HIGH PRICED LICENSES

[gouged]

As many of you know somw states are really gouging nonresident hunters with recent licence price increases. Last year Colo. raised nonresident Elk from 250.00 to 450.00 and will it 20.00 again this year. This year Iowa is raising nonresident derr tags to 308.00. Maybe Minn. should cash in on nonresident fishing licenses. With the States budget shortfall, I'm sure the DNR could make good use of the extra revenue. Maybe if Minn. raised the fees high enough all the Packer Backers would stay home and fish their 30"ers.:)

[RK]

Can't for the life of me remember which state it is (want to say Michigan but don't think that's right) but there's one out there with the fairest non-resident license rate scale you can find. They charge you whatever YOUR home state charges for a non-res. fee - what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Somewhere, just that one time, some politician was thinkin...

Cheers,
RK

[TECK]

That would be GREAT for the MN. fisherman . But how about the poor resort owerner? Some of them are in a bad way already

[John Skarie]

I would love to see a conservation liscence like Canada has for MN.

It makes a lot of sense to me to charge more to people who are going to keep more fish if they catch them.

Out of staters don't pay the taxes like we do, and should pay more to help out our resources if they are going to enjoy them. I certainly don't want to scare people away by gouging them though.

JS

[Musky Alan]

As for me being from the southside of chicago, I would love to see a midwest license let's say around 100 to 120 bucks. The states could be Mi,In,Il,Wi, and Mn. They could split equally and this could be a catalyst to share info. etc, this would be a special license. I know I am dreaming!!!!!!

[BTPF]

That sounds like a good idea.

Than Wisconsin(Actually Hudson) could charge people from Minnesota $150 dollars for a case of beer on Sundays since Minny wont sell beer on that day. Not to mention Wisconsin has real beer, none of that 3/2 crap.

[fishkopp]

In my toxic state of N.J. ,a resident fishing license cost 33bucks. A none resident is over 50.We have to pay those big salarey biologist to study the habbits of the eastern box turtle.While the poor guys at the hatchery scrapes to get buy.You don't think with prices like that ,just maybe some guys can't aford to fish? Remember it's not what you know, but it's who you know in this state.And they re the people that get the high paying do nothing state jobs.Whats sad is these people dont hunt or fish.

good hunting to all

mike


www.n.j.dnrsucks.com

[Worm Drowner]

Can't complain at all about my home state of Ohio. Resident fishing: $15, Non-Res Fishing: $24. Hunting is $15 Res & $91 Non-Res. Deer permits for both are $20.

[djwilliams]

Iowa has some of the biggest, well fed white tails in the nation. We also had in the past what was considered the best pheasant hunting in the nation. We sit between both major interior waterfowl flyways. Our state's record muskie was caught recently, a 50 pounder. Smallmouth and largemouth bass and walleye state records were reset within the past 3-5 years. A LOT of hunters and fishermen come from out of state to help us harvest the high numbers and high quality of these and other animals. Minnesota has a well deserved reputation for being a fishing vacation mecca, and probably provides the best black bear hunting opportunities in the nation in addition to outstanding waterfowl hunting.
With all of that master of the obvious stuff stated, and considering the costs of maintaining these successful programs, what's wrong with these states raising costs to out of state sportsmen who choose to pursue their hunting and fishing there? Our residents already pay taxes to help fund these programs, and many of these programs are in the FRONT OF THE LINE for a budget cut. There's no gouging going on, just the realization that we have valuable and desirable resources. Therefore, these and other states are making up for decades of very low out of state fees by raising those fees now. I believe this is warranted.

All the best,
Don

[Gouged]

Don,

Interesting concept of which I don't completely disagree with. However its becoming a case of the Haves and the Have Nots with the Have Nots slowly being priced out of the picture. Along those lines if Minn. were to charge fees for nonresident anglers 10 times higher than residents I question how much support you would have.

[Sponge Bob]

I won't complain about the 12.50 we pay for a hunting/fishing license again! W/ a new governor elected the Dept of Game/Inland Fisheries was told they may lose up to 8 million dollars in state funds....hopefully not as that will put a SEVERE strain on everyone...resident/non resident alike.:(

[DocEsox]

You ought to price a license for a nonresident brown (grizzly) bear hunt in Alaska. As a nonresident you MUST have a guide and the whole trip with license averages about $10,000.....yeehawww, not that's some expensive huntin.

I feel each state has a right to set different prices for resident and nonresident licenses for many of the above reasons others have given. The only way around it is for all states to give up hunting and fishing rights to the federal government and all could buy just one fed license. Yes...another federal bureaucracy to pay for. And we know how reponsive they would be to local needs. No way around it....it can get expensive (I've held licenses for several states in a given year)but I don't see how it can be done otherwise.

Bummer,
BrianW