Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Arizona to lift 10% non-res cap.

Arizona has been ordered to lift the 10% non-resident tag cap effective for this years draw. Won't be too long before all states will be ordered to do so.

so does that mean they can charge more?

Subject: Court ruling will affect Arizona Fall Drawing for elk and deer

July 15, 2004

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.
.
.

.... Silver Bullet

Alex, ... I'd like Cat-Woman (er: Halle Berry) sleep-overs for $600.

I'd like to read the ruling.
I hope it gets overturned.
That dang misconstrued commerce clause!

Do you mean that you wish that they would keep the cap?
Have you ever tryed to draw a tag in Arizona? Its nearly impossible. I think that Arizona does a great job managing their game herds, but it sucks to try to draw, its even hard for a resident to draw a tag
Toby Joe

Yeah and it pi$$es me off that the all taxpayers support Federal land, but we have reduced chances to hunt it.

Crowrifle- The federal agencies manage the land not the animals.

If this does indeed pass mustard, hunting will be much different. For those that like to hunt a wide variety of places it'll be great, for those that just like hunting locally it may get more difficult. This applies mostly to the Western States.

macrabbit is right that the commerce clause is often miscontrued and used to justify federal intrusion into almost anything. However, I'm not sure that non-resident hunting is a misapplication of the clause. It is inherently inter-state, simply because application for, and purchase of, the permit occur between parties in different states. Even if it weren't, that horse in has been out of the barn for decades. The commerce clause is meaningless these days.



As to the applicability of this ruling, I am interested in why it only covers deer and elk. I suppose those two species were the only two mentioned in the lawsuit. Other species can't be far behind. Are the higher prices charged non-residents next? This will probably end up at the Federal Court of Appeals (9th circuit?) and whatever decision they make will set precendent for all states in that circuit. I'm no lawyer, and I invite those on this forum who are lawyers, to correct me if I'm wrong.



I've been watching this for several years and I don't know what to think. If this spreads, it will provide a much needed boone to financially strapped ranchers and farmers here in Kansas, while at the same time making free access to private land all the more difficult for the average joe. Just to be clear, I don't believe people are entitled to free access to private lands. Landowners have every right, in my opinion, to profit from their land and limit or prevent access to it, including any wildlife that live on it. I'm a landowner myself, but I depend on the hospitality of others when it comes to some kinds of hunting.

Yes, I'm in favor of allowing some sort of system that prefers residents.
And yes, I'm building points and not getting tags in AZ (and even some in my home state). But I have a great chance to get a tag for the family land here, and so do my good friends who live nearby, and so I can host them on a hunt and all have a memorable tradition. That is a part of "being there". I don't want to lose that opportunity, nor take it away from others. This is home, living; running around the country to hunt is an extra, a luxury.
Think of how much harder it would be for an Arizona resident to get a tag if several million others competed on equal footing.
(And I'm not man enough to tell Jeff Cooper that he can't shoot a buck on his Gunsite campus!)

Everything has its limits, Crowrifle.
The Oval Office, too, is Federal property, supported by our taxes, but you and I can't just drop in, build a campfire, and have ourselves a weenie roast. I helped pay for the Air Force's F-15's but I've had a heck of a time getting them to let me fly one every once in a while.
In the Nat'l Forest we can usually camp (up to a maximum time limit), fish (with a state license), hike, etc., but we can't cut and haul out timber (without a license and subject to limitations), nor dig open pit mines (without permit), nor kill and haul out every type of game animal (without a license and subject to bag limits)...

Does it follow that only those who pay for something may use it?
To the best of my knowledge, most states allow out-of-staters to hunt on state land without special rules for non-residents. I take that kindly.

I went to the hearing on Friday and spoke my peace. The ruling only applies to Deer north of the Colorado river and BULL elk as those are the only animals for which a cap exists. There is no cap on other species. There is a tiny bit of merit to the arguement that if they are on Nat forest they should be treated as federal property but wildlife has long been acknowledged as property of the state. If we want them to be Federal property, then we should disband the AZ game and Fish and let a federal agency manage, enforce and PAY FOR wildlife management in Arizona. There are always two sides to every coin. I can lament with those of you who can't draw elk tags in AZ as we residents can't either. I heard figures of 15% of applications are from non-residents. If this is the case ( and I don't have any figures to base this on) then the non-residents are not being hurt too bad anyway. We will see how this works out.

This is a blatant stretch of the commerce clause and will only affect states in the 9th circuit ( for now) There is a case pending in the 10th circuit. If they get an opposite ruling, then the supreme court will be more likely to take one of the cases whereas up to this point they have refused the cases ( They take about 4% of cases brought to them)

You can rest assured that antlered deer tags will go up drastically in price ( look at Utah) and Bull elk will probably go up to $700-800 range. Sad thing is, this won't even affect guys like USO who brought this lawsuit. They will continue to apply for tens of thousands of hunters now that they can do it on credit.

Not sure I follow the logic.

Are you saying it would be OK if there were a 10% non-resident cap on other recreational or commercial activities such as camping, fishing, hiking, logging and mining - and 90% of these activities on National Forests should be reserved to Arizona residents?

If it applies to federal land, it should apply equally to residents and non-residents alike. If activities are conducted on state lands, which presumably are supported by state money (though they are probably supported with Federal Aid dollars as well), are parcelled out on a preferential basis - that's different.

AAArrrggg! I up and move to Arizona and now this happens! Guess I'll just have to draw sheep and antelope this year.

Acer- hunting is one of the FEW activities that take place on public lands that are pretty much completely funded by the STATE- that is the difference. It's not so much WHERE you are doing it. The management of all these animals and their habitat so to speak are funded by Arizonans. About 15% of the funding comes from non-Arizonans. It would be reasonable to expect those who are footing the bill, repairing the water tanks ( which are an absolute neccesity out here), manning the check points, putting in all the volunteer hours should have some advantage over those who don't.

If you can't follow that kind of logic then I'm sorry for you. If I go camping in the Nat forest, I expect to be treated exactly the same as any other US resident. It is all taxpayer funded whereas wildlife management in AZ is completely self-funded by those who purchase tags and licenses.

Every state in the country charges more for non-resident licenses and tags that for resident. With your logic, this would be wrong as well. If it ever comes to this, then the states should get out of wildlife management and turn it over to the feds and make them fund it- that's all I'm saying.

If I go to Montana to hunt deer, there are only 2,800 deer tags in the whole state for non-residents. How fair does that seem??? A resident can just buy his tag over the counter and go hunt. If you don't mind being a victim of extortion, you can purchase one of the outfitter tags or landowner tags- but there is your "Commerce" issue all over again. It's all about $$


It's not really all that hard to understand.

Just that there are limits on everything. The logic that federal=everyone's=individual use won't work.
I think the first principle is that states "own" the game; the fact that the Feds have land within a state is coincidental and subsidiary, not primary.
Most Federal land would have been sold to private parties (and therefore under state control) if it had been farmable. Then came the Forest Reserves, which have become the "forest playgrounds" I think Fed ownership of large tracts of land was expected to have dribbled away.

It's all about $$

That's the bottom line of the whole deal.
Facts are, if you have enough money you can hunt any state out west every year. All it takes is "enough money".

1) Is the state game agency funded from license fees - or from the General Revenue funds? If, like most state agencies, they are funded from license fees - then their constituents are whoever purchases the license - not who lives in the state. In your own words: "wildlife management in AZ is completely self-funded by those who purchase tags and licenses"



2) Does the state game agency accept Federal Aid money? If they do, their constituents are from across the country - not from Arizona exclusively.



3) Educate me. Where did you get the 15% figure you used? Is that based on number of hunters or actual revenue from non-residents?



4) I'm all for giving somebody preference if they are willing to invest sweat equity or money towards management of habitat - but of all the thousands of folks who hunt in Arizona, I would be willing to bet that less than 1% ever contribute more than the cost of a license towards habitat management. They live in the state and reap the reward, but are not invested in the wildlife any more than someone in another state is.



5) You can't put words in my mouth. I agree that non-residents should pay a higher fee than residents. THATS the equalizer - not quotas. If non-residents don't contribute to management of habitat and wildlife through their actions, they can fork over the cash to fund somebody else who will. But at the same time, a higher tag price should be commensurate with what residents contribute overall - and not a backhanded way to limit hunting to only the wealthiest of non-residents.



6) You lost me in your last paragraph. You vigorously defend the rights of Arizona residents - then do a 180 and complain about how Montana isn't fair because they have a quota. Can't have it both ways...



Having spent most of my life in Texas and Oklahoma where 98% of the land base is privately owned, I can tell you money is the great equalizer. If there isn't any public land to hunt on, folks don't hunt unless they have deep pockets. Then it doesn't matter if you are a resident or non-resident.



Hope I haven't stepped on anybody's toes. I was under the impression this was a forum where folks who like to hunt could discuss issues.

I too have lived in Texas all of my life and would agree with what others here have said, "It's all about the money"
Texas has no applications, no drawings and no quotas. Your MONEY is welcome here and you can even do some hunting if you would like.
As sad as it is, that's the way it works here. I guess those of us who have had to pay to hunt all of our lives have gotten accustomed to it, so we just accept the fact that we all pay to play. Resident or not.
Drop

In Arizona the new question will be how do you like your elk?
A lot of people will be answering...Poached.

BTW this Lawernce Montoya self desribed Ph has been in trouble with the law. He was caught using a airplane to spot elk during a hunt in NM. That should tell you what kind of person he is.

Some people in AZ will be sending some mail his way.

His engine blocks will never be the same.

I was at the Az. G&F meeting this afternoon. There will be NO re-draw!

The 9th District judge denied Arizona's appeal concerning Montoya's ---er--- George Taulman's --- suit. As a result, G&F will be awarding additional tags for deer tags (north of the Colo. R.) and bull elk tags to those who would have been drawn had there not been the 10% cap for certain hunt units, but who were thrown out due to the cap. In effect, those were non-residents, and a few residents who had applied along with non-resident friends. NO hunters will have their tags taken away if they were successful in the original draw!

The original draw results for all big game hunts should be made public by tomorrow evening (Tues., July 20), with the additional tags awarded a few days from now.

How Ariz. G&F determines next year's policy will be arrived at after considerable input (including public meetings) over the months to come.

The extra tags awarded (distributed across the state) are for units where the 10% non-resident cap came into play:

127 more deer tags for Units 12A, 12B, 13A, 13B (10 total of those to residents)

678 more elk tags (39 total of those to residents)

Bottom line, the 10% cap is HISTORY.

I don't think G&F could have handled this any better --- it was a tough issue to get through!

We can thank greedy George Taulman for the first step that will undoubtedly change hunting for non-residents in states across America (and I'm pretty sure you in other states, like we Arizonans, are going to find it a somewhat bitter pill to swallow)!!!

Peace,

Lv2hnt