BigHornRam
Well-known member
Non-resident fees… according to Google AI
- Thread starter Wildabeest
- Start date
It's really hard for a lot of us to assume you don't have any agenda behind those kind of comments.
If you truly don't, you might clarify that bit more in those kind of comments to clear up any confusion.
If you said, that's not technically true in my case (which I agreed with), but it doesn't mean I'm entitled to any more than the status quo, I doubt anyone would have cared.
But, the way I see it, you've kindve put yourself in a camp, one that thinks non residents pay too much based on federal taxes, or pittman robertson, or whatever. So whenever someone I perceive as being in that camp makes a comment like that myself, and clearly many other people are going to assume that's what your advocating for.
But I'm not trying to attack you. You and I, and I'm pretty sure several others agree on the other big part of this equation, which is that residents don't pay nearly enough, and that they are often a whiny, entitled bunch when it comes to funding for wildlife conservation.
If I was king I would jack up tag costs across the board for big game until I stopped selling out tags and put all that money towards acquiring and managing winter range and other critical habitats.
Irishman
Well-known member
I've lived in Montana for 44 years. I've thought about moving to other states. I could have moved to states and got a better paying job, or a state where I pay no state income tax, or one that doesn't tax social security, or one with lower priced houses, or one with better weather, or one with several of the above. Instead, I've stayed here, and one reason has been for outdoor activities including hunting. I could have just moved elsewhere and pay extra to come back to hunt here. Financially my decision to stay here makes zero sense. Nor would it make sense for a non resident to move here just to get cheaper hunting licenses. Personally, I think that they should increase the price of resident licenses, and decrease the number of NR licenses.
LopeHunter
Well-known member
I agree that diminished amounts of state-collected taxes are the benchmark to justify what F&G charges a non-resident and we should conveniently ignore cash inflow to a state paid by non-residents for application fees to F&G, hunting license fees along with the P-R tax sharing which hunting license sales generate and tag fees plus that pesky federal income tax which gets dispersed to all 50 states to do silly things like manage federal lands and fight fires.
That brings an idea to mind.
A natural extension of having people pull their dang weight would be to implement a sliding scale for residents to reward residents which pay higher than average state taxes compared to their cheapskate community members barely tossing a few coins in the state coffers. Talk about being almost as dodgy as one of those ungrateful non-resident. Getting those sweet low-cost resident licenses and tags but not really contributing a real bonfire resident share while using those roads and schools all year. The nerve of some people!!
Rack Daniels
Well-known member
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Rack Daniels
Well-known member
Symbolism?
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Sybilism?
Are you also conveniently ignoring that residents ALSO pay PR taxes, federal taxes etc... in addition to the state taxes, sales taxes etc... Per capita, it sure seems like the resident pays more.
If you're going to isolate each state and compare that against the other 49, then yeah, you win every time. But that seems like a real weird way of looking at it to me. The states wildlife is managed in a trust for the states residents. Should that bedrock principle be thrown out the window so non residents can get more tags or pay less? I certainly don't think so.
Take Wyoming for example. Should residents get totally hosed on tags and get less than 1 percent of tags since that's their contribution to the overall population and, if all things are equal, the federal taxes that are paid? That seems ridiculous.
Seems like federal management of wildlife would lead to some real seesaw type of management as the administrations change. Might be a win for hunters in some liberal states when you have a conservative administration at the federal level, but then it would probably be a loss in conservative states when you have a liberal administration at the fed level.
I absolutely do think residents need to pay more, a lot more at that. I'm on record saying that at least 10 times over the years. I'm really starting to think that hunters across the board are a very entitled bunch. All I ever seem to hear is ME ME ME. Everyone wants more opportunity for themselves and they seem to care a lot more about that than anything as the resource carries more and more burden. Opportunity, opportunity, opportunity. It's all about that opportunity. We've very succesfully sold the identity of a western hunter that HAS to maximize their opportunity. I've been guilty of it myself. At some point you have to step back and ask why? I've come to think it's all about product sales, with the reward for the consumer being the feel goods that come with being a big awesome hunter. There's a social capital that comes from being a good hunter. I know I was guilty of falling into that trap. It feels good to be that guy. That guy that fills his elk tag every year. That guy that everyone asks questions to at work. We all get off on that.
As a whole, I just don't feel sorry for non resident hunters either. I could afford to hunt a bunch of different states and I get a lot of leave since I work almost every federal holiday and can trade that for leave, but that's a luxury that I choose not to partake in almost every year. And when I have partaken in it just a few times, I surely didn't feel entitled for any more than what that state chose to give me. I just don't get the attitude of non resident feeling like they deserve more. I'm sorry that some states have bad opportunity, but ultimately where we live is oftentimes a choice. I choose to live somewhere where my job opportunities and pay are much smaller than I would get elsewhere. If not for the outdoor opportunities I would certainly live somewhere else with better weather and where I could make a lot more money, and not deal with such BS politics.
Ultimately, this is recreation for most people. And I really wish people would stop thinking they need to hunt multiple states every year. You don't. That's not what the agencies want to hear, it's not what the industry and sponsors want to hear, but you really don't. It's just a very lucrative idea that makes us all feel good.
Buffs35
Well-known member
