Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Bugle Article on Resident/Non-resident fees and tags

I can understand where you're coming from, like I said, I'd like to hunt Montana but not for those prices.

The thing I really appreciated about Randy's article was that he explained why the tag allocations and prices won't change unless the people of Montana (or any other state) want them to. And when I look at the way the federal government operates, my conclusion is, that's as it should be. It's not perfect but then few things are.

Whiptail,

You still dont get it...the states are not responsible for any kind of land management decisions on Federal Lands. The states can work in cooperation with the Feds to fund and conduct habitat improvements on Federal Lands. However, the feds are under NO obligation to the State to allow those things to happen.

Further, what you're driving at is a huge mistake. You're wanting to see all U.S. Citizens pay the same fees to hunt Federal Land. Wont happen, and the existing case law, as well as a couple hundred years of legal precedent says so.

You absolutely should have unfettered access, as a U.S. Citizen, to use federal lands...but not unfettered access or even equal access to State controlled wildlife.

Thats the point your missing.

BTW, every one in the U.S. is a recipient of the way the system works regarding states controlling the wildlife. I pay around $400 a year to hunt Texas as a NR, while you likely pay a lot less as a resident.

Just because you choose to hunt on Federal Land in other Western States, does not mean you should pay the same license fees as Residents. The land ownership has NO bearing on the price of the tag...its the same across the board no matter where that wildlife lives.

For the record, I shell out close to 1k a year just in license/application fees across the West. I suspect in an average year, drawing 3-4 states a year, I probably spend 1.5-4k a year in license fees. If you call that a recipient of some great deal...well I guess I'm guilty.

Like smokepole said, the management of wildlife is best left to the States for a whole host of great reasons. Its worked well for at least the last 100 years.

Buzz,

I disagree. Any tags issued for units that are mostly federal land should be the same price and everyone should have the same chance to draw.

States can set the number of tags but everyone should get a fair chance.

States should only be allowed to charge more for tags on private land only.

Dink

Dink,

Disagree all you want...the current laws, case law, and precedent is done.

You can chit in one hand and hope for cheap NR fees in the other...and see which one fills up first.

The States are under NO obligation to treat NR fairly...did you read s. 339?

You, like whiptail, dont comprehend that land ownership has NOTHING to do with who controls the wildlife.

That wont change...ever.

Dam, we didn't even make 6 months from the last time.

ETA; Now we start the argument that every state in the West would go broke without the taxes of the other states.

You know, I didn't post this to revive that tired old argument, just to point out what I thought was a good article explaining why things are the way they are. The thought being, if people are interested in understanding why things are the way they are, they might read the article.

There's really no point in arguing about something that's not gonna change.

Wasn't directed towards you at all.

No worries, my post wasn't directed at you either.

I never said they should be cheap tags but everyone should pay the same price.

The fight over non-residents tags is coming and I believe change will happen. The new generation is not going to go along with the "good ol'boy" system forever. Non-residents are tired of paying taxes and then getting fleeced to hunt federal land because they live across some imaginary line on a map. Game and fish departments had it good for a long time but they could not control their greed. People have had enough.

Change is coming. We will see it.

Dink

Wanna bet?

Dink - I'm the guy who wrote the article that started this thread.

Gotta ask, who are the "good ol' boys" you are talking about; the Colonists who signed the Declaration of Independence, or the guys who drafted and ratified the United States Constitution, the 10th Amendment of which specifically and wisely provides that the states retained all rights not specifically granted to the Republic?

It is the 10th Amendment that allows states this right to manage wildlife, regardless if it lives on private land, State land, or Federal land, as the states have never granted that right to the Republic. The United States Supreme Court, going back to 1842, has held that principle to apply and the USSC has ruled that the 10th Amendment principle of state's rights still has applicability to many issues, even today.

The change you are talking about would require an Amendment of the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. I suspect I am not the only person, or the only hunter, who strongly believes in states rights as granted under the 10th Amendment, whether related to wildlife, gun control, or any of the other many rights the states hold as a result of the "good ol' boy" club of the late 1770s.

I understand the frustration some may have. But, that frustration is usually due to lack of understanding of the history of how/why we got here.

The system we have today is not because BuzzH says so, or because I wrote some article about it. It is that way because some smart people who founded this country, trusted the state much more than they trusted the Republic, so they kept all rights they could at the state level.

At the time these Founding Fathers were crafting these ideas, they were only a generation or two removed from those who left Europe to flee the tyranny of Kings. They came here for many reasons. One thing still fresh in their minds, was the fact that in Europe, it was the "King's Deer." By having the states retain many rights, the right in wildlife would never again be attached to the land, as was the case in Europe. If these colonists did not want to retain this right, they would have granted it to the Republic, as they did with some other rights.

In this country, never again would anyone be hanged for killing the "King's Deer" to feed his family, as had happened in Europe.e Wildlife would be one of the many rights kept at the state level and opportunity to enjoy such would be managed primarily for the citizens of that state and secondarily for others the state chooses to share opportunity with, in this case, non-resident hunters/anglers. And for those of us who are a hunters, thank God for that.

Big fin,

The good old boy system I was referring to is that the new generation of guys is not going to do what their dads did and just pay up. They have been priced out. The new generation would continue to pay but they simply can't afford to pay up anymore.

I think the state will still be able to manage the wildlife. But the way tags are issued and priced is going to change I believe. There are only so many guys with money that hunt and can continue to pay the price. The average blue collar worker is getting poorer and poorer by the day.

The new generation is not going to be happy with 10% of the tags at 29x (or more) the price of a resident in a unit where the land belongs to everyone.

Laws/case law are always changing. It will happen with this too. No one thought they would be required to buy health insurance ever...but that has also changed.

Dink

Pretty sure you don't need any kind of permit at all to go and enjoy all of this federal land you're talking about DINK. You will need a license/permit if you want to shoot an animal that belongs to the people of MT however. Not that hard to understand, you just refuse to do so.

Dear "dink" and other non-residents whose state isn't 40% + federal lands. Sounds great, yeah screw those Montana residents anyone should be able to hunt federal lands for the same price as those greedy idiot residents. OK, fine. FIRST lets just randomly select 40% of Missouri to be turned over to the feds... oh, not happy about that I'll bet.

Also the bit about outfitter clients getting preference in tags, not any more, I-161 took care of that. I-161 was not about raising tag prices it was about slowing the growth of privatization of wildlife by uncontrolled growth of the outfitting industry. Unfortunately it also raised prices for non-residents, lowering demand and thus insuring that outfitter clients will have no trouble getting licenses*, except maybe the deer only outfitters, probably making everything worse in the mean time. It could also just make the possibility that as Montana becomes more urban and less people see the outfitting industry as something worth having it could be massively curtailed, it will take years to shake out I suppose.

* Reality check here: Do you actually think someone who can lay out $4K to $10K for a hunt actually thinks twice about whether a tag for that hunt is $400 or $750 and bases their decision to hunt on $350? Please. As for the DIY hunter, I can see that being a factor. Which is why the price increase won't actually help the problem it was designed to fix.

The guys who know the price of everything, but fail to grasp the concept of value never ceases to amaze me.
It would be great if MT raised NR fees by another $500. More money for managment and less areas overran with hunters. And even if the price went up to $1500 for a combo tag it would still be a good value.

I think the concept of supply and demand is more in play here than the concept of value. The point being, Montana is already failing to sell all of its non-resident tags so another increase of $500 could just drive the demand down further and make that situation worse by reducing non-resident tag revenues.

I think your point applies more to resident tag fees. Since so many more resident tags are sold, a modest increase there would not affect demand and would raise revenues. Personally, I'd be willing ot pay $10-20 more for an elk tag in my home state if that meant we could cut the number of tags sold and/or cut the number of split seasons and increase the length of the seasons we have. Even at $20 more a resident tag is still a great value.

Statements like this is the reason things are going to change. Bird watchers, bikers, campers all pay the same whether they are residents or non-residents to use federal lands. Why not hunters? The animals may be managed by the state but without the federal lands there would be no animals to manage. The states will still get to set tag quota's but they way they are given out and priced is going to change.

States have finally priced a lot of average people out. Most guys won't/can't give a $1,000 for a elk tag. Guys like Buzz have done a great job for resident western hunters for years by keeping most of the tags for resident hunters and keeping non-resident tag prices high but it can't go on for ever.

By far non-resident guys are tired of paying taxes and then having to pay 29x for a tag. Non-resident guys are no longer going to say "to heck with it just pay it" because they no longer can afford to.

Things are going change.

Dink

So your solution, rather than let the free markets dictate is to have the federal government step in? What's wrong with the free market supply/demand approach?

Is that your solution to other problems too? I'd be willing to bet not. I'd be willing to bet that on health care and a whole host of other issues you'd rather have the feds stay out of it.

You can't have it both ways.

This is far from true. Most of the winter forage grounds are on private land which is why the AG community has so much lobbying strength with the CO CPW

Holy [bleep] Dink, how many times does it need to be spelled out to you???