Phil from Maine

Maine is always trying to hike something up, they even tried to make us license our canoes that we paddle! That never happened yet but, they have still been trying to. They put our Fish and Wildlife under the general fund and have been just about broke ever sense! So I hope they do not get what they want in increases also. License sales here have been dropping even amougst residents as less and less young people hunt which is sad in my opion.

HEAD0001

"WOW". I do not get it . Hunters do not want other American citizens hunting in their own state. But American citizens want illegal Mexicans cutting their grass? WHY? Answer:MONEY.

I live in WV, and we have lots of out of state hunters, and fisherman. I do not know how much they contribute to our economy, but I am pretty sure that it is alot.

Just go into small towm Colorado during elk season. They roll out theredcarpet for out of staters. They roll out the carpet for one reason. MONEY. What have we become. You are only welcome if it makes us money. If not then keep out. Tom.

MinnFinn

I think it would have a devastaing affect (though temporary) on the state's Game & Fish, DNR or whatever that dept. that gets most of that funding from licenses. In many states, non-resident "contribute" as much or more total dollars from licenses, fees as resident hunters do. Big game licenses,waterfowl and upland game for non-residents are in many cases 10 times more than what locals pay. Often non-residents, such as in N.D., have much more restrictions and shorter hunting timeframe, too.

I'm not necessarily advocating it, because I would hunt in some of those states, as non-res., if there weren't good reason to do so. Although, the last couple years N.D. waterfowl has been generally poor, due to dry conditions. So, in that case, there likely are few non-res. putting down the higher $ for poor hunting.

npaden

Wow, that sounds cheap! In Montana a resident elk license is $16 and a non-resident is $593! That's 3,600% more! And that's if you go for a general license that you have to win in a drawing because there are more people applying for them than they have licenses. If you go for a guaranteed license through an outfitter they are $1k and you have to hire the outfitter.

That doesn't count any added benefit that the non-resident hunters bring into the local economy in hotels, meals, etc.

If you do a little work and add the number of licenses up and multiply it by the fees involved the non-resident hunting licenses account for a large % of the state of Montana's entire fish and game budget. It would require doubling or tripling the resident license costs to make up the shortfall.

dayna0306

I payed $425 to bow hunt Ill. this year and $375 last year and it's going up for 07 That has to be the highest in the country.But I'll do what ever it takes when I plan a hunt .I have worked 2 years straight and every other weekend for an alaska moose hunt DIY. But worth every minute, when I look up at the mount.


[/align]

thndrchiken

Npaden, I didn't even list the fees for hunting elk in PAwhich is a non-refundable lottery that don't earn preference points when not selected. Not to mention the disparity in trophy deer numbers. Sure there are nice bucks in PA but nowhere near what's out in the west and midwest. Seriously I'm just happy to fill my doe tag with the way the herd numbers are headed. Oh and by the KYbuckhunter who do you think antes up most of the money for the state game lands, isn't you or any of the other local boys.

Kybuckhunter

So your saying out of state hunters do? That is nothing but a stupid reply on your part. Like you know anything about being run over by out of state hunters. Your from Garfield NJ for Gods sakes.

I never said the non's shouldnt hunt other states but the residents should come first. I like the way Ill. does it. They put limits on it and make the ones that hunt it pay plenty for it. They shouldnt just open the gates and flood the state with non residents. There must be a balance.

thndrchiken

No your just saying they shouldn't hunt your state, we are already paying through the nose. Just because I live in the People's Republic don't mean I hunt there. By the way residents already get preference, the states that I hunt resident applications for elk and antlerless are accepted before non-residents, and we are left with what hasn't sold, some years many people are SOL, because residents bought up as many tags as the state allows. Through all of this you haven't mentioned what KY charges non-residents. If all the non-residents stopped hunting your state I'd bet you'd be among the ones crying about the resident fees going up to make up the difference. Get over it.

MinnFinn

I don't so much have a problem with non-residents having to pay higher license fees for hunting big game and upland game in their states. I do have a problem with the extreme disparity some states have in hitting non-residents for hunting migratory birds (duck, geese) and then putting limits of hunting no more than 10 days total on 2 trips to try to hunt in the states where there is more and more land every year posted.
Then non-residents too often are on the receiving end of being blamed for whatever bad thing of the year is happening. That gets pretty old.
At least acknowledge that non-residents are contributing a very substantial share of the funds it takes to run game and fish programs that benefits residents and non-residents alike.

Pro-Line

Ky....So a resident that doesn't own land should have rights that overseed a non-res that owns land???