az & uso...

[FLIPPER]

Geez...can we play nice long enough on a thread that I can ask a question on the topic



Wouldn't have been wiser for AZ to ban Outfitting or charge them outrageous fees intead of fleecing Nonresidents as a whole...and giving us one in the "HOLE"?

 

[BuzzH]

Flipper,

AZGF could have just set aside a guaranteed 10% of the total tags and avoided the lawsuit as well.

They handled this thing like crap.

 

[A-con]

To ban "outfitting" would punish all the good ones as well as the few bad ones.
A lot of good ideas have been proposed to "fix the problem" in Arizona, but who knows what will pass the "legal challange" test ?
For the most part, I think the Az. DFG is on the right tract, as long as they don't get carried away with the tag prices.

 

[MattK]

A-con- I agree with you on not banning outfitters. I believe that would be detrimental in a lot of different ways. Some people need help when they are hunting and need an outfitter.

I do disagree with AZDFG wanting to increase prices to decrease the number of out-of-state hunters (getting even with USO). This would be doing the same thing as getting rid of outfitters. It punishes all out-of-state hunters which it really should not do.

 

[schmalts]

You know i just have to add one more thing about the AZ and USO topic.
When the lawsuit hit, everyone in AZ screamed for help from the nonres to write letters, boycott products, and so on. The nonresidents stood behind AZ overwhelmingly. It just seems that the AZ guys now are so self centered that all they care about ( at least they say) is scrwing USO over in return. But they dont care if they pretty much kill off the hunting opportunity of the guys who pretty much stood behind them doing so, and those same guys that stood behind them had plenty to gain from this lawsuit but still stood behind the AZ residents.
All i have to say is if you guys think that anyone should stand behind this latest lawsuit or "USO threat" you are dreaming. I am not going to name names but the majority of you prooved to me that you used our support with no intention to do the same for us. So, to make it short, I hope USO kicks ass from now on until you AZ boys start thinking about someone other than yourselves and your spat with USO.
To say that you dont care about the nonres pricing as long as it hurts USO prooves you all shit on us after you just got our total support. It reminds me of the time when the USA famin support workers were shot down in Ethiopia and the sand monkeys dragged the bodies through the streets cheering.

 

[cjcj]

Seems all you nonresidents want it all...How about answering a very "simple" Question..one that i have put out there several times but everyone avoids......Why would/should someone from out of state want to come to AZ to hunt a species... that is almost immpossible for an AZ resident to draw? that in other states you can buy an over the counter tag..... Lets use [Antelope] as an example.

 

[MattK]

There are many reasons for an out-of stater wanting to hunt "your" state. 1st it isn't your state, it's a part of the United States. States are not private property. The opportunity to hunt many states should be allowed to all people. Again, I have as many rights as you do. As long as AZ is not the United State of Arizona, I have that right.

2nd- I may have lived there for years and moved to another state but still wish to hunt in the places I used to.

3rd- There may be better odds of getting a trophy size animal which I wish to have.

4th- That's where my hunting buddies live. I wish to hunt with them.

5th- I have family I wish to experience the outdoors with and they get tired of always coming to see me. They want me to go and see them.

6th- BECAUSE I WANT TO.

I could go on but there's a few for you to ponder.

 

[BuzzH]

cjcj,

1. I cant buy OTC antelope in Wyoming.

2. I cant hunt desert sheep in Wyoming.

3. I cant hunt coues deer in Wyoming.

4. I want to show the fat-assed arizona atv hunters how easy it is to kill a good bull in AZ.

 

[Nemont]

I agree with schmalts on this. I wrote letters at the behest of Arizona sportsman with the idea that when USO came to Montana to sue our state it would be reciprocated. I didn't write in support of pricing the average working man out of a once in a lifetime hunt he may have dreamed of. All I can say is that it is a round world, what goes around comes around.

Nemont

P.S. I can't buy an over the counter buck antelope tag here

 

[A-con]

I wrote a few letters also, but I don't see all Az resident hunters trying to screw us Non-residents. The new "fees" that everyone is howeling about are just upper limits. The highest that "may" be charged without another bill being passed to allow higher fees. That dosn't mean they are going to charge $3,200 for a premimum bull tag next year. The number I keep hearing is a 30% increase for the 2005 season, and I think thats reasonable. Many of the Arizona tags were the cheapest in the west, for possably the best tag !
Only time will tell, but I have no problem with paying five or six hundred dollars for a good bull tag in Arizona ! ( if you do, can I have your bonus points ? )

 

[cjcj]

Well Matt your wrong! you don`t have the same "rights" to hunt in AZ as i do...thats why they have resident/ non resident tags so you need to think about that issue!...your 2nd thru 6th place reasons are just too "pathetic" to address. Buzz your reasons at least make some sense..[coues/sheep]except the last one [funny but very weak]... Buzz are you saying that you cannot get an "antelope tag" every year in Wyoming? Or just an OTC tag?

 

[BuzzH]

cjcj, actually, as things stand right now, we all have an equal shot at your tags...so I guess we do have the same rights as you (permit wise anyway).

Depending on the area, I may or may not be able to get an antelope tag every year. With some research, you can assure yourself a tag every year. We can also get up to 2 doe/fawn tags for antelope.

One of these years I'm going to pluck one of your coveted elk tags and get one without an ATV.

I guess maybe the main reason I put in for the elk tags is because I want to. I dont need to justify why to you or anyone else. I'll always be able to apply in AZ so deal with it.

 

[WapitiBob]

Unfortunatly for the AZ resident, their Game and fish dept screwed the pooch on this. Not only do we (non res) have the same opportunity to hunt your animals, after your game and fish dept loses this next suit we'll be able to do it for the same money.
I'm not saying it's right (it's not) but you guys better put a leash on your wild ass game and fish dept before you lose all your hunting.

 

[AZBuckSnort]

Remember, Judge Broomfield did not say that AZ could not prefer residents over nonresidents in the big game drawings. He said the state had to implement a less discriminatory method than the "up to 10% cap". In fact his ruling states that the state can prefer residents over nonresidents.

It is also a fact that a highly inflammatory letter, sent out by USO's George Taulman to thousands of nonresident applicants, seeking donations to fund the legal challenge against AZ's resident hunters is what started the process. It appears Mr. Taulman intended to pit residents vs. nonresidents all along.

It also seems that thousands of concerned hunters from all over the west banded together to complain about the USO lawsuit and some of USO's sponsors picked up on the negative vibe and cut ties with the outfit.

After taking input from residents and nonresidents alike, the AZG&FD has selected several strategies to comply with Judge Broomfield's ruling. Some of them will be adopted, some will not. The matter of raising fees is a natural course of events that was going to happen in time anyway. Do you interpret the Judge's ruling to imply that AZ couldn't raise its' fees for licenses and permits? How could anyone think that when the state's big game permits are under-valued when compared to what our neighboring states are charging for the very same opportunities: Utah Paunsaugunt mule deer $568.00, New Mexico High Demand/High Quality elk almost $800.00, Nevada bull elk $1000.00, California's limited number of tags effectively eliminates nonresident opportunity to hunt elk, sheep, and antelope. Utah offers tiny numbers of tags for nonresident opportunity in their limited draw bull elk areas. As someone earlier posted, the figures put forth by the department are ceilings that would likely take years to reach. Bringing permit fees inline with western counterparts appears to be what the state is looking to accomplish.

IMO, much of this could have been, and may still be able to be avoided, by simply passing a law prohibiting the sale, transfer, trade, or barter of any wildlife parts obtained through the use of a state issued big game license and hunting permit. An exemption for licensed taxidermists would need to be worked out as a provision of the law. Next, the state would setaside 10-15% of the big game permits authorized for the upcoming seasons in a seperate drawing for nonresidents. Any leftover permits after the draw would be available to residents and nonresidents alike in a seperate drawing. This setaside, with tag allotments that would be up to 100% increases in permit numbers from historical draw data, would demonstrate a sincere willingness to comply with Judge Broomfield's ruling.

In the end, can a nonresident honestly say that they should have the same access to tag in AZ as a resident of the state? Really? Do you believe AZ residents should have equal access to your state's premium deer, elk, pronghorn, and sheep tags? I didn't think so.

 

[cjcj]

Very Well stated AzBucksnort [pure logic & facts]

 

[ringer]

Snort-An excellent synopsis of the issue. We all get twisted up and pissed off but the fact is that we will work through the Taulman deal with a stronger G&F, more NR opportunity than before but all will pay more money. So what. We are only 5% of the population and are easy to screw in the billfold by the politicians. I think USO will dwindle and die in time. Our G&F is mailing all tags to the hunter's address so no more real tag possession at Taulman's office to blackmail his clients with. He has lost his sponsors and credibility with real hunters after all the airplane use and the lawsuit. He is already a dead business just hasn't started to rot yet. Oh, Buzz, I have been working out and dieting as you hurt my feelings with your personal attacks about my fat ass and being a drunk. You owe me an apology you fudgepacker.

 

[BuzzH]

Ringer,

I owe you an apology for what? I thought you didnt ride your atv much?

Good job on the excercise and diet, at your age, its smart to do things like that. May get an extra 5+ years of quality hunting in.

As to the issue at hand, I agree with AZBucksnort, all AZ has to do is set aside 10+ percent of the tags for a seperate NR draw and they'll be fine. I also dont mind the tag increases, but a 30% increase in one shot is pretty significant. I also think a $3200 premium elk tag is a "little" above what any other state charges for a similar tag. All I have to say is AZ better be careful in their pursuit of putting the screws to Taulman, as they may be finding themselves on the losing end of another lawsuit. I guess they can always use that extra money they charge for licenses to cover court costs. Meanwhile fish and wildlife programs are underfunded...

 

[ringer]

Buzz-JK on the attack thing. I never ride the ATV but am losing some fat. I hope the end cost will be around $1000 for a NR premium tag. I hope that the "cap" is just that and not the next fee schedule. We will know soon enough. Good luck with the draw.

 

[BuzzH]

Ringer,

I could agree on the 1k premium elk tag over the next several years...costs of doing business for the G&F does go up all the time.

I dont put in for the premium tags anyway...usually November bull hunts.

Thanks for the luck on the drawing...

 

[Bullhound]

I'm behind th AZ residents all the way. The prices are celings and they haven't even detailed what a "premium" elk tag is.