Devaluing Non-Residents

[FI460]

All in all RJ I get what you're saying, NR money and federal money fund the locals of all states who don't seem to pay their fair share...it's been happening for years. I personally would love to see WY and other states make their local hunters pay half what a NR does for a tag, but we all know that won't go far. If I pay $375, they should pay $187.50 for the same tag....and so on...but states will never do it and I agree, if the federal money and NR money dried up I know things would change. We all know it will never happen either, so there is not reason to complain about it. Hunters are lazy when it comes to things like this...I have stated that a few times here. Really all you can do is just live with it, cash in those points and stop hunting, unfortunately this will never change in our lifetime.

That's some individual idealism though. There is no generally accepted belief or rule that suggests what residents or non-residents should be paying.

I'd advocate for most states to charge residents more, and I do think it's gotten rather expensive in some states for non-residents, but these numbers are for the residents/ game agencies of an individual state to determine. Hand waving about it from across the country is pointless in the same way that complaining about another states taxes is pointless. The only way to benefit from the system is to move to that state, and that frequently requires a sacrifice in one area or another.

Picking which states to hunt in as a non-resident is just the same as choosing what is the best state to retire in. I'm not going to complain that Hawaii taxes are too high for the average person to retire there, and non-resident tourists subsidize their economy so they should be more willing to share their sunshine with me...

 

[brymoore]

All in all RJ I get what you're saying, NR money and federal money fund the locals of all states who don't seem to pay their fair share...it's been happening for years. I personally would love to see WY and other states make their local hunters pay half what a NR does for a tag, but we all know that won't go far. If I pay $375, they should pay $187.50 for the same tag....and so on...but states will never do it and I agree, if the federal money and NR money dried up I know things would change. We all know it will never happen either, so there is not reason to complain about it. Hunters are lazy when it comes to things like this...I have stated that a few times here. Really all you can do is just live with it, cash in those points and stop hunting, unfortunately this will never change in our lifetime.

Interesting idea. To add to it, Western states should add a $500 surcharge to any hunter east of the North Platte river.

 

[Nick87]

Interesting idea. To add to it, Western states should add a $500 surcharge to any hunter east of the North Platte river.

Pump the brakes.

 

[Nick87]

Like I said previously, I'm not going to stop hunting. I'm not being priced out of it, but know people that are.

I'll echo what @Hilljackoutlaw said nonresident tag fees are for from what's a top contributing factor of people being priced out of hunting. If you want to stop that from happening, you got a lot bigger fish to fry. I'm not happy about it either but making it about nonresident tag fees/ opportunity in Wyoming especially is probably not the best place to start.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

Like I said previously, I'm not going to stop hunting. I'm not being priced out of it, but know people that are.

You're right, we shouldn't talk about the issues. That always helps.

Was it really wrong from the get go? Did you read the article and my questions on it from post #1?


The NR money will never dry up, because there's lots of loaded people out there. Apparently we shouldn't talk about this on the internet though. People get pretty upset about it.

Right, the NR is too lazy to make it stop or at least that limit has not hit yet. I know I have made this pitch here before and many locals even said they would be willing to pay more, but for some reason that never changes either. Maybe they just say that and if it happened they would be first in line to complain, who knows. MN is like $185 for NR, I wonder how many locals would complain about paying $90 that instead of what, $35.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

You're right, we shouldn't talk about the issues. That always helps.

It's really not an issue period. Stay home and hunt if you can't afford it. I did for many years.

Life's not fair and the world is mean.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

It's really not an issue period. Stay home and hunt if you can't afford it. I did for many years.

Life's not fair and the world is mean.

No, it is an issue, it just will not change in our lifetimes so why complain about it. Hunting in general is getting to be a rich persons pastime, I’m glad you’re rich and it does not bother you. I’m okay with the stance as well.

 

[TOGIE]

Was it really wrong from the get go? Did you read the article and my questions on it from post #1?

If states keep shitting on Non-Residents, why would non residents help where possible? Why should I donate to a corner crossing cause when WY and the residents want to keep all the tags for themselves? When it comes to conservation efforts, could WY really survive on 1/3rd of what their current revenue is?

Makes you wonder.

It doesn’t make me wonder. It’s clear why animals suffer and the advocacy sucks cause you and most others priorities are whack from the get go.

The premise is wrong.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

No, it is an issue, it just will not change in our lifetimes so why complain about it. Hunting in general is getting to be a rich persons pastime, I’m glad you’re rich and it does not bother you. I’m okay with the stance as well.

And again this has no affect on it becoming a rich mans sport. If wyoming did away with NR hunting there would still be a 130,000 plus people of all economic groups hunting in Wyoming.

 

[bullbugle307]

Again, I don't think anyone is calling for more tags overall. It's not the topic of the article. It's more about the continuous price increases mostly. Isn't it up to the biologists to determine the number of tags that should be given out?

But I'll bite regardless.

Haven't NR numbers been decreasing for deer hunting in Wyoming? I don't see anyone calling to "pimp out" the remaining deer in WY. Maybe WY should stop "pimping out" their deer and quit selling so many R & NR tags. Obviously taking care of the herds is top priority to giving out tags. Do you expect hunters to do their own surveys and decide how many tags should be issued? I think WGFD should use some of that NR money to figure out what limits need to be placed on deer hunters to grow the herd. The people to blame are not the non residents. Offer a tag, and people will hunt it...

View attachment 313555

View attachment 313556



Looks to me like both resident and non resident numbers are declining, along with the herd numbers. Interesting that the blame is being placed on the non residents...

Elk hunters have increased slightly in the past 20 years for both residents and non residents.

I'm not sure where the conclusion of NR being the issue stemmed from.



View attachment 313557

View attachment 313558

I don’t think anyone is blaming non residents for the decline in our herds. That seems like a straw man to me.

We’re mostly telling folks to quit whining about price increases and our state wanting to have similar NR tag allocations as every other Western state.

I seriously don’t get the price increase gripe. Has anything stayed static or gone down in price

Non residents have been blamed for the decline in deer numbers in WY in this thread multiple times already...

Where specifically has someone blamed non residents for the decline in our deer? Not saying it wasn’t there, but I must’ve missed it.

 

[bullbugle307]

Interesting idea. To add to it, Western states should add a $500 surcharge to any hunter east of the North Platte river.

I live in a part of Wyoming that’s East of the North Platte River

 

[seeth07]

The bulk of this discussion has really failed to hit the mark on what the article title is asking: "WHAT HAPPENS IF NONRESIDENT LICENSE PRICES KEEP CLIMBING?"

@Oak Answered the question by basically saying "nothing changes from the current course. Deer aren't doing well and regardless of the price, it will continue that way".

I pointed out that not only do I agree with @Oak but I feel it will just happen faster due to the loss of national advocacy for western big game hunting.

Would be fantastic to see this thread actually focus on that question rather than bickering about opportunity and if the prices now are currently too high.

 

[seeth07]

Where specifically has someone blamed non residents for the decline in our deer? Not saying it wasn’t there, but I must’ve missed it.

Hit up the Montana deer thread if you have days to your schedule to read through it.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

And again this has no affect on it becoming a rich mans sport. If wyoming did away with NR hunting there would still be a 130,000 plus people of all economic groups hunting in Wyoming.

Unless the cost went up…which it would need too

 

[bullbugle307]

Hit up the Montana deer thread if you have days to your schedule to read through it.

Last I checked this thread is about Wyoming.

 

[seeth07]

Last I checked this thread is about Wyoming.

The thread was only poorly chosen to use Wyoming as an example - a foolish move. The thread is about what happens to western big game hunting in general if NR prices continue to soar across the west.

 

[Buffs35]

 

[David Gough]

View attachment 313430
View attachment 313429

Ah yes, dwindling nonresident opportunity. Your $500 deer license is not saving the species. Altruism aside (because it is generally in short supply), who is more invested in ensuring that wildlife populations don't wink out?

There was a mostly unsavory poster on MM in the past who had a saying that kind of rings true. To paraphrase, the average hunter is more concerned about arguing over who gets to kill the last mule deer than they are about doing something.

We can all start being less concerned about what's in it for the individual and more concerned about saving our wildlife, or we can have the argument above until it's all gone.

Staggering to see. Our deer in Nevada number around 60,000 as of 2023 population estimate. The same number of horses and burros in the state (that's probably a conservative number). At this point I'd rather hunt bears in California than hunt anything but a great deer season in Nevada. I hope they cut the deer tag quota in half at the commission meeting in May.

 

[WapitiBob]

One of my favorite parts of reading through Hunt Talk, is all the adults that get their feelers hurt when Buzz points out how stupid they are.

golden

 

[TOGIE]

I pointed out that not only do I agree with @Oak but I feel it will just happen faster due to the loss of national advocacy for western big game hunting.

I don’t think the advocacy is as price sensitive as one would think. We could probably find the data too and all sorts of inflation adjustment.

Prices have been going up since there was a price to pay. And has advocacy gotten worse or better over that time?

And regardless the theory that advocacy will go down with continued western price increases is yet another way of wording a hostage letter for western wildlife advocacy.