Post by: Born2late on November 07, 2016, 08:07:20 PM
I like to hunt deer on kodiak and you can shoot 3 bucks 150.00 per tag This year next year 300.00 per tag. Plus 85.00 license increase.
At what point do you guys decide to try elsewhere?
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 07, 2016, 08:08:45 PM
Post by: yum tag soup on November 07, 2016, 08:14:51 PM
Post by: Skillet on November 07, 2016, 08:49:17 PM
:twocents:
Post by: Ridgeratt on November 07, 2016, 08:55:03 PM
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.
:twocents:
You keep speaking Blasphemy like that and these folks will be looking for a rope and a bucket!!
Post by: Stein on November 07, 2016, 08:55:17 PM
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.
Post by: Special T on November 07, 2016, 09:07:14 PM
Post by: DaveMonti on November 07, 2016, 09:15:16 PM
Post by: Skillet on November 07, 2016, 09:17:12 PM
You keep speaking Blasphemy like that and these folks will be looking for a rope and a bucket!!Ha, you're probably right!
Ya that... & I'm not going to AK to hunt deer or elk... moose ram grizzly Mt goat wolves... yes
:yeah: Maybe add sheep to that list too... :tup:
Post by: Special T on November 07, 2016, 09:20:31 PM
That's what a Ram is Sucka! ;-)You keep speaking Blasphemy like that and these folks will be looking for a rope and a bucket!!Ha, you're probably right!Ya that... & I'm not going to AK to hunt deer or elk... moose ram grizzly Mt goat wolves... yes
:yeah: Maybe add sheep to that list too... :tup:
Post by: huntnnw on November 07, 2016, 09:24:14 PM
Post by: Mr Mykiss on November 07, 2016, 09:25:08 PM
Post by: Skillet on November 07, 2016, 09:27:08 PM
That's what a Ram is Sucka! ;-)You keep speaking Blasphemy like that and these folks will be looking for a rope and a bucket!!Ha, you're probably right!Ya that... & I'm not going to AK to hunt deer or elk... moose ram grizzly Mt goat wolves... yes
:yeah: Maybe add sheep to that list too... :tup:
Haha, stupid small phone screen. Roger!
Post by: Skillet on November 07, 2016, 09:31:41 PM
Pretty sure they're only "slightly increasing" other tags...not doubling them.Doubling all Non-res big game tags except non-res military-
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/pdfs/2016_2017_alaska_license_fees.pdf (http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/pdfs/2016_2017_alaska_license_fees.pdf)
Post by: Bango skank on November 07, 2016, 09:32:15 PM
If an Alaskan resident wanted to hunt Washington they too would suffer from sticker shock
:twocents:
They would also suffer from stupidity, cause theyd be WAY better off doing a non res hunt in idaho.
Post by: kodiak 907 on November 07, 2016, 09:39:08 PM
Post by: Born2late on November 07, 2016, 09:50:00 PM
907 your right awesome deer numbers and nice bucks. Truly a special place to hunt.
Post by: Bob33 on November 07, 2016, 10:00:55 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 07, 2016, 10:10:54 PM
Post by: Bob33 on November 07, 2016, 10:24:12 PM
Post by: Born2late on November 07, 2016, 10:31:07 PM
That's what some of the people up here I'm talking to are more concerned about.
Post by: JoeE on November 07, 2016, 10:32:55 PM
Post by: Camo on November 07, 2016, 10:38:29 PM
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.
:twocents:
Sounds like you learned something "we need" to talk about? That DeLorme working? :chuckle:
Post by: Skillet on November 07, 2016, 10:54:11 PM
Post by: Ghost Hunter on November 08, 2016, 06:47:53 AM
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. >:( :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 08, 2016, 07:38:23 AM
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.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 08, 2016, 07:49:07 AM
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.
Post by: Bob33 on November 08, 2016, 08:14:08 AM
My comment was in regards to ADFG, not the impact on related business.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.
Post by: Stein on November 08, 2016, 08:28:16 AM
My comment was in regards to ADFG, not the impact on related business.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.
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.
Post by: Falcon on November 08, 2016, 10:12:38 AM
Post by: Mr Mykiss on November 08, 2016, 10:15:47 AM
Dude WHAT!!!??? I checked it a few months ago and the moose tag was only going up like $100!!!Pretty sure they're only "slightly increasing" other tags...not doubling them.Doubling all Non-res big game tags except non-res military-
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/pdfs/2016_2017_alaska_license_fees.pdf (http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/pdfs/2016_2017_alaska_license_fees.pdf)
Post by: KFhunter on November 08, 2016, 10:21:58 AM
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.
:twocents:
I just wanted to point out that I've never seen an Alaskan wanting to hunt in WA
Post by: Gringo31 on November 08, 2016, 10:26:12 AM
Post by: Bob33 on November 08, 2016, 10:41:09 AM
Post by: JLS on November 08, 2016, 10:45:09 AM
Post by: sagerat on November 08, 2016, 10:58:15 AM
;)
Have you guys seen the proposed license increases for our state next year? It's depressing to say the least.
Post by: Bob33 on November 08, 2016, 11:30:42 AM
The only proposal I've seen is for a 10% increase.;)
Have you guys seen the proposed license increases for our state next year? It's depressing to say the least.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on November 08, 2016, 11:33:26 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 08, 2016, 11:43:17 AM
Post by: Special T on November 08, 2016, 11:52:44 AM
Post by: Bob33 on November 08, 2016, 11:53:17 AM
It's death spiral for WA hunting. Not only is hunting decreasing nationwide, we're losing more hunters here in WA because of several factors including but not limited to significantly reduced public access, out-of-control predator increases, very poor forest management, and increasing costs and regulation. The department is running on lower revenue each year, causing them to raise license fees, which disenfranchises hunters to not buy licenses, which causes lower revenues, which makes them raise license fees. It's one thing to raise out-of-state license fees in a state like AK, which arguably has the most varied and attainable hunting opportunities in the country (maybe the world). It's another altogether to continue raising resident fees in WA when hunter satisfaction and confidence in the department is at an all-time low. It's almost like they're trying to end hunting here. That couldn't be, right? :dunno:A resident deer/elk/cougar/bear tag combo in 2000 cost $66. The same combo in 2016 cost $95.50. That is an average increase of 2.3% per year, roughly the same as inflation.
While I don't like to see costs increase either, I see no inferences from cost increases to believe there is an intentional effort to end hunting.
Post by: JLS on November 08, 2016, 11:58:08 AM
Pman gentlemen hunting will be OK just like fly fishing is OK in all circles. Bird hunting with a dog will always be around because it falls in the same category. Meat hunting however will be looked down upon because so few people have any connection with thier food what so ever...
I would disagree with your statement on meat hunting. I think if anything, it is making a marked resurgence.
Post by: KFhunter on November 08, 2016, 12:05:15 PM
If AKFG can maintain license revenue, but yet sell half the number of tags to NR hunters, I really doubt that the general AK populous is going to give a rat's hiney about it. The outfitter lobby is strong, but I'm pretty certain that AK citizens in general are tired of competing with NR hunters.
My take as well, swarms of them hunting up there and in Idaho. I look to see ID NR tags increase again soon.
Post by: sagerat on November 08, 2016, 12:07:23 PM
Post by: Bob33 on November 08, 2016, 12:09:45 PM
Agreed.Pman gentlemen hunting will be OK just like fly fishing is OK in all circles. Bird hunting with a dog will always be around because it falls in the same category. Meat hunting however will be looked down upon because so few people have any connection with thier food what so ever...
I would disagree with your statement on meat hunting. I think if anything, it is making a marked resurgence.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-carpenter/the-revival-of-the-locavore_b_8922946.html
The diet of the modern-day “locavore” isn’t a new concept, though the word only recently came about. Before society got carried away with all its glittering supermarkets and high-yielding factory farms, food was produced locally and eaten locally, with a few exceptions. But wait. What’s a locavore, exactly? Is it different from an omnivore or carnivore? Translated from Latin: locus: a place, spot, or position vorare: to devour, swallow Literally, locavore translates to “one who eats only local food.” This movement is rapidly growing in the United States, especially among the young professionals we used to call yuppies. Locavores often hunt (locally, of course) to have access to the foods they’ve grown accustomed to eating while standing by their farm-to-table beliefs and convictions. They’re educated, they’re concerned about sustainability, and they’re really sick of social media. They are the new hunters. Championing the movement are some unlikely characters, including hunter Jesse Griffiths, a man one article described as “more punk than pastoral.” He’s been hunting for five years, and during that time, has become an advocate of the sport. He says it’s ethical and sustainable, unlike the factory farms we’re accustomed to getting our meat from. He’s even written a book detailing his experiences and insight (and exactly how to shoot and cook your hunted game). Griffiths described who these “new hunters” really are: “They’re 25 to 35, they like music, food, art. They’re socially minded, whatever that might mean. They’re interested in hunting, and maybe they weren’t five years ago, but they are now... We’re taking it away from Ted Nugent.” This new wave of socially conscious, ‘hipster’ hunters is only continuing to grow. But one problem the new wave of hunters are facing: A lack of rural land to hunt on. With most living in urban areas, getting out of the city to hunt poses one problem, practicing your shot poses another, and getting permission from land owners is an issue in and of itself. Most state and national parks allow hunting as long as you’re licensed, and many private land owners are willing to allow hunters to use their property because it keeps the population of game controlled. They might ask you to pay a fee, but if you’re sure the area is rife with wildlife, the fee will be worth it. Joining a local community of experienced hunters is a great way to find the best hunting spots and learn the most effective methods of approaching land owners.
Post by: JLS on November 08, 2016, 12:11:03 PM
If AKFG can maintain license revenue, but yet sell half the number of tags to NR hunters, I really doubt that the general AK populous is going to give a rat's hiney about it. The outfitter lobby is strong, but I'm pretty certain that AK citizens in general are tired of competing with NR hunters.
My take as well, swarms of them hunting up there and in Idaho. I look to see ID NR tags increase again soon.
Not me. The price of a NR license in MT has tripled since the early 2000's.
ID doesn't sell out all of their NR licenses. There are always leftover elk licenses that resident hunters can buy at NR pricing. A friend of mine in Boise buys two tags every year.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 08, 2016, 12:11:10 PM
Especially because of what Obamacare has done to health costs for the self insured middle class, increases in any expenses are being carefully considered for their cost/benefit balance. I know in my family, I'd considered doing some late season archery and goose hunting this year but due to the fact that late season archery is so restrictive and almost requires a hunter to pay to play, it just didn't pencil out for us. I doubt we're alone in this. The WDFW must figure out how to retain more hunters if it plans to continue the revenue stream we create. I have real questions about whether everyone on the commission is, in fact, working to keep hunting strong in our state. If they are, they've got a funny way of showing it.
Post by: Stein on November 08, 2016, 12:44:18 PM
If AKFG can maintain license revenue, but yet sell half the number of tags to NR hunters, I really doubt that the general AK populous is going to give a rat's hiney about it. The outfitter lobby is strong, but I'm pretty certain that AK citizens in general are tired of competing with NR hunters.
My take as well, swarms of them hunting up there and in Idaho. I look to see ID NR tags increase again soon.
Not me. The price of a NR license in MT has tripled since the early 2000's.
ID doesn't sell out all of their NR licenses. There are always leftover elk licenses that resident hunters can buy at NR pricing. A friend of mine in Boise buys two tags every year.
MT doesn't sell out and they increase their prices as well. In the last report, they noted that they were now right below $1,000 for the combo and there was a psychological barrier - but someone will break it.
Say you offer 1,000 licenses at $950 and only sell 800 for $760,000.
If you raise the same 1,000 licenses to $1050 and sell 750, you make $787,500.
You don't have to sell out or even maintain the number sold to increase revenue.
Post by: JLS on November 08, 2016, 12:46:31 PM
You don't have to sell out or even maintain the number sold to increase revenue.
I fully understand that. That's what I said in my first post.
Post by: DaveMonti on November 08, 2016, 07:09:46 PM
Pman gentlemen hunting will be OK just like fly fishing is OK in all circles. Bird hunting with a dog will always be around because it falls in the same category. Meat hunting however will be looked down upon because so few people have any connection with thier food what so ever...
I would disagree with your statement on meat hunting. I think if anything, it is making a marked resurgence.
I definitely agree with this. I see a significant difference in the attitudes towards hunting by the younger crowd, and the concept of going out and hunting for their own meat is a very trendy thing right now. I suspect there will be a surge in hunting in the next few years, complete with complaints from the old school about how these millennials are ruining their sport.
Post by: lokidog on November 09, 2016, 01:33:34 PM
The AK increase will make justifying a deer or black bear trip harder.:-(
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
Post by: Chesapeake on November 10, 2016, 01:27:34 PM
I don't think the reduction in out of state hunters/fisherman will impact local economies much. Alaska already has a big issue with retaining natural resource derived monies.
Using Elk tags cause I had it due to a recent conversation. Folks always say hunter numbers are declining in Washington. Maybe, but the elk tags purchased don't seem to reflect that trend. The trend looks more to follow the perceived state of the economy to me.
Elk tag purchases:
2015 = 97,671
2014 = 94,881
2013 = 97,436
2012 = 94,590
2011 = 99,446
2010 = 102,350
2009 = 108,199
2008 = 107,915
2007 = 105,347
2006 = 103,395
2005 = 100,561
2004 = 98,542
2003 = 96,209
2002 = 97,444
2001 = 97,732
2000 = 101,176