SCI is in bed with USO

JimNv

Active Member
Messages
599
Well folks. Looks like there is bigger money in the picture now. SCI is sending out fear-mongering letters in support of Non-residents getting up to 50% of the tags, as well as being a bargaining unit on how states will run there tag quota programs. They are trying to roust up support by saying that non-resident tag fees will escalate.

My thought on this is that if they raise the $$ on game tags, well, outfitters like USO don't care. They can buy them and sell them. Profit margins rise for them. Outfitters benefit, because the tips will be better if wealthier people hunt. Its a ruse to scare non-resident hunters.

To wit, they are trying to use a scare tactic, that would benefit them in the long run. Ultimately, whether a F&G entity raises fees is an aside, but for them, its a tool

Below is the letter being sent around by one Randall Bush, an SCI affiliate.

**Subject: URGENTLY needed help for the future of hunting:

In late 2004 a bill was introduced (S 2978) in the U.S. Senate to totally end nonresident hunting and fishing rights in all the states of the United States of America. The purpose is to authorize states to exclude nonresident hunters and anglers at will and to permit states to charge nonresidents any price whatsoever with absolutely no limit. Some states will raise the license prices so high that only the very wealthy can hunt when and if they can get a license at all. Fourteen (14%) percent of licensed hunters (two million) hunt out-of-state each year and twenty-six (26%) percent of anglers (nine million) fish out-of-state. The bill would be unfair to more Americans than it favors and it seriously impacts the right of use of federal land managed by the U.S. Government which is half the land in the United States. This bill will terminate any and all nonresident rights of hunting and fishing access on those public lands as well as state and private lands - all lands! NOW it is imperative that nonresidents let their Senators and Representatives (Companion bill expected) know that they want their rights protected, not abolished. At this time only United States Outfitters, Conservation Force, Dallas Safari Club and African Safari Club have had the guts to try and stop the discrimination against us, the nonresident hunter. Conservation Force has created the Non-Resident Rights Defense Fund to oppose the legislation. Tax deductible donations can be sent to "Conservation Force's NR Rights Defense Fund". Mail to "Conservation Force" 3900 N Causeway Blvd, Suite 1045, Metairie, LA 70002. Take a few moments to contact our Senators and urge them to oppose this bill. Their information is as follows:

Jeff Sessions 335 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-4124

Richard Shelby 110 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 (202) 224-5744 E-mail: [email protected]

This is another step in trying to deprive us of our hunting rights. Take the effort to let your voice be heard. We have everything to loose.

Thanks,

Randall Bush Regional Representative Region 22 Safari Club International 7059 Pineview Lake McCalla, AL 35111-4042 (205) 491-4464**

Contact the above senators and SUPPORT 2978. Contact R. Bush and tell him if he wants to hunt in the west, buy a landowner tag, he's rich enough, and it can be an expense write off. But don't be using fear tactics to pull the common hunter to your side, so greedy pieces of trash like Taulman can dictate policy in your state.
 
I finally got a response back from my senator with regards to SB2978. I copied it below. Any folks with legal knowledge of the system here? I am curious what happens to this bill from here. Is it officially dead, or can a form of it be reintroduced to the house promptly, or what? Thanks.

Dear Mr. Zimny:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about S. 2978.

The bill was introduced in the 108th Congress and referred to the Judiciary Committee, where it did not pass to the full Senate. I appreciate knowing of your interest in this legislation and have instructed my staff to track this legislation should it be reintroduced in the 109th Congress.

Thank you, again, for providing your thoughts on this legislation to me.

Sincerely,

A

Richard G. Lugar United States Senator

RGL/awa
 
I would have to see the actual bill to decide if SCI is simply using scare tactics or have some validity to their claims. While I am for States having control of how tags are allocated, if there is something about the bill that would allow states to determine nonresident hunting fees with no limits, I would rather not have a federal law that addresses that issue. As far as any state totally eliminating nonresident hunting, I don't have much fear of that ever happening. Too much money involved to exclude nonresidents.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
 
To the best of my understanding, Senator Reid from NV started senate bill 2978. The bill as I understand it will revert back states rights to manage wildlife. Many legislators have already been contacted by their states sportsmen/sportswomen to support this bill. I guess I am shocked that this SCI person is claiming that senate bill 2978 takes away non-residents rights to hunt. I sure didnt read that anywhere in the bill. Also he should check with his Tucson SCI office and see what position they have on the bill. To the best of my knowledge, the SCI office in Tucson supports senate bill 2978...... Thanks, Allen Taylor......
 
Guys
I'm from Canada and as you know, most Canadian provinces don't allow non-residents ( including Canadian citizens living in other provinces ) to hunt big game withtout a guide. That means that I can't hunt mule deer, or elk (since there is none in my province), in my own country, without paying 3500$ for an outfitter/guide, plus airfare and tags, for a total of 5000$ plus. No way to organize a self-guided hunt !


Don't let that happen to you !!

martinc
 
OK, here is the EXACT text of the bill as introduced last fall. It says that control of hunting regulations shall be the responsibility of the states and that nothing Congress does or doesn't do shall be "construed to impose any commerce clause barrier..." . Nothing more and nothing less. It doesn't say it's aim is to outlaw anything. The individual or organization responsible for this plea is lying and sensationalizing the whole issue to incite the nonresident hunter, where ever they are from, to put this bill down.




A BILL
Relating to State regulation of access to hunting and fishing.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. STATE REGULATION OF ACCESS TO HUNTING AND FISHING.

(a) DECLARATION OF POLICY- Congress hereby declares that--

(1) the continued regulation of access to hunting and fishing by the several States is in the public interest; and

(2) silence on the part of Congress shall not be construed to impose any commerce clause barrier to the regulation of such activities by the several States.

(b) STATE REGULATION OF ACCESS TO HUNTING AND FISHING- The licensing of hunting and fishing, or of other access thereto, and every person engaged in hunting or fishing, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation of such activities.

(c) CONSTRUCTION- No Act of Congress shall be construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by any State for the purpose of regulating the access to hunting and fishing unless such Act specifically so states.
 
I am an SCI member and asked the governmeent affairs division about SCI's position on SB2978 and received this response.

Dear Chris,

Please note that SCI is currently discussing this issue at the highest levels and we expect to produce an official comment shortly. We will also continue to work with the current Administration and in the courts to ensure that the rights of all hunters are protected. Please keep my email if you have any future questions.

Regards,

Ken Schwartz
State Governmental Affairs & Communications Manager

SCI - DC

202-543-8733

[email protected]


AS you can see there has not been a decision made, though I am not happy about this delay it does show that they are not opposed to it.
 
I just hung up the phone with Randall Bush and had a very pleasant discussion. He has not read Senate bill 2978 so he was not aware of its wording. His letter was prompted by some members hearing negative issues with 2978. I gave him MM's website address and asked him to come on here and see the posts and read 2978....I also asked him about his knowledge of USO's 9th circuit ruling and he was not familiar with the details. I spoke with him about what has/is happening out west and hope he comes on here. All sportspeople need to be informed and work together to maintain/enhance hunting opportunities, not be divided. Hopefully SCI works with the best interest of the animals and sportspeople in mind...... Thanks, Allen Taylor......
 
Read this crap from US Outfitters. They are positively "crowing" that they took down Arizona and Nevada. Notice how they are bragging how Montana is ripe for the fleecing. Kansas and Wyoming is next. Idaho soon.

You people better wake the F up. Your rights to your resident tags are on the block to highest bidder.

****UNITED STATES OUTFITTERS, INC. Are you ready for a Great Year? 2005 is looking to be an awesome year for a lot ofyou...the reason? Due to your lawsuit you no longer have to face the discrimination of being a nonresident hunter in some States.

First, the good news! Arizona nonresident quotas have been abolished. Arizona is now attempting to make changes to discourage nonresidents from applying, such as discontinuing their internet applications, raising tag fees, requiring full tag fees sent when applying and/or requiring you to purchase the nonresident license to apply. Any of these things will surely reduce the number of nonresidents applying, but should not affect your portfolios as usa fronts your tag fees and does the applications for you. A few of you who have not bought bonus points in the past may of course be forced to do so. However, you should buy bonus points now that you are on equal footing with the residents for drawing a tag. In fact, this is an opportunity to increase your applications to all four species in Arizona. This way you get four bonus points for the price of one.

Nevada nonresident quotas are also gone. They are also looking for changes to discourage nonresidents from applying and we will follow their development. Any attempt to reinstitute quotas will be met with further litigation.

As a side note, Montana and the other Ninth circuit states have not made changes to stop the discrimination of nonresidents and are opening themselves up to litigation as well as large damage claims. The longer they wait, the costlier the claims will be. If any of you want to be a litigant on these claims, please advise us and we will put you in contact with our legal team.

We are still waiting on the Tenth Circuit Court in Denver to rule on our case (Shutz vs Wyoming) presented to the court last March. This is a similar type case that was won in the Ninth Circuit (Montoya v Manning) and has laid the groundwork to stop nonresident discrimination.

Now the bad news! Even though the courts have rightfully ruled to stop the discrimination against nonresidents, the Game and Fish Departments are trying to go around the courts and attempt to pass legislation in the U. S. Congress to exempt wildlife issues from the commerce clause. This would mean that states could exclude you from hunting and fishing in any State completely. It shows how misguided and determined these Game and Fish Agencies are at discriminating against you. We will still need your help in fighting this through your donations and contacting your congressman. Enclosed are excerpts from an article published in "The Conservation Force January Bulletin" written by John Jackson.

To fight this legislation and continue with the efforts in your behalf, we are asking for a donation to the Nonresident Legal Fund of$100 from each of our applicants. As you have seen, no one but YOU, usa, Conservation Force, Dallas Safari Club, and African Safari Club have had the guts to try and stop the discrimination against you, the nonresident hunter. No other licensing service, hunting consultants, or outfitters have stood up to be financially counted in this effort. In the past you have seen what a small amount of donation from each of you has produced.. ... RESULTS LET'S NOT STOP NOW!

ForUnitedStatesOutfittersandProfessionalLicensingService,2004was a banner year. Along with your winning of the Arizona Lawsuit, we had good moisture and a cool fall, all the ingredients for many trophies being harvested by our clients. We had 400+ point elk and 200+ point whitetail harvested along with hundreds of other trophies including sheep, moose, antelope, bears, oryx, mountain goats, and mule deer. No other outfitter can produce the quality for the price that usa provides. We are very proud of this, but we are appreciative of you, our clients, because of your trust in USO.

For 2005, changes will abound. Arizona and Nevada are dealing with having to treat resident and nonresidents alike, more litigation may be needed if discrimination is reinstated. New Mexico changes include moving up their main deadline to April 9th, looking at starting a bonus point system, point restriction in some areas, allowing guides for Oryx hunts and allowing crossbows for mobility impaired archers. New Mexico deadline for Oryx is Feb. 5th,for those of you that missed out last year need to get Oryx added to your portfolio. Any of you wanting private land elk hunts with guaranteed tags for 2005 should contact our office for availability.

Kansas, once again, has boundary changes for both draw tags and landowner tags. Those of you wanting Kansas landowner tags need to call to get a tag held for you in 2005. We are booking these hunts this year rather than just a waiting list as the demand greatly exceeds the amount of tags we receive.

Other states are increasing some of their license, tag and application fees. Several states have yet to formalize these changes, so we will keep you informed through our "SCREAMERS" on changes that affect your current applications and opportunities for new applications.

Price changes are in the works for our hunts also, but only for the Licensing Hunts for this year. Mainly because of the cost of fuel, we have increased the cost of these hunts from $200 to $300. usa is still fronting your tag fees for Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, and Kansas. As in the past, we will continue to provide only guided hunts in these States, also included in the guided hunts are the Wyoming elk hunts. If your financial status has changed where you cannot afford to go guided, we need to remove or place your portfolio on hold. In States such as Montana, Idaho, Alaska, Oregon, Washington and California, we apply for unguided hunts for sheep, moose, and goats.

Please look at your portfolios now, as we are contracted to apply these applications for you each year and our first deadlines are Utah and Wyoming which is the end of January. If you believe you cannot hunt this year, for any reason, let us know before we start'applying. We can apply for "bonus only" or "hold" in order to fit your need otherwise we will apply to draw. It is foolish to apply and draw a special and valuable tag you cannot use simply because you forgot to notify us of your needs. To add insult to injury, you are still responsible to pay for the tag and it will be wasted as no one else can use this tag. So, review your portfolio and mail or fax your invoice back to us. If you have any questions or changes, notify us so we can do the best job for you.

Because of the legal changes that are coming about, you are in front of the line for many ofthese quality tags in the coming years. Thanks again for allowing usa to handle your applications. As always, your support, trust, and your business are greatly appreciated. 1-800-845-9929 . Off: 505-758-9774 . Fax: 505-758-1744****

Call this mercenary piece of $h!T and tell him thanks for turning our sport into the playground for the rich. Welfare outfitter
 
I would like to address your comment JimNV. I agre very much with what you and many others say on this thread but to say "You people better wake the F up. Your rights to your resident tags are on the block to highest bidder".

First I would like to know who informed you of your rights to your resident tag? The last time I checked animals were not deeded to you as a state resident. I for one can honestly say I believe what USO is doing is purely for monitary reasons. I can also say as a nonresident hunter many times in your state for the past 20 or so years, I am for equal draw ability. As a non res hunter I pay at least 10x what you as a hunter will pay to hunt in the state you live, why because I dont live there? Because I dont pay state tax? Ever see how much "state tax" goes into wildlife? When you can track down all that money the state puts into wildlife and crunch the numbers to say the majority comes from residents, then speak about your rights. In fact the majority of money your wildlife receives is from pockets from people such as myself who pay outrageous fees, because I am not a resident.

As for the highest bidder maybe you should be talking to your states landowners who are in the business of selling tags to the higest bidders. Supply and demand is what America is made of.

Next you may agree the people of Florida are gonna charge you 10x as much for an orange because its grown in their state. Dont forgett you will only get 5% of the oranges divided by the rest of the US. Why, because your not a resident. I hope you dont like orange juice!

As for residents who spend countless hours helping wildlife, I agree. People who donate time to certain programs should be entitled to some type of preference in the draws. To all others I say roll the dice and hope for the best as the rest of us do.
 
?First I would like to know who informed you of your rights to your resident tag??

Uh, I guess because I am a resident?

?The last time I checked animals were not deeded to you as a state resident. I for one can honestly say I believe what USO is doing is purely for monitary reasons. I can also say as a nonresident hunter many times in your state for the past 20 or so years, I am for equal draw ability."

Bingo. Its beliefs like yours that you should have the same chance as anyone in any state to draw a tag that is fueling mercenary welfare maggots like Taulman to soak up money and time from states F&G Depts (Nv., Az, Id., Ut., Was, Ca, Or, Wy, Ks, Neb.) You should take your plaintive whine to some Arizona hunting forums and see how well you're loved there. There needs to be more resident tags than NR tags because most people cannot afford NR fees elsewhere. Maybe you can. Good for you. It seems like you are willing to pay "10X" as much already, so you can't be hurting too bad.

"As a non res hunter I pay at least 10x what you as a hunter will pay to hunt in the state you live, why because I dont live there??

Exactly. I should pay less. As for the rest of the rejinder, it depends on the species of course. Some animals are only 5X as much, some 8X and others 10X. I don't agree with the obscene prices Nv charges for a elk tag. Beleive it or not, most res hunters hate to see that as well, because it trickles around. Nev F&G already sees that we are tired of increasing tag fees.
contact Taulman. See if he can get you a hunt for less than 1200.00 in this state for say an Elk. Oh wait, he's in it for profit, so you may have to pay more.

"Because I dont pay state tax? Ever see how much "state tax" goes into wildlife? When you can track down all that money the state puts into wildlife and crunch the numbers to say the majority comes from residents, then speak about your rights. In fact the majority of money your wildlife receives is from pockets from people such as myself who pay outrageous fees, because I am not a resident."

So let me get the math right. If there are 5000 deer tags. 90 percent are res @ 30.00 per ea. 4500 X 30 = 135,000. 500 X 240 = 120,000 not to mention the bulk of the pittman Robertson taxes that stay in the state. I'm sure I buy more hunting merchandise in Nev than I do in Florida. Plus all of the local and state wildlife organizations that generate hundreds of thousands of dollars through banquets and fund raisers to help ?my deeded animals? with guzzler projects, donations to research and wildlife rescue operations for same and so on.


?As for the highest bidder maybe you should be talking to your states landowners who are in the business of selling tags to the higest bidders. Supply and demand is what America is made of.?

I agree. Its another abhorrent practice, and I disagree with it totally. I think it needs to be watched and carefully because outfits like USO buy these tags, then sell them to people who can afford them for a handsome profit. On EBAY, you can buy Kansas deer tags for a nice little price from USO now. It needs to be investigated and hopefully will be soon.

?Next you may agree the people of Florida are gonna charge you 10x as much for an orange because its grown in their state. Dont forgett you will only get 5% of the oranges divided by the rest of the US. Why, because your not a resident. I hope you dont like orange juice!?

My oranges are from California and a bit tastier in my humble opinion, but I digress. How is it that you are comparing a orange to elk? A pig is a boy is a dog or something like that?

?As for residents who spend countless hours helping wildlife, I agree. People who donate time to certain programs should be entitled to some type of preference in the draws. To all others I say roll the dice and hope for the best as the rest of us do.?

Yeah, I can live with that.
 
Again where in your state resident papers does it say you are entitled to animal tags?

As for fueling people like the USO how do you figure that one. As I stated before I believe he is pushing for all the wrong reasons. I would never give them a dime of my money.

The statement about needing to give more residents tags is absurd. I for one am not rich and save all year to allow myself the opportunity to hunt out of state. Again you say you should pay less. If you read what I wrote, I was using money as backing for the allotment of tags. I didnt say I should pay the same amount as you. I said the number of tags which you think you have rights to as a resident is wrong.

You cant have your cake and eat it to, being high tag prices and low tags. Your small difference in numbers is not significant. You think your state makes no other money from people beside non res hunters. Lets take away all the casinos in the state and see how much you as a resident will have to pay to make the difference. Do you think as a resident you should be given more for less of everything? Look at the big picture and thank all these people for contributing to your states economy.

As for Florida and California your juice price just went up, California is more expensive than florida. Thats if you draw a juice tag since between the 50 states their is only a limited number of oranges to go around. Again look at the big picture its not about oranges.

In regards to my whine. It should be in Arizona and Nevada thanks to my contributing money to them by buying licenses yearly to receive bonus points.

New state campaign "Come to Nevada where you pay less and get more of everything"
 
How bout a new Campaign ad for USO.. Come to AZ and get your @$$ kicked.
I don't mind NR hunters I do mind Scum bags like USO and anyone involved with them.
 
Snappy,
Comparing wildlife to orange juice is pretty stupid. If the demand for oranges goes up the market corrects itself. With wildlife that is not the case. The state doesn't control the harvest of oranges nor do growers grow oranges for 3 to 8 years hoping for a "quality" harvest. In addition if the orange were not exported from Florida or California they would rot and be of no use to anyone, not so with wildlife. If you don't take them many of them will still be around for the following year.

You are comparing oranges to deer with makes not one ounce of sense.

Who forced you to pay "ridiculas" fees for the OPPORTUNITY to hunt outside your home state? You made an economic choice to save and spending on a hunt. Why should you have equal right to a tag in a state where you do not live? That has never been the case and to cry that prices are ridiculas is self destructive. If you get even odds on a tag what do you think will happen to the price of NR tags? Go up or down? They will rise, not because of market forces but because the politicians will see this as a windfall for funding every states DNR. You are cash cow to them who has no bearing on them getting reelected.

I am no anti NR hunter because it is important to our economy but your argument needs a little more polish

Nemont
 
Ok Snappy. Since you are into parsing ones comments, I will try retract and restate.

I stated "Your rights to your resident tags are on the block to highest bidder."

I'm sorry. How about I change my rant to: "Your (residents)right to a tag should be better than a Non-residents because more of us "living" in this state; do more hunting and fishing here in this state and the taxes garnisheed from our purchases from our local stores go to the conservation of the wildlife that live within the state of Nevada and are administered to by the State of Nevada employees who work with the utilization of said taxes gleaned from the aforementioned along with revenues from taxable vehicles such as ranching, mining, tourism, gambling, testing nuclear things; ad infinutum. Lets not forget to include the non-resident tag and license fees, which make up a small part, but certainly not lions share of operating capital you have alluded to.

The move is on right now, to give non-residents a de facto say in tag quotas/allotments vis a vis the USO suit. Taulman is suing the State, monetarily as well as injunctively in the name of non-residents. Think you will get some of that coin? Do you think Taulman gives a tinkers damn about what states charge for non res tags? Nevada can ramp the Elk prices to 5000.00 per copy and Taulman would have a waiting list of buyers to come out and try to shoot one. Taulman is wanting to do what the landowners do, but on a national scale. Az and Nv are just the tip of the iceberg. You know he's fairly screaming to bag Alaska, Utah, Montana, Idaho and the rest of the West.

I'd love to hunt Mont. Wyoming, Az, but I damn sure don't think I have the right to tell them to give me a tag for craps sakes! They know whats best for there herds, not Snappy from Florida or the 9th district court!

Do you want out of staters dictating policy in your state? If so, then our politics are way different and there is nothing left to discuss.

Nothing personal, but I don't want Snappy from Florida telling my DOW how to run wildlife in my state, anymore than you would want Jim from Nevada telling you how to manage your alligator herds or tarpon fisheries.

Should Non res's have more tags? Probably. Should it be a 50/50 split. Nope. The price of tags won't go down. Pretty soon you would have to work a year and half then two years for a tag. All that time, those that have the financial mein WILL be getting those tags and points. Along with that power of spending comes the power of policy. I just don't think this is ground that need be broken.
 
Harry Reid (D) Senator from NV is also trying to help. everyone should write their Senators ASAP
 
Snappy I guarantee you if I was to go to college in Florida I would have to pay out of state tuition which is a hell of alot more than resident tuition. I am fine with that because your I am not a resident. So don't give us your BS orange juice analogy.
 
First let me welcome you resident of the state of Neveda to the USA, land of the free(this includes wildlife).

I have agreed with you several times that I believe you RESIDENTS who work with wildlife one way or another be compensated during the draw. Again if you dont directly participate in the betterment of wildlife in any given state good luck as to the rest of us with the lottery.You still have yet to answer the question of where it says you as a resident are entitled or have a right to a tag?

Again I will say USO is wrong in what manner they have chosen to persue their pocket padding. I do not agree or condone with the punitave action they seek. I for one would never be part of taking money. Let me say this for you to hear. I have yet to say I want a lower price for tags. I agree with non res paying a higer price, just not the verbage whichever you choose as saying more tags for residents. I simply see the money as our part in donating to wildlife of other states. Are the prices ridiclus, yes. Will I ever claim we should pay the same, no. So before you keep on trying to persuade me on believing we should pay a higher price, I agree with you we should. So again im all for residents paying less to hunt in the stae which they live.

This is not about the management of the heards. Nor am I claiming to know more than the people managing them. Regardless of who gets the tags allocated res or not the number will not change. Just the way and to whom they are distributed to.

To further your knowledge of snappy from florida its not so. Have lived in several of the states discussed in the future law suits. Being from Colorado currently and forced to go elsewhere due to the big money for quality hunts here.

I would ask you again to look at the reasoning behing my post not the price of oranges. This is not about fruit and im not comparing deer to such. I was simply using an analogy to maybe allow you to take a step back and see the big picture. The power of policy is a two sided coin it works both ways.

Nv we both have different views, this is allowed. I have not tried to belittle you in anyway. If we all agreed on everything this would not be America.

For the mental midget who wishes to throw stones this is not about attending deer university paying for an education. If you want to talk about a bs analogy read your hoopla before you post it.Try to think out of the box before you spend your 2 cents on a penny budget. BIG mistake.
 
First let me welcome you resident of the state of Neveda to the USA, land of the free(this includes wildlife).
I have agreed with you several times that I believe you RESIDENTS who work with wildlife one way or another be compensated during the draw. Again if you dont directly participate in the betterment of wildlife in any given state good luck as to the rest of us with the lottery.You still have yet to answer the question of where it says you as a resident are entitled or have a right to a tag?

Again I will say USO is wrong in what manner they have chosen to persue their pocket padding. I do not agree or condone with the punitave action they seek. I for one would never be part of taking money. Let me say this for you to hear. I have yet to say I want a lower price for tags. I agree with non res paying a higer price, just not the verbage whichever you choose as saying more tags for residents. I simply see the money as our part in donating to wildlife of other states. Are the prices ridiculous, yes. Will I ever claim we should pay the same, no. So before you keep on trying to persuade me on believing we should pay a higher price, I agree with you we should. So again im all for residents paying less to hunt in the stae which they live.

This is not about the management of the heards. Nor am I claiming to know more than the people managing them. Regardless of who gets the tags allocated res or not the number will not change. Just the way and to whom they are distributed to.

To further your knowledge of snappy from florida its not so. Have lived in several of the states discussed in the future law suits. Being from Colorado currently and forced to go elsewhere due to the big money for quality hunts here.

I would ask you again to look at the reasoning behind my post not the price of oranges. This is not about fruit and im not comparing deer to such. I was simply using an analogy to maybe allow you to take a step back and see the big picture. The power of policy is a two sided coin it works both ways.

Nv we both have different views, this is allowed. I have not tried to belittle you in anyway. If we all agreed on everything this would not be America.

For the mental midget who wishes to throw stones this is not about attending deer university paying for an education. If you want to talk about a bs analogy read your hoopla before you post it.Try to think out of the box before you spend your 2 cents on a penny budget. BIG mistake.
 
You know what guys,

This ##### makes me sick.

I thought the good ole boys in the USA could always stop the wealthy liberals from taking over OUR sport. But I'm nervous.

The same ole song was played in England and associated countries years ago, and in Australia/New Zealand in the not so recent past.

Where are they at now???

This whole deal just makes the ANTI'S set back and rub their hands together.

This is one Wyoming boy that ain't gonna set back and watch.

Email or write your legislators, senators and congressmen how you feel. The laws are your only chance.

Sux to put it up to a bunch of Lawyers.

WyoXtec
 
I would have to think that the Anit-hunting community is in total disbelief right now. All these years they protested against us, did their little skits on corners, chained themselves to gates and basically put themselves in harms way to make their point.

All they really had to do was to convince the Fish and Game departments to manage Elk and Deer herds for TROPHY potential then sit back and watch hunters and hunting organizations scratch each others eyes out to get a piece of the pie. Now they just sit back and watch hunters drop like flies by being priced right out of the sport.

Did you all think those 400+ bulls and 200+ mulies wouldn't attract any attention? The only reason USO and other organizations are trying to change the way we know hunting is because of the huge dollars these animals draw.

20 years ago the arguments were over which rifle was best. Now we call each other on, call names, disrespect each other on a daily basis and argue over how some of us can get an upper hand on the rest by changing rules that have been in play for many years.

Just doesn't seem like Huntin anymore.
 
Snappy, after reading my last post I agree with you that I shouldn't spend my two pennies.

After reading your other posts I am curious as to how you feel about the Utah tag situation in 2006. It sounds like you would approve of 25% of nonresident tags going to wildlife organizations like SFW, RMEF, and FNAWS. According to your reasoning they should be getting preference on tags because they are out there helping wildlife. You also shouldn't have a problem with them taking 25% because it isn't written anywhere that nonresidents are entitled to those tags. If you think that is fair than fine at least your consistent. It is just funny to me some nonresidents play both sides of the fences. Utah nonresidents are kind of getting the shaft like Arizona residents. Everybody is fine with the tag situation until they lose tags to someone else.

I don't know where it is written that residents should get more opportunities, I guess in my mind it just seems fair. Heck maybe everyone in the world should have a fair opportunity at tags in Nevada not just US citizens. As a matter of fact maybe we should just reserve 10% of tags for US citizens and the other 90% to other countries. Unless you can show where it is written that other countries don't deserve those tags you are not going to change my mind. Is that thinking far enough outside the box for you?
 
Ok Snappy. Summary on how I understand it:

1. You think I do not have "more" of a right to a tag than a non-res? I disagree. Please refer to my above statement already discussing this

2. We agree on USO and higher tag prices for NRs

3. You alluded, at first, that NR tag fees and licenses make up a sizeable budget of our F&G depts. I disagreed. Large parts are from the residents who live and work here and do the bulk of the hunting and fishing throughout the season. Causal rescources are generated from taxed products. Mining, beleive it or not, gives the F&G a tremendous amount of money for research and habitat development. I could partition this out for a long time on other resources. NR fees are nice, but they are a small part of the larger picture.

4. You think that the amount of NR tags is unfair. for now I disagree. Nv is coming of a major deer die-off and is rebuilding its herds. They did the right thing limiting tags last year. Many residents never drew a thing, even in archery season which is nearly unheard of.

5. for NR's. I think if they raised the deer %, now, to 13 -15%, and raised the existing fee of 240 to say 280, they could bring up the Elk tag issuance 2 to 3 % and lower the cost of those (1200.00) to something a bit more sensible like 600 to 700. The increase in NR revenues from supplies, gas, more tags would offset the losses of the elk tag decreases.
BUT! When would enough be enough? When would 15% deer tags not be enough? The first time some animal like Taulman and his "clients" didn't get drawn.

6. Sounds like we are agreeing more than not. I certainly would not like to see NR tags go to outfits like RMEF, FNAWS etc. This I will fight as I fighting USO. It would allow the richer persons the ability to buy as many tickets allowed where as Joe the Grocer may only be able to buy a couple. Nv. already has a "raffle' in place and its called the lottery. It is as fair as it can be, and our only disagreement is the amount of tag issuances.

If non-res's would join us in our fight to keep the "Welfare Outfitters" out of our State, you may find some resident allies that would fight to increase your tag allotments, and keep them at a fair price.

Good discussion.
 
As the price of hunting goes up and the oppurtunity to participate goes down (i.e. not enough tags for residents to hunt locally because Nr's get a bunch more)the number of "hunters" in our country will continue to decrease. As the number of hunters decreases so does our ability to defend ourselves from the true enemies, the anti's. This is reason enough to preserve a strong resident preference. Is getting a trophy elk tag in five years instead of ten worth our hunting heritage?
 
Snappy - You wanted to know where it is written that a resident of any state has "rights" to the states wildlife over a non-resident?

OK, here is something for you to chew on. These are quotes from US Supreme Court, Baldwin verses State of Montana. A landmark case. Pay attention to this sentance: "It manifests the States special interest in regulating and preserving wildlife for the benefit of its citizens."

US Supreme Court:

"A State does not "own" wild birds and animals in the same way it may own other natural resources such as land, oil, or timber. But as noted in the courts opinion, ante, at 1861, and contrary to the implications of the dissent, the doctrine is not completely obsolete. It manifests the States special interest in regulating and preserving wildlife for the benefit of its citizens. Whether we describe this interest as proprietary or otherwise is not significant."

"We conclude that where the opportunity to enjoy a recreatinal activity is created or supported by a state, where there is no nexus between the activity and any fundamental right, and where by its very nature the activity can be enjoyed by only a portion of those who would enjoy it, a State may prefer its residents over the residents of other states, or condition the enjoyment of the nonresident upon such terms as it sees fit."

There are other such quotes concerning the price differance between residents and nonresidents which this decision supported that the states were within their rights to charge nonresidents more.
 
Thanks Mike!I have officially stolen these to disseminate in other places and spread the good word :D
 
Great Post Mike, nuff said right there. This goes way past hunting. This is a States rights issue. The liberal quack 9th circuit court & welfare outfitter USO do NOT have the authority to dictate to any state how many tags they have to issue OR how many go to non residents. It hasn't been that many years since Kansas was closed to non residents. There are far worse things than only being allowed 10%. Legally & ethically the residents come 1st. If someone doesn't like it then move on out here & join us. Why the hell do they think we live out here anyway ? I'm sure my opinion will pi$$ someone off but thats OK.
foxtrot4elk
 
you hit it right there. Guess where the decision was made...San Francisco, California....nuff said
 
Does anyone know if the Supreme Court's ruling (Mike's Post) was used by Arizona in an attempt to fight USO or did USO find a loophole in the commerce issue?

It would seem from reading Mike's post that the 9th circuit states have the right to divy up non-resident tags anyway they wish with the blessing of the Supreme Court.
 
Does anyone know if the Supreme Court's ruling (Mike's Post) was used by Arizona in an attempt to fight USO or did USO find a loophole in the commerce issue?-
I'm sure they did.
However,
From what I read, because Arizona sells non-edible parts of big game (i.e. antlers) as part of interstate commerce, the plaintiffs had exactly what the Court in Baldwin said would be required to show standing and discrimination under the commerce clause. The plaintiffs in Baldwin did not win because they could not show a violation of the Commerce Clause, they were suing under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution, two separate issues.
In the end, the decision in Montoya in in accordance with the decision in Baldwin and that is most likely why the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, thereby cementing the Montoya decision as law... at least until another federal court in another circuit decides otherwise and the Supreme Court is forced to decide.
 
roimike,
You are correct that the 9th Circuis is based in San Fran. , but the decision was made right here in AZ by judge Broomfield who lives in Central Phoenix right off central ave. The G & F attorneys and attorney general are incompetent, I'm quite sure they never even knew about the Supreme Court ruling. George Taulman,his attorney, all those who work for him are all low life dirtbag pond scum sucking cockroach leaches and I hate them all. Did I mention I hate attorneys.
 
I thought Broomfield ruled for the State and it was the Judges in San Francisco that overturned him (Broomfield) and made him redecide the case ???
 
Yes it was a loophole in Baldwin vs Montana that USO used to win. It was the commerce clause. Remove the commerce clause standing and Baldwin vs Montana prevails. Make the sale of non-edible parts of game animals illegal in your state and you remove the commerce clause argument completely. California has done it while providing for exceptions to taxidermists and non-profits. You don't see them going after California do you?

Their argument reminds me of the days of commercial hunting which everyone wanted outlawed anyway.
 
For those of you interested in reading the Ninth Circuit decision, you can find it on the internet at the following link: (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/704CB7B026F8745188256C1B00599DC5/$file/0017082.pdf?openelement). If that doesn't work, just go to www.ca9.uscourts.gov and search for the Montoya decision.

If anyone has access to Westlaw, the case cite is CONSERVATION FORCE, INC. v. MANNING, 301 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2002), cert denied, GOLIGHTLY v. MONTOYA, 537 U.S. 1113 (2003).
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom