As private-land hunting access continues to rapidly evolve into a rich man’s game, unattached hunters with shallow pockets have been forced to focus their attentions on public lands. In turn, that has increased hunting pressure on those lands, which leads to what an increasing number of people are calling “overcrowding.” To solve that problem, many states are punishing the nonresident hunter by both limiting the number of permits available to them, as well as jacking up costs.

The latest poke in the nonresident eye occurred this year in Oklahoma, where the state legislature passed a bill, SB 448, that charges only nonresident hunters $100 to hunt on state-managed Wildlife Management Areas or National Wildlife Refuges. They also must secure written permission from the Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Commission — which can now also create a lottery system “as needed” to limit the number of nonresidents. In neighboring Kansas, the legislature passed HB 2028, which would have, among other things, limited only nonresident waterfowl hunters to hunting only on Sundays, Mondays and Tuesdays on most public land. Kansas governor Laura Kelly vetoed the bill.

The cost of hunting out of state, particularly out West or in popular Midwestern whitetail destinations, also continues to skyrocket. While this year Missouri slightly bumped the cost of hunting licenses, in Washington, state hunting license fees were increased a whopping 38%, with nonresidents forced to fork over $1321.62 for a big-game license. In Montana, HB 145 increases the cost of the base nonresident hunting license from $15 to $100. In Wyoming, the state issues 40% of nonresident elk, deer and pronghorn licenses in a pool for a “special” draw with costs of $1,258, $826, and $74, respectively — well above the price of licenses issued in the regular draw. You also have to pay the stiff regular hunting license and nonrefundable application fees. The theory here is that fewer sportsmen are willing to pay the higher price, thus making the odds of drawing a tag much easier. The list goes on, but the trend is obvious — downstream, the nonresident hunter is going to continue to be burdened with increasing costs and more limited opportunities.

Here’s an interesting sidenote. While nonresident hunting license fee increases are at least partially justified to state residents as a way to limit overcrowding on public lands, the truth is more complex. In the Western states, nonresident hunting license and tag fees fund the majority of a given state’s entire game department budget. Here’s a few examples, from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2020 National Hunting License Data, of the gross cost of hunting licenses, tags, permits, and stamps, resident vs nonresident, and percentage nonresidents pay of the total: Colorado, $59,006,693 vs $46,439,812 (78.7%); Montana, $38,983,268 vs $28,026,136 (71.9%); Wyoming, $26,079,665 vs $19,335,046 (71.1%); Kansas, $25,944,894 vs $18,157,390 (69.9%); New Mexico, $16,064,100 vs $10,483,651 (65.2%); Idaho $29,105,510 vs $18,106,111 (62.2%); Oklahoma, $9,917,076 vs $4,493,340 (45.3%). Also, revenue from nonresidents in states where hunters buy preference or bonus points over time is significant. In Wyoming, for example, nonresidents account for about 99% of such revenue.

It's not just the cost. Two of the last remaining Western states that offered over-the-counter (OTC) elk tags — Colorado and Idaho — have changed that. In Colorado in 2025, OTC archery elk tags were no longer available to nonresidents in Game Management Units west of I-25, where the majority of the elk reside, and instead distributed via the big-game draw. And in 2026, Idaho will be ending OTC elk tags for nonresidents, who will also have to apply for the privilege.

Many, if not most, of these new access and fee regulations are in response to state residents complaining of too many nonresidents hunting public ground — Oklahoma Senator Warren Hamilton, the primary senatorial sponsor of SB 448, made that clear. “The passage of Senate Bill 448 marks a significant step forward in safeguarding Oklahomans’ access to our state’s wildlife management areas,” he said. “This legislation prioritizes the rights of our citizens while continuing to welcome visiting outdoorsmen from other states through the lottery system and permitting process outlined in this bill.”

I have several observations. First, if a state wants to limit who can hunt on lands it manages, that should be their right. But on federal lands that all Americans own? To me, that’s a stretch, and a harsh reminder of what I call the worst hunting law in all of America — the Wyoming statute that says if a nonresident wishes to hunt big or trophy game in a federally designated wilderness area, they must hire a licensed guide or be with a resident of Wyoming “for their safety.” You can do anything else you want there, though. I’ll comment more on this in a future column.

Second, how can this be good for the future of hunting in America? The complaint from many residents who don’t punch their tags is that there are too many people in the woods and on the mountain — most of them those damn nonresidents. In my experience, though, many of these complainers don’t put in the time or the work required to be successful. They seem to think that public land is their own personal hot spot, when in reality, it’s a first-come, first-served game.

Lastly, I worry about the future. When states are pounding the R3 (Recruit, Retention, Reactivation) drum, which is aimed at bolstering participation, by limiting participation by jacking up costs and shrinking public land opportunities, isn’t that a direct conflict? As a good friend told me recently, “Why is the answer to perceived overcrowding always to make it more difficult? I’m raising my kids to be hunters, but the way things are going, it’s sad to think about how little they’ll have access to in another decade.”