Remember, Judge Broomfield did not say that AZ could not prefer residents over nonresidents in the big game drawings. He said the state had to implement a less discriminatory method than the "up to 10% cap". In fact his ruling states that the state can prefer residents over nonresidents.
It is also a fact that a highly inflammatory letter, sent out by USO's George Taulman to thousands of nonresident applicants, seeking donations to fund the legal challenge against AZ's resident hunters is what started the process. It appears Mr. Taulman intended to pit residents vs. nonresidents all along.
It also seems that thousands of concerned hunters from all over the west banded together to complain about the USO lawsuit and some of USO's sponsors picked up on the negative vibe and cut ties with the outfit.
After taking input from residents and nonresidents alike, the AZG&FD has selected several strategies to comply with Judge Broomfield's ruling. Some of them will be adopted, some will not. The matter of raising fees is a natural course of events that was going to happen in time anyway. Do you interpret the Judge's ruling to imply that AZ couldn't raise its' fees for licenses and permits? How could anyone think that when the state's big game permits are under-valued when compared to what our neighboring states are charging for the very same opportunities: Utah Paunsaugunt mule deer $568.00, New Mexico High Demand/High Quality elk almost $800.00, Nevada bull elk $1000.00, California's limited number of tags effectively eliminates nonresident opportunity to hunt elk, sheep, and antelope. Utah offers tiny numbers of tags for nonresident opportunity in their limited draw bull elk areas. As someone earlier posted, the figures put forth by the department are ceilings that would likely take years to reach. Bringing permit fees inline with western counterparts appears to be what the state is looking to accomplish.
IMO, much of this could have been, and may still be able to be avoided, by simply passing a law prohibiting the sale, transfer, trade, or barter of any wildlife parts obtained through the use of a state issued big game license and hunting permit. An exemption for licensed taxidermists would need to be worked out as a provision of the law. Next, the state would setaside 10-15% of the big game permits authorized for the upcoming seasons in a seperate drawing for nonresidents. Any leftover permits after the draw would be available to residents and nonresidents alike in a seperate drawing. This setaside, with tag allotments that would be up to 100% increases in permit numbers from historical draw data, would demonstrate a sincere willingness to comply with Judge Broomfield's ruling.
In the end, can a nonresident honestly say that they should have the same access to tag in AZ as a resident of the state? Really? Do you believe AZ residents should have equal access to your state's premium deer, elk, pronghorn, and sheep tags? I didn't think so.
