Lets not stop at just contacting our congressmen (I've already done so), and sponsors of USO. We need to also write letters to all of the outdoor magazines (Outdoor Life, F&S, Petersen's, etc) and let them know we will not support or subscribe to their publications as long as they support USO. We can make a national stand on this and not just a regional one. We need to make the hunters across the nation know what is going on and if we cannot get it stopped here, it will soon get to them. We need to flood the editors with enough letters that they will publish them and get the word out. Those of us here in the west need to stand together and develop a plan of attack to shut USO up. I emailed Georgie about why he did this. He said USO is trying to better manage wildlife by doing this. How the hell does sueing for more tags help manage wildlife. Georgie needs to be put in his place, be unsupported, and be shut down. And WE as hunters are the only ones who can do this.
USO needs to go down
- Thread starter sremim
- Start date
woodruffhunter
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,696
Can anyone give me a link that details the specifics of the lawsuit filed by USO. I believe I have a general idea of what it is about, but would like to read more.
Thanks,
Jason
Thanks,
Jason
C
Csu7mm
Guest
What has USO done that is so bad. I've seen a couple of posts saying that people don't like USO but none of the posts have ever said what USO did to make people so mad.
F
FAIRCHASEBEN
Guest
LAST EDITED ON Oct-06-04 AT 12:26PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Oct-06-04 AT 12:24?PM (MST)
LAST EDITED ON Oct-06-04 AT 12:23?PM (MST)
USO is suing the states with the best hunting for more non-resident tags and at the same price as residents pay . They're not doing this for the sake of non-resident hunters , it's strictly for their own profit and greed . They have an application service which submits hundreds of applicants to several states each year , the catch is if you draw a tag through their app. service , you have to hire their guide service or you don't get your tag .
As a result of their lawsuits , everyones tags will cost alot more , thereby eliminating much of the competition from common folks who will be priced out of the drawings . And with their application services advertising more tags available for non-resident hunters , the chances of drawing our tags will be minuscule anyway .
USO's lawsuits , if successful , will commercialize hunting forever , every animal that hits the ground will mean a profit for somebody . The days of taking our kids hunting , passing on our traditions and heritage will be over . Hunting is becoming nothing more than a rich mans sport and USO couldn't be happier about it !
LAST EDITED ON Oct-06-04 AT 12:23?PM (MST)
USO is suing the states with the best hunting for more non-resident tags and at the same price as residents pay . They're not doing this for the sake of non-resident hunters , it's strictly for their own profit and greed . They have an application service which submits hundreds of applicants to several states each year , the catch is if you draw a tag through their app. service , you have to hire their guide service or you don't get your tag .
As a result of their lawsuits , everyones tags will cost alot more , thereby eliminating much of the competition from common folks who will be priced out of the drawings . And with their application services advertising more tags available for non-resident hunters , the chances of drawing our tags will be minuscule anyway .
USO's lawsuits , if successful , will commercialize hunting forever , every animal that hits the ground will mean a profit for somebody . The days of taking our kids hunting , passing on our traditions and heritage will be over . Hunting is becoming nothing more than a rich mans sport and USO couldn't be happier about it !
txhunter58
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,599
LAST EDITED ON Oct-06-04 AT 12:27PM (MST)[p]Do a search for the full story. However, the high points are these:
1) Brought a lawsuit in AZ to get equal access to tags and won which esentially gives 50% of the tags to nonresidents. If ALL tags in your state were limited and relatively low in number, would you want nonresidents to get 50% of them? To say this another way, would you be happy with only getting to hunt your state once every 5-10 years?
2) They are threatening other states with similar lawsuits unless they change their allocation of tags to give equal chances to nonresidents.
3) What will probably happen if this is allowed to stand is that western states will increase the nonresident tag prices EVEN MORE than they have already to limit our numbers. It is already close to becoming a rich man's sport, and will become MUCH more so. As a nonresident hunter, this concerns me a lot. USO is not really concerned about this point, since their customers are usually able to afford the tag whatever the price. Can you?
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
1) Brought a lawsuit in AZ to get equal access to tags and won which esentially gives 50% of the tags to nonresidents. If ALL tags in your state were limited and relatively low in number, would you want nonresidents to get 50% of them? To say this another way, would you be happy with only getting to hunt your state once every 5-10 years?
2) They are threatening other states with similar lawsuits unless they change their allocation of tags to give equal chances to nonresidents.
3) What will probably happen if this is allowed to stand is that western states will increase the nonresident tag prices EVEN MORE than they have already to limit our numbers. It is already close to becoming a rich man's sport, and will become MUCH more so. As a nonresident hunter, this concerns me a lot. USO is not really concerned about this point, since their customers are usually able to afford the tag whatever the price. Can you?
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
C
Csu7mm
Guest
Ok, now that I am filled in, I see the situation. What can I do to help stop this from happening. Who are you guys writing to, and what are you saying? I would love to hunt all over the western US, but I don't want to have to pay astronomical prices. I am content to wait my turn, and eventually draw a tag.
With what USO is doing you will never draw a tag unless you have several thousand dollars. Residents of Arizona are trying to stick together and write our congressmen and anybody else who might be able to help. Many people have written to those companies who sponsor USO's show on the outdoor channel with positive responses. However, we need to go further and contact the national hunting magazines and get support from all hunters across the nation, not just those in Arizona or the west. We need to flood these editors as we did the sponsors. We need to get moving on this before next season, and when magazine sales and product sales dip from those companies continuing to support USO, maybe our voice will be heard and something will be done about it. The AZGFD Commission is worthless and unless we as hunters do something about this, it will not change, other states will fall victim, and you will need to win powerball more than once to continue hunting even as a resident of your own state. The AZGFD failed us, now it is our turn to do something about George and USO. I am hoping everybody is still at work, or out hunting seeing how there has been very little response to this. If everybody has given up, where does that leave us?
C
Csu7mm
Guest
What are some companies that support USO that you guys have been writing to?
A
amadorjon
Guest
While I don't share the view that non-residents should pay the same as residents, I feel the burden borne by non residents is getting ridiculous.
In Montana, residents are up in arms about a possible fee increase. Their fees havent been raised for over a decade!
Who do you think is paying for their wildlife management?
I guess its us Californians you all curse.Even as a landowner I have to still pay out the butt to hunt a doe or pheasants and hunt with my dad once a year. And we pay $450 for a deer or elk tag so all you guys can buy a licence for 10 dollars a year
Maybe some reform would be nice, as unpopular as it might sound.
Field and stream had an article about this very subject last year, saying that residents need to start ante-ing up their share of money too. Your states are pricing some non resident hunters out and we will all lose in the end. See ya
Jon
In Montana, residents are up in arms about a possible fee increase. Their fees havent been raised for over a decade!
Who do you think is paying for their wildlife management?
I guess its us Californians you all curse.Even as a landowner I have to still pay out the butt to hunt a doe or pheasants and hunt with my dad once a year. And we pay $450 for a deer or elk tag so all you guys can buy a licence for 10 dollars a year
Maybe some reform would be nice, as unpopular as it might sound.
Field and stream had an article about this very subject last year, saying that residents need to start ante-ing up their share of money too. Your states are pricing some non resident hunters out and we will all lose in the end. See ya
Jon
txhunter58
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,599
>
>
>
>Maybe some reform would be nice,
>as unpopular as it might
>sound.
>
>Jon
Maybe so, but the "reform" talked about in this thread is what USO is doing, and what they are doing is making sure that prices for nonresidents will contiue to climb at an alarming rate.
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
>
>
>Maybe some reform would be nice,
>as unpopular as it might
>sound.
>
>Jon
Maybe so, but the "reform" talked about in this thread is what USO is doing, and what they are doing is making sure that prices for nonresidents will contiue to climb at an alarming rate.
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
NVBighorn
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 9,458
LAST EDITED ON Oct-07-04 AT 08:43AM (MST)[p]sremim,
Welcome aboard on the fight from hell.
Do a search on this site and the Arizona conference on bowsite for a LOT more detail on this topic. You are right. This is a big deal that has been cussed and discussed at length. Unfortuantely some of the more informative threads got a little crazy and were deleted. I think most of the USO sponsors have pulled their support.
The US House of Representatives just passed legislation that would split the ninth circuit court of appeals into three courts moving Nevada, Arizona, Idaho and Montana to a twelfth circuit, Washington, Oregon, Alaska into a thirteenth, and leaving California, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Marianas Islands in the ninth. It now has to be approved in the Senate. That may just be the biggest step toward making this thing right. The "ninth circus" is notoriously whacky and has no clue about the more rural west. So if you want to do something more, write a letter to your US Senator supporting this move. It's a huge deal for all aspects of states rights.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=37532
Welcome aboard on the fight from hell.
Do a search on this site and the Arizona conference on bowsite for a LOT more detail on this topic. You are right. This is a big deal that has been cussed and discussed at length. Unfortuantely some of the more informative threads got a little crazy and were deleted. I think most of the USO sponsors have pulled their support.
The US House of Representatives just passed legislation that would split the ninth circuit court of appeals into three courts moving Nevada, Arizona, Idaho and Montana to a twelfth circuit, Washington, Oregon, Alaska into a thirteenth, and leaving California, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Marianas Islands in the ninth. It now has to be approved in the Senate. That may just be the biggest step toward making this thing right. The "ninth circus" is notoriously whacky and has no clue about the more rural west. So if you want to do something more, write a letter to your US Senator supporting this move. It's a huge deal for all aspects of states rights.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=37532
Hey amadorjon, settle down with the non residents getting priced out thing. Thats how it works. How much of your tax money goes to the ARIZONA Game and Fish. Being a resident of Arizona, I pay all year. By the time I pay state taxes all year and pay the price for a elk tag, I probably have more invested in it than you do. You think I should come to California and pay the same price as you.
If I come to your state, pay resident prices, all I'm doing is looking to kill something. No contribution to your wildlife department, not even volunteering to help with wildlife improvement projects.
This fight isnt against non residents, its against USO and anyone that wants to tags to basically go to the highest bidder, so their own pockets get filled. Do you think resident hunters are the guys that hire USO to guide them? Thats why they want more non residents.
If I come to your state, pay resident prices, all I'm doing is looking to kill something. No contribution to your wildlife department, not even volunteering to help with wildlife improvement projects.
This fight isnt against non residents, its against USO and anyone that wants to tags to basically go to the highest bidder, so their own pockets get filled. Do you think resident hunters are the guys that hire USO to guide them? Thats why they want more non residents.
woodruffhunter
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,696
I cannot believe that a previous post said "Maybe some reform would be nice, as unpopular as it might sound". After reading more on this subject I have come to the conclusion that this so called "reform" is nothing better than the rape of the average sportsmans.
Personally, I have no problem with NR tags being raised. I think that the in-state residents ought to have the benefit of lower tag prices. Do I like paying NR prices? Absolutely not. But I will, and when they get too high I will settle for hunting in my home state.
All this does is destroy our traditional hunting heritage.
Jason
Personally, I have no problem with NR tags being raised. I think that the in-state residents ought to have the benefit of lower tag prices. Do I like paying NR prices? Absolutely not. But I will, and when they get too high I will settle for hunting in my home state.
All this does is destroy our traditional hunting heritage.
Jason
Why doesn't everybody settle down and quit arguing with each other and read what the first post says so we can get this done? Arguing amongst ourselves just hurts us even more (residents and nonresidents). Lets join forces and get letters sent out to anybody and everybody who can help.
N
nvdroptyne
Guest
Rumor has it the residents of Nevada are working on a petion for a bill to ban "pay to hunt" outfitting here because of the greed of USO. Althought this will serve USO right, it will hurt the honest outfitters.
J
jameister
Guest
"But I will, and when they get too high I will settle for hunting in my home state.
All this does is destroy our traditional hunting heritage."
But you see, here in Aridzona, we can not settle for hunting in our home state, cause all big game, even turkey and javelina, is limited draw limited tag by permits only...
of course we can just hunt doves and quail over the counter...
All this does is destroy our traditional hunting heritage."
But you see, here in Aridzona, we can not settle for hunting in our home state, cause all big game, even turkey and javelina, is limited draw limited tag by permits only...
of course we can just hunt doves and quail over the counter...
J
JAD29
Guest
>Why doesn't everybody settle down and
>quit arguing with each other
>and read what the first
>post says so we can
>get this done? Arguing amongst
>ourselves just hurts us even
>more (residents and nonresidents). Lets
>join forces and get letters
>sent out to anybody and
>everybody who can help.
I'm still confused, how is giving citizens of the US a equal chance to hunt land we all own (our nation forest etc) a bad thing????
the discrimination agianst non residents, when attempting to hunt fedraling owned land is ridiclous, we all own it equaly, just because you live closer to a parecel of land we all have a equal share in ownership doens't give you more of a right to use it.
I don't know how it can be simpler, the existing unconstitutional laws have allowed the states to screw non residents over and over. USO might be doing it for there own benifit but the reason they will win all the lawsuits is becuse the current system discrimates.
pretend you and ten friends own a nice piece of hunting land, now explain to the other 9 why you have more of a right to hunt there because you live closer.........
>quit arguing with each other
>and read what the first
>post says so we can
>get this done? Arguing amongst
>ourselves just hurts us even
>more (residents and nonresidents). Lets
>join forces and get letters
>sent out to anybody and
>everybody who can help.
I'm still confused, how is giving citizens of the US a equal chance to hunt land we all own (our nation forest etc) a bad thing????
the discrimination agianst non residents, when attempting to hunt fedraling owned land is ridiclous, we all own it equaly, just because you live closer to a parecel of land we all have a equal share in ownership doens't give you more of a right to use it.
I don't know how it can be simpler, the existing unconstitutional laws have allowed the states to screw non residents over and over. USO might be doing it for there own benifit but the reason they will win all the lawsuits is becuse the current system discrimates.
pretend you and ten friends own a nice piece of hunting land, now explain to the other 9 why you have more of a right to hunt there because you live closer.........
JAD-Pretend that your communist group owned the nice land together but only you had invested your time and money to replant the animals and protect and nurture them to a quality herd. The other nine welfare recipients just sat on their asses and watched you work until the animals were big and fat then they all came over and killed all the animals. Now how do you like them apples boy.
>Hey amadorjon, settle down with the
>non residents getting priced out
>thing. Thats how it
>works. How much of
>your tax money goes to
>the ARIZONA Game and Fish.
> Being a resident of
>Arizona, I pay all year.
> By the time I
>pay state taxes all year
>and pay the price for
>a elk tag, I probably
>have more invested in it
>than you do. .
>
I am sorry, but NONE of your state tax goes towards F&G costs. F&G costs come from tag sales and other sources. on that note, he was correct unless you can show any data showing how your income, property, gas, sales and other taxes makes its way to F&G management.
>non residents getting priced out
>thing. Thats how it
>works. How much of
>your tax money goes to
>the ARIZONA Game and Fish.
> Being a resident of
>Arizona, I pay all year.
> By the time I
>pay state taxes all year
>and pay the price for
>a elk tag, I probably
>have more invested in it
>than you do. .
>
I am sorry, but NONE of your state tax goes towards F&G costs. F&G costs come from tag sales and other sources. on that note, he was correct unless you can show any data showing how your income, property, gas, sales and other taxes makes its way to F&G management.
Bambistew
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,959
Just a quick serch shows that about half of the AZ game departmets budget comes from federal funds! So woudln't it be reasonable to consider a few more tags to the "other" people paying for the budget?
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/jlbc/05app/fis.pdf
I'm not trying to start a fight, I think that Non-res sould pay a little more, as they really don't pay for any of the infrastructure and what not but still use it (but so do tourists)
If you are argueing about how all your state tax money going into your game department... Can you show us where it comes from or goes toward?
On a side note, I commend the people that put in thier time and effort to help out the fish and game department, but find it kind of strange how all of he sudden every one in AZ volenteers thier time...
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/jlbc/05app/fis.pdf
I'm not trying to start a fight, I think that Non-res sould pay a little more, as they really don't pay for any of the infrastructure and what not but still use it (but so do tourists)
If you are argueing about how all your state tax money going into your game department... Can you show us where it comes from or goes toward?
On a side note, I commend the people that put in thier time and effort to help out the fish and game department, but find it kind of strange how all of he sudden every one in AZ volenteers thier time...
Schmalts is correct. Hunting and fishing is payed for from hunting and fishing licenses and the sale of hunting and fishing equipement not state tax dollars. This has always been my biggest complaint about non-residents paying as much as 10x the amount for a hunting license as a resident. I pay it because my state sucks as far as big game goes and Idaho is a hunters dream IMHO!. The bottom line is the states have figured out that hunting is a cash cow and over charging non-residents is the method they use.. It's wrong. I hunt federal land in Idaho I shouldn't have to pay 10x what a resident pays. I wouldn't mind paying 2x what a resident pays but the disparity is rediculous
Bambi-Take another look. You counted the non-appropriated funds with the fed funds. The fed funding is 37% of the total BUT the majority of that money is from the sports tax on purchases made in the state and paid back to us from the feds. Point is that many hunters here wanted to keep NR costs reasonable and just figure out a way to keep the majority of tags for residents like every other state with elk does. I would agree that the greed factor is not just owned by USO. Our G&F people seem to like the moo-lah also. As far as volunteering goes it is true that some of us have done some but most have not. That will sure change now with the volunteer bonus point. I do think 48 hours is a lot to get the point and seems that those who did it before with RMEF etc will benefit most but then that is fair to me. I hope you all can get over next year for your 48 hours.
Bambistew
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,959
gleninaz... you also have to figure in the "general" fund money that is paid in by the non res hunters for the tags they draw and the hunting licences they have buy to get their bonus point in the draw... I would bet you that roughly a 40-50% or even more of the "general fund" is paid for with non-resident tags and licences. SO if you add that in you're still looking at about half or more of the budget being paid for by non-resident licence sales and federal funds... The money that the residents pay into the system is a whole lot less now! How much of that money is paid for by resident fishermen who don't even hunt? I would really like to see some numbers that show how much the resident hunters acctually put into the coffers...
Pretty much every state is like this, some states are even further skewed to the right. I think ID's general fund is made up of roughly 65% non-res funds...
With a little further investigation, I'm sure you can find out where the other "Non appropriated" funds came from. I'd bet that most is federal money designated to a special project. It would be interesting to find out though.
I will agree with you that the residnets should have first shot at the tags, but is giving up 10% of those still to many? Who is really recieving the beifit?
I think that bonus point for volenteer work is a great idea too! It will save the F&G a ton of money in the long run...
Pretty much every state is like this, some states are even further skewed to the right. I think ID's general fund is made up of roughly 65% non-res funds...
With a little further investigation, I'm sure you can find out where the other "Non appropriated" funds came from. I'd bet that most is federal money designated to a special project. It would be interesting to find out though.
I will agree with you that the residnets should have first shot at the tags, but is giving up 10% of those still to many? Who is really recieving the beifit?
I think that bonus point for volenteer work is a great idea too! It will save the F&G a ton of money in the long run...
Bambi-I bet if you polled all the resident hunters here either before or after the USO suit they would have overwhelmingly said to give a full 10% to NR. If that was the issue then G&F was stupid to fight it. I think Taulman wanted 50% or more and he would not go away for 10%. Doesn't really matter to me if the feds pay 15% or 50% of the whole as long as we get this settled with residents getting the majority of the tags and prices not out of reach for all but the richest. Looks to me like the prices will go nuts and that is one way to limit demand. Not a good deal for anyone.
J
JAD29
Guest
>JAD-Pretend that your communist group owned
>the nice land together but
>only you had invested your
>time and money to replant
>the animals and protect and
>nurture them to a quality
>herd. The other nine welfare
>recipients just sat on their
>asses and watched you work
>until the animals were big
>and fat then they all
>came over and killed all
>the animals. Now how do
>you like them apples boy.
>
this makes no point, communist group?. The land I'm talking about is owned equally by all citizen of this country (whether you like it or not), at least half of the cost of game managment is paid for by the non residents who get 10% of the permits. You living closer doesn't mean #####. Apperently you can only look at the situation emotionally.
>the nice land together but
>only you had invested your
>time and money to replant
>the animals and protect and
>nurture them to a quality
>herd. The other nine welfare
>recipients just sat on their
>asses and watched you work
>until the animals were big
>and fat then they all
>came over and killed all
>the animals. Now how do
>you like them apples boy.
>
this makes no point, communist group?. The land I'm talking about is owned equally by all citizen of this country (whether you like it or not), at least half of the cost of game managment is paid for by the non residents who get 10% of the permits. You living closer doesn't mean #####. Apperently you can only look at the situation emotionally.
P
PAL
Guest
No offense Kilbuc, but could you post the portion of the US constitution that applys here?
A
azhunter79
Guest
doesnt matter who owns the land. the state owns the game on the land. and the state can manage it how they see fit, this includes limiting non residents. the only thing they CANNOT do is limit non residents in a certain way.
az79
az79
A
azhunter79
Guest
i dont know what part of the constitution any of this has to do with, but a state has the right to manage the animals in it. regardless of who owns the land. if that means they want the residents to have priority (as all states want) then it should be that way. everyone of the people on here arguing that it should be equal all take confort knowing they can hunt their own state, but it would be a different story if next season i was in their blind or out chasing their game while they sat at home.
az79
az79
C
cpsandman
Guest
Maybe I'm stupid but I fail to see how this helps out of state hunters. It does help the wealthy out of state hunters because just like USO wants, AZ will up the out of state price for licenses and a tag. They are already going down that road. SCORE: Wealthy 1, Average Hunter 0. I could see them raising the price as their way of putting a cap on NR tags. Hasn't happened yet but based on the other posts I have read, thats where they are going. This has to be what the USO wants because it almost guarantees their wealthy clients a draw. Why? Because not many will be able afford the price allowing easier draws for the wealthy. Am I right or am I missing something? Not arguing but just want to know. I understand why the NR hunters think things should be fair but money aside who managed the AZ herds to get them to the trophy level they are at? Wasn't Washington DC. Other states use federal money too and their herds are pathetic. Now everyone wants in AZ (believe me it's understandable) but to a resident who has been patiently accumulating bonus points this sucks no matter how you slice it. Just because AZ uses some federal money for part of the managament doesn't mean squat. That is not why USO won. They won because of the commerce clause. This is what is in the constitution giving congress power over interstate commerce. This falls under interstate commerce because AZ allows the commercial sale of big game parts (ie antlers). These sales can cross state lines thus allowing it to fall under interstate commerce, thus no caps. This is why USO won. It has nothing to do with federal money. Right or wrong the Federal money issue don't mean a thing. Unitl the Federal Gov steps in (heaven forbid!!!!!) and takes control over all big game that argument is obsolete. Don't punish AZ because they have limited their hunters and built up their trophy hunting. They manage their big game, it's their right to manage it how they see fit. Now the USO finds a loop hole and what has worked beautifully for AZ is shot to hell. How does this help NR hunters again? Sorry just don't see any validity to that argument. Not looking for a fight, just giving my humble worthless opinion.
CPSANDMAN
"The Buck stops here...I hope!"
CPSANDMAN
"The Buck stops here...I hope!"
Mr. Sandman-Thank you for that moment of clarity. It really does a good job of pointing out why 99% of all hunters should be working to bury Taulman and USO. The fact is that AZ will up your NR tag prices to about 8 to 10 times resident cost like other states already do. They will also up our resident cost which makes the NR tags even higher. Then add in a 48 hour volunteer point that will cut out any NR that actually works for a living. We worked hard to create a quality hunting state and sold yall tags at $360 to have a chance at a 400 class bull. You will also have to buy a license just to apply AND write that $1500 check up front. You need to do all in your power to thank USO for all this good cheer they dumped on your hunting life.
P
PAL
Guest
AZ79, I'm in total agreement with that.
R
rckymtnhunter
Guest
All very interesting conversation and a conversation that needs to be had. Management of resident game species has always, and appropriately so, been a state's right issue. It should stay that way. On the other hand, some states have been a little overboard on tag allotments to non-residents and what they charge. USO had an agenda and won, but likely didn't anticipate the backlash and one that is likely to spread to most western states. Drawing a tag won't get a lot easier and it will definitely become infinitely more expensive for non-residents. It's really a bad deal all the way around.
The facts are that a significant amount of hunting in western states is done on public lands. Tax dollars from every taxpayer in the country go to help manage those public lands, the lands that provide habitat for western game. Funds collected from excise taxes on sales of hunting and fishing gear are paid by manufacturers (and all of us who ultimately buy the stuff) and are then disbursed to the states based on a formula for game and fish management. It has nothing to do with taxes collected in that state, but is a function of population and license sales. So the game is living on public lands whose management is financed by all of us regardless of where we live and state game agencies are supplemented by excise tax disbursements paid for by all of us regardless of where we live.
In addition, if you're a member of RMEF, MDF, FNAWS, etc. a portion of your memberships and donations also go to projects in a lot western states regardless of where you live. Local chapters do a lot of the work on those projects, though.
Then non-resident license fees go a long way toward funding state game agencies. Unfortunately in many western states the term "elk management" or "Mule deer management" is an oxymoron. Most game agencies are geared much more toward enforcement than "management" or "habitat development". A significant portion of game and fish budgets, like any other government agency goes to administration and law enforcement rather than for the animals. Elk particularly have become a cash cow because western habitat has been managed for grass for livestock grazing and the elk have made the most of that practice. They don't require a lot of work for game managers. Most habitat work that gets done is performed by volunteers from the various conservation group chapters.
The upshot is that something needed to be done to allow more opportunity for non-resident hunters, but the court's decision went too far. Now we've got a mess with repurcussions that were and still are unforseen. The state should have paid more attention and worked with everyone to come up with a more workable solution.
Hopefully Taulman will drop pursuing the same action in other states and the balance of the western states will address the issues in a rational fashion that will accomodate everybody, rather than over-reacting.
The facts are that a significant amount of hunting in western states is done on public lands. Tax dollars from every taxpayer in the country go to help manage those public lands, the lands that provide habitat for western game. Funds collected from excise taxes on sales of hunting and fishing gear are paid by manufacturers (and all of us who ultimately buy the stuff) and are then disbursed to the states based on a formula for game and fish management. It has nothing to do with taxes collected in that state, but is a function of population and license sales. So the game is living on public lands whose management is financed by all of us regardless of where we live and state game agencies are supplemented by excise tax disbursements paid for by all of us regardless of where we live.
In addition, if you're a member of RMEF, MDF, FNAWS, etc. a portion of your memberships and donations also go to projects in a lot western states regardless of where you live. Local chapters do a lot of the work on those projects, though.
Then non-resident license fees go a long way toward funding state game agencies. Unfortunately in many western states the term "elk management" or "Mule deer management" is an oxymoron. Most game agencies are geared much more toward enforcement than "management" or "habitat development". A significant portion of game and fish budgets, like any other government agency goes to administration and law enforcement rather than for the animals. Elk particularly have become a cash cow because western habitat has been managed for grass for livestock grazing and the elk have made the most of that practice. They don't require a lot of work for game managers. Most habitat work that gets done is performed by volunteers from the various conservation group chapters.
The upshot is that something needed to be done to allow more opportunity for non-resident hunters, but the court's decision went too far. Now we've got a mess with repurcussions that were and still are unforseen. The state should have paid more attention and worked with everyone to come up with a more workable solution.
Hopefully Taulman will drop pursuing the same action in other states and the balance of the western states will address the issues in a rational fashion that will accomodate everybody, rather than over-reacting.
C
cpsandman
Guest
Amen Rckymtnhunter....amen. I think AZ didn't handle the case to well but it serves as a wake up call for others out there and hopefully resident hunters in those states are pushing now for something to be done so they don't end up with the same mess. Good conversation, keep up the input.
Thx Glen...just wish my wife would say just once that I brought a little clarity to a situation
CPSANDMAN
"The Buck stops here...I hope!"
Thx Glen...just wish my wife would say just once that I brought a little clarity to a situation
CPSANDMAN
"The Buck stops here...I hope!"
R
RLH
Guest
saying Az. didn't handle the case well is an understatement. shroufe and the commissioners are gutless and not very intelligent. basic politicians. but that doesn't change the fact that states rights are states rights. you can argue all you want about who gets money from where, but every dime i spent last year was in Az. except for what the fed's got, all my taxes went to Az. roads, schools, counties, cities, etc. not any other state. i'm sorry if ya differ, but that gives me a preference over nonresidents, in my opinion. i apply to other states nearly every year and i put up with whatever their rules are. don't argue, don't complain. just want to hunt. taulman and his uso lawyers have just pried the lid off of the gate to hell for all of us, if we ain't careful. Az. has some great hunting. wait in line for your permit like the rest of us. i'm a 4th generation native and have never had a sheep permit and have had only one pronghorn permit. took me 26 years to get that and it was 10 years ago. uso just priced you all out hunting here. we're gonna raise the hell out of nonresident permits. i'm glad. and unless you want to give taulman your money and participate in a hunters pool, you're never going to get drawn, either. and you're going to have to fork out a couple hundred bucks for a hunting license every year, just to apply. all because of uso. laugh all ya want. the nonresidents got screwed worse than the residents. and the only federal money we get is from the taxes on the hunting and fishing supplies sold in this state. so it really isn't federal money. it's ours, returned to us. in the past, only a few thousand nonresidents applied for Az. permits each year. compared to the over 300,000 residents that apply each year, i don't see where anyone can think that nonresidents contribute more? it's a bad deal and it's gonna get worse. i hope taulman dies friendless and lonely, because he has certainly driven a wedge into hunting.
P
PinonPaul
Guest
What will it take for some of these guys to get it? If you are a NR of Arizona with a modest income, Taulman is in the process of taking away your opportunity to have a world class hunt on public land! He is not fighting for more NR opportunities, just simply lining his pockets with more cash. So far the only winners in this mess are Taulman, his NR clients with deep pockets, and several AZ guides and outfitters who will have more business also. ( don't forget the lawyers $$ )
When you guys have no options left for a great, DIY hunt on public land, maybe then someone will wake up!
When you guys have no options left for a great, DIY hunt on public land, maybe then someone will wake up!
