Reciprocity for Hunting

What do you guys think of states (WI-MN for example) giving reciprocity to each other for hunting licenses much like schools do for tuition purposes?

Thoughts?

I used it when I went to college at UW-Stevens Point. It definetly helped because I didn’t have the money due to cost of school (aka beer money ). It also let me experience hunting in new country and gave me a reason to skip class.

I think it would be a great Idea, and get states more of my money. As a guy who has a new family, and frineds that hunt and fish in MN, WI, and SD. I’m getting invited to join them but have always said no thanks due to the fact that most of the time it would be a one time trip and I just can’t validate the current fee’s for 3 day trips. Plus I would spend ALOT more time at my inlaws fishing the trout stream and less time at the bar. Wait let me change that I would spend less time at there house,and the same amount of time at the bar.

That would be a PIPE DREAM , IMO. You got to remember some states do not want the other hunters for the minimal cost. The money they gather from out of State Hunters Tags generates a lot of $ revenue for other states. Discounting for reciprocity is highly unlikely. Education is one thing, hunting is a different ball game IMO. Yeah, Iowa will waive the $400-600 fee and give everyone a over the counter bow license for $26.00.

Good luck!

Slop, think about it.

$400 out of sate fee x 1000 Hunters. = $400,000.00

$26.00 out of State Fee x1000 Hunters. = $26,000.00

Do the math. No way

WI is aorund what $150?

$150 x 1,000 = $150,000.00
$26 x 1,000 = 26,000.00

1000 is probably a lil light.

I hear what you’re saying LIP

I totally see the money issue – I’m just curious how many don’t hunt b/c of the high cost and if you would if it were more economical??

Personally I’d love to drive the 5 min. to MN and work a drive with BLUE FLECK etc….or even Goose hunt with Tim D….but it’s just not worth it now for the cost

Slop, it would be a great deal for hunters but not for the agencies that rely on that income. Good hunting is becoming a pay to play type of sport. I can’t think of a model where reciprocity could work out. Can you imagine the nonresident hunters in SD for pheasant season if the license wasn’t $114 and limited to two 5 day periods.

The states need the $ too much! It will never happen!

While I am always looking for a good deal when it comes to hunting it is not usually the price of the tag or license that slows me down. It is access to good hunting area. I do not mind paying the higher license cost to a state that makes good land available to hunt. Your states like Montana and SD have programs in place that draw out of state hunters with access to great land. While I live next door to MN and ILL good public land is harder to find. I drive right thru MN to hunt and spend my $ in SD.

Mike

I fully agree that it will never happen and I understand why. However being someone that has access to a a lot of good land in other states, I just hate not being able to because of the money, and the fact that I wouldn’t be able to do it nearly as often as I can at home.

Welcome to In-Depth Outdoors Mike

Very well put and I agree. The cost does not matter as long as I can get good hunting.

Scott is right. Hunting is a definite pay to play sport and I see this issue only getting worse in th e near future..

The other thing for me and the majority of the people that do not live directly or close to the border they want to hunt. The cost of the license is usually the lowest cost of the trip. By the time gas, food and lodging come into play for one weekend or multiple the $114 or whatever the cost is pretty minimal on the overall scheme. I pay $215 to bow hunt ND. To me worth every single penny and I only hunt it a few times a year. Living on the border like you Slop and being able to pound it every week I would not even second guess paying an additional $50-150 over an instate tag, if the hunting is that much better or convenient. But that is my personal opinion.

I think one major point in Slops question, is the revenue it would create in the various states. Take Lip’s scenario…

1000 hunters x $400 = $400,000 license fees = Avg. $300 each hunter for lodging, food, extras = $300,000 incremental spending in the local economys.

If it is cheaper then lets be conservative and say the hunters double…. I know I would do out of state hunting for sure

2000 Hunters X $26.00 = $52,000 in license fees. 2000 Hunters spending $300 lodging, food, extras = $600,000 in the local economys.

Using these figures, $700,000 to $652,000 it’s not too far apart what gets spent, but more importantly, where it goes…. with every trip the $$$ change significantly for the cheaper license, as there is $300,000 difference spent on lodging, meals and extras with more hunters.

big G

G, I agree but you are missing one major factor in your example. The local or State economy makes the money in lieu of the Governement Agency.

i have dozens of oppertunity’s to deer hunt in wisconsin every year but i don’t just because of the cost of a license.

Lip, are you saying there are greedy beaureacrats ????

big G

The only way around this who gets the money viscious circle would be to have the state governments pool together on outdoor activities. Thus revenue from license sales would be split between the states cooperating together.

That would be a major change but now that I’ve thrown that out there, could provide some economies of scale and put more dollars in play for enforcement and other programs such as habitat preservation and population management.

Reaching I know, but these types of ideas may need to be explored as we face continuing budget cutbacks.

ET

I hunt in NW Wisconsin on public land. From a selfish perspective, why would I want this type of an arrangement that would most likely lead to more pressure on the land that I hunt??

I do think they should allow property owners to purchase licenses at resident rates even if you live in another state.

I hunt in MN and WI and I think the out of state license is about the same for both $140-150. Seems fair. What I would like to see is if I go to IA I pay $150 OR if an Iowa resedent hunts in WI they pay the $300-400 that we have to pay to hunt there. Again, seems fair.

Witte

BZZ, that is the main argument for reciprocity. Why allow out of state hunters(lets use Iowa) to come to MN and buy a $150 license, but when someone from MN goes to Iowa, its like 3 times as much for an out of state license. It would make the price of a license you pay in your state of residence, the price you pay in other states. MN is wondering why they have to have 3 hunters from Iowa, to generate the same amount of license fees that Iowa gets from one MN hunter ????

big G

G,
I guess I think a non-resident should pay more for a license than a resident.

I do agree with your Iowa example that it doesn’t seem to fair that they charge 3X more for a non-resident tag than MN does. On the other hand, that difference needs to account for hunting quality (example: If MN has 1 trophy buck and Iowa has 10, shouldn’t I expect to pay more for the opportunity to hunt for the 10?).

Minnesota is 3 times bigger….I agree, it probably is a pipe dream. What about fishing license ???

big G

I don’t know that my idea was to do away with non-resident fees, perhaps just standardize them. Also to provide “out of the box” thinking to improve habitat and wildlife with the dollars we have today.

For instance, each state I would guess employs a department of people to process licenses. Let’s say it’s 10 people per state. If 5 states coordinated that function to 1 department of say 20 people (instead of 50), that could free up money for other areas.

You could still have resident vs. non-resident fees to keep good hunting areas or areas near population centers from being overrun, but perhaps it could be consistent and managed.

Probably a pipe dream but we may get to a point someday that we can’t get a new tax across to support the programs we need. Then we’re going to need new ideas to make it work.

ET

In all reality there should be reciprocity but it probably wont happen throughout.I deer hunt Iowa (when I draw) cause I grew up there and like to come home to hunt with family/friends. Licenses and land is fewer in IA and they(state of Iowa)can make up the difference by charging the large fee. WI/MN sells more non-res tags obviously and generates a nice sum also from volume.IA could charge $1000 for a tag and still sell them out. Iowa has a good product,knows how to manage and sell it.