Forums.NitroExpress.com

That's correct John. The issue being though, that in many of the western states, the majority of huntable lands are tied up in the public domain. Since many of these places are known for elk or mule deer or something besides what the majority of the U.S. population can hunt, the amount of tags issued are limited. That's just good game management and a fact of life. With the number of tags issued being less than ideal for the residents of the state, some will be able to hunt and some will not, usually controlled through the permit drawing process. As it as been in Arizona and many western states, the residents of the state or areas, had some type of preference whether it be limiting the amount of tags going to out of state hunters or having preference points. This lawsuit and ruling says that is illegal. So what we have is the locals that have to hunt public lands don't have any more right to the game in their neighborhood than someone living thousands of miles away, even if tags are cheaper. The probability of securing those tags are the same for local, state resident, or non-state resident. For someone that lives there year around and pays taxes for all the infrastructure to get from where they are from to the public hunting lands, it just doesn't seem right. There is the possibility, small as it is, that no Arizona residents might be be drawn for a tag in Arizona.

What about the future of hunting? The likelihood of a father and son being drawn in one of the limited area hunts, even if it is in their locale, is small. I just cannot agree that someone from New York City or Miami Florida have the same right to game animals as the guy that has lived there year around or his whole life. It would be fine if the number of animals could support the locals being able to be drawn for a tag, but they can't.

Alaska does not have preference points, nor do we limit the number of tags for out of staters or non-resident aliens. There will be places in my locale that I will likely never get to hunt. It's not a big problem to me because I can afford to go somewhere else. A lot of people that live my little community cannot afford to do so. The number of hunters in our little hamlet has decreased dramatically over the years because of this.

It's not like you can get a great job and buy some of this land near where you live either. It's controlled by the Federal government and not for sale. However, the most restricted Federal lands are our national parks, but the people that live within the boundaries of the national park can hunt game there for subsistance purposes. That is not the case in these drawing areas. I fail to see the difference.

Cost does not prohibit tags from being secured or applied for by non-residents. Most cases, the tags are less than the airfare to get there. Game should be managed by the states for the rights and use of its citizens, not for someone that wants to hang a head on the wall.

USO isn't even a company from Arizona, the outfit is out of New Mexico, if I'm not mistaken. Yet they are sueing Arizona to tell them how to manage their wildlife resources. It's just not right in my honest opinion.

Post Extras