USO -see what you think?

[groundshrink]

Thought you all might like to see what Senator Hatch (UT) sent me in reply to my letter to him about this USO vs Arizona non- res. permit thing here's what he said.

"Thank you for writing to express you concerns about a recent court ruling that found the State of Arizona's cap on ceratin nonresident hunting permits to be unconstitutional. I appreciate your comments and welcome the opportunity to respond.
As you know, the Arizona Game and Fish Department placed a 10 percent cap on nonresident hunting permits on bull elk and some antlered deer. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the cap violates the Constitution's protection's for interstate commerce. It is my understanding that the State of Arizona is still trying to resolve the issue in the Court.
I share your concerns about this decision. Traditionally, state governements have maintained the principal responsibility for regulating hunting activities within their boundaries. I continue to believe that the state legislators and regulators should establish hunting regulations. Additionally, hunting is primarily a recreational sport, and I believe that the Ninth Circuit's decision inappropriately claims that these hunting regulations relate to interstate commerce. As a Untied States Senator, I am limited in my ability to intervene in the courts. Rest assured, however, that I will continue to monitor this situation to determine whether congressional oversight or action is needed.
Again, thank you for bringing your views to my attention."

I had contacted Senator Hatch because it concerns me that again Federal Court has jumped at the chance to meddle in State affairs! I told him I felt States have sole ownership of the big game within their boundaries and therefore should have the right to regulate harvest as set by their respective Game department My opinion. - Something I picked up at a cacause meeting is that it takes surprisingly few letters from concerned constituants about a like subject to get these elected officials to look at a problem. Taking that for what it's worth -HOW MANY OF YOU OUT THERE HAVE ASKED YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO LOOK INTO THIS?

 

[BCHunter]

I think he is right. However, as long as the Federal Gov't subsidizes (sp) a program, they feel they have a say in how it is run.

 

[cpsandman]

Good post Groundshrink. I believe we have to get involved to protect what we love so my hats off to you. Too many people sit on the couch and complain but never leave their couch to do anything about it. If I understand it correctly though, and this is where I think Senator Hatch may not have all the info on the AZ ruling, AZ allows some type of commercial sale of game animals (don't know much about this but I believe horns & etc but I'm sure someone on MM knows). Because of this you get into the commerce clause where basically any commerce that does or could cross state lines is controled by the federal gov (Congress) and thus you get the ruling by the Federal courts against AZ. So the taking of game anilmals does become interstate commerce and not just a recreational activity and that is why AZ got nailed to the wall by USO. As mentioned in a previous post, if AZ did away with any commercial sale of these animals or products then they could probably cap the out of state tags but it appears they don't want to do this based on what I have read. This is only based off the other information on this site which I don't know much about the AZ hunting regs but I'm very familiar with the commerce clause and it is basically impossible to beat USO on caps if you're dealing with interstate commerce. If hunting is purely recreational in a state then there might be a case to fight it. Having said this, it is important to get your state officails involved so they avoid this USO problem like we had in AZ. Another thought, which was mentioned a while ago on this site in a previous post, was to send letters to those companies that have any relationship or sponsership with USO. From what I read Primos and Realtree have already severed ties with USO in large part to hunter backlash. Not sure if there is still a grass roots campaign on this site going after those companies but I think I will post a message and see. Sorry I rambled on but I'm very concerned about where this is heading and I want to give you BIG PROPS for getting Senator Hatch's attention on the issue. Thanks again for the post. CPSANDMAN
"The Buck stops here...I hope!"

 

[gleninaz]

I wrote all my AZ congressmen last week and have not heard back. I am asking them to sponsor legislation to take game animals out of the commerce clause to put an end to Taulman's garbage. We also need to write the state legislature and push for a state law change since ours got us in trouble in the first place. Ya give a blow fly a little opening and pretty soon you are crawlin with maggots.

 

[groundshrink]

cpsandman & gleninaz
Thanks for the ideas and more information. Does anyone know WHY USO did this - did they not see the backlash it would create? Are they that greedy, they had to go after more this way? It appears that in the long run it will hurt them far more than they ever hoped to gain? Or am I (as usual) not seeing everything a person should look at in this case?

 

[sremim]

Just wondering if it is the selling of antlers and such that makes this a commerce clause. I was thinking it had to do with USO not getting paid because not very many non-residents drew their tags. Which is it?