This thing with USO isn't over yet. I hope the only reason everything has settled down about it is because everybody is out hunting. I plan to write letters to all of my House and Senate Reps., both state and national. Also, I plan to write to every outdoor magazine I can. I hope I don't have to do this alone. I am asking everybody to join me, and lets get something done about what USO did in AZ. Let's force the AZGFD to give residents an advantage. And for all of you who will give me crap about this, you will fell the same way when YOU DO NOT HAVE RESIDENT ADVANTAGE IN YOUR STATE. Notice how I mention WHEN, not IF. It is just a matter of time. I am asking all AZ residents who want to stop USO to please write Jon Kyle and John McCain as well as others who are in the House of Reps. Also, please write to your local representatives in the state Senate and House. Lets get the ball rolling or this could be very well the last greatest hunting season in the West. I gaurantee that as soon as this years seasons are over, USO will be back at it trying to do to other states what they did to AZ. Lets stop them before they can get it done, and at the same time fix what they did to AZ. HELP. I hope I am not the only one who feels this way.
USO
- Thread starter sremim
- Start date
R
rost495
Guest
Give me some ammo. Info. Like even though its federal land, how much does each state spend of its own state money on managment etc.....
Get me the data and I'll write some folks!
Jeff
Get me the data and I'll write some folks!
Jeff
I wrote 'em all weeks ago and asked them to support the Reid/Nevada bill. He looks like he may replace Dash-hole as minority leader in the senate. I hope the election will tell the politicians they need to respond to that 38 million sportsman's vote that Kerry wanted so bad. If Kyle and McCain won't help then we need to vote some heat on them next election. Keep fighting.
txhunter58
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 8,588
LAST EDITED ON Nov-05-04 AT 01:02PM (MST)[p]Rost, as a fellow Texan and nonresident hunter, I am really concerned if USO's "victories" spread over the west.
Some people have said if the Feds supply 50% of the money to manage federal lands, nonresidents should be entiltled to 50% of the tags. I would dissagree with this for several reasons:
1) Any citizen of the US can go onto federal lands to "enjoy" them 365 days of the year. Every year, I hike, fish, camp and enjoy federal lands without limitations (except for fishing regulations).
2) The state "legally owns" the wildlife within in boundaries, even those on federal lands. Just like Texans don't own the wildlife that reside on their private land. The state tells us what we can do on own own land about hunting.
3) It seems fair to me that residents should get more than 50% the tags in their own stated. Imagine if you couldn't go hunting in your own state every year because a nonresident got your tag.
Also, the main reason I see nonresidents are going to be the big loser in this deal is that if this kind of tag allocation is allowed to stand, you will see our out of state tag prices go through the roof. Can you say $1500 or even $2500 for an elk tag? I sure can't afford this kind of increase and the vast majority of nonresidents can't either. They have the legal precident in court to keep raising our tags too. If they lose the ability to control our numbers with a cap on nonresidents, raising prices will be the logical next step.
So, I don't really care how much the federal government spends to manage your and my federal lands. Bottom line is that what USO is doing will hurt the average nonresident and there will be limits anyway.
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
Some people have said if the Feds supply 50% of the money to manage federal lands, nonresidents should be entiltled to 50% of the tags. I would dissagree with this for several reasons:
1) Any citizen of the US can go onto federal lands to "enjoy" them 365 days of the year. Every year, I hike, fish, camp and enjoy federal lands without limitations (except for fishing regulations).
2) The state "legally owns" the wildlife within in boundaries, even those on federal lands. Just like Texans don't own the wildlife that reside on their private land. The state tells us what we can do on own own land about hunting.
3) It seems fair to me that residents should get more than 50% the tags in their own stated. Imagine if you couldn't go hunting in your own state every year because a nonresident got your tag.
Also, the main reason I see nonresidents are going to be the big loser in this deal is that if this kind of tag allocation is allowed to stand, you will see our out of state tag prices go through the roof. Can you say $1500 or even $2500 for an elk tag? I sure can't afford this kind of increase and the vast majority of nonresidents can't either. They have the legal precident in court to keep raising our tags too. If they lose the ability to control our numbers with a cap on nonresidents, raising prices will be the logical next step.
So, I don't really care how much the federal government spends to manage your and my federal lands. Bottom line is that what USO is doing will hurt the average nonresident and there will be limits anyway.
txhunter58
venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)
R
rost495
Guest
TX I wasnt and am not pro USO at all.
I just want the ammo to write the letter. All the passion you want to put out doesn't mean anything but junk mail if you dont' have facts.
Their rebuttal most likely is that its federal land. I was seeking the type of info you gave me. IE what does the state do to spend their money to manage it.
Even though residents should have the most shots at it(I'd think 75% would be a good figure just off the top of my head) we have to state why.
"Because" is never a reason.
Having written way to many pro gun letters, especially pro "assualt weapons" I know what needs to be pointed out.
Thanks for the info. Just wanted you to know where I stand.
More info always welcome
Jeff
I just want the ammo to write the letter. All the passion you want to put out doesn't mean anything but junk mail if you dont' have facts.
Their rebuttal most likely is that its federal land. I was seeking the type of info you gave me. IE what does the state do to spend their money to manage it.
Even though residents should have the most shots at it(I'd think 75% would be a good figure just off the top of my head) we have to state why.
"Because" is never a reason.
Having written way to many pro gun letters, especially pro "assualt weapons" I know what needs to be pointed out.
Thanks for the info. Just wanted you to know where I stand.
More info always welcome
Jeff
