RandyA

Lol, ok fine... Then this Californian can hunt circles around you. Does that make you feel better?


Yada yada yada! I didn't come on here to change the world or brag! I just wanted to post a news item that will affect us all and will maybe shut down George Taulman. The post is about states rights, a right, not a privelege. By the constitution. I know in Kalifornia you don't recognize the constitution or respect it. And if you read the origanal post, Ben Nelson is also a co-sponser, from Nebraska. That's a big game mecca! Lots of federal land there!

The wildlife belongs to the states, Wyoming law clearly states and supports it. Your claim to federal land and wildflife is a lame round about way to circumvent states rights. Keep trying, it ain't gonna happen. Residents should have some privelege for living in a state, other wise why have individual states???? Hmmmm, like the old Russia! One union, one country, yes comrad, you might be on to something.

Wirehair, we pay Pitman Robertson taxes here to. Regardless the the majority of funds to the WYG&F come from license sales. Over 85% of thier budget.

Wirehair

RandyA, I never said you didn't pay PR taxes, but a lot of posts have the "our state gets nothing from the federal government" or " all our money comes from license and tag sales". Everyone who buys outdoor products pay into it.

According to their annual report PR funds account for about 50% of WYG&F budget not 15%. Their wildlife division budget for 2004 was $14,407,986 and they recieved $7.1 million from the fund.

SpyroAndes

Lol, Wirehair... don't confuse them with facts.

The scary thing is that of that $7 million that comes from license and tag sales... Non-Resident sales contribute more than 60% of it.

So basically, the Residents of Wyoming contribute a total of $3,000,000 of their Game Department's $14,500,000 budget.

But they are supposedly owed something...

It is Wildlife Welfare...

A complete handout...

kshunter

Many reasons, here goes a few.

Because residents have been putting in time and money into their own state. There are many small organizations, from the state that fund projects for wildlilfe projects, which in return support the State and Federal resources. Every state has them. Whether it is the Nevada Bighorns Unlimited who continue to raise money for wildlife projects, or the Arizona Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, they're made up almost entirely by residents(I'm sure there are a few non-res.). The benefits made from these organizations now will be reaped of them, due to the much more limited access. These are "Residents" putting into the system and doing the work, not "Nonresidents". If the Fed's want to manage the states resources, then rid of the State G & F dept., otherwise, let them do their job.

Residents should also 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. Give me a break! Why would the Wildlife and Park do that, theyd be stupid? Taulman found a loophole on the Fed. land, with no more ambitions than filling his pockets full.

And some think that not making residents and non-residents hunters equal is unfair to non-residents? No, making it equal would be unfair to majority of all residents. Remember, majority of hunters don't hunt out of state. Think about it. Majority of resident hunters will have to pay more for hunting their own land and have a lesser chance at getting a tag, and you justify it by saying they are more likely to get a tag in another state for less money, when they don't even want the tag.

Discrimination between residents and non-residents should continue to happen. Complaining about not getting enough tags or being too expensive is ridiculous. But that is my opinion, everybody has their own. Discrimination is everywhere. Maybe next time, rifle hunters will sue the state for not having as good of seasons as the bowhunters. Maybe bowhunters will sue the state for having units where as rifle hunters do not. Maybe a rifle hunter will sue Iowa for not being able to use a rifle. This is all discrimination. Where does it stop. Everywhere you look is discrimination. And lawsuits are down both paths of the road. There's is always going to be some Lawful Loophole, that people like Taulman will find, to meet their needs, which in his case $$$. Hunting Regulations are a right given to the state. The state manages the land a resource, whether it be Federal, Public, or Private. So let them do their job.

SpyroAndes

Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Max Baucus, D-Mont.; Ted Stevens, R-Alaska; John Ensign, R-Nev.; and Ben Nelson, D-Neb.

Nuff said... Senators trying to protect the handouts for their residents.

That is the point... Your state law is wrong according to Federal Judges...

Will a reference to Nazi Germany be far behind?

Act like an intelligent individual and don't misrepresent the opposition's stance to draw comparisions to communism.

I guess that wirehair proved you wrong?

Hey atleast you don't need to stand in line for your wildlife welfare...

SpyroAndes

Let me address this with a couple of different points...

1) Charity work should be done for just that CHARITY. Not for some personal gain.

2) I belonged to several of these small local organizations and about 10%-20% of their membership was from non-residents.

3) The VAST majority of the funds raised by these small local organizations were not from residents. They were from auctions, more importantly Governor's Permits, to NON-RESIDENT hunters. Most of the hunts that were donated to these banquets were from OUT-OF-STATE outfitters.

The feds don't want to manage the wildlife... They just feel that the tag allocation differences and the pricing differences are absolutely rediculous.

Please tell me how a resident shooting a deer is different than a non-resident from shooting a deer... both serve that same purpose in managing herds.


You only believe that non-resident tags are 2 or 3 times more expensive? Are you naive?

Non-residents generally pay 10 to 25 times of the resident price for the tag.

So if non-residents shoot nothing but bucks... the resident meat hunters, which you seem so concerned about, would have all the tag allocation because no non-residents would be in that draw pool.

So basically, you are claiming that your local Wildlife Department is already mismanaging your deer herds because every herd is on the decline?

But we should let them do what they are doing...

Let me put it this way... nobody would cry "HANDOUT", "FOUL" or "UNFAIR" louder than you guys if Montana declared that Native Americans could sustinance hunt on all public land like they do in Canada.

But they should be able to do that right because they are the ORIGINAL RESIDENT and we are all non-residents, right?

That is MANAGEMENT and nobody is fighting that.... We are talking tag allocation discrimination and tag pricing discrimination.

You just told me that they are doing a poor job of management because all the deer herds are on the decline.... Why do you want them to continue to do the same job that they are doing?

kshunter

SpyroAndes,

You missed a lot of points, with your selective cutting and pasting. Paragraphs are there for a reason.

By using your ex.: 10-20% of the organizations Nonresidents put a vast(vast means 90%+) majority of the funds into the state organization. I don't buy that(per avg. state org.), and I doubt anyone else here does.

All you have to do is read a little further down on my paragraph. You point is fabricated out my a point which was only stated in a Copy/Paste. If you read further down, you'll answer you're own question.

Nope you're wrong. For a hypo. example. If a NR tag in KS cost $400 and a Res. tag cost $40, and your "equal theory" were to occur, Residents tags would not jump to $400 per tag, but instead the overall equal tag between the 2 would lower the NR tag and raise the Res. tag making the 10-12X you're talking about more like 3-5X. It would only be 10-12X higher if all tags went to $400. But that would defeat the purpose of what you want, wouldn't it.

Just think maybe good management is a declining deer herd. Take Kansas for example. KS is trying and has been trying to lower the herd for "Management" practices. A declining deer herd is not always bad, and your "equal tag/price theory" would only do the opposite of Kansas's deer management by leaps and bounds.

Wrong again, see above. You may be fighting the tag allocation and pricing, but also fighting management. The two are directly linked together. Just read the paragraphs above, and if you're smart enough,(which I'm sure you are), it's easy to figure it out.

Must I really respond to this one? See above, again.


I'm using Kansas as an example because it is a state I am most familiar with. Making the tags and prices equal for Kansas, would be disaster. Not only for Game Management also for liability of many many potential lawsuits against the State W&P, that would most deffinately happen. Even besides all of that, the ethical stance of eliminating the "little man" in hunting, is something I will stand up against anyday, to preserve to sport of hunting.

SpyroAndes

Goto to a local banquet... watch who is buying what... I have been to several local organization banquets in Arizona.

Not once did I see the Governor's tags being purchased by a resident. It was always some non-resident, bidding by phone, that was buying them.

When a banquet raises $300,000 and $200,000 alone is raised on the sale of 3 Governor's permit to non-residents, I'd definitely say that the non-resident monetary contribution is much greater.

Lets talk about reality out west and the states involved right now... Nevada, Arizona and Wyoming...

In Arizona, residents are allocated 90% of the tags.

So lets take a sample of 10 hunters (9 residents and 1 non-resident)

Residents pays roughly $22 for a deer tag on the Kaibab or 9 x $22 = $198

The non-resident pays roughly $1250 for the same tag or 1 x $1250 = $1250

So lets add them together... $200 + $1250 = $1450

If everyone was going to pay the equal amount for a tag, it would be $145 per tag or $1450/10 = $145

For a price increase of 700% for the arizona resident hunter.

We can do Nevada, Wyoming and New Mexico... they all follow suit...

Not fighting management at all... nobodys say that all tags have to priced the same. Doe tags can be cheaper. Buck tags in poorer quality areas can be cheaper than tags in better units.

What people are not fighting is what price the state sets for tags or how many tags are issued BUT the discrepancy in tag pricing and tag allocation between residents and non-residents.

There is no legitimate basis for the discrimination...

Who would sue the State W&P? Pissed off residents? They might even vote those b@stards out of office come next election!

You ever stop to think that is why your state is exploiting the NON-RESIDENTS? Because whenever your State W&P needs to generate more revenue, they just hike up the prices for non-residents because they are unable to vote in that state?

That is a pure and simple load of bullsh*t because you are all for eliminating the non-resident little man.

Frankly, unless you make $100K per year or more, hunting in the west, as a non-resident, is essentially over...

By the time all my non-resident applications are submitted, I'll have more than $25,000 tied up in tag fees. Sure, I'll get 99% of it back because I won't draw but, to get drawn for something, that is what you have to do as a non-resident.

Let me put it this way, lets just do Elk apps for a non-resident in the West... lets say a cop from Georgia that makes $45K per year...

Arizona - $2400
New Mexico - $800
Nevada - $1200
Utah - $800
Montana - $600
Wyoming - $900
Colorado - $500
Idaho - $350

That would be a total of $7550 in just Elk Tag Appications to hopefully draw a decent tag somewhere and does NOT include the purchasing of licenses for many states which are between $100-$150.

You guys have already cut out the little guy...

kshunter

Which would be very normal since the given the circumstances. A resident doesn't need to pay the big money for tag like th non-resident that buys it is. The statement makes complete sense. Still with all the state org's. non-resident's still aren't going to pay a vast majority of funds, when they equal 10-20% on the high side. If you went to other org.'s that didn't have the gov. tags, things would be a lot different, as you would see.

Besides, I think that particular issue is getting off the track of the real issue on hand.

Yes, lets talk about the states involved. Taulman has made a list and Kansas is included. Last thing I'm going to do is wait until it's too late, and then just complain. Pre-emptive actions are important.

The discrepancy in tag pricing and tag allocation between residents and non-res. does directly effects the deer management. Not agreeing with that is like, limiting the amount of kids that go to school and expect them all to be as smart as before there was a limitation.

Insurance agencies, lobbyist, farmers, and yes that does include me. Like I said before majority of deer hunters shoot the first deer they see, for meat and sport, not always the rack. When that same "average" hunter has to pay 3-5X the amount to hunt for that tag, then they aren't going to bother. Even with some cheap doe tags(which you suggested) having to be selective in harvesting a deer(for a meat hunter) only lowers the chance of harvest for them.

And since the NR hunters are filtering in and leasing the land from the "little man" who is going to be there to even shoot the doe and manage the herd, when the NR hunters won't do it, and Residents can't do it?

Spyro, All I'm asking is think about this for a little bit and use a little common sense. Majority of hunters do Not hunt out of state! So 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 you 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. But you're helping the little man?? haha You have got to me kiddin me!!!


You speak of this situation:

Who in the world hunts for elk in 8 states in one fall or even draws for that many??? Or even 2 states? Maybe, just maybe if that was your full-time job. The little man rarely hunts out-of-state. Even if the money wasn't the problem, time would be for most everybody out there. I don't think you know of the meaning of little man. The "little man" is getting the short end of the stick. You are mixing up the "little man" with the "money man" of the big city. Somebody needs a road-trip out of Cal.

Why can hunters unite as one and preserve our sport??? It used to be easier until minds like Taulman came around. I guess greed can get the best of some.

hillbillyhunter1

I think you bring up a very good point kshunter,

It is the little guys that would suffer because of rulings that supported Taulman and others.
Specifically, the little guys that live in areas under a high demand from "trophy" hunters. If these little guys had to wait to draw tags or pay higher prices (like non-residents), They would probably have to give up hunting (God forbid) or become illegal. Now I'm sure that little guys that lived in areas that were not in that high of a demand would probably be relatively unaffected. Hunting has always been a very personal thing for most and has generally been a local pursuit until this past generation. Its unfortunate that some now want to change the very structure that has made hunting so popular with the average joe. Average joe has probably hasn't even considerded, until recently, that it might one day be other hunters that push him out of his own backyard.