# Arizona ruling on Commerce Clause



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

Judge says Arizona must revise hunt draw process immediately

Wildlife News 
July 19, 2004

The Arizona Game and Fish Commission today decided to allocate more hunt permits for bull elk and deer to satisfy a court ruling.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Robert Broomfield threw out Arizona's 10 percent cap on nonresident hunt permits, saying it violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Today the judge denied the state's request for more time to comply with his order, essentially forcing Arizona to retool the hunt draw process.

Following today's ruling, the choice before the commission was to either throw out the results of this year's drawing for all elk and deer and re-conduct the draw- or to issue additional permit tags, many of them to nonresidents who may have been shut-out of the first drawing.

The commission chose to allocate an additional 805 hunt permits.

"We had to follow the judge's order," says Deputy Director Steve Ferrell, "and we determined that allocating more permits would harm the fewest amount of people without significantly affecting wildlife, either."

Those hunters already drawn for bull elk or drawn for antlered deer in Hunt Units 12A, 12B, 13A and 13B will receive permits as planned before the court ruling was issued.

In order to accommodate the judge's order, an additional list of applicants will be assembled, consisting of hunters who had the lowest random numbers issued during the draw process. That list will then be sorted without using the nonresident cap, resulting in an additional 805 hunters who will receive a permit. Although most of the new permits will go to nonresidents, some Arizonans will benefit, too, because some will be for residents who applied to hunt with nonresident friends.

"Given the constraints imposed by the judge, we think this system is the best choice to benefit all Arizona hunters," says Ferrell. "If we had to conduct the entire draw again, many hunters would not receive their permits in time to adequately plan their trip, and that would affect a lot of people who make their living in hunting-related businesses. And in terms of the effect on wildlife, because only a small number of hunt units are affected, we've determined that a one-time increase in permits will not significantly affect wildlife resources."

The additional permits will affect a relatively small percentage of hunt units-only 42 of 165 elk hunt units, and 9 of 108 deer hunt units.

"Most important," says Ferrell, " is that every Arizona hunter who was already drawn this fall will receive a permit. We're not taking away any permits from residents."

The delay in the draw process will also cause a slight delay in permit mailings. Hunters selected in the original drawing can check to see whether they've been awarded a permit by checking the department Web site, azgfd.com, July 21. Hunters who receive the additional tags will be notified no later than Aug. 10 for hunts that begin in mid-September.

Those hunters who were successful in the original drawing will receive their permits in the mail by July 30, and those who receive one of the additional permits-resident and nonresident-will receive their permits by Aug. 30.

Meantime, the department is poised to release the names of applicants who have been drawn for species not affected by the court ruling: buffalo, bighorn sheep, turkey and antelope. Hunters who put in for those species can learn their status no later than 5 p.m. on July 20.

More than 100 hunters attended today's commission meeting. More than 270,000 people applied for big game permits for the fall hunt.

Before the close of the meeting today, Game and Fish Director Duane Shroufe thanked his staff for working "12 to 16 hour days since this ruling came down." He also thanked the Game and Fish Commission for its decisiveness and hunters for their support of the department. Shroufe said this ruling would affect many other states besides Arizona.

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


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

There goes the 1% nonresident deer allocation to nonresidents in ND. The outfitters are starting to gain momentum nation wide.


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

Don't you think 1% is just a little on the low side, I mean for crying out loud I know some residents that get five and six tags with the ability to hunt every type of deer season that ND has to offer. I don't mind a cap as long as it is reasonable, and gives a NR a chance at a tag, I have applied for a buck tag a few times and was offered a doe tag turned it down, I figure if I am going to spend $250.00 on a tag I sure as heck want to tag a buck. I can shoot doe's here in MN for $12.00 each in certain cases or parts of MN a person can legally tag five deer and no lottery all over the counter tags. Our NR tags are $150.00 for over the counter and you can shoot a buck on that tag. I would love to hunt for one of those trophy deer that northern ND is known for. I have seen several huge monsters while waterfowling up there, they are the kind, deer hunters dream of. All I am saying is that it would be nice to have a reasonable chance at a buck tag. I never have and never will hunt with a guide unless required by law in that state (Alaska), I just think that the average joe that busts his hump all year that's looking to give himself a treat or retreat from normal life should be able to go out on a quality freelance hunt and have a reasonable chance at a buck who cares about whacking a doe? For the last 14 years I have hunted bucks only (my personal rule) and only one time, have I not filled my tag and that was the year after I lost my dad, my heart just wasn't in it that year. Then I took a young man under my wing took him to firearms training, practiced with his rifle and he got his first deer in his second season, a nice doe 145lbs dressed at the meat locker. His third year, last year he got a dandy little eight pionter, I'm not sure who was happier him or me. I always let him shoot his deer first and help him take care of it so it's done properly. Then I get mine, it amazing how rewarding it feels to see him harvest that deer,I can't wait until my own son is old enough to start going along with me he is 17months old now, so it will be a couple of years. Anyway sorry about drifting off of the subject, I just think that ND should offer a little higher percentage of NR tags or a fixed number would be alright as well, by the way I understand and I could be wrong about this but, the ND guides can purchase up to half of the NR tags before the lottery does any one know for sure if that is a true statement, or a myth? If it is true it really makes getting a tag difficult.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Since G/O can get a lot of the non-res. tags...why would we want to increase that number???Waterfowl G/O are leasing up enough land...why give deer G/O the chance to lease more.

Plus those 5-6 tags res. get are mostly doe tags...which you say you don't want.We can only get 1 rifle buck tag.

In some units it is difficult to get buck tags...especially mule deer.Why would we want to let in more apps for those hard to get tags???


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

NO-WAY!!! on increasing the NR buck tags. Most of us ND residents have to wait 2-3 years in most zones for a whitetail gun lottery tag the way it is now. The rest of the 3-4 tags are for does. We'll fight any increase in the buck licenses in the legislature in 2005. If you want a reasonable chance to get a buck tag in northern ND then I'd say you better move over here...assuming you think a reasonable chance is one out of every 3 years. (or purchase a NR bow tag) I'd love to go to the local hardware store and just buy a buck tag over the counter. I'd say any legislator that even proposed an increase either is a outfitter, leases his land to an outfitter or just plain doesn't care if he keep his job very long because although many ND's don't waterfowl or upland hunt the deer hunting in a deeply embedded tradition for the entire state and most leg's don't dare mess around with it a whole lot.

Unless you're not aware...ND only gives out, in the last couple of years, 120,000 -145,000 licenses...total. I can remember 20 years or so ago when many of us couldn't even get a doe license every year much less a buck tag. I think the MN harvest is probably 2x those figures and thats after a 35% success rate. There are just fewer deer and hence fewer opportunities to harvest a buck over here in ND.

Just so you think I'm not a complete idiot.....nice job on the recruitment of a younger hunter. We need much more of that in the near future.


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

Stenehjem says that Arizona ruling shouldn't affect lawsuit against N.D.

By DALE WETZEL, Associated Press Writer

A federal judge's decision to throw out an Arizona cap on hunting licenses for out-of-state sportsmen should not affect a North Dakota fight over duck hunting access, Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said.

Minnesota's attorney general, Mike Hatch, and U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., are suing the state of North Dakota in federal court in Bismarck, arguing that some state restrictions on visiting duck hunters are illegal.

Stenehjem is asking U.S. District Judge Dan Hovland to dismiss the lawsuit. Minnesota attorneys have asked the judge to hear oral arguments on the motion. Both requests are pending.

Earlier this month, Robert Broomfield, a federal judge in Phoenix, tossed out Arizona's 10 percent limit on nonresident hunting permits for bull elk and antlered deer north of the Colorado River. The judge ruled the cap violates the U.S. Constitution's protection of freedom to do business across state lines.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department had already conducted its hunting permit lotteries for bull elk and deer, using the nonresident restrictions. When Broomfield declined to delay the effective date of his order, the agency decided to issue another 805 hunting permits, most of which will go to nonresident hunters.

Stenehjem said Broomfield was only following the direction of a federal appeals court in San Francisco, which ruled in August 2002 that Arizona's treatment of nonresident hunters was unconstitutional.

Broomfield had originally sided with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, ruling that hunting was recreation, not interstate commerce. However, the federal appeals court reversed his decision. The lawsuit was filed by a group of hunting guides, who sought more chances for their clients to hunt trophy animals in Arizona.

Stenehjem said the federal appeals court's decision ran counter to other rulings that concluded that animals are not objects of interstate commerce. Its ruling is taken into account in North Dakota's court filings in the Minnesota lawsuit, and Broomfield's latest decision does not affect the state's case, Stenehjem said.

"The ruling from the (federal appeals court) is one we've already dealt with," he said. "This particular decision from the district judge isn't going to make one bit of difference to our case."


----------

