Non-resident tag pricing

[smalls]

If the feds. have a way to decide what to harvest in the way of trees, it seems pretty natural they could have a way to harvest animals. Since animals eat trees, it would help them manage the animal to tree and tree to animal relationships. It doesn't matter if its Bush or a Democrat on that, its just ecology/sciense type stuff.

BRILLIANT!

 

[Nemont]

Nemont, I think the feds. only can manage the feds. land. Your kids and their kids would have the state tags and the private tags.

If the feds take over management, what my family will do is block all access for hunting to the land locked federal lands on the place. We will only hunt our deeded private land and nobody will hunt the federal lands. I am certain all the neighbors would do the same.

So Maybe I do hope it passes because as of today those lands have been opened to hunters as is the tradition in my part of the world. If I can't hunt on it then nobody else will cross our private deeded land to hunt either.

Nemont

 

[coopaloop]

You can get plenty of tags in Texas but can't get on any dirt unless you have $$$. That's why you can stay in Texas.

The federal case you refered to is, again, dealing with migratory birds not resident animals. And I recall earlier in this thread, you ripping on folks for quoting outdated law. I see you quoting law from the 1920's???

I really don't care what you think as long as you keep it in Texas. Too many folks trying to mess with the good thing we've got going in the west. To each their own. Just don't mess with mine.

 

[drahthaar]

If the feds. have a way to decide what to harvest in the way of trees, it seems pretty natural they could have a way to harvest animals. Since animals eat trees, it would help them manage the animal to tree and tree to animal relationships. It doesn't matter if its Bush or a Democrat on that, its just ecology/sciense type stuff.

Dude!!!!!

OK, I am pretty new here, someone please help me. Is this serious? Or am I just in some sort of internet twilight zone?

 

[Tom]

You didn't read the whole thing, the second case was with deer in Kaibab. If they came after me with some case law, then I go after them with some case law. That's the way it works. Bottom line, the feds. can trump any state law on wildlife when it comes to protecting the federal land, right? (see the info. above)

 

[coopaloop]

In the case where the land is being detrimented. Not for the sake of managing herds especially for hunting which is the right of the State.

 

[smalls]

You didn't read the whole thing, the second case was with deer in Kaibab. If they came after me with some case law, then I go after them with some case law. That's the way it works. Bottom line, the feds. can trump any state law on wildlife when it comes to protecting the federal land, right? (see the info. above)

Did you not understand the three days worth of typing BigFin and Nemont did trying to explain this to you last week?

 

[Tom]

I thought they left out these cases, they were talking about other cases.

 

[A-con]

Is this serious? Or am I just in some sort of internet twilight zone?

Interenet twlight zone, no question.
Nemont is Rod Sterling, and Tom is a martian. Big Fin is the sand shark that keeps us all honest

 

[Tom]

What gave you the idea for this thread anyway?

 

[A-con]

The first line from the first post.

Some hot threads on other boards are discussing increases in non-resident tag prices.

I thought if I put it up here, ten or fifteen people might want to share their opinion.

 

[Nemont]

I thought they left out these cases, they were talking about other cases.

Tom,

Did you read the entire decision on Hunt Vs. United States?

Here is a quote from the opinion.

- The court below, after a trial, found for the United States, and entered a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill, with the limitation, however, that the decree should not be construed to permit the licensing of hunters to kill deer within said reserves in violation of the state game laws.

Kind of an important fact you left out. The case arose from there being too many deer and what to do with culled deers carcasses. In the end the deer carcasses were transported to an Indian Reservation for the Schools lunch program.

So trying hunting on federal lands without a State License. |oo |oo |oo

Okay All I am done on this thread, I know I participated way to much and I am taking a hunttalk break.

Nemont

 

[Tom]

Nemont, I think those supreme court cases are the presedent for the feds. getting access to the fed. land. They could trump the state deed and get access, if they wanted to, couldn't they? Ok, I'll read the whole thing somewhere.

That's a nice tradition you have.

We should plot the increases of different states over the years, that would be interesting.

 

[Oak]

Well, since CO now prices non-resident tags annually according to the CPI, you can expect your elk tag to be about $15 more here in 2008.

 

[Tom]

"with the modification that all carcasses of deer and parts thereof shipped outside the boundaries of the reserves shall be plainly marked by tags or otherwise, in such manner as the Secretary of Agriculture may by regulations prescribe, to show that the deer were killed under his authority within the limits of the reserves.

Thus modified, the decree is affirmed."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=278&invol=96

 

[TLC]

since I am still relatively new here, have to ask. does tom do this on all threads?

 

[noharleyyet]

since I am still relatively new here, have to ask. does tom do this on all threads?

...moreso when on vacation.

 

[Tom]

Nemont, this is pretty close to saying Roosevelt's conservation movement should benefit all, Pinchot was the guy who came up with, "the greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest time" as the unifying conservation principle for the US.

"CHAPTER X: AN EQUAL CHANCE

The American people have evidently made up their minds that our natural resources must be conserved. That is good. But it settles only half the question. For whose benefit shall they be conserved for the benefit of the many, or for the use and profit of the few? The great conflict now being fought will decide. There is no other question before us that begins to be so important, or that will be so difficult to straddle, as the great question between special interest and equal opportunity, between the privileges of the few and the rights of the many, between government by men for human welfare and government by money for profit, between the men who stand for the Roosevelt policies and the men who stand against them. This is the heart of the conservation problem today.

Source: The Fight for Conservation by Gifford Pinchot, 1910."