I, and I'm sure many on here, put in for draw hunts. My rant if being forced to buy a friggin license for 'draw' applications.

Some of these licenses are starting to get a tad expensive.

Doesn't buying a license allow you to have certain rights to perform certain activities? Then why the hell am I required to buy a license with no rights?

My Nevada license arrived in the mail today and Utah arrived last week (I think?). I was thinking about how many people don't put in for the draws or points, because of being forced to purchase the license. I didn't put in for Idaho this year, because I feel as though I'm not getting anything in return for my money. At least I get a point in the other states, which might become useful in the future.

In rural Alaska, about half the people don't even bother buying the regular hunting license; then there's a bunch of them that shoot whatever, whenever; figure they are living off the land. Actually, very few are ever caught anyway.

I realize this is probably about applying for draws in other than your own state, but for state of residency hunts I bought a Lifetime License, then everything is covered always...all forms of hunting and fishing, state duck and trout stamps, wildlife management area hunts, quota hunts, everything. And you never have to find a license agent before the season starts or put your credit card out on the internet or even by phone. It was pricey but glad I did it.

That is the first thing I check into when planning an Out Of State hunt.

If the state I am looking at requires a person to buy a hunting license, just to be able to apply for a draw hunt, I don't even bother.

I think if a person will look into the situation, it was brought about by complaints of residents of those states, that too many Non-Residents were being able to hunt there, crowding out the residents.

That is one of the reasons some states limit the % of licenses/tags that can be obtained by Non-Residents.

I remember when Colorado instituted the Residents Only, drawing for the Limited Entry permits on the Ranching For Wildlife properties.

I remember lots of folks raising all kinds of hell, because they had numerous preference points from putting in for those permits for years, then all of a sudden, those points were just eliminated.

No option was given for the hunters to switch their accumulated points over to a Public Land hunt category.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
I remember when Colorado instituted the Residents Only, drawing for the Limited Entry permits on the Ranching For Wildlife properties.

I remember lots of folks raising all kinds of hell, because they had numerous preference points from putting in for those permits for years, then all of a sudden, those points were just eliminated.

No option was given for the hunters to switch their accumulated points over to a Public Land hunt category.

This is BULLSHIT statement. In Colorado, preference points are assigned to the individual, they are not assigned to any specific hunt. Because the option to use them for Ranching for Wildlife went away doesn't mean the points themselves went away. In other words, you can use preference points on any hunt you want. You don't have to always use them for the same thing.

Here's an example. I currently have 16 preference points for elk in Colorado. I'm holding out for one of the very limited bull tags for Unit 2. It takes 17 points to draw as a resident, which means I'm 2 years out. But, there is nothing preventing me from taking those 16 points and putting in for any other tag I want to. Only I decide what hunt to apply them to. The DOW could care less.

So, saying that people couldn't take their points and use them for another hunt is not only incorrect, but ridiculous. They may not have wanted to use them for another hunt, but the state never said they couldn't.

So I am wrong with that part of my response, and it was a case that folks with those points simply did not want to use them to draw for another hunt.

I just remember that there was a lot of complaining by Non-Residents when it happened.

From what I understood about the Ranching For Wildlife properties, those hunts were not originally intended for Non-Residents, but it had been allowed to go on so long that many folks had accrued large numbers of PP's.

I have applied and received enough tags in Colorado to know that the points aquired for say elk, can be used toward any draw elk hunt offered, and not just confined to one particular unit.

Sorry for my error.

Bluefin,

I feel your pain, it drives me nuts every year to have to buy a license knowing full well that I will probably just get a preference point (again) and have no need for the license. I really wish that a license was only required upon drawing one of the coveted tags we all apply for.

I understand the license provides revenue, but couldn't the state, at very least, have a "Draw Only" license for, say, $10 that could then be upgraded if a tag was drawn (the remainder of the license could be required to be paid first before the tag is sent). Sure would make a lot of us happier while still providing revenue for the state.

I just feel it's wrong. The states charge you for a 'license fee' and then tell everyone it's going towards game management. BS!

State and federal governments are the first to rape the game management funds.

Our money for these licenses only go towards their whims. I'm convinced that only a small (if any) portion go towards perservation and the men and women who tirelessly work in these fields.

Bluefin, while you and I have had our disagreements in the past, I agree completely with your assement of the situation.

One of the reasons why I am not a fan of Govenor Perry, is because he found a way to get the $$$ paid for hunting and fishing licenses in Texas, shifted from TP&W's hands, and into the states General Fund.

From what I am seeing, nearly every state is suffering a similar situation, whether thru the state goverment or the Feds.

The trend is for Western states to extract around $200 a year for a non-resident to apply.

A bit more in WY. A bit less in NM. NV, UT, OR, ID....states are making more revenues from unsuccessful non-residents than on tag fees when non-residents actually draws.

The trend will not reverse since non-residents do not vote in state elections where they are non-residents.

quote:

Originally posted by TreeWalker:
The trend is for Western states to extract around $200 a year for a non-resident to apply.

A bit more in WY. A bit less in NM. NV, UT, OR, ID....states are making more revenues from unsuccessful non-residents than on tag fees when non-residents actually draws.

The trend will not reverse since non-residents do not vote in state elections where they are non-residents.

Vote Democrap and you can vote anywhere and often!!!

I'd have to agree that it is BS to make someone buy a license to only be eligible to earn a preference point. A more feasible solution is to charge a registration fee, like was mentioned say $10 to register. Seems like a big rip off to me to have to buy a license for hundreds of dollars with no chance of getting drawn until you've paid them a total of $3000 or more and had to wait 15 + years.

While I agree with the sentiment on these license fees just to apply, you have to dig a little deeper to understand the rationale.
Of course the states want our money. But this is a direct result of Federal law. Another reason to vote for smaller government.

Pittman / Robertson funds are distributed to states based on their hunting license sales (in part). More license sales equals more money from the feds. For most states, the number of licenses sold each year is pretty constant, even decreasing in some states. This meant less federal money. Along comes the idea to make all non-res. buy a license just to apply in the draw. Major increase in license sales = major increase in Federal funds.

Once all states institute this type of policy, you are back to the same distribution as previously. (Total P/R revenue is a fixed pie each year, of course. You get a bigger portion by having more license sales) But all states haven't followed suit, so certain states are dipping their snout in the federal trough a little deeper by requiring these licenses.

Follow the Money. The new Golden rule.

Bill

Whatever the reasoning I agree it is bullshit. My family just found out yesterday that our group was rejected (I think there were 6-8 of us) or I should say not drawn, for Utah. We all had to pay application fee and buy licenses though. f*#k the jackasses running things in that state, they are now no. 2 on my fish and game shit list right after CA.

the good news of course is now the money I budgeted for that can go towards gun expenses and tattoos, still it was frickin' disappointing.

Red

quote:

Originally posted by thndrchiken:
I'd have to agree that it is BS to make someone buy a license to only be eligible to earn a preference point. A more feasible solution is to charge a registration fee, like was mentioned say $10 to register. Seems like a big rip off to me to have to buy a license for hundreds of dollars with no chance of getting drawn until you've paid them a total of $3000 or more and had to wait 15 + years.

If they allowed that, how would they get your $3000?

This has morphed into something entirely different from the original intent - it was instituted by a number of states as a way to discourage anti-hunters from putting in for drawings. At the time, a number of big game tags were going to antis who were applying to keep the tag from getting used by a ligitimate hunter. They had nothing to lose - no application or license fee or any other "down side" to discourage the practice. It was beginning to become an organized effort. They could reduce the number of animals killed by tying up the tags.

Unfortunately, the states realized this could be a cash cow - and they started milking it dry!

The real ripoff comes when the western states tell a non-resident that they can only go to a computor draw. This tells me that the state will let me spend my money when they feel like it and not when I want to spend it. My solution is to forget their idiotic ideas and do not participate. I patronize hunting states that allow the hunter to go when he wants and not when a socialistic government gives the o.k.

quote:

Originally posted by TreeWalker:
The trend is for Western states to extract around $200 a year for a non-resident to apply.

A bit more in WY. A bit less in NM. NV, UT, OR, ID....states are making more revenues from unsuccessful non-residents than on tag fees when non-residents actually draws.

The trend will not reverse since non-residents do not vote in state elections where they are non-residents.

Nevada is making it on the Resident hunters, also. We pay fees for each selection, and our draw chances are now relatively slim if we don't have accumulated points...even for deer.

We are forced to buy a license, also, if we want to be awarded a point for an unsuccessful draw.

It isn't confined to just the out-of-Staters...

quote:

Originally posted by ztreh:
The real ripoff comes when the western states tell a non-resident that they can only go to a computor draw. This tells me that the state will let me spend my money when they feel like it and not when I want to spend it. My solution is to forget their idiotic ideas and do not participate. I patronize hunting states that allow the hunter to go when he wants and not when a socialistic government gives the o.k.

Yeah, states such as WY, NM. NV, UT, ID - you know - all those with socialist regimes

Bill makes a good point on one side of the issue.

The other side is most of the states requiring a hunter to buy a license just to apply is the fact that their game animals are in short supply. How many whitetail states force a hunter to buy a license to apply? Elk, Mule Deer, Antelope, sheep, moose. Those are the species of less availability, higher costs to the game agency per animal, thus higher costs to apply. Add in the fact that "Trophy" units ration the resource even more and increase the cost per harvested animal.

Take Utah for example. There is much higher demand than the supply can handle. The cost to raise these animals (LE, bios, habitat, etc) is much higher than the permit cost. So people must invest in the hunt, not just swoop in on the one year they draw and take their animals home, while leaving very little behind.

That said, I am only a resident in 1 state. I have to pick and choose if I want to apply and buy licenses in those other states. It is a choice I have to make. And an expensive one at that. I have 2 kids and my wife and me to apply for. Utah runs $65 per person to apply as a resident. What does Flor or Ill or Penn cost you as a resident to apply for your tags?

Having to buy licenses to apply is a tough scenario. I dislike it as well, just wanted to share some reasons behind it.

quote:

Originally posted by llamapacker:

Follow the Money. The new Golden rule.

Bill

Or lack of money, in your case- right Sangano?! Seriously, that jackass Phifer plain ticks me off.

OK, back on track. Bluefin, I 100% agree with you. I figure it costs over a grand a year to play the full tag game, even more when I put my sons in for points. And with prepaid tags, it's possible to tie up over 8k in prepaid tags per year.

That is a lot of money, for little to show. I am something like 0-50+ in the draws the past 7 years. Do the math with the odds, it is almost cheaper to buy the sheep hunt!

It all adds up to a level where I am tired of unused value spent in license fees. The cost benefit just may be to buy the Canada hunt, and go while I still can.

Yep, it may be cheaper to buy in. I've never won a VT resident moose tag. Last season I bid in the public auction - I think I went up to $2700 since the cheapest winner the year before was around $2400.

Lost again - the lowest successful bid was around $3200. (Appx numbers - I don't remember exactly)

At least I'm not out anything the way I've been on the friggin Maine moose lottery.

I've not seen this first hand until this year when I put in for an Alaskan moose draw. I bought the license, then wasn't drawn. Looking at those that did draw, about 90% were Alaskan residents. One man drew three permits. I wondered whether this was on the up-an-up. I had the feeling that the Alaskans were put into one draw, and the non-residents were put into a different draw for a very small number of tags.

I can't imagine the people opposed to hunting would waste their time buying licenses, that consriracy theory sounds pretty weak. I totally agree it is a means of preventing non-residents from coming to hunt, and I guess that is a State's right.

For me it doesn't much matter. I'm using the Alaskan license. I'm finalizing a deal on another moose hunt. It will cost me another $2,000, but I've got only so-many big hunts left in me and I'm taking them.

quote:

Originally posted by Shack:
I realize this is probably about applying for draws in other than your own state, but for state of residency hunts I bought a Lifetime License, then everything is covered always...all forms of hunting and fishing, state duck and trout stamps, wildlife management area hunts, quota hunts, everything. And you never have to find a license agent before the season starts or put your credit card out on the internet or even by phone. It was pricey but glad I did it.

I too am a state lifetime license holder. I was under the belief that it would be good for any game species in the state of Oklahoma. Not so! When Oklahoma opened a black bear season a couple of years ago they made it where even lifetime license holders had to dish out an additional $100 to pursue them. This may not be much money for many of you, but for me it is highway robbery. I most certainly am not happy about the whole affair.

quote:

Originally posted by 31/2Makesmelaugh:
When Oklahoma opened a black bear season a couple of years ago they made it where even lifetime license holders had to dish out an additional $100 to pursue them. This may not be much money for many of you, but for me it is highway robbery.

Yeah, but if you're like me, who lives out of state, and own a lifetime hunting license in Oklahoma ... it is a steal!!! I'm glad I bought mine in 2000 before moving. Now, when I go home to my dad's place ... I just go hunting!!!

Sounds somewhat extra-legal, but I would be lying if I said that I didn't wish I had the same arrangement going in Colorado.

On the Life-Time Licenses I think I seem to recall that mine in Tenn. is only good while I'm residing in the state.

If your state works the same, this could be a problem with trying to rely on it for a special draw or otherwise after you re-locate elsewhere.

Another thought is, Why should you have to pay State fees to hunt on Federal land, that is suported by the 11% Wright Pitman Tax on sporting goods.

Federal land is FEDERAL LAND. Not owned by any state.

Request from any state, what they spend the hunting license/animal tag money on. It should be Public Record.

The whole preference point system is a big gimmick. How much money does it take for a state to keep up with such crap? Just the name, " preference points" gives it no credibility.

Alot of what we read today refers to hunting as a dying tradition, is it any wonder?
For my part I am rapidly falling prey to the attitude of many others these days. That being the "just f&*$ those out of state game departments whom are holding tags hostage for non resident dollars and go to a foreign country to spent my money".

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
Another thought is, Why should you have to pay State fees to hunt on Federal land, that is suported by the 11% Wright Pitman Tax on sporting goods.

Federal land is FEDERAL LAND. Not owned by any state.

Request from any state, what they spend the hunting license/animal tag money on. It should be Public Record.

Because the license doesn't have anything to do with federal Land. The license is for the game animal and the courts have dictated that the game belongs to the state and not the Federal Govt. So, just because the animal lives on federal Land, the state controls the right to issue the permit.

Think about it, do you really want a California congressman telling you how to manage deer in Texas? Because if you let the Feds control it, that is exactly what will happen. You want Charlie Rangel deciding what, when and where you can hunt?

No Mac I do not want Rangle directing wildlife anywhere. Though I am able to understand how 450#2 feels about getting a tag to hunt on Federal land as a non resident of the state it falls in. He and I as well as all Americans own that land and should have an equal opportunity to hunt on it as a resident does.
Take access to BLM land away from resident hunters whom have a larger percentage of the big game tags. Then issue a seperate tag for use on BLM land only with no preference to residency an I doubt any non resident would have a gripe with tag fees.

Heck, I own land in my state and can't hunt it without first drawing a permit from the state.

In my state a landowner or farm tenant can hunt their own place without a license. We don't have a lot of quota draws however.

quote:

If they allowed that, how would they get your $3000?

Uh, hello, you have to buy a non resident license to be eligible to register for the draw. Most don't get drawn until they've accumulated enough points and that takes 15 years or more. Do the math.

Not to be antagonistic, but nobody forces anybody to buy hunting licenses or put in for tags. We all choose to do it because we love hunting. Don't like it? Move to the state you're pissed off at and lobby to change it. If that doesn't work, take up golf. Lord knows what I spend on hunting would pay lots of green fees.

Hunting is becoming a racket (or maybe it has been for a long time and we don't want to admit it to ourselves). The states realize that and will milk us for all they can get. When we stop applying, they'll stop raising prices. I'm not going to though, are you?

quote:

Originally posted by 2th doc:
No Mac I do not want Rangle directing wildlife anywhere. Though I am able to understand how 450#2 feels about getting a tag to hunt on Federal land as a non resident of the state it falls in. He and I as well as all Americans own that land and should have an equal opportunity to hunt on it as a resident does.
Take access to BLM land away from resident hunters whom have a larger percentage of the big game tags. Then issue a seperate tag for use on BLM land only with no preference to residency an I doubt any non resident would have a gripe with tag fees.

The problem with this type of thinking is that the different states have usually divided the states into areas for tag allocation. This is usually done for herd management. A lot of BLM land is of a checkerboard nature, interspread within other Federal lands, state lands and private lands. It would be a nightmare trying to enforce legal tags if there were several different tags in the same area. Not all the borders of these different lands are marked. How would you like to be stuck for a $1000 fine because you accidently wandered off a piece of BLM ground and onto a piece of state owned ground while tracking a bull elk? Using your idea, the tag would be legal one minute and illegal the next. Not a good solution.

Besides, how could you legally "Take access to BLM land away from resident hunters"? Wouldn't that constitute discrimination? Aren't they also citizens of America and therefore availed of the right to use federal land?

Nobody says that you can't use Federal land. You can camp on it. You can drive off road vehicles on it. You can cut firewood on it. You can gather wild mushrooms on it. All that falls under the guidelines of the Federal government.

But, the individual states own the game and have been given the responsibility (by the courts I might add) to manage the game. The Federal government simply does not have the right to do so. It all comes down to the 10th amendment of the US Constitution that specifically says thay whatever is not mentioned in the Constitution is left to the states to govern. And, game management is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Now, I don't think you should have to buy a hunting license just to apply for tags. That is worng. My home state of Colorado doesn't require a general hunting license to apply, but they do require you to front the tag fee. If you don't draw, the money is refunded. It ties some money up for a few months, but they don't stick you for it without a refund.

There is no perfect system. But it must also be remembered that the individual state's game departments work for the residents of the state. They do not work for the residents of other states. Every state gives preference to the residents of that state. It's just the way it is. It's always been that way and it always will be that way. Hunting is a privilege, not a right.

You have 2 choices, play by the laws of the states or hunt elsewhere. Nobody forces you to buy a tag. It's all left to personal choice.

quote:

Nobody says that you can't use Federal land. You can camp on it. You can drive off road vehicles on it. You can cut firewood on it. You can gather wild mushrooms on it. All that falls under the guidelines of the Federal government.

And to add a bit to the above:

A NR can also HUNT on any federal or other public lands once they have purchased a license. The only exceptions are CERTAIN game animals, which require a special permit or tag -- the same special permit or tag a resident must get to hunt those animals on federal lands.

Here in Arizona, the NR license entitles the holder to take advantage of some of the best dove hunting in the country, a quail season that runs for 3-5 months with three species available, unlimited predator hunting, squirrel and waterfowl seasons and the privilege to buy OTC tags for lion, bear and archery deer. And every year, there are a few hundred draw deer permits leftover that are doled out on a 1st come/1st served basis with no restrictions as to residency. Same goes for javelina. And the majority of the hunting for all of the above takes place on the 85% of AZ that is either NS, BLM, USFWS or state trust lands.

So in reality, there's a bunch of animals and seasons spread over all 12 months of the year that a NR license provides its holder.

Legal definition of 'License':

The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct.

A license is different from a permit. The terms license and permit are often used interchangeably, but generally, a permit describes a more temporary form of permission. For example, if a homeowner seeks to make structural additions to her property, she may have to apply for permits from local land-use and Zoning boards. These permits expire on a certain date or when the work is finished. By contrast, the contractor who completes the work will likely hold a local license that allows her to operate her business for a certain number of years.

Licenses are an important and ubiquitous feature of contemporary society. Federal, state, and local governments rely on licensing to control a broad range of human activity, from commercial and professional to dangerous and environmental. Licenses may also be issued by private parties and by patent or Copyright holders.


So from this definition of 'license' the states are saying that you HAVE to buy a 'license' just to be able to put in for a draw? Seems like a rather bad word to use since I know of no other entity where you have to buy a license just to put in for a game of chance.

I'd also feel somewhat better if I knew that all of these license fees were going to the federal lands and animals. But we all know that's not happening...