OK- With very many States having a Declining Turkey Population and looking for various ways to stop the downward trend- if a State close to you that you like to hunt raised their Non- resident Hunting fee "Alot" as well as really jacked up the cost of a Turkey Permit for out of Staters-- would you still Turkey Hunt in that State?
I live in New York and pay $135.50 to also hunt in New Jersey as well as the $21 Bucks for a Spring Turkey Permit that everyone pays the same for. I usually buy a good 5 Turkey Permits.
Personally, I would gladly pay more money for a non resident Hunting License if,I knew those extra funds were going to help the Wild Turkey and raise the population. If that cost was $200+ dollars,I would pay it.
Imagine also that a State like Mississippi might really raise their price for a non Resident Hunting License as a Deterrent to lower out of State Turkey Killers. Each Spring- anything can change in any State. Thoughts..
IMO the cost of non-res licenses is based mostly on how much whining the residents do. It is a zero benefit situation money wise for the State as a whole. When the fees get extreme they eliminate many who would come in and spend plenty on other things. The game departments make the same on one guy paying $500 for a tag as ten guys paying $50 for a tag but the residents eliminate nine competitors and are happy. Politics trumps all. Answer to the question is no. The cost of non-resident tags is way too high now in many places. Double the price of resident tags if you really want to fund turkey management. That would cause some screaming. :newmascot:
Me personally for my home state of Tennessee I would rather see them go to a quota hunt system for Non-Resident hunters. Keep the price the same for license etc. I think this would be a better system than just raising the prices if we are talking about helping with the decline in our turkey population here. If you raise the price let's say $100.00 I don't think that affects the amount of non-resident hunters /turkeys taken by non-resident hunters really at all. People would still travel here unless you raised it significantly. You would have to raise the cost by minimum of $300.00 if not more to make an impact on Non-Resident hunters.
I am a 100% Disabled Veteran so the state of Tennessee gives us in this situation a lifetime sportsman's license to include yearly tags for all game (we still have to pay migratory bird stamp and WMA fees). So the money that I save from not having to buy my Tennessee licenses these past two years I have bought a Kentucky non resident since I only live a couple miles across the border. The total cost for me for Kentucky is pretty good I get the annual sportsman's license, deer and turkey permits for $350.00 (I do get a small discount for being disabled also). Not sure where my cutoff would be for me not to get it again. But I would say if the total got up to $500.00 that would be a pass for me. Now if I was going to go to let's say Nebraska for a Merriam or Texas for a Rio etc. I would be willing to pay more because that may be the only time in my life I would get to hunt for those specific birds.
Just my .02 though
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
We had this discussion on another thread a while back. What each of us is willing to pay to turkey hunt varies a lot as to how important it is to us relative to how many "discretionary" dollars we have to spend. The problem with that formula is that there is a point when enough folks are impacted by that "price them out of the market" ideology that it becomes unacceptable. To put it simply, I don't think it is in any of us "common folks" best interest to see the system reach a point where the opportunity to hunt is a function of a person's financial wherewithal.
Having said that, there also comes a time where providing hunting opportunity collides with responsible resource management. It is a noble goal to provide hunting opportunity to as many folks as possible,...UNTIL we reach a point where doing that impacts the well-being of the resource, whether it be turkeys or any other game species. There is no doubt in my mind that we have reached that point in some places. Addressing that problem by pricing the "poor folks" out of the market is not really what the "North American Model" has ever been about (unfortunately, we have definitely reached that point with some species of game in too many places).
So, beyond pricing folks out of the hunting market, what are the other options. The only one I see, realistically, is through establishing ceilings on available permit numbers to coincide with harvest goals. Whether that ceiling applies only to nonresidents, or must also be applied to residents, depends completely on maintaining a grip on those "harvest goals". Personally, the way we are headed, I expect states to increasingly move towards quota hunts (public lands) with permits allotted through drawings.
Quota hunts with a limited number of permits. I could see this as a possibility
Yeah I'd pay it ... but I don't camp out in other states , I go there, I kill a turkey , I don't go back.... There's a couple I've repeated a few times for pleasure but even then it's just a "once in a while thing". It's a tough topic..... but the writing is on the wall..... it's time to start deterring travelers , as sad as that is to say because I'm guilty of it myself to an extent . And I'm not necessarily saying going up in money is the answer to that , being we have some expensive licenses down south to hunt already.
I'll use TN as an example... I've bought a non-resident TN big game license, mainly just to turkey hunt, for close to 30yrs. I live less than 20 miles from TN. For many of those years TN turkey season opened 3 weeks earlier than my home state. I can't recall with certainty but it seems like the license was like $125 for 2 birds and a 3 week head start, then the limit went to 3 and the license almost doubled. Eventually the limit went to 4 birds and the cost increased to $308.05. A few years ago TN moved the opener back a week and dropped the limit to 3, I had no problem with that because I could see a decline on my farms, actually I haven't killed more than one bird on a farm in TN in several years. 2022 was the first time I haven't filled all my TN tags in many many years, my farms simply didn't have the birds, there are various reasons for this in my opinion. I was actually lucky to kill the one bird I got.
Now for 2023 TN season will open same day as KY, no longer have a head start, 2 bird limit, same $308.05 license cost. I seriously doubt I'll buy a TN license for the first time in many years.
Not because I disagree with the changes, I actually agree with the changes, but because I simply won't have time to hunt in TN after KY season opens.
I hope the changes make a positive impact on the population, I think these changes are about 5yrs too late tho....
So to answer the OP's question, I'm not opposed to higher non-resident license fees but at the end of the day it's not the non residents that are killing the majority of the birds. If you are trying increase revenue to help the birds then all hunters should share the expense. I 100% agree with everything GobbleNut posted above. One thing I think should happen is that residents should get the first week or 2 weeks of hunting on public lands to themselves.
The Biden gas "tax" will thin out the non-residents.
Quote from: silvestris on July 03, 2022, 03:02:14 PM
The Biden gas "tax" will thin out the non-residents.
x2
I pay enough for OOS licenses to turkey hunt. Many states are cutting seasons and/or bag limits so raising the price at the same time wouldn't be good.
I already paid a lot for non res tags and license. Unless it got really out of hand I am good with it. Most of them are a bargain of you count the experience not just the hunt!
Iowa is steep!
Draw for residents and non residents alike. Charge the same for residents and non residents too.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
I wish GA would go to a reciprocal type system as to where you pay either our NR cost or match your state's fees. The state of GA is way too cheap on NRs. $400 gets you 12 deer, 2 turkeys, 2 bears and unlimited hogs.
It should also be limited to the bag limits of the NR's home state not to exceed our limit. If your state allows 1 bird, then that is all you get, if your state allows 1 buck an 2 does, then that is all you get.
Quote from: Sixes on July 03, 2022, 10:57:44 PM
I wish GA would go to a reciprocal type system as to where you pay either our NR cost or match your state's fees. The state of GA is way too cheap on NRs. $400 gets you 12 deer, 2 turkeys, 2 bears and unlimited hogs.
It should also be limited to the bag limits of the NR's home state not to exceed our limit. If your state allows 1 bird, then that is all you get, if your state allows 1 buck an 2 does, then that is all you get.
I don't hunt deer and bear in Georgia so should I still be charged the same?
Quote from: Paulmyr on July 04, 2022, 01:06:13 AM
Quote from: Sixes on July 03, 2022, 10:57:44 PM
I wish GA would go to a reciprocal type system as to where you pay either our NR cost or match your state's fees. The state of GA is way too cheap on NRs. $400 gets you 12 deer, 2 turkeys, 2 bears and unlimited hogs.
It should also be limited to the bag limits of the NR's home state not to exceed our limit. If your state allows 1 bird, then that is all you get, if your state allows 1 buck an 2 does, then that is all you get.
I don't hunt deer and bear in Georgia so should I still be charged the same?
Yes. All of our big game falls under one license, so unless it is split for each species then you are already paying full price for turkeys.
Quote from: joey46 on July 03, 2022, 04:19:15 AM
IMO the cost of non-res licenses is based mostly on how much whining the residents do. It is a zero benefit situation money wise for the State as a whole. When the fees get extreme they eliminate many who would come in and spend plenty on other things. The game departments make the same on one guy paying $500 for a tag as ten guys paying $50 for a tag but the residents eliminate nine competitors and are happy. Politics trumps all. Answer to the question is no. The cost of non-resident tags is way too high now in many places. Double the price of resident tags if you really want to fund turkey management. That would cause some screaming. :newmascot:
As a resident of GA, I do not want you to come here to hunt. The only exception would be if you have a lease here or hunt on private family lands.
There is no way that residents of ANY state should have their licenses increased to appease NRs.
I am not against out of state hunting, but NRs should have ZERO say in anything dealing with state resources.
As far as your comment about spending money on trips, I understand that, but GA ran a budget surplus of 3.7 Billion last year, NR spending is a drop in a bucket in revenue generation.
I know I sound like a jackass, but our state has become too overcrowded in general and our game populations are being hammered. Too many move ins and too many hunters all over the state. We have a ton of NRs from surrounding states that have the need to fill their limits.
Living in south Florida and witnessing the Osceola circus every March I understand your frustration. You missed the original posters point. He appears to want more revenue for turkey management. Raising non-res fees won't do it since you'll price out so many that would be a zero sum game. Georgia priced me out year's ago so your state is safe from me. Almost all the southern states are heading in this direction. Btw - many Florida resident hunters think a non-res tag in the Osceola's range should be a minimum of $500. Even at that betting the public WMAs in south Florida would still look like an out of state parking lot in early March. So many now have Grand Slam fever.
Bottom line - if you want more revenue you raise the license cost for everyone. Raising only the non-res is a fool's errand that does no more than make the residents happy since it limits their competition. In almost all states the cost of a resident's license is minimal to the point of being laughable when game departments cry "no money". Florida worse than most since they give away licenses to residents over 65. Everyone here appears over 65. Lol
Thank you for confirming the last sentence of my first post. :newmascot:
I don't care if GA raises resident license fees, I bought a lifetime license the first year that the state made them available. Raise them through the roof, it won't effect me and would probably help me in the long run.
I'm one of the few that hates hunter recruitment. The less the merrier in my opinion.
increasing NR cost is a poor management strategy, in my opinion. NR Turkey tags are not a significant revenue source in most state wildlife budgets. Deer and big game on the other hand drive the bus, in most states, in regards to NR dollars. After working a long career in Ohio's Division of wildlife I have seen these very discussions many times. As a rule hunters will pay up if the opportunity is good for a quality hunt. game levels, not cost, drive this bus. Hunters want to have a high expectation of success, they will shy away from place where probability of success is low. However, there is a limit where people won't pay up. When expectations run low and cost go up hunters don't come. I saw Ohio raise cost and NR tags would drop for a year or two and then recover. when you consider a hunt the cost of a tag is one of the least expensive things on your trip budget. For example, I hunt Ky. every year and my license cost me $235.00 (I think) and between gas food and lodging I estimate I spent about $400.00 and most of my trips were one day driving hunts (I live 1.5 hrs from one of my spots). Then I hunted South Dakota and spent $125.00 on a tag and an estimated $1500.00 on gas, lodging and food. Now the SD trip was also a visit to my daughter, but if it had been solely a turkey hunt the cost would be the same. Sure some money could be raised to help turkey management, but not enough to justify the burden on the sportsmen and women. Like others have said, there are better strategies.
Quote from: Sixes on July 04, 2022, 01:26:50 AM
Quote from: joey46 on July 03, 2022, 04:19:15 AM
IMO the cost of non-res licenses is based mostly on how much whining the residents do. It is a zero benefit situation money wise for the State as a whole. When the fees get extreme they eliminate many who would come in and spend plenty on other things. The game departments make the same on one guy paying $500 for a tag as ten guys paying $50 for a tag but the residents eliminate nine competitors and are happy. Politics trumps all. Answer to the question is no. The cost of non-resident tags is way too high now in many places. Double the price of resident tags if you really want to fund turkey management. That would cause some screaming. :newmascot:
As a resident of GA, I do not want you to come here to hunt. The only exception would be if you have a lease here or hunt on private family lands.
There is no way that residents of ANY state should have their licenses increased to appease NRs.
I am not against out of state hunting, but NRs should have ZERO say in anything dealing with state resources.
As far as your comment about spending money on trips, I understand that, but GA ran a budget surplus of 3.7 Billion last year, NR spending is a drop in a bucket in revenue generation.
I know I sound like a jackass, but our state has become too overcrowded in general and our game populations are being hammered. Too many move ins and too many hunters all over the state. We have a ton of NRs from surrounding states that have the need to fill their limits.
I agree NR should have zero say in other states management or prices. I do hunt GA on Fort Benning for hogs. But that's all I hunt for in GA. Fort Benning is overrun with hogs has I am sure a lot of the state is. And having done a lot of training on Benning I know the land/terrain pretty well which helps me.
Here in my home state of Tennessee I do not know if throwing more money at TWRA would solve anything when dealing with the decline of Turkeys. Honestly they would probably divert that money to other projects. Just good common sense regulations. They did move the start of the season back two weeks beginning in 2023 and dropped the limit of birds down to 2. Has far has NR I am for a quota/lottery system. I think it is fair and allows the TWRA to base it off of numbers. Just my
.02.
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
Quota systems don't just magically appear. As Florida will show you they are a expensive bureaucracy in themselves. As we have argued I'm 100% in favor of a one bird limit for non-res in any State. Makes much more sense to me than trying to price the majority of the hunters out all together.
Quote from: joey46 on July 04, 2022, 10:08:22 AM
Quota systems don't just magically appear. As Florida will show you they are a bureaucracy in themselves. As we have argued I'm 100% in favor of a one bird limit for non-res in any State. Makes much more sense to me than trying to price the majority of the hunters out.
I could get behind that idea also
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
What a lot of people fail to realize is that the majority of states' Fish and Wildlife depts are all they concerned about turkeys, it's all about revenue. Not just revenue generated from license sales either. Other depts of state govt look at the economics of having all the visitors they can get to their states. They are looking at the revenue generated from hotel rooms, dining out, etc.... If they were concerned about the turkey population many of the states would of already changed season dates and bag limits.
At the end of the day, the reasons above will be why the residents will get to feel the pinch as well.
One bird states don't appeal to many traveling turkey hunters.
Personally, spring bag limits don't matter to me as long as it's not the first or only change made.
These states with the worst declining populations that still allow baiting and harvest of hens(fall or spring) aren't doing anything to help the population rebound by reducing spring bag limits.
I agree with Joey 46 first post.
You will raise more money for conservative through residents than non residents. But....without the nonres money the economy will suffer in areas.
I am saying this as a non res, I have a lifetime license in WV and the state gets nothing from me. Only the local economy. If you take me out of the non res market it is a loose loose situation.
The government loves to ask for more tax dollars when an issue arises, but rarely does it ever actually get fixed even if they get the funding.
But to answer your question, no I already spend thousands a year on licenses, points, tags, and lotteries I don't want to pay anymore nor am I that Naive that if XYZ state slapped another 75 bucks on my license fee that it'd solve anything. Money would probably go to administrative fees or something. Maybe if it was considered "dedicated funding" I'd be more open to the idea, but if my 200 dollars to the state isn't already good enough I don't know what to say.
I will point one thing out I find ridiculous, I just moved from Mississippi to Tennessee. When I lived in MS I was paying 45 dollars plus a little more for habitat stamp and wma permit for a resident sporting license. I just purchased my resident Tennessee license for 170 dollars, I always thought the extremely high NR licenses in TN were to offset the TN res license price. Guess I was wrong. Needless to say I wasn't very happy spending 170 dollars on my resident license when I've turkey hunted at least a dozen states with cheaper NR licenses than TN's res license.
Oh well... guess with the no state income tax it all balances out.
Quote from: TurkeyReaper69 on July 05, 2022, 10:15:54 AM
The government loves to ask for more tax dollars when an issue arises, but rarely does it ever actually get fixed even if they get the funding.
But to answer your question, no I already spend thousands a year on licenses, points, tags, and lotteries I don't want to pay anymore nor am I that Naive that if XYZ state slapped another 75 bucks on my license fee that it'd solve anything. Money would probably go to administrative fees or something. Maybe if it was considered "dedicated funding" I'd be more open to the idea, but if my 200 dollars to the state isn't already good enough I don't know what to say.
I will point one thing out I find ridiculous, I just moved from Mississippi to Tennessee. When I lived in MS I was paying 45 dollars plus a little more for habitat stamp and wma permit for a resident sporting license. I just purchased my resident Tennessee license for 170 dollars, I always thought the extremely high NR licenses in TN were to offset the TN res license price. Guess I was wrong. Needless to say I wasn't very happy spending 170 dollars on my resident license when I've turkey hunted at least a dozen states with cheaper NR licenses than TN's res license.
Oh well... guess with the no state income tax it all balances out.
I agree about how the money is spent. No way we would know where that extra cash goes to. Could go to some tree hugger group that is against hunting for all we know. Nothing would surprise me anymore.
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
Wait, so what i'm gathering is that you guys are telling me more turkey hunters = more license sales DOES NOT equal more turkey?!?!
If only the influencers and YouTubers that have helped ruin the sport could face this fact. But they have to continually "recruit more" and exploit the resource to stay relevant and continue to fatten their pockets.
Quote from: deerhunt1988 on July 05, 2022, 10:51:02 AM
Wait, so what i'm gathering is that you guys are telling me more turkey hunters = more license sales DOES NOT equal more turkey?!?!
If only the influencers and YouTubers that have helped ruin the sport could face this fact. But they have to continually "recruit more" and exploit the resource to stay relevant and continue to fatten their pockets.
No bro! Thats not how it works! If you have more turkey hunters who contribute to more license sales, there WILL be more turkey! But if you keep the same amount of turkey hunters but charge them more to hunt there WON'T be more turkey. The more folks posting #SaveThePoults and Tagging popular Youtubers in their instagram stories of them #SavingTheLegs will create more turkeys for us to harvest! You gotta make it make sense man!
I've been hitting multiple states each spring for over a decade. Always thought some states were too cheap, but many of those have since been corrected (either by price increases, turkey declines, or both). Spring only comes around once a year, i'll cut expenses elsewhere before I let license prices affect my turkey hunting. The new public land restrictions we are seeing in many states (season and bag limit reductions/more draw hunts) will keep me from buying a license before price will. It's turning into a rich man's sport where you better have access to private land if you want to hunt seasons in their entirety.
Loose lips sink ships. Hunting alone wasn't good enough. Had to wreck it for everyone for likes and pocket change.
No
Quote from: arkrem870 on July 05, 2022, 01:18:15 PM
Loose lips sink ships. Hunting alone wasn't good enough. Had to wreck it for everyone for likes and pocket change.
:z-winnersmiley:
Quote from: deerhunt1988 on July 05, 2022, 10:51:02 AM
Wait, so what i'm gathering is that you guys are telling me more turkey hunters = more license sales DOES NOT equal more turkey?!?!
If only the influencers and YouTubers that have helped ruin the sport could face this fact. But they have to continually "recruit more" and exploit the resource to stay relevant and continue to fatten their pockets.
It makes zero sense that "we" discuss license increases, permit draws, and continued reductions in opportunity as if it's expected while turning a blind eye to one of the biggest factors....social media irresponsibility. And the hunting industry keeps lining their pockets and defending it because products are being sold. Conservation organizations won't speak out against it or certain methods of hunting because it might hurt their membership. The root of it all....selfishness.
Need to charge residents more.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
Quote from: fallhnt on July 06, 2022, 08:56:30 AM
Need to charge residents more.
This brings up a question for discussion: What does everybody consider to be a reasonable resident license fee for hunting turkeys?
Kind of an unfair question for me to answer. I have. A lifetime hunting license in Tennessee to include all tags for all species (I do have to buy the migratory bird stamp). I got this because I am a 100% disabled veteran after nearly 24 years in the Army. I got my lifetime license in 2020. But until then I was paying $160.00 or so a year for my resident sportsman license. This is my hunting and fishing license and included tags for deer and turkey. I had no problem paying that amount I think that is fair.
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
Quote from: GobbleNut on July 06, 2022, 09:06:49 AM
This brings up a question for discussion: What does everybody consider to be a reasonable resident license fee for hunting turkeys?
Resident license here, including all the necessary licenses, stamps, validations, and fees is roughly $55. Nonresident is $180. I am fine with both of those but, as of now, we are a two-bird state (spring) and there is no additional charge for the second tag.
Personally, if I had my "druthers", there would be an additional cost for that second tag, with my personal preference being another $50 +/- for residents and another $100 +/- for nonresidents. Purchasing the second tag would be optional. My attitude is that, if you are serious enough to want to pay for all the associated costs of going hunting, which are likely going to be much more than the license cost, you should be willing to ante-up to support the resource.
Daniel Boone National forest permit went from 30$ to 50$ this year. Everything is raising cause our dollar is getting weaker .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This discussion is worthless because as a couple have already alluded to, even if you raised prices a couple of hundred dollars on either nonresidents or residents (or both), government is set up today to waste every single extra dollar that you give them. The border is wide open and every one of those folks who walk across illegally is getting paid day one - that is a fact, I'm not just running my trap. They are robbing the citizens to pay for those type things and ear marked money for turkeys or deer would be a sitting duck.
Here is what will happen, the state will say, "We can still do the job with the same staff and their equipment", and as a result come up with some nifty slogans or media promotion and or band aid attempt to help wildlife to fake out the hunters - and then with that mindset, they will rob 80-90 percent of the new funds from raised prices on licenses to pay other things. Bank on it.
Let me give you a great example. In Georgia, they wanted to have the lottery to raise incredible funds for schools. They sold it from that perspective to get folks to go along with the lottery. Well, guess what, they got it and now years down the road that lottery money has been robbed so much that many have to wonder from an educators perspective if the stores are even still selling lottery tickets. Just like social security, they repeatedly rob funds that were originally slated to go elsewhere. With a thing like turkey or deer population, it is going to be a lot easier to fudge on that than it was with the more highly visible education of children (the lottery) and you can only imagine how much of that money slated for wildlife that will wind up going elsewhere. The real problem is not the number of turkeys, the real problem is that our states and nation just need a lot more good solid leaders. Good common sense leadership is disappearing faster than the turkeys are.
Quote from: mountainhunter1 on July 06, 2022, 11:19:10 AM
This discussion is worthless because as a couple have already alluded to, even if you raised prices a couple of hundred dollars on either nonresidents or residents (or both), government is set up today to waste every single extra dollar that you give them. The border is wide open and every one of those folks who walk across illegally is getting paid day one - that is a fact, I'm not just running my trap. They are robbing the citizens to pay for those type things and ear marked money for turkeys or deer would be a sitting duck.
Here is what will happen, the state will say, "We can still do the job with the same staff and their equipment", and as a result come up with some nifty slogans or media promotion and or band aid attempt to help wildlife to fake out the hunters - and then with that mindset, they will rob 80-90 percent of the new funds from raised prices on licenses to pay other things. Bank on it.
Let me give you a great example. In Georgia, they wanted to have the lottery to raise incredible funds for schools. They sold it from that perspective to get folks to go along with the lottery. Well, guess what, they got it and now years down the road that lottery money has been robbed so much that many have to wonder from an educators perspective if the stores are even still selling lottery tickets. Just like social security, they repeatedly rob funds that were originally slated to go elsewhere. With a thing like turkey or deer population, it is going to be a lot easier to fudge on that than it was with the more highly visible education of children (the lottery) and you can only imagine how much of that money slated for wildlife that will wind up going elsewhere. The real problem is not the number of turkeys, the real problem is that our states and nation just need a lot more good solid leaders. Good common sense leadership is disappearing faster than the turkeys are.
I completely agree, no trust that the politicians are doing what they say. Social Security is just a Ponzi Scheme. If the government made it optional most people would invest the money they pay into social security into other things like 401K, stocks, bonds, precious metals. But the government has ripped into social security so much for other things it's disgraceful. Realistically the money I pay into it now and have been for the past thirty years isn't even for me. It's for those on it now. And with the lack of work ethic today I may not have someone paying to support me in the future. That's not the way it was meant to be, but it is what it has become.
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
Amen on the corn all over the ground in our woods. The very minute they legalized corn in North Georgia, the turkey population took another hit. As if the existing predators were not enough, the DNR created a new one with corn on the ground. Moldy corn and turkeys just don't mix.
I know we are way off the original intent of the original post in this thread, but squirrel hunting became king and coon hunting was discarded in our part of the country and along with that and the corn on the ground to me is way more of an issue than out of state hunters and how much you charge them to hunt your state. But as I said above, that all goes back to leadership. If we had better leadership, the corn on the ground would end and the predators would be much better dealt with.
BUT - - back to the point, what about this - stop the baiting and then raise prices on licenses and take that money (every single penny of it and not rob it to do other things), and use that additional money to pay for one thing - predator population control. And don't pay them to just go through the motions of doing the job, but instead give them that money based on how many coons, coyotes, hogs, etc. that they eliminate. Make them turn the carcasses in to get paid with those additional funds created by higher license prices. I would gladly pay extra for a license if they would do just that, but that would likely be asking too much for our current leaders to come up with a good common sense idea like that.
Quote from: silvestris on July 03, 2022, 03:02:14 PM
The Biden gas "tax" will thin out the non-residents.
not at all
Quote from: eggshell on July 04, 2022, 07:13:27 AM
increasing NR cost is a poor management strategy, in my opinion. NR Turkey tags are not a significant revenue source in most state wildlife budgets. Deer and big game on the other hand drive the bus, in most states, in regards to NR dollars. After working a long career in Ohio's Division of wildlife I have seen these very discussions many times. As a rule hunters will pay up if the opportunity is good for a quality hunt. game levels, not cost, drive this bus. Hunters want to have a high expectation of success, they will shy away from place where probability of success is low. However, there is a limit where people won't pay up. When expectations run low and cost go up hunters don't come. I saw Ohio raise cost and NR tags would drop for a year or two and then recover. when you consider a hunt the cost of a tag is one of the least expensive things on your trip budget. For example, I hunt Ky. every year and my license cost me $235.00 (I think) and between gas food and lodging I estimate I spent about $400.00 and most of my trips were one day driving hunts (I live 1.5 hrs from one of my spots). Then I hunted South Dakota and spent $125.00 on a tag and an estimated $1500.00 on gas, lodging and food. Now the SD trip was also a visit to my daughter, but if it had been solely a turkey hunt the cost would be the same. Sure some money could be raised to help turkey management, but not enough to justify the burden on the sportsmen and women. Like others have said, there are better strategies.
I agree with a lot of what you said- particularly about the quality of hunt driving what I'm willing to pay for a license and/or the other expenses associated with traveling to hunt.
I'm willing to pay more for better hunting. Willing to take days off work for a better hunt. As you said, the license fee is a small small percentage of what I spend on a hunting trip (particularly on gas to some of these places).
Having said that; In some of the harder hunted or "destination" states that see a lot of NR pressure, the additional revenue generated from higher license fee's might not help the bird, but cutting the pressure substantially (from NR at least) certainly could, if the higher fees were a deterrent.
Quote from: rakkin6 on July 06, 2022, 11:28:52 AM
Quote from: mountainhunter1 on July 06, 2022, 11:19:10 AM
This discussion is worthless because as a couple have already alluded to, even if you raised prices a couple of hundred dollars on either nonresidents or residents (or both), government is set up today to waste every single extra dollar that you give them. The border is wide open and every one of those folks who walk across illegally is getting paid day one - that is a fact, I'm not just running my trap. They are robbing the citizens to pay for those type things and ear marked money for turkeys or deer would be a sitting duck.
Here is what will happen, the state will say, "We can still do the job with the same staff and their
equipment", and as a result come up with some nifty slogans or media promotion and or band aid attempt to help wildlife to fake out the hunters - and then with that mindset, they will rob 80-90 percent of the new funds from raised prices on licenses to pay other things. Bank on it.
Let me give you a great example. In Georgia, they wanted to have the lottery to raise incredible funds for schools. They sold it from that perspective to get folks to go along with the lottery. Well, guess what, they got it and now years down the road that lottery money has been robbed so much that many have to wonder from an educators perspective if the stores are even still selling lottery tickets. Just like social security, they repeatedly rob funds that were originally slated to go elsewhere. With a thing like turkey or deer population, it is going to be a lot easier to fudge on that than it was with the more highly visible education of children (the lottery) and you can only imagine how much of that money slated for wildlife that will wind up going elsewhere. The real problem is not the number of turkeys, the real problem is that our states and nation just need a lot more good solid leaders. Good common sense leadership is disappearing faster than the turkeys are.
I completely agree, no trust that the politicians are doing what they say. Social Security is just a Ponzi Scheme. If the government made it optional most people would invest the money they pay into social security into other things like 401K, stocks, bonds, precious metals. But the government has ripped into social security so much for other things it's disgraceful. Realistically the money I pay into it now and have been for the past thirty years isn't even for me. It's for those on it now. And with the lack of work ethic today I may not have someone paying to support me in the future. That's not the way it was meant to be, but it is what it has become.
Sent from my moto z4 using Tapatalk
No they wouldn't, they would just blow that money on "the next shiny thing." Not a big fan of most gov. programs, but the majority of people would just waste it, like they did with the covid "relief funds". Big screen t.v. manufacturers would love it though.
Hard no for me.
If they come up with proposal that benefited turkeys, then great. Let's sell tags or increase fees to cover the cost of that program. But to just arbitrarily increase fees is a waste of my money.
That there is a loaded question!!! If had plenty of $, then raising it wouldn't bother me, if I wasn't that wealthy it would suck. If I were a guide, I probably wouldn't like it to much. Your always are going to upset someone, because it will effect them more than others. I think if I were part of a states DNR, I would be on these sites listening, not so much giving my input, to get an idea on how a lot of hunters are feeling before making any decisions. Better informed, better decisions. Your still going to upset some, but at least you informed yourself and can explain your decision. But the answer to your question is I wouldn't have an issue with paying a small increase, but would rather see several small changes in different areas, instead of one real big one.
Quote from: Sixes on July 04, 2022, 06:13:14 AM
I don't care if GA raises resident license fees, I bought a lifetime license the first year that the state made them available. Raise them through the roof, it won't effect me and would probably help me in the long run.
I'm one of the few that hates hunter recruitment. The less the merrier in my opinion.
nailed it
Quote from: mountainhunter1 on July 06, 2022, 11:19:10 AM
This discussion is worthless because as a couple have already alluded to, even if you raised prices a couple of hundred dollars on either nonresidents or residents (or both), government is set up today to waste every single extra dollar that you give them. The border is wide open and every one of those folks who walk across illegally is getting paid day one - that is a fact, I'm not just running my trap. They are robbing the citizens to pay for those type things and ear marked money for turkeys or deer would be a sitting duck.
Here is what will happen, the state will say, "We can still do the job with the same staff and their equipment", and as a result come up with some nifty slogans or media promotion and or band aid attempt to help wildlife to fake out the hunters - and then with that mindset, they will rob 80-90 percent of the new funds from raised prices on licenses to pay other things. Bank on it.
Let me give you a great example. In Georgia, they wanted to have the lottery to raise incredible funds for schools. They sold it from that perspective to get folks to go along with the lottery. Well, guess what, they got it and now years down the road that lottery money has been robbed so much that many have to wonder from an educators perspective if the stores are even still selling lottery tickets. Just like social security, they repeatedly rob funds that were originally slated to go elsewhere. With a thing like turkey or deer population, it is going to be a lot easier to fudge on that than it was with the more highly visible education of children (the lottery) and you can only imagine how much of that money slated for wildlife that will wind up going elsewhere. The real problem is not the number of turkeys, the real problem is that our states and nation just need a lot more good solid leaders. Good common sense leadership is disappearing faster than the turkeys are.
gotta love the good old lottery man. a system designed for you to have a greater chance of being hit by a nuclear warhead than winning...and yet folks hold up gas station lines 15 minutes at a time to pick through lottery tickets. my state did the same thing...only their cop out was the money was going to infrastructure "paticularly " projects like roads and bridges. I promise you there hasnt been a single bridge built with that money, and there never will be....would love to know where it goes...probably gets fought over and divided up into so many ways that its essentially useless.
I can't speak for other states, but I worked for Ohio Dept. Natural Resources for 30+ years and the license money did not go to pet political projects not meant for wildlife, period. I know saying that will not change many minds about conspiracy theories, but I just had to say it. I had many friends in surrounding states in DNRs and for the most part they all made license money a dedicated funding. Ohio for instance stocks around 20 million fish a year. Where do you think that money came from? I guess I take offense because when I see these claims I feel like someone is calling me a crook, because in my career I spent millions of dollars of sportsmens money and I never spent a dime that didin't go toward making the resource better....believe me or not. I will admit sometimes it's a big battle against the politicians, but 99% of the time the agencies win. Whenever you pull in a parking lot and hunt a WMA your walking on land bought with sportsmen's dollars and there are millions of acres of it across America. state Forest and National forest included. We only have turkeys to hunt becasue of the funding of license and gear tax fron Pittman Robertson Act money to trap and transplant turkeys into all available habitat. I for one say your barking up an empty tree.
Please understand I am only voicing what I feel is an informed opinion, I mean no malice towards anyone.
License money is supposed to be used in the proper ways, but politicians are criminals for the most part, one of the former Illinois Governor's was ripping that fund off and using it for who knows what?
I think he is still in jail.
The Georgia lottery is not all that bad, you don't have to play and right now, my daughter is using the HOPE scholarship to pay 90 percent of her tuition fees, that is saving me quite a bit of money on the checks that I write.
Now, colleges drove up tuition knowing that the HOPE would increase their revenue, but it helps people like me that do not want to see their children take student loans and go into debt for an education.
No. Because I know that the bulk of turkeys live on private land and that's where the management changes need to happen on a large scale. No matter how high they raise the price of a tag, any amount of money the state raises is a drop in the bucket compared to what can be done with federal programs. Quit incentivizing farmers to grow failing crops in poor areas and pay better on conservations practices and easements.
Yes. I would. Residents pay taxes that go to state programs that non residents do not.
I think if you are a non resident and you own OR lease land in a state you should get a resident license
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But if you are hunting National Forest you pay as much tax toward it as they do. I think with limits being dropped in many states, they should leave the prices alone. Hunters are already getting less hunting for the money, no need to hit us with a double whammy.
Quote from: Tail Feathers on July 28, 2022, 03:30:15 PM
But if you are hunting National Forest you pay as much tax toward it as they do. I think with limits being dropped in many states, they should leave the prices alone. Hunters are already getting less hunting for the money, no need to hit us with a double whammy.
federal taxes for national forest doesn't really have anything do to with state hunting licenses? I'm talking about state management expenses and conservation projects that state tax dollars pay. state parks, recreation areas, etc. that these licenses and state tax dollars from residents pay. MS has always higher hunting licenses for non residents as with most states in the south.
To me its a privilege to be able to go out of state to hunt so i don't mind paying more for a non resident license
Quote from: wchadw on July 28, 2022, 03:52:01 PM
Quote from: Tail Feathers on July 28, 2022, 03:30:15 PM
But if you are hunting National Forest you pay as much tax toward it as they do. I think with limits being dropped in many states, they should leave the prices alone. Hunters are already getting less hunting for the money, no need to hit us with a double whammy.
federal taxes for national forest doesn't really have anything do to with state hunting licenses? I'm talking about state management expenses and conservation projects that state tax dollars pay. state parks, recreation areas, etc. that these licenses and state tax dollars from residents pay. MS has always higher hunting licenses for non residents as with most states in the south.
To me its a privilege to be able to go out of state to hunt so i don't mind paying more for a non resident license
Take a look into how state conservation agencies are funded. You'll be surprise how little (if any)funding they receive from the states general fund. It's all user fees, PR dollars, and grants.
Quote from: AndyN on July 28, 2022, 05:50:30 PM
Quote from: wchadw on July 28, 2022, 03:52:01 PM
Quote from: Tail Feathers on July 28, 2022, 03:30:15 PM
But if you are hunting National Forest you pay as much tax toward it as they do. I think with limits being dropped in many states, they should leave the prices alone. Hunters are already getting less hunting for the money, no need to hit us with a double whammy.
federal taxes for national forest doesn't really have anything do to with state hunting licenses? I'm talking about state management expenses and conservation projects that state tax dollars pay. state parks, recreation areas, etc. that these licenses and state tax dollars from residents pay. MS has always higher hunting licenses for non residents as with most states in the south.
To me its a privilege to be able to go out of state to hunt so i don't mind paying more for a non resident license
Take a look into how state conservation agencies are funded. You'll be surprise how little (if any)funding they receive from the states general fund. It's all user fees, PR dollars, and grants.
User fees include hunting licenses. But there is tax money from the state that goes to the programs and employees salaries that work for the state departments. The employees that work for department of game and fish and parks are state employees
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: wchadw on July 28, 2022, 05:54:32 PM
Quote from: AndyN on July 28, 2022, 05:50:30 PM
Quote from: wchadw on July 28, 2022, 03:52:01 PM
Quote from: Tail Feathers on July 28, 2022, 03:30:15 PM
But if you are hunting National Forest you pay as much tax toward it as they do. I think with limits being dropped in many states, they should leave the prices alone. Hunters are already getting less hunting for the money, no need to hit us with a double whammy.
federal taxes for national forest doesn't really have anything do to with state hunting licenses? I'm talking about state management expenses and conservation projects that state tax dollars pay. state parks, recreation areas, etc. that these licenses and state tax dollars from residents pay. MS has always higher hunting licenses for non residents as with most states in the south.
To me its a privilege to be able to go out of state to hunt so i don't mind paying more for a non resident license
Take a look into how state conservation agencies are funded. You'll be surprise how little (if any)funding they receive from the states general fund. It's all user fees, PR dollars, and grants.
User fees include hunting licenses. But there is tax money from the state that goes to the programs and employees salaries that work for the state departments. The employees that work for department of game and fish and parks are state employees
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
it depends on the state, but most are very heavy on user funding. A lot are all user funded.
It's hard to justify increased license fees when you push starting dates
back and decrease bag limits. Sounds like shrinkflation to me.