Re: Anything new concerning USO?

16 September 2004, 13:51

Redhawk1

Quote:

Agree. Good luck on your hunt and post some pictures for us.

And, there's an ~ 85% chance you will be huting on public property there, not private property (as it's approximately 85/15 ratio of public to private property in Az.).

I wasn't joking earlier about USO being fully booked for Az.

Dungbeetle

I think you are correct in that statement. There are 4 of us in our group. Right now we are just accumulating bonus points. We are looking to go in 2006 if we draw tags.

16 September 2004, 11:24

Redhawk1

I am not here to upset anyone, but I am using USO to book a hunt in Arizona for Elk. I think USO did nothing wrong. They used the courts to change the laws. They did nothing illegal or back door any of this. I am a nonresident and have wanted to draw an Elk tag in Arizona for quit some time. Now my chances are better. I feel after a while the people and advertisers that backed out in supporting the USO will loose in the end. I will not purchase any of there products.

11 September 2004, 15:27

dzpoorjr

Quote:

New? Yeah, they're fully booked for Az.

If you know this you must be working for them-where are they setting up their camps-lots of Arizonans would like to know!

10 September 2004, 08:32

Autumn Pulse

Last I heard, all of their sponsors had pulled out. I realize this won't put them out of business or anything, but it had to send a pretty clear message.

Has their been any new developments or public statements put out by them that anyone knows of?

Is their anything new with AZ or any of the other states? Or is this whole thing kind of on hold until 05' lottery policies are reviewed and ammended this upcoming year?

Now that all his sponsors have jumped ship, is there anything that a non-resident (WA State) like myself can do short of sending hatemail to ol' George?

Thanks,

Autumn Pulse

12 September 2004, 05:10

Ivan

Quote:

If you know this you must be working for them-where are they setting up their camps-lots of Arizonans would like to know!

What are they going to do? Shoot em? Beat em up? It's stupid statements like this that if action is taken upon will set back your efforts even further.

12 September 2004, 11:47

Paul Libby

Quote:

Quote:

If you know this you must be working for them-where are they setting up their camps-lots of Arizonans would like to know!

What are they going to do? Shoot em? Beat em up? It's stupid statements like this that if action is taken upon will set back your efforts even further.

I can't speak for dzpoorjr, but I would use the information to plan my hunt away from their camps. During my last bull hunt in AZ, we camped at our usual spot, only difference was that USO was about 1/2 mile away, and had been set up there for a long time. First night in camp, one of their outfitters cruised through camp on an ATV, eye balling us "as potential clients?". Our camp was not on a roadway, so it made is difficult for him to "look casual". Last seen that evening, he was driving the ATV cross country, through the area we were to hunt the next morning. The long term presence of their camp, and daily activity scouting significantly changed the behavior of the large bulls.

Having to do it over, I would have moved camp the first day to distance myself from those folks. By the way, other camps in the area have not proved to be a problem in the past, but they were occupied by self outfitted hunters, had not been there long in advance of the hunt, and none of the occupants felt it necessary to drive through our camp, off road.

16 September 2004, 12:47

Dungbeetle

Agree. Good luck on your hunt and post some pictures for us.

And, there's an ~ 85% chance you will be huting on public property there, not private property (as it's approximately 85/15 ratio of public to private property in Az.).

I wasn't joking earlier about USO being fully booked for Az.

Dungbeetle

12 September 2004, 11:27

okie john

Here is are some emails I exchanged with the good people at USO:

I started with:
I have followed your lawsuit closely, and I am infuriated by your recent
"victory."
Each hunter pays taxes in his or her own state. Those taxes keep the
State Game Department afloat. The Game Department takes care of the
game. If I come in from out of state, I should pay more to hunt the game others paid to raise. If I don't, I'm no better than the Mexican citizen who swims the Rio Grande to sign up for welfare in the US.

Because of this view, I have sent strongly worded emails to the compaines listed in your press release either a) thanking them for
pulling support from your company, or b) urging that they do so
immediately. If you insist on continuing to pursue ï¿½tags and licenses for non-resident hunters as a result of your "victory," I promise to
write legislators in every state, asking them to force non-resident
hunters to apply for their tags in person.

Signed

Okie John

Their reply:

John,

The taxes you pay does not go toward Game and Fish Management. ï¿½These cost are paid from license fees and Pitman and Robinson monies. ï¿½Nonresidents pay more money for game management in your state than residents do. ï¿½Less than 14% of the tags will be drawn by residents without the quotas. ï¿½Why the fury?

George
USO

My reply, after a surprisingly short period of internet research:

Dear USO,

I wish it were that simple, but game management costs far more than what Pittman-Robertson provides, and the feds never meant to pick up the whole tab anyway. Per the Federal Aid homepage of the US Department of Fish & Wildlife homepage, "The program is a cost-reimbursement program, where the state covers the full amount of an approved project then applies for reimbursement through Federal Aid for up to 75 percent of the project expenses. The state must provide at least 25 percent of the project costs from a non-federal source."

Even if we forget about interest on that money while the state waits for the feds to cut a check, weï¿½re still not completely covered. From the same site, I see that "For planning-related grant activities, the States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico must provide a minimum 25 percent match and a 50 percent minimum match for all other types of eligible activities."

So at best, a fraction of my stateï¿½s game-management expenses come from the source you cited. But it costs much more to take care of our game and serve hunters. For instance, per a 19 July 2004 Washington DF&W press release announcing the ground-breaking ceremony on the new Spokane Region office, ï¿½The Washington Legislature and Governor Gary Locke approved $3.9 million in the 2003-05 state budget for phase one of the office, laboratory, shop and warehouse complex project, covering site selection, design, site preparation, and office construction.ï¿½

Per the federal website noted above, $3.9 million is the total amount of Pittman-Robertson money that came to Washington State for Hunter Education and wildlife programs combined. So federal money is just about enough to pay for one of six offices that WA DFW needs, and that's only if new hunters and wildlife go begging until next fiscal year.

Well actually, thatï¿½s not completely true, because that $3.9 didnï¿½t cover it all.

From the same press release, ï¿½WDFW had requested $5.6 million to include construction of a small laboratory for fish and wildlife science needs, a small shop for access site maintenance, and a warehouse for boat and other equipment storage. Those parts of the project will likely be dependent on phase two state funding.ï¿½

Phase two state funding, George, comes out of my take-home pay, and with it comes my fury at your organization. Maybe thatï¿½s why we who pay for game management -- state residents, in other words -- got on the horn to Barnes, Crooked Horn, Primos, Swarovski and others and let them know that we would not support them if they continued to support you. I requested catalogs from each of those firms when I emailed them, but a lot of people placed orders to show support.

Because in the end, George, we all know itï¿½s all about dollars and cents.

Signed,

Okie John

I sent this reply to them on 25 August. Since then, the silence has been deafening. Draw from this exchange what you will, but I get the impression that George gets his facts from a different place than I do.

Okie John

16 September 2004, 14:44

Outdoor Writer

Dungbeetle,

No, there won't be much to grandfather, as long as any new rules do not violate the Commerce clause in the Constitution. I can guarantee that the state's attorneys will make SURE of that.

And yes other states will be keeping a close watch on what happens here, thus possibly preempting any ruling USO might get in its favor due to the CURRENT rules. -TONY

16 September 2004, 15:53

muskrat89

Well, I would have to say that USO used a "legal backdoor". This is money driven, pure and simple. I guess ultimately, it depends on whether you think Residents should be favored in their own states or not. Funny they are not going after bear hunting in Maine, or pheasant hunting in South Dakota (yet). Why? No dollars to be had. If they were truly representing Non residents rights across the US, then they should be filing suits almost everywhere.. Oh - well, I gues they are, in the west at least...

Good luck in your hunt!

16 September 2004, 17:01

Dungbeetle

Tony and Muskrat,

A hard to see thing right now with all of the smoke but this may very well turn out to be (intermediate to long term) one of the better things that's happened to the western hunting scene (for all average Joes). Especially, if other states 'get in gear', find loopholes and weak spots, correct them and then work with each other to preserve their self contol.

It - IS - all about the money and that's the American business way. An unlocked legal backdoor is as good as the front door if it gets you in the house. No business fights legal windmills now days. Those that do get the Darwin award. Gotta focus the effort where the greatest payback is to be found, then pick up droppings and scraps.

USO, with their size and reach, does use/hire local folks as guides for those specific areas, dont they?

Dungbeetle

17 September 2004, 07:44

Rogue6

I would love to USO get locked out of Arizona. Why? Because karma is a real thing and I love to see a bully get a black eye. If they went out of business because of this it would be a good thing for hunting rights. Legislation and law should not be created by the Judiciary, although USO is not creating new law they are definately manipulating game laws for their own profit.

17 September 2004, 08:58

Redhawk1

I do not think USO will go out of business any time soon, they have a big cliental. USO uses outfitter in the States people chose to hunt. The outfitters in Arizona will be getting clients from USO. You don't think USO provides all the outfitters do you.

As far as South Dakota is concerned, the Pheasant hunting is a big business.

17 September 2004, 12:51

SnakeLover

Muskrat - Pheasant hunting in SD is not sold on a lottery or draw system. You buy the license over the counter, and therefore it doesn't really match up with the USO situation. Having spent 20+ years living there, the residents have it real good.

They currently give the resident hunters multiple tries to get a deer tag before they open it up to NR hunters. They have not one, but two drawings for an East River deer tag, before the NR even gets a chance. And if the tags are all gone by the 3rd drawing, oh well.

I have traded emails over the years with guys in the GF&P department to encourage them to allow us NR a better chance. For example, guys like me that go back for the pheasant opener in Oct would go back at Thanksgiving as well to hunt deer with family and friends, and at the same time use my second 5 day season for pheasants. Thus when deer hunting with my family, I always have the shotgun, walk the sloughs, etc.. to push deer, while also shooting roosters. While I enjoy it, I would like to have a shot at hunting deer there again, and have repeatedly asked why they won't allow NR a shot at the second drawing - no guarantees there either. The answer I always get is, the residents chose to stay here and accept less wages, etc.. so they get better shot at hunting here.

Having seen both sides of the fence, I respect them for doing what they are doing. However, I would think the value to the GF&P if they sold 5% of the leftover tags in the second drawing for 5x the amount residents ($30 vs $155)pay would be worthwhile to everyone.

Brad

17 September 2004, 12:33

Dungbeetle

Far Out, Rogue6, Far Out !

Dude, Ralph Nader and the greenies are looking for a few good men to help with his campaign. He's your man, Dude. Answer the call !

Dungbeetle

17 September 2004, 17:36

Mickey1

I've always felt that some hunters will do anything and screw anybody to save a buck or get a chance at a bigger animal. This is true of people going to Zimbabwe and hunting on siezed land, people flying and shooting in Alaska, people claiming resident status when they are not, people going out with outfitters in Oregon who 'only hunt at night', and people taking tags that should go to residents because of a non-hunting Judge in San Francisco.

It's hard to take the high road with the Animal Rights People when we have given up our integrity for a good deal or a bigger trophy.

I hope Arizona fights back and makes it so expensive for non-resident hunters that Bill Gates would need a loan to hunt there.

17 September 2004, 17:26

AnotherAZWriter

You nailed it Muskrat

17 September 2004, 17:17

muskrat89

You guys missed my point (albeit because I used a poor example). USO and others pass this off as defending the rights of Non residents, blah blah blah. If that was indeed true, they wouldn't have started their crusades in the States where tags were most lucrative.. That was my point..

I am aware of the big business of both Maine bear, and SD pheasant, as I am a Booking Agent, and my line of Outfitters includes Outfits in both of those states....

17 September 2004, 20:50

Dungbeetle

Mickey,

I agree (sadly) with much of what you've said here. I dont think, however, that anyone can say that USO and its clients compare to, say, OOA and it's Zimbabwe clients. Nor to anyone or group that books with unliscensed guides as did recently happen in BC and they all got nailed. Pretty much all of your 1st paragraph, type stuff.

Like you point out, NR fees are much the domain of the Az. F&G but even that, too, is not immune from legal challenges if they are too far out of line with surrounding States for the same species.

Dungbeetle

18 September 2004, 02:40

Redhawk1

Mickey1, I resent being compared to any of your references. Sorry I can afford to pay for a guided hunt for an animal (Elk) I have never hunted, but I have supported the Elk Foundation with big donations before ever considering hunting them. I am not a Duck hunter but support Ducks Unlimited. Yes, this hunt is going to cost a good sum of money, but remember this is the United States and I as well as anyone else have the gods given right to hunt in the United States. I get real tired of people saying that they live in these different States and do not make much money deserve to have the best chance to draw first.

My parents live in Arizona and make a very good living. I guess I could be unethical and use my parents address and apply for a resident Elk tag, but I choose to do it the legal way.

So all you high and mighty people putting down us nonresidents need to get a reality check. If you have noticed, hunting is a big industry and is becoming a big money sport.

Also USO and other companies are in the business to make money, did you think they did it just for the fun of it.

18 September 2004, 03:06

muskrat89

Quote:

If you have noticed, hunting is a big industry and is becoming a big money sport.

Exactly - and I feel that USO took that trend, and put it on hyper-drive. "To heck with AZs Game Management, to heck with THEIR residents - there's a dollar to be had, and we're going to get it." What about all of the extra tags that had to be allotted, to satisfy the Court's decision? In some Units, it doubled or almost tripled the number of hunters. USO pushed this into "money over management" and that's what is irking people.

Anyone who is setting their sights on "Joe non-resident" is sadly misdirected in my opinion - it is USO that our quarrel should be with.

I said it before - if you got drawn, I hope you have a great hunt!