Alaska doubling all nonresident license and tags for 2017

[kodiak 907]

Believe me. The deer hunting is worth it. The deer numbers have not been this good since the mid 80's.

[Born2late]

I'll probably never stop hunting up here for deer. But am wondering others thoughts. If it will change their minds especially on deer, elk and black bear.
907 your right awesome deer numbers and nice bucks. Truly a special place to hunt.

[Bob33]

That is a whopping increase but their non-resident pricing is still competitive with or lower than most Western states.

[bobcat]

I never paid any attention to Alaska's tag prices since I've never considered hunting there, but $300 is about the same as most other states. So it certainly doesn't seem out of line. If I wanted to go deer hunting up there I don't think the extra $150 would stop me.

[Bob33]

From a purely economic perspective, if the demand drops 50% they break even. If it drops less than 50% they generate more revenue.

[Born2late]

That would help the state only. It doesn't help the communities that depend on the larger numbers of hunters. Like air taxi's , meat cutters, hotels, resteraunts.
That's what some of the people up here I'm talking to are more concerned about.

[JoeE]

Alaska hadn't raised prices in several years. It isn't going to stop me from going back up there, just have to factor in a little more for tags.

[Camo]

Do some of us feel entitled to hunt cheaply on other states? I don't. If an Alaskan resident wanted to hunt Washington they too would suffer from sticker shock over the nonres fees, and still have to pay the same transportation costs to fly themselves and their trophies back and forth. Considering the relatively historically low oil prices that are wracking AK's economy right now (thank the North Dakota Bakken fields and the Alberta oil sands in part for that) the fact that they need to increase non-res fees should be no surprise.  I'll be buying an AK non-res hunting license and moose locking tag next year, and for me to be able to do it when I want to do it (and more than once in a lifetime) the $970 it will cost me seems like a relatively small price to pay.  Especially considering a non-res moose tag in WA is $1652, IF they are lucky enough to get drawn.
 

Sounds like you learned something "we need" to talk about? That DeLorme working?

[Skillet]

Yes sir it is - but the phone is more useful right now, unfortunately. 

[Ghost Hunter]

I sure don't see much "cheap" hunting out there for a nonresident.

I was priced out of MT and now drive through it to get to Wyoming.  If you look at the studies they do, the bottom line is that they can jack up the prices and people will still pay - so they do.

Thats why my competition is increasing in WY.

[pianoman9701]

From a purely economic perspective, if the demand drops 50% they break even. If it drops less than 50% they generate more revenue.

Actually no, Bob. If their demand drops 50%, economically it would be a catastrophe for guiding and peripheral businesses - puddle jumpers, grocers, outfitting services and equipment, etc. There are also local sales taxes as high as 7% in Anchorage, Juneau, and other communities.

But I don't think there'll be any noticeable difference/loss. The amount of money it costs to put together an AK hunt  makes the increase in tags a nominal increase. It's still one of the premier hunts in the country and pricing alone, is still competitive with other out of state rates.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Believe me. The deer hunting is worth it. The deer numbers have not been this good since the mid 80's.

The early 80s were even better. We got 7 tags in 81  and the season ran to Feb. that winter. And there was still a bad winter kill that year. I spent a couple months camped in McDonald's Lagoon near the Kitoi Bay Hatchery that winter. Went back in the spring to get some gear I'd left and took a little hike while waiting for the plane to come back and found dead deer scattered all over.

[Bob33]

From a purely economic perspective, if the demand drops 50% they break even. If it drops less than 50% they generate more revenue.

Actually no, Bob. If their demand drops 50%, economically it would be a catastrophe for guiding and peripheral businesses - puddle jumpers, grocers, outfitting services and equipment, etc. There are also local sales taxes as high as 7% in Anchorage, Juneau, and other communities.

But I don't think there'll be any noticeable difference/loss. The amount of money it costs to put together and AK makes the increase in tags a nominal increase. It's still one of the premier hunts in the country and pricing alone, is still competitive with other out of state rates.

My comment was in regards to ADFG, not the impact on related business.

[Stein]

From a purely economic perspective, if the demand drops 50% they break even. If it drops less than 50% they generate more revenue.

Actually no, Bob. If their demand drops 50%, economically it would be a catastrophe for guiding and peripheral businesses - puddle jumpers, grocers, outfitting services and equipment, etc. There are also local sales taxes as high as 7% in Anchorage, Juneau, and other communities.

But I don't think there'll be any noticeable difference/loss. The amount of money it costs to put together and AK makes the increase in tags a nominal increase. It's still one of the premier hunts in the country and pricing alone, is still competitive with other out of state rates.

My comment was in regards to ADFG, not the impact on related business.

Exactly correct.  For the most part, the state agencies have little to no concern for the economic impact outside the department.  They are tasked with managing the wildlife, not the tourism industry.  Almost every state commissions a consulting report to compare prices of tags and forecast demand at various price points.  It's a simple supply/demand curve and they are pricing the tags to maximize revenue.  This almost always means increasing the price, sometimes quite substantially.  Of course, this impacts those serving hunters and fisherman as there is less demand.

My personal opinion is that this is a long term trend in many areas of the states not funding that which they used to fund.  I don't see it as fundamentally different than infrastructure, education and a host of other things.  The money simply is going elsewhere. 

I'm pissed, but I don't blame the state agencies as they have to come up with the money somehow and jacking in-state rates would quickly lead to revolt.

In our state, I am upper middle class and manage our money well.  I had to break up our licenses this year between fishing and hunting season because buying four of everything just isn't possible all at once.  I have no idea how middle to lower incomes can afford to take their family fishing or hunting anymore.  This is the part that bothers me the most, I would hate to see this fabulous American invention become a playground for the wealthy like most other countries.

[Falcon]

I don't think of Alaska like other western states.   Been there twice.  Once a guided sheep hunt in 07 and then a self guided moose hunt in 2012.   It's been many years since they raised fees and I think they are still a good value.  There's nothing cheap about hunting Alaska but it is truly a vast wilderness of adventure that can't be  compared to anything in the lower 48.