Non-resident license fees.

[4thefunofit]

Now might be an opportune time to brush up on "The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation". --- "1) wildlife resources are a public trust to be managed by governments for the benefit of all citizens; 2) unregulated commercial markets for wild game that decimate wildlife populations are eliminated; 3) allocation is by law, meaning that laws are developed by citizens and enforced by government agencies to regulate the proper use and management of wildlife; 4) opportunity for all, which means that every citizen has the freedom to view, hunt and fish, regardless of social or economic status; 5) wild game populations cannot be killed casually, but only for a legitimate purpose as defined by law; 6) wildlife will be considered an international resource because wildlife migrates across political boundaries; and 7) science is the proper basis for wildlife policy and management, not opinion or conjecture, in order to sustain wildlife populations." --- Notice that principles numbers 1 and 4 reference wildlife as being a "public trust", and accessible to all "regardless of social or economic status". Non-resident fees greater than that of residents are counter to the principle of the NAMWC, and it might be legitimately argued they violate the 14th Amendment equal protection clause of the Constitution. As an aside, The Boone & Crockett Club support the NAMWC. Just saying.

 

[Reelamin]

Abso-freaking-lutely! I'd gladly pay multiple times over to not have to go out into the pumpkin patch! Most states or 90/10 or up to 20%. Colorado is 65/35 in most units and then otc is probably 25/75. Don't get me started on the secondary draw and turn back tags going to first buyer. Colorado has a lot of issues right now and it's not just the whoring of the woods, point creep is becoming a major issue. It's all fixable, but I'm not sure they want to fix it?

Sounds fair on your willingness I know in Montana some regular and very hard core hunters have no interest in paying the increase. Wyoming regular hunters I know again no interest.
I get it and it does suck the hard care dedicated hunters are just an extremely small percentage of the hunters. That's true in any state and has been that way for Millenia.
Hope it works out for you to a satisfactory way.

 

[crashlanding]

I'd like to know what state doesn't charge more for non residents nationwide

 

[cornshank]

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.

Complicated issue, getting every archery , muzzle loader, rifle hunter ,big game ,small game , trapper ,etc...together ,to make a difference, is a tall order.
Add in the power of the game n fish agencies ,they raise the price and some more guys don't go , it doesn't seem to me to effect them.
As stated above ,seems like there is always guys in line who will pay.
And of course the percentage of residents, that may be on the sidelines clapping with joy ,to see less nonresident hunters , even though a lot probably came from another state at some point, but now they are walk-in in tall cotton .,looking at people
From the state they used live in , like it's a bad thing now.
Funny how the , to heck with you I got mine , comes real quick in cases.

 

[Frenchie1]

I'd like to know what state doesn't charge more for non residents nationwide

Good ol Washington sure does charge more,,,, or at least, has a high price set for Non Residents but this state's wildlife has been mis-managed for many years so why would Non Residents want to come here? Maybe for Sheep, Moose or goat but not elk and deer.

 

[4thefunofit]

I'd like to know what state doesn't charge more for non residents nationwide

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.

 

[Ucsdryder]

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.

That's where you're wrong. The wildlife is owned by the state. The land is owned by "everyone". This went to court already and that was the outcome. New Mexico, I want to say 2012 maybe?

 

[SO I HUNT]

paying higher cost for nonresident license is not a problem when you look at all the work a lot of us guys (residents) do in the off season. Building trick tanks, hauling water during this drought. 11 years for my first elk tag, 7 years and now 8 years. 24 bonus points on antelope, 21 points desert big horn and 17 for mule deer! We're a 90/10 state doesn't seem to be a problem here?
so why is it fair for you to pay the same as residents? Sorry for the rant!

 

[Terry Lightle]

Wonder how Pittman Roberts money is divided among states,I have no clue.We all pay it every time we buy something to hunt or fish with.I do not think it is wrong to pay more,just think cost could be a little closer.I bought two out of state hunting licences this year to coyote hunt,just paid them and went hunting.This a subject that will never be agreed on,good and bad according where you live

 

[Ucsdryder]

paying higher cost for nonresident license is not a problem when you look at all the work a lot of us guys (residents) do in the off season. Building trick tanks, hauling water during this drought. 11 years for my first elk tag, 7 years and now 8 years. 24 bonus points on antelope, 21 points desert big horn and 17 for mule deer! We're a 90/10 state doesn't seem to be a problem here?
so why is it fair for you to pay the same as residents? Sorry for the rant!

Hell, how about this. Living in Colorado is getting more and more expensive by the day. A decent house now runs 600k minimum in the suburbs. Taxes are up, gas is up, the overall cost of living is skyrocketing.

My buddy lives in Kansas and his house is half what mine cost and he's on 6 acres with a 100k shop! The extra 600 between resident and nonresident is a drop in the OCEAN compared to the true cost of a resident vs nonresident tag.

 

[4thefunofit]

That's where you're wrong. The wildlife is owned by the state. The land is owned by "everyone". This went to court already and that was the outcome. New Mexico, I want to say 2012 maybe?

That's why I put "owned" in quotes. Wildlife isn't owned by anyone, it's managed (hopefully) by wildlife departments for the benefit of wildlife. Though, in states where a high percentage of monies obtained from non-residents is distributed to landowners, some wildlife appears to be being managed for the benefit of owners. From exactly where wildlife departments derive their authority to charge these disproportionate fees is another question.

 

[Plinker147]

That's where you're wrong. The wildlife is owned by the state. The land is owned by "everyone". This went to court already and that was the outcome. New Mexico, I want to say 2012 maybe?

Federal court ruling said state can manage wildlife how they see fit. A states can charge whatever they want, and make what ever rules they want to regulate their hunting. After this ruling is when states started to put more quotas on non resident hunters. More and more states are doing thing like this. NM made it where non residents can't draw cow elk tags, saying the "meat" hunts were for the residents on the state.

I agree with non residents paying more and with the quotas. If I want to hunt your state I should have to pay more than someone who lives there. I do agree however the prices they are charging are getting out of hand and is contrary to the North American Model but so is all the governor tags that states sell to the highest bidder.

I always dreamed of a moose grizzly hunt in Alaska. But those prices are so out of hand for a non resident there is no way I'm paying 30k and taking that money from my family to go shoot an animal. It's is turning into the "Kings wildlife again"

I never heard of federal lands being owned by "everyone". Federal lands are owned by the government and managed for multiple uses of the people.

 

[jessej]

I always dreamed of a moose grizzly hunt in Alaska. But those prices are so out of hand for a non resident there is no way I'm paying 30k and taking that money from my family to go shoot an animal. It's is turning into the "Kings wildlife again"

As have I

It saddens me that I will never get to do it.

 

[Jpron]

Very interesting topic, I've been thinking about this and point creep for a while. I only have experience with co for what it's worth. I understand a higher price in non res tags. And I also understand the whole if you don't like it stay home mentality of the res. The biggest problem is I see in this entire sport is that it's turning into a rich mans sport. Where does this leave our kids and the future of hunting? Only rich people and there kids get to hunt? I have 2 teenage hunters in my house. I've sat out the last six years so they could have the chance because I can't afford for 2 or three of us to hunt. Not only that, we can only eat so much. I'm Currently looking for a place to take my son for one good hunt before he leaves for college with a good chance to harvest a bull. Holy crap is all I'm gonna say. Keep the prices where there at but make the res and non res point requirements the same. Get away from this landowner voucher crap that help the wealthy make even more money. There are plenty of things that can be done to fix this mess, but let's look at how our decisions now will affect our kids and the future of hunting.