Apache Indian Tribes offer Anterless Elk Hunts check with http://www.sancarlosrecreationandwildlife....sched05-06.html also go to Jicarilla Apache Tribe and the Mescalero Apache Tribe.Two of us bought cow elk hunts for $620 each with San Carlos Apache Tribe for a hunt 10-28 to 11-5.
- Thread starter scr83jp
- Start date
Tom Petterson
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2002
- Messages
- 425
- Reaction score
- 0
The great part about hunting there is that you don't give the state os AZ any money. Yeah stick it to the AZ fish and games played. I hate them sooooo much. I am going to get my deer and elk tag then quit applying and maybe go to the reervation and forget about the state Fish and games. They hate nonresidents down there.
The 9th Circuit stopped the 10% rule then our gov't got involved and shafted all non-resident hunters.I always wanted a federal hunting license for all fed lands and a reciprocal fee structure making hunters pay what their home state charges non-residents when they venture elsewhere to hunt or fish.
Coues
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2002
- Messages
- 2,884
- Reaction score
- 3
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (scr83jp @ Feb 23 2006, 10:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Well, since Cali won't let NR apply for elk at all, I guess if they ever did go to a reciprocal plan, you would be SOL as a non resident in other states?
The last thing anyone should ever want is Washington DC selling hunting tags and license.
Well, since Cali won't let NR apply for elk at all, I guess if they ever did go to a reciprocal plan, you would be SOL as a non resident in other states?
The last thing anyone should ever want is Washington DC selling hunting tags and license.
Coues fyi non-residents can apply for every animal tag a resident can apply for in ca,I think that changed when the state went to the modified preference point system.I'd still like to see the reciprocal license fee program initiated that we discussed in our wildlife mgt class seminars back when I was working toward my bs in wildlife mgt at the univ of az.Anyone from nm applying here would be charged the same fee a cal resident is charged in nm.When I retired I applied for a depredation oryx tag at white sands, fee $1510(wasn't drawn refunded $1500) but the nm resident tag is $100.As wildlife mgt students we thought this would've been an excellent method to level the playing field on non-resident hunting fees in the country.
wmidbrook
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 4,405
- Reaction score
- 3
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
I agree with that and I do believe that they should stiffen regulations around discriminatory practices as well...
Not to sound like a broken record, but I don't think the Reid bill would be violated at all by making states ban quotas and price differences for residents and non-residents. States could still manage wildlife as they see fit. I see the selling of tags as something completely different than managing wildlife. The only part of managing wildlife is controlling the number of animals harvested which can be done by regulating how many tags are sold.
How many tags are sold has nothing to do with what percentage are residents/non-residents and what price they are (unless too expensive; therefore undersubscribed.).
Anyway, in a perfect tag world as I see it.....there would be no resident/non-resident quota....there'd be no differences in tag prices for residents/non-residents....There would be preference given to those who contribute hours or $$$ to wildlife--like an extra preference or bonus point/yr.
I agree with that and I do believe that they should stiffen regulations around discriminatory practices as well...
Not to sound like a broken record, but I don't think the Reid bill would be violated at all by making states ban quotas and price differences for residents and non-residents. States could still manage wildlife as they see fit. I see the selling of tags as something completely different than managing wildlife. The only part of managing wildlife is controlling the number of animals harvested which can be done by regulating how many tags are sold.
How many tags are sold has nothing to do with what percentage are residents/non-residents and what price they are (unless too expensive; therefore undersubscribed.).
Anyway, in a perfect tag world as I see it.....there would be no resident/non-resident quota....there'd be no differences in tag prices for residents/non-residents....There would be preference given to those who contribute hours or $$$ to wildlife--like an extra preference or bonus point/yr.
muskeg
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2002
- Messages
- 822
- Reaction score
- 101
scr83jp ....
You must not know the regs of your own state. Elk and Antelope draws are for Ca Residents only. The only way for a non-Ca-res to hunt elk is to win an auction tag or purchase a PLM tag.
And if any of you think that Fed controll is the answere you have not been paying much attention to what has happened in Alaska since the Fed took over Fish and Game management on Fed lands in Alaska. It ain't pretty.
332. (a) The commission may determine and fix the area or areas,
the seasons and hours, the bag and possession limit, and the number
of elk that may be taken under rules and regulations which the
commission may adopt from time to time. The commission may authorize
the taking of tule elk if the average of the department's statewide
tule elk population estimates exceeds 2,000 animals, or the
Legislature determines, pursuant to the reports required by Section
3951, that suitable areas cannot be found in California to
accommodate that population in a healthy condition.
(b) Only a resident of the State of California possessing a valid
hunting license may obtain a license tag for the taking of elk.
© The department may issue an elk license tag upon payment of a
fee of one hundred sixty-five dollars ($165), as adjusted under
Section 713. The fees shall be deposited in the Fish and Game
Preservation Fund and shall be expended, in addition to money
budgeted for salaries of the department, for the expense of
implementing this section and Section 3951.
(d) The commission shall annually direct the department to
authorize not more than three elk hunting license tags for the
purpose of raising funds for programs and projects to benefit elk.
These license tags may be sold at auction to residents or
nonresidents of the State of California or by other method and are
not subject to the fee limitation prescribed in subdivision ©.
You must not know the regs of your own state. Elk and Antelope draws are for Ca Residents only. The only way for a non-Ca-res to hunt elk is to win an auction tag or purchase a PLM tag.
And if any of you think that Fed controll is the answere you have not been paying much attention to what has happened in Alaska since the Fed took over Fish and Game management on Fed lands in Alaska. It ain't pretty.
332. (a) The commission may determine and fix the area or areas,
the seasons and hours, the bag and possession limit, and the number
of elk that may be taken under rules and regulations which the
commission may adopt from time to time. The commission may authorize
the taking of tule elk if the average of the department's statewide
tule elk population estimates exceeds 2,000 animals, or the
Legislature determines, pursuant to the reports required by Section
3951, that suitable areas cannot be found in California to
accommodate that population in a healthy condition.
(b) Only a resident of the State of California possessing a valid
hunting license may obtain a license tag for the taking of elk.
© The department may issue an elk license tag upon payment of a
fee of one hundred sixty-five dollars ($165), as adjusted under
Section 713. The fees shall be deposited in the Fish and Game
Preservation Fund and shall be expended, in addition to money
budgeted for salaries of the department, for the expense of
implementing this section and Section 3951.
(d) The commission shall annually direct the department to
authorize not more than three elk hunting license tags for the
purpose of raising funds for programs and projects to benefit elk.
These license tags may be sold at auction to residents or
nonresidents of the State of California or by other method and are
not subject to the fee limitation prescribed in subdivision ©.
Sorry, the license and revenue branch gave me the wrong info on non-resident hunting, elk and antelope are restricted to cal residents only.I thought that would've been changed after the 9th circuit court of appeals went after arizona and other restricted hunting regs since these liberal judges are here in calif.everything else is open to non-residents: 2 deer tags,mule deer draw tags, bear tags,1 bighorn sheep tag,pigs,small game,birds,etc.
EL CAZADOR
Kiss The Ring
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2001
- Messages
- 4,162
- Reaction score
- 12
even if they went to a national hunting license because of the AZ fiasco, wouldn't it only apply to hunting on Federal lands? That was the arguement in the first place.
Yep CA elk can only be hunted by CA residents, but if I recall correctly, most if not all of the elk here are on private land or state land? The Tule elk in Lone Pine/Bishop are are DWP (munincipality), right? Rocky Mountain elk are at Tejon (private). What about the NoCal herds? Private or public?
Yep CA elk can only be hunted by CA residents, but if I recall correctly, most if not all of the elk here are on private land or state land? The Tule elk in Lone Pine/Bishop are are DWP (munincipality), right? Rocky Mountain elk are at Tejon (private). What about the NoCal herds? Private or public?
Rocky Mtn Elk are on the klamath national forest land in N Cal while Roosevelt Elk migrated in from Oregon & are on federal and timber company land.When demo moonbeam brown was governator of kaliforneya he gave excess state owned tule elk to a rancher in the Tehachapis who now charges many thousands of dollars to hunt them on his ranch.I located a private ranch in northern cal that charges $20,000 to hunt a Tule Elk.
Coues
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2002
- Messages
- 2,884
- Reaction score
- 3
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (EL CAZADOR @ Feb 25 2006, 10:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Besides the fact that The Feds regulating wildlife hunting and seasons would be a giant red tape fiasco, trying to determine what type of land you are on here in AZ is very difficult. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of "checkerboad" land here that is made up of alternating state/private/blm land. You can stand at a corner post and literally be arms length away from all 3 types of land. This type of land is especially prevelant in the premium elk units of 5,7,8,9,&10.
Then there is the issue of who would enforce the Fed laws. Would it be like the Brady Bill, where the Feds manadated the background checks, then forced the local communites to administer and pay for all of it? Would the state game and fish departments be saddled with enforcing their own laws on state and private land and different laws on fed land?
Also, groups like PETA, Humane Society, etc would love to see the Feds take over wildlfe management. That way, they would be able to concentrate all of their resources on influencing one government agency, instead of 50 individual states. Do you really want some politition in Florida or New York having a say (and being "influenced" on how to vote) on how Idaho, Montana, or California manages their wildlife?
I see nothing wrong with states giving their residents preference, as long as the sates are upfront with the ono-residences about their chances of drawing a tag. I do not think that NR should be forced to buy a hunting license in order to apply for tag, nor do I think that a NR should be asked to pay more than a resident to hunt the same animals.
Besides the fact that The Feds regulating wildlife hunting and seasons would be a giant red tape fiasco, trying to determine what type of land you are on here in AZ is very difficult. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of "checkerboad" land here that is made up of alternating state/private/blm land. You can stand at a corner post and literally be arms length away from all 3 types of land. This type of land is especially prevelant in the premium elk units of 5,7,8,9,&10.
Then there is the issue of who would enforce the Fed laws. Would it be like the Brady Bill, where the Feds manadated the background checks, then forced the local communites to administer and pay for all of it? Would the state game and fish departments be saddled with enforcing their own laws on state and private land and different laws on fed land?
Also, groups like PETA, Humane Society, etc would love to see the Feds take over wildlfe management. That way, they would be able to concentrate all of their resources on influencing one government agency, instead of 50 individual states. Do you really want some politition in Florida or New York having a say (and being "influenced" on how to vote) on how Idaho, Montana, or California manages their wildlife?
I see nothing wrong with states giving their residents preference, as long as the sates are upfront with the ono-residences about their chances of drawing a tag. I do not think that NR should be forced to buy a hunting license in order to apply for tag, nor do I think that a NR should be asked to pay more than a resident to hunt the same animals.
El Cazador its not all dwp there is a lot of the Inyo National Forest on both sides of 395 from Lone Pine to Bishop.The largest numbers of Rocky Mtn & Roosevelt Elk are in northern california so how many elk are on Tejon?
EL CAZADOR
Kiss The Ring
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2001
- Messages
- 4,162
- Reaction score
- 12
Coues
I agree with you about the Fed management and in no way was I advocating it. I mention it only as a "what if" scenario
scr83jp
not sure about the elk pop at Tejon. I was at the ISE show in Sac this year and while I was waiting to talk to Barbara at the Tejon booth, I overheard her telling some guy that there was a 3 year waiting list and I thought I heard that the cost was $25k.
I agree with you about the Fed management and in no way was I advocating it. I mention it only as a "what if" scenario
scr83jp
not sure about the elk pop at Tejon. I was at the ISE show in Sac this year and while I was waiting to talk to Barbara at the Tejon booth, I overheard her telling some guy that there was a 3 year waiting list and I thought I heard that the cost was $25k.
wmidbrook
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 4,405
- Reaction score
- 3
Well, I think that a simply federal court order that outlaws quotas and price differences based on residency is by no means the Fed regulating wildlife. The argument is entirely a slippery slope based argument.
There are federal court mandates that must be adhered to as it is in the status quo--E.g. transport of illegally taken wildlife across state boundaries equates to a Lacey act violation, wildlife officials cannot receive bribes for tag preference, for profit wildlife organizations cannot receive auction tags, and the list goes on & on......
In no way do such laws interfere with how states manage their wildlife....am I missing something here or is it only the fear of what it might lead to (the slippery slope) that is shaping the majority's opinion on this one? ....In reality, i don't think most people really believe in that argument, it's just a front for preserving their preferential treatment in their own states....the majority won and I respect that but I don't have to believe it is fair or right or just.
And yeah, CA should let nonresidents apply for elk, sheep and antelope IMO with no non-resident quotas or tag price differences...if my deer tags go up from $20 to $30 a year because of it, that's fine. I don't want to be subsidized by a non-resident hunter in a way that I think is ethically repugnant--we're fleecing non-residents and I don't like that.
There are federal court mandates that must be adhered to as it is in the status quo--E.g. transport of illegally taken wildlife across state boundaries equates to a Lacey act violation, wildlife officials cannot receive bribes for tag preference, for profit wildlife organizations cannot receive auction tags, and the list goes on & on......
In no way do such laws interfere with how states manage their wildlife....am I missing something here or is it only the fear of what it might lead to (the slippery slope) that is shaping the majority's opinion on this one? ....In reality, i don't think most people really believe in that argument, it's just a front for preserving their preferential treatment in their own states....the majority won and I respect that but I don't have to believe it is fair or right or just.
And yeah, CA should let nonresidents apply for elk, sheep and antelope IMO with no non-resident quotas or tag price differences...if my deer tags go up from $20 to $30 a year because of it, that's fine. I don't want to be subsidized by a non-resident hunter in a way that I think is ethically repugnant--we're fleecing non-residents and I don't like that.
