Landowners lose privaleges

[ranwin33]

Looks like the Missouri Conservation Commission in it's infinite wisdom has opted to remove the non-resident landowner distinction for all non-resident Missouri landowners. Fees will now increase for non-resident landowners, even those with more than 75 acres, from $150 for combined gun and archery tags to $450 a year. 
 
Looks like non-resident landowners will be picking up the cost for the commissions backtracking on attempting to change resident no-cost permit requirements. 
 
Sorry if I seem a bit bitter here, but feel like I got the rules changed on me in mid-stream.  Purchased land in Missouri based upon non-resident landowner benefits, now those benefits have benn taken away.
 
I'll be spending $450 for tags my brother who owns the same property as me but lives in Missouri gets for free.  Something ain't right.
 
 

[69Viking]

And they wonder why the participation in hunting is on the decline. It seems they just keep making it more and more expensive to hunt anymore, more so if you cross state lines.

I live in NW Florida about 40 miles from the border of Alabama, it cost me $275 for my out of state license last year and I hear it's going to go up more this year.

I don't get it, if you own land in that state you are paying taxes on that land so why should your hunting license be that much more? What happened to being neighborly? What I mean is why not give a discounted out of state license to hunters in states that border one another?

I guess they don't think about how much money the out of state hunter spends in that state during a hunting season. In the end they are going to lose out by making the license so expensive people quit crossing state lines so they don't buy the license anymore and they don't spend money in that state during the huntiing season.

I really think it's a big mistake. Sorry to hear about it happening where you hunt.

[ranwin33]

Sorry to hear about your situation as well.  I live all of three miles or so from the Missouri border (as the crow flies).

Honestly, I'm angry enough about this that I may choose not to hunt this year. 

Or maybe get an attorney to get contact information for all non-resident Missouri hunters and see if we can't start some type of coordinated effort to have our voices heard.  I doubt Missouri would give up those records without a fight, but it would be tough to ignore several thousand non-resident hunters if we were successful.

Or I suppose I could just use my brother's address or my daughter's address in Missouri, or even my farm's address, as my home address and get free tags.  But my ethics just won't let me do that, although it's nice to think about.

I guess I am really angry about this - glad I have a place to vent.

[JPH]

Bad, bad deal! I've owned my place (5 miles into MO) since 2003 but I've never qualified as a "non-res. landowner" because I own less than 75 contiguous acres.

What really scares me in the possibility that it will get even worse on people or our lowly class. The chance that we may have to draw for a tag to hunt on our own places is very real. That is what happens to non-residents who own land in Iowa.

If you own the land, pay taxes on it and abide by the local regulations, you are a resident in my opinion. Not that my opinion matters here.  

[msbadger]

They don't make you use your drivers license toget your tags?...here in N.Y. you have to have a valid NY license to keep your residence statis...I think that they have the higher fees because even though you own land and pay those taxes ...your not working and also paying the income tax in that state...I know that when ppl move from NY now....many buy the life time hunting license offered while they still have their N.Y.statis. thats an awlful big hike...they could'nt have implimented in over a couple of years?...can't get rid of hunters thru gun laws so they'er going to price us out ....[&o] 

[mechunt]

I'm with ranwin33 on this one. I actually wrote the ombudsman, and he gave me some lame excuses for changing the rules. He cited Illinois and other states not having this privalege. Also he said that he received alot fo complaints from residents about to many non-residents coming in and hunting. I gave him several valid reasons for not making this change, and was basically told too bad. I also wrote the state rep. for the district I hunt in, but received no response. Ass non-resident landowners and tax payers we need to make our point and pull together.

[MSHunter]

That's a tough break. IMO, your best option to get this changed is to find a state senator and/or representative to champion your cause. I would lobby as many of them as I could. Additionally, as ranwin33 noted, if you can get access to the hunting license records for out state landowners (I would think the freedom of information act would apply), perhaps as a collective voice you can present your case to a receptive legislator and get this changed. Be polite, present your case and don't take no for an answer. Good Luck.

[Jeff Gochenour]

Another classic case of gov't having the ability but not the right. Neither by protection, stewardship, or morality. Claiming ownership of a resource on land that is not owned is ludicrous, but even if that was a commonly accepted practice in society, responsiblity for that resource also becomes the owners, and the damage it causes. But then it doesn't appear the people own this resource now does it? Abuse of any resource should be punished, even lesser nations of more vulgar intellect in humanities past correctly understood the reason for this, and is a responsibility of gov't. But for a group of men to control other men to become a wealthy, manipulative, and powerful entity, all but beyond reform, in the name of "stewardship" by means of personal control and manipulation is ridulous and in other times by stronger men, like practices have been treated as tyranny. If the gov't was as "manipulative" of predators of humans, as they once were, because of the constant and unchanging morality, than these as well as other societal problems would disappear just as they appeared when gov't started abdicating its true purpose. I thought this was a republic, that has devovled into a gelationous form of democracy? Sounds more like middle aged tyranny to me with little chance of reform. Others may find it enlightening, as I have, to speak with the long tenured or retired conservation agents who have witnessed the changes of this area of our mutating gov't.

[mechunt]

I actually saw some numbers on another web site, someone had posted the numbers for 2007. I did some calculating and found that non-residents were only about 5% of the hunters in Mo, but paid about 1/3 of the revenue for all hunting permits. There were people still griping about non-residents. We as hunters are becoming our own worst enemy, the anti's don't have to do anything, we are doing it to ourselves. 

[trbarto]

Well as I read the regs and I post here for clarity:

Resident landowner:
Any Missouri resident who owns at least 5 continuous acres, and his or her immediate household members. [color=#FFFF33]In the case of corporate ownerships, all registered officers of a corporation can qualify to receive no-cost permits, and they are not required to reside on the land. Persons who own stock in a corporation (shareholders) do not qualify under this definition.[/color]

Focusing on a new sentance starting with in the case of corporate ownerships. Well I own land through an LLC as a non resident of Missouri - but my LLC is licensed to do business as a resident corporation in the state of MO holding a state of MO address. Therefore as an officer of the corp, I purchased my doe tags in accordance with the resident land owner definition.

I understand that game is a resource and the states make money off their natural resources. I pay full price for a license, but can't really afford that in addition to 25/doe. Gotta harvest the does - its not pleasure, its f-in hard work to do all that killen, but necessary non-the-less. I think its a joke they call it non-resident doe hunting - its management and work no different than putting in food plots and doing timber stand improvement, etc. Besides - what non-resident in this country needs to travel to MO to kill does?? Pretty much any state I can think of has plenty of whitetail does and my area of MO is polluted with em and that almost 4X increase in doe tags will hurt the state and is not reflective of their stated intention to improve the quality of their bucks.

But money talks!

Barto