Jump to content
2018 UJ SUMMER SILENT AUCTION HAS LAUNCHED Read more... ×
16 Gauge

Arizona Nonresident Hunting License Requirements

Recommended Posts

16 Gauge

I hunted quail in Arizona in 2006 and as a nonresident only had to purchase a nonresident annual hunting license for $113 to hunt quail. I was fortunate enough to be able to return this past January (2017) and was surprised that the license I purchased in 2006 is no longer available to nonresidents and is a "residents only" license. To hunt quail, I was required to buy a combination hunting and fishing license for $160 and had no intention to fish whatsoever. Nonresident anglers in AZ can purchase an annual fishing license for $55. Anglers are not required to buy a hunting license to fish in AZ. None of the other 11 western states require nonresident hunters to purchase a fishing license to hunt upland birds. Does anyone know the history behind this policy in AZ?

 

I have emailed  the AZ governor, Senate President, Speaker of the House, Chairman of the AZGFD Commission and the Commissioner for the southern part of the state asking for an explanation of this odd policy and asking them to make an annual nonresident hunting license available for purchase again at a lower price as it appears the fishing component adds about $50 to the cost of the combination license. I have not emailed the Director of the AZGFD as I cannot locate an email address for him. I have received no response. 

 

AZ is currently seeking public comments on their small game hunting guidelines as they begin the process to establish hunting regulations for the next two year period. 2018-19. Interested parties can submit their comments on opening and closing dates, bag/possession limits and other topics to AZHuntGuidelines@azgfd.gov. I plan to ask AZGFD to make a simple nonresident annual hunting license available once again. I have no issue with folks who want to hunt and fish having one less license to carry or saving a few bucks on a combo license. I travel to AZ to hunt birds only and resent being forced to buy a fishing license to hunt birds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Al

AZ probably wanted to raise the hunting fee and figured that they would throw the hunter a bone by including the fishing license, knowing full well it wouldn't be used.

 

This isn't quite the same but the Montana nonresident deer and elk tags also include the upland bird and fishing licenses.  I'm fortunate that I can use all three but most nonresident deer hunters don't bird hunt or fish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Randy S

Their doesn't seem to be much correlation between the amount states charge non-residents and the availability of public land, multiple species or how plentiful game is. I guess now a guy has to include a fishing license into the equation as well. 

 

I certainly don't begrudge any amount of money I spend to hunt out of state, but would prefer if I'm hunting small game, that the entire purchase price goes to furtherance of small game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockdoc
Quote

 

I winter in AZ and agree that having to buy a fishing license is irksome, particularly since in SE Arizona anyhow, streams and rivers having actual water in them is optional. The nearby San Pedro River would be called a creek back east and has many areas where the water flows through the gravel bed and not on the surface. I suppose the good news for me is that I may be moving to SE Arizona in the next year or so.

 

Steve 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
406dn

I'd speculate that part of the logic behind this is they are trying to put some downward pressure on non resident bird hunter numbers. Every state fish and game department tries to thread several needles at the same time. I have no doubt they catch some flak from resident bird hunters who complain about the influx of nonresident hunters.

 

By bumping up the price, they lose a few nonresident hunters, but not lose much if any total revenue. 

 

I've got no problem with what they have chosen to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
boutdoors4

For what its worth 2 years ago you paid $163 for a nonresident small game hunting license only then they added the fishing option recently. I guess to appease the nonresidents somewhat. I hunt AZ quite a bit and it bothers me that they charge so much 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Az Draht

I don't know for sure, but the way it was explained to me is that even though it is a combo license, the can count it as two licenses for Pittman-Robertson funding.  They get increased funding by increasing the price and make it look like they are giving something of value to the NR on the front end.  And get increased Pittman-Robertson funding on the back end.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmeador
1 hour ago, Az Draht said:

I don't know for sure, but the way it was explained to me is that even though it is a combo license, the can count it as two licenses for Pittman-Robertson funding.  They get increased funding by increasing the price and make it look like they are giving something of value to the NR on the front end.  And get increased Pittman-Robertson funding on the back end.

 

Exactly!  They get more dollars from the NR hunters while reducing the pressure on the small game populations, and an increase in PR money revenue! Sorta double dipping...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 Gauge

boutdoors4,

 

Thanks for the background. I hadn't been to AZ since 2006.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Az Draht
9 hours ago, bmeador said:

Exactly!  They get more dollars from the NR hunters while reducing the pressure on the small game populations, and an increase in PR money revenue! Sorta double dipping...

 

I don't think it has anything to do with reducing the pressure on small game populations.  The only place were that may be an issue is with mearns quail. Small game is a non issue within AZGFD.  They only have one small game biologist for example.  The license move has more to do with big game.

 

Arizona Game and Fish is entirely self funded through licenses and fees. Plus Pittman-Robertson funds, I guess.  No state money from the general fund is given to them.  So what they do is increase the license fee and pretend to offer something, AND (this is big) they require all those out of staters who are applying for elk, and arizona strip mule deer, to purchase a license during the application process.  They must purchase the license whether they are drawn or not and license fees are not refunded.

 

It is just a plain money grab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×