Why It Matters: Hunting, particularly in states with limited public lands, requires state agencies to balance demand with competition among hunters which has become more apparent in recent years. Many states have attempted to achieve this balance by limiting opportunities for non-residents, often through reduced tag and permit availability or increased prices in an attempt to lower demand. While competition can impact hunter satisfaction, it is important for states to explore opportunities that promote equity in opportunity or face serious risk long term conservation funding challenges.
Highlights:
- Despite reports showing long-term declines in hunter participation, competition among hunters, particularly on public lands, seems to be at an all-time high.
- In recent years, several states have responded by taking efforts to reduce competition, typically by targeting non-resident opportunities through a reduction in license availability or increased prices.
- Missouri is currently considering a proposal to require a new Non-Resident Public Land Deer Permit at a price of $165 in addition to their now $360 Non-Resident Archery or Firearm (Any) Deer Hunting Permits.
Non-residents have been on the receiving end of a tremendous amount of blame for apparent overcrowding on limited public lands. In response, several state fish and wildlife agencies and legislatures have been forced to respond, often to the detriment of non-resident hunters who contribute significantly (in some cases nearly 80%) to the agency’s overall license revenue, a major component of the American System of Conservation Funding (ASCF).
Regulatory and legislative actions to lower non-resident pressure have become more common across the West and Midwest in recent years, taking various forms ranging from Colorado’s removal of many over-the-counter archery elk hunting opportunities for non-residents to Oklahoma’s significant increase in non-resident license rates a few years ago. Missouri is now the latest state to join the conversation as the Missouri Conservation Commission considers the proposed creation of a new Non-Resident Public Lands Deer Permit, effectively bringing the total cost for all licenses needed to hunt deer on any public lands in the state to $525. This proposal comes as a direct response to increased pressure on Missouri’s limited public lands due to a lack of over-the-counter opportunities or affordable licenses in neighboring states.
In response to the proposal, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) submitted comments recommending that Missouri continue to explore alternative approaches to reducing competition on public lands, namely through a lottery system for non-residents who seek access to some of the more popular conservation areas in the state. Given the perceptions around competition on limited public lands, this approach would maintain some equity in opportunity, rather than running the risk of pricing the average hunter out of their ability to enjoy our time-honored outdoor traditions.
Herein lays another challenge. CSF has long been a champion for modest, periodic license fee increases needed to maintain the sanctity of the ASCF. Particularly in states that rely predominantly, if not solely, on the ASCF to support their state agency’s conservation efforts, the periodic evaluation of license fees, for both residents and non-residents, ensures that agencies are able to keep pace with the ever-increasing cost of conservation efforts. However, major increases, especially when they solely target non-residents, appear to have less to do with supporting the longevity of the ASCF and more to do with pricing out those who, in most cases, contribute much more to an agency’s budget (per license) and local economies than many resident hunters.
Overall, state fish and wildlife agencies are facing a major conundrum. On one hand, the long-term decline in hunter participation has resulted in major investments of time and resources in hunter recruitment, retention, and reactivation (R3) efforts across the country. On the other hand, some of the more iconic hunting pursuits have seen their popularity increase drastically, resulting in competition – especially in states with limited public lands – and a decline in hunter satisfaction, a problem that we know contributes to decisions by hunters to pursue other activities. This continues to be a problem that we, as a community, need to address to protect our ranks as sportsmen and women, the long-term viability of state conservation funding through the ASCF, and the passion for the outdoors that has helped our community stand up against those who seek to abolish legal, regulated hunting in the U.S.
Related Policy
