- Joined
- Mar 11, 2001
- Messages
- 70,011
- Reaction score
- 1,007
SKYROCKETING HUNTING COSTS -- jim matthews column-ons -- 28nov07
Are skyrocketing license and tag fees driving hunters away?
By JIM MATTHEWS Outdoor News Service
In the past decade, the number of hunters in the nation has dropped by 10
percent in this country, with some of the biggest declines in the Western
states. In California, only one percent of the population 16 years old or older
hunted last year. This is in stark contrast to Montana where 19 percent of the
residents hunted.
Yet, the cost of hunting has increased with fewer and fewer hunters paying more
and more in license and tag fees. The amount of revenue generated for state and
federal programs has steadily increased because of these fee increases.
Is it these increasing costs that are running hunters away from the sport? Have
we simply priced blue-collar sportsmen out of the market?
In 1989, a California hunting license cost $19.75, and since that was before
the Upland Bird stamp, that price included resident game bird hunting. If you
look at what that license should cost in today’s dollars, the price (according
to the Consumer Price Index) should be $33.28. Instead, the cost is $37.30 for
the basic license and another $7.60 for the upland bird stamp for a total of
$44.90 -- a 227 percent increase or 56 percent more than can be attributed to
mere inflation.
But our home states are about the only place a lot of us can afford to hunt
these days. Non-resident fees are even more gouging.
When I last bought a non-resident antelope permit in Wyoming, it cost $105 in
1992. In today’s adjusted dollars that same license should only cost $156.37.
But it’s actually $286. Interestingly, you almost can’t get drawn for a general
pronghorn tag today for the hunts I generally applied for back then (five to
six percent drawing success rates vs. 80 to 90 percent draw rates in the early
1990s), so they offer a $30 preference point to give you additional chances in
the draw for each year you buy a preference point. With the maximum number of
preference points, I still would only face about a 25 percent chance of getting
a tag. But wait, if you want to cough up $526 (plus the $30 for the preference
point in case you don’t get drawn), you are put in a special tag pool, and your
drawing odds jump up to nearly 100 percent, especially if you have a preference
point or two.
The reality is that to get a pronghorn tag as easily as I did in the early
1990s (when I was drawn every year I applied), I would have to spend $556 to
have a reasonable shot at a tag in Wyoming these days.
I went back and checked my tax returns. I don’t make 2 1/2 times what I did in
1992, and I certainly don’t make five times as much. Yet, the Wyoming Game and
Fish Department is raking in those kinds of dollars on mere antelope tags.
Tag increases of these magnitudes and more are common throughout the West. The
cost of bull elk licenses have jumped almost beyond what an average working man
can afford.
In Idaho, a general non-resident hunting license ($141.50) and elk tag
($372.50) will set you back $514 for the 2008 season. Adding a deer will cost
another $255.50, and if you want to hunt upland birds while you’re there, tack
on another $81.75. The good news is that Idaho sells its general big game
licenses on a first-come, first-serve basis starting Dec. 1 each.
In Wyoming, the 2008 elk license will cost $591 unless you want to get in the
special pool where your odds of getting a tag are better, and then you’ll pay
$1,071. The elk bonus point is $50 each year over and above these costs. In
Arizona, the basic hunting license in 2007 was $151.25 -- and you have to buy
that before you can even apply for an elk tag -- and the elk tag was another
$595. Colorado looked like a bargain with its $501 elk license for this past
fall.
Most of the average hunters I know don’t even apply for things like bighorn
sheep or moose anymore because most states require that you include the whole
tag amount when applying, which the agency keeps for three to six months,
before sending you a refund when you don’t draw a tag. In Colorado, the bighorn
tag fee was $1,716 this season, and a sheep tag will set you back $2,266 in
Wyoming for this coming fall.
Once upon a time, a guy could simply send in the application fee of $5 or $6
and pay the tag fee IF he was drawn. A lot of regular guys applied for sheep
hunts in all the Western states. Not any more. It has become a wealthy man’s
activity. Game departments have nestled up in bed with guides and outfitters to
make sure wealthy clients have a better chance at getting limited tags. It’s
become a racket, but game agencies say it is needed to help them cover their
growing costs -- which is bunk, of course.
If the agencies’ fees weren’t so high and the tag allocation system wasn’t
biased toward those with the most money, maybe license and tag sales wouldn’t
be steadily declining. Maybe agencies wouldn’t need to keep raising fees and
selling the soul of hunting to the highest bidder.
Are skyrocketing license and tag fees driving hunters away?
By JIM MATTHEWS Outdoor News Service
In the past decade, the number of hunters in the nation has dropped by 10
percent in this country, with some of the biggest declines in the Western
states. In California, only one percent of the population 16 years old or older
hunted last year. This is in stark contrast to Montana where 19 percent of the
residents hunted.
Yet, the cost of hunting has increased with fewer and fewer hunters paying more
and more in license and tag fees. The amount of revenue generated for state and
federal programs has steadily increased because of these fee increases.
Is it these increasing costs that are running hunters away from the sport? Have
we simply priced blue-collar sportsmen out of the market?
In 1989, a California hunting license cost $19.75, and since that was before
the Upland Bird stamp, that price included resident game bird hunting. If you
look at what that license should cost in today’s dollars, the price (according
to the Consumer Price Index) should be $33.28. Instead, the cost is $37.30 for
the basic license and another $7.60 for the upland bird stamp for a total of
$44.90 -- a 227 percent increase or 56 percent more than can be attributed to
mere inflation.
But our home states are about the only place a lot of us can afford to hunt
these days. Non-resident fees are even more gouging.
When I last bought a non-resident antelope permit in Wyoming, it cost $105 in
1992. In today’s adjusted dollars that same license should only cost $156.37.
But it’s actually $286. Interestingly, you almost can’t get drawn for a general
pronghorn tag today for the hunts I generally applied for back then (five to
six percent drawing success rates vs. 80 to 90 percent draw rates in the early
1990s), so they offer a $30 preference point to give you additional chances in
the draw for each year you buy a preference point. With the maximum number of
preference points, I still would only face about a 25 percent chance of getting
a tag. But wait, if you want to cough up $526 (plus the $30 for the preference
point in case you don’t get drawn), you are put in a special tag pool, and your
drawing odds jump up to nearly 100 percent, especially if you have a preference
point or two.
The reality is that to get a pronghorn tag as easily as I did in the early
1990s (when I was drawn every year I applied), I would have to spend $556 to
have a reasonable shot at a tag in Wyoming these days.
I went back and checked my tax returns. I don’t make 2 1/2 times what I did in
1992, and I certainly don’t make five times as much. Yet, the Wyoming Game and
Fish Department is raking in those kinds of dollars on mere antelope tags.
Tag increases of these magnitudes and more are common throughout the West. The
cost of bull elk licenses have jumped almost beyond what an average working man
can afford.
In Idaho, a general non-resident hunting license ($141.50) and elk tag
($372.50) will set you back $514 for the 2008 season. Adding a deer will cost
another $255.50, and if you want to hunt upland birds while you’re there, tack
on another $81.75. The good news is that Idaho sells its general big game
licenses on a first-come, first-serve basis starting Dec. 1 each.
In Wyoming, the 2008 elk license will cost $591 unless you want to get in the
special pool where your odds of getting a tag are better, and then you’ll pay
$1,071. The elk bonus point is $50 each year over and above these costs. In
Arizona, the basic hunting license in 2007 was $151.25 -- and you have to buy
that before you can even apply for an elk tag -- and the elk tag was another
$595. Colorado looked like a bargain with its $501 elk license for this past
fall.
Most of the average hunters I know don’t even apply for things like bighorn
sheep or moose anymore because most states require that you include the whole
tag amount when applying, which the agency keeps for three to six months,
before sending you a refund when you don’t draw a tag. In Colorado, the bighorn
tag fee was $1,716 this season, and a sheep tag will set you back $2,266 in
Wyoming for this coming fall.
Once upon a time, a guy could simply send in the application fee of $5 or $6
and pay the tag fee IF he was drawn. A lot of regular guys applied for sheep
hunts in all the Western states. Not any more. It has become a wealthy man’s
activity. Game departments have nestled up in bed with guides and outfitters to
make sure wealthy clients have a better chance at getting limited tags. It’s
become a racket, but game agencies say it is needed to help them cover their
growing costs -- which is bunk, of course.
If the agencies’ fees weren’t so high and the tag allocation system wasn’t
biased toward those with the most money, maybe license and tag sales wouldn’t
be steadily declining. Maybe agencies wouldn’t need to keep raising fees and
selling the soul of hunting to the highest bidder.
