Missouri Non Res Changes

[realunlucky]

the argument was 1 buck tag, possibility of quota permits, and 1 other thing. Dont blame me for believing what folks write.

I know the laws where i hunt, rely on folks to fill in the gaps elsewhere. Research it all you want.

I don't have to research it- I was well informed and commented to the MDC with my opinion after hunting missiouri as a non-resident for over twenty years.

As usual they make rule changes to say they did something but that won't address the issue.

You are correct that less tags costing sufficiently more money is the bleak future of hunting out of state.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[Kurts86]

Did you read the stats @Marine4life posted?

If Missouri allocated 10-15% of tags to NR like a lot of western states do .... there would be exactly the same number of NRs hunting Missouri as there are right now. 12% of the hunters are funding 53% of the tag revenue. If you cut that number by half, do you expect them to pay twice as much? Or do you expect Resident tag prices to double?

Oh wait, they don't pay for tags in Shannon County

It’s not a money grab, MDC is only 17% funded by license sales and the balance being the 1/8 cent state wide sales tax. Missouri is the best funded wildlife department in the country.

 

[OneGunTex]

It’s not a money grab, MDC is only 17% funded by license sales and the balance being the 1/8 cent state wide sales tax. Missouri is the best funded wildlife department in the country.

Oh I know. That's why they have so much great public land.
So the reason is just "stickin it to the nonres" plain and simple, just for spite. Clearly not overcrowding if it's only 10% of hunters. (And it's less than 10%, for the reason I gave earlier)

 

[Glendon Mullins]

Would this make it a better hunting experience for everyone ? (including non resident) if so we all should be for it, i am fine paying a little more, if it promotes a better experience aka less crowds and bigger deer etc.

and this is coming from a non resident

 

[realunlucky]

Would this make it a better hunting experience for everyone ? (including non resident) if so we all should be for it, i am fine paying a little more, if it promotes a better experience aka less crowds and bigger deer etc.

and this is coming from a non resident

Why would it make for a better experience? That's an honest question what does this improve?Crowding? Non residents can still be out every day blasting does.

If older age bucks transfer cwd at a higher rate, why would the management goal be to raise the age class?

I get the frustration but can't understand why this is the solution.

 

[Pulleye16]

Yep, not that it matters but I won’t be hunting MO after these changes so it’s working.

I’m not paying those prices, plus room and board to hunt a public land buck.

For around double the price, I can hunt the beautiful mountains out west, enjoy the scenery, and hunt elk AND muley.

I honestly hope this backfires but unfortunately there are many who’ll pay around $500 to hunt public land deer.

 

[Pulleye16]

Would this make it a better hunting experience for everyone ? (including non resident) if so we all should be for it, i am fine paying a little more, if it promotes a better experience aka less crowds and bigger deer etc.

and this is coming from a non resident

Hunted public land MO as a non res archery hunter for years and NEVER felt crowded. Sometimes I’m the only one in the entire CA.

This is all about MO res having their panties in a bunch. Nothing to do about deer quality or crowding. They just complain about everything down there. And poach. And trespass.