Non-resident license fees.

[Baylor243]

You might be walking back to Hollywood..........

...in zip ties

 

[30378wbymag]

Come on out to Colorado. You can hike and camp and frolick on public lands…FOR FREE!!!!! If you want to hunt an animal owned by the state you need to pay what the state charges. I hope lots of nonresidents don't like it and stay home because it's getting out of hand here in Colorado.

Same with Idaho, they lowered the amount of non res tags and raised the fees. It totally sux to get to hunting camp to only see nonresident vehicles everywhere and leaving trash behind. It's deeper than just dollar bills…

 

[misterc01]

Simple - Tenth Amendment of the Consitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Wildlife management and fees in each state are run by that state - not the US Government. Residents get perks that out-of-state non-residents have to pay and extra fee extra to enjoy.

 

[Creedmoorcarl]

In as much as state wildlife agencies have received billions of federal dollars in funding over the years, how is it that they can justify charging non-residents (US citizens) exorbitantly greater fees than state residents? Just curious.

Yeah I know what you mean I just dropped over 500 bucks this morning for Kansas Whitetail.
When you take into account outftter fees food fuel and oh yeah I got to have a couple new pieces of hunting clothing
Around $4000 for a deer???! Xm
But I can't help myself I'm sick in the head with hunting… you would think after 50 years I would have enough but noooooo

 

[Bear62041]

Bear, I understand your frustration with government agency fees. NO ONE HATES the stereotypical government agency/coasting, anti-America government employee more than me. I was born/raised/schooled in Missouri, strayed away for 30+ years before finding my way home. In Missouri, I feel the Dept of Conservation (MoCon) is a great bang for the buck, and certainly as close as one will ever experience of an agency actually being what government was intended to be. MoCon has brought deer, turkeys, bear, and elk back from near extinction/extinction in Missouri. They have provided excellent wildlife/outdoor resources and areas enjoyed at no/nominal out-of-pocket daily cost. They run hunter education, youth safety, fishing, wildlife, conservation, habitat, et el classes. They support private land owners in improving wildlife habitat, controlling erosion, fighting poaching and trespass, fighting invasive species (feral hogs, carp, et el) and plants. I don't mind paying for hunting licenses, taxes, etc that fund MoCon. Wish every government agency delivered the value Missourians receive from MoCon. I personally know MoCon biologists, game wardens, various employees and find them to be dedicated, hard working, pro-Missouri outdoors/wildlife sports with no hidden agendas, as most government agencies/employees are prone to pursue. I lived in Iowa in early career chapters (ran the Shaeffer Pen Packaging Program, Chevron Chemical plant engineer, and Tones Spices, Director of Engineering) enjoying the Iowa Conservation benefits. I felt my taxes were well spent and the benefits delivered were great. Just my 70+ years perspective on funding state conservation programs. YMMV, but this is mine.

I agree with you on Missouri, I enjoy hunting there as well as Iowa. The NR fees and regulations are fair and reasonable, the game is plentiful. I've hunted all over the world, most of the US including Alaska 4 times. Our 2 states are hard to beat. They are well run by the respective DNR's and have plenty of state and federal lands as well. I'm boycotting the high fees in other states and I wish others would do the same for just 1 year. Good hunting my friend and neighbor.

 

[Orange Dust]

After sleeping on it I think I have decided how I feel. Each State has limited resources. I know our G&F gets no revenue from the general fund (we like it that way too) They want to maximize the recreational opportunities for the State's residents, and keep their costs as low as possible.

Most of us spend the majority of our recreational time in our home State. We also want those costs as low as possible. We also don't want to compete with non-residents for resources no matter what state we live in.

We also want to go somewhere and hunt or fish for something we don't have at home, and see country different from ours. Many business depend on this tourism to survive, including the tax revenue for the State. It needs to be at least somewhat affordable or we will just stay home and dream about it.

If I was King and in charge of it all myself I don't know that I would change it to a huge degree. Although difficult to manage I would like to see all the States including mine implement what ours does with the states that touch it. Charge non-residents the same price their State charges ours for Big Game, Small Game, Birds, and Fish. This would be as fair as it could possibly get. Gouge me to kill an elk and I will burn your butt to kill a big Whitetail. I think it would be fairly self controlling in the end. Public Pressure can work wonders on the powers that be....

 

[MOelkman]

In as much as state wildlife agencies have received billions of federal dollars in funding over the years, how is it that they can justify charging non-residents (US citizens) exorbitantly greater fees than state residents? Just curious.

Because rules & regs for wildlife are a state function.
Even though it's a huge $$$ business, you can thank Send Harry Reid for the absence of equal treatment.

 

[MOelkman]

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.

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

 

[Buck100]

In as much as state wildlife agencies have received billions of federal dollars in funding over the years, how is it that they can justify charging non-residents (US citizens) exorbitantly greater fees than state residents? Just curious.

Supply and Demand! Years ago, Montana would set aside so many tags for non-residents. When the licenses went unsold, they would drop the price the following year. If the licenses sold out quickly the next year the price would be higher. That's the game they played until the system was changed. Montana has never been a non-resident friendly state for hunters, just ask the Montana Outfitters and Guides Association.

 

[Bear62041]

After sleeping on it I think I have decided how I feel. Each State has limited resources. I know our G&F gets no revenue from the general fund (we like it that way too) They want to maximize the recreational opportunities for the State's residents, and keep their costs as low as possible.

Most of us spend the majority of our recreational time in our home State. We also want those costs as low as possible. We also don't want to compete with non-residents for resources no matter what state we live in.

We also want to go somewhere and hunt or fish for something we don't have at home, and see country different from ours. Many business depend on this tourism to survive, including the tax revenue for the State. It needs to be at least somewhat affordable or we will just stay home and dream about it.

If I was King and in charge of it all myself I don't know that I would change it to a huge degree. Although difficult to manage I would like to see all the States including mine implement what ours does with the states that touch it. Charge non-residents the same price their State charges ours for Big Game, Small Game, Birds, and Fish. This would be as fair as it could possibly get. Gouge me to kill an elk and I will burn your butt to kill a big Whitetail. I think it would be fairly self controlling in the end. Public Pressure can work wonders on the powers that be....

You'e got the right idea. If there need to be limits then limit the number of NR permits available, but not the costs.

 

[nmleon]

Here in CO, a major percentage of CPW funding is from the annual registration of boats, off-highway vehicles, snowmobiles, trailers, license application and preference point fees, and landowner voucher fees, none of which are applicable to out of state folks.

Before purchasing hunting/fishing/tags etc, I spend $282.25 in registration fees that go to CPW.

We charge you extra so that we are not, in effect. subsidizing non-residents.

 

[Gater]

In as much as state wildlife agencies have received billions of federal dollars in funding over the years, how is it that they can justify charging non-residents (US citizens) exorbitantly greater fees than state residents? Just curious.

When I retired I thought great now I can spend more time in Wyoming hunting. Wrong nonresident tags are just to expensive now it's the people with more money than brains buying tags and the residents I hunted with can't believe how clueless people can be. Like I told my buddy money can't buy brains

 

[JAYgs8163]

When I retired I thought great now I can spend more time in Wyoming hunting. Wrong nonresident tags are just to expensive now it's the people with more money than brains buying tags and the residents I hunted with can't believe how clueless people can be. Like I told my buddy money can't buy brains

I don't see a person that has worked hard his/her entire life and saved responsibly, not got him or herself loaded up with debt, lived within their means, and then buying a out of state expensive tag as "clueless." I see that person as a contributing responsible individual to the sport, the state they're hunting in and its economy, while seeking to enjoy the passion they have for the outdoors and hunting. Some folk like to spend thousands upon thousands on vacations while I prefer my vacations doing what I love, hunting! If it cost me a little to do then that's my choice. I'll be traveling to New Mexico to hunt Cow Elk with a land owner tag this fall, is it cheap, nope! Is it what I want to do, yup, am I clueless, not a chance. I consider it a privilege that I'm allowed to hunt in all 50 states, if I can't afford it then I don't go.

 

[Orange Dust]

Here in CO, a major percentage of CPW funding is from the annual registration of boats, off-highway vehicles, snowmobiles, trailers, license application and preference point fees, and landowner voucher fees, none of which are applicable to out of state folks.

Before purchasing hunting/fishing/tags etc, I spend $282.25 in registration fees that go to CPW.

We charge you extra so that we are not, in effect. subsidizing non-residents.

Everything you listed either is a one time minimal charge or it does not exist in my State. You guys really should pay more attention to what you vote for.