Differential tag fees

[Oak]

How do you feel about some states charging more for "premium" hunting opportunities or better draw odds?

Utah currently has three categories of tag "quality": General, limited entry and premium limited entry. The three prices for a nonresident elk tag are $388, $795 and $1,500.

Wyoming creates a seperate draw pool for those willing to pay more for for a deer, elk or pronghorn tag. The higher priced tags sometimes have much better odds than the general draw. The regular elk tag is $577, while the "special" elk tag is $1,057.

Idaho is now considering a proposal to move to a differential fee structure as well. See the following link:
Idaho Proposal

One one hand, I can see that it is important to raise revenue while avoiding the possibility of pricing some people out of the sport. On the other hand, should the best opportunities go to those who can pay more? Let's here some opinions.

 

[sreekers]

Not a fan of that system, but I am one of the few guys here who doesn't apply in every state. I apply here in Wyo where I am a resident.

 

[smalls]

Absolutely not. Sportsman should not be thrust further into a caste system.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Absolutely not. Sportsman should not be thrust further into a caste system.

Given the assumption that the Fish and Game needs more revenue due to higher fuel costs, increased wages, fewer licenses sold, etc.... (Let's not argue WHY they need money, let's just agree they DO need money, for this thread).

How would you propose they raise revenue to meet the budgetary shortfall?

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

I don't care for the "What level of Tag would you like?" system. But, I do think that is where we are headed as a Buy my Elk, ect. system. You might get in the General and bust a Big one, but then they will come up with a 5X5 or less tag on down. There is no limit to what a state will do it seems. John

 

[Oak]

Given the assumption that the Fish and Game needs more revenue due to higher fuel costs, increased wages, fewer licenses sold, etc.... (Let's not argue WHY they need money, let's just agree they DO need money, for this thread).

How would you propose they raise revenue to meet the budgetary shortfall?

So I can mark you down as a vote for the differential tag fee structure?

 

[JoseCuervo]

So I can mark you down as a vote for the differential tag fee structure?

Only if you can't provide a better alternative for meeting the shortfall in revenue.

What are the options?

• Raise Non-Res fees higher
• Raise all Resident fees higher
• Raise Fishing Licenses
• Set up "Premium" Tags $1000 for a 6x6, $800 for a 5x5, $200 for a Spike?
• Open up the Can of Worms and get money from the General Fund?

 

[sreekers]

Something that I have heard tossed around is a tax on things such as fishing tackle, rifles, ammunition, packs, etc. that would help the Game and Fish entities meet their budgets. As long as that tax was kept under control I think it could be a viable means of taking some of the cost off license fees.

This may be in place in some states, but not sure, was too lazy to look it up.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Something that I have heard tossed around is a tax on things such as fishing tackle, rifles, ammunition, packs, etc. that would help the Game and Fish entities meet their budgets. As long as that tax was kept under control I think it could be a viable means of taking some of the cost off license fees.

This may be in place in some states, but not sure, was too lazy to look it up.

The Feds already did that and it is in place.

In 1937, Congress passed the Federal Aid in Wildlife Resoration Act, better known as the Pittman-Robertson Act. This law placed an 11 percent excise tax on rifles, shotguns and ammunition.

In 1970, Congress amended the act to include a 10 percent tax on handguns and archery equipment.

Like hunting license fees, Pittman-Robertson revenues do not go into the general treasury; they go directly to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service where,
by law, they must be apportioned to the states according to a formula that depends on the amount of land a state has set aside for conservation purposes
and the number of hunting licenses the state sells.

The state must then use these funds for conservation related activities
including hunting and hunter education. The statute also contains a provision requiring states to dedicate their hunting licenses revenues to the operation
of the state wildlife agency in order to be eligible to receive Pittman-Robertson
money.

 

[Oak]

Yes, P-R Act. Don't forget Dingell-Johnson.

 

[brymoore]

A. Fuel costs are going down - they won't need $7MM increase next year.
B. Create a tag needed to fish stocked water.
C. Increase the fee for stocked pheasants.
D. Fire the Deputy Attorney General (See Program Expansion List).
E. Increase fees for ATV tags
F. Increase fines for OHV use in restricted areas - and then patrol those areas heavily.

 

[smalls]

Given the assumption that the Fish and Game needs more revenue due to higher fuel costs, increased wages, fewer licenses sold, etc.... (Let's not argue WHY they need money, let's just agree they DO need money, for this thread).

How would you propose they raise revenue to meet the budgetary shortfall?

It's hard to talk about sensible budgetary solutions when the only side of the equation being discussed is revenue generation, but off the top of my head...

An across the board increase in general hunting stamp price.

Reduced price tags for cows/does in operpopulated units (availability to be determined after general drawing).

A special sales tax of hunting and fishing related goods. Essentially this becomes a comsumption tax on sportsman.

 

[JoseCuervo]

A. Fuel costs are going down - they won't need $7MM increase next year.
B. Create a tag needed to fish stocked water.
C. Increase the fee for stocked pheasants.
D. Fire the Deputy Attorney General (See Program Expansion List).
E. Increase fees for ATV tags
F. Increase fines for OHV use in restricted areas - and then patrol those areas heavily.

Don't you already need a license to fish stocked water? (And isn't the Urban Stocking kind of a "loss leader" to get people fishing and hooked on fishing so they keep buying tags/licenses?)

Does the stocked pheasants/WMA system pay for itself with the permits they make you buy? I have "heard" numbers and the price they pay for the birds is more than the Permit if you kill more than 2 birds.

Which Deputy Attorney General in particular? Why not vote out the incumbent who is just another typical Canyon County Republican good ol' boy?

Who bothers to register an ATV?

Who you gonna pay to go chase the Fat-Assed ATV riders if they don't have the money for their PU's and their even faster ATV's to chase the bad guys?

 

[brymoore]

Don't you already need a license to fish stocked water? (And isn't the Urban Stocking kind of a "loss leader" to get people fishing and hooked on fishing so they keep buying tags/licenses?)

Does the stocked pheasants/WMA system pay for itself with the permits they make you buy? I have "heard" numbers and the price they pay for the birds is more than the Permit if you kill more than 2 birds.

Which Deputy Attorney General in particular? Why not vote out the incumbent who is just another typical Canyon County Republican good ol' boy?

Who bothers to register an ATV?

Who you gonna pay to go chase the Fat-Assed ATV riders if they don't have the money for their PU's and their even faster ATV's to chase the bad guys?

Yes.

 

[JoseCuervo]

It's hard to talk about sensible budgetary solutions when the only side of the equation being discussed is revenue generation, but off the top of my head...

An across the board increase in general hunting stamp price.

Reduced price tags for cows/does in operpopulated units (availability to be determined after general drawing).

A special sales tax of hunting and fishing related goods. Essentially this becomes a comsumption tax on sportsman.

In order, from the top of your head.....

How much "across the board" are you willing to pay more? What about your Redneck Neighbor who party hunts for the family of 6? Should he have to pay more for all 6 tags he is gonna fill? What about the Senior Citizen, doesn't he deserve the cheaper tags? What about the disabled? What about the Active Duty Military? Don't they deserve discounts? What about Kids, shouldn't kids get to keep getting cheap tags?

Idaho doesn't have "surplus" cows/does, we have Wolves and they ate all the surplus animals. And, "real men" don't shoot cows/does, Idaho has created a God Given right to blast Spikes and Forkies every year.

The tax has been in place 70 years.... And, that just "punishes" new people to the sport.

 

[Oak]

Jose, is there NO other way to fund the wildlife departments other than creating a "good, better, best" price structure?

Here are the fee structures for the states that offer a substantial number of elk tags in the west. IMO, Nevada and Arizona have the most reasonable resident tag fees. The rest of us are riding the gravy train. Montana is an embarassment.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Jose, is there NO other way to fund the wildlife departments other than creating a "good, better, best" price structure?

Here are the fee structures for the states that offer a substantial number of elk tags in the west. IMO, Nevada and Arizona have the most reasonable resident tag fees. The rest of us are riding the gravy train. Montana is an embarassment.

I like to think I should get the "best". Not sure I want to pay for it, but if it keeps the commoners from competing for my tags, then, I say "Let them eat cake!"...

I think it kind of depends on what the goal of each state's hunters is. In Idaho, I think the hunters, thru surveys, comments, etc have repeatedly said they want to hunt EVERY year even if it is a crappy hunt and a chance only at a 2pt in the Owyhees. The option of going to all Controlled Hunts is always dead when proposed.

In Arizona, the hunters there are happy with only hunting every 10 years but killing 390 bulls and 36" bucks each time they draw a tag.

In Utah, the hunters all want to be able to watch some guy named Peay be able to sell their tags and convince them that they enjoy watching rich people kill big animals.

And, I agree, Montana is an embarassment. Look at the poor quality bulls Greenhorn is forced to settle for in exchange for his $20 bill..... |oo

 

[Tom]

How about charging people for other uses, like wildlife viewing? At least charge residents a realistic price, that seems so reasonable to me.

A resident elk tag for $20 comes out like $0.02 / lb if someone gets a 1000 lb elk. That's a welfare hunter, they should pay more of the actual costs to raise that elk.

Here's a question, how much would it take from a guy like me to buy your resident tag, if you could sell it to me? Would you sell it to me for $20, $100, $500, $1000, how much would it take?

 

[brymoore]

In Utah, the hunters all want to be able to watch some guy named Peay be able to sell their tags and convince them that they enjoy watching rich people kill big animals.

Now that's funny!

 

[Oak]

Here's a question, how much would it take from a guy like me to buy your resident tag, if you could sell it to me? Would you sell it to me for $20, $100, $500, $1000, how much would it take?

Tom, that makes more sense than anything you've said on here in a long time.