Here is an editorial from the casper paper.

Read the bottom 1/4th.

Arizona ruling worries states

By ARTHUR H. ROTSTEIN
Associated Press writer
with staff reports Sunday, February 27, 2005




TUCSON, Ariz. -- A successful court challenge to Arizona regulations limiting the number of nonresidents who could hunt big game in the state is sending a ripple of concern through the West, where many states -- including Wyoming -- have similar rules.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out Arizona's 10 percent cap on nonresident big-game licenses. Nevada's nonresident caps also are being contested, and sportsmen and officials across the West are watching the shakeout warily.

The Arizona case began with a New Mexico outfitter and hunters who sued over the state's cap, which was set in 1990.

U.S. District Judge Robert Broomfield originally upheld the state's assertion that hunting was recreation and sport, not commerce, and let the cap stand. But the 9th Circuit overturned his ruling in 2002, calling the cap "a severe form of discrimination" against nonresident hunters. It returned the case to Broomfield with orders to reconsider.

Last July, he ruled that the limits were an unconstitutional infringement on interstate commerce. He said Arizona had less discriminatory alternatives for maintaining residents' hunting opportunities.

By long tradition, state hunting regulations tend to favor resident hunters.

Nonresidents pay bigger fees and often have more restricted opportunities. The tilt is generally justified on the basis that state residents, through their taxes and day-to-day participation in government, play a bigger role in preserving and managing game herds than do hunters who simply drop in for a week or so.

The 9th Circuit ruling dealt only with the ability to get a nonresident license. It did not change state laws that set nonresident hunting fees at up to 10 times more than residents pay.

Since the court ruling, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission has drawn new rules it hopes will protect the hunting opportunities of residents, and says it will ask the Legislature to raise the cap on hunting fees to align prices more with other Western states.

But the decision has left a sour taste in the mouths of many hunters, including some who would benefit from the decision.

"From an economic standpoint, the more nonresidents who hunt Arizona, the better off I am," said Ron Eichelberger, a hunter and guide from Alpine, Ariz. "That still doesn't mean it's right. I don't think it's the right way to go. I'm still in favor of the resident hunter."

Art Hathaway of Washington, Pa., says he's hunted for years in Arizona and other Western states, but still disagrees with the court rulings, which he said made things worse for Arizona residents.

"Now you're letting all these outsiders come in and take away from their chance to hunt in their home state," said Hathaway. "I don't think it's fair."

But lawyer Jim Scarantino of Albuquerque, N.M., who represented the plaintiffs in the Arizona case, says nonresident hunters contribute the majority of hunting revenues through their more expensive licenses and fees.

"You hear residents screaming about how they're being treated," he said. "But without nonresidents paying what they do, programs would fail."

Some Arizona hunters "didn't like competition from nonresident hunters," he said.

"It has nothing to do with game management and conservation. It's all about local politics and appeasing a few local agitators -- very aggressive agitators who want preferential treatment from their government," he said.

He noted that in contrast to Arizona's limits, Colorado has a 40 percent nonresident limit for bull elk, and 26 states have no cap at all.

Scarantino now has a lawsuit pending in Nevada on behalf of his same New Mexico clients. Nevada allocates 10 percent of bighorn sheep and deer tags and 5 percent of elk, mountain goat and antelope tags to nonresidents.

"I know we're going to win in every state where we go," he said.

Wyoming's case

Meanwhile, another case, this one challenging Wyoming's requirements and limits on nonresident hunters, is awaiting a 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling. The Wyoming appeal repeats arguments made in the Arizona case.

Brought by former Wyoming resident Donald J. Schutz, a Florida attorney, it challenges a federal judge's ruling that the state's caps on big-game nonresident hunting licenses don't violate the Constitution. The trial court ruling said Wyoming's quota laws and higher nonresident fees serve a legitimate state interest.

The limits set aside 20 percent of deer, antelope and moose hunting licenses and 25 percent of bighorn sheep licenses for nonresidents.

Wyoming Attorney General Pat Crank said that denying the Wyoming Game and Fish Department's ability to give residents preference, combined with its inability to control federally protected populations of grizzly bears and wolves, will have "a profound effect on our state's sovereignty and our state's ability to manage wildlife.

"Ultimately what is harmed is Wyoming's wildlife," Crank said.

Wyoming won a similar lawsuit in 2000 that was filed by the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association. The lawsuit was filed in 1998 and sought to overturn the state's methods for distributing deer and elk licenses to out-of-state hunters.

In that case, U.S. District Judge Alan Johnson ruled that Wyoming's game regulations did not unconstitutionally impinge on rights of nonresident hunters and resident outfitters. The judge rejected the contention that Wyoming's license distribution system violated federal interstate commerce laws and equal protection laws.

Game and Fish Deputy Director of External Operations Bill Wichers said a coalition of Western lawmakers has introduced legislation in Congress that, if passed, would clearly authorize the various states' right to limit nonresident license sales.

"The legislation clearly states that the system that's been in existence for 100 years now can continue," Wichers said. "This bill may eliminate once and for all any frivolous lawsuits in the future. It would be very good, clarifying legislation that could put this issue to bed for good."

Notice that the case stated there is no prohibition on Arizona raising its non-resident licenses.

This thing isn't about fairness, it is all about Taulman lining his pockets. He will have enough clients willing to pay the big bucks. The little guy will get locked out.

As Nitro500 said on the Africa page, when the average guy can't afford to hunt, then hunting is doomed.

No doubt. I am sure the average Joe represents the vast majority of hunters. Also in todays paper the USF&W reported that in a 10 year period, 91 to 01, total number of hunters dropped 7.3% across the nation or 1,000,000 fewer hunters. They also reported the west was hit the worst, with 9.3% drop in the same period.

I sure don't see the drop when I am in the field.

Ditto on what AnotherAZWriter had to say. It will be a shame if the average guy (me) gets priced out of this great tradition. I guess the inmates will eat well with all the meat the rich hunters donate.

Deke.

Some delightful news!

George Taulman can go suck the big one!



Bill protects resident hunting preference

By JEFF GEARINO
Star-Tribune staff writer Friday, March 04, 2005




U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., has joined a group of lawmakers seeking to ensure the right of Wyoming and other states to limit nonresident hunting and fishing licenses.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department officials called the bill an important measure to preserve the state's right to regulate hunting within its borders.

Enzi said Thursday he is cosponsoring the measure in the Senate along with Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Max Baucus, D-Mont.; Ted Stevens, R-Alaska; John Ensign, R-Nev.; and Ben Nelson, D-Neb.

Enzi said the bill would protect the traditional authority of the states to regulate hunting and fishing. It would allow states to continue distinguishing between residents and nonresidents when issuing hunting and fishing licenses.

Enzi said in a press statement the bill was introduced in direct response to a recent court ruling in Arizona by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"This legislation represents a reality check for the 9th Circuit," Enzi said. "We are not going to give control to the federal government of one of Wyoming's most important assets."

The 9th Circuit Court tossed out Arizona's 10 percent cap on nonresident big game licenses after a New Mexico outfitter and other hunters sued over the state's cap, which was set in 1990.

A U.S. district judge originally upheld Arizona's assertion that hunting was recreation and sport, not commerce, and let the cap stand. But the appeals court overturned the 2002 ruling, calling the cap discrimination against nonresident hunters.

The court concluded that charging different prices for licenses for nonresidents and state residents, and by limiting the number of nonresident hunting licenses, the states could be violating federal interstate commerce laws.

The ruling sent a ripple of concern throughout the West, where many states, including Wyoming, have similar rules.

"Wyoming's wildlife is Wyoming's wildlife, and it's worth our watching out for who manages it," Enzi said. He noted "it's the state that bears most of the cost of wildlife management, even for species like the wolf and grizzly bear."

Game and Fish deputy director Bill Wichers welcomed the legislation and said the bill, if passed, would firmly uphold Wyoming's right to limit nonresident license sales.

"This legislation would very clearly state, through an act of Congress, that our limitation on percentages of licenses allocated to residents and nonresidents -- and the cost differential between the two -- is the state's prerogative and not a violation of interstate commerce," Wichers said in an interview.

Meanwhile, Wichers said Wyoming is waiting on a ruling in another case challenging the state's requirements on nonresident hunters. That case is now before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The lawsuit was brought by former Wyoming resident Donald J. Schutz, a Florida attorney who at one time attended Laramie High School and the University of Wyoming.

Schutz's lawsuit alleges that the state's system of allocating nonresident licenses violates equal protection laws and interstate commerce laws. He further alleges that the guide requirement for nonresident hunting in Wyoming wilderness areas is unconstitutional.

"This is still a very big case for us... That (appeal) decision could come almost any time now," Wichers said.

U.S. District Judge William Downes ruled in favor of the state in the Schutz lawsuit, which was filed in September 2002. Downes agreed with state attorneys who argued in briefs that nonresident hunters are not a suspect class, that hunting is not a fundamental right, and that Wyoming statutes are rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

Many of the Game and Fish big game license allocations are set by the Legislature through state statutes.

For example, the 20 percent of deer and antelope licenses and the 25 percent of bighorn sheep licenses going to nonresidents are statutory. Other license allocations are done by Game and Fish Commission regulations.

Wyoming won a similar court case and appeal in 2000 in a lawsuit that was filed by the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association in 1998.

Outfitters had complained for a number of years before the suit that a limited number of hunting licenses available to hunters from other states hurt Wyoming's outfitters and guides and prevented them from making as much money as they could on hunting revenues.

There is no doubht that people who come more than a thousand miles, pay inflated license fees, outfitter fees, for motel rooms and other items are commerce. On the other hand Wyoming residents have unlimited access to licenses via the general tag option for deer and elk.I can see the limiting of the total number of tags sold as a game management tool as is done in all draw areas. I have hunted Wyoming as both a resident and nonresident since 1979 and have only seldom had another hunter crowd me. I don't mid the licenses for nonresidents being limited to a certain percentage but I do mind the rip off of unfairly high license fees that Wyoming charges. Interestingly selfish and unfriendly types like Kudu56 are rare though maybe raising his fee to hunt might get his attention.

rickt300, you said it all. I agree with you 100%. When all the non-residents get sick off the fee's and quit going there, the resident hunters will have to foot the bill. Let's see how they like getting the shaft of the outrageous fee's. That has been my complaint all along. Ripping off the non-resident with the high fee's. Greed pure and simple. Nothing like resident hunters agents non-resident hunters.

If I were hunting in another state on PRIVATE land,I can see that I'm a guest and possibly could be charged more. If I'm hunting on Federal land--I should have as much right as a person that lives in that state. My tags for hunting on Federal land should be the same price as a person that happens to live n that state. The ratio of resident and non resident tags could be a percentage of how much Federal land is available for hunting. Is a person in the military exempt from dealing with enemies of that state since they are not a resdient of that state? No. Then they should have the same rights on FEDERAL property as the residents.

Supply and demand! There has never been a bull or buck license left over by the time the season starts.

quote:Interestingly selfish and unfriendly types like Kudu56 are rare though maybe raising his fee to hunt might get his attention.quote:

As for being unfriendly, I took a 75 year old, complete stranger elk hunting last fall. He was from Nebraska, had never hunted elk, and I met him on an outdoor forum similar to this one. A offerd a simple invitation to join me and my sons in elk camp wether he drew a tag or not. He drew a limited cow only tag and joined us for a week. We had a great time and made a friendship that will last. Oh and he and a buddy, also elderly, 72, drew the same cow tag for this year. And of course they are both welcome. I am so unfriendly and selfish!

So hopefully this bill will pass and states rights will be preserved. It isn't about fees and permits, it's about a states rights.

We have ventured far away from the intent of our founding fathers which envisioned a confederation of independent SOVERIGN STATES under the umbrella of a federal government which was to act on their behalf only in certain restricted areas of common interest or concern. As you recall, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states "Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
For those of you who haven't read it lately , Section 8 of THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION enumerates most of the specific duties of the federal government.
IMHO

States rights, not some lame lawyers attempt at protecting interstate commerce! Or George Taulman trying to fill his pockets and commercialize hunting.

quote:

Interestingly selfish and unfriendly types like Kudu56 are rare though maybe raising his fee to hunt might get his attention.

I have written the WyG&F every time they have raised resident license fees and supported it. I would and will gladly pay $200 for an elk tag. Sheep, I would shell out the same as a nonresident for a tag. The game and fish is funded by license sales, they do a good job here and as far as I am concerned, the Wy G&f is the best deal going. Hunting is a privelege not a right, I will pay for that privelege.

Kudu 56 said,

quote:

Hunting is a privelege not a right, I will pay for that privelege.

I guess he feels that if one can't afford to pay for for the privilege them then fuck them. Sounds like one selfish attitude to me.
Guess he feels only the rich should be allowed to hunt. hell, it's going that way anyway.
Paul B.

I get a real kick from of these out of state whiner's who think they pay too much to hunt MT... generally they're from prosperous states (any state is more prosperous than MT, being dead-last in wages), having better paying jobs than most in the Mid-Rocky Mtn states... we pay a price to live here economically... cheap, over the counter tag's are one small benefit for us. Anyway, have any of you dim bulbs from the original thirteen colonies heard of state's right's?

The idea that federal lands should not be administered by the state is not logical. With that logic, private landowners would get to set their own rules and not have to pay non-resident fees.

I own land in Colorado, but I am not a CO resident. Should I get to buy a resident license just because I own land?

Carpetman, if you apply your logic to Federal land, then you would have to do so for private land.

States own the wildlife within their borders.

On the subject of commerce, what about non-resident higher fees for college tuition?

Limiting the percentage of NRs makes sense. Charging them a boatload of money to hunt in other states does not make much sense, at least if you care about the future of hunting.

AnotherAzwriter, if you are a nonresident in Wy, and own 160 acres or more, that has some speicies of big game on it, you can get land owner tags and distribute them to family members. Yeah I know 160 acres is mucho expensive, but at least there is a provision here in Wy for nonresident landowners.

PaulB, I never said anything about rich or poor, all I said is, hunting is a privelege, check your state statutes, not a right, I will figure out a way to pay for that privelege the same as I do for any other privilege granted by the state.
Yes your right, it is rapidly becoming a rich mans sport, thank, George Taulman, Cabelas, and any other group or organization that is buying up leases at break neck speed to further commercialize hunting.

Resident vs. non-resident - let the states decide what to do. Everyone wants non-resident rates for the state that they live in to be outrageously expensive to reduce competition. Then when they want to hunt in another state, they gripe when they feel gouged by the non-resident fees (I have to catch myself when I fall into that same trap).

If you want to get cheap resident tags in a particular state, move there

Kudutroll is at it again. How can I push the non-residents buttons. What a troll.

Redhawk1, as much as you like to stir the pot, a true troll, I only posted the news articles because they affect us all. And a bill before the senate to protect the states right to manage wildlife. But by no means should a nonresident have the same privelege as a resident. The point of the entire post is that states have rights as per our constitution. Have you heard of the constitution? George Taulman and some slick lawyers tried to circumvent the states rights via a lame law suit using interstate commerce act. I am not trying to push anyones buttons, the bill before the senate will strengthen states rights. I think states have individual rights, DO YOU?

As for Cabelas and other organizations, they are leasing prime hunting grounds in Nebraska and Wyoming as fast as they can for guided hunting. Have you heard of Cabelas? I shop there to. Money talks and bullshit walks, of which you are full of.

Redhawk1, you obviously have a problem reading and comprehending the written word.

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
Redhawk1, you obviously have a problem reading and comprehending the written word.

Kudu... no, I think you're the one with the reading comprehension problem... my remarks were in no way directed toward you...

Originally posted by douglast:

......Everyone wants non-resident rates for the state that they live in to be outrageously expensive to reduce competition. Then when they want to hunt in another state, they gripe when they feel gouged by the non-resident fees (I have to catch myself when I fall into that same trap)........

Not everyone. I think the resident tags should be cheaper than non residents because we live, work, and pay taxes in our home states to support it. but I would like to see the non resident fees capped at about 5 times what a resident pays. Currently a non resident pays about $490 for an elk tag here in Wyoming. The 5X concept would cap it at $235, antelope at $155 and deer at $175. I believe it should be fair and equitable.

I used to live in Georgia and Colorado. If I ever go back to either one to hunt I have no qualms about paying the non resident fees because they are not my home anymore.

As for the argument that the federal government owns a lot of the land so non residents should pay the same on those lands. I cannot agree with that. True, the government owns a lot of land but the state owns the game.

Shucks folks, I don't want to see non residents not hunt in Wyoming. Not because they pay a goodly amount of the G&F budget through license fees. If we did not have that, the money would come from somewhere else. I want y'all folks come out here and hunt because I am pretty proud of this place and want to see other folks enjoy it as much as I do. I will even treat you to a cup of good ol' coffee.

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:
rickt300, you said it all. I agree with you 100%. When all the non-residents get sick off the fee's and quit going there, the resident hunters will have to foot the bill. Let's see how they like getting the shaft of the outrageous fee's......

Redhawk

How much money do you think actually gets paid to individual States by NR hunters? Not much when compared to the States Budget.

quote:

Originally posted by WyoJoe:
Originally posted by douglast:


Not everyone. I think the resident tags should be cheaper than non residents because we live, work, and pay taxes in our home states to support it. but I would like to see the non resident fees capped at about 5 times what a resident pays. Currently a non resident pays about $490 for an elk tag here in Wyoming. The 5X concept would cap it at $235, antelope at $155 and deer at $175. I believe it should be fair and equitable.

... snip ...

WyoJoe,

Good points. I think the reality is that states will set their non-resident fees as high as the market will bear. Also, I don't buy the argument that license fees should be lower to hunt on Federal land. The land is there for everyone to access - independent of taking game there. For those that want to hunt without buying a non-resident tag, go out there and varmint hunt.

I hunt in Wyoming each year for mule deer. I have not looked at the statistics from last year but it felt like the number of non-residents in the area that I hunt was WAY down. I attributed it to the significant fee increases for non-resident licenses. Sure the fee increase for non-residents was stiff but I still paid it. I get the sense that many other non-residents voted by closing their checkbooks.

By the way, I have had nothing but good to say about the resident hunters that I have crossed paths with in WY. They are friendly and respectful. I can't say the same about some of the "outfitter" pricks that try running hunters off of public land by intimidation. I have learned to be constantly aware of exactly where I am at while hunting using a current map and a GPS to fend off these guys.

Good hunting,
Doug

Brad,It was directed at PaulB who had posted directly above you. I agreed with what you had said. I apologize to you. I just scrolled up and got the wrong name!

I have never advocated elimination NR tags, the intent of the post is about what is giong on wiht NR hunting tags and an attempt by US Senators to protect states rights.

douglast,

quote:

I hunt in Wyoming each year for mule deer. I have not looked at the statistics from last year but it felt like the number of non-residents in the area that I hunt was WAY down. I attributed it to the significant fee increases for non-resident licenses. Sure the fee increase for non-residents was stiff but I still paid it. I get the sense that many other non-residents voted by closing their checkbooks.

Every year the demand excedes the supply of deer and elk tags here in WY. Last year all the deer tags alloted to NR were sold, wether they all showed up to hunt is not known, I sat in camp with 4 guys from Arkansas last fall,they just stopped to BS, they had been coming for 12 years to hunt cow elk. But last fall they all said it would be thier last, to much money for tags, and none of them shot an elk. So as long long as demand continues the G&F will not change things. I have friends or family that come every year, to deer, elk, bear,lion, or antelope hunt. (And even complete strangers). And they all complain about the price first, then the odds of drawing.

Another thing to think about: The states that have lots of Federal land,suffer for that fact in the sense that those lands are not generating tax revenue for the state.States should be able to charge non-res hunters higher fees,but I have to admit,it's starting to get a little too pricey for me.Dave

quote:

The states that have lots of Federal land,suffer for that fact in the sense that those lands are not generating tax revenue for the state.

Dave,

I think it is just the opposite. Federal lands actually generate income for the State since dollars flow from the Federal government for all sorts of things including land management. I would be interested to see an income analysis and whether or not Federal lands bring more dollars per acre than comparable privately held ranch land. Anyone know of such?

Doug

quote:

Originally posted by douglast:
.......I hunt in Wyoming each year for mule deer. I have not looked at the statistics from last year but it felt like the number of non-residents in the area that I hunt was WAY down. I attributed it to the significant fee increases for non-resident licenses. Sure the fee increase for non-residents was stiff but I still paid it. I get the sense that many other non-residents voted by closing their checkbooks.....

Give a shout if you are out this way (Laramie). I love this state and want to see people enjoy it.

Kudu, thank's for clearing that up... I was a bit perplexed as I felt we were on the same page.

Living in MT or WY is strictly a "Pay Per View" proposition... you "pay" to have such a "view!"

That's not to complain... I wouldn't live anywhere else... prospering here just requires a bit more creativity and drive than elsewhere...

BA

My F_ _k up!

Yes I am like you, no other place like Mt. or Wy. If I lost employment in one I would try the other.

Wyojo I agree. I lover that state & would like to move there but it would be very very expensive (divorce can be very expensive)
I take it as a privilage to be able to go to another state to hunt not a right. If I can only go once every other year or whatever so be it. I take the opportinity when I can. Some day I want to try Montana or even Idaho but for now Wyoming is the on.
Again it is a privilage not a right IMHO.
If this law goes into affect it will eventually price the average guy out of being able to hunt. I was a giude in Utah & New Mexico for several years for trophy Elk & Antelope & I was amazed at the money they are willing to pay. If we are not careful,only the wealthy will be able to enjoy what we sometimes take for granted.
There should be limited qoutas on out of state hunters plain & simple. We should pay more within reason (5x is okay).

I sure do wish they would drop the wilderness giude rule but the Outfitter boys have a pretty good lock on that & I cant blame them but I dont like it but again it is a privilage to be able to hunt Wyoming when I can draw & its not that bad of a draw atleast in region H or G.
I will be in Wyoming in late July or August heading into Two Ocean Pass & the Confluence. 2 years ago I came very very close to meeting my maker 15 miles back in the Wind Rivers & to think this great stuff is in youre back yard sure makes me green with envy..........

The wilderness issue is before a judge right now, a previous Wyoming resident who is an attorney in Florida filed a suit, against NR allocation and the wilderness issue.

I also think the wilderness issue is unconstitutional and discriminatory. IMHO, you can recreate in any imaginable task, 365 days a year in wilderness areas of Wyoming, but you can't hunt!

You can hunt in other states with wilderness areas without a guide, why not here?

It's funny but I pulled up Georgia
DFG and res deer is $9. and non resident $118. Washinton non resident for elk and deer $613. Calif non resident for deer $191. So are the western states the only one who charges for non resident? Every state charges a non resident fee let's be fair about this. I choose to hunt my home state and one of the benefits is the resident fee. You guys come out west to hunt deer and elk pay a non resident fee and complaint how unfair this is and that. If I decided to go to your home state I know there is a non resident fee I can either pay it on not that is my choice same as yours. Way I look at it is if you don't like the fee's don't buy them, don't support it. Let the resident shoulder more of the cost. Plain and simple.

quote:

Originally posted by tom holland:
It's funny but I pulled up Georgia
DFG and res deer is $9. and non resident $118. Washinton non resident for elk and deer $613. Calif non resident for deer $191. So are the western states the only one who charges for non resident? Every state charges a non resident fee let's be fair about this. I choose to hunt my home state and one of the benefits is the resident fee. You guys come out west to hunt deer and elk pay a non resident fee and complaint how unfair this is and that. If I decided to go to your home state I know there is a non resident fee I can either pay it on not that is my choice same as yours. Way I look at it is if you don't like the fee's don't buy them, don't support it. Let the resident shoulder more of the cost. Plain and simple.

It is not a matter of paying a higher fee, I do not mind paying a higher fee. I live in Delaware and I also hunt in Maryland and I do not mind paying the higher non-resident fee. It is just the Western States that charge an outrageous fee for non-residents. If the situation was reversed and AZ, WY, MT and some of the other States that have the Elk no longer had the Elk and say the Eastern part of the US was the ones with the Elk. Now if the people from MT, AZ, WY and other Western States wanted to come out here and hunt Elk, and say we charged an outrageous fee to the non-residents, they would complain also. What I think bothers a lot of non-residents is the proposal of AZ game & fish with the $3400.00 Elk fee and other western States following there example.

]

It is not a matter of paying a higher fee, I do not mind paying a higher fee. I live in Delaware and I also hunt in Maryland and I do not mind paying the higher non-resident fee. It is just the Western States that charge an outrageous fee for non-residents. If the situation was reversed and AZ, WY, MT and some of the other States that have the Elk no longer had the Elk and say the Eastern part of the US was the ones with the Elk. Now if the people from MT, AZ, WY and other Western States wanted to come out here and hunt Elk, and say we charged an outrageous fee to the non-residents, they would complain also. What I think bothers a lot of non-residents is the proposal of AZ game & fish with the $3400.00 Elk fee and other western States following there example.[/QUOTE] I don't mean to pick a fight with you but I pretty much know what Co,Mt and afew of the other western states get for non resident fees and everyone seems to single in on AZ and what they may or may not get for a non resident fee. I know it's not much but here in Co we dropped non resident fee by $5. and we are pretty close to most as to cost. We are getting an increase in resident fee here shortly. If you look at the resident fee's for most states a non resident will pay appr 10 times more. I don't consider AZ part of the big western hunting states they have a very small elk herd. You want to get after something look at new mexico their rancher control the tags don't see any outfitter sueing them they only want to sue over hunting on public land. For all the talk most do over elk etc belong to the public etc those elk in NM belong to the ranchers. There kind of doing the same thing here giving rancher tags and I think thats wrong. They get crop damage payments here and if they accept that there are suppose to let you hunt on that land but no one yet can find out who gets paid etc. Our hunting here is geared to the non resident. The towns that depend on that hunter income won't let those fee get too high just not going to happen here and I think the same with Wy and afew other states. If you look at AZ where does there money come from I don't think you will find many towns that depend on hunters income. Alot of guy on the east coast don't understand here if we don't quota the wildlife and hunters we just won't have it. Before we had to draw for deer and anyone could just buy a tag over the counter resident and non we darn near shot the herds out it's finally taken almost 10yrs to get those herd back up. We had a pretty good back lash after the deer were put on a draw only for me I didn't draw for two years but some non residents got tags and I'd would of gladly paid a higher fee to hunt in my home state that was the reason for the 60% to resident. I still have to draw and may not get a tag. My only sure bet is I can buy a leftover tag maybe or an over the counter bull tag. If you guy's back east couldn't get a tag in your home state for deer how would you feel. Before we moved to Co I paid non resident fee and it never bother me. Right now to me it's not the fee's thats are a concern but the chronic waste, amount of developement in the high country, trying to introduce the wolf here and the trading of national forest land to developer. I figure in about 25yrs won't have hunting the way things are going and won't be the fee's. Well good luck to all.

I have a problem with these law suits for several reasons.

First, the plaintiff lawyers are knowingly trying to go around the constitutioinal right of states to govern themselves and their commerce. This is an epedimic in this country and those of you fools who support it might as well send your money to the Brady bunch since they are doing the same thing and probably using the same lawyers. The fact is, the game belongs to the states, Federal land belongs to all. Non-res are not being charged an access fee to hunt Fed (even though the states build/maintain the state and county roads that access the land, pay money to fight the fires that threaten the land, etc), but the states have every right to charge WHATEVER they want for a game license. Trying to get judges to reinterpret the constitution is plain old chickenshit. If these guys had balls, they would go about it the right way and try to have the constitution ratified by getting 38 states to agree with them, but they don't have balls, they have money, and its easier for them to sue. I live in Colorado and hunt Colorado and Wyoming. I make a simple economic choice when I pay the more expensive tag in Wyoming. Trust me, if non-res have a problem, they should start voting with their wallets, the states will take notice and respond in kind. Its called capitalism and all of the whole world has bled for it or wishes they had. I wish these idiots fully understood the far reaching implications of what they are doing including wasting a whole bunch of money on their own selfish interests.

Deke.

5 times the resident tag fee would be alright with me. I can't see why Kudutroll is so in favor of the outrageous fees nonresidents pay. The nonresidents that come to hunt wyoming generate a lot of cash for the locals and I would rather have them profit than the game and fish department. As to the expense of managing elk, deer and atelope the weather is the master of that though winter feeding helps the elk herds. Something else that would help is Wyoming telling the government to kiss off on the wolf control issue and giving them varmint status.

quote:

Originally posted by rickt300:
The nonresidents that come to hunt wyoming generate a lot of cash for the locals and I would rather have them profit than the game and fish department. As to the expense of managing elk, deer and atelope the weather is the master of that though winter feeding helps the elk herds. Something else that would help is Wyoming telling the government to kiss off on the wolf control issue and giving them varmint status.

I think your opinion may be different if you lived here. I don't know of any state agency (especially the game and fish) who "profits" very much. Our legislature is pretty anti wildlife, and has a history of shitting on wildlife funding.

Yes, weather plays a big role on wildlife, and elk are fed annually. Drought years equal poor habitat, which results in more feeding. That has to be expensive.

Wyoming did tell the Gov't to kiss off, and so far all it has accomplished is to stall hopes of future wolf management. Hopefully it will work out in the long run, but I'm not very optimistic.

What alot of non residents don't see is the whole picutre. Of the money taken in by DFG here is Co 58% comes from residenct 42% from non. The big impact is money spent by non resident here it amounts to almost $300 a day and resident spent appr $35 per day . Now on the non resident that 42% takes in all license hunting and fishing. Besides taking care of wildlife our dept also has to take of the fishing plus other things. Colorado doesn't really look at the hunting or fishing but more to the dollar they bring into this state too spent and the appr 20K jobs generated. Same when I go out of state they look to the money that I bring in and will spent. I will tell you this much we get more non resident fisherman than hunters and they spent 50% more money than hunters. The number of non resident hunter and fisherman have dropped the last few year and I think that part of the reason for the increase in resident fees. The guys back east never hear of the cost to fly feed to elk and deer or pay for the cost of moving moose to new areas or buy access for trout fishing etc. Kind of makes one laugh when a non resident talks about a profit on hunting license.

quote:

Originally posted by tom holland:
What alot of non residents don't see is the whole picutre. Of the money taken in by DFG here is Co 58% comes from residenct 42% from non. The big impact is money spent by non resident here it amounts to almost $300 a day and resident spent appr $35 per day . Now on the non resident that 42% takes in all license hunting and fishing. Besides taking care of wildlife our dept also has to take of the fishing plus other things. Colorado doesn't really look at the hunting or fishing but more to the dollar they bring into this state too spent and the appr 20K jobs generated. Same when I go out of state they look to the money that I bring in and will spent. I will tell you this much we get more non resident fisherman than hunters and they spent 50% more money than hunters. The number of non resident hunter and fisherman have dropped the last few year and I think that part of the reason for the increase in resident fees. The guys back east never hear of the cost to fly feed to elk and deer or pay for the cost of moving moose to new areas or buy access for trout fishing etc. Kind of makes one laugh when a non resident talks about a profit on hunting license.

tom holland, maybe the residents don't see the cost we non-residents have to pay to fly to the Western States to hunt on top of the fee's. Maybe you residents don't see the contributions we non-residents make to the Elk foundation and never even hunted Elk. I know I go to the Elk Foundation dinner every year and make some large contributions to the Elk foundation. I have never hunted Elk and still made contributions so maybe one day they will be there when I got drawn. I am sure all the non-resident understand all the above you have mentioned about costs associated with fly feed to elk and deer or pay for the cost of moving moose to new areas or buy access for trout fishing etc. But all States incur costs for this, not just the Western States. So before you think we are all so simple and don't understand you need to know we are aware of it.

Redhawk1, I would suggest coming as soon as you can. If you ever choose Wy as an elk hunting destination, spend the $490, buy a flight ticket to Cody, I will pick you up and you can go with us. Unless you prefer bow hunting, do the same and I will show you where to hunt.

As for rickyT300,the know it all texan, I never advocated, in this theard, to raise nonresident fees. The thread was addressing states rights. Information for hunters, as to what is happening for our benefit..and detriment!!! I would gladly accept doubleing resident fees. No sweat, it might better my chance to draw as fewer people would apply. Some poeple pay for green fees, bar tabs,smoking,bowling, I hunt! When I draw! It's the price you pay for a privlelege. And done so with respect. It costs money to manage wildlife and oversee and protect the states most precious resources from morons like you!!