Guest Ernesto C Report post Posted August 18, 2004 Taulman is completly wrong. A prime example of this situation(the lawsuit) is in the Book of Matthew chapter 20,please read it. The vineyard = Az.Wildlife(including deer and elk or tags) The landowner= Az.Game and Fish The labores = Non-residents from differen states A denariou = 10% of the tags. The sad thing is that a lots of innocent non-residents are going to pay the price. Thanks to USO. On another not so bright note also,some people will be looking for "buster" in Unit 10 in November. God bless everybody,take care. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
COUESAZ Report post Posted August 18, 2004 crooked horn has withdrawn from the suport of USO. They said they have been pleased with the service they have recived from USO but will no longer use them. They said there suport rests with the sportsman and wild life not an outfitter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hawkeye Report post Posted August 19, 2004 Read the following article from a few years ago. This really shows what kind of maggot Taulman really is. For those of you who do not know who George Taulman he is the owner of USO Outfitters, and the one who sponsored Montoyas Law Suit. Press Release Issued by the Office of U.S. Attorney, District of Arizona: The U.S. Attorney's Office and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced the indictment of two individuals and a corporation by a federal grand jury for violations of federal wildlife laws stemming from an investigation dubbed "Operation Navajo Buck," conducted during 1998 and 1999. The investigation, which began in 1998, focused on several big game guides based in Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico, who were suspected of unlawfully using aircraft prior to and during hunting seasons to locate deer and elk for hunting clients in Northern Arizona. The investigation also focused on illegal guiding and hunting on the Navajo Indian Reservation. To date, 12 individuals have been convicted of federal violations and have paid in excess of $85,000 in fines and have forfeited one aircraft and unlawfully taken wildlife. Indicted was a big game outfitter George Taulman, Taos, NM, who was charged 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 that an elk was taken by a paid hunting client with the aid of an aircraft in 1998. The felony conspiracy relates to hunts in 1998 and 1999 that Taulman conspired to use aircraft to aid hunting clients in the taking of elk. Taulman's business, United States Outfitter, Inc., was also indicted on three felony counts related to the 1998 and 1999 hunts. Forfeiture of a Cessna 182 aircraft allegedly used during the hunts is required in the indictment. In addition, United States Outfitter's David Holton, III, of Lake Montezuma, AZ, was indicted on 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 an elk hunt conducted in 1998 near Payson, AZ, in which it is alleged that a paid hunting client took an elk with the aid of an aircraft. The Lacey Act is a Federal wildlife law which 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. Felony violations of the Lacey Act carry maximum fines of up to $25,000 for persons, $500,000 for a corporation, and up to five years in prison. All vehicles and aircraft used in violation of the felony provisions of the Lacey Act are subject to forfeiture. The Airborne Hunting Act is a Federal wildlife law which makes it unlawful to shoot animals from an aircraft or to harass animals with an aircraft. The Airborne Hunting Act Regulations prohibit 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 for the Airborne Hunting Act include fines up to $100,000 for a person, and $200,000 for a corporation, and one year in prison. An indictment is simply the method by which a person is charged with criminal activity and raises no inference of guilt. A person is presumed innocent until competent evidence is presented to a jury that established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The investigation that led to the indictments was conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with assistance from the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The prosecution is being handled by the U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Arizona, In Phoenix, AZ. A defendant was sentenced by the U.S. Magistrate in Phoenix, AZ for violating the Lacey Act predicated by tribal law. He had purchased a bull elk hunting permit from a tribal member and killed a 6x6 trophy bull elk on the White Mountain Apache Reservation. The defendant was sentenced to pay $15,000 restitution to the White Mountain Apache Reservation, three years probation, and no hunting/fishing for three years. The 6x6 bull elk was forfeited to the government. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
donniedent Report post Posted August 19, 2004 Hey Guys... I'll be hunting unit 10 in the Nov. deer hunt and unit 17a early arhery. My father-in-law gave me his beat up old chevy with Wyoming tags as a hunting truck and i won't get the tags changed till next year.... please don't slash my tires ..... I'm a 6th generation Arizonan.... and as pissed off as you guys... i even got the "say no to the uso" bumper sticker. I really am a little worried about it.... maybe I'll take my plates off when I'm not by the truck... lol oh well... just my luck. Any other Ideas????? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.270 Report post Posted August 19, 2004 primos responded to my nastygram with one o' their own. said the newsletter was wrong. they dropped all association with uso soon after the decision. even cancelled hunts they already had booked with em. makes me feel a little better. maybe us "uneducated residents" can really make a difference. still need to see what the long term situation turns out to be. uso has a lot of permits and a lot of land locked up. we'll see a year or so down the road just how many of these big time sponsors are still staying away from uso. folks tend to forget pretty quick. taulman might have won the court case, but the real winner here is still undecided. depends on how tough and intelligent shroufe and the commission deal with it. i still don't have a lot of optimism there. them dudes are wimps. some of the stuff i see that they are thinking about trying, i don't really agree with. go ahead and raise prices and stuff, but none of the bonus point stuff will make any difference after a couple years. a preferance point system like colorado might be more appropriate. the bonus points worked for awhile, until everyone got a bunch of em stockpiled, plus someone with no points can still be drawn ahead of a guy with max points. needs to be the other way around. i don't agree with a bonus point for doing conservation work, or whatever they were calling it. some folks can't do anything like that. i really agree with volunteer work and feel it does a lot of good, but i can't see discriminating because of it. anyway, azgfd has the ball, hope they don't punt again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
COUESAZ Report post Posted August 19, 2004 .270 thanks for the update on primos I am glad to see they still fill the same way as we do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bombero13 Report post Posted August 26, 2004 I don't see where anyone has mentioned USO's recommendations (last paragraph of the their letter) to their clients to score a free Arizona Elk Society raffle ticket. 100% of the proceeds from the raffle goes toward elk projects, water projects, habitat, etc. The money benefits Arizona elk, period. Due to postal regulations the Society has to give a free ticket to anyone who requests one in writing, which is what USO recommends their clients do. This is another blatant example of USO's total disregard for wildlife, conservation efforts, and Arizona. Please send USO's sponsors an e-mail asking them to drop any sponsorship of USO. Thanks, Rod. (Can't wait for Nov., I've got a unit 33 whitetail tag...) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
COUESAZ Report post Posted August 26, 2004 Bombero13 Great point you bring up here. It goes to show there true ways for sure. Thank you for pointing that out to us. All the sponsers say there number one reason for sponsering anything is for the habitat and the deer and elk. Not so of the USO as we see. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
