S-U-O

[JoseCuervo]

Ditto to Idaho. We purposely don't take general fund money, as that is how you keep the legislature out of the managment of game.

Cali,
You were the one saying AZ is supported by tax $$$, can you provide us the link? Let me guess your AZ link will look like Coues?

 

[Calif. Hunter]

What does "look like Coues" mean?


The AZ website says no general fund dollars there - http://www.gf.state.az.us/pdfs/inside_azgfd/Annual%20Report%202002-2003.pdf

So my mistake, based upon my knowledge of my own state, which is different from others. (No surprise there, eh? )

Still - doesn't the state government control the direction the departments take? Again, using my state as a perhaps bad example, the County Supervisors can actually over-rule the DFG on such things as doe hunts within their counties - the result of a tremendous slaughter of does one year back in the 40's. Of course, the hunting for bucks was great for a few years....

So if Arizona manages its game more effectively for trophy animals than other states, shouldn't residents of that state be the primary beneficiaries of that?

I also noticed that there are revenue sources in other states (like Arizona) such as watercraft license fees and off road license fees that go to the DFG there, while those fees go to the general fund in California. So all the boat and off-road vehicle registration/licesning fees that Arizona sportsmen pay go to the DFG. So they are not sustained solely by hunting and fishing license revenue and federal funds, although those are admittedly the largest source of funding.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Cali,
In AZ, for the year you referenced, they sold 73k resident licenses and 18k non resident licenses.

A resident license is $25
A non-resident license is $113

If you have trouble with the math, the revenue from the residents is $25*73,000 for $1.8million

Non residents ($113*18,000) is $2.03 million.

(now I did not go thru each line item and who knows what the $$$ added for fishing licenses or the Tags turns out, but if it holds to form, the Non-residents are paying more in AZ than the Residents).

Based on the above numbers, how do you claim that the non-residents would have nothing to hunt if not for the residents?

It looks like the Non-residents are carrying the load for the residents, and were unfairly getting capped on tags.

Cali, nice Antelope, where's the Coues?

 

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

The question is not whether residents or non-residents should benefit from proper game management .
The question is should S-U-O make a profit every time an animal hits the ground ?
This issue is nothing more than the buying and selling of animals for profit and it is wrong !

 

[JoseCuervo]

Ben,

Try looking up the definition of Capitalism. USO is a for-profit company, and as such, they have a fiduciary duty to maximize the long term sustainable value to their shareholders. As long as their management feels this is how it is best done, and their shareholders agree, their behaviour is rational.

The giving tags to landowners and outfitters, and capping the Non-residents who pay the bills is not rational, and in some cases, not legal.

Given that you don't think we should uphold the commerce clauses in the Constitution, would you also agree to suspend the 2nd ammenedmant? Just how do you decide which parts of the Bill of Rights aren't needed in your world?

 

[Calif. Hunter]

If you are going to say that, you need to factor in all the revenue items for the Arizona F&G - look at fishing licenses for example.

Residents 185,000 @ $18 = $3,330,000

Non Residents 2272 @ $51.50 = $117,008

So the resident fisherman supported the Arizona F&G by over 50% more than the non-resident hunters contributed.

 

[Toonces]

Since when is the Commerce Clause part of the Bill of Rights?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Cali,

Absolutely agreed, and I told you that I didn't go thru the other line items. Why not look at Elk tags??? Why not look at bonus points?

Do you know that AZDFG does not mix their fish revenue with the game management, and vice versa?

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Their expenditures only list "Game and Fish Fund," not "Game Fund" and "Fish Fund."

Expenditures for Game and Fish Fund = $20,369,700

Revenue from Game and Fish licenses = $20,326,522


It looks to me like they do not separate Fish revenue from Game revenue.

 

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

Our wildlife should not be killed for profit or greed , if you can't see that EG then I can't help you to understand this issue , just go back to the ATV discussion with 'Bob' and let the adults handle this .

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by Calif. Hunter:
cfree - you see, it is the price you pay for having a Fish and Game Department (supported by your Arizona tax dollars) that does an excellent job. Because of their excellent management practices, your state has some trophy animals of very high quality.

Cali,
What are you arguing now? That the Residents deserve 90% of the tags because they pay 51% of the budget??? You were claiming it was because they paid taxes. Now what is your claim???

If AZ would have been fair with their tags, they would not be in the mess they are in. For people to blame USO for the greed of the AZ boys is ridiculous, no matter how much they don't like it. It is funny how people in AZ don't take personal responsiblity to check ATV laws or pay for the managment of the Public's game on Federal lands....

 

[JoseCuervo]

Originally posted by FAIRCHASEBEN:
Our wildlife should not be killed for profit or greed , if you can't see that EG then I can't help you to understand this issue , just go back to the ATV discussion with 'Bob' and let the adults handle this .

I agree completely. There should be no outfitting, no landowner tags. Just 'survival of the fittest', if you can't pack an elk out, you shouldn't pull a trigger. But don't blame USO for following the laws, blame the selfish people who passed the laws for the benefit of special interests.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

EG - you said "It looks like the Non-residents are carrying the load for the residents, and were unfairly getting capped on tags."

So I responded with other figures to show that residents are paying more than non-residents into the DFG fund.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Cali,

Do you think it was fair that the non-res were capped at 10%, in light of your new understanding that they were paying more than 10% of the budget???

 

[cfree]

You can prove that non-residents have DIRECTLY contributed more than 5.5 million of the 55 million AZG&F budget?

I would sure like to see this.

 

[Rogue 6]

"Try looking up the definition of Capitalism. USO is a for-profit company, and as such, they have a fiduciary duty to maximize the long term sustainable value to their shareholders. As long as their management feels this is how it is best done, and their shareholders agree, their behaviour is rational"

EG, why not use this rational with: ranching, hydro energy, mining, logging, oil, coal, property developement and on and on.

A little bit of ethical ballance is a good thing. Most of us here like are stocks to go up, but at what cost. If I had stock in USO, (which is probably private not public) I would have already sold it. I, unlike the USO and there lawyers don't want fithy lucre.

 

[Ithaca 37]

I think everyone should take a real close look at where all the funding for their state F&G Dept. comes from. You'll find federal matching funds from Pittman-Robertson and Dingall-Johnson. Maybe some special interest grants (like FNAWS) and a mix of resident and non-resident funds. Who knows what else? In MO you'll find 1/8 of every penny of sales tax collected going to F&G. In most western states you'll find that resident contributions are far under 50%.

Here's a little reading: "....Each state is eligible for 3-to-1 matching federal funding for wildlife and fisheries programs through special federal taxes (Pittman-Robertson and Dingall-Johnson) collected at the manufacturing level on hunting and fishing equipment. Each state gets a share based on licenses sold.

If, however, a state diverts any license revenue to non-wildlife purposes, so much as $1, the federal government can drop that state entirely from the program.

Mississippi receives about $6 million in federal funding each year, which is 75 percent of the wildlife and fisheries budgets for the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. Without it, you could reduce the name of the agency to Department of Parks. There would be no wildlife and fisheries programs to speak of......"

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040613/COL0503/406130336/1176

Try rearching for Pittman-Robertson and Dingall -Johnson funds for your state.

[ 09-30-2004, 18:49: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]

 

[AZ402]

I won't read several peoples reply's here but I do like FAIRCHASEBENS description of Taulman as the Devil...........

 

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

Van Go ,
I didn't say that ... did I ?
Actually he's probably a pretty nice guy who's been blinded by greed and should have his balls cut off so his demonic seed cannot contaminate the rest of the world . That's all I'm saying .

 

[AZ402]

Ben, I',m just saying I see eye to eye with you bro.........