USO at it again??

[Monsterbull]

To me this boils down to a state's rights issue. Anyone can have access to federal land but the animals that reside there are the property of the state (meaning the citizens of that state) and permission to hunt them is controlled by the state. Which is why this ruling on the basis of cross-border commerce is offensive, by throwing open the gates to unrestricted lottery selection it will have the effect of lowering the opportunity for Arizona residents. Essentially, Arizona loses the ability to control it's own property because outside interests claim a restriction of "business". Mind you, no one will pay any less (not even people from PA), but at least USO's bottom line is served.

 

[wmidbrook]

Cousenam, no offence taken. If I were an AZ resident, I'd probably feel similarly. For the purposes of discussion, let's not take it out on other's here because they have a different point of view. I do hope you draw soon because 10+ years is a long time for anyone to have to wait for a tag.


CAHunter, you're partially right. You can hunt bear in AK if you have a direct relative (parent/child) living there without a guide as a non-resident.

Wyoming Guides have shut unguided non-residents out of Wilderness areas by pandering to their local Wildlife officials.

I simply don't agree with the following statement:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Essentially, Arizona loses the ability to control it's own property because outside interests claim a restriction of "business".[/b]

Arizona can control the herds exactly the same way as they have before. They still can set the quota. They just can't dictate who hunts them based on residency.

The reason they had to issue more tags this year is because they "made a bet" that they'd win and not have allocate more tags to Non-residents...well, shame on AZ wildlife officials for putting AZ's herds at risk of over-harvest.

And even though I agree that USO filed the suite out of out of selfish reasons, I still think that the point of quota's and two-tiered pricing system is wrong and discriminatory. And Finally, this is seeing justice.....

(even if for all the wrong reasons)

I sure hope Wyo gets another lawsuite and Alaska forcing us to use guides...that's discriminatory. Also, the two-tiered pricing system needs to be declared illegal as well!!!!

And yeah, I expect non-residents will soon get to apply for CA Tule elk tags and sheep tags...I sure hope so, it's only fair (even though my odds will get worse).

And I don't think this is a State's Rights issue at all. The fed is there to step in where states cannot manage themselves. Examples, we'd all be using different currencies if states had their ways, we'd probably have to pay tolls on the highway once we left our home-states, etc. etc.

The states still have control of their herds and how the animals are managed....just less control on who gets to hunt them....To me current laws are about as ridiculouse as the folllowing......, it's like saying either "Only black colored people can hunt our elk, or white's have to pay 10x's the price on an elk tag."

 

[scr83jp]

Time to clear the air FYI the native Elk in Arizona were killed off ,the state had no elk until the Elks Lodges purchased Rocky Mtn Elk and relocated them to Arizona in the teens of the 20th century.So as an Elk Lodge member I should be able to hunt for the same amount state residents pay.Another thing we discussed in wildlife mgt classes in the Univ of AZ was reciprocal agreements:if it costs 800 dollars for a resident of say California to hunt in New Mexico then it should cost a New Mexico resident the same amount to hunt in California.Some would get to hunt paying far less but some would pay much more.

 

[Coues]

You won't be restricted for being on Federal Land, you will be restricted from trying to an Elk.

By your reasoning, the fact that the states set hunting seasons is wrong too because you will be restricted from hunting Elk on Federal land in April.

 

[Pa Ridge Runner]

a NR buys a $110 general back tag in Pa anbd can hunt 6days a week for 52 weeks on it, and he doesn't need to be drawn to buy it. Just walk into Wally World plunck down your $ and an ID and you got it.
Hey COUSE, why not apply for an elk tag here in Pa for you and your kid? They only cost you $25 and we give out more than 10% to NR. Heck you have more of a chance at getting one than I did before this year in AZ!!!!!!!!!! And I NEVER EVER got drawn here in Pa. also most live on public land so you won't need an outfitter or pay tresspass fees either.JUST HOW BAD do you want to hunt elk??????????????????????????????????????????????? Now you know how bad we from the east want to hunt elk 'cause we pay those scalper's for the chance!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Monsterbull]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

And I don't think this is a State's Rights issue at all. The fed is there to step in where states cannot manage themselves. Examples, we'd all be using different currencies if states had their ways, we'd probably have to pay tolls on the highway once we left our home-states, etc. etc.[/b]

The examples only support a Commerce Clause argument. Having different currencies or tolls for out of staters is a restriction of interstate commerce and thus is a federal issue. But if you extend this to every conceivable happenstance, by this reasoning there is no justification for having states at all. I don't know anyone who advocates eliminating state borders. (What would you call the country - "The Nation Formerly Known As The United States of America"?

). Hell, if the fed's purpose is to step in where states cannot manage themselves, California could be taken over by NASA chimps that know sign language (and run better!).

There has always been a two-tiered pricing system, all states do this as a way (rightly) to first uphold the interests of their own residents. This in no way restricts interstate commerce. Some systems are "fairer" than others, some are so complicated it makes your head spin. But that is their perogative. Conceivably, Arizona could by their right restrict all hunting to residents only...there is nothing stopping them from doing so if they, say, hike the resident fees to make up for the shortfall. But, regardless, the determination of whether a 90/10, 80/20,50/50 system is most "equitable" should be up to the state, not by an ill-conceived ruling on the basis of interstate commerce by a federal court.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

it's like saying either "Only black colored people can hunt our elk, or white's have to pay 10x's the price on an elk tag."[/b]

No, but it is like saying students from Washington have to pay 3X more in tuition to go to Oregon State than Oregon residents.

 

[Pa Ridge Runner]

you need not tell me about tuition costs or ask "how much would your kid pay to come to Penn St vs a resident" I had 3 girls that were SUN DEVILS and I paid the freight for it myself. Why cause it was my choice to do so. I didn't cry to the res. of AZ about the cost, I chose to do it.

 

[Monsterbull]

Of course you didn't cry to AZ. But let's stay with the analogy. Say Penn State had to restrict the number of students (to ensure the quality of the resource) and were then required to admit residents and non-residents in an equal chance lottery. Wouldn't that result in unfairly barring some PA residents who otherwise could get an education at their own state school? Shouldn't Penn State have the ability to determine how many non-resident students are admitted and how much tuition to charge them?

 

[wmidbrook]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

But if you extend this to every conceivable happenstance, by this reasoning there is no justification for having states at all.[/b]

....now that's one heck of a slippery slope if I ever heard one.

Bottom line is, you are restricting an outfitters ability to earn a living by limiting the number of non-residents who can hunt in state....the more non-residents who hunt, the more business there is for outfitters. Let's face it. The non-resident demand is greater than supply for almost all hunts in the west now. And the opportunity for non-residents to hunt is unnatually decreased by non-resident quotas. Non-residents cannot compete on a level playing field with residents for tags because of both quotas and pricing structure.

And believe it or not, there is a huge market for antlers/horns now. It is very true that you can receive thousands of dollars for big racks. A plugged full curl set of ram horns fetches over $100,000 in asia.

Also, price-discrimination is illegal. You can bet there will be lawsuites over that too.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Of course you didn't cry to AZ. But let's stay with the analogy. Say Penn State had to restrict the number of students (to ensure the quality of the resource) and were then required to admit residents and non-residents in an equal chance lottery. Wouldn't that result in unfairly barring some PA residents who otherwise could get an education at their own state school?[/b]

What your advocating is protectionism and barriers to a service--education. How states have gotten away with such policies is beyond me. It should be unfettered supply and demand. I would presume it's a reflection of the liberal professors being in bed with our liberal politicos and their policies which have historically been for protectionism and not for free trade.

Every non-res kid I knew @ UCD 25 years ago, became a resident after 1 year and quit paying non-resident tuition fees.

I challenge anyone to find an example outside of education where there's discrimination based on residency...as far as I know, there is none.

 

[COHunter]

Man what is happening to the folks on Jesse's ???

They brag about how Conservative and Republican they are on other forums, but when it come's to hunting they want to take from the guy that has something (Tags) and give it to the poor unfortunate masses.

Hmmmmm

I'm sure a lot of attitude's would change if this was happening in their state. If you were told you had to stay home and not hunt whether it be a Deer or a Quail. I can remember my resentment to NR hunters in 98' when I didn't get a Buck Tag and the DOW didn't sell the leftover tags.

I know a few people that still went hunting without a tag. Which I bet increases in AZ this year.

I bet the Anti's and Animal Rights groups are just loving this. Hunting is becoming so commercialized and all about gettin the highest B&C head that eventually we will destroy it ourselve's. I know too many people that have just quit because of losing places to hunt or too large of crowds, or the cost involved (even locally), ect..... Whats really scarey is these people no longer have any reason to vote for Pro-Gun/Pro-Hunting elected officials.

 

[Monsterbull]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Non-residents cannot compete on a level playing field with residents for tags because of both quotas and pricing structure.[/b]

Who ever said it is supposed to be a level playing field? The fact that states grant permits to non-residents at all should be at the state's discretion. That there is reciprocity between states is fine. My objection is only that a federal court has passed judgement on something where it should have no authority in my opinion.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

What your advocating is protectionism and barriers to a service--education. How states have gotten away with such policies is beyond me. It should be unfettered supply and demand.[/b]

So where do you draw the line? As a citizen of a state there are certain rights and priveleges that come with that citizenship, just like there are other rights for being a US citizen. Do you advocate extending unfettered supply and demand to non-citizens? That would be like advocating giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens.......uh, wait that's exactly what's happening in California! (Cripes, will some NASA chimps with sign language ability come in and take over my state, please?!?!). Here's some bananas:

Anyway, I think the whole point of this discussion revolves around the commercialization of hunting; you know what they say, "follow the money". I figure my chances of getting an Arizona bull elk tag will not be any better, nor will I pay any less should I be lucky enough to draw. The only beneficiaries are USO and their ilk. But the unintended consequences, those are the suckers I worry about.

 

[Pa Ridge Runner]

Some of you should remember this thread next time you look down your noses at a guy that goes to a high fenced elk preserve to get an elk.
'Cause right now I'm think with all this doom and gloom spinning about the downfall of the elk hunting for residents, I wish I owned an elk farm!

 

[wmidbrook]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Who ever said it is supposed to be a level playing field?[/b]

......exactly, that's at the heart of this debate imo.

Non-residents subsidize resident tag fees and only get "unfair, disproportionally smaller slice of the tag pie than residents" (that's the kind of thing that ignited the Boston Tea Party)

Some think it should be, others not. Simple as that.

The states will still manage to get their budgets, manage their wildlife thru their own quotas, etc.

Who benefits from no quota's on residency?
--non-residents applying have greater opportunity to draw
--outfitters gain more business from an increase in non-resident demand for services
--businesses that cater to non-resident hunters get more money

Who experiences some loss at first?
--residents experience a decrease in opportunity in their home state

Who wins in the long-run?
--non-residents will probably pay same tag prices as residents ultimately
--Assuming that is the case, serious hunters will have more opportunity to hunt throughout the west....more tags available at more reasonable prices (assumes resident tags and non-resident tags will be priced the same eventually)

Who looses in the long-run?
--casual hunters who aren't willing to travel out of state or apply for increased and more affordable opportunities out of state.

 

[Pa Ridge Runner]

I suggest everyone pay the same amount for a tag NR & R alike...then let's see how many R want to pay the scalper's fee. That way it will free up more R tags for NR

 

[Cahunter]

I would love to see one price for tags. Say a deer tag was 150$$ how many people would put in for one that really didn't want to hunt.

 

[COHunter]

PA Ridge Runner

I can't speak for other state's, BUT here in CO I already pay more for my tag than NR's do. Its called property tax, state income tax, local sales tax, tax on groceries, state gas tax, etc....

I know, I know......Federal Land blah blah blah we all pay for it

And if you want to get real technical, CO individuals and businesses put's more in the Federal Pot than it gets back. Why should I have to pay for the subsidizing of steel workers and coal miners "and" they're pension funds in Eastern states ? just because they're "Battleground State's" that need Federal handouts to vote for what ever party is in control at the time.

I'm sure most hunters in the western state's would love to see NR's protest the cost of tags by not coming.

(except wmidbrook, I think he'd be interesting to chat with at the campfire)

 

[Pa Ridge Runner]

don't you think I pay state taxes in Pa too? How about Federal Income tax on $145,000 a year? I dare say I'm helping to pay for some low life on Welfare in Co just as well as in Pa and everyother state.
What really burns your a$$ is that if it wasn't for NR $ there wouldn't be very many elk in Co cause it is fact the NR commerence $ in Co vs. R. $ per harvested elk is tenfold. And without it Co would be hard pressed to find the capital to keep the DG&F open.

 

[Cahunter]

PA you hit it right on the head. How about the fact that you have to buy a licence just to get a point even if you don't hunt that season. I am sure all our tax money goes to pay for the welfare recipants in every state, I 've always said welfare should only last for 5 years, if you can't support yourself buy then oh well, but thats another issue.

 

[COHunter]

Ummmm.......not to sound too dumb, but we don't stock the Elk here like they do pheasants back east. So if NR's didn't come and spend their money, the Elk would still be here. In fact I bet the Div. of Wildlife would donate a few thousand of em' if you like.

In fact with less money the DOW couldn't play with all the little critters they want released here like the Canadian Lynx so maybe a cut in funding would help them become more efficient.

I ain't into pissin' matches with my fellow hunters, but it does bother me that some hunters think they should take away other hunters opportunity to hunt just because a certain game species reside's where he calls home. I can only dream of Mule Deer reproducing at the rate Whitetails do and have the same season lengths and bag limits you Eastern boys have.

 

[Monsterbull]

I truly don't see what is so complex. The simple fact of the matter is each state can grant permits to non-residents at their discretion. The existence of federal or state land is irrelevant, it is about the game and the authority to permit the hunting of that game. The citizens of the state (not those outside the state) in effect own the game, it doesn't matter if the animals live on federal, state or even private land, they belong to the people of the state.
I don't like paying higher fees for non-resident permits than anybody else, but I don't want the federal government intruding where they don't belong.