No segregated tags?

[dgibson]

An HHH member has posted an interesting issue on the HHH BB. So I thought I'd bring it over here to feed the fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Does anyone here use USO for any reason?

I'm curious, due to the lawsuit they are pushing through the 9th district circut court of appeals. If they get their way by the time its all over you might have as much trouble getting a draw tag in your state as we are here in AZ.
( this is the way I understand things and I might be a little off on the specifics) They have pushed the point that game animals are interstate commerce. And being interstate commerce the states wont be allowed to " segregate " tags. Arizona allots 10% of big game tags to non-residents. USO wants to make 100% available to non-residents. And at this point they are winning.
This might not look like a bad thing to those of you that dont live here. But think of it in your home state. Out here I am lucky to get an elk tag every 4 years, and that is archery. I know of rifle hunters who average one every 8 years. Since just about every area in AZ that has elk would be concidered a " trophy area" It would be virtually impossible for me to ever get a bull elk tag, deer tag or just about everything except Javalina.
I hope someday for my children to be able to hunt here in Arizona. With Field and Stream touting this decision by the courts as opening a wonderland to hunters from out of state I dont think the odds will be very good for that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://www.hhh-usa.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=5&t=46&s=53e5ea63eea87fc460012a575a4c47df

MY OPINION: As I said on the other BB, my first thought would be "hooray" because it means a better chance for me. But, on the other hand, if I lived there I'd think it stinks. Residents shouldn't have to compete with NR's for all tags. Some of them, maybe. But they ought to get a bone. But, then, if it's Federal land we're talking about, don't I own it as much as they do? I don't know, I confuse myself. Opinions?

 

[Lostagain]

It's really going to change the rules as to who controls what. The animals were to be owned by the states, the fed land administered by the feds, the private property was to be private.
This changes everything about who is in control of their little kingdoms. I would say the only way to get a tag is to be a landowner and fight for landowner preference tags then you are in line for the landowner tags right? As for the rest of you peons, thanks for doing a super job on taking care of the game and its habitats for uso.

 

[FLIPPER]

Like you Darren, I say hooray...but at the same time feel bad for the residents.

But then if you look at Delw...it took 20 yrs for him to get a RESIDENT tag. So I don't see where they would be losing. I have always felt sorry for the western state residents...I mean they live there and may not get to hunt if they do not draw a tag, and if they are lucky enough to draw a tag......1 animal is all they can take.

You know as well as I, that here it is nearly unlimited on how many animals we can kill if we choose to.

Look at the $$$$ these states will get from those pricey nonresident tags if it goes from 10% to 100%. Residents will scream boycott, but I guarantee you all the tags we still be sold. IMO

 

[Ithaca 37]

Residents of Western states are heavily subsidized by non resident license fees. They scream about the non residents hunting and fishing in the West, but they scream even louder if their F&G Dept. talks about raising resident fees. Yet they demand more services from the Dept. all the time.

Notice who always yells about more enforcement people to catch the ATV crowd!

 

[dgibson]

Flipper and Ithaca, I have to agree with both of you. If the locals don't want the added competition from non-residents maybe they should give their state DNR's a reason to keep them out. Like I've worried over before, you can't manage wildlife on good intentions.

 

[Lostagain]

As I have said before, when the individuals of each state no longer are in a preference for their locale there will be no incentive for them as res to promote ethical behavior for their state's game.
perception: it depends on WHO you are stealing from that determines to many people what really is theft.

 

[dgibson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>when the individuals of each state no longer are in a preference for their locale there will be no incentive for them as res to promote ethical behavior for their state's game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Lostagain, I'm lost again.

I don't understand your statement. If residents don't get preference over non-residents, they don't have an incentive to behave ethically? Do you mean that they're encouraged to hunt w/o tags or otherwise break the law? Huh?

 

[Lostagain]

dg, there was an article in the Montana magizine just about this, (april 2002, I think).
kinda the old europe idea of poaching the king's deer, who really cares except the king.
But if people have something invested, tangible or even intangible, the people do a better job of taking care of their own.

 

[FEW]

I think 10% of the tags is plenty. We already have a hard enough time getting tags as it is. Most of our rifle antelope hunts are 1% to 3% chance of getting drawn right now and rifle bull tags are 2% to 8% chance of getting drawn in most areas. This will only make it worse. I think USO are a bunch of assholes screw anyone that uses their service! JMO

 

[dgibson]

Lostagain, point taken. You're right, when a person believes that he has a hand in something he tends to do a better job of taking care of it.

C'mon, FEW...don't hold back.

I have to ask...how is your state doing on funds for your F&W or DNR? Are they doing OK with the current 10% system, or are they needing more money? My own state's agency is about 2 steps away from bankruptcy. Here are the general attitudes toward raising more money:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Don't raise resident tags. We can't afford it.

<LI>Don't bring more non-residents into the state. We're crowded enough as it is.

<LI>Don't make a publically-funded measure to raise money (i.e., a point on the sales tax, a portion of the general fund, etc.). If sportsmen fund all of the conservation projects in the state then we are guaranteed to have a say in management issues. If we let non-sportsmen contribute money then they will want to have a say in conservation issues, too.
[/list]

All of that being said, where are we supposed to get the money that's necessary for proper conservation? It has to come from SOMEWHERE, and it had better come soon. We can't raise resident fees, can't get more NR's with more money, can't ask the general populace to help out. Do you not have these problems?

 

[FEW]

Im not sure that our G&F dept are hurting quite that bad but I believe they are short on funds. Our non res tag fees are low compared to other western states we could jack up the price of non res fees some more and keep it at 10% then we would be getting more money and wouldnt have to compete with the non res for tags. Personally i would support a price increase in the residents tags and licenses rather than remove the 10% cap on non res tags. Back east you guys dont have this issue as much because everywhere you go its whitetail and turkey, and people from all over the country dont flood into your areas to hunt those species. In AZ we have 9 big game species and people from all over want a crack at them. I just want my chance too.

 

[dgibson]

You're right in that people from all over don't flood our state. Most of our non-residents are from the next state over, because the grass is always greener on the other side.

Whether their numbers compare or not(per square mile), I don't know for a fact, but I bet they do. The one big difference, though, is the fact that we don't limit tags on our big game (elk excepted). There's no competition for tags, just for space to use them. It would almost seem to be the opposite out west. You fight for tags, we fight for 10 safe acres to hunt in.

 

[FEW]

Yeah I guess thats the upside. Ive never really had a problem finding remote areas with little or no pressure. In general, once youre a mile from the road you dont see another person all day. Except the occasional horse backer...

 

[1_pointer]

Could this be a dangerous precedent for making hunting a rich man only activity? I'm sure USO would appreciate that! I've never had any dealings with USO, but from my meager knowledge of them I don't intend to either.

 

[danr55]

I've seen the havoc that USO wreaks in thier camps and the trash that they leave after the hunts are over. Places like Robber's Roost in Unit 10. If this ruling comes out in their favor, I will move for a very close supervisory action to monitor each camp, and assess a penalty for clean up after the hunt is over. Associated with this action will be a suspension of guiding privledges in the state for 3 years first offense, 5 years second offense and permanently for a third offense. Noting that if an outfitters has 3 or more camps during one season, all 3 offenses could occur in the same year.

 

[dgibson]

I know USO is the outfit pushing the measure, but I don't think the issue should be judged by that alone. There are a lot of other outfitters who could stand to profit (or lose) from this measure.

1_p, it could certainly go that way, except for the few residents who pull tags and don't have to hire an outfitter. More importantly, in the states where an outfitter isn't required, more hunters (resident and non) will have to either cough up the cash or make the hunt on their own without a guide. But, theoretically, it could also go the other way. What if a few good-quality outfitters chose NOT to gouge and started a price war? You can make up scenarios in either direction.

 

[dgibson]

And, while I'm thinking about it, it could even accidentally grant the residents their wish! If non-residents can't afford to hire a guide and aren't willing to make the hunt on their own, they won't apply for the tag. That's one more chance for the locals! If hunting Colorado as a non-resident becomes a "rich man's game," there will be a lot fewer non-residents going to Colorado, no?

 

[Ithaca 37]

"HELENA, Mont. — Montana, Idaho and 20 other states are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that struck down Arizona´s limits on big-game licenses for out-of-state hunters."

http://www.idahostatesman.com/Extras/IdahoOutdoors/story.asp?ID=29483

 

[Lostagain]

True dg, everyone is just afraid of change, familiarity is normally more comfortable than changing. Nobody knows what is going to happen in the future but it will change....

 

[danr55]

Gibson, the larger problem is that USO wants to push through a bill for the issuance of Land Owner permits based on total land under control, which includes leased land. That would reduce the amount of available hunting land in Arizona by about 75%. That keeps the public off of public land and allows George and his cronies to buy up the land owner tags at premium prices. I can't fault the ranchers for chasing this because it's more money in their pockets.... I wouldn't be so pissed off about it if they would restrict it to contiguous land under deed. A hundred acres here and a hundred acres there over several hundred thousands acres should not be a permit to lock up the entire plot.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-02-2003 13:33: Message edited by: danr55 ]</font>