USO Impact Question

NeMont

NeMont

Long Time Member
Messages
12,632
I would like to ask the following questions and get your feed back and Opinions. I would ask for you to spell out why you feel that way.

1. Do you believe the recent USO lawsuit and court ruling regarding the number of nonresident(NR) tags will increase or decrease the cost of those tags? Why or why not.

2. Do you think that courts decision will hunting more accessable to the average NR? Why or why not.


3. Is the decision good for long term future of hunting? Why or why not.

4. Who do you believe will be the ultimate "winners"? I guess what I mean is who gains the most out of the decision and why.

5. What would be fair to everyone? Please explain.
Nemont
 
1. Do you believe the recent USO lawsuit and court ruling regarding the number of nonresident(NR) tags will increase or decrease the cost of those tags? Why or why not.

It could only increase the costs of the tags. There is certainly no way it would decrease them. In an effort to maintain control of their nonresident hunting numbers, States that are forced to increase the allotment of tags will simply increase the costs of the tags in hopes that the price is inhibitive to a percentage of hunters that results in a ratio of residents to nonresidents that the states desire.

2. Do you think that courts decision will hunting more accessable to the average NR? Why or why not.

Accessibility will go up for all NR hunters - that's what this whole case is about. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "average NR hunter." If you're talking about the do-it-yourself, modest budget guys or the hunters that go with an outfitter every year? Both categories will have more "accessibility", but the "feasibility" will vary greatly depending on the outcome of your first question(see above). In other words, I may have more opportunities to hunt in another state, but if I can't afford it, I won't. Still, the states can then legally say I have the access, but have chosen not to apply.


3. Is the decision good for long term future of hunting? Why or why not.

Simply from the standpoint of the "in-fighting" its caused in the hunting community (take a look at some of the "debates" on this site), it is bad. As for the rest of my answer on this, see the following question...

4. Who do you believe will be the ultimate "winners"? I guess what I mean is who gains the most out of the decision and why.

The winners are:

A. USO - for obvious reasons
B. The State Fish and Game Commissions - you're probably thinking "huh?? how are they winners?" They will end up selling the same, if not more, number of tags, most likely at a higher price because a higher percentage will be to nonresidents. Also, local economies, albeit on a much lesser scale, will increase due to the influx of more nonresident hunters.
C. Outfitters in general - more clients
D. The lawyers arguing the cases - more $$ in their pockets

The losers are:
A. Resident hunters - potentially fewer tags, decreased odds in obtaining tags, less access (the richer USO, et al, gets, the more private land leases they are able to obtain)
B. Nonresident do-it-yourself hunters - potentially prohibitive costs, less access, less help from residents due to negative views on NR's.


5. What would be fair to everyone? Please explain.

At this point, I don't see any solution that everyone would consider fair. Some of the contingents (residents, nonresidents, guided hunters, unguided, outfitters, game commissions) will always feel as if they've gotten the short end of the stick. It's funny, but I consider both USO and the AZF&G to be the bad guys in this (USO being greedy and AZF&G probably should have had a slightly higher allocation to NR's - the true 10%). However, if you look at my answers to question no.4, it seems like both the bad guys will end up the big winners. It's kind of like the Yankees vs. the Red Sox (and I'm a Pirates fan.)
 
After following this issue for the last week, I would like to say thank-you to NRof49otherstates. Finally, an honest effort in trying to see all sides of the issue. Yes the court ruling sucks, yes this will make out-of-state hunting more difficult and expensive for all western hunters, yes USO has scored a devastating punch to anyone who likes to hunt in their own state. Its already begun in Nevada. Like Zim has stated many times on this forum "the winds are changing". As hunters we had better start looking for a long-term solution to this which is compatible with the constitution or the anti's will use this to further weaken our rights. The State of Arizona will rue the day that they didn't close the loophole that opened this Pandora's box. As a newbie to this forum I'm ready for the black-eye coming from all you regulars.
 
1. Increase the price simply to try and offset the number of applicants and to make more money for the Fish and Game Depts.

2. Absolutely, It will be much easier for a non-resident to obtain a permit if they will be able to afford them.

3. NO! Its horrible for the future of hunting for a number of reasons, first and foremost the federal govt has now gotten involved. That is bad! I think that it is very important to let the states regulate the wildlife within their boundaries, if left to the federal govt then hunting will become much more politicized. I would hate to think that what has happened in CA could happen all across the west.

4. The winners will be USO and other hunting operations that depend on a draw for the short term and potentially PETA and groups like them for the long term.

5. I think it would be fair to set aside 8% of all permits to an "outfitter" pool and 7% of all permits to non-residents that put in for DIY hunts. Also, raise the price in the outfitter pool so you dont have any DIY guys trying to beat the system. This would leave 85% of all permits to the residents of these states and would increase revenue for the continued conservation and preservation of these great animals.

Drummond
 
I would agree with Drummond except for the percentage thing. Why should guided hunters get preference for tags?? There is no reason for it except the Outfitter lobby pushes it through. Just because someone needs or wants their hand held whouldn't lead to them getting a percentage of a tag.

10% across the board to NonRes in limited areas. Whatever number of tags the State biologists reccomend for the general hunt areas.
 
I only have the patience to answer #3.

We will see negative news reports of hunters fighting on the news this fall. Any of you guided hunters out there better peel off those USO stickers cause them AZ guys are pissed.

JB
 
I'm with 2-point on the guided pool. I bet there are more DIY's than people who will pay the guide fee putting in for out of state hunts. If there's any numbers pertaining to this they would be interesting.
 
My thoughts are that if you differentiate between DIY and guided hunts then there will probably be better odds for the DIY guys. I would imagine that most people that are dead serious about trying to kill the biggest bull or buck on the hill will try to hire a person that knows the area and these guys would probably pay a little more for the permit and the DIY guys would then have the opportunity to save at least a little bit of money to wander out there and have a good time. No system that will be put forth will make everybody happy, thats why I feel that the state should try to accomodate DIY hunters and outfitters.

Drum
 
Drum,

How about a 5% outfitter pool and 10% for DIY hunters or NR who want a guide but just draw on their own and not from the "outfitter pool". One could go farther and add a "trophy fee" of say, $20/inch to the outfitters pool tags.

Any thoughts?

Ghost Hunter
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-30-04 AT 06:43AM (MST)[p]1. Do you believe the recent USO lawsuit and court ruling regarding the number of nonresident(NR) tags will increase or decrease the cost of those tags? Why or why not.

My bet is that they will go down... and residents will have to go up! My guess is the next thing on the docket is the fee discrimitating against NR's... We're all hosed!

2. Do you think that courts decision will hunting more accessable to the average NR? Why or why not.

I really think its hard to say, but my guess is that it will be slightly easier to get a tag. Only so many people can afford to hunt out of state any way.

3. Is the decision good for long term future of hunting? Why or why not.

Nope! Hunting has become a "trophy" killing sport, pimped by outfitters and sold off the highest bidder! It keeps getting harder and harder i.e. $$$ for a father or mother to introduce thier child to the sport.

4. Who do you believe will be the ultimate "winners"? I guess what I mean is who gains the most out of the decision and why.

The only one's I can see the ultimatly win are the NR, and the game commissions

5. What would be fair to everyone? Please explain.
Nemont

OUT LAW OUTFITTING! No money in hunting means more hunting for everyone! That would weed out the "true" hunters from the "trophy hunters"... and ultimatly free up more tags making it easier to get a tag if you really want to go. If the outfitters want to argue that it would also violate the "commerce law", prositutes could too, right?

I don't buy the "I don't know the area, or have time to scout" bs. Plain and simple if you copp out with that one, should you really be hunting? ;) If you can afford the $4000 or what ever for a hunt, then I would think you can afford to take off a week or two and scout and learn the area! I don't know many people that make $4000 or more a week, do you?
 
Thats funny! Hell, there are some areas in the US that you HAVE TO HIRE A GUIDE! Am I not a "TRUE" hunter because I enjoy hunting deer that have giant amounts of calcium protruding from their skullplates? Please define what you feel the difference between a "TRUE" hunter and a "TROPHY" hunter are, I would like to read that. Furthermore, I have a ton of clients that only get 2 weeks of vacation a year and they dont want to blow it all on one trip for themselves, they like time spent with family as well. Remember we are talking abot non-residents, its not like AZ is just around the corner. For a lot of these guys the true expense of the hunt is time lost from work. Like it or not, they make more than $4000 a week. What scares me more than what USO has done are thought processes such as this one, we need to stand together and make our decisions based on reason rather than emotion.

Drummond
 
I think that NRin49other made a good point. For the most part the folks communicating on MM are similar slices of society. People who enjoy hunting and the outdoors. I am just a resident in ID and NeMont happens to be from MT. Most NRs are people just like ourselves, but just from a different state. I mean we are not hearing from the silent minority of NRs, most of them were dealing fine with current tag quotas and the like. Sure you might hear them belly ache a bit because they haven't drawn this or that, but they merely move on and find a place they can hunt. Again, the USO thing was in no way truly trying to promote benefits for NRs, it is economics for personal profit pure and simple. Sorry Nemont here are my views on your ??s

1. NR tag fees will probably increase some due to pressure from disgruntled R. One thing is that tag fees will go up just due to inflation and other costs associated with managing resources. R will see their tags fees increase as well.

2.Statistically, I guess it should make your odds increase if you are an NR, but if you are speaking with the average NR being the guy/girl that picks up aluminum cans and works extra shifts to save $ for his getaway hunt, then no, ultimately this will not benefit them if state game commissions respond by jacking NR fees up and/or if tags allotted to outfitters are increased substantially, because like it or not outfitters will charge what clients are willing to pay. (I am not truly hacking on outfitters they do provide a service for some folks, but I do think that the individual should have to draw the tag and then contact an outfitter, no guaranteed tags for outfitters or outfitter allocations).

3. No, this decision was not beneficial for the long term future of hunting. It further promotes the exploitation of the resource for the lining of the wallets of USO. These guys don't care about NR and R issues, hell they are guiding in so many different places it is a non-issue for them, as long as your check clears all is good.

4. I think truly that USO and like minded outfitters are the ones that gain the most out of the decision. I do think that some general NRs will benefit, just for the fact that they should have a better chance of drawing now. Ultimately, I think that both sportsmen and the resource lose. When we have to have courts weighing in on an issue like this via such a silly basis for a law suit, wildlife is in trouble. Truth be told, deer numbers, in Idaho at least, are already in trouble due to nationwide management of USFS and BLM properties. I am not bitter that folks from other states have a say in what happen on Federal Public lands, it is truly all of ours, but they have been sold some tainted information and distorted realities. Mule deer and elk and almost all species benefit from disturbance, federal policies have almost brought fire to a stand still and the firing of a chainsaw is blaspheme. We can hack on state Fish and Game agencies, but the truth is that large habitat changes are what are driving deer #s (now herd composition is another story to a degree). Point is Idaho alone has lost 61% of the aspen cover it had, due to conifer encroachment and lack of disturbance, much of this has been lost forever. Aspen understory 2000 - 3000 lbs of production /acre versus conifer stands with about 500 lbs/acre result is les productive environments for wildlife. Sorry to go off, but the point is we need to be getting a different message on community health than don't let it burn, and like it or not some timber harvest is OK.

5. Fairness for everyone, hmmm, now there is the million dollar question and I haven't had enough time to get a solid viewpoint on this, but if you do get NeMont you will be retiring and able to afford USO.
 
IDarcher,
I am asking the questions because I am not sure what is fair. At first I was livid, then just POed, then upset and now I am just resigned to the fact that the future of hunting will be all about people with money.

I remain politically involved in issues of the State of Montana and I can tell every member of the legislature is getting an earfull from several different directions: Outfitters, hunters, lawyers, collegues etc.

I don't have answer to what is fair, also I would never use USO for anything. I would quit hunting before I had them do anything for me.

I am searching for a solution just as I am sure you are in Idaho. I bet that PETA, the fund for animals and all their cronies love watching hunters tear each other up.

It is just too bad that there isn't more agreement on what would be good for hunting's future vs. what is good just for our own greed, me included.

It is really not an NR vs. resident hunter issue when you boil it all down. It is all about money and the guys with money want to be able to hunt where ever they please regardless of what the masses think.

Nemont
 
NeMont
Ahmen Brutha!
Hope you didn't take any part of my post (#5 answer) as sarcastic or antagonistic. ciao
 
New Mexico does 12% to NR's with a guide and 10% to NR's DIY, both with the same cost and in their case it is much easier to draw in the outfitter's pool because of less applicants.

10% to DIY and 5% to Outfitter sounds reasonable with the outfitter tags being more expensive. If we are stuck on 10%, how about 60/40 split in favor of DIY.

Nino
 
Of course huntsonora has the answers... He has a ton of "clients" hmm lets see a guided mule deer hunt with you for... how much is it again? Oh but you're not in it for the money! ;)

If outfitting was illeagal, would AZ be in the situation their in now???
 
Just remember that the 10% issue will be a mute one in Nevada. Mr Taulman is suing the State of Nevada for 50% of ALL Big Game tags to non-residents, and lost wages. WOW, talk about greed. When and where will he end, Can you say NEVER. Everyone Unit BAN USO outfitters.
 
Why dont you ask BuraNut or Elk4You why I run a few hunts. It sure aint the money! I have also never claimed to have all of the answers, merely suggestions. I am still looking forward to hearing you explain the differences between "TRUE" hunters and "TROPHY" hunters. It should make for a very entertaining read if nothing else.

Drummond
 
huntsnorea:
Everyone knows you guide hunters for big easy to kill hogs south of the border. We've all seen pictures of your lazy fat hunters. They and you can "harvest" how you want, but don't act like you are anything else. You're just trying to put lipstick on a pig.
 
I love it when a guy that does not have the nads to post his name on his profile tries to call somebody out. I am sure that you know all about me and what makes me tick dont you?

Drummond
 
Drummond-This is one of the key reasons why Taulman's lawsuit will do serious damage to hunting. I bet the antis who lurk around just love this stuff and hope we all kill each other in the end. I know good guides around the west and they work their butts off and none of them are rich. I havent had one tell me Taulman's operation was good. I hunted with a guide in NM that was working for him the year before. I don't care if you tie up the animals and kill them and to me trophy hunting is fine but we need to think about this stuff real good and figure out how it will impact the guide business, residents, non-residents and the future of hunting. Most of the guys I know are fine with a fair allocation system but 50% just won't fly. I don't buy that state F&G departments are all for this stuff as non-res does not pay the big dollars some think and they can't get by without local volunteers and local dollars.

Glen
 
What do you think some of these guys that paid the full "outfitter" price for a hunt will do if they can buy a tag for less? They'll tell their buds and go hunt where they did with the outfitter. And bring their friends along. The whole thing will snowball. I would like to think my 2 year old son might be able to enjoy the same opportunities I had, but thanks to greed and the almighty dollar, I fear his future in hunting is done. Thank you George Taulman. Luckily, one George in this country has Balls. mtmuley
 
I can make a comment on questions #3 and #4. What impact will this decision allow the anti-hunting entities to have. With the increase in NR tags, and the ability to apply on line, what's to stop PETA from applying for and drawing a disproportionate number of tags? Apparently money will not be a deciding factor in the number of tags that they can apply for, but the NR cap was. I have not seen this subject brought up before, and it is a real concern of mine.
 
This would be fine with me and this is why. If PETA is spending money to buy tags that they will not use the harvest will be reduced and the game and fish will compinsate in the years to come by giving out more tags to get the desired leval of harvest. PETA will be wasting its money and that is a good thing.

Antlerradar
 

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

More High Country Bucks
E0C95FB3-14DE-4A42-AF89-7232CAAD0082.jpeg
FB_IMG_1498518481739.jpg
3FDF42EB-380D-4041-AAF0-DEC36C1BBA49.jpeg
DSC02415.jpeg
2022 buck.jpg
Deer.jpg
Screenshot_20220507-220256.png
IMG_4497.jpg
vlcsnap-2022-03-30-15h34m23s570.png
P1010597.JPG
28D6CA46-E648-4D37-80C6-7D1BE5749B8D.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom