Arizona court decision could affect Oregon's tag process.

Byline: INSIDE THE OUTDOORS By Mike Stahlberg The Register-Guard

Federal judges normally deal with matters beyond the ken of outdoor writers.

But that changed last week when a federal judge in Phoenix declared unconstitutional an Arizona law limiting the number of hunting tags that can go to non-residents.

District Judge Robert Broomfield said a law assuring that 90 percent of Arizona's deer and elk permits go to residents of that state violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Broomfield prohibited Arizona from using the cap in the upcoming draw for fall elk and deer tags, in effect forcing Arizona's Game and Fish Commission to distribute deer and elk permits in a way that does not discriminate against out-of-state applicants.

The ruling casts a shadow over Oregon and other states that show favoritism to their own residents in the issuing of hunting tags. Oregon, in fact, is even more parochial than Arizona, limiting non-residents to no more than 5 percent of the tags available in controlled deer and elk hunts.

United States Outfitter Inc. and three professional hunters and guides from New Mexico challenged the Arizona cap on permits, claiming it unfairly restricted their right to do business in Arizona.

Broomfield initially ruled against the plaintiffs, saying hunting is recreation, not interstate commerce.

However, his ruling was overturned in 2002 by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said the cap substantially affects and discriminates against interstate commerce.

Arizona - joined by 21 other states, including Oregon - appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2003.

They filed a brief which argued that "recreational hunting does not qualify as interstate commerce" and that "wildlife does not constitute an article of commerce."

The Supreme Court refused to consider the appeal. That sent the case back to Broomfield's court and a determination whether Arizona has other means to advance its legitimate interests.

State officials argued that they need to favor Arizona residents in order to create and maintain a constituency supportive of wildlife management programs.

Broomfield, however, said that while the state's goals of protecting recreational hunting opportunities and conserving game populations are legitimate, those goals can be achieved via alternatives to a 10 percent cap.

Oregon officials are now trying to figure out what to do.

"At this point, we're not sure what the impacts will be to Oregon," said Ron Anglin, director of the state Wildlife Division.

Meanwhile, on another matter, Oregon hunters and anglers can breath a sigh of relief - no fee increases are included in the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's proposed $232 million budget for the 2005-07 biennium.

The budget proposal, approved recently by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission, "will maintain all existing programs and services," according to an agency news release. Of course, the governor and the 2005 Legislature will have the final say, so anything could happen before a final spending plan is adopted.

Finally, turkey hunters should be pleased with the draft of Oregon's Wild Turkey Management Plan, which says the big birds have no significant adverse impact on native wildlife or plants - an issue that could have threatened the turkey program.

There is no data, the plan says, to "substantiate significant competition between wild turkey and other wildlife, or that turkeys negatively impact plant populations." The document, however, acknowledges that turkey "can cause nuisance or damage problems." During 2002 and 2003, a total of 284 turkey damage complaints were filed with ODFW biologists.

The combined financial loss claimed in those complaints: $25,792.

The turkey plan will be up for adoption at an Aug. 6 Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting in Gresham.

Mike Stahlberg can be reached at [e-mail].