AZ Fix

[ElmerFudd]

I am not sure how this will all work out, but I hope AZ does not try to fix the problem by punsihing nonresidents with high tag fees, etc.. Really, an AZ resident sort of has to figure on nonresident hunting, if he wants to hunt elk on a regular basis anyway. With NV (next on USO's list), it is even more so, they almost have to figure on nonresident deer hunting too, if they want to hunt even deer most every year. I think raising prices to market value in retaliation would be a bad omen of things to come. I do not know what the options are, I certainly hope it does not fall back to price, like NM did for sheep. And with CC options, people than can not afford it will still apply anyway. I guess $3K is not that far out of line now, as some others are around $2K, but when it was adopted, it was three times the going rate of the next most expensive state.

 

[RACKMASTER]

I would as a Non Resident pay as much as the states want
in order to hunt! I would complain about and have to
plan for it and hope I don't get drawn in all the states
I put in for!
rackmaster

 

[Bura Nut]

The real fight is not against non-residents its USO and its "to hell with whats good for wildlife, just get me more clients" mentality that will hurt the future of hunting. As we speak USO under existing rules gets the clients tags mailed directly to USO and makes the clients sign a contract to use USO before they recieve the tag. This is a Trade barrier and illegal in most states. 1. We want AZGFD to mail tags to the clients home address and open up fair trade for these clients. 2. we want the tag fees increased but not out of proportion to the rest of the western states. 3. Eliminate the 5.00 internet application and change it to paying for tags up front. Right now USO has such a large amount of money from clients they manage and return if "unsuccessful" but in all reality USO has become a money manager by holding peoples cash and making money off the interest alone. We need to see a level playing field .............. Allen Taylor......

 

[ghost hunter]

Bura,

Never having used or even inquired into USO's hunter application service, what happens to the tags that are sent to USO and the hunter decides not to use USO? Are the tags already paid for by a charge to the hunters credit card or does USO front the money if/when they are drawn? Depending on which it is, could make for an interesting situation.

Ghost Hunter

 

[B_F_E]

Az fix,
sounds like something Moosie does when he is hard up.

 

[Someburro]

"3. Eliminate the 5.00 internet application and change it to paying for tags up front."

I respectfully disagree with that suggestion. That would only hurt the average guy that cannot afford the cash outlay upfront.

The way to get at USO and their virtual ATM machine is to not allow 3rd parties to upfront the cash. Make the address on the tag match the hunters residence. The way USO does it now, the tags their clients draw are mailed to USO, then given to the hunter when he pays USO the balance.

Remember, it USO who we should target, not the average guy from out of state just trying to get a decent hunt.

 

[Snapshot]

I stopped in at the Pinetop Arizona Game & Fish while I was on vacation in the White Mountains and talked with a representative there who was very informative on the situation as far as what we as Arizona hunters should do.

1.) Show up at the Commission meeting in Flagstaff and voice your concerns and opinions. The more concerns and opinions that are the same from the majority of hunters will be taken into serious consideration.

2.) Write the game and fish commissioner.

Write a reasonable and professionally courteous letter stating your concerns and opinion on viable solutuions, make it brief and to the point.

If all concerned hunters do this in every state that will be influenced by this situation, we will prevail. It may take some time to do so, but it will happen.

One thing to take into consideration is the fact that USO claims we are violating the commerce clause in the constituiton and the judge fell for it. AZG&F is not violating the commerce clause by the interstate commerce of saleable antlers.,,,,, they are limiting the amount of permits and harvest objectives in which the state is in complete control of, they have every right to control the amount of antlers that can cross the state line.
Get my point?

Write to the commissoner and state representative.

I have already started my letters.

 

[Bura Nut]

Ghost Hunter: It is my understanding that USO keeps the tags in their posession until the hunter signs a contract then the tags are mailed out. Last year two of their hunters for the 12
A east Kaibab hunt tried to cancel and their whole fee was kept by USO. They re-booked with another outfitter but did not get a refund. It has been said that in USO's draw/application side of their business they have encumbered 30,000,000 dollars. I would venture to guess that the interest alone on this part of their business is substantial. What I want to see is the individual hunter manages his own money and the associated tag if he/she draws. The tag is mailed to the sucessfull applicant and then he/she selects who they use. Right now USO is exerting undue pressure on all the AZ premium tag units (flooding the application process) hoping to draw clients then finding guides for their "Captive" clients. At least let the clients know they have alternatives by mailing the tags to their house and let them make informed decisions not "hold them up for ransom"............. Thanks, Allen Taylor......

 

[ElmerFudd]

USO has the client write them a check for the total of possible permits, application fees, licenses, etc. plus $120. They keep it in an account (no interest for the client) until the client cancels. That could be on the order of $20K per client, that they keep until whenever, interest free. Up front fees will not keep tags from them. I can not believe anyone would do that, but 30,000,000 seems possible for around 2000 clients.


Anyway, even if no tags go to nonresidents, an AZ resident would have to figure on out of state hunting if he wants to hunt bull elk on a somewhat regular basis. Think about that before doing something too rough on the nonresidents. That is all I ask.

 

[BOWHNTG]

Someburro,
The $5.00 app fee had only been around for a few years, I don't think it'll hurt to awful bad.

There are a ton of ideas getting batted around and unfortunatley average Joe NR is going to take the brunt of it. The BEST solution would be to have this decision overturned on an appeal, go back to the 10% cap, have USO lose all it's sponsorships and go belly up.

The 10% cap is by no means the greatest system in existence but it's better than the alternatives I've seen.....

 

[IDarcher]

The big issue is how we have turned the sport of hunting into business. Don't get me wrong, I feel that there is a place and a need for some outfitters and guides, but we have ended up so far away from that and in so doing have sold our sense of ethics and fair chase down the river. USO is one of the worst, in my opinion. Listen on some of the videos where they have been the outfitters (some Realtree vidoes are a prime example), they openly discuss that this bull had to be the one they saw from the airplane and so and so forth. We then see some videos where hunters are actually shooting animals from under feeders or from baited locations. All of this is to make a $ or lots of $$$ and in my opinion in some areas it is hurting the resource. I look at the Paunsaugunt and look at the enormous pressure these deer have been under for years. Every other guy you meet on the street is a guide come deer season. These deer are followed, filmed, and dogged from the time they start to develop antlers until their antlers shed. They are watched from airplanes,ultralights, paramotors, helicopters, all kinds of ATVs, spotlights, and any other means we can come up with. The point is that at some point we as hunters have to recognize that some of the practices of other hunters are not in the best interest of wildlife resources. We are often promoting very poor ethics to the youth of today and changing it from hunting to merely a locating and harvesting endeavor. Just my 2 cents.

Find your roots and read Aldo Leopold's "Conserving the Chase".
ciao

 

[Nofear4]

Montana has a great idea! Read below,


USO sued the Arizona Fish and Game Department. He said the state's rules deprived him of an equal opportunity to obtain elk and deer heads and antlers, which can be worth thousands of dollars to collectors.

Montana legislators could pass a law next session making it illegal for anyone to sell the hide, head or antlers of a game animal, and that could address the commerce issue of the Arizona case.


Sounds good to me.

Nofear4

 

[Someburro]

Remove the cap but require all hunters to take and pass the AZ hunters ed class and not that 1 day class. The full 2 week class + range time. Then remove the permanent bonus point as it will be a non-issue. It's not discrimination, becasue ALL hunters are required to take the same class.