I reside in Flagstaff AZ.
In the statement that I put in quotes you state "most guys in the west". Your presuming to know that which you dont.
Maybe you ought to re-read your post and re-think what you've written?
Coues
DS

323
Have you had the chance to hunt on the Fort or Around Sierra Vista? I lived there until I moved up here (Flagstaff) to attend college.(From 1984 until july 2001)
I have family that still lives there. If you ever need some ideas on hunts down there drop me a line.

BW, posting it in my signature line have nothing to do with me going to a reservation to hunt. It does not pertain to the topic. Are you that dense also. Just stick to the topic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kudu56:
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.

---

I am aware that game moves between federal, state and private lands.....that's not rocket science.......

All legal technicalities and foolishness aside, nobody really owns a game animal until they legally tag it and reduce it to meat......if the state really did own wildlife then they would be legally responsible for damage just like I would be if my cow wandered into the road and you hit it with your truck.

quote:

---

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

---

First, I don't believe you can say that game doesn't exist exclusively on federal land. Second, if a deer is on my land during the season I have the right to shoot it regardless of whether it spends 99% of it's life across the fence.....same with game on federal land, if it's on federal land and I'm legally hunting there.....I can legally shoot it even if it was across the fence 10 minutes ago.

quote:

---

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!

---

I never said anything of the sort......I have made my position very clear......the determining factor here is FEDERAL land.....and everyone should have an equal opportunity on FEDERAL land.....you have the same opportunity to hunt federal land in OK as I do.....yes, even though I don't agree with it, you will pay more as a nonresident, but you have the same chance of drawing the tag as a resident. You won't find any of my posts that say everyone should be treated the same anywhere except federal land......amd, if you were paying attention, I have said repeatedly that I don't believe any commercial hunting should be allowed on public land......so, USO would be out of luck trying to lock up tags on federal land........

If that's what it takes for things to be equal on federal land, then bring on federal game wardens, federal license, and federal control and management of federal property.

I just got done looking at Oregon Big game regs. I as a resident pay 22.50 for a hunting license and 4.50 for a controlled hunt application a non-resident pays 76.50 for a hunting license and the 4.50 for a controlled hunt application. I have no problem with this if the out of stater draws a tag then he/she has to pay the tag fee the day prior to the hunt starting. I don't have any problems with this system, as matter of fact I think it is a very effective system. I always thought Arizona system was a little backwards when I first got here in 2001 I couldn't belive they didn't have computer generated tags or License's, they still don't for there tags. Another thing you have to pay the tage fee for the tag you are applying for to this day I can't bring myself to spend the 70 plus dollars for an elk tag sure it is refunded if you don't draw a tag but man if I want to put in for a deer, elk and antelope tag it is going to cost me some money, you out of staters have to even dish out more money. I think Arizona needs to look at other states and there systems to get a general idea how the other states do it. In the end there is no easy answer but if a person from another state wants to hunt here in Arizona or Oregon or for that matter in any state it should be affordable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by coues:
I reside in Flagstaff AZ.
In the statement that I put in quotes you state "most guys in the west". Your presuming to know that which you dont.
Maybe you ought to re-read your post and re-think what you've written?
Coues
DS

---

I KNOW what I wrote! Most does not mean all......most means more than half but less than all......you are not necessarily included in most.....so don't presume that I'm including you in my statement and don't presume that you know what I know and don't know.....


Bottom line......whether you or anyone else likes it or not, the courts have already decided this and AZ lost.......if they continue to push it, they will lose again as will any other state that takes the same road.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by coues:
I reside in Flagstaff AZ.
In the statement that I put in quotes you state "most guys in the west". Your presuming to know that which you dont.
Maybe you ought to re-read your post and re-think what you've written?
Coues
DS

323
Have you had the chance to hunt on the Fort or Around Sierra Vista? I lived there until I moved up here (Flagstaff) to attend college.(From 1984 until july 2001)
I have family that still lives there. If you ever need some ideas on hunts down there drop me a line.

---

Yes I have, I hunt on post last December I shot a decent couse deer here on post 4x2. I dove hunt on the Sands ranch right outside Whetstone. I would like to try out some Mule Deer hunting but Fort Huachuca only has 10 tags in November a rifle hunt and another 10 for the December hunt and the Dec. hunt is a Muzzleloader hunt

I hope USO spanks AZ once again. I have to agree with GonHuntin on this.

In Arizona it is for the whole state, not just federal land.

In Wy, state law, all wildlife belongs to the state. So when I hit a deer I will hire a lawyer and make the state pay right? Wrong, it is almost impossible to sue the state of Wy. As it is almost impossible to sue the federal government.

I should say improbable not impossible, nothing is impossible.

In Wy if it is open range and you hit a cow it is your own tuff luck, regardless who's cow it is. You have to fence out here. Meaning, if the Wy highway dept dont want cows on the highway they have to build a fence.

Wy gives 15% of tags to nonresidents, I don't begrudge any nonresident that draws and comes hunting. I meet several every year, they are mostly salt of the earth people. So far I have never heard one complain on the price.

If it changes, so be it, I will live with it, but I also doubt that it will. It would be impossible to allow federal tags just for federal land, equal to all. No one has done it and no one will.

So what is equal? All tags in states with federal land, be sold to everyone, same price, same draw, only on federal land?

Ludicrous! There is private land and state land, mixed with federal. Late in the season there is very little game on some tracts of federal land. And the game, not even most of the big horn sheep live all year long on federal land. Once that animal goes onto federal land then it is federal property? So then when it goes onto private it is private property?

Get a life and be content hunting your bunny rabbits in Ok.

I agree Kudu56, Oregon sets aside 10% of the tags for nonresidents except for Bighorn sheep which is 5%. I think what got Arizona in trouble, they were only doing this for Elk and Deer up in Northern Arizona, the Kaibab area if I remember right, anyhow they set a 10% max for nonresidents for this area while the rest of the state there was no such system in place. If i'm wrong about this maybe someone can correct me.

Be careful of what you wish for REDHAWK1. You will be singing a different tune when this suit hits your state and pocket book.

Gonhuntin this is in no way over. Believe me when I say that things can and will get screwed up even worse if all parties involved keep butting heads.Uso has and will continue to screw all but the wealthiest out of hunting and this BS if not stopped will go from the west direct to the east. No good was brought about by this whole deal.

As it stands right now nothing is set in stone. Most of what the AZGF wants has to be negotiated with and approved or not by the AZ state legislature.

Taulman's lawyers whiny rant is BS do to that fact. The ceiling will be raised no matter what. As the dept was directed to start this process nearly 2 years ago. It is just because of the crap from USO that the raping came about.

I do not know what rate will eventually come to pass but I doubt it will be as high as it is proposed right now. I could be very wrong on this though but I sure hope not.

323
the rules state "up to 10%" not a max or flat %. Most of the units went undersubscribed by non resident applicants. Non residents were getting 6 or 7 % from what has been stated in the meetings I attended. A flat 10% (some say even 15 %) without the non residents having a separate pool and banning the sale of all game animals and their parts, that the commerce clause would not have worked. Taulman walked in demanding 27% of all tags and a separate pool. He has opened a Pandora's box and nothing good will come of it for the common hunters.

If USO is so DAMN good for everyone why is he suing states that give out 10 to 20 % (or more) of the tags to non residents plus all of those states that have OTC tags,landowner tags(those with higher game densities than AZ)?
Coues

kudu56, you just ramble on to hear yourself. Non-resident are not asking for cheaper tag fees, we as non-resident expect to pay more. Just to have an opportunity at more tags and not be charged an over inflated trophy fee is what get us. I am glad USO stuck it to AZ. I will be even happier if they win a second time. You need to look at the big picture and quit focusing on just a small part of it. When you have something of value to add, then post a reply, but if you just want to ramble, you will be ignored.

coues, well for one Delaware's only big game is Deer. And if you looked at resident and non-resident fee for hunting and deer tags, it is a fair deal non-residents get. This year for $110 dollars a non-resident can take 4 doe's and 2 bucks. Show me a western State that will do the same. Sure we don't have other big game but we are fair in what we have.

Hey Kudzu

This is my best "Oklahoma bunny rabbit"....... you ever personally kill a 6X6 rabbit like this in WY??



PS: Kudzu was not a typo....

Thats a sweet bull.
How large is the herd in OKLAHOMA?
Coues

323,

Yup, Oregon's funding is a bit different than AZ's, but it looks like only 5 percent involves the general fund. Here's the breakdown.

Revenue Sources

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife revenues come from four major sources: (1) General
Funds, (2) Lottery Funds, (3) Other Funds and (4) Federal Funds.

General Funds (5% of 2005-07 proposed Agency Budget)

General Funds are directly appropriated by the Oregon Legislature from the State General
Fund, which is largely composed of general tax revenues (personal and corporate income
taxes, cigarette taxes, etc.).

Lottery Funds (3% of 2005-07 proposed Agency Budget)

Lottery Funds revenues were added to ODFW’s budget for the 1999-2001 biennium.

Lottery Funds come to ODFW from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) for
Oregon Plan work and for the fish screening program.

Other Funds (54% of 2005-07 proposed Agency Budget)

Other Funds come from several sources. The two largest sources are revenues from sales
of hunting, fishing and occupational licenses and tags; and indirect or overhead charges on
federally funded work. A number of additional sources that provide significant, but smaller
amounts include funds from agreements/contracts with non-federal agencies or entities,
commercial fishing industry fees, bird hunter stamps, a portion of hydropower license and
operating fees, income tax refund check-off contributions, interest on wildlife fund balances,donations, fines and forfeitures from game law violators, and a few other miscellaneous categories.

Federal Funds (38% of 2005-07 proposed Agency Budget)

Federal Funds are received as a result of federal laws or agreements with agencies within
five cabinet-level federal departments and two federally funded regional agencies. Portions
of Federal Funds are allocated to Other Funds to cover indirect or overhead-type
administrative costs as stated above.

These are income sources for AZ:

Fiscal Year Revenues by Fund 2001–02 2002–03
Game and Fish Fund ................................................ $21,585,300 . $19,425,100
Watercraft Licensing Fund ........................................... 2,271,500 ..... 2,094,900
Game, Nongame Fund..................................................... 193,600 ........ 184,300
Federal Fund .............................................................. 16,796,700 ... 20,657,500
Heritage Fund............................................................... 9,627,400 ... 10,154,300
Off-highway Vehicle Fund ............................................... 699,500 ........ 842,900
Capital Improvement/Conservation Developent Funds ..... 903,900 ........ 733,200
Other Funds (See Detail Below) .................................... 1,335,700 ..... 1,801,500
Total Revenue All Sources ........................................... $53,413,600 .. $55,893,700

Other Funds Detail
GF Land and Water Conservation/
Recreation Development ........................... $ 900 .......... $ 500
Wildlife Theft Prevention Fund ....................... 169,900 ............ 140,500
Waterfowl Conservation Fund ........................... 89,000 .............. 78,500
Wildlife Endowment Fund ................................ 57,500 .............. 70,700
Trust/Donation Fund ....................................... 783,000 ......... 1,255,100
Publications Revolving Fund ........................... 235,400 ............ 256,200
Total Other Funds .......................................... $1,335,700 ....... $1,801,500

Calendar Year Sales in Numbers by Group 2001 2002
Licenses (see detail below) ................................................ 471,016 ........ 422,590
Trout stamps ..................................................................... 95,504 .......... 71,423
Tags .................................................................................. 157,812 ........ 148,953
Special use licenses/stamps .............................................. 42,882 .......... 96,414
Two Pole Stamp ................................................................. 59,508 .......... 57,278
Waterfowl Stamps ............................................................... 7,733 ............ 6,733
Migratory Bird Stamps ..................................................... 59,667 .......... 58,109
Utah Lake Powell Stamps .................................................... 2,143 ............ 2,029
Miscellaneous permits/licenses ......................................... 2,188 ............ 2,105
Totals ................................................................................... 898,453 ......... 865,634

Calendar Year License Sales by Category
Resident General Fish ..................................................... 184,991 ........ 153,562
Nonresident General Fish ................................................... 2,272 ............ 2,296
Family Fish .......................................................................... 3,376 ............ 3,638
Resident General Hunt ...................................................... 65,084 .......... 61,778
Nonresident General Hunt ................................................ 17,731 .......... 18,407
Resident Hunt/Fish ........................................................... 77,886 .......... 73,684

Calendar Year License and Tag Sales
Licenses ..................................................................... $13,644,478 .. $12,641,910
Stamps .......................................................................... 1,655,399 ..... 1,547,037
Tags ............................................................................... 5,026,645 ..... 4,498,915
Total Value ..................................................................... $20,326,522 ... $18,687,862

Sorry Okie bunny hunter, this is the best I could ever do, public land, no guide, no USO!

And a 35mm photo not retouched.


[

This year,mine and my sons, private land within federal public land next to state land. What kind of permit should I buy????????? Who's elk? State? Feds? Mine? Landowners? And also no USO!


]

Redhawk that is pretty much what I have done, ignore you and your posts.

I don't have a problem with 20% of the tags being sold to nonresidents, I have a problem of 50% though. And just because there is federal land, is a moronish idea that what ever game is on it belongs to everyone. And $481 is not inflated. I would pay it every fall. In fact I wish our game and fish would raise ours to $100, and then the whinning would stop from the nonresidents, (NOT), and our G&F would have more money to operate. Maybe hire more wardens instead of biologists.

GonHuntin: Nice bull for an Okie! I spent my summers in Oklahoma as a child. My Grand Mother pretty much raised me, near Billings. We went to Ponca City lots and to Pow wows there. She was Northern Arapaho. But I don't include that in my signature. I am aware what kudzu is and my forum name has nothing to do with ancestry. I shot a 56 inch kudu.

GonHuntin:

I own a chunk of land in Colorado for which I pay over 3K per year in property taxes, which is more than a lot of people pay in residential taxes. Do I get a break on elk licenses? Hell no.

You wanna come and shoot or ride your quad here? Have at it. Wanna hunt? Pay the fees.

I personally am not in favor of high non-res licenses, but Taulman pissed in his soup; I guess he will have to eat it or pass it back to the chef.

I have spoken to some in the AZ G&F dept, and they carefully considered the legal position that they took. If I recall the conversation, the judge who ruled in favor of USO said that raising out of state fees was a legitimate position to take.

Taulman may have money, but he doesn't have the money the state has to fight this. He got nothing in terms of cash out of this, and in the end, his sponsors have dropped him like a hot potato. Who wants to be associated with controversy?

I am still trying to see why I have to pay ten times as much for an elk tag that I have to draw for as a resident does. Plus the resident (Wyoming) can buy an over the counter general tag no matter what. I happen to know of some really good land that tag covers too. A lot of it is federal land. If anyone, including USO can bring some parity in lisence cost I am all for it. AZ? Who cares.

160 acres here, and if wildlife resides on it x amount of days per year, you can get a landowner tag. Two in fact. For what ever species resides on it. More than fair to nonresidents.

Didn't USO use the interstate commerce act as his excuse for parity? License numbers were hindering this act? Because if you shoot an animal in a state and take it home and sell the antlers, nonresidents are being hinderd. Wasn't that one portion and excuse for the lawsuit? USO's base isn't about cost of licenses, it is about numbers and parity. USO knows that thier clients will pay big bucks for the tag and his services.

actually Taulamn did recieve cash from this. 3 hundred thousand plus. AZ had to pay him for his legal fees.

The one good thing is the lawsuits and bugs will be worked out of this before it gets to Wyoming. I hope Wy has thier ducks in a row.

KUDU56, what possible reason could you have for supporting huge differences in lisence prices between residents and nonresidents? I don't hunt Wyoming to sell animal parts, I'm not rich, traveling 1200 miles is costly, time consuming, taking time off work is also expensive. I spent money in Farson, Rock Springs and Lander. To me tying up $481.00 in a drawing is not all that easy in the slow time of winter especially after spending two to three weeks in Wyoming and considering the drawings want their cash right after Christmas. This hunting trip to me is a great undertaking not easily done. I don't care how it's done I would like to see lisences cost less.

Wait a minute here....

I never said non residents should get 50% of the available tags......I said residents and non residents should be treated equally when it comes to hunting federal land......in other words, all the names go in the same hat and everyone has the same chance to draw a tag regardless of where that person lives.....let the drawing be blind concerning where the applicant lives.......what is unfair about that??? If the state wants to eliminate all non resident tags for state land, I have no heartburn over that.......

If wild game doesn't belong to everybody, then exactly who does it belong to??? If we say the state owns it, what happens when it walks across the border from AZ to NM? Does AZ have to sign the title over to NM? As far as I'm concerned, you only own a game animal after you put your tag on it......otherwise, nobody really owns it!

Yes, it would be very possible to issue tags for use only on federal property through a lottery......no big deal there. Simply have two different drawings......one for state and private land, the other for federal land only.....what is the big deal with that?? We have "controlled hunt" drawings in my state and they are very specific as to where the tags can be used.....

I have never used USO, don't ever plan to.......the only time I have used a guide was in Namibia.....and there was no way around it. USO is being treated as the bad guy here simply because they had the balls and money to force this issue.....they aren't the only group making big bucks guiding on public land, but I see very little complaining about the others......as far as I'm concerned, they should all be banned from running commercial hunts on federal land.......along those same lines, I believe livestock owners who run cattle/sheep on public land should pay the full market value for those grazing rights......

I have hunted in several states and have paid high non resident fees......however, except for a coyote hunt in NM, I was not hunting on federal land...and THAT is the difference.... I doubt that you would get much protest from non residents about paying a "reasonable" additional amount for hunting out of state, but the latest proposal by AZ is clearly punitive and is obviously a ploy to set aside the courts decision by pricing non resident licenses way over the top.......and I hope they get spanked for trying it!

Writer, I understand about non resident landowners.....been there, done that and was furious every time I paid non resident prices to hunt my own land! I finally just sold the land and bought some across the state line.

Coues

Not sure about the elk population in OK, I'd guess a few thousand......funny thing, if you have access to private land that surrounds the refuge, you can buy an elk tag across the counter.....no need to draw a tag. My bull certainly isn't the biggest bull to come off the refuge, but he is pretty nice for a bull from Oklahoma! The refuge biologist aged him at 8 1/2 years old.

Kudu

That bull will do......nothing retouched on my photo either (or I'd have made him look bigger ! Here's my kudu......not quite 56" but still a good bull for the area I hunted....



For what it costs to go on a guided elk hunt these days, I'd rather spend my money in Africa where I can shoot multiple "trophies" for the same, or less money!

Rick, since you don't live here, pay taxes, support business's,schools,buy food,pay utillity bills, 365 days a year you should be able to buy an elk tag for twice or even 5 times what I pay? The price will bear what the market provides. I don't have a problem paying more so yo can pay less, or raise ours and leave yours alone. No biggee, but to use the excuse that the federal land belongs to all of us and therefore all nonresidents and residents pay the same price and draw from the same number of tags is hogwash. Yes the land belongs to everyone, no the game does not, just because of certain times of the year the game is present on federal land. You can dream up any analogy you want, like Gonhuntin and Redhawk but they have no merit. Move to Wyoming if it is that expensive, but leave your liberal ideas in texas.

As a nonresident, you should be more concerned with the fact that nonresidents can not hunt wilderness areas in Wy with out a guide or resident in tow. You can come here 365 days a year, fish, walk, horse back ride, beat off, or anything your heart desires in a wilderness area but you can't hunt in that area with out a guide or resident.

I also am not in favor of the tying up of license money for months when I apply. When my sons were young, and I had to put them in for sheep, moose and goat, to keep points up, I was trying up over a $1000 for three months. Then elk, deer, and antelope came right after that. Write the G&F and tell them how you feel, get a petition out of Texas, I have written them several times with nothing but excuses for answers. I was told last year that the state of Wy was spending $90,000 on a feasiblility study to do the application with credit cards and application fees instead of the full amount.

Nice kudu! I agree, I would rather shell out the bucks for a trip to Africa rather than a guided North American hunt. When we going?

I'm wise to you now Kudu, your a troll happy that hunter opportunity is lost due to high lisence cost. I lived in Wyoming for 14 years and let me tell ya taxes aren't that high. I can easily understand why residents get more tags then nonresidents. A lot of residents need that elk and deer meat for the winter. About my "liberal Texas?" ideas, kiss off, your the one with the "it's my commune like it or not" view. As far as game management cost you know as well as I do the big game populations are managed greatly by the weather, the fisheries are a different matter. A lot of lisence money goes to projects we as hunters were against such as the Wolf reintroduction and fencing off public land so you need a horse to get to vast areas of it. As far as supporting business (WHATEVER THAT HAS TO DO WITH HIGH fEES) many businesses count on the money hunters spend in the fall and would far rather there be more nonresident hunters to sell to. They would rather we spent that extra $436 dollars at their store. Considering the large amount of money lisence fees represent I sure don't see that your getting a lot for your money in Wyoming.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kudu56:
Nice kudu! I agree, I would rather shell out the bucks for a trip to Africa rather than a guided North American hunt. When we going?

---

Don't know when I'll be able to go back, but one thing is for certain, it won't be soon enough!

Another nice bull from Namibia.......

Even if our taxes are low, we still support the system year around. You don't. But you want equality. I said, I am all for raising our tag fee, closer to nonresidents. Not a problem. But why should a nonresident only pay $250 and only be here two weeks. While we pay for and support everything else! So your saying being a resident is meaningless?

Everyone uses the federal land as an excuse that equality should take palce. I don't buy it. I don't have the answers, but $481 wouldnt stop me from doing something that I want to do. It is a privilege, not a right. My privilege is to live here and my choice. And as for money going to programs such as the wolf, it will only get worse and fees will have to rise to offset the costs.

Nice Gemsbok! Who is the pretty lady? Your daughter?

Supporting business's, buying stuff at local business's year round, groceries, clothes, hardware. I am in our stores pretty regular during hunting season and I never see a nonresident there spreading his wealth. Most come to hunt, buy some gas, maybe a motel room for a week, and some food. Majority bring food and supplies along.

QUOTE: posted 24 January 2005 00:25
I'm wise to you now Kudu, your a troll happy that hunter opportunity is lost due to high lisence cost. I lived in Wyoming for 14 years and let me tell ya taxes aren't that high. I can easily understand why residents get more tags then nonresidents. A lot of residents need that elk and deer meat for the winter. About my "liberal Texas?" ideas, kiss off, your the one with the "it's my commune like it or not" view. As far as game management cost you know as well as I do the big game populations are managed greatly by the weather, the fisheries are a different matter. }

Not a troll, not concerned about hunter oportunities lost. There is still a waiting list for the tags. They sell out every year. The law states the wildlife belongs to the people and state of Wy, the federal land belongs to all of us, hunters, fisherman, trappers, hikers, bird watchers,back packers, horseback riders, skiiers,and animal rights people. You can even cut fire wood for the same cost as me. Hunters only represent a small amount of those that use public land. Hunting and fishing is the only higher cost pursuit on public land. Hunting on federal land pursuing a commodity that belongs to the people of that state should cost more to those that don't reside in that state. The water that comes out of the mountians off the federal land belongs to ever had the first water rights, for instance, Nebraska gets the majority of water that comes out of Wy, not Wy!

And as for you living here for 14 years, I am glad you left. And if you don't like the small cost of a privilage, don't pay it and stay home.
Let's see, I am going on vacation for one or two weeks, my one and only trip for the year, and I am worried about the difference of $431. Yeah, stay in Texas.

We need an ignore function here.

Yeah redhawk, so I can ignore your sorry ass!

Truth hurts doesn't it?

You know, if you read the court decision, the whole USO case rested on the fact that it violated the interstate commerce clause. One way to eliminate this issue would be to simply outlaw the sale of animal parts.

The court never said the state could not raise license fees; it simply said they could not put a limit on the number of non-resident licenses. So now only the wealthy will hunt out of state, which is okay with Taulman, but for the guy who can't afford it, too bad.

If hunting in the West is really that important to you, move here. Enough Californians are, so ya'all would be welcome.

Thank you AnotherAZWriter,
I think that is what I posted about a dozen posts up. I read where Wy was considering prohibiting the sale of animal parts from animals taken in Wy. But it would put a crimp on antler sales. Anyway the idea is being kicked around.

To me that was a lame reason to sue. But you know what 1000 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean is? A good start!

Lets see KUDUTroll, you don't care how much money is brought into the state by hunters, you don't care how much nonres. tags cost your only issue is yourself. Well I'm glad your still there waiting for something to move other than the wind and snow, without work and a woman. Your presence on this forum is to bitch, must be real boring at the bar.

yup, your in pain just like redhawk. Agonizing the truth. Pay the piper or stay in Texas! I never said I don't care how much NR bring in. It is good for local merchants, but residents spend more and 365 days a year.

PS, I don't drink, I am gainfully employed, 23 years same type of work. I am on call this weekend and yes I am bored, no call outs! Plus the wind doesn't blow up here and it was 62 today. (no snow)