Kudu,

I think the demand has to do with the concept that while maybe not every hunter has more disposable income, a lot more people do than did when I was growing up in Wyoming as a kid.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
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.

Actually Crazy, there is absolutely nothing limiting anyone from getting on public lands IE... National Forest, BLM, National Wildlife Refuges etc... All these lands are open to the public anytime. So, just because someone doesn't have a valid tag in their pocket does not prevent them from using and enjoying the land.

But, as others have already pointed out, the game and the responsibility for the management of that game has been ruled by the courts to belong to the individual states. George Taulman is driven by money. He wasn't involved in that lawsuit just so someone could go camping. He was specifically targeting the way tags were issued to non-residents because he knew the non-residents are more likely to pay for his services.

During the court proceedings his lawyers noted:

quote:

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.”

His lawsuit had nothing to do with public access and everything to do with turning a profit off the game itself.

There is one little stipulation in Wyomings laws. A nonresident can not hunt in a wilderness area of any National Forest, with out the use of a guide,outfitter, or resident with a temporary guides permit, which is very limited. I don't agree with that particular law, but it is the law.

Other factors come into play also. Here in Texas, hunting has became such a big industry and there is so little Public Land that realistically many Texans can no longer afford to hunt in their home state. It is not an indictement of Texas, as part of my income comes from guiding hunters and servicing hunting leases.

But places I used to hunt deer on that leased for $1.00 an acre are now $1500.00 to 2k and more per gun and that is basically just a trespass fee, with all sorts of management rules set up by the landowner/lease manager that are often more restrictive than T.P.& W.s regulations.

Also, in Texas still hunting/spot and stalk hunting is either highly discouraged or not permitted on nearly all leases. Going out of state on either a guided hunt or D-I-Y hunt, allows me to actually use a method I like that has a certain amount of uncertainty as to my success involved

This year, if my arm clntinues to heal, I am looking at either putting in for a :Late season cow elk hunt in Unit 421 in Colorado, or see if I can pick up a left over Private Land pronghorn tag in Wyoming. hopefully I can get the antelope tag since the last time I hunted them was in 1997.

As I stated earlier, the situation I am looking at is the increasing age of hunters combined with a continueing decline nationwide in the sale of hunting license. Add to that the increasing possibility that other groups might try an approach similar to Taulman's, except trying to exclude hunters as a group from using Public Land. Add to that a shaky economy and fewer people having discretionary/disposable/expendable income and to me there are some clouds on the horizon.

Here in Texas, since I hunt does or inferior bucks, I have access to hunting without having to pay. Add to that both my wife and I being semi-retired, our income is substatially lower than what it was when I did most of my out of state hunts, so I prefer to look around for reasonably priced opportunities where a reasonable chance of killing an animal, if I do my part.

This is just one of those subjects that cross my mind when thinking about the future of hunting and my ability to take part in it.

There will be always some leftover antelope tags in Wyoming for some bucks and does in areas that lack public land.

Occasionally there will be buck tags available. Though not always.

Yes, Flags I knew what the actual reasons for the law suit were, but in reality, limiting licenses to non-residents is in the broader sense of the term, is denying use of the Public Land for a specific activity.

In this case, legal hunting, and I am not referring to folks being guided.

Taulman and his cronies crapped in their own nest with their statements about what their interests were in the matter and got what they deserved.

I love the Free Enterprise system as well as anyone, and while it will seem Draconian, i feel that the state Game depts. had a hjand in dropping the ball, by not requiring all applications for tags to be filled out and submitted by the actual hunter, not some service, but that is just my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
I love the Free Enterprise system as well as anyone, and while it will seem Draconian, i feel that the state Game depts. had a hjand in dropping the ball, by not requiring all applications for tags to be filled out and submitted by the actual hunter, not some service, but that is just my opinion.

Crazy,

I agree with you about the tag application. Folks should fill out their own applications and not let the process be taken over by vultures like Taulman.

On a side note, send me a PM. If you are looking for a late season cow elk tag in CO, I can point you to a place that is closer to you in TX than Unit 421 is. It's one of those deals that residents know about but most non-residents dont. I can also point you to a place where you can get tags in WY for speedgoats too.

Flags, I will pm you on the deal about the goats. As far as the cow elk goes, a major part of going to 421 is lora and I will get to spend a couple of days with ture guide I have been hunting with since 1992 and his wife.

Haven't been up there ince 2005, so we want to see them and me and him have a good time hunting together.

many thanks for your help.

quote:

Originally posted by drummondlindsey:

quote:

Originally posted by Uplandhunter:
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.

I'm not sure who is worse, Jeff Blair or George Taulman.

Jeff Blair, but not by much. My biggest beef with CB is his support for this POS.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by Flags:
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.

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.

Sorry Aaron, Taulman was suing to remove the NR cap on tags, for sure. But the end result would be that AZ would have increased the NR rates so high that in effect, it would limit NR hunters to the "rich." There is no way AZ would tolerate the majority of tags going to NRs.

Not a good thing for hunting, but Taulman didn't care. Boddington continues to support this guy, but Zumbo sent back the tag he received.

By the way, I have never drawn for elk in AZ.

IMO, I would like to see AZ give away some NR tags and the fee based on income. I know that sound socialistic, but I am afraid big money is destroying hunting. Those who make their living in the industry don't seem to care about it. After all, they are reaping the rewards.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
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.

Not quite. No one was denied access to any land by not having an elk or deer permit. Any nonresident could fish, camp, birdwatch, picnic or have sex, etc. on any federal, state or BLM acreage in AZ.

What they can't do as a nonresident is hunt and kill specific critters on public land except under the laws and rules of AZ, in this case those animals with the 10% NR cap. Thus, the lawsuit claim was this limitation precluded the outfitters from selling the antlers, hides, meat etc. to their nonresident clients and was therefore a violation of the interstate commerce clause.

And...any number of nonresidents can also hunt on public land as long as they buy a state license. The caveat of course is they can't hunt certain big-game animals that require a DRAW permit unless they get it under the rules in regards to the 10% cap. Otherwise all small game hunting and certain other critters are available to them. Two examples would be mountain lions and archery deer in most hunt units available over the counter with no NR caps.

As I said earlier Tony, yes, it was not denying anyone access to the land for uses Other than hunting, but it was/does deny them access to the land for that particular activity.

In reality, taulman and those agreeing with him were in my opinion trying to establish the ability to operate a commercial business on Public Land. Yes, I am splitting hairs somewhat, as I view D-I-Y hunters hunting Public Land differently than I do guides/outfitters hunting Public Land, especially when their activities and tactics habve a negative impact on the D-I-Y hunters.

I am sure that all sounds silly or strange at the least, but then again I am not known for viewing things from a real normal standpoint.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
As I said earlier Tony, yes, it was not denying anyone access to the land for uses Other than hunting, but it was/does deny them access to the land for that particular activity.

In reality, taulman and those agreeing with him were in my opinion trying to establish the ability to operate a commercial business on Public Land. Yes, I am splitting hairs somewhat, as I view D-I-Y hunters hunting Public Land differently than I do guides/outfitters hunting Public Land, especially when their activities and tactics habve a negative impact on the D-I-Y hunters.

I am sure that all sounds silly or strange at the least, but then again I am not known for viewing things from a real normal standpoint.

Nope, Taulman, etal were and are still operating a business on AZ's public land. They just didn't care for the fact that the amount of money they could make doing it was limited by the NR cap on tags.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
As I said earlier Tony, yes, it was not denying anyone access to the land for uses Other than hunting, but it was/does deny them access to the land for that particular activity.

In reality, taulman and those agreeing with him were in my opinion trying to establish the ability to operate a commercial business on Public Land. Yes, I am splitting hairs somewhat, as I view D-I-Y hunters hunting Public Land differently than I do guides/outfitters hunting Public Land, especially when their activities and tactics habve a negative impact on the D-I-Y hunters.

I am sure that all sounds silly or strange at the least, but then again I am not known for viewing things from a real normal standpoint.

Crazy:

This whole "Federal land belongs to everyone so therefore I get to hunt it no matter what state I reside in" is just BS.

I own land in Colorado; I pay more than 3K per year on taxes on that land. Do I have the right to hunt there at resident rates? Hell no...I get in line with everyone else, and that is the way it should be.

Not disputing anything you say, but as one responder stated, non-residents should be held to 10 or 20 percent of the perrmits issued seems a little severe. What is Colorado's limit, 40% for NR hunters that is pretty generous, even 30% is liveable in my opinion.

I am just talking about the sppecies whose numbers can handle the pressure, some species, some areas might or do need different numbers.

At no point am I saying that Taulman and operators are right with their concepts, I am just saying that I believe at some point the system will need to be re-evaluated all the way around, from how the drawings are done, who can apply, the amount of involvment commercial operators are allowed, the effect of the system on management and population goals for the area and species involved.

Standing in line is fine as long as everyone is standing in the same line. personally standing in line is not fine if some individuals are allowed to cut into the line.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter

IMO, I would like to see AZ give away some NR tags and the fee based on income. I know that sound socialistic, but I am afraid big money is destroying hunting. Those who make their living in the industry don't seem to care about it. After all, they are reaping the rewards.

Yep, that's pretty socialistic. Entitlement programs are bankrupting this country, we don't need any more of them. Do you really think that the state would take that hickey? If so, I think there is some oceanfront property that you can buy pretty damn cheap down there in AZ. The cost of the fee's that would be given away by the state would simply be passed along to the people that pay for their tags every year. If a guy can't afford the non-resident fees to hunt then he should save his money and try again another time. Hunting is a priveledge not a right.

We have awesome opportunities here in the US for hunting and fishing. There are a few tweaks that could be made but for the most part we are all damn fortunate to have the opportunities that we do. It's easy to blame outfitters, non-residents, government agencies, the tsunami that hit Japan, hurricane Katrina, rich people, god and everything else for whatever you perceive as a problem with our hunting opportunities but there are a lot of guys out there that consistently kill big animals on public ground every year. They don't think anything is broken

+1 I couldn't have said it any better. If you want to hunt you can figure out a way to do it. Quit smoking, drinking, or some such thing and the money will be there when it's time to buy the tag if you try hard enough. I'm retired on a fixed income and I cut grass all summer and blow snow in the winter for the extra money to fund my western hunting. If there's a will there's a way as the old saying goes!

quote:

Yep, that's pretty socialistic. Entitlement programs are bankrupting this country, we don't need any more of them. Do you really think that the state would take that hickey? If so, I think there is some oceanfront property that you can buy pretty damn cheap down there in AZ. The cost of the fee's that would be given away by the state would simply be passed along to the people that pay for their tags every year. If a guy can't afford the non-resident fees to hunt then he should save his money and try again another time. Hunting is a priveledge not a right.

We have awesome opportunities here in the US for hunting and fishing. There are a few tweaks that could be made but for the most part we are all damn fortunate to have the opportunities that we do. It's easy to blame outfitters, non-residents, government agencies, the tsunami that hit Japan, hurricane Katrina, rich people, god and everything else for whatever you perceive as a problem with our hunting opportunities but there are a lot of guys out there that consistently kill big animals on public ground every year. They don't think anything is broken

That is a damn fine post and a damn accurate post.

I think that residents should have most of tags because they are the ones with the most immediate interest. Just like I have the most immediate interest in hunting Georgia. I can get meat in Georgia; however, I can't hunt the Rockies or the Great Plains here. I disagree with the statement that all of the NR hunters are blemishes on the public lands of western states. I have run into some of these people, but I also know quite a few who work hard to get away from that stereotype. We're happy to do things the right way, follow all the rules, abide by good ethics and sportsmanship, and give everyone plenty of room so that we all can have a good time. I don't have much money, but I scrape together enough for a tag that is 8x more expensive than a resident tag, drive 1500+ miles to a place I can camp with a buddy back away from where most residents and non-residents are willing to hunt, and work my butt off to have a good hunt. I spend my dollars in these states, support their game departments, and I don't enjoy being looked down on for it. I think it's an even trade when everyone follows the rules, and I should be treated and viewed as a partner in game management, not the scum around a shower drain.

quote:

but I am afraid big money is destroying hunting. Those who make their living in the industry don't seem to care about it. After all, they are reaping the rewards.

It would have been worse had Taulman gotten his way.

Guys:

Trust me...I have no problem paying for any hunting that I want to do. I pay for my hunts, whether here or in Africa or anywhere else, just like my rental properties: in cash. I certainly don't shovel driveways or eat hamburger helper for three years to pay for an out of state tag.

But the point here is that if Taulman won, AZ would have jacked their rates high enough so that only the rich could afford it. When Joe the Plumber in Ohio gives up his dream of elk hunting, he stops buying .338 bullets, guns, etc. And that is bad for hunting.

Put it another way: the cost of big game hunting has increased dramatically the past few decades while the population of the US is increasing. Yet, the number of hunter is falling. For those of you who studied economics, it is called the Price Elasticity of Demand. As the price of something increases, demand falls off. We obviously can't open the floodgates and issue more tags, so it would seem logical to me we need to hold the interest of those who will never afford a $2,000 elk tag. Sure, some of you will make tons of sacrifices, etc., but most won't. They will lose interest and stop hunting. Then, when a voter proposition rolls around to outlaw hunting, they won't vote, as they don't care. You lose in the long run.

So what better plan do you have?

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:

quote:

but I am afraid big money is destroying hunting. Those who make their living in the industry don't seem to care about it. After all, they are reaping the rewards.

It would have been worse had Taulman gotten his way.

I think the average outfitter is making a living, and the select few are ruining hunting, and making it a rich only concept.

quote:

Trust me...I have no problem paying for any hunting that I want to do. I pay for my hunts, whether here or in Africa or anywhere else, just like my rental properties: in cash. I certainly don't shovel driveways or eat hamburger helper for three years to pay for an out of state tag.

But the point here is that if Taulman won, AZ would have jacked their rates high enough so that only the rich could afford it. When Joe the Plumber in Ohio gives up his dream of elk hunting, he stops buying .338 bullets, guns, etc. And that is bad for hunting.

Put it another way: the cost of big game hunting has increased dramatically the past few decades while the population of the US is increasing. Yet, the number of hunter is falling. For those of you who studied economics, it is called the Price Elasticity of Demand. As the price of something increases, demand falls off. We obviously can't open the floodgates and issue more tags, so it would seem logical to me we need to hold the interest of those who will never afford a $2,000 elk tag. Sure, some of you will make tons of sacrifices, etc., but most won't. They will lose interest and stop hunting. Then, when a voter proposition rolls around to outlaw hunting, they won't vote, as they don't care. You lose in the long run.

How about we all step back, take a really deep breath and realize much of what is being said is choir members preaching to the choir.

Any of us that have been hunting for any length of time have seen how costs have risen. Any of us that really want to hunt will come up with the money.

Where the problems come in, begin with the desires of the individual hunter. Hunting has, whether anyone wants to admit to it or not, became a competetive sport. That means areas/GMU's that are known for producing real trophy animals, arec the ones most coveted to hunt by the majority of hunters.

That is why some units require a half dozen or more preference points for resident hunters and double digit PP's for non-residents to draw a tag, while a unit a few miles away may be undersubscribed, simply because it does not have trophy animals.

For the non-selective hunter, someone just wanting a set of horns and some meat, getting drawn is not as big an issue. Throw in limiting NR hunters to only a small percentage of the permits available and by the time all is said and done, the hunter would have gotten off possibly cheaper, but without the experience, by simply going to a high fence property.

True it is not the same as killing a trophy free ranging animal, nor can it be registered with B&C, but they would haver got their animal.

There are no answers, easy or otherwise on this issue in my opinion. I do feel that the right decision was made in regards to Taulman and his cronies and their scheme was brought to a halt.

I really just wanted to know if anyone had hunted at this place...I never expected it to grow into this mess.

It is not a mess. You may have not got the exact answer you wanted, but give yourself credit for getting a discussion going on here that for the most part has been civil and brought out a good bit of food for thought in my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Uplandhunter:
I really just wanted to know if anyone had hunted at this place...I never expected it to grow into this mess.

I haven't hunted there but I would avoid anything that involved George Taulman and USO like the plague

quote:

Originally posted by drummondlindsey:

quote:

Originally posted by Uplandhunter:
I really just wanted to know if anyone had hunted at this place...I never expected it to grow into this mess.

I haven't hunted there but I would avoid anything that involved George Taulman and USO like the plague

Drummond:
That is something we can both agree on.

Some how I get the feeling that if you don't live in the state don't ask to hunt. But even more don't ask to hunt what I want to hunt. Talk about selfcenterness!!! That is a prime example of what is killing this country (the world should revolve around me). I think there should be some consideration to people that live in the state. But to charge for a licence to apply for a tag that you probly will not get is robbery and should more than make up for not paying taxes in the state. I wonder how much the states actually makes off of people that buy licence and do not get drawn. If you add that to the people that do it is probly more that the taxes that the everyday joe pays.

With all the money being set aside. Where is the sharing of love for the out doors. I often cook at the hunt club because I like to see the hunters get together and talk about the hunt, the season passed or the upcoming season. When it get to what I can kill or what's in it for me I'll quit. I really believe that there is more of me out there than not.

I would like to hunt an elk someday it will probly have to be a cull hunt. But for me it will still be a dream hunt. I just hope I don't get run out of what ever state I go to.

Congrads on the hunt. I hope all this doesn't be littles in of your hunts experences.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:
Guys:

Put it another way: the cost of big game hunting has increased dramatically the past few decades while the population of the US is increasing. Yet, the number of hunter is falling. For those of you who studied economics, it is called the Price Elasticity of Demand. As the price of something increases, demand falls off. We obviously can't open the floodgates and issue more tags, so it would seem logical to me we need to hold the interest of those who will never afford a $2,000 elk tag. Sure, some of you will make tons of sacrifices, etc., but most won't. They will lose interest and stop hunting. Then, when a voter proposition rolls around to outlaw hunting, they won't vote, as they don't care. You lose in the long run.

This is EXACTLY true. Perhaps MT jacking license fees for NR last year was an indicator of this exact thing? I think they ended up selling them anyway, but most were sold OTC after so many were left over after the draw. I myself opted for a Deer A for $690ish (cost of an elk/deer combo the prior year) rather than the $1000ish for a Big game combo....and I didn't even shoot one because blue tooth wiped 'em out where I hunt(saw no quality bucks)!

What is "Blue Tooth"???

quote:

Originally posted by leemar28:
What is "Blue Tooth"???

You know I meant tongue.....tooth is the stupid thing in my Lamborghini.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
It is not a mess. You may have not got the exact answer you wanted, but give yourself credit for getting a discussion going on here that for the most part has been civil and brought out a good bit of food for thought in my opinion.

I concur, this is one of the best non-resident hunting discussions we have ever had.

quote:

Originally posted by mdvjrp93:
Some how I get the feeling that if you don't live in the state don't ask to hunt. But even more don't ask to hunt what I want to hunt. Talk about selfcenterness!!! That is a prime example of what is killing this country (the world should revolve around me). I think there should be some consideration to people that live in the state. But to charge for a licence to apply for a tag that you probly will not get is robbery and should more than make up for not paying taxes in the state. I wonder how much the states actually makes off of people that buy licence and do not get drawn. If you add that to the people that do it is probly more that the taxes that the everyday joe pays.

With all the money being set aside. Where is the sharing of love for the out doors. I often cook at the hunt club because I like to see the hunters get together and talk about the hunt, the season passed or the upcoming season. When it get to what I can kill or what's in it for me I'll quit. I really believe that there is more of me out there than not.

I would like to hunt an elk someday it will probly have to be a cull hunt. But for me it will still be a dream hunt. I just hope I don't get run out of what ever state I go to.

Congrads on the hunt. I hope all this doesn't be littles in of your hunts experences.

I have been treated poorly by folks in the south and New England on several occasions when I asked about hunting, when I moved there from Overseas. You are no different than us.

quote:

I have been treated poorly by folks in the south and New England on several occasions when I asked about hunting,

Well, I have the other side of the coin. In my quest for a little bit bigger moose than the Bullwinkle I shot in 1996, a gentleman and fellow AR member from New Hampshire has been most gracious and helpful if I can draw a tag there.

Too often we draw conclusions about someplace due to the actions of a very few small minded individuals.

Discussion to the umpteenth length ran the gamut on this same forum years back. It got very heated at times. As for blair or taulman, blair only hosed one hunter as far as I know, taulman wanted to hose all resident hunters in their prospective states.

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
Discussion to the umpteenth length ran the gamut on this same forum years back. It got very heated at times. As for blair or taulman, blair only hosed one hunter as far as I know, taulman wanted to hose all resident hunters in their prospective states.

Blair has hosed a number of hunters! Blair and Taulman will screw anybody if they think they can make a dollar

quote:

Blair has hosed a number of hunters! Blair and Taulman will screw anybody if they think they can make a dollar

Unfortunately true.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

I have been treated poorly by folks in the south and New England on several occasions when I asked about hunting,

Well, I have the other side of the coin. In my quest for a little bit bigger moose than the Bullwinkle I shot in 1996, a gentleman and fellow AR member from New Hampshire has been most gracious and helpful if I can draw a tag there.

Too often we draw conclusions about someplace due to the actions of a very few small minded individuals.

I reckon that most folks are decent people, but there are far too many that are not.

So true, and it's those few rotten apples that spoil the barrel, as they say!!!

As a lifelong (until last year) resident of AZ and deer and elk hunter, I would give up hunting all together and sell off all my guns and gear before I gave that POS Taulman one single penny. Not just for what he tried to do to the states over NR tags, but because of the way he views the world and conducts himself every day.

The man is devoid of honor or good character. I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.

I also view Jeff Blair in the same light. They are cast from the same mold.