Oklahoma bill looks to DOUBLE non-resident cost

[IkemanTX]

An Oklahoma state senator is looking to Double The tag prices (making a deer license $600), and reduce the bag limits BY HALF, for all nonresident hunters to “reduce the number of nonresidents on WMA’s”

Proposed Oklahoma bill aims to prioritize local access to Wildlife Management Areas

Legislation has been filed that would increase Oklahoman's access to the state's Wildlife Management Areas.

okcfox.com

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OSUTodd]

That's kind of steep for a deer license. I guess they're doing it to either raise revenue from nonresidents, or to try and gain votes from residents who think there are too many non-resident hunters. Probably some of both. I doubt it is in any way aimed to achieve any wildlife management goal.

On one WMA I hunt, last year there were more out of state hunters in October than locals. Didn't bother me too much since pressure was still not that bad.

On the other hand, where I used to duck hunt (in Oklahoma), usually 50% of the trucks at the boat ramp were from Arkansas, and another 10% from Texas or Louisiana. That place was crazy. If you wanted a genuinely good spot, you needed to launch by midnight, and if you wanted any reasonable spot, you needed to be launching well before 3:00. That's pretty much why I don't duck hunt anymore. It takes too much scouting time to know what the birds are doing from one week to the next, and that's time I don't have. That was one of the few areas where you could count on a consistent pattern of birds.

 

[rebelbow]

Ridiculous!
That's more than Kansas! Plus Oklahoma has a huge whitetail population. Trust me i know,one totaled my truck!

 

[NMSbowhunter]

They could just make it so that nonresidents have to draw for certain WMA's. Set the limit that can draw any specific WMA based on acres or animals, etc. If the state doubles the cost for out of state folks those politicians might like the way that money spends, and pretty soon resident licenses are going up too.

 

[dalton916]

Doubling the cost and halving the tags is net $0. Just saying…..

 

[NMSbowhunter]

Just thinking about it, all states should base the out of state fee on what the out of state hunter's state charges to out of state residents. Say California charges $700 to out of state resident, someone comes here from California, they get charged $700. Someone comes from Nevada, and the out of state fee in Nevada is $300, the Nevada resident pays $300 for an out of state license. That way you get what you give.

 

[Ajbradley]

Just thinking about it, all states should base the out of state fee on what the out of state hunter's state charges to out of state residents. Say California charges $700 to out of state resident, someone comes here from California, they get charged $700. Someone comes from Nevada, and the out of state fee in Nevada is $300, the Nevada resident pays $300 for an out of state license. That way you get what you give.

I can’t remember exactly but I thought there was a state that did this.

 

[HuskerInIowa]

Just thinking about it, all states should base the out of state fee on what the out of state hunter's state charges to out of state residents. Say California charges $700 to out of state resident, someone comes here from California, they get charged $700. Someone comes from Nevada, and the out of state fee in Nevada is $300, the Nevada resident pays $300 for an out of state license. That way you get what you give.

Iowa chiming in with a thanks but no thanks.

 

[Jammintree]

A $600 tag is too rich for my blood. On the other hand, my state just did the opposite - we hadn’t had a license cost increase in a very long time and our in state fees doubled. The new total license cost is around $100 depending on which options you select. Meanwhile the cost for out of state licenses was not increased proportionally. My feeling in my own state was that if fish and game needs more revenue for meaningful expenses - increasing fees for out of state hunters is a reasonable place to do it. But $600?!

To Daltons good point about no net gain in revenue: has OK given any explanations for the theory or intention behind the change?

 

[Skunkworkx]

I can’t remember exactly but I thought there was a state that did this.

Pretty sure MD is this way at one time...only see resident/non-resident fees now.

 

[NMSbowhunter]

Doubling the cost and halving the tags is net $0. Just saying…..

It would not have to be a 1 to 1 exchange. If you double the price but keep the same number of tags you will likely sell fewer, but not necessarily. If the hunting is good enough a lot of guys will pay it and cut corners elsewhere. They might tent camp or drag a camper with them instead of getting a hotel room. They might bring their food instead of eating at local restaurants. The end result may be the same number of out of staters, but less money spent in the local economy. If I was dead set on hunting OK and had to offset the cost this is where I would start trimming expenses.

If you decrease the tags then they will sell less, of course. Then there would certainly be less out of state money coming to the DNR and the local economies. There could be some unintended consequences.

 

[elk yinzer]

Hunting is dying! Hunting is dying! Everyone sign up your grandma and the kid with a single mom three doors down. We need all the revenue we can get! Ahem scuse me, I mean support in the battle against the evil antis! Yes, that! Little throat tickle there.

 

[IkemanTX]

Just thinking about it, all states should base the out of state fee on what the out of state hunter's state charges to out of state residents. Say California charges $700 to out of state resident, someone comes here from California, they get charged $700. Someone comes from Nevada, and the out of state fee in Nevada is $300, the Nevada resident pays $300 for an out of state license. That way you get what you give.

I like that. Texas should up our non-resident fee to match Oklahoma’s… but only for Oklahoma residents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IkemanTX]

A $600 tag is too rich for my blood. On the other hand, my state just did the opposite - we hadn’t had a license cost increase in a very long time and our in state fees doubled. The new total license cost is around $100 depending on which options you select. Meanwhile the cost for out of state licenses was not increased proportionally. My feeling in my own state was that if fish and game needs more revenue for meaningful expenses - increasing fees for out of state hunters is a reasonable place to do it. But $600?!

To Daltons good point about no net gain in revenue: has OK given any explanations for the theory or intention behind the change?

The senator who sponsored the bill listed “too many non-residents” on WMA’s as the motivating factor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IkemanTX]

It would not have to be a 1 to 1 exchange. If you double the price but keep the same number of tags you will likely sell fewer, but not necessarily. If the hunting is good enough a lot of guys will pay it and cut corners elsewhere. They might tent camp or drag a camper with them instead of getting a hotel room. They might bring their food instead of eating at local restaurants. The end result may be the same number of out of staters, but less money spent in the local economy. If I was dead set on hunting OK and had to offset the cost this is where I would start trimming expenses.

If you decrease the tags then they will sell less, of course. Then there would certainly be less out of state money coming to the DNR and the local economies. There could be some unintended consequences.

$600 for a whitetail tag that isn’t a bucket list place (like Iowa) is outrageous to me. I already camp 15-20 days a year in Oklahoma during season, there is no cutting costs further than peddling the truck instead of using gas.

Also, Oklahoma charges their $300 nonresident fee for EACH METHOD OF TAKE. So, that’s $300 for archery, another $300 for rifle, and another $300 for muzzleloader. Even if all you want to hunt is archery and rifle, that’s a $1200 season with the new prices.


If this passes I will skip Oklahoma, pay $770, and kill an elk in Colorado most years instead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NMSbowhunter]

$600 for a whitetail tag that isn’t a bucket list place (like Iowa) is outrageous to me. I already camp 15-20 days a year in Oklahoma during season, there is no cutting costs further than peddling the truck instead of using gas.

Also, Oklahoma charges their $300 nonresident fee for EACH METHOD OF TAKE. So, that’s $300 for archery, another $300 for rifle, and another $300 for muzzleloader. Even if all you want to hunt is archery and rifle, that’s a $1200 season with the new prices.


If this passes I will skip Oklahoma, pay $770, and kill an elk in Colorado most years instead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah that's cost prohibitive, especially in a non destination state. I wonder if the hotel and restaurant lobby is looking at this potential lost revenue. I would bet you are the exception to the rule as far as spending money as an out of state hunter. I bet a lot of folks stay in hotels and eat at restaurants.

 

[Jammintree]

The senator who sponsored the bill listed “too many non-residents” on WMA’s as the motivating factor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Based in the reactions of the folks in this thread, it would seem the increased cost is having the desired impact.

 

[devildog]

I wish Missouri would do the same thing.

 

[dalton916]

It would not have to be a 1 to 1 exchange. If you double the price but keep the same number of tags you will likely sell fewer, but not necessarily. If the hunting is good enough a lot of guys will pay it and cut corners elsewhere. They might tent camp or drag a camper with them instead of getting a hotel room. They might bring their food instead of eating at local restaurants. The end result may be the same number of out of staters, but less money spent in the local economy. If I was dead set on hunting OK and had to offset the cost this is where I would start trimming expenses.

If you decrease the tags then they will sell less, of course. Then there would certainly be less out of state money coming to the DNR and the local economies. There could be some unintended consequences.

The original post said double the cost and halve the harvest. I misread the halve the harvest as halving the available tags.

 

[John 35]

I like that. Texas should up our non-resident fee to match Oklahoma’s… but only for Oklahoma residents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We okies don’t want to hunt Texas anyway we all want to hunt Kansas haha.