Its Official...Nevada has been hit by USO!!!!

[charlie brown]

Date: 10/19/04
Contact: Kelly Clark
Phone: (775) 688-1555


OUT-OF-STATE OUTFITTERS FILE SUIT ON WILDLIFE COMMISSION, CLAIM BIG GAME QUOTA SETTING PROCESS IS UNFAIR TO NONRESIDENTS
By: Kelly Clark

A New Mexico outfitter has filed suit against the State of Nevada, claiming that the Nevada big game tag quota system discriminates against nonresidents. This lawsuit may reduce the number of big game tags allocated to residents and increase the number of tags allocated to nonresidents.
The lawsuit is based on the "dormant" Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which was adopted to give Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states, and to reduce discrimination of one state against another states' residents, or their access to goods and services.

In the complaint, filed July 20 in US District Court, Jean Taulman, Lawrence Montoya, Filiberto Valerio, and United States Outfitters, Inc., sued members of the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners and Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) Director Terry Crawforth, claiming that Nevada policy on Big Game Tag Quota Allocation discriminates against nonresidents who "suffer discrimination in access to hunting opportunities in Nevada through the imposition of quotas for each species."

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that states must justify limits on nonresidents as the least discriminatory way to protect the valid interest of the State in maintaining hunting opportunity for residents. On July 13, 2004, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona held that Arizona's system, which is similar in some respects to Nevada's, did not meet that standard.

Based on the interstate commerce clause in the United States' Constitution, the District Court enjoined Arizona from using non-resident quota caps to allocate big game tags. Arizona chose to issue an additional 805 big game tags for 2004 deer and elk hunting. Of those tags, 700 went to nonresidents and 105 went to residents. In Arizona, like Nevada, competition for big game hunts is intense.

The Board of Wildlife Commissioners plans extensive discussions on the matter at their Nov. 6, 2004 meeting in Reno, and hopes that all big game hunters will participate in that meeting, as well as at their local County Advisory Board to Manage Wildlife meetings scheduled for October. Notification about these meetings will be listed on the agency web site at www.ndow.org, and will be posted in regional newspapers as well.

The Nevada Department of Wildlife is the state agency responsible for the restoration and management of fish and wildlife resources, and the promotion of boating safety on Nevada"™s waters. Department of Wildlife offices are located in Las Vegas, Henderson, Ely, Winnemucca, Fallon, Elko, and Reno. For more information, visit the agency web site at www.ndow.org.

[charlie brown]

I just heard on the news that there will be meetings across the state regarding this on November 6th. I will make sure I am there if it is at all possible, depending on where the meeting will be held at. I can't believe these money hungry people!![:@] There are hardly any elk tags in Nevada any way, and Taulman wants more to go to nonresidents!! Lets hope that this does not pass, because it it does pass, it surely will bleed over to other states, with proof that this A-hole can get his way!![:@][:@][:@]

[cardeer]

Gee everyone suing everyone

[muley69]

God help Taulman if I ever see that piece of crap. He is systematically going to destroy western hunting. Is there anything I can do? Give me names, addresses, anything to stop this I am in.

[gleninAZ]

Write your congressman to support senate bill 2978 introduced by Harry Reid of Nevada. It guarantees the states the right to manage fish and game. It may not stop our Arizona problem due to the commerce clause but it will help in future court battles. Good luck and if you see USO drowning in a waterhole throw them an anchor.

[gselkhunter]

The problem now is the first ruling can be used in the second case. It is time to have a judge stand up for what is right, justice not law. USO is way out of line, I hope people are smart enough to quite using them. It's all about the money, this is no good for wildlife in any state.[:'(]
Gselkhunter

[Writer Guy]

See the BILL TO PROTECT STATE'S RIGHT TO MANAGE WILDLIFE thread. -TONY

[ironranger]

That stinks in more ways than the obvious ones. First I want to say "Don't blame the nonresidents as most of us are respectful of the land and the states we hunt in. It's Taulman who is the issue and his little minority of rich folks who can afford his services and the higher tag fees that will be instituted as a result of this. I am able to hunt western states about every other year or so on the "Do it yourself" budget but this lawsuit is going to hurt those of us who can't afford the high prices and it hurts the ones that have earned the right to hunt there...The residents. Arizona, from what I heard, will bump up the prices and I'm sure Nevada will follow suit if this lawsuit succeeds. I'd be the first to suggest that to the Minnesota DNR if that happened here so I don't blame AZ for doing so. So the rich folks will be able to go hunting and it will also hurt local business owners because your everyday type hunter won't be able to afford the tags so they won't be staying and spending money in the small towns that rely on it. The rich ones will be staying at the fancy lodges who are in good with Georgy T which won't help the common business owner one bit. I'm definitely against George T and don't like what he represents.