Non-resident license fees.

[dustbag]

Ok so for the sake of discussing…..An out of state hunter goes to Montana doesn't buy the non-resident license, gets arrested with an elk in the back of the truck. How severe could the penalty get?

That's not an option that would ever be on the table for myself or my crew. If they raise the price more we'll still pay. It would just b every 4 years instead of every other.

 

[dustbag]

Just spitballing but how about a free tag. Resident or non resident. Kill a wolf this year get a tag next year. One dead wolf gets deer/antelope. 2 gets u elk tag. 3 maybe moose bakers dizen we're sheep hunting boys!!!!

 

[JAYgs8163]

That's the problem. They all do. Even though the wildlife is "owned" by everyone in the US, the individual states believe it their right to charge fees for their services which are no greater for non-residents than they are for residents.

The federal government doesn't pay the costs associated with managing the wildlife programs for hunters, Game and Fish officers, vehicles, programs, fish to stock the lakes, etc…. Game and Fish pays for it from numerous programs and fees collected. However most of the USFS roads are managed and maintained by the USFS but also the states contribute to this maintenance. This is a conversation that's been debated on here numerous times. It's always a stalemate. There's no perfect answer as every state has Federal land, state land, and private property. The last thing we need is the feds administering it and what can be charged or who can be charged. Here's how Arizona GFD funds itself.

" You read that right—Arizona Game and Fish Department doesn't receive a single penny of Arizona general tax dollars. A lot of our funding comes from public spending on things like fishing and hunting licenses, tags or stamps, and via a federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition."

 

[RonC]

Here's a thought…Buy a house in the state(s) you want to hunt in. Compare that cost(s) to a NR license. When you stop hunting then sell the house for a profit. Just sayin…

Just owning a house and hunting land in another state doesn't qualify you for a resident license in most states. They require you to live there over 6 months to get a resident license. Kinda hard to live in 2 states over 6 mo in the same year, they're wise to that, I've tried...

 

[el pato]

The federal government doesn't pay the costs associated with managing the wildlife programs for hunters, Game and Fish officers, vehicles, programs, fish to stock the lakes, etc…. Game and Fish pays for it from numerous programs and fees collected. However most of the USFS roads are managed and maintained by the USFS but also the states contribute to this maintenance. This is a conversation that's been debated on here numerous times. It's always a stalemate. There's no perfect answer as every state has Federal land, state land, and private property. The last thing we need is the feds administering it and what can be charged or who can be charged. Here's how Arizona GFD funds itself.

" You read that right—Arizona Game and Fish Department doesn't receive a single penny of Arizona general tax dollars. A lot of our funding comes from public spending on things like fishing and hunting licenses, tags or stamps, and via a federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition."

AZ like other states caves in for Fed $ for wolf reintroduction. And banning predator contests to appease the libs. Just got my Pioneer license last week.

 

[Hunterjones]

Regarding the wolves……..we definitely do have wolves that move through all of the areas that I hunt in. Have they devastated the game populations in areas I hunt? No.
Would I prefer they stay in YNP? ABSOLUTELY. What I have found in the areas I hunt is that the wolves hurt my hunting in some places, some years. I hunt areas primarily south and southeast of Jackson, Wyoming so some pretty remote country but not as remote as areas such as those in northern Idaho for instance where wolves have decimated game herds. I doubt that wolves will "wipe out" game populations in Colorado because I think there are just too many people venturing into the wilderness in Colorado year 'round now. Wolves don't really like to hang in areas that are constantly saturated with humans. That being said, if I lived in Colorado I would absolutely be opposed to wolf reintroduction there but I honestly don't think it's the end of the world. Please don't any of you readers take this submission as "Pro Wolf" because it definitely is not. I just think that currently at least there are other factors that may be more concerning than a few hundred wolves running around, like hunter overcrowding and loss of winter range, etc….

 

[4thefunofit]

The federal government doesn't pay the costs associated with managing the wildlife programs for hunters, Game and Fish officers, vehicles, programs, fish to stock the lakes, etc…. Game and Fish pays for it from numerous programs and fees collected. However most of the USFS roads are managed and maintained by the USFS but also the states contribute to this maintenance. This is a conversation that's been debated on here numerous times. It's always a stalemate. There's no perfect answer as every state has Federal land, state land, and private property. The last thing we need is the feds administering it and what can be charged or who can be charged. Here's how Arizona GFD funds itself.

" You read that right—Arizona Game and Fish Department doesn't receive a single penny of Arizona general tax dollars. A lot of our funding comes from public spending on things like fishing and hunting licenses, tags or stamps, and via a federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition."

If you look at a state wildlife department budget you'll see a lot of different funds, but you probably won't see the real source of those funds the most significant portion of which in many cases is going to be from the non-resident American tax payer, and the non-resident license purchasers. This year alone, the NWS is granting over one and a half billion dollars in funds for fish and wildlife projects which are solely determined by the state agencies. https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/i...llion-support-state-wildlife-conservation-and

 

[Ga6570]

There's no need for justification. They have the animals to sell a lot of states don't. So we pay. If we'd quit paying prices would come down. That ain't gonna happen. I just submitted a request for a Montana tag for around $1200. Resident is probably $30. And I'll b happy if I draw cause I know I'm not getting 1 of the 10 elk tags available in WI. Where's the justification in paying income tax when they can print money out of thin air. Don't look for sane reasoning when it comes to governance. They do cause they can cause we let them.

ouch. $1200

to answer your question on MT resdient tags. i got my MT small game, upland birds, fishing, general Deer and general Elk tag and the fees for a few permits for deer and elk and my cost was $120.40 - i will still buy a few more deer tags and put several in the freezer along with my sons… but the additional deer tags should just be $10 each. the sons are youth so they get discounts and usually we get their fishing, birds, small game, and deer tag for $35 or so.

 

[Shawn Carverelli]

i just go wherever I want...never heard buying a tag to eat a wild animal...that just ludacris. Who would do such a think

 

[JAYgs8163]

If you look at a state wildlife department budget you'll see a lot of different funds, but you probably won't see the real source of those funds the most significant portion of which in many cases is going to be from the non-resident American tax payer, and the non-resident license purchasers. This year alone, the NWS is granting over one and a half billion dollars in funds for fish and wildlife projects which are solely determined by the state agencies. https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/i...llion-support-state-wildlife-conservation-and

Only 10% of the big game tags are for out of state "American tax paying" residents in Az. I simply can't agree that the "most significant portion" is from the OOS residents. I think most states that have a decent OTC tag system this possibly may be true but is isn't here!

 

[4thefunofit]

Only 10% of the big game tags are for out of state "American tax paying" residents in Az. I simply can't agree that the "most significant portion" is from the OOS residents. I think most states that have a decent OTC tag system this possibly may be true but is isn't here!

I suspect its almost certain that more than 10% of Arizona's wildlife budget comes from OOS sources. But by "significant portion...in many cases" I was referring to particular budget items (funds), not the total budget. Though, as you say, in many cases that may be the case. Anyway, the most equitable solution to this would be, as I mentioned earlier, to allocate resident and non-resident tags using the same ratio as in-state versus out-of-state funding. But the higher cost of non-resident tags is still a problem. Personally, I think the fees should be equal, but game departments, of course, will continue doing what it is they want to do.

 

[JAYgs8163]

I suspect its almost certain that more than 10% of Arizona's wildlife budget comes from OOS sources. But by "significant portion...in many cases" I was referring to particular budget items (funds), not the total budget. Though, as you say, in many cases that may be the case. Anyway, the most equitable solution to this would be, as I mentioned earlier, to allocate resident and non-resident tags using the same ratio as in-state versus out-of-state funding. But the higher cost of non-resident tags is still a problem. Personally, I think the fees should be equal, but game departments, of course, will continue doing what it is they want to do.

Ok. So then only 1% would be available for OOS residents as opposed to 10% based on your thoughts.? You cant just eliminate revenue that's been there for MANY year without the elimination of resources. So we should then give residents 99% of the tags and OOS only 1% and lower the OOS fees? I'm good with that! So 12000 elk tags on OOS get 120 of them and pass the additional cost to the residents. Sign me up! Actually it may be 1/2 of 1% allocated for OOS.

 

[4thefunofit]

Ok. So then only 1% would be available for OOS residents as opposed to 10% based on your thoughts.? You cant just eliminate revenue that's been there for MANY year without the elimination of resources. So we should then give residents 99% of the tags and OOS only 1% and lower the OOS fees? I'm good with that! So 12000 elk tags on OOS get 120 of them and pass the additional cost to the residents. Sign me up! Actually it may be 1/2 of 1% allocated for OOS.

The 2020 Arizona Game and Fish Department budget shows a ratio of approximately 1.6 : 1, Federal dollars to other sources. Here again it's difficult to see the whole picture because the percentage of dollars contributed by non-resident fees and other OOS sources aren't shown. But the ratio, if applied to numbers of tags, would be 160 resident to 100 non-resident. https://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/20AR/fis.pdf

 

[elk 1]

Some states have legislation enacted that specifically state the wildlife is owned by the state.

If the state owns the wildlife and a deer runs into my truck shouldn't the state pay for the repair .