all western states look out, Taulman wants your tags too

"One important difference in Montana is that any nonresident can avoid the quota by paying a higher fee for a guaranteed-issue tag, Lane said. That means nonresidents would pay $877, or 55 times the $16 resident elk license fee, for a guaranteed tag. Nonresident hunters can enter a drawing and pay $590 for an elk license, still 37 times as much as a resident pays."

Dam! Talk about "hunter welfare"!

I haven't applied in MT for a few years and had not realized the NR raping going on there! Unreal.

What did they think was going to happen?!
 
I shure wish Arizona could charge 55 times the regular hunting fee that montana gets
 
I wonder if this will come back and bite the outfitters in the rearend. Can the state put new laws in that could limit or eliminate fees made off of game animals??? These clients are paying big money for the chance to take home a trophy head. The state may not have any ground to stand on. Scary stuff when the state loses control to the feds.
 
"Can the state put new laws in that could limit or eliminate fees made off of game animals???"

Ha! Now that's ironic. The state has been in that business themselves for years!
 
A bumper sticker that I saw back in the 70's comes to mind.

"HUNT IN YOUR OWN DAMN STATE!"


:) I can understand where that sentiment came from now.
 
Lets put a Republican twist on it since its an election year. ;-)

Its not "Resident Hunter Welfare" since the money (NR FEE) is given voluntarily. No one is forced to hunt out of state, its a luxery item (NR TAG). Lets be honest about it

Lets call it the "Market Price". The state has a product, and sells it for what the market decides its worth.
 
As a native resident of Montana I have a little different view on the issue. First off I don't agree with the Outfitter Guaranteed Tags because it give a preference to the wealthy.

For those of you who think the pricing is unfair you have not a clue about Montana. If you think the residents are cutting a fat hog you may need to spend some time here.

Granted I am the bonehead who traded wages for a lifestyle but I chose to stay here because of the outdoor and hunting opportunities. If you would like to work in an economy that ranks near the bottom of all the states why don't you come out and set up residency.

I suspect most who are griping about the price of Non-resident tags wouldn't give up their current incomes to become a resident of Montana. If you are not willing to that then you need to pony up the money to enjoy what we have here in Montana.

Note I hunt with nonresident hunters every year. I have met some truly great people and friends who come here to hunt. To a person they say they would pay more then double what they do to come up here.

Nemont
 
States for all practical purposes "lease" our federal land for free because they so called "own the game". Yet are not responsible if "their" game wanders on the highway and I hit them with my car, as cattle owners are. But yet they have NR's subsidize their "hunter welfare" program. Wow, sounds like a great business proposition at the federal land owner's expense. No shortage of folks lined up for the free lunch. Hmmm.....What is wrong with this picture?

The states pushed too hard in their greed for high profits and now someone came along and decided to do something about it. It was inevitable. If it wasn't USO it would have been someone else.

The court has ruled and there is a wind of change in the air.
 
FYI Zim,
You hit a cow in Idaho (and I suspect Montana) and its your problem, not the ranchers. Its a little rule called the "open range law".

I guess in your state they charge residents and non-residents the same price to hunt? I agree that federal land is "our" land but how much federal land do you have in your state? In Idaho, we have counties that are nearly broke because of the high percentage of "our" land in their county that generates very low revenues (payment in lieu of taxes generally doesn't make up for the taxes on private ground)and the counties still have to maintain miles of road through the federal lands.

I'm sorry but I really don't see the "greed" of the states. If anything, resident tags are underpriced. I have yet to see a state charge as much for their tags as what some individuals get for their "landowner tags" that they sell or what an outfitter charges to take someone out.

I have hunted several western states besides Idaho and the cost of the tag was the cheapest part of the hunt.
 
In my state we charge NR's 8 times R cost, not 55 times. 8 times is way too much in my opinion. If it were up to me the charges would be equal. We finally went to reciprocating costs for turkey because of other states high prices. Cutting one another's NR's throats is out of control. It just gets worse every year.

It's not an opinion that fees are too high, it is a fact.

The court has ruled and there is a wind of change in the air.
 
Nonresident tags prices are out of control thats why someone decided to sue and I'm glad they did. It's absolutly rediculous that Montana can charge a nonres. 50 some times the cost of a resident!!. I have said it many times on this website and I'll say it again. If something isnt done to curb the price gouging by the states hunting will ONLY be available to the wealthy...If some landowner wants to charge someone a small fortune to hunt on his proprty I say more power to him BUT if it's federal land then the price of a tag should be the same for everyone....The nonres. is already pumping money into the state he decides to hunt in just with buying gas, staying in hotels, buying food and eating in restaurants.....
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-27-04 AT 11:00AM (MST)[p]Kingfisher,
You are kidding right. If the tags are priced too high then why are there so many willing payers for the tags available? Isn't that what is called the law of supply and demand? Why should you enjoy parity with a resident of any other state? When I hunt out of state I expect to pay more.

Have you read the entire lawsuit and the opinion issued. The lawsuit that USO filed and the opinion of the court does absolutely NOTHING to address the price of tags. It only removes the 10% nonresident cap on available. The lawsuit was a result of the fact the many more people were willing to pay big bucks to hunt in Arizona and were frustrated that their money didn't buy them access.

This will drive prices higher not lower. You should blame your fellow hunters who are willing to pay for the "overpriced" tags that are available.

Nemont
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-27-04 AT 11:12AM (MST)[p]Nemont,
I am DEAD SERIOUS!!!!. You can't overprice hunting if the rich are the only one do it!!!!. How do I blame fellas that will work two and three jobs just to get the equal chance to take a trophy??. Federal land belongs to everybody.. The lawsuit is beside the point Im trying to make. I believe hunting is being destroyed by greedy money grubbing people...The states have figured out how to make hunting a huge money maker does that make it ok to price the average guy out of doing something he loves to do. If the hunting community doesn't start to take a stand on these issues the federal government will eventually step in and do it for us....AKA, The judge bolt decision in Washington state early 70's....This decision by a federal judge destroyed the once awesome salmon runs in my state.....Don't let it happen to hunting...With your analogy I guess I have to blame my fellow citizen for the high gas prices!!! (supply and demand)I don't mind paying a little more to hunt out of state but I do mind being robbed.
 
I agree with you, whole heartedly, that people with money are driving hunting to a rich man sport. The analogy of supply and demand for gas works the same for hunting tags. What would be the price of gas if there was less demand for it? So your fellow drivers are keeping the price of gas high because they continue to drive and the demand for it stays high.

There are several problems with your federal lands argument. First off the state owns the animals so they control the number of tags. Other then Wyoming's stupid nonresident rule in Wilderness areas, your access to federal lands is the same as mine. Your access to tags to hunt an animal owned by the state is restricted because it is a states rights issue. Hunting rights on federal lands are not intertwined with tags to hunt animals on that land.

If a person is willing to work two or three jobs to fund their hunting habit and are willing to pay the high price of a tag why is that a bad thing? Isn't that person basically saying, "I am willing to pay what the state is asking for a tag" and someone who isn't willing to make the sacrifice of three jobs chooses not to pay the high price. If there are more willing payers for tags then there are tags available how do you determine what a "fair" price is?

Maybe I misunderstood your first post when you said people got mad about the price of tags and sued. The truth is that the price of tags was never, ever addressed in the lawsuit or opinion of the court.

If you know a way to make hunting more open to everyone I am all ears but if you are hoping the USO decision is good for non resident hunters you may want to review the impacts of it.

Nemont
 
I think your right about greed.

Too many hunters want to shoot animals in their own backyards and then come shoot them out of someone else's backyard and make him sit out.
 
OK, I have not really weighed in on this whole thing other than to say I don't like it and to warn a few na?ve souls that it is coming to their state. But here?s my 2 cents, and worth every penny in my opinion.

First of all, Nemont is correct. USO?s lawsuit had nothing to do with costs. That's next go around.

Secondly, Nemont is right again. If NR prices are too high why are so many willing to pay it? There?s a saying in business that goes something like ?The price will only reflect what the market will bear?. It's supply and demand baby. As long as there are people willing to pay the price someone will be willing to take their money. Look what you pay for a pickup truck these days for hell sakes. Look at the price to go hunt Stone sheep in Canada. Locals can hunt them every year in some places for what may seem like a mere pittance. A NR needs a guide who charges 18 or 20 grand. Worth it? Not to me but they sure as hell have no problem selling them. Zim, you say your state only charges 8 times the resident fee for NR. But who the hell wants to hunt in Indiana? :) Not nearly as many as want to hunt Montana or Arizona I'll bet. Supply and demand, pure and simple.

I have no say over ?public? land in Indiana, nor should I. I don't live there. If you don't live in _______ (insert the name of any state here) I don't believe you have any right dictating to those who do what should be done there. I am so sick and tired of hearing a few on here say ?it's our land? and the states are only renting, blah, blah, blah. Bull$hit! If it's our land let's see you go out there and try to do something on it for yourself. Something that's not permitted, licensed, regulated, etc by the government. Build a little cabin on ?your? land. Grow a few vegetables. Put up a sign. The land belongs to the government. And before some pseudo-patriotic, head-in-the-sand, idiot starts in with the ?government of the people, by the people, blah, blah, blah?? spare me. More BS. It belongs to the machine we call our government and the lawyers who file lawsuits like USOs.

I apply for big game tags out of my state. However, I apply by their rules, whatever they may be. If their rules say I can only apply for certain hunts, at certain times, in certain areas, that's what I do. If it costs too much in a state for me to apply I just don't do it. If the rules say I am only eligible for a certain percentage of tags, I understand that. If there are animals I am not allowed to hunt as a NR, so be it. I don't go running down to my lawyer?s snivelling about it. If I want to hunt there just like a resident, I need to move there.

Nevada is a popular place to hunt these days. I know people who have lived here their whole life who haven't had a deer tag in years. Can?t draw one. So why should some guy who lives in BFE (sorry B_F_E) have the same or better chance as them? I don't believe they should.

Kingfish, I guess I agree in a way that we can't let hunting become a rich man?s sport. But I don't know what you do about it. Where else should the state game agencies get their money if not from license fees? Pull it out of the sky? Yes they could raise the resident's fees too and most are doing it yearly. But all that really accomplishes is leaving the kids of their own state home instead of hunting. That only compounds the problem. Hunting will die if that happens and at a faster rate than if it becomes a rich man?s sport. I don't think the states are ?greedy?. They are just trying to feed the machine that I referred to above. Their costs have gone up just like yours and mine. The employees want to make a decent living too. They want competitive wages. And the vehicles the agencies drive all cost way more than they once did. And helicopter time, insurance, retirement, boats, trailers, office buildings, etc, etc, etc.

Now think back to the old days (maybe I'm the only one old enough) but when I was a kid, not everybody and their brother went out of state to hunt. Only a few that could afford it did. Wasn?t it a ?rich? man?s sport then too? Rich by the standards of the poor local guy working to eek out a meager living to raise his kids. Now there are too many ?rich guys? guys living in $200,000 homes, driving $45,000 pickups and $7000 ATVs, demanding $25.00/ hour to pound nails, whose wives have $50 finger nails and drive the $40,000 SUV, taking the family to Hawaii or Disneyland every few years or going to Canada to pay $20,000 to hunt. It's not the states that have become greedy. It's that the ?average joe? has become greedy.

I've said it before. USO doesn't give a big rats a$$ about you or any other NR do-it-yourselfer. They don't even care if it's fair or not. They don't care if you ever hunt out of state. They don't care if you ever hunt your own state. They only care about the money they can make. Nonresidents may temporarily benefit from this movement but it won't last long. That's not USO?s goal.

I guess that oughtta do it.

Maybe I'll make it be my new signature.
HUNT IN YOUR OWN DAMN STATE
 
>States for all practical purposes "lease"
>our federal land for free
>because they so called "own
>the game". Yet are
>not responsible if "their" game
>wanders on the highway and
>I hit them with my
>car, as cattle owners are.
> But yet they have
>NR's subsidize their "hunter welfare"
>program. Wow, sounds like
>a great business proposition at
>the federal land owner's expense.
> No shortage of folks
>lined up for the free
>lunch. Hmmm.....What is wrong
>with this picture?
>
>The states pushed too hard in
>their greed for high profits
>and now someone came along
>and decided to do something
>about it. It was
>inevitable. If it wasn't
>USO it would have been
>someone else.
>
>The court has ruled and there
>is a wind of change
>in the air.

Wait a minute here Zim. What did the USO lawsuit have to do with high NR tag fees? Nothing. If anything Arizona's 10% cap was keeping the big money out of hunting in this state. USO has an endless supply of of fat cats who will pay whatever they have to for a good tag. The Arizona cap was keeping USO and these whiners out. THAT IS WHAT THIS LAWSUIT WAS ALL ABOUT! Yes, NR fees will probably be going up next year but think about who brought this on.
Yes, there is a wind of change in the air and in my opinion it carries a foul odor.
 
And when I buy that Indiana tag that "only" costs 8x what residents have to pay, how much public land will I be able to hunt? Or will I have to pay a lease fee to get on private ground? How many mule deer are harvested in Indiana? How many elk?

States getting "rich" off non-residents? The Idaho fish and game struggles to meet its budget each year, so I don't think any states are getting rich from tags.

If there was no demand for the tags because of their high price, eventually the price will go down. But I don't think thats happening anytime soon.

Trophy elk and mule deer are some of the most sought after game animals there are and there are very limited areas where you can hunt these animals, hence more demand, higher prices and BS like the USO lawsuit. Yes, its greed, but if you look at who is making the money its private landowners with game populations who can lease their land or sell landowner tags and to a point the outfitters. The state probably makes less on the animal than anyone else in the chain.
 
>The state probably makes less on the animal than anyone else >in the chain.

idhunters, that's very true. For instance Nevada has roughly 140 desert sheep tags which are split 90% residents and 10% nonresidents (exactly, mind you, unless it needs to be rounded in which case it is usually rounded in the nonresidents favor because the guides are there bitching). So say 126 tags X $100 for the residents = $12600, 14 X $1200 = $16800 for nonrsidents. That's 29,400 dollars to fund an entire program. OK, match that with federal money maybe 100 grand. For a state big enough to throw a dozen Indianas in. That won't buy two biologists and their trucks for the year. States getting rich? Get real.
 
For those of you naive enough to believe USO's lawsuit has nothing to do with costs, let me clue you in.

"USO?s lawsuit had nothing to do with costs. That's next go around."

You got that right. They used one legal strategy to address one inequity. The key is getting that one court victory to acknowledge that interstate commerce was being restricted by AZ's NR restrictions. A very simple concept. However, that concept, my friend, opens pandora's box if you don't get it. It gives them a precedent and leverage in all states. This is a big deal. It goes way beyond money. It's about nonresident discrimination.

Those that don't get that are still clinging to their bull**** "state owns the game" concept with which they claim justify all their state's monopoly management practices. "Supply and demand" don't mean much when a state has a monopoly on game tags!

Last I checked, we still lived in the United States of America. Not the United State of Arizona, or Nevada, or Montana.

The court has ruled.

There is a wind of change in the air, thank god.

If you don't like it, try China. Maybe their system will suit you.
 
Hey Zim, if you want to have the rights of the residents in the western states then get the #@*& out of Indiana and move here. Glad to see you finally cleared up which side of the issue you are on.
 
>It goes way beyond money. It's about nonresident discrimination.

So you're telling me that USO's lawsuit is all about equality for all. Like the civil rights movement? Come on now. It's about money. Period.

You think I don't get it? I get it "my friend". I get the whole precedent deal. Been there, done that. So now we can and will have people from all over (get that, ALL OVER) the country telling us what to do with the wildlife in our state (oh and your state too). Including not hunting them at all. You think some DC or NY lawyer isn't going to see this as a golden opportunity to use this very same ruling as another tool to try and stop hunting altogether? If nonrsident hunters can decide what and how many animals they can hunt the rest of the "nonresidents" can decide not to hunt them at all.

And last time I checked the state did still own the wildlife. It's not a concept. It's still the law, BS to you or not.

And maybe you don't understand supply and demand. If there two of something and three people want them, then supply exceeds demand and the seller is in the drivers seat. If there is one phone company to pick from and I want a phone I have to deal with that one on their terms.

>There is a wind of change in the air, thank god.
Didn't Hillary say that at the democratic convention last night?


>If you don't like it, try China. Maybe their system will suit you.

Right back at ya.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-27-04 AT 02:35PM (MST)[p]Hey zimmer, last that i checked we did'nt live in the
united states of Zim....get real do you really think that you
have the equal right to hunt in any other state as the RESIDENTS
have??? you must have lost your mind. I don't know how the division of wildlife in each state are funded, but in most states they
are funded at least in part by the taxes that each and every RESIDENT pays. So in my world that would mean that the RESIDENTS
should have an edge.......maybe not in your small world...
 
PinionPaul,
We have great deer and turkey hunting here in Indiana and I still hunt here more than anywhere. My bet is that you are criticizing a place you have never even freakin hunted! Maybe you should try it. One evening I saw 1 booner and 4 P&Y bucks in the same field! However, I like to visit and experience hunting all over my country. Don't know where you got "western states". The ruling will eventually be have felt in all states.


NV,
"If you don't like it, try China. Maybe their system will suit you.
Right back at ya."

Hey, dude. In case you didn't notice. Our legal system seems to agree with me. Not you. I like it. I believe in our American system of justice and it appears it is working in this case. Therefore, I'm simply suggesting an alternative for you.

:)
 
Treed,
Off the AZF&G website - In 2003 over 60% of all revenue generated from license sales came from nonresidents! (For 6% of the tags)

I live in the United States of America, not the United State of Arizona, Nevada, or Montana.

The court has ruled.

A wind of change is in the air. :)
 
Hey Zim,
You realize that Montana is about 1/3 public land and about 2/3 deeded. I love how the people use the Federal lands arguement that they should have the same rights as a resident. Get a clue, all this will lead to is more private deeded land posted and locked up, forever, because the outfitters will have a larger supply of wealthy out of states clients willing to pay a high price. Do you believe the price of tags will come down?

If you love hunting western states why don't you move out here? Have your read the decision of the Court? Tell me where the price of tags was addressed? Again you have the right to hunt federal lands just like I do. The state does own the animal if you can't figure that out you need to take a class in States Rights as it pertains to the Constitution. If you are in favor of federal control of wildlife be careful what you wish for.

I live twenty miles from the large single contigous piece of federally owned lands in the continental U.S., The CMR game refuge and the surrounding BLM land holdings, I have the same access rights there as you do. But the elk, bighorn sheep, deer and birds all access the private deeded lands within and adjacent to the federal lands. How do you have the same right to hunt that animal as a resident who lives here and knows the landowner?

You may need to quit smoking that other stuff and come in on the side of hunters rather then profiteers of wildlife.

Nemont
 
>Hey, dude. In case you
>didn't notice. Our legal
>system seems to agree with
>me. Not you.
>I like it. I
>believe in our American system
>of justice and it appears
>it is working in this
>case. Therefore, I'm simply
>suggesting an alternative for you.
>

You only believe in our justice system because it appears to be working on your side this time. If, however the case had been tried in another jurisdiction you might not be such a believer right now. There's a reason that appeal went the direction it did. And USO knew it.

As for an alternative place to live such as China, I never felt any need to change where I live. I live out west. I hunt my states' game animals. As far as I'm concerned it wouldn't bother me if everyone did the same.

Oh and I have been to Indiana, though I have not hunted there. It is truly beautiful in it's own way. But I wouldn't want to live there. Uhhh, so I don't. And I don't hunt there.
 
NVBighorn...well said. In addition the "States" do own the wildlife in their respective states, an upheld legal decision.

from the "Heartland of Wyoming"
 
Zim - You need to clue in a bit and definitely give the "Wind of Change In the Air" thing a rest. Or maybe you are right, and if this wind of change is other states jacking up the costs of NR tags then deal with that change as well and sit back in Indiana and hunt the small parcels of public ground you have there or the small acres you lease provides you with. And you mentioned earlier about states owning the animals, as mentioned that is the case so deal with that. Idhunters made a good point with the fact that in most places in Idaho it is open range, you hit a cow you pay for it, and believe this, in some instances your insurance company has had to reimburse the livestock owner even though your spouse was killed and the cow was on a public highway in the night, that is not the real point here, the point is that ludicrous lawsuits are made daily here in the US and juries that seem to have no grasp on common sense or equality make incorrect rulings all the time, as in this case in AZ. My other issue is, how many of you NR come out and do any habitat improvement work or stay involved in local happenings where you hunt, my bet would be very few of you. In fact most NR hunters ust follow hunting hot spots across the country and once the resource has been impacted you simply move on to another area, not so simple for the resident who has grown up and given much of their time and efforts toward conserving the things they have cherished. Again, as mentioned earlier, I too have good friends that come and hunt ID from out of state, they do so knowing what chances they have in drawing tags or the like, they do so as well without complaining when they don't draw. And in part it is about money when you really get into it. I find it ironic though in some instances. State agencies are in dire need of alternative funding sources and this would take pressure off of NR and Residents alike, in Idaho for example they just completed a strategic plan that polled hunters and non-hunter across the state, 68%(I think this number is correct or real close)of citizens said they would support a small state sales tax increase if the money would go towards wildlife in the state. Good and bad comes with this, more voice for non-hunters, but more money for wildlife management, in conjunction 70ish% of the general public polled supported more land acquisition or habitat protection across the state, but state legislators won't support this because of perceived lost tax revenue. Point is that we have lots of tough choices ahead and it will be difficult to get it done, but the citizens of Idaho have a very definite concern and interest in THEIR wildlife. I don't agree with every opinion shared, but I respect each person's right to have an opinion. Anyhow, the best thing we can do is to stay active and be a voice for wildlife resources. ciao
 
I have read all of the posts on this thread with great interest. First of all, I agree with NeMont wholeheartedly, as I am also a Native Montanan. Everything from rights, to the Constitution to greed has been addressed. Although these things concern me, one of the issues I have a problem with is if every Tom, #####, and Harry with 16 bucks in their pocket and a tank full of gas could come to Montana and hunt elk (or deer or sheep or moose and so on for resident fees.), the hunting here in Montana would go to $hit. There is already enough crowding and competition in this state. If I felt like hunting out of state, I would gladly pay the non-res fees. I live and work here for the outdoor opportunities. And by GOD, I don't want a bunch of sue happy out of state disgruntled people like USO messing up a good thing. If all of you that are slobbering all over yourselves as to the ultimate outcome of this, I wish you could walk 10 or 15 miles in my shoes. mtmuley
 
Most folks on here here have their own self interests at stake, regardless of the principles of our Constitution. Hard to believe anyone could possibly defend charging a guy 55 times what he charges another.

IDArcher, Why the heck should nonresidents drive out to MT to do conservation work when they are already financing 60% of the whole freakin F&G budget! It's that type of thinking that brought on the AZ suit to begin with.

The judge has upheld the constitution and there are a lot of folks that simply must learn to comply. It won't be that bad.
 
>Most folks on here here have
>their own self interests at
>stake, regardless of the principles
>of our Constitution.

And you don't? Spare me. This isn't about the Constitution to you or USO. That's just the tool they used to sway a judge. For you it's about increased opportunity and for them it's about money. Constitution my arse.
 
No kidding...When you think about all the resources ( money, time, effort) that go into a hunt, the cost of the tag is only a fraction.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-03-04 AT 11:42AM (MST)[p]Nemont

Don't confuse kingfish with me "Kingfisher".

Bob
 
Guys-we are wasting time on some flatlander that has nothing better to do than piss people off. Zim, I have hunted Idaho and met the absolute toughest men in this country. You keep squawkin about your rights to do what you want there. Trust me pal they can scare you so bad you will run cryin back to your momma. If USO ends up winning this they will not be able to hunt anywhere without an armed guard and that won't do them any good. I also think there are winds of change and trust that this will end up at the supreme court and be decided in favor of the states. Problem is between now and then there are a hundred ways the states can resrict your access and that would be a shame cause most non-res hunters are not like you and we would welcome them.
 
Zim 60 % percent of license fees are do not make up the beudget of the AZ G&F. What is the percentage of non residents fees paid for their license' in IN? Look it up then get back to me. The only thing to hunt in Indiana is Deer im guessing as far as a trophy type hunt, which I dont even care about really, concerning myself, I hunt lesser trophy deer in WI when gicven the chance, but I pay to hunt there I think like twenty times the resident cost. Thats just the way it works. But if you think the G&F relies on NR license fees entirely for their budget your misinformed.
By the way I checked and have a question, how come your mailing address for an AZ tag for Elk is in NM?
 
Bugler-BINGO! Nice find. I bet old Zim is a good USO customer which kinda explains the position. How about it Ramshorn/Zim? Hope we can meet when you come out here this fall. I'll be the big old dude in the camo thong yellin "here Zimmy Zimmy". What a joke.
 
Now that is funny. I needed a laugh.

To all you AZ folks heading to the G&F meetings this week, keep up the fight.

S/F
 
I'm not surprised after his statements on the Indiana Bowsite forum. He told of meeting Taulman and staying at his house a few years back. I pointed that out in the other long thread that was going on but after that and when Zimney threw a tantrum and told me I needed to be paddled by my momma or some such thing that thread disappeared. Don't know why.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-03-04 AT 04:17PM (MST)[p]If I interpret the USO lawsuit correctly, it only concerns Trophy elk and mule deer, as stated by the definition of "commerce"-heads/horns and hides. If that's the case, then the AZGFD should enforce the same rules and regulations that the Apache Indian Reservations use regarding trophy hunts. Charge a premium fee for trophy hunts, charge trophy fees based upon rack size, require native guides (in the states case-Arizona based guides).
I believe that the reason USO did not sue New Mexico over NR tags is because practically any landowner in that state can aquire "landowner tags" and can sell them to whoever they want to-at any price. USO has a substantial operation near Reserve, and if I were to guess has a abudance of "landowners" willing to sell their tags. They run a typically unscrupulous operation there, using aircraft to spot and "persuade" their prey into a desired area. I have heard this first hand from many of the residents in the area, including my in-laws. All have complained, very little has been done to enforce the law. I, as a Arizona resident hunter do not want that type of operation in my state.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-03-04 AT 04:46PM (MST)[p] I think even the landowners over there are getting sick of him. I have a friend who lives in one of the Gila units and receives landowner tags ( 90 acres ). In the past USO would mail him a check along with an agreement to purchase before he even had the tags in possession. Well couple of times he sent the check back in the post paid envelope with a few very choice words for George written accross the face. They leave him alone now. He prefers to sell his tags directly to the hunter if at all possible.
 
Something else to ponder to all who scream "it's federal land." NR's are NR's. When a European or Asian national gets your permit, we'll all say it's federal land they have the right? NR's are just that, whereever they come from. This issue is going to speed up the end of hunting via escalating costs. NR's, accept your situation and deal with it. I'll reckon NR's are going to be dissapointed in the amount/cost of permits available to them in the coming years. Residents vote, their legislators, commisioners etc. will listen.
 
Zim,

It is time for you to open your brain. You are the typical flatlander that wants the same priveleges of those who live and pay taxes to the state they currently live in. Lets get real. I am sick of hearing about how USO is justified in their actions, they have screwed hunting for the middle class. Because of this, the typical person applying for a permit tag is not going to be able to afford it. You whine about tag prices but support the evil behind all of it. I am suggesting to the AZGFD to raise the cost of a bonus point to the maximum permitted by law. I hear somewhere it was 10%, it this is the case, the NR would be paying somewhere in the $250 range for a bonus point everyyear. It probably takes on average 5-10 years for a tag, that would be at least a $2000.00 dollar tag for NR. I dont think that raising prices is the solution and it sucks that it even got to this point, but we might as well charge the fair market value of the tag. This whole situation sucks and is a crock. It sucks for the hunting community as a whole. I hope USO has the worst hunting season ever from people making their hunts less enjoyable to screwing them out of some trophy animals. They deserve it. People need to recognize that they are a bunch of crooked jokers that only care about money.
 
OK, I have been here reading all of these posts for quite a while, and now it is time to do what we as American Citizens have a RIGHT to do, let's take a vote, with the MAJORITY RULES.


BS Hunting Club Co-founder
 
I'm new to this site but who is this Zim guy. It appears all he is about is lower cost tags for nonresident hunters and can't even remotely grasp the concept that this lawsuit is going to push things the other way. His protracted logic is only overshadowed by his unwaivering commitment to the immediate cause of his concern! Hey ZIM tag prices are going up because your friends at USO are driving them up for profit. Direct all those arguments at them! The wildlife agencies of the west only increase tag prices every 4 years or so. But I'll bet my hat you see major increases across the board next year and the following year as well. And while you're sitting there pondering why you can't afford to put in in for the same number of hunts next year ask yourself one question. Why did all the states raise their prices on tags about the same time? What would have caused them to do this to me? Then give your old buddy George a call and thank him for what he did for you. You might even want to apply for a job with him because I'm sure he's an equal opportunity employer. You might as well get on the payroll so you can get paid to spread a little more of that USO manure around.
 
It was interesting that at the 8/3 meeting one of the AZGFD employees compared the Euro/African model of hunting to that of the North American model of hunting. The Euro/African model is an elitist group in which only the wealthly can afford to participate. It's sad that the USO Taulman folks are pushing us in that direction. Believe me, AZFG does not want to raise tag fees, that much was evident. Also I think their ability to raise fees for 2005 is resricted by legislative action if I heard correctly.

Zim is off Walleye fishing this week, as Arnie once said,
" He'll be back!"
 
It's a simple solution. The demand for hunting tags is extremely high, yet the supply is very low. Therefore price needs to be increased. Price the tags high enough that they balance out, period!

I hate hearing all the "I have a right" crap. What other area of our life?s do we just "have a right, so give it to me"? "My dad always hunted so I get to hunt", Bull $hit! Well, my dad always had a new truck, does that mean that I should have a the same guarantee and the tax payers expense?

If you people are not willing to pay more for tags, then it's simply not that important to you.
 
And you can use all that new money to hire more wardens to stop the increase in poaching. I'm not totally against raising tag fees, but if you raise them too high hunting will become only for the elite.
 
If this was a bunch of "Average Joe" NRs that had been truly wronged by the system (which may have, indeed, been unfair) then I would say AZ needs to take her licks, and make this right.

USO took a pastime that we loved and cared about, and made it all about money, with no holds barred. Now, there are lots of us on this board that probably try and make a buck or two from hunting and fishing - shop owners, product reps, manufacturers, booking agents, guides - but no one was so greedy or ruthless that they put profit ahead of Game Management principles, or the ethical pursuit of our "hobby". They say "the first cut is the deepest" which is probably why we in AZ are screaming the loudest - it has cast a dirty scum over the toils of our passion. Emotion aside however, one can see that USO has launched a crusade bent on dismantling the Fish & Game programs that Western States have worked very hard at - with a ferocity that goes far beyond "making a living". Caps here, fees there, something else in other states... Interestingly, I moved here "from the East" several years ago. This issue has made me truly start to feel, for the first time, like an "Arizonan". Again - he took something that I loved, and made it dirty, and about money. I know now, why people have an inherent dislike for prostitutes, even though it is regraded as a "vitimless crime". This is not a victory for Constitutionalists - this is a victory for a sleazeball, that had a more effective dream team of attornies - than we did. He doesn't represent the "common man" from Vermont, or North Dakota, or Georgia - he represents the ones that will still use his services, when Western Tag fees, for most of us, are out of reach.

My quarrel is not with non-Residents; unless they are non-Residents who see the USO as some bizarre form of Robin Hood, stealing tags from the rich, to give to the poor. These NRs can't see beyond a now-increased chance at drawing a tag. They can't see whether the end justified the means. They can't see that this wasn't David vs Goliath. Mark my words, when USO is done with the west, he will begin to look east. Where there is a dime to be made, Taulman and his ilk will stop at nothing to make it - citizenry and wildlife be damned...

Now, there are rumors that other lawsuits are being filed in AZ. The ramifications of this deed will still be showing themselves, years for now. I believe that the face of hunting has been changed forever - and not for the better.



www.parchedmuskrat.com
 
Well I am back from my walleye trip! Yes, we had a fine time, and it's good to be back with all my MM hunting friends. Wish I could send fillets to each and every one of you. Weather was great.

Hope everything is going well with the western going-ons. I'm sure everything will work out for the best in the long run.
 

Similar threads

Simpleton
Mule Deer Proposal
2 3
Replies
218
Views
5k
Vanilla
Vanilla

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Down in a Tough Spot!
20200719_101917.jpg
IMG_3245.jpeg
2021 elk.jpg
IMG_2644 (1).PNG
D48226EF-1096-4D68-86E5-C81C4D6347FD.jpeg
1000001362.jpg
Zombie.jpg
IMG_3248.jpeg
7BF92B7C-B60C-492B-BD8C-D0AECBCD9541.jpeg
NCM_0119.JPG
IMG_20170525_212214.jpg
Back
Top Bottom