USO's latest threat to Arizona

[AZ402]

Here are a few options being disscussed, I don't see where it says "eliminate non-resident hunters"?

* Award additional bonus points for continuous support. Also referred to as "loyalty points," these points would be awarded to people who have been applying for big game hunts or buying licenses consecutively for a designated period of time, for example, for five years.

* Award a conservation bonus point to individuals who participate in wildlife work projects. There are several variations of this proposal.

* Modify the Internet application process, or do away with the online application process altogether.

* Require all big game drawing applicants to purchase a hunting license.

* Increase the bonus point pass percentage from 10 percent to 20 percent, which would mean setting aside 20 percent of big game permits for individuals with the most bonus points.

* Create a nonresident set-aside based on capped percentages and conduct a separate nonresident draw for these tags.

* Increase license and permit fees, which would require legislation.

* Increase the draw application fees. This would require legislation.

* Create commercial and recreational (noncommercial) big game tags, with 90 percent of the tags designated as recreational (not allowing the sale of parts), available only to residents, and 10 percent as commercial (allowing the sale of parts), available equally to residents and nonresidents.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Here are a few options being disscussed, I don't see where it says "eliminate non-resident hunters"?

* Award additional bonus points for continuous support. Also referred to as "loyalty points," these points would be awarded to people who have been applying for big game hunts or buying licenses consecutively for a designated period of time, for example, for five years.

* Award a conservation bonus point to individuals who participate in wildlife work projects. There are several variations of this proposal.

* Modify the Internet application process, or do away with the online application process altogether.

* Require all big game drawing applicants to purchase a hunting license.

* Increase the bonus point pass percentage from 10 percent to 20 percent, which would mean setting aside 20 percent of big game permits for individuals with the most bonus points.

* Create a nonresident set-aside based on capped percentages and conduct a separate nonresident draw for these tags.

* Increase license and permit fees, which would require legislation.

* Increase the draw application fees. This would require legislation.

* Create commercial and recreational (noncommercial) big game tags, with 90 percent of the tags designated as recreational (not allowing the sale of parts), available only to residents, and 10 percent as commercial (allowing the sale of parts), available equally to residents and nonresidents.

What do you suppose the motivating factor for all of these possible changes is? Is it to provide more opportunity for Non-residents, or is it to set up a bunch of hurdles that make it more difficult/expensive for NRs, and make it more likely that more of the tags will land in Resident's hands?

Look at the last idea, take 90% of the tags and make them resident only (Recreational), and then allow the remaining 10% to be split between Residents and Non-Residents. That seems to guarantee the NRs get less than 10%.....

 

[AZ402]

Where does it say no non-resident tags? Where does it say they want to eliminate non-resident tags?

Maybe AZ should counter sue USO for limiting their ability to make money? USO couldn't make money because of the restictions on western states according Mr. Douche-bag. Now AZ isn't going to be allowed to practice free enterprise? Taulman himself told the court a trophy bull is worth up to $50,000.

Schmalts, would you rather have Arizona manage their elk on your federal lands or the Federal Government manage them on your public grounds? If you'd rather have the Fed's do the managing, then say good-bye to quality and hello to quanity. Not a quanity of animals but a quanity of tags to eventually destroy the quality. If there is one faction greedier than USO,non-resident hunters,resident hunters it's your Federal government...................

 

[schmalts]

not saying i want the feds to manage the elk, just stressing that the federal land thing has a lot to do with why nonresident do have some stake in these tags. Its a 2 way street.

 

[AZ402]

I'm just saying the Arizona G&F has managed this elk herd for years. It obviously has done a good job, look at what it's causing. Like I had mentioned before, I don't want the non-residents to be eliminated. I really just want the 90/10 split and fair prices for you and I. I just think saying that the residents and non-residents should have the same split is wrong. Non-residents have always had stakes in these tags.............

 

[Nemont]

I'm just saying the Arizona G&F has managed this elk herd for years. It obviously has done a good job, look at what it's causing. Like I had mentioned before, I don't want the non-residents to be eliminated. I really just want the 90/10 split and fair prices for you and I. I just think saying that the residents and non-residents should have the same split is wrong. Non-residents have always had stakes in these tags

I think if you read through just about every opinion on here except, cjcj's, it would be the same. I could live with a 90/10 split and fair prices. I haven't seen anyone with a brain say that there should be equal footing for NR hunters.

The point is that if something doesn't happen the courts will step in again and make something happen and someone will lose.


Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

Maybe AZ should counter sue USO for limiting their ability to make money? USO couldn't make money because of the restictions on western states according Mr. Douche-bag. Now AZ isn't going to be allowed to practice free enterprise?

Do you really want AZ practicing free enterprise???? Then rational economic thought would have all the tags offered at auction, to the highest bidder.

Are you able to explain what problem would be solved with all these ideas being considered in AZ? It looks like the "problem" is either not enough AZ residents think they get tags, or USO needs to be punished, so let's make it harder on NR hunters.

 

[AZ402]

I guess the question is harder for you than I thought it would be with all your infinite wisdom "Where does it say AZ is trying to eliminate non-resident hunters"?

I think the solution AZGFD is trying to come up with is how to give it's residents and advatage over non-residents.

Does the gas station and grocery store auction off their goods and services? I don't see the rational you are presenting?

The only non-resident I want paying $3200 for an early rifle tag is you and Taulmans goons. And to answer your question, USO should be punished, because they are naughty.

 

[Retired]

Well I hate to burst you boyz bubble but it's the old supply and demand theory. The more the commodity is in demand the higher the price goes. I'd pay $10,000 for an elk tag in Arizona if I had to. Hell I spent $8000 to hunt elk in New Mexico and Arizona one year and it was worth every penny. You all had the opportunity to work hard and make something of yourselves and if you didn't well shame on you. The rich shall inherit the earth and Arizona's elk also. As for AZ402 he's just a low life dirt bag.

$$

 

[AZ402]

Here comes the tough guy trolls.............

 

[MattK]

Retired- Welcome to the hunt forumn. I see this is your first post. I hate to burst your bubble but the rich shall inherit the earth must come from that upside down bible you read. I believe it is the meak shall inherit the earth. Also, elk are not the property of any individual. I don't think NR should get the same opportunity as a Resident but to make it a factor of being rich. Are you crazy? Hunting should have nothing to do with the status of the individual hunting. I've paid for people's tags just to go hunting with them and for them to go hunting with me. I always thought it was about game management. I can see why anti-hunter numbers are growing by the day. If hunting comes from your point of view, I'll be one of the anti's.

 

[mtmiller]

Hell I spent $8000 to hunt elk in New Mexico and Arizona one year and it was worth every penny.

Always nice to have some one hold your hand, show you an elk and let you pull the trigger. You must be very proud.

 

[ringer]

The rich won't inherit the earth 'cause the poor will slit their throats before they get 'er done. Most rich people I know and that is a lot with my business, are a bunch of limp wristed sissy boys. I wouldn't admit I was so weak that I couldn't find and harvest a good bull on my own. Sounds like one of my customers that was admiring my largest bull and said he was going to beat that next year. Then he told me he was paying a guy on a fenced deal a bunch of money for a bull over 400. You can say you're a tough hunter but you know what the truth is. Must be lonely being retired and having no freinds.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I guess the question is harder for you than I thought it would be with all your infinite wisdom "Where does it say AZ is trying to eliminate non-resident hunters"?

I think the solution AZGFD is trying to come up with is how to give it's residents and advatage over non-residents.
.

Looks like you just answered the question. All these schemes are designed to increase the "advatage" over the non-residents.

That kind of thinking will end up with AZGFD losing in court again, and spending more money paying USO's attorneys than managing game. Institutionalizing discrimination and restricting access is a slippery slope to go down.....

 

[AZ402]

hmmm, I'd thought you'd do better than that.

 

[Jigmaker]

As a resident of AZ I say if I want to hunt out of state I will pay what ever it takes and have done so many times. As with all hunters and fisherman we have been and are the only ones who pay for conservation of what we enjoy. So if you can't pay the price in AZ then go somewhere else we don't want you here.
cost workes out something like this if G&F gives out 10,000 permits for elk and 10 % of that goes to nonresidents thats 1000 nonresident permits at $371.00 thats $371,000 As for residents 9,000 permits at a cost of $76.50 each is $688,500.00 so it seems residents carry the burdon anyway not to mention year round taxes in our State which go to wildlife not just in the State but everywhere. WE are the ones that volunteer to help G&F with Habitat projects. so don't cry cause you have to pay more than residents. PAY THE PRICE OR STAY HOME

Befor someone gets there pantys in an uproar the fee cost I have are from a 2003 hunt book

 

[BuzzH]

AZ402,

How much more advantage do residents really need?

You said, "200,000+ residents applications; approximately 40,000+ Non-resident application

That equals what about a 5-1 margin in favor of residents, if my advanced math skills are correct.

 

[cjcj]

Well I hate to burst you boyz bubble but it's the old supply and demand theory. The more the commodity is in demand the higher the price goes. I'd pay $10,000 for an elk tag in Arizona if I had to. Hell I spent $8000 to hunt elk in New Mexico and Arizona one year and it was worth every penny. You all had the opportunity to work hard and make something of yourselves and if you didn't well shame on you. The rich shall inherit the earth and Arizona's elk also. As for AZ402 he's just a low life dirt bag.

$$

Hey "Retired" you don`t know jack shit about AZ402....Pull that silver spoon out of your ass!......Now welcome aboard. hump

 

[AZ402]

How about a 90/10 advantage or an 85/15. I also believe your math skills are correct!

 

[AZBuckSnort]

Judge Broomfield's ruling states that the state of AZ can prefer residents over nonresidents in the distribution of big game tags but needed to find a less discriminatory method than the up to 10% cap.

I'm not certain that non-resident hunter/applicants who apply to AZ understand that there are NO over the counter permits for residents to hunt deer, elk, or antelope with a rifle or muzzleloader. Our state issues a very limited number of permits overall and a resident can, and many often do, go years without the opportunity to hunt big game with a rifle or muzzleloader. Most other states have some type of hunt available to their resident hunting population to carry on the "deer hunting" tradition with a centerfire rifle in hand. Yes, you may have to drive to the far-flung regions of your state, but at least the opportunity is available to you. That's not the case here, and speaking as one who hasn't drawn a deer tag since 1990, it's tough to swallow that my opportunity to hunt in my home state will be reduced even further to allow a non-resident a better chance to hunt in my stead.

Think about it, my 18 year old boy has never had the opportunity to share a Fall deer camp with his Dad in their home state, is that fair? Rest assured, we have hunted together, but we had to travel out-of-state, pay much higher tag fees, incur considerably more expense to hunt, and do it in a shorter hunt period. Time spent with one's kids are priceless, so you pay the tab and enjoy the experience because often it's the only way AZ residents can share it.

Rather than continually attacking AZ residents with inflammatory rhetoric calling all of us "greedy", perhaps you should consider how much we have sacrificed to have the quality of game our lands support.