Nonres tag meetings

[CouesWhitetail]

From AZGFD. Visit www.azgfd.com for more info.

 

 

Wildlife News

Aug. 16, 2004

 

Public meetings set on selected alternatives to 10-percent rule

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission on Aug. 14 analyzed a list of more than 20 ideas to protect resident hunting opportunities. The action came in response to a federal court ruling declaring unconstitutional Arizona's 10-percent cap on nonresident applicants for certain big game species.

The commission has directed the Game and Fish Department to begin drafting rule language and collecting public comment on nine of the 20 alternatives.

 

Rule making for the changes is now on a fast-track so the department can implement the changes by April of next year, when the commission adopts big game hunt orders for the 2005-06 hunting season.

 

As part of that rule process, the department will conduct pubic meetings starting this week to collect input on the nine alternatives selected.

 

The meetings all start at 6 p.m. Here are the dates and locations:

 

 

Aug. 18, Pinetop, Region I office, 2878 E. White Mountain Blvd.

Aug. 20, Flagstaff, Region II office, 3500 S. Lake Mary Road.

Aug. 23, Mesa, Region VI office, 7200 E. University Drive.

Aug. 24, Tucson, Region V office, 555 N. Greasewood Road.

Aug. 25, Yuma, Region IV office, 9140 E. 28 St.

Aug. 26, Phoenix, La Quinta Inn, Greenway Road and I-17.

Aug. 27, Kingman, 5325 N. Stockton Hill Road.

 

The alternatives before the public and the commission are:

 

Award additional bonus points for continuous support. Also referred to as "loyalty points," these points would be awarded to people who have been applying for big game hunts or buying licenses consecutively for a designated period of time, for example, for five years.

 

Award a conservation bonus point to individuals who participate in wildlife work projects. There are several variations of this proposal and the department has been directed to consolidate and refine a final proposal for public input.

 

Charge up front for applications over the Internet, using electronic funds transfers instead of credit cards, or do away with the online application process altogether.

 

Increase license and permit fees, which would require legislation.

 

Require all big game drawing applicants to purchase a hunting license.

 

Increase the draw application fees. This would require legislation.

 

Increase the bonus point pass percentage from 10 percent to 20 percent, which would mean setting aside 20 percent of big game permits for individuals with the most bonus points.

 

Create a nonresident set-aside based on capped percentages and conduct a separate nonresident draw for these tags.

 

Create commercial and noncommercial big game tags, with 90 percent of the tags designated as noncommercial, available only to residents, and ten percent as commercial, available equally to residents and nonresidents. Another version of this proposal would change the law to completely eliminate commercialization of wildlife to permit reinstatement of the 10 percent nonresident cap.

 

The department is also accepting public comment on the alternatives via its Web site, azgfd.com. To access the submission form, look under "What's New."

At the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Game and Fish Commission, Sept. 17-18 in Safford, commission members will be poised to approve the rule making needed to implement some or all of the alternatives and is also expected to give the department direction on pursuing legislation for the same purpose.

[Rembrant]

Thanks Amanda,

The Dept ideas have changed a bit due to the input (suggestions) from the meetings.

The way I see it there are 2 problems:

#1 Too many people in this state that think they want to hunt.

#2 The Nonresident 10% cap problem.

The end result is that it is really difficult to get a tag these days. The #1 problem is the biggest problem because it was already too hard to get a tag even before the USO fiasco.

Both problems are probably something we will have to live with from now on. I believe the Dept will get creative with the Nonresident problem like solution # 20, "de-commercialize all tags" making body parts of wild game unsaleable.

Or separating the Non res's from the general draw (#16).

But we will still have too many resident applicants!

I think we should make the draw more difficult (not nessesarily more expensive), so that the serious hunters that really want to hunt will have their act together and get drawn.

Require payment up front.

Require liscense in hand before applying.

Do away with internet apps.

Shorten the application time period.

AND REQUIRE EVERY ONE TO PASS THE HUNTER SAFETY COURSE FIRST!

This will be kind of a drunk test for getting drawn - if you can't handle these things, you don't get drawn!

The Dept is proposing all these things except for the hunter safety course. I think this is do-able if we do it over a five year period. This would allow the Dept. 5 years to provide these classes and the hunters 5 years to get in class. This way we have a long and fair period to get educated and the dept won't lose money during the draw while everyone completes the course.

A couple of the bonus point ideas are OK, but don't really address the problem.

The root of the problem is too many applicants!

My 2 cents.

Mike

[Elmacho]

right on Rembrant-

 

I'm an outta stater, but would jump all the hoops for a chance to get a tag. Most people I know think I'm nuts for buying a license for BPs and taking the course, but hey.......I love the hunt.

 

I just hope they don't make a move that will jeopardize the quality ofhunting available in Arizona- it's tough to match.

 

Good luck this year.

 

Mark

[Rembrant]

I am assuming that the lack of response with this string is because we are all busy logging on to the G&F web site and expressing our opinions. Right?

When the Taulman/Montoya/10% non-resident fiasco was made evident ? during the annual big game draw, this site was flaming with opinions and responses, mostly against our Game Dept and their policies.

We wouldn?t be sitting back and relaxing now that we have our tags in hand and just letting the Dept do what they will without our input, would we?

Times have changed folks. If we just sit on our hands and don?t give the Dept. our ideas and opinions by attending meetings and/or writing in, then we don?t deserve the right to continue hunting; a right that we have for so long taken for granted and a right that many people would like to take away from us.

If you don?t take part of the process, DON?T COMPLAIN!

Mike

[azpackhorse]

I will be at my local G&F meeting voicing my opinion/ suggestions on the 24th, as I was with the first one. I was a little surprised giving the size of Tucson and the amount of people that turned out at the first meeting, sure they would not have had enough room for everyone anyway but that really isn't the point the way I see it. Hopefully there will be a better turn out next week and some kind of resolve. I will admitt that I am guilty of not getting involved until this issue reared it's ugly head recently but I will do my part from here on out.

[coueshunter]

We really need to hammer the commissioners on the 90%/10% commercial versus recreational tags. This portion of the proposal needs to be included in the Commissions recommendation to the AG......if not the draw next year will be a free for all.......The heads of the game dept. Duane Schrouff and Steve Ferrell are recommending against the 90/10 but the commissioners are split. We really must have this component in or all of our efforts have been for nothing.......send emails, overload the AZGFD and the commissioners with letters SUPPORTING THE COMMERCIAL/RECREATIONAL tags.........Allen TAylor.....

[.270]

my biggest problem with the whole thing, i mean other thinking uso and all it's employees are trash, is the way the azgfd dealt with it. they lost this thing a couple years ago and just sorta ignored the ruling until they were forced to act. they should have negotiated their way out of it over that time period. the worst thing they did was let it all happen during the draw. talk about some real stupidity on the azgfd part. if they'd have handled it before hand it would have been a lot better for them in the eyes of Az. residents. we're all monitoring the computer to see if we get a tag, and up pops the little deal that says, well, no draw yet fellers because uso whupped us. but the nonresident permit deal is just one small part of a real big problem. things like the director and commissions inability to deal with predator control, poachers, nontraditional elk herds, sabino canyon lions, backing off of anything that might "offend" someone even tho scientific data says otherwise, etc., to me, are a much bigger problem. this nonresident deal really makes me mad, but in the big picture, it's pretty small and basically out of azgfd hands, because they let it get to the point that the feds get to dictate the outcome. we've lost the nonresident deal. still remains to be seen just how badly. but in principle, uso won their suit. also remains to be seen if they will really win the big prize or not, as in being able to stay in business with all the adverse publicity. but like i say, i'm more worried about other actions than the nonresident permit deal, now anyway. it was hard to get a elk tag before, now it'll be a little harder. the letter the ranchers wrote to the azgfd awhile back is bothersome too. don't know where that is gonna lead, but it probably won't be good and i'll still bet a coke that taulman is tied in with it. anyway, hopefully the commission will surprise me and come with something cool. we'll see. but their past record doesn't allow for a lotta optimism. Lark.

[bullwidgeon]

The game department is weak, not necessarily the commission. Shroufe, and his two lawyers are so afraid of adverse action that this is incredible and has gotten so far out of hand that it is sickening. They knew they were going to lose at least 4 months prior to the ruling. What did they do to come up with a backup plan? Not a d@mn thing!!! If you take the money making portion out of tags (Non-commercial for all you folks from Rio Linda) then Taulman's case falls flat in every court in the nation and the SFW lawyer presented that last week to them. What do they do? Have more G-D@mned meetings, because they are still afraid to do anything that might piss USO off more!!!! These chumps also allowed 20% of our desert sheep tags to go to Non Residents this year by ACCIDENT they say. The sheep tags were never challenged or affected in any way by this lawsuit that caused all this crap in the first place. Somehow, someway the mental midgets at the Game and Fish decided to let 8 extra tags go to NR's this year for DESERT SHEEP. I don?t know about anyone else out there who reads this board, but I know way more than a few people with maximum bonus points waiting around in their early sixties to mid seventies applying and praying for desert sheep tags every year. If this was any other State job or Private industry job the A-Hole/A-holes who did not catch and correct this mistake before notification to the NR's occurred would have been fired. If I F'd up and failed to support my customers this bad I would have been fired and I work for a bank, one of the grand chingerers of all chingerers!!! What is the response within our G&F department about this GRANDE CHINGER that was put to the residents of AZ? Not a F-ing thing!!!!

I have lost all faith in the Game department, it seems they have endless money, manpower, and willingness to work with the press to save Chiricahua leopard frogs, spotted owls, jaguars, Mexican wolves, gila chuns and blad eagles but when a little money and a mediocre sized pair of cojones is needed to support the backbone of our game department (the hunters) they bend over, get scared and cry like 2 year olds and screw up time and time again. With any sort of luck and a helluva lot of prayers our Commission may be able to get things turned around, but people in heck want ice water and I think that is the kind of uphill battle we are fighting here folks. It really is sad for all the people that spent a lot of years and money working for wildlife in this state and mistakenly assumed for the past umpteen years that the department was looking out for our/their best interests. I understand the low-level and mid-level employees (I.E. game wardens and species specific biologists) can not change anything or fix anything in a bureaucracy that is handicapped to the point of retardation, this is not directed at them. Someone (Shroufe and his cronies or whoever has decided that they do not need to be proactive anymore and can sit idly by and collect paychecks) needs to be held responsible for the disaster that has become the reality of OUR once proud and excellent Game and Fish department.

 

I am done venting, all you sheep who think your AZG&FD are 100% on our side and are innocent victims in this go ahead and flame away.

 

Bret Mattausch

Edited January 1, 1970 by bullwidgeon

[Rembrant]

Thanks for the opinion Lark.

What are YOU doing about it?

Mike

[.270]

bullwidgeon, allright, passion. stay with it. i've been trying for a sheep tag for 31 years. no luck. i hope the non-res that got my tag this year enjoys it. is this for real? 20%?!!!! aw man, i'm even madder now. oh well, what would i do with a sheep tag? dirty no good sobs. i feel like i've been groin kicked. where'd you read this? i'm gonna have to respond to my buddy duane. i agree, the director, shroufe and the commission are nutless. all they worry about is offending non hunters. they know hunters have to do what they say and live with it. like i say, they're all politicians. sound scientific data has no use in the sytem they've developed. only thing that matters is appearance and what the folks at the next cocktail party at the country club will think about em. i bet napalitano laughs outloud everyday at the way she has em bent over.

 

rembrandt, other than let the commission, shroufe, and every game warden i ever see know how i feel about the situation and attend every meeting that i can that i feel has merit, and provide all the input i can, correspond with the governor's office, etc., i ain't gonna do anything. until there is wholesale replacement at the very top, don't expect much change. isn't shroufe from like maine or vermont or some dang foreign place? let's get us a western director with a western attitude and get some real hunters who understand a little about biology, and nothing about politics, on the commission.

[Rembrant]

Thanks Lark,

That's all I was looking for. I think you are right. I appreciate that the Dept is asking for input, yet a handfull of men on the top will ultimately choose. No matter what they decide on, someone will be ticked off.

At the Flagstaff meeting, much talk was about the hunter safety course being a requirement and it isn't included on the list of options.

I realize there are logistical obstacles with this. If it was required in '05, the Dept would go bankrupt because there are too many people that haven't taken the course. That's why I think it should be required, in say, 5 years.

How can Arizona NOT require people to pass a hunter safety course??

This is just common sense. And this requirement alone would eliminate a lot of non-serious applicants from the draw.

We're not making the decisions, but we need to be hollering.

Mike

[muskrat]

Sorry, but nobody has given me firm evidence of why the internet draw is harmful to the management of our wildlife.

 

"Rich" is relative - some folks can afford USO's services, and some can afford 1000 bucks in upfront tag fees..

 

I'll be there's not too many advocating banishment of the internet drawing that can't afford the upfront tag fees..

 

Myself? Regrdless of how it affects my "personal draw strategies" or chances - if AZGF (or anyone else) shows me hard data that proves the Internet Drawing is detrimental to the Management of our wildlife, I will support it. Until then, I believe we are just stratifying into "Rich", and "Not quite as rich" - and your USO ="rich man's sport" arguments won't wash with me...

 

As far as too many residents - agreed. Some have mentioned a system whereby - if you draw a tag, you can't put in again, for a set time period - 2 years, 5 years, etc. I would support such an idea.

 

Hunter's Ed - Agreed.

[DesertBull]

I don't think the internet apps have a thing to do with this mess either. It's the fact that they accept credit cards. If ya can't afford the tag fees, for pete's sake don't go into hock for them!

 

I like the way Utah does it. There, you can apply for either Elk, Deer, or Antelope, not all 3.

 

You can also apply for 1 of the Once in a lifetime hunts. (moose, sheep or Mt Goat)

 

The differance there is, they have enough game to give out over the counter rifle tags for elk and deer for those not successful in the draw.

[KGAINES]

I think where the internet might be causing a problem is that it makes it too easy to apply, don't get me wrong I have done it the last two years, but anybody can apply, and they don't have to but a license unless they are drawn. A non-resident that has to get the regulations and put up their money up front will not be putting in for every species in arizona, and neither will the residents, but right now for 25 bucks you got a shot at deer, elk, sheep, antelope, and buffalo, if they get drawn for them all who knows whether they could afford the tag fees much less the cost of the hunts themselves, now what will they do, well its just a deer tag so I won't go, elk isn't as important as sheep or buffalo. It would be a great problem to have, but it is still a problem, and this is where the uso and others like them have it made, they put in for all species at the five dollar fee and just play with the tags when they get them. Maybe if they could charge the fees up front on the internet it would be better, but just think how easy it is for antis/ animal rights people and groups to do the same thing the uso does. Rich people are gonna hunt, but they still have to get drawn and I think I should have just as much of a chance as they do or better if they are a non-resident because my money spends just like theirs, I just don't have as much. Regardless what happens I hope that archery deer stays the same way it has been because when you don't get drawn for anything, you can still hunt deer.

I would not like to only be able to apply for one species, non-resident already more or less only apply for elk, maybe sheep or antelope, deer as an after thought.

[muskrat]

My point is, that from the data I've seen (attached) there hasn't been an increase in applicants, overall. So the "it makes it too easy to apply" argument, although sound in principle, doesn't seem to hold true, as there was no increase...

 

Another poster put this up on another board, saying that AZG&F proovided these stats....

 

2000 fall

 

Resident Non-Resident

Genus app tags draw% totaltags app tags draw%

Deer 85,432 46,770 54.75% 48,261 7,881 1,491 18.92%

 

Antelope19,153 1,099 5.74% 1,131 1,231 32 2.60%

 

Elk 81,834 23,828 29.12% 24,998 13,771 1,170 8.50%

 

Turkey 21,690 9,750 44.95% 9,876 266 126 47.37%

 

Sheep 6,008 94 1.56% 104 2,668 10 0.37%

 

Buffalo 1,372 51 3.72% 52 6 1 16.67%

 

Total 215,489 81,592 37.86% 84,422 25,823 2,830 10.96%

 

 

 

2001 fall

Resident Non-Resident

Genus app tags draw% totaltags app tags draw%

 

Deer 84,509 46,083 54.53% 47,483 7,577 1,400 18.48%

 

Antelope19,035 1,063 5.58% 1,094 1,281 31 2.42%

 

Elk 84,638 28,310 33.45% 29,683 13,884 1,373 9.89%

 

Turkey 23,211 10,025 43.19% 10,192 340 167 49.12%

 

Sheep 6,277 94 1.50% 104 2,710 10 0.37%

 

Buffalo 1,376 70 5.09% 70 4 0 0.00%

 

Total 219,046 85,645 39.10% 88,626 25,796 2,981 11.56%

 

 

2002

Resident Non-Resident

Genus app tags draw% totaltags app tags draw%

 

Deer 82,412 43,123 52.33% 44,532 8,788 1,409 16.03%

 

Antelope22,145 1,017 4.59% 1,060 2,402 43 1.79%

 

Elk 82,724 23,055 27.87% 24,223 15,228 1,168 7.67%

 

Turkey 25,631 10,674 41.64% 10,868 427 194 45.43%

 

Sheep 8,884 93 1.05% 103 4,195 10 0.24%

 

Buffalo 3,100 45 1.45% 48 230 3 1.30%

 

Total 224,896 78,007 34.69% 80,834 31,270 2,827 9.04%

 

 

 

2003

 

Resident Non-Resident

 

Genus app tags draw% totaltags app tags draw%

 

Deer 83,027 37,744 45.46% 38,984 9,761 1,240 12.70%

 

Antelope24,590 836 3.40% 892 3,097 56 1.81%

 

Elk 84,093 21,147 25.15% 22,273 15,886 1,126 7.09%

 

Turkey 27,149 9,516 35.05% 9,723 486 207 42.59%

 

Sheep 10,847 88 0.81% 97 5,259 9 0.17%

 

Buffalo 4,726 49 1.04% 51 434 2 0.46%

 

Total 234,432 69,380 29.59% 72,020 34,923 2,640 7.56%

 

 

 

 

 

2004

 

Resident Non-Resident

 

Genus app tags draw% totaltags app tags draw%

 

Deer 85,129 36,813 43.24% 38,125 11,017 1,312 11.91%

 

Antelope 27,200 815 3.00% 872 3,807 57 1.50%

 

Elk 87,926 21,097 23.99% 22,176 17,926 1,079 6.02%

 

Turkey 14,696 4,839 32.93% 4,885 146 46 31.51%

 

Sheep 12,576 66 0.52% 82 6,394 16 0.25%

 

Buffalo 5,194 71 1.37% 71 552 0 0.00%

 

Total 232,721 63,701 27.37% 66,211 39,842 2,510 6.30%

 

* These numbers do NOT include the additional 10 resident and 117

nonresident deer tags and 39 resident and 639 nonresident elk tags

issued for compliance with the federal court order.