AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• After three years of working as a licensed hunting guide in New Mexico, the Respondent applied for a New Mexico outfitter’s license. The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish denied his application based on a previous action by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, which had revoked his license privileges in Arizona for a period of five years, with conditions for reinstatement including completion of a hunter education course (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Reversed Game and Fish's decision to deny Respondent's application for an outfitter's license (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee-Petitioner (Game and Fish): Argued that the hearing officer's decision to deny the Respondent's application was supported by substantial evidence, that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously in reversing Game and Fish's decision, that the district court erred in its application of the law, and that it violated the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact by its decision (para 1).
• Appellant-Respondent (Timothy L. Rawlings): Argued that the Arizona Commission's action should not preclude him from obtaining a New Mexico outfitter’s license, suggesting that the action taken by the Arizona Commission was akin to a suspension rather than a revocation under New Mexico law (paras 9-14).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Arizona Commission's action constitutes a revocation of Respondent’s guide or outfitter license such that he is precluded from working as a registered hunting guide or outfitter in New Mexico (para 4).
• Whether the district court erred in its interpretation of the relevant statutes and regulations, specifically in applying Section 17-2A-3(C)(3) instead of Section 17-2A-3(C)(2) (para 3).

Disposition

• The decision of the district court to reverse Game and Fish's denial of Respondent's application for an outfitter's license was affirmed (para 16).

Reasons

• The Court, with Judges Vargas, Bohnhoff, and Kiehne concurring, found that the actions of the Arizona Commission, which Game and Fish relied upon to deny Respondent a license, were akin to a suspension under New Mexico's relevant statute and regulations. The Court determined that the Legislature intended for Game and Fish to treat the Respondent’s Arizona license "revocation" as if it had occurred in Arizona, pursuant to the Compact. The Court concluded that the district court properly applied Section 17-2A-3(C)(3) to its evaluation of Respondent’s application, finding that the hearing officer’s decision was not in accordance with the law when it denied Respondent’s application based on a misinterpretation of the term "revocation" as used in Section 17-2A-3(C)(2) (paras 4-15).