Moosie Wants Schooling on USO.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Moosie

Moosie

Grand poopa
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
17,668
Location
Boise, Idaho
Whats so Bad about them ? Keep this post BAsic without cut a nPaste Legislation and talking about someone el;ses wife danceing on a pole. JSut some Short quick easy sentences that Moosie can Understand :D

1. USO wanted 10% of the tags to go to Out of staters... Is that bad ? Most states do.

2. Because USO did this the Reisidents want non-res to pay more ? Up to $3,200, which jsut caters to guys that have money and use USO types ANyways so It's no effect to them ?

Not that I even Put in for AZ, but would like some Basic Input again.
 
Moosie, Arizona had a rule that a maximum of 10% of all hunt tags would go to non-residents. USO did not like the language. They took it to court and lost. Then they appealled once and lost. Then they appealled again to the ninth circus court and won. The context of the suit provides that no difference can be made between nonresident opportunities and resident opportunities. With the limited number of tags available in Arizona, that just screws up the works worse than it already was. Now it will be more difficult to draw a tag than it was before.

That's what has everyone on Arizona pissed.

Hey gummer, Are you a lawyer?

:cool:
 
Because of the lawsuit, you can no longer apply online for hunts, plus everyone has to buy a hunting license before applying for hunts. No more $5 fee to apply.
 
ElkGunner said:
Moosie,
Nothing left to add. You have once again showed your extreme brilliance and keen insight and understanding.
Click to expand...
Hey Gummer are you a

lawyer? I know he`s a buttkisser :D ...My anwser to the Moose is [WE HAVE NO TAGS ] :)
 
Thanx DanR, that's what I wanted to here. I know what Gunner does for a Living.. for $500 I'll even post were he works ;)

Just an FYI for the AZ boy, You guys have good bulls because you don't give out many tags. It's managed for Quality and Quantity and not Opertunity. States like Idaho give Opertunity. I guess it's all in what you want.

I don't disagree with USO on the 10% deal. I do disagre with USO and some of the Other Backings they do.
 
I haven't met any hunters here that disagree with the 10%. The average NR was lower only due to the high number of NR hunters wanting to use their points for the premier units and underapplying for the rest. My opinion is Taulman is pushing for a higher percentage and landowner tags as well as outfitter only tags. I bet if we guarantee 10% in the prime units that still will not stop him.
 
In My Opinion 10% IS Fair.. thats why I don't disagree with them... So....... I guess..... my answer is 10% ?~?~?~?

MtMiller, Quit trying to confuse me all the time bud ;)
 
The problem is the 10% was pulled out of thin air with nothing to back it up. USO asked AZ game dept to give a full 10% to non res and the game dept told him to go #$%^$ off. He sued, they lost. If the jerks at the game dept would have settled with him this wouldn't have happened. The game dept in their continuing brilliance have decided to raise tags to a possible ceiling of $3200 for elk. Again, a discriminitory action against the non res (unless they can show cause). USO's lawyer wrote a letter to the game dept pointing out the discriminatory nature and threatened another legal action . If AZ game dept gives USO the finger again we will probably see legal action and another AZ defeat. Then, thanks to BOTH sides inability to settle this, AZ will have more non res tags available and they will probably cost the same as a res tag. What that tag will cost is anybodys guess, either a few hundred or a few thousand. I should have been settled out of court but both sides decided to give the other the finger and here we are.
 
Actually USO wanted no cap on the res vs non res deal. they wanted it all even across the board.

Stan (az402) can explain it much better.

Uso did not sue and win for a 10% cap they sued and won to SELL game animals and parts or game animals. I forget the exact terminology they used in the lawsuit.
 
As requested I won't cut and paste.
George approached the game dept three times to settle, the last time he asked for a full 10%, they said no. That is what George wrote in an email.
They sued because the 10% was discriminatory towards non res hunters and subsequently limited their ability to harvest a game animal and sell the head, hide, and horns. I think they used the interstate commerce clause because it was the only way to get their suit to court.

another thought.
A fellow on monster muleys shot a monster Utah bull. He sold the horns to cabellas and the store will do a full body mount for all the customers to see. I thought it was a pretty nice deal. He gets replica horns for his home and the public gets to see a great animal. many others thought it was fine too. This was the basis for the USO suit.
Everybody was up in arms about USO suing to be able to sell the head and horns and here this fellow does it and most are OK with it, the same guys that hate USO.
 
My best explanation is that USO is a bunch of semen samples. George said he only sued for 10% bunch of BS, he used interstate commerce laws to get the suit to court. Saying he couldn't make money because of restictions. This could effect your ID draws as well pretty soon. As of right now you guys have a 90/10 split on your limited entry draws. Which I think is very fair.

Arizona manages for quality because they have to. Our carrying capacity in this state won't allow 100,000 plus elk. We have a pre-hunt herd around 45,000. ID,MT,WY,OR,WA,CO all have pre-hunt herds of well over 100,000. AZ gave out 21,993 elk tags last year, that's cow and bull combined. ID propably harvested 21,000+ bulls alone last year (just a guess, I'm sure Elkgunner has the stats, or he'll make some up).
 
No matter what the dealings with USO are, just be sure and watch your BUTT!
I heard they don't even furnish the vasoline!!!
 
Moosie, I won't say that Taulman was responsible for the other court actions that just happened to be threatened just after the 9th Circus Court made it's decision, but coincidently a number of Arizona ranchers sent a letter, through another scum sucking, bottom feeding lawyer, admonishing the AZGF for not administering the game to the advantage of the land owners. The gist of the letter indicated that several ranches would close if some "compensation" was not made available to them for the "damage" wildlife does to the grazing alottments. I read the letter and it sure sounded like a pitch for land owner tags.. I understand that that may happen, but the land owners are not going to like the way it comes down.

I smell Taulman's hand in that action also. He's just about as greedy as they come and has little or no interest in anything but lining his pockets. I sincerely hopes he spends some time in a Tiger cage..

:cool:
 
USO opened pandoras box, AZG&F dpet actually sent out letters to the az resdients(who were suscribed online) and asked them what they wanted to do. IE give them some options.
Now most of the az hunters are pretty f-stupid in there replies to g&F they thought nothing more of them selves. I dont mean as a az group I mean themselves period. Its going to slap them in thier faces and you know what they deserve it, they deserve everything that comes to them. if the majority of this state is that stupid then let them have it. when they complain just point to tsome of the posts on other boards and show them that they asked for it.
Out of all the guys that post on local AZ boards only about 20 of them had common sence the rest just sent in things cause it benifited them selves only. NOt to mention some of the most stupidest ideas I have ever seen or heard of.


Dan what do you mean you smell land owner tags coming , you are one of the ones that supported it in one of your posts( in one way or another, if I remember correctly you wanted to compromise. you said yeah they could have one or 2 in these areas wouldnt be bad) . Not to mention its been going on for the last 2 years

Anyone who supports land owner tags in this state should have all the tags taken from them that they would have gotten and given to the land owners.

some people on a local board have writen so many stupid proposals that its absolutely rediculous. They give away bonus points like candy for every good deed you do. Whats worse is most of these people that did this are starting to go to the game and fish meetings and voice there proposals oh but it gets better some of these stupid ass Ideas are even being looked at to put in there regs.

This in my opinion is where game and fish really screwed up was they ASKED ignorant self centered idiots to give them ideas. AZG&F has always been pretty damn good here in AZ. I dont know what they were thinking but they really screwed up big time.

Do you know that people are actually happy and want the huge price increase in AZ even if it means to residents as long as non residents get pounded. Even though game and fish posted CAPS people want them to be like that.

you AZ guys , I didnt say all of you were stupid there are about 20 of you that had some pretty good ideas and didnt go gung ho. ( I'll let you guys figure out if your in that catagory or not :rolleyes: )

So what ever happens to AZ was caused by the people of AZ.They just slit there own throats.
I am just going to sit back and watch and laugh and say a whole lot of you stupid ass I told you so.
If it comes down to where I cant afford to hunt big game in AZ I'll stik with varmits they are alot funner to hunt than elk or deer anyhow.

Delw
 
Del, If you look up the post that you are referring to, you'll find that there were several conditions set down.. 1. There must be a minimum of 40,000 contiguous acres under deed. 2. There would be no allowances for land held under leases. 3. The tags could be passed within the immediate family, but could not be sold. Those were the conditions under which landowner tags should be distributed. Since there are only about 12 parcels of land in Arizona that are 40,000 contiguous acres, that would only entale about 12 tags. Since the tags couldn't be sold, then there would be no profit for Taulman. Oh, and when you read the post, don't let any sarcasm spill on you.. there was a lot of it in that post.

As for the "stupid ass" ideas of the people in Arizona, you're right. Some of the ideas set forth were stupid. Then that's just people. Not everyone agrees on everything, but who's to say who's stupid.. At one time the idea of man flying through the skies was considered stupid. Man can't fly.. can he?

:cool:
 
Delw how
can you "confuse" being "greedy" with being "stupid" ?


Do you think you will ever draw a Bighorn or Buffalo tag in AZ? Why should an nonresident who has those once in a lifetime hunts buffalo/bighorn in their state be able to take AZs severly limited tags? Like i said i could live with a true 10% cap... but if i could have it my way i would be "greedy" and say "no" to bighorn/Buffalo/ antelope for non-residents... its just not feasable for a nonresident to come to AZ for an antelope tag..when he can go to Wyoming. J.M.O.
 
Del,

Great post, and you pretty much hit the problem.



And as for ol' Danr supporting them. If you remember, he not only supported them, but he was pimping some landowner tags from New Mexico. He is the epitome of all that is wrong with elderly, former hunters. :MAD
Delw said:
Dan what do you mean you smell land owner tags coming , you are one of the ones that supported it in one of your posts( in one way or another, if I remember correctly you wanted to compromise. you said yeah they could have one or 2 in these areas wouldnt be bad) . Not to mention its been going on for the last 2 years

Anyone who supports land owner tags in this state should have all the tags taken from them that they would have gotten and given to the land owners.


Delw
Click to expand...
 
Del, If you look up the post that you are referring to, you'll find that there were several conditions set down.. 1. There must be a minimum of 40,000 contiguous acres under deed. 2. There would be no allowances for land held under leases. 3. The tags could be passed within the immediate family, but could not be sold. Those were the conditions under which landowner tags should be distributed. Since there are only about 12 parcels of land in Arizona that are 40,000 contiguous acres, that would only entale about 12 tags. Since the tags couldn't be sold, then there would be no profit for Taulman. Oh, and when you read the post, don't let any sarcasm spill on you.. there was a lot of it in that post.
Click to expand...

Dan giving conditions for land owner tags are not only stupid but ignorant. Think about it for one min we have NO land owner tags NOW, so why give them any? if you give them ANY some land owner will hire a lawyer and find a way to get more, then get more etc. giving land owner tags will open up an entirly new problem. lawyers can find something wrong with any law or a way by it, so why open it up to that.
Not to mention those ideas you have posted discrimanate against those who might own just a few acres less, or those who had that acreage but due to developement by state or federal land lost a few and puts them just shy of it.(ie roadside easment , a canal ,a new dirt road, owner land for federal land, game and fish leasing land for native species projects etc. )


Delw
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ben Lamb
MT Legislative Action Alert
Replies
6
Views
2K
Ben Lamb
Ben Lamb
I
White House Puts the West on Fast Track for Oil, Gas Drilling
2
Replies
28
Views
6K
Stocker
Stocker

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
120,435
Messages
2,259,748
Members
39,134
Latest member
wade7575

Share this page

Back
Top