Not quite, your math is is a little off. $100 X 46 years is $4600. So over your lifetime they lose $4200. However, one thing we should consider is compounding. The annual fees compounded for 46 years would be about $36k (using the numbers I used) The lifetime license fee compounded over 46 years would be about $10k. So they're losing about $26k in compounded money. You throw in other variable that I discuss below and it changes a lot.I believe the issue was that they realized they were loosing their proverbial ass in the deal and stopped it. Anybody really could have seen it coming. I spend about $100 a year on tags and licenses. I'm only 26 and been at it for 4 years. That's $400, about the cost of the lifetime, i think. If I can do it until i'm 72 that's $50000. If I had gotten the lifetime, that's a loss of $46,000. And that's only if they don't increase the fees. Now granted that's a lifetime but you do that a few hundred thousand times each year, and that loss will hurt.
Don't get me wrong, if they offer it again, I'll be first in line with my big wad of cash for my own lifetime license.
Would you have harvested that many animals if you didn't have the lifetime? That is the real comparison. You can't compare the amount of money they lost on license fees with the lifetime license, it's the money they lost on license fees that a person would be spending if they didn't have the lifetime.I paid $525 for my lifetime hunting license in 1999. I've taken a lot of deer in my time, but figure somewhere around 40 since '99. Add in quite a few turkeys, piles of coyotes, squirrels, rabbits, foxes, etc., and it is easy to see that the state lost a lot of money on me. For example, I took 7 deer this past season alone. Each price increase for hunting licenses equates to an even bigger loss for the state. The good news is that I'm hunting for free each year now, and the Lord willing, I'll be in the woods at least another 30-40 years.
Would you have harvested that many animals if you didn't have the lifetime? That is the real comparison. You can't compare the amount of money they lost on license fees with the lifetime license, it's the money they lost on license fees that a person would be spending if they didn't have the lifetime.
There is a big difference there. Every single person I talk to with a lifetime say they would be hunting less and buying a lot less licenses/tags if they didn't have the lifetime license. I think that is the major thing that the state didn't consider when they saw the "lost money".
You're the first person I've heard say that. I don't mean that in any sort of bad way. I've just never come across a lifetime license holder before that has said they would honestly buy/use the same number of licenses/tags if they didn't have the lifetime license. I think you're in the minority on that.Honestly, as much as I love to hunt, yes, I more than likely would have bought the tags regardless. Back during the days when we had to stand in line at Spring Mill State Park for doe tags, I'm pretty sure there were times that I bought 8 or 10 deer tags in a single season without a lifetime license.