AZ court ruling will affect many states!!

Tas  , In your opening post, you say you are for outfitters. BULLSHIT.

Outfitters have never done a damn thing to help the habitat or game species. They have beem instrumental in every bad game law on the books.Every one that they have gotten passed only meant more money in thier pockets.They are making money of fyours and my widlife

You ride past thier camps and they act like you are trespassing onthier own private land. 

And don't give me this crap about they are preforminga service for those that can't do it on thier own. If you can't do it, forget it. Just because you can plunk down $5k to let some asshole show you where an elk is standing  doesn't make you an expert hunter.

I have nothing against non resident hunters, but don't think they should pay the same for a license as a resident. Most western states do not enjoy the standard of living as those on the west coast and God forbid California. You might have guessed that the outfitters would get the court action in liberal California.

If this goes through all the way, you can bet that hunting as we know it will become a thing of the past

Access to the Federal land we all pay for has never ever cost a nonresident a dime more than a local. Hunting is not access and game animals for the most part are a state controlled resource. The day someone from Maine or Alabama pays all the same taxes that support our local game management that I, as a state resident do then they should pay the same for a license and tag as I, but not until then.

I think this ruling will eventually take the opportunity to hunt out on the back forty on the cheap away from many of us out west. It was a small benefit compared to how hard it is to make a living in places out here. I was looking at a place to be able to retire and not be forced to dine on Alpo one day. I was looking at average incomes, taxes, and cost of property. There are many places out here where the average income is at or just above the poverty line for entire COUNTIES. So now the locals with barely a pot to urinate in have to compete with well heeled guys from the other side of the continent just to go shoot a deer?

Fine. To be fair then the country club set has to give our sons equal access to their fair haired female offspring. I'm sure as many young men our way dream of bagging a rich blonde as there are guys back east looking for a 30" mulie they can buy.

It just irks me that people think they should be able to live in comfort in a place with good wages and then reap the same few minimal benefits to living in a rough and less hospitable place where hard work to make ends meet is as much the norm as a low balance in the checking account. I know guys out here that have to drive over 100 miles (105 to be exact) just to buy new underwear.

If they want the same benefits then earn them, move here. Give up the suits, the Acura or Benz, and the money that allows them to not have to fix their own sink drains, mow their own lawn, or change their own oil. Otherwise accept the fact that you will always be a tourist with a fat wallet and a car that's just too clean to fit in.

Steelyeyes,

 Just read your last post. It goes both ways doesn't it? You make the deliberate decision to give up income and convienience in order to live where you want. Another man gives up living where he wants in order to better provide for his family, and pays for it by urban or suburban living amongst the hooligans, with a WESTERN trip now and then to cleanse himself of the stench of the EAST, unitl he can provide security for himself and family, and then some day maybe afford to move out where the air is cleaner. Some folks share the same values in spite of their street address or Rural route number.

max

.

It strikes me there are a lot of people here, who have given up the comforts and convienience to raise families here. Thank God for them. I pity those who feel they must live in the squallor of the cities to live the good life. There are many, most likely the majority that live here that work until the day they die, and don't complain about thier lot, because they were thier own person. We  don't depend on the "safety and security"  of the city or the government, or trust them or those who inhabit them. Too many bad habits thier momma's shouldn't ever have let them develop. And they bring those rude habits along. Truly the Ugly American at it's source. They should have been eaten while thier bones were still soft.

I want someone from out of state telling me what to do, just as much as I welcome the UN.

I owed Tas an apology, and have sent it PM. In my rage of reading the opening post on this, by the time I got to the bottom of it, I had forgotten or simply ignored that he was quoting someone else.

I normally don't go postal on things like this, but these damn outfitters are taking away from all of us. I don't know which to compare them to, lawyers ot poachers. Probably I liken them to a lawyer that poaches I guess.

While we may recognise licenses on a temporary basis, if you reside in the state more than a month, you are required to get a resident license. Six months residency required for a resident hunting or fishing license.

The politicians seem to have no problem not recognising carry permits from other states.

the fallout begins - - - this is not good for anyone all hunters LOSE.

---------------------------

This from the Billings Gazette.

This -- dated July 15, 2004 and addressed to Duane Shroufe, Director Arizona Game & Fish Department -- from the Arizona Cattleman's Association. -TONY



"Dear Mr. Shroufe:

My clients have developed an impression that the Arizona Game & Fish Department is not receptive or sensitive to concerns relating to property damage caused by wildlife and/or inconsiderate hunters. After much thought and discussion, the following ranches have, or are seriously considering, denying any and all public access for any purpose on their private land:

Aztec Land and Cattle Comapny

Becker Land and Cattle Company

LO Ranch

7-Up Ranch

Goldtrap Ranch

Willaha Ranch

McCauley Ranch

X-one Ranch

Rock Art Ranch

Aja Sheep Company

Freeman Ranch

Carlock Ranch

Diamond A's (Cholla Livestock)

K-4 Ranch

Las Vegas Ranch

Dobson and Dobson Livestock Company

Dobson Estate

Vernon 825, LLC

Sheep Springs Sheep Company, LLC

Timberline Cattle Company

Wagon Bow Ranch

Lazy YE

Red Wing Ranch

Cowan Ranch

Yolo Ranch

ORO Ranch

Seibert Cattle Company

As you are aware, these ranches control access to large parcels of privately owned real property and/or access to large parcels of public property in bothe northern and southern Arizona.Hunters currently enjoy free and unfettered use of many of these private parcels. The current mismanagement of wildlife has caused a detrimental impact on the ability of these ranchers to maintain viable cattle operations. Thus far, management of wildlife has been one =sided. Hunters and the AG&FD enjoy the benefit of water, range and access improvements maintained at the sole expense of these ranchers. The ranchers are recieving little or nothing in return Their only recourse at this point is to deny any type of access.

In the event your department is interested in discussing a fair resolution of ongoing concerns relating to ranching and wildlife management, please have your legal counsel contact this office. Otherwise the above- referenced ranches will be closed to public access. Moreover, we will continue to seek every available remedy, including political, public and legal alternatives, to force your department to recognize the significant economic loss the mismangament of wildlife is causing to my clients.

Thank you for your prompt attention in this regard."

------------------------------------------------------------ ------

it appears that they are joining a boycott of USO. but that is not necessarily so.

What this is an overt attempt to blackmail the AGFD into turning AZ into another N. Mexico by forcing the game department to issue no-draw, special landowners' tags for elk. And obviously, the timing and threat of litgation on the heels of the recent court decision is meant to force the game department into giving in without a whimper.

In fact, if that does occur, USO will likely benefit from such a move by buying the hunting rights and tags for one or more private ranches.

And...if that occurs, because of the decisions based on the biological implications such as additive harvest from the special permits, the department would likely cut the permits available for public land hunts for both residents and NRs alike.

While throwing them a few tags seems reasonable, it has lots and lots of downsides. First, those same tags will be ones now available thru the public drawing for the cost of a license and the current tag fee.

Once the ranchers get hold of them, the price will mirror those in NM -- perhaps well beyond the means of the average hunter. And more than likely, they won't even be available to the average hunter because outfitters like USO will offer the ranchers a deal for every permit they have. So now, tack on the cost of a guided hunt, which will bring PREMIUM dollars in many of the AZ units.

Lastly, the reason we have a permit lottery now is to protect a finite resource. The game deparment bases the permit quotas on the usual biological considerations of population, cow/calf ratios, harvest, natural mortality, etc.

So lets say they determine a specific unit can sustain a harvest of 50 elk, and the overall hunt success on average over previous seasons has been 25%. That translates to an allocation of 200 permits to achieve the desired harvest.

Now consider the ranches within that unit will receive 50 permits as part of their allocation, perhaps based on some criteria such as size, etc. The end result is only 150 permits for the general draw for BOTH NRs and residents alike.

I would much prefer the game department initiate a formula to actually PAY the ranchers in lieu of providing permits. But of course, the landowners will have to provide reasonable proof that a payment is warranted.

AND then...the state can retaliate somewhat by charging more money for livestock leases on State Trust land. And maybe we can even get the Feds to either raise or cancel the leases on the national forests, which are ludicrously cheap anyway.