Why do you think they will negatively impact you? I've spent some time thinking about these rule changes and it seems to me the 20% set aside for those with the most points (regardless of residency) could actually be a lot more fair for non-residents than what was in place.

Also there was a discussion of sorts about the USO case that spawned these changes here. You might find it interesting because of the constitutional arguements involved in the case.

Personally I don't think there will be resolution on the NR/resident divide until there is some clarification by the supreme court on who owns wildlife. Is it owned by the states or is it entrusted to the states to manage but owned by all U.S. citizens? The distinction isn't trivial because it defines what right a citizen has to hunt in a state in which they do not reside, regardless of whether it is for commerical or recreational purposes.

Bit,
I didn't mean the overall changes, just a few. The ones in particular are financial. I like the system the Arizona and a few other states have whereby you only pay for the tag after you are drawn. In addition, knowing I will not be drawn, it is easier to use credit cards. With the new rules, it seems, there will be no online applications and no use of credit cards. In addition, someone like myself who applies for almost all the big game species in AZ will now have to come up with the full tag amount for all species, plus the license cost upfront in cash. Of course it is only for a little while but I also apply in amost all the other western states and Arizona used to be a "cheap" one. $113 or so for the license and $5 for each species. I also know that this may limit the amount of people who will continue to apply so I guess a benefit might be better odds. Just a thought, maybe I am misreading it. As I said earlier, I'm not upset over the changes.

Yeah I noticed that about the "upfront" for tags, I suspected this was just a move to gain more revenue, rather than a NR deterrent, although I can see where it could have that impact.

I'm not an investment banker, but my understanding is that states will sometimes use this "upfront" to invest for a few months, gain dividend, then pull out the money for refunds. The net result is it puts more money on the books for the department.

It will be interesting to see what effect (if any) these changes have on NR participation in 2005. I suspect that before the final paperwork is out, there will also be a hefty increase in tag costs for AZ.

I suspect the pay upfront deal is also a way to insure that they don't draw someone who then decides not to buy the license. I used to live in a state that required non-residents to pay upfront, but allowed residents to apply without paying. I was told that almost 25% of the residents who were drawn would decide not to buy the license.

As far as I know, no state really gives a non-resident the chance to back out after being drawn. All the states I have applied to eaither require money up front or require a valid credit card that would be charged as soon as you were successful. If the card fails, they redraw. I suppose one could issue a chargeback if they decided against going on the hunt after they are drawn but I think they would just draw another name. Maybe it is to cut down on the residents who back out. Personally, I think the money upfront issue is to try to dissuade some applicants from applying to increase odds for the serious hunters but more importantly it does increase revenue as Bitmasher stated. Even though the state holds the money for a short time, they can make a lot by investing it. I work in the banking industry with short and long term investments. With large amounts of money, even a short time having it invested will create a little cash for the state.