Resident vs. Nonresident
03-08-2005, 08:10 PM
#91
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Niwot,Colo USA
Posts: 267
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!!
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!!
03-08-2005, 08:14 PM
#92
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW Wyoming
Posts: 312
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
I think that Mr Taulman would take issue with my views.
03-08-2005, 08:17 PM
#93
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW Wyoming
Posts: 312
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$$ to!
If you go back to that post it was in Reply to RandyA!
A Constitutional amendment????? Absolutely!!!!!!! [/quote
It sure looked like it was directed at me! I mentioned golf!
I sincerely apologize!
I take back the Dumb A$$ to!
If you go back to that post it was in Reply to RandyA!
03-09-2005, 01:52 AM
#95
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Arcadia Ca USA
Posts: 210
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]
Here is the included letter for your Senator and Representative...
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: 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,
03-09-2005, 06:36 AM
#96
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Rural Kansas... Where Life is Good
Posts: 4,139
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.
03-09-2005, 07:09 AM
#97
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scottsdale Arizona USA
Posts: 527
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.
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.
03-09-2005, 07:13 AM
#98
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW Wyoming
Posts: 312
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.
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.
03-09-2005, 08:59 AM
#99
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Rural Kansas... Where Life is Good
Posts: 4,139
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.
03-09-2005, 01:55 PM
#100
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Arcadia Ca USA
Posts: 210
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.
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.