For the past 18 years, I have traveled to Missouri for deer hunting there. Although Missouri isn't the worst of the bunch, many states find it convenient to take advantage of non-residents by charging unreasonable fees. I just purchased my 2007 permit for $175. When I wrote to the Missouri Department of Conservation, they replied that they were in line with other states, i.e. Iowa $412.00, Kansas $394, Illinois $321, Tennessee $251, Arkansas $225, Oklahoma $206, Nebraska $190, Kentucky $165, and then Missouri $175. What makes this worse is that I hunt on private property such that the landowner receives none of the funds the state receives while he invests his own funds to have quality hunting.
Rep. Duncan Hunter of California has introduced a bill to reduce non-resident big game fees that are being charged by states which have large areas of federal land, but rip off out of state hunters who wish to hunt there. The fees for hunting in Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico and others are robbery for out of state hunters even though the land is owned and maintained by the federal government. It pours funds into their budget without any expenditure on their part.
I would like for you to add your support to the bill introduced by Rep. Hunter, but be sure that the bill covers all non-resident fees with a limit on what states may charge non-resident hunters.[Missouri resident pay $17 for the same license that costs me $175.] I would like the out of state fee be reasonably priced as compared to the residents fees, ie like 25 to 50 per cent more than a resident license/permit.
From my standpoint, there appears to be three different things the fees should be based on. They depend if the permit is for private property, state lands, or national forest. I hunt on private property where the land owner invests his own funds and manages his herd. He receives NOTHING of the fees paid to the state. If I were hunting on state owned lands, I would expect to pay more because the state manages the land. If I were hunting on National Forest lands, it would seem reasonable to pay less since the state is not paying for the management of those lands. [I would consider a fee of $25 for the permit and $150 to the landowner to be reasonable for hunting in Missouri.]
The last paragraph was sent to the Missouri Conservation Department. Their reply was It sounds like you're proposing a 3 tiered pricing structure for all permit types depending on where they are to be used. This would likely be confusing to hunters, and would greatly reduce their flexibility to decide where they hunt from one day to the next. We think this approach would be impractical. The answer is pure government way of saying....nothing is going to be done!!!!!
If I remember my American history correctly, the Boston Tea Party cry was "Taxation without Representation". Interstate gouging is easy for the local politicians, but should NOT be legal.
Please support the "Teddy Roosevelt Bring Back Our Public Lands Act Bill" by sending
a letter or email to you congress person. Most of the people in congress can be reached
by going to google, ie www.google.com and entering
your congress person's name. When you
get to their site, most have a "contact us" hot spot and you merely fill out a form with
your concern. If you want to see what I wrote one of my congressman, then see
see
my letter. Please feel free to copy and include in your letter if you agree with
what I wrote.
It's time for the hunters of this country to show the states that time of robbing out of state
hunters is over. When I hunted in Colorado, the locals were always bad mouthing the Texas
hunters, but they never hesitated in taking our money!!!!