Crazy Application Fees - Burn Them Down!

[Bullshot]

Why are we OK with them?

Limited resources exist all over. Parking spots, hotel rooms, event tickets, picnic and camping sites, beaches, boat slips, fishing holes, and a million other things. But somehow, some way, we have accepted that the privilege to even APPLY for a theoretical chance at a hunting licence (or even a point for a future chance) is a thing that has “value” and for which we can be charged exorbitant fees by a government entity. Why is hunting so unique that we must accept this very odd scenario that occurs nowhere or almost nowhere else? Why not similarly priced applications for a “chance” to get a drivers licence. Or a “chance” to obtain prime viewing spots at a parade. I don’t think it is wrong to point out how far from normal our hunting application paradigm has drifted from very nearly every other personal , professional, or recreational endeavor undertaken by individual Americans.

Serious question - what is the outfitter application fee for a limited slot (relative to its commercial value). What is the application fee for a logging or grazing allotment (relative to its value). What is the application fee for an oil/gas lease relative to its value. And probably many many other examples out there yet.

I am not criticizing the charging of application fees to cover administrative costs of processing (how this all started). And nothing in here is about licence costs or user fees. But Application fees are out of control many places, it is gratuitous, a moral hazard for abuse, and it has crossed into the wrong.

 

[rogerthat]

Yet demand is at an all time high and it’s a want/choice not a requirement/need.

 

[Bullshot]

Yet demand is at an all time high and it’s a want/choice not a requirement/need.

Agreed, but that is not the point, and that could be addressed in the licence cost if they wish (and is!). I don’t see the difference if 5 people or 50 million people are applying for 1 licence . How does that justify it? These are not raffles, they are applications to an official agency for a licence/tag and I am talking here about the application cost, not the tag fee. Seriously, you would defend it? Why, because you think it dissuades your competition? That’s half jest, I don’t know if you even are defending it. I just want people to think bigger picture, you know, as members of society and all!

 

[cgasner1]

Run for president and fix it. Either side you’d be better than current options

 

[Bullshot]

Run for president and fix it. Either side you’d be better than current options

Thats a low bar. I’d vote for any HT member of good standing, or even bad standing, over our usual choices.,

 

[mevertsen]

I just reserved a state park camp site.

It cost me an extra $5 over what I would have paid in cash, if the slot would have been open when we got there.

There are fees for everything.

I am out less than $300 a year for my family to hunt small game, predators, fish and trap, and apply for the few tags I do apply for.

It costs $100 to fill up my truck for one fishing trip or a couple days worth of predator or small game.

I'll spend $200 on fuel in a week for deer season.

App fees are cheap.

Edit to add...

A solution would be up front tag fee 100% and no refunds.

 

[FairWeather]

I pay $8 per application. Doesn’t feel unfairly high. The real cost is the time, as I’m going to have to be banking these points for a decade or more before I’ll actually draw.

 

[JohnCushman]

No one forces anybody to hunt out west. I know for a fact there's only a few states with mule deer and antelope and elk. It's supply and demand. As long as these animals exist where you can't get them at home, then the states will charge what they want because they know NR's will keep coming back for more.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I would say the funding model of state fish and game agencies has a direct effect on the cost of applications. Most everything else that is government run is paid for by taxes for the main bulk of operating costs.

Hunting licenses and applications are in most cases either the sole source of budgets or the vast majority of funding.

 

[rogerthat]

I would need more context from the op as to which specific app fees he takes issue with. Lately it seems like to me, nr apps and nr fees are like crack cocaine to the wildlife agencies. They need more! Sheet loads more!. If it wasn’t for the money is there really a point to letting nr have a cut when most all opportunities are going down the toilet? That’s the question I have been pondering.

 

[Bullshot]

No one forces anybody to hunt out west. I know for a fact there's only a few states with mule deer and antelope and elk. It's supply and demand. As long as these animals exist where you can't get them at home, then the states will charge what they want because they know NR's will keep coming back for more.

John I know. We all know that. I am
perplexed that its used sometimes as a hammer in this unending battle where something is posted that could be discussed on its merits and half the responses are just “then don’t apply”, more or less. Are we all so far gone that saying app fees are getting out of hand is a contentious point to make. Do people LIKE app fees? What motivates you or anyone else to defend them? I’ll plant my flag on the “lower app fees is better” side of that discussion ever day of the week. As far as supply and demand, that relates to tags, not applications, which have no natural
limit nor shortage. For the 3rd time in this thread I am emphasizing that administrative application fees are the topic, not tags.

 

[ismith]

Make app fees higher and non-refundable. It’s to fight climate change.

 

[Bullshot]

I would need more context from the op as to which specific app fees he takes issue with. Lately it seems like to me, nr apps and nr fees are like crack cocaine to the wildlife agencies. They need more! Sheet loads more!. If it wasn’t for the money is there really a point to letting nr have a cut when most all opportunities are going down the toilet? That’s the question I have been pondering.

Hi Roger. Its fees in most western states that are mandatory to pay to apply, I would include even a base licence that is unwanted and won’t be hunted but can’t be opted out of. nothing to do with cost of obtaining an actual tag, if drawn. Most years I have $2000+ in nonrefundable fees and thats before drawing anything. Now WY is considering an additional 75 fee with much of the funds going to private landowners for wildlife damage. Its out of hand.

 

[WildWill]

I would need more context from the op as to which specific app fees he takes issue with. Lately it seems like to me, nr apps and nr fees are like crack cocaine to the wildlife agencies. They need more! Sheet loads more!. If it wasn’t for the money is there really a point to letting nr have a cut when most all opportunities are going down the toilet? That’s the question I have been pondering.

This is the main reason I'm OK with states raising app fees and tag fees for NR. The more addicted they get the less likely they are to kick us dirty NR to the curb.

 

[Bullshot]

This is the main reason I'm OK with states raising app fees and tag fees for NR. The more addicted they get the less likely they are to kick us dirty NR to the curb.

I can’t celebrate that even if it were true and even if it benefited me by excluding others who could not afford it. Particularly so on that last point. There is nothing defensible about gouging your customers in any line of business, its weird to think that this is TWO sets of addicts (G&F and NR hunters) in a twisted, sad, symbiotic death spiral.

 

[WildWill]

I can’t celebrate that even if it were true and even if it benefited me by excluding others who could not afford it. Particularly so on that last point.

There are many things wrong with this world that need fixing app fees are pretty low on my list. Personally I've found that I get further working within a system (even if a flawed one) then fighting it.

 

[rogerthat]

Hi Roger. Its fees in most western states that are mandatory to pay to apply, I would include even a base licence that is unwanted and won’t be hunted but can’t be opted out of. nothing to do with cost of obtaining an actual tag, if drawn. Most years I have $2000+ in nonrefundable fees and thats before drawing anything. Now WY is considering an additional 75 fee with much of the funds going to private landowners for wildlife damage. Its out of hand.

I think it’s just a way to increase revenue. I think the only way it stops would be if people stop paying up. So far that isn’t happening. Look at Wyomings msg point system. Completely defunct yet people are falling all over themselves to buy points. I hate to say it but until demand falls off and the state game agencies and legislators go “uh oh, we raised our prices too much” the trend will continue.

 

[Bullshot]

I think it’s just a way to increase revenue. I think the only way it stops would be if people stop paying up. So far that isn’t happening. Look at Wyomings msg point system. Completely defunct yet people are falling all over themselves to buy points. I hate to say it but until demand falls off and the state game agencies and legislators go “uh oh, we raised our prices too much” the trend will continue.

Maybe what I am alluding to is there is a “right way” and a “wrong way” to do it. And they are doing it wrong, and most people do know it, though most don’t care, and some even like it. It’s effective, it raises money. But there’s a reason Aesop called this scenario out and even children know it’s crap behavior.

 

[BuzzH]

Maybe what I am alluding to is there is a “right way” and a “wrong way” to do it. And they are doing it wrong, and most people do know it, though most don’t care, and some even like it. It’s effective, it raises money. But there’s a reason Aesop called this scenario out and even children know it’s crap behavior.

I'm with you, and even if the money for app fees in Wyoming was going to access and other beneficial uses, there are better ways.

I think that hunting/fishing license requirements like NV, UT, CO and AZ have are a much better deal for a couple reasons:

1. The money I pay is used to increase PR/DJ funding for those states.

2. Even if I choose to not use those required licenses, I could if I wanted to. I would love to hunt chukars in NV and I have used my AZ license for fishing in years I haven't drawn any other tags there. There is some value in that required license if I want there to be.

This crap of a non refundable license fee WY is proposing is even less palatable because of where its going.

 

[Bullshot]

Thanks Buzz. I am willing to pay my fair share for the priveledge of a tag, and have proven that I’m also (albeit grudgingly) been willing to pay for points and application fees (thousands of times over) but at the end of the day, I don’t like the way its increasingly being done in shady and flagrant ways in many cases. I do want any money I spend to G&F agencies going to an effective role that is supportive of wildlife, habitats, and hunting opportunity. Thanks for bringing the WY situation to light, and which ever way it goes, people should at least see your take on it reflects the correct take from the very beginning of this latest news. Garbage policy is garbage policy, regardless if it brings in more revenue in the short term.