Outrageous NR prices!!!

[RazzleDazzle]

You can use and recreate on the lands free of charge. Nobody is charging you to use public lands.

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.

 

[camping1601]

It is what it is. I view my NR licence and PP costs as my contribution to wildlife conservation. After that my conservation dollars go to organizations that don't discriminate. Basically I choose to support those that support public land conservation and access for everyone including non hunting use.

 

[WannabeHunter]

Reach deep...really deep and pull that wad of panties out.

 

[WTFJohn]

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.

College tuition.

And your rant has been settled by case law.

 

[MuleyFever]

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.

I have never paid to use the lands I have hunted on in other states.

 

[RazzleDazzle]

It’s funny when the complaining about NR prices in western states starts. I bet not one of those complaining has gone to the F&G in their home state and asked them to make resident and non resident prices the same. But every state does the same thing.

If you're directing that towards me your bet is wrong my friend if not than disregard. And there is some validity to your statement. I never proposed it to be the same. Heck I don't even know what the proposed should be. But deff seems a bit aggressive for me as a resident to pay $40 while someone else hunting the same piece of public ground has to pay $850....regardless of what state they're from. Dont know how state agencies can hold a straight face with such a dramatic irregularity and not call it extorting.

 

[COwineguy]

College tuition for one

 

[RazzleDazzle]

I have never paid to use the lands I have hunted on in other states.

The taxpayers should be furious

 

[COwineguy]

I think it is just how the system works. There are also more licenses given to residents. Heck Missouri just announced its first elk hunt on public land and nonresidents need not apply even though it is on public land

 

[CorbLand]

It would probably answer your questions if you first took the time to understand what public land is, who owns it, who owns wildlife and what you actually doing when you purchase a license/tag.

 

[mavinwa2]

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.

 

[87TT]

If you want to ride the train, you got to have a ticket.

 

[RazzleDazzle]

"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? "

Takes less than 60 seconds to find the answer to that question. I suggest Google.

And yes, it's been tested in Court.

Gotta love the "settled in court" crowd

 

[Jkr61]

Fishing license also has different price for nr.
Resource management- animals are a resource owned and managed by the state. If you want to come and hike on your federal land here it’s free. You want to harvest a resource it costs money. If Colorado dropped the nr price to resident price the otc tag would disappear immediately and there would be so much demand for a tag your chance of drawing one would be almost impossible so your same as resident price means you still wouldn’t be hunting here.

 

[feanor]

That's like, your opinion man.

 

[RazzleDazzle]

I'm curious, what's your home state?

I ask because I though the same thing initially, then I looked at SC resident vs non-resident (where I'm a resident). I was very surprised. Hunting License $12 vs $125.

State's own the wildlife, and demand is booming. What they should be worried about is when non-residents don't hunt and they lose a huge chunk of their funding.

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.

 

[87TT]

Two things. One it has been that way since before you were born and two, I don't want my license to go up so I can be over run with people that don't live here.

 

[CorbLand]

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.

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

 

[WannabeHunter]

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.

That is the prerogative of the state. The wildlife are their resource. They are allowed to make money off that resource. There have been plenty of hunters the past decade willing to pay it. Don't you want each state (meaning the residents of that state) to capitalize on their resources?

Did you come to this site to pick a fight?

 

[mcl]

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

States are by definition government.