Proposals to be presented

D

danr55

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2000
Messages
4,385
Location
Mesa, AZ
Through connections at work, we have arranged to sit and discuss the landowner tag/USO situation with a member of the G&F Commission. Among the ideas currectly on the table are:

1. Prohibition of any convicted felon from being a principal in any outfitting/guiding entity in Arizona.

2. The prohibition of land owner tags...or.. the size of the contiguous portion of land required to attain land owner tags if it comes to that.. Proposed will be one tag for elk for every 60,000 contiguous acres under deed and one deer for every 40,000 contiguous acres under deed. No allowances for grazing allotments.

3. The prohibition of out of state applications via any application services.

4. Payment in full at time of hunt application.

5. Imposition of a Arizona residencey requirement for guides and outfitters licensed to work in Arizona.

6. Increase in non-resident fees for Elk and for Deer north of the Grand Canyon.


If any of you have any other ideas, please list them.

Thanks.....

:cool:
 
4. Payment in full at time of hunt application.
Click to expand...
This will work to the hunters advantage and be a $$ loss for the state. Does the department not use revenue from licenses to fund their endeavors. They do in NM. Here in NM hunters are really upset with the $6 app fee charged to the card then charged if you draw. I don't really have a problem with it for the reason stated above. The G&F needs the money and this is a good way to raise funds.
 
2. The prohibition of land owner tags...or.. the size of the contiguous portion of land required to attain land owner tags if it comes to that.. Proposed will be one tag for elk for every 60,000 contiguous acres under deed and one deer for every 40,000 contiguous acres under deed. No allowances for grazing allotments
Click to expand...
Make them non transferable and this would work. This will allow the landowner to hunt his own land. I was talking to a AZ warden about 3 years ago and he said the the GF was considering adopting NM landowner tag system. Is this true?? You don't want this if so.
 
If you want to shut down USO all you have to do is go to your legislature and make the sale of game animals and their parts illegal. Would this not end the argument of anti commerce that USO claims. This was mentioned in another thread on this board by another member but no one took it up.
 
Danr, when you present the case for #2, make sure you follow it up by asking the aundience if they want to purchase one of your buddies NM landowner tags...

proposal 1. no problem to get around that for USO.

2. Enough said.

3. again, thats easy for USO to solve. All they have to do is provide the hunters address instead of their PO box. No way to know if a NR is using an application service or not? Unenforcable.

4. BFD, so they charge your credit card up front.

5. See you in court again on the interstate commerce arguement.

6. Great idea! That will take the average hunter out of the game and do nothing but promote the number of wealthy hunters who draw licenses...like those that use USO. Also, you may get another chance to tell the judge how your not interferring with a persons ability to gain through interstate commerce.
 
Well i have already sent in my idea`s to the AZ G&F, and the main one is to not allow any Non-Resident Tags for certain species [buffalo/bighorn/antelope] other states already do this for their limited species [nevada/california] do it, why can`t AZ? And i like the idea of throwing out the "commerce" loophole! Buzz why are you rippen on Danr? hell at least he is trying to "spark" some good thought about this subject, Now Buzz you know them dam lawyers can and will try to sue for anything [see Mc donalds made me fat] so i say let them try on the "commerce" ruling.
 
CJ,

I think you better check your source for NV and CA not allowing NR to hunt their limited opportunity animals. I'm pretty sure you can apply as a NR and hunt nearly everything in those states.

Do I really need to tell you why Danr deserves a good ripping?

The guy is bitching and moaning about how he doesnt like the idea of landowner tags in Arizona. He wants all of us to write letters, boycott all USO affiliates. Hates the fact that USO won the court battle.

You know what, I agree 100 percent with Danr on that.

The thing that irritates the hell out of me though, is that Danr is peddling his friends NM landowner elk tags. Thats whats called hypocracy, and just about the height of hypcocracy at that.

The difference between Danr and I, is that I'm not a hypocrite. I wont purchase, sell, or otherwise be involved in landowner tags, USO, or anything else that clearly takes away opportunity from average hunters...residents or nonresidents. I also wont pay a landowner for access to MY wildlife. I just dont do it, it flies in the face of what I believe in. I'll kill forkhorns on public land before I pay $10 to hunt private land.

I hate the commercialization of wildlife and hunting, it sucks. Danr, by helping his friends peddle NM tags, is only perpetuating what I view as one of the largest threats to the average resident and nonresident hunters. Apparently Danr, agrees as he doesnt want Landowner tags in AZ...for good reason.

I also dont like people who say one thing, then do another. Pure BS.

Oh, and for the record, if Danr didnt have a problem with AZ giving landowner tags, I'd have no problem with him trying to sell NM landowner tags. I'd still disagree with him, but at least he'd be consistant.
 
Well, you're almost right Buzzer.......you must be a resident of California to apply for elk and/or antelope. A non-resident may apply for Bighorn sheep, but only one non resident license is issued per year. All other big game animals are open to non residents.
 
Buzz, i checked my sources,[see resident vs. non-resident by Gunner] and while i don`t guarantee whether they are accurate or not, it clearly shows that antelope/elk are not open to "non- residents" I try to be as accurate as i can, so feel free to prove me wrong, [i really want to know if this is true] about California, and the obvious reason for this, is how are they doing it? will it be challenged? is it locked in stone etc.?
 
Her are the comments I sent to Arizona Game and Fish.

(1)Ban the sale of big game antlers and capes. Allow sale of shed antlers and fur bearing pelts, coyote, bobcat, etc.
(2)Set aside several quality units for resident draw only. Maximum 11% draw for non-resident all other units.
(3) Require all outfitters and guides to display signs on all vehicles used while conducting business on public lands. Signs should have outfitter company name, license number, contact information in letters minimum 3 inches high with a contrasting background.
vehicles 3" letters
aircraft 12" letters
(4) Issue landowner permits to those willing to allow public participation on a 1 to 1 basis. example- issue 3 landowner permits, 3 public access permits. Public access permits could be drawn from a pool similar to New Mexico's Depredation hunt system.
(5) Do not set up an outfitter/guided preference draw. Let them compete for hunters after the draw. I don't think that outfitters should be guaranteed any permits.
 
rhnm,

Just a question.

Why do you think its a good idea to give landowners tags, but not outfitters?

I think you have some good ideas there, with the exception of the landowner tags. Bad idea. The public will get hosed on that, just like they do in CO and UT.

Even if you do draw a landowner permit, the landowners can pretty well make it impossible for you to have a quality hunt. They pull stuff like limiting you to certain dates to hunt their land (after their paying customers have hunted), limiting you to certain areas of the ranch (for safety reasons of course :rolleyes: )...surely not because an extra large big-game animal hangs around that part of the ranch...no couldnt be that.

Based on the case history of landowner tags in NM, CO, and UT, I think its a crappy idea to give out a single landowner tag. In particular if the LO tags can be sold. That creates a bad situation for all involved (except the landowner) and reduces opportunity for sportsmen, at least the sportsmen that dont have deep pockets.
 
rhnm, why not make it 1 LO permit for every 2 acess permits, and then make it so the LO could sell his permit to an outfitter?

I like the idea of making outfitters label their vehicles.
 
TB,

Why should a landowner be allowed to sell a permit? The outfitter is already paying a lease on the land.

I think the land owner permit idea is not a good one. It leads to more land being locked up not less. If you wanted make it fair why not just allow anyone drawing a tag to choose which outfitter is the best. No set aside tags, no landowner tags just everyone on an equal footing.

Nemont
 
The reason I recommended landowner tags is that they do contribute to the numbers of big game. They provide water, feed and areas for wildlife to get away from the crowds. Some landowners are managing for deer and elk by settting aside certain areas for wildlife, removing or restricting cattle, building water tanks, brush control, thinning trees, feed plots and a few manage for quality by restricting the number and size/age of animals harvested.
I would rather see hunters get the opportunity to harvest excess animals on private property instead of Game and Fish personel or contract hunters.

What do outfitters contribute that benifits wildlife?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Wyoming $75 NR application fee proposal and more...
10 11 12
Replies
230
Views
12K
JAG
J
Pucky Freak
Corn and antlers
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Steiny77
S
44hunter45
Time to play politics. Help me move these rule changes through the process at IDFG.
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
5K
Bluffgruff
B
Stifler
King for a day, what would you do?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
hank4elk
H
W
Proposed Oahe Dam Refuge Expansion
Replies
3
Views
1K
grizzly63
G
Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,619
Messages
2,026,932
Members
36,246
Latest member
htanderson87

Share this page

Back
Top