subfan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 29, 2001
Messages
1,562
Reaction score
5
Court ruling will affect fall draw for elk and deer
A decision by a federal judge will affect impending fall hunt draw results for Arizona's elk and deer hunters.

U.S. District Judge Robert Broomfield, in a ruling issued July 13 in the case of Montoya vs. Shroufe, declared Arizona's 10 percent cap on nonresident hunt-permit tags unconstitutional. Broomfield also ordered the state to refrain from enforcing the cap.

Because the cap plays a role in the drawing system used to determine which hunters will receive a permit to hunt bull elk and antlered deer north of the Colorado River, the judge's ruling forces the Game and Fish Commission to find a method to distribute this year's fall hunt permits in a way that won't discriminate against out-of-state hunters.

The commission will consider its options in a special telephone meeting to be held Friday, July 16, noon, at the Wildlife Building on the Arizona State Fairgrounds. At the meeting, the commission will be briefed on the options and is expected to vote to direct the department how to proceed. The Wildlife Building is located at 1826 W. McDowell Rd.; members of the public who wish to attend the meeting are advised to avoid construction by entering the gate at 19th Avenue and Encanto.

Hunters applying for permits to hunt bighorn sheep, buffalo, antelope, turkey and javelina are not affected by this ruling.

Montoya vs. Shroufe began in 2000, when Lawrence Montoya, a self-described professional hunter from New Mexico who also runs a guide service, sued the Game and Fish Department claiming that Commission Rule 12-4-114E, which established the 10 percent cap on nonresident hunt permits, violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In yesterday's ruling, Judge Broomfield agreed and ordered the department to immediately stop using or enforcing the 10 percent cap.

The department will keep hunters informed by posting news about the fall draw on its Web site, azgfd.com.
 

'Ike'

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Messages
1,463
Reaction score
0
<
This ruling sucks!!!
<
It may look like a plus for Non-residents, but if you think tag prices are expensive now for some states. Wait and see where they go from here!!!
 

subfan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 29, 2001
Messages
1,562
Reaction score
5
I think if the fees went up out of the norm of other states, USO would sue again.
 

schmalts

Active member
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
USO has a double standard. Its all greed with them. They think its discrimination about the 10%cap, But feel its OK in their own state to have an outfitter preference in the nonres draw allotment. I dont think it will be long before someone sues NM and MT about the outfitter preference on state and federal land.
 

COHunter

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2002
Messages
2,340
Reaction score
9
The 9th Court Strike's again
<


Thats total Bullchit that the guy who live's, pays income tax, sales tax and property tax shouldn't have a better chance at his own "State" tag.

Hunters need to quit being soooo greedy about hunting. Its supposed to be about spending time with friends and family and having a good time, but so much now its becoming too competitive and all about who has the higher scoring B&C head in his living room and their even willing to pay for it regardless if they shot it or not or how much "sport" was involved in the hunt.

Too bad hunting is getting to be so commercialized now.

I hope the Residents of Arizona can find away out of this mess that one greedy outfitter from New Mexico and the most worthless Court in the Nation has got them in.

<
<
I'm done now
 

schmalts

Active member
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
BTW, You guys know that Valle Vidal tag I drew all on my own?? I get a call from some a-hole named Kaz or something from USO and leaves a message about how i should hunt with them because they have the equipment and horses and BLA BLAH BLAH. I literally yelled out loud FU## YOU and hit delete before the message ended.
 

wmidbrook

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
4,405
Reaction score
3
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
I think if the fees went up out of the norm of other states, USO would sue again.[/b]

I can safely say I'm in the vast minority who'd love to see USO go after Arizona for discriminating against non-residents with higher fees than residents.

Higher than resident fees for non-residents is a bunch of malarkee IMO.

Sure, AZ will try to price non-residents out of the market until they reach an acceptable % of non-resident applicants....and that's just what I'm hoping for because USO or someone else will sue and probably win too finally leveling the playing field for both residents and non-residents.

I think it's sheer BS that I subsidize residents tag fees with my outragously expensive non-residents fees.
 

Hntrjohn

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2001
Messages
544
Reaction score
0
Griz Montoya, a self decribed Pofesional Hunter. He is USO head guide. It would be Talman on the suit if at the time he was not under investigation by the Game & fish at the time. I do not think there is anything wrong with the resident haveing some preference.

Next will be CA, NV, WY and others. with our cap on nonresident sheep hunters.
 

DAWG

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2002
Messages
769
Reaction score
14
Higher nonresident prices bother me more than quotas. Higher fees seem to me to be "discriminatory" and in violation of the ruling, but I am not a laywer. Oh well, nothing we can do, just wait and see. If it is a constitutional issue, I am with the constitution. Again, I am not a laywer, so what do I know?
 

Coues

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 17, 2002
Messages
2,884
Reaction score
3
Originally posted by wmidbrook@Jul 15 2004, 07:03 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
I think if the fees went up out of the norm of other states, USO would sue again.

I can safely say I'm in the vast minority who'd love to see USO go after Arizona for discriminating against non-residents with higher fees than residents.

Higher than resident fees for non-residents is a bunch of malarkee IMO.

Sure, AZ will try to price non-residents out of the market until they reach an acceptable % of non-resident applicants....and that's just what I'm hoping for because USO or someone else will sue and probably win too finally leveling the playing field for both residents and non-residents.

I think it's sheer BS that I subsidize residents tag fees with my outragously expensive non-residents fees. [/b][/quote]
ALL states charge higher fees for Non-residents. Including Cali.

Heck, as a non-resident of Ca, I can't even APPLY for a tag without first BUYING a $100 hunting license.

Want to apply for a Non-res tag in Washington? It'll cost you $50.00 FOR THE APPLICATION!!!!

Want to hunt Region G or H in Wyoming? Better hire a guide if your gonna hunt the wilderness area.

Want to hunt Sheep in Alaska, fork out $5K - $12K for the REQUIRED guide, because the state says you're not worthy to hunt alone in the mountains.

AZ has one of the lowest non-resident Elk tag fees in the country. Nevada charges non-res Elk tag fees of $1,000. Montana and Utah are also very high and NM, the home state of the person filing the lawsuit against AZ, charges $750 for non-res to hunt the best units. You think it's hard to draw an Elk tag in AZ? try NV or Utah, where the number of non-res tags are far fewer than 10%. Some units in those states you can't even hunt because of your address.

I believe AZ charges in the $400 range, but that includes ALL units, even 1, 9, 10 etc.

As a non-resident of AZ, you can hunt the Strip or Kaibab for around $250.00 Go across the border to Utah and hunt basically the same herd of deer and it'll cost you WAYYYY more than that and the odds of drawing a tag are astronomical. AZ odds are high too, but not as bad as Utah.

If you think this law suit was brought against the state of AZ to protect the average joe hunter, I have a beach front condo to sell you in Gila Bend. CHEAP!
 

scr83jp

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
1,586
Reaction score
2
We discussed this in wildlife mgt classes 43 years ago and the consensus was that each state should have a floating non-resident fee based on what it would cost one of their residents to hunt and fish in another state.What gripes me and many others in the western US is the fact that the majority of deer,elk and bear hunting takes place on federal lands so there should be a federal license to hunt & fish on federal land and no state license required.Several years ago the AZ Game Dept set tag quota for mule deer hunting in the Mt Trumbul area however the feds over ruled the state citing reduced numbers of mule deer setting their tag limit a lot lower.
 

subfan

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 29, 2001
Messages
1,562
Reaction score
5
Hopefully something will come out of the meeting today. Welcome to the world of this kangaroo court, the 9th circus...
 

sstec

Active member
Joined
Jul 6, 2004
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
<

<
:
Sorry all you NON-residents....................
If you want to hunt AZ so bad pay the Indian's their higher then the balls on a giraffe fees, add on's , use fees, camp fee and so on.

Just because AZ has managed their herd so well to produce higher quality animals.
Now the rest of the world thinks THEY are entitled to them
<


I live here, I pay high taxes, support G&F in other ways as well.
I put in every year. Last elk tag I got was 7 years ago. My brother puts in every year (non-resident), he has been drawn 3 times in the past 12 years.
Its still a lottery draw and its not going to get any better then that!!!
This has been the only way G&F could try to make everybody happy and keep it out of the courts.

This has done nothing but cause more B.S. for all residents and NON.
You can bet anybody that sees a USO guide in need of a little help in AZ, AIN'T going to get it.

I think this is even more Greed by outstate guide service, because they are only interested in Elk and Deer, not buffalo, antelope or sheep according to their suit.

Last rant..........
Thanks USO for screwing it up for everybody!!!!!
<

stec
 

wmidbrook

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
4,405
Reaction score
3
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
If you think this law suit was brought against the state of AZ to protect the average joe hunter, I have a beach front condo to sell you in Gila Bend. CHEAP![/b]

I could not agree with you more. Sure, it was out of selfish reasons to have more opportunity to guide and make money for them. I think the side-effects their selfish motives serve the intent of anti-discrimition laws fostered to promote the ideals of Free Trade and a Free Economy under UCC trade laws. This non-sense of subsidies, tariffs and discriminatory quota practices is old school anti-capitialistic.

In many respects, I think it would be good for the Fed to play a more pro-active role in this issue.

As a non-resident, do I pay more for lift tickets @ Taos or Telluride as a non-resident skiier? Or 10x's the price for a movie when I'm in Reno, Nv or Flagstaff, AZ?


Not all western states tag monies go to wildlife. In fact, in some states, most of my non-resident tag fees go to the states' general funds. Some states are good with well over 50% of tag dollars going into wildlife-related programs--like Missouri. In fact, missouri charges higher fees for nieghboring states that recetnly have charge Missouri residents even more like Nebraska I think....residents of other neighboring states that haven't raised tag fees pay less money......the whole system is whacky and out of control.

Raise tag prices for both residents/non-residents as long as the price for both is the same.
 

mickeyelk

Active member
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Arizonians need to contact fish and game and complain. Why didn't they give non residents there 10%? I believe the arizona rule was tags up to 10%. Two years ago I drew a tag after 7 years of applying and there was 150 total tags. Of this 11 were non resident. Where did the other 4 go? Why didn't we get the 10%? Your guess is as good as mine. Paying for hunting licenses just to apply is BS also. Think about it, for that tag I drew two years ago, it cost me over 700 in hunting licenses cost and then the tag fee. I'm not a rich out of stater. I work 40 hours a week and save for my hunting trips just like most of you do. So when I apply for a tag I want a chance at drawning the tag. Someone mentioned above that there is left over tags that non residents didn't draw or use up. (These were probally the couses deer tags). I look at the draw stats for elk and mule deer and see that the draw odds are astonomical for non residents. I talked to archery hunters in area 1 last year and they said that residents get a tag 1 out of every 3 years for archery. I read in a forum somewhere that non residents can get a tag 1 out of 3 years where a resident takes 7-10 years. I believe that guy had it backwards. Hopefully everything will turn out fine and the other states won't get effected by this. Lets see how Arizona deals with setting the standards for the western states. Good luck to all and Arizona hunters I feel for you, hopefully everything will turn out ok for all.
 

'Ike' @ HM

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2004
Messages
2,825
Reaction score
1
"Raise tag prices for both residents/non-residents as long as the price for both is the same." That and you must be a rich man!!!

So being a resident means nothing to you? CA is a bad example, but we manage (not very well) our herds in order to get them to 'huntable' numbers......How many non-resident tax dollars were spent doing that? That is yours and my license fee and a small portion of taxes paid doing the job.....AZ and the other states are no diffrent.

No matter how you cut it, we as non-residents should not be equal to a resident going into another state to hunt...So now in typical fashion, if you can't have it 'sue' em!!! What a bunch of BS!!!
<
A state needs to be able to manage hunt numbers any way it chooses and the residents of that state should get first and a better chance to hunt those animals........

All this will do is drive the price to hunt, out of range for most........
<
 

wmidbrook

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
4,405
Reaction score
3
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
"Raise tag prices for both residents/non-residents as long as the price for both is the same." That and you must be a rich man!!![/b]

Well what I meant can be seen in the following example: State X has 10 elk tags for non-residents @ $900/ea and 90 tags for residents @ $100 ea.

Revenue:
From Non Residents ($900 tag): $9,000
From Residents ($100 tag): $9,000
TOTAL REV: $18,000

What I'd like to see the states do to get the same Tag Revenue would be have a lottery where all applicants apply for the 100 tags regardless of residency. The tags would cost $180/ea.

TOTAL Tag Revenue: $18,000


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Two years ago I drew a tag after 7 years of applying and there was 150 total tags. Of this 11 were non resident. Where did the other 4 go? Why didn't we get the 10%?[/b]

The System is Broken
Yup, in addition to Arizona hosing non-residents Nevada and Oregon are guilty of the same practice....maybe other states too.

Nevada didn't issue the allocated percentage of Area 7 tags to Non-residents--they were sued by an applicant who got his money back because he didn't want the points after the malarkee he experienced.

If you study the number of tags actually issued in other areas, you'll see where there are several hunts where non-residents did not get their stated quotas and the number of non-resident applicants was higher than the tag quota in every case.

Ditto for many of Oregon's hunts. Just comb thru the statistics and you'll see.
 

schmalts

Active member
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Heres a few things to keep in mind.
1, Calling the AZ F&G to complain like other are suggesting is lame.... They have a court ruling to deal with your comments dont mean squat to them or the judge at this point. Dont waste thier time as they have enough to do at this time. Let them get the draw done so whoever does get a tag has enough time to arrange the vacation/leave time from work. remember, this is a court ruleing and your complaints will not change that, nor can the F&G because of your opinion.
2. the Nonres hunters are not your enemy here. Dont be talking about vandalizing trucks with nonres plates and other crap, its big money grubbers looking to gain a larger share of outfitting stakes in another state that helped bring this on, along with AZF&G's inability to come to a middle ground that made both sides happy to blame. Because of AZ's costly bonus point rule thier (USO)tag drawing service suffered in AZ. To get around the bonus point ordeal they pushed for more tags instead. God I hope they dont swindle some outfitter preference out of AZ like they did in NM in some under the table deal.
3. Talking about raising nonres tags sky high to combat this will only bring on more lawsuites of discrimination. Trust me, if its bad for USO it will be fought.
I have no idea what the solution is but it seems we need to wait until the F&G decides to appeal. dont bother them too much now, they have to deal with this ruling and get the draw done.
 

COHunter

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2002
Messages
2,340
Reaction score
9
Raising Resident fee's to be equal with Nonresident fee's would be a great way to end hunting for the average guy.

Resident fee's should be cheap in "all" States to keep people in the sport. You start pricing regular Joe's out of hunting and then you'll lose Political support for it and the next thing you know hunting is like it is in England.

Another way to end hunting is to deny as person a tag or the opportunity to hunt without driving 15 hours. Thats why Residents should have priority in getting a licence in the state they live in. We need to encourage new hunters(voters).

Lets face it, an exspensive Nonresident tag is basically a "Bonus Tag" in addition to the hunting you do in your home state where fee's are cheap. Your not forced to hunt out of state, it all boils down to greed and wanting more

I guess I can start applying for my CA Tule Elk and Pronghorn tag now since that should no longer be for CA residents only
 
Top Bottom