I just got off the phone with George Taulman of USO.

[Wolf killer]

I just talked with George Taulman of United States Outfitters. I told him I was a resident of Montana that loved to hunt elk every year. I kept a civil tone the entire time we talked.
I told him my side of the story. He told me his side of the story. He told me he has already talked to Montana's fish, wildlife & parks. He told me he felt the game belonged to everyone. He said he wanted 10% of the Arizona elk tags awarded to non-residents. The court ruled that 50% of the tags should be given to non-residents. George Taulman said that a bull elk could not tell the difference between a non-resident hunter or a resident hunter.
I told him I should get a better chance at the draw because I was a full time resident. I told him I pay taxes to the local & state goverments year round. He did not agree.

Anyway I talked with him & I think he has a case that is going to be tough to beat in court. His case in a "nutshell". He is asking every state why they have to discriminate against non-resident hunters to manage big game animals. He says that game on federal land belongs to everyone.

Just wanted to let everyone know what I was told from the man himself.

[rather_be_huntin]

ORIGINAL: Wolf killer

He says that game on federal land belongs to everyone.

He is DEAD WRONG!!!!! See my thread "Tired of the public land argument". The land might belong to everyone but the animals BELONG TO THE STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The animals are what you are hunting. Now if they open up a season on pine trees or rocks then I see George's point. I'm so tired of that argument I can't even stand it.

[gleninAZ]

Did you ask him about the indictment in Arizona against him and his guide from Payson? He knows that the courts have already ruled that the animals are state property that's the reason they are managed by state G&F departments and not the feds. He knows the majority of funding for that management in AZ comes from residents. He also knows that we already allocate 10% of tags to non-res hunters. He wanted the 50% which is bull crap. He is blowin' smoke up yer rump and he is also feeling the pressure that his lawsuit has brought. He will not win this one long term. His business of tag securing has all the tags mailed to his NM office so he can control his hunters. Well we just changed that so if anyone buys his tag service the tag will be mailed to their home and thay can use it with a good outfitter. Thanks for calling him, now I think he needs to log onto some websites so he can get grilled a bit and we will see if he can defend his position.

[rather_be_huntin]

I sent him an e-mail stating my concerns. Here is his response:

"Kris,

We never have suggested a 50/50 split for tags only a equal chance of
drawing. If 90 % of the applications are resident then approx. 90% of the
tags should go to residents.

You are wrong about who owns the wildlife, it does belong to everyone as a
renewable natural resource. The states are charged with the management,
and because of this decision, they cannot discriminate against other
Americans.

George
USO"


So that tells you right there he wants everyone to have the same chance across the nation. If 99% of the applicants are non-residents then 99% of non-residents get the tags. Here the e-mail addy if you'd like to send him something.

info@huntuso.com

[TXhighrack]

rather_be_huntin:

If 99% of the applicants are non-residents then 99% of non-residents get the tags

If 99% of the applications are/where nonresidents then 99% of the tags should go to them. If only 1% of the states residents wanted to hunt, then that is there problem. If somebody wants to hunt then let them hunt, they shouldnt be discriminated against.

Now if they open up a season on pine trees or rocks then I see George's point.

Pine trees, rocks, and elk are all resources. On federal land the tags should be a 50/50 split.

[Writer Guy]

Well we just changed that so if anyone buys his tag service the tag will be mailed to their home and thay can use it with a good outfitter.

Hmmm. When was this done?? -TONY

[gleninAZ]

Tony-An AZ Game and Fish official told one of the guys that the tags will be mailed to home addresses only. It was on MonsterMuleys.com with his name. That can have a huge impact on USO tag control and it is only one little trick that is going to come. Are you in AZ? I will be going to the 8/14 F&G meeting in Flag and it should be a packed house. As for TXhighrack, your position is very clear that you should be able to buy a tag in any state you want. What was the 99% and no one here wanting to hunt crap? How is all that public land hunting in your state working out for the average Joe? Oh, I guess you have to pay a daily or annual lease fee if you want that opportunity. We are trying to insure that doesn't happen here so kids with few resources can actually hunt.

[TXhighrack]

How is all that public land hunting in your state working out for the average Joe? Oh, I guess you have to pay a daily or annual lease fee if you want that opportunity. We are trying to insure that doesn't happen here so kids with few resources can actually hunt.

I dont want to turn this into a "texas thread" but down here hunting is bigger and better then most anywhere. We have more hunters then most other states. So just because we dont have a ton of public land, that really dosent matter or keep people from hunting. As far as paying to lease land or buy package hunts on private ranches, not many people seem to mind and even if they do it dosent keep them from hunting.

[Writer Guy]

Okay, perhaps it is a PROPOSAL since I don't recall any reg. changes occurring yet. In fact, I mentioned this very thing a week ago to one the head guys in the big-game branch because of any incident I know of that occurred last fall. -TONY

[gleninAZ]

Texas-I know you have great hunting there and lot's of it. I noticed you have a couple of African animals on your ranch. Do you own a hunting and outfitting company?