I dug this up accidentally. USO practically gloats in this letter. Note that Dallas Safari Club supports them, as does Hunting Report (not listed per se, but dug it out in a similar posting). I was going to renew my Hunting Report, but FORGET it Lance.

When the average guy gives up hunting, (and he will, if nonresident tags go to only the rich) don't be surprised when hunting comes up on as a voter referendum issue.



****UNITED STATES OUTFITTERS, INC. Are you ready for a Great Year? 2005 is looking to be an awesome year for a lot ofyou...the reason? Due to your lawsuit you no longer have to face the discrimination of being a nonresident hunter in some States.

First, the good news! Arizona nonresident quotas have been abolished. Arizona is now attempting to make changes to discourage nonresidents from applying, such as discontinuing their internet applications, raising tag fees, requiring full tag fees sent when applying and/or requiring you to purchase the nonresident license to apply. Any of these things will surely reduce the number of nonresidents applying, but should not affect your portfolios as usa fronts your tag fees and does the applications for you. A few of you who have not bought bonus points in the past may of course be forced to do so. However, you should buy bonus points now that you are on equal footing with the residents for drawing a tag. In fact, this is an opportunity to increase your applications to all four species in Arizona. This way you get four bonus points for the price of one.

Nevada nonresident quotas are also gone. They are also looking for changes to discourage nonresidents from applying and we will follow their development. Any attempt to reinstitute quotas will be met with further litigation.

As a side note, Montana and the other Ninth circuit states have not made changes to stop the discrimination of nonresidents and are opening themselves up to litigation as well as large damage claims. The longer they wait, the costlier the claims will be. If any of you want to be a litigant on these claims, please advise us and we will put you in contact with our legal team.

We are still waiting on the Tenth Circuit Court in Denver to rule on our case (Shutz vs Wyoming) presented to the court last March. This is a similar type case that was won in the Ninth Circuit (Montoya v Manning) and has laid the groundwork to stop nonresident discrimination.

Now the bad news! Even though the courts have rightfully ruled to stop the discrimination against nonresidents, the Game and Fish Departments are trying to go around the courts and attempt to pass legislation in the U. S. Congress to exempt wildlife issues from the commerce clause. This would mean that states could exclude you from hunting and fishing in any State completely. It shows how misguided and determined these Game and Fish Agencies are at discriminating against you. We will still need your help in fighting this through your donations and contacting your congressman. Enclosed are excerpts from an article published in "The Conservation Force January Bulletin" written by John Jackson.

To fight this legislation and continue with the efforts in your behalf, we are asking for a donation to the Nonresident Legal Fund of$100 from each of our applicants. As you have seen, no one but YOU, usa, Conservation Force, Dallas Safari Club, and African Safari Club have had the guts to try and stop the discrimination against you, the nonresident hunter. No other licensing service, hunting consultants, or outfitters have stood up to be financially counted in this effort. In the past you have seen what a small amount of donation from each of you has produced.. ... RESULTS LET'S NOT STOP NOW!

ForUnitedStatesOutfittersandProfessionalLicensingS ervice,2004was a banner year. Along with your winning of the Arizona Lawsuit, we had good moisture and a cool fall, all the ingredients for many trophies being harvested by our clients. We had 400+ point elk and 200+ point whitetail harvested along with hundreds of other trophies including sheep, moose, antelope, bears, oryx, mountain goats, and mule deer. No other outfitter can produce the quality for the price that usa provides. We are very proud of this, but we are appreciative of you, our clients, because of your trust in USO.

For 2005, changes will abound. Arizona and Nevada are dealing with having to treat resident and nonresidents alike, more litigation may be needed if discrimination is reinstated. New Mexico changes include moving up their main deadline to April 9th, looking at starting a bonus point system, point restriction in some areas, allowing guides for Oryx hunts and allowing crossbows for mobility impaired archers. New Mexico deadline for Oryx is Feb. 5th,for those of you that missed out last year need to get Oryx added to your portfolio. Any of you wanting private land elk hunts with guaranteed tags for 2005 should contact our office for availability.

Kansas, once again, has boundary changes for both draw tags and landowner tags. Those of you wanting Kansas landowner tags need to call to get a tag held for you in 2005. We are booking these hunts this year rather than just a waiting list as the demand greatly exceeds the amount of tags we receive.

Other states are increasing some of their license, tag and application fees. Several states have yet to formalize these changes, so we will keep you informed through our "SCREAMERS" on changes that affect your current applications and opportunities for new applications.

Price changes are in the works for our hunts also, but only for the Licensing Hunts for this year. Mainly because of the cost of fuel, we have increased the cost of these hunts from $200 to $300. usa is still fronting your tag fees for Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, and Kansas. As in the past, we will continue to provide only guided hunts in these States, also included in the guided hunts are the Wyoming elk hunts. If your financial status has changed where you cannot afford to go guided, we need to remove or place your portfolio on hold. In States such as Montana, Idaho, Alaska, Oregon, Washington and California, we apply for unguided hunts for sheep, moose, and goats.

Please look at your portfolios now, as we are contracted to apply these applications for you each year and our first deadlines are Utah and Wyoming which is the end of January. If you believe you cannot hunt this year, for any reason, let us know before we start'applying. We can apply for "bonus only" or "hold" in order to fit your need otherwise we will apply to draw. It is foolish to apply and draw a special and valuable tag you cannot use simply because you forgot to notify us of your needs. To add insult to injury, you are still responsible to pay for the tag and it will be wasted as no one else can use this tag. So, review your portfolio and mail or fax your invoice back to us. If you have any questions or changes, notify us so we can do the best job for you.

Because of the legal changes that are coming about, you are in front of the line for many ofthese quality tags in the coming years. Thanks again for allowing usa to handle your applications. As always, your support, trust, and your business are greatly appreciated. 1-800-845-9929 . Off: 505-758-9774 . Fax: 505-758-1744****

This belongs in the Big Game Hunting forum.

George

Actually George, I disagree. Note the support Dallas Safari Club has shown for USO.

Kudos AZ gun writer,

George Taulman is trying to circumvent states rights by using the lame "Interstate Commerce" clause. States were granted rights via the 10th amendment to the constitution. What he is doing is probably good for nonresidents, but it will drive a wedge between residents and nonresidents. Not good for hunting and the hunting community as a whole.

Maybe it is time I drop my membership to SCI.

The other reason I think it belongs here is that the Hunting Report is read by many who hunt in Africa.

I don't think it's good for anyone, it's the kind of stuff that will make states stop issuing non-resident hunting licenses.

US Outfitters did it because they thought it would help the outfitters if more out of state tags were able to be sold. All it does is help no one. Residents will band together and block non-residents from hunting.

George Taulman is a greedy asshole, and he isn't doing anything for anyone.

Kansas will probably be the first to do it, and the rest will fallow suit.

In my opinion, all USO has done is opened a can of worms that will probably cost us all the opportunity to hunt out of state for a reasonable fee. In a article in the Reno Gazette Journal this morning the Nevada Game Commission is upping the non resident quota from 10% to 15%. Not abolishing non resident quotas as stated. I am afraid we hunters that like to hunt out of our home state are going to get screwed thanks to United Stated Outfitters.

I am an Alaska resident. And I have lived in some places with fantastic hunting: Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada. I have also lived in someplaces that have limited fantastic hunting: California, Nevada, Texas, and Washington.

If you don't live in a state, and you don't contribute to a state what right do you have to say how a state is managed.

There are good outfitters and bad outfitters. George Taulman is obviously one greedy bastard, he is going to single handedly change non-resident hunting for the worse.

My parents live in Wyoming. All of my family hunts on Union Pass for elk. I have never had a tag since I left Wyoming as a non-resident. Would be nice to be able to take an elk, but I don't see it as the end of the world. Can't draw an elk tag, not on union pass. I haven't killed an buck antelope since I left either. Kind of adds to the pain and suffering. You would think that I would be pissed, I am not.

I don't live in Wyoming, I am not a resident. If I was a resident and I didn't get drawn and the draw was 20 percent non resident or greater I would be pissed.

I think that all states should raise there non-resident fees to 300%-500%. And make every non-resident who hunts on public land hire a guide.

If you don't live there do you have a right to hunt? Yes, of course you do.

Should your rights be the same as a residents?

No!

Check out my survey in the Big Game hunting section.

Perhaps you are right. I think you should be able to buy a federal license and hunt federal land in any state without a state license. Federal lands belong to all of us. Private and non federally subsidised land is a separate issue.

Ib404,

I dissagree the last thing we need is more goverment programs.

Can you imagine how the assholes in office would rape that slush fund?

USO isnt doing anyone any good but themselves.
No good will come of this.
States Rights have to come first in the management of their resources.
No one would even consider this is it was a lawsuit brought by the antis to circumvent the system so why consider it now?

quote:

Originally posted by lb404:
Perhaps you are right. I think you should be able to buy a federal license and hunt federal land in any state without a state license. Federal lands belong to all of us. Private and non federally subsidised land is a separate issue.

The land may belong to everyone but the animals belong to the State. You can travel around anywhere you want on Federal Land, you just cannot hunt on it.

quote:

You can travel around anywhere you want on Federal Land, you just cannot hunt on it.

Well then why don't we just auction the federal land to the highest bidder. If non-residents can't hunt on federal land it's time to end "Western Welfare!" Let the flames begin.

quote:

Originally posted by M16:

quote:

You can travel around anywhere you want on Federal Land, you just cannot hunt on it.

Well then why don't we just auction the federal land to the highest bidder. If non-residents can't hunt on federal land it's time to end "Western Welfare!" Let the flames begin.

I posted this here because of the reasons stated above, but I surely don't think this is the place for a flame war. We can take it up at the Big Game section.

My intention was to highlight the issue that some groups actually support Taulman, as if it is in their best interests. It is not.

Some may think their money insulates them from this issue, but I can tell you AZ residents feel so strongly about this issue that they just might pass a voting referencum making it illegal to hunt with a guide in AZ. Now where would that put wealthy hunters? When is the last time the grand puhbah of SCI went on a do it yourself hunt?

But if this is going to be a states right debate, let's respect George's suggestion and take it to the other board.

George Taulman only has one outfitter's good at heart and that is his. He started this license service to help sell more hunts thru his outfitting factory and it is a factory. I hunted with George twice - first and last. Last subscription for the Hunting report and I was thinking of going to DSC next year but will have to rethink that choice. I wish eastern states would get on the bandwagon of non res license and charge a higher fee for them.

Thanks for the informative letter. As an Alaskan resident, I do get "pissed" when non-residents are continually flooding areas where residents hunt, and now thanks to USO and other flood the permit pricks, we are getting more non-residents applying in our drawing permits and getting them. The real negative side is these guys are being guided by non-resident guides. This problem is two fold, non-resident hunters getting more tags than they should and non-residents guides guiding in Alaska. Both BULLSHIT! in my opinion. I will be all for totally eliminating non-resident hunting, or drastically increasing their fees. I don't believe that a non-resident guide should be able to guide in Alaska without paying a "substantial" fee to do so. This is becoming a huge problem and I can only hope that we can get it straightened out.

quote:

Originally posted by M16:

quote:

You can travel around anywhere you want on Federal Land, you just cannot hunt on it.

Well then why don't we just auction the federal land to the highest bidder. If non-residents can't hunt on federal land it's time to end "Western Welfare!" Let the flames begin.

M16

Is that all you think that Federal Land is good for? Hunting?

There's lots of good fishing too.

AZ- I think our percerption regarding the level of support for USO is not right. We see it as an attack on states rights, blah, blah,blah... But if you live in a state without significant Fedeal land holdings things appear very different. I think 3/4's of our states are in this position, certainly those east of the Rockies. Does anyone think that an average shooting sports enthisiest from the east coast is getting a fair shake at what is availible on western federal land?I am not debating the issue but trying to point out that we are in the minority by a HUGE margin.

Crane if you want a fair shake at western big game on federal land, then move to the west!

That's the reason we all live out here, and you can too.

People in Wyoming and Montana are a whole lot friendlier when you have a New Mexico or Arizona license plate than one that says Texas, Illinois, or New York.

SCI - First For Hunters
In the Crosshairs -- e-news from SCI's Washington Office
The latest and hottest news on federal, state, and international
political and conservation events
March 29, 2005

Non-Resident Hunters
SCI has released a statement regarding the issue of non-resident licenses distributed by state fish & game agencies. This is also in reference to the US Senate Bill 339 introduced by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

"SCI believes the recent lawsuits were ill advised and ill conceived. They pit hunter against hunter, resulting in unintended negative consequences and actions which may ultimately affect our freedom to hunt. For nearly a hundred years, our game species have been well managed by state agencies who utilize local and professional game biologists and agents who are answerable to the local and state residents. Now, as a result of the recent lawsuits, many aspects of game management are in the hands of the federal courts and ultimately may be in the hands of Federal Government bureaucracy. SCI strongly opposes the involvement of the federal government in state and local game management. Therefore, SCI believes that under the circumstances, federal legislative action negating the recent federal court decision may be necessary. However, SCI strongly urges the states to be mindful of the equities of nonresident hunters. Much of huntable land, particularly in the west, is federal land that belongs to all citizens. Every American should have a reasonable opportunity to hunt in states that have hunting. Additionally, nonresident hunting remains and should remain an important part of state fish and game department funding therefore SCI urges the states that have generous quotas to maintain those quotas (for example, Colorado which provides 40% of its quota to non-residents, and New Mexico which provides 22%), and other states to adopt a quota for non-residents of not less than 15%."

D99- I have lived and outfitted in Montana for the last 25 years. What I was TRYING to explain is that there is a big percentage of "our gang" that favorably views USO activities and thinks those activities will help them.It should be pretty obvious to all that have followed this that the legal actions have "legs". One of our senators is involved as a co-sponser of legislation to reaffirm the states rights on this issue. Don't hold your breath!