gleninAZ

Great meeting with Game and Fish last night and included one of our five commissioners plus the lobbyist. Room was full and high level of discussion. elk, sheep, deer and antelope organizations were there. Bottom line of Taulman's suit will be more restriction of the non resident via higher fees, extra points for working 40 hours a year to improve habitat(NR can also get), everyone must pay for a license before they can apply, a seperate commercial pool of 10% reserving 90% for residents but also giving residents equal chance in the 10% of commercial, outlawing the sale of any parts from big game mammals and a few other topics. So, if USO represents the non-resident hunter as they claim and all but the commercial topic can be done by Game and Fish without the legislature, what good can come of all this for the non-resident? I will say that many at the meeting wanted to improve hunting, get Taulman buried and still not screw the NR hunter too bad.

CalNewbie

GleninAZ - did you get an idea of which changes are more favored than others? For instance, I gather that if they outlaw the sale of any of the parts/take out the commercial aspect they should be free to return to the old method of awarding tags.

I can't see the logic behind the proposed requirement to buy a license before applying for the draw, other than to jack up the price. What's your take on that one?

Hopefully they can find a solution that doesn't dig too deep into the wallet of the ordinary hunter.

HighDesertWolf

gleninAZ,

If any changes have to be made I couldn't agree more with those, seems its not to far off from how it was before but changed enough to be "legal" I doubt those were the results Taulman was hoping for. But it kinda falls in the "hey Taulman back in your face B!atch!!"
and asfar as the not allowing commercial sale and trade for the animal parts I have no problem with that since the last state I lived in did not allow that either. The only animal parts you could sell only with a special permit was the hides of furbearers and there were also bounties for certain predators and varmints but that was the only way to make any money off game. As a hunter and outdoorsman I feel hunting should not be turned into commercial business which Taulman has taken part in and did. I believe hunting is not only recreational but most importantly its wildlife and herd managment.

gleninAZ

Cal-The purchase of a license and going back to paper entries, money up front is probably going to happen. They analyzed the last 15 years of applications and with our super population growth plus the cheapo five buck to enter every species we are way lower in our resident chances to draw vs NR. If they would have had the data for the lawsuit the discrimination part would not likely have been an issue. The license deal won't hurt USO's wealthy customers but it does make all pay every year for the chance to draw. Yes it gets more money for Game & Fish but they need it for habitat projects and overall Taulman will definitely end up costing the NR hunter more. As for the argument many have put forth on the whole country owning the game, they pointed out that California has limited elk hunts and they are not open to NR at all so you might see George going after you soon. Bottom line is AZ is very serious about controlling our game and improving habitat and we fully expect court challenges from Taulman using his deep pockets and the state and hunters clearly stated we will welcome and pay our share to defend against him. I hope we set a precedent for other states to follow and I will pay my share to hunt other states if they do.

CalNewbie

GleninAZ – Thanks for the update. As you may recall from my previous posts, I fully support Arizona’s goal of protecting hunting opportunities for its residents. Remove the commercial/commerce aspect from the equation and the courts have already stated that the states are well within their rights to do this.

Its unfortunate that some of the solutions to this situation will end up impacting the regular out of state hunter. Arizona’s non-resident hunting license costs $113.50. It seems a bit steep to charge that up front just for the chance to draw a tag. In the great scheme of things that may not be a lot, its certainly also not a little amount.

Before all this I would view Arizona’s policies as generously offering a share of its coveted natural resources to neighbors. Now I fear that with an increase in non-resident drawing fees, tag fees, etc., Arizona may come to view non-residents as a revenue source to be tapped. It might change things in the short term, but look down the road a few years and it might not work out like planned.

Once that non-resident revenue stream kicks in all sorts of odd things can happen. Maybe money gets tight and there’s a cut in the department’s funding. Maybe there’s a change in administrations and they have a different philosophy on the whole matter. Then, someone looks at the numbers and realizes that if they give over another 100 tags to non-residents they’ll be able to hire or keep this many staff, or remodel an office. One day you wake up and resident’s hunting opportunities are taking a back seat to revenue generated by non-residents.

Other states have taken this approach and have raised the price of non-resident licenses and tags over the past few years. Its an easy answer. After all, non-residents can’t vote and can’t elect representatives and governors that can put pressure on the state agencies. But since there are enough of them they can drive up the price. Maybe one day we’ll all have to go to eBay and bid on tags. In the long run maybe we’d all be better off if limited opportunities such as these were only available to residents. It might be a stretch, but then again, how common were hunting leases twenty years ago?

Just a reminder, I'm on Arizona's side on this one. My responses to Arizona's only survey boiled down to "you gotta do what you think is right", I just hope that the laws of unintended consequences don't kick in on this one.