Discrimination against NR bowhunters

[TomBow]

It was just brought to my attention that there is a new system for charging the fees for Non-Residents to Bowhunt in MN. This does not apply to non-resident Firearms hunters.

In the license requirements section of the 2004 hunting regs, the words "Nonresident fees from states that charge more than Minnesota for this license will be the same as a Minnesota resident would pay in that state". Again, this only applies to Non-Resident archery tags. What the....? And it doesn't apply to NR GUN hunters?

An Alabama hunter brought this to my attention, through a post on another HSOforum. When he researched this , he stated that the MN representative whom he spoke with stated that this originated with ONE disgruntled MN bowhunter complaining about other states Non-resident fees. How does one guy whining get this law into the books?

Granted, other states have increase fees like mad over the last several years, but I first saw the NR fee for this year at $135 and was pleased that MN was pretty low. I am a resident of MN. Then I find out about this law and I think, Great, let the [PoorWordUsage]ing match between states begin. Why don't we just have a standard non-resident fee for all states and cut the bull. This law is discriminatory against bowhunters and discriminatory against non-residents.

Ok, that's my one and a half cents. Next.

[Ben1022]

TomBow,

It's going to get ugly all over the place for hunters in terms of resident/non-resident hunters. Arizona is in the middle of an ugly suit by USO regarding the 10% cap of NR hunters. USO "won" the suit as it stands and AZ upped the number of tags in may of the elk and northern deer units to please the courts for this year. What happens in the future, remains to be seen.
What has happened is the residents are not real happy w/the non-residents; although the realize it was USO who did this to benefit NR's. So, there are many [PoorWordUsage]ing matches already going on and it's probably going to get worse.
I lived in AZ for 15 years and during that time, I bowhunted NM, CO, MN, SD and always paid on the order of $100 for a NR deer tag. Now, the fees are going to be all over the board and my prediction is that it's going to get very difficult for each state to be "constitutionally fair" so the way to regulate the number of NR's is going to be to a threshold of a particular fee.
Bowhunting is an aspect of hunting that generally has an abundance of opportunity in terms of length of season, good dates etc., but the future may diminish this for bowhunters.
Sorry to have such a negative outlook but I'm a little depressed about not drawing a single tag anywhere and very few places to hunt here in MN. Looks like its time to buy some land and make the best of it.

[ghotierman]

tombow....someone might be pulling your leg on this issue, or at least fanning a flame.

the 2004 regulations aren't out yet...not even on the DNR HSOforum. as a license agent, we've not received any information like you've described. our rate sheet shows the NR bow license at $136...same as the NR firearms. i don't expect a change when the regs are published.

2004 seasons and new reg info was just announced on 7/20. reg books will be available in the next few weeks.

------------------
Alexandria Outfitters
915 Hwy 29 N NE
Alexandria, MN 56308
(320) 763-9598

[fivebucks]

I got my reg. book at Gander Mtn. last week already and it states exactly what TomBow said.

[ghotierman]

Tombow is correct....my apologies. Regulation took effect August 1. We just got the update from the DNR. NR bow license will only be available by application to the St. Paul HQ. $136 or the fee equal to their state or province NR license...which ever is greater.

another bit of legislation we've missed. time to be more vigilant?

------------------
Alexandria Outfitters
915 Hwy 29 N NE
Alexandria, MN 56308
(320) 763-9598

[BLACKJACK]

I think it was a mistake to make it just non-resident bowhunters, it should have been all NR hunters. As others have stated, this is only the tip of the iceberg, there trouble brewing in Arizona, in North Dakota with the non-resident duckhunting, even the with SoDak and its 5 day pheasant hunting licences. Its easy to gouge the non-resident hunters because they have no voice or vote in that state. Have you seen what it cost for a non-resident to hunt elk in Montana???! Its approaching $1000 while the residents are charged less than $50! Colorado is doing the same. Iowa has substantially raised its non-resident deer licences. Do we want hunting to become a rich mans sport??

Minnesota's fishing is its best resource, I think we should start doing the same, make non-residents buy multiple 5 day licences like SoDak does with pheasants. And I think the idea of non-residents paying what their own state requires is good, maybe they'll go home and say 'you know this really isn't fair or nice'. Without some sort of retalitory laws, change won't come about.

[TomBow]

I'm right there with you on the "rich man's sport" comment. It seems a state or two raised their non-resident licenses considerably and now it seems like it's "Well, THEY did it! We're going to raise our fees because THEY did!" And once it starts to roll, it's all downhill from here. I haven't researched every state's NR fees but it seemed like MN was amongst the cheapest, at least until I read the little blurb in the regs about matching other states NR fees. And why ONLY Bowhunters? The lawmakers are just begging to be sued on this for discrimination, seems to me.
If the raising of NR fees continues, not just in Minnesota, it will get to the point where only the wealthy can afford to hunt as Non-residents. And then the hunting by non-residents will diminish and so will the influx of money into local economies for lodging. I wonder if it's ever going to stop. I have contacted the MN DNR to find out where this law came from and why it is only bowhunters. Haven't gotten an answer yet. Is there that much trouble caused by non-resident hunters or is this law a knee-jerk reaction to a few non-residents that caused trouble for a resident hunter or two that had a relative that was a lawmaker and somehow got this law on the books? Hopefully I'll here an answer soon and I'll let ya'll know. Best of Luck to you this season.

[jlm]

Tombow-
I agree, it is unfortunate that it is becoming the way it is. However, MN is a state that is booming. It is one of the fastest growing states in the midwest. In ten years, the metro area will be considerably larger and other cities will continue to grow as well, especially in the southern half of the state. Access and opportunities will continue to be squeezed for resident hunters. The only way to put a cap on that so that resident hunters continue to have some opportunities (rightfully so because they reside in this state) is to raise fee's to weed people out and to put more money into the mangement system. I am not saying it is right but I think that this is a major consideration. I don't feel it is discrimination at all. All NR bowhunters will pay the same fee or the fee that their state offers. How is that discrimination?

[mrkastni]

Looks like as a resident of IA, my archery fee for MN would be just a bit over 200 bucks plus general hunting licenses and any required habitat stamps. Seems like it is a lot better deal to pay the rifle fee and have a higher % of taking game during a shorter visit. (Fewer lodging nights) Maybe the MN DNR would rather have an influx of non-residents carrying high-powered rifles that may not be an option in their home state seasons. (like Ia)

Is there any chance that this it tied to some Ammunition manufacturer in MN? They may be selling a LOT more centerfire rifle rounds in the coming years to Non-residents.

Good luck this season, I think I will save the trip costs, and hunt a Northwest IA cornfield instead.

Mrkastni

[Benny]

Well I say "IT'S ABOUT TIME"!!!!

I highley doubt it was just one bow hunter that got any thing changed, it was more like a whole group of bow hunters,rifle hunters,muzzel loaders,pistol hunters,and fisher people that got this new regulation passed.

We all seen it coming last year , and I can't be more happy about it.

Why on earth should we pay through the nose to hunt another state ,when that other states resedents can walts right over here and pay just a triffel more than you or I to hunt the same wood,fields,waters as we do?

Some one just said it in this discussion, it's getting harder as it is to find a place to hunt.It is even getting harder to find any game accept white tails that are abundant here any longer.

I was a dihard Minnesota waterfowler, untill I seen what it was like in the Dakotas.Unfortunately I was a year to late getting in on the North Dakota hunts before their representatives decided that the big checks from the guides padding thier coffers were more important than us NR hunters paying thier constituents money for goods or lodging.

Now I hunt South Dakota, and they are looking at raising fees and capping NR hunters next year.
So in 2005 I might be hunting Arkansas or Nebraska.

Heck even Wisconsin is better than the tri state area now.

I say if the NR hunters coming to this state don't like the fee then they should help thier fellow Minnesota hunters and put a stop to thier own states greedy polititions.

Benny

[This message has been edited by Benny (edited 08-06-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Benny (edited 08-06-2004).]