AZ Fall Draw Delays

[sumpnz]

Original Source

Court ruling will affect fall draw for elk and deer

Wildlife News
July 15, 2004

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.

_____________________________

Damn lawyers. Now I know why the draw results haven't been posted yet, or for that matter why they haven't even updated the web site to say Fall 2004 rather than Spring 2004 draw results.

Grrrrrrr. Don't they know I want to know NOW what, if anything, I've been drawn for.

 

[Fuzzy]

To say that I'm upset about the court decision would be an understatement. I've thought about it a bit and the only thing that I can really do is voice my opinion and hope that the AZGFD can find a way to keep the system fair.

As a tax paying Arizona resident I feel that we should be insulated from non-residents pushing us out of all the 'prime' elk and deer tags. Also, I feel that the tags should be available to more than just wealthy non-residents so I feel that the 10% non-resident cap and fairly low non-resident tag fees was a good system.

The lawsuit was brought on by the USO (United States Outfitters) becuase, in their lawsuit, they claimed that non-residents were discrimiated against in the horn and hide resale market. How this aplies to the commerce clause of the constitution is a little beyond me, but I'm not a lawyer.

So what I did was get a list of all of the sponsers of the USO's T.V. show and I sent them all a little email. The show airs on The Outdoor Channel and there is a list of sponsers on the USO website.

Below I attached a copy of the email that I sent to TOC and the show's sponsers. Also, there is a list of the show's sponsers.

Anyone else who feels strongly about this sort of thing might also consider dropping them a note too.

Sponsers:
RealTree Camo
Swarovski Optik
Knight Rifles
Crooked Horn Outfitters
PRIMOS HUNTING CALLS
Barnes Bullets

Letter:

I would just like to inform you that I will no longer buy any <insert company name> products due to your support of The United States Outfitters and its T.V. program "Real Hunting Adventures".

As a hunter in Arizona I feel that the USO is working against the best interest of hunters not only here but in other states. I feel that the Arizona Game and Fish Department does an excellent job of managing Arizona's wildlife resources and I cannot support any organization that actively works against them in trying to achieve their goals.

There are many other makers of <insert product type> products and I cannot support a company that I feel supports a group that actively works against the best interests of hunters.

 

[sumpnz]

There's a lot of other states that have caps on non-resident hunting permits too, so why haven't we heard about them challangeing those too? Not that I think they should, but at least that would spread the pain and hopefully get more people worked up about it and get it stopped. At any rate, I was told in my hunter ed class that, with the exception of buffalo, you could not sell any part of a game animal that you killed in this state. So how can they possibly claim loss from not being able to sell hides and horns? I think they are just miffed that they are limited in how many tags they can get, and therefore the number of clients they can get to pay them to take them hunting. And, like Fuzzy said, if they have unrestricted access to the 'prime' hunting tags AZ residents will be effectivly denied the ability to hunt those areas during the ruts.

 

[Fuzzy]

I believe that the rule says that it is only illegal to sell the meat. I believe that selling pelts and racks is still legal, although I don't know anyone who does.

I think that Arizona is just the first state to get hit by this. If this precident stands then the out-of-state caps might be a thing of the past. G&F is meeting right now about what to do for this season, but the consequnces go much further.

If the federal government can now claim that they can regulate deer and elk hunting through the interstate commerce clause then we all could be in trouble. One bad day on the Hill and we could see our hunting privledges go out the window.

 

[sumpnz]

Things might work out OK, if G&F get their way, at least for this year.

Source Article

State asks court permission to continue current hunt draw process

Wildlife News
July 16, 2004

PHOENIX — The Arizona Game and Fish Commission is asking a federal court to allow it to continue the fall hunt permit drawing—with the nonresident cap intact.

At a public meeting of the commission today, Assistant Attorney General Jim Odenkirk informed the public that the Game and Fish Department has filed a motion for temporary relief from a court order imposed July 13. That order, by U.S. District Judge Robert Broomfield, declared Arizona’s 10 percent cap on nonresident hunt permits unconstitutional and directed the department to refrain from enforcing the cap.

In the midst of the commission meeting, Broomfield’s office responded to the motion by scheduling a teleconference with plaintiffs’ and department attorneys the morning of July 19. The teleconference will be held at 10 a.m.

Following the teleconference, the Game and Fish Commission will hold another public meeting to take further action. The commission meeting will be held at noon, Monday, July 19, at the Wildlife Building on the Arizona State Fairgrounds, 1826 W. McDowell Rd.

The motion for temporary relief asks the judge to allow the department to finish the fall hunt draw already begun. In the motion, Odenkirk calls the judge’s injunction “an extraordinary circumstance that will lead to unexpected hardship†and says the department had almost completed the process of issuing hunt permits. The motion also says the order jeopardizes the department’s ability to issue permits before the first hunt on Aug. 6.

Meantime, the commission has ordered the department to release the names of applicants who have been drawn for species not affected by the court ruling: buffalo, bighorn sheep, turkey and antelope. That information will be released by 5 p.m. on July 20.

The court ruling directly affects those hunters who applied for a bull elk permit or who applied for a permit to hunt antlered deer in Hunt Units 12A, 12B, 13A and 13B (north of the Colorado River), and delays draw results for all deer and elk hunt applicants.

More than 270,000 people applied for big game permits for the fall hunt.

More than 120 of those applicants turned out for today’s Game and Fish Commission meeting, many of them to implore the commission and the department to find new ways to protect residents’ opportunities to hunt.

Game and Fish Director Duane Shroufe says they intend to do just that.

“This court decision does not mean that the department will abandon its efforts to maintain the highest possible level of resident hunting opportunity,†he says.

The department’s deputy director, Steve Ferrell, says it’s critical that Arizonans have a fair opportunity to benefit from, and protect, the state’s wildlife resources.

“We are very disappointed with the ruling,†says Ferrell. “We believe that maintaining resident opportunity is the best way to support conservation. Engaged residents are crucial in the support of wildlife management, by way of volunteerism, guardianship, and by financial and political means. Anything that diminishes resident interest in their wildlife resources ultimately threatens the support Arizona residents are uniquely positioned to provide.â€

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 the July 13 ruling, Judge Broomfield agreed and said it was up to the state to demonstrate the cap was the least discriminatory means available to protect its interests, which the judge said the state failed to do.

However, Broomfield also left the door open for the Game and Fish Department to find another method. Citing an earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Broomfield said that “Arizona has complete freedom to craft a rule which adequately serves its legitimate interests so long as it does not violate the Constitution.â€

The Game and Fish Commission will discuss long-term options at a meeting to be held in Flagstaff, Aug. 13-14.

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

 

[sumpnz]

Latest News
Not sure if I'm happy or pissed. One the one hand they've finally sorted the issue out, which means that by the day after tomorrow I'll know what, if anything, I've been drawn for. On the other hand, they're giving out an extra 805 tags (combined deer and elk) to non-resident hunters which means fewer opportunities for us Arizonans next year, and more competition for those in affected units this year.

Well, within the next 48 hours, at least I'll know if I get to try to kill bambi this year.

 

[Fuzzy]

I guess I wan't the only one to email the sponsors. Here's the reply I got from the fine folks at Primos.
_____


July 22, 2004


To Whom It May Concern:

It has taken us a few days to sort through all the issues, rumors and
hearsay revolving around the recent court ruling concerning the Elk draw
in Arizona.

Primos has advertised its products on United States Outfitters' TV show
that airs on The Outdoor Channel and we have used USO's licensing
services as well as hired USO for its guide services in areas that we
were unfamiliar with. Primos has been pleased with all services
provided by USO.

Through a number of e-mails and phone calls it has become apparent that
people have lumped Primos Hunting Calls in with USO as being involved
with the court case. It was never our intention to take a position in
this matter, but rather to let the courts decide what was equitable or
not. That, of course, appears to have been misunderstood. With our use
of USO's products, Primos has been included in a fight we did not ask
for and do not desire to be a part of.

All of us at Primos are first and foremost for the Elk and the places
they call home. We do not want to do anything or be a part of anything
that takes away from that.

At this time, we have decided that in order to support elk, the other
wildlife of Arizona, and the places they call home, we should withdraw
USO's TV show from our list of sponsorships.

We thank you for your input. This has not been an easy decision to
reach but after much prayer and thought our decision is based solely on
what we feel is best for the Elk and the Elk hunting community.

Sincerely,



Will Primos
President, Primos Hunting Calls