BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

moderator · Moderator Joined: 27 Jan 2002 Posts: 7655

December 2003 Poll:

In general, nonresident hunting is...

This month's poll is about nonresident hunting. Do you feel that hunting outside your home state or province has become unfair? Is it an issue of low license allocation, high costs, or both? What would you do to correct the situation if anything?

As a resident, do you feel your state or province is fair in its treatment of nonresidents? Do you feel restrictive nonresident hunting policies must be left in place (or increased) to prevent your favorite hunting spots from being overrun?

[ This Message was edited by: moderator on 2003-12-04 13:37 ]

pyrokrazy · Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2003 11:31 pm Post subject:

i dont particularly care for non-resident hunting (with the exception of friends and relatives) but i dont have much say so in the matter round here

Dogg3250 · Newbie Joined: 19 Nov 2003 Posts: 2

I think the cost for Non-Resident hunters are getting out of hand Just becasue you live in another state does not mean you should be raped in the pocket book for a tag non res hunter put money in the economy of lots of small town and the state.

I love to hunt and hunt as much as I can. I bow and firearm hunt in both MN,WI. MN charges up to 176.00 for a Deer licence Wis is at 135.00 and rumor has it it it is going up for the 2004 season for non res. now a resident pays a fraction of that. I am not saying that non res should pay the same as a resident but it is starting to look like we are not wanted and or our money is not needed in the small towns that get over run with hunters each fall.

[ This Message was edited by: Dogg3250 on 2003-12-10 11:20 ]

[ This Message was edited by: moderator on 2003-12-10 11:25 ]

bitmasher · Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:00 pm Post subject:

To me it seems that most states are fair in costs and caps on nonresidents. However some states seem to be sliding toward fewer tags and higher costs, with no end in sight.

There are other "hidden" costs that get tacked on as well, such as the requirement of using a registered guide if you are a nonresident in some states. I have nothing against guides/outfitters, but when a rare tag is drawn and paid for, why should you be required to pay for a guides company if you don't want it?

treyman · Newbie Joined: 15 Dec 2003 Posts: 1

It seems that if a state requires you to tell them what state you are from for a price on hunting licence and it is different for certain states, isn't that illegal? (discrimination) Some states are saying over-population is a problem. Looking at the prices is problem enough, i don't feel i need to purchace part of the state in order to hunt a couple of days.

hunter777 · Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2003 1:41 am Post subject:

I think some states have "reciprical" nonresident fee's. They charge you the same amount that your state would charge a non-resident for a licence. MAYBE!?!?

bitmasher · Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 12:39 am Post subject:

That's interesting, I've never heard of that with recipocal fees. Maybe that would level the playing field. Do you know of any states that do that hunter777?

saskie · Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 7:40 am Post subject:

Since the question was are they fair IN GENERAL - I would say GENERALLY yes. I don't have a problem with paying more for a tag since I don't live there and my provincial income tax doesn't contribute to the province's Natural Resource budget.

GENERALLY speaking, I agree with being required to use a local guide from a conservation point to ensure that all local regs are followed and as a safety issue (so you don't get lost). I would add though, that perhaps non-residents could be exempt from the guide requirement if they passed a test on local hunting regs (if it was up to me).

I also agree with fewer tags for non-residents. The people who actually live there should have maximum opportunity to hunt their game.

I do have somewhat of a personal stake in this - since as I am now a non-resident of both SK and NS (the 2 places I have hunted before). My biggest b*tch regarding non-res hunting in SK is the ridiculous seasons I'm restricted to. If I want to hunt on our farm where I grew up and learned to hunt (the little I know about it anyway - lol) I can only hunt the last week of the season (late Nov).

Some provinces up here, NF and NS for sure have a provision that if you are from that province and join the military you are still considered a resident. I tried to get the same thing in SK and was told (eventually) by Buckley Belanger, Minister of Environment that since I VOLUNTARILY left SK to seek employment elsewhere I forfeitted my resident status. (Last time I looked at a map SK was landlocked and there were no naval bases) If I wanted resident priviledges I should quit the military and move back home.

In subsequent letters/emails he also went on to say that "you are not from SK, you are from NS" That really got my goat. Screw U Belanger!

OK - I feel better now. I'll shut up.

hunter777 · Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 11:50 pm Post subject:

Quote:

On 2003-12-18 23:39, bitmasher wrote:
That's interesting, I've never heard of that with recipocal fees. Maybe that would level the playing field. Do you know of any states that do that hunter777?

Heres what I found on the Maryland fish and wildlife website. It has to do with the states that border it. Look about halfway down the page, under non-resident lisenses.
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/hun.....cense.html

Also, the term reciprocal to other states may mean that if a body of water separates the two states, A hunter with a license from either state may hunt that body of water (as is the case with NJ and Pa on the Delaware river) as long as they follow the laws of the state in which they are hunting and launching from.

bitmasher · Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2003 10:22 pm Post subject:

Good link. Your right and it would be interesting if this was widely implemented. Perhaps it would limit the skyrocketing fees of some states, although it might not.

bitmasher · Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2003 10:27 pm Post subject:

I don't have a problem with paying more for a tag since I don't live there and my provincial income tax doesn't contribute to the province's Natural Resource budget.

That is an interesting statement too. At least here in CO the DOW is not subsidized by the tax payer. All revenue comes from the sales of licenses and tax deductable donations (it is a write in on the CO state tax form).

So at least in the CO case, it can be said there is no distinction between a resident tax payer and a non-resident.

hunter777 · Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2003 1:11 am Post subject:

I don't really have a problem with paying more for an out of state license. I think Colorado(for example) is excessive but, If I chose to hunt there, I know I'll be paying more and do it.
I do think that with some of the people that think that non-residents should not be allowed to hunt in thier state. (I think you will find this to be the case in some states like Kenntucky. Certainly not all Kentuckyins) I think that they don't realize that some of the land in there state is federally owned. IMO is also owned by all US citizens and therfore I think everyone that hunts those lands should pay the same amount.

Quicksilver · Moderator/Sportsman Joined: 03 May 2003 Posts: 225

Whether we agree with non-resident hunting or not, the income that is brought in by out-of-state hunters is essential to most small towns and communities where hunting is a focal point. Without this out side revenue many of these smaller business that we’ve come to enjoy, including the restaurants, inns, gun stores, and motels, would not be able to survive. Non-resident hunting is big business for small business communities…

Non-resident hunting, as expensive as it is, is also some ones livelihood. $1500 dollars paid to a farmer to hunt on his/her land,when that farmer’s net income is $15,000, could mean the difference between being in the black as compared to the ever luring red…

Non-resident hunters may have a bad wrap in Colorado, but, I'll welcome them back every year, good or bad, I will treat them all them all the same. To raise out of state hunting license prices or to cater to only Colorado residents would be cutting our own throats...

[ This Message was edited by: Quicksilver on 2003-12-26 15:34 ]

saskie · Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 7:20 pm Post subject:

Another thing that I would like to see is a nationally recognized hunter safety course. So far I have taken hunter safety courses in SK, NS and now ON. The "reasonable" fees they charge for this are starting to add up. Maybe one general safety course and then an exam to ensure that you're up on the local regs.

So far in may experience the hunter safety course are just that - safety: ethics, woodsmanship, map and compass, survival, game identification and very little about actual hunting regs.

And curiously they all use the same manual with a different cover on it...but none is recognized outside the province.