Iowa ---it's a freak show for Non-Resident deer hunters

[Black Bear]

For an Iowa NON-Resident deer hunter

$52 a preference point (you'll need some of these)

$112 for the general hunting license

$13 for a habitat stamp

and $426 for an any deer license

= $603.00 Which is Iowa's prerogative but WHY WHY WHY can't Minnesota get some of this back with license reciprocity!

Do the Minnesota politicians understand we have a MASSIVE budget deficit.

Mall of America out of state tax? Huge Non Minnesota Resident fishing license increase? Big game license reciprocity?

If I continue to pay this-----Iowa will just start charging me more!

On the plus side---an Iowa antlerless Non-resident license only runs $353!

[DTro]

$603 to shoot a deer? Holy Hannah

[mrklean]

they do it because people will keep paying to hunt there, and it wont stop anytime soon. Why would they forfeit that money to MN, i dont know the numbers, but why would an iowa resident want to come to MN to hunt our little fork bucks when they have a much better chance of getting a trophy down there? Thats why they charge us $600 to hunt there. Personally i would rather go out west and hunt elk for $600 then deer in iowa

[Bear55]

I don't think I will ever pay for a license to hunt Iowa but I understand why people do, its bordering on ridiculous but as long as people are lining up to pay I guess they are going to do it. $353 for a doe tag on the other hand is just plain wrong.

[Musky Buck]

I agree it's a lot but think about us musky freaks like me spending nearly 50 grand to fish a fish that you can't even eat, I could hunt out west till the end of my life for what I've spent chasing lunge', that Iowa tag will only rise in price in the near future correct ? I'm still waiting on my electric bill to go down now that we have wind turbines all over the place. Maybe all the Iowa deer will drown with the weather they've had as recently as today. ACDC sings it best "money talks".

[harvey lee]

When one has the big bucks, you have to pay them the big bucks.

Its the same out west in Montana for elk. Lots of cash for a elk tag. People pay it so they can charge it.

The last time I was there, I believe I paid $800.00 for my tag.

[mabr]

1 season in a stand during the first week of november and you'll understand how they get that kind of money for a tag.

Iowa people hunt here? Ive invited them, they just laugh and I dont blame them one bit. Invite to walleye fish and there here within a week.

[picksbigwagon]

That is for the buck license, the doe tag only runs 352 when you are all said and done....trust me I know

[smnduck]

325$ For a doe tag!!!???? And you pay that!!!??? What the h e double hockey sticks is wrong with you!

[picksbigwagon]

I hunt with friends and family down there. Lots of great land access too.

[Boar]

Thats about what I pay to go to Lake of the Woods a half dozen times an haf that time is skunked or a few, an the other half is just across the bucket with a few nice ones. I would really hate to tally the last 1o seasons up there, it's all what ya wanna spend money on. Boar

[bogwalker]

Charge Iowa residents $300 for a non-resident fishing license. They can pay or eat bullheads.

[RumRiverRat]

Giant Bucks=$$$$$$

Never understood the whole trophy hunting thing.

Can you eat antlers?

I'll stick with shooting as many anterless deer as I want in 'sconi.

[BLACKJACK]

Charge Iowa residents $300 for a non-resident fishing license. They can pay or eat bullheads.

My exact thoughts!!! We have the lakes and fishing that non-residents want, we should up the non-resident fishing license fees. Supply and demand. SoDak charges $100+ for two five day periods of pheasant hunting, we should do the same with fishing licenses.

Problem is that it will never happen, the resort owners would lobby against it, they're afraid that it would cut down their business. But if people are spending hundreds and thousands to come from out of state to vacation and fish, another $50 isn't going to stop them.

[CANOPY SAM]

Blackjack is partially correct above. Resort owners would fight back against this type of proposal, and with good reason.

Huge license fees definately prohibit many people from participating in out of state hunting and fishing opportunities. If we were to do this in our state with fishing licenses, we'd put a pretty tough pinch on a lot of resorts, bait shops, cafe's, etc. etc. etc. Keep in mind, we're talking about TROPHY hunting opportunities (in Iowa) vs. fishing for a nice meal of crappies or walleyes (in MN). Apples to oranges in my thinking.

Our state pours millions into our fisheries not just for Minnesota's enjoyment, but for non-residents as well. Some of this money comes from non-resident license fees. We generate revenue, by attracting out-of-state revenue sources, and put that money back into the pot to attract more non-residents. That's called investing back into the company = good business. Eliminate it and we take away a terrific revenue stream that also benefits us.

Many communities in MN depend on tourism dollars (ie. hunters and fishermen) to bolster their local economy. What would happen to Brainerd, Walker, Garrison, Waskish, Baudette, and countless other towns in MN if we raised non-resident license fees to a point that would cut out-of-state tourism dollars in half due to lack of participation?

Ask the residents around Upper Red Lake, or Walker what happened to the local economy when the walleyes dissappeared. Folks come here because we have an abundance of outdoor opportunities, and resources to share. There's more than enough for everyone. I wouldn't get to greedy about it.

Personally, I think huge non-resident fees are a bad thing for state's to adopt. It's often based more on being selfish about the resources, rather than generating revenue.

Look at North Dakota. They could use all the non-resident revenue they can get, but they choose to raise license fees, and minimize season lengths for out-of-staters. This decision was largely driven by local landowners wanting first dibs on "their" game. They shoot themselves in the wallet because fewer folks come to hunt, hence fewer dollars are spent in small, rural communities that could really use the money, and they suffer because of it.

At least in NoDak, the really bitter pill is there's so much room to hunt, that never gets touched....

[Meat-Run]

Doesn't Iowa, No. Dakota, So. Dakota and Nebraska residents own majority of the lake shore around most of the Detroit Lakes Area (enter sarcasim here)? I think an out of state non-res license increase would not detur any tourists from coming to MN. An increase in license fees is just one way to offset the defeset(sp) and current strain on our resources and water quality issues?

just a thought.

mr

[TylerS]

Look at North Dakota. They could use all the non-resident revenue they can get, but they choose to raise license fees, and minimize season lengths for out-of-staters. This decision was largely driven by local landowners wanting first dibs on "their" game. They shoot themselves in the wallet because fewer folks come to hunt, hence fewer dollars are spent in small, rural communities that could really use the money, and they suffer because of it.

At least in NoDak, the really bitter pill is there's so much room to hunt, that never gets touched....

I don't think we need any favors, thank you. North Dakota continues to be one of only a handful of states with a surplus budget every year. The paltry dollars coming in from hunting and fishing pales in comparison to the REAL industries (i.e. oil, coal and agriculture) driving our economy.

So please, don't think you're doing us a favor by spending a couple hundred bucks at the local hotel. That kind of attitude is what makes some nonresidents look like holier-than-thou snobs.

Yes, there is ample land to hunt, especially when compared to Minnesota (heck, I grew up in Minnesota...and moved the heck out as soon as I could). That's why people come here to do so. But year after year, more and more of that land is either posted up or leased out. Every year it gets harder to find open land to hunt on. That's why the G&F has put in measures to stem the flow of hunters, such as limiting the time spent (and let's be realistic, two full weeks of hunting can mean a ton of birds shot...if you do well, you'll be sick of eating ducks by the time you leave). It lessens the stress on the game and land...not to mention landowners.

Let me ask you this: If it came down to keeping hunting the way it is today (ample room, plentiful game, low competition) or letting it go the way of pay-to-play Texas or land-limited Minnesota, would you be for a non-resident license cap? SoDak does it and has for years, but nobody b****es about them...

And please...nobody threaten us with limiting fishing in Minnesota. I always chuckle at that. Ever heard of a little pond called Devils Lake?

[CANOPY SAM]

But we're not just talking about an increase here. People are suggesting a 450% mark-up!

In a depressed economy people will most definately avoid unnecessary expenditures. That's played a big part in the tourism downturn over the last few years. The resorts on LOW have felt it big time. Pile on a massive increase in license fees and you'll almost certianly chase off most of your potential customers.

JP at the Wigwam on LOW is playing it right. Offer great service, a great experience, at the right price, and you'll keep the money flowing. Jack up your prices to try turn more profit, more quickly, rape your existing clientel, and before long you'll be begging customers to come back.

I don't disagree that our resources are strained, and sometimes abused, but that's not entirely due to non-resident pressure. Also, off-setting our current deficit by increasing non-resident fishing license fees would barely scratch the tip of the iceberg.

[Meat-Run]

tylers,

for the sake of this good post so why do Nodaks come to MN when you have Devils lake, not trying to p@ss anybody off but that's one heck of a fishery?

mr

[shortfatguy]

tylers,

for the sake of this good post so why do Nodaks come to MN when you have Devils lake, not trying to p@ss anybody off but that's one heck of a fishery?

mr

Devils lake is an awesome fishery surrounded by endless miles of uglyness. You cant compare it to the glacial lake of northern minnesota.

[TylerS]

tylers,

for the sake of this good post so why do Nodaks come to MN when you have Devils lake, not trying to p@ss anybody off but that's one heck of a fishery?

mr

[zamboni]

Charge Iowa residents $300 for a non-resident fishing license. They can pay or eat bullheads.

They'll pay for a non-resident license AND eat the bullheads. Folks from Iowa LOVE bullheads. I am 20 miles away from Iowa, I know.

[MinnesnowtaWild]

The guy I know from Iowa LOVES Bullheads...but only as bait for Flathead Cats up here in the Minnesota River.

Raising the out of state fishing license is not the answer here.

[CANOPY SAM]

Tyler, with all due respect, I don't think you speak for all the residents of North Dakota's many withering small towns, as I don't speak for all Minnesotans. Please refrain from the condescending remarks.

North Dakota could benefit tremendously from more non-resident participation in hunting and fishing. Yes, there are regions of ND that are booming, while there are far, far more small bread and butter farming communities that are near extinction.

You're talking about two different animals here. Dollars spent in a rural community have no impact what-so-ever on the state's budget surplus, or deficit. This money benifits the community, and families making a living there. A % of state license fees are what are earmarked for budget purposes.

Some of us "holier-than-thou snobs" actually enjoy spending money in small town diners, service stations, and hotels to say thanks for the great hospitality.

You live in Fargo. Fargo is not a representative community for the economic situation most of ND faces. I used to live in Grand Forks. Lived there for 4 years, and still have family land in central North Dakota. I loved being a resident of ND, and miss it greatly.

I know first hand that "rural" North Dakota enjoyed the old days, 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's when non-residents flocked to the rolling prairies to hunt waterfowl, and upland game. It's not the same place anymore since increased fees, and limited seasons were introduced. Many family farms, and small towns loved to see non-residents arrive during hunting season. The vocal minority has taken much of that away.

Two weeks does seem like plenty of time to hunt, unless you're a non-resident trying to peg the main migration times while simultaneously being forced to choose "blocks" of time when you're allowed to hunt. I'd love to run over to our family land in mid-Nov when the big push comes, but I can't because my "choices" rarely hit the main migration, and I find myself hunting ND fewer and fewer seasons cause I simply can't afford it.

There are inherant problems with exhorbatant license fees that run way beyond your limited perspective on non-resident access, and I'm sure the hotel owner you're representing with your statement above would rebuke you for turning away his potential income.

I'm not the one suggesting turf wars here. I'm more on the side of tearing them down, so please, don't misinterpret what I'm saying, thank you.

I do love the boreal forest of MN. Towering pines, endless gin clear lakes, and the changing colors of the deciduous forest in autumn. But I also love the rolling prairie, dotted with cattail sloughs, and boundless sunrises and sunsets.

That's my point. Why do we have to put up barriers that limit, or prohibit non-residents of any state from enjoying these resources? Simple answer = greed.

If more people have access, when handled with respect and humility, everyone benefits.

[BLACKJACK]

I just went and checked, its $39.50 for a non-resident fishing license vrs $17.00 for a resident license. Increasing that non-resident fee up to $50-60-70 dollars isn't going to prevent an out of stater from coming to fish. If a family of 4 is traveling to Lake of the Woods, spending a week at a resort, with food, gas, guides, etc. they're spending thousands of dollars, another $120 isn't going to stop them from coming!!! Ridiculous.

We have a fishery that is in demand, just like SoDak pheasants, Colorado elk, Montana mule deer, take advantage of it and make some money. Have you heard, we'll be facing a 6 billion dollar deficit next year??!