I pay $335 just to hunt deer in KY and my credit card just got hit for $802.20 for a deer combo permit in MT.
If we got it, they will pay. Landowner or not, you have to take care of your residents. It's the public trust aspect of wildlife management.
Can we do other things besides increase fees, sure…I'm game for that too. Should we treat NR landowners separately? Yep, because they pay for a resource that is relevant (habitat).
*I also don't mind paying more as a resident. Even as a lifetime license holder, up charge me if the resource needs the help.
I also don't mind paying for my licenses... but unfortunately, very little of that fee goes specifically to the wild turkey.
but the question is... WHY do we need higher license fees? Exactly where does the extra $$$ go? If raising license fees is simply to deter numbers of hunters, thereby reducing harvest for turkeys... well, then, we better take a long look at the way we hunt turkeys. If managed properly, hunting turkeys will produce zero net negative effect on the population. If hunting is hurting the turkey population, the season structure and what is allowed to be killed is at fault and needs to be fixed.
If raising license fees is to deter hunters to provide more quality hunting experiences (reduced pressure, less competition), then we are at the point where more public lands need to go to a draw/ quota system.
If the demand for TNs turkeys is TRULY there, going to statewide quota of 25,000 tags issued, with 80% going to residents and 20% going to NR, charging $100 per resident tag purchased and $1000 per NR tag purchased should be an easy sell... But I don't think there is THAT level of demand for turkeys... There are a few like me who would rather hunt turkeys than elk, moose, deer, etc... but most hunters prefer big game over birds, and are willing to spend much more on license fees for big game than turkeys.
And like REN said, there is a fine line balancing license fees with number of NR hunters.... but the majority of the biggest changes out west were caused by local outfitters... cutting DIY NR tags to virtually nothing in some states (NM for example), while increasing the number of tags allocated for NR contracting with an outfitter. Just shameful. Not enough turkey outfitters in TN for that type of lobbying to actually succeed I dont think, so that's a good thing.
The biggest problem TN is facing is the fact that the state now has one of the earliest opening dates in the US, only Hawaii, Florida, Mississippi, parts of Alabama and parts of GA open earlier. That makes TN the no1 state for travelling turkey hunters for the majority of the US, especially for those north and west.
But I think it will cycle... as populations decline and hunter numbers increase, eventually coming to TN will no longer be an enjoyable experience, and will cause hunter numbers to decline... which will allow populations to increase (if the changes are ever made in TN to reduce the impact hunting has on population... if the state doesn't do that, populations will likely never rebound in most parts of the state).
. I know that it was state agencies that reintroduced the wild turkey and was personally involved with that in Indiana. Hiring BSK (privately) would go a long long way in advancing good management for wildlife in the state for sure. The vast majority of trespassing/poaching problems are already handled by the landowner. I'm not advocating NO state involvement in turkey management, but putting the major onus onto the majority…the landowners and hunters. We need to take a lot more responsibility in management instead of just relying on TWRA who, while they do a good job, fall woefully short.
