I figured it had to do with the Arizona decision handed down by the court last year softening restrictions on non-resident hunting tags. It only made sense. I'd talked to enough people to know this wasn't going to go down without a fight.

I should have guessed that Arizona's game commissioners were at least well enough connected to have a few friends in the political cosmos. I should have also figured that any politician worth his salt would see the vote potential draped across a pack of irate resident sportsmen.

I finally got the rest of the story. Nevada, another state where it's tough to draw a non-resident tag has been the next target in the battle. A suit in that state was filed soon after the outfitters prevailed in Arizona. Wyoming apparently also felt the winds blowing their way. So a new bill, sponsored by several Western lawmakers, found its way to the President's desk. The bill was attached to an emergency appropriations bill for defense, terrorism and tsunami relief. Whatever.

According to the Associated Press, the new bill states that it is "in the public interest for any state to be able to regulate fish and wildlife programs within its boundaries, 'including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and nonresidents' or fees charged." It also notes that states restrictions on non-resident tags do not fall under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, the cornerstone of outfitter's argument to force Arizona to issue more non-resident tags.

The bill's passage was not without grandstanding. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-WY, stated, "The people of Wyoming know how to manage the wildlife in our state better than the 9th Circuit Court or the federal government."

As you may remember, I took Arizona's side in the decision handed down last year. I happen to like the way Arizona manages its big game, and disagreed with the court. I thought the suit was a nuisance, but accepted the decision. You see, in Arizona, under the old system, a non-resident can earn a bonus point, and can eventually expect to draw a tag for species such as elk. Not so in Nevada.

Nevada issues no bonus points and the chances of drawing an elk tag in a lifetime are slim to none, no matter how many years you put in. Also, the big draw fees are charged up front. Still, I have applied there many times and probably will again, because they do manage their elk, sheep and even deer in a manner that assures true trophies. The fact is last year some 112,000 people applied in Nevada for 19,800 tags. Of those tags, 18,255 went to residents.

I'm concerned that, like so many other issues in America today, politicians are taking decisions out of the hands of courts and bringing them to capital hill to be decided. Now, along with feeding tubes, professional sports and religious leanings, politicians want to make all the calls, even extending their reach to game management.

I agree with this new bill, but I don't like the methods. I live in a state with no game commission, where politicians rule every natural resource decision made. That's what makes a place like Arizona so attractive to a hunter; they actually have a game commission made up of citizenry who put the resource first. Their results speak for themselves.

Hunting organizations have stayed quiet on this. But this looks to be a great topic for Petersen's Bowhunting Radio. Expect to listen to feedback from some of the players at www.bowhuntingmag.com soon.