Bad news from Arizona

Another key point to keep in mind as to why you've ended up where your at in this issue.

Its because of the complacency of hunters and their lack of involvement. REQUIRING guides would only be feeding people like Taulman and U.S.O.

The reason for lawsuits like this is because hunters have sat on their asses and allowed the politicians, the guides and outfitters associations, and the Game and Fish commissions to get their way.

Dont believe it?

Every Western State has rules and regulations that favor guides and outfitters...from MT's outfitter guaranteed licenses, to CO and UT ranching for wildlife program, to AK guide requirement to Wyomings wilderness guide requirement, etc. etc. etc.

Why would any hunter support these programs? Where were the hunters when all these rules passed? I'll tell you, off doing more important things when they should have been uniting, going to meetings, and making their voices heard. Hunters as a group are not vocal at all...until after the fact.

I/you/we let the commissions be a politically appointed committee (heavy in landowners, guides/outfitters/cattlemen, etc.) then wonder why our opportunities deminish. We wonder why proper management doesnt happen? GEE, I wonder why wildlife management has become less and less about wildlife and more about PEOPLE/SPECIAL INTEREST management. Take a look at your commissions, take a look at how many hunters attend meetings, take a look at how many hunters even bother to comment on proposals. This issue alone...150 people attend a meeting like this? 205,000 applications were submitted, pretty poor turnout...dont you think? I rest my case.

Hunters are just flat too accomadating and too complacent. In todays world you have to FIGHT for everything. A sad fact, but a true fact.

Take a good look in the mirror, YOU'VE allowed hunting to come to this.
 
You are all exactly correct in my greed for an Arizona tag. Arizona does not have the water that Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, or other western states have and therefore, the game is much more limited. AZGF has done a spectacular job in managing the wildlife here, and I believe that they should be supported in that effort.

Unfortunately, my ability to go out of state to hunt is somewhat limited. I prefer to hunt Arizona and I believe that as a resident, I should have preference over non residents. Just like in other states where residents buy tags over the counter and non-residents apply for a limited draw or a limited number of tags. I believe that's fair and I support each states' right to govern the hunt as they see fit.

I don't hold any specific animosity toward out of state hunters, and my efforts are not directed at restricting thier ability to hunt Az. What I do resent is someone coming into my house and telling me how to run it. If the only way to counter this blatant push for the $$ is to offend out of state hunters, then I apologize. Perhaps if no one contracted with USO they would go away. That, however is very unlikely. So if the appeal of this ruling is unsuccessful, then I will support, if not demand, that AZGF take some extraordinary efforts to counter this imposition on my right as a state resident. There is no state in the west that will be safe once this starts. No advantage for residents will remain. I am especially concerned about the push for land owner tags which would appear to be the natural next step. That would just about spell the end of hunting for the average guy in Arizona.

So I apologize to the non resident hunters that take offense to my feelings and opinions, but I do not apologize for taking umbrage with this court ruling.

Buzz, As for regulation that supports guides and/or outfitters, you didn't see any of that in Arziona which, I believe is a good part of why this happened. The 10% rule was to assure that Arizona got it's portion of the Federal monies. Other than that, there is nothing that I am aware of to support or provide any advantage to guides, outfitters, or landowners in Arizona. If you'll read above, you'll see that that is one of my fears...

Tom, I am sorry for those who would suffer from the outcome of this court case. I, however, have a firm believe in my right as an Arizona resident to be allowed to hunt here. If this thing is allowed to go unchallenged in any fashion, then Ariozna will wind up just like New Mexico, Wyoming, Montana, or any of the other places where the guides and outfitters have taken such an advantageous position. I don't want to see that happen with the limited number of tags available in Arizona.

:cool:
 
Ahh, Danr,

The hunters in AZ didnt do anything pre-emptive to deal with this lawsuit thats been pending for what...2-3 years?

Real progressive thinkers in your AZGF, G&F Commission, and general hunting populus.

They couldnt look at WY, MT, AK, UT, CO, NM, etc. and see the handwriting on the wall?

They have no excuses for ignoring the inevitable, in fact less excuse because they had a chance to learn from the other states.

Sorry Dan, but we've allowed hunting to become a dollar interest above all else, and while I understand your frustration, it still doesnt change the facts.
 
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion so I'm not going to criticize any one persons individual view. However....As I said on this thread @ Monster Muleys if the fee difference and proportions were fairer...we wouldn't be having this discussion. Secondly...If AZ decides to make life miserable for Out of State Hunters...then I am certain the FEDs will not mind taking "control" over the hunting on all Federal Owned land. All of our taxes support the Ntional Forests and all of us should have the right to hunt them. Period. How would you like it if the Feds only gave 5% of the Tags to Resident hunters on all Federal Lands? Just let it get to the supreme court.....

Cheers
Roadtrip
 
Roadtrip,

You need to brush up on who is entitled to control wildlife in the states.

The feds manage the land they own, the States manage the wildlife.

That has been upheld in the courts.

You dont understand the issue.
 
pulled off another site


I have been living under a rock or something as I didn't hear about all this until recently on this board. I started doing a little research and found information in various places on the internet. Most of this is by one author and is simply a cut/paste. It helped clear the water for me, maybe it will for someone else.

Details of the lawsuit

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0017082p.pdf


Details/history from someone that has followed this closely.

The following is meant for everyone, and it might clear up some points on what has occurred with this suit.

This is a part of a column I wrote in Feb. 2003 -- BEFORE the AGFD appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which subsequently TURNED the appeal down. Thus, the 9th Circuit Court remanded the case back to the district judge, ORDERING him to follow its ruling. IOW, the judge who ruled this week had NO CHOICE in the matter; the 9th Circuit overturned the original district court ruling made here more than a year ago that actually backed the AGFD. -TONY

Copyright 2003 by Tony Mandile

Appeal Planned

It all started on Feb. 10, 1998 when Conservation Force, Inc. and several outfitters and guides from New Mexico filed suit in the United States District Court in Arizona against the members of the Arizona Game & Fish Commission who were in office at that time.

The plaintiffs, including United States Outfitters (USO) of Taos, N. Mex., claimed the 10-percent cap on nonresident permits for bull elk (statewide) and for deer north of the Colorado River (North Kaibab) violates the Commerce, Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. They requested “a declaration of invalidity as well as damages.”

When the case eventually came before the federal district court in Arizona, the judge granted the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s (AGFD) cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the commerce clause claim as a matter of law.
Subsequently, Conservation Force, Inc. dropped out, and the other plaintiffs-- Lawrence Montoya, Filberto Valerio and Carole Jean Taulman, wife of George Taulman who owns USO -- appealed the decision as individuals to take advantage of the commerce law. The case moved to the 9th District Court of Appeals in California.

It was argued and submitted in Dec., 2001. On August 20, 2002, the 9th District Court issued its opinion.

It pointed out that Arizona is home to what is considered by many hunters to be some of the best deer and elk hunting in the world, exemplified by the world-record animals harvested from its lands.

“The quality of the hunting in Arizona is in large part a result of the conservation efforts supported by Arizona citizens and administered by the Arizona Game and Fish Department,” the court files state.

It also states, “In early 1990, the department conducted a poll of resident big-game hunters and found that nearly 75 percent favored restricting the number of hunting tags issued to nonresidents, many expressing the opinion that nonresidents should be excluded from hunting in Arizona entirely”.

For many years, Arizona distributed the limited hunt tags for antlered deer and bull elk through a lottery without regard to the residence of the applicant. In the late 1980s, however, the AGFD began to receive vocal complaints by Arizona hunters objecting to competition with nonresidents. Many felt that nonresidents were getting more than their fair share of the hunt opportunities, especially for premium hunts. To better meet the overwhelming desires of the resident hunting public, in 1991 the game commission amended Rule 12-4-114 of the Arizona Administrative Code. It placed a 10-percent cap on the number of tags that could be awarded to nonresidents for the hunting of bull elk throughout the state and for antlered deer in the area north of the Colorado River.

The AGFD explained that the continued management of Arizona’s big game “is dependent on the continued support of Arizona residents” and that Arizona residents should be afforded the opportunity “to hunt Arizona’s best.”

On the other side of the aisle, the plaintiffs, who are all professional guides who apply for hunting tags around the country for their clients, claimed that profit making is their sole purpose in hunting these animals in Arizona, and that they do not hunt for recreational enjoyment. Instead, they argued that they hunt to “obtain the meat of the animals, their hide, their ivories, and especially their head and rack of antlers to profit from the sale and use of the non-edible parts.”

Judge Raymond C. Fisher of the 9th District Court wrote the following conclusion for the majority opinion:

“We hold that Arizona’s cap on nonresident hunting substantially affects and discriminates against interstate commerce and therefore is subject to strict scrutiny under the dormant Commerce Clause. Arizona has legitimate interests in regulating hunting to conserve its population of game and maintain recreational opportunities for its citizens. We remand for further proceedings to determine whether Arizona has met its burden of showing that it has no other means to advance its legitimate interests.”

In effect, the 9th Circuit Court overturned the Arizona court’s decision, thus finding in favor of the plaintiffs. The rationale behind the decision involved the sale of elk and deer antlers, as allowed under state law in Arizona. In other words, the plaintiffs convinced the appeals court that their purpose for applying for permits was obtaining these antlers to sell and not for the recreational hunting provided.

The decision forced the AGFD to pick one of several options available:

• Dump the nonresident cap
• Outlaw the sale of deer & elk antlers by anyone
• Raise the cost of nonresident permits high enough for a de facto cap
• Appeal the decision to the U. S. Supreme Court

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission voted unanimously last October to choose door #4 – an appeal to the Supreme Court, which will have the option to hear the case and rule or simply decline hearing it altogether.

On almost the same day the game commission voted for the appeal, U.S. Attorney Paul K. Charlton’s office in Phoenix indicted two individuals on charges stemming from an investigation known "Operation Navajo Buck (ONB)." One of them happens to be George Taulman, owner of USO.

Conducted during 1998 and 1999, the ONB investigation led to the arrest and conviction of several big-game guides based in Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. They unlawfully used aircraft prior to and during hunting seasons to locate deer and elk for hunting clients on the Navajo Indian Reservation in northeast Arizona. As a result, 12 individuals have paid fines of $85,000 and have forfeited one aircraft and unlawfully taken wildlife.

Taulman’s indictment charges him with one felony violation of the Lacey Act, two felony violations of conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act, and two misdemeanor violations of the Airborne Hunting Act.

The felony violation of the Lacey Act alleges one of Taulman’s clients killed an elk with the aid of an aircraft in 1999. The felony conspiracy counts allege that Taulman conspired to use aircraft to aid hunting clients in the taking of elk in Arizona during 1998 and 1999. Taulman’s business, USO, is also under indictment on three felony counts related to the 1998 and 1999 hunts. The indictment also seeks the forfeiture of the outfitter’s Cessna 182 aircraft, which he allegedly used during the hunts.

Another indictment cited David Holton III, of Lake Montezuma, Ariz., who is listed as an employee of USO. He is charged with one felony violation of the Lacey Act, one felony violation of conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act, and one misdemeanor violation of the Airborne Hunting Act. All violations relate to aiding a client with an aircraft so he could kill an elk in 1998 near Payson, Ariz.

The federal Lacey Act makes it unlawful to transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase wildlife which was taken, transported, possessed, or sold in violation of state, federal, or indian tribal laws or regulations. Violations carry maximum fines of up to $250,000 for a person, $500,000 for a corporation, and up to five years in prison. All vehicles and aircraft used in violation of the Lacey Act are subject to forfeiture.

The federal Airborne Hunting Act makes it unlawful to shoot animals from an aircraft or to harass animals with an aircraft. The Airborne Hunting Act Regulations prohibits a person, while on the ground, from taking or attempting to take wildlife by means, aid, or use of an aircraft. Maximum penalty for violations of the Airborne Hunting Act include fines of up to $100,000 for a person, and $200,000 for a corporation, and one year in prison.


Here's the squence that occurred.


Several Plaintiffs file suit against Shroufe and the AZ game commission

Federal district judge (AZ) rules in favor of AGFD (Shroufe)

USO and other plaintiffs appeal to the 9th Circuit Court (CA based)

9th overturns AZ district court, citing the Commerce Clause and remands it back to AZ district court

AGFD appeals the 9th CC's ruling to the Supreme Court

SC refuses to hear it, thus the 9th CC's ruling stands

AZ District court overturns the ORIGINAL ruling that went in favor of the AGFD (this week's action)


Latest update:


State asks court permission to continue current hunt draw process

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.”

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.”

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.
Click to expand...
 
Here is a little math as to the money from non-res vs. resident.

Let's just say that the 10% cap worked out for the non-res. In a unit with 100 elk permits 10 went to the non-resident. With their tag and license fee their total would be $4835.00. The 90 resident tags with just a class G license $25.00 (most people I know have a combo Class F $44.00) would generate $9180.00.

Resident and non-resident alike both have to buy their gear, most non-res will do that in their home state. Both have to buy food and gas (gas would be a non-res benifit to AZ).

If i'm wrong with any numbers let me know, I'm sure someone will.

Looks like most of the money would come from resident hunters to me. Not to mention the work and volunteer projects, most of which are resident participation.
 
Something I forgot to mention friday was Director Shoufe stated that of the 270,000 apps recieved, 15% (or 41,000) were N/R apps.

With the $5 dollar online fee (just assuming most used the computer) 41000 non-resident times $5 equals $205,000.

That leaves 229000 resident apps once again assumming most used the compter 229000 times $5 equals $1,145,000. Advatage to the resident dollars. Once again please let me know if my math is flawed. It's been awhile since my college math classes.
 
Buzz i have my opinion and its not based on any theory, it looks like i`m not alone as 75% of AZ hunters [see poll][Delws last post] agree with limiting out of state hunting. I do not have a problem with guys from out of state hunting if there are leftover tags,[such as javelina] but as Danr pointed out we have a "limited" resource here in AZ. As an example you have in Wyoming thousands of Antelope tags. We have 365 total for rifle! this is a drop in the bucket by comparison. Yes we/i are being selfish, and i don`t expect everyone to agree with me/us but i think if you lived here you might have a better understanding of how we feel. [not if were right or wrong] we should have the option of being selfish. But the sad truth is USO is $*)Q!#@$ it up for out of state hunters, not us residents.
 
Thanks Tony...that is well put together..

It helps a lot to understand the legal precidence used to support the decision. Looks like we need to make the sale of antlers and hides illegal...

How does a regulation making it illegal for anyone convicted of a felony to own, be a party to ownership, operate or be a principle in any business involved with guiding and/or outfitting? That would certainly exclude Mr. Taulman, who if I understand it correctly, can no longer own of be in possession of a firearm.. That shouldn't affect any out of state hunters and would certainly be directed toward the proper person.. Does anyone object to a regulation of that nature??

:cool:
 
Originally posted by BuzzH:
Dan, read my post above, you've allowed it to happen.
Click to expand...
AHMEN!!!!! outfitter preference needs to be shut down in any state. NM has it, its time to shut it down, and put these jerks on private land where they belong
 
Delw, thanks that was good reading and enlightened me some.
I dont know why G&F did not take route 3 and outlaw the sale of any antlers and hides and that would have possibly eliminated USO right there for that was their main concern.
Also the link in Bowsite does not have correct email addresses for I tried to send a boycott email to 3 of them and the addresses were wrong.
So I am going to look them up myself and if someone does not beat me to it, I will get them posted soon I hope.
Keep up the fight and yes, we did allow this to happen by not fight them with the boycotts and other written way earlier.
Just my $0.01
 
Buzz....

I'm well aware of the States rights CURRENTLY with respect to the game animals and I'm very aware of what the issues are. Currently my state does not allow hunting on Sunday..But if you are on Federal Land (IE: Military Base Lands) you can hunt on Sunday. If the Federal Governement wants to step in on their land...they will period. Just like Indian reservation Lands can have "exceptions" to state law. MY point...which you missed...Is that things can..and will change if steps aren't taken.

Just wait......These issues are now being brought into the courts because of the vast amount of $$ being spent.

Good Luck Telling the Federal Government When, Where, What and Who can hunt. Don't you have to buy a Federal Stamp to hunt Duck in your state?
You can just as well be buying a Federal Elk Permit.

Later,
Roadtrip


Originally posted by BuzzH:
Roadtrip,

You need to brush up on who is entitled to control wildlife in the states.

The feds manage the land they own, the States manage the wildlife.

That has been upheld in the courts.

You dont understand the issue.
Click to expand...
 
Roadtrip,

Pull into reality.

In what state(s) do the feds control deer, elk, sheep, mountain goat, pronghorn, bear, mountain lion, upland birds, etc???

Which of these require a federal hunting license for any of those species?

You're example of ducks is a poor one, as federal control makes sense for lots of reasons.

The feds wont have anything to do with this AZ case, bet on it.
 
from another site

This is my notes from the meeting--good job Josh on getting on here and informing the folks!!

--------------------------------------------------
OK folks here is the low-down on the meeting. I played hooky from work and went to see what was going to be done, and it is done--for now.

The commission adopted plan "A" and added tags to certain units that had a cap on it--like trophy bull and the strip for mule deer (to name a couple) what they did was they kept the draw as it is (the draw was all done before Montoya got his way) and then they added 10.3% more tags in deer areas that are coveted, and 8.2% more tags to areas in elk areas that are coveted. What this did was allow the draw to go on as is with out taking tags away from Arizona residents, however, it did allow a lot of out of state hunters to have tags in the process.

The other option "B" was this--the game and fish would have thrown all applications back into the barrel and started over again (for deer and elk)--many of us who had tags would have lost tags because of this plan so game and fish decided that plan "A" would be best and i agree.

Now, and this is where we all have to get involved, we HAVE to go to the commission meetings from here on out to voice our opinions about out of state tags increasing, making applicants pay full price while applying (just like the old days) and supporting our Game and Fish.

The game and fish has done an excellent job handling this issue and i can assure you that they are just as upset as we all are and i can also assure you that things will change for non-res hunters in the next year.

Game and fish should have info posted on their web site and i would suggest you all go and read it.

Any questions just shoot them my way.

--------------------
Terry Herndon
Click to expand...
link

http://www.azgfd.com/artman/publish/article_126.shtml


Delw
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AvidIndoorsman
CO - Tag Allocation R v. NR - CORA Data
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
8K
jlmatthew
jlmatthew
MarvB
Conservation Group Wants to Limit New Pinedale Anticline Drilling
Replies
0
Views
571
MarvB
MarvB
D
Gotta love an honest Guide ;)
Replies
13
Views
4K
Delw
D
L
Good News for AZ Residents
Replies
1
Views
963
danr55
D
AZ402
Arizona injunction lifted
Replies
2
Views
630
danr55
D

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,061
Messages
1,945,448
Members
35,001
Latest member
samcarp

Share this page

Back
Top