Forums.NitroExpress.com

Jeffe,
I can agree that non-resident tags or licenses are extremely high and out of proportion. What I don't agree with is that non-residents have the exact same right as residents, especially local residents, to pursue the game of any given state. I have no issue if resident and non-resident tags were the same price, provided those that live in the state were able to hunt. As it stands in Arizona, there could be a chance that because a non-resident is granted a tag, it displaces the hunting opportunities for the residents. If an AZ resident is not drawn for an elk or muledeer in many places, then the resident does not get to hunt big game period.

In Alaska, this isn't as big of deal, as there are many areas open to hunt with having to be drawn for a tag. Though we do have some areas that are opened to resident hunters only. Indeed, some areas are only open to local residents. With the AZ ruling, this is considered illegal and a guide would be able to set up shop and keep the locals from hunting. I see a direct conflict with this ruling and the federal subsistence guidelines also. Not to mention any state subsistence laws.

What USO is saying is that Arizona and other Western States are trying to ban non-resident hunters altogether. That just is not the case. What Arizona was trying to do is allow people that live there an opportunity to hunt in their locale and manage the game as the state department of fish and game sees fit. Obviously, because non-resident licenses are higher than resident licenses, states will want to maximize non-resident hunting opportunities. But none of the Western states are willing to do that at the expense of keeping resident hunters out of the field. The USO ruling could do that. Any time you have a limited number of tags and the demand for those tags are much higher than the animal populations can sustain, someone is not going to be drawn. Shouldn't someone that lives in that locale have a preference to hunt there over someone that has never even visited the area?

Your federal taxes may indeed pay for federal lands and federal agencies. Probably pays for interstate highways and large airports. What about the secondary state roads that actually get you from the airport to the hunting areas which are funded by state or county taxes? There is a lot going on there that isn't getting paid for by federal money.

It just doesn't seem right to me that some kid that lives next to the federal land in Arizona might not ever be drawn to hunt, and not be able to hunt in his home state while tags are being gobbled up by hunters from New York City or Miami Florida that only come once and contribute very little to the Arizona or local economy. Let's face it, the only money USO is going leave in Arizona is license fees and any guide tax there may be. Just doesn't seem right to me.

Post Extras