Should we be charging out of state hunters more for less permits?

Here's a long held thought by myself:

As many know, in summary the southern half of the state has ridiculously strong deer numbers but the problem has always been a lack of public land and/or getting permission to hunt anywhere-so in that regard the overall DNR goal in many of these counties is to reduce deer populations (which never really seems to drop due to lack of pressure).

However, in many of the northern counties deer populations and density is still very low-I'm talking about Ashland, Bayfield, Douglas, Forest, Etc....

So my question is this:

Why are we issuing yearly licenses to out of state residents in these counties if locals already have a hard time filling tags? ...and before you jump all over the idea consider that Iowa no longer issues a license every year to out of state hunters and Illinois does not either I believe. Forgive me as maybe this is incorrect, but I was under the assumption that you are put in a lottery system and not guaranteed to draw tags at all or specific dates in Illinois for like a 3 day season?

Why not treat them as they treat us? -especially when we need less pressure in some counties. 

*Note-I'm not blaming the low herd numbers on hunting pressure-most people should be aware that the winter kill a few years ago was brutal. BUT helping those deer populations rebound can be better accomplished with less hunting pressure.

Your thoughts? 

The DNR is tight on funding, raise out of state tags as much as needed.

Summers Off, I think you hit the nail on the head. I was always amazed during the gun season the size of deer you used to see at the registration lines. There seems to be a lot of if it's brown it's down theory going on. I'm not saying that's the sole reason for quality of deer or the herd size but man it's got to play a pretty big factor.

I've never taken the time to go hunt other states so I'm not sure I know what a "quality herd" looks like. I just try to wait for what I think is a "mature" deer to present me the opportunity for harvest. I'm a public land hunter (Washburn Co) and I don't use trail cams as I live 350 miles from where I hunt. I just try my best to take a couple of trips in summer and fall to scout out an area the best I can. I know what areas have produced for me in the past and attempt to put in the work. Some years I'm successful some years I'm not but I don't shoot small deer just because my freezer is empty. Unfortunately I don't think that's a common trait. 

I don't know what the answer is, but I sure hope my kids will have the opportunity to enjoy hunting like I have.

LB

I agree.  I have muzzleloaded in Southern Iowa, zone 5 twice.  Absolutely worth the extra money for a tag.

Northern Missouri with the antler restrictions on private land was awesome too.  

I have hunted SD about a dozen times.  Mostly on public land and only for mule deer with a bow. Residents and non-residents get put in a lottery system for gun but archery tags are sold over the counter.  You don't see a lot of hunters but you do see a lot of animals.  

Most people don't know what it's like to hunt in a quality hunting spot, therefore they fear any changes to the statis quo.  

Isn't it sad that 850,000 licenses get bought for a 9 day guy season.  The public lands get flooded by hunters and the deer are running hell a$$ and crooked.  If you pass on a yearlying, it usually runs over the hill and gets shot.  

After 26 years of the public land rat race, I bought my own land.  The last 8 years have been enjoyable.  I'm lucky.  I get to hunt out of state and on private farm land in state.  Both QUALITY experiences.

Yes we should.  Period,  end of story.  look at Iowa.  Enough said.  Wake up Wisconsin.

I spend $700 for bow tag in Iowa.  why do you say people won't hunt here?

If someone from Illinois buys 80 acres,  they will pay $350 to kill a deer during gun season.

WI has close to 850k licenses sold....so what, what you lose in hunters you gain back in revenue buy charging more.  Pretty simple math.  If you want more of a quality deer hunt,  you need less deer being killed,  Pretty simple stuff.  Again,  look at other midwestern states.  They shoot more bigger bucks because more deer have time to get older.  again,  pretty simple principal. 

looking at that harvest chart for marquette,  6.1 bucks per 1200 acres.  That is INSANE.  you can't tell me they were all 5 year olds.  LMAO.  WI sucks.  This states culture sucks and it will never change.  5 properties are chasing one 150 incher per year and the property that gets it,  everyone else just shoots a consolation prize.  I'm not telling people how to hunt,  but if you want better deer,  you start raising the prices on NR and make more rules.  850k licenses sold,  9 day rifle seasons,  special seasons and all the BS,  WI manages Licenses sold,  not deer herds or quality of deer.

Limiting tags to non-residents, giving residents a grace period, charging more for tags...again, how exactly does this help the quality of the WI deer herd?  If the goal is to reduce the # of deer harvested, then we don't need class warfare.  All we need is 1 buck, or even 1 deer per year per hunter, not per season per hunter.  If you want better buck quality, either join the AR crowd, or bring back the earn-a-buck system.  The quality of WI deer hunting (or perceived lack thereof) isn't a resident vs. non-resident thing.  It's a we shoot too many deer, don't manage our forests well enough, and turn a blind eye to non-human impact thing.

I do however think there should be a limit on bonus tags for out of state residents, like a 1 tag limit, and even then I think bonus tags should be awarded via a lottery or a preference points system. I also think this should be backdated to allow state residents the first opportunity to purchase bonus tags. Maybe license sales should be restricted to residents for the first 30 days after they go on sale, I don't know.

Less is more.  Wisconsin is not interested in quality outdoor experiences.   They are mainly interested in quantity of opportunities.  The state will sell as many licenses as possible for hunting with no regard to where hunters are going to end up.  Pretty sure that is not the case for ND, SD, Iowa, Kansas, Illinois or very many other Midwest states.  Most have some type of a lottery system for residents and non-residents.

That being said, I would like to see a system in place that makes all public land areas a lottery system for residents and non-residents.  Spread out the hunting pressure.  I realize this can never happen in Wisconsin, but some public hunting areas do need something to lower the hunting pressure.     

I would also like to see antler restrictions.  Minimum of four points on at least one side for it to be a legal buck.  Had an opportunity to hunt Northern Missouri in the area that has this type of antler restriction.  Wow. Bucks everywhere.  Maybe if we had antler restrictions the state could charge trophy fees to help generate revenue.  It would have to be higher for non-residents of course.

With regard to license price, I think if you own land and pay property taxes you should hunt for free.  If you have your land in a program and get a tax break, you pay for your license.  As for the non-residents and what they should be charged, maybe we could set up toll booths on all the logging roads to generate some revenue.  

With regard to non-residents and tourism dollars, I think it really depends on what you want to do for fun.  I'm a Wisconsin resident but for me, the best part of Northern Wisconsin is the drive through it on my way to Canada, North Dakota or South Dakota to go fishing and hunting.  When I want to go snowmobiling, I again drive through it to get to Michigan. Northern Wisconsin does have pretty nice roads.  

I just did a quick proof read of my post.  I hope my grammer is god enough for yous guys.  I don't need no one picking on my righting skills.  That would just make me madder at yous guys.  Their are just a bunch of meanies out their that make life unfun for us guys.

Cheers!

Sorry I meant to hit the 6 and didn't mean to post a false number and did not see the mistake 

PW if you are going to make a statement at least get it right. It's 160 for non resident.

I am an avid outdoorsman of 39 years in Wisconsin.  I have hunted multiple states and Canada during my time.  I think we (Wisconsin sportsman ) should charge the same amount that other states do. My example is if you are a citizen of Iowa.  You should pay the same fora tag as I( a Wisconsin resident) does in your state.  If I hunt Kansas it is a $554 dollar license with fees. If you are a Kansas residentyou hunt Wisconsin for the same $554 dollars not $120 bucks

The lens some folks choose to look through in life is interesting.

If you're from south of the border you must be a FIB, or from Ill"annoy"

I suppose if you're from Mississippi you must be a Redneck. 

Everyone advocating for higher license fees, what is your end game?  More money for the State?  Great plan - they've done great so far?!? 

You would think that getting more folks to spend money in our State would be a goal that most can agree on.  Charging folks more to hunt in our state will do absolutely zero to improve the deer herd. 

Anyone have any solid rationale of why charging higher license fees would be a good thing for our State - or is the general sentiment that they are from Ill, so they should pay more?

Carp- I find it funny that your original position was to raise fees to ease pressure on your area. With a little time you showed your true motivation, which was your hatred of Illinois. You then went on some weird rant that people from Illinois need to keep their politics in Illinois. 

What you did right there was pure Illinois politics. You tried to further your political position based on false arguments, hiding your true motivation, which was a personal agenda.

You are an Illinois politician at heart. 

It'll be a good day when IL finally comes to its senses and divests itself of Chicago so the rest of us aren't lumped in with them and don't have to suffer financially because of them. As a FIB, I much prefer Madison or Milwaukee over Chicago.

Hell YES Wisconsin should charge more. If you go out of state hunting muleys or elk there is a huge difference between our out of state prices and theirs. Other states value their residents, Wisconsin values out of staters. As far as Illinois hunters, it'll be a good day when Wisconsin builds a wall. FIBS.

It won't hurt WI,  the ill"annoys" folk will pay it.  They have money to spend and there is nothing down there.  you want good outdoors, they come to wisconsin.  they will pay whatever we charge...