Tom-I really don't care who paid what for which. The beauty of this great country is that some win and some lose. There are far more people wanting to hunt in AZ than we have tags for and that applies to both residents and non-residents. The rules are set and I still have gone 6 years since drawing a tag so it isn't like we are hooting and hollering over all the extra tags from non resident hunters. What is the point of analyzing the budget? It is not going to change a thing so the real discussion is whether you are willing to pay the price to play. Now go fill out your AZ elk and antelope application and mail us your check so we can pay the lawyer fees from the USO lawsuit.
Statement re: Elk Farms by Idaho Fish & Game
- Thread starter Washington Hunter
- Start date
Tom
New member
Ok, it was prior to the suit that non-residents paid over 50% based on what I calculated. Now, we need to know what ringer is asking for, how many will send in the $150+ for a liscense just to be in a draw. Do we know how many sent in the $131+ last year? If you want me to go by the 10% contribution from non-residents then I have to know how many non-residents applied and paid the $131+ just to apply. I guess we could figure it out from the % success in the draws, that's on the web AZ site, if someone doesn't already know.
Ringer, you're not going to bitch when it was 19% non-residents, your state gets sued, you loose the suit, then you go to 10% non-residents. I can see that is a reason not to complain, especially, if a bunch of NRs send in the $150+ and do not get drawn.
Ringer, you're not going to bitch when it was 19% non-residents, your state gets sued, you loose the suit, then you go to 10% non-residents. I can see that is a reason not to complain, especially, if a bunch of NRs send in the $150+ and do not get drawn.
AZ402
Well-known member
Tom outside of 2004 and 2005 AZ hasn't given more than 10% of the tags to NR. I think your numbers are high in that survey due to those two years. I'm waiting for some phone calls to be returned, I'll have some good info then.
Including federal money as NR money is kind of stretching it. I'm pretty sure people in AZ and other western states buy firearms and ammo and etc.....
Seems buzz and NHY yet seem to make the most sense on the majority of these threads.........
Including federal money as NR money is kind of stretching it. I'm pretty sure people in AZ and other western states buy firearms and ammo and etc.....
Seems buzz and NHY yet seem to make the most sense on the majority of these threads.........
Tom
New member
AZ had about 1% of the hunting expenditures in the 2001 national survey, $212 million out of the $20,600 million spent nationally, so most of the Pittman-Robertson funds come from out of state, for any state. Western states have a small percentage of the expenditures to contribute but a larger percentage of the funds to receive because they have so much of the federal land, I guess. For AZ in that year, 99% was collected out of AZ. I think its honest that AZ put it as federal in their budget, though you're right AZ collects excise taxes too.
I hope you're able to get the percent success in the draws for NR and for residents seperately, that would be interesting.
I hope you're able to get the percent success in the draws for NR and for residents seperately, that would be interesting.
AZ402
Well-known member
Just got off the phone with AZGFD, they weren't as helpful as I'd hoped. I'll keep trying.
Tom-how many dollars of the P/R funds were given to AZ and what percent is that of total dollars? It sounds like we are generating fairly close to our share of the US population. Anyway it doesn't matter as the rules are what they are. As for the 10% I really wouldn't care if NR got 19% I just didn't feel it was right for Taulman to force us to give out 50% to people who have no vested interest in the state. If I don't get a tag this year I might buy a trophy elk in Texas.
Tom
New member
I guess this is the main formula: from Section 669c
...
(b) Apportionment to States
The Secretary of the Interior, after deducting the available amount under subsection (a) of this section, the amount apportioned under subsection (c) of this section, any amount apportioned under section 669g-1 of this title, and amounts provided as grants under sections 669h-1 and 669h-2 of this title, shall apportion the remainder of the revenue in said fund for each fiscal year among the several States in the following manner: One-half in the ratio which the area of each State bears to the total area of all the States, and one-half in the ratio which the number of paid hunting-license holders of each State in the second fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which such apportionment is made, as certified to said Secretary by the State fish and game departments, bears to the total number of paid hunting-license holders of all the States. Such apportionments shall be adjusted equitably so that no State shall receive less than one-half of 1 per centum nor more than 5 per centum of the total amount apportioned. The term fiscal year as used in this chapter shall be a period of twelve consecutive months from October 1 through the succeeding September 30, except that the period for enumeration of paid hunting-license holders shall be a State's fiscal or license year.
Each state gets between 0.5 and 5 percent from the total with half of it divided up according to size of the state and half of it according to number of hunting liscenses in the state. I guess that's part of the reason why AZ, NV, and ID started making everyone buy a liscense, eh?
...
(b) Apportionment to States
The Secretary of the Interior, after deducting the available amount under subsection (a) of this section, the amount apportioned under subsection (c) of this section, any amount apportioned under section 669g-1 of this title, and amounts provided as grants under sections 669h-1 and 669h-2 of this title, shall apportion the remainder of the revenue in said fund for each fiscal year among the several States in the following manner: One-half in the ratio which the area of each State bears to the total area of all the States, and one-half in the ratio which the number of paid hunting-license holders of each State in the second fiscal year preceding the fiscal year for which such apportionment is made, as certified to said Secretary by the State fish and game departments, bears to the total number of paid hunting-license holders of all the States. Such apportionments shall be adjusted equitably so that no State shall receive less than one-half of 1 per centum nor more than 5 per centum of the total amount apportioned. The term fiscal year as used in this chapter shall be a period of twelve consecutive months from October 1 through the succeeding September 30, except that the period for enumeration of paid hunting-license holders shall be a State's fiscal or license year.
Each state gets between 0.5 and 5 percent from the total with half of it divided up according to size of the state and half of it according to number of hunting liscenses in the state. I guess that's part of the reason why AZ, NV, and ID started making everyone buy a liscense, eh?
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Tom, if that is indeed the case, it's purely good business sense. Good info either way. Az's gotta be doing something right. The quality of game as a result of their management has created a disproportionate demand. More power to them.
Ringer's right though, simply don't patronize the system if you don't like the rules.
Ringer's right though, simply don't patronize the system if you don't like the rules.
Tom
New member
I can't believe Ringer is saying he'll buy an elk hunt in Texas, but consider this.
If you total the number of 1st and 2nd choice applicants for bull or any elk units (23 of them) and you total the number of tags given in 2006, then it comes out 55562 applicants and 4340 tags, with an average odds of 7.8%. That's the way they do it at the AZ drawing odds web page, as I understand it. On average it takes 12.8 years to get drawn for one of those tags. I read AZ manages for 30-35% success on bulls, so multiply by 3 and get on average a bull every 38.4 years.
For a non-resident, that's on average, 38*150=5700 plus the successful year of 150+405=560 or a total of $6260 on average. Plus, the two tag years, $810 more, for $7070, since the average success is a about 1/3. I think a non-resident could get a pretty good bull any year they want if they poney up $7070 someplace.
They could go walk around in the national forest and take pictures of elk for "free" every year if they want to go there for that.
It may be just good business sense to do it that way, eh, NHY?
If you total the number of 1st and 2nd choice applicants for bull or any elk units (23 of them) and you total the number of tags given in 2006, then it comes out 55562 applicants and 4340 tags, with an average odds of 7.8%. That's the way they do it at the AZ drawing odds web page, as I understand it. On average it takes 12.8 years to get drawn for one of those tags. I read AZ manages for 30-35% success on bulls, so multiply by 3 and get on average a bull every 38.4 years.
For a non-resident, that's on average, 38*150=5700 plus the successful year of 150+405=560 or a total of $6260 on average. Plus, the two tag years, $810 more, for $7070, since the average success is a about 1/3. I think a non-resident could get a pretty good bull any year they want if they poney up $7070 someplace.
They could go walk around in the national forest and take pictures of elk for "free" every year if they want to go there for that.
It may be just good business sense to do it that way, eh, NHY?
AZ402
Well-known member
H
O L Y S H I T !!
O L Y S H I T !!
Tom
New member
Maybe someone might want to apply for the units with better than average odds, i.e. if they actually want to hunt. Where's the success data for the units?
guppie9
New member
Oh shit JB!!!! You owe me a new keyboard and moniter.
Tom
New member
Hey, $7070 was based on the 7.8% draw odds average for bulls last year. If you figure 9 of those 7.8% are residents and 1 is a non-resident, then it would be like 0.78% chance of being drawn on average as a non-resident, right? Multiple the $7070 by 10 then, on average for a non-resident now, right?
Tom
New member
Maybe you'll get drawn! Good luck.
