Since I am having controversy withdrawals, I thought I'd bring this up. I was on some hunting web sites and it seems a lot of people are really pissed at USO outfitters and wanting to boycott them for the law suit they filed forcing Arizona to give out more nonresident tags. This seems like a good thing to me but I thought I'd bring it before the most educated, and intelligent group of guys and gals out there,....but I posted it here instead! LOL What do you guys think about this.
Also any ideas on good units to apply for in Arizona.
Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu
Those aholes have come after Nevada as well. From what I understand they are suing all western states with trophy animals. This group really steams my muffins. I went to the town meeting a couple nights ago to let my voice be heard on the matter and to see how I could help. What they are doing will be bad for everyone BUT them. They are greedy crybabies that care about no one but themselves and the money they can take from us (as well as animals). I am writing letters, making phone calls, boycotting their TV show and I would call their sponsors too, if they even had any, which they don't. I will not let them take away my hunting priveliges here, and I hope the rest of you will stand up and make yourselves heard when they target your state. It is a messed up deal and it will hurt taxidermists in all states targeted. If you would like copies of the letters that I am sending out to send to Washington, send me your email addy and I'll send it to you. We have to take action on this matter. Don't just sit there and let this group take away your right to hunt in your own state.
uso is only intersted in getting more land to hunt the way they work is to have all tag applications in one pot not residents and nonresidents all in one here in nevada what that means to residents is that for the number if tags given out the nunresident hunters could out number the residents there for we could end up not drawing a tag and we live here myself i have not drawn a tag now for 4 years my son is 22years old and has not drawn a tag yet so if uso gets in to your state kiss your hunting good buy
can you guys give me some more details as to what exactly they are trying to do. I thought they were just trying to increase the number of nonresident tags in AZ up from ten percent which i could agree with. I have not heard that they want to put nonresidents and residents on equal ground which I would not agree with. Residents should have priority when tags are limited but if a state takes any federal money for game managment, nonresidents should not be excluded either, or priced out of hunting.
From MY PERSPECTIVE, I've always thought that the fractional applications opened to non-residents was bullsh1t. While true that most of the big game animals in North America habitate these sparsely inhabited states, the MAJORITY OF MONEY going to these states comes from the other states. The Rocky Mountain States have elk, pronghorn, muley's and bighorns. Obviously none of these species exist east of the Plains states, yet BILLIONS of dollars from these areas is used by those Rocky Mountain states. The US Department of Interior, the USFWS, and all state agencies exist solely because of funding from those sources. Non-residents are charged exhorbitantly higher prices for licenses adding to those coffers. What would YOU think if, as an American citizen, you could buy a McDonalds Big Mac in your home town for $2.50, but if you decided to order one in another state, they asked for proof of residency, a valid overeater's anonymous card, and $75 for that same Big Mac?
A Montana resident can come to Delaware and hunt some of the only Northern Tier Deer along the east coast for $85. That allows him (or her) to take 2 does, 2 antlerless deer, one "hunter's choice" buck, and one trophy buck with antlers spreading at least 14 inches. Yet when I go to Montana, I can only be 'assured of getting a license' for ONE SINGLE DEER for a fee of $650.
USO saw the same inequities. They asked Arizona (and Montana and several other states) just to make some compensations for a fair chance at drawing a tag. The answer was, "What's our is ours and what's yours is ours". USO took them to court AND WON. It was appealed and overturned. USO appealed AND WON AGAIN. Now suddenly they're the bad guys.
MY FEELINGS ON THIS ISSUE is that all indigenous wildlife is the property of all US citizens (ESPECIALLY ON FEDERAL LANDS). Why is Arizona allowed to penalize me for not living there, but wanting to hunt in the Tonto National Forest area? I already pay for Tonto. I pay the same (actually probably more since my excise taxes on firearms, bows, boats, and fishing equipment go into Pittman-Robertson funding to support those wildlife agencies)taxes as Arizona citizens.
I've seen figures nationwide, and I can tell you that NO STATE DNR could survive with the moneys they generate from their citizenry. All those agencies have state of the art equipment thanks to Pittman-Robertson, Ducks Unlimited, NWTF, Rocky Mountain Elk Federation, FNAWS, Safari Club, Pheasants Forever, et al. They greedily accept this funding with one hand while building roadblocks for "non-residents" with the other. I've paid thousands of dollars over the last 40 years in "preference points" or "non-refundable application fees". Why is extortion legal for these wildlife agencies?
As difficult as it may be, I'd ask those who live in these states effected by the ruling to walk a mile in our shoes and see how YOU like being treated as a second-class citizen awhile. If you think any of this is exaggerated, click on the "LINKS" in the upper margin and go to the individual State Wildlife Agencies. Look at the differences and disparities of resident licensing and tags with those of non-residents.
George I would agree with most of what you said but the difference is we have to put in for a draw to hunt all big game animals in Nevada and cannot buy tags across the counter.The DFG sets aside 10% of tags on most species for non residents. If we get sued as Arizona did there will be no "set aside" tags for nonresidents they will be put into the pool with all of us. This might not sound unfair to some but let me put it into perspective for you. With the introduction of the internet 25% of applications in Nevada are from Nonresidents with the ease of being able to apply online that number is expected to grow to 60% in four or five years what that would result in is a possable 60% of the tags available going to nonresident hunters. When there is only 3,200 tags available statewide (for Muledeer) and 60% of them going to nonresidents, well you get the picture. Another example is currently Nevada offers 3-5 Mountain goat tags these have always been closed to nonresident hunnters with USO's suit this would be available to nonresidents as well, Nevada averages around 20,000 applicants for these 3-5 tags now can you imagine what it would be like to have nonresident applications in there as well you would have a better chance of winning the Lotery than pulling one of those tags. So yes if we could just go down and buy a deer or elk tag it might be different. Since some of us have waited 4-5-6-12 years for a tag with only 10% going to nonresident hunters now, you can imagine the attitude of everyone when they are being told well you might have to wait 10 or 15 years to hunt a deer in Nevada.
Jeanette-- Senator Reid has introduced a Bill to try and stop this lawsuit I have a copy of it on my computer at work I will email you a copy Monday if you would like. He is asking for signitures so he can get it pushed through. Maybe you can pass it along and get as many signitures as you can
There are some things that you may not understand in this issue. Here you can put in for 10 years and not draw a tag. In Tennessee and many places in the South you can buy tags over the counter and shoot several deer in one season. The Nevada elk chapter reintroduced elk into the mountains here and the people of Nevada paid for it. Now you have the USO wanting to come in here and make it even harder for residents to get a tag. Some people have been waiting yeras to draw an elk tag (I spoke to a man, a lifelong Nevada resident, who has waited 28 years and still has not drawn an elk tag. It is total BS if you ask me. I do not know how long it will take before I will be able to draw a tag here. I may die before that chance comes along. I hunt in many other states and I pay the price. When I hunt Tennessee I pay the $102.00 non resident fees and get 2 deer tags. It is truly a scary situation for me here. I just moved to Nevada in May. In California I could just buy tags over the counter for deer. Here the deer population is not as dense and thus NDOW has hunters on a draw system. For the USO to just come in and tell me that they should be put in line before me for tags WHEN I LIVE HERE is total horsehooey. How would you like that, George? If nonresidents came to Deleware and told you that you need to wait in line after them and see if there are any tags left. Walk a mile in my shoes and see where I'm coming from here. Taxidermy will also be affected. Imagine how much work will go out of state with these yahoos. It doesn't look good. Would you like to have that happen to you? This is a very sore subject for me and it is frightening as well. Just food for though for ya, George. I moved here for better hunting, and look what happens...
I have a letter as well for the Ried- Stevens bill that I'm sending out. I would also like a copy of yours (it could be the same one I have). All of Elko county is getting involved in this and our reps are in Reno as we speak fighting this. We can't let this happen. George, I hope you can understand that the USO is a greedy SOB that is only targeting states with trophy animals. Be happy that they do not think Deleware has trophies!
But the original suit was brought agains Arizona. Nevada got sucked into the hole during the appeal of the Arizona ruling when it went to the US District court.
I understand completely what your situation is, and what made this whole mess what it is was the fact that Arizona basically blew off all the complaints. They were AUCTIONING off Desert Bighorn sheep permits for hundreds of thousands of dollars and giving the Governor one to sell off, yet a non-resident couldn't draw for one.
I would hope the the bill your Senator draws up doesn't start a range war. SOME of us are already pissed over cattle farmers being allowed to have cattle graze on federal lands year long for less than a nickle and acre or the mineral rights being sold to Canadian companies for pocket change and then us having to buy them back for a fortune. My biggest gripe is NOT what Nevada does with THEIR own resources on THEIR own land, but when it crosses over on to Federal land and parks, I don't think Nevada or ANY OTHER STATE should be allowed to extort money from "non-residents" for a resource they aren't responsible for. My pitch is for the USFWS to take responsibility for the situation and control the resource completely. Then the playing field is level for everyone. Afterall, it's ALL about money. Having a yahoo like me fly to Arizona, pay an outfitter thousands of dollars, spend hundreds of dollars on motels, rental cars and equipment, paying hundreds of dollars for a "non-resident" license and then tipping the guide brings much more money to the state than resident fees. IF a resource is that limited in draw, why not close the season? That's what wildlife management does in every other state. (Currently we're allowed to shoot ONE Canada goose per day here. Now why would I take 50 decoys out, take 2 hours to set up and 'limit out' in the first 60 seconds of shooting time?)
No one likes the idea of "big brother" as this past election shows, but SOMETHING or SOMEONE needs to rein in these state wildlife agencies. I asked Idaho DNR a couple years back why they'd increased their non-resident deer tags from $400 to $600. Know what the official response was? Cause we can! The had 1200 licenses left unsold that year and it tickled me.
I'll admit, I'm not familiar with Nevada. I've been in the draw for elk in Arizona for the last 3 years and have paid my extortion fees each year. Now, Arizona is hinting that they are going to change their entire system, but that a non-resident "might" be required to be there IN PERSON during the draw or if he's not, his selection will be invalid. Now you tell me about extortion.
Wildlife management is a states right issue. I believe that current wildlife law sees wildlife as "owned" by the people of that state. Each state has the right to manage their wildlife as they see fit, with occaisional oversight or interference from the feds, such as with endangered species. Since the wildlife within each state is owned by the people of that state, most states allow their residents cheaper and a higher percentage of wildlife harvest permits. Alaska currently has many game management units where non residents may not even hunt big game, due to lower numbers of certain species. Residents only in those units.
What USO has done is gone to court and challenged, so far successfully, the right of states to manage their wildlife. Many, including me, see this as a bad thing. Do you guys who read this site really want ALL US citizens having a say in how, for eaxample, Az. mangages it's elk herd? I'm sure the Sierra Club, Friends of Animals, etc. are all pleased with this decision. The consumptive use of wildlife is heavily under attack. The large urban areas of this country have alot of voter power. These are the strongholds of the anti use crowd. THese don't want anyone harvesting wildlife.
I believe George R. is wrong about his share of PR funds. Each state is alloted PR funds based on the number of res. there or the number of hunt/fish licenses sold...........or something like that. A state with a large pop. gets more money than a western state.
USO, is this latest decision stands, has opened the door for massive federal interference in wildlife management. You folks, me included, who make money from consumptive wildlife use, will regret this in the long run.
It has nothing to do with "state's rights" when that "right" is subsidized by all the states. (I noticed that you hop-scotched the federal lands issue completely.) I've hunted Alaska several times and I'm not aware of any such restrictions on non-residents. There IS, however, an issue of "subsistance hunting" and the indigenous natives rights to control their own resources. I'm a huge proponent of closed seasons for biological reasons, so I don't really see that as an issue either.
Perhaps not on this issue, George. However, this has everything to do with states rights. Each state has the right to manage it's wildlife within it's borders. The federal land issue should be a moot point. The wildlife is owned by the state, no matter where it roams. Since wildlife does not recognize ownership borders, the state retains the right to manage it on whatever land it is on. I think a study of other states would show that in most cases,state hunting and fishing seasons apply on federal lands. Do you really want dual management, with different seasons and limits depending on whose land the animal is standing on? It is a nightmare. That is exactly what we have in Alaska. Dual management. It causes more problems than it solves. It wastes money. Our tax dollars our paying for both federal and state employees to do the same job.
Here is a link to the current Alaska hunting regs.http://wildlife.alaska.gov/regulations/regshome.cfm
You will see that in some game management units the non resident season for certain species is closed while residents are still allowed to hunt. The first group of users to be eliminated when stocks are low is the non res. Certain units, while having a non res season, will have a shorter season than the res. This is true on both federal and state land. Imagine all U.S. residents having equal access to the game within every state. It is not a situation that would benefit anyone.
I disagree that wildlife management is subsidized. As I said, PR funds are based on numbers within each state.
This decision is especially bad for western states that have more federal land. Perhaps these states need to work to decrease federal holdings within their borders and get away from this rediculous idea!
We are friends and agree on many things, but on this issue we are on two different ends of the spectrum.
If you feel that another state is overcharging non-residents, simply work within your own state to return the favor by encouraging your state to charge non-resident fees equal to what you are charged in that state. It works well and I think this is the only fair solution to this arguement. I know Alabama has done this with certain states in the past.
This whole mess has to be viewed as the greatest chance to divide hunters and end hunting as we know it that has ever existed.
If you think non-resident tags are currently expensive watch what happens when this federal ruling is forced upon non-willing states. It has already been established that "equal drawing odds" do not have any link to what a state may charge for non-resident hunters. Couple this with what farmers and ranchers will then be able to charge because there will be a sizable "non-resident" market and guess what? You and I the average working class guy will be shut out simply because we can't afford it anymore. Say goodbye to the chance of free private land access and state sponsored land access programs such as South Dakota's walk in areas.
Everyone has a choice about where they live, and thus what their hunting opportunities are. Like Janette, many of us live exactly where we live because of the lifestyle including our local opportunities.
South Dakota for example has a resident only once in a lifetime bighorn sheep drawing. However this heard was established by South Dakota Game Fish & Parks and the funds of the people of Souh Dakota, not non-residents or the federal government! Recently it has been almost solely funded through the volunteer fund raising efforts of the local SCI chapter and no one else. Most South Dakota residents who apply for these tags will never draw one in their lifetime. Do you really consider it fair to lessen their odds furthur by opening up equal odds to non-residents? Before you answer consider who created this heard, who funds their survival and who actually cares about them beyond the already unlikely chance of drawing a tag.
This is just one example from one state and I could name many more from South Dakota alone. I am sure that everyone from most states could also list similar examples.
Taking self government away from individual states on matters such as these is in my opinion un-American. We have individual state governments and not just the United States government for exactly these reasons. We are all have rights and choices, and those rights and choices include choosing which state we choose to live in because that state reflects our values and the opportunities that we hold most dear.
You better than anyone should know to beware of the "Trojan Horse", and that is exactly what this is.
Like Janette and all of the others who feel the same way, I will not just lay down and take this. I will do what I can to encourage my state government and state game and fish department to make it as expensive and as difficult as possible for non-residents to infringe on my rights as a South Dakotan if this federal ruling is forced down our throats! I love to hunt in other states but I consider it a gift and not a right. However, I am perfectly content to just hunt in my home state of South Dakota if that is what it must come down to. Unfortunately, if this occurs we will all lose and hunting opportunities with out of state relatives will be a thing of the past.
Personally, I have been very satisfied with the current non-resident drawing system and think that what this greedy plaintiff has done is shameful.
I could make a much higher wage living on the east or west coast, but I don't ask the citizens of those states to subsidize my income because I choose to live and work where I do. There is a trade off for every choice that we make in life, so likewise I believe that it is equally unfair to mandate that we subsidize their recreational hunting opportunities by having equal drawing rights in my state.
Stand up, speak out and band together in your own state to protect your rights and end this federal nonsense!
Mike said, "The wildlife is owned by the state, no matter where it roams." I know exactly what that means as I hunted elk on the Colorado/New Mexico border. With a Colorado license, I could only watch as they crossed a fence dividing the state that had closed its season but Colorado was where my ticket and season was.
Mark, I do empathize and sympathize with the plight we're now being faced with, but it's ALWAYS been there for us Easterners. What you've openly advocated is to make hunting a rich mans venue and cut out the little guy. Sure, we could charge $600 for a non-resident fee and few people would hunt a resource that exists only because of hunters to begin with. I don't want it to return to the European style of Game Masters selecting animals to be culled and only royalty being able to enjoy the sport I grew up with. No one's bothered to address exactly how George Tallman operates US Outfitters. It is not HIS area that is hunted. He contracts individual outfitters from the effected states who offer the service. Though certainly USO gets a cut, the profit goes directly to outfitters in effected states, not to USO. THESE OUTFITTERS complain that they are losing money simply because of inequities in the system. George just took them to court because, as you both said, "WE'RE ALL AMERICANS".
What if I told you that it's already cheaper to hunt whitetails in Alberta and Saskatchewan than it is in Texas or Kansas? What would you say if I told you it was cheaper to go to Russia and kill TWO brown bears than it is to go to Alaska for one? Some African and New Zealand safaris already are cheaper (INCLUDING AIR FARE)than me going to Montana for elk and pronghorn. So it's already a big money sport to begin with. The shame in these cases, however, is that it's going to someone elses national economy.
I really don't have a problem with regulating non-residents as long as it's done with some degree of fairness and equitability. If an elk is worth $800 to a non-resident for a state to maintain, why is it only worth $15 to a resident. And please don't try the taxation to residents ploy. I'm only there for from 6 to 10 days. At that rate, you're saying the resident pays $48,000 a year in taxes? I don't think so. I know how state DNR's work and most of their fees are just ambiguous figures they pull out of the air. We all know that when a fine is levied on an individual for exceeding their limit, the state isn't holding pairs of animals in cages to breed or artificially inseminating them to replace the exceeded limit. I also am vividly aware of how much money is placed in DNR coffers by private industry, tax exempt organizations, and donors. I conducted a seminar at a national meeting of wildlife and conservation officers a few years back, and do you know what the general concensus was? "Most hunters are crooks and if they haven't already violated the game laws, they will." That's the same attitude Arizona brought to the table during discussions of allotments and regulations. I don't expect you folks to see the forests as you live in the trees. Sometimes I wish I did as well, but there are other amenities that some of us require which that option doesn't allow. And by the same token, it would be hard for you to find that new 4WD SUV if the Detroit plants didn't exist.
I, like you, don't want it to come to a "vote". As with gun owners, we always lose and any concessions never involve remittance. We need to leave this animosity at the door and sit down to reach a sensible agreement on the issue without all the emotions.
Everyone has some good points on this. I really have no problem with limiting nonres. but I have a hell of a problem with charging such fees that many of us can no longer justify going hunting. The only reason I continue to elk hunt in Colorado is because of my kids. They can hunt for 100 bucks till they are sixteen and I think this is a fair deal. Last year I just took my boys and did not buy a license for my self. Once they are to old I'm through.
Almost every state game and fish web site and nearly every show and magazine says how we need to get the whole family involved in hunting but it is getting so expensive and complicated that it is almost not worth it anymore. I have not hunted in my home state of Alabama in five years because every single inch of it is leased with an average price of 800 bucks to join.
Western states could charge 1500 dollars an elk tag and still sell them all. But is this what we want hunting to be. It is already a rich mans game. Just like the rest of you I deal with hunters every single day and wether justifiable or not there is developing a real resentment towards or game and fish people. Many hunters feel like they are treated like criminals and are being taken advantage of financialy. I have some of these emotions myself sometimes. I hate to say it but I love to hunt Elk more than anything else in this world but I doubt I will be doing it in three or four years.
George, before I have to quit completly give me some pointers on units to look at in Arizona, or maybe New Mexico. I want one good Bull before it's all over.
Just got back from the meeting here in Reno and there was some pissed off people. The Nevada DFG is considering a few changes to current regs one would be an increase of nonresident tags to 1,000.00 for dear and Antelope, 1,500.00 for Elk They are talking about no hunting next year,and revamping the Bonus point system (I lost 6 points for Elk last time they did that) If this lawsuit goes through I might just have to come hunting with you George, got an extra room?
George, as good friends I know that we could debate each other until the end of time and we would not change each others mind on this issue! But your point of view does not reflect the facts.
You openly agree the law states that non-migratory wild game species are legally controlled by and considered to belong to each particular state, not the federal government or anyone else. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that each state is solely responsible for managing their game and determining all hunting seasons, fees and regulations pertaining to the game animals within the boarders of their state. Ownership of the land the game is standing on be it private, state or federal does not have any bearing on who the wild game belongs to or any bearing on the regulations regarding the management of such game, with the possible exception of Indian Reservations which are often exempt to tribal members.
Therefore each individual state game and fish department is responsible to the people of their state for proper game management and for setting all laws, fees and regulations which benifit and are the will of the people of their state. Therefore they are perfectly within their rights to fulfill there obligations to the citizens of their state to set low fees and high numbers of licenses for residents as long as it is in line with proper game management and it is the will of the people of their state. Likewise they are also within thier rights to set non-resident hunting rights, fees and allocations of licenses, (if any), in any number and at any fee based solely upon sound game management and the will of the people of their state.
So if a person likes the way a state is run and or what it has to offer, as Americans, we have the right to move there and have a voice and receive all of the benifits that being a citizen of that state has in addition to our rights as American citizens.
I sure would have liked to have been able to vote in DE,(to help defeat Kerry), but I am not a citizen of DE so I did not, and do not, have that right. If I expect to receive the full benifits of a state I have to become a citizen in that state. This is what our country was founded on. Hopefully we are not heading towards the federal government dictating that everything is always equal for everyone and we have no local voice, as this is the basis for communism. I am sure everyone would also like to receive an annual "oil" check from the state of Alaska, but unfortunately the benifit is also only provided to to citizens of the state of Alaska.
The problem today is that we have come to expect and demand certain priviliages, which have often been extended out of kindness and courtesy, as rights. I will say it agin, the wild non-migratory game in each state belongs to that state and thus the citizens of that state. As a non-resident you are a guest in that state and your right to hunt there is a priviliage, not a right, granted to you by the good will of the people of that state!
The international saying "ugly American" has been used to discribe Americans who traveled internationally and confused rights and priviliages while in anothers country. Hopefully we will not be hearing the saying "ugly non-resident hunter" because of this same issue. It is certainly rude to support a demand that the citizens of anther state government change their laws and decrease their own benifits because you believe that doing so will provide you with increased personal recreational opportunities.
As I stated in my last post it is up to you where you live. If building 4WD SUVs in Detroit is your choice because of the great income it provides and you enjoy your rights as a citizen of Michigan, Bravo! It is not my place as a citizen of South Dakota or the federal governments place to mandate that you provide me with equal or increased recreational benifits in Michigan. In fact fairness demands that your benifits should be greater than mine because you actually live there and are not a guest!
You point out that hunting in Texas is actually more expensive than most other places? Hello, this state caters to non-resident hunters and outfitters! Easy to obtain, low cost non-resident tags, not much management from Texas game and fish but.... almost all the land is privately owned and controlled by outfitters at a very large price tag to the hunter. It is easy to hunt in Texas, if you have the money they have the game! Poor example of demonstrating how catering to the outfitting / guide industry is going to work in the favor of the average guy like you and me. At least in Texas outfitting and guiding are done on privately owned ground and behind an awful lot of high game fence. Outfitting in many western states is done on a lot of public ground, and I do not have a problem with that until outfitters begin demanding that I give up or diminish my rights to draw a tag because they believe that they have a superior right to financially profit from a non-resident drawing that same tag.
If you want to really level the playing field get all outfitters to push for federal and state legislation which prohibits guiding hunters on all public property. And while we are at it, lets also mandate that all property private and public property is also automatically open to public hunting unless it is posted, in which case no one including the landowner can hunt on it. Now in the real world you know as well as me that this is not ever going to happen!
Got it yet,yeah, the world is not fair and land owners do have certain rights even if they do not own the game animals. So as an American citizen who has rights to federal lands such as National Forests I believe that your rights, and mine, are equal to those of any other private land owner in America. You, and I, have the right to support access, for hunting or any other purpose, to our public land or you and I have the right to support denying access. That is the full scope of our rights as public land owners.
To correct one statement from your previous post let me state that I have in no way "openly advocated making hunting a rich mans venue and cutting out the little guy"! Hell, I am the little guy! I prefer to hunt on public ground and do so without the services of any guide or outfitter. It is how I grew up and how I plan to keep hunting. It is exactly why I am opposed to this suit by USO Outfitters and what it stands for. Bring money and organized outfitters with lawers into the picture versus the "little guy hunter who wants to hunt public ground in his little corner of the world" and use your own common sense in determining who loses. I will guarantee it won't be the high paid residents from the "Blue" states and it will be the little guys from the "Red" states.
As I said, if it is forced down my throat in my state I will stand up and join the fight to make it backfire on outfitters and non-resident hunters by trying to make it as difficult and as expensive as possible to obtain a non- resident big game tag. Political power in a state is all the "little guy" is left with. And fortunately in low population density states such as mine the little guy can still roar when he has been wronged! Loud enough to even dethrone the Senate minority leader!
I encourage all of you to stand up and fight for your rights as citizens of your individual states!
GOD bless America for giving us these rights!
George, I can understand your personal views on this issue because of where you live and your limited hunting opportunities in your state. However, I personally feel you are dead wrong on this issue, and not just because of where I live. Just my opinion and yes I know you still have yours.
It is great we can disagree and still be good friends!
You have some points just like every one else but...it can turn on you in the end. While hunting in a western state several years ago a "young gun-ho gamewarden" managed to piss all of my hunting party off with his pickyness, but while we were arguing (semi- politely) I asked why nonres. tags were getting so high. He explained that the state had a budget for managing it's wildlife and the price was set to meet that budget. If you eliminate nonres, guess who is going to have to pay to meet that budget. Will it suddenly get cheaper without nonres. I think not.
Also, being from the south I am all for states rights but...
Just like the game animals are said to belong to the state, so does most of the land within it's borders, but I will not be charged more for an acre of land because I don't live in that state. Neither can I be prevented from living there. Many of my friends in western states resent the hell out of californians for leaving that mess and flooding into thier state. They are not making more land and some places like Colorado are filling up fast. Do they have the right to stop them. Native born Nevadans might not like Jeanette for moving to their state and bringing even more competition for those limited resident tags. But there is nothing they can do.
What is the answer..I don't know. Like I said, I think residents should get priority but to price out nonres. or to unfairly limit them is wrong. However if a state wants to refuse any federal money and will flip the whole bill for wildlife managment then they can do what they want in my book.
Have you seen Jeanette? I don't mind at all (to bad all the californians that are "migrating" here don't look like or act like her)Seems like she is quite the asset already.
Mark, you can say you understand me all you want, but until the shoe fits, we'll always agree to disagree on this one. No animosity, just agree to disagree. I don't expect any of you in the Western states to agree with me any more than I agree with you, but the one thing we ALL agree on is that this matter should have been settled BY HUNTERS and not lawyers. I don't know where you guys find all that "imminent domain" with animals stuff written down. Sure it's "common sense", but this case proves that common sense isn't nearly so "common" anymore.
Ron, you want a good bull with fair chase? Contact Redwing Outfitters in Raton, New Mexico. They have the hunting rights on the Colorado side of Vermejo Park in Colorado. Resident herd stays within the confines of the park usually with opportunities to take 400 class bulls without any silly trophy fees for size. Bob Dougherty is a great guy and runs a great camp. A LITTLE pricey,but if you don't shoot (OR HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOOT) the animal of a lifetime there, then send me your bill and I'll pay for it. I trust them that much.
While we're on the subject of land...
They say Sam H pulled a fast one when he sold us out as a republic. I want my residency rights restored to all of the Texas land. Think it'll happen? I'm not asking for much - check it out.
I have delt with uptight game wardens myself in several states so I feel for you there but they are a totally different issue, this issue is not about defending game and fish or the actions of wardens.
I am not for banning non-resident hunting or for charging high prices to non-residents, unless it is the only line of defense to stop a federal mandate which tells a particular state how many licenses they must provide to non-resident hunters and thus decreasing resident hunting opportunities. This is a matter to be decided by each individual state. Personally I think the current system works fine and they should leave it alone. Apply for your non-resident big game tags and wait your turn. That is what I currently do when applying for an out of state tag, and if I draw one I go hunting there and if not I don't. Like Nevada all residents of my state must also draw for their resident big game tags and some years we don't draw any. There a lot of issues to consider which have not been addressed which will affect residents as well. My Brother form Florida comes up and hunts with me every year. We pheasant hunt on the years that he does not draw non-resident big game tags. So realize that in todays era of spread out families non-resident hunting issues and higher fees hit close to home with many residents and their families as well. With that said however, my brother is content to wait his turn for the priviliage of drawing a non-resident big game tag in my state. Niether of us believe that he should have the same expectation of drawing such tags or pay close to the same price that a resident of that state does.
Actually, you could legally be charged more for an acre of land, as under federal real estate laws non-residents are not a protected class from discrimination. But I know that you are a smart individual and if you felt you were being taken advantage of you would not purchase such land and you would simply find another acre to purchase. Just an example since you mentioned it. But honestly the residents of my state are as friendly and as kind as any people that I have met anywhere so I know that would not happen. Yes as an American you can move to any state you choose, and then you will get all of the same benifits as any other resident of that state including resident hunting benifits. I would also bet that your auto insurance rates would go down and your state taxes would decrease as well. My home state is ranked as the 48th. lowest taxed state in the nation! But to get those resident benifits you will also have to move there and become a citizen of that state. It is actually your choice, you can move to any state you choose if you wish. My state could actually use some more good residents because many rural areas are declining and the state population as a whole is stagnent, so moving to my state and many other western states is not an arguement. I believe that the only real objection to people moving into certain western states is that they move to such states to escape what they didn't like in their last state, and then they begin trying libralize and change the state that they moved into to make it more like the state that they left. Some of these unfortunately have a lot of money to put towards this cause, i.e most Hollywood celebrities in Montana.
If it takes the residents of my state footing the bill for any loss of non-resident hunting license fees to defeat a federal mandate, I am all for it and I would bet that most other citizens in my state would support it as well. We will take our chances with that one and I know we will survive.
If residents in a state lose interest in the game in their own state due to not being able to draw a tag in their own state they will eventually quit fundind habitat and the game and fish budget for game animals. This would lead to reduced chances for everyone. It is tough to draw a tag now and would be almost impossible if it was opened up to an unregulated draw. Also opening up a non-regulated non-resident computor draw will encourage many more people to apply, so actually your chances of drawing a specific big game tag in a specific state will probably be less than they are under the current system! Not trying to start an arguement with anyone, just some food for thought. I know the people of the west and they are not going to lie down without one heck of a fight on this issue. No matter what happens I am afraid that It will cause resentment towards non-resident big game hunters that will last for a very long time. So in the end all sportsmen lose and the anti-hunting groups just have to sit back and watch us fight with each other.
It is also your right to boycott or not hunt in any states if you feel they are overcharging or not treating non-resident hunters fairly. Just like the acre of land example, if you feel you are being taken advantage of simply shop elsewhere. You know where I stand on this issue and I will stand up and I will work to defeat any federal "USO Outfitters" related mandate which affect my home state. Even if this means that my brother and my non-resident friends probably won't be able to hunt with me anymore, principle and doing the right thing are more important than that. I appreciate your comments, and being from the south I am sure you appreciate mine. If this was simply a matter of fighting for lower non-resident hunting rates, I would be in your corner and with you all of the way. Unfortunately it is much bigger than that and it has become a matter of states rights!
You will always be a great friend and I know that we can both agree to always disagree on this issue and still manage to respect each others opinions! No man can ever walk a mile in another mans shoes so lets just leave it at that!
There should be a lot more people like you in this world!
Here is to hoping that hunters do find a way to settle this among themselves!
One of these days we are actually going to have to get together and go hunting!
You oughta be here now. The bucks are so horny they're running in front of cars to be killed. And since every damned farm in Delaware is either already a housing development or soon will be, the poor dummies have no place else live except along the fringes. By the way, no need to worry about the animosities. We already hate the Pennsylvania hunters who come down here for our deer season. LMAO.
No one has brought this law suit up but go to this web address and check this out!
The state of Minnesota brought suit against the state of North Dakota because North Dakota chose to open the resident bird hunting season a week before the non-resident season opened! What is next, adults suing kids to stop the youth hunts? Able bodied hunters suing the disabled? What happend to thy shall not covet thy neighbors.......? You fill in the blanks!
Just another example of one government trying to regulate how another government handles it internal affairs and the benifits that it provides to it's citizens. Talk about confusing a right with a priviliage! Whan an insult to the good people of North Dakota, and what a slap in the face for what they have willingly given to so many hunters for so long!
My life-long, and best, hunting friend lives in ND and is absolutely the most hardcore waterfowler you could ever meet, so I do have a little insight on this from talking to him.
ND, unlike most states, has a presumption of the right to hunt on all public and private lands within the state. Simply put that means if it is not posted you have the right to hunt it! I know that may come as a shock to many from other states, but that is really the way it still is in ND. If a private land owner does not want you on his or her property, or if they want to be asked first, it is their obligation to post their own property. I have hunted in ND for many years and most of the land has not been posted, and those who posted would usually grant permission if you simply asked! Talk about a great state and extending it's courtesy and priviliages to the hunter, wow! We should all be so lucky to have state legislators and land owners who share such views and we should do whatever possible to keep them thinking that way.
Instead neighboring MN chose to do the friendly thing of slaying the golden goose because it felt that ND was trying to keep slightly better eggs for itself! Remember that 1970's song about the kingdom on the hill and the rock? You know, the one where one kingdom demanded the others riches and then slayed the kingdom only to find "with our brothers we will share"? The shoe seems to fit in this case and in the USO Outfitters case. And notice it says share, not give all or even give equal! The really sad thing is that the waterfowl hunting in ND usually improves as the season goes on, peaking at freeze up usually in early November! And with all of the wild birds and cover, upland hunting is good all season long. No personal offense to anyone, as I need to lose some weight myself, but it is kind of like watching a fat person eat from a buffet line all day long and then having to be asked to leave at closing time. You get the picture, how much is really enough?
The 2004 report from my friend in ND indicates that this year there is much more posted land and that when he inquires about hunting, the first question he is asked is "where are you from"? A quick glance at his ND license tag usually follows to confirm his response and then fortunately for him he is usually granted permission to hunt. Gut instinct and those conversations with the landowners clearly let him know that if he was not from ND his permission rate would be much lower, especially if he was from MN! Talk in ND is also now beginning among landowners regarding changing the presumption to no hunting unless permission has granted.
How sad for everyone involved! The future of hunting relies as much on respecting the people of each state as it does on respecting the animals within that state. Ultimately it is up to the people in each individual state to determine if there will be hunting in their state, and if so under what terms and conditions! We really risk losing it all. Just ask California hunters about mountain lion hunting!
No one is ever happy about being the defendant in a law suit. As the defendant you will always carry a lot of resentment about such lawsuit no matter what the outcome is. Ever been the defendant in a law suit? If so, how do you feel about the whole incident? If not, how would it make you feel?
We as hunters work withing slim margins just to have the rights that we have. Remember, 80% of the people in this country do not hunt or have a firm opinion on hunting. 8% are anti-hunting and the other 12% support hunting or participate in it. So causing the 88% of people more problems and expense by defending themselves in lawsuits over hunting right is probably not the smartest thing that anyone supporting hunting could do. Couple this with the fact that this issue could split hunters and major hunting groups on all fronts and we are all in big trouble! SCI, NRA, FNAWS, ELK FOUNDATION etc. all recieve their funding from all of us. So they had beeter be damn careful about expressing any opinion on this issue. Everyone wants greater availability to tags but it can't be done as the resource is finite! So for someone to gain an advantage it has to be equally at someone elses expense. Rich vs. poor, resident vs. non-resident, guide vs. private hunter and all combinations of the above that are possible. Believe me that the well to do in our society want very high application fees and tag prices because they realize that this is the only way to eliminate the little guy and thus really increase their odds of drawing that coveted big game tag! And the outfitters who cater to this group of people fully support this because if these clients don't draw tags they have to keep their prices down to cater to the little guy or they would be out of business! And for the real little guy, the public land do ot yourself hunter, you are viewed as nothing more than competition for both tags and trophy animals and they really wish that they could get rid of you!
I firmly believe that these law suits could mark the end of sport hunting as we know it, so think long and hard and beyond purely self serving interest before you reach your final opinion on this matter.
To the great people of North Dakota I would like to say thank you for all of the hunting priviliages and kindness that you have shown me in the past, and as a non-resident hunter I am ashamed of the lawsuit that Minnesota has filed against you!
To the residents of all other states, fight these issues! But do not look to the traditional national organizations on this issue, as they are simply caught in the middle on this one!
Contact United Sportsmen of America and join or organize a local state chapter to protect your rights! This must be a grass roots fight on a state by state level to protect your individual rights as a citizen of your state! Do not wait, if you haven't been sued yet you probably will be soon. Contact your state legislators and begin drafing state statutes which clearly define hunting as a right for the residents of your state and a priviliage for non-residents.
Unfortunatly, like George pointed out common sense seems to be lacking in America lately. I never thought we would have to see marriage legally defined as between a man and a woman, but we do! I also never thought that state resident rights would have to be clearly defined, but they must! I guess that in a 2004 48% to 52% America these are realities that we must begin to address.
I support George's feelings that this should be settled by hunters and not lawyers or special interest profiting at our expense.
During the moratorium on Canada geese, the Feds agreed that they would allow youth to take ONE Canada goose during the youth waterfowl season. Would you believe several adults filed a formal complaint to our DNR on the matter. Once it got out, howeve, people like me ridiculed them for being jealous and greedy and it quietly went away. I guess it's this "progressive" movement we're hearing about.
Still having controversy withdrawls?
Have you got all the details yet?
At least, George gave you the name of his favorite elk outfitter!
However, I hear George is actually holding out on all of us. The rumor is that he has a honey hole of a deer spot just under the large oak tree off of the dog leg of the 7th. fairway at the Delaware Dunes Country Club near Smyrna, DE. He told me you would be astounded just how fast a buck goes down after you wack him him on the back of the head with your driver. Big berthas work best but any oversized titanium driver works fine. Old style woods do not work well as they shatter on impact and they are ballisticly inferior. Lime green and pale yellow solid camo is preferred as it does not tend to spook the deer, and the $45.00 per day lease fee includes the use of an electric cart to haul your deer out! And George says there is no quality hunting left in Delaware, he should be ashamed of himself! Sorry George I just couldnt resist, now everyone knows about your hunting spot!(LOL)
But I do need some lessons on how to get that leash mark from showing on the hide. I've had his ass tied up to that tree since he shed his velvet. Think I could just sew another neck on to that head?
Before Colorado put a cap on non-residents, over 50% of the hunters were from out of state and trying for the same tags as the locals and residents. In my local unit, it took me 4 years to draw my latest deer tag, meanwhile, non-residents get to apply also which is driving up the preference points needed to draw. The only thing that kind of keeps it in check for the residents is the 60/40 split, which should be more like 75/25 in my opinion. I know what it is like to get shafted for the opportunity to hunt game from MY state, so i feel for the AZ people. I think if hunting big elk is your priority, then you should move to a state like AZ or NM, not sue them! I am thinking as soon as my wife is done with grad school, I might move to NM or AZ just because that way I can hunt big bulls more often. How would you guys from the east like to wait 4 years to hunt a deer in your backyard?
Just like some of the old deer mounts that you see in Cracker Barrel!
You know those hair patterns are hard to match, so I would recommend just covering it with a bandana!
Next time use a nylon leash and tie it to one of his main beams just above the brow tine!
I had the same problem once, I hate it when that happens!
By the way, keep an eye out for my 7 iron. I lost it there while hunting rabbits. Very sentimental about it as I have hunted with it for years and it patterns like a champ. I had planned on passing it on to my oldest son so to keep it in the family, but oh well hunting is going down hill anway! It is a Wilson Pro model!
Oh well, have to run. Taking the family to dinner at Cracker Barrel tonight.
Do you need any reference photographs while I am there? (LOL)
1995, I applied for a certian big game tag.
I had lived in that state three years.
It is a ONCE IN A LIFETIME TAG for residents.
NO Out of state tags issued.
After I had my tag I found a place to hunt.
I tagged my trophy.
How much money did that state get from me for the hunt. Gas money about $40.00, the price of the tag, I think was $75.00.
Nothing for ammo as I had bought my archery equipment back home in Arkansas. I took a bit of food with me.
So maybe the hunt the everything I spent was $200.00 including tag!
No an out of state hunter would have needed a motel, meals, maybe a rental car or spent more on gas. Plus would have hired a guide or paid a trespass fee.
What fricken irks me is BLM land that is landlocked by some of the ranchers.
Its my land Its your land and I want to hunt it!
I walked five hours into BLM land to shoot my ELK, I ficken walked. The land is surrounded by ranchers and the only way in was to walk in and walk out. I did and Shot a nice bull.
How is it right that the ranchers charge $1000.00 trespass fee to access BLM lands?
One told me if I hunted it I would have to walk in!
So I did I killed a nice racked elk, the rancher and his buddies harassed us a few time over the next three days. So much so I left a day early. Somehow it did not get to the point someone was shot but it got close. But the one of the ranchers realized a bunch of Soldiers on leave, hunting would not have any problems leaving one or more of them buried in the wilderness.
Maybe we as hunters need to band togather and work for opening more ISLAND BLM LANDS.
Now one last word, if its springtime the ranchers dont have any problem with people going in a riding horses, camping etc. they allow nonhunters to pass thru without a fee.
Ever see the number of out of state taxidermist that flog to Arkansas to DUCK HUNT?
State Game and Fish finally said no guides on public duck areas.
Holly cow you should have heard some of the former guides! I swear it sounded like the novacaine was not injected and they were cutting out that tooth!
Did it help the dunk hunts for locals? Not much. Did it cost a lot of money yes, the motels are nolonger full and rates are better!
But still no ducks, so noe the blame goes to Missouri for not freezing over and pushing the ducks down.
Hey bay the way I saw a flock of Redheads on a Pound in Kansas a few weeks back! Early?
Been there and done that in South Dakota! Lots of BLM and some National Forest that is totally surround by private land with no access and you can not get in. I would be behind thus cause 100%. If you have a tag you should be able to hunt all public land in that zone and the state government should mandate access. In South Dakota there are actually laws on the books to do this, but it takes money to go through the process of condemnation required to open each and every section line as access. So unfortunately it just does not get done.
It is strange that big money such as USO Outfitters has been able to convince people that they are fighting for the average guy but they only work on issues which put money in their own pockets.
Try to get them file suit to open access to public lands in the west for the average unguided walk in hunter. It will not happen! Outfitters controling a 100 foot strip of land between a road and the National Forest view this control as the the same as controling or owning the hunting rights on the National Forest!
But that is a separate issue from this one!
Hunters and our national hunting organizations need to band together on that issue!
So what would be the problem with states issueing tags for residents only on state owned and private lands?
The federal lands belong to all of us do they not? Isn't that why they are called "public" lands. They are lands belonging to the US Citzens (everyone) with the stipulation that resource managemnet falls to the state in which they are found. I really don't see how denied access can be justified on these lands. Private or state owned? Sure knock yourself out.
Denied access to BLM land has the same ring for you as denied access to our public federal lands and resources has to us.
Yes I've seen many sides to this issue. I have a current non-resident guides license in New Mexico and a very good friend of mine is the past president of the Guide and Outfitters Association. I've alos hunted on my own in the western states.
New Mexico began restriction of non-residents a few years back and the first drafts of their plan practiaclly eliminated all non-resident tags.
Want to hunt every day? Move to a state that has a deer a day limit, buy yourself a ranch out west or buy land owner tags - pay your own way like the rest of us.
Public lands? Hey I'm "public".
State wanting to lean toward the state citizens a little? Sure OK I'll buy that. Want to strip the rest of us of our rights? Now who's greedy?
Restrict the Outfitters if restriction is needed. Restrict non-resident access to state lands. Let the rest of the free Americans enjoy our rights.
These people come into are state and try to take most of are tags. Iam not saying that they should not be allowed to come hunt in Arizona but the people that live here should have first choice over the tags. I have lived here for my whole life and I dont want to see the hunting in this state to suck..
I have accumulated 7 bonus points for elk. That is seven years of applying for a tag with no success. I have been drawn twice for deer in 10 years. By the way, I lived in Texas for 2 of those seven years while applying and had no problem paying the extra if I had been drawn. Why you ask? Because I was no longer a resident.
If you want to hunt deer every year in Arizona you get a bow, get an over the counter tag for archery deer and hunt the archery season.
If you want to hunt bull elk every year in Arizona as a resident you are out of luck.
Non-residents shouldn't get the same treatment as residents in any state. I don't expect to be treated like a local when I go out of state. I pay the fee and it is what it is. If I don't like it I don't hunt there.
The outfitters are just conducting business. It's about money and the end justifies the means. Put money in their pocket and damn the short and long term consequences.
There seems to be a lot of whining going on. By the way the only "Fair" I'm familiar with is the State Fair & County Fair. There is also a bus fare. I don't see how any of these apply here. Life isn't made up of trying to make things fair.