There is a general perception that residents of a state should have a better chance to get tags to hunt animals within that state over a non-resident (I believe this). The argument is state residents pay for upkeep and such of said animals through license fees, local and state taxes, management, ground ownage etc etc. There is also a feeling of hunting being a "perk" of living within states that offer good hunting.
USO's litigation will definitely have an impact on the draw odds as an even split will have to go to non-residents. This very much means that some non-residents might now go their whole lives and not draw a tag to hunt an elk that lives on their own property (an extreme example I know, but potentually true).
Time will tell how it shakes out. Personally I'd rather support what Nevada is trying to do by making guided hunting illegal (note to opponents: it doesnt mean the death of the small guides... they just become "outfitters" packing your gear into areas for you. Kindof like how an Alaskan Air taxi that takes you to a Caribou herd isnt a guide... you still need and pay them). It would eliminate the USO thing though.
-DallanC
