USO's latest threat to Arizona

[DRAFTSTUD]

Well, I had to go take a leak and Nemont said what is was going to say, only he said it kinder, Thank you Nemont. CjCj, he is right about resident vs NR. If you lock me out, then you just locked yourself into paying your own way and having allies in any case where hunters need to stand together. Why should I care about an AZ hunter, when they don't want me to hunt on Public Lands. Say they want to shut down your Bear Season, screw ya'll, you won't let me hunt there anyway, no donation or letters written on your behalf....what's next?

 

[BuzzH]

To answer AZ402's question:

You posted these numbers: "10% of the tags for an elk hunt right now. 10 non-resident tags would bring in roughly$4900 in tag and license fees. The 90 resident tags would bring in (assuming the resident only bought a hunting license $25, most buy a combo $44) roughly $9000. Looks like residents win to me.

What I see, is that the 10 NR hunters are funding 35% of the G&F budget in this case, while the other 65% of the budget is funded by 90 residents.

On a per-sportsman basis, the NR hunters are funding a way bigger percentage of the budget.

 

[Nemont]

Ringer,
In most cases state ownership of the animal is correct. Where USO and others are getting "traction" is the Federal public lands issue. Think about outfitting, it is generally across state lines when the "deal" is made to guide a NR. Outfitting and guiding NR hunters is, by definition interstate commerce. There are federal laws dealing with interstate trade of wildlife, ie the Lacey Act

Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


Lacey Act Amendments of 1981


Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 (P.L. 97-79, 95 Stat. 1073, 16 U.S.C. 3371-3378, approved November 16, 1981, and as amended by P.L. 100-653, 102 Stat. 3825, approved November 14, 1988, and P.L. 98-327, 98 Stat. 271, approved June 25, 1984) These amendments repealed the Black Bass Act and sections 43 and 44 of the Lacey Act of 1900 (18 U.S.C. 43- 44), replacing them with a single comprehensive statute.

Under this law, it is unlawful to import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife or plants taken, possessed, transported, or sold: 1) in violation of U.S. or Indian law, or 2) in interstate or foreign commerce involving any fish, wildlife, or plants taken possessed or sold in violation of State or foreign law.

The law covers all fish and wildlife and their parts or products, and plants protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and those protected by State law. Commercial guiding and outfitting are considered to be a sale under the provisions of the Act. http://laws.fws.gov/lawsdigest/lacey.html

If you want to see how far reaching the commerce clause can be take a few minutes to review these decision:

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), the Court ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers; in Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) the Court ruled that the government could regulate Ollie's Barbecue, which served mostly local clientele but sold food that had previously moved across state lines; and in Daniel v. Paul (1969), the Court ruled that the government could regulate an entire 232 acre (0.9 km²) recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

Wouldn't take much of a wildcat judge to say that because it is interstate commerce then the fed's regulate it especially on federal land. That is just one spin of the arguments I hear. I hope it nevers comes to that and that states continue to manage wildlife and that resident hunters continue to get the bulk of the prefernce for "premium" tags and permits. If the attitude of CjCj though is what most NR hear then they will fight very hard to be allowed to hunt in Arizona or any other state.

Nemont

 

[danr55]

Know what? I've spent some time today analyzing my thoughts about this entire affair with USO and all. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that I would be more than willing to let NR hunters come get an equal shot at the tags if someone would just take Taulman out. The way this entire thing has been handled and the sarcastic, arrogant attitude pisses me off. Now that's not a good thing and I apologize to anyone on here who's felt insulted because of my comments, including Buzz... I have no gripe with him on this matter.. Actually I agree with him on most of it. Taulman is a different matter. Isn't that a strange reaction?

 

[ringer]

Nemont-I agree that the courts are the problem and that just about anything can and will happen with them. Just hope this gets straightened out soon. He might have to hire security guards for his future trips into the areas he is crapping on. I understand he was not welcomed this year and with the new threat it will be worse next season. Sad thing is only 5% of the population hunts and we don't need to lose our kids as future hunters.

 

[AZ402]

Buzz, I'd say that is a bit more than 35/65%. I didn't include any of the fishing license revenue in that little example. I didn't include all the boat license fees. Also the vast majority of the fines for wildlife infractions are residents, all of which help fund the AZGFD. The guide license fees etc... We do our fair share, as I'm sure the WY sportsman do.

I'm in no way shape or form against non-resident hunters. I would hate to see the tags go up. I'm pretty sure that you are in agreement that you should have a better chance in the WY draw than I should and vice versa for the AZ draw.

Draftstud, nobody is telling you that you can't hunt public land in AZ. You can come hunt on your federal,blm and our state trust land every single day of the year. You can fish our lakes,rivers and streams everyday of the year. We have lots of over-the-counter tags (deer"archery",bear,lion,turkey"archery"). we have quail,chuckar and ducks. Tons of varmits and squirrels for you to chase everyday,so come on out.

 

[bowhuntinmaniac]

My input to the G&F was, give NR an equal chance at the tags. But, make it so they can never build bonus points. They will always have 1 entry into the draw. Sounds so simple, i think it would work. But, I was told it would take legislation to do this, and that would take 1 year.
They want a solution now, is why we are getting all of the bogus point alternatives.

 

[schmalts]

To answer AZ402's question:

You posted these numbers: "10% of the tags for an elk hunt right now. 10 non-resident tags would bring in roughly$4900 in tag and license fees. The 90 resident tags would bring in (assuming the resident only bought a hunting license $25, most buy a combo $44) roughly $9000. Looks like residents win to me.

What I see, is that the 10 NR hunters are funding 35% of the G&F budget in this case, while the other 65% of the budget is funded by 90 residents.

On a per-sportsman basis, the NR hunters are funding a way bigger percentage of the budget.

Buzz, you didnt figure in the 115$ bonus point and liscense did you? How about the bonus points bought by those who didnt get a tag, thats a lot of cash as well that is always forgot. Talk about funding wildlife, poor shmuks like me give 115$ to AZ F&G and dont even hunt there that year. Pure profit

 

[cjcj]

Well i really don`t care about non-residents...Why should I? Yes Buzz/Nemont/draftstud/ and others this is just my opinion ..I don`t claim that i am right or speaking for others...But all of you seem to "Avoid" the reasons for my opinion..WE HAVE NO TAGS...at least not enough for you [non-resident] Now Please answer the question Why in the hell do you want to
"take" our tags? You already have more deer/elk etc. tags than we could ever hope for...Maybee you guys are more selfish than me?

 

[schmalts]

You know, the same old arguement comes up here again. State owns animals but feds own the land. Why is it most AZ guys think that just because they own the animals that they can use the Land for free?? If the animals are on fed land then get your personal animals off of it... If they were personally state owned cattle they would have to pay the feds for grazing rights.
On that note, the AZ F&G does have a responsibility to pay the federal taxpayers grazing rights since they are state owned animals. The feds want the payment in the form of a percentage of tags. Just another point of view.
Sorry Stan, because the elk are on federal land the US taxpayers do have some claim to hunt them as well. It is a 2 way street. Would you rather see the rest of the country's hunters vote to have hunting banned on public land?? Shut me out of AZ and i would vote that way to get back at the guys who were that greedy. If the state keeps saying they are only to be owned and used by the state then I say get them off our land or start paying the grazing rights.
Bottom line is this, Why doesnt AZ have enough balls to go back to the bargaining table with USO and present a fair nonres cap? cut out the high price tag bullshit and stop gouging us for bonus points, time for the residents to decide if they want to chip in more or loose opportunity.
I dont think AZ will see a huge drop in nonres applications because now more rich guys will apply knowing they have much better odds. there is a lot of guys who think why should i apply i dont have any bonus points and there are too far few tags, not the case anymore.

 

[BuzzH]

AZ402,

I dont want a better chance than a resident hunter or even an equal chance.

My gripe is the fact that the residents of AZ PLEAD to everyone to write letters and voice their opinion about the Taulman mess. I agree with you that it wasnt right, I wrote USO sponsors, wrote your commission and G&F Director with constructive ideas.
I supported YOUR right as a resident to keep 90% of the available tags in the hands of Residents.

I then got nothing in return but a jacked up NR license fee to pay. I think an increase of "only" 30% is BS. I dont mind license increases if its for fiscal reasons, but when the fees are jacked because of Taulman, and the people really being hurt are the average guys, I got a problem with it. I also think the NR's probably flip at least 35% of the G&F budget.

Schmalts I agree, the AZ G&F does get a lot of free revenue from the NR hunting license that a lot of NR's never use...other than to acrue a bonus point. I dont mind paying it, but you'd think a few more AZ residents would appreciate it???

CJCJ, with your attitude, its almost a waste of time to even respond, but...

If I want to hunt your state I should be allowed to, just like you should be allowed to hunt mine. In most states there are not enough moose, goat, sheep, pronghorn, etc. for every resident to hunt those critters. I believe that EVERYONE, including NR's should have a "chance" at drawing those type of tags even if it means some residents go without. A friend of mine drew an excellent sheep tag in Montana this year as a NR, killed a smoker ram, and I'm happy for him. I'm happy that a working class man can afford to apply and have the opportunity to hunt sheep. Between my Dad, Brother, Wife, and I we had (combined) nearly 100 years applying for sheep tags as residents of Montana. I'm not pissed that my buddy drew one applying as a NR before "I got mine". I'm also thankful that Montana now allows me to apply for sheep tags as a non-resident, as I still want one of their sheep....and I think year 25 might be my turn.

What do you tell a hard-working hunter living in say...Vermont...who wants to hunt bighorn sheep? Vermont has a pretty scarce supply of bighorns, last I checked. Do you tell them they cant even apply? That just isnt right, I'm not saying he should have an equal chance, but he should have the opportunity to apply and if he's lucky...live the dream at a relatively affordable price.

Being selfish is pretty lame.

 

[schmalts]

Az 402, I gotta ask since you didnt respond to my RMEF and SFW post. What do you think about that situaltion ? it will take the UT tag numbers to DOUBLE to just get back to where they started to give the nonresidents the same numer of tags before this crackpot idea was thought up.
Do you not apply to hunt in UT??

 

[AZ402]

Haven't seen the RMEF SWF post,I'll take a look.

Buzz, if the G&F does raise the tags 30% your elk tag would be around $480,$740ish for your deer,elk and hunting license, just a little more than your MT combo tag. That's much cheaper than, NV,UT and NM for just as good a tag if not better. My elk tag as a resident would be just under $100, what's your elk tag cost?

I put this letter up to see what kind of response it would get, not to trash non-residents. Like I said I just want our G&F to keep fighting this fight. I had a good email conversation with the legislative liason for the AZGFD the other day. They are working hard to get things ironed out. The western states have drafted a pretty decent bill. Supposedly our Senators are behind it (Kyl,Mcain).

Buzz I appreciate your letters and support in the beginning of this mess. Many,many residents of AZ,NV etc... appreciate it as well. I don't think your tag prices are to outrageous as of right now.

Also organizations such as Arizona Elk Society,Arizona Antelope Foundation,Arizona Bowhunters Association,AZ Deer Association, Arizona Desert Bighron Sheep Society,Arizona Mule Deer Foundation,Arizona Predator Callers,Arizona Quail Alliance,Arizona Anglers Fishing Club,AZ B.A.S.S Federation,Arizona Flycasters,Desert Flycasters,Red Rock Flycasters,Arizona Challenged Sportsman,Arizona Hunter & Angler,Arizona Outdoorsman,Arizona Wildlife Conservation Council. These organizations do the lions share of the ground work to keep AZ hunting and fishing a quality activity. I don't see a whole lot of Wisconsin and Wy organizations hauling water during drought years. Building drinkers, rebuilding or tearing down fences. Transplanting Pronghorn who are losing their habitat in Prescott valley at an alarming rate. And so on and so on. So to say the residents don't deserve the majority of the tags and don't pull their finacial weight, doesn't seem right to me.

 

[AZ402]

As for NR money that is pure profit, that goes for resident maney as well. Last year there were approximately 200,000+ residents applications; approximately 40,000+ Non-resident application. There was a total of 38,115 deer tag to be applied for (buck,doe,youth and challeged hunter tags combined). There was 867 pronghorn tags to be applied for (" "). There was 21,993 elk tags to be applied for (bull,cow,youth,challeged combined). There was 82 bighorn tags to be applied for. There was 71 buffalo tags to be applied for. I came up with a total of 61,128 tags to be applied for in AZ last year. 240,000 - 61,128=178,172(roughly) people who didn't draw a tag (me included). The majority of them were obviously residents. Many people hunt with their over-the-counter tags with their license,some don't buy the bonus point. Many also do not do anything all year with their hunting/fishing license, hence pure profit by residents..........

 

[cjcj]

Well Buzz thanks for your answer...I understand your responce and for your over all position it makes sense...But i still feel the way i feel [selfish or lame] as it is.. i have more of an understanding for the guy such as Shmalts or a guy in Vermont....or anywhere that they simply cannot hunt for a "species" that they don`t have..I just don`t have alot of sympathy for guys like you

and others who pretty much have it made as far as the overall hunting opportunities that exist in your state...I also want the best advantage that i can get... whatever means are needed to screw U.S.O. i`m all for it....But you have to admit it You have it made up there in Wyoming.. you get a deer/elk/lope tag every year! Think of my position No antelope[10 yrs] No deer[ 2yrs.] no elk [2yrs] hell now i have to put in for turkey just to go hunting...i guess i have to start hunting pigs again [its so bad]... I say feed the family before ya feed the neighbors... selfish i am .

 

[WapitiBob]

So who are these rich USO clients? I see on their web site an elk hunt is less than $4,000. about the cheapest I have seen. It would appear to me they are trying to get the bottom end of the guided hunter market and the tag increase will shut this demographic out of their services, thus the fee increase lawsuit threat.

 

[JoseCuervo]

AZ402,

I think the math problems have all been worked out for you, but if you want to understand how much the Non-Res pay, just think about how many pay $123 for the bonus point, without drawing a tag. I know I have $500+ invested in my first AZ Elk tag, and I haven''t even drawn it....

 

[bowhuntinmaniac]

Elkgunner, just wait....now all applicants are required to buy a hunting license to apply, and no more online application, no more $5 charge. All money up front.

 

[JoseCuervo]

BHManiac,

It is pretty lame to be setting up rules intended to EXCLUDE people or deny them access. Those cases usually get drug into courts and get turned upside down. I will still have to fork over the $123 (or some number), but now I have to do it with a $0.37 stamp? Lemme guess what is next, they will require a money order as Credit Cards and out of state checks won't be honored?

I still don't understand why the AZGFD is trying to eliminate Non Resident hunters. USO is on the right path in stopping these shenanigans (sp?).

 

[AZ402]

EG, show me where AZGFD says they are trying to eliminate non-res hunters; with a real response, not some smart ass, @#)(# knocker response? Also I'd like to see your numbers on residents not pulling their finacial weight.