Cost of increasing NR tag availability

[Pucky Freak]

I've seen this concept referred to indirectly several times, but I wanted to get some opinions as to whether this principle seems to hold true in different states.

In IA, there are relatively very few turkey and deer tags available to nonresidents. There are also many deer and turkeys on private land that don't get hunted much, or even at all (untapped resource). My initial thought was, why not greatly expand NR tags that could be valid only on private land? This could be a huge revenue boost to the state. My second thought was that it would quickly become really hard for me to get access to hunt on private land, and the cost of recreational land would jump as well, degrading hunting opportunities for residents. Resident hunters would get booted out of private lands they were allowed to hunt, and further crowd public land. It would essentially be a money grab for the state at the expense of resident deer and turkey hunters who don't own land. Leased private land is overwhelmingly leased to Iowans, and there is only so much demand. Smaller properties or marginal ground is not too hard to gain access to (for free) by knocking on enough doors.

CO OTC either sex archery or rifle bull elk areas are an example of the opposite extreme. While there is a lot of public land for residents to hunt, they seem to really get the short end of the stick when it comes to private property, because NR's gobble up leases and reservations, buy hunting property, and even corner the market on just being able to trespass to access public ground. The value of private property seems to inflate when NR's with means can hunt the same property every year. This also seems to drastically reduce opportunities for walk-in hunting areas, and CPAW leasing private land for public hunting. Heck, even public land hunting gets slashed with state trust land being leased to private entities. The vibe seems to be that resident elk hunters overwhelmingly would like the NR OTC arrangement to be curtailed.

What is this dynamic like in other states?

 

[thusby]

One thing I don't understand about non-resident deer tags in Wisconsin and most states east of the Mississippi... Why are non-resident deer tags so inexpensive? $165 in Wisconsin.
With the tags being OTC, we really see a lot of MN and IL plates during the season on public land. I've been booted off some really good farmland over the years as the doctors and dentists moved in from out of state and leased them up with the landowner. It may be good for DNR revenue, but it can make hunting in your home state down right unbearable if you are not a landowner.
There are two ways to make a better experience for residents. The western states have already figured this out. Increase the non-resident tag fees and institute a draw for non-residents. By increasing fees you have 1/4 the non-residents on the landscape but you still receive the same revenue. By instituting a draw process you ensure that the same non-residents will not receive a tag every year, thus eliminating the long-term leases on prime private land.

 

[Sweetmeat]

Illinois charges $420 for a non-resident archery tag combo, and I would say that there's still a fair amount of non-resident hunters. I don't think the problem is linked to weather or not its resident or non-resident hunters, its the fact that everyone's auctioning against each other for "farms" to hunt. We scored a dream lease 3 years ago and each year we're threatened to lose it from people going through the plat book up and offering ridiculous amounts of money. Weather its from unlimited non-residents or the Chicago hunters (also non-residents) its been virtually impossible to score hunting rights without putting up a large amount of money. At least that's the case around where I am.

One of the things I love about hunting out west on public land is that the guys who are successful are the ones who put in time scouting, learning areas, and honing their skills. Here in Illinois, the guys who are "good hunters" are the ones with the most money and can afford the best land.

 

[thusby]

One of the things I love about hunting out west on public land is that the guys who are successful are the ones who put in time scouting, learning areas, and honing their skills. Here in Illinois, the guys who are "good hunters" are the ones with the most money and can afford the best land.

100% agree with this. I've hunted farms where you can randomly sit on a stump anywhere and kill your buck on opening day. I kind of miss those places.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

There are two ways to make a better experience for residents. The western states have already figured this out. Increase the non-resident tag fees and institute a draw for non-residents. By increasing fees you have 1/4 the non-residents on the landscape but you still receive the same revenue. By instituting a draw process you ensure that the same non-residents will not receive a tag every year, thus eliminating the long-term leases on prime private land.

Take it from a western state guy, what's going to happen is that landowners are going to cry foul, petition the DNR for landowner vouchers and then give those vouchers to their lessees, the wealthy nonresidents will still get to hunt the same properties and your average Joe who comes to WI to hunt will be shut out of the game.

I wonder if part of the issue is states and landowners now choosing to manage for quality instead of quantity. Undoubtedly this is better for the herd, having a more natural age class has numerous effects on habitat, but it does mean their are fewer animals to kill as you are limiting harvest to mature bucks. Part of the reason access was so good during the "glory days" everyone wants to go back to is that people were hosing anything with horns, quality sucked, and their was no reason to limited the number of hunters on a property because no one was going to pay big money to shoot a forky.

What is access like in WI, MI, ect for people wanting to shoot a couple does? Is it easier to get your way onto a property or not?

 

[jlmatthew]

I've seen this concept referred to indirectly several times, but I wanted to get some opinions as to whether this principle seems to hold true in different states.

In IA, there are relatively very few turkey and deer tags available to nonresidents. There are also many deer and turkeys on private land that don't get hunted much, or even at all (untapped resource). My initial thought was, why not greatly expand NR tags that could be valid only on private land? This could be a huge revenue boost to the state. My second thought was that it would quickly become really hard for me to get access to hunt on private land, and the cost of recreational land would jump as well, degrading hunting opportunities for residents. Resident hunters would get booted out of private lands they were allowed to hunt, and further crowd public land. It would essentially be a money grab for the state at the expense of resident deer and turkey hunters who don't own land. Leased private land is overwhelmingly leased to Iowans, and there is only so much demand. Smaller properties or marginal ground is not too hard to gain access to (for free) by knocking on enough doors.

CO OTC either sex archery or rifle bull elk areas are an example of the opposite extreme. While there is a lot of public land for residents to hunt, they seem to really get the short end of the stick when it comes to private property, because NR's gobble up leases and reservations, buy hunting property, and even corner the market on just being able to trespass to access public ground. The value of private property seems to inflate when NR's with means can hunt the same property every year. This also seems to drastically reduce opportunities for walk-in hunting areas, and CPAW leasing private land for public hunting. Heck, even public land hunting gets slashed with state trust land being leased to private entities. The vibe seems to be that resident elk hunters overwhelmingly would like the NR OTC arrangement to be curtailed.

What is this dynamic like in other states?

OTC NR Bull tags and a way too generous NR draw tags quota is exactly why Colorado is the mess its in. Its great if you are a NR that wants to come hunt a week, but for residents it sucks! Public land is overly crowded, and just about all the private land is leased up. Just drawing a deer tag is getting to be a big deal. And our seasons are very short and about to get shorter it appears.

 

[thusby]

What is access like in WI, MI, ect for people wanting to shoot a couple does? Is it easier to get your way onto a property or not?

Getting permissions, even for does, is pretty tough from my experience. The popular feeling is that deer are still under populated, even in the farmland areas with very high deer densities. A lot of farmers don't believe in taking any does off the property. It is almost a cultural thing here.

 

[Brauee20]

What is access like in WI, MI, ect for people wanting to shoot a couple does? Is it easier to get your way onto a property or not?

In Michigan. It's a $*)Q!#@$ mess for a guy just wanting to shoot a doe. First you have to put in the draw for a public land doe tag. In my county there's 200 doe tags available for public, but unlimited on private. Second everyone thinks they are going to kill a 160" buck every year without any property improvement or deer management so it's really difficult to get private access with out $$$$.

I've got a buddy that leases 400 acres with a couple other friends and they pay like $6500 for some very marginal hunting ground. My dad and I have lost access to so many pothole duck ponds and places we used to hunt small game because ya can't be running the big bucks off. Luckily my folks have 100 acres that we'll peel a 160" buck off every 5 years or so and we still chase small game and goose hunt the Ag fields on the property.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Take it from a western state guy, what's going to happen is that landowners are going to cry foul, petition the DNR for landowner vouchers and then give those vouchers to their lessees, the wealthy nonresidents will still get to hunt the same properties and your average Joe who comes to WI to hunt will be shut out of the game.

Would it be fair to say this is a slippery slope, where once the millions of dollars are flowing into the hands of landowners, outfitters, and even the F&G/DNR/PAW it is pretty much there to stay in one form or another?

I'm not opposed to hunting being a "pay to play" activity, but I think there should still be a balance to where residents can still have decent land access without the excessive costs.

 

[3855WIN]

We have a lot of private land leases in the Deep South. The plus is that seasons run for four months as well as turkey hunting. That’s half a year of hunting. The real bonus is the Camp life.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I think there should still be a balance to where residents can still have decent land access without the excessive costs.

I agree, I’m just not sure how you do that in a state without lots of public land.

 

[one ate E grain]

From the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation - Wildlife Society

Theodore Roosevelt believed that access for all to have the opportunity to hunt would result in many societal benefits (Roosevelt et al. 1902:18-20). Leopold termed this “democracy of sport” (Meine 1988:169), and it sets Canada and the U.S. apart from many other nations where the opportunity to hunt is restricted to those who have special status, such as land ownership, wealth, or other privileges.

Too much money in the equation. Same price for resident or non, I want regular people to come hunt elk in my state, if tags are to be limited do it via lottery. Illegal to charge for access, if someone wants you to come hunt their land, great, maybe you can do some chores or otherwise help out but no money or things of great worth. Unhunted land pays a higher tax rate, bigger land is an even higher rate. High Lonesome would be publicly hunted or taxed into oblivion. Time for land reform.

 

[elkduds]

From the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation - Wildlife Society

Theodore Roosevelt believed that access for all to have the opportunity to hunt would result in many societal benefits (Roosevelt et al. 1902:18-20). Leopold termed this “democracy of sport” (Meine 1988:169), and it sets Canada and the U.S. apart from many other nations where the opportunity to hunt is restricted to those who have special status, such as land ownership, wealth, or other privileges.

This egalitarian basis for the North American Wildlife Conservation model is what links it to the public land legacy of America. These lands and wildlife are the same resource. They are heads and tails of the same coin, damage either and both are diminished. And so is this country.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

From the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation - Wildlife Society

Theodore Roosevelt believed that access for all to have the opportunity to hunt would result in many societal benefits (Roosevelt et al. 1902:18-20). Leopold termed this “democracy of sport” (Meine 1988:169), and it sets Canada and the U.S. apart from many other nations where the opportunity to hunt is restricted to those who have special status, such as land ownership, wealth, or other privileges.

Too much money in the equation. Same price for resident or non, I want regular people to come hunt elk in my state, if tags are to be limited do it via lottery. Illegal to charge for access, if someone wants you to come hunt their land, great, maybe you can do some chores or otherwise help out but no money or things of great worth. Unhunted land pays a higher tax rate, bigger land is an even higher rate. High Lonesome would be publicly hunted or taxed into oblivion. Time for land reform.

At this point all states charge differential rates for R and NR, some do treat them the same in the draw. I kinda prefer that.

 

[coleslaw]

One thing I don't understand about non-resident deer tags in Wisconsin and most states east of the Mississippi... Why are non-resident deer tags so inexpensive? $165 in Wisconsin.
With the tags being OTC, we really see a lot of MN and IL plates during the season on public land. I've been booted off some really good farmland over the years as the doctors and dentists moved in from out of state and leased them up with the landowner. It may be good for DNR revenue, but it can make hunting in your home state down right unbearable if you are not a landowner.
There are two ways to make a better experience for residents. The western states have already figured this out. Increase the non-resident tag fees and institute a draw for non-residents. By increasing fees you have 1/4 the non-residents on the landscape but you still receive the same revenue. By instituting a draw process you ensure that the same non-residents will not receive a tag every year, thus eliminating the long-term leases on prime private land.

Aside from increasing tag costs for both residents and NR, I highly doubt Wisconsin would ever consider anything like that. It's too much of a tradition and hunter license sales are already on a slow decline, with an unstable deer herd up north. Besides, Illinois is our main source of tourist income.

 

[coleslaw]

What is access like in WI, MI, ect for people wanting to shoot a couple does? Is it easier to get your way onto a property or not?

It's all about who you know or who your family knows. Some of the public is doable for just shooting a doe, but it's tough. The opening morning barrage educates the public land deer very quick and they go straight into the QDMA properties or wherever else they feel safe.
Otherwise, land prices in my area are close to $5,000/ acre just for non tillable land because it's one of the "premier" deer hunting areas right now.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Ouch.... that’s steep

 

[Aussie_hunter_JD]

Consider yoursleves lucky you can have this argument. In my country some states have no public land hunting and some states have no non resident public land hunting.

Fortunately my state is good. A resident is anyone who lives in Australia, a non resident is anyone else. The license and conditions are the same for everyone with the only difference that a resident license lasts 12 months, non resident 2 weeks.

 

[Pucky Freak]

I agree, I’m just not sure how you do that in a state without lots of public land.

Well, IA is dead last among states when it comes to % of public hunting land (0.7%). By making NR tags expensive and hard to draw, and forfeiting the revenue that would come with selling many more tags, the quality of hunting on both public and private land in the state is actually pretty decent, and getting access to private land isn't overly difficult. I'd much rather live here than in CA or most of the states E of the Mississippi, where this is not the case, yet have higher percentages of public land.

I believe that expanding public land available to hunting, promoting herd health, recruiting new hunters, and enshrining hunting rights in the law books is the best path to maintaining America's public hunting legacy. It seems that generous NR tag availability, especially when the same area can be hunted annually by the same NR, can seriously degrade the quality of resident hunting, which in turn works against hunter recruitment. I'm concerned about other states looking to CO as a model of how to boost the local economy through generous NR tags, taking hunting from a tradition enjoyed by any resident who wants to partake, to a money game that pushes everyone out who can't pay to play. In CO, despite the problems associated with unlimited OTC either sex and bull elk tags, the system still works. There is a huge elk population, tons of public land, and a myriad of other hunting opportunities. Other states without these kind of resources it seems like a much riskier proposition.

 

[Buffs35]

From the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation - Wildlife Society

Theodore Roosevelt believed that access for all to have the opportunity to hunt would result in many societal benefits (Roosevelt et al. 1902:18-20). Leopold termed this “democracy of sport” (Meine 1988:169), and it sets Canada and the U.S. apart from many other nations where the opportunity to hunt is restricted to those who have special status, such as land ownership, wealth, or other privileges.

Too much money in the equation. Same price for resident or non, I want regular people to come hunt elk in my state, if tags are to be limited do it via lottery. Illegal to charge for access, if someone wants you to come hunt their land, great, maybe you can do some chores or otherwise help out but no money or things of great worth. Unhunted land pays a higher tax rate, bigger land is an even higher rate. High Lonesome would be publicly hunted or taxed into oblivion. Time for land reform.

Thanks. I needed this, it's a great segue before i check cnn to see what cooky idea they are peddling.