The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Hunting American Big Game Hunting Q Creek Ranch WyomingGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Q Creek Ranch Wyoming | Login/Join |
One of Us |
I have been searching the web to find information on the elk hunts at the Q Creek Ranch in Wyoming in Unit 16. Has anyone hunted here, or know of someone who has. I drew a tag for rifle season and have booked with the outfitter to hunt here. | ||
|
| One of Us |
I'm at a loss as to why you are asking out on this Forum AFTER you have already booked with the outfitter. It appears you've done things exactly backwards from what all of us advise a person to do to try and lessen your chance of making a mistake of who you go with. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have actually booked with United States Outfitters for this location. I have hunted with them before and have had great success. From what I have read(very limited) it seems like one of the premier locations in Wyoming. I was just wondering if anyone has hunted here and what their hunts have been in this unit. I just want to know what to expect when I arrive at Q Creek Ranch and to have a better understanding of the unit. | |||
|
One of Us |
I'm not sure who is worse, Jeff Blair or George Taulman. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I have not hunted the ranch, but am familiar with it and have hunted bordering properties. You will not be disapointed with the country or the opportunity for a bull elk.There are plenty of elk and the country is very nice. However I cannot speak for the quality of the operation itself,but have no reason to believe it should not be excellent. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I would wade through Hell and fight a chain saw barehanded before I ever give george Taulman and USO a single thin dime. If that asshole is involved, well let me say that's the only piece of info I need to have to know I don't want to know anymore. Don't know if you're aware of it or not but he tried to sue the state of AZ because he thought that outfitters should control tag allocations and not the states. In other words, he didn't care if the regular public could hunt all he cared about were clients willing to pay him and other outfitters. He has also been known to use intimidation and physical actions to block public hunters from going after game or even accessing public hunting areas. There have been some allegations of his guides using small aircraft to "herd" game into areas he was hunting with clients. You know, guys exactly like you. He didn't give a damn if a father and his kid could hunt if he personally wasn't making money. Most of his ligh level sponsors left him soon afterwards when this story broke about 5 years ago. He is scum and I sure as hell wouldn't want to be associated with him or his outfit. But hey, it's a free country and it's your dime. | |||
|
| one of us |
+1 I wouldn't even encourage obama book a hunt with USO! People like George Taulman have done nothing but commercialize hunting. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Flags - I know alot of folks don't have much use for George, I don' really have an opinion either way, as I do not know the man. Never worked with him, or any of his staff. I too have heard all the rumors about this, that or the other - but I usually try to make sure I have first-hand knowledge of said activities, so I can't say for sure what's he's done or not done? What I do know for a 100% fact is, the example above as to why you think he was suing the AZ fish & game, is 100% incorrect. In fact, had ole George got it his way, it would have made it easier for me, you, and every other AZ non-resident (public hunter) to potentially draw an AZ elk, deer, antelope tag, etc. In very simple terms, USO was suing AZ claiming that since a large portion of AZ is public land, administered by the Feds, USFS/BLM, AZ should not be allowed to limit non-residents to what is described as an "UP - TO" 10% of the tags in any particular draw unit, can go to non-residents. Which means clearly that currently, its highly possible that NOT ONE SINGLE tag in a particular unit will go to a non-resident. Its an up-to 10% can go to non-residents, not a guaranteed 10% goes to non-residents. He was suing on various points, one claiming they were interfering with Interstate Commerce, etc, etc, etc. But bottom line, he was NOT suing for outfitters to get control of tag allocations which would be impossible. He was suing to get a guaranteed percentage (10%) of the tags to be allocated to non-resident hunters, rather than just an Up-To "chance" if you will. I'm not saying George was "right or wrong" in his pursuit, just clarifying what it was that he was trying to do. Colorado is no different in the deer/elk/antelope draw units, we just allot a higher "up-to" percentage (either 20% or 40%, depending on the number of pts needed to draw each specific unit) of tags "CAN" go to non-residents, but non-residents are NOT guaranteed to get a single deer/elk/antelope tag in Colorado, not one. | |||
|
| one of us |
You don't have to know him personally. I don't him personally either. But his actions and attempts to commercialize big game hunting in western states via taking resident tags and handing them over to everyone, NR and Resident, including the highest bidder, would have made it almost impossible for me to draw a tag in my home state, and also take control out of the states hands. He wanted to make everyone equal. Kind of like socializing hunting. The states said no, the federal government said no. I had over a dozen personal emails from George, and I wish I had kept them. I was and still am against his tactics. You being a booking agent, I can understand your defense of him. We all have opinions, mine is and always will be, guys like George did nothting but take hunting oportunities out of the average, working, hunter and his families hands. And for you to say you don't know him, is kind of lame. If you know what occured in court, his stand on his ideas and issues, and a simple search on the net, you know him. If there is a buck to be made via hunting, George and guys like him will be in line with their hand out and their lawsuits.. | |||
|
| one of us |
It would have affected every western state, and from your comments you knew him very well. | |||
|
| one of us |
And if they were gaurenteed more permits, it means more money in yours and George's pocket. Plain and simple. Not the average joe, who works for a living, but the majority that have the finances to do it, which would eventually leave fewer tags for those that work, live, pay taxes, and basically support the state in which they reside. I guess you could say, resident tags are a fringe benefit. Commercialize it, and residents get left over doe fawn tags. | |||
|
| One of Us |
+1 Outfitters often seem to forget that it is the states that control the game and that the Wildlife Departments work for the RESIDENTS of their respective states. What Taulman wanted to do was make it easier for someone from some place like New York to get the tag in AZ which would mean that tag is harder to get for an AZ citizen. I have an issue with that especially since the fellow from New York would be much more likely to use the services of USO than the AZ resident. This clearly shows a bias towards someone that would pay him for a service at the detriment of someone that wouldn't want to. Taulman tried to take state control of the game and give it to the Feds under the Commerce Clause. Sorry but I sure as hell don't want nancy Pelosi and Harry Ried et al... having anything to say about the way the western states issue permits. And Aaron as to Colorado, I really don't care if the non-residents are only allowed 20%-40% of the tags. I have no problem with that. There should be some benefit researved for the residents of the states. I know you make a living selling hunts to non-residents, but as for me, I don't care if they have problems pulling a good tag. If they want the benefits of resident hunting privileges, then they can move to Colorado and start paying taxes. Until then, the DOW works for me and not them. Matter of fact, I'd like to see all the sheep, goat and moose tags reserved only for residents as well as the bull tags for units like 1,2,10 and 201 etc... Those units are set aside as "premium" areas and should be reserved for the residents. Bottom line, if I have to wait 18-20 years to get the tag as a resident, then nobody from another state should be able to draw it. Like Kudu says: Call it a fringe benefit for decades worth of taxes being paid. | |||
|
| one of us |
Flags my friend, Good old Harry was the one who fought to pass the bill and got it passed, that esentially shut down Geo and USO! So he is kind of a friend of the hunter.  He gave the rights back to the states, which is where it belonged. | |||
|
one of us |
Just to keep the facts on track, here are a couple excerpts of articles I did on the Taulman tag grab. COPYRIGHT FEB. 2003 Appeal Planned It all started on Feb. 10, 1998 when Conservation Force, Inc. and several outfitters and guides from New Mexico filed suit in the United States District Court in Arizona against the members of the Arizona Game & Fish Commission who were in office at that time. The plaintiffs, including United States Outfitters (USO) of Taos, N. Mex., claimed the 10-percent cap on nonresident permits for bull elk (statewide) and for deer north of the Colorado River (North Kaibab) violates the Commerce, Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. They requested “a declaration of invalidity as well as damages.” When the case eventually came before the federal district court in Arizona, the judge granted the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s (AGFD) cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the commerce clause claim as a matter of law. Subsequently, Conservation Force, Inc. dropped out, and the other plaintiffs-- Lawrence Montoya, Filberto Valerio and Carole Jean Taulman, wife of George Taulman who owns USO -- appealed the decision as individuals to take advantage of the commerce law. The case moved to the 9th District Court of Appeals in California. It was argued and submitted in Dec., 2001. On August 20, 2002, the 9th District Court issued its opinion. It pointed out that Arizona is home to what is considered by many hunters to be some of the best deer and elk hunting in the world, exemplified by the world-record animals harvested from its lands. “The quality of the hunting in Arizona is in large part a result of the conservation efforts supported by Arizona citizens and administered by the Arizona Game and Fish Department,” the court files state. It also states, “In early 1990, the department conducted a poll of resident big-game hunters and found that nearly 75 percent favored restricting the number of hunting tags issued to nonresidents, many expressing the opinion that nonresidents should be excluded from hunting in Arizona entirely”. For many years, Arizona distributed the limited hunt tags for antlered deer and bull elk through a lottery without regard to the residence of the applicant. In the late 1980s, however, the AGFD began to receive vocal complaints by Arizona hunters objecting to competition with nonresidents. Many felt that nonresidents were getting more than their fair share of the hunt opportunities, especially for premium hunts. To better meet the overwhelming desires of the resident hunting public, in 1991 the game commission amended Rule 12-4-114 of the Arizona Administrative Code. It placed a 10-percent cap on the number of tags that could be awarded to nonresidents for the hunting of bull elk throughout the state and for antlered deer in the area north of the Colorado River. The AGFD explained that the continued management of Arizona’s big game “is dependent on the continued support of Arizona residents” and that Arizona residents should be afforded the opportunity “to hunt Arizona’s best.” On the other side of the aisle, the plaintiffs, who are all professional guides who apply for hunting tags around the country for their clients, claimed that profit making is their sole purpose in hunting these animals in Arizona, and that they do not hunt for recreational enjoyment. Instead, they argued that they hunt to “obtain the meat of the animals, their hide, their ivories, and especially their head and rack of antlers to profit from the sale and use of the non-edible parts.” Judge Raymond C. Fisher of the 9th District Court wrote the following conclusion for the majority opinion: “We hold that Arizona’s cap on nonresident hunting substantially affects and discriminates against interstate commerce and therefore is subject to strict scrutiny under the dormant Commerce Clause. Arizona has legitimate interests in regulating hunting to conserve its population of game and maintain recreational opportunities for its citizens. We remand for further proceedings to determine whether Arizona has met its burden of showing that it has no other means to advance its legitimate interests.” In effect, the 9th Circuit Court overturned the Arizona court’s decision, thus finding in favor of the plaintiffs. The rationale behind the decision involved the sale of elk and deer antlers, as allowed under state law in Arizona. In other words, the plaintiffs convinced the appeals court that their purpose for applying for permits was obtaining these antlers to sell and not for the recreational hunting provided. The decision forced the AGFD to pick one of several options available: • Dump the nonresident cap • • Outlaw the sale of deer & elk antlers by anyone • • Raise the cost of nonresident permits high enough for a de facto cap • • Appeal the decision to the U. S. Supreme Court • The Arizona Game and Fish Commission voted unanimously last October to choose door #4 – an appeal to the Supreme Court, which will have the option to hear the case and rule or simply decline hearing it altogether. On almost the same day the game commission voted for the appeal, U.S. Attorney Paul K. Charlton’s office in Phoenix indicted two individuals on charges stemming from an investigation known "Operation Navajo Buck (ONB)." One of them happens to be George Taulman, owner of USO. Conducted during 1998 and 1999, the ONB investigation led to the arrest and conviction of several big-game guides based in Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. They unlawfully used aircraft prior to and during hunting seasons to locate deer and elk for hunting clients on the Navajo Indian Reservation in northeast Arizona. As a result, 12 individuals have paid fines of $85,000 and have forfeited one aircraft and unlawfully taken wildlife. Taulman’s indictment charges him with one felony violation of the Lacey Act, two felony violations of conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act, and two misdemeanor violations of the Airborne Hunting Act. The felony violation of the Lacey Act alleges one of Taulman’s clients killed an elk with the aid of an aircraft in 1999. The felony conspiracy counts allege that Taulman conspired to use aircraft to aid hunting clients in the taking of elk in Arizona during 1998 and 1999. Taulman’s business, USO, is also under indictment on three felony counts related to the 1998 and 1999 hunts. The indictment also seeks the forfeiture of the outfitter’s Cessna 182 aircraft, which he allegedly used during the hunts. Another indictment cited David Holton III, of Lake Montezuma, Ariz., who is listed as an employee of USO. He is charged with one felony violation of the Lacey Act, one felony violation of conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act, and one misdemeanor violation of the Airborne Hunting Act. All violations relate to aiding a client with an aircraft so he could kill an elk in 1998 near Payson, Ariz. The federal Lacey Act makes it unlawful to transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase wildlife which was taken, transported, possessed, or sold in violation of state, federal, or indian tribal laws or regulations. Violations carry maximum fines of up to $250,000 for a person, $500,000 for a corporation, and up to five years in prison. All vehicles and aircraft used in violation of the Lacey Act are subject to forfeiture. The federal Airborne Hunting Act makes it unlawful to shoot animals from an aircraft or to harass animals with an aircraft. The Airborne Hunting Act Regulations prohibits a person, while on the ground, from taking or attempting to take wildlife by means, aid, or use of an aircraft. Maximum penalty for violations of the Airborne Hunting Act include fines of up to $100,000 for a person, and $200,000 for a corporation, and one year in prison. COPYRIGHT DEC. 2005 BACK TO NORMAL After several years of court battles, resident hunters in a couple of Rocky Mountain states are a bit giddy as result of federal legislation that put to rest an ongoing battle between one New Mexico outfitter and the states. The legal wrangling came to a boil in Arizona during 2004 when the outfitter plaintiffs argued that their only reason for hunting animals in Arizona involved interstate commerce. The court filing stated the reason as, "to obtain the meat of the animals, their hide, their ivories, and especially their head and rack of antlers to profit from the sale and use of the non-edible parts." The original court case before U.S. District Court Judge Robert C. Broomfield found in favor of Arizona, but in July 2004, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Broomfield’s verdict and ruled in favor of the outfitters. The court cited the Commerce Clause of the federal Constitution, which was designed to promote unity of economic opportunity within the states. In its review, the court stated: "…the foregoing testimony does not explain why a 10 percent cap, as opposed to some other less discriminatory cap, is necessary to achieve the state's interest in conserving hunting opportunities." The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case, allowing the 9th Circuit ruling to stand. As a result, Broomfield ordered the Arizona Game & Fish Department to eliminate the 10 percent cap on nonresident hunters for the 2004 big-game tag lottery drawing. The change required issuing more than 800 additional elk and deer tags in 2004 and disregarding any nonresident cap for the 2005 seasons. To compensate somewhat, the game department removed the ability to apply online and also mandated the purchase of hunting license before applying. Bolstered by the success in Arizona, the New Mexico outfitters filed suit in Nevada over its nonresident caps. The plaintiffs also had other states in their sights. Enter U.S. Senator Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who successfully co-sponsored a bill with Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, Senator Conrad Burns of Montana, Senator John Ensign of Nevada, Senator Benjamin Nelson of Nebraska, and Senator John McCain of Arizona that short stopped any current or future lawsuits by the plaintiffs. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colorado sponsored a similar bill (HR 731) in the House. In August 2005, President George Bush signed the bill into law. The law states: (a) In General- It is the policy of Congress that it is in the public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and nonresidents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting or fishing. (b) Construction of Congressional Silence- Silence on the part of Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the `commerce clause') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State or Indian tribe. The wording essentially says power to regulate hunting, fishing and wildlife management is the sole right of the states and removes any consideration to the Commerce Clause of the federal Constitution. On Aug. 22, 2005 Judge Broomfield granted the Arizona Game and Fish Commission’s motion to revoke the permanent injunction prohibiting enforcement of the state’s 10-percent nonresident cap on big game drawings. “This means the last major legal hurdle has been crossed. Now the Game and Fish Commission can continue moving forward with its rule making efforts to reinstate the 10-percent nonresident cap,” says Commission Chairman Hays Gilstrap. Also in August, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission approved a notice of rulemaking to reinstate and expand the 10-percent cap. The original cap applied only to bull elk, buffalo, bighorn sheep and some antlered deer units. Now, by a vote of the commission, the cap will include all antlered deer, pronghorn, javelina and turkey hunts. For most species, the cap would be applied at no more than 10 percent of the tags available for each hunt number. “The rule process takes time and involves lots of opportunities for public input, but we anticipate having the caps in place for the 2006 big game drawings,” says Gilstrap. Now that the nonresident cap is back in place, the AGFD also intend to provide an online application procedure for the fall hunt drawings in 2006. The U.S. District court in Nevada dismissed the case against the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners and Nevada Department of Wildlife Director Terry Crawforth. “It was hunters fighting with hunters,” Crawforth said. “The agency was spending hunter’s money to referee the fight.” Crawforth said one of his fears over the issue was having everything the state did to manage wildlife come under constant monitoring and oversight by the courts. “I was concerned that we were spending sportsman’s dollars battling lawyers rather than spending hunter dollars to do good things for wildlife. I’m pleased that we got the legislation, and the fight is over,” Crawforth said. Tony Mandile - Author "How To Hunt Coues Deer" | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yeah, that Taulman guy is a "real stand up guy" ain't he. Thanks for the post on that Tony.
Actually, he was one of several that fought it, as Tony has noted. But you can bet your ass that since a DEM is in the White House now and not a Republican, if it came up again he would align himself to he Federal control angle. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Kudu - I've never met the man, period! Thus why I said so, and I also said that I cannot comment on his alleged actions outside of the case we are talking about too. I simply don't know. I'm not defending him, I was clarifying the issue - just like I mentioned directly above. I know that at the time when the suit started, he sent every outfitter in the state of Colorado, a letter explaining what he was doing, and asking for a donation to his legal fund. I'm sure he did the same in AZ, NM, etc. I declined, as I actually saw the other side of the story too - (your side in other words) But obviously Tony has the entire scoop listed above. Flags - Since I first started hunting/guiding/outfitting in CO (1992) things as you likely know - have greatly improved for the CO resident deer/elk/antelope hunter. At that time, non-residents were allowed to apply for Ranching For Wildlife permits, but no longer. And, there was NO cap on non-resident elk/deer/antelope tags, none at all. Non-Residents had the same chance to draw as a resident, the guy with the most points got the tag, period. Now, non-residents are limited to a 20% - 40% cap, depending on the area. Doesn't mean they are guaranteed a single permit, they just can't get over the cap limits. As a Colorado resident myself, I'm ok with all that I suppose. | |||
|
| one of us |
No doubt! | |||
|
| One of Us |
Kudu - I'm not sure you're reading what I'm writing? In Colorado, non-res deer/elk/antelope hunters are NOT guaranteed a single tag, period! They just cannot exceed the limits, in the event that a particular unit happens to have alot of non-res applicants for whatever reason. The "money" issue is a whole different story! I actually tried to look at all of this from the stand point of what was best for my state/wildlife, thus I had no problem when the non-res caps were implemented, despite the fact that it could effect my livelihood, and it did to a degree. I didn't jump up and down, throwing a fit, because now some were getting something that I couldn't get (more non-res tags) I understood the "state right/priority" issue. On the flip side, I never understand the resentment some have when others make money/opportunity at something they do not/cannot? I'm an "Average Joe", that lives/works here in CO, I pay state taxes here, and I basically support the state within which I live. And you know where that money comes from to do those things?? Non-resident hunters! The CDOW derives the vast majority of their annual revenue from Non-Res, big game license sales, that's a fact. Without em, the CDOW couldn't do half the work they currently do - in regards to Colorado's wildlife. All that, and I even get a buck and a bull tag every year too. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Tony - As I understood it, Taulman was suing to get AZ to give a "guaranteed" 10% of the tags to Non-residents, rather than just an "up-to" 10% "can" go to non-res, is that correct? Or, was it a suit to eliminate a quota/cap all together for non-residents?? That part I could be fuzzy on? | |||
|
| One of Us |
Read the above. This alone shows what kind of guy Taulman is. He is an embarrassment and a liability to law abiding hunters. I for one would not want to be associated with either him or his business. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Flags - I remember some of that stuff. Do you know if/what Taulman was actually convicted of? | |||
|
| one of us |
The above. Taulman wanted all applicants on an equal basis to get a permit. If you consider the argument put forth by the plaintiffs, ANY cap would have been considered as a violation of the commerce clause as determined by the 9th circuit appeals court. IOW, it came under the "can't be just a little bit pregnant" adage. This is why AZG&FD had to issue all of those additional tags to the nonresidents who were drawn after the 10% caps were exceeded. Not sure if you knew that Jim Zumbo was one of them but refused to use the permit he received from that action. Tony Mandile - Author "How To Hunt Coues Deer" | |||
|
| one of us |
| |||
|
| One of Us |
Ya, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification Tony. | |||
|
| one of us |
Fortunetly, the state G&F commissions don't owe anyone a living at the expense of wildlife. | |||
|
| One of Us |
If my memory is correct, I believe the lawyers plea bargined it down. I don't remember the exact outcome, but the fact that he and his company were caught doing it is all that matters to me. Taulman is little more than a bum and a thug and frankly we don't need guys like him in the ranks of hunters. It's a matter of principle and he simply doesn't seem to have any. He has demonstrated using some very bad judgement and has definately been involved in some suspicious and illegal activities for someone who is so visible. | |||
|
| one of us |
The fact that the business was in his wifes name throws up a red flag. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I've met George personally and if I hadn't been on a missle range hunting with my best friends daughter I would have had to be pulled off of him. We get to a spot to glass thats on a ridge thats miles long. As we are getting our stuff ready and starting to walk to the glassing knob this truck pulls in directly behind us and a guy jumps out and starts trying to race up the hill to get to the knob first. It was a BS move that showed a complete lack of class and ethics. There were NUMEROUS areas to glass and we were there before anybody else. Those guys should have moved down the ridge where there were no other hunters, like I said, the ridge was mile long. Turns out it was George Taulman, one of his guides and 2 clients. We are glassing the Oryx and George comes down and says "Which ones are yall going after?" We told him that they would eventually work their way to us and that we were going to wait and see which Oryx we wanted before making any definitive decision. He said that they were bailing off in front of us and they did. That son of a bitch came in behind us, set up on top of us then bailed off in front of us and ruined our hunt trying to make impossible stalks on the Oryx. His radio boy then screwed up our hunt when the Oryx did what our guide knew they would do and moved up the draw towards us. He tried to spook them back to George. Needless to say, I would not piss in his mouth if he were dying of thirst. He's an asshole | |||
|
| one of us |
drummondlindsey, I remember your story from years back when this thing about USO ran its course on this forum. I don't know George, nor do I know you, but I am old and wise enough to form an opinion based on your statement as well as court doucments, news articles, and even hunting forums. As well as half a dozen or so emails I got from George, my opinion mirrors yours! | |||
|
| One of Us |
Who said they did??? | |||
|
| one of us |
George Taulman felt they did. | |||
|
| One of Us |
As does mine. | |||
|
One of Us |
I personally beleive that a hunter that lives in the state ought to have first crack at somewhere between 80 and 90% of the tags. That hunter paid his dues to live there, make a living and build his life. Many western states that have quality hunting, do not always in turn have jobs that pay. That being said, that just because a job is to a western person high paying (like a cop in New York City), doesn't mean that on their own economy they are getting rich. I had a similar problem when I was working in Europe and making $70,000 five years ago. I wasn't saving much money, because it cost most of that $70,000 to live. At the end of the day I think most folks that don't live in the west would be pissed off if we came to their town and told them we were going to shoot a large percentage of the deer, bears, and whatever else they had. | |||
|
One of Us |
Not an attempt to stir things up, but one point of fact that has not really been touched on in this discussion. One of the aspects of the lawsuit that was mentioned in Arizona concerned the aspect, that American Citizens were in a manner being denied access to Public Lands i.e. National Forest/National Grasslands/BLM Lands. Those lands fall under Federal Jurisdiction and even though the various states do have some peripheral jurisdiction over them, they are supposed to be available for useage by All the citizens of the U.S.. If I remember correctly, that was one of Taulman's argueing points. Limiting the number of permits available to non-residents of the state, gave an unfair/illegal advantage to the residents of that state and was basically as the suit claimed, denying access to a segment of the United States population. I could be wrong with all of the above, but i am pretty sure that I remember thay as one of the arguements. Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Crazy Horse, Yep that is the arguement, that the land is owned by the people. Of course I would agree if the animals on that land were owned by the people. According to federal law, wildlife is owned by the state, excepting migratory birds. Taulman can cry as much as he wants, but at the end of the day federal law is on the states side. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I thought that was one of or the main arguement. At some point however, not taking anyone's side really, just putting this out there for thought, how detrimental is limiting non-residents to only 10 or 20 percent of the available hunting licenses, in any state for any species, going to be over the long run as hunters continue to age and recruitment of new hunters continues to decline, both from the view of hunting in general and the management goals the states have set up for the various species. Yes, I know that is all Off Topic, but at some point is it possible for there to be negative consequences due to limiting hunter participation? Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
| One of Us |
I think there are a lot of sides to it, here's how I would break up the groups. Hunter A (We'll call him Denver). Lives in West in Denver, Salt Lake, Boise, Anchorage, Albuquerque (damn hard one to spell), Seattle, Portland ...... whatever. And drives 3 to 6 hours to hunt in his own state, and maybe a few others if he gets drawn. Hunter B (We'll call him Cody). Lives in elk/caribou/moose/whatever country doesn't make a lot of money and hunts his area primarily for meat, but likes big horns too. Hunter C (We'll call him Dallas) Lives in another state that doesn't offer public land hunting, applies for tags and uses an outfitter for most of his hunts. Hunter D (We'll call him Minneapolis) Lives in another state that has decent hunting for whitetails, but drags his RV and 4wheelers 14 hours to the Rockies to hunt elk. He usually brings 4-15 other hunters with him and they share a camp. The story line goes like this, after a lifetime of being a Westerner. Cody doesn’t really like sharing any public land with anyone, but doesn’t mind it as much as long the bastard isn’t Minneapolis. Denver originally brought Minneapolis to his hunting area because they were friends or acquaintances and now Minneapolis took over that area, with all of his friends and family. Dallas usually doesn’t hunt public land where he lives (because it is totally packed full) and is NOT willing to pay someone to hunt public land in another state. Minneapolis drives his 4 wheelers into wilderness areas, and usually doesn’t get caught. Cody and Denver both are thinking about getting horses and hunting the wilderness areas, as the areas that have 4wheeler access are full of Minneapolis. In the end all 4 are applying for the same tags. | |||
|
| One of Us |
MOA that's close but incomplete, I hunt public land in Idaho and even with the wolves, the idea that I want MORE hunters has never crossed my mind, nor the minds of anyone I know. In fact everyone I know or have talked to while out and about, complains about the "horde" making camping and parking places as rare as honest politicians. Id like the number of public land hunters here to drop by at least 60% or more to have a more hunter free, hunting experience. During general rifle you have to be parked at a gated road at 2-3 am to get in then you get passed by illegal ATV riders about a half hour after sunrise. Really fun. I suppose if you hunt private land you may think different. But for those hunting public land in Idaho, good luck finding a majority that says we need more hunters. | |||
|
| One of Us |
Believe me, I understand your analogy. Hunting mule deer/white tail-coues and pronghorn, I have no problem, except drawing tags in doing a D-I-Y hunt, sans the ATV's. Also, I don't concern myself with the trophy units, as doing the hunt and maybe killing a legal animal and getting the meat is my main goal. I mean if I can draw the tag I have no problem driving east of Grand Junction, Colo. and doing a one or two day guided late season cow elk hunt. For moose, unless I get lucky in the Vermont or New Hampshire, I will go to Canada where I don't have to draw. Again this is Off Topic, but I can see both sides concerns. Taulman's attitudes and actions on hunts however is what should not be tolerated. JMO. Even the rocks don't last forever. | |||
|
| one of us |
I have never, ever seen the demand for nonresident tags in Wyoming decrease. The demand far out wieghs the supply every year. In fact demand for some resident tags has dropped allowing more for nonresidents. I suppose it could happen in the future, but even after the economic crash we just went through, it had no affect on demand. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia