Would You Be Willing To Pay More For A Non- Resident Hunting License ?

[Crghss]

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.

[jhoward11]

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.

[dzsmith]

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

[dzsmith]

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.

[eggshell]

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.

[Dtrkyman]

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.

[Sixes]

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.

[AndyN]

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. 

[wchadw]

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

[Tail Feathers]

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.

[wchadw]

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

[AndyN]

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.

[wchadw]

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

[eggshell]

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.

[Jimspur]

It's hard to justify increased license fees when you push starting dates
back and decrease bag limits. Sounds like shrinkflation to me.