USO: Lawyer letter to AZGF

[diablo]

James R. Scarantino Attorney At Law 714 Montc1aire NE ? Albuquerque, NM 87110 (505) 250-8754 ? (505) 232-4515 Fax

 

 

December 22, 2004 Duane L. Shroufe Director Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 W. Greenway Road Phoenix, AZ 85023-4399

 

Re: Proposed License/Tag Fee Ceiling Increases

 

Dear Director Shroufe:

 

I write on behalf of United States Outfitters and its many nonresident clients. We wish to share our views on the proposed statutory increases to the license/tag fee ceilings. While we understand that the proposal is phrased merely as an increase in the fee ceilings, we cannot overlook the fact that once the ceilings are raised by the Legislature, the Commission by rule making may then set the fees at any level within that range. Therefore, we view the request to increase the fee ceilings as a request by the Commission for authority to at some point in time increase the actual fees to the maximum level authorized by the Legislature.

 

The growing real disparity between resident and nonresident fees as reflected in the proposals is cause for great concern. Nonresidents already are being unfairly burdened by having to pay much more for the same opportunity to hunt game. This unfairness is made even worse by the fact that the majority of those hunting opportunities take place on federal public lands, lands owned and supported equally by all Americans, regardless of their place of residence. There are limits to the extent to which nonresidents can be expected to tolerate and overlook being subjected to discrimination. The proposed fee increases exceed the limits of tolerance.

 

Under the proposal a nonresident could be charged $775 for the same bull elk hunt for which, at most, a resident would only be charged $150. In the case of a premium bull elk tag, nonresidents could be charged as much as $3200, compared to only $350 for residents. Further examples of outrageous disparities are found throughout the proposed fee ceiling table being circulated for comments, including but not limited to the proposals concerning deer, premium deer, antelope and bighorn sheep license/tag fees.

 

We also wish to object to the fact that the spread between nonresident and resident could be increasing. For instance, currently nonresidents pay five times more for an antelope tag than residents. Under the proposal, nonresidents could be paying 7 times as much.

 

Duane L. Shroufe December 22, 2004 Page Two

 

Under the current fee structure, nonresidents pay 5.13 times as much as residents for a bighorn sheep tag. The proposal could increase this differential to a factor of 8.96. Nonresidents may currently purchase Class G General licenses for 4.45 times as much as the resident rate. Under the proposal, they could have to pay as much as 5.3 times for the same license. And, by way of one more example, currently residents pay 4.03 times as much as residents for a Class F Combination license. Under the proposal, they will have to pay nearly $100 more, whereas residents would at most face only a $16 additional levy.

 

The sheer difference in the amount that could be charged residents versus nonresidents is what makes the proposals unacceptable. There is no rational basis for the disparities. The true costs to society of a bull elk hunt, for example, are not reflected in the amount that residents could be charged. The same holds true for other species. Furthermore, it does not cost hundreds or thousands of dollars more to administer a nonresident deer, bull elk or premium bull elk hunt than it costs to administer similar resident hunts. The only plausible explanation for the differential is to (a) force nonresidents to increase their subsidy of resident hunting on federal public lands and elsewhere in Arizona and ( to intentionally discriminate against nonresidents in access to hunting opportunities.

 

The disparities are so extreme we believe they are also intended as a means of defying the District Court's decision in Montova v. Shroufe. There exist many recorded declarations, including statements from the Commission, that nonresident fees would be raised to punitive levels as another means of excluding nonresidents and also retaliating against nonresidents for daring to successfully vindicate their federal constitutional rights.

 

Even under the United States Supreme Court decision in Baldwin v. Montana Game and Fish Commission, there are limits to the degree to which nonresidents may be subjected to discriminatory fee structures. As I need not remind you, in light of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Conservation Force v. Manning, nonresidents can challenge Arizona's discriminatory fees under Commerce Clause strict scrutiny. Arizona would have to prove that it had no other means to serve its legitimate purposes of maintaining resident hunting opportunity and conserving wildlife except to charge the precise discriminatory fees being charged nonresidents. It would have to demonstrate that no lesser range of nonresident fees would serve those purposes. I do not think I overstate the case when I say that such a burden would be impossible to meet.

 

Losing a Commerce Clause challenge to discriminatory fee structures would not only expose Arizona to sizable claims for attorney fees, it would also expose Arizona to claims for monetary damages, and certainly refunds with interest to all nonresidents who had paid the discriminatory fee. This would impose additional legal and administrative costs upon the Department that would be better spent in game conservation programs.

 

Nonresidents already bear a disproportionate share of the costs of game management in Arizona. They do not mind paying more to some reasonable extent. But, as I said when I addressed the Commission in Safford, there are limits to nonresidents' tolerance. The Duane L. Shroufe December 22, 2004 Page Three

 

Commission cannot act unreasonably and expect nonresidents to acquiesce in being mistreated and callously exploited.

 

I note that in the explanation you have given for the fee ceiling proposals, you point to the fact that license sales fell 16% from 1998through 2003. This drop-off occurred during the period of time the Department was vigorously resisting allowing any more licenses to be sold to nonresidents. To some extent, the Department and Commission must accept responsibility for the fiscal pressures behind the need to raise license sales. Had the Department negotiated a reasonable increase in nonresident access when we first invited settlement in 1997, it likely would not be facing the same fiscal pressures it confronts today. Moreover, if the Department were to factor into its calculations increased sales to nonresidents, at fair rather than punitive license fee levels, I think you would find even less justification for the astronomical ceilings proposed for nonresident licenses. The Department could continue to benefit from nonresident subsidy of resident hunting, without forcing nonresidents to take legal action to protect their rights.

 

We also strongly believe that residents need to begin to pay more of a fair price for the privilege of hunting big game. There are real costs to preserving habitat and raising a large game animal to maturity. The fair market value of big game hunts is far above what residents are currently paying, or will be paying under the ceiling increase proposals. Making residents realize the true costs of game management will have the salutary result of promoting greater interest in increasing hunting opportunities by conserving more wildlife habitat. The real force driving up the costs of hunting is the conflict between an exploding human population and the need for more wildlife habitat. Nonresidents are not the cause of increased resident hunting fees; they have been and will likely continue to be a moderating force that helps hunting continue to be an affordable activity. Nonresident tolerance for the extent to which they are being exploited is, however, reaching a breaking point, leaving litigation as their only recourse.

 

We believe the entire proposal should be reconsidered. The Department's needs for expanded funding should be addressed with fairness to nonresidents in mind, as well as adherence to the legal restraints against discriminating against nonresidents in their access to hunting opportunities.

 

We hope you and the Commission will take these comments into consideration in reformulating your approach to future license fee structures.

 

Sincerely,

 

JAMES R. SCARANTINO

[bowsniper]

I sure hope G&F has the guts to stand up to these out of state creeps! I am really getting sick of out of state interests trying to control things here in Arizona. It really pisses me off!!

 

Bowsniper

[bowhunter4life]

I second that !!!!! we as a group need to send letters to the g @ f @ let them know they should charge at least that amount to out of state hunters.I don't here or see them going to az big game auctions and donating $$$$$ to az wildlife.what about the drought we did not see them helping keep water filled in our water holes..it's all about the $ with these guys. mike

[ultramag]

well i think the time has passed and it is now. we should get as many people as we can and meet these azz holes some where and make them want no part of az.

[newbee]

I F###'N hate lawyer BS I realy love how every one wants a free ride.

this type of BS is what inspires crooks to sue home owners for injuries obtained during a crime! we should simply keep our tags too our self- take the alotted % for the out of towners and for a nominal non-refundable fee hold a raffle $10- $20,$30 ? open to all even if you filled your tag. I easily spend $20 on crap a year might as well go to support something love to do!

 

Quick poll :who would throw $20 extra on a hunting lic,if it entered you into a drawing for coues-muley-elk-buffalo-big horn- prong horn ..sh%t jackalopes. I would, in a heart beat!!

[wetmule]

Sorry, not sure how Newbees post got doubled.

I'm kinda wonderin who's runnin the AZ G&F Dept. is it Shroufe or Taulman and his Attorney. I'm leanin towards Beavis and Butthead (Taulman & Scumbagtino).

I guess we should'nt be too surprised to see that a lawyer wrote a letter threatening to file suit if it things did'nt go his way -- duh! afterall that is what attorneys do. I'm also thinkin that these threats may work on our spineless Commission, I'm very disgusted with the whole lot of them. Don't know why they won't just do away with the sale of antlers and their parts etc., give the non-res a percentage of the total number of tags and just end this stinkin Fiasco.

[Manamal]

What pisses me off about the whole deal is the AZGFD knew about a possible suit three years ago and did'nt see that sissy georgie boy as a real threat. All they had to do is change that damned inter-state commerce law and this whole mess would have been avoided. As far as the price increace, I say "Sky High" for nonres. Other states charge an arm and a leg to hunt some of their premium units so we should too, without the constant bitching from georgie. His clients are rich, well most of them anyways, and would have no problem droping a few grand to hunt monster bulls or bucks OUR BULLS AND BUCKS!! Really, how does this make sense... You go to New Mexico to hunt, and the animals you are after are owned by the state of New Mexico, you come back to AZ and you are hunting animals that belong to The United States Of America, what gives. I think this guy and his posse of lowlife scum are gonna spread through the west like wildfire unless the AZGFD and Comission get some better lawyers, grow some nuts and take on the fight. This twirp isnt going away. We need to stop him now before its too late. What ever happened to good 'ol vigilante justice?

[KGAINES]

Could a group of hunters get together and hire their own lawyers, I think every hunter in the west has a vested interest in how this plays out.

[AZLance]

All Concerned Sportsmen,

 

USO and their attorney James Scarantino are at it again. They are threatening to sue the AZGFD on grounds that the difference in fees between residents and nonresidents for the proposed caps are unconstitutional. You can read the letter to the Director below.

 

FYI, the attorneys telephone # is 505-250-8754. I urge you to call and let him know what a piece of $!@# he really is. Lets shut clog up his phone system for the next few days...

 

Here is the letter...

 

 

James R. Scarantino Attorney At Law 714 Montc1aire NE ? Albuquerque, NM 87110 (505) 250-8754 ? (505) 232-4515 Fax

December 22, 2004 Duane L. Shroufe Director Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 W. Greenway Road Phoenix, AZ 85023-4399

Re: Proposed License/Tag Fee Ceiling Increases

Dear Director Shroufe:

I write on behalf of United States Outfitters and its many nonresident clients. We wish to share our views on the proposed statutory increases to the license/tag fee ceilings. While we understand that the proposal is phrased merely as an increase in the fee ceilings, we cannot overlook the fact that once the ceilings are raised by the Legislature, the Commission by rule making may then set the fees at any level within that range. Therefore, we view the request to increase the fee ceilings as a request by the Commission for authority to at some point in time increase the actual fees to the maximum level authorized by the Legislature.

The growing real disparity between resident and nonresident fees as reflected in the proposals is cause for great concern. Nonresidents already are being unfairly burdened by having to pay much more for the same opportunity to hunt game. This unfairness is made even worse by the fact that the majority of those hunting opportunities take place on federal public lands, lands owned and supported equally by all Americans, regardless of their place of residence. There are limits to the extent to which nonresidents can be expected to tolerate and overlook being subjected to discrimination. The proposed fee increases exceed the limits of tolerance.

Under the proposal a nonresident could be charged $775 for the same bull elk hunt for which, at most, a resident would only be charged $150. In the case of a premium bull elk tag, nonresidents could be charged as much as $3200, compared to only $350 for residents. Further examples of outrageous disparities are found throughout the proposed fee ceiling table being circulated for comments, including but not limited to the proposals concerning deer, premium deer, antelope and bighorn sheep license/tag fees.

We also wish to object to the fact that the spread between nonresident and resident could be increasing. For instance, currently nonresidents pay five times more for an antelope tag than residents. Under the proposal, nonresidents could be paying 7 times as much.

Duane L. Shroufe December 22, 2004 Page Two

Under the current fee structure, nonresidents pay 5.13 times as much as residents for a bighorn sheep tag. The proposal could increase this differential to a factor of 8.96. Nonresidents may currently purchase Class G General licenses for 4.45 times as much as the resident rate. Under the proposal, they could have to pay as much as 5.3 times for the same license. And, by way of one more example, currently residents pay 4.03 times as much as residents for a Class F Combination license. Under the proposal, they will have to pay nearly $100 more, whereas residents would at most face only a $16 additional levy.

The sheer difference in the amount that could be charged residents versus nonresidents is what makes the proposals unacceptable. There is no rational basis for the disparities. The true costs to society of a bull elk hunt, for example, are not reflected in the amount that residents could be charged. The same holds true for other species. Furthermore, it does not cost hundreds or thousands of dollars more to administer a nonresident deer, bull elk or premium bull elk hunt than it costs to administer similar resident hunts. The only plausible explanation for the differential is to (a) force nonresidents to increase their subsidy of resident hunting on federal public lands and elsewhere in Arizona and ( to intentionally discriminate against nonresidents in access to hunting opportunities.

The disparities are so extreme we believe they are also intended as a means of defying the District Court's decision in Montova v. Shroufe. There exist many recorded declarations, including statements from the Commission, that nonresident fees would be raised to punitive levels as another means of excluding nonresidents and also retaliating against nonresidents for daring to successfully vindicate their federal constitutional rights.

Even under the United States Supreme Court decision in Baldwin v. Montana Game and Fish Commission, there are limits to the degree to which nonresidents may be subjected to discriminatory fee structures. As I need not remind you, in light of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Conservation Force v. Manning, nonresidents can challenge Arizona's discriminatory fees under Commerce Clause strict scrutiny. Arizona would have to prove that it had no other means to serve its legitimate purposes of maintaining resident hunting opportunity and conserving wildlife except to charge the precise discriminatory fees being charged nonresidents. It would have to demonstrate that no lesser range of nonresident fees would serve those purposes. I do not think I overstate the case when I say that such a burden would be impossible to meet.

Losing a Commerce Clause challenge to discriminatory fee structures would not only expose Arizona to sizable claims for attorney fees, it would also expose Arizona to claims for monetary damages, and certainly refunds with interest to all nonresidents who had paid the discriminatory fee. This would impose additional legal and administrative costs upon the Department that would be better spent in game conservation programs.

Nonresidents already bear a disproportionate share of the costs of game management in Arizona. They do not mind paying more to some reasonable extent. But, as I said when I addressed the Commission in Safford, there are limits to nonresidents' tolerance. The Duane L. Shroufe December 22, 2004 Page Three

Commission cannot act unreasonably and expect nonresidents to acquiesce in being mistreated and callously exploited.

I note that in the explanation you have given for the fee ceiling proposals, you point to the fact that license sales fell 16% from 1998through 2003. This drop-off occurred during the period of time the Department was vigorously resisting allowing any more licenses to be sold to nonresidents. To some extent, the Department and Commission must accept responsibility for the fiscal pressures behind the need to raise license sales. Had the Department negotiated a reasonable increase in nonresident access when we first invited settlement in 1997, it likely would not be facing the same fiscal pressures it confronts today. Moreover, if the Department were to factor into its calculations increased sales to nonresidents, at fair rather than punitive license fee levels, I think you would find even less justification for the astronomical ceilings proposed for nonresident licenses. The Department could continue to benefit from nonresident subsidy of resident hunting, without forcing nonresidents to take legal action to protect their rights.

We also strongly believe that residents need to begin to pay more of a fair price for the privilege of hunting big game. There are real costs to preserving habitat and raising a large game animal to maturity. The fair market value of big game hunts is far above what residents are currently paying, or will be paying under the ceiling increase proposals. Making residents realize the true costs of game management will have the salutary result of promoting greater interest in increasing hunting opportunities by conserving more wildlife habitat. The real force driving up the costs of hunting is the conflict between an exploding human population and the need for more wildlife habitat. Nonresidents are not the cause of increased resident hunting fees; they have been and will likely continue to be a moderating force that helps hunting continue to be an affordable activity. Nonresident tolerance for the extent to which they are being exploited is, however, reaching a breaking point, leaving litigation as their only recourse.

We believe the entire proposal should be reconsidered. The Department's needs for expanded funding should be addressed with fairness to nonresidents in mind, as well as adherence to the legal restraints against discriminating against nonresidents in their access to hunting opportunities.

We hope you and the Commission will take these comments into consideration in reformulating your approach to future license fee structures.

Sincerely,

JAMES R. SCARANTINO

 

 

Arizona Hunters Who Care

azhunterswhocare@hotmail.com

[ultramag]

what i am wondering is if you live in lets say iowa.Would you look at this and say it about time arizona is getting their butt hicked.or is the opinion likewise for everybody around the country.i guess what am asking Is taulman a hero in other parts of the counrty?

[az4life]

That Lawyah, James Scarantino can go RTGY SSDFAETT AERQWER NMRYSFF.

 

Interpretation is he is a lowlife blob of pod scum, and may the prions of a thousand Chronic Wasting Diseased deer infest his body and soul.

 

Whatever the non resident fees are proposed, Triple them.

If Scarantino is so concerned about fair and equal treatment, tell him to clean up his own state before looking to AZ.

 

This litigation and political management is the end of hunting as we knew it.

[hunterdude]

LARK where are you when we need you. I think we need to start a revalution against USO and the sharks working for him.

[coueshunter]

For what its worth, our own AZGFD and commissioners should be accountable for alot of the mess we are in as well as figuring a way out of it. They took our online surveys and spoke with us the public in meetings and then made decisions completely against what we asked them to do. They did this a few years ago by not negotiating with the 10% cap and now they are sitting idly by hoping the problem goes away. I have no faith in our commissioners or management at AZGFD.......Please everyone join the "Arizona Hunters who care" and get on their email chain. They are very pro-active like Arizona Deer Association and they can organize and help all of us hunters resident and non-resident alike to stop this train before it blankets the whole western united states.......Allen.....

[jlhcoues]

Has anyone ever seen what N.M. charges currently for non resident elk? Ithink its around 700 for the so called quality hunt, plus only a certain percent go to non residents without a guide. To me this is the pot calling the kettle black, George needs to look at his own back yard first. I have run into him before on lower eagle creek, him and Zumbo and believe me they are both a-holes

[Manamal]

This afternoon I talked with someone from the AZGFD about the issues at hand. She said regarding the fee increases, that the G&F had to basically bargain with the legislature to find fees that will work out for everyone. The G&F goes in with an outragousely high number and the legislature will then state their recomendation for a price, then its the G&F's turn, and back and forth untill an agreement is made. They will be in front of the legislature in April, and once again did not seem too concerened about the situation. She did mention that it could take a couple years for the increases to be in effect. She had an "It will all work out in the end" attitude. I asked if a group of hunters could hire a lawyer as was posted earlier and she said no, and changed the topic to the comission. We spoke for a while about the comission and I suggested getting some new blood in there. She was adament in stating that all the people on the comission are hunters and looking out for the best interest of Arizona hunters. I don't think I was talking to the right person down there but at least I found out that they are going about this with a laid back attitude. Not the right approach to take imo. I have also put a couple calls in to Scarintino, and have not heard back.

 

ultramag

 

I would hope the people in other states can see can see just how unethical Taulman and his lawer are being. After all this whole thing is based on a lie. The interstate commerce law in question says that the antlers, cape, and teeth(ivories) can be sold off of animals taken in Arizona. Taulman looks at the then 10% cap and says he is being restricted on the amount of money he can make on our federal land. Just how many antlers and teeth does this guy sell? Probably none, but he saw a loophole in this law that would get him more tags. Who sells antlers anymore anyway with reproductions so readily available? As far as Taulman being a "hero" in other parts of the country, I think not. He is the reason for the price increases, bottom line, and may make it impossible for an out of state hunter to afford a tag. Besides, he is going after other states and not just AZ.