Out-of-staters take advantage of cheap small game licenses

It started back in July when a friend from Pennsylvania called. “What’s the deal with the non-resident hunting license price increase in Wisconsin?”

“Yeah, they raised them,” I replied. “But only for out of staters,” he challenged. “Nobody asked my opinion,” was all I could say. I mean what was he going to do, not come to Wisconsin and hunt Pa.? Turns out he did, but not because of license cost.

This past fall, this whole thing came up again. “The first two spots of mine I went to, there was a rig with out of state plates on it,” Chris Rhoden told us. “Just as I’m getting ready to kick off at the third spot, a guy in a white truck with Tennessee plates pulling a six-hole dog trailer pulls up wanting to hunt that spot. The problem is Wisconsin’s small game license is priced way too low.”

He cited how other states only allow a period of time like five days, that must be separated by five days, like in S.D. or a two week limitation in N.D. Both cost more than Wisconsin’s small game license which currently costs non-residents $90 and if they want to hunt waterfowl, add a $12 state duck stamp.

South Dakota cost $121 for upland hunting. North Dakota cost $273 for 14 days, if your hunting upland birds and waterfowl throughout the state, or $223 if hunting waterfowl in only one zone for 14 days. You can purchase a second license if you wish. Minnesota sells a season long license for small game costing $102, Michigan sells a seven day non-resident license for $80. Two of those states are popular destinations for Wisconsin upland bird and waterfowl hunters. The other two are our neighbors, with many non-resident hunters heading to their coverts as well.

Some Minnesota hunters have been very vocal in online forums about not liking non-resident upland hunters, and in some cases, in-person. Yet it would be hard to go hunting on any weekend and not see multiple Minnesota plates on Wisconsin public lands hunting birds or deer. A lot of the pot calling the kettle black. This year I saw plates from Georgia, Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, South and North Carolina and I know of hunters from Florida, Nebraska, Ohio, and Indiana that grouse hunted in Wisconsin. Wisconsin and Minnesota are selling a season long license while other states don’t. South Dakota even greatly restricts how many non-residents can hunt migratory waterfowl, yet a considerable amount of federal duck stamp monies get allocated that state every year. Is that ethical? Does it benefit the resource? Should Wisconsin be seeking answers to these questions? In previous years, all of us at camp have spoken to non-resident hunters that stay three or more weeks grouse hunting in Wisconsin. Our grouse camp goes back over 25 years. We have moved the area of our camp officially two times now and unofficially three. Hunting pressure created the need.

The thesis of Rhoden’s and some other people around the table goes like this: Increased hunting pressure in large part from non-resident hunters due to the access and bag limits being under-valued reduces the quality of grouse and woodcock hunting in Wisconsin. It’s quite the mouthful.

“I went up to the (North of Cutover) area yesterday and hunted with a friend of mine. We only put up three grouse all day,” said Tim Perkins, another avid upland hunter who hunts several states each year.

An old rule of thumb by one of the numerous Wisconsin authors who penned books on grouse hunting states, that if you walk three to five miles a day in grouse cover you will contact 25 grouse. From that you can expect to harvest five grouse.

I can’t remember the last year any of us have moved 25 grouse in a day. Most of us have a personal limit of two or three grouse a day. This year I’d be happy for one grouse for a day hunted.

My friends desire a reduction in the bag limit of grouse and time limit of seven or 14 days for non-resident small game licenses. They also propose a fee increase commensurate with the fees of other states. They feel this would divert some hunting pressure from nonresident hunters.

Does reducing a bag limit from a number that most hunters never obtain anyway really do anything?

These sentiments are part of a bigger issue obviously. Part two is coming next week.

Through a

Decoy’s

E

ye