News about USO

[danr55]

On a more logical note, why should the residents of the state of Arizona be restricted to applying for only one hunt in their home state while it's open to everyone from every other state to apply for any and all hunts? The logic is backward. Then Gunner is opposed to anything that is logical or provides remedy. He enjoys being contrary to what other find to be the right way of doing things. Besides, his @#)(# holster is open... Ha!Ha!Ha!....

Maybe his tune will change when USO comes to Idaho and he can no longer buy a tag over the counter. From what I've heard, Montana is next and then Idaho after that.. Seems the boys have already been to Montana..

 

[JoseCuervo]

DanR,

Not just restrict Residents to a single specie, but to restrict ALL applicants. Instead of AZHunter applying for 'Lope, Deer, Buff, Elk, Sheep, etc... He has to choose just one critter to apply for. You may have just reduced your applicant pool by 90% on some tags.

Think about how you could hurt USO. Remove the Second-4th choices??? Remove the Bonus Points?? Remove Non-Resident Bonus points???

IF you want to figure out the solution, you gotta be able to open your mind, and figure out the other party's motivation.

I have no trouble with USO coming up here. They will fail in Idaho for the reason that we hunt Public Land, and the outfitters up here have to compete with the Moosie type hunters. It doesn't matter if USO can get a tag for one of their hunters in Idaho, the value of the tag to their customer ain't gonna be that much, and you wouldn't hire one of their outfitters on 90% of the land in Idaho.

 

[1_pointer]

UT only allows an applicant to apply for one limited entry species (deer, elk, antelope) and one once-in-a-lifetime species (mtn goat, desert and Rocky Mountain sheep, Shiras moose, and bison). Interestingly, the odds for drawing a bison tag are better for non-res than res due to the # of applicants. Though it sucks, as you have less anticipation for drawing tags, your odds are slightly better due to having to pick a species.

 

[Ithaca 37]

Maybe this will be the kind of issue that can be used to get the hunters in AZ organized. Seems like they oughta have enough ingenuity to start fighting the USO and the ranchers who want landowner tags. It all starts with electing the right politicians, not just the ones the NRA tells them to. Elect the ones who will do the most to protect wildlife habitat and support the Game and Fish Dept.

 

[danr55]

Gunner, just an FYI.. Arizona is 83% public land. It didn't slow them down at all. Now there is a move from the ranchers to acquire landowner tags. You know that has to be directly related since the lette to AZGF was dated the same day the verdict was released. This all is beginning to smack of conspiracy. Conspiracy to take the sport of hunting away from the average guy and make it a rich man's sport.

 

[BuzzH]

Danr, while I agree with you about the landowner tags, I suggest you quit making the problem worse...IE by peddling NM elk tags....

Just a thought, and not trying to be a smart ass about it. But, I wouldnt do anything to help anyone or any rancher who sells landowner/outfitter sponsored tags.

The NM tags have moved beyond the "conspiracy" stage and have taken the average guy out of hunting.

 

[danr55]

Buzz, none of these are outfitter sponsored tags. The seller is a friend who owns an archery shop in Alberquerque. They are from friends of his who own property in and around the area.

 

[Oak]

So why is it ok for landowners to get preference when it's not ok for outfitters? How many landowners let the general public in for free? Just curious what distinction you're making there.

Oak

 

[1_pointer]

Arizona is 83% public land

Not to be nit picky, but I think this figure is WAY high. NV, UT, and ID have the highest percentages of public land in the lower 48 and IIRC NV is only about 83%. UT is the second highest and is approximately 75%.

 

[Delw]

I think what he meant to say was that, not counting the indian reservations AZ has about 83% public land.
The indian reservations take up close to a 1/4 of this state.


Now Dan on the land owner tags. Thats kinda 2 faced that you dont support them for AZ but will support them for NM isnt it. Wether it be a friend or not its still a landowner tag.


Delw

 

[Calif. Hunter]

I think landowner tags are okay, but that they should be given on a one-for-one basis - a non-paying resident should be given the opportunity to hunt the ranch for every paying tag purchaser. Give the landowner a list of successful resident hunters for that unit and let him allow one on for free for each paying cdustomer. The resident hunter has to return his tag to the DFG to show compliance on the part of the landowner. Now if the landowner's nephew draws a tag, so be it - he took his chances inthe draw like everyone else. Otherwise, the landowner has to allow a stranger to hunt there.

I would much rather see this than the depredation hunts where the landowner can just slaughter game.

 

[Oak]

Cali,
How many family and friends do you think there are that apply for an area where a landowner has land? I think it would be pretty easy for the landowner to find enough friends (that probably already hunt there anyway) that he wouldn't be giving anything to the general hunter. I say throw the landowner quota into the general application pot. If the rich folk are lucky enough to draw, then the landowner can make some money. If not, the landowner can put up with the animals being there or let hunters in for free.

Oak

 

[The Hedgehog]

Elkgunner, USO just might be out to help you get a tag in Arizona, but probably only if you want to have one of his 3rd rate guides take you on a Wal-Mart special $3450 elk hunt in one of the best units in the state. You know, the ones where your odds of getting one of the 2 non-resident tags are against 5,000 other numbers in the draw, 2,500 of them from USO's license application service. If they are lucky their lawsuit has made it possible for the license pool to go from 2 nonresident tags to 5, meaning your odds went from 0.04% to 0.1%. So much for saving your bacon in the draw with this lawsuit. Taulman must really be looking out for you.

If you hand the reigns to the USO types, it might not be too long before your hunting trips are replaced with regular visits to Walmart during the fall to pick-up your latest copy of HUNT-USO IDAHO edition VII. Watching some cheesy hunting video might bring back memories when you actually could draw a license to hunt in your own state. While shopping in Wally World you might overhear the pierced up urban trash checkout boy talking about guiding for a USO client, some lard-ass Maryland prick that brought up an entire fleet of ATVs to assist in the filling of his special set-aside outfitter permit in the USFS areas around town. The pierced up punk may mention that it was also his first time in the area, but since the ID Game & Fish now manages wildlife for the lobbying outfitters and limited opportunities for state residents, the quality is tremendous and large antlered bulls can be taken easily by any jackass with a rifle and a pick-up truck. Meanwhile, you will be stuck sitting at home on your ass, with your son (who’s become addicted to X-box video games because he doesn’t get outside enough). You kids and grandkids might cross their fingers to get one of those cow elk depredation permits just a time or two in their lives unless he wants to pay some dick-weed 10 large to take him road-hunting in Idaho’s next generation of high-quality elk hunts.

The Taulman types are going to screw it up for all the hunters… unless you’re that jackass from Maryland with all the ATVs.

I encourage you to order USO’s 2004 brochure. See if you can read between the lines and recognize what it’s all about and the type of hunter it targets. What happened in AZ was a bad deal. How many extra deer permits were given out on the strip? What are the deer numbers like there now? And was that an impact that needed to be placed on the deer so some outfitter could try to acquire more business?

 

[Delw]

Greeny welcome back and congrats on the new addition.


The reason G&F gave the extra tags was due to the fact they wouldnt be able to get new ones printed in time for the hunts not to mention the cost factors(mainly stating this from reading other boards where people think its easy to print out and mail umteen thousand tags).

They were under court order to get it done immediatly which was next to impossible due to season dates not to mention the cost.

USO definatly opened a bunch of lawsuits by sue happy people wanting to fullfill one of there childhood fantasy's. Ranchers are going to jump all over this and they have been looking for excuess for some time now.

AZ WAS a great place to hunt granted it took a long time to get a tag but you could expect one or to in your life time. Now with this box (combined with teh $5.00 draw)opened you will be lucky to 1 one in your kids lifetime.

AZ is not like other states where we have the animal to support alot of people hunting. Hell we cant support our residant hunters let alone the 50,000 non residents.
In most other states you can do some kind of big game hunting OTC here in AZ its archery deer and bear only. Archery deer will be the next target for the draw for a few reasons. One there are far more people doing it that what it was org set up for and 2 becuase you dont need to draw and can get some pretty big bucks.

Kibab(12A) is getting hammer with archery deer hunters and this includes 13A&B and 12B , deer are getting whacked and stacked there at a pretty high rate which in turn will make it a draw only.
While we have some pretty big deer in the deserts and plenty of them you wont see more than a handful of hunters hunting them until the dec archery hunt. for the simple fact its too freakin hot. No one wants to trapes all over the desert in 100º-110º heat to get a buck, they want the high cool pine units which only consist of about a 1/6-1/8 of the state if that..

so like gunner said earlier residents wont be getting tags. due to rancher tags, outfitter tags more nores tags, I am sure they will be adding fag tags(for those that are hetrosexually challenged, cause they will feel like they are getting discriminated against) Then we have to have minority tags and indian tags(indians dont want to kill shit on there own land cost to much).


The more I been thinking I like the Idaho way they do choice tags. you can only put in for one primary species. if G&F modified this in a way lets say only one draw for the same species every two-three years it might work.


Delw

 

[Ithaca 37]

Even if the landowner isn't allowed to sell his landowner tags, they still have value to him. He can give them to his banker and friend on the County Commission to make sure he'll get preferential treatment.

 

[danr55]

I don't think it's two faced. New Mexico has several times the tags that Arziona has, they also have several times the area in deeded property. I have no qualm with land owner tags for contiguous sections of deeded property. What I object to is folks demanding land owner tags for 700,000 acres of land when only 26,000 acres of that land is under deed and no parcles larger than about 1200 acres.. Like a ranch we both know.. If the state of Arizona sees fit to issue land owner tags at the rate of say one tag for every 40,000 acres of contiguous deeded property, then I say OK.. Of course I don't think that are more than 2 ranches that big under deed in the state.

 

[BuzzH]

Danr,

Thanks for the reply, now I know where you stand.

Knowing that, I dont want to hear another word about how you're getting screwed in AZ.

Landowner tags or Outfitter tags, either one, take average Joe hunter out of the game.

I dont see how you can whine about USO wanting tags or their clients to get tags, then turn around and say its OK that some welfare rancher gets tags to 1. Sell to some rich dude 2. So he/she can hunt every year in a unit you or I couldnt draw but once or twice a lifetime 3. Give the tag to one of their buddies.

When you're sitting on your duff wondering why you dont have a tag while others hunt AZ each year...remember this thread.

You're selling yourself and fellow hunters down the river...thanks for nothing.

 

[1_pointer]

Del- I'm guessing if you took the BIA lands out, AZ would have even less fed. land, as BIA counts as fed. It doesn't really matter either way, I was just being anal about the number as it's too high IMO.

 

[1_pointer]

Just some FYI:

Taken from World Almanac 2004: as per Office of Governmentwide Policy, General Services Administration; as of Sept. 30, 2002.

AZ - 50.10%
CO - 34.90%
CT - 0.50%
ID - 65.00%
MT - 31.30%
NM - 34.10%
NV - 91.70%
UT - 66.50%
WY - 50.60%

These are the percentage of acreage owned by the feds per state. Granted that doesn't take in all public land (state), but I'd be suprised if 33% of AZ is owned by the state.

 

[whitedeer]

"CT - 0.50%".....interesting that 1/2 of this is the New London Submarine base and the other 1/2 is a lake controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers.