Non-resident discrimination

Wes

Wes

Very Active Member
Messages
1,165
I just received this in an e-mail from the Nevada Outfitters and Guides association.

CONGRESS ATTACKS
HUNTERS? RIGHTS
2/28/05
Dear Fellow Hunter:
Your right to hunt and fish on federal public lands . . . lands you and I
and every other American own . . . is about to be taken away from us via
legislation by our very own Congress.
A Bill introduced in Congress by Nevada Senator Harry Reid (S # 339) and
another by Colorado Representative Mark Udall (H.R. # 731) will allow the
Rocky Mountain States to exclude you from hunting and fishing on National
Forests, BLM and other public lands solely because you are a nonresident.
In fact, every State could keep you out if this law passes.
This bill will allow states to discriminate against you, to treat you like a
second-class citizen, and to deny your right to apply and hunt for elk, mule
deer, antelope, sheep and every other specie on public land. States could and
would impose stricter nonresident limits than on residents on public fishing
areas.
Senator Reid calls it ?A bill to reaffirm the authority of States to regulate
certain hunting and fishing activities.? Its? real purpose is to circumvent
recent court decisions that favored nonresidents and allow
states to again discriminate against nonresidents in allocating
licenses, limits, and setting license fees. In other words,
States could restrict nonresidents, like you, from
receiving any licenses to hunt or fish on public lands, or
allow States to charge you thousands of dollars for the
same hunting licenses that residents would pay only a few dollars for.
This isn't make believe. Even though the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled in
Hughes vs. Oklahoma, that the wildlife belongs to all Americans equally,
nonresidents are still subjected to severe discrimination today. Let me give
you just a few examples:
Colorado no longer allows nonresidents to apply to the Ranching for Wildlife
Areas. Once nonresidents were removed from these high quality elk and deer
areas, the State passed a quota on nonresidents to keep them from drawing too
many of the few remaining high quality tags left to apply for in the State.
New Mexico?s highly prized Valle Calderas National Preserve was bought
for $101 million in Federal money just a few short years ago. Now the NM
Game and Fish Department has put a strict quota on nonresidents. Last year
nonresidents donated over 65% of the application money for these elk tags,
but only received 19% of the tags. New Mexico?s sheep license is $3000 for
nonresident and $100 for a resident.
Utah, just in the past few weeks, passed a regulation starting in 2006 that
will give 25% of the existing nonresident tags and a paltry 5% of resident
tags to a yearly convention in Salt Lake City. The rules allow you to have
a chance of getting one of these tags only if you travel to Utah in person
and apply. They know you won't. In other words, they will transfer these
nonresident tags into resident hands. In more discrimination, Utah does
not allow any nonresidents to apply for the draw to obtain the high quality
Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit tags, only residents.
The Montana process keeps you from drawing the quality tags; they only allow
nonresidents ?up to 10%? of the sheep, moose, and mountain goat tags. When
applying for the quality limited elk areas, you have to first apply for the low quality
combination tag which is guaranteed to be drawn every two
years. Residents get to apply yearly as their combination
tags are over-the-counter. Once you have drawn the
combo tag at a cost of $660, then you reapply for the
quality limited areas. At one time, if you did not draw
the quality tag, you simply sent the poor quality combination
tag back to them for a refund. Montana did not want the
nonresidents to return these licenses so they passed a regulation
that you could only get a 50% refund for the poor quality
combination tag. So it costs you $330 for a 1 in 20 chance
of drawing a quality tag or you are stuck with the combination tag.
Not a tough decision for nonresidents to not apply, so the residents win . . . again.
In Wyoming, nonresidents apply nearly blind at the quality limited entry tags.
Wyoming gives up to 20% of the elk tags to nonresidents, but deducts two
nonresident tags for each nonresident landowner who qualifies and owns as
little as 2000 acres in that unit. But when they calculate the draw odds, they
act as if each tag was in the drawing. Trying to get this information on the
real numbers is time consuming, usually inaccurate, and often exasperating.
For added discrimination, Wyoming uses an outdated true preference point
program and quota system for their sheep and moose that gives you virtually
no hope of drawing unless you started years ago. Wyoming also forces you
to hire or use a resident to hunt wilderness areas.
Arizona and Nevada were highly discriminatory toward nonresidents until
the recent ?Montoya vs Manning? decision by the Ninth Circuit United
States Court of Appeals which forces these States to treat all hunters equally.
Arizona now is looking for ways to dodge the law and
actually advertised for ideas on how to discriminate
against nonresidents. They may try to take elk licenses
up to an outrageous $3200 each. Nevada already charges
$1200 for an elk tag to nonresidents. Nevada is also
attempting to defy the court system by only opening up
certain units to nonresidents and excluding nonresidents altogether from
millions of acres of federal lands.
On top of all this discrimination, nonresidents already pay the majority of
the budgets for the Rocky Mountain States? game and fish departments, even
though we get only a fraction of the licenses. In addition, Arizona, Nevada,
Montana, and Idaho collect millions of dollars from nonresidents each
year for general hunting licenses. They basically extort money from the
nonresident because the nonresident is forced to purchase a general hunting
license in order to either apply and/or obtain a bonus point. This general
hunting license rarely gets used so it is free money to the State. Little does
the nonresident know that the quota is the main deterrent to his drawing a
tag. It is about to get worse if S. 339 and HR. 731 becomes law. These Bills
expressly permit unlimited discrimination on price allocation on all lands
and waters.
If these bills pass, it won't matter if you have family in one of these western
states or own property in the state. It does not matter if you hire a guide or
not, does not matter if you are a bow, muzzleloader, or rifle hunter, and does
not matter if you have served your country in the armed services. As long as
you are residing in another State you will feel the sting of discrimination.
Ranchers and farmers won't be able to sell hunting opportunities to
nonresidents. So much for private property rights!
This is bad. Very bad. This is un-American and the greatest threat to the
hunting tradition to come along in a very long time.
We must act now, together, to protect our right to hunt, fish, and travel in our
own country. As American citizens and the bill payers, we have the right not
to be discriminated against because of the State we live in. We live in the
United States of America, remember! This isn't about States rights! This
isn't about conservation! It is about selfish and politically influential local
hunters wanting to keep everyone else out of our federal public lands in their
State, nothing more.
Due to many years of litigation and personal sacrifice, courts are now
supporting the nonresident. Now only the politicians, like Reid and Udall,
can pass legislation to continue the discrimination against us. If residents
of the states outside of the Rocky Mountains don't speak up against this
legislation, you stand to lose your right and your children?s right to ever hunt
in a quality unit in the Rocky Mountains.
You and your friends must call and mail your States? U.S. Congressional
Representatives and U.S. Senators. Tell them to oppose
S. 339 and H.R. 731. This is the most important
task you must do. Attached is a sample letter. Lift out the
paragraphs you like and send it to your own Representative.
Contact your local and national hunting organizations and tell them the
importance of defeating this legislation. Don?t let them use any excuse,
even if their headquarters is in one of the Rocky Mountain States trying
to take your rights away, they are supposed to be representing you, not
trying to obtain tags and hunting opportunities for themselves.
Non-taxable donations can be sent to the Conservation Force and label them
?Nonresident Legal Fund?. For more information, call or e-mail:
Conservation Force United States Outfitters, Inc
3900 N. Causeway Blvd. Suite 1045 325 Santistevan Lane
Metairie, LA 70002-1746 Taos, NM 87571
504-837-1233 505-758-9774
504-837-1145 Fax 505-758-1744 Fax
[email protected] [email protected]
You can get your congressman?s e-mail, phone number, fax number, and
mailing address at www.senate.gov or www.house.gov.
We must act now, together, to protect our right to hunt,
fish, and travel in our own country.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-01-05 AT 05:47PM (MST)[p]Is the Nevada guides and outfitter's association the ones who put this out? If it is, it not a very smart move in this state. You got probably 95% of the sportsman in Nevada who support this bill. Good Bye outfitter/guide tags next year. From what I've heard most of the outfitter's/guides in Nevada are for do not support opening are state up for a free for all.
 
There is a difference between making non residents only 20% of a states tags and charging some ridiculous price for the tag. States can always just shut their doors to non residents completly. Then you could have your precious hunting areas to yourselves and you would have to pay the sixty percent missing from the Fish and Game budget.
Then we would just move to your state take your jobs and hunt in your precious hunting areas.
Then youd have to make it illegal to move to your state for reasons involving hunting. Eventually you have to draw a line or well all be confined to the county we live in and cant hunt outside of it.
 
It was sent to our association by this group or person. Conservation Force
A FORCE FOR CONSERVATION OF WILDLIFE AND WILD PLACES
FYI -- Please read and send on to your non-resident clients, past and present
John J. Jackson, III, Conservation Force, One Lakeway Center, 3900 N. Causeway Boulevard, Suite 1045, Metairie, Louisiana 70002, (504) 837-1233, (Fax: 837-1145), [email protected], www.conservationforce.org

This is heading exactly where I've been saying for years it would. Hunters will be the end of hunting for the average hunter. All the whinning about not being able to draw a tag and calling for more restrictions that will hopefully increase one groups odds over another will eventually eliminate all but the wealthy from being able to hunt. I am not a fan of George Taulman but hunters themselves better get involved in this fight or we're all going to be out, except for the wealthy. Remember, if you want to hunt in another state YOU are a non-resident. States don't care who they sell the tags to , only how much they can sell them for. This is a very devisive issue and it is manipulated by special interest groups to be between resident and non-resident. In this article it shows where Utah took 25% of the non-resident and only 5% of the resident limited entry to sell at auction. Residents think, "Who cares". Well when they've taken all the non-resident tags where do you think they'll look next for more tags to sell? The average hunter better start screaming or he"ll be out in the cold!
Wes
 
You can't actually believe that part about some states shutting out non residents completely? That is just scare tactics by USO and their welthy supporters. I enjoy hunting in other states, but I do not believe that I should have the same opportunities to hunt in Wyoming as someone who lives in Wyoming. I think that a fair compromise should be considered before this issue devides sportsman even further. States where tag competition is tough should be between 10-20%, maybe 15% to nonresidents would be a good compromise. Other states like Colorado and Wyoming should allot a higher percentage to nonresidents (personally I feel 40% is pretty liberal). Just my opinion.
 
First they should get an attorney to correctly interpet what exactly Hughes Vs. Oklahoma actually says. It doesn't really say what they are implying here: Here is what Huges says

III.Hughes v. Oklahoma And Other Decisions Interpreting the Federal Commerce or Privileges and Immunities Clauses Does Not Affect the Validity of the Doctrine of Public Ownership of Wildlife As a Background Principle of States Property Laws.

Similarly, in Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 402 (1948) the Court described the public ownership doctrine as but a fiction expressive in legal shorthand of the importance to its people that a State have power to preserve and regulate the exploitation of an important resource. While this language could be interpreted to undermine the notion that the public ownership doctrine represents a relevant background principle of state law in the context of a takings claim, that reading would be mistaken.

First, it is apparent that the statements in Hughes and other cases are explained by and logically confined to their particular context, challenges to protectionist state legislation under the commerce or privileges and immunities clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Hughes, for example, involved an appeal by a Texas resident from a conviction under an Oklahoma statute prohibiting the transport outside the state of minnows procured from Oklahoma waters. Douglas involved a commerce clause challenge to a Virginia law forbidding fishing by federally licensed ships owned by nonresidents. Toomer likewise involved a constitutional challenge to a state statute discriminating against out of state commercial fisherman, but one brought under the privileges and immunities clause. In discussing the doctrine of state ownership of wildlife in these cases, the Court was simply explaining its conclusion that state public ownership doctrine cannot, under the federal Supremacy Clause, stand in the way of federal constitutional provisions designed to prevent balkanization of the national economy. There is no basis for thinking these decisions have any particular significance outside of that context.

In Hughes, the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896), in which the Court sustained a Connecticut statute forbidding the transportation beyond the State of game birds that had been lawfully killed within the State. The Geer decision rested on the theory that the prohibition in that case did not effect interstate commerce. According to this theory, the State owns all the wildlife in the state and therefore can condition the ownership of game taken within the state by prohibiting its removal from the state. The state?s power to condition private property rights in wildlife implies, in turn, that the sale of wildlife is not commerce at all. As the Court explained in Hughes, Justices Field and Harlan dissented in Geer. They would have affirmed the State?s power to provide for the protection of wild game, but only ?so far as such protection... does not contravene the power of Congress in the regulation of interstate commerce.? 441 U.S. at 328, quoting Geer, 161 U.S. at 541 (Field, J., dissenting); id. at 543 (Harlan, J., dissenting).

In Hughes, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively embraced the position of the dissenters in Geer and overruled that decision. However, the Court confined its holding to the commerce clause context, stating that [w]e now conclude that challenges under the Commerce Clause to state regulations of wild animals should be considered according to the same general rule applied to state regulations of natural resources, and therefore expressly overrule Geer. Hughes, 441 U.S. at 335. Emphasizing the narrowness of its decision, the Court stated that the general rule we adopt in this case makes ample allowance for preserving, in ways not inconsistent with the Commerce Clause, the legitimate state concerns for conservation and protection of wild animals. Id. at 335-36 (emphasis added). Hughes and other related decisions leave the public ownership doctrine untouched as the basis for state regulation of wildlife, so long as the regulation does not implicate the anti-economic-protectionist goals of the federal commerce clause and the privileges and immunities clause. See Shepherd v. State of Alaska, 897 P.2d 33, 40, (1995) (state ownership doctrine retains full vitality absent a conflict with paramount federal interests).

Second, an expansive reading of Hughes would contradict the deference to state definitions of property interests which is at the heart of federal takings jurisprudence. Just a few months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court in Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 118 S.Ct. 1925, 1930 (1998) reaffirmed that the Constitution protects rather than creates property interests, and that the very existence of a property interest is determined by reference to ?existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.? See also Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1030 (referring to the Court's traditional resort to ?existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law? to define the range of interests that qualify for protection as ?property? under the Fifth (and Fourteenth) amendments).

Whatever other differences may distinguish the U.S. Supreme Court's commerce clause and takings jurisprudence, it is clear that the takings clause, rather than trumping State definitions of property rights, depends upon and incorporates State definitions of private property rights. It would literally turn federal takings jurisprudence on its head to conclude that the takings clause could be interpreted to encourage or authorize disregard for state property norms, including the doctrine of public ownership of wildlife.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-01-05 AT 08:40PM (MST)[p]It basically says that the states own the wildlife and they are free to manage it as they see fit as "trustee" of the public wildlife. The states cannot inter with powers reserved by the constitution for the Congress. It does not say that all wildlife belongs to all people of the United States. Sorry if I confused you.

Nemont
 
I dont feel that will ever happen for a couple of reasons mainly money. But for sarcastic sake you have to draw the line somewhere.
I also feel that residents deserve alot better chance to hunt in their home state but why such a disparity in the price of a tag. All its going to do is make hunting a hobbie for the wealthy, not the everday local who is the core of hunting.
 
USO back to their tricks again.These bills will stop USO from trying to take over the management duties of Fish& Game. Idaho has OTC tags so nobody is going to lose their license money here if they don't draw a LE permit. They can still buy a tag & hunt about 75% of this state on said OTC tag.
Although the southwest states have some real premium hunts they don't have the elk population of say CO, ID,MT,etc. When you have half the elk as some other states NOT EVERBODY is going to get to hunt them every year no matter how many 350 +bulls are in the herd.
USO doesn't give one rats a$$ about the elk. All they are after is more money.
This issue is about states rights. Each state has the right to regulate its hunting & fishing.Our state constitution says nothing about USO or any other outfitter setting our seasons or dictating our tag quotas. foxtrot4elk "Those who would give up freedom for security deserve niether freedom or security." Ben Franklin
 
Right now it appears to be a Resident vs. Non-Resident issue, and you can pick which side you're on, and make a pretty good case.

With limited numbers of big game animals available, and the increasing demand for tags, soon it won't matter if you're Resident or Non-Resident. Only the rich need apply.

Some States might leave one or two units open to the general public to fight over so they can say they care about the little guy. Units where a 2 year old 3 point will be considered a trophy.

The average hunter will be out hunting squirrels, rabbits, and possibly waterfowl.

The future of hunting, in my opinion.

Keep selling those public land animals to the highest bidder. It sends a real good message!

Steve
 
This letter was sent out by USO and their ilk to solicit donations to beat down the proposed legislation to return the power to the states. Some of you guys caught it immediately but they have duped quite a few others. It is made up of 1/2 truths to decieve the average guy into sending in a donation by thinking his right to hunt will be forfeited. It clearly is smoke and mirrors at it's finest. This type of underhanded approach is just what these guys are all about.

If George Taulman was legitimately interested in the preservation of hunting why doesn't he just get out of the outfitting business and do something to benefit us all? Why are all of his legal actions predicated upon his companies loss of revenues and the actions freely admit that they don't hunt for recreation clearly for profit?

Why would he threaten legal action to block the hunting season in NV. to violate the rights of others who have no interest in the action?

Why would he make accusations that the states will ban nonresident hunting when it's perfectly clear that the revenues from that enterprise significantly help fund the game & fish departments in the western states?

What other revenue source could they adopt to make up for the lost revenue to continue operation?

Why would he make such gross misrepresentations to landowners.

Why would members of the US Congress think it is necessary to propose legislation to offset his actions? If it was in the best interests of the nations people doesn't it appear reasonable that they would have left well enough alone instead of serving the minority (hunters)? Why is it this bill is garnering bipartisan support in both the house and the senate? Could it possibly be to right a wrong!!!

One merely has to answer a few of the questions above to weigh the facts and it becomes clear that the only interests USO has are self serving. They have absolutely no interest in preserving the rights of the common man to hunt be he a resident or a nonresident alike in an economical manner, because they are competing for the very tags he needs for personal enrichment.
 
ddy58,
Don't know where you live but I bet just on an income basis a lot of westerners would switch you incomes in a heart beat.

It is not resident hunters whom are your enemy. It is wealthy NR hunters who do not want to wait their turn for a tag. Who do you think USO is out to help? Most residents I have talked to, at least those with 1/2 a brain, understand that NR have to have a chance to come west and hunt. What happens though is that F&G depts. want to generate maximum revenue from a very scarce resource, NR hunting tags. There is a nearly unlimited amount of money chasing a very limited number of tags. If NR would quit buying the tags and boycott the states altogether then the state would be forced to change their way.

That is not currently what is happening. The states are able to sell all or nearly all of the tags available at inflated prices. They would be stupid not to do it. The locals all have their legislators answering to them and the politicians want to keep their constituents happy so resident fees are lower and more tags are genrally available.

Attitudes like you display shows that USO is getting exactly what it wants, to pit NR vs. Residents, Hunter vs. Hunter and only hunters will lose regardless of how this is decided.

Nemont
 
eelgrass is right...I have said it many times on this website. It will be in our life times that the only people allowed to hunt will be the ones who can afford it..They are crazy to limit the nonresident more then they already do!!. It's the nonresident that creates most of the revenue for most western states. It's a "multi-billion" dollar business for Wyoming alone!!!. Tell Wyoming they are going to cut back nonresident tags and lets see what happens. I'll bet you'll see lots of push back from their state reps.....
 
Colorado allocates 45% of it's tags to non-residents, that's pretty fair. I noticed the first post mentions Ranching for Wildlife. I vote we let non residents in on that, it will make more good tags available since RFW ain't worth beans unless you are meat hunting.

BeanMan
 
Regarding Non-residents having equall hunting opportunities on federal grounds.

1. The people of the US may own the ground, but the state owns the wildlife and the right to manage it as they see fit. Different states have different philosophies when it comes to non-residents, and that should be at the discretion of the states wildlife managers.

2. Public land does not generate any property tax income for the western states, hence less money for schools, state agencies, etc. The western states are huge compared with eastern states, but if you just look at the small amount of private land and small populations that are providing the tax base to support such a large land area you can see that we are at a disadvantage compared with eastern states. If western states have to bear more of the costs associated with public lands it only makes sense that they get more of the benefits.

Dax
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-02-05 AT 06:07PM (MST)[p]Just a little more info for anyone interested. You do have to purchase a license & tag before you put in for a LE permit in ID.If you don't draw you may either obtain an otc tag for a general hunt or recieve a refund minus a $6 application fee.Hardly the loss of your $128.50 license fee as stated in the letter at top.Just another lie to swing people to there side.
Now I'm not against outfitters as a whole but some of them here in Idaho if they had there way,would support a total ban on DIY hunters non resident & resident alike.Some (not all) of the panhandle outfitters get awfully anal when we run into them in the woods up here. They seem to think that any place they guide should be their sole domain & tend to let us know it.I believe that USO is definetely of this thinking.
One more thing,Idaho gives out 12,015 otc deer tags,10,415 otc elk tags for non res. + 10% of 12,917 LE deer permits go to non res & 10% of 21,339 elk LE permits also for non res.
Is this a fair amount? I honestly don't know. It seems reasonable on the surface. I have nothing against non residents hunting here. I was a non res for a few years and paid the price to hunt here. I have also purchased leftover non res tags before (at non res price) to go after another deer or elk when I have tagged out early & my addiction would not allow me to sit out the rest of the season. & yes this is legal in Idaho.
I can understand a guy saving those pnts & money to hunt AZ,NM, Nevada & Utah for a chance at a monster bull. But I submit that there are a lot more big bulls killed in the "meat hunting states" than you're hearing about. Most of the locals are certainly not here on MM bragging up their 350 plus bulls but they are out there on public land & can be killed w/ a good ole guaranteed otc tag. Just something to think about.
I'll quit rambling now! LOL


foxtrot4elk
 
NeMont,

PILT pays less than property tax on private land-owners would. In 1999 Utah was paid $0.30 per acre, Idaho was paid $0.26 per acre, and Nevada got a whopping $0.13 per acre of federally owned land. I guess there is some revenue, but not much compared to what private property owners would pay.

Don't get me wrong, I think that there should be a reasonable opportunity for non-residents to hunt. I really dislike the Wyoming law that forces non-residents to have a guide when on wilderness lands. I also think that North Dakota is ridiculous in only giving 1% of mule deer tags to non-residents. However I still feel that locals should have preference when it comes to consuming local resources, and that it is the perrogative of the local fish and game agency to decided what is the best way to distribute tags.

Dax-
 
I'll state upfront that I'm a nonresident who likes to hunt the western states. I'm naturally biased against the increasing trends in more restrictions/costs, etc.

In my opinion, I think the USO case was able to have success because some states are just going too far with the restrictions. These animals are primarily living on federal public land. The federal land management agencies are paying for the vast bulk of the actual habitat management on these lands - not the states. State funds are going to management of the ridiculously convoluted sets of hunting regulations that their programs have evolved into, game wardens, and game population surveys. The only reason that court case was successful was because they blatantly went too far.

I agree that residents should receive preference - be it in the form of price, more tags, whatever. But states that are giving nonresidents 10-20% of tags AND charging us 10X resident license fees are going too far.

By the way, nonresidents can still hunt COs RFW hunts by buying tags. The fact that the "free" public hunts on those ranches that you draw tags for is restricted to residents is perfectly fine to me. As nonresidents, we can hunt those ranches for a price. Not that many of us can afford it. I just hate getting penalized on both access AND price.

223098.jpg
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-03-05 AT 09:57AM (MST)[p]I have spoken to a lot of people about this issue and it always comes back to the same set of points to disagree about.

1. That almost all animals in Western States only live on Federal lands. I have yet to see any scietific data that supports that position. Also in our legal system there are numerous Supreme court cases that reaffirm the State's ownership of the animals. Unless it is a migratory wildlife population, ie waterfowl, then the Feds don't get to manage the hunting of that species.

2. NR don't want to pay 10 times what the residents pay. I can understand that but if the states are able to sell all of the tags at those prices, what pressure is on them to reduce the number of tags? There is a lot of money chasing those tags and the guys from USO only increse the demand for the tags.

3. NR's want 10% to 20% of all tags which I don't think is unreasonable but that is not what USO is worked up over. They want unlimited Landowner tags, they want EVEN chances for resident and non residents alike.

USO is getting exactly what they want. Hunter Vs. Hunter and in the end we all lose by fighting amongst ourselves. I have asked what NR hunters would view as being reasonable in regards to tags and prices. I have yet to have a workable solution sent to me. One that won't hurt both Residents and NR.

Nemont
 
I don't know that a workable solution to this issue will ever be found. I may not clearly understand all of the issues as they pertain to the Constitution, but I do understand that if hunting opportunities for residents are threatened because of non-residents desire for more tags, it WILL be hunter against hunter. I admit to being somewhat selfish. I can understand someones desire to come out West and hunt. But I also feel residency of ones state should also include some advantage. I think in the long run the NR will get some of the things he wants. I also think hunting may suffer as a result. mtmuley
 
Here is my idea to ease the comflicts over non-resident quotas and difficulty of drawing the premier hunts. Any hunts with 10% or less, non-resident restriction, should be once-in-a-lifetime hunts, for both residents and non-residents. Hunts with 10-20% restriction should have 5 year waiting period for that species. Above 20%, no-restrictions, apply every year. Just my two cents.


Ken M.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-04-05 AT 09:06AM (MST)[p]KMUR, since I don't know where you reside I'll ask you one question. Do you have to wait 5 years or more to hunt all big game in your state? Based on your recommendations above that's what you're asking the majority of all the hunters in some of the western states to do. More applicants cannot improve the odds in a system that is already oversubscribed to start. How can that be fair when in the eastern states they don't have a drawing and they can kill more than one deer in a year in some states.

It's not as simple as it seems, more opportunity for some, usually results in little to no opportunity for someone else when the resource is limited.
One of the things that can improve this situation is to work to improve the habitat and reintroduction of the species to offer more hunting opportunity with increased numbers. We are already doing this in many areas but we need to work improve our efforts so more people can benefit.
 
Its funny that some people are arguing for something they already have. Between the MM boards, magazines, and other forums, I have and continue to constantly read about how there should be equal access to Federal Lands. Guess what, THERE IS equal access to Federal Lands. Nonresidents have every right to come to AZ and enjoy the national forests the same as in their state. The only you cannot do is HUNT. And that is the way it should be. It is the states and their residents who manage habitat and do the manual labor required to maintain these habitats, not the Federal Government. The only way you can argue equal access to hunting on Federal Lands is when the Federal Government takes over all 50 G&F departments, creates a national regulation booklet, and significantly expands the USFWS to take over the duties of the former state G&F departments. Not likely. So I invite all nonresidents who believe they should have equal access to federal lands to come to AZ this summer and camp out for two weeks and just see how much access and ability to use YOUR national forests you have. Go horseback riding, shooting, hiking, boating, 4wheeling, and just have a good ole time. Its equal access you want to the lands right? Just because some of these animals live in national forests, does not automatically make them owned by the nation, no matter how much you want them to.
 
Just a little tidbit of info to mullover. If it wasn't for NV RESIDENTS introducing elk in NV we wouldn't be having this conversation. If it wasn't for NV RESIDENTS fighting for their desicrated deer herds in the 80's we wouldn't be having this conversation. Why should USO or anybody else but NV decide when, what, why, how, and who hunts here. The above is a good enough reason for me to think the states should decide the fate of their herds, NV is not the only state that has taken the initiative to save and manage its wildlife to give its RESIDENTS the opportunity to harvest quality animals.

I'm not saying stop non-res hunting all together but I am advocating states choice whatever they decide is just.

If any of you non-residents would like to move here and pick sh-t with the rest of us to make a living, you can find a moving company in the yellow pages.

If Reids bill in congress doesn't pass we will be forced to move to the big cities in another state so we can have a better chance to draw for NV.
 
nvdn4huntn-Your first post was excellent!

It is the residents who volunteer to put in water guzzlers, re-establish habitat, round-up/tag sheep and deer, report locations of sick wildlife, and volunteer their time to teach hunter safety classes. It is also residents who sit on the Wildlife Commission who enact regulations to protect, manage, and increase healthy herds within the state.

Since USO is in the money business of selling big game hunts to affluent hunters, they should start purchasing big game ranches, raise their own animals, and sell them to the highest bidder.
They could have a couple of Elk farms, a Moose ranch, and even a Sheep mountain with a tram to the top.

Ed
 
And Georgie could be count'n his money all the way to the bank and leaving the rest of us sane hunters alone.

Thanks Ed, I'm sick and tired of all the fuss over this and can hardly wait for the end, however it ends. Its funny how all these people aren't around to plant anything but are the first ones here with a fist full of money for the harvest. Get off your butts and get involved in your own states wildlife and make some good things happen. Who knows someday everyone might be fighting for tags there also.
 
This instance may involve Nevada, but this is an issue in all the western states. I agree that residents need to work to make their states the best they can for hunting, now and for the future, but you make it sound like Nevada is the only state whose residents work for their herds. I would imagine that alot of the non resident hunters in Nevada are from surrounding states. States that Nevada residents hunt. So instead of trying to make this a state on state argument we should spend this time to find a way to limit the Outfitters influence on all of our states. If you limit the big business portion of hunting all the little guys in all the states will win.
 
And don't forget that any nonresident in the country already had full access to hunt the fabled north of the Colorado River mule deer herds in Arizona on the Kaibab, and in portions of the Strip, with the simple purchase of an over-the-counter permit. The only restrictions being that the hunt must be with archery equipment and during the late summer/early fall seasons.

AS for elk hunting, just about any nonresident could have found a virtual "lock" draw for an antlerless elk in any number of AZ units. It boils down to the lust for a trophy set of elk antlers taken by any means and a set of mule deer antlers taken with a centerfire rile bullet or a slug from a muzzleloader.
 
AZBuckSnort,
THANK YOU!! Nothing finer than the truth. This really is what it all boils down to. It has nothing to do with "hunting opprotunity" its all the desire for a huge set of antlers.
Don't get me wrong I like big antlers too! I've killed one "big" bull in my life. The other 9 have been spikes & raghorns. I've seen guys on here say they would never shoot a raghorn. Well I hunt hard & long but I take what shows up. I enjoy hunting & I enjoy shooting elk regardless of antler size and I enjoy eating them.
I "trophy" hunt until a legal animal steps out in front of my bow or muzzleloader then I let fly.(Probably why I only have one set of large antlers!!! I don't like passing up legal elk LOL) If all hunting boils down to is 400" bulls & 200" bucks well then save your points save your cash & don't complain. There aren't enough of these animals for all the resident head hunters much less the rest of the US hunters dreaming of killing a monster.
I'd much rather hunt every year and have a good chance at killing an elk and "maybe" kill a big one,than put in for ten years for a LE (you name the state) to try for that monster.
Just my 2 cents.


foxtrot4elk
 
Azbs and foxtrot,
Do you guys apply for LE hunts?
Since you guys are meat hunters, why don't you start buying otc and left over tags, that way there will be more LE tags for us 'trophy hunters'. After all, it's all about 'hunting opportunity' right?
 
Non-residents should by no mean have as much opportunity to hunt in the state as a resident in fact I wish they would cut down on non-resident hunters. I admit some are good people and I have no problem with these, but I have run into a great number that could care less about the land and scenary. They are going to ruin it for everybody else. They have got this idea that they can do whatever they want because they don't have to deal with the land every year. I have ran across some that are breaking laws and could care less. I'm not putting this on just non-residents, but people who have a reckless regard for land in general.

huntervirg
 
I hunt in Ca where there are virtually no nonresident hunters. And nothing is different. Anywhere you go your going to have resident or nonresident idiots. I think the biggest thing is the difference between people that live rural or urban. This doesnt apply to all rural and city people just a trend Ive noticed.
 
I absolutely apply for LE or LO permits, 6 states last year, and drew none anywhere. At no time did I indicate I was strickly a "meat hunter". What I did point out was that ANY NR in the country could have come to AZ and hunted the Kaibab for WEEKS and chased muley bucks so long as they hunted with a bow and arrow. No one in AZ has ever denied any NR the opportunity to hunt big bucks north of the River, they just had to do it with archery tackle. IMO it's about having a better chance of killing a buck with a rifle bullet or a muzzleloader slug than it is about enjoying the experience that drives the NR advocacy groups.

Most of the NR, if not all, applying for the deer hunts in AZ live in states that afford them the opportunity to hunt buck deer with a centerfire rifle &/or muzzleloader EVERY YEAR. Not the case here in AZ, many residents, if not most residents, go YEARS without a permit of any kind to hunt buck deer with a firearm. Since we chose to support restricted hunting opportunity to produce an older age class of bucks in specific herds, should we now be forced to allow our sacrifices to directly benefit you the NR hunter? I honestly believe no; however, since that's the way the Court has ruled, and our own AZG&F Dept minimally advocated state residents' rights, I believe AZ residents should now advocate a new policy of huge increases in permit numbers to increase hunter opportunity and get more of us AZ residents back into the field to hunt buck mule deer.

Honestly, I'm sick of reading all the posts on this issue that claim NR applicants had "nothing to do with the USO victory". BS, USO's website literally boasts about how your generous donations enabled them to win the day on your behalf and get your right to "fair access" to AZ's bucks and bulls. USO's pleas for donations must have worked as your cash donations enabled their highly skilled lawyers to act as your advocates to get you more opportunity to draw a tag I haven't had sine 1990! So give yourselves a pat on the back and a big atta-boy for your generous support of USO's assault on resident hunter opportunity. Do I feel residents should have preference over NR? You bet, and so did the judge that ruled in Manning V. Montoya, too bad our own G&F were unprepared to vigorously defend residents' rights. Ask yourself Mr./Mrs. NR of AZ applicant, do you want your states' bucks & bulls tags to be distrubuted with no preference to residents and nonresidents alike? If you are honest you know you don't.

Just about every NR I have had the opportunity to meet in the field has been a good ambassador of our hunting heritage. I'd like to think the same could be said of me by every resident that has met me in their states' hunting grounds. I, like I assume virtually all AZ residents, hold no personal animas towards any NR that hunts in my home state, just don't expect me to happily applaud in support of your new-found access to our hunting fields when it is so exceedingly difficult for us to obtain the very same opportunity.
 
Nvdn4huntn,
You bring up how NV RES. introduced elk and saved the deer during the 80's but one could also argue that it was FEDERAL GVT. funds during the great depression that saved your entire state. Las vegas would'nt be the bottomless money pit as it is today for the state of NV if it were'nt for the GVT (U.S. taxpayers) funding construction of the Hoover dam.

Also, " All these people are'nt around here to plant anything but are first with a fist full of money to harvest". I think the $140 Nv makes me donate annually for a bonus pt gives me a free pass to pick up NV trash.

450 res rifle elk tags @ $120 vs 23 nr rifle elk tags @$1,200 is part of the reason this whole problem is blowing up today.
 
Well.....I just received the same letter.......but it is directly from US Outfitters.......go figure........They are asking us to write to our representatives to support them.

Although I am a non-resident most places I hunt, I do not support the BS taking place. Resident of their respective states should have the benefit of the hunt, so long as there are a fairly reasonable amount of permits allocated to non-res. I think most states do an ok job as they are, but some charge a bit much. Why charge $1200 for an elk???
Anyway.....guess I better start a savings fund for my kids - so they can afford to hunt when they are old enough.....As said before----it's becoming a sport of the wealthy.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-10-05 AT 10:04AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-10-05 AT 10:02?AM (MST)

I really don't think the price of tags has much to do with why this has blown up at all. The real reason this has blown up is because some people believe they have more of a right to hunt than others and they will pursue any means necessary to make it happen. It's kind of ironic isn't it, in that, these individuals need the little guy to amass their fortunes as employee's of their companies, yet stand in the way of the other guys employees to enjoy the same opportunity to hunt. Do you honestly think that being drawn for that increased NR. permit in a different state helped the little guys chances of getting to hunt? The permit numbers are based on the resource and once again the little guys rights are compromised. Was a modification needed, YES and most of the states have adjusted their numbers upward accordingly. The system really wasn't broke but a few wealthy individuals decided it was time to manipulate the system to their advantage. Now they want equality across the board. USO knew exactly what they were doing when they started this greedy mess and brought this plague upon us. The letter is a sham but what would you expect from USO. I personally threw my letter in the trash putting it in it's rightful place now if only I could get George to come by and he can join his letter! He knows that this bill is the single largest threat to his retirement package and he's starting to squirm thinking about how it will impact his business, and hopefully be the start of it's demise.
 
Just remember that the NR foot alot of the money for your F&G dept as they get priced out where will the F&G turn for more income, You guess it the "Residents" will be hollering about those 400 dollar price tags for hunting there own backyards,look you can see it happening already, more and more tags are getting auction to the highest bidder,Those same tags aren't put in a draw for residents to draw, They are sold to the guy with the most money.What happens if the Fed's close off all Federal land to hunting because of the states trying to over-price the NR tags Where in the Hell do you think WE all will be sitting then. If we don't stick together we WILL fall one by one.
 
Gator,

So what is the solution. I have put in for LE tags in Montana for Sheep, goat, moose and Special LE Elk tags in the Missouri Breaks for 27 years. I am a life long Montana resident. Do you know how many LE tags I have drawn in that time? 0, nada, none.

So tell me the solution. I have hunted out of State, even out of the country before and have always understood that it costs more. If the Federal lands are shut down to hunting what does that prove other then everyone one loses. Wouldn't that also mean that everyone is being discriminated against by their own government. Also who is going to police all these millions of acres? That is a pretty lame arguement to be making. The people of this country own those lands but they do not own the animals.

I don't have the solution but if you think every resident of a Western state has a cushy deal for tags you are wrong. More and more land and access is being bought up or leased by wealthy NR hunters. Fee hunting is increasing every year. LE tags are in short supply for EVERYONE not just NR hunters.

I stood up for the Resident hunters in Arizona, wrote letters, sent emails, voice support in their fight against USO. I understand Arizona has a limited number of tags and residents should get first crack. I only ask for a chance.

You could hunt in Montana every year if you wanted to, Guaranteed tags on an outfitters set aside. It is pay to play and it will only get worse as USO and their like push the courts to open access and grant landowner tags. It will be impossible for anybody but the rich to hunt. So support USO if you want but remember 20 who to blame for ruining hunting.


Nemont
 
This is not meant to lump all non-residents together, nor all wealthy people into a stereotype just general observations and my own personal opinion, I'm not asking you to follow my thinking or opinions.......


There are so many issues that play effect on this..... Payscale and population in most of the west are much lower than urban areas back east. So guys that choose to live in lets say new york, work at some executive office make 60, 100 thousand a year in an urban metropolis should have the right to apply for tags in 14 western states, because they have the right to hunt on public lands????? So they have 14 times the chance that a resident, who lets say is a farmer, who spends most of his year in the fields, providing for his family, and can only afford the $30 tag once a year if he draws? You have the right to hunt in your own state don't you? The difference is the exec thinks that he spent his time and effort to go to college get a high paying job and now that he can afford it, he has the right to hunt all over, because they are "our public lands". Many have made the choice to live out west and sacrifice riches and the urban life, for the outdoors and other reasons. I have nothing against non-residents, brings lots of revenue. But why should I not have the right, because I don't have a degree, don't own my own business, cant out bid you for tags? Well can you build a figure 4 trap, start a fire without matches, do you know your plant life, how to survive eating bugs. Most probably not, but how is your college degree gonna keep you warm, put food in your stomache, when your in the middle of the woods. Many people made their money selling to the average joe. So know that we've fed your bank account, you think you deserve more? Walmart didn't make billions by raising the prices so average people can't afford things. Seems to me they realize the average joe is what really matters. The men that work in factories for next to nothing, farmers and ranchers that put food on your table. You forget you've all made a choice to live where you live and do what you do. If elk hunting is your passion, why do you live where the are no elk. If you live in Florida you expect hurricanes, Midwest tornado's, California earthquakes etc., So if you live somewhere where there are no elk or mule deer, what do you expect. You chose to live where you live knowing the repercussions, live with it or move! But yet you expect me to forego an equal chance to hunt, so its fair to you to hunt 73 species across the globe... Residents deserve to hunt there own state...Nonresidents deserve a chance, but not such a chance that residents get screwed. If all states were mandated to go to an 80res -20 nonres split it would be equal opportunity for all, not just certain states. G&F and the states would still have jurisdiction over herds and fees and could manage them properly with every one standing just as much chance as the next.
 
SirGlassalot,

Thats a fair question! I've been hunting for 25 years.I've put in for 1 LE Bull permit & mule deer twice. (Drew the bull on 1st try,mule deer on second.) Had a blast on both hunts & did not harvest large animals.
I said I don't have anything against big antlers or LE but if thats all the hunting you want to do (or can do because SW states are mostly LE for elk) Then you have to deal with that situation.
I enjoy my personal situation of general hunting,liberal seasons,weapon choices with reasonable chance of killing a bull versus having to wait to hunt a controlled unit. So in 22 out of 25 years yes I have not put in for LE permits.
I will confess that my area is large enough,with long enough seasons and enough elk that I feel I have a better chance hunting otc general season than being tied up in one unit on a LE tag in most instances.
I just feel that there are plenty that equate success with big racks & I feel that this is the driving force causing the greed of outfitters (USO) making 10,000 $ on AZ elk hunts that are pricing out many hunters and the resultant lawsuit trying to take over States rights when it comes to how many elk tags to issue.

foxtrot4elk
 
How many people believe that Nonresidents would completely be locked out of a western state?

How many resident hunters believe that nonresidents would hunt in their state regardless of what the tag costs were raised to?

It is not "greedy" resident hunters who are the real culprit here. It is big money guys who feel they have a right to hunt every year where ever they choose. They do not want to stand in line nor do they want anyone telling them, no. Resident hunters in the western states have a good deal but it is not the sweetheart deal that you are lead to believe. If you want all the advantages of being a resident of a given state, then move there.

Nemont
 
It is not the intention of this bill, the wildlife departments or 99.9% of the hunters in any given state to lock out all nonresidents. Anyone who spouts that is operating on pure sensationalism and should go to work for the Enquirer.

My points are about NEVADA.

What a lot of guys in this argument are missing about NEVADA is they keep using the terms Limited Entry or Landowner or Over the Counter tags. In NEVADA ALL TAGS ARE LIMITED ENTRY. There are NO over the counter, non-landowner big game tags available in NEVADA!!! In NEVADA a RESIDENT MIGHT be able to draw a deer tag of some kind, on average, once every three years. If you are playing for the high end units you are looking at a lot longer. If you want an antlerless tag it will be slightly more often. But to just go hunt deer with the family, you can't plan on it. An elk tag of some kind (mostly cow) theoretically can be drawn by a resident once every 10 years. That's not a primo bull tag mind you, that's some kind of elk tag (at over a hundred bucks a pop regardless of sex). Bull tags run about 1 every 60 years. Antelope is around once every 7 years, desert sheep once in 60 years, statistically. Mountain goat every 161 years and California bighorn once every 188. Rocky mountain sheep is around one in 500. Statistically. On average.

Now show me how we, as residents of NEVADA, are getting such a sweet deal when the guys who b!tch the loudest about this can hunt two or three or more deer EVERY year for maybe 15-20 bucks apiece.

We as residents have been willing to make a certain sacrifices on frequency of hunting in order to have a quality hunt. Now that's biting us on the a$$ because every other Tom, D!ck and George wants to cash in on that quality. Don't come selling me any BS about Hoover dam or federal land ownership because it doesn't wash. Given some time I could probably cite a hundred examples of where the government bailed out some eastern state or city (New York comes to mind). And as for the federal ownership it has been well established more than once by our illustrious court system that the wildlife still belongs to the states. That's the same court system that all the USO concept supporters are loving up to that decided that nonresidents can not be discriminated against. Speak out of one side of your mouths only. Which is it? Are the courts right or wrong?

Sorry for the rant. Hope it makes some sense.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-11-05 AT 06:35PM (MST)[p]I live in one of the remotest regions of the lower 48. I have to drive 2 1/2 hours to do much of my shopping. My pay scale is probablly 1/2 of East Coast and much of California pay scale. I choose to live here. I should be able to draw a tag close to this area once every 3 years vs. once every 6 years. I am not for eliminating non-residents. If you do not think I should have some advantage for drawing a deer tag in Northern Nevada, you are greedy and selfish. I apply to other states, and I do not expect the same chance as the residents of that state. Those of you out East who are arguing the for this know darn well this is plain wrong. What you could/should be arguing for if you were fair-minded, is a modest increase for non-residents, but not a free for all! If this non resident issue is not cleared up, I am for NDOW cancelling the 2005 season. I would donate a couple hundred to keep them afloat for the next year! The deer population could use a boost.
 
Nemont
I DON'T support the USO I'm telling you what can and could happen it the States raise the price to block out NR hunters The STATES will be playing right into USO hands,USO clients will still have the money to still buy tags and Us average joe's will be left sucking hind tit. I was born and raised in South Dakota my family still farms over 10,000 arces there, But if I want to hunt the place I grew up, I have to go to a draw as a NR hunter,Hell I can't even put in for Black Hills Elk because I moved out of state it for residents only. Hell if I could make the kind of money there as I do out here do you really think I would be hear.LOL
USO opened a big can of worms, that can't be put make in that can. I guess it going to the old story that you can't please everyone, I hoping this time around I at least get kissed before I get screwed.
 
LAST EDITED ON Mar-12-05 AT 09:36AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-12-05 AT 09:28?AM (MST)

Gator,

I understand your problem. My brother moved out of state and only gets to hunt big game every other year. He does come every year and hunt waterfowl and upland birds. He also hunts coyotes on federal lands over Christmas break. My family and my wife's family ranch on a couple of big ranches in Montana. He can use landowner preference but that doesn't guarantee him a tag every year. So I am sensitive to the problem. But listen to what you are saying. You moved out of state to take advantage of income opportunities but are unhappy that those who chose a lifestyle over income want to keep up that lifestyle. Does that make any sense?

The little guys are already priced out of hunting. It will not matter is NR fees are raised or even lowered because wealthy people will figure a way to make their $$$ work for them. They will lease land, bid up trespass fees or find some other way to make sure they get to hunt.

The challenge is that there is nearly unlimited dollars chasing a very limited resource. How should the state respond? They raise NR fees and still sell out, Raise them again and still sell out. Until NR quite paying, what incentive do states have to reduce fees? Making a tag available to NR for federal lands only would make enforcement a NIGHTMARE for everyone. I think a fair solution would be to open up more tags say 20% of tags.

There are prime sheep hunting units in Montana that only issue 5 tags if one goes to a NR hunter then 20% cap would be reached but my question is: would that make NR hunters happy? My guess is a 20% would be challenged in court. So maybe a 25% cap, I bet that wouldn't make them happy either. The people with the big money do not want to be told that they cannot hunt where ever and when ever they please, period.

Also South Dakota is an interesting state to bring up. As a NR I can go to South Dakota and hunt pheasants nearly every year but if I want to go down there to hunt ducks or geese I better hope I am one of the lucky lottery winners because they cap the NR waterfowl hunters an 8,000 total. If I used the logic of USO then I should have a right to hunt waterfowl in South Dakota because I am a dues paying DU member and the money that went into getting ducks hatched and heading south means I should get access. You don't hear me griping that is unfair, because South Dakota is protecting a resource so that my son can enjoy it in the future.

Nemont
 
Karlofdawild

I brought up the fact that NV residents planted elk, saved and nurcherd our deer herds back from near disaster to point out to non residents the fact that these same things can be done in almost all the other states.

The depression of the 30's hit the whole nation and the goverment helped them all. Sorry, but you're not going to get me or anyone else here in NV to buy into that analogy. Besides, you are missing the whole picture, as I said before quit harping on this non-res issue that greedy George has started and get involved in your own state wildlife program. Join the RMEF and other organizations and get going on improving your state. It may take awhile but it will help insure the future of hunting for your children and grandchildren.

The biggest problem with this fighting over tags issue is the fact there are only a handfull of western states that have the population and quality of animals. Imagine if there were 40+ states in 10 to 20 years with the same hunting quality that the present states offer.

Like I said before "we wouldn't be having this conversation".

nvdn4huntn

"Pass it on"
 
i'm from wyoming and i'm not a guide but i don't like leading lost hunters out of the mountains every opening day of elk season.
i have had to do it three times once the guy was only 300 yards from the road but he made me take him back to his camp 5 miles away.I had a spot that if he would have sat down with me he would have gotten his elk but he was spooked and couldn't stand to sit there.
i know that most people have good skills in the hills but some don't.
its hard to hunt elk with helocopters buzzing over head looking for lost people. say what you wont but it happens alot here.
as for tags i think its up to the states to make the choices.
feds should run the armies and interstate highways and stay out of state business.
 
if you send your kid out of state to college, do you pay resident tuition? no. know why? because you didn't pay any taxes in that state that support the college. and don't say anything about federal funds. every state gets em. if you want to do anything in another state, you should be subject to their rules. you don't vote in that state, you don't pay taxes in that state, you don't live in that state (unless you're a
@$#%in' snowbird!), you don't contribue a damn thing to that state, so don't complain about how that state does things. most of the guys that are on uso's side live in states that don't even allow nonresident hunting and if they do, their is so little public land that a nonresident can't hunt there without paying a huge trespass fee, anyway. screw uso, screw everybody that works for uso and most of all screw all you morons who contribute to their crap.
 
USO brought this on themselves. They took away the states ability to limit NR tags through a cap, so now the alternative is to discourage NR from applying at all. Thanks George! You're a hell of a guy!
 
Is there a percentage that would be fair?!?!
I was born and raised in Arizona, and in the 22 years I could legally hunt big game I've had 3 elk tags (2 cow and 1 bull) all archery. So is once every 7 years fair for a resident?!?! and for an archery hunt at that?! Also I have never been drawn for what some would consider a trophy Mule deer hunt in my own home state. Is that a fair percentage?!?! Once every NEVER?!?!
Listen, I put in my time. I clean up what is left behind by lesser men in the areas I hunt, I donate my time to haul water during droughts, repair fence crossings and donate what money I can to every game conservation agency in the state. I do this and never once have I thought I deserve a better chance than the next poor Arizona slub to be able to draw a tag in this state but I damn sure think I deserve a better chance than Joe Non-resident who visits his parents once every other year for Christmas and has the resources available to pitch USO a couple of sheckles to get a his app. walked through the process.
The 10% cap seemed perfectly fair to me, hell if it could keep G&F from running mine and everyone elses fees through the roof I'd probably accept 15%. But this whole argument has got to stop,
the whole problem stems from the greed of one outfitter and nothing else. The doors are open now and everyone has an agenda, unfortunatley, FAIR has nothing to do with any of it........
 

Similar threads

BrianID
Thoughts on new Special license fees
2
Replies
107
Views
4k
BuzzH
BuzzH
HntHrdr
Last minute meeting to change Co tag allocation
Replies
12
Views
1k
Joe2Kool
Joe2Kool
J
Mule Deer and CWD
Replies
45
Views
2k
HIcountryman
HIcountryman

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

536CE3D1-48E8-4E27-86E0-4977947D2621.jpeg
D70A96FB-93C8-48D3-9CBB-601E01AED8B3.jpeg
2EBFC118-6C60-4BE1-A069-A0DF6FC656F9.jpeg
1113201335_HDR.jpg
11CE1C6B-2C99-4E69-A090-2EFA2F11545E.jpeg
EF16D3E6-FF45-4CB5-B79B-DFB78BD102C0.jpeg
9897778D-5AAD-4D53-A1B2-3B20AEEE3FF2.jpeg
5293F7B2-FD20-46BA-B83E-155503AED3D9.jpeg
Picture_cell_1396794097969871(1).jpg
IMG_4436.JPG
IMG_20211104_150852_063.jpg
Huge Washington Bull
Back
Top Bottom