USO, or U.S. Outfitters screwed the residents of the state of Arizona with a lawsuit that will literlly prevent Arizona residents from drawing legal hunt tags in favor of nonresidents. Barnes Bullets is a sponsor of USO's TV show. USO, it has been said is now planning to sue Nevada and Montana to screw their residents. If you don't consider that "too terrible", just remember, your state could be next. I strogly suggest you remove your cranial cavity from your rectal oriface. Paul B. A very pissed off Arizona resident.
Posts: 2814 | Location: Tucson AZ USA | Registered: 11 May 2001
Paul, not sure where I've been (read: very busy) but this is pretty disturbing stuff which will warrant some research on my part... any good links or articles? I'm not going to knee-jerk in relation to Barnes without facts. If, however, the action is warranted and advisable I'll be the first in line to raise a stink.
This is a pretty good E-mail about the situation to an organization that Ive given considerable thought to joining. Their reaction to this situation could well decide whether I opt for membership.
Yes, USO has filed suit in Montana and Nevada. These states lie in the 10th circut, which if USO is succesful, and will cause all western states to abide by this ruling.
What would it mean? Well, Wyoming and Montana residents would most likely have to draw for their deer and elk tags, or Wyoming would have to allow Over-the-Counter tags to all resident of the USA. Draw odds in other states would be at least 10 times worse for the residents.
WesternHtr- I too live in Utah and am a member of SFW. I do not agree with all their ideas, but they have supported and benefited the Wildlife and hunters here in Utah. Prop 5, state monies, and the deer cap from unlimited (over 250,000 tags) to 97,000 are all the good examples of SFW's work. They are not perfect, but they are the best out there for the average Utah (Idaho, Wyoming) hunter.
Posts: 99 | Location: USA | Registered: 27 April 2001
Realtree and Primos have dropped their sponsorship of USO. There are several ltters from these companies posted on the bow site and monster muleys. Coues
Posts: 337 | Location: flagstaff az | Registered: 16 November 2002
Oh give me a break. Why blame what happened in Arizona on Barnes? Arizona was found guilty of discrimination not Barnes or USO. Blame the one who caused this. Maybe the court will allow affirmative action for past discrimination and show preference to non-residents who have not been allowed to hunt big game on their federal land over the years. Arizona is the only state that doesn't have private landowner tags. People who have the money should be able to buy a tag if they want one. Utah, New Mexico and Nevada landowners get to sell tags so why doesn't Arizona? This is a good system that compensates the landowner and gives a non-resident a chance buy a tag if they don't draw one. Nevada and Arizona deserve to get slapped for making non-residents buy a hunting license to accumilate preference points. Personally I could care less about USO and am not a client but if some dumb schmuck can't fill out an application on his own why can't they charge for their service?
Posts: 1557 | Location: Texas | Registered: 26 July 2003
Apparently some people just dont get it. Texans of all people should know that hunting opportunities vary greatly according to geography. Dont you think that might have something to do with differing policies of different states??
Im not blaming Barnes for anything except for their support for a bunch of greedy bastards who dont care about anyone but themselves.
Posts: 10188 | Location: Tooele, Ut | Registered: 27 September 2001
Quote: People who have the money should be able to buy a tag if they want one. Utah, New Mexico and Nevada landowners get to sell tags so why doesn't Arizona?
Another non sequitur.
First off, unlike TX, NV and UT, 85% of the land in AZ is PUBLIC -- i.e. either BLM, USFS or AZ State Trust Land. In the case of THIS issue, private lands have little relevence to either the elk nor deer permits.
First off, there is NO private land issue even remotely relevent in the deer units north of the Colorado River. The N. Kaibab, save for some tiny parcels, is USFS land. The AZ Strip, except for some small parcels, is mostly BLM land.
As for the elk, 98% of the hunting occurs on PUBLIC lands, i.e. - mostly various national forests throughout the state. The rest occurs on three indian reservations, and probably about .5% takes place on private land.
IOW, in regards to THIS issue, private landowner permits wouldn't mean diddly squat as to what would be available to non-residents for the general seasons. In fact, about the only place it would come into play would be with pronghorn -- about the only game animal that frequently lives on private ranches. But there isn't any 10% cap on those permits either. -TONY
Posts: 3269 | Location: Glendale, AZ | Registered: 28 July 2003
Ok I was looking at the wrong USO (United Service Organizations) website, haha. Thats what google gave me the most hits on when I searched USO, my bad.
What is the USO trying to accomplish? Although I would like to be able to draw tags for other states and hunt in them, I hate it when residents can't hunt in their own state (sometimes can't even get tags for the immediate area around their home). I think that the person that lives there should get first dibs. My stepfather's brother lives about 9 hours from here in northern california, in a draw zoen, he didn't get drawn so has to drive all the way to a general zone to hunt. It isn't right, not even in the slightest.
if this USO is really F*&#^ING things up then EVERYBODY should boycott THEM, and all of us should send a letter to their corp headquarters. Does anybody have an address?
Red
Posts: 4740 | Location: Fresno, CA | Registered: 21 March 2003
OK, I have read up on the ruling and what is going on with that. Anybody have a place I can actually verify that they have filed or are going to file against Nevada and Montana? I have drafted an e-mail to send to them but want to make sure of facts first.
Thanks all.
Red
Posts: 4740 | Location: Fresno, CA | Registered: 21 March 2003
if this USO is really F*&#^ING things up then EVERYBODY should boycott THEM, and all of us should send a letter to their corp headquarters. Does anybody have an address?
I'm the one that first mentioned the suits filed in MT and NV, but it was second hand, as I had mentioned. Although I consider the source very reliable, I will be following up with calls this week. I've been busy with a couple pressing article deadlines and didn't have a chance over the last few days. -TONY
Posts: 3269 | Location: Glendale, AZ | Registered: 28 July 2003
Dago- I heard of the Nevada and Montana lawsuits from a Wildlife meeting here in Utah. The talk was coming from the 2 highest ranking big game managers here in Utah. The Montana lawsuit deals with the bighorn sheep tags and how the tags are allocated between residents and non-residents (residents don't have to draw some areas??). The Nevada lawsuit deals with all tags and the low percentage. This is what I heard from what I would consider reliable sources, BUT it is still second-hand info. I have not seen legal documents anywhere on the Web.
Texans just don't get it do they?? The West has stable or decling herds. We don't have the Whitetail Rats overpopulating the habitat like states out East. Our wildlife resource of Mule Deer, Elk, Moose, Antelope, Sheep, and Mountain goats provide a small supply for the large demand. The only animals we have which are increasing would be the Whitetail Rat and the Wolf, which we can't hunt yet even though the Eastern bias gave us the "locusts".
Yes, boycott Barnes. They will cave. They have too many people in thier backyard (1/2 mile from their house) who will pull thier ears. Connie sits on the Utah Wildlife Board and I think she'd rather associate herself with that than with USO.
Posts: 99 | Location: USA | Registered: 27 April 2001
As much as I hate to do it...I'm sending Ty Herring at Barnes bullets an email as well.
I absolutely love the new Triple Shock bullet, I'm a huge fan of this little pill but I hate what USO has done even more.
I'M NOT BLAMING BARNES AT ALL, I'm just going to tell them that I'm not happy with their sponsorship of USO. They will hopefully follow suit with Realtree and Primos and drop their sponsorship.
I live in Ohio but I was in Tucson 3 summers in a row working at a gun/archery store. I have to say that I will 'march' with the AZ residents on this one.
Keep in mind though, USO will have plenty of nonres. rich folks to keep them going. They will argue that THEY are the reason that their clients get better odds at drawing tags and the ignorant nonres. clients will probably appreciate them.
My mother in law lives in Tucson. We just hung up the phone and she said that this new ruling is pretty big news down there.
Can we get the OUTDOOR CHANNEL TO BOYCOTT THE USO SHOW? ANYONE KNOW HOW TO GO ABOUT THIS?
What don't we get? We're not talking about getting more tags to wipe out the deer etc. We're talking about who has the right to the tags issued for federal land which belongs to all of us. Maybe you don't get it. Let's sell that federal land that we all pay taxes on to the highest bidder. Then the freeloaders can pay the landowner what the market dictates.
Posts: 1557 | Location: Texas | Registered: 26 July 2003
Quote: We're talking about who has the right to the tags issued for federal land which belongs to all of us.
We don't issue tags here for federal land. That's mostly free, regardless of residency, unless one uses a campground. The various federal agencies involved manage those lands, including the timber and minerals that have been there for eons.
Tag/permits here are issued for game animals, many of which now exist only because of the efforts of the state game department and concerned residents, who have paid for and contributed to the management of said animals for decades.
One prime example is one of the species now being discussed, the RM elk. Perhaps you're not aware they are not native to AZ? If not, they aren't. Our native elk, the Merriams, became extinct at the turn of the 20th century. The RM elk here now were brought here by the RESIDENTS of the Winslow AZ Elks club in the early 1900s. The rest, as they say, is history and a management success, as are the desert bighorn sheep, thanks mostly to the efforts of the AZ Desert Bighorn Sheep Society. -TONY
Posts: 3269 | Location: Glendale, AZ | Registered: 28 July 2003
What don't we get? Maybe you don't get it. Let's sell that federal land that we all pay taxes on to the highest bidder. Then the freeloaders can pay the landowner what the market dictates.
that's the stupidest thing i ever heard. i thought most texans were smart, but you're as dumb as a shoebox of assholes.
Not being rich but able to pull up the near 500 dollars for a shot at Wyomings bull tag lottery just after Christmas for NR hunters I will say that it would be nice if my chances were better than 8-10 percent. It chaps me to pay 10 times as much as residents and have a negative 30% chance at a tag then listen to weeds like RMK rant about it. We are after all United States residents and it is divisive that states do discriminate in such an obvious way. Cool thing is Oklahoma wont let the Wyoming boys even buy a tag.
Quote: First off, there is NO private land issue even remotely relevent in the deer units north of the Colorado River. The N. Kaibab, save for some tiny parcels, is USFS land. The AZ Strip, except for some small parcels, is mostly BLM
Tony, you have me confused. Are you saying that the state of Arizona does not take in to consideration that the tags they issue will be used on federal government land? By your statement above it seems to me that is exactly what they are doing. If no deer or elk hunting is done on private land then Arizona is issueing permits on federal lands.
Posts: 1557 | Location: Texas | Registered: 26 July 2003
Here is the email address of George Taulman of USO-send him your emails to show your unhappiness with what is happening! huntuso@newmex.com I 'm an Arizona resident and the sponsors of USO and his show should all get emails expressing your feelings about what USO is doing to the resident hunting in all the states he or his guides sue!
Quote: Tag/permits here are issued for game animals, many of which now exist only because of the efforts of the state game department and concerned residents, who have paid for and contributed to the management of said animals for decades.
Tony
This is THE big point of contention......you say the animals are there because of the state's management...... while others say the state would not have any animals to manage if federal tax dollars didn't provide the habitat......who is right?? Can you have the game without the habitat??? Can you raise a crop without dirt? I don't think so.......so......which is more important???
Stop for just one minute and see it from the other side......yes, maybe the state is doing a great job of managing the herd.......however, if the federal land belonged to private citizens instead of the feds......how much of it do you think the average Joe resident would get to hunt???
Please don't give me the line that non-residents have equal use of the federal land to camp, hike, fish etc.......that isn't what this is about....and you know it!....residents have the same use rights for those things too........what we are talking about is a state that wants to control a specific use of federal land (YES, HUNTING is a use of federal land) and discriminate against *some* of the very people that pay for that land.....and that is not fair!
I tell you what........have AZ, NM, ID, WY, NV, CO, etc, write me, and every other non-resident hunter, a check for the part of our tax dollars that have been spent on federal land in those states.......and the argument will end right there...... until that happens......they don't have the right to treat non-residents any differently when it comes to hunting federal lands!
I don't agree with what USO has done, and I wouldn't mind seeing all commercial hunting banned on public lands..... but discrimination against non-resident hunting on FEDERAL LAND has gone on way too long and, if it takes a court decision to change things......so be it!
Posts: 1499 | Location: NE Okla | Registered: 22 May 2002
Quote: If no deer or elk hunting is done on private land then Arizona is issueing permits on federal lands.
No need to be confused. Perhaps not what you really meant, but here's what you said:
"We're talking about who has the right to the tags issued for federal land which belongs to all of us." < !--color-->
Thus, that's what I addressed first -- "...TAGS ISSUED FOR < !--color-->FEDERAL LAND." Then I went on to the tag/permits FOR < !--color--> THE STATE'S GAME ANIMALS that we do issue and that might be used ON federal land. But in reality, there is NO < !--color-->stipulation on what type of land, i.e. WHERE < !--color--> a hunter must use the tag. < !--color-->
Hope that eliminates the confusion.
Maybe we should get back to turning Arizona into another Texas by selling it all off to Donald Trump. Then there will be no discrimination; it will cost a fortune for anyone to hunt ala Texas. And once that becomes the norm across the country, hunting will likely go the way of the dodo bird because only the most affluent could afford it. -TONY
Posts: 3269 | Location: Glendale, AZ | Registered: 28 July 2003
Quote: And once that becomes the norm across the country, hunting will likely go the way of the dodo bird because only the most affluent could afford it. -TONY
Yeah.....but you will still be able to camp and hike! sorry, couldn't resist!
Posts: 1499 | Location: NE Okla | Registered: 22 May 2002
Quote: while others say the state would not have any animals to manage if federal tax dollars didn't provide the habitat......who is right??
Arizona's "habitat" was here long before the feds took control of it, and as far as the tax dollars spent, my guess is that no where near the amount of federal taxes paid by RESIDENTS in this state come back to this state to be spent in this state for what little "management" is done to federal lands by the federal gobbmint in this state. Lest we forget, there is federal land in EVERY state, so taxes are divided throughout and everyone in the country pays them.
That's exactly why the feds agree that game on federal land belongs to the states and leaves the management of that game to the states. And for the most part, any habitat improvements are done on the state level, not federal. In fact, much of it is done by local organizations by resident volunteers.
In contrast, they have a say in the management of MIGRATORY species because those species cross state lines.
Now, I assume you're also from Tx, right? And since I avoid visiting TX for anything unless absolutely necessary, will you be sending me my share of my Fed. taxes that are spent there? And if you really want refunds for the use of federal land, it's the ranchers who get cheap leases yet allow their cows to denude the land.
BTW, you know if God wanted Texans to hunt wild elk and ski, he would have put lots of big mountains there. -TONY
Posts: 3269 | Location: Glendale, AZ | Registered: 28 July 2003
Quote: Yeah.....but you will still be able to camp and hike!
You might have thought you made a funny, but not so. Because if the land becomes privately owned, you couldn't do the above either. Just witness what most of Texas is now like; it's the perfect example of a "play for pay" state.
As I mentioned to M16 in another thread, "No thanks." -TONY
Posts: 3269 | Location: Glendale, AZ | Registered: 28 July 2003
OK, I've read through all of this heres the way I see it. In a nut shell I'm good enough for the Feds to take my money and support land in Arizona but by Arizona law I've got less than a 10% chance to hunt it. How fare is that??? In Alabama we got National Forest, in fact ones just a 1/4 of a mile from my house, and anyone can hunt it. Even out of state guys for as little as $77.50. Maybe in the south we've just leaned to share what everyone is already paying for.
Posts: 1739 | Location: alabama | Registered: 13 November 2001
Quote: Arizona's "habitat" was here long before the feds took control of it
So, who owned the habitat before the feds took over? If we are going there, then I guess native americans or mexicans are really the only folks who should be hunting in AZ! Oh, wait, I'm betting there is some group who will say they owned the land before the mexicans or indians.....fact is, every citizen of the US is part owner of this habitat right now, and that's what is relevant to this discussion!
Quote: Lest we forget, there is federal land in EVERY state, so taxes are divided throughout and everyone in the country pays them.
Feel free to come and use whatever federal land you find in my state.....there isn't much, but we are willing to share.....non-residents have the same opportunities to hunt big game here as do residents......unless, your state discriminates against residents of my state......if that is the case, you can't buy a tag here!
Quote: That's exactly why the feds agree that game on federal land belongs to the states
No problem, if you insist that the animals are yours.....kindly remove them from my land, or pay for grazing rights........they are eating my grass you know!
I think it is very telling that those who are so against non-residents getting equal treatment on federal lands are from those states that have the most federal land available for hunting!
I've said it before and I'll say it again.......The only time I have ever hunted Federal land as a non-resident was for predators in NM.......I have never applied for non-resident big game tags in any western state......and I have never hunted big game in any western state......but telling me I don't have the same opportunities to use something I helped pay for just doesn't sit well with me!
Hunting costs money, lot's of folks out west have been enjoying what the rest of us have paid for.........and they are afraid that the chickens are coming home to roost.........
This court decision may just be the camels nose under the edge of the tent.......and, if those states that discriminate against non-residents don't straighten things out real soon.......there may be a bunch of us non-residents pushing on the back of that camel with everything we have! Get ready!
Posts: 1499 | Location: NE Okla | Registered: 22 May 2002
Quote: BTW, you know if God wanted Texans to hunt wild elk and ski, he would have put lots of big mountains there.
A little geography lesson. I don't ski but there are mountains in Texas where you could. Tallest peak is 8,749. And I hate to be the one to break the news to you but there are wild elk in Texas that can be hunted in the western part of the state.
Quote:
Maybe we should get back to turning Arizona into another Texas by selling it all off to Donald Trump. Then there will be no discrimination; it will cost a fortune for anyone to hunt ala Texas.
It doesn't cost a fortune to hunt in Texas. You can buy a $40 dollar permit and hunt a million or so acres. Yes even if you are a non-resident. Plus you can draw to hunt management areas. Yes even if you are a non-resident. Sorry you don't make it to Texas more often Tony, you should see the quail and deer crop this year. Unbelievable. Since I own several ranches the cost of hunting private land doesn't concern me.
Posts: 1557 | Location: Texas | Registered: 26 July 2003
Quote: In Alabama we got National Forest, in fact ones just a 1/4 of a mile from my house, and anyone can hunt it. Even out of state guys for as little as $77.50.
Same goes here in Arizona, for the MOST part. All you need to do is buy a NR hunting license. Thousands of NRs do it every year. -TONY
Posts: 3269 | Location: Glendale, AZ | Registered: 28 July 2003
Tony (and others), no flame intended with this post but in an earlier post you mentioned that Az. was ~ ~ 85% Federal Land. That's pretty heavy stuff (to me)for this whole discussion. Consider the actual number of hunters/taxpayers there are in Az. Then, consider the actual number of hunters/taxpayers there are in the rest of the 49 states of our U.S. of A. I think the number of "outsider hunters/taxpayers" far outweighs what Az has in either regard. Bottom line - the "outsiders" own and support considerably more of Az. than do the Az. residents (by the numbers). That's one.
To those who get upset (and justifiably so) about comments regarding private entities buying up Federal lands, just consider that if hunter/taxpayers from the rest of the 49 states dont get a fair shake at access (whether by drawing, etc or other means) - why would they even care at all whether the Federal land is bought up or not? They dont and they wont. That's two.
We ALL lose from this morass and bickering and we surely ALL lose when things get tied up in courts. That's three.
Thanks. Dungbeetle
Posts: 1370 | Location: Home but going back. | Registered: 15 December 2003
And basically no one held title to the land here before AZ became a territory. One could certainly stretch it to the native Americans, however. But then they have their own lands here now, and also have some of the best hunting in the state. It's kinda like that private land garbage, though. You can hunt elk for a measley $20K or so.
Quote: Feel free to come and use whatever federal land you find in my state.....there isn't much, but we are willing to share.....non-residents have the same opportunities to hunt big game here as do residents......unless, your state discriminates against residents of my state......if that is the case, you can't buy a tag here!
There ya go. That's the way it should be. But I can surely understand why you would want to hunt here. Sounds like the gun-grabbers, "let's compromise," where they have nothing to give.
Quote: I think it is very telling that those who are so against non-residents getting equal treatment on federal lands are from those states that have the most federal land available for hunting!
Yup, and not only that but the same states have the biggest variety of big game and the best hunting for them. Thus they protect what they nutured and continue to support through their efforts and dollars. Of course, it's easy to see why those in places such as OK and TX would be jealous, too. Something about that grass being greener, eh?
Quote: there may be a bunch of us non-residents pushing on the back of that camel with everything we have!
Nah, most NRs are smarter than that. Even the LOCAL guides here are appalled by what has happened, and they stand to make more money because of it. Why, because they know an onslaught of NRs will ruin the hunting experience here just as has happened in some parts of Colorado. Some of our southern deer units are already suffering that fate. -TONY
Posts: 3269 | Location: Glendale, AZ | Registered: 28 July 2003
Quote: but in an earlier post you mentioned that Az. was ~ ~ 85% Federal Land.
Nope, I don't believe I said that. Reread it.
Also, the NUMBER of taxpayers in the US is meaningless to the equation. What matters is how much federal money is SPENT in AZ, especially compared to how much taxes are paid by Arizonians and/or generated in AZ.
Quote: why would they even care at all whether the Federal land is bought up or not? They dont and they wont. That's two.
That's good then, no? That would then leave Arizonians with the only concern for land in their own state.
Quote: We ALL lose from this morass and bickering and we surely ALL lose when things get tied up in courts.
Hmmm, see my comment in my other reply about the gun-grabbers and compromise. So you and other NRs have lost what....???? -TONY
Posts: 3269 | Location: Glendale, AZ | Registered: 28 July 2003
'm an Arizona resident and the sponsors of USO and his show should all get emails expressing your feelings about what USO is doing to the resident hunting in all the states he or his guides sue!
-TONY
sorry, couldn't resist! 
