Arizona and USO

gleninaz · Aug 18, 2004

Well, all the yakking and blustering and look at what is on the table for consideration. Bet Taulman is proud of himself for making NR hunters pay for his greed. These are the short list for serious consideration at the next round of meetings.
-Award additional bonus points for continuous support(applying for the last five years in a row.)
-Award a conservation bonus point for volunteer work.
-Charge up front for internet applications by electronic funds transfer only/no credit cards.
-Increase license and permit fees.
-Require all big game applicants to purchase a hunting license.
-Increase draw application fees.
-Increase bonus point pass percentage to 20% as a reserve for those with the most bonus points.
-Create a NR set aside based on capped % and have a seperate NR draw.
-Create commercial and non-commercial tags with 90% of the tags for non-commercial, available only to residents and 10% for commercial available equally to res and NR. OR pass a law to eliminate commercialization of wildlife in Arizona.

Now that is a list that George will be proud of. I said all along that you shouldn't crap in another mans tent. There is no way this state will allow a liberal court to screw up what we have worked so hard to create. It ain't gonna happen.

wetmule · Aug 18, 2004

As Glen Stated these are the items that are on the table & still under consideration. Everyone still needs to go to the G & F Commission meetings and use all means possible to encourage the Dept. and the Commission to put in place ALL of the above proposals. Some of these are just bandaids and many of them should have happened years ago. As with all issues regarding the Dept. and the Commission we need to keep hammering until the nail has been pounded and set. Thanks for all your efforts and support. Don't let up.
Wetmule

Bura Nut · Aug 18, 2004

We need to do like Wetmule says, keep voicing our opinions to AZGFD.....in addition to that, keep pounding the USO sponsors to remove their support of USO......Hitting Taulman in the pocket book along with any USO Loyal sponsor will send a strong message...........Hit Swarovski, Knight for their position statements..... Allen Taylor......

PinonPaul · Aug 18, 2004

I have seen a group called Sportsman for Wildlife mentioned in a couple of posts. I believe these guys are the ones suggesting the commercial tag option? If I am following this correctly they have nothing to do with the SFW the Utards are constantly arguing about. Anyway, I was wondering how to contact these individuals to give support etc. or if they are even that organized at this time. I would love to see an attorney draft a letter to New Mexico G&F and kindly point out to them that their 12% guided non-resident and 10% unguided non-resident quotas are unconstitutional given the 9th courts ruling in AZ. Since USO was/is the architect of this in N.M. it is high time to attack them on their home turf! A lifting of quotas in N.M. will have the residents in his own state hating him as much as Arizonan's do. Just another punch to throw George's direction. These Game & Fish departments are on edge as it is and now would be the time to get this outfitter welfare stopped. Maybe I'm off base here? The horse is out of the barn George.

Gamekiller · Aug 18, 2004

Gleninaz, I personally agree with several of the items which the AZGF is proposing. However I would question one item. If I am interpreting this correctly I think they are way off the commercialization one. In my option, you NEVER want to commercialize sport hunting or fishing. If if is commercialized as I interpret it, you would be able to sell antlers, etc.. Imagine the market for antlers if game antlers were an open comodity. This would GREATLY increase poaching. Why give into USO at all? If this goes through, all states will follow and USO will have exactly what it wants. Just my thought on that one. Am I thinking correctly here? Someone fill me in... Thanks.

azhunter79 · Aug 18, 2004

gamekiller, its not like you think it is. basically right now you CAN sell hides and horns all you want. that is the basis of the USO lawsuit they sued saying non residents didnt have as good of a chance of selling the hides and horns taken druing hunts as residents. this violated some obscure interstate commerce law. so what AZGFD is proposing is A. outlawing the sale of horns and hides all together and going back to the way it was before....OR making only 10 percent of the hunts available for sale of hides and horns. basically they are saying if thats the reason its unlawfull to have a cap, we'll just make it illegal to sell them or only have 10% of the hunts where you can sell hides or horns from those hunts. the other 90 percent of the hunts you cannot sell the hides or horns and those are only for residents. its actually a very good way of keeping the scales tipped in the residents favor, while also addressing the original lawsuit. itll be hard to track, but as it is right now you can sell horn/hide (not that many people do) so technically if someone WAS to break the rule and sell something...who cares. the residents still won and have perference in the draw again. i think the verbage of "commercial" is just referring to the ability to sell the hides and horns taken from those hunts and "noncommercial" meaning you cannot sell hides horns from those hunts. i agree strongly with this idea, however, itll take a legislation change to impliment it and because of its difficulty to track it might not ever be implimented. after attending the G&F meeting in mesa a couple weeks ago, a lot of the suggestions that came up were targeted at limiting outfitters and punishing USO (which i TOTALLY agree with), ultimately its too late for that, the true goal of all of this should be to tip the scales back in the residents favor, and i for one think this is a great idea.
az79

Someburro · Aug 18, 2004

New Mexico is not in the 9th circuit. Therefore, they are immune from this for now.

DMCHUNTER · Aug 18, 2004

I didn't agree with the lawsuit in the first place so don't kill me.

As a non-resident reading the proposals non-residents are going to not only pay more for tags but only recieve about 5%. If you have the resident draw first for the 90% and then the draw for the 10% with non drawing residents. Residents and non-residents should split it netting about 5% of the tags. Also in my opinion you should look at the word Commercal tag. If you think it is going to stop at hide and horns I would be carfull. If a resident kills a big deer and wants to sell his photos and story that could be constude as being commercial use. Also vidoeing for sale of a hunt not on a commercial tag could open up a lot of controversy. I for one see no good from this whole process and wish USO would have left it alone. The way it should be, comon sense is Arizona pick a number from 0-100% and give that many tags to non-residents. All the non-residents need to live with that number and move on. If you don't like the odds don't put in. But if the Board decides a high number then the residents need to live with it or elect a new board. Anytime the courts get involved we all lose.

Ok kill me now.