The litigation ended the discrimination against guides from out of state, but that was just the beginning. What followed next was the so-called Terk case in Mexico, which I handled. The Terk case directly involved the rights of non-resident hunters as distinguished from guides from out of state. The precipitating event was a move by the state to overturn this 20-year-old case. Specifically, the state attempted to set aside an injunction prohibiting it from giving non-residents less chance at licenses for bighorn and desert sheep, ibex and oryx than residents. We stopped them from doing so, and in the process we got the Federal Court to confirm two things. First, that the US Constitution Equal Protection clause mandates that states have to have a legitimate reason to discriminate against non-resident hunters in license allocations. Second, that it is unconstitutional to discriminate against out-of-state hunters for the purpose of preferring citizens of the State or because of popular local demand. That was not considered an acceptable reason. Rather, discrimination arising from local popular opinion was the very thing that the Equal Protection Clause was intended to prevent. It is the only case of its kind.
In another case this year, the State of Utah quickly withdrew a law denying non-resident guides and hunters licenses to "pursue" mountain lion and black bear........(continued)