Greg / MO

I've been formulating some thoughts around the topic of non-resident fees for some time now... I'm not saying I've come to any concrete stances yet, but I've got some ideas floating around,some concepts that seem to make sense in a nebulous sort of way that I'm trying to work into a more solid position in my own mind. Maybe discussing them here will help me solidify my thought process.

I guess what burns me up about the ridiculous prices Illinois -- and other states as well -- charge for access is that their boundaries are abritrary, imaginary lines (well documented, of course -- but just as imaginary) that say this is where "our state" stops and yours begins, based on someone standing in a spot150-200 years agoand saying "Uh, this looks good"... and then the corresponding attitude that the deer (or whichever game animal you want to plug into the equation) are "ours" that we can hold ransom and rake the common, everyday sportsman over the coals for...

I live just a couple miles across the Mississippi river, and guarantee you I live closer to the deer I hunt than a lot of the Illinois residents do which hunt the same public grounds. Don't get me wrong; I think it's just as unfair when Missouri or anyone else does it. I just wonder about the sanity of charging such exorbitant prices for "out-of-staters."

It's getting so that only the wealthy will be able to enjoy the finer hunting territories in our great country, and that will affect the future of our sport. There's a reason you take a kid fishing in a farm pond stocked with hand-sized bluegill, and bait his hook with a plump, juicy cricket and allow it to hang underneath a bobber; he will be much more likely to get hooked on the sport (pun sorta intended) when enjoying early and often success.

There's a huge difference in introducing that kid to fishing that way as opposed to handing hima fly rod and a handful of nymphs and streamers, telling him to"go to it, boy"... just like there's a huge difference in taking a youngster to a state like Illinois where he's got a better chance of seeing deer -- maybe not killing, but at least seeing -- as opposed to some other areas wherehe'll belucky to see a deer all season, let alone in one evening hunt.

I think we should have a national hunting license, valid in all 50 states...

I realize this could be very controversial, and the strongest feelings will probably be elicited by those who already reside in incredible deer-hunting geographical states like Illinois, Ohio, Iowa, etc...

I think it could make for a great dialectic, though... and I can finally have a chance to flesh out this vague idea I've got floating around somewhere up there...

jmbuckhunter

Greg, I wish there was some solution to this problem. When I first started hunting in IL, 32 years ago, I could hunt for free on land owned by my dad. Not any more!! But as long as they keep selling out of permits, I don't see them listening to any talk of lowering prices. We are part of the problem because we keep shelling out the cash. But if we didn't there would be someone else who would.

You are right about another thing too. Hunting is fast becoming a rich man sport. From the equipment to the permits to owning land. You are either going to have tons of money or good connections to hunt quality animals in the future.

txjourneyman

Greg, I really like the concept of a national license but I think you may be tipping at windmills.

JNTURK

sounds like a great idea...the problem is that it is sooo simple our wonderful government will not be able to understand it...

Matt/TN

Why not just make non res a set price everywhere. If we were to go to a national liscense that would really upset the ones who are only hunting in their state and paying a generally low fee. It's like they'd be paying a hundred or however much more just to do the same thing they have been doing for years. I like the idea though, it would really help out the ones who hunt many states per year. I just don't think the idea would fly in the end. It would be hard to do, but I like the idea of a standardized out of state fee. Cheaper of course.

Greg / MO

Sorry for the lack of clarity... that's exactly what I was meaning, Coug. The normal, low fee if you were only hunting your state, but then you could buy a non-specific "out-of-state" license...

Or, perhaps even better, rather than punish those who live one mile from the state line, geographic zones could be offered... 400 miles and in from your zip code. It could easily be checked and tracked via computer. THAT would be a lot more fair... Think about those people who live around those little tiny states over on the east coast? I bet they could easily drive three or four hours and go through four or five states... Something like that would make a lot more sense for people in their situation...

txjourneyman

The distribution of revenues garnered would be the problem there. Just think of how many different govt. agencies would be involved. And they don't like to share. I like the idea more and more.
" This year I can only afford my home zone and expansion region #1. But next year my truck will paid off and I can expand to Regions 1,2, and 3. That will allow me to hunt*** miles from home! I think next year I'll go after elk and a coues deer." Like that?

Greg / MO

That's EXACTLY what I'm envisioning, tx!

peakrut

Im for reciprical. spell check on this one

GregH

That's right, $435 to hunt Ill and they can hunt Wi for $166???!!! [:@][:@]