Regular firearms to muzzleloader license

[eyeguy 54]

Eyeguy, what area are you hunting that you can use a management tag?

talking about when available...

mainly a bow hunter.

If I tag a buck with an arrow I then have to buy the rifle tag to use my management tag that I already have. I cant use the rifle tag if I already used my regular bow tag. 30 bucks wasted. I know I can just use my bow but when gun season rolls around it's fun to hunt with a few friends if invited and I just think i should be able to use that management tag with whatever weapon I choose. Call me cheap.... I can take it. lol

[mntatonka]

If I tag a buck with an arrow I then have to buy the rifle tag to use my management tag that I already have. I cant use the rifle tag if I already used my regular bow tag. 30 bucks wasted. I know I can just use my bow but when gun season rolls around it's fun to hunt with a few friends if invited and I just think i should be able to use that management tag with whatever weapon I choose. Call me cheap.... I can take it. lol

[InTheNorthwoods]

Ya its kind of a scam, why sell one deer license when you can sell 3 of them. I think others states sell you a tag and you can pick whatever weapon or season you want to hunt, really that is the way it should be. You don't buy a fishing license and then buy an ice fishing license (but of course they have to nail you for perm house license). Bear license is a bear license. Kind of sick of getting nickeled and dimed (and stamped) to death. Especially when the management is sub-par.

One thing to remember is that you are not paying for the tag, you are paying for the license, i.e. the privilege to hunt during that particular season. Your tag is not valid if you have already filled your tag during another season, but your license is still valid to hunt within a party that has open tags.

I don't think this is really any different than buying a fishing license and having to buy a trout stamp or sturgeon tag. When it comes to bear hunting, we are talking about limited draws in most cases, which is a limiting factor on the number of tags available and the number of hunters afield - i.e., there is only one season they have to manage.

In summary, I agree that it would be nice if there was a cheaper option to hunt all of the season's one would like to (its a personal benefit for those of us that like to be out there as much as possible - i.e. pay for one tag, and cheaper license fee for each season), but I don't think doing that is best for management practices - which is a whole different argument I won't get in to.

[Jameson]

...I cant use the rifle tag if I already used my regular bow tag....

Yes you can. You might not be able to in the area you are hunting do to limits, but anyone can hunt the public land in the metro and possibly use all their tags.

Our main tags are either/or tags, so if you shoot a buck with your bow early in the year it makes your rifle and muzzle main tags be antlerless-only tags, but they can still be used. It wasn't always that we could use multiple main tags, maybe ten years ago it changed.

[Bear55]

One thing to remember is that you are not paying for the tag, you are paying for the license, i.e. the privilege to hunt during that particular season. Your tag is not valid if you have already filled your tag during another season, but your license is still valid to hunt within a party that has open tags.

No reason a single deer tag couldn't work the same way. Say I fill my tag archery season, then party hunt rifle season on the same tag. It would be no different if I shot a rifle buck opening day and party hunted the next day.

Stamps are the same kind of problem, I buy a fishing license yet I have to get a stamp or special permit to do this or that. If it is a special type of fish with a limited number you could apply before season and it could be printed on your one and only license.

It should be about managing public resources, not raising as much $$$ as they can. Sure it's really not all that expensive now but 40-50 years about non-res tags weren't either, now try hunting out of state without spending hundred or thousands of $$.

[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.