Az Residents May Be Okay

[caelkhnter]

I am a former Az resident, and own a cabin in unit 6a. I do not believe I am too removed from Az to feel the pain, frustration, anxiety and anger the recent court ruling has caused. In addition I too wish the ruling had come after this season results were out and the issue could be dealt with in the context of next season. Furthermore I do not agree with the efforts by the USO group. All that being said, I have an observation to make that will most likely bring me ridicule but I think it is something that ought to be considered.

I used to be of the belief that the Az 10% rule menat that nonres got 10% of the tags for each hunt. Then I learned that the rule simply meant that no more than 10% could go to nonres. In other words if the drawing took place and only 1% wennt to nonres then so be it. Under those circumstances the 10% rule would not come into effect. I remember not long ago someone had made a post on this site and was taking issue with Az's 10% rule because it did not guarantee nonres at least 10% of the tags. This person said that the actual statitics showed that the 10% rule was hardly ever in play because in fact far less than 10% of the tags ever went to nonres. If this is true then Az could simply remove the 10% rule and there would not be any constitutional issues and the draw could probably proceed as it always has with the nonres taking far less than 10% of the tags. Thus the court ruling would have little if any effect.

I may be misinformed or the premise I am operating under may be incorrect. Does anyone know what the real facts are? If my assumptions are correct then maybe there is no need for the Az res to get too excited about all of this.

 

[AZbowhntr]

Exactly, I have been trying to get someone to answer my question about what it is that USO actually wants. If it only to have the cap removed then it wouldn't be that bad. As long as we don't get flooded with non-res apps. Because from what I understand we never give out 10% to non-res because there are never that many non-res people putting in. I guess we just wait and see what happens today. And hope for the best.

 

[ElmerFudd]

Overall, that is true, less than 10% applicants and less than 10% drawn. But for Strip and Kiabab deer, and the better trophy bull elk hunts, the 10% cap is met every year, as 30%-40% of the applicants are nonresident. Those are the tags they want. What this will do is cut a resident's odds about 30% and increase a nonresident's odds about threefold for just those hunts.

 

[nmtaxi]

Actually, it seems very easy to fix if you read what the case was actually about. Because AZ does not have a law restricting the sale of antlers and hides, the court ruled that it was restricting inter-state commerce by restricting the number of non-residentst to hunt. If AZ passed a law saying it's illegal to sale antlers outside of the state, it is no longer restricting inter-state commerce, and can put a cap on non-residents all it wants. USO convinced the court that big antlers can be sold for big $$$, and is a product, and they are cheating non-residents from making a profit on it. So, just take away the product.

 

[drophorn]

I would like to throw my two cents in!! I think we should remember who keeps these so called out fitters in business, the so called hunter's that are out there not for the spot of hunting, but to take a large game animal, that they did not do any leg work on or spent time in the woods doing there home work, these so called hunter's that get in a truck and ride out to a spot that these out fitter's have located there game, so they get out and shoot there prize and think they have done something. To me I think that out fitter's and the hunter's they represent are nothing more then money hungery people that should never be given the chance to hunt again in this life time.

 

[azhunter79]

i agree. not that it is ALL their fault, but they deffinetely arent hunters to me.
what i find amusing is USO has a show on the outdoor channel...the irony of it....the show is called "real hunting adventures". like that is "real hunting"?! they have these big shots on there that drop a large amount of money to kill an animal, and when they shoot it usually they dont have that real sense of accomplishment that most of us feel when we take an animal and worked for it. sometimes they have more of a "that was it?" look on their face.

 

[drophorn]

I have heard it over and over again that it all comes down to how much money are you willing to spend ??? and they are the one's that are keeping the so called outfitter's in business.

 

[Zim]

Elmer,

I wanted to check where you got those stats.

3 years ago, when I was trying to figure out the real draw odds for Arizona, I called AZF&G and they gave me some stats over the phone to help me out. They were for the premium archery elk units 1, 9, 10, 3 & 6. Anyway I would consider these to be some of the best as you mention. Well the number of tags issued to nonresidents for all these units averaged 3.5% of the total number issued. That is way less than the 10/30/40% figures stats you mentioned. None came even close to the 10% cap. Thus I have been wondering the same thing as caelkhnter for the past 3 years!

Where did your figures come from?

Zim from NW Indiana

 

[Snapshot]

There are probably alot of rich CEO types that contract Outfitters like USO to help get them a trophy bull. Some of these guys are willing to drop thousands of dollars more than a typical guided hunt would cost in order to do so. USO knows that Arizona is full of trophy bulls and they are missing out on the pot of gold because a vast majority of their clients are not getting drawn for Arizona under the current system. Hence, they find a loophole in the statutes and it is an easy victory for USO. With this ruling it is going to be a whole lot harder to change the system than if it was properly written in the first place.

What I would like to know is who is funding their legal costs, is it comimg out of USO pockets or do they have a wealthy backer? A long legal battle costs a lot of money and if the process goes into appeals they can easily double or triple the cost.

Just a thought!

 

[azhunter79]

i dont think its a loophole they found and it wasnt because our system wasnt working. his argument was that the land the animals are on is federal land, so how can they discriminate. even though its my arizona tax money that goes to game and fish to regulate, and manage the animals on that land.

 

[Snapshot]

I am not sure of all the facts on the case, at this point I am speculating based on a couple of articles and what is posted on MM. Does anyone have a link to the court case documents or court breifings?

 

[nmtaxi]

Here is the link to the case. You will see that USO went around it, and used the selling of antlers as their case. They say by denying non-residents an equal opportunity to have those tags, they are denying free commerce, or profit from selling the antlers taken out of those areas. It's b.s., and I can't believe the court fell for it.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0017082p.pdf

 

[Snapshot]

Thanks!

I will check it out.

 

[AZbowhntr]

nmtaxi, thanks for the link. I have been looking for something like that for a few days. Interesting read so far.

 

[arizonagator]

While searching for more information, I came across this interesting article which montoya states at the end of the article he is not in it for the recreation, but for profit.

Arizona Nonresident Cap
Headed for Court
Arizona's 10-percent cap on nonresident hunt-permit tags for bull elk and for deer north of the Colorado River is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Arizona Game and Fish Commission voted unanimously on October 2, 2002, to appeal a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that jeopardizes Arizona's cap on nonresident tags for bull elk and deer north of the Kaibab.

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission was sued by a professional hunting guide service in New Mexico, United States Outfitter Inc., which claimed that the 10-percent cap on nonresidents violates the Commerce, Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and requested "a declaration of invalidity as well as damages."

The federal district court granted the Game and Fish Department's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the Commerce Clause claim as a matter of law. The guides, Lawrence Montoya, Filberto Valerio and Carole Jean Taulman, appealed the district court's decision.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 20 overturned the lower court decision and ruled that Arizona's 10-percent nonresident cap "substantially affects" commerce such that the dormant Commerce Clause applies to the regulation. "We further hold that the regulation discriminates against interstate commerce, but that Arizona has legitimate interests in conserving its population of game and maintaining recreational opportunities for its citizens," the court ruled.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case back to the lower court for "further proceedings" to determine whether Arizona "has met its burden of showing that these interests could not be served adequately by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives."

The federal court opinion points out that Arizona is home to what is considered by many hunters to be some of the best deer and elk hunting in the world, exemplified by the world record animals harvested from its lands. The area north of the Colorado River known as the Kaibab Plateau and the Arizona Strip are particularly scenic areas known internationally for their trophy-class mule deer.

"The quality of the hunting in Arizona is in large part a result of the conservation efforts supported by Arizona citizens and administered by the Arizona Game and Fish Department," the court files state.

For many years, Arizona distributed the limited hunt tags for antlered deer and bull elk through a lottery (draw) without regard to the residence of the applicant. In the late 1980s, however, the Game and Fish began to receive vocal complaints by Arizona hunters objecting to competition with nonresidents. Many felt that nonresidents were getting more than their fair share of the hunt opportunities, especially for premium hunts.

"In early 1990, the department conducted a poll of resident big game hunters and found that nearly 75 percent favored restricting the number of hunting tags issued to nonresidents, many expressing the opinion that nonresidents should be excluded from hunting in Arizona entirely," the court opinion states.

To better meet the overwhelming desires of the resident hunting public, the Game and Fish Commission in 1991 amended Rule 12-4-114 of the Arizona Administrative Code to place a 10-percent cap on the number of tags that could be awarded to nonresidents for the hunting of bull elk throughout the state and for antlered deer in the area north of the Colorado River.

The department explained that the continued management of Arizona's big game "is dependant on the continued support of Arizona residents" and that Arizona residents should be afforded the opportunity "to hunt Arizona's best."

Each plaintiff in the case is a professional hunter and guide residing in New Mexico who applies for hunting tags around the country in order to "obtain the meat of the animals, their hide, their ivories, and especially their head and rack of antlers to profit from the sale and use of the non-edible parts," the court filings show. The plaintiffs argued that profit seeking is their sole purpose in hunting these animals in Arizona, and that they do not hunt for recreational enjoyment.

| WH Home | Contact Western Hunter.com | WH Archive |
Copyright ? 2002 J & D Outdoor Communications.

 

[huntsonora]

WTF? Thats HILARIOUS! I hate whats going on in AZ but to try and put it on all outfitters (one word) and all hunters that use outfitters is ludacris! What about all of the do it yourself guys that would back this thing in an instant? Dont think for a minute that there are guys that go on DIY hunts every year that would back this if given the chance. I think that 90% of the permits should go to residents and 10% of the permits should go to the non-residents but I would be willing to bet that the state of Arizona, no matter what they might say publicly, would want to have more non-resident permits issued every year simply to make a lot more money.

Drummond

 

[remsal]

AZHNTR79-Check your info. According to your own states F&G department 20 million of the AFGD revenue comes from federal funds, 35 million from AZ funds. Want to get to the nitty gritty, lets say AZ contributes 10% to fed tax rolls which is way more than they do, but, just for arguments sake we'll say 10%. That come out to about 73% resident contribution, and for the sake of argument we will assume all the funds from the federal government are spent on federal land, therefore as far as a financial argument goes, it appears that AZ owes the "rest" of the taxpayers about 10 years of an extra 17% on top of the 27% it appears the federal government pays for the AGFD's funding. Roughly, that comes to 56% resident tags and 44% non-resident tags for the next ten years. This argument hols more water than those that say "we" are entitled because "our" tax dollars pay for the management and conservation " yada, yada, yada ". Ask the citizens of Arizona if they want to buy the federal land at market price and pay 100% of the management, maintenance, fire fighting, etc.. I don't think you would get one single vote in your legislature.

 

[Bura Nut]

I think alot of people overlook what will happen now that the draww process in AZ will be on equal footing whether you are a resident or non-resident. The number of applications will jump dramatically because people that applied in other states with better non-resident caps will now apply in AZ. They have an equal chance to draw a tag with the residents. They will have more tags to draw for and probably alot better draw "odd" percentage. I will guarantee you this that AZ will have a huge increase in non-resident applications for 2005 unless AZGFD drastically increases the tag prices for non-residents. Also dont think for a moment that this is only a AZ problem, all states will see their tag purchase/draw system change if something is not done in AZ first......... Allen Taylor......

 

[dbllung]

More than 120 of those applicants turned out for today?s Game and Fish Commission meeting, many of them to implore the commission and the department to find new ways to protect residents? opportunities to hunt.

Game and Fish Director Duane Shroufe says they intend to do just that.

?This court decision does not mean that the department will abandon its efforts to maintain the highest possible level of resident hunting opportunity,? he says.

The department's deputy director, Steve Ferrell, says it's critical that Arizonans have a fair opportunity to benefit from, and protect, the state?s wildlife resources.

?We are very disappointed with the ruling,? says Ferrell. ?We believe that maintaining resident opportunity is the best way to support conservation. Engaged residents are crucial in the support of wildlife management, by way of volunteerism, guardianship, and by financial and political means. Anything that diminishes resident interest in their wildlife resources ultimately threatens the support Arizona residents are uniquely positioned to provide.?

Way to go azgf dept. thx for all you do in this matter.

IM SURE FROM ALL THE POSTS THAT THIS WILL ULTIMATELY BITE USO IN THE AS*.
I ALREADY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THEIR SERVICE FROM A FEW YEARS BACK WHEN I WAS ARCHERY ELK HUNTING IN 4A AND HAD A GUIDE FROM USO AND HIS CLIENT TELL ME "IM FROM USO AND WE ARE HUNTING THIS MEADOW ALREADY" ..HE CAN GO TO HELL. CAME REAL CLOSE TO GETTIN HIS AS* WHOOPED.IDIOTS!!!!

 

[nfoley]

Zim,
I think your numbers are way off.
If you believe them then it only makes sense that the current ruling would have no affect on the draw. If a unit draws out less than 10% (in the current system) then it means that EVERYONE had an equal shot at getting a tag. The 10% cap ONLY takes effect when 10% of the tags in a given unit have been drawn by NR. Then no more NR are given a shot at getting a tag in that unit.
If what you said was correct everyone would currently have equal access to the premium tags.
I happen to know many of my nonresident hunting buddies have a much tougher time getting the tags than myself and fellow arizona hunters.
Think about it - this would not be an issue at all if what you stated is true.

 

[nfoley]

And mandating that 10% of tags must go to nonresidents is ludicrous if in fact many less NR put in than residents. Let's say a given unit has 100 tags and only 10 nonresidents put in for that unit (which would make sense if you believe some of the numbers thrown around).
The 10 nonresidents would all draw and effectively have a 100% draw odd.
If on the other hand you believe that MANY more nonresidents put in for the 100 tags the 10% cap would come into effect often. And AGAIN when the cap doesn't take effect it means EVERYONE had equal shots at the tags! There would be no need for the mandating of 10% to go to nonresidents.
You really don't need a degree in statistics to figure this out!

 

[sheriff38]

There is so much misinformation out there that it's unbelievable! Because I or other out of state hunters choose to use an outfitting service and apply for tags to hunt in the great state of Arizona can't make us all no good so and so's!!
I have been applying in Az. and New Mexico for a number of years without any luck at drawing a tag, and I also have been buying the hunting license ($113.50), so I could get the preference point. I scrimp and save so that I can do this,just like I'm sure any number of other nonresidents who dream about huge bull elk!
If I am lucky enough to draw it will be a once in a lifetime hunt, don't lump us all together with the guy that has money growing on trees.

 

[Nofear4]

USO has sure stirred up a hornets nest here in AZ. I hope instead of helping USO, it's going to backfire on them. Friends, family and fellow hunters all over AZ have started contacting USO sponsors to convey their disgust of their lawsuit in AZ. AZ residents deserve to have a better chance of getting drawn in their own state! I am sure USO intentions are of monetary value and hopefully their sponsors will see the greediness of their intentions. It's just like USO to move into someone else's scouted and favorite hunting areas to try to take control and ruin it for the rest of the true hunters out there!


I hope that the rumors are true that a group in AZ is going to Sue the State of NM now, (Home of USO) because of the unfair land owner lease's to USO and similar Outfitting Services, and also sue to lift the out of state hunters Cap in NM as well. (Lets see how USO feels about that) They will get my 100% support. As with dbllung I too have had problems with USO Guides thinking that they own the forest! Now I will look for others & voice my opinion with those who see your selfish tactics and intentions of USO outfitters. USO give's the true meaning of hunting a bad name and obviously they have forgotten the meaning of "Hunting Etiquette"

Nofear4

 

[remsal]

NoFear- what is the difference between USO claiming to own the forest and residents claiming to own the game on federal land? I admit that residents do a lot to help manage the wildlife. However, not to the extent reflected in the current AZ system or the NM system for that matter.

 

[Someburro]

So, the CAP is unconstitutional, but if you set aside tags just for NR's that's ok?

Give them 1% of the tags guarenteed with a limit of 5%. That satifies a Judge and pisses off USO.

It's a win-win!!!!

 

[Zim]

nfoley,

I completely agree it does not make sense about the 10% cap thing changing odds. But I am here to tell you, I have no doubt about the stats I presented. I got them from AZF&G and had them confirmed from an outfitter who bought the $75 stat book that year, 2002. The AZ draw system is the most complex mystery of all western states. Very few people can truly claim they 100% understand the true draw odds of R v. NR. I tried and gave up. Mine were calculated using the most basic of stats from archery bull elk units 1, 9, 10, 3 & 6. I called AZF&G after the draw and simply asked what was the total number of tags issued for each of these units in 2002. Then I asked how many tags went to nonresidents for each of these units.

# NR tags/total tags = 3.5%

Very simple. I think you would consider the units I mentioned among the better ones in the state. You can call AZF&G for the same stats from 2003 and I am sure it will be about the same. So go figure. That is why I was wondering exactly how lifting the 10% cap would make much difference. I don't know.

That same year I drew unit 1 archery with 5 bonus points. All the other hunters we met there were AZ residents. And all drew with over 10 BP's. Maybe the deer tags have more than 10% NR applications. I just called about elk. Maybe someone here with the $75 stat book can clue us in.

Zim from NW Indiana

 

[Nofear4]

Remsal_ Lets assume that you live in Missouri, (I don't know where you live) You have been scouting your favorite hunting area on public land near your home for trophy whitetail and you have found a couple of bucks in an area you've been hunting for the last few years, you are all excited and anxious for the hunt to start. Two days before opening day, you find that 5 camps with 3 and 4 5th wheel trailers each and 4 wheelers all over the place running up and down the road adjacent of your scouted area, have planted within 1 mile of your favorite spot. You also notice that all the camps are from Out of staters!!!!

I don't know about you but that would sure burst my bubble. I think that it's only human nature and only fair for Arizonan's to want to limit the Out of staters. It is our State that we pay taxes in not to mention that it's also in our backyards. We don't like it any more than you would if all those camps around your favorite hunting hole were Arizonians. Plus ask anyone from Arizona, it's already hard enough for AZ Residents to get drawn in our own State, and that's enough to frustrate us already! Giving away some more of those tags to out of staters is really making us Mad!

Nofear4

 

[Zim]

This case is way bigger than Arizona.

In fact, for those AZ residents concerned only for themselves, they need not worry. Little to nothing will change for them.

For those hunting out-of-state, much stands to change! This case will be used as precedence to attack all other states where nonresident draw odds are less than residents. USO wants more tags available to nonresidents, regardless of price. The interstate commerce argument was their ticket to eliminating any cap on nonresident applications in all states, even those with a 10% set-aside.

This ruling WILL affect Arizona residents hunting out-of-state in future years. It will in fact probably benefit Arizona hunters, unless other states raise tag fees. How do you think the AZ residents liked when NM upped their NR quota from 10% to 22%, without raising fees? More of that will be in store for them. Think about it.

 

[antlerboy]

I wonder why George's name isn't on the suit? Does he think we won't realize he's behind all this too? Carole Jean Taulman is listed but no "Heff". Interesting.

 

[Zim]

That is strictly for some legal reason. It really doesn't matter.

But I believe this case will end up having huge ramificatons across the west. You can bet many F&G's are preparing already.

 

[nfoley]

Zim,
The system is really not as complicated as you think. And I believe it is fair.
I have seen the numbers from recent years, and some times you are correct the NR may be less than 10% (for the record the units I put in for archery elk ALL capped at 10%)
Again if less than 10% NF draw they were not singled out and cheated as you might assume. It just means NR did not cap.
The computer doesn't care whether you are a resident or not until the cap is met. Contrary to what some think we don't have a computer that likes to beat up on the NR pool.
If I flipped a coin 1000 times and heads only came up 300, does that mean I need to sue the mint?
I don't mean to imply you have anything to do with or agree with what USO is doing. I think most see his methods as hurting everyone.

 

[Zim]

What unit was it that you put in for, and how did you get your stat information? I called the AZF&G Department and checked 6 premium archery elk units. None were even close to the 10% limit. This info was confirmed by an AZ guide who had the stat sheets. If they openly published this info we could find out. But I'm not about to send them a check for $75 just for the figures. I don't doubt what you say for your specific unit, but I am talking 1, 9, 10 etc. and they were not 10%.

Zim from NW Indiana

 

[nfoley]

Zim,
It honestly took a lot of work to get the numbers. As far as I know they are not published in any form. It took a lot of coercing and a friend's help to see the numbers. I am not sure why they are so difficult to obtain - I think it may take more work on their part to publish. I can tell you I put in for premium archery elk tags and the numbers I saw at the AZGFD office showed 10% NR. On a year like this when NR could put in online for $5.00 you can bet many more caps will be seen.
And again, when the NR are not capping at 10%, they are given EQUAL access to the tags.
If you really want to see the numbers and are persistent you can see them. If you did I believe you would agree that we have a very fair system. I have not been drawn for elk in 6 years, and have known 3 NR friends in the last 6 yrs who HAVE drawn, premium hunts, with less BPs. I have hunted elk in New Mexico more than my home state. Bottom line is it is TOUGH to draw these tags!!

 

[COOZIEHUNTER]

I was reading back through the posts and read DROPHORN's post about guides and outfitters. Ever since I found out the judges ruling, I've been expecting to see this. My family has an outfitter business and hunting has been a way of life for me for as long as I can remember. It's not fair that because of the actions of just a few (and I agree on this) "money hungry" outfitters and guides, were all lumped into the same catagory. My whole family resides in AZ., and for the record, even though this probably is beneficial to my business, we are angered with the judges decision, and always were comfortable with the 10% cap. I do agree that a person who shoots a trophy animal that did nothing but pull the trigger should not get the same respect as one that was taken after the shooter did his own homework. It just needs to be kept into perspective on the shooters part.
We always advocate, in guiding and in our own hunts, that no matter the size of the animal, each and every one deserves all the respect you can give. I get upset when I see someone take a trophy and just act like it was no big deal or just another one for the wall. Ilove seeing and helping someone get so excited to kill or even just see trophy animal that it is by far the reason why I guide. Just knowing that experience would not have happened for that person if it had not been for you is very rewarding. The money just enables me to do it full time. My goal in this business is not to be rich, rather it is to be a guide sevice that is respected and known as an ethical, law-abiding service that always strives to provide the thrill of the hunt, and the memories to go along with it. Were not all the same. I could go on forever about the run-ins and past experiences i have had with USO's operation, but in the posts I've read these past few days, most of you have had the same. They're all pretty much negative. I hope someone will have the guts to research and publish facts about the "behind the scenes" operation these guys provide for there "standard clients" that purchase their bargain hunts. They make it real easy for me to impress their past clients when I'm guiding them. I hope that every hunter out there realizes not all outfitters are the same and I hope the draw is good to all.

 

[nfoley]

One more thing Zim.
The last tag I got I had put in with a non-resident friend.
Go figure.
I agree with you 100% about wanting to see the numbers all laid out. I am one of those guys that studies them for hours to try to get some advantage in the draw.
I came very close to leaving Arizona a few months ago and truthfully the hunting here had some part in my staying.
And I can't complain too much - I drew a desert sheep tag 2 years ago!
Nils

 

[muleybull]

If you think this will end with Arizona, think again. This just opened up the door for these guys to hit your state. You think they wont? This is all about the mighty buck. US Outfitters isnt limited to guiding only Arizona. My home state of Arizona got hit with this, now we can only wait to see what the final outcome will be, but lets end it in Arizona. Here is my idea: Using a guide is not a bad idea for some people, there are several guiding services out there that are just as good or better that US Outfitters. Post messages on every hunting site you have access to, and send email to everyone you know. Urge them to forward that message to everyone they know, so on and so forth. DO NOT use US Outfitters or anyone associated with them. Resident hunter or not. If these guys cant remain in business then they wont have a leg to stand on. Dont wait until they hit Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, so on and so forth. Take care of the problem now.

 

[Nofear4]

Muleybull

Most of the rich guys don't give a hoot, they will pay the big bucks no matter what, to whoever, all they want is a drive-by Trophy shoot to brag to their city slicker friends.

I agree with you 100%, but what an uphill battle. Most people will sit on the sidelines and watch the vocal minority take away our rights, till it's too late. It's a shame! Like in a previous posting I placed, We are trying to put out the little fires when we should all be trying to Slew the Dragon. What can the majority do to Slew this USO Dragon?

Nofear4

 

[muleybull]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-17-04 AT 08:01PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jul-17-04 AT 07:58?PM (MST)

Well, this will be a start. Other ideas may come, but this is something to get the ball rollin. True, we cant do anything to keep the rich guys from hiring these outfitters, but maybe we can ridicule them to the point where they will look elswhere. Otherwise, I bet they do something when this whole mess comes nocking on their homestates door. Do you really thing that US Outfitters cares about you shooting a trophy animal? NO.....all they want is your money, shoot the first thing you get a decent shot at, tell those who dont know any better that its a good animal and move you on down the assembly line. Make way for the next client. Let everyone know their plan is to move from state to state. Your not lying. They will, I'd put my next paycheck on it. If you thing your lying about it look at what they are doing. This is all about shed hunting, but everyone thats anyone knows what their real motive is here.

 

[Zim]

nfoley,

3 years ago I got a bad reputation on Bowsite for bi***ing about the AZF&G NR tag marketing being unethical. After 5 phone calls to their main office I was finally able to obtain a special order form for the draw odds almost every other state in the country gives for free (many posted online!). The charge was $75. There are also cheap $5 brochures AZF&G puts out with approximate draw odds that are completely bogus. The figures are qualified with a disclaimer. This is why I cannot comment on the true odds to this day. I refuse to pay the $75. Call them and you will find out all about it IF you are persistant. I was ridiculed and most residents did not have a clue about these $75 odds books. But I can assure you they exist. I spoke with 2 outfitters who did buy them, and confirmed my 3.5% NR tag figures. These are the only stats that will tell us what hunts exceed the 10% quota.

How many sheep points did you have the year you drew? Did you get a nice one? I applied this year with 6.

Zim from NW Indiana

 

[nfoley]

Zim,
I drew the sheep tag with the max bonus points.
I can't tell you how much fun it was. I killed a beautiful ram but I did shoot him with a rifle and wish I would have continued with my bow. That is my only regret.
I met some of the most genuinely nice, ethical, concerned hunters you could imagine. Not to mention many of them are related (Matach family) and are some of the best sheep hunters you could ever meet.
Incredible hunt all the way around.
Nils

 

[Zim]

Nils,

I know what you mean about the archery regret. I am anticipating the same situation this year. I drew a Utah Henry Mountain bison tag which will be my one time chance to score a P&Y bull. However after viewing 2 videos of bowhunts in the unit I saw how tough this will be. Not good stalking country. Low bison density. Not a good combination. I'll be packing both rifle & bow, and commit to the bow for the first week. Not too optimistic though. I would take a lesser bull if I could get a bowshot.

Zim from NW Indiana

 

[bullwidgeon]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-18-04 AT 05:32AM (MST)[p]Nils,

It is "Mattausch" family and were just lucky we get to spend alot of time out there. Congrats again on your awesome ram! I think you are right though, you should have never let Mark go get your gun, you have all the skills it takes to arrow one ;-). Hopefully G&F will find some way to keep the odds in favor of residents that way some of the people (not just my family) that spend so much time, money, sweat and effort to protect and preserve these sheep will have a shot at a sheep tag someday. I know for a fact that Roger Cook and I spent 20 plus days there earlier this year watching the sheep and eliminating feral goats. I can't even guess how many more days the rest of my family spent out there watching the sheep and eliminating the goats and we knew they wouldn't have a tag there this year. As a result some of the ewes did lamb sucessfully and the entire herd was not wiped out due to disease. Maybe in a few years the unit will re-open. Good luck with the bison Zim.

Bret Mattausch

 

[nfoley]

Brett,
I'm sorry about butchering your family name. Your family is a prime example and perfect argument for favoring Arizona residents. I've not met more dedicated sportsmen willing to sacrifice time and energy for our wildlife.
My sheep hunt was a once in a lifetime hunt not because of how difficult it was or how beautiful a ram I killed, but for meeting your family along with others like Roger Cook and Mark Morris. Changed my outlook on hunting forever!
Thanks couldn't begin to cover it.
Zim if you ever draw a sheep tag these are the guys you need to call. I believe some of them are guides/outfitters.
Now if we had more outfitters like this family, I GUARANTEE THIS CRAP WITH USO WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED!!

 

[muleybull]

nfoley hit it on the head. This is what we need. Outfitters that have struck a good cord in the past. Get the word out

 

[remsal]

No fear- the fact is, is that the AFGD is funded with approx 40% federal money. Also, where I live there is only 5% public land, practically all the huntble elk population is this country is on federal land. Also worthy of note, every acre of western land was purchased with federal money. The taxpayer issue you make is a worthy one. However, it is misplaced, the land you say is supported by your tax dollars was purchased with federal money and is mostly maintained by federal tax dollars.

 

[kilbuc]

The bulk of federal funding that AZG&F obtains is from P-R and B-W(updated D-J) programs. These are funds are generated from a tax(11%) on arms and ammunition for hunting and fishing tackle(10%)for fishing. The feds collect the $$ and send $ to the states on a 3-1 matching basis. Funds can only be used for Fish and W/L Mgmt and Research programs(cannot be used for law enforcement). The total amount of $ each state can get is based on formula using # of licenses sold in the state. Bottom line, the federal $$ are generated in the respective state and thus are really state $$.

from the "Heartland of Wyoming"

 

[aztap]

I have followed the results of the Montoya/Taulman (USO)lawsuit with great interest. I am an Arizona resident and I may be a little prejudiced when I see what has transpired the past few days, although I'm trying to keep an open mind. It is true that I haven't drawn a bull elk tag since 1990, but that's OK, it's the luck of the draw and maybe someday I'll get lucky. (I probably won't sue anyone else because my luck is not the best.)I have had a few cow tags in between. I don't mind non-resident hunters. I've hunted with some and made good friends with others. This ruling, brought about by the Montoya/Taulman lawsuit is a little hard to swallow. I cannot paint all non-residents and guides with the same brush.
1) Several above are correct, much of Arizona's elk habitat is on Federal land, but not all and some of the best is not. Much of the best is on state or private land. The argument that since the elk are on federal land, every one from anywhere in the US should have a chance at them may be a relatively fair assumption. On the other hand, if the above is a true statement, the the reverse should also be true, non-residents should have no right to hunt the state and private lands of Arizona. I really don't want to go there but it would seem to be fair.
2) I was able to check into draw rates for a number of years to see how many non-residents actually drew elk permits in Unit 10, which is one of the most popular elk units in the state. From 1996 through 2003, 9.94% of the archery bull permits went to non-residents. Non-residents recieved 10% of the early rifle bull tags and 9.6% of the late rifle bull elk tags. That's pretty close to 10%. Draw odds are in the vicinty of 10%, plus or minus a little, year to year, for archery or late rifle bull tags. The odds for the early bull hunt are in the one half of one percent range.
3)Wildlife is property of the state, held in trust for it's residents, and not property of the federal government or of citizens from other states. The individual states should have the power to regulate their own wildlife free from attack from other entities. The interests of state residents needs to be protected.
4) I took the time to read the case report on the Montoya/Taulman vrs. Manning (State of Arizona) lawsuit. I am very unhappy with the ruling based on the Commerce Clause interpretation. The people who filed the suit claim to be hunters who only hunt for profit, and not for enjoyment, that is the selling of the heads and hides acquired while hunting, and specifically only when hunting in Arizona. I just don't know any other way to say "BOGUS" do you? USO is in Arizona to make money from guiding services. The USO folks living in New Mexico can much more easily obtain hunting permits and hunt elk in New Mexico where they live. Are not New Mexico elk easier for them to obtain and just as valuable to sell?
5) Anytime Wildlife and MONEY are mixed, wildlife and ordinary hunters stand to loose. I don't care what the Montoya/Taulman group and or the court has to say, Hunting is not a business for the average person. It's healthy outdoor recreation. We need to keep hunting in this light otherwise it just becomes dollars and cents. Our forefathers fought very dilligently to preserve hunting and wildlife for future generations. People like the Montoya/Taulman group are fighting very hard to convert wildlife and hunting into just dollars and to take it away from the average person.
6) Hunting is a sport and a privilege. Selfish is a word which would seem appropriate in this case. Spoiled is another. Guess what? This same group is now filing a lawsuit in Nevada. Your state will be next.