RandyA

SpyroAndes:

Wyoming elk tag is $490 20% of elk, deer, and antelope tags are allocated to NR, 25% OF SHEEP TAGS,. Specail draw is $900. Odds are some times not any better.


States rights, states wildlife. Just stay in kalifornia and keep your ideas there. You like most Kalifornians, "I don't like what is going on in Kalifornia", so I move, and as soon as I get to another state I try my hardest to make it the way it was in Kalifornia. Like I said, yada, yada, yada! Go thump your chest elsewhere, your retoric falls on deaf ears. The bill will pass the senate and give rights back to the states not the feds. The 9th circuit court is ruled by mindless leaches! Give me a break, interstate commerce!!!!! Then we should be able to sell the meat to. Birng back market hunting comrad!

$490 is not outrageous for a NR elk tag. I would pay $200 for a resident limited quota tag with out a second thought, but many residents count on an elk in the freezer for food, I know many. They make minimal wages, thier only recreation for the year is an elk hunt and maybe two cows for the freezer. It feeds thier family for a year and you want to deny them that? Or make it cost prohibitive so they draw welfare like the rest of your state!

Taulmans antics are about money, and profits. GREED! Not about helping little guys!

SpyroAndes

You shouldn't be scared, just a friendly debate...

Funny that you claim that I have typical left coast view... I am not the one that is looking to have my hunting tags partially subsidized by non-residents and federal funds. The people that want something for nothing are the residents of the game rich states.

It is your own little form of indian res. A handout and the expense of other people. Pretty soon yall will be asking the Gov't for a new truck every 4 years.

Please name another form of outdoor recreation, besides hunting and fishing, where non-residents are being discriminated against in both opportunity and cost?

A right to hunt?

I think that we should also pass amendments that making sailing and golf a right as well.

SA

PS. How do you plan to resolve the 102 and 109 deer hunts. Both are migration hunts that are hunting herds that are not originating from Wyoming? Does Mt., Id and the Feds, get a piece of those tag fees? How about Colorado and the 102 hunt?

I mean the entire argument is that the state OWNS the wildlife right?

gleninAZ

Spyro-My comment about poaching is a worst case scenario where the communists who want an equal tag cost and equal tag allocations would win. Then poaching will be rampant and the herds will be gone. You are obviously someone who cares deeply about hunting muleys and elk so I would hope you can see through the arguments and understand that Taulman's suit is what drove your costs way up. You can afford it but the average guy from out of state who dreams of a self guided western hunt won't be able to. I hope we can fight off private tags and in the end have total control of the game. Your greed comments will then apply as the states just want more money so I could see non resident allocations going to 20% but at a higher cost.

Your info on tag prices from whatever magazine are pure bunk as no one in this state has definitive info yet. Cancel the subscription to that rag. Good luck in your draws.

SpyroAndes

Correct... 20%... with 10% allocated to the General Non-Resident draw and 10% allocated to the Special Non-Resident draw. I am familiar with Wyoming.

Again, just explain to 1 time, the difference of the tag or the hunt from 1 draw pool or the other?

Then why 2 pools, other than trying to bleed non-residents out of more money under the guise of better draw odds?

Funny, I am not the one that is having my hunting subsidized by the Feds or by non-residents.

You might as well be waiting in a cheese line and collecting welfare, comrade

And the State of Wyoming is making decissions regarding tag pricing and policy, resident and non-resident, out of some moral obligation to the little guy?

Don't be absolutely niave... The State of Wyoming (any game rich states), Outfitters Groups and USO (Taulman) are ALL making decissions based upon money, profits and GREED!

For me, as a non-resident, at this point, Taulman is the lesser of the 3 evils...

For a resident of a state that he is fighting, he is the devil himself because he is ending their gravy train...

Funny thing, you call me comrade for supporting the efforts of a capitalist pig like Taulman... Ironic, no?

RandyA

Possession is 9/10ths of the law! Wyoming wildlife within its border belongs to the people of Wyoming!!! It will be proven when the bill passes the Senate. And currently every judge in Wyoming has defened that law, which is on the books!

If hunting out of state is such a priority to anyone, $490 should not stand in thier way to hunt an elk! $490 isn't a big expense any more. Anyone can come to this state after drawing a tag and hunt. It's easy, $490 for a tag, $250 for gas, you eat wether your at home or not. What other expense do you have???? $740 for an elk hunt, that is about a years cable bill! That is not outrageous. Tags in Canada are mid priced, but you have to hire an outfitter, more travel expense, and now that same elk hunt is $5000.

RandyA

The commission makes most of the decisions, along with the legislature. The outfitters don't rule the WG&F. If they did there would be tags for them to sell or more tags for NR's. They tried that in court in 2000 and lost.

Our state is no longer game rich and can't figure out where you get that info? Mule deer in most of the state at lowest levels in years, elk in the North West drastically lower, antelope holding there own. Between the wolves and the drought the hunting isn't exactely game rich!

The difference and intention between the pools is the more expensive pool has fewer applicants, allegedly making the odds better, I have seen it go both ways. But if you buy the more expensive tag you have better odds. Some 100%. Depends on the year.

SpyroAndes

Really, you think so?

Lets say hypothetically, Wyoming quadruples the number of deer tags in Unit 102 (a migration hunt out of Colorado into Wyoming) and just hammers the deer heard. What would Colorado Residents be screaming? Something like "They are destroying OUR deer herd!"

Does the state of Wyoming own the wildlife in Yellowstone Park?

The question is why should there be any discrimination? Not what level of discrimination is tolerable...

Btw, unless you haven't notice, the Canadians aren't conducting hunts on lands owned by the US Government and aren't having their Wildlife Divisions subsidized by the US Government. That give them the right to discriminate against non-Canadians.

SpyroAndes

Is there an Outfitter Drawing in Nevada? New Mexico? You get my drift... we are talking about the western states. Wyoming may not have one but several western states have adopted the landowner permit system and/or guide draws. Both are OUTFITTER driven for monetary gain.

Symantics... The hunting might not be up to the level is was a couple of years ago but to say that Wyoming is deplete of game is a stretch.

I don't care what the intention was... their intention was to milk more $ out of non-residents under the false promise of better draw odds.

We both know that their is NO guarentee of better draw odds because the Wyoming G&F own published reports report several hunts since the inception of the special pool that the draw odds in the special pool were either the same as the general draw or WORSE than the general draw.

BTW, the special draw pool was a concession to the Outfitters in the state.

glob3006

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!!!!!!!

Arkansas
Constitutional Right to Hunt
Bill Number: SJR 1, 2003
Status: Died
Proposes a constitutional amendment, to be known as the Sportsperson’s Bill of Rights, guaranteeing the right to hunt, fish, and harvest game.

California
“The people shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the
State and in the waters thereof, excepting upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water containing fish that have been planted therein by the State; provided, that the Legislature may by statute, provide for the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken.” (California Constitution, Article 1, Section 25, 1910)

Florida
Hunting, Fishing, & Gaming Rights
Bill Number: HJR 453, 2002
Status: Died in Committee
Constitutional amendment establishing the right of the people of the state to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions as prescribed by general law and state constitution. Amends s. 26, Art. I.

Georgia
Right to Hunt and Fish
Bill Number: HB 301, 2001
Status: Passed and signed into law 4/18/2001
This bill amends the Georgia Code to declare that Georgia citizens have the right to take fish and wildlife, subject to the laws and regulations adopted by the board for the public good and welfare. In addition, this bill prohibits local governments from regulating hunting, trapping, or fishing by local ordinance.

Constitutional Right to Hunt
Bill Number: SR 563
Status: Senate Passed/Adopted 1/26/04; House Committee Favorably Reported 2/12/04
Proposes an amendment to the Constitution so as to provide that the people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject only to reasonable restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law.

Indiana
Constitutional Right to Hunt
Bill Number: HJR 2, 2004
Status: Referred to Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedures 1/13/04
Amends the Indiana constitution to provide that the people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest game.

Louisiana
Constitutional Right to Hunt and Trap
Bill Number: SB 47, 2003
Status: In Committee, session ended (no carryover)
Amends the constitution to preserve the right to hunt, fish, and trap.

Michigan
Hunting Rights
Bill Number: HJR L, 2003
Status: In Committee
Establishes hunting, fishing, camping, or taking game as a Constitutional right.

Minnesota
The Hunting and Fishing Amendment
Bill Number: SF 41, 1997-1998
Status: Amendment Passed
A bill for an act proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution, article XIII, by adding a section affirming that hunting and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage.

Mississippi
In 1997, the Mississippi legislature considered putting a similar state constitutional amendment before the voters, but the measure did not pass.

Missouri
Constitutional Right to Hunt
Bill Number: SJR 24, 2004
Status
Amends the state constitution to provide for a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest game.

Montana
Constitutional Right to Hunt
Bill Number: HB 306, 2003
Status: Chaptered 4/3/2003
Amends the state constitution forever preserving the right to hunt.

Nebraska
Preserve Hunting Rights
Bill number: LR 4CA, 2003
Status: Carried over to Second Regular Session
Constitutional amendment to preserve the right to fish, trap, and hunt
Attorney General’s Opinion #04003: Whether LR4CA, a proposed amendment to the Nebraska Constitution regarding hunting, fishing, and trapping, will have an affect on the Nebraska Constitution and various existing statutes.

New Hampshire
Codifies the Right to Hunt, Trap, and Fish
Bill Number: HB 273, 2001
Status: Passed
This bill amends the New Hampshire Code by stating that the fish and game department will recognize, preserve, and promote hunting, fishing, and trapping and will provide opportunities to carry out such activities in accordance with title XVIII.

New Mexico
Right to Hunt
Bill Number: SJR 1, 1999
Status: Died
The “right to hunt” resolution would have made it a constitutional right to hunt and fish, placing that use above and beyond all other non-consumptive wildlife uses.

North Dakota
Hunting, Fishing, Trapping for the Public Good/State Heritage
Bill Number: Constitutional Measure 1, 2000
Status: Passed
This constitutional amendment, passed in 2000, provides that hunting, trapping, and fishing are a valued part of residents’ heritage and will be preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good.

Pennsylvania
Right to Hunt
Bill Number: HB 1512, 2003
Status: Passed House 2/9/04; In Senate Committee
Proposes an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing the right to hunt and fish. Hunting and fishing are already legal in the state.

Rhode Island
“The people shall continue to enjoy and freely exercise all the rights of fishery, and the privileges of the shore, to which they have been heretofore entitled under the charter and usages of this state. But no new right is intended to be granted, nor any existing right impaired, by this declaration.” (Rhode Island Constitution, Article 1, Section 17, 1844)

South Carolina
Declaration of Rights
Bill Number: H 3702, 2003
Status: In Committee, session ended (03-04 carryover)
Proposes an amendment to the State Constitution; relates to the declaration of rights; provides for the right of the people to hunt, fish, and take game.

South Dakota
Bill Number: HJR 1004, 2003
Status: Introduced, session ended (no carryover)
A joint resolution, proposing and submitting to the voters at the next general election an amendment to Article XXI of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, relating to hunting, fishing, and trapping.

Texas
Right to hunt
Bill Number: HJR 14, 2001
Proposing a constitutional amendment relating to the right to hunt and fish.
Status: Died

Vermont
“The inhabitants of this State shall have the liberty in seasonable times, to hunt and fowl on the lands they hold, and on other lands not inclosed, and in like manner to fish in all boatable and other waters (not private property) under proper regulations, to be made and provided by the General Assembly.” (Vermont Constitution, Chapter 2, part 67, 1777)

Virginia
Right to hunt
Ballot Measure 2, 2000
Status: Passed
This Virginia ballot measure, passed in 2000, provides by constitutional amendment that “the people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law.”

Washington
Right to hunt and fish
Bill Number: HJR 4204, 2001
Status: Died in Committee
Adds the right to hunt and fish to the Constitution of the state of Washington.

Wisconsin
“Right to Hunt”
Bill Number: AJR 1, 2003
Status: Amendment Passed
Calls for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to hunt, fish, and trap.

Press Clips
2/17/04 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Hunting, fishing amendment may be superfluous
1/26/04 Atlanta Journal-Constitution: A sporting chance: Legislation aims to protect hunting, fishing
1/14/04 Omaha World Herald: Schrock tables embattled amendment plan
1/29/03 WisPolitics.com: Legislature Passes Constitutional Amendment Protecting Right to Hunt and Fish
Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal Program: Alabama Considers Constitutional “Right to Fish”
4/3/02 Christian Science Monitor: ‘Right to hunt’ vs. animal rights: What’s fair game?


Sources:
(1) “‘Right to hunt’ bill in question.” The Fund for Animals. 16 December 2001. Wildlife Management Interactive. 22 December 2003 <http://www.wminteractive.org/Articles/01tx12-16.htm>.
(2) Letter to NM Senate Conservation Committee. Defenders of Wildlife. 1999.
(3) Duff, John A. “Alabama Considers Constitutional ‘Right to Fish’” Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal Program. The University of Mississippi. 22 December 2003 <http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/fish.htm>.
This page was last updated on March 16, 2004.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only thing lacking in most of the provisions is pricing and allocation rights.

How do you see that I am looking for subsidation?????????? Do I not buy products and contribute to organizations that help with conservation of game species in other states ???????? I DO!!!!!!!!!!
Throw that argument out the window and don't use it in consectutive posts!

RandyA

[quote]Really, you think so?

Lets say hypothetically, Wyoming quadruples the number of deer tags in Unit 102 (a migration hunt out of Colorado into Wyoming) and just hammers the deer heard. What would Colorado Residents be screaming? Something like "They are destroying OUR deer herd!"

]

Hypothetically the state wouldn't do that, political suicide! Won't happen!

Does the state of Wyoming own the wildlife in Yellowstone Park? [/quote

Yes! But hunting is not allowed in National Parks.

Where is the descimination? You don't live here! It takes money to manage an agency as large as the WYG&F. They can't do it for free. It is the states choice, (so far)!

But most of the big game hunting is conducted on Crown lands! Same diff! Where is the subsidy to the WYG&F? Over 90% of its income is derived from license sales!


... A couple of years ago? You are listening to some ones BS! It has been 8 or 9 years since Wyomings game as at a rich status!


Not much of a concession, you still don;t have to hire an outfitter. Except in a wilderness area, or go with a resident. (Which is a law that should be struck from the books!)

Damn you type fast!