Of course , I am not familiar with the lottery you mention . Do those monies go directly into the coffer of AZF and G ? No one answered my question . How does the percentage of res/non-res LICENSE fees break down for AZ ?



200 sources of water put in by some private parties is nice , but I'd wager AZ cattlemen have put in many times that (which wildlife also utilize) and many of you'all are ready to boot them off the range.



I think the residents of Az and maybe NM have a legitimate gripe , apparently the big game resource is fairly limited and the resident populations are high........but......let's face it , hunters in states like Mt and Wy have been living it up for years at the expense of non-resident hunters ; with very good hunting and over the counter tags on big game herds produced primarily on Fed lands that all of us have a share in .



When you can buy an over the counter elk tag for $16 (it would cost me more to shoot a duck on my own land) and raise non-res fees to the $500 area and up , that's gouging ,pure and simple .



And I don't buy the idea that it's so much harder to make a living in the mountain states. It's not a gold mine in any of the agricultural/rural areas for the working man .

tom,
I am sympathetic to your arguments.Many residents of limited means would not be able to hunt in neighboring states,because as you state,they dont have the gas money.
Assuming they dont have to buy Non resident licences.
Yes,I want to give everyone a fair crack at the same pie - socialist that I am.

I dont believe your argument,but I am listening.
I will try to clarify my argument again by emphasizing that there are 2 aspects:
a) licence = right to hunt
b) licence costs

Maybe some of us can agree that the licence fee should be same for resident and non resident,dont want to repeat the rational.

So we are left with hunting access.the right to hunt,a more liberal soul calls it "privilege".

I can readily see that residents that have a tough time drawing a tag now,dont want to dwindle the chances down further by having to compete with the rest of us

If that is the vote,we can have quota for non residents etc,but still charge them the same cost,simply because they dont use more and are citizens of the same country - so I sayeth ,realizing some of us want to return to tribal council and erect roadblocks and road taxes for all trucks passing thru their 5 miles of control.

That would solve 1 big issue of governmental abuse.

Now we can focus on the issue of same or quota directed chances for a tag .Here Toms argument comes in,no question about it.
I can make arguments both ways.Underlying my personal philosophy is the belief that our "states" in the US are not and should not be autonomous but merely an administrative subsection.
Yup,we all feel some states mismanage their affairs and shouldnt role their results on the whole,yes we would like to live in our own enclave.But the reality is that for the most we function as 1 (federal) country.By opening up ,we loose local privileges while at the same time gaining options.

Some of us were stating here that they moved to a state of their choosing to hunt and knowingly threw their income and career out the window.
While I personally doubt that,lets assume it to be so.
I declare that this an extreme attitude,making a living comes before hunting without the added burden to buy a non res licence.I would postulate that this would be an unreasonable option,nevermind what some avid trappers decided for themselves.It is also highly dependant on your respective job/profession etc. Certain professions simply demand that you live in certain areas.Dont see why those valuable folks should be discriminated against when it comes to allocating outdoor resources.

sheephunter

sdgunslinger,

Quote:

---

I am not familiar with the lottery you mention . Do those monies go directly into the coffer of AZF and G ?

---

The state lottery is like the Powerball or other state lotteries. You pay your dollar and hope lightning strikes.



As for the Heritage part of the lottery proceeds, it is an earmarked $10 mil G&F receives that can be used ONLY for the stated purpose -- habitat enhancement and improvements or wildlife related projects. Anyone can apply for a grant of $1,000 to $10,000 of that money, as long as the intended use takes in the above criteria. G&F then studies the proposal and does a thumbs up or down on it. A lot of it goes to state universities to conduct wildlife research and projects.

Quote:

---

No one answered my question . How does the percentage of res/non-res LICENSE fees break down for AZ ?

---

From my last reply:



I don't have the most recent figures handy. I have an article deadline nipping at my butt but will atempt to find out early next week. The annual budget figures with expenses/income might even be on the AZG&F web site somewhere since it's a matter of public record. < !--color-->

Quote:

---

but I'd wager AZ cattlemen have put in many times that (which wildlife also utilize) and many of you'all are ready to boot them off the range.

---

Yes, and many folks have planted trees and other landscape features to enhance their yards. The fact that wildlife eats their plants, nests in their trees or drinks water from their bird baths and pools doesn't have anyone rushing to get paid for those uses. I had a mourning dove nest on the top of a light fixture on my back patio last year. Cleaning the pile of dropping off the concrete for several weeks wasn't something I enjoyed. BUT.. I didn't evict them, nor did I demand compensation from G&F.



Geez, my son has a herd of javelina that drops by to nibble on his shrubs and flowers, and coveys of quail regular frequent his backyard grass. Plus, his next door neighbor's pool is a favorite watering hole for a bobcat. Wild geese and ducks also stop by the myriad golf courses in AZ to feed and water, thus making a mess with their droppings. Neither the city or the private courses are looking for payment.

Quote:

---

When you can buy an over the counter elk tag for $16

---

I wish. First off, we can't buy ANY general big-game tag over the counter other than lion. The only exceptions, at least for the time being, are a few archery hunts for deer and javelina. Even our fall turkey season is on a VERY limited quota basis.



The cost for a resident elk tag here, in addition to at least a $25 general hunting license, is $76.50 compared to a NR at $113.50 for a license and $371 for the elk tag.



Of course, it makes no difference what a resident has to pay if it becomes nearly impossible to get a permit, which is where this is all going. I've lived here for most of 45+ years, and have had all of three elk permits and two for antelope. I've applied for a desert sheep permit for more than 35 years and still haven't drawn one. At one time, I even got to hunt the North Kaibab for deer every couple years. Now it's nearly impossible to draw. But last year, even under the 10% cap, 26 of USO's NR clients drew there. That total will jump dramatically now that the cap is gone. In fact, I doubt I'll get to hunt there again over what little lifetime I have left. -TONY

I don't think that there is much hope, but once more, let's try analogies: Why should outsiders not be charged to play with my ball? Note, I didn't say "on my field", because, at least regarding federal ground, it's not mine, referring to the "me" as the state, but, the animals (my ball) DO belong to the state. Our federal courts have long ago ruled on that. It's not open for discussion. The states own the animals. So, back to the issue, non-resident fees--if you want to play with my ball, you must pay, must pay more than I pay, and since it's my ball, I'll decide how much you pay. Too much? Don't play with it. There are plenty who will. The states already sell all the out of state tags they want to, actually, more want them than they have available. Don't squawl too loud, or they will get to thinking about market value, then watch non-resident fees go up. The states in most cases could get much, much more for their tags and still sell them all. Even with non-resident fees, you get a bargain, a big bargain when "worth" is considered. The non-resident fee is our only real difference, as I see we both are anti government, and I go back to a major premisis--they aren't that high in actuality. Again I ask, how many times over do you waste the equivalent amount of dollars for pure non-necessities? Luxuries. Nothing more, and whoa now, did it ever occur to you that hunting is a luxury? There is nothing necessary about it at all. How much do you squawl about buying a TV? And odds are you have more than 1. It's priorities. If you want to play with my ball, you have to pay, and if I want to play with yours, you are intitled to charge what you want, after all, it's your ball, not mine.

And ditto to Writer's question about a Salt Water Fishing license. They even charge if I go off shore far enough to get out of US waters! How is that?

Outdoor Writer

The $16 I referred to was the over the counter cost for a Mt resident elk tag the last I heard. That's just one example of the gross imbalance between res/nonres fees .

As I said ,I figure you far SW guys have somewhat a legitimate gripe about limited tags . Face it though, that's the nature of your state; large growing populations of humans with limtied big game habitat . But you have the option of getting in line like us easterners and paying outrageous tags fees in some other state if you wish to hunt large game .


"Yes, and many folks have planted trees and other landscape features to enhance their yards. The fact that wildlife eats their plants, nests in their trees or drinks water from their bird baths and pools doesn't have anyone rushing to get paid for those uses. I had a mourning dove nest on the top of a light fixture on my back patio last year. Cleaning the pile of dropping off the concrete for several weeks wasn't something I enjoyed. BUT.. I didn't evict them, nor did I demand compensation from G&F."


Geez is right , and a good grief along with it. I'm sure the cost of your bird bath is horrendous compared with piping water into the desert for miles, putting in wells, etc, to provide enough gallons of water for livestock and any big game that might come along and need a drink....and I'm sure cleaning up the bird poop is a back breaking endeavor.....

What about SD's little elk herd? Its got some nice animals. Is it fine with you if I have the same tag odds as you? I don't pay your state taxes. Hell I don't think I've ever stepped a foot in you state. But according to you I should have the right to just as many tags as any century farmer in your state. Don't you see how arrogant and self righteous that is?

Rogue , I don't recall saying I as a nonres should have equal odds with residents . I don't think I should , nor would I like to see Feds take over hunting licensing . At the same time , if residents of public lands states are bent on pricing/squeezing joe blow nonres hunter out of their states , why do they figure joe will end up caring about these issues ?



As far as the SD "little" elk herd goes, little is right and you got about the same odds drawing as I do .....none.

How in gods name can you consider the non-resident fees as being so high as to squeeze anybody out? Damn, we're talking a few hundred bucks! As mentioned before, think of your priorities a bit. How many completely useless TV's do you have? How many have you had? I'll bet you have a microwave--pure unnecessary luxury! Ever have any beers? Or how about soda pop? Ever go to a bar and buy a few drinks? Look at those costs. How often do you eat steak? Hamburger is just as nutritious, so why waste the money. You guys are pissing and moaning over a nothing, it's like you just have to have something to whine about. It's really not a big deal. Anyone who can afford to travel a few hundred miles to hunt can just as easily afford the non-resident fee. Hell, it's one of the cheapest parts of the hunt.

Outdoor Writer:
If you followed my treatise carefully and against your personal opinion: CA etc can charge you for taking a pee in the desert ,because you dont have a voice !Governments everywhere are scampering to increase their revenue for their employment and benefit.If it makes sense:the easiest prey are people that cannot vote you out of office and 2.)local voters dont care a damn for, as they dont see the bigger picture.
You bring forth a fine example of how the state of AZ spends all licence money and more to benefit wildlife and maybe the hunter.
You will excuse my out of state innocence in such matters,but in general I seriously doubt that.
Subsidizing university research projects to investigate the nocturnal behavior of spike bull elk benefits no wildlife but provides token local jobs.
CO had or has a research and maybe actual project to manage its elk herds on ever increasing urban sprawl by applying birth control in hormonal or physical form to its elk cows.

WA game folks planted lynx hair and found it,to get started a study about another endangered species in WA.....

CA F&G a while ago came to the conclusion that re-stocking high mountain lakes with trout should cease as it changed the natural order in as much as a local snail in those lakes would be decimated by the resulting happy high mountain trout population.

Government employees,if I may generalize,serve mostly themselves.Preferably from a warm cozy office.

Oh please Art.....I take it you are not married or have any kids ?

The family (and most others I'd suspect) seems to think that a bit of TV or a $80 microwave to fix quick meals with are more important than $750 elk permits........go figure........

Sheephunter,



Whether I have a voice is meaningless. If my voice and those of others in my OWN state meant anything, we wouldn't have taxes, any license fees and on and on.



The fact of the matter is someone has to pay something to have all the niceties residents of the state demand in the way of roads, police & fire service, and yes, even managing the wildlife.



But you avoided the question in the sense I asked it. Forget what CA can or can't do because I don't have a voice. Use my question in contrast to what you've been demanding AZ and other states do so YOU can hunt here without paying more money for a NR fee.



Heck, CA doesn't have a claim over the fish or the Pacific Ocean! At least here, the powers-to-be have said wildlife belongs to the state.



Now, despite all of the above I understand where you're going with this -- I think. What you want is to have NRs on equal footing with residents in EVERY state in regards to license/tag cost, right?



See, the problem with that is one of resources. If it ever came to pass, the states with the best hunting would be overrun with NRs, perhaps not in numbers because of limited tags but in ratio to the residents who get tags, considering the latest court ruling.



Just as a hypotheical example, let's say 50,000 residents now apply for an elk permit here. There are now also about an equal number of NRs that apply, and that before the cap was lifted and despite having to shell out $400.



We drop the NR cost down to a $100, about the same it now costs a resident. What do you think would happen?



My GUESS: the number of NR apps from CA alone would double the 50,000, and before long the odds for a resident to get a permit in his own state would be less than 1 percent.



The same thing would happen with CA's Tule elk if an unlimited number of NRs were allowed to apply at the same cost as residents. Likewise for your sheep hunts. Is that what you reaslly want??? -TONY

"There's no one to blame but themselves when someone chooses a particular state to live."

Exactly right , but from where I sit , the SW guys been doing most of the complaining here. Tell me , if you took every nonres out of the picture in Az , would you have enough deer and elk tags to go around ?


"Indeed. And that elk or deer drink a bit of that water is no more ludicrous than the examples I gave. The ranchers provide the water for one reason -- their own commercial purposes. They could care less whether they're helping wildlife or not."


It may be ludicrous to you Outdoor Writer , but it is my understanding that many of the livestock water projects have created big game hunting where it was not possible before . True or not ? The wildlife benefit may be secondary , but the water still benefits you Az hunters anyway . It seems to me you're looking a gift horse right in the mouth.......

SD:

I think Arts my have used a bit of a hyperbole, but let's rephrase that this way:

Plenty of guys own quads, 40K pickup trucks, etc. but bitch about non-resident licenses.

Non-resident rates are higher, but let's get back to the original issue that started the whole thing: USO's lawauit. If you think they are high now, just wait...

Sorry, boys, but I'm being damn serious. No, in fact I don't and never have had a TV. I consider it a waste of time, for one thing, but also money--money that I instead use for hunting. My cook did show up with a microwave a few years ago, but at least she only paid $10 for it at a garage sale. No way we would have a full priced one. No need. Pure luxury that many (most?) folks have convinced themselves to be a necessity. My house that I now have came with a dishwasher built in, otherwise we damn sure wouldn't have one. I have a very uttilitarian one that sleeps beside me each night. Point is, you guys are squawling and pissing over a luxury cost (NR fees) but don't give a thought to many other luxury costs, such as mentioned, but also 4 wheelers, maybe a motorbike, fancy pick-up, it goes on and on if you think about it. How many vehicles do you have, and how many do you really and truely need? The NR tag is not that much of a total of an out of state hunt. It is just something to complain about.

Outdoor Writer,
I think we are agreeing on most,just that I tend to slightly sarcastic at times , no chance to run and win office.

Totally irrelevant in my thinking,that I currently enjoy the hospitality and abuse of the CA governance.Over my life I lived in 6-7 states,so you can maybe see my cosmopolitan outlook.
I simply dont see or grant local boys benefits ,because they happen to sit at the home farm.I move- and pay- with the flow.Whatever it takes .Thats the law and we cant bend it.
All I am forwarding is that this is not necessarily the best system.I anticipated the outcry of the local boys ,"that chose" to live in squalor to be able to hunt-yeah right,moreover I can offer for sale not one but TWO bridges,needing slight paint job.

Preference to residents is simply nothing but a result of voting power into ones own interest by the same crowd.
Correct,they would loose out,be stripped of their current unfair advantage.But looking another way,they would have the option of competing equally everywhere else.
It all comes down to the question of who "ownes wildlife"
I understand that local crowds prefer to name their own little tribe,but that is as manmade as the opposite point of 1 country for all.
Matter of fact ,I will help some of the respondents here a bit:
some state that they moved into a "hunting" state,leaving jobs and riches behind - just so they can enjoy the outdoors.
Well,I simply offer that they can continue to work,live and be their best,without such a severe sacrifice !
They and all can continue to work and live anywhere they chose,even R I , and still enjoy equal access to the outdoors.
Then of course,we have to cope with the Disneypark crowd that is conditioned to pay for breathing and boast about their ability do do so,well thats another chapter

Now come on Tom-that would be discriminating to the juniors out there-and you got the initials wrong that should be ZP!

Paul,

The SW license is indeed ludicrous, especially once sonmeone gets beyond the 3-mile limit. Then it's not even U.S. water in reality, much less CA's! -TONY