BigGameHunt.net Hunting Forums

[moderator]

June 2005 Poll:

Should non-residents have equal rights to a state's or province's game?

To vote in this poll, please visit our home page. The poll is on the right hand side.

[donmillion]

Frankly, I don't like the wording of this poll. I voted no, but not because I don't think non-residents should have "equal rights."

The thing is, how do you define "equal rights?" My guess is that the poll is trying to get at whether or not a state should be able to reserver more tags for residents than for non-residents. To that question my answer is an unequivocal YES! I do not really consider that to be a case of not giving non-residents "equal rights," though. Non-residents can have equal rights and still not be allocated as many tags as residents.

[NONYA]

Non residents already have better odds of drawing our trophy tags here in Montana because a certian number are reserved for NRs and the number that apply is much lower,so here they have more than equal rights as far as Im concerned....

[fuzzybear]

I think a hunter should be able to buy a license and tags to hunt anywhere he pleases, in the country he resides. First come first serve. Everyone have the same opportunity.

[Provider]

What % of Arizona's restoration projects are Federally funded...? ...and what % of tag's are nonresidents allocated? Hmmm.

Arizona wildlife programs benefit from federal funding

News Media
June 10, 2005



PHOENIX - Arizona's wildlife and sport fish conservation and education programs will receive about $11.5 million in federal funds for 2005. The money is Arizona's share of more than $530 million in excise taxes paid nationally by America's recreational shooters, hunters, anglers and boaters.

The funds are apportioned under two federal programs, Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration. Arizona's share of national Sport Fish funding for 2005 is $5.92 million. Wildlife Restoration funding accounts for another $5.68 million, including $1.2 million for hunter education. These funds are made available to states based on formulas that take into account the state's land and water area and the number of hunting and fishing license holders.

"Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration funds are essential for financing fish and wildlife management. Without them, we'd be hard-pressed to serve public demand for professional management of our sport fish and wildlife resources," says Larry Riley, fisheries branch chief.

The funds pay for up to 75 percent of the cost of each project, while the state contributes at least 25 percent. The Arizona Game and Fish Department receives no state general fund dollars; instead, it leverages these federal funds with other sources of income.

"Because sportsmen and women pay this federal excise tax on sporting equipment, the Arizona Game and Fish Department is able to survey game species, set scientifically sound hunt recommendations, and monitor hunter harvest for the long-term benefit of Arizona wildlife," says Leonard Ordway, game branch chief.

"This money supports hunter and aquatic educational programs that ensure safe and responsible hunting, boating and recreational shooting in Arizona," says Don Winslow, education branch chief. Ongoing projects to improve habitat, support wildlife-related recreation, and conduct research will also benefit.

Wildlife Restoration is guided by the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 and is funded by the collection of excise taxes and import duties on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment. Sport Fish Restoration is guided by the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act of 1950 and is funded by the collection of excise taxes and import duties on sport fishing equipment and tackle, trolling motors, motorboat and small engine fuels, and pleasure boats.

[Hiker]

I am new to this board..but I had to speak up....

I believe if you live in a certain state or province you should have priority over hunters that do not live there.
In my home state of Colorado we have a 60/40 split on hunting tags. Residents vs Non-Residents. Which I think is pretty fair.
Now North Dakota only gives Non-Residents 1% and Residents 99% of which, I do not think is fair.

[Hiker]

Some states, such as AZ, NV make a non-resident hunter purchase a license in order to apply for a draw. These licenses run over a hundred dollars. I do not think it's fair to charge hunters this fee unless the hit on their draw.

Wyoming ......“The G&F is proposing to set the price of a nonresident elk, deer or antelope license preference point at $40 for regular and special licenses.

The bill passed by the 2004 legislature also authorized increasing the price of nonresident preference points for moose and bighorn sheep. The G&F is proposing an increase from $7 to $75.”

I wrote this letter to them....Please reconsider your outlandish fees for a preference point. Many of your zones take 10 plus years to hit on a tag. Your price for a preference point isn’t even close to any other state. Colorado costs $3; Utah $5; Montana is the highest @ $20 and that includes Moose and Sheep. I thought one of your goals was to keep hunting growing, strong. With these ridiculous prices for preference points you are defeating the cause. The anti-hunters would love to see you increase your preference point fees to this unreasonably high cost, because they would win a huge battle, in their war against all hunting. You are supposed to be on our team but with these huge increases you are fighting with the antis against the sportsman who love the state of Wyoming.

Please do not make hunting in the state of Wyoming a “Rich mans sport”.

If you'd like to write them...Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Regulations, 3030 Energy Lane, Suite 100, Casper, WY 82604

Hiker

[AZThunder]

Being a native resident of Arizona, I can tell you this much. All states were much better off managing their own wildlife and fishing laws than before George Taulman (US Outfitters) drug the issue into the 9th District Court of Appeals. SCI issued a public statement against the lawsuit, and in favor of the legislation. They're right this time around, and yes, the courts have no business regulating state game and fish laws. Even the great Jim Zumbo made a public comment that the issue "is devisive, and is not good for hunters, or hunting".

As a result of the lawsuit, the 2005 Arizona Fall Draw has given non-residents "equal opportunity" at tags. Arizona is currently seeking an injunction from the 9th Circuit mandates, but even if the injunction is lifted, it will not reverse or effect the 2005 drawing. If you think USO and other greedy outfitters won't bring in their wealthy clients, and compete head-to-head with you for tags, you better think again. The whole premise of their (USO) suit was that it hastened their "ability to earn a living". Give me a break. It was a greed issue from the start, and a greed issue until the end. This very issue, fosters the reality, that hunting will soon become a rich man's only sport. I personally support non-resident hunting opportunities, and so do most hunters, in most states. To shut the door on non-resident hunters would be genocidal to most G&F departments, resulting in significant losses of much needed revenue to foster habitat and hunting, in each state, for generations to come.

In the meanwhile, if you want to hunt in the West, quit your whining, pony up the money for a license, pay the fees to put in for the draw, and chances are you'll probably draw a tag. If you don't, some wealthy Fudd will do it for you. Unfortunately, at the time of this writing, the application process deadline has expired in Arizona. (June 14 deadline) See what sniveling can get you?

I now direct all of you to my signature line. Have a good day!

[MTWACKO]

Didnt Taulman get arrested for spoting game from an airplane not to long ago?

[AZThunder]

It's been reported, but not proven that Taulman was in the airplane at the time of the violation. Reliable sources indicated that "a few clients and guides of USO" were cited for violations involving an aircraft during a big game hunt in Arizona. Specifics were withheld from the media, but similiar reports have been made/observed in central Arizona near the old Ruger Ranch (gun manufacturer Bill Ruger). That ranch sits in Unit 19A, and was recently sold and sub-divided into 40-acre ranchettes. Phase II was released this month (June). http://www.arizonalandandranches.com/

I recently returned from a habitat cleanup project last weekend in Arizona's Unit 10 (Big Boquillas Ranch), and met a wildlife manager there who personally admitted to our group that he cited Taulman for a hunting violation. He declined to give any specifics, but did say he was the only WM from Unit 10 to have had the privelige of writing him a citation. And yes, being an Arizona native resident and hunter, I promptly shook his hand. Our group then broke into applause.

AZThunder

USO: Moronic Outfitters Since Day 1

[MTWACKO]

How does he keep his liscense sfter getting cited for violations like that?Must be paying the right people.

[AZThunder]

I will clarify. Taulman was not cited for any aircraft violations that we can ascertain. Some of his employees and clients were cited. As for the citation he received in Arizona's Unit 10, the WM would not give any specifics, for obvious reasons. I got the impression it was a minor infraction ,such as shooting across a road. In situations like this, the perpetrator is simply fined for the violation ,and does not lose their license or right to hunt.

AZThunder

[MTWACKO]

Here in MT he would have gone before the F&G commision to see if he was going to loose his liscence,he probably would have.

[donmillion]

Yeah, here in Colorado the DOW is occassionally (though, not always) a bit lenient with individual hunters who commit minor, technical violations. My impression, though, is that they expect the professional guides and outfitters to know better, and those guys will lose their licenses to do business pretty quickly for pretty much anything.

This, I believe, is as it should be.

[MTWACKO]

They will use any excuse avaliable to revoke an outfitters liscence here in MT,the F&G dont like them at all.They hate to see anyone besides themselves profit from the wildlife of the state.