BuzzH
Well-known member
Gunner, you asked how the recent USO decision will hurt resident hunters? Take a look, coming to a (shorter) hunting season near you.
Montana hunters likely to see regulation changes
By RON TSCHIDA, Chronicle Staff Writer
Montana will either have to change its big game hunting regulations or face an inevitable lawsuit from nonresident hunters disgruntled by high fees and limits on the number of licenses available, an attorney for the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks said this week.
That outlook follows a federal judge's ruling that struck down Arizona's 10 percent cap on nonresident elk and deer licenses.
"I just assume that these same plaintiffs or similar plaintiffs are going to challenge our rules," FWP attorney Tom Lane said.
In fact, those Arizona plaintiffs have already come to visit Montana officials, Lane said. They stopped short of saying they'll sue, but pointedly suggested Montana change the way it issues big game license.
U.S. District Judge Robert Broomfield ruled July 13 that by limiting nonresidents to 10 percent of available licenses, Arizona violated the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
A commercial hunter from New Mexico had sued the Arizona Fish and Game Department. He contended the state's rules deprived him of an equal opportunity to obtain elk and deer heads and antlers, which can be worth thousands of dollars to collectors. Broomfield agreed.
Lane said Montana legislators could pass a law next session making it illegal for anyone to sell the hide, head or antlers of a game animal. That could address the commerce issue the Arizona case turned on.
But it wouldn't address a growing resentment on the part of nonresidents who face steep obstacles in some cases to hunt in other states, particularly high-demand Western states.
Like Arizona, Montana has a quota for nonresident elk and deer licenses, currently 11,500. This year, 14,897 people applied for those tags.
One important difference in Montana is that any nonresident can avoid the quota by paying a higher fee for a guaranteed-issue tag, Lane said. That license requires the nonresident to hunt with a licensed guide.
But nonresidents would pay $877, or 55 times the $16 resident elk license fee, for a guaranteed tag. Nonresident hunters can enter a drawing and pay $590 for an elk license if they're lucky enough to get one, still 37 times as much as a resident pays.
Courts have ruled states have a right to treat nonresident hunters differently than residents, Lane said. FWP will probably wait to change its system "until a court tells us it's invalid," he said.
Glenn Erickson, FWP chief of field operations, said if a court action opened Montana to vast new numbers of nonresident hunters, significant changes -- probably in season lengths and types of seasons -- would be required to manage big game herds.
"A lot of those changes would be based on what hunters had to say," Erickson said, adding that the state's rule-making process includes considerable public involvement.
Montana hunters likely to see regulation changes
By RON TSCHIDA, Chronicle Staff Writer
Montana will either have to change its big game hunting regulations or face an inevitable lawsuit from nonresident hunters disgruntled by high fees and limits on the number of licenses available, an attorney for the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks said this week.
That outlook follows a federal judge's ruling that struck down Arizona's 10 percent cap on nonresident elk and deer licenses.
"I just assume that these same plaintiffs or similar plaintiffs are going to challenge our rules," FWP attorney Tom Lane said.
In fact, those Arizona plaintiffs have already come to visit Montana officials, Lane said. They stopped short of saying they'll sue, but pointedly suggested Montana change the way it issues big game license.
U.S. District Judge Robert Broomfield ruled July 13 that by limiting nonresidents to 10 percent of available licenses, Arizona violated the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.
A commercial hunter from New Mexico had sued the Arizona Fish and Game Department. He contended the state's rules deprived him of an equal opportunity to obtain elk and deer heads and antlers, which can be worth thousands of dollars to collectors. Broomfield agreed.
Lane said Montana legislators could pass a law next session making it illegal for anyone to sell the hide, head or antlers of a game animal. That could address the commerce issue the Arizona case turned on.
But it wouldn't address a growing resentment on the part of nonresidents who face steep obstacles in some cases to hunt in other states, particularly high-demand Western states.
Like Arizona, Montana has a quota for nonresident elk and deer licenses, currently 11,500. This year, 14,897 people applied for those tags.
One important difference in Montana is that any nonresident can avoid the quota by paying a higher fee for a guaranteed-issue tag, Lane said. That license requires the nonresident to hunt with a licensed guide.
But nonresidents would pay $877, or 55 times the $16 resident elk license fee, for a guaranteed tag. Nonresident hunters can enter a drawing and pay $590 for an elk license if they're lucky enough to get one, still 37 times as much as a resident pays.
Courts have ruled states have a right to treat nonresident hunters differently than residents, Lane said. FWP will probably wait to change its system "until a court tells us it's invalid," he said.
Glenn Erickson, FWP chief of field operations, said if a court action opened Montana to vast new numbers of nonresident hunters, significant changes -- probably in season lengths and types of seasons -- would be required to manage big game herds.
"A lot of those changes would be based on what hunters had to say," Erickson said, adding that the state's rule-making process includes considerable public involvement.
