Bowsite.com

Yes actually I do, more money doesn't mean better quality. I would even be in agreement with a substantial raise in resident license fees. I am far from well off, in fact I bet that I make the least of any WI Bowsite regular. But if the money would go back into the resource, I am all for it.

I agree that you can't include combo tags but it should include what it would cost to hunt a deer in their state. If a regular hunting license, habitat stamp, deer tag and archery tag is needed then all those should be included in what it costs them to hunt deer in Wi.

Ya, it sucks that Iowa makes you buy all of these to hunt a buck in Iowa. fee to apply, small game license, habitat fee, doe license, then finally your either sex license. One thing I never do in Iowa is leave that doe tag unfilled.

To be fair, they also require residents to buy the small game license and habitat fee before they can buy a deer license.

I would love to see reciprocal in MN and WI, but the politics and economics of it just won't fly.

You can justify the expenditure if you're committing a bigger chunk of time, making it a big trip or hunting repeatedly. But it's hard for a lot of guys with families to shell out that kind of money for a long weekend.

As hunting gets more and more expensive,I think it loses more and more of the bonds that cement friends and family.

I don't know where all of the money goes. I don't know what the answer is. I do know some people who would have fewer hunts with people they care about if prices are increased dramatically. I think that's unfortunate.

Where the heck did that come from?

I don't know anyone using their family's address to scam their way to resident tag fees, though I'm sure it's been done.

From your post, it seems as though you view the purpose of license and tag fees should be to punish non-residents, seeking social justice. I thought that they were supposed to fund DNR operations.

And when someone moves out of state, they take their skill set with them. The state loses some of its tax base when companies move out.

I do not have the disposable income to drop $1500 for a long weekend of hunting with their aunts, uncles and cousins. And, in the end, if some day, my kids hunt with their cousins on their farm for three days, how bad is that going to impact you guys?

Many of the people who I referred to in my earlier post that can not hunt IL with us because of cost are Wisconsinites.

I am concerned that the ever increasing costs of licenses, tags etc. are helping to undermine hunting culture.

I do not have a simple answer. I am just trying to point out what I think would be an unintended consequence.

I wish that IL had some sort of reduced fee for "sponsored non resident family" hunting only on private ground with a shortened license time frame. Maybe a lottery for different weeks, like turkey tags, but limited to private property? But what kind of nightmare would that be for a DNR to manage?

Unfortunately we live in a culture of "me want free" and if given a chance people will skirt the system knowing getting caught has low probability or they are willing to take a chance. Although not blood, I knew of family members from Illinois that hunted resident tags about five years ago. I do not hunt there anymore because of it and don't know if it still goes on. They were hunting family land in Dunn county.

I agree that fees need to be hiked. It may make people that "pay taxes in Wisconsin" but live in other states upset and suddenly become residents though. We buy gas, food etc etc. This topic has been talked about many times.

People post saying how WI is number 1 in all these P&Y or whatever, so why not raise the cost a bit? If a person loves antlers that much they will pay to hunt regardless of the price. My nephew asks me to come to Montana and hunt whitetail but wow... their price is high for NR.

I am doing everything that I can to get out of this cesspool of a state. Lots of reasons other than cheaper tags.

And, yes, lots of Western states have high priced tags. As I said, you can rationalize the price if you're making a big trip, but the high prices erode the likelihood of friends and family being able to enjoy short and spontaneous hunts together.

What will be the impact of that over time?

And how did we get to the point that, all over the country, people want to increase the price for others who share their passion? And where does all of this money go? What about all of the Pittman-Robertson funds?

And if people are going to be dirtbags, lying about residency and risking being violated to save a little more than $100, do you think that fewer will be inclined to do so when the difference is $450?

I guess that I'm also saying that increased tag fees don't mean that you guys, as hunters, will likely see any benefits. The money just disappears into the system. You may reduce the numbers of NR hunters, but many that still come have a greater sense of entitlement.

IL has not seen quality improvements with all of the money flowing into the DNR with expensive tags.

Ask guys who hunt the limited public ground in IL about interactions with NR hunters. Many NR have the attitude that they've paid 9 1/2-10 times more for their tags, they have limited time, that should buy them some "consideration."

For what it's worth, I think that the number of NR tags should be limited or regulated by lottery and the prices be similar for both resident and non-resident, with the prices set to fund the DNR. I suspect that would get a lot more sportsmen to focus on what is really happening with their money.

I think it's very unfortunate that IL has outrageous NR fees. It has negatively impacted myself, my family and my friends. Opportunities have been lost.

I hope that I can compensate for that with my kids. $500 tags in WI would make that more difficult for me.

I think what it might do is get hunters in places like IL and IA that hunt in WI to start asking their states to lower their NR prices so that they could then afford to hunt in WI again.

Yup WI got greedy with that.

But what ever they do do not allow a 200.00 doe tag... that's stupid on Iowa part.. it's the full tag or nothing. Is what they need to do here.. it's supply and demand... WI puts more record book deer on the ground then any other state... that should be worth some significant jing for access... period.

It certainly didn't take long. I have to admit though, it was a soft hit. I expected him to hammer that one.

We do need to make it more difficult for NR's to obtain a deer tag if their home state makes it impossible for NR's to hunt.

And if you decide to come hunt here in spite of that, make sure that you know exactly what you need. "Skippy" at WallMart or the sporting goods store probably has no clue. Buy your permit and hunting license, but miss the habitat stamp..."Skippy" probably won't know to tell you that you need it. Hunt certain areas and don't have the extra permit and "Skippy" didn't sell it to you, your entire hunt can be ruined.

It's a shame.

That permit is something like $125.00!!!!

Please don't advocate that WI goes down the same path.

I believe MN has a law on the books where if a WI resident owns land in MN they can get MN licenses at resident price. But it requires WI to pass a similar agreement to go into effect, that has not happened yet.

Those NR's that use a relatives WI address to get their license are taking a big chance. First they probably cannot get the resident license unless they still have WI DL. Second, the WI DNR could easily check to see if anyone purchasing a resident license paid income taxes in Wisconsin and get caught. That would certainly result in charges for the license purchase but might also lead to more serious charges of taking a deer without a valid license.

There are thousands of students from WI that attend school in MN and vice versa, which ultimately adds up to tens of millions of dollars.

How many extra deer hunters would each state gather if the tag fees were the same?? Would resident hunters from either state want thousands of extra hunters attempting to harvest an animal from their state's herd?

Not saying, it's not an idea worth exploring, just saying that the college/universities in the two states have reciprocity because it's fantastic for their bottom line. The DNR is not going to go bankrupt without NR tag fees. They've already proven they don't care!! Anytime the DNR is in a crunch for $, they just hike the fees up on residents. It's been done before.

I know it's not "the same" and I know it's not truly "hunting," but if you're looking at six, seven, $800 in tag fees in some of these other states, you might as well shell over the $1000 and do a fence hunt. Let's be honest, nobody's handing over $700+ to go to IA to shoot a fork-horn.

Be careful what we wish for here fellas. You have uniform regulations and fees across state lines and you're moving closer and closer to more Federal involvement and ultimately the Feds regulating our hunting seasons. And once we get to that point, hunting will be a past-tense activity.

If you want to hunt bucks in IL the price is rediculous. No disagreement there. Both our state's bowhunting orgs fought long and hard against those hikes.

But IL is only that expensive if you want to hunt antlers. If you don't care about such things, remove the $410 tag and insert a $25.50 OTC antlerless only tag. Now you're hunting all small game and antlerless deer all season long for the low price of $86.75. That's about what a few days of spring turkey hunting cost me in WI.

So you can hunt does and small game in IL for $86.75, but I pay nearly twice that much in WI and don't get small game included (sans squirrels and rabbits). And if you're a landowner IL cuts that buck tag price in half. Does WI? Nope.

What were we complaining about again?

That's OK. This topic pops up at least once a year. It never has gone anywhere and it never will. Why? Because the people in charge in WI are smarter than their counterparts elsewhere.

Raising license fees further turns hunting into an elitist activity for the rich. I go to WI to hunt with friends and family. So if you have rich friends or family they can hunt with you, if not too bad grandpa hunts alone.

NR landowners like me, pay various taxes such as property, income, and sales taxes on purchases. Since I spend very little time in the state each year, I get very little benefit from state services. For example I will never use the school system financed by the property taxes. WI is coming out way ahead on this deal.

Though I am not out just hunting antlers, I have to admit that some of the magic of hunting, for me, is the "What if...?"

Removing the chance of killing a big buck completely takes away some of that anticipation and excitement.

I don't know if I'm articulating it very well.

Hardly. I guess a quality hunt might vary depending on your metric though. If your quality metric is being within bow range of phenomenal bucks. I completely disagree with the above statement. I've hunted great PRIVATE property in Waupaca County as a resident with minimal encounters. As a non-resident, I've hunted PUBLIC BLM land/general units in Utah and have had phenomenal hunts each time. If you want to use the metric $$/buck hunted...the dollar value for a general Utah hunt wouldn't even come close to WI.

Like other's have stated. I now go back to WI to hunt with friends/family during holidays. If reciprocity were to be enacted...I'd bring a camera instead of a weapon.

You're articulating it well. I understand exactly what you're saying. The "what if" is nice, but they sure charge you an arm and a leg for it here.

And I firmly believe in market forces for private transactions. I just don't know that I agree with higher priced tags for a public resource, just because the market will bear it.

If the whole idea is to completely maximize profits, then why not auction off all tags? Highest bidders for every tag?

Some guys may want higher priced NR tags to reduce competition on public land. So render NR tags private only? How's that work on National Forest ground?

And retro, you have a point, but I can guarantee you that the amortized cost for per diem use of the bow that I purchased last year plus my eight year old climber will fall far short of the per diem cost of my tag.

But, yes, there are guys who drop huge dollars every year. Many of them are leasing up the private land in IL.

Wisconsin has an elk herd and does not allow any hunting of it. Perhaps, in the spirit of reciprocity, states that allow elk hunting should refuse to sell tags to WI residents.

Because Iowa limits the number of NR licenses in specific zones around the state which creates demand and having to wait a few years to hunt there creates even more demand that then somehow helps you feel like that $700 is worth it. Then you see Lee and Tiffany on TV with all those hogs they are shooting around their place and keeps the demand going even stronger.

It is called marketing.

Wisconsin DNR does not 'market' deer hunting. It is just there to hunt deer for those that want to at the price set. I think $160 is a reasonable price for what you get. Much less and areas would get flooded with NR's, much more and there wouldn't be many takers. Yes there are pockets where the state could get more money but probably not worth going that route.

Wisconsin should think about doing lifetime licenses like Minnesota does. I bought MN lifetime bow and gun licenses for something like $500 each years ago. Fee is based on your age when you buy it. All you need to do each year is go in and get your tag and authorization for that year at no charge. You still have to pay extra for bonus tags. The beauty is that when I eventually change my residency back to Wisconsin I still get those free Minnesota licenses. It is really a sweet deal for someone to do when they are pretty sure they will eventually move out of state like when you graduate from college and take a job in another state but still want to hunt back home.

I was referring to IL, not WI (insert confused face here). I thought that was clear.

But thank you for your concern about me hunting your fine state. Since I've been doing it for 30+ years and own property up there, I'm not likely to be dissuaded by a couple buck more for a tag. Besides, I probably have more skin in the game than most of your resident hunters anyway. :)

I'd say it's time for a NR fee increase to $200 or so, and resident to $25 — nice even numbers!

So raise the res tags $1 and the nrs 25% coming off 2014 where 6,000 nrs declined costing the DNR $900k(find 30,000 res to replace that revenue loss) in lost revenue plus the tourist $$$? 22,000 res also dropped out btw. If You dont think tag fees are price sensitive read the herd control county Cdac minutes as to why the antlerless harvest was down. Tag hikes from $2 to $12 and $20 was the number one concern. The dnr knows what price points maximize revenue.

I have to admit that I don't fully understand that mentality. I think that large price hikes would definitely keep some families from hunting together. I think that would be unfortunate.

I have to think that you must have had some bad run in with some bad non resident hunters. That's unfortunate too.

If you get your wish and a huge price increase occurs, I hope that you don't end up with some family member declining to hunt with you because of costs.

I would take all this a step further for resident hunters and change how the Patron license is structured. I used to buy the Patron license but, have opted out the last few years after asking the DNR to give us more options and received a resounding NO! Make the Patron license more of a buffet of options, boat registration, ATV registration, Snowmobile, deer hunting, small game, park sticker, wolf permit,… Most of what is included for trapping I will never use. It was better when it was a card and you received your back tags.

From: buckmaster69 ........ dc archer sell your land if you think you are getting such a bad deal. Save the sob speech for the states that charge $500 plus !! An extra $100 bucks aint going to kill you guys.

As do the rest of us that live here year round. Plus no one forced you to buy land here.

""NR landowners like me, pay various taxes such as property, income, and sales taxes on purchases"

As do the rest of us that live here year round. Plus no one forced you to buy land here. "

What I find interesting is that the major driving force seems to be to "stick it to someone." Some sort of perceived social justice.

I haven't seen anyone state that they desire increased fees to fund any new habitat projects, TSI or whatever. Most just express a desire to even the score that they have with other state's DNRs.

Makes me wonder if you have a bad day at work, do you come home and kick the dog?

You noticed that too? ;)

"Start paying income tax and then you have something to stand on. Property taxes are local and are not given to the state. We all pay tolls, sales tax, gas tax.... when in other states. If I was in a limited hunting state I would feel I have every right to have a better chance at securing a tag over a NR. Wisconsin continues to be an overall barging for out of state hunters when compared to other states, but that does not mean they should jack to rate, but nor does it mean the others should lower. It is all about supply and demand. "

Maybe you should read my posts better. I said I would gladly pay higher fees if the money went back into the resource. I have also said numerous times on this site that I would love to see some bow only draw to hunt public land in WI. But the whiny gun only hunters will never let that happen.

I'm not trying to piss in anyone's Cheerios. I'm just asking that guys consider what I'm saying.

I'm not whining about WI. If anything, I was lamenting the stupid NR fees in IL. They have kept my wife's family from hunting here.

In my experience, it doesn't take much encouragement for any form of government to raise fees. They live for it around here.

If you guys get your wish and $500 NR tags come into existence, you may know some people or have some family who won't be joining you in the future.

I've got three younger kids. They aren't yet old enough to bowhunt. As it stands now, with their school schedule and my work schedule, I think that we'll be fortunate to do a couple of long weekend hunts with their WI cousins.

$1500 is a big commitment for a weekend or two. I know that I'm not alone in that.

Maybe you missed the part about both our state's bowhunting orgs opposing the fee hike here in IL?

Lame - Those guys stand out in WI, they stand out in IL. Lots of times, they stand out because they conduct themselves with a sense of entitlement and arrogance.

I have a long commute every day. I pass thousands of cars in each direction. The only ones that I notice are the ones that are driven by guys who are lane hopping, cutting off other drivers, gridlocking intersections etc.

Most of those guys with new trucks and four wheelers are probably decent guys, but you look at them askew because of the couple of jerks that you ran into at a gas station, while grabbing something to eat or at some watering hole. I tend to profile Lexus drivers myself.

My truck fell short of the $40K mark 16 years and 251,000 miles ago. I have a few pairs of bad-azz boots that take me where I want to go much more frugally than any Bad Boy Buggy, ATV or UTV.

You probably don't notice guys like me and the thousands of other guys who just blend in with the traffic, not crowding you in the woods and not talking chit in town.

I'm working hard to ensure that I can reach a point of having better disposable income, getting to where I have the freedom to not be concerned about the cost of tags for my kids. Someday, you may even take notice of the truck we're in, though it won't be towing a Bad Boy Buggy. I'll do my best to teach them right, to make sure that you don't notice my kids in the woods.

I hope you guys all have a good season. I hope that fortune smiles upon you and the price of IL tags become inconsequential and you can kill a good sized IL buck, even if you have a $12,000 four wheeler in or behind your truck. I'd appreciate it if you'd avoid carrying on too much in town.

"buckmaster69

yes"

I'll bow out. My desire was only to ask you guys to consider the people who might be negatively impacted by a big change. You might know some.

Sorry for continuing to kick the dead horse.

Indeed. We can all disagree and be friendly. Life would sure be boring if we all felt and thoguht the same way. :)

Careful lc, some on this thread have already commented how thinking that way is just greedy;)

Orionsbrother -will check PM.

Less hunters, less strain on a depleted resource.

(Actually data from the DNR shows the average spent by an NR in WI is $2400. That would make the economic impact MUCH greater ($38 MIL), however I couldn't see the breakdown of why the total retail related was so much higher. In reality its probably somewhere between the 2 numbers. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/hunt/documents/2014deermp5.pdf )

About 5% of the hunters are NRs. Assuming the same % effect on NR deer kill of reducing the number of NRs by one half, the impact would be about 5,000 fewer deer killed last season. So roughly 186,000 deer killed instead of 191,000.

"BigPapaPump If the WI DNR doubles the NR tag price and half of the NR quit coming, how much money is the WI DNR losing?

Less hunters, less strain on a depleted resource. "

but even now, they are getting to the point of no return for me, so this would be my last time there is I draw......

I'm not worried about anything, just stating facts and opinion. NR's are a low percentage of overall deer hunters in WI, but spend a lot of money per hunter. Those in high places who have probably done a cost benefit analysis do not see the merit in reducing NR's. It would be a small impact on deer kill, large impact on the economy.

"buckmaster69 Come on……. your not worried about Wisconsins economy. Your worried about your pocket books!!! If you guys would get off your dead a$$es and get NR fees lowered in your state think of how that would help the economy where you live."

"lame crowndip

Quick poll...Will is greatly impact you if the out-of-state guys get their panties in a bunch an stay home??? OK---I'll start it..not in the least. Talk has been about how much the guys spend..That's the deal for any vacation. "

You can get the kids junior conservation tags. For less than half the NR archery tag price they get pretty much everything -- small game, turkeys, archery and firearms deer, two statewide doe tags etc.. It's a heck of a deal.

Why is it always the ones that can afford to spend a little more, complain the most about doing it?

of course they were down with the fee increase. The large gun groups don't go out and get multiple 12.00 tags to fill like they do the 2.00 ones.

With the DNR selling around 72,000 anterless tags this year, which generated around $850,000, this has offset the lower sales in Non Resident licenses. I love the fact that we are at least putting a value on a deer's head, as opposed to just giving away 4 free tags every day of the season in the old cwd zone.

I admit I am a non-resident who owns land in Wisconsin. If they doubled the fee I would still pay it. If I had to wait to 3 years to hunt a buck like in Iowa, I can guarantee I would not have bought my property. But maybe that is the goal???

Carry on.

Seriously. Most of us aren't kin to Bill Gates. Most of us have family in WI, and we enjoy our times together in the outdoors. Most of us respect WI resources the same way we do in our own states.

NRs are not in any way contributing significantly to problems w/ the WI deer herd. If anything, they help prop up local economies, particularly in the North, where the reduction in quality game/resources has lead to a reduction in traffic and business. IF you actually think doubling, tripling, etc, NR fees will solve any deer-related problem, please, please explain to us how it will accomplish that. Otherwise, quit beating around the bush and get to the point: "I had a crappy hunting season. I'm not happy with the way things are going, whether in the outdoors, or perhaps life in general. I don't like the fact that others may not be in the same boat as me. I know! Let's take it out on the damn Non-Residents! Yeah! Whew, man, I feel better."

And yes, I 100% support reciprocity, if it's actually determined that reciprocity, in any way, is directly correlated to the quality of the outdoor experience, and will in any way help optimize the heath and management of the state's resources. If not, it's just noise, same as the "you baiters keep stealing all my deer" nonsense.

No one requested a telethon or gofundme to pay for tags.

"lame crowndip

The way some guys come across is "How dare you want to treat us the way we treat you!!!" Reciprocity should be the rule not the exception. If we would adopt reciprocity the quick way around it would be for some states to LOWER their tag fees. Rut....+a bazillion. There also seems to be a sense of entitlement with this thread by a limited few. "