close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Simple Numbers

Discussion in 'Indiana Whitetail Hunting' started by trdtnlbwhntr, Jul 13, 2006.

  1. Just Crunching some numbers here
    thought they might be interesting to a few....
    Yes im on the same kick as I have been about the out of state tags and here is a valid reason. Out of state guys are not going to stop coming here because we (the RESIDENTS) have turned this deer herd around in a hurry. So lets assume (yes i know what assuming does and ill be the as@ its ok) that there are going to be the same amount of out of state guys this coming season as there were last season with a 1 % increase in those numbers for this season as well.
    Based on the idnr webpage readings about the past deer season, out of staters comprised 2% of the total deer harvest (125,526 animals) that means that there were 2,511 tags sold (not including the ones that went unfilled) with a 1% increase in that number that means we will "sell" somewhere around, 2,536 out of state license. If the cost remains the same at 120.75 for one tag the DNR takes in 306,222.00.
    Common sense tells us to look at other big buck states and price around them so lets take a look at those
    ILLINOIS -250.00
    IOWA-412.00
    Montana-350.00
    Kansas-320.00

    So of the four big buck states that I chose the average for a non resident to hunt 1 deer is roughly 335 bucks.

    So lets say we charge 330 dollars for a non resident tag, selling 2,536 tags we bring in 849,560 dollars for a net gain of 543,338 a year. And thats only increasing 1% in tags.

    Alright lets take that 543,388 profit and difuse it into easing the cost of hunting for those of us who live in this state. 40 percent of the deer killed were tagged with annual hunting deer permits. that means the state sold 50,210 that were used. We all know the number of that is considerably more because there are unfilled tags out there. But lets just use that number for the sake of ease. 543,338/50210 = 10.82 dollars per tag. So if we maintained the same profit or close to it we could sell our resident tags for 15 bucks a piece and see a yearly growth in the revenue. Lets say we dont want to make it so drastic to make more money..... Sell them for 17.50 creating an even greater growth. People are more likely to purchase those tags if they can afford them. Thats my two cents and my Purdue Math degree rearing its ugly litte head.

    All you logic guys out there are saying well if we increase our out of state tags that much we could potentially see a decrease in the numbers of non-residents hunting this state. To that I say this. The number would have to drop by 36 percent for us to lose money, with the current resident prices at 24/tag; by increasing our state tags. I dont think thats going to happen with the deer we have been showing off to the states around us.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2006

  2. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LICENSE FEE FIGURES FOR KENTUCKY, MICHIGAN AND OHIO, JUST TO GET A GOOD BALANCE. I DO NOT THINK YOU CAN YET LUMP US IN THE SAME CATEGORIES AS SOME OF THE STATES YOU CITED, BUT WE ARE GETTING THERE. WE DO NOT YET HAVE THE REPUTATION, AND THAT MAY BE A GOOD THING. ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE FINAL NUMBERS ON DEER ( SUCCESS RATE) OF OUT OF STATE HUNTERS, HOW MANY DEER ARE THEY ACTUALLY KILLING A YEAR?

    THAT BEING SAID, I HAVE NO PROBLEM RAISING OUR OUT OF STATE LICENSE FEES. I HAD MUCH RATHER OUR DEER BENIFIT OUR CITIZENS, AND IF SOMEBODY OUT OF STATE WANTS TO PAY AN APPROPRIATE PRICE TO HUNT HERE, THEN SO BE IT. JUST MORE MONEY FOR INDIANA. LETS DO TO THEM WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO US.
     
  3. this whole thing is based solely on deer tags that were filled this past season. It does not account for unfilled tags. Each tag represents one deer that got killed this past season.

    For the bordering states you have
    Illinois at 250
    Ohio at 145
    Michigan at 138
    Kentucky at 165

    average there is 174.50
    times the number of deer we decided had to be tagged on these tags..2,536
    442,532 dollars
    subtract the money made if the tags were only 120.75 and you get a net gain of 136,310. divide that by the number of annual resident tags that were filled last year and you get an answer of 2.70 which means we coudl still drop tags for residents.
    Now comparing ourselves to states around us isnt all that good for business. The residents of this state intend to become a powerhouse. If we price in that expectation now it makes more wiggle room for smaller increases in the future as we get closer to the status we are trying to reach. Which again means smaller increases and more money in our budget. I know its not fool proof and if it were then id be working for the Federal Reserve taking care of the national debt, but the fact of the matter is as we gain numbers of big deer, more and more people are going to be willing to pay for that price tag, which isnt just good for the DNR's bank account its good for all of us that work with the public just on a much smaller scale.

    To me the higher we go now the longer we get a chance to enjoy the land we hunt on. If we price it in now and raise it in subsequent years it might put a damper on the out of state leasing for outfitters and such. A lot of it makes sense for us as residents and for the DNR as a business.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2006
  4. The Economy

    From where I sit; I think it would be very unwise for the State to raise their non-resident hunting licenses/Tags for Deer. Our country is currently being over ran by inflation, price of fuel, food, and most everyday items are all UP & UP! We have to remember that the Sport of Hunting or even fishing is just a past time and not necessary for survival. Thus, if the price to hunt goes too high then people will not Hunt <period> It would be much better if the States would come together and decide on a fair non-resident license/tag fee and go from there. I would think $100 for a Deer Tag (one Antlered Deer) and maybe $25 for a second (Antlerless Deer) would be a good figure for all states boarding Indiana, and including Indiana. REMEMBER this is for Non-Residents only!

    Not quite sure how this would "play" but I though I'd post this idea.:hide:
     
  5. So, David, under your thinking--which I'm not saying is wrong or right--shouldn't the resident licenses also be held at one level?? But, we are getting nailed with a raise in price darn near annually (every few years, etc.)?

    I disagree with hunting and fishing being merely a pasttime for a lot of our hunters. Some of us are pretty serious about what we do in our spare time. Baseball, football, etc. are pasttimes too, but the cost of tickets to these events are also going up...And, diehards are gladly paying all the $$$ for tickets, gas to the venues, etc. etc.
    The State of Iowa has raised it's tag fees to just over $400 dollars for a buck tag/ and an antlerless tag...and people are getting turned down (trust me I know from experience) every year. Seems that maybe it is a bit more than a past time I'm afaid....

    Just my opinion.

    I agree with traditional on this. If the state wants to clear more jack during deer season, then why not hit the Non-Residents pocketbook a little harder? Seems more than fair to me.....
     
  6. This was just a pet thought of mine, to make thing a little more fair. I didn't think it would go over big, but thought of posting it anyway.:hide:
     
  7. Just my thoughts as well.....an issue that has many sides to it for sure.
     
  8. They certainly do!;)
     
  9. Illinois would NEVER agree to reduce its tag revenue by just over 50%, so that alone makes this approach infeasible.

    As always, hunting is a priviledge. Out of staters, who don't help shoulder the everyday tax burden in our state are currently getting a heck of deal paying $120 for the priviledge to hunt here. As the quality of the deer herd continues to grow, the $120 bargain increases, and out of staters will flock here, taking away hunting opportunities for the residents. We will still get out of state hunters at $250, and even if we didn't, our revenue would be exactly the same if the number of tags purchased was cut in half. I completely agree that we need to jack up the out of state tag to at least $250.
     
  10. IT MIGHT NOT BE POLITICALLY CORRECT TO SAY... BUT I SAY SCREW THE OUT OF STATERS, AT LEAST CHARGE A RECRIPROCAL RATE OF WHAT THAT STATE WOULD CHARGE US. KEEP RESIDENT LICENCES THE SAME TO COUNTER INFLATION. JUST MY THOUGHTS.
     
  11. Brich, I think we do have reciprocating agreements with a few of our neighboring states...Anybody know the answer to this one?
     
  12. Just 5 years ago I was going to Illinios every weekend and my fee's for non-res was 126.50 for a archery combo tag, 1 either sex and 1 antlerless....
     
  13. Here are numbers and dollars for 2005

    Resident Deer $24.00 licence sold 219622 total dollars $5,106,211.50

    Resident Youth $7.00 licence sold 31854 total dollars$199,087.50

    Nonresident Deer $120.75 License sold 8318 Total dollars $998,160.00


    I would suggest that the non resident license fees be reciprocal, in other words what that persons State charges me to deer hunt there.

    This would not be difficult to do with the new point of purchase license system, what it would take is legislative approval as IDNR only controlsresident license rates.

    INDIANA non resident fees are WAY TO CHEAP. I know people from Georgia who have leased 1000's of acres in Parke county because they can hunt cheaper here than in Georgia as residents.
     
  14. Reciprocal

    We are only reciprocal on our turkey license........... And on non resident landowners, if I own land in another State and they let me hunt it free as Landowner(Ohio), those non residents can do the same here.