James R. Scarantino Attorney At Law 714 Montc1aire NE · Albuquerque, NM 87110 (505) 250-8754 · (505) 232-4515 Fax


December 22, 2004 Duane L. Shroufe Director Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 W. Greenway Road Phoenix, AZ 85023-4399

Re: Proposed License/Tag Fee Ceiling Increases

Dear Director Shroufe:

I write on behalf of United States Outfitters and its many nonresident clients. We wish to share our views on the proposed statutory increases to the license/tag fee ceilings. While we understand that the proposal is phrased merely as an increase in the fee ceilings, we cannot overlook the fact that once the ceilings are raised by the Legislature, the Commission by rule making may then set the fees at any level within that range. Therefore, we view the request to increase the fee ceilings as a request by the Commission for authority to at some point in time increase the actual fees to the maximum level authorized by the Legislature.

The growing real disparity between resident and nonresident fees as reflected in the proposals is cause for great concern. Nonresidents already are being unfairly burdened by having to pay much more for the same opportunity to hunt game. This unfairness is made even worse by the fact that the majority of those hunting opportunities take place on federal public lands, lands owned and supported equally by all Americans, regardless of their place of residence. There are limits to the extent to which nonresidents can be expected to tolerate and overlook being subjected to discrimination. The proposed fee increases exceed the limits of tolerance.

Under the proposal a nonresident could be charged $775 for the same bull elk hunt for which, at most, a resident would only be charged $150. In the case of a premium bull elk tag, nonresidents could be charged as much as $3200, compared to only $350 for residents. Further examples of outrageous disparities are found throughout the proposed fee ceiling table being circulated for comments, including but not limited to the proposals concerning deer, premium deer, antelope and bighorn sheep license/tag fees.

We also wish to object to the fact that the spread between nonresident and resident could be increasing. For instance, currently nonresidents pay five times more for an antelope tag than residents. Under the proposal, nonresidents could be paying 7 times as much.

Duane L. Shroufe December 22, 2004 Page Two

Under the current fee structure, nonresidents pay 5.13 times as much as residents for a bighorn sheep tag. The proposal could increase this differential to a factor of 8.96. Nonresidents may currently purchase Class G General licenses for 4.45 times as much as the resident rate. Under the proposal, they could have to pay as much as 5.3 times for the same license. And, by way of one more example, currently residents pay 4.03 times as much as residents for a Class F Combination license. Under the proposal, they will have to pay nearly $100 more, whereas residents would at most face only a $16 additional levy.

The sheer difference in the amount that could be charged residents versus nonresidents is what makes the proposals unacceptable. There is no rational basis for the disparities. The true costs to society of a bull elk hunt, for example, are not reflected in the amount that residents could be charged. The same holds true for other species. Furthermore, it does not cost hundreds or thousands of dollars more to administer a nonresident deer, bull elk or premium bull elk hunt than it costs to administer similar resident hunts. The only plausible explanation for the differential is to (a) force nonresidents to increase their subsidy of resident hunting on federal public lands and elsewhere in Arizona and (b) to intentionally discriminate against nonresidents in access to hunting opportunities.

The disparities are so extreme we believe they are also intended as a means of defying the District Court's decision in Montova v. Shroufe. There exist many recorded declarations, including statements from the Commission, that nonresident fees would be raised to punitive levels as another means of excluding nonresidents and also retaliating against nonresidents for daring to successfully vindicate their federal constitutional rights.

Even under the United States Supreme Court decision in Baldwin v. Montana Game and Fish Commission, there are limits to the degree to which nonresidents may be subjected to discriminatory fee structures. As I need not remind you, in light of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Conservation Force v. Manning, nonresidents can challenge Arizona's discriminatory fees under Commerce Clause strict scrutiny. Arizona would have to prove that it had no other means to serve its legitimate purposes of maintaining resident hunting opportunity and conserving wildlife except to charge the precise discriminatory fees being charged nonresidents. It would have to demonstrate that no lesser range of nonresident fees would serve those purposes. I do not think I overstate the case when I say that such a burden would be impossible to meet.

Losing a Commerce Clause challenge to discriminatory fee structures would not only expose Arizona to sizable claims for attorney fees, it would also expose Arizona to claims for monetary damages, and certainly refunds with interest to all nonresidents who had paid the discriminatory fee. This would impose additional legal and administrative costs upon the Department that would be better spent in game conservation programs.

Nonresidents already bear a disproportionate share of the costs of game management in Arizona. They do not mind paying more to some reasonable extent. But, as I said when I addressed the Commission in Safford, there are limits to nonresidents' tolerance. The Duane L. Shroufe December 22, 2004 Page Three

Commission cannot act unreasonably and expect nonresidents to acquiesce in being mistreated and callously exploited.

I note that in the explanation you have given for the fee ceiling proposals, you point to the fact that license sales fell 16% from 1998through 2003. This drop-off occurred during the period of time the Department was vigorously resisting allowing any more licenses to be sold to nonresidents. To some extent, the Department and Commission must accept responsibility for the fiscal pressures behind the need to raise license sales. Had the Department negotiated a reasonable increase in nonresident access when we first invited settlement in 1997, it likely would not be facing the same fiscal pressures it confronts today. Moreover, if the Department were to factor into its calculations increased sales to nonresidents, at fair rather than punitive license fee levels, I think you would find even less justification for the astronomical ceilings proposed for nonresident licenses. The Department could continue to benefit from nonresident subsidy of resident hunting, without forcing nonresidents to take legal action to protect their rights.

We also strongly believe that residents need to begin to pay more of a fair price for the privilege of hunting big game. There are real costs to preserving habitat and raising a large game animal to maturity. The fair market value of big game hunts is far above what residents are currently paying, or will be paying under the ceiling increase proposals. Making residents realize the true costs of game management will have the salutary result of promoting greater interest in increasing hunting opportunities by conserving more wildlife habitat. The real force driving up the costs of hunting is the conflict between an exploding human population and the need for more wildlife habitat. Nonresidents are not the cause of increased resident hunting fees; they have been and will likely continue to be a moderating force that helps hunting continue to be an affordable activity. Nonresident tolerance for the extent to which they are being exploited is, however, reaching a breaking point, leaving litigation as their only recourse.

We believe the entire proposal should be reconsidered. The Department's needs for expanded funding should be addressed with fairness to nonresidents in mind, as well as adherence to the legal restraints against discriminating against nonresidents in their access to hunting opportunities.

We hope you and the Commission will take these comments into consideration in reformulating your approach to future license fee structures.

Sincerely,

JAMES R. SCARANTINO

Thanks for sharing this. I hear lots about USO but can't find much to read. I have read that George Taulman has lost most of his sponsers and support from outdoor related companies.

I can sympathize with disparity for nonresidents but good old George isn't in it for sincerity! $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Thanks to George and his last law suit, I may never again be able to afford an elk hunt in AZ. Now another law suit will only bring further backlash against us non residents, even though we may despise USO and their money grubbing tactics. Curse you George !!!!

OK, what have I missed? The last I heard the state of Az was handing out non resident tags like candy and their residents were getting screwed out of theirs. Things said here make it sound like that never happened..

Thanks Coues-I didn't see that you posted the letter-I have been the last hour trying to copy it and paste it here-being in PDF-it would not let me do any thing with it!

USO Application PDF

Fee when applying for Bull elk guided hunts using USO application service...
-*United States Outfitters Fronts Tag Fees For All Hunts Listed Below-

#1 AZ one time consult fee $120, Bonus/Preference point $113.50, Non-Refund $7, Tag Fee Fronted by USO $366*

#2 NM one time consult fee $120, Non-Refund $6, Tag Fee Fronted by USO $760*

#3 UT one time consult fee $120, Non-Refund $5, Tag Fee Fronted by USO $795*

#4 WY one time consult fee $120, Non-Refund $12, Tag Fee Fronted by USO $881*

#5 NV one time consult fee $120, Bonus/Preference point $142, Non-Refund $20, Tag Fee Fronted by USO $1200*

the guide fees for that elk tag are $3450.

If you want to hunt world class elk in New Mexico, that's going to cost you $7450 with USO... it's a private ranch hunt that only outfitters have the tags for, George sued NM to get it that way.

bowhuntrrl, I don't think George is the cause of you not being able to afford to hunt for Elk. AZ game and fish are the ones coming up with the added costs to non-residents. Sure USO is going to make money on outfitting for non-residents. It is a business and people are in business to make money. Put the blame where it belongs, with AZ Game and Fish Department.

Wstrnhuntr, no tags were taken from resident, they just extended the number of tags issued and they went to both resident and non-resident.

I have a hunt booked with USO for Elk in AZ, and what AZ Game and Fish Department is doing is outrageous. Let all of us non-resident hunters pull out of going to your States and you will see your cost increase to supplement the States loss of revenue. I am meeting with the 4 hunter in my group and we are going to discuss dropping out of the AZ Elk hunt. Why put money into AZ when they treat the non-residents like that.

Hmmm $7450 for one animal.

Africa looks better and better to non resident hunters every year.

I think all of us non-residents should take our money and hunt Canada and Africa. They might appreciate the boost in there economy. It is obvious AZ, MT and others don't want our business.

Redhawk1

Before you complain too much about the license fees the western states charge, you should look at your own state. I just pulled up the website for the Delaware Hunting Regs and it seems as though you as a resident can take 4 deer a season for the price of a general hunting license which costs $12.50. While I as a non-resident must pay $86.00 for the same license and also pay $25.00 each for deer tags. So, in order for me to enjoy the same hunt I pay $186.00 compared to your $12.50. Funny you don't complain about the disparity in your own backyard.

The point many people do not take into consideration is the simple fact that the western states do not hold the numbers of game they once did. A rapidly expanding human population is destroying a awful lot of habitat and the rule of supply and demand comes into effect. Every state in the union charges non-residents more to hunt than it does residents. If tags are limited for certain species, the residents that pay all the taxes in that state should get first crack at the permits. While the federal government may own a large portion of the land in the west, it does not own the game. That falls under the responsibility of the individual game departments. Nobody has said that the land is cut off from use, but you may not be able to hunt it all the time. In my home state of Colorado I sometimes go a couple years without the deer tag I want simply because they are limited and I was unsuccesful in the draw. It's the nature of the beast in western hunting.

And it is only fair that you would pay more for that deer tag than I will if you came from Delaware to Colorado for the hunt. After all, I'd pay more to hunt in Delaware if I came from Colorado to hunt. Fairs fair after all.

USO dont care if you ever hunt elk, all they want to do is make money off the hunting by considering it commerce, which was their basis for the court case. By booking a hunt through them you have put your money into the group that has done the most to damage the reputations of hunters by making it a money matter instead of a tradition to be passed on to future generations. I'm honestly afraid that this is the beginning of the end to the widespread hunting we now enjoy.

Mac

Mac

MAC, I do not complain of having to pay more for a non-resident hunting license. I expect to pay more. All States non-residents fee are higher. It is the inflated price non-residents are charged that gets me. And there trophy fee proposed by AZ. But if you were so busy looking up Delaware hunting for non-residents you would see that Resident and non-resident license come with 4 doe tags each. Yes we pay $12.50 and non-residents pay $86.00. We as residents have to buy a Quality buck tag for $10.00 and non-residents have to pay $25.00. You are allowed one quality buck and one hunters choice. What you see on the web site was changed after the book was printed. So the cost for a non-resident would be $110.00. Not bad for 4 doe's and 2 bucks. You are talking about a little over $80.00 difference not the hundreds and maybe thousands by western States. So you should learn your facts before you post.
If you read the main complaint it was about the proposal a nonresident could be charged $775 for the same bull elk hunt for which, at most, a resident would only be charged $150. In the case of a premium bull elk tag, nonresidents could be charged as much as $3200, compared to only $350 for residents. But thanks for you input.

Good old capitolism at work. The real question is what is the most the market will bear? There is still a lottery for tags. What that means is that demand still exceeds supply. Therefore the market can stand further increases in fees. I am a non resident. I don't like it any more than anyone else, that fees are escalating out of financial reach of most folks. The people in the cities that have gotten rich can out bid us country folks for any comodity you want to talk about. Tags, land, housing, women. As long as there are enough rich folks to pony up and fill all the quota the sky is the limit. I don't like it but that is capitalism at it's best. Have a nice day!

D Hunter, I look at it like this. If I did not make a good living in an area, I would move to where the pay is better. Not a hard decision. Just because someone makes more money does not mean they should pay more for the same thing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MAC:
Redhawk1

If tags are limited for certain species, the residents that pay all the taxes in that state should get first crack at the permits. While the federal government may own a large portion of the land in the west, it does not own the game. That falls under the responsibility of the individual game departments.

I'm honestly afraid that this is the beginning of the end to the widespread hunting we now enjoy.

Mac

Mac

---

Mac

The game may belong to the state, but how much of that game would even exist without the federal land that feeds and supports it? Does that federal land cost the taxpayers of AZ more than it costs non residents? If AZ or any other state wants to charge outrageous prices for hunting on state owned land, let them have at it, but gouging non-residents for hunting on Federal land is pure and simple discrimination.....if AZ doesn't back off, I hope USO spanks them again!

You fear the end of widespread hunting? How about the prohibitively high cost of hunting for non-residents that keeps many from hunting......bet that doesn't concern you as much??


I'm against ANY commercial hunting on public land, so I have no love for USO. I believe the federal land belongs to all taxpayers equally and that we should all have equal access......that means we should all have the same chance of drawing a tag and that we should all pay the same amount to hunt OUR land....

GonHuntin, very well put.

Redhawk,

I have lived in Az, and have applied for elk there every year for the past 15 years. I no longer live there and am considered a nonresident.Until you understand the whole story concerning Taulman's antics with suing Az,his loss and then his victory by appeal in the 9th Circuit Court of liberals in Kalifornia by invoking a Commerce Clause, I would imagine it might be difficult to understand what's going on. USO has lost most, if not all of their sponsors, as well as the respect of most hunters and anyone who cherishes the hunting tradition. I feel bad that you succumbed to their propaganda and bought in with them. There are much better ways of doing an elk hunt than by using USO. The State of AZ was forced to give out hundreds of extra tags this fall because of the court decision. So much for wildlife management!! AZ has had many meetings with residents trying to figure out what way to go. I fear the fee increases are a knee -jerk reaction to stem the flow of non-res hunters. I personally feel that the State of AZ should have eliminated the ability to apply for tags by proxy, then Georgie boy would be finished, at least in AZ. I will state unequivocally that you will not receive the quality of hunt that you would have received if you had used an AZ resident guide. USO sends guides from other states in a week before the hunt and usually engages a local guide to show them the elk. After this past fall's hunt, there is so much backlash against USO that there aren't too many resident guides willing to work with them anymore. Unfortunately, it will be people suacha s yourself that will suffer for this with unprepared guides who don't know the territory. I was lucky to draw this past fall(before the extra tags) after 9 years. Since I no longer live there, I didn't want to blow the hunt so enlisted a guide from Flagstaff since my hunt was near there. Let me tell you, he started scouting weeks before I arrived, and we were in to giant bulls every day of my hunt!! This was an archery hunt and I just can't say enough about it. After shooting at and missing a 380 class bull, I shot a nice 6x6 on my 4th day. The good thing about using local boys, they know the country!! USO can't claim that. On top of that, there are such bad feelings towards USO, I have heard threats of retaliation towards there guides and hunters. I personally would not want my hunt spoiled by an incident like that. You would also save money by enlisting a local guide. Typical hunts run from $2500-$3200, not including your expenses to get there. This latest business from USO against AZ Game and Fish will surely cause more problems for out of staters like us. And all this because of the greed of one man, George Taulman!!! Believe me, what he is doing is not for the benefit of out of state hunters, it's for his pocketbook. If you want more background, skip over to Bowsite.com and search for USO and Taulman in the AZ forum, and also in the Big Game forum.

bowhuntrrl, your post makes good since. We had a meeting and I told the guys I would rather go back to Alaska and do another self guided hunt for Caribou and wolf. We were successful last year and I enjoyed Alaska. I also lived in AZ and my parents still live in Sierra Vista, but I think I will pass on going to AZ for any hunts. I may take your advice an enlist the help of local guides but not in AZ. I will look into Colorado or New Mexico. I lived in Colorado for 16 years and have always wanted to go back there and hunt Elk.

I see that you are Apache-you can always go and hunt on the res-where all the big Az. bulls are doped and steroided to enormous growth!

dzpoorjr, do yourself a favor and leave my race out of this discussion. Stick to the topic or shut up!

The irony of this whole issue is that AZ is one of the very few F&G departments that was not dependent on out of state tag sales for their operating funds -- their funding is part of the general budget.

This has allowed AZ F&G to actually MANAGE game, rather than maximize revenue. With this increase of revenue, there's going to be huge reverberations through the whole state government, and none of them good, I'm afraid. JMO, Dutch.

The logic of "Everyone owns game on federal land" is just dumb. Applying that logic would be private land owners would own the animals.

They don't.

Get over it George - you picked a fight, and you must have known that AZ was not going to sit idly by so you can line your pockets.

maybe I missed it....but I don't remember anyone saying ""Everyone owns game on federal land".....who are you quoting??

Private landowners may not own the game, but they control who has (more importantly, who doesn't have!) access to that game while it lives on their land!

That is my point - private landowners control who has access and who doesn't. The Forest Service controls who can enter forest service land (they can prohibit entry for fire danger, for exmple). But the ONLY ones who set rules on game animal harvest are the states. The contention that western states have lots of public land and therefore nonres's should get to hunt for essentially the same as residents is just garbage. States make the rules on non-migratory game.

quote:

---

dzpoorjr, do yourself a favor and leave my race out of this discussion.

---

Perhaps you should recheck your signature line. If you don't want to talk about it, why stick it on every post you make?

The irony of this whole issue is that AZ is one of the very few F&G departments that was not dependent on out of state tag sales for their operating funds -- their funding is part of the general budget.

The above is not true. AZG&FD is self-funded thru license/tag sales other than the $10,000 from the state lottery, which is known as the Heritage Fund. And that money is ear-marked to VERY SPECIFIC uses unrelated to huntable game management and such. In fact, most of it is doled out in the form of grants to other entities or institutions. -TONY

If you control who has access to the game, then you control the game....PERIOD! At that point, arguing about who actually owns it is silly!

If you REALLY believe the state owns the game.....hit a deer with your vehicle and then try to get the state to pay for the damage!

Tell you what.......let's petition the Feds to sell all the federal land in AZ to the highest bidder......then we will see how much the AZ residents bitch when they can't hunt there either!

As far as I'm concerned, and I'm far from being alone here.......if I don't have the same opportunity at hunting game on federal land as every other taxpayer, resident or not,.....then let's give old Ted Turner a call and sell it to him or close it to hunting altogther....after all, what do us non residents have to lose?......I don't want to hear anything about being selfish because I can say exactly the same about residents that think they have more right to hunt federal land than I do!

It wasn't all that long ago that AZ "sportsmen" were requesting help with several anti hunting and anti trapping fights they were battling......they sure wanted all the help non residents could give then.....now, they want to tell us that we shouldn't have the same rights on land we all own.......I don't think so!

Fact is, if all that federal land was in private ownership we wouldn't be having this discussion and you and most other AZ residents wouldn't have ANY opportunity to hunt that land......instead, you guys are letting the rest of us pay the majority of the bill and then giving us the finger when we want equal access to hunting it! Well, guess what, the worm has turned and you guys are whining like a bunch of bedwetting brats......face it, your boys at Fish and Game screwed the pooch on this deal and now it's coming back to bite you......and many of us think it's about time!

Heck Gonhuntin...if you hit a deer with your car...isn't that an illegal weapon?? Maybe the game warden should cite you for destruction of state property, along with taking a deer out of season? Take your quarter someplace else...

Fact is, there is a lot of demand for those licenses on public land...why?? Private land is being leased up by outfitters, access is being denied, just finding a place to hunt is getting tougher and tougher. People want an opportunity to chase that big buck or bull around without having to gain permission or pay an access fee.

USO is only in this for the $$$, plain and simple. I'm sorry that you don't have as good a chance of drawing an elk tag in my state as I do, but try finding a free range elk hunt in Oklahoma!

MG

George Taulman and USO could probably give a red rats ass about hunters, but he knows if he can get more tags he can get more hunters, thus making more money and more control. Once the tag numbers are changed then the law of supply and demand takes over. The guy with the most cash plays. More and more private land will also be leased and tied up to USO's big dollar hunters.

I am against his tactics and feel he will hit all western states. If the laws continue to allow more and more non-resident tags then all the states need to do the same. But who in the hell wants to go to New Jersey and hunt?

As for wildlife being on federal public land and belonging to all the people is hog wash. I doubt that 1% of the wildlife in AZ,MT,WY,ID, and NM. spend 365 days only on public land. Here the winters are to harsh for every animal to spend the entire year in one place. They spend as much time on state land and private land, as they do on federal land.

Madgoat

If you have followed my posts on this subject you would surely KNOW that I have no love for USO or any outfitter that runs commercial hunts on public land......so get over it!

The "illegal weapon" comment is plain stupidity.

Yes, there is a lot of demand for tags on public land......duh!

You western boys are such whiners.......come to Oklahoma and try to find some federal land to hunt.......we have no sympathy for guys like you, in fact, we feel like you have fed at the public teet for too long when it comes to hunting on OUR land! You guys are a bunch of welfare hunters and the teet is running dry!

What little federal land there is to hunt in OK is also controlled by drawing.....and YOU or any other non resident has just as good a chance to draw a tag there as I do!

As far as free ranging elk hunts in Oklahoma go......if 64,000 acres is free ranging enough for you, then, YES, I have hunted free ranging elk in Oklahoma.......and it took 20 years to draw a tag.......I hunted the Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge.....in fact, there are as many elk OFF the refuge as on, so I guess 64,000 acres isn't a true representation of the elk's range....and, guess what, YOU have just as good a chance to draw that tag as any resident of Oklahoma.......

You guys need to quit your whining and accept the fact that your states have descriminated against non residents for too long.......

I hope USO hammers AZ again over this obvious attempt to sidestep the court's decision and, if the other western states don't learn from AZ's mistakes, I hope they get spanked too!

Like I said before......if we can't all use federal land on an equal basis.....then close it down or sell it off!

GonHuntin:

I don't get much of a chance to hunt AZ land either. I hunt out of state or out of the country a lot.

I said long ago that this whole Taulman thing would do nothing but make it more expensive for nonresidents to hunt, and when the millwright in Ohio sells his .338 Win cuz he figures he will never hunt elk again, we all lose.

Isn't it interesting that the guys squealing the loudest about this are from western states!

You guys are faced with sharing the welfare hunting teet that you have had to yourselves and are terrified that you will have more competition for the limited number of tags.....

Here's a thought, save your money and buy some land or pay to lease hunting rights like most of us are faced with......don't expect sympathy from us!

Writer

I won't judge your sincerity, but, most of the guys in the western states don't give a hoot about whether the millwright in Ohio EVER gets to hunt elk in their state! Most of the guys in western states (as evidenced by this and other threads) are ONLY concerned with whether THEIR chances of drawing a tag is reduced and, if cutting out all non resident tags better their chance at drawing......they are all for it!

You can convince yourself that you are right in discriminating against non residents if you want, but, the courts will decide the issue and we will all have to live with it.....the sad part is, because they won't treat everyone equally, your F&G department is wasting money in court that could be used to INCREASE hunting opportunities for everyone.......

So we live here all year long, 365 days, pay taxes, support the schools, buy products,spend 99% of our income in our states,shop, work, put up with wolves and bears and die here. And nonresidents are supposed to get the same chance at a tag as we are? What am I missing here? GonHuntin, you stand a better chance of drawing in Wy for many tags, statistically, than we do. You just have to pay more.

Let's see, I spent over $40,000 last year in this state and pay $43 for my elk tag, you have to spend $481 for a tag, a couple of tanks of gas, some trinkets, and maybe a meal or two. Who is whinning? I am sick of the nonresidents whinning! I see it every year, nonresidents coming in, drive right up to the mountians, camp, shoot a buck and a couple of does. And they drive home. I see every fall, deer stacked like cord wood on a trailer,and mostly does. And I hear very few complaints. This fall the majority of complaints were about not seeing any game. Not about license fees.

I draw a limited quota deer or elk tag about every 5 years. I can buy a general tag every year, but the hunting isn't the same.

And a comforting note, during the Klinton administration, congress almost pulled off giving all federal lands to the states in which it lays. You know what, Wyoming fought it.

I wish they had pulled it off then the land would belong to the states, which it should!

quote:

---

So we live here all year long, 365 days, pay taxes, support the schools, buy products,spend 99% of our income in our states,shop, work, put up with wolves and bears and die here.

---

And what, exactly, does this have to do with hunting on FEDERAL land??.......what you pay in state taxes or spend in your state or give to your schools has NOTHING to do with hunting on FEDERAL land......we are talking about hunting on land that every tax paying citizen of the US pays for.......

Tell you what, let's pool our money and buy us a new 4X4......only, since you don't live on my block, you only have a 10% chance of ever riding in OUR new truck.......don't forget, you have no choice but to send your part of the payment in every payday, Oh, you can tell everyone that it's your truck, you can carry a photo of it, heck, you can even come over and help wash it......just don't plan on ever using it.........isn't it nice that WE can own this new truck......

What, you don't like that arrangement???..... well, gee whiz......I live here all year long, 365 days, pay taxes, support the schools, buy products, spend 99% of my income on my block, shop, work, put up with the neighbors and die here...you shouldn't complain because you can't use the truck, you're just selfish.......keep sending that money though........one more thing, if I ever need any help with the truck I'll be sure to ask......


How about this......I know where there is a beautiful piece of land for sale......it has a good population of game on it.....let's go together and buy it.......of course, the game population won't support both of us hunting there all the time, and, since you don't live in my zip code, you only have a slim chance of ever hunting our property.....but, you still have to make your share of the payment every month......what, that's not fair? Well, if you lived in my zip code and spent your money here.....well, then you would have the same chance that I have of hunting OUR property.... don't forget, you do have a chance to hunt there......it's a very slim chance but it's still a chance.....you should be happy that you have any chance at all and it shouldn't bother you that I get to hunt there.....after all, I DO live in the right zip code.

Get it????

I could spend $40,000 in your state tomorrow and I still wouldn't have the same opportunities as you do......so knock off the irrelevant nonsense that doesn't change the fact that all taxpayers should have an equal opportunity to draw a tag on federal land!

The game isn't on federal land all year long! What don't you get. Game moves back and forth, from private to public, public to private. The game belongs to the state, the game can be found on private, state, and federal, and use all three during the course of the year.

Using your analogy then you can only kill game that is exclusivley on federal land 100% of the time. It don't exist.

Then we should be able to buy Oklahoma tags the same as you and for the same price, correct? Everyone equal, everything the same! A deer tag in Rhode Island should be the same as one in Wyoming. And all states elk tags the same price with the same number being sold to nonresidents as well as residents? Then USO can lock all the tags up for thier clients and no one but thier clients hunt.

Your then saying that all nonresidents can buy a tag for the same price as a resident, everyone puts in the same and odds are the same, so long as the hunt is conducted on federal land? That would be a circus! Pretty much like the OU ,Southern Cal football game!

The game must then be federal game? Correct? If it lives 100% of the time on federal land, then you need federal game wardens, federal license, then it would be a federal law with federal control and management. If everyone is equal on federal land that would have to be the case.

You stated "most of the guys in the western states don't give a hoot about whether the millwright in Ohio EVER gets to hunt elk in their state! Most of the guys in western states (as evidenced by this and other threads) are ONLY concerned with whether THEIR chances of drawing a tag is reduced and, if cutting out all non resident tags better their chance at drawing......they are all for it!"

You don't know me, so don't presume to know what I think. Do a poll of "most guys in the west" and prove your point.
You will find without the bigotry you spout, that your above statement is BS.

I do not know anyone that agrees with your statement nor with USO or the AZGF on their ceiling proposal, nor with kicking non resident hunters out of AZ.

This is as much of the AZGF dept's fault as it is the AZ Gov's, the 9th's and Taulman. The up to 10% rule(taulman demanded 27%) should have been removed and now be a flat 10% per unit and the sale of game been completely banned.

Non residents aren't the only ones taking a beating in all of this. The poorer in state hunters,family with kids just getting of hunting age, the disabled and the retired who live on fixed incomes are getting hit just as hard.

The bogus points plans that are in the works are a joke in the largest sense of the word. Loyalty points,conservation points and on and on and on. What a joke. The premium tags and so on and so on.The AZGF took the polls and surveys and did the exact opposite of what the (both in/out state)hunters wanted.Nothing that has been proposed does any good for anyone except the likes of USO.


Do not assume you know the minds of most hunters in the west. Its very obvious you don't.

Coues
DS

quote:

---

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:
_The irony of this whole issue is that AZ is one of the very few F&G departments that was not dependent on out of state tag sales for their operating funds -- their funding is part of the general budget. _

The above is not true. AZG&FD is self-funded thru license/tag sales other than the $10,000 from the state lottery, which is known as the Heritage Fund. And that money is ear-marked to VERY SPECIFIC uses unrelated to huntable game management and such. In fact, most of it is doled out in the form of grants to other entities or institutions. -TONY

---

If I remember right Oregon all the money they make off License and tag sales goes into the State's general fund and it is divied out sometimes it does not go where it should go. But it does help far enforcement of our game laws cause it helps the Oregon state police they are the ones responsible for enforcement. Our biggest complaint or I should say my complaint a lot of the money goes towards fisheries.

Gee coues.....did YOU take a poll to find out how MOST westerners feel???? I don't remember putting your name in any of my posts, and I didn't say ALL westerners felt that way.....so, don't assume that I included you in my statement! I don't "presume" to know you, since you don't list your home area in your profile, I don't even know if you are a westerner????

That being the case, please don't presume to assume that I am including you directly or indirectly in any of my comments unless I specifically mention you by name.......how's that?