What about this Idea for you AZ guys

[schmalts]

Just a thought, as it seems we agree that most of you dont care for USO but can stomach the do it yourselfers, Maybe this is a hairbrain idea. Let me know.
Require all applicants to do thier own application by themselves, only for themselves, and ship results and tags only to the applicants. this would hurt USO's tag application service (and wallet) and not hurt the do it yourselfers like me.
remember that USO makes a good lot of money this way. I only bring this up because i see other posts about ways to discriminate against nonres hunters like 2 week hunters safety courses and stuff like that. that would not be good for the average guy who has little money to take a 2 week vacation just for this. I really wish USO would have gone about this in a different way, And AZ agreed to something before this came down.

 

[txhunter58]

Sounds like a good idea, but I see a couple of problems with it:

1) How does AZ tell an application from you vs. one sent by USO. They are probably both just a application with your signature on it.

2) Sounds like another lawsuit that USO could win. Not sure you could make a law/reg that would restrict USO and hold up in court.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[schmalts]

If they forge signatures they are open to losing hunting rights by law. i dont think they would do that.
How could they lose a lawsuit like that? what would be the grounds for USO to sue? I dont think they would have a leg to stand on.

 

[Bugler]

I think USO is given power of atty to sign for them. IF anyone has IDeas to submit go to the AZG&F website, were all ears right now.

 

[Bura Nut]

Hopefully this issue is resolved for 2005. The AZGFD will require any applicant to have their home address on the application which provides for the department to mail the tags to the successful applicant and not the successful applicant "service". I was told by Mr. Ferrell that this would be a change that the department can institute and not have to get court approval on ......... Thanks, Allen Taylor......

 

[dwalton]

How does this resolve the situation? All USO has to do is make their clients sign a contract that upon a successful draw, the client's credit card will automatically be charged the initial deposit for the hunt drawn. A home address instead of a service address is merely a matter of semantics.

I think everyone is getting a little "tunnel-vision" regarding USO and their application service. Last time I checked quite a few people/companies offer this service. Just to name a few: Cabelas, Garth Carter, Larry Altimus, and just about every other western outfitter that has an established client base. What are we going to do? Boycott Cabelas because their T-A-G-S clients are referred to a guide who works for USO? The simple fact is the process of getting a permit to hunt the West has forever changed. Residents of Arizona and Nevada (like me) will see decreased opportunity to hunt at home, while their chances of drawing in Wyoming or Montana will increase. That is, unless, the game departments use the pig-headed mentality of "screw the non-resident by raising tag fees to outrageous levels". Then it just may become cheaper to hunt caribou in Alaska than try to scrape together the $15,000 to apply for 7 or 8 non-resident permits.

 

[gleninaz]

dwalton-I tend to not want any major increases in non-res fees either as that does not solve this problem. The tag mailing issue will impact all the tag services and yes they can ask for an up front contract but this is the USA and competition may come into play. A competitor who has less legal hoops could take some business. I disagree that hunting has just changed forever. I know how dynamic this thing has got and I bet the states are all communicating with each other and AGs to get this problem fixed for the future. I certainly wouldn't roll over and figure we can't impact the situation. Don't give up just yet.

 

[antlerradar]

It you realy want to put a crimp on UOS this is what you do. It would realy suck but it would work.

First: Eliminate all of the Landowner and Outfitter Sponsor tags, Governor's tags, ect. This would hurt the way the Game and Fish is funded and would be very political. If USO want everything to be fare and equal than make it all equal. ( I am asuming that USO's ultimate goal is to force game departments to treat nonresidents and residents the same.) This could be done with a ballot referndom. I don't belive that the genral public voting on wildlife managment is a good thing but on the other hand this would be more of a funding issue.

Second: All States would have to eliminate over the counter tags. This would realy suck bad and would be hard to take. On the other hand The alernitive is not good if USO gets there way. If my home state of MT had of go to OTC tags for nonresident at a resident price quality hunting would be a thing of the past. In my opinon if USO gets its way MT will have to go to a draw only sistom anyway.

Third: All states would have to run there season at same time. My sugestion would be the first three weeks of Oct for Rifle and The last three weeks of September for Bow. This would eliminate alot of hunting opportunity for hunters but would be much harder on nonresidents than residents. You can't be two places at the same time and so you could only hunt is three maybe four states a year. This would be real tough on multistate Outfitters like USO. No longer could you hunt the early season in Utah, Wyoming in Oct. Montana in November, and some late hunts in Colorado ind the same year. Now an outfitter would half to make a living on three weeks of hunting ad a few bow hunts. USO would starve to death.

I don't think what I have above is a good thing. In fact much of it would suck. Most people are trying to find a solution that will have little inpact on resideint and limit nonresidents. The realty is that USO is not going to let this hapen.

Antlerradar