Contributors to this thread:
Gobbler mentioned in another thread that it would be a good idea for you to be able to take a doe with a firearm on your base license instead of a buck without a class N. I think that is a good idea.
Here is my idea. What if we had an option to purchase a license that includes all extra tags. Right now if you buy a class X and all tags including trout and bear stamp I came up with about $165. If class X remained $35 and then figure all tags at 50% of individual purchase it comes to about $110. I purchase class X, 2 additional archery, and trout stamp which comes to about $87. The dnr would be getting $23 from me they otherwise wouldn't.
I don't know anyone who buys all tags. I only know a couple people that buy any extra stamps at all.
Just a thought.
I love the idea of having the rifle tag be either sex. Just like the archery and muzzleloader stamps. There's a lot of people who just shoot a deer for meat, and a large majority of them I would say are rifle hunters, well when your rifle tag is buck only.....
I say triple the cost of the license and let the hunters just shoot anything.
Maybe not triple the cost, but the DNR could reasonably increase the license and set a bag limit. Similar to the small game limits. Set a price for your license, set your bag limit. That would be easier to deal with than all of the confusing extra tags and such.
I got zero problems with the way things are. Seems to be working pretty well as is. Why change it?
I’m sure someone said that when Thomas Edison invented a working light bulb :^)
I agree with a doe tag costing less than an extra buck tag, that could encourage people to take more does where needed. What I don't get is why extra bow tags are $21 while muzzleloader tags are $16 and antlerless are $10. If your 2nd archery deer is a doe, why should it cost double a rifle doe? I feel like the tag price should be the same regardless of weapon choice. Base license firearms should be either sex where applicable, just like bow and muzzleloader. Also, oil lamps were good enough before light bulbs came along and it was possible to argue without a computer or cellphone.
It was just a "bundle and save" thought I had. It wouldn't change the way it is now it could just be an additional option.
"Super license", good for all weapons and seasons until bag limits are reached. Help a guy save a little if he hunts every season. Help the state make a little extra off the guy who doesn't fill every tag he buys.
Well I would think if there is a time for change now might be the time - not giving an opinion on if I like any certain things just stating some things that have happen: 1- When a proposal was brought up about having I believe it was a parking pass for several of our state parks the Governor pretty much stopped it in its tracks - could the reason be that he was looking out for Us and saving some money? I don’t know the answer to that because I was in favor of hitting people up other than hunters and fishermen to help fund our parks, I am not going to fault the Governor on this issue though even though I liked it. . 2- there has also been additional taxes added on some of our sales taxes. So do we seek change now in our licenses and get better deals or will we possibly get license fees hikes to bring in additional revenue? Change can be a good thing and it can also be scary .
If it isnt broke break it.
That's the problem, it is broke. Wvdnr gets less in hunting license revenue than it did in 1999. Could you function as well if you were making less than you were in 1999?
Could always be like Wyoming and completely price gouge non-residents.
Heres some thoughts I had: As of Now: Sportsman Package $35.00 (Includes: 1 Bow - 1 Gun - 1 Muzzle - Fishing - Conservation - 2 Turkey - Small Game)
Xtra Bow stamp $21.00 Xtra Bow Stamp $21.00 Xtra Gun Stamp $21.00 Doe Stamps $30.00 Bear Damage $10.00 Total $138.00
My New Plan: New Sportsman Package $35.00 (Includes: 3 Does (Bow, Rifle, Muzzleloader)- Fishing - Conservation - 2 Turkey - Small Game)
Buck Stamp $30.00 (1 Buck any weapon) Xtra Doe Stamp (any weapon) $12.00 Xtra Doe Stamp (any weapon) $12.00 Xtra Doe Stamp (any weapon) $12.00 Bear Damage w/ Spring Baiting Season $30.00 Bear Damage $10.00 Total $141.00
I completed a survey of hunters & most were in favor of the new plan & the new plan would actually bring in more $$ for the WVDNR
Wow that an amazing stat. So unless the cost of the license has gone down Id say someone has their hand in the till. So I'd say we need to increase our license fees.
I wouldn't mind the high license fees if other departments in the state didn't dip into the dnr till so the dnr could use the money to our benefit such as restocking programs such as grouse, turkeys in low number areas,etc.
Legally, by Fed law any license money or matching Fed dollars are not to be used for any other purposes. If it is found thru audit that it has been then the DNR can lose any additional matching funds as well as having to pay it back
so why are they losing money
You guys are forgetting the legislature won't allow the simple "cost of living" increase in license fees that was passed a few years ago. That was implemented so the license could go up in small amounts as everything else does and not go 20 years with no increase and then request a big jump which would upset people. You really think the legislature is going to let DNR raise the license cost? I wouldn't count on it.
Legislature wasn't going to allow Sunday hunting for years until it was brought up. Don't know until you try.
Soon my question remains the same. Why does the DNR get less now than in 99 if no one can legally take money from the license money. I am just a dumb ole boy but the math doesn't add up unless the cost of the license went down. Maybe its because there are less people buying licenses. I would think the legislature would want to increase the license fees to make more money
License sales have plummeted.
License sales have plummeted.
Where there is ur answer.
Where there is ur answer. So let's raise the license fee to make up for the lost revenue.
J.R., the vast majority of hunters I have spoken with is willing to do that to improve quality
Increase in fee not bad. Modestly across the board. Decrees in quantity of what you receive for increase of fee bad then your doing what's being done to us that we complain about in retail businesses.
I don't see that a base license of deer hunting being either sex. Can hurt no one that way they can hunt what they prefer. Then if they decide to continue to hunt they can purchase a either sex additional tag.
The key here in a business sense is your not alienating anyone from purchasing a lic or additional tags. If they are doe hunters they can kill does if they are buck hunters they can kill bucks. Dnr set bag limits on bucks and does for year Everyone wins.
I'm still all for a .5 or 1 cent sales tax that goes DIRECTLY to the WV DNR. Everyone that lives here depends on them to manage the herd with human interests. Everyone should have to pay. A deer doesn't just jump in front of the vehicles of sportsman or, eat the flowers in a hunters flower beds. So, everyone should have to pay for the management of the resource.
I was told that was a dumb idea but, it makes great sense to me. Dropping nonresident license prices at he same time, would do nothing but increase that revenue as well. I think resident fees are where they need to be. God Bless
I'm for the base license for a gun to be either buck or doe , Ohio did that for years not sure if they still do or not .
I think it’s a win-win. The DNR did a survey that said most deer hunters hunt for meat. That would give the ability to shoot a doe during gun season without having to pay an additional fee. It may finally allow the DNR to meet doe harvest objectives in counties where they need does killed. MD has been doing it for years and it’s helped improve the herd
I like MSWV ideas: Does should be free not $30, charge to kill a buck.
Reading everyone’s opinions gets a little side track here : so if the rifle season tag was to be the same as Archery or muzzleloading season and be either sex - that would satisfy most here? Maybe add same a minimal fee of $5 to $10 extra for that option since the N tag would not be require possibly for that one doe.... does this sound about right or is there just a call for totally new license package?
The tags are just too confusing. There should be 3 types of tags.
Either sex tag
And they should be able to be used in whichever season the hunter wants to use them in up to the limit.
A dead deer is a dead deer no matter which weapon is used. It would get rid of the alphabet soup of tags that we have now. Plus there is no reason a bowhunter should have to pay more to shoot a doe than a rifle hunter has to especially if the DNR is having trouble getting enough does killed in some areas.
Fair enough - I never understood the reason for the higher cost for the bow tag as well. I don’t agree with the handgun license as well but I am sure there is a reason for it. I sort of like Virginia’s license setup in a way but I really don’t mind ours as well with a couple of small changes. Again I think WV has done pretty well - just shocking to see how many on here despise them.
JayD, that’s a pretty strong statement. The vast majority of people I know and talk to speaks highly of the DNR about most everything they do, they just wish the Deer management was different. They certainly don’t despise them.
I’m shocked that you would end a paragraph with a Statement like that to inflame the issue again, but I don’t despise you for it.
When you want someone or something to do better it doesn't mean you despise them.
Either sex tag on base license, universal class N tags with a maximum number that can be taken with a rifle.
Now Sunday you know there are some who despise them maybe you don’t but look at some of the post and comments - there are some who think they are a bunch of baffoons.
I think they should do a resident and non resident draw for buck tags. Only allowing 1,000 tags a year to be drawn. That should do the trick. LOL.
"The tags are just too confusing. There should be 3 types of tags. Buck tag Antlerless tag Either sex tag And they should be able to be used in whichever season the hunter wants to use them in up to the limit."
Gobbler I agree to some point. I actually think that it could be 2 tags. Use it for whatever (all) seasons. 1 - Either sex, ( I would prefer with a 1 buck limit.) 2 - antlerless You could buy as many as you want up to the legal limit of deer. You could also buy tags throughout the season.
Charge whatever price is needed!
I would suggest that the either sex tag be the more expensive of the two.
how about charging per buck. The smaller the bug the bigger the fee. In other words a spike would be $100 and 8 point $5 and so on. LOl
Turk, that is a good idea
Some good ideas , But what are the chances we see a change in license fees and a change in bag limits on bucks in the next year or two. Glad that we have someone like Gobbler on the Natural Resources Commission He seems to have a open mind toward changes and willing to listen to all sides.
With commission the chances are slim unless a few are prodded in that direction.
Other ways to skin a cat.
Change in license fees requires legislation and cannot be done by commission itself.
Hoppie there are two chances. Slim and none.
Why not charge land owners for license and tags? At a greatly reduced rate of course. Would that help get more money from the Pittman/Robinson act as well? Which is based on total license sales. Wasn't that the reason why the free senior license, is not free anymore?
I know that some will say "I pay taxes on my land, I shouldn't have to buy a hunting and fishing licnese". I get it, I pay taxes on my land as well but its not big enough to hunt on. How much of the tax money paid on land goes to the DNR?
No property taxes go to the DNR
And I actually think it sucks that no property tax goes to DNR. So how many complaints about wildlife or poaching or whatever comes from non-hunters? And on another point - I believe it is the hotel tax - I know a portion goes to to park and recreations - now is any of that allocated toward say our State Parks? Specially since they have lodges or cabins on them or they the sole responsibility of the the DNR? Don’t hunters and fishermen use hotel and cabins to stay in and bring revenue to our state?