The turmoil of the Arizona resident licences brought up an old boil in me.Probably irritating some local souls but I am sure I am not alone:
I am voting to do away with all "Resident" hunting and fishing licences and would replace that with a "Federal " licence.
Rational:Why should citizen A ,who lives 10 miles from me,but in a different state,not be able to hunt and fish with me?Given that non resident licence fees are a rip-off.

Most of our laws,taxes etc are on the federal level ,we function as a country as 1 (federal)country.

Most of the land in the west that is open to the public is federal land.

The fish and game cross state borders at will.

Non resident fees are prohibitive and nothing but state created welfare at the expense of people that cannot vote( out of state)


If I live in a small state,I might have to buy 3 non resident licence pacckages from "neighboring states to enjoy the outdoors.

sheephunter

I would just as soon the federal government (mis)manage as few things as possible. That's all we need, the USFWS monkeys handing out licenses. What a clusterf*** that would be.

True enough, we are all residents of the same country, but the power to manage resident (non-migratory) fish and game is vested in the individual states. The 'Golden Rule' would mean that a federal hunting license would usurp the states' individual powers. Do you really want the vast majority of Americans (who are not hunters) to dictate to the individual states how they should manage their wildlife?

While we are all residents of the same country, the individual states have very different ideas about how their wildlife should be managed and hunted. Shall we then give Californians the right to mass together and vote out the hunting of cougars in all states? Shall we give the mass of birdwatchers the right to eliminate dove hunting? Federalism in wildlife management would result in a dreadful sameness to the states' wildlife management, most of which would be detrimental to hunters' interests.

The point of most western land being Federal is a good example of how things might change for the worse. Because the USFS (and others) try to be 'good neighbors' and, to the extent that they can, manage the lands under their control in accordance with the wishes of the state within which they are found, Federalism might result in the situation that prevails in VA. There, it is illegal to discharge a firearm on either of the National Forests unless the state has a hunting season open at the time. If you live in ID and enjoy plinking on National Forest lands during the off season, that could come to a screeching halt.

No, there are problems with the way individual states manage their wildife, but I don't think that giving the feds such power is the answer. Population pressures and land management that hasn't been wildlife-friendly means that many states have resorted to lottery draws for game tags. Do you really want to compete with all Americans for a tag, or would you rather have the better odds of just competing with the population of your own state? Would you rather have local folk (in-state) determining where and how wildlife management money should be spent, or would you rather have it dictated from afar?

I live in a state where the feds do actually control the hunting opportunities on Federal lands, and I can tell you that the hunting opportunities for the majority of hunters have dwindled over the past decade, not increased, or even remained the same. Federalism isn't the answer.

Rupert,
your points are all valid,but I can answer most by giving individual states the power to legislate hunting laws ,meaning no centerfire rifles in Manhattan to hunt pigeons etc,while its Ok to do so in downtown Idaho .
That still enables me to hunt in every state ,without buying = ripped off ,a non-resident licence in each state.

Here in Colorado use to allow over the counter deer tag for resident and non problem we had was too many hunter harvesting bucks and just had a bad buck to doe ratio. It's been now over 5yrs and where I hunt starting to see some good bucks and as a resident I don't like to compete with a non for a tag in fact I didn't get one for two years but for the good of all were starting to get the herds back. Sure alot of ground is public and they own the wildlife you got about 5/7 state that most come to for hunting if you opened the hunting in those states to all non resident and residents how long do you think wildlife will last. The non resident doesn't care about Colorado or any other western states other than shooting his elk or deer and going home. Here the big worry is CWD more land lost to developemnt less range for the elk and deer. I have to draw for deer,moose,sheep,antelope and limited hunts same as a non resident. I can buy an over the counter bull tag same as non resident. You know Sheephunter when I didn't get drawn for a deer tag that first year I got pretty mad and the next I applied in Wy and Co didn't get drawn for either and talk about really being mad. As I said earlier I'm see the benefits of those draws as I get up in the high country alot and just seeing bigger bucks during the summer into fall. I was more worried about Me My and I instead of looking at the whole picture. If fish and game didn't come in with those draws we may never of got the buck level back up. Now they can do a count and set a limit on harvest which helps. This year been a pretty good one for deer so afew more tag get a bad winter kill will be less thats just good game management. The resident or non stand a good chance of getting a good buck and isn't that what it's all about.

SheepHunter & the rest of "Federal Land" boys. The Federal Government confiscated the National Forest and BLM lands from the individual states to "MAKE MONEY" on the timber and mineral resources. Oregon is something like 90% federal land. BIG DEAL. The fed lands are not a net loss, but a net gain in tax revenue. Your tax dollars are not really funding federal lands. They mostly fund themselves, and bring in their own revenue. You I and everyone else has the exact same access to Federal owned lands. GAME IS MANAGED AND OWNED BY THE INDIVIDUAL STATES. California as an example had some of the greatest hunting in the country untill the libs in your state started practicing game management. Now Cal is sucking hind tit. Oregon is having the same problem as the rest of the west. Out of state screw-ups are dictating timber, fish, game, mining, fire, road and water management. Guess what? Some dope smoking rock worshipping unwashed hippy trash does not know how to remotely manage resources. They manage hemp!! Screw up your own state. Leave mine alone.

All states should have maintained there sovereignty from the feds! Each to manage there own situation. Nothing could be closer to communism than having the states give up thier rights. Giving up rights is not what this country has lost so many lives over!

I now live where the hunting sucks but don't think it's unfair to pay to play in other states. If you or I lived in the perfect place would we want to pay to maintain it while people come from the outside area to enjoy it?

It's worth it to pay extra to spend time with friends. Cripes! I've had to pay when I didn't even want to be with the people I was around!

As I said in my introduction,I expected a good deal of fire to be taken.But alas,no matter what "we" decide here-it wont matter ,we are all "governed" speak (ab)used by our respective government(s).
Competence at any level has never been part of their history,or maybe its the biodiversity of "us".So lets not compare local against federal competence.
My underlying thesis for 1 (federal if you like) outdoor license, is the recogniton that for better or worse ,we are living in 1 country,even if some of us are seperationists
Each state issues their own drivers licence,but I can use it without much trouble,in evry other state - without paying additional blood.

I understand residents of big western states wanting to preserve their current advantage,selfish as that appears,its an anticipated valid selfish response,explained by "better local governance".
OK,as I said ,discuss the local ordinances and management seperately.I still do not see any fairness why a resident of RI (I think thats Rhode Island) has to pay non resident fees to hunt,dont see whats fair that I have to pay "non resident "fees in WY or MT ,because I happen to have CA as my current domicile,never mind I pay taxes in MT for my belongings there.
Even if I decide to make meself a MT resident,living at the ID border,I can only hunt to the "right",as 20 miles to the "left" its ID.Nope,dont like it and it aint just or fair.
Yes it appears to assure advantages for the (few) local boys.
The point that opening the country up to all would cause depredation is of course childish,simple to correct by issuing local based harvesting laws and quota.

Sheephunter:
Have to vociferiously disagree!!! The basic tenet of the founding of this country was that the central government was to be subordinate to the states, ie, state's rights. If one looks at history for about the last 100 years, the concept of states' rights can be seen to have been continually erroded. Alaska, I think being a prime example. In short, as far as I'm concerned, less government is better government. Seems as if every time government attempts something, the cure is worse than the disease. Hunting regs & license fees are not mentioned anywhere in the constitution, therefore, as far as I'm concerned, they have no business sticking their noses in the subject.
As a side note, the management of fish & game is specifically mentioned in the State of Alaska Constitution and the Federal government has seen to usurp that right as well. Now one & all can flame me for my comments but I still stand by them. Bear in Fairbanks

Sheephunter. I most heartily agree with you that hunting in California is totally fucked up. The sad part of it is you will probably never get rid of the problem. As long as Fish & Game is managed as a POLITICAL entity that refuses to listen to the game biologists they pay good salaries too, you will be screwed. I got my first hunting license in California in 1949. Even way back then, does and spikes were sacred cows that could not be harvested. YUP! The bunnyhuggers were already in control way back then, and from what I understand now, it's a lot worse. It was about that time that thet actually had a doe hunt. Hunters took so many does that that hunt was dropped. Then, they went to a special doe hunt where you applied by mail for one of the special tags to be used over the Labor Day week end. Seems like every year they had that draw for doe tags, this big bunnyhugger club seemed to get ALL the tags. There was a big cookout where they all got together and used those doe tags to help get their charcoal aburnin'.
I'm of the thought that you have three ways to go here. Move to a state where the hunting is acessable, live with the situation, of get all your hunters together and start a movement to get the political appointees out of Fish and Game once and fo all.
Maybe, once you get that done, I'll listen to your gripe about hunting federal lands.
BTW, I left California for that very reason. I was more content to live where I could hunt, even if it meant I had to take piss poor wages. That is how strongly I feel about the subject.
Moving this time will really be a burdon as I'm now retired and the income is fixed. But I am planning that move. I've been in Arizona for 26 years as a resident. In that 26 years, I've drawn three elk tags and 6 deer tags and in most cases the two species were drawn in the same year. I haven't drawn a tag in three years and frankly, I am pissed no end.
Let the government handle it? Hell! They'd fuck up a wet dream.
Paul B.

Yeah but Mike, tell us how you feel.

Those dope smoking tree hugging hippies in Cave Junction and Takilma want to know.

Hope all is well there Amigo.

Cheers and Good shooting
seafire

See,



Personally I think Hunting Licenses should not be based on where you reside but on what your Political Affiliation is.



If you are considering yourself a Liberal, or Democrat or Communist ( Same Thing), Environmentalist etc, YOU can pay High Liberal fees, Like Out of State Fees are now.



If you are a Republican, Libertarian or just a person who cares about the environment without being a WACKO about it, then you can hunt for a much more affordable figure, like Say IN state fees run now.



Funny thing is, I am sure this is how the average Environmentalist, Democratic Wacko, comes up with Fees that never apply to them.. So I am just putting the shoe on the other foot.



Cheers,

Seafire

John,
That would be a most equitable solution to a doobi-us situation.

Paul I agree with everything you say and more
because of job reasons I still work in CA,but readily disagree with its management.
If you think F&G is f**cked up: for the last 2-3 years they instituted a "user fee" to walk in adjoining National Forest.No improvements,no nothing,just forest.Gave me a ticket when they saw my parked car while I took a 2 hr hike with wife and dog.
So I just smile when I hear "innocent" opinions.The government,not "we" own the US of A, we are renting it from them,by their rules and laws,nevermind what anyone chooses to believe or extract from a constitution which is still taught but factually irrelevant.
We are all victims of a government our forefathers saw and guarded against,but this government has the guns,the IRS and the army to protect itself

sheephunter, where do you hunt sheep? Do you have a problem paying both a non-resident & and an alein fee in Canada? You do, even though they aren't broken out as such. Get real, man, the non-resident fees aren't that much. Stop for a minute and consider how many worthless things you likely blow $ on that far exceed an out of state fee or two. Got a TV? Tell me that's not wasted $, and odds are you have more than one. How about a microwave? Man, couldn't get by without that! Ever buy any beer? How long does that take to cover the cost of a non-resident license? Think about it a minute and you'll come up with a bunch. Incidently, lest you think I go one way, I recently purchased a CA fishing license (non-resident) and didn't squawl a bit--and I'll likely get 1 days use, actually, make that a half days use, out of it. It's not that big of deal! You're crying over a non-entity man. Why shouldn't you have to pay a prmium to hunt or fish in my state, and me in yours? After all, it is a privalige, not a right. My state or any other COULD say NO OUT OF STATE HUNTERS, period. Ever think of that?

Also, while of course there are many federal laws, there are at least as many state laws in each state, and state taxes ain't no laughing matter!

Arts,good of you to chip in.
I am sorry- I disagree with you on all counts,dont think we can resolve that.
As an example,I dont think game or fish or country belongs to anyone,its wild and here for our enjoyment,if we so so choose.Yes I realize I have not been successfully brainwashed,accepting that the government owns everything and therefore in their infinite mercy may give me the "privilege" to use their property.
Yes I realize I am talking from the dark hole of days gone by and thanks God will sooner or later kiss this land goodbye.
Sorry to see that people lost any sense of fairness and insight.Just my interpretation of "right of happiness".

sheephunter, for starters, you never commented on my opening statement. Secondly, you took me a bit wrong regarding right and privilege to hunt. I'm not suggesting for a second that it is the government that "owns" and or controls this privilege. I'm saying that it simply is not a "right" that you or I or anyone is born with. Society, that entity of which we are a part, allows us to hunt. Societies make and develop rules and regulations that the members live by. These are called laws. These laws regulate what you and I and other society members do, not "rights". Societies have broken the land mass down into units, the largest called countries. As we all know, there are often disagreements about the physical dimensions of some of these units. Another unit that has been developed is the state, at least in the USA. The physical dimensions of these don't satisfy everyone perfectly, but they have been pretty well accepted for quite a number of years. The sub-society that you and I are a part of (USA) has decided that for the most part, each of these states will make it's own rules and regulations, insofar as they do not interfere with the operation of the society as a whole, particularly that sub-society known as the USA. So, the smaller societal unit, i.e. the state, controls what is defined by these physical dimensions that we have accepted. This means that they will charge neighboring society members as they see fit to utilize their resources, and the larger societal unit, the USA, shall not interfere, as it does not effect their functioning. These small units (states) may, and have the authority as vested by their societal members, choose to not allow non-members of their society to partake of some of their resources, i.e. hunting. Think about it, my friend. It could be much worse (restricted) than it is.

I don't buy into this "rights" thing much. We all earn or loose each thing on our own. Nothing is doled out as a given. Of course we group together to fight for and protect certain freedoms, privileges, or whatever one wants to call them, but I don't buy the rights idea. After all, who is there that might have such authority as to grant these rights? No one, I maintain.

You earlier on referred to state driving licenses and the fact that they are good throughout the country. That of course is true, but must it be? What is preventing any state from saying, "All drivers on the roads in our state shall have license issued by our state, or they shall not be allowed to use the roads of our state". Nothing, really. Then again, why should there even be a license to drive? In the early years they got by fine without such. It all comes back to our being social creatures, and this necessitates rules. One rule of most states is that non-residents of that state shall pay a premium to hunt or fish there. They aren't required to have that rule, and any one of them could do away with it, but it is not for the larger body, i.e. the federal entity, to say.

Cheers!

Arts , ,
I thought I leave well enough,everyone made their respective point,and we dont change knuckle heads like meself.
Buuut,you put forth such an elegent treatise,that I feel I cant just neglect it.
Your underlying legalese by my interpretation,is an elegant attempt to strengthen state control - I understand that,dense as I am.
YOur lengthy proof by way of localized societal control might hack it for you -- but it aint wash for me.
You see,my preference is away from compartementalization ,away from tribal influence sphere.
Here in the US we benefit tremendously from the fact that we have a unified ( ) large mass,rather than tribal structure.Granted,federalism sometimes has a bitter taste,but local governments ,starting from city council to county,state etc in most cases is more corrupt and self serving,more narrow minded than federal.
Example:Arizona doesnt allow teachings of evolution etc,spare me the necessity of proof.County commisioners are rife with corrupt special interest decisions.
Coming from the other side,in fact:states in the US have indeed very little power against the feds:
Oregon's decision to allow legal euthanasia was overturned by federal (religion),CA decision not to subsidize illegal immigrants was negated by federal power etc etc.
So in fact the states still have power only where and when it doesnt matter to the federal boys.
2: huge chunks of the West,for better or worse,are federal property,not state property.
3 The economy of many western states MT f.i. are heavily subsidized by federal dollars,without which the unemployment would be sky high.By that I mean jobs in and for the management of the land are federal lands.

4Alaska ,was purchased with federal money,yes a state was created,but ownership of vast lands kept in federal name.

I am not a friend of legalese,but that all sounds perfectly legal to me,never mind that "local states" doent like that.Of course they dont.

I couldnt care less what the legal explanation(s) are,just trying to make you think that a united large universe can indeed function better for all ,compared to a land with many fences,local fees and road taxes for trespass etc.

Local,state based hunting &fishing fees are nothing but a rip-off on people that cant vote ,called shifting the burden.
If at least the money would be used to improve the payed for activity,meaning increase hunting opportunities,but the monies in large flow into the state coffers for political consumption.
Yes,non residents are being discriminated against ,despite the fact that they pay (federal) taxes or have (federal)property rights.And those monies subsidize the state in question.

the only reason that I see that residents support discrimination against "outsiders" is to gain a selfish advantage.
Fine,let it be recognized as such and at least be honest.
It is well known that few people trust "big" government unless they want to use its benefits.

If it comes down to your local control:why wouldnt it be better to have hunting licensure by county? instead of state? I think all your arguments make an excellent point to support that

Now to your pressing question of what I do: yes I buy non resident alien hunting licences in Canada,no I dont like it,but have no choice,at least until we free some army to annex the western parts.

Enjoy the outdoors

sheephunter

Good reply, but I think perhaps you judge me personally a bit wrong. I am anti government from the get go, regardless of federal, state, county, city affiliation. I see little of it that's not corrupt. I'm not promoting any of it, though forced to choose, I would pick state over federal, generally. I simply point out how state regulation of hunting licenses/tags has come about. And right here for all to see, I do not deny the aspect of selfishness regarding not wanting non-resident competition for the game in my state, though I am not an advocate of complete closure to non-residents (in most cases). What I am an advocate of is out-of-state fees being significantly higher than resident fees. I pay them, generally in 3 or 4 states a year, and I accept them as justified. My initial point is that I really don't think that they are that big of a deal. Do you not feel that the residents of a state deserve some priority for being the ones responsible for the management and propigation of the game? They are, if not in sweat, in dollars. And keep in mind, the federal government (of the US) has ruled that the animals are the property of the state, not the nation, per se, and the state has the responsibility and must manage them as they see fit. Of course, the feds can (and have) step in and declare an animal off limits to all, regardless of what the state wishes.

Incidently, county licensing has been employed in the past in some states, though I don't think there is any of it now.

What is your feeling regarding Indians charging extra fees for licensing on "their" ground, which of course is actually federal ground in most cases?

Or private land owners charging a trespass fee?

My question regarding Canada was answered by you as expected, but should you not then be advocating a "world" hunting license?

Arts,
as we say,we have our preferences,and so be it.
If you say you gladly pay to 4 states,so be it.Yes I can afford it,but as said believe it to be abuse.The non resident fee is not a fee for services or costs rendered,but a hidden tax / costs on people that have no voice.
Sometimes we chose to make a logical argument ,when it fits our underlying ideation :
Is game / fish owned by the person on whose land they occur?
I find no argument to the contrary,hard to do,unless "we" state that men & animal is placed by God and cannot be owned.Looking at domestic animal ownership,we then quickly have to categorize who is free.OK we shall say,wild animals are free.
These are philosophical arguments that have no true weight unless chosen to win a point.
Your point:is the owner of a property,be it an indian or rancher,the owner of its wildlife.
Well,to my knowledge,he is not.Wildlife is public property.
Does that mean I can trespass on private property to hunt?
No.But if one wants to make that argument it would be a law of society as you say.
I can see that a society makes such laws when landownership is concentrated in a few,and thereby limits society.Smacks of socialism,but heck,as you say,lets select the law that benefits us personally.

I believe to have pegged hunting fees for what they are:taxation without voice,it has little do do with administration or care for the wildlife,it has everything to do with taxing out of staters to support the general state budget.

Now you offer me a world hunting licence ,big step my man,lets move in smaller steps.But in principle ,yes.
We are talking about the fee here,not the regulation.
Small boys will complain as they see that they will have to compete with everyone in the world,big boys will see their options expand wildly,they can now hunt in central china !

Not long ago the cost of a hunting&fishing licence was nominal,now it has become an income source,thats the abuse.If we keep going we will limit our options as we go,we learn to pay the state/government ,we think its OK to pay for the air we breathe,after all the government assures its purity.
I say get the government off our back,see what they are doing.When I go into the outdoors I dont cost the government a dime,so please leave me,I dont equate that with going to Disneyland.
But as you and many here seem to say,they dont mind to pay,
they dont believe that the citizen has any rights or ownership of public property.They buy and rent and pay the government for something that is theirs.
Resident licences are going up in price,only limited by possible voter outcry.Non resident fees can be jacked up as there is no representation and its easy "to stick it to them"

How can a hunter from California be for more centralized control? Do you want LA or the bay setting game laws like they set your states social agendas? The last thing I want is some hippy buraucrate from DC administering local game laws, local water management, local forest land management, road closers and fish management. I don't want the some dork fed sitting behind his desk telling my state's biologists how to manage the Columbia Blacktail deer.
How absolutely arrogant of some out of stater to walk into someone elses house and tell them- I pay fed taxes so I have the same rights as you in your state. Thats like me driving a half hour south into California and tell you I have the same rights as you to put in for Tule elk and whatever else limited game you might have. Just because its on gov land.
With regard to the Texas style of pay to hunt, how much more european can you get? Sounds like the lordship/peasant thing to me. Are Texas and France synonymous?

Sheephunter, I think I speek for alot of resident hunters I for one would pay the non resident fee or higher to know that I could get a deer tag to hunt in my home state plus the only way a non resident would be able to hunt if any tags are left over. Alot of resident hunters that have draws as most states do cannot hunt due to the non resident so elimate it. Resident should come first then non resident in that order. Maybe afew resident that cann't get a tags due to a quota so give them preference pts. I wouldn't mind losing a tag to a resident don't think anyone would better than having some non resident like sheephunter getting one.

You know, if it is THAT important to you, you can always move to a state in which you want to hunt. Seems like plenty of Montana folks have done just that, and who am I to take away their fun? There are other places to hunt. Besides, if you apply to all the states in the West, you will get drawn somewhere.

I wonder what percentage of the AZGFD is paid for by non-resident license dollars , and what percentage is paid by resident dollars ?

The fact is , something like this lawsuit was bound to come along sooner or later , in one of the Rocky mountain states . For a long time , the fish and game departments in some of these states have been balancing their budgets on the backs of non-resident hunters .

Sheephunter,

Ive not read the entire thread, but the bottom line is, in the west, there is a much larger demand for animals to hunt then supply. Thats it. The reason that managment has been what it has been up to this point is that those appointed by the federal government (that would be the state representatives) have done the best they could to find something that works within that pretext.

Now, if you want to take those already limited number of permits and open their sales up to the entire country, that in essence will mean the end of hunting for those who are not prepared or otherwise able to travel outside of their homestate in order to do so. Is it begining to come clear yet? Obviously there are a number of individuals who are perfectly willing to do that. Are you one of them?

The current system was designed to allow opportunities for anyone who desires to hunt, with many special and privleged hunts available for thos who can afford them. (IE; out of staters) But that is just not enough for some.

Ive enjoyed hunting a great deal and so has my father, but this fiasco has got me scared that my boy will not get the chance. That he will have to settle for "dads hunting stories" and never get the chance to tell his own.

DesertRam,

BINGO!
< !--color-->
And not only will the opportunities for resident tags edd but the COST of hunting for EVERYONE will continue to increase dramatically. -TONY