http://reid.senate.gov/record2.cfm?id=236863 for the press release. I think the bill will get even better bi-partisan support in the House and pass with ease. Way too logical to reaffirm the states right to manage game, set fees and allocate tags. The only people who are fighting this one are Taulman, greedy private land tag supporters and a handful of wealthy hunters who feel they have equal rights to tags in every state. Bet Taulman will suffer from this law as he has pissed off residents and game officials in every state that has animals. Screw the 9th circus court!! hump
SB339 passes in Senate!!
- Thread starter ringer
- Start date
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
I'd sure like to hear what George Taulman has to say when it passes. hump
AZ402
Well-known member
Shoot O'le George an email at [email protected], see what he has to say. I'm sure he'll be whining about fairness and blah,blah,blah. As big of an Assclown as he is; he'll still make tons of cash next year regardless of the non-resident quotas.
Tom
New member
"Fairness and blah, blah, blah." Over a century ago people in the west thought they could shoot everything around. They nearly succeeded, accept some New York guy stopped it with the help of others. Western people still think stuff can be shot cheap, get someone else to pay. Meanwhile, the mule deer habitat and population goes to hell. That's what's wrong with the current system. The habitat needs more than a $28 or $50 elk tag, to provide for an elk and mule deer. There's some blah, blah, blah to think about. What do you think will get the mule deer population back, get the elk numbers up, a $28 tag? Charge the nonresident out the cazzoo, make a greeny out of their kids, come on.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,621
Check out his web-site. For drawing premium limited quota hunts and private ranches, his photos sure represent some real crap...http://www.huntuso.com/ Personally, I'd pass on 90% of animals in MT with over the counter or 100% draw areas on public land.
Tom
New member
I like the sample letter they have there, thanks.
AZ402
Well-known member
I think you should just concentrate on Texas Tom, blah,blah,blah...........
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Tom, you should come to Washington to hunt deer and elk. It's a bargain price for non-residents, tags are OTC, and there is no quota. It will only cost you $613.20. 
Tom-you are right about pricing and we are seeing plenty of increase for both residents and non-residents in Arizona but that would have been much more difficult if they didn't have the USO suit and resident anger to justify it. You can complain all you want but the state's have always had the ability to set fees including those much higher for non-resident tags. We can thank USO and Taulman for the new pricing and very little chance of them going down. As for the muleys I suspect it is more of an issue of predator control restrictions and increasing elk numbers than habitat. Sorry if you are upset at the new legislation but the average Joe is fed up with courts making laws to benefit minority interests and you will probably end up with better odds of drawing as a NR after things settle down. You won't see Arizona buckling to landowner/outfitter tags or to the likes of USO and that is the best thing for the future of the herds and hunting IMO. Good luck in the draw.
WH's OutdoorsChick
New member
Washington Hunter said:
Oh Yes.....WH has trained me to hate George Taulman!!!! Hope the greedy bastard rots in hell and I hope is Rich Cry baby clients fall off a cliff
It is amazing the guy won in Nevada in the first place!!!!! :BLEEP: :MAD
7x7
New member
What do you think will get the mule deer population back, get the elk numbers up, a $28 tag?
Kill the wolves and let us hunt with bait and hounds for cougars in all states.
Kill the wolves and let us hunt with bait and hounds for cougars in all states.
WH's OutdoorsChick
New member
I agree with out of state tags being more expensive!!!
The City Folk in Seattle will not ever pass a vote to let us bait or use hound dogs !!!
It would have been nice to be able to bait his spring bear
The City Folk in Seattle will not ever pass a vote to let us bait or use hound dogs !!!
It would have been nice to be able to bait his spring bear
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
Well, Tom is right in a way. More money would (or could) help deer and elk populations, if the extra money was used either to improve habitat or purchase habitat. Wouldn't it be great if resident deer and elk tags doubled in price and all of the additional revenue was used to purchase land, purchase conservation easements, and improve wildlife habitat with prescribed burns, etc???
7x7-you are right on! Cats will kill and kill. Need hounds to ever get control. I bear hunted Idaho a couple years ago and my friend there has hounds for bear and lion. He helped G&F track a big tom at a creek that had killed 11 elk in a few weeks. Ate the good stuff then went on to another. The average voter views them as house cats so the huggers can play on their emotions and pass bogus law. :BLEEP:
FAIRCHASEBEN
New member
Tom ,Tom said:
WTF is wrong with you , do you think commercialized hunting is the answer to decreased game populations ? Have you seen any deer or elk short on cash ? THE HABITAT NEEDS MORE MONEY !!!!!
Selling all our tags to rich USO clients and pricing the average guy with a couple kids out of hunting is exactly what this legislation will prevent . You are right about the fairness aspect but you can't seriously believe USO is motivated by anything but profit and greed !
Are all your coTexans as hard headed as you ?
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,621
Anybody that would send one of Taulman's canned loser-letters deserves a lead pipe donkey punch, followed by an KO'd cleveland steamer. By the way Tom, we have some pretty good mule deer and elk numbers here in MT. Some of you Texan-types are bummed by the thought of actually having to hunt instead of going to a pathetic canned shoot. Hunting in Texas is the biggest joke in the US.
It would be nice if the money brought in by the Fish and Game stayed with the agency. In Montana, unless things have changed, all money collected is put into the General Fund and divied back. I would like to see money spent go more toward helping the animals (habitat, enforcement, etc.)
G&F here is seperate from the legislature and only has to go to them for funding changes. Money raised will go to G&F. Only real problem here is our Heritage fund from the lottery. The politicians have tried to raid it 16 times unsuccessfully but this year they got a couple of million to settle a Zuni water rights settlement. Most of the Heritage fund is spent taking care of endangered species mandates anyway. I will be interested to see the increase in funding and how the G&F spends it. They have done pretty well so far.
Washington Hunter
Well-known member
ringer, where is "here?"
Tom
New member
I agree the key is to get the money to the habitat and the right amount of money. Not some deflated amount or inflated amount. The fed.habitat gets its money, the state habitat gets its money, the private land habitat gets its money. That's what's good for the animals. Focusing on getting money to habitat is good. Right now, some states rip off the federal habitat, that's what I'm thinking. I like that post Wash.Hunter made about the habitat. I should move to some western state or Alaska and shoot the hell out of game real cheap. That's what's wrong, its not cheap, its a rip off of the game and the majority of tax payers out of that state that support the game there.
