I didn't draw an Arizona elk tag, again. That's okay. I don't expect to draw with the long odds, but I threw my name in the hat again, nonetheless.

Some people aren't as comfortable with the Arizona system. A huge commercial outfitter who runs numbers of camps in states across the West, filed suit a couple of years ago to challenge the state's cap on non-resident tags. The odds of fighting the state's propriety to manage its own animals for the benefit of its own hunters weren't good, so, the outfitter cleverly chose to use constitutional issues as a platform for the lawsuit. He didn't even put his own name on the docket, but rather, that of a client.

In short, Montoya Vs. Arizona said that the state's 10-percent cap on non-resident draw tags (adopted in 1990) violated interstate commerce laws and the ability of non-residents to cross the border to do business.

The outfitter won in a decision by a Federal court this year. But let's get this straight. This suit wasn't about protecting our hunting rights or creating more opportunity for you and me in a place like Arizona, or for that matter, guarding a hunter's right to conduct business, though that's the last thing I'm thinking of when I set out to go hunting.

It's quite amusing, really, that the "value" of the trophies themselves were made part of the issue. The suit contended that the ability to buy a non-resident tag, take an animal and sell the hide or horns is a constitutional right, therefore the state is interfering with a hunter's right to cross the state line and engage in business. Like so many other states, Arizona allows the selling of animal parts, other than meat.

Now, there's no doubt that many hunters place a high value on trophy horns, but I don't think I know anybody who hunts that does so for the monetary value of horns or hides.

I don't mind that a state like Arizona that produces desert bighorns, world record antelope, world record buffalo, Coues deer, and some of the largest elk in the world places a cap on non-residents to protect its resident hunters. These aren't migratory birds, after all. They are the state's own resources. I feel privileged to be able to hunt in a place like Arizona. It may take me 10 years to draw an elk tag, but when I do, I know I'll be hunting behemoth bulls in a place that's not overrun with archers.

Though the outfitter won this round, Arizona has come up with some clever ideas to thwart the ruling.

They're considering adopting any of nine measures that might discourage non-residents, including up front tag fees when applying, mandated purchase of a general hunting license when applying for drawings, increased license fees and the possible elimination of on-line applications. The measures are designed to limit applications, not tags, and to give residents a further leg.

Of course, the fallout of the court's recent decision in Arizona will be widely felt. Other states that limit non-residents may be forced to hand over more non-resident tags, and they, in turn, like Arizona, will turn up the prices and the hassle for non-resident applicants in an effort to discourage applications.

The net result will have zero effect on hunters with big money. Expensive draw fees don't scare them. But the ruling could put the hurt on the common man who wants to someday hunt in a place like Arizona.

Thanks to our outfitter friend who filed the lawsuit and wasn't even willing to put his own name on the docket, we'll be feeling the spin-off of this selfish action for years to come.