SFW and USO in bed together?

[Nemont]

Conservation Force: has also formalized a Board of Advisors with other iconic leaders of hunting today. The members of this new board include Dr. James Swan, Ron Thompson, Don McMillan, Lance Phillips, Don Peay, Raul Valdez, Ph.D., Mike Friscina, Dr. Randall Eaton, Ph.D., and Yves Lecocq.

You know, I thought the SFW was pretty tight lipped about the whole USO deal. Come to find out that ole Don Peay is tied up with Conservation Force (CF). CF is the outfit that financed and championed George Taulman's attempt to take resident tags. CF has long been a loud voice in NR hunting issues especially the fight to take tag opportunities from resident hunters in the western states.

Fourteen (14%) percent of licensed hunters hunt out-of-state each year and twenty-six (26%) percent of anglers fish out-of-state. [National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Recreation] The states with the most hunters and anglers are not complaining such as Texas, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. The states with nominal resident populations and the most extensive federal lands are the very ones that want the unconditional right to hoard hunting and fishing resources for themselves. Some states will raise the license prices so high that only the very wealthy can hunt when and if they can get a license at all. The guiding industry will become more volatile as well as those nationwide organizations that depend upon outfitter hunt donations for all their conservation work. It will not return to the way it was. The discrimination had been growing worse and was partially held in check by litigation and the threat of litigation.

This is an undesirable fight between hunters that will test the metal of those that represent hunters that travel. Most if not all hunting and fishing organizations represent both resident and nonresident hunters and/or anglers. Locked in division and indecision they may be unable to oppose the legislation because of their resident hunter constituency. Even Conservation Force that has been a leader in advancing the interstate and international hunting industry will have to take special steps to defend nonresident hunting and fishing interests that have become so very important to the conservation paradigm in America. Conservation Force expects fallout from its defense of nonresident sportsmen and women, but we must be responsible. If we do not represent nonresident hunters and anglers, who will?

More than half of the land in the West is United States land. This bill will terminate any and all nonresident rights of hunting and fishing access on those public lands as well as state and private lands – all lands! Many of the species such as saltwater fish and waterfowl are migratory. Many elk and deer populations move from state to state. The passage of the bill would be a tragic mistake. It must be stopped.

Conservation Force has created the Non-Residents Rights Defense Fund (NR Rights Defense Fund) to oppose the legislation. It is to be separately administered from all other Conservation Force programs and must be wholly self-sustaining. We will take pains to ensure that other Conservation Force revenue is not commingled or utilized to oppose the legislation else there will be objections from our general donors that are so very important for all the other important things we do. Somebody has to save nonresident hunting and fishing, but we cannot do anything without direct support from nonresident hunting and fishing interests. This has to be separately funded and administered. The Defense Fund officially started January 1, 2005. Dedicate your tax deductible donation to oppose this legislation to “Conservation Force’s NR Rights Defense Fund”.

 

[ringer]

Nemont-Thanks for that little tidbit! SFW is trying to organize a group in AZ now and we are hearing how Don was against the USO thing but no supporter can prove it. Now this just proves he is a weasel and is trying to get hunters here to join so he can use our own money to screw us. CF was the real bad guy that started the original USO suit. If this is true we will organize and tar and feather this clown if he shows up here. Shake hands and count your fingers.

 

[Nemont]

http://www.conservationforce.org/organization/directors.cfm

Scroll down toward the bottom of the page. There is also a link posted to the SWF website.

Nemont

 

[Tom]

I think that is one impressive set of directors. If the states paid the federal expenses for that land management in their state, wouldn't that solve the problem. Instead they use an unfair share of federal support and then charge an unfair share of local support to nonresidents. That's the problem, perceived or real, you show me the numbers? My perception is that it is pretty real.

 

[Nemont]

Well Tom,

Then the Federal Government should reiburse the States for all lost revenue from Property tax for all Federal Lands. This should be at the same rate that a private land owner pays and not what PILT payment equal.

In addition those federal lands should reimburse the States for all enforcement activities done on federal lands by State Game Wardens. In addition then the Feds should reimburse the states for all the habitat work done by various states specific projects funded by local groups.

Who is keeping you from enjoying these lands. Have you ever read the Supreme Courts decision in Baldwin Vs. Montana? It clearly states that game animals are finite and the states are charged with maintaining those populations. It further states that Nonresident hunting is not something necessary for the good of the Union.

Appellants have demonstrated nothing to convince us that we should completely reject the Court's earlier decisions. In his opinion in Coryell, Mr. Justice Washington, although he seemingly relied on notions of "natural rights" when he considered the reach of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, included in his list of situations, in which he believed the States would be obligated to treat each other's residents equally, only those where a nonresident sought to engage in an essential activity or exercise a basic right. He himself used the term "fundamental," in the modern as well as the "natural right" sense.... So, too, did the Court when it was concerned with the pursuit of common callings, the ability to transfer property, and access to courts, respectively. And comparable status of the activity involved was apparent in Toomer, the commercial-licensing case. With respect to such basic and essential activities, interference with which would frustrate the purposes of the formation of the Union, the States must treat residents and nonresidents without unnecessary distinctions.

Does the distinction made by Montana between residents and nonresidents in establishing access to elk hunting threaten a basic right in a way that offends the Privileges and Immunities Clause? Merely to ask the question seems to provide the answer. We repeat much of what already has been said above: Elk hunting by nonresidents in Montana is a recreation and a sport. In itself - wholly apart from license fees - it is costly and obviously available only to the wealthy nonresident or to the one so taken with the sport that he sacrifices other values in order to indulge in it and to enjoy what it offers. It is not a means to the nonresident's livelihood. The mastery of the animal and the trophy are the ends that are sought; appellants are not totally excluded from these. The elk supply, which has been entrusted to the care of the State by the people of Montana, is finite and must be carefully tended in order to be preserved.

Appellants' interest in sharing this limited resource on more equal terms with Montana residents simply does not fall within the purview of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Equality in access to Montana elk is not basic to the maintenance or well-being of the Union. Appellants do not - and cannot - contend that they are deprived of a means of a livelihood by the system or of access to any part of the State to which they may seek to travel. We do not decide the full range of activities that are sufficiently basic to the livelihood of the Nation that the States may not interfere with a nonresident's participation therein without similarly interfering with a resident's participation. Whatever rights or activities may be "fundamental" under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, we are persuaded, and hold, that elk hunting by nonresidents in Montana is not one of them

Honestly I do not understand what your problem with this is. CF financed and supported the Taulman Lawsuit. It aimed to take away resident of various states hunting heritage. It was a bad thing for hunting and for resident hunters specifically. If you don't like the hunting opportunities offered by your state you can still hunt as a Nonresident. In Montana you can hunt every year for elk and deer, you can go to the outfitter set aside pool and purchase your tags.

Nemont

 

[AZ402]

Nemont, O'le T-bag just doesn't get it. Great posts on your part though. I've cut and pasted your original thread on a few other sites, hope you don't mind...........Stan

 

[Tom]

I get it, I just disagree, I don't think AZ402 can admit it, but at least Nemont is trying to discuss it. Who am I to think they might not have done everything right over a century ago though? Just one person. There are others. That's obvious.

Nemont, I agree about all the costs, I think they should be considered and accounted for. That would be an improvement in our system of game management, it seems to me. I'm no expert, I am a voter and taxpayer hunter though.

The Federal land management budget is about 10.7 billion per year. Its running at a big loss, it would be good to figure all that out, state and federal expenses. Local volunteer work, that's different, it could be entered somehow, but I think it would come out pretty trivial. A few game wardens sounds pretty trivial. In order to become a state, the federal land was created. I don't see where the feds. owe anything for that, they already paid when the made the state part of the union.

My basic problem is I think it was a mistake to seperate the animal management from the land management. That seems like a bad idea, it hurts the habitat and it hurts the animals. What motive does a state have to manage the land and animals well? Its a big issue. I don't think that those directors think about it like you and az do Nemont. You're entitled to your view, so am I.

Hopefully, it will be worked out for the best. "non-resident hunting is not good for the union" Jeese, that seems way off, where does it say that? No wonder there's lawsuits, when people believe crap like that.

 

[Nemont]

Tom,

I didn't say NR hunting isn't "good for the Union" What I said was that the Supreme Court has already ruled that NR hunting: "Equality in access to Montana elk is not basic to the maintenance or well-being of the Union".

I am not anti non resident, I host and help NR hunters every year. I have taken people from this board to my wife's family ranch and gotten them access to private lands. I just think that residents should have first dibs for tags regardless if it is federal lands or not. Call me selfish if you want but I would like to pass down the tradition to my son and daughters.

Nemont

 

[Tom]

Everybody wants you to pass it down. You typed this: "It further states that Nonresident hunting is not something necessary for the good of the Union." Thanks for clarifying it.

I guess I think only the landowner should have first dibs. If its federal land, the feds have first dibs, if its state land, the state has first dibs, if its private, the private owner has first dibs. That seems less biased and more fair.

Its great you help non-residents. That's fun and great stuff for sure.

 

[FAIRCHASEBEN]

My basic problem is I think it was a mistake to seperate the animal management from the land management. That seems like a bad idea, it hurts the habitat and it hurts the animals. What motive does a state have to manage the land and animals well? Its a big issue.

Tom ,
By far your most ridiculous statement ever . You are a shining jewel of blithering ignorance !

 

[Nemont]

Tom,
you really need to look at a map. It would be an enforcement nightmare to issue tags tied to the land. In addition what do you do with land locked public land? Why should a landowner have any dibs on tags?

The federal land is not in just one huge chunk is is broke up all over the place.

Nemont

 

[Tom]

"What do you do with land locked public land?" Make a law with public access, sell it, buy public land with public access with the money you get. It was a mistage to get public land like that.

"Why should a landowner have any dibs on tags?" Its obvious, it rewards them, (whether they be the federal taxpayer, the state taxpayor, or the private land steward) with the fruits of their land. Elk and deer grow on feed, cover, and water you know. Somebody owns that, pays for it, etc. If they manage it well, they should be rewarded, if they mange it badly they should not be rewarded. That seems like a good principle to follow.

Are you against landowner tags?

 

[Nemont]

"What do you do with land locked public land?" Make a law with public access, sell it, buy public land with public access with the money you get. It was a mistage to get public land like that.

"Why should a landowner have any dibs on tags?" Its obvious, it rewards them, (whether they be the federal taxpayer, the state taxpayor, or the private land steward) with the fruits of their land. Elk and deer grow on feed, cover, and water you know. Somebody owns that, pays for it, etc. If they manage it well, they should be rewarded, if they mange it badly they should not be rewarded. That seems like a good principle to follow.

Are you against landowner tags?

Tom,
Selling off and buying public lands is something that is at best difficult and at worst impossible. The process is excrutiating, even land swaps take a lot of time and energy.

Landowner tags would destroy the hunting tradition here. It would lead to every piece of property being locked up, never to be opened again to public hunting. I would be one of the lucky ones because my family and my wife's family own large ranches but what about the guys and gals who are not so fortunate. I don't know any rancher here who even know how much deer, elk and antelope eat. I know there is some heavy destruction of haystacks in the winter but the fish and game provides these ranchers with deer fencing to keep them out.

I don't believe landowners should ever be in charge of tags, Ever, Period.

Nemont

 

[Tom]

New Mexico and Texas reward landowners with tags, when they do a good job. It works great.

I'm glad I don't live in a state where they landlocked what is supposed to be public access, that is really bad. My federal dollars are waisted, letting things like that happen.

 

[ringer]

Tom-You have argued the federal land and private land issue consistently. There are quality animals in AZ that would never have been here if it was up to the feds. We have a tradition of managing wildlife for a quality experience for both residents and non-residents. You have lost the arguement as the Reid bill is law. Arizona will manage Arizona and we will still allow you to draw tags here but it will be under our rules. Good luck in the draw.

 

[AZ402]

Here is a rebuttal directly from Don Peay of SFW:

An e-mail regarding this topic and here is his reply.



I have never been, nor EVER would serve on the Conservation Force Board. I personally wrote John Jackson and told him he was way wrong on this issue. Also, call Congressman Matheson, Senator Hatch or the key lobbyist for all the Fish and Game Agencies and ask them what side SFW was on for the Legislation reversing the suit. SFW was full support of the Reid bill changing the law against USO. SFW has been on record from day one opposing USO lawsuit. Don

 

[Tom]

"There are quality animals in AZ that would never have been here if it was up to the feds." That seems to be an error. The feds. are the ones who have said Arizona will manage those elk, its precisely because of the feds. There is no basis I know of to make the statement you made. What do you base that statement on?

I'm not argueing the Reid bill now, your tradition for good animals is good. Do you think it can't be improved on?

Now, AZ402 has something more confusing. It reads like someone is lieing, right? One post has the guy Peay on the board, one has him off the board. What a mess.

The Conservation Force link has Peay there?
"Conservation Force has also formalized a Board of Advisors with other iconic leaders of hunting today. The members of this new board include Dr. James Swan, Ron Thompson, Don McMillan, Lance Phillips, Don Peay, Raul Valdez, Ph.D., Mike Friscina, Dr. Randall Eaton, Ph.D., and Yves Lecocq. "

 

[AZ402]

Over the course of today many things have been brought to my attention. One of which was an email from Don Peay replying in regards to his affilation with USO. Another thing brought to my attention, is Tom makes my head want to explode..........

 

[Tom]

This is a bad issue, it makes lots of peoples' head feel bad.

Don Peay said he's not on the board, according to what you posted, the Cons.Force site says he's on the Board of Advisors. I guess the Board of Advisors is different that the actual Board, is that it?

 

[AZ402]

Well I agree with you on that Tom. He said he isn't they say he is. Not sure what to make of it myself.