S-U-O

FAIRCHASEBEN

New member
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
343
Location
RENO, NEVADA
I'm rehearsing for a conversation I fear I'll have with my sons someday ;

Dad , why can't we go hunting anymore ?

Well son , back in the year 2004 there was a very greedy man who we'll call Lucifer .
Lucifer owned a large commercial hunting business named S-U-O . Now Lucifer didn't care about the animals like everyone else , he only saw profit in them and he had many rich clients willing to pay thousands of dollars to kill them . The rich clients only cared about getting their name in a record book or picture in a magazine and Lucifer was the man who could make it happen .

The problem was Lucifer wanted more and more money so he needed more and more tags , he then sued all of the states with the best animals , which he could get maximum profits from . Blinded by greed , he could not see that this would destroy the hunting heritage which had been passed down through generations of ethical hunters who wouldn't think of killing animals for profit , greed or vanity .

S-U-O became the biggest commercial hunting business in the country , with many aircraft , ATV's and electronic communication devices which their loyal subjects ( sub-guides ) used unethically and illegally to kill animals more efficiently . S-U-O and its clients weren't interested in fair-chase hunting or physical effort , it was all about self-grandeur and profit .

As a result of the S-U-O lawsuits the price of big game tags increased tenfold . The average man with a couple of kids couldn't afford to apply anymore . And since S-U-O had an application service for its wealthy clients , the odds of drawing a tag were minuscule anyway .

That son , is why we can't go hunting anymore . The day that hunting became commercialized is the day that our hunting heritage and traditions ended .

[ 09-30-2004, 03:22: Message edited by: FAIRCHASEBEN ]
 
Here's the rest of the story son: The hunters in the US were too apathetic and lazy to get involved and keep our public lands good wildlife habitat so we could always have plenty of animals. They let the gummint sell off public lands to developers, they let winter wildlife habitat be developed so there wasn't as much game. They let the resource extraction industry dictate policies for public land. All they ever worried about was gun control. They were too lazy to find out the voting records of the politicians the NRA told them to vote for, etc. You have your gun, son, but nowhere to use it for hunting.

I could write a lot more, but you get the idea.
 
Or -

Hunters continued to be apathetic about gun control, figuring that "it couldn't happen here." Once the UN declared that private ownership of firearms was a detriment to world peace and a contributing factor in terrorism, the justice department, under the administration of John Kerry, agreed and chose to interpret the Second Amendment as pertaining only to organized militias. The Supreme Court, with a majority appointed by President Kerry, upheld that position.

For a while, you could still hunt with a bow. But since hunters continued to be apathetic about gun control policies of the politicians being elected, they did not become organize or active politically. The animals rights activists continued to portray animals with human qualities of thought and emotion, resulting in an overwhelming vote to outlaw hunting in any form or fashion. The Hollywood celebrities and media moguls supporting the cause made it easy to accomplish this. They started with bear baiting and hunting with dogs, then focused on the cruelty of spearing an animal with a sharp stick so that it would bleed to death.

That is why we have the huge parks, with no roads and tons of animals that you can only observe from designated locations or via game cameras in the "off limits" sections of the National Forests.
 
And how the UN's little black helicopters were flying over Southern California.....


Ben,
USO did nothing wrong, they just found a way to exploit the legal loopholes that were in the US Constitution.

Why not explain to your kid how the residents of some states tried to be greedy, and restrict the access of the common man to hunt in any state other than their own. And some states that put unfair quotas on non-resident tags. Now, thanks to the efficient use of lawyers, we are all free to hunt anywhere we want in the US.....
 
gunner you are so far off on this one I will not waste my time or effort to educate you on this matter,,,WOW,,,you need help
 
280,

Do you really think the problem is USO, or is it actually the Landowner Tags, Outfitter Set-Aside tags, and Non-Resident Quotas???

USO is just playing by the rules (or having them ruled un-constitutional) that were cobbled together to provide unfair preference to PUBLIC game for landowners, outfitters, and residents.
 
EG ,
Restricting access of the common man is exactly what they're doing . Commercialized hunting at 10,000 to 15,000 dollars a pop is not the common mans idea of hunting .
You're not really a hunter are you ?
Your views on most subjects here are the exact polar opposite of 'common man' thinking . The guys I've talked with about S-U-O and its leader Lucifer , regard him as just below pediphiles and crack dealers , shouldn't surprise anyone that you align yourself with him .
 
Ben,

I just want to be able to apply for tags in AZ and Nevada, and have a chance of drawing them. I don't want to have to play the games with the checkbook for Outfitter Tags, or Landowner Tags.

Why on earth would you support Outfitter Tags, Landowner tags and such?

I'll not bother to respond to your comments about "pediphiles and crack dealers" as I have no knowledge of those, so I have to assume those are areas of your expertise.

[ 09-30-2004, 11:20: Message edited by: ElkGunner ]
 
I just want to be able to apply for tags in AZ and Nevada, and have a chance of drawing them.
I feel the same way...and I am an Arizona native.

Just one question though. What does Arizona have that Idaho doesn't? Just trying to figure out why drawing an Arizona tag is so imprtant to soemone who can hunt the same animals in their own state, without the draw in most cases.
 
EG ,
Keep that checkbook handy , you'll need it if S-U-O has its way . Commercialized hunting for profit is their agenda , not equal access to tags for the 'common man' . If Lucifer has his way all tags will be Outfitter tags or Landowner tags and every animal killed will mean a profit for someone .
Your odds of drawing a tag in Arizona and Nevada are decreasing as a result of this lawsuit , read his phoney fundraising letters , application services for guaranteed tags with minimum B&C scores on kills .
'Common man' ? Give me a break !!! Bend over and grab your ankles if you think S-U-O is concerned with hunting opportunity for the 'common man'.

EG , you if anyone should be able to see this for what it is ; Commercialized hunting for profit and greed .
Wake up and smell the bullshit !
 
EG, I've got to ask if your state had more hunters than tags issued every year (no over the counter tags, all drawn) due to lower animal numbers (we live in a primarily desert state) who should be given the bulk of the hunting? Those who are residents and support the G&F year round, support conservation efforts, support legislation to keep hunting avial and fight legislation that seeks to ban it?

Or should I sue your "Own Private Idaho" for not allowing me as a non-resident to buy tags over the counter?

Yes I believe in hunting opertunities for out of state residents, but with out resident hunters there would be NO hunting for you (as a non resident) to enjoy. If I as a resident can't ever get drawn for anything because too many out of state hunters are taking the tags, why bother trying to get drawn? And if I'm not even gonna try to get drawn, why care about any new antihunting legislation?

What Unfit Sorry Outfitters did wrong is claimed the lawsuit was for "all non resident hunters rights" when in reality it was all about the ability to gain more of a chance for out of state hunters to apply and recieve tags thru their services, and maybe even use their guides or use referal guides (read kickback) to hunt in said state.

In Arizona there is not a "land owner tag system" currently that I'm aware of, if there is please tell me so I as a land owner can get my tags that way! Personally I don't think we need one in Az, since other than a few large ranches left, most of the private land in az is small parcells (couple hundred acres or less) or currently being divided into small parcells, so the Idea of you hunting that dear that NEVER leaves your porperty is non-existant.
 
cfree - you see, it is the price you pay for having a Fish and Game Department (supported by your Arizona tax dollars) that does an excellent job. Because of their excellent management practices, your state has some trophy animals of very high quality.

Rather than force their own states' wildlife agencies to manage their resources as effectively, they would rather come hunt your state. After all, then it would be more difficult for them to draw in their own state if their game agencies restricted the take as Arizona does. They want wide open draws at home, and they want to come kill your trophy animals!
 
Originally posted by Calif. Hunter:
cfree - you see, it is the price you pay for having a Fish and Game Department (supported by your Arizona tax dollars) that does an excellent job. Because of their excellent management practices, your state has some trophy animals of very high quality.
Cali,
Is that correct, that the AZ fish and game dept is funded by general fund dollars from the state's treasury? Or is it funded like most other western states, via licenses and federal money?
 
You tell me - that is the first I have ever heard of a claim that the state agencies are funded completely via license fees and "federal" money. Are they a self-sustaining agency? I cannot imagine that Calif. F&G is totally funded by license fees, but I will see what I can find out from their website. My comment was "supported by," not "totally funded by" his tax dollars
 
Here is a link to a pie chart for the Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game by funding source - about 19% of their budget was from Federal Trust funds and 18% from general funds.

http://www.wbguideservice.com/ba42a.jpg

Okay here is the correct link


http://www.dfg.ca.gov/dfgbudget-0405/fndsrcfy.pdf

Here is another link to the Governor's proposed budget, which has 279 million dollars for the Dept. of Fish and Game...

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/dfgbudget/natres.pdf


That looks like state tax dollars to me...

[ 09-30-2004, 14:11: Message edited by: Calif. Hunter ]
 
Colorado DOW is funded completely by licence dollars and federal money from PR-DJ funds, etc. Absolutely no General Fund money. I think most states in the West are that way.

Cali, nice antelope buck.

Oak
 
Back
Top