USO fighting AZ over NR fee increase

[Coues]

80-20 is fine with me. What I am trying to get across is that the G&F cannot put a cap on the NR tags. So how do you get draw results to come out to appx 80-20 without a cap?

I think the tag prices should be reciprical. If your state charges me $5 for an elk tag, then my state charges you $5.

 

[DAWG]

There are no assurances with higher tag prices or anything else in life either. But nonresident draw percentage should not be any worse than last year, with the changes AZGFD put in place like buying the license and fronting the money. The numbers of extra tags is a pretty good indicator. The added conservation point effect will kick in significantly devaluating nonresident points in a few years. Next year, it will really effecting the top pool. Anyway, this will be a good experiment year, as tag numbers should be down from the extra tags last year. A few percent of a small number translates to not many tags Looks like the legislation to increase the price cap will not go into effect in time for this year anyway. You might be getting worked up over nothing.


And lastly, I and another brought up the point about making profit off of sale of wildlife parts illegal.I never hears why that would not work.

 

[DAWG]

And lastly, a cap is no assurance either. AZGFD screwed up the sheep draw last year, heard a guy mistakenly put a .2 in instead of a .1 into the program, and gave out 20% nonresident instead of 10% sheep tags. Nobody noticed until results were out. Then it was too late to take tags away. They can screw up the draw.

 

[COHunter]

Arizona could do a few things that would be considered "Fair" or "Equal"

1) Require everyone to come to a State Wildlife Office and fill out the application in person (No POA's). Let parents fill them out for there kids of course

2) Accept application only on Wednesday's during the month of June

3) Cash or Cashiers Check only

4) Must have Arizona hunter safety course

5) Require hunters to complete 40 hours of conservation work in the State before they are even allowed to apply for an antlered animal tag.

I'm sure that the wildlife commission can think of something that would pass the test, but I still dont understand why they just dont go to the State legislature and get the sale of hides and horns banned.

Other than that, lobby your State Senators to support Henry Reid's Bill in D.C.

 

[wmidbrook]

State Wildlife agencies get most of their funds thru user fees and federal funding:

From: http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9908/27/wildlife.funds.enn/
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

"Every state fish and wildlife agency faces tremendous challenges trying to conserve a diverse array of wildlife, plus provide for recreation and education all on a shoestring budget," said Max Peterson, vice president of IAFWA. "User fees paid by sportsmen and women primarily finance state wildlife agencies, thus these funds are mostly used for the conservation of game species and are not sufficient to address the needs of all species."[/b]

From: http://www.ti.org/FWtext.html
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

General Funds
Fish & wildlife agencies get minimal general funds from their legislatures. Agencies in about half the states get no general funds at all; half of the rest get under 5 percent of their budgets in general funds, mainly for overhead or special projects.
Oil-rich Alaska is an exception: Nearly half of the budget for its Fish & Game Department comes from the state general fund. A few other agencies get up to about 15 percent of their budgets from general funds, but in most cases these agencies have non-fish & wildlife functions--such as parks, forests, boating, or pollution control--which may be what the general funds are going for. In general, with most states facing budget shortages and voters resisting tax increases, few fish & wildlife agencies expect to get any more general funding than they already have.

Dedicated Funds or Taxes
The real action in fish & wildlife agencies today is in dedicated funds derived from special taxes or user fees. A number of such funds have been tried by various states:  .....

A more popular alternative is to stick it to the out-of-state hunter and angler: Most states charge stiff premiums for out-of-state users. In Idaho, for example, the 12 percent of hunters who are nonresidents pay 58 percent of the license fees. (In the case of anglers, the figures are 39 percent of nonresidents pay 58 percent of Idaho fishing license fees.) [/b]

I've read another article which I cannot find right now but states that most states receive over 50% of their funding from Federal grants---primarily the Pittman-Robertson funds.

So, the way I see it is that in the vast majority of States Wildlife funding is being paid by NON-RESIDENTS!!!! I can think of 2 exceptions: Missouri and Alaska

Alaska gets it from the oil companies---so, indirectly it's non-resident dollars there too.


What's my point? Again, non-residents (federal tax payers) are totally subsidizing resident hunting. The whole concept of using residency as a basis for discrimination has very little basis.

Sure, locals contribute wildlife projects. Farmers managing for wildlife (yes, I think they should get landowner tags), Local wildlife groups (maybe they should earn "tag points" for every X number of days spent contributing to wildlife projects to level the playing field).

I see absolutely no intrusion or federal stipulation by the federal gov't in terms of setting quotas for hunts as a result of these lawsuits. Tag Quota's are the Wildlife agencies primary means of managing wildlife populations.

Sure, if you made the fees for residents say $150 instead of $50 there will be some residents who decide not to hunt. But, I would argue that 98+% of the people affected are your casual hunters....the guys who mostly go up for a weekend to sit around the fire and drink beer....not the serious hunters.

Demand is greater than supply......So, I think states will sell most of their tags anyway except in areas that are undersubscribed....they can do what Utah does and charge more for Premium hunts, etc. to make up for it in terms of generating revenues.

Have you noticed that it seems states with fewer tags for limited entry hunts , e.g. NV, OR, AZ, Utah are the most restrictive towards non-residents??? (again, proves it's an easy political sell to residents; however, very unfair).

Let's face it...maybe only 1 in 50 residents who hunt, contribute to wildlife....I think it's a very, very, very weak argument to state that resident hunters contribute more to wildlife than non-residents. Especially when you consider where most of the funding for wildlife projects comes from---federal tax dollars and national organizations like RMEF, MDF, and DU.

 

[Coues]

"Sure, if you made the fees for residents say $150 instead of $50 there will be some residents who decide not to hunt. But, I would argue that 98+% of the people affected are your casual hunters....the guys who mostly go up for a weekend to sit around the fire and drink beer....not the serious hunters."



LOSE THOSE 98% AND WE ALL STOP HUNTING, FOREVER!

 

[wmidbrook]

Soon it will be very easy to research where states wildlife funds are coming from thanks to the Teaming with Wildlife folks:

http://www.teaming.com/wildlife_state.htm

 

[wmidbrook]

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

LOSE THOSE 98% AND WE ALL STOP HUNTING, FOREVER![/b]

.....sure, but lets face it....if there were a plan to gradually align resident and non-resident fees over a 10 year period, I seriously doubt that demand for tags would become less than the supply of tags.

Demand way exceeds supply for limited entry buck/bull tags. I don't see general tag sales being affected much either by an increase in tag sales.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

http://espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/s/h_fe...3_Burkhead.html
But the chase for tags can often be as frustrating as the actual rugged hunts themselves. With limited big game tags available in some states, especially where great trophy quality exists, there is obviously great demand.

Altimus rates desert sheep tags in Arizona, Nevada and Utah as perhaps the toughest to obtain, followed by Rocky Mountain bighorn tags in Montana. In these instances, hunter demand far exceeds the small handful of permits actually available.

Other difficult tags to draw include mountain goat permits in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah; elk licenses in Nevada and Utah; mule deer tags in Arizona and Utah; pronghorn permits in Arizona and Nevada; and tags for moose in Colorado and bison in Arizona and Utah.

Still, there are a few areas in the West that offer good draw odds, along with a few sleeper spots that go nearly unnoticed by most in the big game tag chase.[/b]

Look @ the facts. Arizona has experienced a steady rise in license fee revenues from both non-residents and residents over the last decade: http://www.gf.state.az.us/pdfs/inside_azgf...ategic_plan.pdf

 

[schmalts]

Originally posted by 'Ike' @ HM@Jan 20 2005, 09:48 PM
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?

Yep, fed land and no nonres quota....
The fed land argument does hold water. like it or not, the majority think so too.

 

[Coues]

The price of everything has risen steadily over the last ten years for the most part. Not just AZ hunting tags.


I wasn't refering to the suppy / demand of tags. I was refering to the political loses hunters would face if we lost 98% of our voters. If you got priced out of hunting your own state, would you be fired up about voting to save hunting?

 

[wmidbrook]

Cous....true. Do you really think that we'd loose 98% of the hunters from raising an elk or deer tag from $50 to $150?

I'd guess 10% at most would not pay it. (maybe this is where we differ in opinions) Plus, they could always do less expensive doe/cow hunts if the state juggled the pricing structure a bit. Also, for undersubscribed areas, discounts should be given.

For high demand areas, higher prices should be paid just like in a free market. Like NM, except without the resident/non-resident two-tiered pricing.

Anywho, I hope you, Brent, Bob et. al. draw and have a good hunt this year.

Regardless of what comes down via the courts or otherwise, I think we here all care about the wildlife and such. This stuff just makes for an interesting conversation.

 

['Ike' @ HM]

Hope I didn't step on any toes, not meant that way!!! I'm not a USO fan and that's a personal thing! I also don't believe in 'suing' becasue it's not going my way..................

It's called hunting and it's also called a draw, not a given. Yes, it could be a little more fair.........Should we have the same rights as the guy in the next state? I don't think so, but again that's just me..........I think we're all lucky just to be able to hunt when and where we can..........Good luck in 05!!!

 

[wmidbrook]

No worries Ike....no scratches in my thick hide.

I hear ya though, big changes get us all stirred up a bit.

 

[DAWG]

Coues,
We have come full circle about the average Joe argument. Too bad our love of the same thing brings such division. It is all about where to draw the line.