Tom
New member
Yep, that's good stuff.
Statement re: Elk Farms by Idaho Fish & Game
- Thread starter Washington Hunter
- Start date
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Tom
New member
NHY, are you buying one of those $150+ liscenses to apply for a tag anytime soon?
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
I think requiring hunters to purchase the hunting license in order to apply for tags, is to weed out those people who are not serious. There has to be some cost to it or everybody would apply. I'm buying an Idaho license for about $150 this year so I can apply for deer and elk tags. If I don't draw I still have the option of buying a tag and hunting the general season along with everybody else. I'm glad it costs $150 to apply. If it was free I'd have just about ZERO chance of ever drawing a tag in Idaho. And heck, if I don't end up hunting Idaho, just think of all the money I will save! Just the gas to drive there will be 150 bucks.
Tom, the best way to think about the money spent on applications is to think of it as a donation to a good cause. (wildlife managment)
And yes, there are still costs associated with managing wildlife, even when they aren't fed corn.
Well said, I've always looked at my hunt fees as giving money to a good cause.
Cool, I am headed to H&R Block in a couple hours. Can I deduct my "donations"?
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
mtmiller, if it was up to me you could!
Really hunting licenses, tags, and application fees are simply a voluntary tax. We don't have to pay the tax but we choose to do so. Kind of like lottery tickets, that's another voluntary tax, right Moosie???
Really hunting licenses, tags, and application fees are simply a voluntary tax. We don't have to pay the tax but we choose to do so. Kind of like lottery tickets, that's another voluntary tax, right Moosie???
noharleyyet
Well-known member
No Tom...think I'll mosey down to Webb County & pay a 20 grand trophy fee to shoot the offspring of a mutant breeder buck...
AZ402
Well-known member
Tom, how much did that WaterCow cost?
Tom
New member
If you mean the waterbuffalo, it was as cheap as driving to Arizona, at $2.50/gallon and 1300 miles one way with my F-150, and back once to hunt squirrels, not even counting the $150 liscense.
I didn't realize Idaho requires the liscense purchase to apply, do they?
I think I"m basically an over the counter tag guy, I just can't get into the draws very much. I keep thinking I could get trophy animals here, at least know I can go on a hunt, instead of loaning money to the other states. And now that they started these liscense requirements for a draw, its more than loaning money, its paying the residents' bills for them more and more. I always imagine the big percentage of western state hunting management budgets that comes from non-residents. I wish the management was more equitably spread amongst residents and non-residents, especially when a lot of federal land is involved.
Its easier for someone in a state with a lot of federal land, to rationalize the fees, since they get their own state's federal land dirt cheap. Good luck to all of you applying on your draws!! Maybe I'll apply for some new high success draw and hunt, that's what I need to find to make it more attractive to me.
I didn't realize Idaho requires the liscense purchase to apply, do they?
I think I"m basically an over the counter tag guy, I just can't get into the draws very much. I keep thinking I could get trophy animals here, at least know I can go on a hunt, instead of loaning money to the other states. And now that they started these liscense requirements for a draw, its more than loaning money, its paying the residents' bills for them more and more. I always imagine the big percentage of western state hunting management budgets that comes from non-residents. I wish the management was more equitably spread amongst residents and non-residents, especially when a lot of federal land is involved.
Its easier for someone in a state with a lot of federal land, to rationalize the fees, since they get their own state's federal land dirt cheap. Good luck to all of you applying on your draws!! Maybe I'll apply for some new high success draw and hunt, that's what I need to find to make it more attractive to me.
AZ402
Well-known member
ID, AZ, NV and most likely UT next year all require a license to apply. I've never said I like it but that's the way it is.
Tom did you put the cost of the ear tag and the brass nose ring in your final tally?
It seriously sounds like you just don't get it and never will. Show me the figures where NR foot the majority of any ones states wildlife management? States get a bunch of their funding from other fee's outside of tags and license fee's. Many of those don't pertain to NR at all. IE..... boat registrations.....etc
Tom did you put the cost of the ear tag and the brass nose ring in your final tally?
It seriously sounds like you just don't get it and never will. Show me the figures where NR foot the majority of any ones states wildlife management? States get a bunch of their funding from other fee's outside of tags and license fee's. Many of those don't pertain to NR at all. IE..... boat registrations.....etc
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Casino odds & pay up front... fair chase hunting at high fence pricing...what a deal Stan.
ya dayum pirates.
AZ402
Well-known member
Casino odds & pay up front... fair chase hunting at high fence pricing...what a deal Stan.
ya dayum pirates.
And to think, AZ was one of the cheapest states for tags after the draw until this year.
Now we're getting real greedy and pricing our hunt tags out of sight
Something tells me $750 for a potential WR elk is a little cheaper than a 400 behind a fence? Of course Tom could always pony up 40K and come hunt the San Carlos Reservation, now that's a bargain........
noharleyyet
Well-known member
And to think, AZ was one of the cheapest states for tags after the draw until this year.
Now year are getting real greedy and pricing our hunt tags out of sight
Something tells me $750 for a potential WR elk is a little cheaper than a 400 behind a fence? Of course Tom could always pony up 40K and come hunt the San Carlos Reservation, now that's a bargain........
...I was factoring in your exorbitant fee to vector a booner to my gun.
AZ402
Well-known member
...I was factoring in your exorbitant fee to vector a booner to my gun.
LOL!
Tom
New member
The 2001 National survey is the latest 5 year survey. For AZ it says there were 148K hunters in AZ, 81% residents from AZ, 19% non-residents from other states.
AZ latest annual report financial statement shows total revenue from all sources in AZ of $68.3 million. The largest contribution number they give there the FEDERAL fund, $24.1 million, but that's not a majority. The second largest number is for the game and fish fund, $20.6 million. Only 2.4 million for watercraft liscensing it says there.
The federal fund of 24.1 million is likely federal money, its labeled so, and most of the federal funds come from non-residents for any particular state.
They don't break down the 20.6 million. Lets use the 81% resident and 19% non-resident hunters from the latest national survey to approximately break it down.
A resident AZ elk hunter bought a hunting liscense for $25.50 and an elk tag for $83 last year, $108.50 total.
A non-resident elk hunter bought a hunting liscense for $113.50 and an elk tag for $405 last year, $518 total.
19 non residents or (19*518) $9,842 for every 81 residents or (81*108.5) $8,788.50. So, it looks like, of those who hunted elk, most of the money came from non-residents, 52.8% of the elk hunter dollars anyway. I'm thinking lots more non-residents bought the 113 liscense that were not sucessful at actually hunting, because they didn't get an elk tag. Just amoung those who hunted elk though non-residents give more money than residents probably.
Approx. 52.8% of the 20.6 million game and fish rev. came from non-residents. .528*(20.6)= 10.9 million approx. Add that to the federal fund of 24.1 million and you have 35 million of the 68.3 million income for AZ from non-residents. It would be way more than half if I had the hunter liscenses bought by tag applicants also, wouldn't it? I only found data for those who actually hunted and got over half the $68 million from non-residents.
What do you think? Its approx., got any better numbers?
AZ latest annual report financial statement shows total revenue from all sources in AZ of $68.3 million. The largest contribution number they give there the FEDERAL fund, $24.1 million, but that's not a majority. The second largest number is for the game and fish fund, $20.6 million. Only 2.4 million for watercraft liscensing it says there.
The federal fund of 24.1 million is likely federal money, its labeled so, and most of the federal funds come from non-residents for any particular state.
They don't break down the 20.6 million. Lets use the 81% resident and 19% non-resident hunters from the latest national survey to approximately break it down.
A resident AZ elk hunter bought a hunting liscense for $25.50 and an elk tag for $83 last year, $108.50 total.
A non-resident elk hunter bought a hunting liscense for $113.50 and an elk tag for $405 last year, $518 total.
19 non residents or (19*518) $9,842 for every 81 residents or (81*108.5) $8,788.50. So, it looks like, of those who hunted elk, most of the money came from non-residents, 52.8% of the elk hunter dollars anyway. I'm thinking lots more non-residents bought the 113 liscense that were not sucessful at actually hunting, because they didn't get an elk tag. Just amoung those who hunted elk though non-residents give more money than residents probably.
Approx. 52.8% of the 20.6 million game and fish rev. came from non-residents. .528*(20.6)= 10.9 million approx. Add that to the federal fund of 24.1 million and you have 35 million of the 68.3 million income for AZ from non-residents. It would be way more than half if I had the hunter liscenses bought by tag applicants also, wouldn't it? I only found data for those who actually hunted and got over half the $68 million from non-residents.
What do you think? Its approx., got any better numbers?
AZ402
Well-known member
Hmm, interesting Data, source?
I'll dig a little deeper with the AZGFD when I get time. Here are some simple numbers from the big game tags in AZ (no license fee included). Under the assumption that 10% of the tags went to NR (including cow elk tags, doubtful though). Tag fee's paid by residents $4,523,711. Tag fee's paid by NR $2,459,939.
I'll dig a little deeper with the AZGFD when I get time. Here are some simple numbers from the big game tags in AZ (no license fee included). Under the assumption that 10% of the tags went to NR (including cow elk tags, doubtful though). Tag fee's paid by residents $4,523,711. Tag fee's paid by NR $2,459,939.
The federal money is Pittman-Robertson and is generated from the surtax on sporting goods and reallocated to each state. Has nothing to do with non resident hunters and their license fees. Bottom line is the congress put a final nail in the landowner tag grab by legally clarifying that each state owned the wildlife and could set rules as they see fit. That means the states can also get rid of for profit animal whoring if the citizens want to do that. All the bitching and whining in the world is not going to change that reality so if you think the state is ripping you off then go play somewhere else and make room for someone else.
Tom
New member
Ringer, Since when is going over a budget bitching and moaning? Lets just stick to the facts and don't bitch and moan, if you can help it, ok? Pittmann Robertson funds are national in source, hence the federal label. Most of the people that pay, by large are not from AZ, they are non-residents, get it?
Ringer, you have to show what part of the Pittman-Robertson funds came from AZ people to follow up on that. I don't know, but I do know states like MI, PA, and NY have a lot of people like a million hunters each. AZ is closer to 0.1 million not a million, so they must not contribute much and I"ll bet they receive a great proportion of them?
I don't know a source for the 10% NR cow tags, does it have more info.? Like deer and bull elk tags and number of applicants? If the national survey shows 19% NR hunters, then to average 19% there were have to be a lot more NR bull and/or deer hunters? What's the source for the 10% and the total dollars there AZ402? The annual report I found only broke out the fishing liscenses and total resident and NR was only $0.4 million for every type there is. They didn't break up the big $ game liscenses by resident and NR in the financial statement part of the annual report that I found.
Ringer, you have to show what part of the Pittman-Robertson funds came from AZ people to follow up on that. I don't know, but I do know states like MI, PA, and NY have a lot of people like a million hunters each. AZ is closer to 0.1 million not a million, so they must not contribute much and I"ll bet they receive a great proportion of them?
I don't know a source for the 10% NR cow tags, does it have more info.? Like deer and bull elk tags and number of applicants? If the national survey shows 19% NR hunters, then to average 19% there were have to be a lot more NR bull and/or deer hunters? What's the source for the 10% and the total dollars there AZ402? The annual report I found only broke out the fishing liscenses and total resident and NR was only $0.4 million for every type there is. They didn't break up the big $ game liscenses by resident and NR in the financial statement part of the annual report that I found.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Tom,
I think last year was the first year that NR hunters were limited to "up to 10%" of the tags in Arizona. So if your data was prior to last season, the percentage of resident/non-resident tags issued was different. The year of the Taulman debacle, residents and non-residents had an equal shot at the tags...I think that may be the year you're looking at. I forget what the % was prior to the Taulman lawsuit.
By the numbers, and the fact that Arizona now has an "up to 10%" of the available tags...I'd bet that in some cases less than 10% of the tags will be issued to NR hunters.
Another thing to consider...with the percentages being only totals is it possible that in the 19% they were counting NR archery permits, bird hunters, etc.?
All I know is that currently NR are limited to no more than 10% of the tags.
I think last year was the first year that NR hunters were limited to "up to 10%" of the tags in Arizona. So if your data was prior to last season, the percentage of resident/non-resident tags issued was different. The year of the Taulman debacle, residents and non-residents had an equal shot at the tags...I think that may be the year you're looking at. I forget what the % was prior to the Taulman lawsuit.
By the numbers, and the fact that Arizona now has an "up to 10%" of the available tags...I'd bet that in some cases less than 10% of the tags will be issued to NR hunters.
Another thing to consider...with the percentages being only totals is it possible that in the 19% they were counting NR archery permits, bird hunters, etc.?
All I know is that currently NR are limited to no more than 10% of the tags.
