I am NOT Jim Zumbo

[ramshorn]

And I am not a resident of Arizona. I am a resident of a western state in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. And IMHO, any state that severely discrimates in favor of its residents against non-residents, for any public use opportunities to be found on FEDERAL land, deserves to have its rules found unconstitutional.

Contrary to what is often stated on this site, the state of Arizona does not OWN the wildlife found on federal land. The wildlife on federal land is owned by the people of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, period. The federal government has delegated to the states the authority to manage the wildlife found on federal land (thank God), but this delegation of authority, which can be removed, is expressly for the purpose of providing for the betterment of the wildlife. No resident of Arizona has ever adequately explained how or why it is to the betterment of wildlife on federal land to be hunted by a resident of Arizona as opposed to a resident of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Doesn't the wildlife that resides on federal land deserve the support, financial and otherwise, of all of the people of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Much also has been said about the GREED of USO. Again, IMHO, the true accusation of greed should be pointed towards the Arizona Game and Fish Department for bullheadedly holding to a program that is so severely discriminatory against non-residents that it has required the intervention of a federal judge. Many of my friends in Arizona have in the past expressed concern that a program that soaks non-residents for 60% of the license fees, while providing only 6% to 8% of the licenses to non-residents, for hunting taking place on federal land, was destined to be overturned in a lawsuit. You reep what you sow.

And while we're talking about greed, I would also include those hotheaded residents who for some reason think it is okay for everyone else to subsidize their hunting on federal land. If the state of Arizona would only increase its resident permit fees to amounts that more closely reflected the value of the animals being hunted, it might reduce some of the incredible flood of applications. Again, my friends in Arizona lament not the number of non-resident hunters in the state, but rather the exceptionally low cost of the resident permits that have encouraged a tidal wave of resident applications.

Finally, I believe that Jim Zumbo should be ashamed of himself for caving-in to the pressure brought on this site and elsewhere. He drew that Unit 10 permit fair-and-square, and it wasn't his fault that the Arizona Game and Fish Department chose to pursue a policy that was so severly discriminatory that it begged for a lawsuit.

And for you hotheads that want to say HUNT IN YOUR OWN DAMN STATE, tell me why that philosophy doesn't lead directly to HUNT IN YOUR OWN DAMN COUNTY, or better yet, HUNT IN YOUR OWN DAMN BACKYARD. The threat to hunting evidenced from this experience is not the action of USO, but rather the actions of those hunters who want to restrict the hunting on federal land to a chosen few.

And for those of you who seem interested in threatening others to not show their non-resident license plates in Arizona, just be careful you don't end up on the wrong end of my right to keep and bare firearms.

To end, I agree that residents deserve a preference in the drawing of applications in their home states. I enjoy receiving that preference in my home state. But any program that is so grossly discriminatory as Arizona's deserves to be found unconstitutional.

Bring it on.

 

[bigmuley]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-28-04 AT 08:56AM (MST)[p]ramshorn;
you seem like a pretty smart guy, at least as far as your post is concerned. before this entire arizona, uso, and "griz" montoya thing came up i would say that i supported the cap % on non-resident licenses being issued. in fact i would feel like even less would be fair. i don't know i would say no more than 5% of the permits go to non-residents. but since this issue has just consumed the entire monstermuley website i have had a change of heart. first of all let me tell you one thing. uso and this "griz" guy should be ashamed of themselves and should have all there hunting rights jerked away from them just like the good sense someone robbed from them a long time ago. i hate to be the one to start throwing shallow and hollow threats but i will tell you one thing, i personally WOULD hide my sorry !@% come hunting season and the second i crossed over into arizona country if i were Mr. Griz. you would be peeing from a whole new hole if i got my hands on you. and as far as uso is concerned i don't want to even waste too much of my breathe on these money greedy ignorant fools.

so to you ramshorn, although my attitude has been greatly reversed, mostly due to your post! i still do not agree with what is going on in arizona, at least from the outfitter and guide standpoint. if the only reason this law was reversed so that uso and others can profit more money, to you i say "you can go straight to hell"! and to you ramshorn, very good post, you are absolutely right. these animals do not belong to any one person or any one state, but to the entire country as a whole. espically on federally funded grounds. so to me is seems that the animals, not us as hunters and not us as outfitters and not us as the court of law, are the losers once again. it never fails to amaze me that these animals everytime are the ultimate losers.

 

[NeMont]

You have as much right to access the Federal lands as I do as a resident. I cannot hunt on all federal lands for the species I desire even as a resident. The state does own the games animals with in the confines of the states borders.

You guys will see that there will specific legislation designed to meet criteria of the court ruling that will severally limit your chance to hunt.

So keep at it so you can ruin it for everyone.

Nemont

 

[txrightwinger]

Do you all think it will get ugly out Arizona way? I mean will there be sabatoge of camps etc.? This is a hot issue and USO has axed for it ,, Georgie could get his ass wooped.

 

[desertbull]

Who is keeping you from accessing and using Federal land? Find them and have them arrested!

 

[bullwidgeon]

I could be completely wrong but I think it will get a little out of hand this year. There are some guys down here who shoot/shoot at wolves on site all the time in the face of jail time and fines from the FEDS. A little camp vandalism 40 miles from pavement will not deter some of these guys. I just hope no one gets hurt, but in the end if someone has to get hurt, I hope they work for USO ;-) and not any innocent NR's even if they did book with them.

Bret M.

 

[Zim]

I guess to some people the Constitiution is of little importance. Myself, I beg to differ.

 

[txhunter58]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-28-04 AT 01:21PM (MST)[p]1) I believe you are incorrect. I am pretty sure that the residents of a state own the wildlife. They do in Texas. After all, I don't own the animals that reside on my family's ranch. They are owned by the state (people) of Texas.

2) I don't have a strong opinion about the current situation either way. However, I am afraid of what may happen if this is allowed to stand. If states can't limit our numbers with a "cap", the only recourse they have is to raise prices even higher, something that they are already doing and at least so far, I don't see this being overturned in the courts. In fact, I think there are judgements that back up this differential pricing.

3) Therefore, if this does stand, be prepared for even bigger price increases for nonresidents. Even more of us will be priced out of hunting in western states. What if they open AZ up to give nonresidents even chances and raise the price of a bull tag to $2500. Some of us will still be able to go, but not me.

4) USO doens't care if the price of a tag goes up, they will still get clients.

5) I am not Jim Zumbo either, but sometimes I wish I was! He certainly has a dream job.

txhunter58

venor, ergo sum (I hunt, therefore I am)

 

[Bugler]

Sounds ike someone may guide for George or have deep pockets.
It's real simple. In AZ we dont have the land mass taht supports large herds of animals, say like an eastern state with 3.1 million deer.
IN AZ we don't have alot of private land I think Like 2% of huntable land or slightly more is private, this translates into problems for people who want to hunt our large Elk but have to abide by the system put into place by the sportsman and commission of AZ.
I dare say that 2 % of the non residents drawn for the extra tags have put any time into habitat work for any of the wildlife in AZ, Gas tax and food tax and all the other arguments for trade are balogney because the our deer herds or ELk see none of it.
This lawsuit was brought on by greed and greed alone period. It had nothing to do with the rights of non residents those are whining techiniques used ny the rich and their lawyers to scoot through a loophole and stretch the constitution.
The Supreme court has already decided who manages the wildlife within the respect to their individual borders
The wild game within a state belongs to the people in their collective sovereign capacity. It is not the subject of private ownership, except in so far as the people may elect to make it so; and they may, if they see fit, absolutely prohibit the taking of it, or traffic and commerce in it, if it is deemed necessary for the protection or preservation of the public good.'

The same view has been expressed by the supreme court of Minnesota, as follows:

'We take it to be the correct doctrine in this country that the ownership of wild animals, so far as they are capable of ownership, is in the state, not as a proprietor, but in its sovereign capacity, as the representative and for the benefit of all its people in common.' State v. Rodman, supra.
ctive borders of their states. Look in geer V. Conetticut or Baldwin V. Montana
So the commerce thing don't amount to Jack. It's a ploy to make more money.
With that being said I now point to the health of the state of Arizonas wildlife.
As some of you may know AZ is a desert. As some of you may not know Elk are not very plentiful in the sonoran desert but thrive well in the mountain regions within and above the states desert floors. This is due mainly because of conservationists like T. Roosevelt who I'm sure would Kick Taulmans butt if given the chance.
Elk were transplanted in AZ long ago and the actions of people and groups not seeking to gain financially have helpe put our herds where they are today. I do not recognize G. Taulman as a steward of anything other than his own greed.
The success stories of AZ and it's Elk are numerous and brought to light only because of the concerned sportsman and women who have put in countless unselfish acts to ensure the future of the Rocky Mtn Elk and Mule deer here.
So with this brought to light we can now say that adding more tags to the hutn this year may bring about a biological impact against the healthy herds of "Elk," in AZ. The deer heards above the Colorado are already suffering so this will probably increase the impact of overharvest this year.
NOW TELL ME HOW THIS IS GOOD FOR ANNYONE BUT TAULMAN AND THOSE ABOUT TO HUNT WITH HIM OR HIS GUIDES!
Give me a good reason so i can say Hey thats a good reason.
I don't give a rats rectum if out of state hunters come here, I make money off of NR hunting here every year, I love NR who come here I have friends taht are NR who come here, but our herds won't maintain their health and qaulity if we put more tags out there, therefor we come to what is fair.
As we see above the Supreme court has stated that the states have the right to control " ownership" of the wildlife within it's borders, by whatever means it finds neccesary for public good. It is not within the public good to do things out of greed or to side with those who act out of it.
The right thing to do is to allow NR to hunt, but at the same time giving the preference to the people who make up her state to do the same thing, due to the fact taht they are the reasons that the game exists in the largest part at this time, due to ongoing efforts to sustain the animals quantity and quality.
At this time two courts are opposing one another. the 10th and 9th district courts it is still up for grabs but if the dissenting continues the Supreme court of the US will have to see it and make case law.
A question If AZ was all private land an we had landowners tags, and none of the landowners sold their tags would Taulman file a lawsuit and what do you think the outcome would be?
Or what if they chose only to seel them to outfitters other than Taulman?
But AZ doesn't have the private land his state has and the outfitters of AZ or other states (for the most part)do not have the deep pockets backers he has nor the low moral fiber for that matter, so he can and does walk around with his chest stuck out asking for takers in his fights bevause he knows he can afford it.
I hope the hunters of this nation take notice of whats really going on and make him eat it. I know hunters in the east want to come here and hunt, and they should be given the chance which they had. Soon the average guy won't be able to afford to hunt in AZ just the above average (in finances) will come here and that in its very nature is discrimination of those who don't make as much money as his rich killers. Why can't people with money just take their chances like everyone else? They alwas feel like they are owed something more because of their status.
My hat is off to Mr. Zumbo he has shown that he is a man who believes in the heritage of huntingg, the importance of the bonds it creates between families and friends and that it is a clean and natural thing in this world where things are mostly ruled by people with money, and that they have no place in taking part in it unless they do it just like everyone else, is allowed to.
There I have brought it on, want soem more because it is only the tip of this iceberg and were ready to sink some ships. Wanna talk about game violations I have seen by USO guides and how they were reported? Where and when
Wanna know what George said on the phone about his thoughts on social bonding and the reasons why people hunt? cmon step up and I'll give you more this is one thing I am wholeheartedly passionate about and won't give an inch on.
Will i retaliate this season on USO, The retaliation I have taken is putting a PI$$ on USO sticker on my truck and I will be looking for violations of game laws, unfortunately My professional position in life forbids me to do things that sometimes should be justifiable, MY integrity will not faulter, I am not backed by deep pockets, But I have heard statements by other hunters and outfitters that there are laws for the city and then theres laws in the woods and the two arent always interpreted the same nor is justice meted out in the same way. Responses welcome tough guy.
Bugler- rakin trees.

 

[Bugler]

"We conclude that where the opportunity to enjoy a recreational activity is created or supported by a state, where there is no nexus between the activity and any fundamental right, and where by its very nature the activity can be enjoyed by only a portion of those who would enjoy it, a state may prefer its residents over the residents of other states, or condition the enjoyment of the nonresident upon such terms as it sees fit." Id., at 1010.
Supreme court ruling
Bugler-

 

[NeMont]

Zim,
Do you realize that USO made it's case on the sale of hides and heads? All the state has to is make that sale illegal. That is what is going to happen in Montana. The guess what the Constitution that I love and admire will again protect me as well as you.

USO admits that it is in business for the sale of animal parts just to make money. It is not in the business of providing hunting opportunities or to better wildlife habitat. It isn't trying to preserve hunting as part of the American West, It isn't in working toward the long term benefit of hunters. If that is who you want as your heroes more power to you.


Nemont

 

[desertbull]

Where in the Constitution does it mention a person's right to draw an Arizona Elk tag sooner rather than later?

Just because a Judge ruled AZ had to change their practices does not mean it was a Constituional issue. There are laws in the this country that are not in the Constitution.

You wanna get into Constitutional laws, then we can open up with the States Right's issues.

 

[schmalts]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-28-04 AT 04:27PM (MST)[p] This is all getting old, but i have one thing to say to those who think its just dandy to keep on raising tag prices for nonresidents to cover the cost of managing your states animals.....
Make it so only the rich can afford to hunt, and we will end up like the British, where only the rich can hunt.
Keep talking about raising prices and thats what you will get, all nonres hunters will be rich guys going with knobs like USO. These guys will fluant money to push lawsuites for anything they can to get their rich asses hunting. Find another way or you will just see more lawsuites of discrimination of price gouging, mark my word on it. Anyone want to make a wager?? its next.
Or how about the rest of the federal taxpayers filing suit saying that if the animals ARE in fact state owned they need to start paying grazing rights for every deer and elk as any other cattle, or livestock would be charged that was privately owned and grazed on federal land. Dont get me wrong, I am against USO and always have been long before this because of the outfitter preference in NM, but you guys need to argue this matter in a different way instead of talking about blowing away eachother over a F*&king tag. Grow up and maybe someone in higher places will hear your voice but violence will not have any pull in a court of law, or legislation vote. It will however make PETA happy. Keep it up.
I find it hard to believe i could have an intelligent conversation with some of you, and wonder why i even bother to reply to some of these topics but a few of you are worth the effort.

 

[NMRaptor]

I'd say camp, hike, take photographs or whatever on federal land all you want. Hunting is a state issue.
-Raptor

 

[Zim]

Not any more.

 

[shedhunter2]

All I can say is that USO and their clients in AZ better sleep with one eye open this year. I will do my best to make it miserable for them If I find them.

Lance

 

[RACKMASTER]

Lance
How are you going to know who's USO and not USO?
Could this be the way animal lover to start a war?
Think about it....... Then all one person has to do is spray
paint "USO" on a group of guys then they are herassed and surly
will get tired of it then what?(every one has guns!)
Or this my be a way of getting rid of a guy that slept with your wife assuming he a lucky tag holder in AZ(GET HIM A LUCKY USO HAT!). LOL
RACKMASTER

 

[shedhunter2]

Forest Service Guide Permit states that any vehichle you are using for guiding purposes, "must have the name of your guide service displayed clearly on the window or side of the vehichle."

Also just look for the guide who has never been in the unit before, and is lost. That is a tale tell sign of a USO guide...

Lance

 

[supersider34]

I live here in Idaho and I think it is crap that whoever is throwing a stink fit over NR needing more permits. I feel that any draw in the state I am trying to get drawn is that states perogative on how they issue there tag limit. I feel residnets should have first dibs on the tags. That it's the hunter in that state that lives pays taxes and puts all his money back into that state. Shouldn't he get better odds at wanting to hunt his own state?????? I dont go somewhere else and say "Oh I am a NR I need to get more priveleges." Thats for whiner's. I dont have anything against a NR coming here to hunt. I will even help out if I can and I have. I have packed out elk for a couple NR's. I have also scouted for NR when asked.So just because someone has money it gives them a right to whine about not being able to hunt in another state and make that state give more tags. That is a crock of crap. I feel the odds or the cap as I read above should be dictated by the each state. If you can't draw then maybe you need to put in for a lesser unit. I put in for draws here in Idaho and if I get drawn I get drawn. I always have somewhere else to fall back on. I am not going to whine because I didnt get drawn. I know guys here that get drawn almost every time they put in for a hunt. I mean good hunts to. Early rifle hunts on elk with only 10 -25 tags. He drew Moose this year after putting in for the first time. Am I going to say it is not fair. No I am happy for the Dan. He is a great guy and he has asked me to go with him.
One other thing. The state lottery will probably be next for whoever to file a law suit against as there odds are not as good so maybe they are going to whine about that next. Maybe I should file it on them to make the odds better for me to win.
Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[no_draws]

This issue has nothing to do with the constitution. The clever lawyers used a clause in the constitution to convince a judge that they were being hurt by the AZ tag %.

As for federal land and animal management... What do you do when the Elk crosses the road? I mean on the north side of the road he's on Federal land, on the south side he is on private land. Boths areas are in the same hunting unit? Who's Elk is it when hea heads 100yards south? State or Federal?

Has anyone ever read through the Arizona constitution? There are provisions in it to allow the state to separate itself from the Union. Would we have to give the Elk back to the Feds if we became our own country?


JG

 

[gleninaz]

Ramshorn-You have clearly established ya are a communist or at least a democrat since you think the feds need to dominate. You have also just drew a line in the sand and called a few men out. You did not define a difference between a USO man and an average non-resident. You did not mention your position on Taulman's indictments for aircraft use. If you are not USO you will find good people here that will help you if you need it. Don't be slingin crap about shooting men who are a little noisy in camp cause we have the highest per capita concealed weapons permits in the US and that threat stuff isn't welcome here. If you got a good tag and are not USO then we can get together and I will get as much info on your hunt as I can for you. Just remember to not be pullin yer gun on me as I been there and am pretty fast for an old guy. I ain't Zim Jumbo either. Are you Griz(the fudgepacker) Montoya or maybe Georgie (fly me) Taulman? Sounds kinda like it. And stop saying AZ doesn't give non-res tags out. We give out 10% and you want them all and it will not happen.

 

[ramshorn]

To gleninaz

gleninaz... Friend, I generally would never want the Feds involved in wildlife issues, but the fact is that Arizona has never given out 10% of its permits to non-residents. Arizona has had, until now, one of the most restrictive policies regarding non-residents in the entire West. And where do you get off saying that non-residents "want them (permits) all". It seems as though most, if not all, of the non-residents who have posted on this thread are willing to accept that the policy of giving draw preferences to residents is fair, but that Arizona's preference system simply went too far, and needed to be changed. Even a large number of Arizona hunters agree with that perspective. I know. I have a small place in Arizona, though I am legally a resident of another western state. Now go take a good nap, and when you're through, perhaps we can get back to talking about hunting.

P.S. I never meant to "call anybody out"... I just got tired of all the bluster coming out of those posters who appear to think that no other citizen of the United States of America should have a chance to hunt on federal land in Arizona unless they happen to reside in Arizona. C'mon... where is the middle ground?

 

[gleninaz]

RE: To gleninaz

I took a nap. You did threaten and I assume you meant what you said about arms. Now why do you insist that the state does not own the game? It has been decided long ago by the courts. They do. Which part of the constitution do you support 'cause the interstate commerce clause was the basis for the lawsuit. The discrimination issue was only regarding USO's claim of a sole business interest in securing and transporting game animal parts. If we decide as a state to give out 15% of tags to non-res will you be happy? I would support that. We will not support the New Mexico system of 10% non-res+ 12% non-res with guides+ private land tags. As for fees you'll probably see a significant rise in non-res tag cost next year but minimal on resident. That will make USO happy 'cause they have clients with deep pockets. It will piss me off 'cause it screws the normal hunter and his kids out of a chance to hunt here. This was a bad move but hopefully will work out O.K. for everyone except Taulman. You never answered your position on him and his company.

 

[mtmuley]

RE: To gleninaz

ZIM, Remember what I said about getting on peoples nerves? I believe the westerners have spoken. We will do what is neccessary to protect what we have. mtmuley

 

[ramshorn]

RE: To gleninaz, reply

gleninaz, To answer your question, I have nothing to do with USO. I am NOT Griz Montoya, and I am NOT George Taulman. I wouldn't know either of those guys if I saw them. I'm just a small time hunter who spends a good amount of time in Arizona but can never draw a tag there because I'm a non-res. It just seems strange to me that as a citizen of the United States of America, I can wander all over federal land in Arizona, but when it comes to hunting... No, No, No... that is a different matter.

This is my last post on this subject.

'nuff said

 

[huntsonora]

RE: To gleninaz, reply

Just in case anybody cares, I personally know Ramshorn and can say proudly that I have had the priveledge of hunting with him. While I might have a difference of opinion with him on this subject I will always respect who he is and what has has done for the sport of hunting. I know for a fact that he is an active volunteer in multiple organizations that we all as hunters benefit from. I hope that he continues to post...

Drummond

 

[schmalts]

RE: To gleninaz, reply

Hey Glen glad to see you wander out from that "other " hunt forum. I really am glad to see what you said about the average guy wanting to hunt and your one of the first person i seen here that had the balls to say you wont stand for an outfitter preference like NM has. Good job!
You know there is ways to screw USO without hurting the average DIY guy. Like making a ruling stating only the person getting the tag can do the application. Remember he has a tag drawing service that is HUGE. this would kill that now wouldnt it. Dont go screwing everyone with crap like 2 week hunter safety and ##### like that. Go for what would hunt the money grubbers.

 

[gleninaz]

RE: To gleninaz, reply

Hey schmalts! Been a while and if I remember it was along the same subject. You are right about the tags and that is a done deal for next year. I am goin' to the Flagstaff meeting to hear what else we got in our pockets for USO but that one thing will do some damage. He will lose control of his hunters. Hope it happens. As for fees I am against raising them as I have met some good people from other states who are always welcome here. I will support a higher percentage even though I ain't been drawn for five years here for elk. You keep gettin' after these guys if they kick me off for bein' billigerent. As for Ramshorn I never met him and don't have an opinion other than the way this thread started.

 

[schmalts]

RE: To gleninaz, reply

Your right Glen, pretty much the same Outfitter but the topic i was raving about at the "other" forum was the outfitter preference last year. Back then i was pretty much told by most i was just a whiner, well looks like I was right and those who said that are sorry they didnt see this coming. this guy is only for his clients and thats it. His double standard didnt fool me then and dont now with this AZ deal.
The other Hot topic i had last year was the Valle caldera tags. Guys here dont know how many letters i wrote to high up seats about the rule that stated a lottery winner could transfer his tag to anyone at any price. I sent emails with links to Ebay showing this crap going on, and a lottery winners with name like MONTOYA (yes its the truth) . I told them they were making this land back into a outfitters playground and that all changed this year! Pays to ##### once in a while.
BTW, in a post last week one guy here told me to stop bitching, because i never go to AZ meetings all i do is whine.....Small minds some of us have. Take the big money out of hunting and make it back into a family pastime!!! all problems solved!!!

 

[ramshorn]

RE: HuntSonora

Drum...

Thanks for the supportive word. Just don't blow my cover until my friend "gleninaz" cools off a bit. But what are these forums for, if not occasionally to let our views hang out. Believe me, I don't want all of anyone's tags... just a little more balance.

By the way, my Colorado muley still hangs proudly over my desk. I just wish I could draw an Arizona tag sometime in my lifetime, given the time, money, friends, family and history I have out there, which probably exceeds by many factors a good number of the "residents" who've just crossed the state line, but somehow that makes them special.

Well, I've said enough. Perhaps I should start thinking about Sonora. Hmmmmm?

ramshorn

 

[gleninaz]

RE: HuntSonora

I your name Zim Jumbo? I was born and raised here but I will still let you hunt if you behave yourself.

 

[Muley62]

RE: HuntSonora

Ram? So if an elk wanders from state land to federal land an onto private land all in one day (this happens in every elk unit in the state) who does the elk belong to? The Feds, the state or the private land owner?

 

[Muley62]

RE: HuntSonora

This has nothing to do with hunting on federal lands.

 

[ramshorn]

RE: Wandering Animals

This one's too easy... so I had to come back.

The answer to your wandering animal issue is already in practice. What happens to a bull elk as it wanders back and forth across STATE boundries, for example into and out of Arizona and New Mexico? or Arizona and Utah? or between state lands and reservation lands? The answer is the old English principle of "right of capture", meaning that a wandering resource, such as wildlife (for which the principle was first developed), "belongs" to that location in which it is FOUND.

Does Arizona put an ear-tag on all of "your" bulls so that if one mistakenly wanders across the state line into New Mexico, the NM hunters will know not to pull-the-trigger because the bull "belongs" to Arizona. The concept is ridiculous.

This issue of the "ownership" of wildlife has gone too far without something definitive being produced. Do any of you "state owns it all" advocates have any legislation or other documentation to point to in which the federal government has deeded ownership (as opposed to stewardship, which is a significantly different thing) of all wildlife on federal lands in Arizona to the state of Arizona. If such is the case, why not declare open season on the wildlife found in the Grand Canyon. After all, they're "your" animals. Go get 'em.

I'm out... and no matter what, won't be back... so don't send me any more gopher balls, like the one on the preceeding post.

ramshorn

 

[Muley62]

RE: Wandering Animals

To bad you are gone ramshorn. I was just asking your thoughts with a very open ended question that might spur some intelligent debate but you decided to throw out your Jr. High remarks. If you want to have an IQ contest call me. I guess that chip on your shoulder has got you down.

Chris Denham
480-857-3057
[email protected]

I am not hiding behind any screen name.

 

[Bugler]

RE: Wandering Animals

Outstanding Chris. And by the way the Supreme courts have already issued case law on ownership of the Animals within state borders. It's already been decided on, what remains is up to the 10th circuit. If they continue to disagree with the 9th circuit the Supreme court will have to hear this one and put it to bed.
The animals within a state belongs to the state in its sovereignty. That means the state and her people all by their lonesome, to do with them as they wish, to manage at their discretion. A resource that everyone wants to hunt but by nature cannot, the state can only let those they choose hunt them with preference to the resident.
That's how it is written basically, don't blame me. If this goes through it WILL be bad for conservation, for the average joe and their children, and for us hunters because it will and has caused division. Those that are willing to continue the fight, I thank, because it is your efforts, not unlike the conservation efforts of great people before you, that will bring forth changes so that those who want all the entitlement that seems to come with money, falter.
Bugler

 

[gleninaz]

RE: Wandering Animals

I agree and also think this Taulman/USO mess will end up clarifying state's rights in game management. All this commie/liberal/federal stuff has got tiresome. The good thing is we should have a record turnout at the 8/14 game and fish meeting in Flagstaff and there are a couple hundred thousand very interested hunters that were probably a bit lazy before. The best thing is we finally got rid of that ramshorn/zim guy!(you there?)

 

[ramshorn]

RE: No need to hide

Chris... no chip on my shoulder... no need to hide. I know a good number of Arizona hunter/conservationists who have taken this court ruling as an opportunity to reflect on the past and to begin working toward a reasonable compromise for the future.

I'm not interested in matching you in an IQ test, but it doesn't seem too smart to lock into a position that you and your buddies are right and everyone else is wrong... that you "own" the animals, but that others might be allowed in at your pleasure.

As I've asked before... where is the reasonable middle ground? I'm just not impressed, nor do I expect many others are either, with an attitude of "we own all the animals and everyone else can go to h*ll". In my book, that's a losing position, politically and otherwise. But heh, its a free country, so go ahead.

And seriously, its time for this thread to die a natural death. If you and your buddies want to continue agreeing with one another, start something new.

I'm out of here... for good. No invitations back. See you in the field... you'll be hunting while I'll have to content myself with joining the other "non-consumptive" users. Congratulations.

 

[Muley62]

RE: No need to hide

Ramshorn, I am not "locked into a position", you jumped on my very first post! I was trying to help everyone discuss some middle ground when you flew off the handle with your roaming elk story. I know that AZ does not own the animals but that we are charged with the responsability of managing them. You asked where the reasonable middle ground is and as soon as someone trys to discuss it you jump on them. So I ask you, where is the middle ground?

Also, this lawsuit has nothing to do with how owns the land or the animals, it is about the sale of animal parts and interstate travel of hunters. The solution needs to address these issues or the judge will throw it out as well.

see you!

 

[mtmuley]

RE: No need to hide

I think ramshorn is the only westerner I am aware of that endorses taulman and co. I hope it is very, very lonely. I guess if the draw odds in his state seem to suck, he would like it to elsewhere also. And I thought I was selfish for opposing this. Goodbye ramshorn. Good riddance. mtmuley

 

[huntsonora]

RE: No need to hide

To remain objective I think that we all need to keep in mind that to agree with what is happening in AZ is not exactly an endorsement of USO. I just happen to know of a few people that agree with what is happening in AZ that cannot stand Taulman. Just a thought.

Drum

 

[ramshorn]

RE: Arizona Friends

Hey Arizona Friends... I just got back from taking my baby girl out to dinner tonight. She's just turned nineteen. It helps to put things in perspective.

Over the years, I've had more than my share of good fortune in the hunting fields, including the draws, and don't really care if any more comes my way.

Whey I was a boy, my father used to travel to the Blue Wilderness area to hunt with a brother of his who lived in those mountains. If he told great stories of those adventures, and if he was ever resented for being a non-resident, I never remember him saying so.

I still visit the Blue from time to time, ususally with my flyrod in hand, and have seen the big bull elk that live in those hills. Once I even saw a nice herd of bighorns in the cliffs above the Black River. I always thought that I would have a chance to hunt that area myself, but now believe that that is unlikely to occur. I am not an old man, but I am getting older, and there are only so many years left. And as Jack O'Connor once observed, there are just too many people in Arizona now.

So you guys enjoy your hunting. I hope your situation with the AZGFD turns out as you would like it. And I will look forward to reading about you and your hunts in MonsterMuleys magazine.

Best regards, fellow hunters.

ramshorn

 

[Boskee]

RE: No need to hide

LAST EDITED ON Aug-02-04 AT 11:56PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Aug-02-04 AT 11:50?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Aug-02-04 AT 11:49?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Aug-02-04 AT 11:45?PM (MST)

I'm new to this site and I'm sure there area few people that would concour with Mr. Taulmans actions. They think that more opportunity and equality will come to them as a result of this action. I for one do not share this belief because it's evident to me that the equality and opportunity he seeks will only be availed to those of substantial means. In my opinion equality is not merely for those of means but a constitutional right given to all men regardless of stature. Exploitation of our constitution for personal gain is a not a right it's a direct assault on the moral principles this country was founded on. Mr. Taulman has cast a grey cloud over something most of us dearly love to do and has thrust our sport under the gaze of unapproving eyes. This comes at a time when our country is embroiled in much bigger concerns and our support is faultering with the general public. Activist groups have increased public awareness to levels that have demonstrated that we hunters are clearly in the minority today. He has brought forth a scourge that will not be looked upon unfavorably for now we no longer hunt because it was our heritage, or for sustanence, now we hunt strictly for the MONEY and Commerce! And that, sadly might be the final argument they need to begin to orchestrate the demise of the sport we all dearly love. So I clearly see no reason to support or thank Mr. Taulman and his minions for their self serving gesture of greed and ignorance. And by the way Ramshorn your right you ain't Jim Zumbo and for that we all are thankful!

 

[Teepee]

RE: No need to hide

To reply to Ramshorn's request for a statute:

Wyoming Statute 23-1-103: "All wildlife in Wyoming is the property of the State. It is the purpose of this act and the policy of the state to provide an adequate and flexible system for control, propagation, management, protection and regulation of all Wyoming wildlife. There shall be no private ownership of live animals classified in this act as big or trophy game animals."

 

[NVBighorn]

RE: No need to hide

LAST EDITED ON Aug-03-04 AT 03:20AM (MST)[p]Couple more statutes for Ramshorn:

Nevada Revised Statutes 501.100 Legislative declaration regarding wildlife.

1. Wildlife in this state not domesticated and in its natural habitat is part of the natural resources belonging to the people of the State of Nevada.


Arizona Revised Statutes 17-102. Wildlife as state property; exceptions

Wildlife, both resident and migratory, native or introduced, found in this state, except fish and bullfrogs impounded in private ponds or tanks or wildlife and birds reared or held in captivity under permit or license from the commission, are property of the state and may be taken at such times, in such places, in such manner and with such devices as provided by law or rule of the commission.


Even one for ol' Zimney:

Indiana Code 14-22-1-1
Wild animals property of the people; department to protect and manage resources
Sec. 1. (a) All wild animals, except those that are:
(1) legally owned or being held in captivity under a license or permit as required by this article; or
(2) otherwise excepted in this article;
are the property of the people of Indiana.



I could go on and on. Point is, it's pretty much the same in all states, the wildlife BELONGS TO THE STATE!!!!

This lawsuit was not won, nor even based on ownership, and that is where it needs to be taken back to, and overturned on.