View Poll Results: Do resident hunters need to pay tag fees?

Voters
131. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, we should pay the same as the non-residents

    3 2.29%
  • Yes, we should pay for our tags. Price?

    34 25.95%
  • I would agree to a $50 tag fee

    16 12.21%
  • Keep what we have

    78 59.54%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 58

Thread: resident tag fees. Poll

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    I am Valley trash.
    Posts
    589

    Default resident tag fees. Poll

    We don't have many tag fees for us Alaskan's. Should we be paying a tag fee?

  2. #2
    Member ak_powder_monkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eagle River/ Juneau
    Posts
    5,154

    Default

    $15 for moose, caribou, $40 for goats sheep and brown bear, $10 for everything else
    I choose to fly fish, not because its easy, but because its hard.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    105

    Default

    I think the current system is fine, unless they can actually SHOW US that the money we pay is going to the intended use. Historically the tag fees are intended to go to F&G, Enforcement and Conservation/management, but it gets sucked up for new furniture in the F&G offices, buying mounts for display and the things it's supposed to go for are forgotten.

    It's one thing to push for fees on the premise of helping F&G (which I would agree with) but quite another to get the fees rescinded once they are in place and the money isn't being spent wisely or in the manner that it was supposed to be.

  4. #4

    Default

    Keep it the same and make them budget their money better. Tax the hell out of the guides if they want some extra coin.

  5. #5
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Chugiak, AK
    Posts
    694

    Default Triple

    I would not mind paying 3X the license fees if they actually would do accurate surveys. Problem now is out of date research and not enough money for aerial counting and surveys.

    Terry

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    17

    Default Fees

    Would not mind an increase in fee's if the ADF&G stops closing GMA's (making it almost unfeasable cost wise to hunt in some area's) for local hunter and to fund a better way to track wildlife management in AK. Based on the "discovery of the king population on the Kasilof"....we should be able to get a better idea of the animals strentgh and size in the GMA's....that costs money.

  7. #7
    Moderator Daveinthebush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Valdez, Alaska
    Posts
    4,402

    Default So

    Quote Originally Posted by ak_powder_monkey View Post
    $15 for moose, caribou, $40 for goats sheep and brown bear, $10 for everything else
    $15 for moose
    $15 for caribou and you can take up to 5 per day in some units
    $40 for a goat
    $40 for a sheep
    $40 for brown bear although there are no tags req. in some units.
    $10 for for each black bear and some units are 3 bears.
    $10 for each deer and the limit is usually 5
    $10 for each wolf
    $10 for a bison
    $10 for a wolverine
    $10 for a Muskox
    $10 for an elk

    Inital layout at start of season could total $230 or more just to start hunting plus the license. I could not afford to stat the season each year or I'd be running to the tag supplier every other week buying additional tags.

    I think a trophy fee might be more reasonable. If you harvest an animal, "then" you might pay a fee.

    Vietnam - June 70 - Feb. 72
    Cancer from Agent Orange - Aug. 25th 2012
    Cancer Survivor - Dec. 14th 2012

  8. #8
    Member MARV1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Kotlik
    Posts
    640

    Thumbs up I agree on this one

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerod View Post
    Keep it the same and make them budget their money better. Tax the hell out of the guides if they want some extra coin.
    Best idea I've ever seen put out there, I'd vote for that on a petition.
    The emphasis is on accuracy, not power!

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    fairbanks alaska
    Posts
    207

    Default money for tags

    money for tags would be fine, but earmarked specifically to more accurately manage the game on the tag. for example f&g should use sheep tag money to assess population and harvest impact. the only counting sheep they're doing now is to induce sleep on the job.

  10. #10
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    650

    Lightbulb

    amazing how the residents are all about raising fees on the non resident and keeping the low fees the same for the residents...

  11. #11

    Default

    Thats the cost of not living here CZ.

  12. #12
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    650

    Wink

    AkCub:

    Just calling it like I see it.

    To me it matters little whether tags or license fees go up, down or stay the same. I will continue to come.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cold zero View Post
    AkCub:

    Just calling it like I see it.

    To me it matters little whether tags or license fees go up, down or stay the same. I will continue to come.

    Thats why this is a problem that a dollar amount cant fix! And also why I didn't vote on either thread.Money is a double edged sword, some got too much and others not enough! Taint a win win. Regulation without a dollar amount is the only way to control this monster. draw draw draw for everything for non-res is the only way to tame this beast. If non-res cant draw a tag no money in the world will make a difference and the issue can be controlled.

  14. #14
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    650

    Lightbulb

    AKC;

    there are many different ways to look at the issue. I think we can both agree that we wish all could experience what AK has to offer.

    I think the money that non res' put into the economy and the jobs that are created as a result can not be over estimated.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cold zero View Post
    AKC;

    there are many different ways to look at the issue. I think we can both agree that we wish all could experience what AK has to offer.

    I think the money that non res' put into the economy and the jobs that are created as a result can not be over estimated.
    As has been stated before the only money that a non-res really puts into our economy is the tag and license which in fact is cheaper than a spike bull Elk tag for a non-res hunting in Colorado. The umpteen thousands that the non-res hunter pays the guide service is gobbled up in the comm hunting industry ( most of it goes to guide, asst guide, guides plane, guides plane fuel, equipment purchased by guide) and no $$$ to speak of the state sees. I mean what a couple nights in a hotel and some fast food, maybe a little cash to a cargo company. Dont really see how it benefits the state in anyway or our economy. $510 for a tag and license aint nothin! For that price to reduce the pressure from guides on the animals and we residents I'd gladly pay the extra $450 myself!

  16. #16
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    650

    Lightbulb

    That sounds like a micro/small view of the situation. I said the local economy, I said nothing about the state. How about:

    Money spent shopping in Anchorage, i.e. Barneys, R.E.I., Alaska Mountaineering and Hiking, Walmart, Carrs, the rifle range, local Dr ( I got a sinus infection on the plane). I know they appreciate the business as they have told me so, even if you do not.

    Airline tickets, ticket counters employ local people at the airports, skycaps, cab drivers.

    Restaurant meals, dinners before and after the hunt. God forbid the emplolyees at the A.B.C. club. Does this money keep them in business, but it sure helps pay the bills.

    The outfitter is a local resident (most times) who employs a cook, ast guides, pilot, aircaraft mechanic, accountant. The local taxidermist and meat processor.

    I could go on, but most will get the point, end of economics lesson for today. Speaking for myself, I know I am a boost to the local economy. I am sure I am not alone.

  17. #17

    Default

    Pretty rosey picture you paint there. And thank you soooo much for your boost to our economy.....Please!

    I'll repeat my initial stance, Alaska is not the Bunny Ranch and we cant import more animals to be sold for the massive "boost to our economy" the non-res hunters provide when the animals are gone. Like I said earlier, this beast cant be tamed with $$$$$$$!

  18. #18
    Member martentrapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, Ak.
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    From what I've been told, the real majority of F&G money comes from Pittman-Robertson funds. However, F&G has to match these funds. If F&G has 1 million, it gets 2 million from PR. If F&G has 2 million, it gets 4 million from PR.
    So to simplify things.........for every one dollar increase in tags or license fees, F&G would get an additional 2 dollars from PR.
    You can all whine and cry and fight and point fingers, etc. etc. Truth is, some increases at both the res and non res levels are in order. Also, truth is, non res contribute the lions share to the cost of F&G's work.
    I can't help being a lazy, dumb, weekend warrior.......I have a JOB!
    I have less friends now!!

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martentrapper View Post
    Truth is, some increases at both the res and non res levels are in order. Also, truth is, non res contribute the lions share to the cost of F&G's work.
    Thats exactly the problem, and it can be fixed so easily by creating harvest tag fees for us. We out number non-res probably 100:1. Take the non-res money out of the equation and that would be the first step in the right direction, followed directly by more regulation on tags for non-res, which is gonna be the only way to tame the beast.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    392

    Default

    From outfitters and transporters to assistant guides to camp cooks and dock boys ect., a large percentage ofthem are non residents who take and leave and from what I've seen first hand in almost every corner of the State, they don't contribute much to the local or State economies. Alaska has historically been a place where people "take and leave", unfortunatly it looks like it will continue for some time.

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •