Outrageous NR prices!!!

[Pro953]

So we should nationalize wildlife management, make the cost the same for everyone and limit states rights. Somewhat counter to the the anti big government argument.

Probably better that we make it equal anyway, So now your resident license cost the same as non resident license. Happier? Say 150 got your hunting licenses and between 300-800 each for a deer and elk tag. Enjoy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brooks]

I want to know what gives Starbucks the right to charge $5.00 for a Frappuccino ?

 

[Poser]

Not entirely true. I do not believe i can go to public lands in another state and do my choice of recreation free of charge. Niether can you or anyone else on this site. That's my point, wheres the fluidity? I've never paid a NR fee in another state to enter any state or federal land. Pretty sure i can go to most trailheads or state land and I owe the same amount daily to park and use the facilities as any person foreign or domestic but I've heard no resident complain about that. Shouldn't I have to pay more because I'm not a tax payer in that state?... I understand you pay the taxes as resident but under that idea than why is everything else NRs pay for the same as what you do pay for as a resident? BESIDES HUNTING FEES. And "the state owning the wildlife" seems to make it even more rediculous because the arbitrary dollar amount they are aloud to charge as a government agency regulating public property is astounding. The state I'm from matters not. I could care less if NRs wanted to come to my state and pay the same as I do to hunt public lands. I have no more right to it than they do and I dont believe they should pay literally 25 times what I do. It's in public interest to limit government reach. Can anyone give any example of anything else with the amount of price difference that NRs pay over residents? I'm honestly very curious.

Many or some State parks and NPS properties charge a user fee, but you can go to most any National Forrest, BLM etc and hike, climb, target shoot, camp, ski, bike (with exception of wilderness), ride dirt bikes on designated trails, snow mobile etc without paying a fee. Exceptions on BLM land might include seasonal wildlife closures.

There is a workaround to hunting as a NR and that comes in the form of small game licenses. You can buy a NR small game in likely any state license for under ~$80 or so and hunt long seasons with almost endless bag limits. So, the opportunity to hunt for under $100 is there for the taking.

Also, you seem dramatically angry over these fees, kinda as if you just came to the realization that NR elk tags cost $600-$1000. Perhaps you should provide us with some context of how you arrived at this moment. It’s not as if tags skyrocketed in price one day. Nor did duck leases in Arkansas suddenly go to $10,000 an acre. It was a long process to get here.

 

[CorbLand]

States are by definition government.

Yes, I know that. I did get a high school diploma.

Government overreach is when a Government entity takes a power that they have no authority over or were not delegated. States were delegated the power to manage wildlife...therefore its not overreach. It would be overreach if the Federal Government came in and forced the States to manage wildlife the way the Federal Government wanted.

 

[HuntHarder]

OP's arguments are weak to say the least. States own the animals, some are owned federally. The ones owned federally are charged the same rate federally for the stamps required to hunt them. Not sure how else to explain to you that the states set the price and the residents SHOULD get a better deal than the Non-residents. Could you imagine the shit storm and confusion if an animal costed more or less depending on what land it was on? This is, of course, using your argument of staying on federal land in one state and staying on the same land in another. Hell at that point, why have state hunting licenses? Maybe we go to Private hunting licenses, State hunting licenses, federal hunting licenses and tribal hunting licenses. Restructure EVERY state's units to reflect the type of land they are on, hire new fish cops to patrol all the new land classifications. Sounds like a brilliant idea.

 

[Maverick1]

I like hunting.

 

[Poser]

Universal Basic Elk Tags

 

[MTSasquatch]

Some guys are so lame that you can give them a bar of gold and they’d just bitch about how heavy it is.

This topic has been beaten to death so much on here...

 

[Dustin the wind]

 

[brsnow]

If the prices were outrageous the mountains would be less crowded.

 

[tdhanses]

Universal Basic Elk Tags

For free as well, Go Bernie! Medicare for all wasn’t working so he changed to free elk tags for all

 

[OXN939]

Some guys are so lame that you can give them a bar of gold and they’d just bitch about how heavy it is.

This topic has been beaten to death so much on here...

What kind of 6.5 Creedmoor setup would you recommend for hunting? I want to use it for primarily Elk, Grizzly and Sheep. I also want to be able to confidently harvest game at 1500 yards. Budget is $1200, including rifle, scope, mount and ammo. Thanks in advance.

 

[WCB]

The states solution to this is to keep increasing the prices and or decreasing the quota thereby still "making money" off of wildlife. It's illegal for us to sell wildlife for profit but the damn states are allowed to at an astronomical rate. And some people are ok with government overreach because its good for them. That's fine but the scheme is bound to collapse eventually.

You don't want to here it but within their borders the state owns the animals...and at the same time they can sell the chance to kill one of those animals. That's different then actually selling the animal. What do you want to happen? $10 tags and no quotas? Then you would complain about no animals.

You wanna here some real B.S. apply for a deer tag in North Dakota as a NR. Up to half the NR tags go to outfitters and Non-Resident land owners get first dibs. So you apply and buy a point and some years there isn't even a tag available in the zone you selected. Kicker is you don't know that before you apply.

I think the prices are ridiculous like most people. But, I pay it because I like hunting especially out west. It kind of is what it is and it aint changing. I think the argument of, on top of the high prices NRs pay, the Residents don't like them and that gig is overblown a bit. There is a minority of Residents in every state that hate Non-Resident hunters and it is out of pure ignorance. These types of guys that give NR crap and blame every problem on them are idiots. Being from one state or another doesn't make you any better of a hunter or more selective. And I agree that they should think a little more that a NR in their state paid sometimes 30x more towards their G&F department than they did for that tag.

The tax thing is kinda of a bad argument for Residents to make also. I doubt the amount of taxes you pay to G&F or the states DNR equals most nonresident tags. Not saying it isn't partially true, just saying.

 

[OldGrayJB]

Nobody likes high tag prices. Nobody likes overcrowding. Nobody likes one percent draw odds. The states have to find a balance. I look at it like a voluntary tax. Nobody is forced to pay it. In a good year we'll choose to pay it.

Charging sales tax on groceries. Now that's potentially kicking a man while he's down.

Hang in there RazzleDazzle. I admire your persistence.

 

[Rob5589]

If the prices were outrageous the mountains would be less crowded.

Very true. NR complain about the costs, res complain there are too many NR. Fairly obvious the prices aren't too high.

 

[RazzleDazzle]

Its actually the direct opposite of government overreach to allow states to manage wildlife and set price but ok champ.

Man you really should look like a fool with this an many other ignorant statements you've made but it's ok. Go ahead and feel elitist by your assumptions that i dont know how this all works. Especially when it comes to working with state and federal wildlife agencies. I would tell you that you actually have zero experience compared to other people when it comes to what you've publicly shown your knowledge of. But then again I wouldn't know anything about your professional career so I wouldn't assume that....

 

[RazzleDazzle]

And yet resident hunters look very unfavorably down upon/to NR hunters.

Had my vehicle And/or camp F’d with in AZ, UT, OR .
I now game cam the truck&camp area and pit trap a strategic place near vehicle.
Thinking about finding-installing those state’s plates when camped, parked and not driving to disguise my non-resident truck.

Isn't it outrageous how possessive some people get over something that doesn't belong to them? I dont assume or generalize because I'm not as a$$hole but there has been plenty of that going on in this thread so I will assume that if you look at the way some fellas react to this thread you can get an idea of the reasons why stuff like that would happen to your truck. It's sad really.

 

[thinhorn_AK]

In some cases it’s part of the incentive to live in a state. I moved to AK to hunt, me and my wife could easily do our jobs anywhere but we wanted to be in AK for the hunting and fishing opportunities that residents get.

if you want the perks of being a resident, you have to.....be a resident.

 

[CorbLand]

Man you really should look like a fool with this an many other ignorant statements you've made but it's ok. Go ahead and feel elitist by your assumptions that i dont know how this all works. Especially when it comes to working with state and federal wildlife agencies. I would tell you that you actually have zero experience compared to other people when it comes to what you've publicly shown your knowledge of. But then again I wouldn't know anything about your professional career so I wouldn't assume that....

Please, show me where I should look like a fool. How should anything I have posted make me feel like a fool?

Please, why don’t you enlighten us with your extensive knowledge on this subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BuzzH]

Always wondered what gives states the right to charge outrageous prices to NR to hunt public land that's mainly federal property anyways. PUBLIC PROPERTY owned by each and every one of us. Most all of us are NR hunters and we get gouged to the point where its not even feasible anymore. This is not a question looking for responses regarding the states owning the animals and all the things it pays for becuase i think most of us are aware of that. The point is, what gives one person the right to pay $35 to hunt and harvest the same animal it cost another person $800 on the same exact piece of federal public ground? Seems there could be a system in place to even the field if you're only hunting federal/public lands. Thoughts?

Game, set, match...the States have the authority to charge what they want to NR's or to choose not to even allow you to hunt in their states at all. They can issue you 0% of their tags, 5%, 20% and charge $10,000 per tag, they can discriminate against NR's any way they want....by LAW.

You don't have to like it, but this gives them the right...

S. 339 Reaffirming the authority of States Regulate hunting and fishing activities

A BILL
To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities.

• Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

• This Act may be cited as the `Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE.

• (a) In General- It is the policy of Congress that it is in the public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and nonresidents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting or fishing.
  (b) Construction of Congressional Silence- Silence on the part of Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the `commerce clause') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State or Indian tribe.

SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS.

• Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
  • (1) to limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or to the regulation of commerce;
    (2) to limit the authority of the United States to prohibit hunting or fishing on any portion of the lands owned by the United States; or
    (3) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, supersede or alter any treaty-reserved right or other right of any Indian tribe as recognized by any other means, including, but not limited to, agreements with the United States, Executive Orders, statutes, and judicial decrees, and by Federal law.

SEC. 4. STATE DEFINED.

• For purposes of this Act, the term `State' includes the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.