- Joined
- Mar 11, 2001
- Messages
- 70,011
- Reaction score
- 1,007
State joins lawsuit
Jan. 8, 2002
By JEFF GEARINO Southwest Wyoming bureau with wire reports
GREEN RIVER -- Wyoming has joined with Montana, Idaho and 19 other states to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that struck down Arizona's limits on big-game licenses to out-of-state hunters, according to state officials.
In August, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a lawsuit that Arizona's limits on big-game licenses to nonresident hunters are an unconstitutional restriction on interstate commerce.
The lawsuit raises very similar issues that were brought forth by Wyoming outfitters in a 2000 lawsuit against Wyoming's Game and Fish Department and the Game and Fish Commission and an ongoing lawsuit brought by Florida attorney Donald Schutz, agency officials said.
Wyoming Game and Fish Department officials said the case is being watched very closely by Wyoming, which has similar caps on the number of licenses available to out-of-state hunters.
Game and Fish Special Assistant for Policy Larry Kruckenberg said the Arizona lawsuit ruling and the issues it raises are still important to Wyoming even though the outfitter lawsuit was resolved in Wyoming's favor.
"We are watching this with great interest," Kruckenberg said.
"And even if the Supreme Court doesn't take (the appeal) up and the appellate court decision stands... and even though it doesn't affect Wyoming directly because we're not in the circuit, it's still a hugely important issue as evidenced by the number of states that have joined in."
In the appeal by Montana to the nation's highest court which Wyoming joined, Brian Morris, Montana State Solicitor, said the decision by the circuit court threatens the "ability of the state to conserve, promote and develop wildlife populations within their borders."
Attorneys with the State Attorney General's Office said Wyoming signed on as a Friend of the Court, asking the court to overturn the opinion of the 9th Circuit Court in the case.
They said the Arizona case essentially mirrors the arguments made in a lawsuit against Wyoming filed by the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association in 1998, but with a totally opposite ruling.
Though the Wyoming and Arizona rulings were made in different circuit courts, state officials still felt the Arizona decision should be challenged, state attorneys said.
The outfitters lawsuit against Wyoming sought to overturn the state's method for distributing deer and elk licenses to nonresident hunters.
Association attorneys also argued in that case that Wyoming's license distribution system violates federal interstate commerce laws and equal protection clauses of the Constitution.
In 2000, a federal judge ruled in favor of Wyoming in the outfitters lawsuit. The association filed an appeal in 2001 too late to meet court deadlines and the appeal was dismissed in October of 2001 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.
Wyoming game managers are also contending with a lawsuit filed Sept. 12 in U.S. District Court in Cheyenne by Schutz that alleges the department's policies governing nonresident hunters are unconstitutional.
Morris said the court's ruling in the Arizona case "runs squarely into a long line of cases (including Wyoming's) holding that recreational hunting does not qualify as interstate commerce and that wildlife does not constitute an article of commerce."
Morris said the ruling could jeopardize states like Wyoming that not only limit nonresident big game licenses but also charge out-of-state hunters more for licenses.
A three-judge panel of the Circuit Court said in August that Arizona's 1991 law allotting 10 percent of bull elk and antlered-deer hunting tags to nonresidents was an act of "overt discrimination."
The ruling said the limit violates the constitutional ban on interfering with interstate commerce, but said Arizona could argue on appeal that its restrictions are the only means the state has to carry out a legitimate state interest in managing wildlife
Morris said at least 23 states other than Arizona impose limits on the number of nonresident hunting permits and at least 32 states charge more for some nonresident hunting permits than for resident permits.
Other states joining Montana's appeal include Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Vermont.
Jan. 8, 2002
By JEFF GEARINO Southwest Wyoming bureau with wire reports
GREEN RIVER -- Wyoming has joined with Montana, Idaho and 19 other states to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that struck down Arizona's limits on big-game licenses to out-of-state hunters, according to state officials.
In August, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a lawsuit that Arizona's limits on big-game licenses to nonresident hunters are an unconstitutional restriction on interstate commerce.
The lawsuit raises very similar issues that were brought forth by Wyoming outfitters in a 2000 lawsuit against Wyoming's Game and Fish Department and the Game and Fish Commission and an ongoing lawsuit brought by Florida attorney Donald Schutz, agency officials said.
Wyoming Game and Fish Department officials said the case is being watched very closely by Wyoming, which has similar caps on the number of licenses available to out-of-state hunters.
Game and Fish Special Assistant for Policy Larry Kruckenberg said the Arizona lawsuit ruling and the issues it raises are still important to Wyoming even though the outfitter lawsuit was resolved in Wyoming's favor.
"We are watching this with great interest," Kruckenberg said.
"And even if the Supreme Court doesn't take (the appeal) up and the appellate court decision stands... and even though it doesn't affect Wyoming directly because we're not in the circuit, it's still a hugely important issue as evidenced by the number of states that have joined in."
In the appeal by Montana to the nation's highest court which Wyoming joined, Brian Morris, Montana State Solicitor, said the decision by the circuit court threatens the "ability of the state to conserve, promote and develop wildlife populations within their borders."
Attorneys with the State Attorney General's Office said Wyoming signed on as a Friend of the Court, asking the court to overturn the opinion of the 9th Circuit Court in the case.
They said the Arizona case essentially mirrors the arguments made in a lawsuit against Wyoming filed by the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association in 1998, but with a totally opposite ruling.
Though the Wyoming and Arizona rulings were made in different circuit courts, state officials still felt the Arizona decision should be challenged, state attorneys said.
The outfitters lawsuit against Wyoming sought to overturn the state's method for distributing deer and elk licenses to nonresident hunters.
Association attorneys also argued in that case that Wyoming's license distribution system violates federal interstate commerce laws and equal protection clauses of the Constitution.
In 2000, a federal judge ruled in favor of Wyoming in the outfitters lawsuit. The association filed an appeal in 2001 too late to meet court deadlines and the appeal was dismissed in October of 2001 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.
Wyoming game managers are also contending with a lawsuit filed Sept. 12 in U.S. District Court in Cheyenne by Schutz that alleges the department's policies governing nonresident hunters are unconstitutional.
Morris said the court's ruling in the Arizona case "runs squarely into a long line of cases (including Wyoming's) holding that recreational hunting does not qualify as interstate commerce and that wildlife does not constitute an article of commerce."
Morris said the ruling could jeopardize states like Wyoming that not only limit nonresident big game licenses but also charge out-of-state hunters more for licenses.
A three-judge panel of the Circuit Court said in August that Arizona's 1991 law allotting 10 percent of bull elk and antlered-deer hunting tags to nonresidents was an act of "overt discrimination."
The ruling said the limit violates the constitutional ban on interfering with interstate commerce, but said Arizona could argue on appeal that its restrictions are the only means the state has to carry out a legitimate state interest in managing wildlife
Morris said at least 23 states other than Arizona impose limits on the number of nonresident hunting permits and at least 32 states charge more for some nonresident hunting permits than for resident permits.
Other states joining Montana's appeal include Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Vermont.
