quote:

So from this definition of 'license' the states are saying that you HAVE to buy a 'license' just to be able to put in for a draw? Seems like a rather bad word to use since I know of no other entity where you have to buy a license just to put in for a game of chance.

I'd also feel somewhat better if I knew that all of these license fees were going to the federal lands and animals. But we all know that's not happening...

No, buying the license provides the privilege to HUNT and the privilege to apply for a permit to HUNT certain species. It's the same for both residents and nonresidents

It isn't the state's fault if someone opts not to utilize the license for the first part. In fact, I do it most years myself now in my home state because I no longer have any interest in hunting other than for the species that require special permits. That wasn't the case for about 35 years, though.

As for the 2nd part of your quote above, I won't speak for other states, but in AZ ALL license fees go to the management of all wildlife in the state for whatever form of management it takes.

NO license fees or other revenue the G&F dept. receives go into the state's general coffers. In fact, the only other funding the G&F dept. receives besides those doled out by the various federal means -- P&R, D&J, etc. -- comes from the Heritage Fund -- a small amount of EARMARKED money from the state lottery proceeds.

Somewhere back in this thread, someone mentioned being "forced" to buy a license to apply for a permit. Obviously, no one is "forced" to do anything. They do have a choice, however, just as they have a choice with any other way of spending their money.

I guess I could say, I don't like being "forced" to pay ludicrous amounts of money to hunt a deer on a private ranch in Texas. But knowing that is the ONLY way to kill a decent buck, I must pay it or go without. My choice to make.

The same applies to the "have-nots" who want to hunt sheep, elk, antelope, etc. in states other than their own. Their choice to make.

quote:

Somewhere back in this thread, someone mentioned being "forced" to buy a license to apply for a permit. Obviously, no one is "forced" to do anything. They do have a choice, however, just as they have a choice with any other way of spending their money.

I guess I could say, I don't like being "forced" to pay ludicrous amounts of money to hunt a deer on a private ranch in Texas. But knowing that is the ONLY way to kill a decent buck, I must pay it or go without. My choice to make.

The same applies to the "have-nots" who want to hunt sheep, elk, antelope, etc. in states other than their own. Their choice to make.

The above is perfect. Nobody makes you apply for anything. If buying the license regardless of whether you use it or not is offensive don't apply.

Mark

I just try not to think about the money I've spent applying over the years...

All good points but it's no wonder the number of hunters continues to decline.

quote:

Originally posted by Scottyboy:
I just try not to think about the money I've spent applying over the years...

I wasted money on worse things than NR license fees .... like women and booze .. well, probably not the booze!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Mikelravy:
All good points but it's no wonder the number of hunters continues to decline.

I think the biggest reason that hunting is declining has more to do where people live. The majority of people live in Urban areas in the U.S., and some have never seen a cow let alone a wild game animal except maybe in a zoo. The economy right now isn't helping things either, if you are looking to hunt out of State.

Hunting is not declining because a guy from Ill can not hunt trophy elk in Utah. Hunting is declining because of what Taylor said and:

-Available hunting opportunity WITHIN one's OWN state. Opportunity is reduced because of difficulty to obtain a license OR difficulty to obtain permission to hunt private lands.

Private lands are being gobbled up by houses and expensive leases. It is hard for the average Joe to find a decent place to hunt. (At least that is what my friends back East tell me)

Opportunity is limited by either a decline in the species or managing a species for larger antlers. Reducing hunting pressure to grow "Inches" is a huge contributing factor to loss of opportunity in my home state.

Which brings me back to why everyone must purchase a license to apply. Reducing hunter opportunity and growing "Inches" cuts the income to the States, which they must make up on the other end through higher fees. When you purchase a license to apply, you are investing in the herd you want to hunt in the future. At least that is part of the problem.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefin:

I'd also feel somewhat better if I knew that all of these license fees were going to the federal lands and animals. But we all know that's not happening...

You must be completely INSANE!!! if you want to have license money go to the Feds. These are the same idiots that forced the wolf onto Idaho, Montana and Wyoming against the opinions of the residents of the individual states. All the western states make sure the license fees go to the respective game depts. Most of them get no funding from the general taxes raised by the states. License fees bankrolls their entire budget. AND YOU WANT TO GIVE CONTROL TO THE CLOWNS IN WASHINGTON D.C.???

If the money went into a federal fund, how long do you think it will be until groups like PETA etc... figure out a way to bleed off those funds away from the intended purposes? Or how long would it take the thieves in D.C. to plunder them? That happened not too long ago when they were funneling off funds from the P/R funds for puroses other than hunting and fishing, which the P/R funds are required by law to be exclusively used to support.

You're from TX. I'm from CO. You may want the Feds involved, but I sure as hell don't. It's not my fault that TX has almost no public hunting land and that many Texans are forced to look to other states to hunt. Bottom line, if you don't like the way CO, UT, WY, MT,ID, WA, OR etc... issue their licenses, then apply elsewhere. Nobody forces you to spend one thin dime in any of those states. It is strictly a vlountary situation.

MAC,

Inhale. Now exhale. Repeat.

My assertion is that the money goes to the Feds but instead of its intended purposes (game and land mgmt), the monies mysteriously goes toward other pork/pet projects. Something gov. officials are well known to do.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefin:
MAC,

Inhale. Now exhale. Repeat.

My assertion is that the money goes to the Feds but instead of its intended purposes (game and land mgmt), the monies mysteriously goes toward other pork/pet projects. Something gov. officials are well known to do.

I challenge you to show one single documented instance in which any western state has allowed license money to be spent on "pork/pet projects". They may not always use the money for game animal species, but it has to be remembered that they're also responsible for the frogs, toads, butterfiles and songbirds. All that also gets funded by license fees, which is totally expected and acceptable.

But, I've never heard of private jets, luxury cars, bridges to nowhere etc... ever being funded by the license fees generated by the states. So. if you can prove the statement, do it now.

http://azheritage.wordpress.com/

A lot of the monies raised goes into 'funds'. Be it 'general funds' or specific. The problem I see are that general funds can be appropriated into anything the gov. wants when they see fit.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefin:
http://azheritage.wordpress.com/

A lot of the monies raised goes into 'funds'. Be it 'general funds' or specific. The problem I see are that general funds can be appropriated into anything the gov. wants when they see fit.

You just proved that you don't know what you're talking about. Did you even bother to actually read the article you posted a link to? If so, how did you miss the following?

quote:

Money for the Heritage Fund comes from the Arizona Lottery — up to $20 million in annual lottery revenue is divided evenly between the Arizona Game and Fish Department and Arizona State Parks.

The fund you're complaining about doesn't get any funding from the sale of hunting licenses. It is funded through the sale of state lottery tickets. Some of the money was given to the Arizona Game and Fish, but that doesn't mean it came from license revenue. This was outside money as was clearly noted by the article.

How does this sort of thing result in a state taking license fee money and use it for "pork/pet projects" as you accuse them of doing? There is no license fee money involved.

Want to try again?

quote:

Originally posted by bluefin:
http://azheritage.wordpress.com/

A lot of the monies raised goes into 'funds'. Be it 'general funds' or specific. The problem I see are that general funds can be appropriated into anything the gov. wants when they see fit.

You know, you really should do some research before you make goofy comments.

First of all, the Heritage Fund has nothing to do with G&F's dedicated revenue it receives from license/tags. And the NONE of the money from the license/tag sales goes into the state's general funds.

The Heritage Fund was a VOTER-sponsored BALLOT initiative in 1990 to dedicate a portion of the LOTTERY proceeds to certain uses. Part of those funds went to the State parks Dept. to preserve parks, historical sites, trails, etc.

Another $10 million a year from LOTTERY ticket sales goes to Arizona Game and Fish Department for the conservation and protection of the state’s wildlife and natural areas. The $10 million is a teeny amount of the department's overall operating budget.

The AGFD spends its Heritage Fund dollars to recover threatened and endangered species, to help urban residents appreciate and coexist with unique wildlife, to educate children about the environment, and to create new opportunities for outdoor recreation.

Because the department receives no money from the state's General Fund," the Heritage dollars are important to recovering and sustaining Arizona’s unique native wildlife and to managing more than 800 native species that don't all have targets painted on them.

IOW, all the money from the lottery proceeds would go to the state's general fund, as it did before 1990, if the voters hadn't passed the initiative.

Further, the bill recently signed by Brewer eliminated ONLY the state's park's (A SEPARATE STATE AGENCY from G&F)) share, but only until the end of the fiscal year. She left the game department's $10 million intact.

Lastly, the only other revenue the AZ Dept receives other than thru license/tag sales and the Heritage Fund is money from P-R and D-J, which are appropriated through federal TAXES on equipment --- P-R from hunting/shooting related gear and D-J from fishing related gear. Those funds are apportioned to EVERY state by the number of relative licenses sold for each type of tax fund.

And that money, similar to the Heritage dollars, is earmarked for certain purposes in regards to conservation and other uses. Here, about 75% of the P-R funds are used for the shooting sports (range development or grants for such) and hunter ed. The other 25% goes to habitat improvement projects.

I say screw all that non-resident fee stuff. You all should teach those states a lesson in 2011 and just stay home in your own state and hunt the big game there. I made that pledge here in Idaho about thirty years ago and it works for me!
Maybe get B&C and P&Y to establish categories for rabbits and raccoons and tree squirrels and possums along with whitetail deer...

Rich
DRSS

if that sounds silly, so does crying about the states that have big game animals trying to raise the $$$ to stabilize and increase populations so y'all can come and hunt. About 90% of the resident hunters here would like to see non-resident hunting done away with.

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:

Rich
DRSS

if that sounds silly, so does crying about the states that have big game animals trying to raise the $$$ to stabilize and increase populations so y'all can come and hunt. About 90% of the resident hunters here would like to see non-resident hunting done away with.

Rich - Why in the world do most residents in these states have that mentality? Colorado, where I live is not much different!

The word F-A-I-R comes from Page One of the Socialist/Democrat book on how to reduce the world to a 99% third world quality existence and a 1% group of "Better, Smarter, more Fairminded" ruling class. That's "them" not us.

IE: you live in Idaho where there are good big game populations. That's not fair to residents of Iowa because they don't.
The difference between conservatives and liberals is that:

1. A conservative will suggest that you reintroduce big game herds to your state. Seems fair.

2. A liberal will suggest that it is not fair to the have-not states and reintroduce wolves to the states that do have, and eliminate big game hunting in the have states.

That makes it "fair". It's also called share the misery.
Liberals seem to be very BIG into the notion that there is way too much personal freedom floating around these days.

About 1840 the fedguv realized that there was more money to be made when new states were admitted to the Union by keeping most of the ground in the hands of the fedguv than letting people buy it. Look at the %-age of ground kept by the fedguv on states admitted after 1840 and see what I mean.

I moved here to Idaho in summer of 1978, knowing that I would never make the income I would by staying in Illinois. I accepted that trade off because I wanted to hunt and fish and kayak instead of existing in an area 50 miles in diameter that had twice the then population of Idaho (750,000 people).

People out here want to maintain that personal freedom and minimal government notion. Colorado used to be like that half a century ago. Idaho still is.

Rich
DRSS

there's a very popular bumper sticker out here: "Don't Kalifornicate Idaho".

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
[Rich - Why in the world do most residents in these states have that mentality? Colorado, where I live is not much different!

It's pretty simple; for every tag drawn by a NR, it's one less a resident can draw. That's why AZ instituted an "up to 10%" rule that got eventually challenged in court by USO.

Until recently, in CO that wasn't the case with elk and deer when many tags were OTC. Of course, that has changed somewhat now, so more residents are getting shut out there, as well.

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
[Rich - Why in the world do most residents in these states have that mentality? Colorado, where I live is not much different!

It's petty simple; for every tag drawn by a NR, it's one less a resident can draw. That's why AZ instituted an 'up to 10%" rule that got eventually challenged in court by USO.

Until recently, in CO that wasn't the case with elk and deer when many tags were OTC. Of course, that has changed somewhat now, so more residents are getting shut out there, as well.

Tony - That's really the answer I was expecting, and didn't figure it would take long to get it. ISS kinda hit it on the head, if I read his message right. Seems to often I see residents of the western states crying "Poor Me"!!

Aaron,

The "poor me" description might be a bit harsh.

There are many residents of any given state that cannot afford to hunt in other states. So giving up permits/tags to NRs in their home state kinda puts a lump in their craw.

Just for example, consider "poor me." I have applied for a desert sheep permit in AZ for nearly 40 years with no success, yet every year a few NRs draw one.

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
[Rich - Why in the world do most residents in these states have that mentality? Colorado, where I live is not much different!

Until recently, in CO that wasn't the case with elk and deer when many tags were OTC. Of course, that has changed somewhat now, so more residents are getting shut out there, as well.

Tony - Let me explain the facts as it pertains to CO., so let's start with your quote from above. You state that more residents in CO are and have been getting "shut out" Truth is, if you KNOW the facts, just the opposite is true, at least here in CO.

When I started in the guiding business in the early 90's, we had as we have now, OTC tags for elk & deer in many units. Residents & NR's alike can buy them, just as they can now in some areas, but for elk only. Plus, just as we have now, we had Limited entry areas that required pref. points to draw. Back then, there was NO non-resident cap on the tags at all. NR's had the same chance as a resident, all they needed was the points to draw. Now, in most limited units, we have an "up to" 40% of the tags can go to NR's, and in some high demand areas, those that take 5 pts or more to draw, only "up to" 20% of the tags can go to NR's.

Next, NR's were able to apply with their pts for all of the RANCHING FOR WILDLIFE ranches here in CO, but now its only open to residents as it pertains to the draw tags only.

Now, I am not throwing a protest here against the current system necessarily, as I am a CO resident. But to say the CO residents have continued to get "shut out", is TOTALLY INACCURATE. Just look at the facts above, they have continued to gain more opportunity to the tags throughout the state, than have the non-residents.

As for your personal plight to draw a sheep tag, well my friend, we are all in that boat. I have been fortunate enough to draw both a Bighorn Sheep tag & a Mtn goat tag here in Co, a couple of elk tags in AZ., including an early rifle bull tag just last year, and a Shiras Moose tag in MT. I too continue to apply for sheep, Antelope, deer, etc, in AZ., buying the license every year, and the same in many of the other states where I apply for elk, deer, sheep, moose, too. Fortunately or unfortunately, that's just the way it is. Frankly, I like the fact that some states charge the license fees up front, as it does help to eliminate some of the competition for tags, by those that are not willing to buy the license before applying.

Of course, JMO.

Bravo Rich (ISS)
Fair should go on the list of dirty four letter words. As soon as I hear that I tune out the rest of what somebody says. Any time I hear that I know somebody thinks they are more entitled to something than I am, even if I paid for it. Just once I want to hear that I get things my way because it is fair.

quote:

Originally posted by Mikelravy:
Bravo Rich (ISS)
Fair should go on the list of dirty four letter words. As soon as I hear that I tune out the rest of what somebody says. Any time I hear that I know somebody thinks they are more entitled to something than I am, even if I paid for it. Just once I want to hear that I get things my way because it is fair.

Plus one for that!! Fair is nothing more than a dirty four letter word for SOCIALISM!!! So how about we all live "fairly" in poverty together??

I agree with Aaron on his comments about permits to residents or non-residents.

I quit applying and just go to Africa instead. No draw permits needed. Costs the same as a guided elk hunt or sheep hunt and the food/weather/camps are better.

Aaron,

I'm going back a LOT farther than what you are. In the mid-1970s, I owned a resort at Vallecito Lake near Durango and guided elk and deer hunters in the Weminuche. Back then (perhaps before you were born? [g]), there were none or few "limited entry" hunts for deer anywhere in the state, and there was no Ranching For Wildlife program.

So both NRs and residents had access to unlimited OTC deer permits. It was mostly the same for elk, as it is now.

The limited entry hunts evolved from that to what they are today, and that's why the tweaking occurred. Yet despite the limitations on NR permits today on those hunts, fewer residents get to hunt because every one of those 40% or 20% now take up a LIMITED permit that a resident would otherwise get. That problem didn't exist when they were all OTC.

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:
Aaron,

I'm going back a LOT farther than what you are. In the mid-1970s, I owned a resort at Vallecito Lake near Durango and guided elk and deer hunters in the Weminuche. Back then (perhaps before you were born? [g]), there were none or few "limited entry" hunts for deer anywhere in the state, and there was no Ranching For Wildlife program.

So both NRs and residents had access to unlimited OTC deer permits. It was mostly the same for elk, as it is now.

The limited entry hunts evolved from that to what they are today, and that's why the tweaking occurred. Yet despite the limitations on NR permits today on those hunts, fewer residents get to hunt because every one of those 40% or 20% now take up a LIMITED permit that a resident would otherwise get. That problem didn't exist when they were all OTC.

Your last two sentences sound exactly like the "poor me" problem we were discussing earlier.

And some of the great quality hunting we ALL have in these limited units would not exist at all, if the permits were still OTC. Limiting them was a necessary thing, especially the deer. Placing caps on resident vs non-resident tags, was not!! Especially, when it was NOT that way from the inception.

The, "I can't afford to do it elsewhere, so I ought to be able to do more of it here than someone else", is a lame, socialistic excuse. There's lots of things I can't afford to do either, but man am I glad that I live in a capitalist country that allows those who have more than I, to do exactly what they want. At least for now.

I do not mean to be personal or offend you Tony, that's not my intention. I am just not big on the, "if I can't do it, or it's not benefiting me, then its not fair, and shouldn't be allowed", way of thinking.

But, it also has to be noted that Aaron is an outfitter, and as such, he has a vested interest in having a large number of tags go to non-residents. That way he can make pretty good money selling them guided hunts, which residents are much less likely to book. So, his opinion can hardly be considered unbiased. If he was a regular guy walking the street, his opinion would be valid, but as a buysinessman with economic interest in the status quo, he simply lacks validity, in my eyes at least, when it comes to tag allocation.

Now, I'm not against selling non-resident tags. I fully understand the economic neccesity of doing so. But, in situations in which the tags are extrememly limited, then they should be reserved for the residents as a payback for paying state taxes. For instance, Colorado usually only issues 5 or 6 tags for Desert Bighorn and they have been reserved for the residents. But, this year, they decided to issue on to a non-resident. I'm dead set against that. With less than 10 tags available, the residents should be the ones pulling them.

I feel the same way about the state's moose, goat and Rocky Mountain Bighorn tags. They should only go to residents. There is simply too much competition and demand for them at the state level. The few tags that go to the non-residents for these high interest animals don't really generate much funding because they are so limited. The state makes most the money off elk tags. So, from an economic point of view, limiting all sheep, goat and moose tags for Colorado wouldn't affect the year end budget much. They could easily increase the resident fee a $100 or so to offset it if needed.

Feel free to disagree, but that's my view.

quote:

Originally posted by MAC:
But, it also has to be noted that Aaron is an outfitter, and as such, he has a vested interest in having a large number of tags go to non-residents. That way he can make pretty good money selling them guided hunts, which residents are much less likely to book. So, his opinion can hardly be considered unbiased. If he was a regular guy walking the street, his opinion would be valid, but as a buysinessman with economic interest in the status quo, he simply lacks validity, in my eyes at least, when it comes to tag allocation.

Now, I'm not against selling non-resident tags. I fully understand the economic neccesity of doing so. But, in situations in which the tags are extrememly limited, then they should be reserved for the residents as a payback for paying state taxes. For instance, Colorado usually only issues 5 or 6 tags for Desert Bighorn and they have been reserved for the residents. But, this year, they decided to issue on to a non-resident. I'm dead set against that. With less than 10 tags available, the residents should be the ones pulling them.

I feel the same way about the state's moose, goat and Rocky Mountain Bighorn tags. They should only go to residents. There is simply too much competition and demand for them at the state level. The few tags that go to the non-residents for these high interest animals don't really generate much funding because they are so limited. The state makes most the money off elk tags. So, from an economic point of view, limiting all sheep, goat and moose tags for Colorado wouldn't affect the year end budget much. They could easily increase the resident fee a $100 or so to offset it if needed.

Feel free to disagree, but that's my view.

MAC - First off, I do not outfit in CO at this time, I do however in NM. Although I was for a long time, and still guide & book hunts in CO., I am not an outfitter here. Yes, your argument does have some validity, but only to the point at which I know my personal views better than you, regardless of economic value. Besides that, SINCE WHEN did we implement Socialism in the country, and economic interest has no validity?? Or is that only because YOU have no economic interest, so it has no validity to YOU?

Fact is, I would feel the EXACT same way I do now, if I had never entered the hunting business, period! I try to always look at the whole picture, not just what best suits me, and my selfish needs. Guys like me, are only a small portion of those who benefit by NR's hunting throughout the great state of CO. Don't forget, gas stations, grocery stores, farmers, ranchers, restaurants, etc, etc, etc!! The economic benefit is much greater than just me, and my kind. Small towns throughout the state, like Gunnison for example, have traditionally received 25% - 35% of their annual income from NR's coming during the fall hunting season! Many thousands of lives are dependent on this economic stimulation throughout the state, and this is just one example of the benefits. Guess that's why I am SO MUCH in favor or NR's throughout the west. Frankly though, its upsetting to me to see all of those that don't get benefit or recognize the benefit, battle against it, simply out of selfishness. "If it doesn't directly benefit me, then its shouldn't be allowed"! Seems to be the too often, selfish mentality.

As you mention I have a vested interest, but so do thousands of others residents of Colorado. But since that interest doesn't effect you, its best to dis-regard it all together. Is that correct?? Fact is, I am happy to see NR's get a chance to hunt Desert Bighorn in CO, good for them. I don't guide or book hunts for Desert's, so I have NO benefit from that statement at all. We are suppose to ALL be hunters together, fighting for the same cause, and trying our best to pass on the great tradition of hunting to the next generation. Guess that's OK with you, as long as its a resident, or doesn't take away 1 Desert Sheep tag that you as a resident might be able to get!!

We for example spend about $100,000.00 per year leasing property in eastern Colorado for hunting. Some residents would prefer that ALL NR hunting would be stopped, or limited even more. Now, they of course have no intention of paying the needed lease fees to the landowner, they are hoping for free hunting rights. So, somehow by partaking in the economic stimulation of this state, NR hunters, guides/outfitters and landowners who lease, have become the problem. Why, all because someone else is benefiting from this in some way that some poor resident isn't, so it should be dis-allowed.

Sounds a lot like Socialism/Communism to me, or maybe its just plain selfishness. Best we all live in poverty together, rather than someone have something that I don't!!!!

What would be wrong with auctioning all the tags to the highest bidder?

Nothing. Or the states could do as they do now but allow whoever draws a tag to auction it off.

quote:

Originally posted by Mikelravy:
Nothing. Or the states could do as they do now but allow whoever draws a tag to auction it off.

M16 - Even I would not want to go that far, as I do want people to have opportunities to draw the tags, but ALL people, not just the selfish ones.

Mikelravy - Could you imagine that concept, its called Capitalism!! But that's a nasty word amongst the fish & game, and too many others, simply because they are not getting the benefit. The lucky winners of the raffle tags here in CO, such as the sheep, moose, deer, etc, etc, should absolutely be allowed to sell them to the highest bidder, as they once were. BUT NO, too many people threw a fit, saying "THAT'S NOT FAIR", so it was abolished. In fact, the "that's not fair crowd", were so vocal, that the lucky winner cannot transfer the tag to ANYONE, not even their own son or daughter, for example.

I agree with the majority of what Aaron is saying on this topic. There is a tremendous amount of selfishness and short sightedness in some of these responses.

The game departments LOVE the fighting between residents and non-residents. Anything to keep the focus off their actual management policies. Some states are obviously doing a better job with the management concept, while others pander to the emotions of the resident hunters without really attacking the real habitat and management problems.

There aren't easy answers to these problems, and the demand for hunting opportunities will always exceed tha available opportunity for big game species, especially for trophy animals. Licnese sales for the priveledge of applying for a permit is simply a response to P-R funding distribution rules set down by the Feds.

Some states, like Utah, have completely sold out to the high dollar hunter, and auction off well over 500 tags each year. In return for the huge cash influx, they manage populations to produce trophy class animals, at the expense of opportunities for the majority of (resident) hunters. The average resident Utahn can expect to draw 2 bull elk tags in a lifetime, although the population of elk in Utah is large. Lots of elk die of old age in order to grow a crop of trophy class bulls for the auction permit holders to hunt.

Colorado sheep have benefited greatly over the years from funding from groups like FNAWS (WSF). This is not (largely) resident funding. Providing some opportunity (1 tag, WTF?) to a non-resident not only keeps that support alive, but that one non-resident paid more for his tag than all the resident desert sheep tag holders combined! CO sheep hunting would not be nearly the same without these financial contributions.

All Americans should have the opportunity to hunt throughout the US. Yes, non-residents will always pay a bit more, sometimes a lot more, but the opportunity should be maintained, and even expanded where there are still severe limitations. Most Americans move more than a few times during their lives and have roots in several states. Trying to blame all the problems on non-residents without recognizing their contributions is incredibly short-sighted.

Bill

PS - I am not an outfitter and have no direct financial interest in the hunting industry. Adding up the amount I spend on applications and licenses each year is truly frightening, however it is a prioirity so I spend the money.

quote:

Originally posted by llamapacker:
I agree with the majority of what Aaron is saying on this topic. There is a tremendous amount of selfishness and short sightedness in some of these responses.

The game departments LOVE the fighting between residents and non-residents. Anything to keep the focus off their actual management policies. Some states are obviously doing a better job with the management concept, while others pander to the emotions of the resident hunters without really attacking the real habitat and management problems.

There aren't easy answers to these problems, and the demand for hunting opportunities will always exceed tha available opportunity for big game species, especially for trophy animals. Licnese sales for the priveledge of applying for a permit is simply a response to P-R funding distribution rules set down by the Feds.

Some states, like Utah, have completely sold out to the high dollar hunter, and auction off well over 500 tags each year. In return for the huge cash influx, they manage populations to produce trophy class animals, at the expense of opportunities for the majority of (resident) hunters. The average resident Utahn can expect to draw 2 bull elk tags in a lifetime, although the population of elk in Utah is large. Lots of elk die of old age in order to grow a crop of trophy class bulls for the auction permit holders to hunt.

Colorado sheep have benefited greatly over the years from funding from groups like FNAWS (WSF). This is not (largely) resident funding. Providing some opportunity (1 tag, WTF?) to a non-resident not only keeps that support alive, but that one non-resident paid more for his tag than all the resident desert sheep tag holders combined! CO sheep hunting would not be nearly the same without these financial contributions.

All Americans should have the opportunity to hunt throughout the US. Yes, non-residents will always pay a bit more, sometimes a lot more, but the opportunity should be maintained, and even expanded where there are still severe limitations. Most Americans move more than a few times during their lives and have roots in several states. Trying to blame all the problems on non-residents without recognizing their contributions is incredibly short-sighted.

Bill

PS - I am not an outfitter and have no direct financial interest in the hunting industry. Adding up the amount I spend on applications and licenses each year is truly frightening, however it is a prioirity so I spend the money.

Pretty well said!!!

quote:

Originally posted by M16:
What would be wrong with auctioning all the tags to the highest bidder?

Vermont and (I think) Maine auction off a limited number of moose tags each year to highest bidder. Last year in Vermont the winners paid more than $3200 (lowest successful bid, as I recall) per moose.

I've never been successful in moose lottery and bid 2700 last year for moose tag but was not successful.

Auction does not distinguish between resident and non-resident.

Maybe all large-game tags should be auctioned off without regard to residency. Not a taint of socialism in that!!

quote:

Originally posted by Oxon:

quote:

Originally posted by M16:
What would be wrong with auctioning all the tags to the highest bidder?

Vermont and (I think) Maine auction off a limited number of moose tags each year to highest bidder. Last year in Vermont the winners paid more than $3200 (lowest successful bid, as I recall) per moose.

I've never been successful in moose lottery and bid 2700 last year for moose tag but was not successful.

Auction does not distinguish between resident and non-resident.

Maybe all large-game tags should be auctioned off without regard to residency. Not a taint of socialism in that!!

I probably should know better than to answer this question, but here goes....

Wildlife in the US belongs to the public. A major difference from England, and an important distinction for the Colonists.

Auctioning off all tags disenfranchises the majority of the public. Without widespread support and interest in wildlife populations you would quickly see the demise of many populations. Hunting, in America, is available to all. One of the key principles in the Wildlife Conservation Model.

Of course, everyone can't hunt sheep or moose every year, and there are closed seasons, etc. We've started down a slippery slope with all the license fees, application fees etc., in many states, but giving up the fight and moving to entirely auction tags would be an absolute disaster.

I support modest application fees, and reasonable distribution of tags between residents and non-residents. Defining "modest cost" and "reasonable distribution" is where the battle now lies, as well as schemes to award preference to certain applicants. Throwing out the entire North American Wildlife Conservation model is NOT the answer.

I'll stop now before I really start ranting...

Bill

llamapacker, that is a really great analysis of the situation.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack D Bold:

quote:

Originally posted by llamapacker:

Follow the Money. The new Golden rule.

Bill

Or lack of money, in your case- right Sangano?! Seriously, that jackass Phifer plain ticks me off.

OK, back on track. Bluefin, I 100% agree with you. I figure it costs over a grand a year to play the full tag game, even more when I put my sons in for points. And with prepaid tags, it's possible to tie up over 8k in prepaid tags per year.

That is a lot of money, for little to show. I am something like 0-50+ in the draws the past 7 years. Do the math with the odds, it is almost cheaper to buy the sheep hunt!

It all adds up to a level where I am tired of unused value spent in license fees. The cost benefit just may be to buy the Canada hunt, and go while I still can.

Jack:

I say follow the traveller's checks.

PS, since Phifer has said he only posts from his University of Utah computer, I guess we won't see a response until tomorrow...

Another worthless post by AAZ, adding nothing to this thread.

AAZ never seems to learn that when the accusers all change their story, and run and hide to prevent seizure of their illegaly obtained trophies, that maybe, just MAYBE (Most likely) they didn't know what they were talking about from the beginning and the accused is innocent of the charges levied.

Get a life... Oh wait, I guess AAZ, you DO believe everything you read on the internet....

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by llamapacker:
Another worthless post by AAZ, adding nothing to this thread.

AAZ never seems to learn that when the accusers all change their story, and run and hide to prevent seizure of their illegaly obtained trophies, that maybe, just MAYBE (Most likely) they didn't know what they were talking about from the beginning and the accused is innocent of the charges levied.

Get a life... Oh wait, I guess AAZ, you DO believe everything you read on the internet....

Bill

Phifer:

Funny, everyone who hunted with Nixon had nothign but great things to say. So a few guys had Nixon's son PH for them? So what? Nothing you claimed was shown to be true. Why did you continue to hunt if you knew the hunt was illegal?

Like it or not, you have been judged to be a liar and a thief by the majority of folks on AR who have formed an opinion on this.

Why don't you just answer all the unanswered questions? Want me to repeat them again here for those who might not know? You have avoided answering these. Why? It is certainly your choice, but you obviously haven't satisfied many of us.

Follow the money...yea, right. You are such a piece of work. Hey, whatever happened to your fake name AFR Hunter? You were so nailed on that...