Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Paying for Tags??

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    1,098

    Default Paying for Tags??

    So here's the question. Would you be willing to pay for your hunting tags? I'm not sure what the situation is across the state but I know for me in SE I can get 6 deer tags, 1 moose, a goat, and an elk tag for free with my hunting license. I know that I would be willing to pay for those tags. It seems that the F&G could generate a little more funding for themselves if they did this. I know that it's not as simple as just saying, "let's charge for tags", but lets just assume that it is. Even if they only charged $5 per tag, that's not a lot of money and I certainly would pay $30 for all the deer I can eat all year. Or $5 for a moose tag. So would you be willing to do this? I think it would be worth it to help fund the biologists that are managing our game species. What do you guys think?

  2. #2

    Default

    Income from the tags would have to go into the state's general fund, then be passed back to the department. Just as with license fees. There's no way legally to assure that it goes back to the department rather than district pork.

    Are you ready to trust the legislature yet?

  3. #3
    Member muskeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Hollis
    Posts
    963

    Default you forgot 2 Black Bear, 5 Wolf and a Moose and Wolverine.

    Subsistence hunters hunting under the Federal regs for deer would never go for having to buy tags. We discussed that at the unit #2 deer sub-committee meetings. Even if State law said they must have a tag ANILCA would probably trump that. As it is they can hunt starting July 24th even though State law says August 1st. They also can take a Doe and take a 5th deer against State law.

    Also the added costs of administering such a program would be tremendous. It would probably cost the State more than they would make.

  4. #4
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    50

    Default I think you are wrong brown bear

    If Alaska accepts funds from the Pittman-Robertson Act then all licence fees must go to the wildlife department -- I think that Alaska uses Pittman-Robertson money buy then I may be wrong. I think that this act is one of the best wildlife conservation acts ever.

    I. The Pittman-Robertson Act
    The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act[5], popularly known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, was approved by Congress on September 2, 1937, and began functioning July 1, 1938.[6]

    The purpose of this Act was to provide funding for the selection, restoration, rehabilitation and improvement of wildlife habitat, wildlife management research, and the distribution of information produced by the projects.[7] The Act was amended October 23, 1970 to include funding for hunter training programs and the development, operation and maintenance of public target ranges.[8]

    Funds are derived from an 11 percent Federal excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment, and a 10 percent tax on handguns.[9] These funds are collected from the manufacturers by the Department of the Treasury and are apportioned each year to the States and Territorial areas (except Puerto Rico) by the Department of the Interior on the basis of formulas set forth in the Act.[10] Appropriate State agencies are the only entities eligible to receive grant funds.[11] Funds for hunter education and target ranges are derived from one-half of the tax on handguns and archery equipment.[12]

    Each state's apportionment is determined by a formula, which considers the total area of the state and the number of licensed hunters in the state.[13] The program is a cost-reimbursement program, where the state covers the full amount of an approved project then applies for reimbursement through Federal Aid for up to 75 percent of the project expenses.[14] The state must provide at least 25 percent of the project costs from a non-federal source.[15] To be eligible for federal funds, a state must assent to the provisions of the Act and have laws governing the conservation of wildlife.[16] Additionally, a state must have a law prohibiting the diversion of license fees paid by hunters for any purpose other than the administration of the state's fish and game department.[17]

    In other words:

    The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with the States, through their respective State fish and game departments, in wildlife-restoration projects. However, per statute, no money apportioned under this chapter to any state shall be expended until the state in question assents to the provisions of this chapter and has passed laws for the conservation of wildlife, which includes a prohibition against the diversion of license fees paid by hunters for any other purpose than the administration of said state's fish and game department. The Act also provides for grants for hunter education programs and a mechanism for a multi-state conservation grant program.[18]

  5. #5
    webmaster Michael Strahan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,767

    Default A word of advice...

    Quote Originally Posted by AKBoater View Post
    ...I can get 6 deer tags, 1 moose, a goat, and an elk tag for free with my hunting license. I know that I would be willing to pay for those tags....
    S-h-h-h-h-h-h!

    Be careful what you wish for!

    Although there is nothing wrong with a cat that cannot be fixed with a 12-gauge shotgun, there are few problems with our government that can be fixed for long with more money. I'm sure they would be grateful for the additional funds, and I'm sure they would spend it all. But with a per-capita increase in the numbers of non-resident hunters and locals who buy permit applications, there is a proportional increase in net cash to ADFG. Is it really necessary? I'm not seeing it.

    -Mike

    -Mike
    LOST CREEK COMPANY: Specializing in Alaska hunt consultation and planning for do-it-yourself hunts, fully outfitted hunts, and guided hunts.
    CLICK HERE to send me a private message.
    Web Address: http://alaskaoutdoorssupersite.com/hunt-planner/
    Mob: 1 (907) 229-4501
    "Dream big, and dare to fail." -Norman Vaughan
    "I have climbed my mountain, but I must still live my life." - Tenzig Norgay

  6. #6
    Member 8x57 Mauser's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Southeast Alaska
    Posts
    513

    Default

    Dunno about the feds, but it's just about our only 'dedicated' state fund.

    Alaska's constitution prohibits dedicated funds, except those in place before statehood. The Fish & Game Fund was, and remains, dedicated. I'm not aware of any instance where it's ever been raided to spend on other things.

    For that matter, the legislature often 'designates' funds - putting in place language that directs where a certain revenue stream ought to go. While not binding, nobody has ever been able to come up with an instance when the Alaska Legislature has broken faith with those designations.

    Healthy skepticism is a good thing. In this case, it just happens to be out of place.

  7. #7

    Default

    Before I pony up more dough, i would like to see a fundamental change in the management of existing state funds. Seem slike every time I hear about a need for more money, it never makes its way past the bureaucracy or the administration, and never gets to the bios and field work. Just my humble opinion.

  8. #8

    Default

    Paying for the tags would not cure any problem.All it would do do is give them more money to waste.They do not spend the money they get now right.Pay for more retirement.
    I vote NO

  9. #9
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    I am Valley trash.
    Posts
    589

    Default Another opition!

    I also think it would be great to raise more money but unfortunately they would just spend it and we would have nothing to show for it.

    If people would like to donate money they should contribute to an organization like SFW (Sports for Fish and Wildlife) that is new to our state. 100% of the money donated to this group will stay in Alaska!

    Before everyone rolls their eyes at having another group, this is a group that doesn’t focus on one species; they want to manage for abundance which means more animals on our tables.

    Just went to an event last night and it was nice to see representatives from many groups. Once of the problems we have as sportsman is we have our separate little groups. I am a life member of several of these groups and support them as much as I can, but I see a lot of bashing between these groups going on. The SFW hopefully will be the group that unites all of these groups which will allow the sportsman to be heard as one group.

    If this could happen, we as sportsman would be a powerful group. If not, then the UNITED Tree Huggers/Greenies will win the battle.

  10. #10
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default ADFG license/tag fee increase needed

    The org I co-chair is in the process now of working with other hunting groups to try to get a license/tag fee increase for ADFG before the next legislative session. ADFG is desperate for more funding, as there has not been an increase in the hunting license/tag fees since 1993. We are losing biologists, can't recruit new bios, don't have adequate funding for density estimates, research, etc.

    I consider this to be one of the most important issues facing our state right now in terms of hunting. We can't expect the Dept. to run on 1993 funding; for crying out loud think how much the price of avgas and heating oil has gone up since then. The cheapest aerial density estimate for moose is around $30K, and that's a cheap aerial survey for just one specific area, in a sea comprised of 26 game managment units, many of which are larger than some states.

    We need a hunting license increase across the board and to put our non-res tag fees in line with what other states charge. Some aren't gonna like it, I know, but we've been getting away with paying too little for too long, and from what I can tell it's really hurting us. So...look for more public discussion on this after hunting season this fall. Part of that will likely include discussion about whether or not to have a small (~$5) resident tag fee as well for some species. All the funds will be dedicated (as they are now) to ADFG Wildlife Conservation.

    To those who think that ADFG does not spend the money they have now in ways that help hunters, nothing could be farther from the truth. ADFG Widlife Conservation side simply does not have the funds to do what they need to do now, and the only reason they have skated by in recent years is because of general funds monies granted to them by the legislature. Those sources are not reliable. We can't depend upon them. I encourage everyone to talk with their area biologists; ask them about funding shortages and how those affect you and the wildlife and habitat. Ask them how they have to scrape together on-the-cheap surveys and fight with other ABs for what funding is available. Ask them about the old crop of seasoned biologists that are at or near retirement and why we can't recruit the same type of dedicated people to replace them. Ask them about why bios and managers go to work for the feds instead of the state. Ask them about federal staff levels for the same sized area compared to state staff levels. We have a huge problem here. And it has nothing to do with ADFG providing more animals to hunt, either. We can't mandate that if we double our Alaskan hunting license fee from $25 to $50 that the state then must provide us more moose or caribou. Give them the money they need and deserve to do what they need to do to ensure long-term sustainable populations of game, protection of habitat, and boots-on-the-ground professional staff.
    <end rant>

  11. #11
    Member kahahawai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,443

    Default

    I would pay! .....K

  12. #12

    Default increase

    I do understand what you are saying But:::Just by increasing the cost to Non-Residents is not the answer.And a five dollar tag is not the answer.Heck in Florida I have to pay a $ 5.00 tag to hunt Turkeys one in the fall and one in the spring.I know that ya'll have to be willing to pay more than this.Heck make the Brown Bear tag be 100.00 for Residents and 1500.00 For non-Resident but drop the Guide requirment.

    You have to be willing to pay your fair share.And thinking you can just count on non-residents for it does not work either.

    I know there are only a small number or people in the state But it is your responsibilty to carry your fair share also .And being able to hunt without paying for the resorces may not work anymore.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    1,098

    Default $5

    Five dollar's was just a figure I picked out of my head. But in reality you can't just change from free to $100 or $50. You would have a public outcry. Five dollars is a starting point, get the system going. I agree with Bushrat and Robert on this. We need to change something. The worst and best part of Alaska is we're so used to getting things for free. Well we're not getting the logging money like we used to and we aren't getting fishing money like we used to. This state was filthy rich at one time and we all got to enjoy the ride. I know there's lot of politics and complications with implementing a system to pay for our tags, but I think it would be worth it.

  14. #14

    Default Like other States

    Quote Originally Posted by bushrat View Post


    We need a hunting license increase across the board and to put our non-res tag fees in line with what other states charge. Some aren't gonna like it, I know, but we've been getting away with paying too little for too long, and from what I can tell it's really hurting us. So...look for more public discussion on this after hunting season this fall. Part of that will likely include discussion about whether or not to have a small (~$5) resident tag fee as well for some species. All the funds will be dedicated (as they are now) to ADFG Wildlife Conservation.

    To those who think that ADFG does not spend the money they have now in ways that help hunters, nothing could be farther from the truth. ADFG Widlife Conservation side simply does not have the funds to do what they need to do now, and the only reason they have skated by in recent years is because of general funds monies granted to them by the legislature. Those sources are not reliable. We can't depend upon them. I encourage everyone to talk with their area biologists; ask them about funding shortages and how those affect you and the wildlife and habitat. Ask them how they have to scrape together on-the-cheap surveys and fight with other ABs for what funding is available. Ask them about the old crop of seasoned biologists that are at or near retirement and why we can't recruit the same type of dedicated people to replace them. Ask them about why bios and managers go to work for the feds instead of the state. Ask them about federal staff levels for the same sized area compared to state staff levels. We have a huge problem here. And it has nothing to do with ADFG providing more animals to hunt, either. We can't mandate that if we double our Alaskan hunting license fee from $25 to $50 that the state then must provide us more moose or caribou. Give them the money they need and deserve to do what they need to do to ensure long-term sustainable populations of game, protection of habitat, and boots-on-the-ground professional staff.
    <end rant>

    Lets look at colorados fees

    Resident Non_Resident
    ELK 46.00 500.00
    deer 31.00 300.00
    Black Bear 41.00 251.00
    Mt.Goat 251.00 1716.00
    Moose 251.00 1716.00
    Big horn sheep 251.00 1716.00

    Make more like other states I think you would have a revolt from the Hunters in Alaska These are just the tag fees.I could just see the sheep and Goat hunters faces
    Last edited by Robert2968; 07-26-2007 at 12:50. Reason: Missed word

  15. #15
    Member kahahawai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,443

    Default

    I'm sure its coming soon...i would still pay....K

  16. #16
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default

    Robert, not sure I get your point. Right now a hunting license for an AK resident is 25 bucks, no charge for any tags for the normal game animals besides grizzly, and even that is waived in many units. Here is a link to the two-year-old ADFG license/tag fee proposal:
    http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/...ntproposal.pdf

    This is in line with the increases I think we need and are acceptable to most. As we hash this out in upcoming months, it's likely the non-res increases could be higher than above, depends on the input of hunters/guides/various orgs etc. Are resident and non-res hunters in Colorado "revolting"? This is just common sense to me if we want to protect Alaska's future for all hunters, and continue to have a respected and professional division of wildlife conservation.
    Best,

  17. #17

    Default

    Bushrat
    My point was if you want to increase Non-residents fee to like other states...Increase Residents likewise .It has not been the non-residents revolting I was talking about residents if you impose the fees.Non-Residents Have a choice they don't have to come

  18. #18

    Default

    As much as I like the idea of ADFG doing more, I hate to see tags go to a pay system until we check every posible avenue, inclulding maybe moving money from people managment to wildlife management. Nothing against ADFG, I think they do a good job, but if they need more moeny, before writing a check, lets look at what they are doing with what they have.

    I think this is the best formula for all departments. In some cases, yes, they would need more money, but in some, they can just make better judgement calls on where they allocate their current resources.

    If you can not tell, I am a fiscal conservative. I think our state has alot of money that we already waste. Just look at the current budget vs previous budgets. Maybe the apprpriate answer is lobby our reps to put more money in adfg coffers, and look at some other departments or programs before going to the citizens wallets.

    If, indeed, the last avenue is a tag fee, I would support it. I think an increase to the license fee is unnecessary, and I would like it to stay cheap. It is a good way to get friends and other non-hunters involved, taking them out for rabbits, grouse, and ptarmigan. I would prefer seeing tags go up, as more money is spent managing big game, particularly ungulates, than on small game. Also, if you wish to encourage more predator hunting, you probably do not want to make bear and wolf tags too expensive.

    There's my 2 Lincolns. Please disregard my abhorrent spelling as I have to get back to work quickly.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Juneau
    Posts
    1,098

    Default My point exactly

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert2968 View Post
    Bushrat
    My point was if you want to increase Non-residents fee to like other states...Increase Residents likewise .It has not been the non-residents revolting I was talking about residents if you impose the fees.Non-Residents Have a choice they don't have to come
    I agree that there would be a revolt if you changed from free tags to $50 dollar tags. A system like this needs to be implimented in a staged increase. Start cheap and increase over a period of years. I also agree with what muskeg mentioned earlier, you may have issues with people that fall under federal subsistance regulations. But even charging for non-subsistance animals, Sheep, goat, some bears, elk. Charge for registration hunts. I would like to see these changes before I have to pay more for my license. It's nice to be able to hunt grouse and ptarmigan without paying more. Kind of a parallel system, I don't remember too much public outcry when F&G started charging $10 for an annual King Salmon stamp. I wouldn't like to see stamps for all different types of fish, but you can see a system of buying tags is somewhat in place.

  20. #20
    Member SoggyMountain's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bait Station, Alaska 99801
    Posts
    861

    Default Why I hunt

    I dearly love the outdoors. I dearly love meat.

    I have posted on this site several times that I "subsist" on a sport license. When the state determines that the meat I work my butt off for should cost more than beef, I will quit hunting with a gun, and begin hunting with my camera... and "Hunters" will have turned one of their own against themselves.

    This might be the first time that I disagree with Bushrat, but, I am not fond of comparing Alaska to other states. Nor am I fond of giving more money to a government that does not represent the nature of the state.

    I would like to see ADF&G get more funding. I would also like to quit paying for political campaigns. Somewhere in between the extremes is a solution. But, I can assure you, it is not in my wallet.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •