State of Whitetail - Podcast

[cbigbear]

http://wiredtohunt.com/2016/02/04/wired ... kip-adams/

Two things that jumped out to me in this podcast - license fees and CWD. I'd like to hear some opinions on these topics.

The first one license fees really hits home with me. I hunt mainly out of state in my neighboring state of MS. The oos fee is $423.16 vs the resident fee of $68. However, I still buy a LA license to hunt a couple times a year & more so just to support the states DNR. The resident fee here is $65 & non-resident is something ridiculous & similar to MS. The podcast speaks to why the license fees should be increased to support wildlife efforts. They mainly reference resident fees in most states, as these were stated to have remained unchanged for years. I personally am about tapped out on both licenses fees I buy. Meaning if LA increases resident fees I will just stop making the couple trips a yr here & just hunt solely in MS & like wise if MS increases non-res fees much more I'll just revert back to hunting LA.

How do you guys feel about lic fees both resident & non? What are you paying currently & are you willing to pay more?

The second topic that stuck out was CWD. How do all the WI members feel about the DNR's approach to just monitor CWD? Also what do the MI members think about their DNR's approach?

[Hawthorne]

I hunt Michigan and Ohio. I only paid $150 for an out of state Ohio tag. If they raised it to $400 would be hard for me to hunt there. In Michigan a couple years ago they started making everyone buy a general license which includes small game for only $10 or something around that. No big deal to me. I would rather see them raise resident fees to be honest because I see myself hunting more states in the future. We have a cwd area in Michigan which they lowered doe license fees and made them unlimited. Hope they don't find it in my area

[ Post made via Android ]

[DaveT1963]

To me federal lands should be the same forv
resident and non-resident. I don't care what state you live in its federal property not the state.

State lands the budget should come from state taxes (sales, income, whaterver) to support managing them. No one else has to pay to use land except fishing and hunting). Hikers, dirt bikes, bird watchers, none of these have to help pay for state land management. It's getting to the point where a lot of families will not be able to hunt or fish even on public land.

Personally, I believe that if the state takes one dime of federal money then the price and quota odds should be the same regardless of what state you live in.

Most states screw non-residents when it comes to hunting public land, especially federal lands. Non-residents pay federal taxes just like anyone else.

[ Post made via Android ]

[ozzz]

I think non res license fees are too low in WI. I wouldn't mind paying more for a resident either if it meant the gov could keep and aquire more hunting land, that's for sure.

[ Post made via Android ]

[Tufrthnails]

Personally I spend $105 for the sportsman license as a resident here in Fl, which includes everything I need to hunt and fish anywhere. I don't know what the same stuff would cost out of state. My OOS in KY is $275. I would prob pay a little more to hunt KY, and I would prob pay a little more in Florida as well, but I would expect the money to be used to improve hunting and fishing.

[DaveT1963]

Look at elk tags on forest service lans. A nm tag for nonresident is outrageous. For federal land elk.

[ Post made via Android ]

[CallMeFishmael]

But Missouri is still one of the better priced options at $225 for 2 deer tags and two turkey tags. Hope to make it down there one of these years.

[JoeRE]

Yea, Iowa non-resident tags are notoriously high, not in favor of that. Many western state non-res tags are also rip offs. I am in favor of modestly higher tag prices overall if the money can fund good programs for hunter access and recruitment. These two issues, less access and less hunters, are tied directly together and if we ignore them, hunting as we know it is doomed.

General Hunting Licence is $19 in Iowa, Deer tag is $28.50. I would be fine with doubling the price of the deer tag if all the additional money went to access and recruitment programs. Like it or not, $100 is not nearly as much money as it was 20 years ago. Look at the price increases on everything else hunting related in the last several decades. "Recreational" costs have increased far faster than across the board inflation. I wish that wasn't the case, but it is.

[mainebowhunter]

KS went up this year. Be close to $525 when all said and done.
NE .$440 gets you 2 buck tags.
ILL is $470

[stash59]

Yeah it's tough for a middle class American to afford out of state tags.

As far as licenses being equal in each state on federal lands. The states do all the work as far as record keeping and establishing bag limits etc. Most are under funded. Most of their budget is payed from the license fees. So they need this money.

I think some states have gotten greedy though. The draw points system no longer works. Thousands of hunters have built up points in many areas but most of these areas only give out a low percentage of tags. So it keeps snowballing and it's now more difficult to draw in a points area than a straight lottery area.

I think most states could raise their resident license costs. But not by alot.

[fishlips]

Have not hunted out of state of whitetails, but here in WI, $24 gets you an archery license with a buck tag and an antlerless tag. Same for a gun tag. That is a steal.

Non-resident archery and gun both run $160 for same tags as resident. Again, I think that is a steal relative to other states and for the opportunities you get in WI.

[gjs4]

NY's instate for everything hunting and fishing is $100. They had a thing a few years back where lifetime privileges for the above was only 850, everyone jumped and now they've got all that money locked in some conservation fund they cant touch and half the annual revenue stream. Our out of state deer licenses maybe $150 or something like that- honestly I don't think the cost is bad but the state blows.

I think Ohio knows what it has for deer, as well as, in and out of state deer hunters. $150 is a steal and they sell lots of them.

Though I agree with the anti-highfence stance of the QDMA and others it is super evident they want that industry gone and feel like they want me to placate to their causes. I smell political fish oil all over that. Their spin off ?NWA WA..whatever is also on that crusade.

The one thing on the podcast is I think the QDMA is selling out to state agencies. They say some stink but praise them all (including our wretched debaclry )....definitely catch Kip and company speak out of both sides of their mouth. I used t be a huge fan of that organization, and though I still praise much of what they do, feel theyre just another group making money off the deer hunting masses.

[DaveT1963]

Yeah it's tough for a middle class American to afford out of state tags.

As far as licenses being equal in each state on federal lands. The states do all the work as far as record keeping and establishing bag limits etc. Most are under funded. Most of their budget is payed from the license fees. So they need this money.

I think some states have gotten greedy though. The draw points system no longer works. Thousands of hunters have built up points in many areas but most of these areas only give out a low percentage of tags. So it keeps snowballing and it's now more difficult to draw in a points area than a straight lottery area.

I think most states could raise their resident license costs. But not by alot.

Record keeping and establishing bag limits.... To be frank who gives a poop and what exactly do they really do to justify nonresident tags being that high? It's all political and BS..... People that own land in Iowa but live and work elsewhere have to draw same as nonresidents and meanwhile Govern tags get handed out to celebrities and athletes every year..... More and more of them.... FOR PUBLIC LAND.

I don't think it would be hard to write in the regs that federal lands has same bag limit as other areas. And there are federal bilogist in most of the big public land states. And let's not forget that states get federal grants and money.

Simple solution, find a happy medium for federal lands where resident and non resident pay the exact same. Just because someone liVes in a state shouldn't mean they get unequal access to that land. If nonresidents have to draw to hunt it, THEN so should residents and they should pay the same. And they need to do away with landowner tags outside what they personal can use under THEIR legal limit. That silliness is what started locking up all the private elk land as resident land orders sale them to the highest bidder?? That is wrong. It is NOT state land.

[ Post made via Android ]

[JoeRE]

Finally finished the podcast. Overall I liked the information shared but I have two issues with the guest's thoughts and opinions.

One - tying tag prices (primarily non-resident) to supply and demand flies in the face of the North American model of wildlife conservation - that wildlife is public, and shall be regulated FOR the public....NOT regulated for the highest bidder, sorry it doesn't matter if the money goes to a good cause. There is a line in the sand, with a very slippery slope beyond.

Two - I did not like how he glossed over the issue with declining hunting access. "Most states added state owned hunting and fishing lands over the last 10 years" or something to that extent. That is very deceptive, the real situation is NOT good. Some states sold a bunch of land (UTAH the most notorious example), and across the country private access is becoming more limited there is no doubt about it.

[DaveT1963]

It's what happens when wealthy grab land... They pay to get their politicians elected and then favors are called in. Happens in all areas, hunting land being no exception. Sooner or later i guess I'll have to don some Robin Hood apparel and start hunting the "King's" deer on the "Kings" land and be the outlaw :)

[ Post made via Android ]