Nonres tag meetings

[Rembrant]

Good point Muskrat, if those numbers are correct. I can tell you that I know several people, myself included that started putting in for sheep when we didn't have to pay up front. I am assuming this behavior goes beyond me and my friends. Would be a good thing to check those numbers.

Also, when we started using credit cards, the Dept began losing the ability to gain interest on the moneys held. We were told at the Flagstaff meeting that this loss was ballanced by the Dept not having to pay for inputters as we were doing the work as we applied on-line. Ideally, we could apply on-line (to do the inputting) and be required to send in payment, thereby helping the Dept with the inputting job and allowing them to gain the interest as well.

I'd bet that if we all had to pay up front, the total applications would drop some. I know that the crowd I run with will have to plan ahead to be able to apply for everything we want. That is the point. The folks that are serious will get 'er done, and the people that are not, won't.

This will have no adverse effect on the wildlife management (I think is the way you stated it earlier), but it should help to separate the serious hunters from the not-so-serious crowd. The problem is that there are too many applicants for the tags available. Instead of holding everyones hand and helping the masses through the process, we should be offering a few hoops to jump through.

Mike

[couesdog]

As I read these posts, the common theme is "how can we prevent hunters from putting in for the draw". I think this is the wrong direction to go. We need to remember that only a small portion of the population are hunters. Most people agree with hunting as long as they eat what they kill and keep with tradition. If we disinterest the borderline hunters from hunting, then they are open to the evil thoughts of the anti's. I remember my hunter ed instructer telling me that hunting is a privilege, not a right. We are going to vote on some real issues in the near future, such as management of Mt. Lions. Look what happend in California! I think we need to refocus and address the commerce issue. Make selling wildlife parts from a dead animals illegal (this way you can still sell sheds). This deflates USO and will be precieved better by the undecided voters.

Although I am an extremely passionate hunter that has never killed an antelope or been drawn for sheep, I realize that times are changing and if I want to have the opportunity to someday draw those tags, then I must sacrifice and encourage more interest in resident hunting. Afterall, I can and do go deer hunting every year (archery) and bear hunting and lion hunting.

[TREESTANDMAN]

I agree Rembrant that the money should be required up front. With the application deadline as short as it is, only the serious hunters that have budgeted and saved there money will be putting in. I feel this would definately increase our odds of being drawn.

[muskrat]

Well - 2 things. First, I agree with couesdog. Half the time we are crying that we need to get more people into hunting. Now we're saying "but only if you're serious, and can really afford it". Some of us have issues that make it nearly impossible, regardless of budgeting or money management, to put in for even 3 or 4 species. Now we're back to excluding people because of income, which to me, is elitist.

 

2nd - This suggestion has been presented as a part of the "get USO" campaign. Now, when pressed, it appears (to me) that it probably will affect our own hunters more than Taulman's clients (who can afford it anyway). Now the justification is to make "Our" chances better, amongst the residents, by weeding out some that are on a different income level (or poor financial planners). If this is the justification for banning the internet draw, then it is a separate argument, and shouldn't be presented as a viable part of the USO solution.

 

 

People talk about "serious hunters need to be physically fit - i.e for elk hunts and sheep hunts, especially". Maybe hunters should be required to take a physical agility test, before applying. Anyone serious about hunting would make the time and effort to get physically fit. When the not so serious hunters drop out of the process, it will make it better for the rest of us.....

[Rembrant]

Muskrat,

You ain't from around here are you? 'Cause the folks that have been around awhile remember a time when we could get a tag or two. That's the gripe and the #1 problem. The 10% thing is an addition to the same problem. This doesn't seem to be bothering you.

I am against raising tag prices. I'm not the rich guy. Read through this string again. Sometimes I need to read things twice before I comprehend the concept too. The idea is not separating the rich from the poor, it is separating the serious from the non-serious. That point was made very clearly.

This string was started to inform people about the events taking place right now with the Dept., and then to encourage all who read it to get involved with the process. Your selective comprehension identifies you as a person that only wants to argue. I'm done with it.

Have a good day.

Mike

[Guest Ernesto C]

Dont forget that with the internet a lots of antihunters apply,they dont care about giving money away becuase is for the wildlife they are "protecting" so the more antis apply the less chances you and me have to get a tag.

Also there is a lots of people (Az.residents) that do not own a computer if they do not get a tag how can they apply for the left over permits with out a pc?

 

Muskrat you will have to divide or split the hunts then to those phisically fit and to those who are not;remember that there are hunters with phisycal dissabilities.I make a similar suggestion: "make all non-residents to past a drug test before the hunt"

 

Of course a feel sorry for the innocent non-residents because things are going to get uglier and harder on them but they should thank USO.

There is time for everithing and USO will have his,he will be judge harder that the way he judge us(Az) because that's how things work accordingly with the bible.

 

One of the things we suggested on the Comission Meeting (out of 100's of suggestions) was to make the AZ.Draw a lot earlier that what it is because some states have their draws in January,February or March and ours is in May-June so the people that did not got drawn on their states will apply in Az.making it harder now with this new rule.

 

Have faith everybody but above all be happy while we make things happen.If possible attend those meetings and ask questions or express your ideas,lets support our Game and Fish and also pray for them so that the Lord may give them the knowledge and wisdom to cleans this USO mess.

 

Ernesto C.

[muskrat]

Mike - No, I'm not from here. I've only been here 7 years. If that excludes me from supporting the fight against USO, then so be it. As far as selective comprehension, I can assure you that it is not intentional. I stated quite clearly that I would also support this suggestion, if someone could make me understand it. Sorry I'm not as sharp as you'd like me to be. As far as being argumentative, I also stated quite clearly that I agreed and supported several suggestions, mentioned in these threads.

 

My only contention now is that "separating the serious from the non-serious" has been added to the mix, under the guise of fighting USO. To me, they are 2 separate issues.

 

My apologies that I didn't express my point in such a way that it wouldn't appear antagonistic.

 

Marshall MacFarlane

[muskrat]

Ernesto - some constructive points - thank you. I definitely agree with an earlier draw, providing it allows the Wildlife Managers to do their thing.

 

I was speaking rhetorically, though - regarding the physically fitness requirements. I was just trying to illustrate the point that if we want to separate the serious from the not-so-serious, there are other ways to do it, besides income availability. Funny you should mention physical disabilities - my wife has been in a wheelchair since she was 5. Money is a little tight in a single income family, with lots of medical bills - I guess that's why I'm a little touchy to get lumped in with the "not-so-serious" just because my family probably won't be able to afford up front tag costs for 4 species....

 

Anyway, I don't post here to make enemies. I post here to learn about Arizona hunting, and contribute when I can. It's ironic that this USO mess has really made me feel like an Arizonan, for the first time. Now, because I take issue with one suggestion out of dozens, it's because I'm a not-from-around-here trouble maker.

 

MJM

 

This will also be my last post on the subject.

Edited January 1, 1970 by muskrat

[TREESTANDMAN]

Muskrat,

 

This is the internet, don't let any of these guys on this site offend you. You have given some good opinions. About what you said about hunters needing to be physically fit, I agree. I also feel that hunters should be financially prepared. If the G&F required all the money up front, that would give the serious hunters a good reason to budget there money before the draw approaches. I am not suggesting to raise the prices of the tags or the application fee for that matter, only require the money up front. If the hunter is not drawn, they will recieve a full refund. This will weed out many of the non-serious people who wait until the last minute every year and only put in because the fee is 5.00/species. This could also cut down on the # of non-residents applying because they would have to have that money available at draw time. If you don't have the money available at the time of the draw then you probably don't have the money to go hunting anyway. People need to learn how to budget.

[Rembrant]

Muskrat,

I appreciate the apology, though none was required. Your post looked like you were twisting things around for fun - got my goat and I am the one that owes you an apology.

What the heck, you can write anything you want. The readers will sort it out.

My bad. I'm sorry.

Mike

[Guest Ernesto C]

I hope they raise the tag prices on non-residents only and leave the resident price the way it is.

 

Make Az.the most expensive state to hunt for a non-resident,that was another suggestion at the Az.Commision Meeting.

Let me give you an example: I can't remember at this moment but I think in the state of Washington they charge a non-resident a little more than $700.00 dlls for an Elk tag,in Az.we only charge $371.00 dlls. So if uso supporters drop so his income.

 

We'll see what is going to happen....be ready.

 

Muskrat I'm not a rich guy ($$$) I also have my bills,problems etc etc like any other person so I know what you mean.Let me give you and give any other member a golden advice never but never give your signature,never co-sign for any body I made that mistake about 5 years ago and I'm still paying the price of that mistake.

Also tell your wife that the Lord has for her some huge green fields where she will run and fly, oh yea can you believe it? I do;she will be free. Amen.

[DesertBull]

I have to say, that when people start trying to limit the number of people that hunt, that really burns me. How can you say there are too many people that want to hunt? You understand if our numbers go down, we'll loose it all? We should be encouraging EVERYONE to give hunting a try, not just the so-called "serious hunter". What about the guy that just wants to take his kid out hunting every now and then, not caring if he gets a trophy animal and not wanting to spend thousands of $$$ or spend many many hours scouting and such. Do not get an elistist attiutde. You are no more deserving of a tag than than the next guy.

[Guest Ernesto C]

DesertBull You are exactly right!! Please tell that to USO. When my doughter and kid will be able to hunt elk??? It took me 8 years to get a bull tag.How many years it will take them to get a tag thanks to this new rule??

 

Yes they do have the right to hunt every now and then,maybe that's what it takes so they can became a really serious hunter,maybe that's what it takes so they can convert more non-serious to a really serious wild life contributor

 

God Bless.

 

Ernesto C.

[TREESTANDMAN]

Desert Bull,

 

Making it to where we would have to pay up front would have no influence on a dad that wants to take his son out hunting. It would have an effect on someone who is too lazy to get an application from a sporting shop and mail out the form. You are blowing this out of proportion and making it seem like we are so greedy that we have to have all the tags to ourselves having an "elitist attitude". The main purpose of this would be to slow down the non-resident apps and maybe a few slacker hunters.

[DesertBull]

Actually, I wasn't commenting yea or nay on the internet apps or charging up front fees. I was refering to the original post in this thread where the person claimed there were too many resident hunters and "serious" hunters should be given preferential treatment.