USO fighting AZ over NR fee increase

[Coues]

"The one thing we all seem to agree on is that PURE GREED is a work here. AZ residnts asked for our help hurting USO bottom line by protesting, now I would like to see the residents of AZ and the AZGFD work to stop USO and others WITHOUT sticking it to the majority of NR that do not use USO."

That would awesome.

How do you do it WITHOUT a cap or raising fees?

 

[DAWG]

Two wrongs do not make a right. Pricing out the average working class guy is not right. Just the up front fees is going to reduce the number of sheep and elk applicants to AZ in my household by one out of two. I will not be able to do my 12 year old son. I bet that alone cuts it back significantly. Plus now you have to buy the license to apply, not just to get points. I bet that the 30% will be cut back to around 20% when the dust settles.

And the AZ tag is not as cheap as it seems, when you add up the years of buying licenses for points. I really do not mind reasonable fee increases, but doubling it or more in one year is not reasonable. And, yes, if I hunted on the license, I would not mind buying it, but paying a fee for points that I can not use is a rip off.
Nothing is as bad as it seems, I bet the end result will not be as bad as you think.

 

[AzBuckSnort]

Remember, Judge Broomfield did not say that AZ could not prefer residents over nonresidents in the big game drawings. He said the state had to implement a less discriminatory method than the "up to 10% cap". In fact his ruling states that the state can prefer residents over nonresidents.

It is also a fact that a highly inflammatory letter, sent out by USO's George Taulman to thousands of nonresident applicants, seeking donations to fund the legal challenge against AZ's resident hunters is what started the process. It appears Mr. Taulman intended to pit residents vs. nonresidents all along.

It also seems that thousands of concerned hunters from all over the west banded together to complain about the USO lawsuit and some of USO's sponsors picked up on the negative vibe and cut ties with the outfit.

After taking input from residents and nonresidents alike, the AZG&FD has selected several strategies to comply with Judge Broomfield's ruling. Some of them will be adopted, some will not. The matter of raising fees is a natural course of events that was going to happen in time anyway. Do you interpret the Judge's ruling to imply that AZ couldn't raise its' fees for licenses and permits? How could anyone think that when the state's big game permits are under-valued when compared to what our neighboring states are charging for the very same opportunities: Utah Paunsaugunt mule deer $568.00, New Mexico High Demand/High Quality elk almost $800.00, Nevada bull elk $1000.00, California's limited number of tags effectively eliminates nonresident opportunity to hunt elk, sheep, and antelope. Utah offers tiny numbers of tags for nonresident opportunity in their limited draw bull elk areas. As someone earlier posted, the figures put forth by the department are ceilings that would likely take years to reach. Bringing permit fees inline with western counterparts appears to be what the state is looking to accomplish.

IMO, much of this could have been, and may still be able to be avoided, by simply passing a law prohibiting the sale, transfer, trade, or barter of any wildlife parts obtained through the use of a state issued big game license and hunting permit. An exemption for licensed taxidermists would need to be worked out as a provision of the law. Next, the state would setaside 10-15% of the big game permits authorized for the upcoming seasons in a seperate drawing for nonresidents. Any leftover permits after the draw would be available to residents and nonresidents alike in a seperate drawing. This setaside, with tag allotments that would be up to 100% increases in permit numbers from historical draw data, would demonstrate a sincere willingness to comply with Judge Broomfield's ruling.

In the end, can a nonresident honestly say that they should have the same access to tag in AZ as a resident of the state? Really? Do you believe AZ residents should have equal access to your state's premium deer, elk, pronghorn, and sheep tags? I didn't think so.

 

[DAWG]

Equal access, no. Reasonable access, yes. I said before, about 20% of the tags at a reasonable price is about the fairist comprimise all around. I feel that if that were the case, the whole issue would have been avoided too. And CA is wrong, not letting any elk or antelope tags go to nonresidents, but also, there are no nonresident limits on deer or any other big game tags here.

 

[wmidbrook]

"Equal access" is clear--no quotas, no price differences.

"Reasonable access" is very open to interpretation. It reeks of potential abuses due to the elastic language it was written in. And it still is devisive catagorizing people as either non-residents or residents.

What's reasonable? You might think 5% is reasonable like the State of OR while others might think 30% is reasonable.

Let's say courts settle on 20% of tags is "reasonable access". Let's say Hunt X tags are $50 for a resident and $500 for a non-resident. And State Z issues 100 Hunt X tags.

"Reasonable Access Scenario"
Revenue from non res tags: 20 x $500 = $10,000
Revenue from res tags: 80 x $50 = $4,000

Total Revenue for State Z is $14,000

"Equal Access Scenario" - assumes 30% of total applicants are non-residents and they draw roughly 30% of the tags. To keep the revenues the same, states would have to charg $140/tag for both non-res and residents
Revenue from non residents: 30 tags x $140 = $4,200
Revenue from residents: 70 tags x $140 = $9,800
Total Revenue from Hunt X: $14,000

I just don't see many residents not being able to hunt if a tag goes from $50 to around $150 per tag. And if the argument residents use is, "I cannot afford $150"......how do you think non-residents feel about a $500/tag going up to $1,000/tag like Nevada did a few years back~?!

Non-residents are definately bent over a barrel and taking a severe shafting these days!!!

What we are looking at is a shift in philosophy from "Hunting is a privilege" to "Hunting's for the privileged"

This is also tied into a philosophical shift in what the hunting means to people. At the turn of the 19th century, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who saved horns. The media, both outdoor press and t.v. has really propagated the notion that trophy hunting is more exciting than meat hunting and that all this new gee whiz equipment is a must have. It's no longer acceptable in as many circle's to hunt with grandpa's old beat up rifle or shotgun. Just wearing your old clothes in the field no longer cuts it, it has to be specialized camo gear. What I'm driving at is the whole concept of "Tradition of Hunting" has radically shifted over the last few decades.

 

['Ike']

"Anyway, here's to USO for having THE BALLS (and $$$ it took) to do what they did..... "

Oh yes, ol' George is all about 'you' and me!!!

He's all about the money, such as some people only want to chase, or be able to chase 'trophy' animals..........Give me a @#$%ing break!!!

Wm do you really care about the game in AZ, NV, or UT? No, you only want to hunt there after the STATE has done all the work to get the herd/animals to where they are........By the way how much '$$$' did you give George/USO 'to do what they did'? Or again, are you just 'piggy backing' off of someone elses work? Thought so!!!

 

[paulc]

As long as there are more hunters and less hunting oppurtunities, money will play a role.
You can hate USO as much as you want to, but, you are being naive.

Maybe not everyone can afford high quality units, but, almost everyone can afford a cow elk tag or general unit. Not saying its fair, but, it is the evolution of hunting.

 

[Coues]

There are no general units in AZ and cow tags were never capped. Deer tags south of the Colorado were never capped either.

 

[wmidbrook]

Ike, you seem like a good guy for the most part. Enjoyed reading about your Graylodge hunts and NV hunt when you drew the tag.

I'm a bit suprised by the personal attack which seemed like more of a reaction rather than having anything based in fact....that's a pity.

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

Wm do you really care about the game in AZ, NV, or UT? No, you only want to hunt there after the STATE has done all the work to get the herd/animals to where they are........By the way how much '$$$' did you give George/USO 'to do what they did'? Or again, are you just 'piggy backing' off of someone elses work? Thought so!!![/b]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here....

Assuming you meant, do I care about wildlife. Yes. I fail to see any detrimental effects to wildlife management as a result of this lawsuite. Can you explain to me how this law suite has hurt or will hurt wildlife?

And I understand you're mad at USO because quotas are now the same for residents/non-residents in AZ. You're more likely to draw a tag in AZ--does that make you mad too? Maybe you can tell us a little more about what exactly makes you feel so threatened about this?.....I'd like to understand where you are coming from 'cause all I see here is hatred of USO and not much reasoning or thought behind it.

 

[Mr.Redneck]

from a prospective elk hunter!

I think that the residents should be getting the majority of tags, but I also think that there should be a quota of tags divvied out to non-residents. I think that it is complete utter BS, to charge a hunter more for a trophy animal than an average animal, at a state level. It makes the state sound like a game farm!!! As a resident of a state which treats non-resident hunters quite well, I wish we were able to get more reasonable treatment elsewhere. I think all of the states overprice NR tags, Ohio included. If the price gouging continues, hunting will be a rich man's sport, not a commoner's. I personally appreciate the OTC tags in Colorado, because they will enable me to have an opportunity to pursue an elk this fall, regardless of whether I draw. Being an Archery hunter, it will be a little less crowded where ever I go in comparison with the gun season. I think all of the NR tags probably should be lottery, and most resident tags should be OTC. I wish the USO good luck in getting price limits on tags, but as far as their suing in NV for lost outfitting fees, they can cry that river elsewhere.

Doug

 

[COHunter]

wmidbrook
I am not personnally accusing you of what he said about not caring about the wildlife, only hunting them, but there is that feeling.

Hunting is equal for everyone. We are all Resident hunters in the States we reside in. I'm sure you would be upset if all the private wetlands in CA were leased up by high priced outfitters and Nonresidents, and Nonresidents were drawing all the reservations to hunt the public refuges and you couldnt get on. You'd be looking for limitations too I bet. How are you gonna get your kid to become a hunter if he/she cant ever get the chance to hunt ?

Doing away with Nonresident limitations would have have a positive affect for "YOU" in the short term, but hurt hunting as a whole in the long term when all the current hunters (who are getting older as a group) die out

As for California , they do have a way of limiting Nonresident Deer hunters by the way the "STATE" manages they're deer herds. Who wants to spend $300 for a forked-horn with only a 10-15% success rate ??? But thats what the hunters that live there want

 

[Coues]

ONCE AND FOR ALL:

Setting aside tags for NR no longer cuts the mustard. It's illegal in the 9th circuit and rumor is USO is now preparing to go after Utah and NM. Not sure what circuit they are in, but they now have a precident to follow. Even if AZ decided to set aside 99% of the tags for NR, it would be illegal.

If it were that easy, there would be no talk of jacking up the tag prices to this degree.

I am just asking for someone to tell me how resident hunters can be protected. Not just AZ, but CA, NV, UT, and so on.

BTW, just so you know, AZ has some of the lowest herd numbers for deer, elk, and antelope of any state in USA. There is no way they could support a OTC hunt. We are lucky to still have the OTC archery deer hunt.

 

['Ike']

Ahhhhhhhhh Wm, don't take it serious!!! I get fired up over USO, as they are not really for the 'hunter' as they claim.........Sure it looks good, for them, but not in the end! It's all about money in their pocket and be damned the residents of the states they go after. Oh yes, we in CA will get it to..........

As for the lawsuit hurting hunting and herd management, yes it has a posiblity to do just that if the Fed's get involved..........How many years has hunting and regs been left up to the states? They've done just fine until someone couldn't draw the tag they wanted.....Well now that it's the way of the land (suing someone if you've been wronged) here we go...........

When you watch, year after year, residents not being drawn for their own state hunts.......You start to see their point about how many non-residents should be able to come in and hunt.........

I grew up in DF&G as it was my dad's career......I've been lucky to hunt all over and in many states, but I take my chance in the draw, just like everyone should.......I don't feel I should have the same chance or pay the same price as the residnet of the state I apply for. I'm not paying their taxes, why should it be the same.......Oh but wait, some say we're in the US and it should be the same! Each state was set to run itself, that's why we have state agencies within........Of course there is the Federal Gov, but hey we could live in Russia to!!!

Not trying to stir the pot, or attack anyone in general, but I don't agree with a 'law suit' to settle things when I don't get my way.........Don't like to see the price go up either, as it will surely hurt the sport of hunting (Rich mans game!).........

Everyone wants a chance at a big bull, buck etc..............Shoot, I'd like to draw a tag for every species we have here in CA

.........Have I, no!!! Should I sue because of it??? Guess I need to look into that!!!

 

[schmalts]

Here is my 2cents. All states have the right to manage game as fit. But all states are different in the fact that all have a huge variety of how much of the land is fed owned. It is a compromise in my opinion. The states with more federal land used to Graze the states animals for free need to pay out a higher amount of grazing rights in the form of big game tags. A state that its total elk herd on 80% federal land should have to give out a lot higher percentage of nonres tags compared to a state with 10% federal land.
The statement that someone that lives in a state should have cheaper tags because he pays higher taxes is really stupid. State, income,fuel, ciggarett and property taxes in ANY STATE provide no signifigant if any funding for wildlife, sorry but face the facts. Wildlife is funded by hunters, in state and out. The fed land that the animals depend on is highly funded and maintained by the federal Govt, Taxpayers, USFS and BLM. the in state hunters provide no more funding of the land than a nonres.
Bottom line is there needs to be a compromise. I feel that there should be a set in stone nonres quota depending on how much of the elk and deer ect.. habitat is on federal land.
When guys start saying that the state owns the elk and no one else has a right to hunt them i say this... if they are your private animals then either get them off our fed land unless you pay grazing rights the same as cattle. I want payment in tags.... compromise will be the best thing. and i say the percentage of nonres tags should depend on the percentage of fed land that makes up the elk habitat. Not saying that residents should have less tags but just there should be something set in stone by the fed govt for the land use to settle this dispute.
Arkansas has a huntable elk herd now, killer bulls too. they give out no nonres tags on the federal land portion, i think that is plain wrong. The main herd is on the Buffalo river national forest, we all own it. while the residents should get most of the tags since they started the re-introduction i feel 15-30 percent of the tags to nonres would not be out of line for land use fees.
Anyone agree??

 

[COHunter]

Schmaltz
So using your logic, does Colorado have the right to ban all Nonresident hunters since we only get back .78 for every Dollar we send to D.C. ? We're getting screwed out of 22% of our money !!!

We are paying too much for the Federal Land in Colorado and the other State's should pony up the difference.....right ?

Federal Land Private Land ain't got nothin' to do with it. Its all about greed.

Its hunters with the"Its not fair that Elk live in they're State and not mine" attitude

 

[DAWG]

One thing for sure, if it happens to one state, it should happen to them all. Picking on just a few would be discriminatory. If all states had no nonresident limitations, fee differences between residents and nonresidents, then it would all average out. What you lose in your own, you will gain in others. The price charged may vary from state to state, and states should set their own game management and tag quotas in any case. Tag distribution and game management are not the same.

 

[schmalts]

Originally posted by COHunter@Jan 20 2005, 06:08 PM
Schmaltz
So using your logic, does Colorado have the right to ban all Nonresident hunters since we only get back .78 for every Dollar we send to D.C. ? We're getting screwed out of 22% of our money !!!

We are paying too much for the Federal Land in Colorado and the other State's should pony up the difference.....right ?

Federal Land Private Land ain't got nothin' to do with it. Its all about greed.

Its hunters with the"Its not fair that Elk live in they're State and not mine" attitude

What are you talking about??? the portion of fed land in CO is not funded more by CO residents than any other state. I dont see what you are talking about.

 

[Coues]

I knew it was just a matter of time till some one brought up the bogus "federal Land" issue. No one is keeping you from utilizing federal land because of your state of residence. You are not charged more to access Fed land nor are you denied access to it. Just make sure you have a valid permit before you kill one of the state managed animals.

Still, no one has an idea on how to distribute tags fairly without a cap?

 

['Ike' @ HM]

No kidding!!!

schmalts, where are you from??? Maybe you can tells us what your state offers to non-residents............Have any 'Fed' land I can come claim?

 

[eddiehsf]

Coues

What is "fair" ? I say 80-20 or 70-30. I also say my tag shoud only cost 3-5 MAX what yours cost.

That is my

Other peoples thoughts are different, some say 50-50, you say set it back to 90-10 or what? Please tell me how many tags you fell NR should get out of a 100, also plase tell me what a NR should pay for a tag that you pay $100.00 for.

Right now its all tags in one pot, so the rsidents reaction is to charge the NR up the A$$ for a tag.

Like I said, find a way to regulate USO and other outfitters, not the NR hunter.

eddiehsf