Nationwide license fee?
- Thread starter Calif. Hunter
- Start date
awww, now your hurting my feelings. Maybe I will be mean and not hunt your state so you have to pay more for your tags
Admit it, you dint like me because i am native American, And by the way, i get away with one of your 3 choices every year weather you like it or not, and still get to get old fuggers like Glenn shook up enough to act like he still has some life left in his old carcass.
So Glenn, it is not a money issue?? You need to re-read the first post again and lay off the hard stuff before 9PM. where in that post, or any post in this thread is there mention of nonresident tag quotas? Man, i am hurt, you mean old turd
Admit it, you dint like me because i am native American, And by the way, i get away with one of your 3 choices every year weather you like it or not, and still get to get old fuggers like Glenn shook up enough to act like he still has some life left in his old carcass.So Glenn, it is not a money issue?? You need to re-read the first post again and lay off the hard stuff before 9PM. where in that post, or any post in this thread is there mention of nonresident tag quotas? Man, i am hurt, you mean old turd
Curly
Member
BuzzH
Well-known member
Hey Schmalts,
I'll agree to price caps on license fees when you can convince gas companies to cap gas prices, Leica to cap the price on their binoculars, chevy to cap the prices on their new trucks, nosler to cap the price of their bullets, ruger to cap the prices on their rifles etc. etc. etc.
Maybe people should learn to control their spending so they can afford the DIRT CHEAP NR license fees.
Good grief you act like you're broke. Shake the cobwebs out of the wallet.
I'll agree to price caps on license fees when you can convince gas companies to cap gas prices, Leica to cap the price on their binoculars, chevy to cap the prices on their new trucks, nosler to cap the price of their bullets, ruger to cap the prices on their rifles etc. etc. etc.
Maybe people should learn to control their spending so they can afford the DIRT CHEAP NR license fees.
Good grief you act like you're broke. Shake the cobwebs out of the wallet.
I don't own any part of chevy, ruger, nosler or a gas company. I get told all the time I own the federal lands out west and should throw the damn welfare ranchers out. All we our looking for is a little price break to hunt on our land. I'm willing to pay more than you guys who live out there so you can feed and water my critters.
In reality there just aren't enough critters to go around regardless of the price of a tag. Cheaper prices on tags will do nothing to create more animals to hunt regardless of who owns what land. The rich will always find a private ranch or tribal hunt but the regular people just have to hope to draw. Even homos like Schmalts are welcome out here and can draw a tag.
Calif. Hunter
Active member
Good point - why should we care about the welfare ranchers if we can't hunt it anyway? My only thoughts on this issue are that if a unit is largely made up of federal land, then perhaps more non-res tags should be available. I also agree that non-res fees need to be reasonable - I think under $500 for an elk tag for instance.
Then the number of tags, total, should be based upon game surveys and the number of animals an area can sustain.
What chaps my ass is all the federal and state land that we cannot hunt becuase it is landlocked by private holdings. I also feel that use of federal lands for grazing, etc. should be predicated upon allowing access to those government lands to the public. There are huge "kingdoms" of public land that might as well be private property since there is no access to us, the landowners!
Then the number of tags, total, should be based upon game surveys and the number of animals an area can sustain.
What chaps my ass is all the federal and state land that we cannot hunt becuase it is landlocked by private holdings. I also feel that use of federal lands for grazing, etc. should be predicated upon allowing access to those government lands to the public. There are huge "kingdoms" of public land that might as well be private property since there is no access to us, the landowners!
You know the nonres tag numbers isnt really what bothers me, its the rising cost tags with the burden on the nonresident and the so called "auction tags" in states where the rich can hunt every year just because of his tax bracket. I just would like them to put a cap on what tags will cost in the future. Its a handshake deal between the state and the feds in my mind. The State pays the federal taxpayers VIA some tags and a REASONABLE COST OF THEM, for use of the federal land to raise thier private owned livestock (you guys said the state owns the game right?)
Some states isnt a problem but others are making it a welfare system with the nonres paying the bills. it's getting out of hand in some places and our kids will never be able to cross a state line to hunt if nothing is done.
Are you flirting with me again?hump
Nemont
Well-known member
Curious how you "decided" that under $500 for an elk tag is reasonable? Why not under $400 or under $300 or under $1,000? Does the actual cost of management come into consideration or only what you think is reasonable. How come California doesn't allow NR hunters to hunt certain species at all?
What percent of public lands are actually land locked? Do you wish to do away with private property rights in order to access public lands?
Have you read the actual text of the bill? How come it would only apply to deer, elk, antelope, or bear? Doesn't apply to bison, big horn sheep, mountain goat, etc, etc. What makes Deer, elk, antelope or bear living all or part of the time on public lands different from other big game?
Again what is reasonable? Does it have any connection to what it costs to manage the resource? Also the there is a very real cost to local and state governments where large tracts of Federal lands exists. The Feds do not pay any local property taxes. They do pay PILT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes) but it doesn't come close to what private land owners pay in property taxes. So it isn't the free ride all you people think it is. If it is such a sweet deal then move to the state with the most federal land and start hunting.
It is an idiotic bill that will never see the light of day, period.
Nemont
Calif. Hunter
Active member
Nemont - $500 was just an example. Choose whatever is "fair." $300 sounds even more fair to me, if you are talking about a guy with a couple of sons trying to go out of state for a hunt.
I think California should allow NR hunters to apply for any species that is hunted on Federal land - like tule elk on Grizzly Island.
I only know there is a "lot" of public land landlocked by private land. The reason for this is simple - the land that was most desirable and thus homesteaded, was the land with less slope and more water. Thus the land along waterways, in valleys, etc. was privatized while other, less desirable land was left in federal ownership. Cities and towns also developed in the more desirable lowlands. In this way, much of the "wilderness" was left to become our national forest, wilderness areas or BLM lands.
Another factor that contributed to this was the granting of every other section of public land to the railroads, in order to finance the building of the railway system. The railroads also took the easiest route, as it is obviously cheaper to build the railway there.
In any case, the answer is " a bunch" of federal and state land is landlocked, with only the private landowners having access to it.
It may never get out of committee - but that does not make it a ridiculous bill. I have not read it, so I do not know if it is or not - have you read it in its entirety? he concept is what I agree with - you are free to disagree.
I think California should allow NR hunters to apply for any species that is hunted on Federal land - like tule elk on Grizzly Island.
I only know there is a "lot" of public land landlocked by private land. The reason for this is simple - the land that was most desirable and thus homesteaded, was the land with less slope and more water. Thus the land along waterways, in valleys, etc. was privatized while other, less desirable land was left in federal ownership. Cities and towns also developed in the more desirable lowlands. In this way, much of the "wilderness" was left to become our national forest, wilderness areas or BLM lands.
Another factor that contributed to this was the granting of every other section of public land to the railroads, in order to finance the building of the railway system. The railroads also took the easiest route, as it is obviously cheaper to build the railway there.
In any case, the answer is " a bunch" of federal and state land is landlocked, with only the private landowners having access to it.
It may never get out of committee - but that does not make it a ridiculous bill. I have not read it, so I do not know if it is or not - have you read it in its entirety? he concept is what I agree with - you are free to disagree.
Nemont, I really can't answer that . I think it really should be on a precentage base rather than cost because some states manage better and have a better quality of hunt. states that have a lot of federal land and charge nonres 30X more than res is just wrong. It is not a price that i think needs to be capped, but more a percentage.
If a state has no or little federal land they can do what they want, they owe nothing to nonresidents in my book for thier part of the bargain because they are not using federal land.
I think to say that 200$ is a cap (like the proposal) is dumb, and needs to be brought out better.
Maybe a percentage should be based on the amount of federal land in that state? who knows, but my original point still stands, that something has to give and a line needs to be drawn in the sand before it gets out of hand any further.
Back to the "auction" tags, they wouldnt be needed if everyone paid more of thier fair share. That was my gripe with UT. If they need so much more money than they should charge a 40$ application fee for everyone rather thanlet some rich scmuck hunt every year because he paid the fees for the cheap azzes and then gets to write off the whole thing on top of it.
If a state has no or little federal land they can do what they want, they owe nothing to nonresidents in my book for thier part of the bargain because they are not using federal land.
I think to say that 200$ is a cap (like the proposal) is dumb, and needs to be brought out better.
Maybe a percentage should be based on the amount of federal land in that state? who knows, but my original point still stands, that something has to give and a line needs to be drawn in the sand before it gets out of hand any further.
Back to the "auction" tags, they wouldnt be needed if everyone paid more of thier fair share. That was my gripe with UT. If they need so much more money than they should charge a 40$ application fee for everyone rather thanlet some rich scmuck hunt every year because he paid the fees for the cheap azzes and then gets to write off the whole thing on top of it.
Nemont
Well-known member
I have read it in it's entirety.
Before any of you who think Duncan Hunter is your friend you may want to do a little research.
Whose interests is Congressman Hunter really looking out for?
Nemont
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
I do feel that residents of many states could stand to pay just a little more than what they are currently paying for hunting licenses/tags. Even here in Washington, where I believe our resident fees are higher than many other states, I think the fees are too low. For deer, elk, bear, and cougar I only pay $72. A non-resident would pay $720 for the same thing, and I think that is more than fair, but I also believe it would be fair to double the $72 so that I pay $144. The NR would then only be paying 5 times what I pay, rather than 10 times. But, I don't think it's any business of the federal government, and they need to stay out of it, and I'm sure they will.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
It is an idiotic bill that will never see the light of day, period.
Nemont
...of course it is. Didn't we already beat his horse on another thread?
Nemont
...of course it is. Didn't we already beat his horse on another thread?
Nemont
Well-known member
Here is the complete text of the bill for those who haven't read it.
Nemont
Well-known member
Sure did but I guess not everyone got the memo to tune into the right thread.
Nemont
