State By State comparison of tag sales income

[scoutdog5]

This comparison is a summary, with information for each state coming from several different sources of information, sometimes involving different years. In some cases, where tags have different prices, averages were used to determine total income, since specific counts by tag type were not provided. I was unable to determine this information for Idaho from their website. I elected not to include Nevada, due to the very low number of hunters, 15,000 for mule deer and 2,000 for elk.
Colorado
Type Number Tag Fee Total Raised
Resident Deer 56,962 $ 39 $ 2,221,518
Non-Resident Deer 22,246 $ 305 $ 6,785,030
Resident Elk 136,518 $ 54 $ 7,371,972
Non-Resident Elk 100,000 $254 - $ 529 $40,000,000

Total Income $56,378,520

Montana
Type Number Tag Fee Total Raised
Resident Deer 249,592 $ 20 $ 4,991,840
Non-Resident Deer 37,262 $ 200 $ 7,452,400
Resident Elk 151,098 $ 25 $ 3,777,450
Non-Resident Elk 20,534 $ 750 $15,400,500

Total Income $31,621,690

Wyoming
Type Number Tag Fee Total Raised
Resident Deer 37,219 $ 43 $ 1,600,417
Non-Resident Deer 27,441 $326 - $ 566 $10,976,400
Resident Elk 47,551 $ 57 $ 2,710,407
Non-Resident Elk 9,917 $591 - $1,071 $ 6,939,800
Non-Res. Pref Pt $ 40 - $ 50 $ 1,000,000

Total Income $23,227,024

Utah

Type Number Tag Fee Total Raised
Resident Deer 82,000 $ 35 - $ 163 $ 3,016,000
Non-Resident Deer 6,422 $263 - $ 563 $ 1,713,281
Resident Elk 39,812 $ 45 - $ 280 $ 2,276,815
Non-Resident Elk 2,163 $388 - $ 795 $ 905,565
Non-Resident License: 15,968 $ 65 $ 1,037,920

Total Income $ 8,949,571

Washington
Type Number Tag Fee Total Raised
Resident Deer 78,053 $ 39 $ 3,044,082
Non-Resident Deer 7,800 $ 394 $ 3,073,200
Resident Elk 30,885 $ 39 $ 1,204,526
Non-Resident Elk 3,090 $ 394 $ 1,217,460

Total Income $ 8,539,268

Arizona
Type Number Tag Fee Total Raised
Resident Deer 50,257 $ 42 $ 2,110,827
Non-Resident Deer 5,026 $ 233 $ 1,171,058
Resident Elk 21,906 $ 121 $ 2,650,735
Non-Resident Elk 2,190 $ 595 $ 1,303,050
No-Res. License 7,000 $ 151 $ 1,057,000

Total Income $ 8,292,371

New Mexico
Type Number Tag Fee Total Raised
Resident Deer 27,232 $ 47 $ 1,279,904
Non-Resident Deer 5,053 $ 278 - $ 363 $ 1,718,020
Resident Elk 16,184 $ 61 - $ 91 $ 1,213,800
Non-Resident Elk 3,926 $ 333 - $ 768 $ 2,355,600

Total Income $ 6,567,324



Oregon
Type Number Tag Fee Total Raised
Resident Deer 82,620 $ 20 $ 1,645,200
Non-Resident Deer 2,853 $ 265 $ 756,045
Resident Elk 48,750 $ 35 $ 1,706,250
Non-Resident Elk 2,400 $ 362 $ 868,800
Non-Res. Hunting Lic. 7,000 $ 76 $ 532,000

Total Income $ 5,208,295

[scoutdog5]

Sorry guys, this was in nice columns til I hit Submit. I am not smart enough to set it up obviously.

Scoutdog

[baltz526]

it is readable

[earlybird007]

Just like I said....the tag fees are way to cheap. Add some money for enforcement and predator control and put some more officers in the woods on the closed roads.

I would much rather pay a few more bucks to hunt, than to have to draw and not hunt at all.........

Lifetime >>>----------> slinger

[ehunter]

Without looking at the dollars them selves how are each of the FWD funded? In other states does the funds go directly into the FWD departments or does it go into a general fund and get paid from the state? I think all our dollars gets put into the general fund and then state decides how much to pay out? Am I wrong?

[dla]

Originally Posted by earlybird007

Just like I said....the tag fees are way to cheap. Add some money for enforcement and predator control and put some more officers in the woods on the closed roads.

I would much rather pay a few more bucks to hunt, than to have to draw and not hunt at all.........

Lifetime >>>----------> slinger

Well I suppose you could read a lot of things into those numbers - not sure how you saw confirmation of your position...

What I see in those numbers is that regardless of population, some states attract a lot of hunters. Neither Wyoming or Montana have hit a million in population, yet both rake in 5X in tags sales overall, and 4X - 10X more non-resident Elk tags purchased. Regardless of the tag price, hunters don't come to Oregon.

I believe it has to do with opportunity. Oregon has a respectable Elk population (bigger than Wyoming I think). Opportunity.

I've been sending $500 to Idaho annually to hunt Elk over there. Bigger units. Longer seasons. A single tag that allows Archery, Rifle and Muzzleloader hunting. A Cabelas in Boise Other than Cabelas, I'm attracted to the opportunity.

I believe ODFW has screwed up on the "opportunity" part. Yes I realize that a lot of the "opportunity" is lost because of lack of public access, but I don't see ODFW buying/swapping lands etc. aggressively to improve things. When hunters point out that Western Oregon Archery seasons are out of whack due to fire restrictions, the ODFW doesn't move the season dates. So lack of opportunity again. Sometimes I think ODFW is anti-hunting.

[Ras]

SD5;

Any chance you can add Idaho, and even Nevada would be nice.

Looks like the non-res' don't care much for our state; lots of public land, fairly gentle landscape, somewhat decent game herds, small dayride wilderness areas, plenty of access (roads).....oh, never mind....

Also, we do have smokin' deals on tag fees it appears. Another $ or $$ won't kill me.

Ras

[scoutdog5]

Some additional points.

1. All tag fees in Oregon go into the wildlife fund which is completely controlled by ODF&W, and must be used for wildlife projects. I verified this with the department this morning. I also believe it is true that zero general fund dollars go to support big game management programs, but did not verify that. Colorado and Wyoming have conttrol over tag fee income. Not sure about other states.

2. On limited entry hunts in Oregon, the legislature has limited the non-resident tags to no more than 5% of the resident tags that are issued. In addition, they allow 50% of the tags to go to outfitters in a special outfitters draw. At the present time, this is the major factor in the low non-resident rifle hunters paying to hunt here. Much less of a factor for bowhunters.

As I mentioned, I can't find relevant stats on non-resident versus resident hunter numbers. If someone knows how to get that data, I will add it. Nevada only issued 15,000 deer tags, and 2,000 elk tags in 2007. They also have extremely high fees for elk tags, 1,200 for non-residents. Did not see how that would add to the comparison, but I could do the math if you think it would be helpful.

Colorado, Wyoming and Montana have figured out that they can raise the necessary funds to fund their wildlife departments, programs and management plans by, in essence, ripping off the non-resident hunter and keeping resident tag fees low. Utah has gone the opposite direction for LE Elk, allowing approximately 8% of the tags to go to non-residents. The result is a resident Limited Entry elk tag in Utah costs $ 280.00. The problem all of these states have is just like ours. They are building their budgets and financial commitments on a budget model that assumes current number of tags can be maintained going forward. Except for Colorado, they are seeing the same problems with Mule Deer populations we are. At some point, their model will break, unless changes are made. In Colorado, with 56 million in tag revenue, they have a whole lot more room for handling reductions in income than we do, but with their tough winter this year, it will be interesting to see if they reduce tag numbers significantly in those units, even with the loss of income. This is their first real test since the new program was instituted in 1999.

My proposal changes the dynamic. Income to the department stays the same, except for a cost of living adjustment, regardless of the number of tags issued. Tag price goes up/down as tag numbers go up/down. It seems like a logical way to go to me.

Scoutdog

[dla]

Originally Posted by scoutdog5

Some additional points.

1. All tag fees in Oregon go into the wildlife fund which is completely controlled by ODF&W, and must be used for wildlife projects. I verified this with the department this morning. I also believe it is true that zero general fund dollars go to support big game management programs, but did not verify that. Colorado and Wyoming have conttrol over tag fee income. Not sure about other states.

2. On limited entry hunts in Oregon, the legislature has limited the non-resident tags to no more than 5% of the resident tags that are issued. In addition, they allow 50% of the tags to go to outfitters in a special outfitters draw. At the present time, this is the major factor in the low non-resident rifle hunters paying to hunt here. Much less of a factor for bowhunters.

As I mentioned, I can't find relevant stats on non-resident versus resident hunter numbers. If someone knows how to get that data, I will add it. Nevada only issued 15,000 deer tags, and 2,000 elk tags in 2007. They also have extremely high fees for elk tags, 1,200 for non-residents. Did not see how that would add to the comparison, but I could do the math if you think it would be helpful.

Colorado, Wyoming and Montana have figured out that they can raise the necessary funds to fund their wildlife departments, programs and management plans by, in essence, ripping off the non-resident hunter and keeping resident tag fees low. Utah has gone the opposite direction for LE Elk, allowing approximately 8% of the tags to go to non-residents. The result is a resident Limited Entry elk tag in Utah costs $ 280.00. The problem all of these states have is just like ours. They are building their budgets and financial commitments on a budget model that assumes current number of tags can be maintained going forward. Except for Colorado, they are seeing the same problems with Mule Deer populations we are. At some point, their model will break, unless changes are made. In Colorado, with 56 million in tag revenue, they have a whole lot more room for handling reductions in income than we do, but with their tough winter this year, it will be interesting to see if they reduce tag numbers significantly in those units, even with the loss of income. This is their first real test since the new program was instituted in 1999.

My proposal changes the dynamic. Income to the department stays the same, except for a cost of living adjustment, regardless of the number of tags issued. Tag price goes up/down as tag numbers go up/down. It seems like a logical way to go to me.

Scoutdog

Thanks for the input - that explans the "opportunity" part of why we don't sell as many non-resident tags.

Idaho grossly over-sells non-resident tags. A non-resident Elk tag is $371, ~10X the resident tag. In the unit I hunt, they set aside 5000 non-resident tags. They also give non-residents first crack at the tags - residents can't buy their tag till August whereas non-residents can buy now. My guess is that they assume a very low success rate for non-residents (assuming there's anything to hunt after all the wolves). But many of the units have multi-season tags - so the tag is good for Archery, rifle, and muzzleloader - which is nice. More trips, more money spent on Twinkies

I suspect that non-resident hunters dump more money into the local economy than residents. So Idaho really has energized their tourist industry with their hunting regulations. Smart, I think.

[ghost grizzly]

Someone want to compare those states with the total acreage of public lands and the total acreage of designated wilderness and roadless lands? It would be kind of interesting to see that data.

[cheyenne10]

Discouraging point for Oregon to out of staters is that the non-resident must buy non-resident hunting license just to apply which is not refunded if unsuccessful. Other states I believe refund majority of expense. Other states also get our "loans" for several months to use and then refund to the unsuccessful applicants. No doubt part of the states decisions are business decisions. Would our state be better off with more revenue? I'm on the fence on that one. ODF&W is no different they want to sell tags or they would be out of jobs. I think OSP/fish and game officers needs some better money.

[nobrownline]

Originally Posted by cheyenne10

Discouraging point for Oregon to out of staters is that the non-resident must buy non-resident hunting license just to apply which is not refunded if unsuccessful. Other states I believe refund majority of expense. Other states also get our "loans" for several months to use and then refund to the unsuccessful applicants. No doubt part of the states decisions are business decisions. Would our state be better off with more revenue? I'm on the fence on that one. ODF&W is no different they want to sell tags or they would be out of jobs. I think OSP/fish and game officers needs some better money.

This is correct. As an out of stater I will tell you I put in for Or. just because its close. As out of staters we look at quality of animals. I apply in 5 states a yr. Other states seem to manage more for quality than quantity. Someone that is not near here is not going to buy a non refundable lisc. for 3 or more years and drive out here with the expectation of shooting a 22in mulie at best.(other than the very best units) In the other states I hunt I can expect to shoot that on the last day so I dont go home empty handed. Or. is managed to provide maximum opportunity to its residents.

[mtn300]

If I was a non resident Oregon would my last choice for a state to hunt. Non res license is ok but maybe make a small game license available. Then if you draw include the big game license in with the tag fee. That way someone could still come shoot coyotes and other small game. Just an idea it would just up the tag fee and add 10% tags allocated to nonresidents.

[dolphinmarty]

Originally Posted by scoutdog5

Some additional points.

2. On limited entry hunts in Oregon, the legislature has limited the non-resident tags to no more than 5% of the resident tags that are issued. In addition, they allow 50% of the tags to go to outfitters in a special outfitters draw. At the present time, this is the major factor in the low non-resident rifle hunters paying to hunt here. Much less of a factor for bowhunters.

Scoutdog

I'm curious as to just how many tags the 50% translates to for the outfitters. Maybe reducing their percentage and allowing an increase to the non-residents would result in some increased income. Not too mention a freeze/reduction of non-resident fees. I mean it's like selling cars, reduce the price a little and make up for it in the volume.

[bigjake_888]

40 mil for non res elk in colorado!

good argument for six point or better!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Let's kill all the spikes to increase the trophy bull ratio."

"Lets kill all the cows to increase the bull ratio."

DUMBASSES

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Originally Posted by dolphinmarty

I'm curious as to just how many tags the 50% translates to for the outfitters. Maybe reducing their percentage and allowing an increase to the non-residents would result in some increased income. Not too mention a freeze/reduction of non-resident fees. I mean it's like selling cars, reduce the price a little and make up for it in the volume.

Applying as a nonres in oregon is almost pointless as 2.5% of the tags are availiable to nonresident non guided hunters. Then when you finally do draw a tag, the hunt quality is poor in many units. What incentive is there to spend 5-600 bucks applying for a deer tag and then 1000.00 on the trip to kill a fork in a unit over run with hunters? You can do that in any state. The states bringing the money are the states putting out the quality!

[Lured In]

I am suprised that WA numbers aren't higher. If the state better publicized some of the opportunities in WA, non-resident tag sales would sky rocket. Here are just a few, and after being here for awhile, I am not convinced that WA doesn't offer better opportunity for harvest than OR does.

Want to bowhunt close to PDX with high pops of animals with an over the counter (OTC) tag? Hunt in WA

Want to hunt deer with a rifle during the BT rut on an OTC tag? Hunt in WA.

Want 4 weeks of BT deer season for ML hunting on an OTC tag? Hunt in WA.

Want nearly 3 weeks to go on a statewide rifle 'deer safari' (one animal BT, WT or Mulie) on an OTC tag? Hunt in WA.

Want to be able to ML hunt both elk and deer at the same time around the BT rut and with snow on the ground on an OTC tag? Hunt in WA.

Decided last minute you have $400 burning a hole in your pocket for an OTC tag but the season already started? Hunt in WA

[dubl_t]

Scoutdog, I have to say thank you for compiling and research the data. And I would like to leave it at that, but somethings keep knawing at me. First off, everybody had at least one valid point to say, but some have contributed "arguements" that completely miss the bullseye. And with that said, what's the purpose of this post? More revenue for state game depts or better hunting opptys? I don't believe the two always coincide.
Just because CO rakes in big $$ for elk, it should be no secret that they also support the largest herds in the west. Will more $$ for enforcement truly reduce poaching, when it's a proven fact that serious poaching is related to economic factors (I'm not talking about the sh1thead who takes a trophy out of season)?
Wildlife agencies are a "business", and maybe should advertise more. I know Wy has been doing this and it "looks" like it has helped. But they also reduced their expenditures by cutting positions and outsourcing.

I take public land/wildlife management pretty seriously and I guess what really got to me was the person who mentioned that locals don't contribute as much to the economy as non-res's. It's easy to get fired up and type away but sometimes you need to slow down and think.

Crap, I don't even remember what MY point was...

K, it's kinda misleading to compare hunting opportunities when comparing economic factors between states, as it's really comparing apples to oranges.

[Capin' Dan]

Some of you guys just think throw more money at it will fix it.

NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How about hold our governemnt responsible for what they have. Why do we have a fish checker at every ramp? Stupid IMHO

I think those of you who want to raise tag fees should be able to go ahead and give the state all the money you want. Much Like I do Delta and DU but raiseing tags is getting rediculas I think and will have a different effect for the state. However go ahead and make it a rich mans sport. Make our hunting available to only the higher bidder. We wonder why hunting numbers are going down well our youth can't afford it any longer. Lets get rid of the stupid dead weight and do smart management. Right now we have about 100 people thinking of about 100 ways of doing things and many think that they are all wrong.

I hate the throw more money at it thing. This country is in a recession right now wether our governmen will own up to it or not money is tight and going to get tighter venting a little but there you have it