RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

[quote]ORIGINAL: SpyroAndes

glad you finaly admitted it

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

So are you saying that wildlife service should be mandatory of all resident hunters? Or that residents that do wildlife service should be given preference?

How about me?

I built guzzlers for sheep in two states.

I built guzzlers for other wildlife in another state.

Should I get preference in those states because I took the time off of work and my busy schedule to help wildlife in those states?

Frankly, I did it because I love the wildlife and want future generations to have plenty of game to hunt... Don't get me wrong, I wrote off the mileage and other expenses because it is considered a charitable donation but I never had any ulterior motives like improved chances for the draw.

I completed my hunter's safety course 25 years ago.

Do you know that I have flown to Phoenix just to take a hunter's safety course to get the extra bonus point that you receive from completing an Arizona Hunter Safety Course?

I have friends don't need a hunter safety course because of their age or have taken it years ago in a different state like me that have done the very same thing?

If you hunt in the west, you have to do everything that you can to hunt somewhere as a non resident...

And I'll have applications submitted in Idaho (sheep, mule deer & elk), Nevada (mule deer, antelope & sheep), Arizona (mule deer, sheep, elk & antelope), Utah (mule deer), Wyoming (mule deer), New Mexico (oryx & elk), Montana (mule deer), Colorado (mule deer & sheep) and Oregon (blacktail, antelope & sheep). Out of all those applications... I MIGHT DRAW ONE TAG! And that will probably be my Montana Mule Deer LandOwner sponsored tag.

SA

PS. Btw, your state doesn't own the water, grazing or mineral rights on federal property (forest, park, blm or military facility), why do they believe they own the wildlife resource? If your state believes that they own the wildlife, they should pay grazing rights for the wildlife on federal lands. Why should more of my hard earned tax dollars goto subsidize the free grazing of wildlife, that your state claims that they own, on federal property? Also since your state is conducting a commerical enterprise, selling the right to hunt wildlife on federal lands, don't you think that they should give the feds a kick back? I guarantee if I opened a business that utilized federal lands, I'd be paying the feds for that opportunity.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

No, no, your a kalifornian! Just by your posts you areone deep inside.,

The intent of this thread was about states rights and the attempt our US Senators are doing to secure those rights. I as a resident should have some privielege towrds hunting licenses. We pay taxes, work, spend 90% of our income in our states, support schools, businesses, and communities. As soon as the bill passes the senate this argument will be settled. Not over but settled. And for those that don't want to pay $490 for an elk tag, don't!!!! Some one else will! Demand excedes supply ever year. And as far as I am concerned raise my resident fees, I will give up my cable tv, or internet provider, or water my lawn less, quit buying beer, work more overtime, some how I will come up with the funds to apply for a tag, because I cherish the privelege to hunt here and it is more important to me than the above mentioned vices!

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

i am not a religous man but, AMEN! RANDYA!

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Lol, ok fine... Then this Californian can hunt circles around you. Does that make you feel better?

Oh and I am an American. You people are complaining about our court system and their rulings, not me.

That is what I am doing. Btw, the proposed bill has been able to stand on it own feet and has tried to attach itself to two other bills but has failed.

Notice that the majority of the senators supporting the bill are from states that have been sued (Nevada) and the state he has in his sights (wyoming).

Are you trying to say that non-residents don't spend money in these states? That would be a rather foolish stance to take since many of these states have only 2 lucrative industries... outdoor tourism and selling their land to Californians.

Please explain what paying taxes has to do with anything? These Wildlife Departments are completely funded by tag and license revenues.

When it comes to the University of Wyoming, your kids should get preference because of your taxes but, when it comes to hunting and wildlife, your arguement doesn't hold water.

Since we are on the topic of taxes... if you get pulled over in Idaho, should your traffic violation cost you 10x what a resident would pay?

I mean the troopers are funded by that resident's taxes and the Idaho Dept of Transportation maintains those roads so you should pay more right?

The practice is wrong but people are willing to pay so screw you?

Lol, I hope that one day that not a single non-resident applies to hunt your state's rag horns so you are saddled with a $2400 elk tag (what arizona is now charging non-residents) and we will see how quickly you yell "Foul!"....

I am thinking that all your big talk is just that talk... You'd be on here whining if they just doubled your elk tag cost let alone set them at non-resident prices.

Btw, this bill won't pass the senate from all indications.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Spyro

You seem to have some amount of disposable income that will allow you to apply, and perhaps travel to and hunt a variety of states this year

Perhaps the economical situation for you would not be the same if you lived here, or in Idaho or Wyoming

Typically, Montana residents are not as economically well off as people from less rural settings-
I can attest to this personally as (like Elkcrazy8) I am a transplant from somewhere else (East Coast for me) and have taken around a 60% pay cut to move here. Do I consider myself worse off--hell no---I feel like I am much richer because I have the chance to experience the outdoors that most people just read about, But, have I made sacrifices--hell yeah---starting over in a new place, having to tighten my belt, being thosands of miles from life long friends and family. If you want to have the same rightful privileges as a resident---Move, and perhaps make those same sacrifices---although, with your attitude--you should think very carefully about it. And if your job, CA lifestyle, family, or whatever prohibit you then just be glad you have the opportunity to have the resources to possibly enjoy many different states and their hunting. Don't begrudge those who spend their lives here because they have better chances and pay less to enjoy their local resources--after all they choose to live here---you choose to live there.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

HillBilly,

Why should your benifit for living there be cheaper tags and licenses?

Why shouldn't your reward be that you can utilize the outdoors more often?

Seriously, I don't understand the premise of your point...

Residents that live in Southern Utah aren't garanteed to hunt the Pansigant.

Residents in Northern Arizona aren't guaranteed to hunt the Arizona strip or Kaibab.

Residents in Western New Mexico aren't guaranteed to hunt the Gilas.

But residents of many of these states feel that they are entitled to "hunt in their backyards" which makes the deer herd on the Pansigant the most heavily poached herd in the country.

Which makes the elk on the Mongollon Rim in Az and the Gilas in NM, the most heavily poached elk herds in the country.

Yall are entitled to hunt in your yards right?

Here is my question... Is a resident of lets say Aspen entitled to cheaper lift tickets than a non-resident of Aspen. I mean they live there right?

Frankly, I don't believe that you moved to Montana for cheaper tag prices.

You moved to Montana so you can experience the outdoors more often.

Same reason I spend June, July and part of August back in Idaho. I fish the heck out of the Park, Henry's Fork, the Beaverhead, the Madison and etc.

Frankly, I decided my career path based upon my passion for the outdoors. I have breathed hunting and fishing since I was 6 years old.

The reason that I work for myself is so I can take off whenever I want.

Peace

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

EXACTLY

And in order for residents to utilize the outdoors more often---they should be given the lion's share of the tag allotments.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Three months a year spent back in Idaho constitutes residency? According to fish and game thats not long enough to be a resident is it? Another thing, With all the tags you keep putting in for as a non resident ,could be the reason why the tags are so high. If I had a product I would not wait for someone to buy it for 5 dollars if many are standing in line to pay 500 dollars for the same item. At this point I think that I will agree to disagree and call it quits on this thread. Good luck in your tag draws this year. And by the way, I have no problem buying a second tag at non-resident prices, as I did a couple of years ago after killing a P&Y raghorn. As Paul Harvey says............................Good Day.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

For the people who keep insisting that their state doesn't receive federal funds I suggest you go to your state game department and do a search for Pittman/Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act.

I haven't found one yet that doesn't get money from the feds.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Lol, ok fine... Then this Californian can hunt circles around you. Does that make you feel better?


Yada yada yada! I didn't come on here to change the world or brag! I just wanted to post a news item that will affect us all and will maybe shut down George Taulman. The post is about states rights, a right, not a privelege. By the constitution. I know in Kalifornia you don't recognize the constitution or respect it. And if you read the origanal post, Ben Nelson is also a co-sponser, from Nebraska. That's a big game mecca! Lots of federal land there!

The wildlife belongs to the states, Wyoming law clearly states and supports it. Your claim to federal land and wildflife is a lame round about way to circumvent states rights. Keep trying, it ain't gonna happen. Residents should have some privelege for living in a state, other wise why have individual states???? Hmmmm, like the old Russia! One union, one country, yes comrad, you might be on to something.

Wirehair, we pay Pitman Robertson taxes here to. Regardless the the majority of funds to the WYG&F come from license sales. Over 85% of thier budget.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

RandyA, I never said you didn't pay PR taxes, but a lot of posts have the "our state gets nothing from the federal government" or " all our money comes from license and tag sales". Everyone who buys outdoor products pay into it.

According to their annual report PR funds account for about 50% of WYG&F budget not 15%. Their wildlife division budget for 2004 was $14,407,986 and they recieved $7.1 million from the fund.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Lol, Wirehair... don't confuse them with facts.

The scary thing is that of that $7 million that comes from license and tag sales... Non-Resident sales contribute more than 60% of it.

So basically, the Residents of Wyoming contribute a total of $3,000,000 of their Game Department's $14,500,000 budget.

But they are supposedly owed something...

It is Wildlife Welfare...

A complete handout...

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Many reasons, here goes a few.

Because residents have been putting in time and money into their own state. There are many small organizations, from the state that fund projects for wildlilfe projects, which in return support the State and Federal resources. Every state has them. Whether it is the Nevada Bighorns Unlimited who continue to raise money for wildlife projects, or the Arizona Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, they're made up almost entirely by residents(I'm sure there are a few non-res.). The benefits made from these organizations now will be reaped of them, due to the much more limited access. These are "Residents" putting into the system and doing the work, not "Nonresidents". If the Fed's want to manage the states resources, then rid of the State G & F dept., otherwise, let them do their job.

Residents should also have the advantage of the tags system for game management. Majority of the resident hunters do not hunt out-of-state. They hunt in the same places every-year(as long as the outfitters don't get them). With that being said, the majority of hunters will pay more and many will not want to pay 2-3 times the amount to be "equal" to non-resident tags. Many people hunt because it saves them money in the long run. The rise would have to happen to keep the same amount of income. So the decrease of resident hunters, especially meat-hunters, would mean less deer. Maybe the state would then increase the non-resident permits. But the vast majority of non-residents do NOT shoot anything but bucks. Does anybody already see the deer population on the increase? And guess who will be liable to the lawsuits, from the insurance agencies and lobbyist? You guessed it, the State Wildlife and Parks. And all of this for a some greedy out-of-state hunters. Give me a break! Why would the Wildlife and Park do that, theyd be stupid? Taulman found a loophole on the Fed. land, with no more ambitions than filling his pockets full.

And some think that not making residents and non-residents hunters equal is unfair to non-residents? No, making it equal would be unfair to majority of all residents. Remember, majority of hunters don't hunt out of state. Think about it. Majority of resident hunters will have to pay more for hunting their own land and have a lesser chance at getting a tag, and you justify it by saying they are more likely to get a tag in another state for less money, when they don't even want the tag.

Discrimination between residents and non-residents should continue to happen. Complaining about not getting enough tags or being too expensive is ridiculous. But that is my opinion, everybody has their own. Discrimination is everywhere. Maybe next time, rifle hunters will sue the state for not having as good of seasons as the bowhunters. Maybe bowhunters will sue the state for having units where as rifle hunters do not. Maybe a rifle hunter will sue Iowa for not being able to use a rifle. This is all discrimination. Where does it stop. Everywhere you look is discrimination. And lawsuits are down both paths of the road. There's is always going to be some Lawful Loophole, that people like Taulman will find, to meet their needs, which in his case $$$. Hunting Regulations are a right given to the state. The state manages the land a resource, whether it be Federal, Public, or Private. So let them do their job.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Max Baucus, D-Mont.; Ted Stevens, R-Alaska; John Ensign, R-Nev.; and Ben Nelson, D-Neb.

Nuff said... Senators trying to protect the handouts for their residents.

That is the point... Your state law is wrong according to Federal Judges...

Will a reference to Nazi Germany be far behind?

Act like an intelligent individual and don't misrepresent the opposition's stance to draw comparisions to communism.

I guess that wirehair proved you wrong?

Hey atleast you don't need to stand in line for your wildlife welfare...

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Let me address this with a couple of different points...

1) Charity work should be done for just that CHARITY. Not for some personal gain.

2) I belonged to several of these small local organizations and about 10%-20% of their membership was from non-residents.

3) The VAST majority of the funds raised by these small local organizations were not from residents. They were from auctions, more importantly Governor's Permits, to NON-RESIDENT hunters. Most of the hunts that were donated to these banquets were from OUT-OF-STATE outfitters.

The feds don't want to manage the wildlife... They just feel that the tag allocation differences and the pricing differences are absolutely rediculous.

Please tell me how a resident shooting a deer is different than a non-resident from shooting a deer... both serve that same purpose in managing herds.


You only believe that non-resident tags are 2 or 3 times more expensive? Are you naive?

Non-residents generally pay 10 to 25 times of the resident price for the tag.

So if non-residents shoot nothing but bucks... the resident meat hunters, which you seem so concerned about, would have all the tag allocation because no non-residents would be in that draw pool.

So basically, you are claiming that your local Wildlife Department is already mismanaging your deer herds because every herd is on the decline?

But we should let them do what they are doing...

Let me put it this way... nobody would cry "HANDOUT", "FOUL" or "UNFAIR" louder than you guys if Montana declared that Native Americans could sustinance hunt on all public land like they do in Canada.

But they should be able to do that right because they are the ORIGINAL RESIDENT and we are all non-residents, right?

That is MANAGEMENT and nobody is fighting that.... We are talking tag allocation discrimination and tag pricing discrimination.

You just told me that they are doing a poor job of management because all the deer herds are on the decline.... Why do you want them to continue to do the same job that they are doing?

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

SpyroAndes,

You missed a lot of points, with your selective cutting and pasting. Paragraphs are there for a reason.

By using your ex.: 10-20% of the organizations Nonresidents put a vast(vast means 90%+) majority of the funds into the state organization. I don't buy that(per avg. state org.), and I doubt anyone else here does.

All you have to do is read a little further down on my paragraph. You point is fabricated out my a point which was only stated in a Copy/Paste. If you read further down, you'll answer you're own question.

Nope you're wrong. For a hypo. example. If a NR tag in KS cost $400 and a Res. tag cost $40, and your "equal theory" were to occur, Residents tags would not jump to $400 per tag, but instead the overall equal tag between the 2 would lower the NR tag and raise the Res. tag making the 10-12X you're talking about more like 3-5X. It would only be 10-12X higher if all tags went to $400. But that would defeat the purpose of what you want, wouldn't it.;)

Just think maybe good management is a declining deer herd. Take Kansas for example. KS is trying and has been trying to lower the herd for "Management" practices. A declining deer herd is not always bad, and your "equal tag/price theory" would only do the opposite of Kansas's deer management by leaps and bounds.

Wrong again, see above. You may be fighting the tag allocation and pricing, but also fighting management. The two are directly linked together. Just read the paragraphs above, and if you're smart enough,(which I'm sure you are), it's easy to figure it out.

Must I really respond to this one? See above, again.


I'm using Kansas as an example because it is a state I am most familiar with. Making the tags and prices equal for Kansas, would be disaster. Not only for Game Management also for liability of many many potential lawsuits against the State W&P, that would most deffinately happen. Even besides all of that, the ethical stance of eliminating the "little man" in hunting, is something I will stand up against anyday, to preserve to sport of hunting.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Goto to a local banquet... watch who is buying what... I have been to several local organization banquets in Arizona.

Not once did I see the Governor's tags being purchased by a resident. It was always some non-resident, bidding by phone, that was buying them.

When a banquet raises $300,000 and $200,000 alone is raised on the sale of 3 Governor's permit to non-residents, I'd definitely say that the non-resident monetary contribution is much greater.

Lets talk about reality out west and the states involved right now... Nevada, Arizona and Wyoming...

In Arizona, residents are allocated 90% of the tags.

So lets take a sample of 10 hunters (9 residents and 1 non-resident)

Residents pays roughly $22 for a deer tag on the Kaibab or 9 x $22 = $198

The non-resident pays roughly $1250 for the same tag or 1 x $1250 = $1250

So lets add them together... $200 + $1250 = $1450

If everyone was going to pay the equal amount for a tag, it would be $145 per tag or $1450/10 = $145

For a price increase of 700% for the arizona resident hunter.

We can do Nevada, Wyoming and New Mexico... they all follow suit...

Not fighting management at all... nobodys say that all tags have to priced the same. Doe tags can be cheaper. Buck tags in poorer quality areas can be cheaper than tags in better units.

What people are not fighting is what price the state sets for tags or how many tags are issued BUT the discrepancy in tag pricing and tag allocation between residents and non-residents.

There is no legitimate basis for the discrimination...

Who would sue the State W&P? Pissed off residents? They might even vote those b@stards out of office come next election!

You ever stop to think that is why your state is exploiting the NON-RESIDENTS? Because whenever your State W&P needs to generate more revenue, they just hike up the prices for non-residents because they are unable to vote in that state?

That is a pure and simple load of bullsh*t because you are all for eliminating the non-resident little man.

Frankly, unless you make $100K per year or more, hunting in the west, as a non-resident, is essentially over...

By the time all my non-resident applications are submitted, I'll have more than $25,000 tied up in tag fees. Sure, I'll get 99% of it back because I won't draw but, to get drawn for something, that is what you have to do as a non-resident.

Let me put it this way, lets just do Elk apps for a non-resident in the West... lets say a cop from Georgia that makes $45K per year...

Arizona - $2400
New Mexico - $800
Nevada - $1200
Utah - $800
Montana - $600
Wyoming - $900
Colorado - $500
Idaho - $350

That would be a total of $7550 in just Elk Tag Appications to hopefully draw a decent tag somewhere and does NOT include the purchasing of licenses for many states which are between $100-$150.

You guys have already cut out the little guy...

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Which would be very normal since the given the circumstances. A resident doesn't need to pay the big money for tag like th non-resident that buys it is. The statement makes complete sense. Still with all the state org's. non-resident's still aren't going to pay a vast majority of funds, when they equal 10-20% on the high side. If you went to other org.'s that didn't have the gov. tags, things would be a lot different, as you would see.

Besides, I think that particular issue is getting off the track of the real issue on hand.

Yes, lets talk about the states involved. Taulman has made a list and Kansas is included. Last thing I'm going to do is wait until it's too late, and then just complain. Pre-emptive actions are important.

The discrepancy in tag pricing and tag allocation between residents and non-res. does directly effects the deer management. Not agreeing with that is like, limiting the amount of kids that go to school and expect them all to be as smart as before there was a limitation.

Insurance agencies, lobbyist, farmers, and yes that does include me. Like I said before majority of deer hunters shoot the first deer they see, for meat and sport, not always the rack. When that same "average" hunter has to pay 3-5X the amount to hunt for that tag, then they aren't going to bother. Even with some cheap doe tags(which you suggested) having to be selective in harvesting a deer(for a meat hunter) only lowers the chance of harvest for them.

And since the NR hunters are filtering in and leasing the land from the "little man" who is going to be there to even shoot the doe and manage the herd, when the NR hunters won't do it, and Residents can't do it?

Spyro, All I'm asking is think about this for a little bit and use a little common sense. Majority of hunters do Not hunt out of state! So the average Joe has to draw for a chance to hunt his backyard. And if Average Joe draws then he or she has to pay 3-5X times as much as they usually do. Not only that, but since non-residents are hunting their state more, most of their backyard is now leased, and land is a whole lot harder to find for hunting. But you justify that by saying they have a better chance at getting a lower price tag, in another state, that they don't want to even hunt in. But you're helping the little man?? haha You have got to me kiddin me!!!


You speak of this situation:

Who in the world hunts for elk in 8 states in one fall or even draws for that many??? Or even 2 states? Maybe, just maybe if that was your full-time job. The little man rarely hunts out-of-state. Even if the money wasn't the problem, time would be for most everybody out there. I don't think you know of the meaning of little man. The "little man" is getting the short end of the stick. You are mixing up the "little man" with the "money man" of the big city. Somebody needs a road-trip out of Cal.

Why can hunters unite as one and preserve our sport??? It used to be easier until minds like Taulman came around. I guess greed can get the best of some.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

I think you bring up a very good point kshunter,

It is the little guys that would suffer because of rulings that supported Taulman and others.
Specifically, the little guys that live in areas under a high demand from "trophy" hunters. If these little guys had to wait to draw tags or pay higher prices (like non-residents), They would probably have to give up hunting (God forbid) or become illegal. Now I'm sure that little guys that lived in areas that were not in that high of a demand would probably be relatively unaffected. Hunting has always been a very personal thing for most and has generally been a local pursuit until this past generation. Its unfortunate that some now want to change the very structure that has made hunting so popular with the average joe. Average joe has probably hasn't even considerded, until recently, that it might one day be other hunters that push him out of his own backyard.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Wireless is right that PR is a federal program but the dollars are allocated back to the state from funds generated by resident sporting good purchases. Spyro is rich and I think that is great. Now how do you know your AZ elk tag will be $2400 since the legislature is still in the middle of approving the new caps and no one knows what the first year increase will be? As for all the work done locally to build the herds and what a state's taxpayers have a right to it is all rhetoric for now. Both sides of this issue are passionate and have their points. I will be attending another meeting next week to try to prevent outfitters and ranchers from getting welfare landowner tags here. If you think your trophy bull tags are expensive now just wait if that happens. The Indians are in on the push also and they understand that Spyro is more than happy to pay $15000 for a trophy tag and they want to have them on their state lease lands and private property as well.

This issue is out of control and someone will end up unhappy. I am afraid that the average hunter on both sides is close to getting shut out of ever having the chance for a trophy bull again. Not a huge problem as I will be poaching the finest lands in the state and just might sneak that big bull out before anyone else. After we all give up because the non residents and USO get all the tags there will be no one left to build trickle tanks, cut juniper and haul water so there will be no elk and muleys left to chase. Extreme example but it could happen.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

I would be interested in how the meeting goes Glen. Good luck

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

However, you disputed my original point that the vast majority of the $ raised by these local species organization come from non-residents. I showed you how you are wrong. Who cares about the resident/non-resident percentage of membership in the Org?

The tag auctions are what make these orgs the money and that money comes from NON-RESIDENTS. Conceed atleast this point already.


I don't buy your argument at all...

I never said that the tags have to be allocated 50-50. I just think that everyone should be in the same pool and have the same opportunity to draw.

Also, I don't have a problem with tags in the better areas being more expensive but just that they be more expensive for everyone.

Again, like I said, I am not for blanket increases... lets me put this way... I'll use Arizona as my example...

I could careless if Arizona charged $500 for a buck deer tag to hunt the Arizona Strip or the Kaibab and sold deer tags in all the areas for $20. Just as long as residents and non-resident pay the same amount and the drawing done from the same pool w/o quotas based upon residency.

So I should care about the little man in Kansas when he sells himself out because of greed?

If the little man wants to hunt his property, maybe the little man shouldn't lease off the hunting rights. Btw, I think that if you spent even an iota of time to research the subject of hunting management, you would find plenty examples of great management of leased property.

Again, this notion that the resident should be able to hunt "in his own backyard" is what is causing poaching to destroy the Pansagaunt Deer Herd.

Look at the Utah Wildlife site, violation after violation for poaching... all by local residents of that Pansagaunt herd...

Under your management method, not only should residents of the state get preference but preference should be giving to residents based upon zipcode and the like...

You think that the little man isn't getting screwed already?

Private land is just that PRIVATE... what the owner of that land decides to do with it is his business.

Maybe that is why opportunity on public lands should be given equally to everyone.

I am in California right now... tons of the hunting lands here are on private property and/or leased... Is that because of Non-Residents?

Someone needs to get out of Kansas...

The average joe that wants to hunt for quality elk will have to apply 8 states every year to even have a chance of drawing a tag. Even with applying to 8 states, average joe might need a couple of years worth of preference points to draw an elk tag.

Let me put it this way, I haven't hunted elk in New Mexico on a draw permit in 10 years...

One last thing, speaking of the little guy getting the shaft...

If this entire issue isn't about leeching the most money possible from the non-hunter, why do several of these states have guide drawings or outfitter drawing for non-residents willing to hunt with a guide?

Or even worse, like in Nevada, allow non-residents that apply with an outfitter to apply to a guide drawing and, if unsuccessful, re-apply for the general drawing. No the 2 drawings isn't bad enough but the non-resident, that applies with an outfitter, accumilates preference points from each drawing. In Nevada, btw, preference points are exponential (ie. 1 pt = 1 entry in the drawing, 2 pt = 4 entries, 5 pt = 25 entries & 6 pt = 36 entries).

Then what is even more amusing is Wyoming's system of the general non-resident pool and the special non-resident pool. The only difference between the pools? The general costs $273 to apply and the special costs $473 to apply. That is the only difference.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

I wish I had more time, but unfortunately I have a lot of work to do. That and it doesn't look like you'll get it.

If you can read that statement, then read Spyro's who post above when referring to the "little man" the post above this one, it makes no sense. Nuff said.

How in the world is the "little man" selling himself out, when a vast majority don't own their own land?

Like I said before, your statements are too irrational sparatic to make logical sense.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

That is rich coming a guy with a Scotsdale address. :)

Do I make a good living? of course

Is my cost of living astronomical? of course, the average 1500 sq ft house around here is now at $650K.

As for the tag prices in Arizona, it has been the topic of conversation for a while... I have heard different number figures tossed around, I believe that I got those numbers from Garth Carter's magazine. $1200 for north of the grand canyon deer tags (strip & kaibab) and $2400 for Bugle Gun hunts. Believe that sheep and buffalo were both set and $5000.

As for the $25K that I'll have in tag drawings, it comes out of savings and then goes right back into savings after the drawings.

Sorry charlie, the most that any indian res has gotten from me is $800 on the San Carlos for a Fall Bear Tag.

Btw, personally, I hope you are successful in stopping arizona for issuing landowner tags. Keep us apraised of the situation.

They already have... for the average joe to realistically hunting trophy bulls 2 times a decade... He needs to have $10,000 liquid come tag time so he can apply to every state and accumilate points.

Threats of Poaching... nice...

As for your extreme case, what makes you think that they outfitters could careless about the wildlife?

Even if they don't and are completely driven by money, they'll want to improve the herd.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Please I never disputed the original point. Just because you went to a meeting where some tags went for 20-30K, now you think that Non-residents put into 90%+ of the money into State organizations on the avg. Come 'on, I feel like I'm having a debate with a kid.

I'm hate to categorize all outfitters, but I sure don't know many who shoot many doe here in Kansas. And that is the top objective in the eastern 1/2 of the state of Kansas for the KDWP. So in theory, Majority of outfitters fail on the top objective in Deer Management.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

$20K or $30K? lol...

I have seen Arizona Elk tags go for $100K.

I have seen Arizona Deer tags go for $80K.

I have seen Arizona Antelope tags go for $50K.

I have seen Sheep Tags go for $250K.

When I receive a newsletter the month after the annual banquet and it talks about how they raised a record $300K for wildlife and, in reality, $230K of it came from 3 Governor's Permits sold to non-residents... If 100% of the donantions remaining were made by residents, it would only be $70K.

Look, I never made the statement that residents are some how mor entitled to tags because of the monetary contributions of local wildlife groups.

Frankly, the guy that said it made a false statement...

Again, thanks for the personal attacks, it clearly demonstrates your inability to conduct a dicussion, with someone of the opposite opinion, with class.

SA.

PS. Anyonw want to explain to me why Colorado's non-resident tags and license seem to increase in cost every year but 2005 will be the first cost increase in resident tag and licenses since 1992? Anyone?

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

I apologized, I had a Typo error. I meant 200-300K. I was more focused on the point at hand.

One org. and there's hundreds out there.

Besides, this issue is deferring the real issue at hand. I'd still love you know, how your plan helps the "little man". Still waiting.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

First, please just make new replies and use the edit button to fix typos and the like... when you use the edit button to add new content, raise new points or ask new questions, I miss most of them...

As for the little man... you don't think that increased revenues from non-resident hunters helps the resident little man? You don't think that increased out-of-state opportunity doesn't help the non-resident little man?

You seem to think that the only little man that exists resides in these Rocky Mt. states.

To be 100% honest, the cop in Georgia that wants to take his 2 boys elk hunting is just as important to me as the resident of Wyoming...

Why should the resident of Wyoming be at the top of my list? They certainly don't have the corner of the market when in comes to the "little man". The Rocky Mt states are definitely not population centers so just by the population, they have less "little men".

You don't think that the little man benifits from being able to apply him and his 2 boys for $100 non-resident elk tags? Yea, it won't be a trophy unit but they will get to atleast experience it. Heck, there currently isn't a state that you can get a single non-resident elk tag for $300... Instead of spending $1500 on tags, he could take himself and his kids on an elk hunt and have it cost him a total of $1500.

I remember reading Jack O'Conner as a little boy and dreaming about sheep hunting... how many people can afford a sheep hunt as a non-resident in this day and age?

In the lower 48, tags are expensive as heck and are impossible to draw.

In Alaska and Canada, they require guided hunts and tons of $$$.

In Mexico, you need to have more dollars than sense because it will run you $50K to shoot a sheep.

Will Elk become the next generations sheep?

It already has for the non-resident little guy! Tag prices are outgrageously expensive... States are making concessions to outfitters funnelling off regular non-resident permits into outfitter & guide pools.

SA

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Well, Kinda afraid to get in the middle of this. But........

Been viewing this thread for a bit now and not to be personnel but Spyro your comments fall right inline with the typical left coast view that you are owed something by the rest of us and if you can't get it then there must be a law changed or made. From the outside looking in thats how it seems.

There could be several ways to fix all of this. I think one of them could be a State amendment that makes hunting a RIGHT of the people of that state and tags would be allocated as such. Not a resident....... Not a right!!!

Also if a state requires a guide for ALL non-residents to hunt but keeps an across the board license fee with a better non res. tag ratio Same diff. EHH!!!!!!!

This stuff will just go on and on until some day we have made it so complete and equal that we will all have to use the exact same equipment, method of hunting and shoot a matching type animal as mandated by all of the laws we had to make so that EVERYTHING is EQUAL!@#$%^&

It does occur to me that we have only been talking about ELK states and tags.....Why isn't anyone complaining about Whitetail states or Bear states??????????

I'm sure someone has a reason why I am all wrong and mis- guided!@#$%^

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

SpyroAndes:

Wyoming elk tag is $490 20% of elk, deer, and antelope tags are allocated to NR, 25% OF SHEEP TAGS,. Specail draw is $900. Odds are some times not any better.


States rights, states wildlife. Just stay in kalifornia and keep your ideas there. You like most Kalifornians, "I don't like what is going on in Kalifornia", so I move, and as soon as I get to another state I try my hardest to make it the way it was in Kalifornia. Like I said, yada, yada, yada! Go thump your chest elsewhere, your retoric falls on deaf ears. The bill will pass the senate and give rights back to the states not the feds. The 9th circuit court is ruled by mindless leaches! Give me a break, interstate commerce!!!!! Then we should be able to sell the meat to. Birng back market hunting comrad!

$490 is not outrageous for a NR elk tag. I would pay $200 for a resident limited quota tag with out a second thought, but many residents count on an elk in the freezer for food, I know many. They make minimal wages, thier only recreation for the year is an elk hunt and maybe two cows for the freezer. It feeds thier family for a year and you want to deny them that? Or make it cost prohibitive so they draw welfare like the rest of your state!

Taulmans antics are about money, and profits. GREED! Not about helping little guys!

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

You shouldn't be scared, just a friendly debate...

Funny that you claim that I have typical left coast view... I am not the one that is looking to have my hunting tags partially subsidized by non-residents and federal funds. The people that want something for nothing are the residents of the game rich states.

It is your own little form of indian res. A handout and the expense of other people. Pretty soon yall will be asking the Gov't for a new truck every 4 years.

Please name another form of outdoor recreation, besides hunting and fishing, where non-residents are being discriminated against in both opportunity and cost?

A right to hunt?

I think that we should also pass amendments that making sailing and golf a right as well.

SA

PS. How do you plan to resolve the 102 and 109 deer hunts. Both are migration hunts that are hunting herds that are not originating from Wyoming? Does Mt., Id and the Feds, get a piece of those tag fees? How about Colorado and the 102 hunt?

I mean the entire argument is that the state OWNS the wildlife right?

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Spyro-My comment about poaching is a worst case scenario where the communists who want an equal tag cost and equal tag allocations would win. Then poaching will be rampant and the herds will be gone. You are obviously someone who cares deeply about hunting muleys and elk so I would hope you can see through the arguments and understand that Taulman's suit is what drove your costs way up. You can afford it but the average guy from out of state who dreams of a self guided western hunt won't be able to. I hope we can fight off private tags and in the end have total control of the game. Your greed comments will then apply as the states just want more money so I could see non resident allocations going to 20% but at a higher cost.

Your info on tag prices from whatever magazine are pure bunk as no one in this state has definitive info yet. Cancel the subscription to that rag. Good luck in your draws.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Correct... 20%... with 10% allocated to the General Non-Resident draw and 10% allocated to the Special Non-Resident draw. I am familiar with Wyoming.

Again, just explain to 1 time, the difference of the tag or the hunt from 1 draw pool or the other?

Then why 2 pools, other than trying to bleed non-residents out of more money under the guise of better draw odds?

Funny, I am not the one that is having my hunting subsidized by the Feds or by non-residents.

You might as well be waiting in a cheese line and collecting welfare, comrade

And the State of Wyoming is making decissions regarding tag pricing and policy, resident and non-resident, out of some moral obligation to the little guy?

Don't be absolutely niave... The State of Wyoming (any game rich states), Outfitters Groups and USO (Taulman) are ALL making decissions based upon money, profits and GREED!

For me, as a non-resident, at this point, Taulman is the lesser of the 3 evils...

For a resident of a state that he is fighting, he is the devil himself because he is ending their gravy train...

Funny thing, you call me comrade for supporting the efforts of a capitalist pig like Taulman... Ironic, no?

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Possession is 9/10ths of the law! Wyoming wildlife within its border belongs to the people of Wyoming!!! It will be proven when the bill passes the Senate. And currently every judge in Wyoming has defened that law, which is on the books!

If hunting out of state is such a priority to anyone, $490 should not stand in thier way to hunt an elk! $490 isn't a big expense any more. Anyone can come to this state after drawing a tag and hunt. It's easy, $490 for a tag, $250 for gas, you eat wether your at home or not. What other expense do you have???? $740 for an elk hunt, that is about a years cable bill! That is not outrageous. Tags in Canada are mid priced, but you have to hire an outfitter, more travel expense, and now that same elk hunt is $5000.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

The commission makes most of the decisions, along with the legislature. The outfitters don't rule the WG&F. If they did there would be tags for them to sell or more tags for NR's. They tried that in court in 2000 and lost.

Our state is no longer game rich and can't figure out where you get that info? Mule deer in most of the state at lowest levels in years, elk in the North West drastically lower, antelope holding there own. Between the wolves and the drought the hunting isn't exactely game rich!

The difference and intention between the pools is the more expensive pool has fewer applicants, allegedly making the odds better, I have seen it go both ways. But if you buy the more expensive tag you have better odds. Some 100%. Depends on the year.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Really, you think so?

Lets say hypothetically, Wyoming quadruples the number of deer tags in Unit 102 (a migration hunt out of Colorado into Wyoming) and just hammers the deer heard. What would Colorado Residents be screaming? Something like "They are destroying OUR deer herd!"

Does the state of Wyoming own the wildlife in Yellowstone Park?

The question is why should there be any discrimination? Not what level of discrimination is tolerable...

Btw, unless you haven't notice, the Canadians aren't conducting hunts on lands owned by the US Government and aren't having their Wildlife Divisions subsidized by the US Government. That give them the right to discriminate against non-Canadians.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Is there an Outfitter Drawing in Nevada? New Mexico? You get my drift... we are talking about the western states. Wyoming may not have one but several western states have adopted the landowner permit system and/or guide draws. Both are OUTFITTER driven for monetary gain.

Symantics... The hunting might not be up to the level is was a couple of years ago but to say that Wyoming is deplete of game is a stretch.

I don't care what the intention was... their intention was to milk more $ out of non-residents under the false promise of better draw odds.

We both know that their is NO guarentee of better draw odds because the Wyoming G&F own published reports report several hunts since the inception of the special pool that the draw odds in the special pool were either the same as the general draw or WORSE than the general draw.

BTW, the special draw pool was a concession to the Outfitters in the state.

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

Too bad you can classify hunting in the same category as golf. To you killing an animal is a sport?????????????????...... Well to me and about 90% of the rest of us on this board. It is not only a way of life but a way of providing life to our families. It just shows right there that you my friend do not have any respect for what many people still use as a primary means of sustenance!!!
A Constitutional amendment????? Absolutely!!!!!!!

Arkansas
Constitutional Right to Hunt
Bill Number: SJR 1, 2003
Status: Died
Proposes a constitutional amendment, to be known as the Sportsperson’s Bill of Rights, guaranteeing the right to hunt, fish, and harvest game.

California
“The people shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the
State and in the waters thereof, excepting upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water containing fish that have been planted therein by the State; provided, that the Legislature may by statute, provide for the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken.” (California Constitution, Article 1, Section 25, 1910)

Florida
Hunting, Fishing, & Gaming Rights
Bill Number: HJR 453, 2002
Status: Died in Committee
Constitutional amendment establishing the right of the people of the state to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions as prescribed by general law and state constitution. Amends s. 26, Art. I.

Georgia
Right to Hunt and Fish
Bill Number: HB 301, 2001
Status: Passed and signed into law 4/18/2001
This bill amends the Georgia Code to declare that Georgia citizens have the right to take fish and wildlife, subject to the laws and regulations adopted by the board for the public good and welfare. In addition, this bill prohibits local governments from regulating hunting, trapping, or fishing by local ordinance.

Constitutional Right to Hunt
Bill Number: SR 563
Status: Senate Passed/Adopted 1/26/04; House Committee Favorably Reported 2/12/04
Proposes an amendment to the Constitution so as to provide that the people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject only to reasonable restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law.

Indiana
Constitutional Right to Hunt
Bill Number: HJR 2, 2004
Status: Referred to Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedures 1/13/04
Amends the Indiana constitution to provide that the people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest game.

Louisiana
Constitutional Right to Hunt and Trap
Bill Number: SB 47, 2003
Status: In Committee, session ended (no carryover)
Amends the constitution to preserve the right to hunt, fish, and trap.

Michigan
Hunting Rights
Bill Number: HJR L, 2003
Status: In Committee
Establishes hunting, fishing, camping, or taking game as a Constitutional right.

Minnesota
The Hunting and Fishing Amendment
Bill Number: SF 41, 1997-1998
Status: Amendment Passed
A bill for an act proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution, article XIII, by adding a section affirming that hunting and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage.

Mississippi
In 1997, the Mississippi legislature considered putting a similar state constitutional amendment before the voters, but the measure did not pass.

Missouri
Constitutional Right to Hunt
Bill Number: SJR 24, 2004
Status
Amends the state constitution to provide for a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest game.

Montana
Constitutional Right to Hunt
Bill Number: HB 306, 2003
Status: Chaptered 4/3/2003
Amends the state constitution forever preserving the right to hunt.

Nebraska
Preserve Hunting Rights
Bill number: LR 4CA, 2003
Status: Carried over to Second Regular Session
Constitutional amendment to preserve the right to fish, trap, and hunt
Attorney General’s Opinion #04003: Whether LR4CA, a proposed amendment to the Nebraska Constitution regarding hunting, fishing, and trapping, will have an affect on the Nebraska Constitution and various existing statutes.

New Hampshire
Codifies the Right to Hunt, Trap, and Fish
Bill Number: HB 273, 2001
Status: Passed
This bill amends the New Hampshire Code by stating that the fish and game department will recognize, preserve, and promote hunting, fishing, and trapping and will provide opportunities to carry out such activities in accordance with title XVIII.

New Mexico
Right to Hunt
Bill Number: SJR 1, 1999
Status: Died
The “right to hunt” resolution would have made it a constitutional right to hunt and fish, placing that use above and beyond all other non-consumptive wildlife uses.

North Dakota
Hunting, Fishing, Trapping for the Public Good/State Heritage
Bill Number: Constitutional Measure 1, 2000
Status: Passed
This constitutional amendment, passed in 2000, provides that hunting, trapping, and fishing are a valued part of residents’ heritage and will be preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good.

Pennsylvania
Right to Hunt
Bill Number: HB 1512, 2003
Status: Passed House 2/9/04; In Senate Committee
Proposes an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing the right to hunt and fish. Hunting and fishing are already legal in the state.

Rhode Island
“The people shall continue to enjoy and freely exercise all the rights of fishery, and the privileges of the shore, to which they have been heretofore entitled under the charter and usages of this state. But no new right is intended to be granted, nor any existing right impaired, by this declaration.” (Rhode Island Constitution, Article 1, Section 17, 1844)

South Carolina
Declaration of Rights
Bill Number: H 3702, 2003
Status: In Committee, session ended (03-04 carryover)
Proposes an amendment to the State Constitution; relates to the declaration of rights; provides for the right of the people to hunt, fish, and take game.

South Dakota
Bill Number: HJR 1004, 2003
Status: Introduced, session ended (no carryover)
A joint resolution, proposing and submitting to the voters at the next general election an amendment to Article XXI of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, relating to hunting, fishing, and trapping.

Texas
Right to hunt
Bill Number: HJR 14, 2001
Proposing a constitutional amendment relating to the right to hunt and fish.
Status: Died

Vermont
“The inhabitants of this State shall have the liberty in seasonable times, to hunt and fowl on the lands they hold, and on other lands not inclosed, and in like manner to fish in all boatable and other waters (not private property) under proper regulations, to be made and provided by the General Assembly.” (Vermont Constitution, Chapter 2, part 67, 1777)

Virginia
Right to hunt
Ballot Measure 2, 2000
Status: Passed
This Virginia ballot measure, passed in 2000, provides by constitutional amendment that “the people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law.”

Washington
Right to hunt and fish
Bill Number: HJR 4204, 2001
Status: Died in Committee
Adds the right to hunt and fish to the Constitution of the state of Washington.

Wisconsin
“Right to Hunt”
Bill Number: AJR 1, 2003
Status: Amendment Passed
Calls for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to hunt, fish, and trap.

Press Clips
2/17/04 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Hunting, fishing amendment may be superfluous
1/26/04 Atlanta Journal-Constitution: A sporting chance: Legislation aims to protect hunting, fishing
1/14/04 Omaha World Herald: Schrock tables embattled amendment plan
1/29/03 WisPolitics.com: Legislature Passes Constitutional Amendment Protecting Right to Hunt and Fish
Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal Program: Alabama Considers Constitutional “Right to Fish”
4/3/02 Christian Science Monitor: ‘Right to hunt’ vs. animal rights: What’s fair game?


Sources:
(1) “‘Right to hunt’ bill in question.” The Fund for Animals. 16 December 2001. Wildlife Management Interactive. 22 December 2003 <http://www.wminteractive.org/Articles/01tx12-16.htm>.
(2) Letter to NM Senate Conservation Committee. Defenders of Wildlife. 1999.
(3) Duff, John A. “Alabama Considers Constitutional ‘Right to Fish’” Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal Program. The University of Mississippi. 22 December 2003 <http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/fish.htm>.
This page was last updated on March 16, 2004.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only thing lacking in most of the provisions is pricing and allocation rights.

How do you see that I am looking for subsidation?????????? Do I not buy products and contribute to organizations that help with conservation of game species in other states ???????? I DO!!!!!!!!!!
Throw that argument out the window and don't use it in consectutive posts!

RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
 

[quote]Really, you think so?

Lets say hypothetically, Wyoming quadruples the number of deer tags in Unit 102 (a migration hunt out of Colorado into Wyoming) and just hammers the deer heard. What would Colorado Residents be screaming? Something like "They are destroying OUR deer herd!"

]

Hypothetically the state wouldn't do that, political suicide! Won't happen!

Does the state of Wyoming own the wildlife in Yellowstone Park? [/quote

Yes! But hunting is not allowed in National Parks.

Where is the descimination? You don't live here! It takes money to manage an agency as large as the WYG&F. They can't do it for free. It is the states choice, (so far)!

But most of the big game hunting is conducted on Crown lands! Same diff! Where is the subsidy to the WYG&F? Over 90% of its income is derived from license sales!


... A couple of years ago? You are listening to some ones BS! It has been 8 or 9 years since Wyomings game as at a rich status!


Not much of a concession, you still don;t have to hire an outfitter. Except in a wilderness area, or go with a resident. (Which is a law that should be struck from the books!)

Damn you type fast!