Regular firearms to muzzleloader license

[eyeguy 54]

pay attention!!! lol I DONT WANT to buy the rifle tag if I already tagged a buck with my bow tag! I want to just use the management tag that I have in my backpack already! I paid for the management tag with cold hard cash. I want to just be able to use that tag in any season without spending another 30 bucks. Is that so hard to understand?? Like I said, call me cheap. OK, I miss spoke that I cant use the rifle tag..... I know that I can.... but I want to just use the management tag already in my pocket.

doesnt really apply to me this year since I hunt hunters choice areas.

[Jameson]

pay attention!!! lol I DONT WANT to buy the rifle tag if I already tagged a buck with my bow tag! I want to just use the management tag that I have in my backpack already! I paid for the management tag with cold hard cash. I want to just be able to use that tag in any season without spending another 30 bucks. Is that so hard to understand?? Like I said, call me cheap. OK, I miss spoke that I cant use the rifle tag..... I know that I can.... but I want to just use the management tag already in my pocket.

doesnt really apply to me this year since I hunt hunters choice areas.

That is a bit different. And I agree if the price stayed at $30, but that ain't likely to happen.

What would it cost to just have one license that allowed hunting in all-seasons vs what we have now, to maintain the current income revenue? We would lose what?....some of the 120,000 archery licenses and some of the 60,000 muzzy licenses, while keeping and adding to the 400,000 plus firearms licenses. So we lose out on maybe 100,000 or so licenses each year....then how much would we have to charge for just the all-season license?......$40? Would the jump from $30 to $40 be so terrible? If the price got up to $50 would it price poor folks out of the game (or push more folks to just hunt without a license)?

[eyeguy 54]

my brain hurts

[Wanderer]

What would it cost to just have one license that allowed hunting in all-seasons vs what we have now, to maintain the current income revenue? We would lose what?....some of the 120,000 archery licenses and some of the 60,000 muzzy licenses, while keeping and adding to the 400,000 plus firearms licenses. So we lose out on maybe 100,000 or so licenses each year....then how much would we have to charge for just the all-season license?......$40? Would the jump from $30 to $40 be so terrible? If the price got up to $50 would it price poor folks out of the game (or push more folks to just hunt without a license)?

In the years we had the All Season license, the cost was about $72, near as I can remember. We tried it but it wound up putting too much pressure on the B season areas when we had 3 and 4 B. I think the State underestimated how willing and able hunters were to travel.

[laker1]

The system is fine as it is at present.

[Jameson]

But that was only $72 from some of the hunters.....this is sorta like Obamacare, if everyone pays the price can be lower.

[Wanderer]

But that was only $72 from some of the hunters.....this is sorta like Obamacare, if everyone pays the price can be lower.

Socialized licensing? Count me out - WAY out.

And I can say that now that the ACA has come home to roost in my pocket. I have no interest in making those who hunt less, pay more, so I can hunt more for less.

Next unintended consequence - the firearms only hunters that are paying more to cover the archers tab will DEMAND they can use crossbows in the archery season. And out of fairness I'd have to agree with them!

It ain't broke - don't fix it. What they do with the money is a separate issue.