Battle over non-res license limits may go to

[spectr17]

December 25, 2002

Arizona seeks to limit nonresident hunting tags

By ARTHUR ROTSTEIN

The Associated Press

TUCSON, Ariz. - Out-of-state hunters have won more access to Arizona wildlife, but state officials are not giving up their fight to cap nonresident hunting permits.

The state has filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal on a ruling that affects the allotment of permits, or tags, for hunters of bull elk statewide and of antlered deer north of the Colorado River.

An Arizona Game and Fish Department regulation limits nonresidents to 10 percent of the hunting tags allotted annually. But in August, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court decision upholding the rule.

The appellate ruling, the first federal appellate judgment in favor of nonresident hunters, found the cap ``substantially affects and discriminates against interstate commerce.''

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Broomfield had dismissed the original lawsuit, concluding that hunting is ``recreation'' and not ``a form of interstate commerce.''

But three appellate court judges found the Constitution's Commerce Clause did apply, and that the caps were ``a severe form of discrimination in the allocation of government benefits.''

``That is an uncommonly strong statement,'' said John Jackson, a lawyer and president of Conservation Force, a hunting organization that was a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Jackson's organization dropped out of the legal proceedings at the request of attorney James Scarantino, who narrowed the appeal to the question of whether the caps interfered with interstate commerce.

United States Outfitter Inc. and three professional hunters and guides from New Mexico brought the appeal; Jackson called it the most significant nonresident hunting rights case in 30 years.

The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution ``denies the states the power unjustifiably to discriminate against or burden the interstate flow of articles of commerce.''

When Arizona's Game and Fish Department issued caps 11 years ago, it noted that most states have some type of nonresident hunting restrictions for sought-after species.

But the appeals court said accepting that rationale would mean ``Montana could then reserve 90 percent of its trout fishing, California 90 percent of its beach access, Colorado 90 percent of its back country skiing.''

Even so, the court said Arizona has legitimate interests in regulating hunting to conserve its game population and to maintain recreational opportunities for its citizens.

``The existence of unexercised federal regulatory power does not categorically foreclose state regulation,'' it said.

It sent the case back to Broomfield to determine whether Arizona has met its burden of showing that it has no other means to advance its legitimate interests.

But the commission overseeing Arizona Game and Fish voted to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

In the state's petition seeking Supreme Court review, Arizona assistant attorney general Jay Adkins said 26 other states also limit the number of nonresident hunting permits for prize game.

The 9th Circuit's decision to apply the Commerce Clause ``is important because of its broad potential impact,'' he said.

 

[wmidbrook]

Thanks for posting this one Jesse. I know I'm in the vast minority compared to others on this site on this issue but I'm darned glad to see the court's decision thus far. If the interstate commerce clause holds in the supreme court which I expect it would (if it even makes it there), it'll open up lots of opportunities for those wanting to hunt as a non-resident.....

Next, I sure hope someone files the exact same suit except regarding price discrimination against non-residents. I believe all US citizens should pay the same price for a hunting licenses and tags regardless of where you call home or where you are going hunting.

Why force non-residents to 'subsidize' what mostly locals benefit from anyway? Look @ Arizona. 10% of the licenses/tags bing in roughly $500 a piece to hunt elk. The locals pay about $50 to hunt an elk.

9 hunters paying roughly $50 each for elk tag license = $450
1 hunter paying roughly $500 for an elk tag/license = $500
TOTAL = $950

10 hunters paying roughly $100 each = $1000 seems fair....so, as a non resident, I'm helping to subsidize roughly half the revenues from licenses and tags each time I draw one.

That's too much social engineering for me to swallow. Yeah, rob from the 'willing-to-spend-bigger-bucks' to save a few locals a few bucks...that's the ticket!

 

[AzBuckSnort]

If AZ removes the 10 % cap on nonresident bull elk tags for any unit, which units do you think are going to start having more than 10% of the tags end up in the hands of nonresident hunters? The answer.....most likely NONE.
Think about it.

 

[DAWG]

If the nonresident quota were taken off, the percentage of nonresidents applying for each hunt would be approximately the same as the percentage getting tags. The more popular bull elk hunts, sheep hunts, and deer north of the Grand Canyon have much more than 10% nonresidents applications. Some hunts have over 50% nonresident applications. If this is upheld, I would not be suprised if AZ goes to what NM did when the sheep nonresident quotas were thrown out and adjust the price to drop the percentage of nonresident applications. Their sheep tags are $3006 to nonresidents. Of course, now that most states have gone to around $1500, it does not seem quite as bad, but at the time this was 3 to 6 times the going rate in most other states. AZ rates would have to be even higher, as they allow the charge card and NM makes you front the cash. The quota throw out could hurt the average guy who is strapped enough by current nonresident fees, and help the rich ones who are going to use USO.

 

[Huntinut]

If Non res. hunters should have a 10 Percent cap then 10% should be set aside for the non resident. If you get a list of all succesful draws in each unit you will find that non resident hunters do not even get close to the 10% cap on each zone. Remember it said that up to 10% only for non resident hunters. It can happen, that no non resident hunters will draw in some area's. It takes a lot of luck to get drawn if you are a resident or a non resident. My dad and I have drawn 6a bull permits in 99 and in 02, we are non residents and we also know we were very lucky. I hope they do not try and price out the non resident hunter on permits because us working for a living will not have a chance at that time. I hope they will work out something fair for everyone, but that is going to be very hard to do. Good luck this year in the draws!!

Andy

 

[COHunter]

Here is something to think about, when you get a Tag in a "Drawing Only" State, there is probably a person from that State that doesnt get to hunt that year. I know this first hand. I went two years without drawing a Buck Tag in Colorado. Does it make you steaming mad to see Out-of-Staters hunting in your State....Hell Yes !!!!
People often say that it is everyone's BLM land or NFS land and therefore it should be open to all, and I agree, but the wildlife and their management belongs to the State. So use the public lands all you want, but that doesnt give you the right to a Game Tag. Just like you cant Vote in another State.
Most on this forum are from California, and I'm sure that alot of people here try to get Elk tags in California which a Non-Resident cant apply for. You would probably be really ticked if the State let anyone apply for a Tule Elk Tag and at the resident price because you know all the die hard Elk hunters looking to make the North America Elk Grand Slam would flood the drawing.
Everyone here likes to hunt, and myself and I'm sure most people think that they should be given a better chance of at least hunting the State they call home.

 

[Coues]

Last time I looked I didn't see any out of state license plates at the water hole restorations, volunteer game check stations, fence mending projects, campground improvements, etc. If this court ruling holds, I expect to be able to put in for Ca. Elk and Antelope next year as well as hunt WY wilderness without a guide. Also, expect the price of non-resident tags to skyrocket if this farce does hold up. Montana and NM get twice what AZ gets for a NON-res Elk tag and our hunting is at least as good, most likely much better. $1,000 for a non-rut Bull tag sounds reasonable.

 

[AZHunter1992]

I'm sorry but thisis a very sore subject to me. It has taken me 4 years to draw a restricted deer permit, and I still haven't drawn an elk or antelope tag even with 7 bonus points for each. Every state in this country severly restricts non-residents specifically states like Kansas, Wyoming, Montana,and Alaska to name a few. If this lawsit prevails it will have dramatic in hunting regulations across the country. I hope Arizona follows the same path other states have taken and increases the non-resident cost by several hundred percent.

 

[Huntinut]

I would rather have a small chance of drawing and hope for some luck, than no chance at all because I was priced right out of the drawing. Hunting will be reserved for the wealthy at the prices you guys are looking for the non resident to pay. You Arizona resident's should be carefull what you wish for because if all the states raise the non resident fees to unreachable levels than you will be stuck in your own state among the fierce drawing odds. The 10% cap is fare if the non resident's would actually get 10%, which they never come close to in the draws. Keep the prices down so the working man gets to hunt also, whether they are a resident or a non resident for all the states.

Andy

 

[paulc]

Bottom line is there are more hunters than there are quality tags. I have been applying in CA all of my life for a quality tag and have never drawn anything besides the over the counter tags. almost 20 years of draws. In the past 5 years i have been applying out of state and finally have been going on quality hunts.

i for one believe it is wrong to limit the % of non res to 10% of tags, however, i do understand that charging more for non-res is a neccessity. the non res hunters may not be personally involved in the states game management but the revenue that they create is just as neccessary.

paulc

 

[Oregon Archer]

if this does go through your odds of drawing a tag are going to decrease even more. the application process is going to be flooded with even more people thinking they now have a chance at drawing a tag. not to mention the tag price increase that will be sure to follow. this is a no win situation for hunters. other avenues need to be explored in order to appease all sides with a reasonable solution.

 

[COHunter]

I think Huntinut has the right answer. Everyone getting stuck in their own State. I have no problem with that what so ever. My hunting would actually be more enjoyable because I would be more alone in the woods.
Ahhhh...I can see it now, a Mountain ridge that wasnt checker-boarded with blaze orange.

 

[wmidbrook]

I'd hate to be priced out of Elk tags but in some states I already am. I can't justify spending over $1000 for a nevada elk tag when I can go elsewhere @ a fraction of the cost.

But, the same logic applies to non-resident fees as to non-resident quotas in terms of the law--it violates the interstate commerce clause.

Would I still want to support the RMEF if non-resident quotas and price discrimination were eliminated? Yes. Would I still want to help in local projects for mule deer or duck habitat improvements even though I competed with more non-residents in draws? yes.

If the price of tags doubled in CA to cover revenue shortfalls from non-resident licensing revenues, I'd still pay $100 bucks to hunt here. Even a guy only earning $20,000 a year could manage to save up a $100 for tags/license each year. I say, raise the prices to make sure the Fish and Wildlife departments still get the same amount of revenue from tags/licenses and keep the prices for non-residents and residents the same.

Would this make it harder for me to draw a Tule Elk tag? Yes. Is it almost impossible for me to draw a tag anyways? yes! If I were really hard-up to do the Elk Grand Slam, would I have to save up $10-20 thousand dollars to pay for a tule elk ranch hunt? Yes.

What do I think will happen after Arizona is forced to get rid of it's non-resident quotas?
--Other states will soon be forced to do the same since a legal precident was set. Az residents will endure more pain until other states open up to them thereby leveling the playing field.
--As a reaction, states will temporarily raise non-resident prices to sooth angry resident complaints about quotas until another suite is filed regarding price discrimination. The states will loose the court battles just like what is happening in Arizone now
--All states will be forced to comply with no quotas and price discrimination precedents
--My guess will be that it takes a handful of years for all this to happen but I bet it will. Once it's done, it'll be favorable for the working man.

Those guys chasing after Sheep or Elk grand slams needs the bucks to do it anyway as it is. I see this as advantagous to the average guys supporting RMEF, MDF and other similar org. The guys with the big $$$ will always have more trophy hunting opportunities if they're willing to part with the big $$$ necessary to buy pricey hunts.

I see the elimination of quotas and price discrimination as an increased opportunity for a guy with an average income and a keen interest in hunting to get more opportunity to do quality hunts throughout the U.S.

Anyway, we'll see what develops. I hope everyone has good luck drawing the tags they're after next year!

Bill

 

[AZHunter1992]

Time to climb back up on my soapbox. Iunderstand the concern with hunting becoming a rich mans sport. The deer unit I hunted this year was also hunted by both governors tag holders who each paid over 100 grand to hunt this unit. While it only took me 4 years of no deer hunting at all to finally draw a tag. It will be interesting to see how hunters in other states feel when non-residents are allowed to apply for hunts they are not currently allowed to. All the western states put much heavier restrictions on non-residents by requiring them to hire guides or by price gouging. There is no easy solution to this problem but the way things are headed now is definitely a slippery slope.

 

[Washington Hunter]

I posted my solution to the problem on this same thread in the mule deer section, but I see this one is getting more activity so I'll mention it here too. Let the feds take over all control of mule deer and elk hunting in the western states. Only one buck mule deer and one bull mule deer tag per hunter per year allowed. So the guy that normally hunts 4 states per year and kills 4 mule deer and 4 elk, now will only be allowed to kill one mule deer and one elk. Prices for licenses and tags would be the same for residents and non-residents. Maybe it would work!

 

[AzBuckSnort]

USO's suit was about bull elk hunting in AZ plain and simple. Sure there's lots of NR applicants for DBS, but not a single unit had even 10 tags in 2002 and if the reports I'm getting are accurate, there's going to be even less tags in 2003 due to drought, lion predation, and disease. As far as NCR deer tags, no way NR's make up 50% of the apps, ain't happening as they'd fill the 10% quota every year and they aren't. Ditto with the bull elk tags. The word "intense" barely suffices when it comes to the passion of AZ residents praying, pleading, dreaming, and begging to get drawn and the requisite application process. You have to remember, we have NO over the counter rifle big game hunt here. You fail to draw in the Fall Big Game Lottery and you're bow hunting deer if you're going to hunt in Arizona.
I'm no different than most of you all reading these boards. I applied in several western states in 2002 and drew nada for deer, elk, antelope, and sheep. Heck, I haven't had a drawn deer tag in AZ since 1990. I'm willing to bet that not a single AZ NR applicant for a deer tag has gone that long without drawing a tag in their state of residency! It gets a bit frustrating to keep hearing NR applicants say we AZ residents are "greedy" when the typical NR applicant has no clue how difficult it is for the individual AZ hunter to draw a quality bull or buck tag in this state. Like I said, no deer tag since 1990, 2 archery elk tags in 16 years, no sheep tag, a couple of pronghorn tags in 16 years. Maybe I'd have been better off applying in Colorado, or Wyoming, or Utah for all of those years. Seriously, take a look at your own state and your personal hunting activities as a resident. How would you react if your "luck"or lack thereof was similar to mine? Would you welcome the poor, mistreated, restricted, and over-charged NR hunter with open arms? If you're honest, I kinda doubt it.
Hey, good luck with the 2003 apps. If you draw an AZ tag I tip my cap to you. Come and enjoy your hunt and chase the buck or bull or ram of our dreams, but don't be too quick to label all of us "grumpy residents" as selfish and greedy as too often were nothing more than the little kid with our face pressed against the glass of the toy store window watching all the other kids play with the toys.

 

[wmidbrook]

Quite frankly, I'd be ticked as all get out if I were an AZ resident. But I'd like to think that I'd see a 'greater good' in the grand scheme of things if it did become law. If a precendent is set, odds are great that other states would be forced to follow suite.

If I didn't like the idea, I'd just be ticked and would just count on hunting out-of-state like most avid resident hunter have to anyways in states like AZ & NV.

I've got a cousin living in Nevada. It took him 7 years to draw a deer tag in NV (area 7...relatively easy draw) and he has 8 points going into next years 'lope and Elk hunts. Colorado's not much better.

Residents might actually benefit from better draw odds, in areas where the non-resident applicant pool is smaller percentage wise than the quota allocated for non-residents--there are units like that.

Residents are almost always going to have the advantage of extra scouting time plus time to look into other units that hold good bucks & bulls but are less reknowned than units like the Kaibab, 6A, the strip, etc.

 

[huntducks]

I have mixed emotions on this one, but look who brought the suit USO and not for the average hunter they are only looking for a bigger pay day, and not looking out for non paying clients.

My biggest problem is that states see NR fee's as a way of funding there whole budget while keep resident fee's down, which in my mind has created a problem in it's self. I have no problem paying NR fee's like 5x1 vs resident.

 

[kilbuc]

With all due respect, the absolute last thing you want is for the feds to control hunting on public lands. That would mean ultimte control out of Washington DC, with all the waco anti hunters influence, its bad enough in the individual states.

from the "Heartland of Wyoming"

 

[huntducks]

kilbuc

I agree 100% keep the feds out it's bad enought that most state game dept. have to put up with politicions in there own state, how would you like some senator from NJ or KA. setting game limits in any state