Thoughts?

Lazer-UPH

UPH Guru
I know its not a huge increase to whine about, however there is a great point brought up - why are the resident prices seeing the same increase?


Nonresidents to be charged more to bird hunt

BOB MERCER American News Correspondent

11:55 p.m. CDT, November 1, 2012

MADISON — Hunters from outside South Dakota will be charged more for licenses to pursue pheasants, other small game and waterfowl in 2013 under a plan that received approval Thursday by the state Game, Fish and Parks Commission.

But several commissioners also called for prices for resident licenses to be increased in the near future.

The vote was 7-1, with Jim Spies of Watertown voting against the increases.

Prices for a 10-day license for small game and a 10-day license for waterfowl would increase to $120 from the current $110. The price for a three-day waterfowl license would rise to $85 from the present $75.

Licenses for nonresidents to hunt at shooting preserves also would go up. The annual nonresident license would increase to $120 from the present $85. The one-day license would change to $45 from $35, and the five-day license would rise to $75 from $65.

Based on past license sales, the state Wildlife Division estimated the adjustments would generate an additional $1.1 million in 2013.

License prices last were increased in 2005 and there's been an 18 percent increase in inflation since then, state Wildlife Division director Tony Leif said.

“I fully agree with the need for an increase in fees,” commission member Barry Jensen of White River said. But, Jensen asked Leif, what do most preserve operators feel?

Leif said many compromises were made through the years in setting regulations for preserves, including the fees. He said he believes the fee should be the same for nonresidents whether they are hunting on the preserve or using a general small-game license.

In the 28 years that Will Stone of Gary said he has operated a preserve, however, Stone said license prices increased by more than 900 percent. He said there were a half-dozen preserves in 1985 and now there are more than 200 preserves.

He said hunters frequently are surprised to learn they need to buy a state license in addition to what they pay to hunt at the preserve.

“It is our land. It is our habitat. Basically in eastern South Dakota, it is our birds,” Stone said.

Stone said his preserve has public shooting areas around it. He said there wouldn't be birds in the public areas without the birds he raises. He asked what preserves receive from the Game, Fish and Parks Department in return.

Stone suggested a $15 daily license or a three-day $45 license. “If we stop our hunters coming in at the border, everybody loses. The motel loses. The restaurant loses,” he said. “Every state around us is less than $45, and that's an annual fee.”

Commission member John Cooper of Pierre said he's been asked by South Dakota people in tourism and preserve businesses why the nonresidents are the only ones facing higher fees while residents don't have to pay more, but still receive services funded by the nonresident revenue.

Cooper wondered whether an analysis could be performed that would look at resident and nonresident licenses and prices.

Leif said trying to project two or three years ahead is like forecasting weather a month away. He said one possibility is establishing a schedule for possible fee increases and making decisions as those dates are reached.

Cooper said the Wildlife Division could estimate its increased expenses for future years. Cooper said the prices for licenses are a bargain. “My issue here is, can we do something different, and do we have to do this now?” Cooper said.

Leif said delaying a decision would be disruptive to the annual budgeting and regulatory processes. He noted that commission members didn't show interest in raising resident license prices last month when the nonresident increases were proposed.

Spies agreed with the points raised by Cooper. Spies said the Wildlife Division budget is “lean and mean” but doesn't think it's appropriate that nonresident hunters pick up “90 percent of the tab.”

“I know it didn't fly last month, but I just want to say, I don't think this is right,” Spies said. “I think we have to look at the residents' license fee real soon. It's got to be adjusted. We're already eight years out. How far are we going to go?”

“I don't like the route we're getting the money. I know we have to have the money,” Spies concluded.

Leif said “better than one-third” of the division's nearly $30 million in license revenues will come from nonresident pheasant hunters. He put the amount from nonresident pheasant hunters at roughly $12 million.

South Dakota attracted 95,077 nonresident pheasant hunters in 2011 and 100,189 in 2010. They took an average of 9.6 pheasants apiece in 2011 and 10.3 pheasants in 2010.

The 2011 fees for nonresident hunters in neighboring states were Montana $130; North Dakota $100; Minnesota $92; Iowa $125; Nebraska $101; and Wyoming $84.50.

North Dakota had the most nonresident pheasant hunters in 2011 with 24,500. They took an average of 8.3 birds per hunter. Nebraska reported 8,800 nonresidents last year. They took an average of 6.3 birds.

Iowa reported 6,460 nonresident hunters who took an average of 5.1 pheasants last year. Montana had 5,082 nonresident hunters with an average harvest of 5.2 birds.

Minnesota had 1,780 nonresidents who took 2.7 birds apiece. Wyoming had 1,738 nonresidents who took an average 3.6 birds.
 
The short answer is that "they" want the money! There is inflation and rising fuel costs and other costs of doing business and paying salaries etc etc etc. Further costs of ... well staying in office and "protecting" ones job, maybe. "They" think if people can afford to hunt, then they can afford a tax increase to do so, and it is a tax. IMNTBHO.
 
Looks like they had over $500K less in license revenue from 2010 to 2011 based on 5,000 fewer hunters. I wonder if they realize how quickly that $1.1M will disappear if 1 in 10 hunters stay home due to higher costs and disappearing public hunting opportunities.
 
While there will always be a breaking point re participation with fee increases, they very rarely fail to make economic sense.
Whether the money generated is spent wisely would be a seperate issue and hunter agreement likely hinges on personal preference.
Resident hunters should never be exempt from economic sense or a taste of economic realities.
Any upland license fee is highly unlikely to prevent many hunters from joining in....licnese fees tho, will always get a large part of the blame....right after blaming the DNRs for...whatever.
 
I would have to agree that it won't keep anyone home who has been hooked on pheasant hunting, but unless where I am hunting is the exception, the vast majority of the guys staying at the hotel are in their 60's and 70's. Not a lot of sustainability in that...
 
South Dakota will charge the NR's as much as possible and hope they will still keep coming.
There is a breaking point. Take Montana for example, hunting quality has gone down in general while non resident hunting licenses have soared in cost.
The combination license went from $560 to $1000. At $560 the licenses were at lottery and always sold out, and 1st time applicants had about a 40% of drawing.

Now the Big Game combo that includes pheasants doesn't not come close to selling out. The combo license holders tend to spend a lot of money in Montana. About 4,000 fewer hunted MT this Fall. F,W and Parks is in a severe budget shortfall. They overcharged the NR's.:(
 
I think most of the wildlife management departments in all the states get the short end of the stick when budget time rolls around. And I get the feeling that upland hunting as a priority is far behind big game hunting as a priority. So I feel for the department managers.

That said, I absolutely think residents should share the burden of license fee increases. I also think between skyrocketing gas prices and the effect the drought and destruction of the crp cover on pheasant numbers, SD picked a bad time to jack up fees.

I would imagine that hunters that can afford to travel to SD can also afford to travel to ND, MT, or NE. Weighing the cost benefits of license fees, gas costs, bird numbers, and available cover could lead some people to start choosing destinations other than SD.

Based on what has happened this year I already know next year is going to be a bad year for pheasant numbers. I plan on hunting close to home and not wasting gas money and out of state license fees. More of my hunting dollars will be going to big game hunting in my own state and the dogs will probably be hunting planted birds on a local preserve. Just my thoughts at the moment.
 
Looks like they had over $500K less in license revenue from 2010 to 2011 based on 5,000 fewer hunters. I wonder if they realize how quickly that $1.1M will disappear if 1 in 10 hunters stay home due to higher costs and disappearing public hunting opportunities.

I guess you need to judge the value of a sd hunt versus the competitors from the surrounding states,if there's a better value,more power to ya.

I know when i was driving from WI twice a year it sure wasn't the $110 that scared me,it was $4 diesel fuel.

As far as decreased public opportunity,that's just not the case.SD has more acreage open to the public than ever before.if Mother Nature is a bitch and the drought has affected your opportunities,that's why it's called hunting.

Every state provides advantages to their residents,I suspect that most out of staters wouldn't consider moving here and living on 25k a year in exchange for a $49 hunting license.
 
The license is still only $12/day which isn't too bad if you think about it. I would be willing to pay even a little more in exchange for the purchase of more lands to hunt.

Johnnie15 has a point though. We were out in SD for opener and I did not see ANY younger people out hunting. Everybody looked to be about 55or older and from what we saw, most of them hunted pretty lazily.
 
The license is still only $12/day which isn't too bad if you think about it. I would be willing to pay even a little more in exchange for the purchase of more lands to hunt.

Johnnie15 has a point though. We were out in SD for opener and I did not see ANY younger people out hunting. Everybody looked to be about 55or older and from what we saw, most of them hunted pretty lazily.

I would happily pay another $50 for a "pheasant stamp;" something like a waterfowl stamp if I knew all or most of it was going to create or buy up habitat for pheasant hunting and limited to those who bought the stamp. Compared to what I've already spent this season on gas and motels that's nothing.
 
I guess you need to judge the value of a sd hunt versus the competitors from the surrounding states,if there's a better value,more power to ya.

I know when i was driving from WI twice a year it sure wasn't the $110 that scared me,it was $4 diesel fuel.

As far as decreased public opportunity,that's just not the case.SD has more acreage open to the public than ever before.if Mother Nature is a bitch and the drought has affected your opportunities,that's why it's called hunting.

Every state provides advantages to their residents,I suspect that most out of staters wouldn't consider moving here and living on 25k a year in exchange for a $49 hunting license.

You are right, $10 won't even make a dent in my beer fund for the trip. SD is the place to be for wild birds and luckily we have a place to hunt where if I don't shoot a limit by mid afternoon it's time to get my eyes checked or my barrel straightened. It is more of the principle of feeling like a piggy bank for GFP. It wasn't that long ago that you could get a full season NR license for $65. Now it's two 5 day hunts at $114, and "we'd be happy to sell you another $114 license if you want to come back."

NR's have 1/7 the number of days to hunt and pay almost 4 times more for a license. If costs are going up at GFP, raise fees for everyone, not just the people who have no representation.
 
$10 is $10. The cost of everything is going up...to include taxes, which this is. My trip to SD was cancelled this year due to the cost of gas. Our drive from ID to SD would have been right at $1000, split 2 ways ($500 ea). So, we would have spent at least $1K+ each to hunt four days (12 birds) and drive 36 hours.

I have a buddy with a commercial ranch out here, so, we each bought in to a day hunt after a large group had hunted, so we could also play cleanup too. 23 birds in one day...plus a nice meal. I know it's not the same...wild birds, big numbers, high school buddies, etc. The dog had just as much fun, economically it was much cheaper, and my butt didn't miss the drive.

All the costs are cummulative to the regular guy...especially in a down economy. There will be a point of diminishing returns for SD at some point...it caught up to me this year, and I imagine it also caught up with others that travel long distances for the extravaganza (The corporate jet guys excluded, of course)

GDF
 
Just for the record,I feel that $110 is more than enough.I'm sure I wasn't the norm but for a couple years I had to buy 2 doses.And the other years I likely would have done a third trip if not for having to purchase a second license.
 
$10 is $10. The cost of everything is going up...to include taxes, which this is. My trip to SD was cancelled this year due to the cost of gas. Our drive from ID to SD would have been right at $1000, split 2 ways ($500 ea). So, we would have spent at least $1K+ each to hunt four days (12 birds) and drive 36 hours.

I have a buddy with a commercial ranch out here, so, we each bought in to a day hunt after a large group had hunted, so we could also play cleanup too. 23 birds in one day...plus a nice meal. I know it's not the same...wild birds, big numbers, high school buddies, etc. The dog had just as much fun, economically it was much cheaper, and my butt didn't miss the drive.

All the costs are cummulative to the regular guy...especially in a down economy. There will be a point of diminishing returns for SD at some point...it caught up to me this year, and I imagine it also caught up with others that travel long distances for the extravaganza (The corporate jet guys excluded, of course)

GDF

good points, we made one trip, where in the past i would go twice a season.
motel rates during first 2-3 weeks are almost double, if they keep it up they will chase off a lot of business......at home game farms are looking better all the time.
 
The walkin was pretty much a joke this year and now raising prices....

So you have been to South Dakota this year hunting, based on your comment, did not have as successful a hunt as anticipated. We are leaving next weekend for our hunt to South Dakota on public land. Most of what I'm hearing is doom and gloom. We will see...
 
So you have been to South Dakota this year hunting, based on your comment, did not have as successful a hunt as anticipated. We are leaving next weekend for our hunt to South Dakota on public land. Most of what I'm hearing is doom and gloom. We will see...

if the public ground you see is anything like we saw, you could hit a bucket of golf balls and find 90% of them in 15 minutes. :eek:
 
Bird dog my trip was alright, we worked for our birds in cat tails as that was the only cover around. I checked out the WIA and they were a complete dissapointment. Good luck on your trip.
 
How are federal wpa's? And statelands? Wouldn't think they would succomb to grazing or haying.
 
How are federal wpa's? And statelands? Wouldn't think they would succomb to grazing or haying.

was told that the majority of the national grasslands in west river, south of Lemmon were grazed down to the nut......the only cover left for the birds were shelter belts around homesteads/buildings where no hunting would be allowed...any expanse of grass got cut and baled......one guy told be he could plainly see his pointer working at 500 yards....said he's never seen anything like it before........:eek:
 
Back
Top