|
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 Some people pay to golf, pay to fish, pay for other choices in thier life. I will pay for the privelege to hunt, and support individual states rights. |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
Glob3006,
very good post, I learn something new every day. A never knew that your were a left coaster or a transplanted Kalifornian pushing your left coast views on your new residence. Kalifornia had the right to hunt & fish in their constituition since 1910 and now commies, like you, want it enacted in other Western States! Go back to Kalifornia! Seriously, I found it interest to see how many states had enacted "Right to Hunt" amendments. And yes, everyone does pay into PR when they buy outdoor sporting equipment, so yes I agree... when you come to California, you should pay the same rate and have the same opportunity as the residents. By are we even sure that anyone in Wyoming has bought anything in the last year that has a PR tax? We keep hearing how doubling or tripling resident tag prices (from $47 for elk to $100 or $150) would eliminate them as hunters because they can not afford it. What is the PR tax on a $15 box of ammo? |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
I guess if you don't agree with NR fees, then pack up and move! But leave your liberal ideas at home!
If hunting fees should be equal in all states then make eveything equal, fishing, driving, college,taxes, food, utillities, housing, why just hunting? All of the above have some form of federal intervention. |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
It was a comparison "DUMB ASS"............................. DUMB ASS!@#$
Lets keep it neat eh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And how did I become a Liberal and a DUMB ASS in the span of about 5 min?????? You guys are all over the place with this............... I think I know where Spyro stands. But RandyA ...............YOU are for WHAT??????? Again???????????? |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
ORIGINAL: RandyA It was a comparison "DUMB ASS" And people like Spiro Andes, what ever the hell that is, and George Taulman want is more commercialazation of hunting. To make it harder and more expensive for the little guy. If it is life and death for you then you should be fighting these peoples ideas and goals with all your might. Write a letter to your US Senator! Supporting the bill to give rights to the states instead of the federal judges. Some people pay to golf, pay to fish, pay for other choices in thier life. I will pay for the privelege to hunt, and support individual states rights. Do you not believe that you are articulate enough to strongly express your opinion w/o it? Personally, I believe that you are so try to refrain from such behavior in the future. The best policy is to treat this as a guys sitting around the campfire. You talk to some people, in person, like you have talked to them on this thread, and you'd be spitting teeth. Anyway, back to the topic... Of course, George Taulman is looking at the expense of these lawsuits as an investment in USO. If the lawsuits weren't for the financial benifit of USO, he'd be an absolute fool to spend that kind of money. Frankly, the only reason why states have been able to exploit non-resident hunters for so long is because nobody had the money, the will or the determination to spend the money to take on the states for their own personal benifit. The guys that have that kind of $ just avoid the entire draw system by purchasing governor's permit and landowner tags. I'd like to see all the concessions made to outfitters, like seperate drawings for guided clients, be eliminated. I think that Mr Taulman would take issue with my views. SA |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
[quote]quote:
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!!!!!!! You were putting words in my mouth! PERIOD! I am for states rights, one being management of wildlife within its boundries, with out intervention from a person trying to commercialize, more than it already is, some thing that is dear to me! HUNTING! |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
As I said in my first post on this subject. I do believe that nonresident tags are too expensive and that the price should come down. But..........I also believe that a resident or residents should be allocated more tags than a nonresident. So is it the PRICE or is the ALLOTMENT were talking about because there are usually plenty of leftover and OTC tags in Colorado to be had and we are all on a points sys. as well
And just for the record I don't have to go back to California for I am a LIFE LONG Colorado Resident and most of the rest of my family are settlers from WY. MT. SD. & NM!!!!!! |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
I would like to see residents take sides with thier respective states, financially, to file a counter suit! Then it would be residents against nonresisdents, with money and numbers. Then we could see where that would go and see where hunting would end up! Wouldn't the non hunters love that?????
But alas it won't go that far, as soon as the Senate bill passes, it will be a while before some one attempts to take states rights away again. Using the interstate commerce act as reasonsing is beyond reason to me. Like I said, then we should be able to sell the entire animal, right? What about making all things in all states equal? You never quoted or answerd that! isn't there a name for that? Communism? |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
As I said in my first post on this subject. I do believe that nonresident tags are too expensive and that the price should come down. But..........I also believe that a resident or residents should be allocated more tags than a nonresident. So is it the PRICE or is the ALLOTMENT were talking about because there are usually plenty of leftover and OTC tags in Colorado to be had and we are all on a points sys. as well Case in point, the WYG&F pays over $1,000,000 per year to manage grizzly bears, USF&W kick in $300,000, where does this money come from? License sales! |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
THey have to pay the bills, wages, and manage. Raise our fees, they are planning on it for next year, what choice do they have? The Taulman suit would benefit the state, as more NR tags would be availible for a some what higher price.
|
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
RandyA.................Slowdown a minute brother!! This........................
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!!!!!!! Was in response to Spyro not you. Maybe you shoud take closer look B_4 you bite . Please!! |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
I think that Mr Taulman would take issue with my views. |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
Is [quote]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!!!!!!! [/quote It sure looked like it was directed at me! I mentioned golf! I sincerely apologize! I take back the Dumb A$$ to! If you go back to that post it was in Reply to RandyA! |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
What the heck???? You guys go to bed on me?
|
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
Guess what I got in the mail today? A letter from Mr Taulman...
Congress Attacks Hunter's Rights Dear Fellow Hunter: Your right to hunt and fish on federal public lands, lands you and I and every other American own, is about to be taken away from us via legislation by our very own Congress. A Bill introduced in Congress by Nevada Senator Harry Reid (S # 339) and another by Colorado Representative Mark Udall (H.R. #731) will allow the Rocky Mountain States to exclude you from hunting and fishing on National Forests, BLM and other public lands soley because you are a nonresident. In fact, every State could keep you out if this law pases. This bill will allow states to discriminate against you, to treat you like a second-class citizen, and to deny your right to apply and hunt for elk, mule deer, antelope, sheep and every other specie on public land. States could and would impose strictor nonresident limits than on residents on public fishing areas. Senator Reid calls it "A bill to reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities." Its' real purpose is to circumvent recent court decisions that favored nonresidents and allow states to again discriminate against nonresidents in allocating licenses, limits, and setting license fees. In other words, States could restrict nonresidents, like you, from receiving any licenses to hunt or fish on public lands, or allow States to charge you thousands of dollars for the same hunting licenses that residents would pay only a few dollars for. This isn't make believe. Even though the US Supreme Court has ruled in Hughes vs Oklahoma, that the wildlife belongs to all Americans equally, nonresidents are still subjected to severe discrimination today. Let me give you just a few examples: Colorado no longer allows nonresidents to apply for the Ranching for Wildlife Areas. Once nonresidents were removed from these high quality elk and deer areas, the State passed a quota on nonresidents to keep them from drawing too many of the few remaining high quality tags left to apply for in the State. New Mexico's highly prized Valle Calderas National Preserve was bought for $101 million in Federal money just a few short years ago. Now the NM Game and Fish Department has put a strict quota on nonresidents. Last year non residents donated over 65% of the application money for these elk tags, but only received 19% of the tags. New Mexico's sheep license is $3000 for a nonresident and $100 for a resident. Utah, just in the past few weeks, passed a regulation starting in 2006 that will give 25% of the existing nonresident tags and a paltry 5% of resident tags to a yearly convention in Salt Lake City. The rules allow you to have chance of getting one of these tags only if you travel to Utah in person and apply. They know you won't. In other words, they will transfer these nonresident tags into resident hands. In more discrimination, Utah does not allow any nonresidents to apply for the draw to obtain the high quality Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit tags, only residents. The Montana process keeps you from drawing the quality tags; they only allow nonresidents "up to 10%" of the sheep, moose and mountain goat tags. When applying for the quality limited elk areas, you have to first apply for the low quality combination tag which is guaranteed to be drawn every two years. Residents get to apply yearly as their combination tags are over the counter. Once you have drawn the combo tag at a cost of $660, then you reapply for the quality limited areas. At one time, if you did not draw the quality tag, you simply sent the poor quality combination tag back to them for a refund. Montana did not want the nonresidents to return these licenses so they passed a regulation that you can only get a 50% refund for the poor quality combination tag. So it costs you $330 for a 1 in 20 chance of drawing a quality tag or you are stuck with the combination tag. Not a tough decision for nonresidents to not apply, so the residents win... again. In Wyoming, nonresidents apply nearly blind at the quality limited entry tags. Wyoming give up to 20% of the elk tags to nonresidnets, but deducts 2 nonresident tags for each nonresident landowner who qualifies and owns as little as 2000 acres in that unit. But when they calculate the draw odds, they act as if each tag was in the drawing. Trying to get this information on the real numbers is time consuming, usually inaccurate, and often exasperating. For added discrimination, Wyoming uses an outdated true preference point program and quota system for their sheep and moose that gives you virtually no hope of drawing unless you started years ago. Wyoming also forces you to hire or use a resident to hunt wilderness areas. Arizona and Nevada were highly discriminatory toward nonresidents until the recent Montoya vs. Manning decision by the Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals which forces these states to treat all hunters equally. Arizona is no looking for ways to dodge the law and actually advertised for ideas on how to discriminate against nonresidents. They may try to take elk licenses up to an outrageous $3200 each. Nevada already charges $1200 for an elk tag to nonresidents. Nevada is also attempting to defy the court system by only opening up certain units to nonresidents and excluding nonresidents altogether from millions of acres of federal lands. On top of all this discrimination, nonresidents already pay the majority of the budgets for the Rocky Mountain States' game and fish departments, even though we get only a fraction of the licenses. In addition, Arizona, Nevada, Montana, and Idaho collect millions of dollars from nonresidents each year for general hunting licenses. They basically extort money from the nonresident because the nonresident is forced to purchase a general hunting license in order to either apply and/or obtain a bonus point. This general hunting license rarely gets used so it is free money to the State. Little does the nonresident know that the quota is the main deterrent to his drawing a tag. It is about to get worse if S.339 and HR.731 becomes law. This Bills expressly permit unlimited discrimination on price allocation on all lands and waters. If these bills pass, it won't be a matter if you have family in one of these western states or own property in the state. It does not matter if you hire a guide or not, does not matter if you are a bow, muzzleloader, or rifle hunter, and does not matter if you have served your country in the armed services. As long as you are residing in another State you will feel the sting of discrimination. Ranchers and farmer won't be able to sell hunting opportunities to nonresidents. So much for private property rights! This is bad. Very bad. This is un-American and the greatest threat to the hunting tradition to come along in a very long time. We must act now, together, to protect our right to hunt, fish and travel in our own country. As American citizens and the bill payers, we have the right not to be discriminated against because of the State we live in. We live in the Untied States of America, remember! This isn't about States rights. This isn't about conservation! This is about selfish and politically influential local hunter wanting to keep everyone else out of our federal public lands in their State, nothing more. Due to many years of litigation and personal sacrifice, courts are now supporting the nonresident. Now only the politicians, like reid and Udall, can pass legislation to continue the discrimination against us. If residents of the states outside the Rocky Mountains don't speak up against this legislation, you stand to lose your right and your children's right to ever hunt in a quality unit in the Rocky Mountains. You and your friends must call and mail your States' US Congressional Representatives and US Senators. Tell them to oppose S.339 and HR.731. This is the most important task you must do. Attached is a sample letter. Lift out the paragraphs that you like and send it to your own Representative. Contact your local and national hunting organizations and tell them the importance of defeating this legislation. Don't let them use any excuse, even if their headquarters is in one of the Rocky Mountain States trying to take your rights away, they are supposed to be representing you, not trying to obtain tags and hunting opportunities for themselves. Non-taxable donations can be sent to the Conservation Force and label them "Nonresident Legal Fund". For more information, call or e-mail: Conservation Force 3900 N. Causeway Blvd. Suite 1045 Metairie, LA 70002-1746 504-837-1233 504-837-1145 FAX [email protected] Date _______, 2005 RE: My Rights as a Non-Resident Dear (Your Senator and Representative), Senator Reid has introduced a Senate Bill S.339 and Congressman Udall has introduced House Bill H.R. 731 to transfer to states unlimited authority to discriminate against non-resident hunters and anglers. The legislation expressly authorizes states to discriminate against non-residents in both allocation and pricing of licenses. It includes both recreational sportsmen and women and those who commercially ply related trades from state to state. The legislation would deprive me and my family from equal access and fair license fees on federal lands in the West. This is not truly a states' rights issue as it is being represented. I have no say in Western states' legislatures or before their commissions, so I have to turn to you, me representative to protect my right to equal treatment on federal lands. Please, please protect my rights to hunt and fish on federal lands and waters. There are 2 million hunters and 12 million fishermen who hunt and/or fish out-of-state each year (National Survery 2001). We should at least be entitles to equality on federal lands and waters. The resident hoarding and discrimination has been worsening which, in turn, has led to litigation. The litigation was necessary to discourage worsening practices by the Western states. There will be no return to equal treatment on federal lands because the states have refused to treat non-residents fairly and that has been worsening. This legislation would eliminate that last avenue of protection. It will worsen the reciprocal price warring between the states that is so un-American. We are supposed to be one indivisible nation. In fact, foreigners may have greater rights to equal access on federal lands than me and my family. Aren't we all Americans? Please protect my interest as a citizen of the United States. This issue is not wildlife management. It does not matter to conservation where a hunter lives. Many of the game species are migratory, particularly waterfowl. They cross state lines, live on federal lands, and cannot be claimed solely for the citizens of one state. Americans should have equal rights to enjoy their federal public lands, and hunting opportunities provided by those lands. Most sincerely, |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
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?????????? Spyro, you're right, you're plan would help some people. It would help the people that hunted out of state regularly. It would help the anbody that hunts out of state on a regular basis. But other than that it hurts every else. And vast majority of hunters (as a whole) DO NOT hunt of of state. Now if you looked at Cal. then yes, i'm sure many do hunt out-of-state and that pecentage is higher. It normally would in areas that hunting seems to be much more restricted. For every person that benefits you could bet 5 people on the other side are getting a chunk of their hunting taken away, if not all of it. Yes your and Taulmans plan is bad for hunting as a whole. And and when I refer to the "little man" i'm not referring to the person that lives on low income in the hills, I refer to a lot of people. From the hobo that lives in the mountains to the man with 4 kids, 2 weeks vacation, and making more money than you, which neither will hunt out of state. Those are the people that you want to take hunting away from. Greed, Greed, Greed. Yes I can see where you like Taulmans idea, it benefits you. It's too bad you're thinking about only yourself... Hunting is a way of life for a lot of people. It's not a 5 or 7 day trip to have fun out-of-state. What if somebody said they were going to take away your kids(if you have any) or your best friend, and let you see them only every once in a while or never? Would you feel threatened or angry? A lot of people feel the same about hunting, not quite to that degree, but I think you get the picture. For me it's easy to see why someone would be offensive when you want to take away hunting from them. Taulman's ideas are those which can be classified as anti-hunting, to the vast majority of the hunting public. It's your choice Spyro, you can either help the avg. hunter or hurt him so you can benefit. Maybe that's the mindset you were raised with, I don't know. I'm glad I and most others here, know the difference though. |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
Spyro-I figured you were on Taulman's mailing list. Write or call George and ask him about the facts behind his letter. He has done a great harm to hunting in the short term but I will say he has wakened the sleeping giant. I have never seen more web activity and high attendance at wildlife meetings. The states will not allow the 9th circuit ruling to stand. I think the congress will clarify the issue. The bad thing is the knee jerk reaction in states with good hunting by raising fees substantially. We will never see a rollback after this as the government doesn't give anything back. That is the true result from USO and you don't see that in George's letter. He has lost all of his sponsors except for that weenie Jackie Bushman. Crooked Horn did withdraw so I hope we support their products.
Now USO is pushing ranchers to lobby for private tags. Is that a good thing? It is if you desire to be able to hunt any state at any time but the cost is dear. New Mexico generates 30 million dollars a year to landowners for private tags. A very high incentive for other states ranchers and outfitters. With our ballot initiative process I can see that ranchers may someday lose their businesses from a forced open bidding process for leases. Enviro groups already got our supreme court to rule to open the process and have unsuccessfully tried to buy leases. This will go to court again and it will be opened up. At $2.11 per cow per year it is easy to see massive amounts of state leases being bought up. The problem is that hunters will lose due to the huggers being against hunting. Is that a good thing that USO has helped with? I would ask that all of us think about our kids and grandkids in this process. They may never see the ability to hunt big game like we grew up with. Maybe some people just don't care about protecting and passing on the tradition. We are a dying breed anyway in todays world. |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
It's as little as 160 acres not 2000.
So if the bill is defeated then who is being discriminated against? Residents! Then maybe we should all move to Kalifornia and we can all come hunt for the same price with the same chance of drawing. COOL! Let's all move! I will place an ad in the paper today asking hunters to support the bill and to write our elected officals telling them so. |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
The states will not allow the 9th circuit ruling to stand. I think the congress will clarify the issue. The bad thing is the knee jerk reaction in states with good hunting by raising fees substantially. |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
ORIGINAL: kshunter Spyro, you're right, you're plan would help some people. It would help the people that hunted out of state regularly. It would help the anbody that hunts out of state on a regular basis. But other than that it hurts every else. While I truly dislike doing it and feel dirty for it, I have the funds, because I have made hunting a priority in my life, to WASTE $700 every year to just apply for big game permits in western states. Money that accumilates annually making it when I finally do draw a state issued permit, a permit that costs me thousands of dollars. And vast majority of hunters (as a whole) DO NOT hunt of of state. Now if you looked at Cal. then yes, i'm sure many do hunt out-of-state and that pecentage is higher. It normally would in areas that hunting seems to be much more restricted. You people do realize that you are even restricting FISHING in these states now, right? Do you understand that tags in the west have become so limited for the non-resident hunter that COMPANIES have been started to LEND PEOPLE MONEY FOR TAGS? You pay them $200 per state and they will front you the $6000 for tags fee for that state. That the nonresident has to apply to every state for every specie to MAYBE have a chance for a QUALITY out of state hunt? You don't see the insanity behind this? For every person that benefits you could bet 5 people on the other side are getting a chunk of their hunting taken away, if not all of it. Yes your and Taulmans plan is bad for hunting as a whole. I hope that Arizona jacks their elk tags up to $3200 per tag for non-residents. I hope that not a single non-resident applies so those crooked bastards have no budget and the residents of Arizona no longer receive that subsidized hunting. By the way, this is the biggest crock argument... Now the resident applying to QUALITY UNITS or QUALITY HUNTS might see their opportunities diminish... HOWEVER, their HUNTING OPPORTUNITY would not diminish.... You won't see nonresidents flooding the Cow Tag pools of the Lesser Quality Units. Lets get real here... And and when I refer to the "little man" i'm not referring to the person that lives on low income in the hills, I refer to a lot of people. From the hobo that lives in the mountains to the man with 4 kids, 2 weeks vacation, and making more money than you, which neither will hunt out of state. Those are the people that you want to take hunting away from. Why should I subsidize his hunting? Greed, Greed, Greed. Yes I can see where you like Taulmans idea, it benefits you. It's too bad you're thinking about only yourself... You can pound sand up your hypocritical @ss for calling me greedy... The entire basis of this suit is the GREED of the States and the GREED of the Residents. If your States didn't try to bleed the non-resident hunters dry, YOUR STATE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO COURT. Comprende? Hunting is a way of life for a lot of people. It's not a 5 or 7 day trip to have fun out-of-state. What if somebody said they were going to take away your kids(if you have any) or your best friend, and let you see them only every once in a while or never? Would you feel threatened or angry? A lot of people feel the same about hunting, not quite to that degree, but I think you get the picture. For me it's easy to see why someone would be offensive when you want to take away hunting from them. Taulman's ideas are those which can be classified as anti-hunting, to the vast majority of the hunting public. It's your choice Spyro, you can either help the avg. hunter or hurt him so you can benefit. Maybe that's the mindset you were raised with, I don't know. I'm glad I and most others here, know the difference though. I mean how does the Michigan Wildlife department seem to survive without near the numbers of nonresident monies? How does New York's? They are not basing their enitre operating bugdet upon HOW MUCH THEY CAN GOUGE THE NONRESIDENT FOR... Your States are... I mean lets get f'ing real here... Colorado hasn't raised resident prices for licenses or tags since 1992. Are you telling me that they haven't increased their budget? They have by consistantly extracting monies from the NONRESIDENT, who has zero representation in their State. |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
ORIGINAL: RandyA It's as little as 160 acres not 2000. So if the bill is defeated then who is being discriminated against? Residents! Then maybe we should all move to Kalifornia and we can all come hunt for the same price with the same chance of drawing. COOL! Let's all move! I will place an ad in the paper today asking hunters to support the bill and to write our elected officals telling them so. If we stop discriminating against 1 group, we are automatically discriminating against the other? Your logic is a little faulty there, cheif. It is called taking away YOUR HUNTING HANDOUT and making everyone EQUAL! I guess when they gave Black people the right to vote, it was discriminatory against people that already had the right to vote? |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
I'm done spending 30 min. to respond to post that makes no sense, and reword a common concept which Spyro doesn't want to understand.
Like I said before Greed, Greed, Greed. Yes I can see where you like Taulmans idea, it benefits you. It's too bad you're thinking about only yourself... Like I said before, your statements are too irrational sparatic to make logical sense. Come 'on, I feel like I'm having a debate with a kid. Later, fellas |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
KS,
I understand the issue. The issue is the resident hunter has gotten used to having a strangle hold on next to free hunting opportunities at the expense of the nonresident and are throwing a tantrum at the thought of giving some of it up. The States that have been exploiting the nonresident were defeated in court and are now throwing a tantrum as well and trying to circumvent the ruling. I understand the issue. SA PS. Why do residents and non-residents of Wyoming pay the exact same fee to fish Yellostone Park but nonresidents of Wyoming have to pay grossly over inflated fees to hunt other federal lands in Wyoming? Is fish not wildlife? Wouldn't the fish in the park belong to the people of Wyoming? |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
Spyro, I guess a resident has no priority in hunting his or her home state then? I simply don't and won't agree with your logic. Just because it is federal land, and very little game in this state spends the entire year, just on federal land, we have no preference. What if the elk leave federal land, spend months on private, does the private land owner get tags? Or all of the tags becuase the elk are on his land,then return to federal land in the spring, now they are federal elk?
Nah! State's elk, states wildlife, we get cheaper tags because it is our state and we live here, 365 days a year, supporting all facits of the state. You and George are not going to change it. Try and try, then you can cry and cry! $490 is not out of line for a once a year chance to hunt elk. I spend my wages, nearly 100% here all year. Then get a tag for $55, versus $490 to some one who comes and drops $1000, once a year. It's not broken why do you kalifornians want to change everything? |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
I was going to stay out of this but I have to put in my 2 cents. I have been hunting WY and CO for ten years now and I have to say I think the tag prices are a little out of hand and the have to have a guide thing in WY or any state is total bull$hit !
And as you can see Iam not from the west but I do not think that I should be able to hunt your state where you grew up learned to hunt from your father or other signifigant person that gave you the knowledge and the love for the land that you grew up on.But after that there should be an alotment of tags for the NR. And be carefull you should all care about what tags prices get to the more the NR prices go up the more the states want to sell to NR then your own!! |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
Why do residents and non-residents of Wyoming pay the exact same fee to fish Yellostone Park but nonresidents of Wyoming have to pay grossly over inflated fees to hunt other federal lands in Wyoming? Is fish not wildlife? Wouldn't the fish in the park belong to the people of Wyoming? |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
ORIGINAL: Wolf killer SpyroAndes, Every year I buy a Montana & Wyoming fishing license. Neither fishing license is valid inside Yellowstone National Park. I have asked the park service why my license is not valid? I was told Yellowstone National Park is not part of ANY state. Yellowstone is 100% federal land. Are National Forests not 100% Federal Land? Are BLM Lands not 100% Federal Land? What is the difference between Yellowstone National Park and any other Federal Lands? Why are residents of these Rocky Mountain States given the equivalant of Hunting & Fishing Welfare on other Federal Lands? SA |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
SpryoAndes, I did not say the answer they gave me made since. They charge the fishing license fee because they can. I think there fishing license is a joke & I will not buy one. I avoid yellowstone during the tourist season. I have plenty of fishing else where.
|
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
ORIGINAL: Wolf killer SpryoAndes, I did not say the answer they gave me made since. They charge the fishing license fee because they can. I think there fishing license is a joke & I will not buy one. I avoid yellowstone during the tourist season. ORIGINAL: Wolf killer I have plenty of fishing else where. Btw, if your only fishing option was the park, would you pay the Yellowstone fees or not fish again? Welcome to the non-Rocky Mt State resident's quandry... Pay the rediculous tag and license fees that the Rocky Mt Sates are exploiting from nonresidents or never hunt elk again? |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
ORIGINAL: RandyA Spyro, I guess a resident has no priority in hunting his or her home state then? I simply don't and won't agree with your logic. Just because it is federal land, and very little game in this state spends the entire year, just on federal land, we have no preference. ...It's not broken why do you kalifornians want to change everything? |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
ORIGINAL: Slamfire Because they are Socialists, sad as I am to put words like that on a family forum. Too bad the current courts won't protect the folks who produce the wealth the greedy want without workin. You are calling nonresidents pushing for equal treatment socialists? If there is anybody that is a SOCIALIST in this situation, it is the residents of these states that believe that they should be able to hunt/fish, on somebody elses dollar, because they are citizens of that state. Frankly, tossing terms around like communist and socialist when it comes to this situation is foolish. There is no shock factor and it is a stretch. This is about the greed of the residents of Rocky Mt States and the greed of those States. |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
No you are tying to strip residents of any rights. You want any rights the states have and give it to the federal government. That is socialism! One BIG state instead of 50.
You are saying, we have no rights to anything in Wyoming. I am sure there are federal programs in Kalifornia that we don't have in Wyoming, then give them to us. What privelege is there then to live in any given state? All states treated the same, all one collective, no hunter left behind! I guess it is ok for you to fantasize, but it won't happen here. One thing that almost made it 5 years ago was all federal lands, not national parks, were going to be deaded over to the prospective states in which they lay. To bad it didn't fly. Even slick willy was for it. Stronger states rights! |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
Randy-we have little to worry about. The 9th circuit is notorious for being overturned. This Taulman deal is supported by the rich boys and quite a few outfitters and landowners who see the dollar ring. It is now in the realm of serious politics and all the whining and hoping in the world will not prevail over the state's right to manage wildlife. There is no incentive to the feds to take over that responsibility. Arizona has a weak AG and our G&F are good people but they are also beurocrats who watch the politics and don't stick their necks out much. Now that hunters across the country are active we can get back to controlling the herds and still allow NR tags and maybe even at a better %. I have nothing against NR hunters. The costs are going up though and that is bad for all of us.
|
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
Socialism is taking something some people have, and giving it to others, who were not entitlled to it. It doesn't matter if it is money, or game animals, or anythng else.
|
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
Ok, I read up on Taulman and I read both bills, worded almost identically. I don't like what Taulman is about, and he is using scare tactics. He says "states could lock you NR's out". Guess what? They already can. They're not doing it because they don't want to and it wouldn't make business sense. These bills change nothing. Very much like the well intentioned but empty Montana bill last November that reaffirmed opportunity to hunt.
Reid, Udall, and Baucus do not care about states rights! They do empty bills like this to make it look to their constituents that they are not federalists. I don't know much about the other names on these bills, but Taulman is a lesser evil than these three! These are do nothing, feel good, "reaffriming" bills that waste congress's time and I'm not supporting them. That does not mean I like Taulman's ideals. It means I'm going to focus on what scope to buy for this coming season. |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
SpyroAndes,
I am not going to spend the time to read every post in here so if someone has already set you straight then I offer my appologies. You like to use the proposed 2005 Non-Res fees (Arizona)but like to use the 2004 Res fees (Arizona)in your little Non-res/Resident comparisons. To be fair i.e. compare apples to apples, don't you think you should also include the proposed 2005 Resident (Arizona) fees for your little equasions...... Resident Kiabab deer tags = $150.00. Premium bull elk (rut) tags for Residents will be $350.00. Late bull hunts for Residents will be $150.00. Thats all for now, I have spring Turkey scouting to do. Before I forget, SpyroAndes, you can apply for a great Trophy Bull Elk hunt on the Apache Reservation for a measly $30,000.00 this year. Now if you were a member of the tribe, you could get that tag for about $77.00. |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
ORIGINAL: jones123 Ok, I read up on Taulman and I read both bills, worded almost identically. I don't like what Taulman is about, and he is using scare tactics. He says "states could lock you NR's out". Guess what? They already can. They're not doing it because they don't want to and it wouldn't make business sense. These bills change nothing. Very much like the well intentioned but empty Montana bill last November that reaffirmed opportunity to hunt. Reid, Udall, and Baucus do not care about states rights! They do empty bills like this to make it look to their constituents that they are not federalists. I don't know much about the other names on these bills, but Taulman is a lesser evil than these three! These are do nothing, feel good, "reaffriming" bills that waste congress's time and I'm not supporting them. That does not mean I like Taulman's ideals. It means I'm going to focus on what scope to buy for this coming season. Again several specie and numerous hunts are for "RESIDENTS ONLY". So besides fee discrimination and tag allocation discrimination, we also have specie and hunt discrimination. |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
ORIGINAL: PLB Before I forget, SpyroAndes, you can apply for a great Trophy Bull Elk hunt on the Apache Reservation for a measly $30,000.00 this year. Now if you were a member of the tribe, you could get that tag for about $77.00. They are not the State of White Apache or the State of San Carlos. They are the Navajo NATION... The San Carlos Apache NATION... Etc... |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
Here here Spyro!!! The various nations of Indians (screw the Native American moniker, I gottanuff Cherokee in me to care less what the do gooders want to call em) are free and clear to "rape whiteys billfold" and God bless em. IMHO I hope they ALL keep up their high fees for hunting on reservations. Can you imagine what would happen to the incredible herds at San Carlos or White Mtn if they threw open the doors, let in every redneck with a bugle call and sold em a tag otc? The places would look like Colorado by spring!!! :D
Sounds too me like some of you guys in the western states are just acting like spoiled children. $30-$40 for a tag? Sheesh thats hardly worth the commissions time. Here in TN I buy an all inclusive (species, weapon, state permits etc) license called a "Sportsmans License" that just had a 30% increase and now will run nearly $140 a year. Thats just to shoot deer, turkey, small game and to fish with in my own state! You guys wanna complain about paying less than a couple hundred bucks to kill animals that us easterners would pay THOU$AND$ for? You tell me... the annual number of animals that need to be removed is known. Why would the game depts NOT want more of them going to NRs when they will be getting up to 10x more money in license fees for those animals removal? Sound like common economic sense too me fellows! RA |
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
You guys wanna complain about paying less than a couple hundred bucks to kill animals that us easterners would pay THOU$AND$ for? You tell me... the annual number of animals that need to be removed is known. Why would the game depts NOT want more of them going to NRs when they will be getting up to 10x more money in license fees for those animals removal? Sounds too me like some of you guys in the western states are just acting like spoiled children. $30-$40 for a tag? Sheesh thats hardly worth the commissions time. Here in TN I buy an all inclusive (species, weapon, state permits etc) license called a "Sportsmans License" that just had a 30% increase and now will run nearly $140 a year. Nemont |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:20 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.