow

$700 +/-

That's more than premium elk tags. It has to be the most expensive Whitetail tag in the nation.

In 3-5 years, it will be $1000

unreal

NM sheep: 3100

Some NR tag prices are just stupid.

Bernie????

They'll sell out as quick as always.

Ok I get it, a NR should pay a bit more, but it's out of hand now and getting more expensive.

Just imagine if everyone boycotted at once?

Fuzz

when the deer are wild and the G&F are in total control of ammount of tags and price fixing ?

I dunno ..... it could be argued that the definition of fair pricing is being breached hard. I can think of no other thing that non-residents have to pay so grossly much more for than hunting tags/fishing licenses.

The very limited number of tags ... like sheep maybe I could see a justification of sorts. Money has to go back into sheep programs, they don't roam everywhere and they don't populate quickly like deer.

Will I still go? This year yes. It would be better long run if I move to Kansas for a year and buy a lifetime license.

The more expensive=potentially less pressure=better hunt for them and better quality animals. :-(

The only issue I have and this doesn't necessarily just pertain to Kansas per say. Is states really shouldn't subsidize resident cost with higher non resident fees. Resident license cost should reflect the needed potential revenue to fund the wildlife departments to ensure future of sound management.

One can argue that in some cases nonresident licenses and tags are too high because resident licenses and fees are artificially low.

Can anyone give an example of how a state gouges people for being non-resident and charging

hotel for residents $50, noneresidents $550 gas for residents $1.50, nonresidents $11.50 meal for $20 or $200 a house is $250,000 or $2,500,000

maybe colleges is the only thing I could think of that non-residents pay exceptionally more for.

I'll pay it this year unless I lose my job first. Might be the last year I get to go. When hunting becomes a sport for the upper class, it will fade away and die completely. Its running those lines hard and fast right now.

You want to bring this to its knees...simple. A one year total boycott would bring all DNR depatments to a halt.

But we know that'll never happen. "We'll" just keep bitching and pony up the coin.

In Arizona, you have to plunk down $175 for the longshot chance at a tag....and to add insult to injury they took 1/2 of the allocated non res tags and put them up for grabs to Res and Non Res....plus that makes the time frame longer to draw in the first round [more years of buying the license]

Big News for sure and the threat was real.

Real until the season started. Colorado still had the same if not more nonresident elk hunters.

Same happened when the cost of a nonresident elk tag was 400, then 450 and then 500, and then, da, da.

Still the non resident hunters came.

I would expect a boycott for having a higher non resident deer tag in Kansas, will bring the same results.

Ie, No reduction in non resident participation.

my best, Paul

Resident rates went up, too.

As per why not as much, under state law the wildlife belongs to the people of Kansas, not the people of New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota, TEXAS, Louisiana....(despite what I've heard from some.)

Look, we have game wardens who haven't had a real, honest-to-gosh step raise in 15 years. Our chief of law enforcement makes less than some plain game wardens in other states.

Low pay is one of the reasons we have areas as big as Connecticut manned by one or two game wardens, and they're hands are largely tied with a lot of budget issues.

We're training game wardens, some of the best training in the nation, honestly, and other states are sucking them away with a little more pay, and a system that proves they will get raises.

Good luck with the boycott, we're talking antlers here, so people will do all kinds of crazy-azz stuff.

It's your own fault, it's simple supply and demand.

Keep splashing pics of your Kansas bucks on the 'net, telling all your friends...the few who drop out won't be missed. Someone is probably already waiting to take their place.

I doubt anyone complaining here has a business or works for a business that drops their pricing for goods or services because they feel guilty about "ripping off" the public. They charge what the market will bear. If sales drop, they'll adjust accordingly.

I manage a big private fishery. We wanted to decrease fishing pressure while maintaining our revenue, so we raised guest fees. Guess what? Our guest participation increased after the price increase.

Jaquomo if any business raises its product or service 1000% more for an out of state person vs an in state person Fed lawsuits and fines/penalties would come quick. Price Gouging isn't allowed on anything else but hunting tags. Colleges double or triple prices, its the only other example I can think of.

I don't know the solution. It should cost non-residents more, but $550 for a deer tag only vs a full bag resident license for what, $50/60 ?

I'll pay it this year, I love Kansas and the people I hunt with enough to justify it. No elk hunting for me this year though, I can't afford both tags.

what do ya'll think the license revenues are in Kansas now? percentage wise ?

is it 50-50 ? 60-40 ?

I read this on Idaho in 2013 ... " Non-resident hunters are 6 percent of license buyers, but provide 37 percent of all license revenue.” "

a side note, I also read how Idaho is really hurting on funding ... they become so dependent on non-res and when they quit coming, its killing them. Funny there have been no drop in tag fee's ........... there isn't a supply/demand on hunting tags, there are forever increases with never a decrease.

I guess if they are then at least Kansas is staying with the crowd.

I think Kansas has now the highest tag in the nation doesn't it? By several hundred dollars over ... probably Iowa/Illinois ?

Not a draw? Ask the 3,000 non-residents who sent in money and didn't get a permit last year.

When the demand is that high, over what's available, you're going to see price increases.

Not sure residents have always lost. In some states non-residents have to hire a guide. Residents don't. In some states residents can get cheap cow elk permits for the ranching for wildlife program. Non-residents can't.

Any states where non-residents get more permits than residents?

At the last KDWPT Commission meeting, we were told that Kansas has the highest percentage of non-resident deer hunters of any state in the midwest, if not the nation.

By far.

Resident deer hunting numbers haven't dropped nearly that much, but I'll double-check.

Not nearly as happy with the commercials as in year's past, tonight.

Wow, need to get some Colorado signatures to double our elk and deer to screw the NZ. Get real Matte, typical Bowsite KS resident NR hater.

Governments are not for-profit companies. They're there for the good of society, not to wheel-and-deal.

The prerogative of a company is to make as much money as it can. That is not the prerogative of government. Its mission is to serve the good of the people and it should do so in the most efficient method possible.

Come to Alaska, our tags are still cheap.

But I'll always be a western hunter and hunt several states a year. I agree with you that NRs are viewed as cash cows by state governments and to a large extent, I think that's ok. But within reason.

I think that pricing working class men out of certain hunts is a slippery slope that leads to Europe style hunting. Ala 5k AZ bison tags and NM 3k sheep tags.

Capitalism is easy. Consumers control it. Quit going. I don't blame them getting money when they can. I do blame the hunter for the problem they created. Resident Kansas guys sure seem to blame everything on the NR though. It isn't their fault. When hunting becomes big business, you can depend on this happening. God Bless

Perhaps out of state hunts are a luxury and should only be reserved for those that have the disposable income?

One thing is certain, the prices will only go up from here. I personally can pay these prices and I do. However, I do think about my 3 sons and whether they will be able to afford to hunting OUR public lands in the future.

Maybe I missed it in all the material above, but this year Ks. will require proof of having a non-resident hunting license, or submit that amount also, before issuing a non-resident deer tag. If unsuccessfull the license fee will be refunded as well.

According to one of the reports when the fee increase was being discussed, as many as 9% of NR hunters did not buy the additional hunting license

Writer, did I get this correct?

how can you justify those examples it they happened? you'd call it unfair and gouging right ?

I can think of no other example of anything (product or services) that target non-residents of a State like hunting licenses. I've seen no one else give examples either (I did mention colleges which are 1-2X more costs)

its something we've all talked about before

AZ-Rich in 1999/2000 was the first allowed non-residents in KS for deer

This simply isn't true, there is no such thing in KS as a "full bag" license. Residents must buy a license and game tags for each individual animal hunted in addition to the regular annual hunting license

He replied, "Until you quit paying it."

I wasn't real pleased with that answer but I recognized that it was the truth. 7 years later, we see where that has led them. The same man, fattened in gluttony from the good times, now feels the hunger pangs as he's laid off and out of work. I have zero sympathy. Fuel prices are down now, so I eat out more, I spend more on clothes or fun items. I have more to spend.

I'll buy a KS tag because it's currently still worth it to me. But I won't be staying at mom and pop hotels or eating at mom and pop shops anymore. I'll tow up a trailer to sleep in and bring my own food and save the rest of my money. I'll do what I have to do to afford it. Cause and effect. What will happen will happen. It's the nature of business.

I'm trying to remember the last time someone came to my house and tried to force me to hunt in another state and pay high NR prices. Can't seem to recall.

The market determines the price.

The market is defined as a willing seller and a willing buyer.

Mark

I know a number of resident hunters that lost their hunting rights to leasing for non-residents. Some hunted for free, some paid, but the price went up too much to pay what the non resident was willing to pay (most cases it was an outfitter, but the non-resident is the one ultimately paying). It does leave a bad taste in some residents mouths, but it is what it is.

A very famous bowhunter told me right before KS opened their doors to non residents, we (the residents) should fight to keep the non res out for as long as possible, but he would be first in line to come hunt here when it was opened up.

I am fortunate to hunt for free as I have a great relationship with the landowner for 34 years. The down side, I deal with cows, lots of cows, always still there during November, and a buck scoring over 145 gross is very rare indeed. I see one about every 10 years. 130-145 bucks are uncommon. It just happens to be the area that I hunt. Not all of KS is blessed with monsters.

I have friends that pay to play as residents, and they see some real whoppers. It is simply supply and demand to those willing to pay, resident or non-resident.

No example anywhere can I think of that mirror's the discrimination in hunting tags.

A State run college will charge 2X or even 3X for a college tuition. Nobody forces a student to go out of their state to a better college. There is a higher price to be paid because like hunting ... the residents of the State pay in part towards that college to exist.

that's somewhat a similar example ... but only 2X or 3X the cost, not 11X the cost.

I can think of no other example to mirror the massive cost difference in a product or service based solely on residency.

It is what it is, it will not change short of a Supreme Court ruling that will never happen. However, its something that impacts everyone who hunts and fishes at some point.

I believe it took 12 or 13 years to go to $300 total

Its taken 2-3 years to balloon to $550 total

Guys I know it is what it is ... doesn't mean discussing it isn't a good thing.

I planned a hunting budget in my retirement plans so it's just priorities for me. Personally, I like hunting whitetails more than sheep so it's as cheap a North America specie as it gets. C

Skull: The NR preference point I buy each year in Iowa is $50. Are you saying that they charge Canadians $180?

Some make a point that they wish non-residents were never allowed to hunt in Ks would you still feel that way if other states reciprocated and told you you can't hunt in their state if your state doesn't allow non-residents.

In Ontario we have some that want to take the non-resident thing really far. Some in the north believe that the residents in the south of the same province shouldn't be able to hunt their moose !

As far as kansas goes my buddy there that I turkey hunt with finally talked me into going there for a deer hunt. $442.50 US is $615.79 Ca so it could be worse!

Of course you get up to 6 deer tags (2 bucks) 2 gobbler tags, a bear tag and all the small game you want, so there is that difference.

And the Iowa example too makes it sound less bad I'll grant you that.

Maybe my shock and awe doesn't seem as well founded today as it did yesterday

It looks like Kansas wants at least 10X as much for NR whitetail tag than a R.

Look at MT elk if you really want to see a lopsided ratio!

$20K annual income would qualify for a free NR license. Anyone in-between would pay a variable amount. The Feds could administer it. It would be called the Affordable Hunting Act.

Sounds fair to me, now that I'm retired and on a low "taxable income".

Then if you figure, deer by the pound, Kansas is a good deal at $530.00 as many bucks are near/over 200#.

Maybe they should be selling the Kansas tags for $1000.00 ie, based on the weight factor.

Yea, yea, I know, this is no laughing matter!!!!.

My best, Paul

In reality....a very modest increase in NR fees would go a long way toward increasing revenues but I am one who always believe that a state has the right to manage their resources as they see fit.

I'm glad my state charges NRs a ton because it keeps my license prices cheap. That allows the "common man" to hunt his own state inexpensively. NRs subsidize the cost for residents. People can hunt other states as their means allow. Not everyone can afford it.

My property owners pay $12 per family per YEAR for fishing privileges on the lakes and streams I manage. Non-owners pay $96 per DAY for a family of four. Non-owners revenue pays for the total annual stocking budget (which is huge). They can choose to fish public water for free, but decide the price is worth it.

That seems like a reasonable, common sense approach.

I blame the commercialization of hunting more than anything. I'm just about certain the day will come when I Dont have a place to hunt in my own state. Sad but inevitable I think. Big money will be the reason.

Xbox PS3 and similar electronic pastimes that so dominate peoples lives to day, especially the youth, BEATS the HE!! out of freezing a kids butt of hunting and seeing nothing any day of the week.

The future of hunting depends on access to opportunities for not just hunting, but QUALITY hunting and quality hunting IMHO has already been or will be in the not to distant future priced out of reach of the hunter of average means.

The end result of this will be a ever decreasing numbers of young hunters and ultimately fewer hunter over all until the numbers of hunters decline to a point where our political impact will also degrade to the point of a non factor, and then the antis will defeat us in the political arena.

In the end we hunters ourselves not anti hunters will be the end of our beloved way of life.

I feel for ya Bowhuntks I agree with leasing etc being the ruin of hunting and I am sure that non-residents can lead to that but hunting in general seems to be going that route. I am lucky to have a few good friends that allow me onto their property to hunt or I would be out of luck completely.I like you have already lost several spots that I hunted for years and are now leases and I don't want to go that route and compete in a biding war for a hunt spot.

Be thankful you get the opportunity. If you are like me, you will be wearing that much in gear costs, not to mention your weapon.....................

and stealthykitty, you've been bitchin' about this for some time if my rememberin' parts are workin'

I don't disagree non-res should pay higher. 11X more? 15X more? 25X more? What's the limit ?

Ziek - the experience of it. I don't get to see wide open prairie and pheasants and experience what western KS has to offer. I love the people that invite me out. Its special - in fact everywhere I've ever went adventuring has been special be it Idaho or Colorado or New Mexico or South Dakota etc.

My son might never get to go to any of those places and hunt if the prices and access continue as they're trending. I think that's really sad and a negative to the future of hunting.

These price increases are just part of the cycle. A vicious cycle. A cycle that will prove to be a negative for hunting. As the commercialization of hunting has grown, so has the cost. As the demand for big bucks has increased, the opportunities to hunt them have decreased. Because of the value that hunting them provides. Leasing is a a result of this. Not the cause. And, it is only going to get worse.

The biggest thing is, we the hunters are funding it. The only way that cost are going to go down is if the demand for them goes down. That goes for any state. That's the only way. Yet, this thread proves men are sill willing to pay these increases. Don't be surprised if you see another increase in Kansas within the next half decade. They are going to find that line at the upper limit. And, they are going to toe the line. It is simply economics.

I don't like it. Nor do I like the crap it takes to try and draw elk tags in some units and states. So, I don't participate in it. If more would do that, for the future of hunting, we could all quit saying it is going to ruin hunting. Make no mistake, it is/has negatively affected hunting. And, it will continue until everyone decides the future of hunting is more important than their next set of Pope and Young horns.

I'm sorry but, that is just the way it is. And, as long as hunters are willing to increasingly fund it, it's only going to get worse. God Bless men.

That being the case, I guess I'd just go pheasant hunting. It's not like whitetail hunting sucks in Arkansas.

Somebody draw me a picture,still don't get it.The Midwest has an expensive tag and guys are leasing the land to compliment and leverage this tag.

A guy and his son are not affected in most of the U.S. .Kids want their dad's time,it ain't about how big the deer is they are hunting unless dad's make it about that.

I do have a burden for locals and their sons in the midwest but far worse things than a kid not going on an out of state hunt.

Is the extra revenue simply a cash grab, driven by supply/demand and being siphoned off for other uses? Or are these additional funds truly invested in preserving hunting (i.e., game warden salaries, animal research, open access programs with farmers, habitat incentives, land purchase for public use, public education)?

Roughly ten years ago, several top officials with the VA DGIF were indicted after an audit exposed their African safari trip funded out of state coffers. Makes me wonder . . .

Like anything else, there are those of us who will set limits and can't or won't go beyond certain price points. But we should have no ill will for those that do (maybe a touch of envy). I just focus on what I can do and have just as much fun hunting deer on my little 10-acres as do I when I do get the occasional chance to travel.

I couldn't have put it any better than you did! Well said!

I do have a burden for locals and their sons in the midwest but far worse things than a kid not going on an out of state hunt.""

well said Genesis! Take your kid hunting! Why is it that so many guys think traveling out of state and hunting should be cheap or easily attained? Everyone is a resident SOMEWHERE and I would suggest that they have deer in their own state. Go hunt them! If you are making Big Bucks from super cool midwest states the priority, well that's your own fault. Either make the sacrifices YOU need to make to go on your dream hunt, or hunt your own state, where the economic facts are, you can afford it, or you'd just buy all your meat, as it is clearly more cost efficient to do so.

I'd bet almost every outfitters clients in 2012/13 in Colorado were not residents.

Factor in what these non-residents bought as far as food, clothing, ammo, hunting gear, staying in hotels, fuel ..........

What happens when they lose 25% of that ? 50% ?

I mean at some point ... it will get too much and people sill stop going right? Then what? The State G&F will suffer, but more than that, hunting overall will suffer because its human nature to not care about things you're not vested a bit in.

If I can never hunt an elk, or goat, or sheep .... why do I care about RMEF? Why do i care if wolves are decimating the western game herds ?

I think there is a great danger when fewer and fewer people get hunting opportunities.

It is exactly the same with non-resident college tuition. The residents have paid the bulk of the expenses in taxes. Non-residents are charged more to make up for that.

Mad_Angler. What universe do you live in? In most states, wildlife management is paid for by hunting and fishing license revenue, plus Pittman Robertson funds (taxes on hunting/fishing equipment), almost exclusively. It's unbelievable that a hunter wouldn't know that.

As in, it's not your state. What, those folks have something in THEIR state that YOU want? awwwww...

They have the right to manage their hunting as they see fit. By all rights they should also manage it to the most benefit of the residents, the folks that live there. If that means they decide a higher burden placed on NRs to fund the wildlife management... that to is their right.

AZ mentioned when KS didn't even allow NR hunting. If I remember right, other states got together and made a "reciprocal" agreement. If your state did not allow NR hunting.... then folks from that state could not hunt in yours. Shazam.... NR Kansas tags....

It is expensive to travel and hunt out of state. I would argue that it was not so much "only for the rich" but certainly for the dedicated. I would even argue out of state hunting has never been so popular or so many that do so regularly. Growing up I knew very few folks my Dad's age that ever traveled out of state to hunt. It was just a pretty rare thing to do. It has NEVER been cheap, costing a great deal of time, money or both.

If they price themselves out of the game.... then they screwed up. If it's more than what you want to spend... stay at home and hunt. Most resident costs to hunt are a bargain. If it's trophies you want, make your state MANAGE for those trophies. If you want to kill something every year, then shoot the 1 and 2 year old bucks. You as residents get to manage your state. If you are not.... who's fault is that?

They seem to be high, but also in the ballpark of other "trophy" states. There is a breaking point. If I recall when MT raised their prices they had tags left over, something not seen for a long time. BUT it also seemed a wash of sorts on the bottom line, fewer tags sold, but sold for more money.

Money Making Machine.... I don't know of any fish and game dept that is swimming in money. Most are scratching by. There may be wealthy depts somewhere, I am just not aware of them.

*Note these are just hunting licenses not deer tags

2010-Kansas resident Hunting Licenses sold = 70,517.00

2010-Non Resident Hunting licenses sold = 69,517.00

That is only a difference of 500 hunters. I picked 2010 because that was before the awful drought years.

Think about that for a second and let it sink in. It has become very tough here as a resident to find places to hunt or to hold on to places we have hunted our entire lives. The Public land we have had access to has also downsized as well. So here we have a smaller pie and more people to feed. It also has nothing to do about money when you look at Kansas our GDP is 117.3 billion. Hunting fees accumulate to less than 12 million or that is like .0001 of our GDP

Yes, there's no reason a man and his son can't go hunt deer in their home state as things stand. But we're sliding down a slippery slope that is heading towards less and less opportunity for average Americans to hunt which translates into less and less Americans hunting which translates into the loss of our way of life and an easier fight for the antis to eventually ban hunting state by state.

WV Mountaineer said,

"I don't like it. Nor do I like the crap it takes to try and draw elk tags in some units and states. So, I don't participate in it. If more would do that, for the future of hunting, we could all quit saying it is going to ruin hunting. Make no mistake, it is/has negatively affected hunting."

I agree. While I don't take as hard-line a stance as he does, there are many tags that I don't put in for, not because I can't afford them or because I don't want to do the hunts, but because I feel it's wrong to charge that much and I won't support it. AZ buff, NM sheep to name a few. There's more. I'd have no problem paying a few thousand dollars for many tags that I'd like to have. But the DFGs pimping these animals out like whores is just not right. I also won't buy tags from $FW.

I can afford some pretty damn good looking whores too.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

I think that a lot of the reason that it doesn't prick at the conscience of many hunters is because so many guys spend so much more money on guided hunts, that an expensive tag doesn't make them blink. But there's a lot of guys that hunt DIY because they have to and these guys will eventually be priced out of hunting if some semblance of reasonableness doesn't take over eventually.

The first guys to be priced out are the bread and butter, the heart and soul of our country. I just don't think it's right relegating many of the species of this great country to only the wealthy. It's not there yet, but it's headed that way. And once it gets there, hunting will die because the rich only, are not enough to keep our way of life going.

Hunting in America has always been the common thread between the rich and the working class.

This license list the name and county of where the resident is from and gives him a physical description. I also like the fact if license is lost it can not be duplicated as I have been against duplicate tags forever. Mt Grandfather was on the commission back in the 50's maybe some day I may through my hat in the ring.

Stealthycat worrying his son won't have the hunting opportunities he had is just pi$$ing into the wind. I don't have the opportunities I had 40 years ago. I never had the opportunities my dad had. He didn't have the same opportunities his dad had... Barring some fortuitous cataclysmic event, human population growth will eventually end hunting. Better enjoy what you do have now.

"It is expensive to travel and hunt out of state. I would argue that it was not so much "only for the rich" but certainly for the dedicated. I would even argue out of state hunting has never been so popular or so many that do so regularly. Growing up I knew very few folks my Dad's age that ever traveled out of state to hunt. It was just a pretty rare thing to do. It has NEVER been cheap, costing a great deal of time, money or both."

This is so true. It's just that now many think it should be cheap and should be available to them because they want it to be. Traveling out of state to hunt is not, and never was, cheap! People used to understand that you worked hard and made sacrifices if you wanted to go on a "hunting trip".

"Mad_Angler. What universe do you live in? In most states, wildlife management is paid for by hunting and fishing license revenue, plus Pittman Robertson funds (taxes on hunting/fishing equipment), almost exclusively. It's unbelievable that a hunter wouldn't know that."

The KDWPT (Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism) manages a great many things. Hunting is just one of those. The KDWPT gets a lot of money from the state. I find it nearly impossible to believe that the KDWPT is able to account for every "hunting" dollar spent and match that perfectly with the license and P/R money coming in.

No, that's not the answer. That's the other end of the pendulum.

Just reasonableness.

5k bison tags and 3k sheep tags are not reasonable.

In Washington State, it costs $120 per species to apply for Moose, Sheep, and Goat and the odds are around 1:1000. That's not reasonable. That's the state government gouging people.

Feel lucky the residents will let ya in!

Oh ya !!

AZ mentioned when KS didn't even allow NR hunting. If I remember right, other states got together and made a "reciprocal" agreement. If your state did not allow NR hunting.... then folks from that state could not hunt in yours. Shazam.... NR Kansas tags....

So there ! That's another TD quote for ya Bullhound !

Pretty hard to keep the non-resident out plus the states like the money too much and will keep uping them as others have said until they break the camels back I guess.

We still like to cry about it as non-residents and always will because dang its just not fair. LOL

I am more referring to the post above mine where someone complained about the price for Moose, Sheep, and Goat tags or entry fees.

CLUE: Not very many of these animals. Limited supply! get it?

Actually Mad_Angler, they have to to get any PR funds. Here is a quote from their website. "Actually, State General Funds make up less than 7 percent of the agency’s budget, and that money is dedicated to state park programs and administration. The bulk of KDWPT’s budget is derived from the sale of licenses and permits, and the rest of the budget used for wildlife and fisheries management comes from federal funding — a self-imposed excise tax on hunting and fishing equipment lobbied for by hunters and anglers themselves." That last refers to PR funds.

How can we even try to defend and protect hunting and fishing when some hunters are so ignorant about these things?

"I have to wonder how many here would vote for that clown..."

The current leader of both parties right now, scare the heck out of me!

Nope I'm having a hard time keeping up I guess ! ;)

We have WAY bigger issues than tag prices, hell 95% of the guys that come here spend more on failure piles than their tags. Had a record amount of CWD cases in 2015...get yer 2yr old as fast as you can...they won't last long!

-Bullhound

Why do you have to be a dick about it? It's my opinion and this is a hunting forum. I didn't just crap on your lawn.

CLUE: Just because there's a limited supply, doesn't mean they HAVE to raise the price. I realize that that may be the reason they're doing it, but it doesn't mean they have to.

That's what companies do. The government is there for the people, not to turn a profit.

It may be in the state's best interest to get as much money as they can, but in the grand scheme of things, it's bad for hunting if all the tag prices keep going up faster than inflation. And they are. That's all I'm saying.

I see only 1 bad in all this.

Resident hunter voices just got a little further away from Topeka.

With just a few law changes KS can adopt an Iowa model even still....

You're right. I should have known how DNRs are funded. It is important to the fight and I didn't understand. Thanks for correcting me.

"Stealthycat worrying his son won't have the hunting opportunities he had is just pi$$ing into the wind"

Maybe you don't have kids. Maybe you do have kids and don't give a crap about their future opportunities ?

Maybe I'm in a midlife crisis thinking of the adventures I went on when I was younger and would like similar opportunities for me kids ?

Hunting is dying, and by that I mean fewer and fewer are hunting. More and more are against hunting. Alienating non-residents isn't a way to build support and strength in our remaining numbers is it ?

Higher non-res fee's sure .... 11X or 15X or 20X higher? That's reasonable ?

Main problem here is that the folks(Biologist's) who should be influencing management have no voice in the legislature. They haven't for some time now...and they reiterate this every time we have a commission meeting. Vote with your mouth or with your pen or with your feet, and support those organizations that represent your views...the "lone wolf" mentality of hunters isn't serving us well in these times.

Just trying to grasp what you are saying. So I come to Kansas and spend $445 on corn ? At say $8 for a 55 pound bag (checked and that is the going rate where I live ) thats roughly 55 bags of corn. So in one week I put out 3000 pounds of corn dang thats alot of corn no wonder I didn't see any big deer I can't see around my corn pile. But you are right you do have bigger issues if you think its the non-residents that are putting out the corn piles to hunt over. I personally never hunted anywhere near a corn feeder until I went to Kansas and Texas !

As to the demand side of the supply/demand equation pushing up prices; that may be an oversimplification. I'm not sure the problem is too many hunters. Rather, it may be too many greedy hunters chasing big antlers. Maybe if all the states cooperated and only issued one antlered tag, per person, per species for the entire country, this could start to be reversed.

The budget is a zero sum game. The department needs a certain amount of money. And the state also only has so many permits that it can sell. Somehow, they need to raise the money. There are only a few options:

Sell more NR permits. Nobody really likes that option, certainly not the resident hunters.

Sell more R permits. These are already generally unlimited.

Charge resident hunters more. Nobody really likes that. It makes it harder for residents and reduces the number of youth entering the sport.

Charge NR hunters more. Works for everyone. Provides income. Doesn't punish the residents (who directly or indirectly hire the DNR personnel). Limits numbers of NR hunters and that indirectly keep wildlife population numbers were they need to be.

So, the solution is obvious... Pick a number of NR permits that you want to issue and then charge the maximum amount that will result in that many permits being purchased. Since Kansas sold out quickly last year, they aren't at the maximum price point yet.

How do those meat price numbers work out for a DBHS in NM at $3100?

And I don't see how low odds of drawing justify the price? With that logic, a Zion DBHS tag should cost 100 grand. There's only 1 tag and a lot more people after it than AZ bison.

If you don't like it, don't drive through MO. Right?

Could anyone argue that is unfair?

Hunting is a priviledge and a tag is a form of usage tax.No two States tax the same.

I live 50 yards outside my city limits and my truck tag is about 1/2 of the city folk.Property tax has disparity as well.

Nothing to really see here IMO. OP states he is still going this year and my hunch will come every year after that if he draws..:)

KS 1 SC 0

Hunting is a priiledge . Driving is a priviledge. Why don't I need a state driver's license as a non-resident ?

20+ states have State Constitutional Rights to hunt and fish.

Genesis So a 100% increase in cost is acceptable to you depending on where you live?

This isn't a tax - this is a product being sold. No different than me selling a resident 1 gallon of fuel for $1.70 or charging a non-resident $11.70

And charge for game license /tags to administer this "right"

2nd amendment also allows gun carry but a permit to carry a gun cost $$ in most States.....(another usage tax)

States charge for the priviledge to excercise your rights then....nothing to see

Actually it's not. It's more of a fee for an activity. They are NOT selling you an animal. And you can drive the roads of any state without purchasing any fuel in that state. Also, everyone benefits from and needs the road system. Not so much hunting. Your analogy doesn't hold up.

But I'm interested in what you think would be a fair program?

To me, the number one concern is to provide opportunity that virtually everyone has access to. Given that wildlife management is expensive, and getting more so, mainly due to ever increasing human population, with resultant loss of habitat and access, that makes the number one concern impossible if everyone shares equally. Keeping resident fees low enough so that they are not priced out of participating and making up the difference by charging non-residents much higher fees, even up to whatever the market will bear (especially if that keeps resident fees even lower) is a good strategy. Everyone that wants to, gets to hunt somewhere, high enough non-resident fees in desirable hunting states hopefully keeps the crowding lower, and wildlife programs get adequately funded.

stealthycat, you previously posted "the experience of it. I don't get to see wide open prairie and pheasants and experience what western KS has to offer." I call foul on that. You CAN experience that without buying an expensive hunting license. What you really seem to want is to hunt something you can't at home, whether it's bigger bucks or different species. For that you have to pay a premium, or move to a state where that is possible. Usually a state who's residents have already paid the price with lands that have been taken out of the private sector, where they most likely could produce higher revenues for the benefit of all residents of the state. Do you think those "...wide open prairie(s)..." are free, even if they happen to be federal lands? Why do you think so many states would like to grab them?

I'm not sure to be honest. I'm going to pay the $$$ this year, is that my max if they raise it by $200 next year? If they raise it to $1000 total ? $1250 total?

Bullhound you've kinda completely missed my point, which is the discussion of does it help hunting overall and as a whole to have huge non-resident fee's.

I won't be part of the cash cow......I passed up some younger bucks and didn't shoot one this year...no big deal, had a great experience for what I had invested with no pressure to shoot. I have buddies there that belong to leases and normally shoot big ones. I get to check them out and help track and cape their deer sometimes too since I used to do taxidermy work.

"" I will make the sacrifices necessary to go back to Kansas""

Happy for you! You are going to enjoy another great vacation!!! It appears you get it.

Haha, oh the irony!

Can't imagine why somebody who can shoot 300 yards would need corn? I I know the equipment you have is quite impressive, (I say with envy) and that would be a chip-shot for someone with that gear, who grew up shooting coyotes and hunts several states a year.

Been meaning to ask, when was the last time you killed a buck with a bow?

I've been O for the past two years, but will shoot does with a rifle for the meat and management every year.

We all have our personal standards. I'll shoot a younger buck than some, but it's gotta be during the rut and doing something ruttish. :-)

Matte, I'll hold my breath on the lifetime license holders being able to get resident deer permits. That may change for those who buy lifetimes in the future, but won't change for those who already have them.

I have to admit this a great thread to keep the winter blahs at bay. Thanks Stealthycat !!

Not necessarily. I've done several hunts where the tag was the most expensive part of the hunt. If you sleep in a tent and eat food you brought, you can do an out of state hunt cheap. You don't have to drive a gas guzzler to hunt unless you need a high clearance vehicle to get to where you're hunting from and that's no where in places like KS.

Tag prices do figure into the cost of a hunt if you're going bare bones. If I were to do that hunt again, KS would cost me twice as much to hunt as NE.

But you haven't, so you can't.

It's not the non-residents that can be resented, it's the changes their ever-increasing numbers have brought to the state.

Seriously, how much pressure do you experts from NY, LA, MI, MN have on your local hunting opportunities because of non-residents?

You obviously kept on I-70 and kept on going. In fact anytime a guy tells me he doeskin need a truck to get someplace to hunt it puts a smile on my face as I know I will not see him near me.

"Kansas, the final frontier." It's known for that catch-phrase.

So, more importantly than this new law on tags, is when is Kansas going to enact a no-same-day-hunting when you fly? Or no same day hunting when corn is dropped via helo?

I know Kansas bush flights must be booming with all the new NR hunters coming in.

Kansas is 2nd to only RI in this nation as having the least % of public land at 1.9%. Making Kansas out to be some ultra rugged back-woods state is laughable. Grats on finding a tiny slice of Kansas that's off the beaten path. Of course, with a 1 mile walk to a stand being a long ways for the average midwest WT hunter, I guess if you've got to drive that close to your stand, it may seem like you're really out there and need a 4X4. Heaven forbid you walk a couple miles on flat ground.

Sorry for being a smart ass, but the whole point of my post was that tag prices can influence the cost of a hunt as someone claimed they don't.

You could have hunted other States as a NR even cheaper.I can only assume that trophy quality played some part of you paying a higher price going to Nebraska.If it did not then you didn't research long enough

Your example simply lays out the succession of demand that we already said existed

Kansas > Nebraska > Many Other States.You chose a Semi-Trophy State and paid a higher premium to do it.

Kansas was closer, but didn't have as much opportunity as NE. There's almost no public land and the walk-in areas are pretty limited and get mixed reviews.

Again, I'm just saying that tag prices can figure in to a NR's hunt costs. I can afford these tags. Hell, I can afford a lease in Kansas. I choose to hunt the way I do for my own reasons. My warnings in the beginning of the thread was for working class middle America. And again, I'm not arguing that the price of these tags is not being driven by supply and demand.

Let's say you have a father/son from the south and they want to hunt midwest WT out of state. The guy works for a living and makes a meager living. Kansas would cost them over a grand in just tags.

Can they wing it? Does it matter?

I don't think that any of the current tag prices beyond the two tags I've mentioned a few times in this thread (at 5grand and 3 grand) are truly "overpriced."

The whole point is that tags in general are going up faster than inflation and if that trend continues, it's bad for hunting when less and less people hunt. There's already people being priced out of western state tags. AND THAT'S OK! It's the trend that I feel is pushing us towards European hunting (ie: no more hunting) that's worrisome.

If ya don't come they might lower the fee!

By then all the 2-1/2 year olds you haven't shot should have had time to mature.

Problem solved!

If you come to Kansas kill a big buck for us! Make sure and take a back of the Truck picture just like me.

But I've been through KS more than a dozen times in my life and not just on the Freeway system. I'm from Southern MN and I have relatives that live outside of Topeka. I've driven the highway system through KS twice accessing NE to hunt. Kansas is certainly no Iowa, but likewise, it's certainly no Wyoming.

Kansas has thousands upon thousands of square miles of WT country that are accessible by car. I don't even know why we're debating this.

Nice buck Matte. But I won't be taking a truck pic. I break all my animals down in the field if they're more than 100 yards from the road. I've got to do it anyways at some point and there's no good reason to drag it out then break it down to fit it in the cooler.

We have a lot of diversity..and I'm danged sure I don't have to hunt whitetails in western Kansas out of a car.

...and I have to disagree on the potential of the million-plus acres of walk-in hunting, unless you turn your nose up at B & C mule deer, whitetails and pronghorns.

WV...we're cool, thanks.

With any luck I'll be sitting with ya just not wearing any of that fancy gear as I can't aford it with the price of the tag!

Hope to run into writer so I can tell him how to hunt in kansas and he can add Ontario to his list ! LOL

How about ranking #49 in the nation as per public land? (Not including walk-in)

And that was my point I have "no idea about New York state," because I don't live there, don't hunt there full-time.

I was poking fun at so many people who come to Kansas for a few days and feel like they can be an authority on what we have, from border to border.

You're right, not everybody in Kansas is a Jayhawk basketball fan, or pulls for K-State football, but we're hoping they eventually come around.

Oh, and we do have 13 Democrats in the state, though they stay pretty well hidden.

So don't lump all of us NY'ers in one pot just because of one or two NY poster's on here.

And you can attest, Kansas has thousands of miles of "Don't even go in 4WD if there's even a heavy dew!" kinds of roads.

Even if you make it down, you will rut it up and be on the bad side of every local who's smart enough to just wait until the road dries.