nonresident deer tag cost

[minky]

Would raising the cost of a MN nonresident deer tag and putting that extra money into deer habitat be a good idea?

[picksbigwagon]

Nope, but raising all non resident costs would.......

[BuckSutherland]

Would raising the cost of a MN nonresident deer tag and putting that extra money into deer habitat be a good idea?

Seems like a good idea. Lets give more money to govt. They are not quite 100% ineffective. Maybe if we give them a little more they can get there.

Govt already owns a huge chunk of N MN, and now the deer hunting has gone from bad to terrible going towards non-existent.

If you want something done do it yourself.

All the money they have and they managed to turn Red Lake, Mille Lacs, Leech with the cormorants, now the moose and deer populations into toilets. I have zero confidence they can do anything and would love to see them 100% defunded.

[minky]

I am not sure how much impact I can have on my own.

I have 40 acres that I am trying to make into better habitat for the wildlife.

I have planted trees, a small food plot, cleared some brush and started a salt lick but there is only so much a guy can do.

If we don't look for new ways to change things on a larger scale aren't we doomed to stay where we are at?

I shouldn't have singled out nonresidents so here Is an idea for us residents, tack a dollar onto the purchase price of a resident deer tag to go towards habitat.

[NoWiser]

It's not something I would like to see. I like hunting to be affordable for both residents and nonresidents alike. We've got plenty of deer habitat in the state. The small amount we'd make from raising nonresident licenses wouldn't make a bit of difference, especially considering some would quit coming here. It's the winters and wolves that limit the deer population in much of the state.

[BuckSutherland]

And I only own half of 40 acres. We are planting trees, food plots, mineral sites, thermal cover, not shooting everything in sight, creating different food for different seasons, trying to get neighbors to do some of the same.

Every little bit helps.

Wish we had more time to help with predator management. Neighbors dogs being enemy number 1. We will see how bad it is this summer and how many made it, but I dont have high hopes. Going to have self made restrictions for taking deer on our property for the next few years. Gonna try to find something down south or out of state to get some meat.

[minky]

It will be bucks only on my land next fall.

I enjoy working on my land and seeing it slowly hold more deer.

I still think the winter habitat in MN could be improved but don't disagree that winter and wolves have a huge impact on our deer herd.

[HunterLee]

I would be all for jumping up the out of state licenses. When I go out of state I pay alot more than they do, and some states I will never hunt due to the 500-700 deer tag cost. Make them pay what they make us pay.

That goes for everything, and limit them like they do to us.

States are doing it to us so why not return the favor, maybe it would make them be more reasonable to us, granted if I was out of stated this is the last place I would hunt deer, ducks or basically anything.

[skee0025]

The one big problem with the extra $ for habitat per tag is that sooner or later the state will need cash and will sell off the land. It not a question of whether or not they will do it, it's a question of when. Then your deer tag money will go to some welfare program and you'll be out the cash and the land.

[gopher_nation]

No sensible non-resident would hunt Minnesota if the licenses were that expensive.

[minky]

If we improved our habitat, age structure of the deer herd and move the rifle hunt out of the rut we would have bigger deer and could charge more for a nonresident tag.

[hockeybc69]

Raise the cost by how much?

There were only 12,483 non res firearms licenses sold in 2012. 1814 non res archery licenses. And the DNR doesnt track the number of non res muzzy hunters.

I dont think raising the non resident license fees will put a drop in any bucket for improving habitat. In fact, raise the fees, and watch the numbers plummet even more.

[gixxer01]

No sensible non-resident would hunt Minnesota if the licenses were that expensive.

Heck, I'm a resident and choose to pay WI nonres prices.

[Bureaucrat]

The one big problem with the extra $ for habitat per tag is that sooner or later the state will need cash and will sell off the land. It not a question of whether or not they will do it, it's a question of when. Then your deer tag money will go to some welfare program and you'll be out the cash and the land.

I'll eat a fist full of turds when that happens. The power elite in St Paul despise private land owners. We're the biggest threat to the planet. They believe the only way to save the critters is for them to buy up the land. Mark my word, we will see the day when private forest ownership in MN will be reserved for the elite. Better get yours before it's gone.

On the non-resident license increase. I own land in MN. I reside in the de-liberalized zone of South Dakota. It costs me $165 to rifle hunt my own property for 4 days. I'd like to bow hunt for 4 days, but that would cost me another $165, again, on my own land. .

I'm not a whitetail interloper. My brother and I plowed a thousand dollars into our land last year (first year) to improve real habitat (i.e. no kill plots). This year will be another thousand. I Pay property taxes to a school my non-existant children will never go to.

And now, the population has fallen apart. I'm already planning to go elsewhere to find venison where the populations are stable or heavy. Even if I get a shot on a deer on my land, I can't say in good faith I'll take the shot just so "I can feed my family." I will return to my sacred slice the next year and I want it to be in better shape the the year before.

[Bureaucrat]

The best and most cost effective way to improve the herd and habitat is to bring back private land owners. There is no one with a greater interest in seeing their habitat improve than the person that has to look at it tomorrow, the person that invested their hard earned dollars in it.

Not everyone can afford land? I agree. With over half of it off the market, and the state gobbling up as much as they can, the market for land has been wound tight. If the supply of land available increased and the DNR exited the auction, prices could moderate and fall.

I'm not saying get rid of all public land, but a patchwork of private 40's dispersed among the major tracts of public land would allow land owners to get in and do exponentially more habitat improvement than any government program ever could. Heck, even attach a covenant that it couldn't be subdivided and developed. One house per 40.

When the private land owners were driven out, stewardship was driven out with them. Now, public land hunters are powerless to know if they pass on a deer if it will live to walk 200 yards further down the trail where the next person may be ready to go brown-down.

Buck management is non-existant. Without the prospect of even getting to hunt there next year, why pass up a deer you'd otherwise choose to let walk on your land? The combination of limitless buck tags on no personal stake in the public land has driven the mature buck population into the ground.

Go read the "Tragedy of the commons" on Wikipedia.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

Not everyone can afford land? I agree. With over half of it off the market, and the state gobbling up as much as they can, the market for land has been wound tight. If the supply of land available increased and the DNR exited the auction, prices could moderate and fall.

Where on earth is the MN DNR buying up land as fast as they can?? Or the state for that matter?

[Bureaucrat]

Farm country WMAs. Renting farmers get pushed out. Either they have to give up and farm less, bid more for land, or go rip out old farmsteads, fenclines, windbreaks etc. to keep their business alive.

Go back a few issues in the outdoor news. They had a recap of three bills (Bonding, LSOHC, and one other) for this session that contained around sixteen million for acquisitions this year alone. Depending on land price, that'll buy anywhere from 2800-4200 acres of land. Gone.

Even on the low end of that, that's 35 80 acre farms shut down permanently this year alone. Good thing?

[harvey lee]

I would be all for jumping up the out of state licenses. When I go out of state I pay alot more than they do, and some states I will never hunt due to the 500-700 deer tag cost. Make them pay what they make us pay.

That goes for everything, and limit them like they do to us.

States are doing it to us so why not return the favor, maybe it would make them be more reasonable to us, granted if I was out of stated this is the last place I would hunt deer, ducks or basically anything.

The last thing I would want to see if higher NR hunting or fishing fee's.

I hunt and fish outstate and yes, one does pay quite a bit for a license.

If we start to promote higher license fee's, all we are going to do is raise all licenses so high, our kid's will not be able to afford to go and enjoy the outdoor's.

There is alot we can do to help wildlife besides raisng a few more NR license dollars.

Mn is reasonable for the NR fee's compared to many other states and is a bit more relaxed on who can hunt and where. I am happy others can still enjoy the outdoor's in some states without geting charged like some states do now.

If you want more wildlife, promote the farm bill and help to increase winter habitat. Those 2 items are by far the biggest factor in wildlife populations. A few bad winters can wipe out many years of growth.

The loss of many acrea's of CRP is going to hurt wildlife and bad.

AT the prices of land today, I doubt that the State is purchasing many acre's of land. Thier money would not go that far. I don't remember the last time I heard of land being purchased by the state in our county. Pheasnat's Forever does and that is about it and they cannot afford that much when land goes for $8,000 plus per acre.

[Surface Tension]

If it weren't for WPA, WMAs there would be a whole lot less habitat in Southern MN and I'm glad to have it. Still the sprinkling of those isn't enough. Yep I want more.

[bowhunternw]

Farm country WMAs. Renting farmers get pushed out. Either they have to give up and farm less, bid more for land, or go rip out old farmsteads, fenclines, windbreaks etc. to keep their business alive.

Go back a few issues in the outdoor news. They had a recap of three bills (Bonding, LSOHC, and one other) for this session that contained around sixteen million for acquisitions this year alone. Depending on land price, that'll buy anywhere from 2800-4200 acres of land. Gone.

Even on the low end of that, that's 35 80 acre farms shut down permanently this year alone. Good thing?

Those private black fields grow wildlife like it is nobodys business. Good point. They should at least double or triple the amount of state ground in farm country.

[slimngrizzly]

Proper Management is free!

What we need is an organization that isn't affraid to think outsdie the box and make decisions that help make the structure of our wildlife populations improve.

Raising NR prices wont improve your land... and few will pay much to hunt deer in MN currently. Manage properly and the licenses will sell! And prices will probably rise... and hopefully money is used in the right ways.

Sounds like your on the right path with your own personal land management practices.

[Musky Buck]

Don't raise it do raise it, they'll hire another person and that will wipe out any sort of expected intake of money. I did like reading about the dogs chasing deer, we sure get wildly bent out of shape about that yet a timberwolf is a dog that actually finishes the job. I think those dairy farms over the St. Croix are maybe positive for the deer, since we've lost 95% of our small dairy farms wildlife in general has gone downhill ever since, ducks down, grouse gone, pheasants can't hide in crop farmers plowed fields when they need it the most, winter, so owls eagles and hawks can really pick them off when they're in the open snowshoe hares gone, deer, at least the truly adult animals, minimal. I see this thread/topic as an overall part of the large puzzle to the piling up of issues that are now on the front burner here in MN. I think the answer like many have said is do what "you" can to try and create, manage or whatever what you can control, forget about organizations or DNR, just do what you can do, idk lol, raising NR license fees I don't think that would do much good, we may feel better about it, but to have that impact our wildlife much seems like a punt at best.

[BuckSutherland]

I have about 50 more times where the neighbors dogs have been on our property. Sherrif has been out 5 times, game warden twice. They cant put down the crack pipe long enough to take care of them. I have some work to do up there this year and I will be accompanied by my good friend 308. Dogs like to come to our mineral site and urinate all over it. Neighbor was bow hunting last year and saved a doe they almost had down. She was so tired he said he could have killed her with his bare hands. [Note from admin: Your post has been edited. Please read forum policy before posting again. Thank you.]

The wolf is an absolute beast. Biggest one I have had on cam.

[Jameson]

The best and most cost effective way to improve the herd and habitat is to bring back private land owners. There is no one with a greater interest in seeing their habitat improve than the person that has to look at it tomorrow, the person that invested their hard earned dollars in it.

[minky]

I hope that a law requiring me to own at least 320 acres if I am going to own land never comes to pass!

It was hard enough buying and paying for my little 40 acre chuck.

[skee0025]

Maybe it isn't so much the public land, as it is that seemingly anybody can go buy 5 acres and hunt it. Make the minimum parcel size 160 acres, or no gun hunting on any parcel smaller then 320 acres.

That would kill hunting on many peoples property. If we're going to toss out crack pot ideas why not require anyone recieving government payments or those claiming moneys for crop destruction by wildlife to open their lands for public hunting.

[minky]

Not a bad idea!

[hockeybc69]

Not that much of a crackpot idea there skee....

Bich and get subsidized for your losses.... hmmm.

How about bich and the solution the DNR recommends(requires) is to let people in to take some deer out. Lotta good it does to pay them for the losses now, and next year, and next year.....

I LIKE IT!

[minky]

If the DNR pays for crop damage, letting people into hunt should be required.

[Jameson]

Don't pay anyone for crop damage. Pay people to walk around pushing the deer on opening day.