I just gone done with Realtree and Primos as well.[:@][:@][:@]

Just nailed crooked horn and Christensen Arms as well.

Now I'm going to e-mail George[:'(][:'(][:'(]

I too am against what USO is trying to do. Money is what is ruining almost every outdoor sport. I don't mean the average man who saves up and hunts with an outfitter or guide, I'm talking about BIG money, the kind where the little guy gets pushed out altogether. Guiding and outfitting is a way of life to most involved, not just a get rich quick scheme. I'm from Alabama, and here we are contending with outrageous land leases, fencing in game animals when they belong to the state just like out west. The little guy who just wants to hunt and enjoy the outdoors and raise his sons to do the same, is left with noplace to go but highprice leases and clubs, or overcrowded management areas with little or no timber or game. If the current trends continue, we will all stay home and watch hunting on TV, or pony up for the corporate outfitters.

I am in the process of sending my boycott notifications as well. I am completely against USO not only for the AZ ruling but also for their hunting practices (using aircraft to find game)

I am an AZ resident and with that said, I have been trying to get an AZ bull tag for eight years without success. I do believe that out of state hunters should be able to hunt in AZ; but I don't think out of state hunters should have the same odds of drawning a tag as I do.

For example: I have driven through Montana one time and stopped and got some gas a couple times while driving through. That doesn't mean that I have an equal right to hunting tags in Montana or any other state for that matter. This new ruling ticks me off. With that said, I don't blame out of staters and I have no ill will towards out of staters.

I too disagree with the methods of the USO. But please, no more "the animals are owned by the state" crap. Public lands are owned by everyone, the state just manages them. Being a resident of the state should allow you a better chance of drawing a tag, but not because your state owns the animals, but because you pay taxes which are used to manage.

JMHO

They are either owned by the state or the feds. Since states make ALL decisions in managment, issue tags, and prosecute all crimes against wildlife violations they do in fact "own" the animals. If the land played any part of it then once an animal went on private land you could either shoot it a will or you'd have to get a Federal tag. Just use a little common sense, the state does in fact own the animal. The same animal can go from Federal land, to state land and to private land. In all cases the state funds and makes all decisions about that animal. If the animal crosses from Utah to Colorado, that animal changes ownership and the management of that animal comes out of someone elses pocket altogether and becomes someone elses opportunity. If everyone owns them then I could chase that animal across the border.

Federal funds in most cases go to improve federal lands, if the money ends up benfitting wildlife it wasn't the main intention. The benefitting of wildlife from federal funds in nearly every case is incedental. Your tax federal tax dollars go to improving your camping, hiking and site-seeing experience. Not your hunting experience, that is done by the state. If you don't like the word "own' thats fine, switch it out with the state has "full authority and responsibility." They have "dominion over." Anyway you wanna slice it, it essentially belongs and is funded by the state.

Be consitent. If you believe the land "belongs" to someone then the animals "belong" to someone. You can't say no one "owns" the animals and then turn around and use the federal land argument as to why you have an equal right to hunt that animal.

It certainly is not crap, its a fact.

To be honest, I don't understand all of the legal mumbo jumbo contained in these quotes, but at least it should put the debate on wildlife ownership to rest. I pinched these quotes from the Siskiyou County Farm Bureau site. There's a lot of information there, but I think these excerpts are faithful to the underlying arguement.
__________________________________________________ _______________________

In Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Comm'n., 436 U.S. 371 (1978,) Justice Blackmun explains the reasoning behind early claims:

"Many of the early cases embrace the concept that the States had complete ownership over wildlife within their boundaries, and, as well, the power to preserve this bounty for their citizens alone. It was enough to say "that in regulating the use of the common property of the citizens of [a] state, the legislature is [not] bound to extend to the citizens of all the other states the same advantages as are secured to their own citizens." Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546, 552 (No. 3,230) (CC ED Pa. 1825).

It appears to have been generally accepted that although the States were obligated to treat all those within their territory equally in most respects, they were not obliged to share those things they held in trust for their own people. (emphasis added)

Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896) In Geer, a case dealing with Connecticut's authority to limit the disposition of game birds taken within its boundaries, the Court roundly rejected the contention "that a State cannot allow its own people the enjoyment of the benefits of the property belonging to them in common, without at the same time permitting the citizens of other States to participate in that which they do not own." 161 U.S., at 530. (emphasis added)

"In more recent years, however, the Court has recognized that the States' interest in regulating and controlling those things they claim to "own," including wildlife, is by no means absolute. States may not compel the confinement of the benefits of their resources, even their wildlife, to their own people whenever such hoarding and confinement impedes interstate commerce. Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U.S. 1 (1928); Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553 (1923); West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U.S. 229 (1911). (I imagine the USO case will fall into this category)

And a State's interest in its wildlife and other resources must yield when, without reason, it interferes with a nonresident's right to pursue a livelihood in a State other than his own, a right that is protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948). See Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410 (1948).

Yet, in his concurring opinion in Baldwin, Chief Justice Burger still reveal an attachment to the belief in common public ownership of game found within a State and a State obligation to manage as a public trust.

"The doctrine that a State "owns" the wildlife within its borders as trustee for its citizens, see Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896), is admittedly a legal anachronism of sorts. See Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U.S. 265, 284 (1977). A State does not "own" wild birds and animals in the same way that it may own other natural resources such as land, oil, or timber. But, as noted in the Court's opinion, ante, at 386, and contrary to the implications of the dissent, the doctrine is not completely obsolete. It manifests the State's special interest in regulating and preserving wildlife for the benefit of its citizens. See Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., supra, at 284, 287. Whether we describe this interest as proprietary or otherwise is not significant."

rather_be_huntin,

My point was more philosophical than legal. I just think the word "own" does not do justice to the animal population. The state did not purchase the animal, it just happens to reside on land the state manages. The state doesn't "own" the land, how can it "own" the animal. If in fact the state does "own" all the animals it manages, why are they not all tagged indicating it belongs to them. If the animal is in their state, they have the right to manage the animal, I just don't think "own" is the correct word. I don't disagree with the substance of anything you said, it's just a symantics thing.