mouse - I'll get NV numbers and get back w/ you.

mouse - sorry, but the NV div. of wildlife website is down right now keep checking back I'll try to get it to you, but AZ will be MUCH worse, because it is THE elk state.

I contacted knight rifles by e-mail their first response was accusatory and slightly insulting, not outright hostile though. It didn't address (maybe intentionally) the issue. I replied to the 1st and the second reply was much shorter and simply said that the customer relations dept. was trying get the company to cut ties w/ USO as they put it "before USO runs further amuck". It sounded like the powers that be in knight were dragging their feet at the idea though. It's a good start, but I'm still not buying a knight; not yet anyway.

Regardless of what the #'s were last year or even this year, what needs to be remembered is that now if 75% of the people who apply are non-residents and only 25% of them are residents (which I believe can happen now that it is easier for a non to draw than a res) then your stats change with it. Fieldmouse, go take a stats course and then tell me I'm wrong. You'll quickly understand that you are still mistaken. You can consistently try and say "What are the #'s? What are the #'s?" when in fact NVMike said it all..... If the # of non-res applications increase to the point of making the res's applications more of a minority then of course the ratio of tags given to res's and non-res's will change. What also needs to be remembered is that it is not a 50/50 draw. Now non-res's can actually take the majority of the hunts away if they are the majority applying for those tags.

I would like to hunt your great state some day, but I agree with you guys, you pay to maintain the land and its herds so there should be a cap on out of state tags, as for this ruling I feel it violates the states right to govern it self. I hope you guys win your appeal. As fo the USO I think they give all outfitters a bad rap. Hope they lose.

Green Archer - thanks for the support, join the boycott.

NVMike,

I'm not at all against you all mantaining the numbers you desire of a 90/10 split. I just don't think you all need to worry too much because it's very do able.

With that said, I know your trying to get the application number breakdown. I'm very interested with these numbers. I can guess from the reaction of Az opening up 850 more tags that they will come in as a 4 to 1 ratio. That means 20% were from out of state. If they raise the fees high enough for non-residents this will make them go else where to hunt and bring that number down. What I don't know is if some how non-resident fees are some how tied to resident fees. Lets hope not.

The ruling that would make this a disaster is if they said you couldn't charge different between res and non-res. That would be totally wrong.

Guys, I appreciate the fact we can discuss back and forth our different opinions.

NVMike, you are right about the fact there is a different mindset with people on the East Coast, especially when it comes to resident/non-resident issues. I live in Mass, work in New Hampshire, visit my wife's family in CT often and hunt and fish in 4 or 5 different states each year (and pay through the nose to do it). I don't see each state as an island as many here do. I know for a fact that almost every state funds it's Wildlife management efforts by at least 1/2 on the money of the collective country. Yes there are exceptions.. but they are rare. I also know that ANY state a person chooses to hunt requires paying for a license .. or entering a lottery and hoping you get lucky. As hunters why should not evryone get an equal shot at drawing a tag??? You get the benefit of paying less than a 1/4 of what I pay for being a resident. Is that not enough? Now I have to have a fraction of the odds you do for the same tag. I do not want some outfitter to get preferential treatment .. I'm talkin average Joe American getting an equal shot at harvesting an animal on Federal land. If you want to have different rules for land owned by residents ... knock yourself out. A resident "owns" that land .. but hunting Federal land is property I have just as much right to hunt as you.

I mentioned I served my country, not to say I deserved anything over anyone, but to bring up the point that we all pay and earn the right to take part equally in everything the country has to offer. I can move and work in Montana if I choose .. and nobody tells me that I "stole" a resident persons job or took a resident's alloted house. Arizona is an example of a bad system. There is limited resources in comparison to the demand to take part. I am not advocating to throwing open the doors and letting anyone in, but a system that weighs equally the needs of everyone.

Someone asked when was the last time I helped build a guzzler ... the answer is, in Arizona, exactly 12 years ago, after spending 2 weeks fighting fires on our Federal land. I have stocked salmon and trout, assisted game depts with problem bears, cleaned ponds, lakes and rivers .. all in states other than I live. I am not looking for boy scout of the year .. but a fair shot, the same shot as anyone else at hunting for 1 of those huge Arizone Bulls.

You can boycott USO all you want, but don't stab me, my brother and the thousands of guys just like me, in the back and shove your finger in our face while reaching for some poacher. The argument I have heard over and over that if we want to hunt a particular state we should live in that state is bogus. I say if you want to hunt every year travel to the place you can get permission every year. If you ever get lucky enough to draw that moose tag let me be the first to shake your hand .. because I haven't yet in 12 years.

God! This is getting old. How can the same statements be pounded out over and over as fact when they're not. AZ is the basis and just punch up the AZ game and fish site and analyze the annual report or read old posts. We do not get the majority of funding from sucking the federal teat. Military service is much appreciated but what's that got to do with the facts of the USO case? The suit was based on the interstate commerce clause and NOT on discrimination toward non-res hunters. Another one is that all of the country owns bambi. Read again, courts ruled long ago that the feds own the land and the states own the animals. Stating the opposite over and over doesn't make you right. We have a 10% non-res cap. It may be moved up along with cost. The USO suit can be whipped by a 2/3 vote of our legislature outlawing the transport of game animal parts by a business. I hope this works out with more non-res tags and a good screwing of USO. That said, I hope those tags are not out of reach of the average hunter. No way will hunters here roll over for the liberal 9th district and you can call it anarchy if ya want.

Glenin .. I did go over the annual report.. even posted it here so everyone can see.

This thread hasn't kept going because of USO .. it has legs because some people .. me specifically, think that 10% of a state's big game tags for an animal is bull crap. No hunter I know wants the price of hunting to go so high it becomes the exclusion of the rich .. but by the same token nobody in their right mind wants to be limited to the hunting possibilities in their own state.

Can you understand why some of us aren't outraged? Trust me, I wish some crusading, squeeky clean guy won and not some poacher ... but that deosn't mean the decision of the courts was bad as the thread title states.