RE: A letter from Taulman regarding Nonresident rights...
 

USO trying to get more non-res license and RandyA now you mention more folks trying to get hunters into the refuges??? Its ALL a dream come true I tell ya!!! :):):)

I hate to see "the little guy" squeezed out of the sport BUT one positive for increased fees and non-residents is that if it brings more money too the game departments then its better for them as opposed to them being financed by other sources like general funds, canoers and hikers and other "non-hunters" that will then want more time and representation for "their interests".

As for the waterfowl refuges, take it from this MS Flyway resident there are WAY to damned many refuges now. So many so that they have altered the flight patterns and made once prime hunting areas "ghost towns". I think they should change the defintion of refuge too mean "federal feedstations that falsely lure birds and invite disease outbreaks".

LOL now man your flame throwers! ;)
RA

RE: A letter from Taulman regarding Nonresident rights...
 

Do you guys understand the can of worms opened by George? Now anybody can file a law suit against the state for it's hunting regs. If we don't stop it now we will lose it all! Add lawyers into the picture and watch the costs go way to high. This is all about greed. I want, I want, I want, this is not good for hunting or states rights. This issue will split the hunting community and guess who is waiting in the wings? This is the door all the ANTI's have been waiting for and it is now open.
Gselkhunter

RE: A letter from Taulman regarding Nonresident rights...
 

Not that out of line for who?;)

I don't care if what you do with your residency laws. But charging someone nearly 5 times the price to have access to federal gound and that is federally funded in part by my taxes is out of line IMO. The next time you go see a ferseral park if they try to charge you a $500 access fee becasue you are a NR are you going to think that's OK as well? You may stay there 365 etc. etc. but NR money still adds a boost to your economy and I would venture to guess probably adds as much revenue to your G & F dept. as residents do.

Survey says..........................................AAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I don't think so. Tag prices are out of control and have been since long before Taulman sued anybody. That lawsuit was just settled this past year.

That was a good point. Now if you will just move over to the mirror as you say it and then try and wrap your mind around it, you will be OK;)

RE: A letter from Taulman regarding Nonresident rights...
 

And you think I don't make sense??? Silent, if you don't agree that the money that is spent in your area should stay there then why are governments always trying to bring in business to your local areas? It's because the money that comes there is kept there. Don't act like every penny you make is sent to us. That's a load of crap, just like your logic.

RE: A letter from Taulman regarding Nonresident rights...
 

Hick,

You think I am greedy because I want to have access to lands that my tax money helps pay for and because I want to do so without having to spend a small fortune. I think you're greedy because you don't want me to have access to those lands and because you think I should have to pay up to ten times more than a resident to access the lands that my taxes are helping pay for. You're not going to convince me that I am wrong and I am not even sure that you understand and are capable of comprehending the situation so why don't we just agree to disagree.

On second thought I think you all are right.

All the G & F departments have strictly the games' best interest in mind. It hasn't become all about money and their is no price gouging going on. Non-residents should stay in their own and states and not bother "your" game. Federal lands shouldn't really offer access to everyone, only the residents of the state in which they are located.:eek::([:'(][&:][8D]

RE: A letter from Taulman regarding Nonresident rights...
 

The problem I have with this whole issue is that by getting equal rights to all for game tags, residents and NR alike, is that with more NR comes the need/demand for outfitters, like USO, with this comes more money inflow for them(outfitters) also, which inturn allows them to lease up more land, including private lands, which inturn keeps the hunter that usually can find a place to hunt by knocking on doors and asking, less of a chance of finding a place to hunt!! At this rate we will all have to pay for any access!! Eventually there will be very little "public" land open! In my eyes, USO isn't "just" trying to get equal access to federal lands, they are trying to increase thier business base by having more NR tags available to them, which in turn gives them the funds to lease up more land!! GREED!!! I don't beleive for a minute that Taulman is trying to help all hunters get access to any land, federal or not!!

RE: A letter from Taulman regarding Nonresident rights...
 

silientassassin,

You are arguing with a person that has the handle of "Hick Chic" and you are just now figuring out that they just might not get it?

This is the same person that thinks that nonresident tag prices being so high is because of Taulman's suit.

Nevermind that tag prices have, as long as I have been alive, discriminated against the nonresident.

Nevermind I was just moving mounts in my house last night and I noticed the tag stapled to wood on one of my big muleys: Nevada 1988 Nonresident Tag & License $210! If I recall correctly, residents paid $20 for tag & License in 1988.

Nevada must have been raising money in anticipation of Taulman suing.

The reason why these states, like Arizona, are considering $3400 elk tags for nonresidents is because they have been forced into a same pool draw.

They want to run off as many nonresident applicants as possible (e.g. the nonresident little guys) in an attempt to maintain the resident better chances of drawing by pricing 99% of the nonresidents out of the drawing.

RE: A letter from Taulman regarding Nonresident rights...
 

There is no use making fun of other members of this board that heve been here much longer than you and have expressed themselves on more than this single issue which seems to have you consumed

From the posts and reports of other well known members here--I'm sure she could hunt circles around you---I know---you're a great hunter and all

perhaps when this subject is gone--you will be too--hopefully

RE: A letter from Taulman regarding Nonresident rights...
 

Okay, lets focus not on our interests, but for the states interests, and see why the G & F makes some of the decisions they do. As what is stated above, is both correct and incorrect. My example has to do with Kansas, which is a state on Taulmans list. Taulmans plan is bad not only financially for the KDWP but also bad for game management. Here is why...

Residents should 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.

Since majority of hunters do not hunt out of state, 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 some people 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. And now with less resident hunters, there are also many many less meat hunters. The deer population number will dramatically rise.

This is what it comes down to. The biggest incentive for the Kansas Department of W & P, is to lower the deer herd, that is the #1 way to help Game Management The KDWP wants to do this so they aren't sued and liable like said above. With Taulmans idea, this will dramatically lower the amount of resident hunters, otherwise known as "Game Management" tools, and replace them with hunters who will rarely shoot does. Not only is Taulman idea terrible for Game Management but also opens the Wildlife and Parks up to many liability issue and lawsuits. The Game and Fish here is already low on $$$, and if Taulmans idea happens, then you can bet there will be many wildlife and parks programs will be the 1st to go. Taulmans idea would be a disaster for Kansas.

Read up, go to state meetings, parks meetings, etc. Taulmans plan would break hunting in Kansas, regardless of our stance on the issue.

RE: A letter from Taulman regarding Nonresident rights...
 

Oh, BUT how can that be, after all Taulman is only trying to get fair access to Federal lands for all, and we all know that KS. has a bunch of that;)
If he gets his way, he'll have enough money, and clients, to lease up half of KS.:)