Non-resident tag pricing

[schmalts]

Schmalts, I call bs, I think you made a lot of that post up, plus, I call bs, if anybody told you that, they made a bunch of bs up too. I think Nemont has a good point for sure, around here the bs hand fills up fast.

My last hunt was for some exotic deer though, axis, earlier this week. Free ranging ones. All we saw was whitetail, including an 8pt buck that we could have shot but passed on. The axis knew they were being hunted and were running fast and low to the ground every time we were near them. It wasn't a public hunt, but it was accross the street from where Texas has a public hunt for exotics and whitetail.

Wow.... you are way off. Yea i made it all up, go back and look at the post, i was trying to poke fun at AZ402, not you...
Damn, you are paranoid, is there something your hiding that you had to take all that as a poke at you and explain all of that shit?

 

[schmalts]

Schmalts, could you give me specifics about what makes Buzz a democrat (I will assume you mean liberal).

Liberal, Democrat, whatever Miller, that is like calling a shit a turd, same thing

 

[BillyGoat]

Big Fin, thanks for that explanation. I was wondering the same thing. Now when I moved here I was told that (with both licenses of course) I could shoot a limit of chukar in Idaho one day and then the same day go across the border to Oregon and shoot another limit (theoretically speaking of course because I can't shoot worth a damn ) and so I asked if I can do that with ducks then also and the answer was something like "no, they are federally managed."

The states have volunteered to participate in this process. This does not usurp the states rights as trustees of the wildlife within it boundaries.

The Endangered Species Act allows the USFWS to take over management of a species (game and non-game species), if certain criteria is met. Again, it is management of the animals and habitat, not resident/non-resident tag allocation. It does not terminate the states' interest in the wildlife, but allows the USFWS to set rules designed to protect a species. It requires that upon recovery, management be returned to the respective state(s). It is the closest thing we have to the Feds taking the states' interest in wildlife. If you read the committee reports when the ESA was drafted, you will find a lot of discussion that the ESA was in no way intended to terminate the states' rights in the wildlife within their boundaries.

According to your explanation, shouldn't I be able to shoot two limits of waterfowl also? What did I miss?

 

[Gunner46]

Ok, If I go to Yellowstone and go through the gate, I pay $X.XX to trespass. If you go, you pay the same $X.XX. The game that crosses the boundries doesn't give a hoot where the line is, it just goes about it merry way. Now tell me which state has jurisdiction on that anmial? It could go on private, or into MT, or wherever.

If I were in Mt on private land, one story; in WY another; but if I were in Yellowstone (provided they actually allowed hunting) why would the license fee be any different for me than you, or the person that went through the same gate from any other state?

 

[AZ402]

Ok, If I go to Yellowstone and go through the gate, I pay $X.XX to trespass. If you go, you pay the same $X.XX. The game that crosses the boundries doesn't give a hoot where the line is, it just goes about it merry way. Now tell me which state has jurisdiction on that anmial? It could go on private, or into MT, or wherever.

If I were in Mt on private land, one story; in WY another; but if I were in Yellowstone (provided they actually allowed hunting) why would the license fee be any different for me than you, or the person that went through the same gate from any other state?

I think you need to go and re-read all of Nemont's and Big Fin's posts. They've pretty much layed a virtual asskicking on all "even money" proponents.

 

[mtmiller]

Liberal, Democrat, whatever Miller, that is like calling a shit a turd, same thing

So Buzz's opinions on how a state charges for hunting opps is more a liberal ideology or a conservative ideology?

Maybe the states should charge by how much an individual makes?

 

[schmalts]

So Buzz's opinions on how a state charges for hunting opps is more a liberal ideology or a conservative ideology?

Maybe the states should charge by how much an individual makes?

Stop imitating Hose queervo, it isn't funny.
Hey it is Friday night, and your single and sitting in front of your PC Don't you have a date with a jar of Skippy?

 

[Big Fin]

Ok, If I go to Yellowstone and go through the gate, I pay $X.XX to trespass. If you go, you pay the same $X.XX. The game that crosses the boundries doesn't give a hoot where the line is, it just goes about it merry way. Now tell me which state has jurisdiction on that anmial? It could go on private, or into MT, or wherever.

If I were in Mt on private land, one story; in WY another; but if I were in Yellowstone (provided they actually allowed hunting) why would the license fee be any different for me than you, or the person that went through the same gate from any other state?

I am amazed at how hard it is for people to comprehend this notion.

Answer: The fee would be different because the state within whose boundary the wildlife was standing in, decided that the non-resident fee should be different. Since WY charges non-residents a different fee than residents, you and I would pay a higher non-resident fee if the landowner, YNP, allowed hunting on their lands.

YNP is mostly in WY, but also in MT and ID. The game, and hunting opportunity to that game, is under control of the state within which the game resides. Even if the game is in YNP, the state has managment authority over those animals.

The fact that YNP owns land, just like a private landowner, and says "No hunting, even if you are passing through" does not mean the state doesn't have control over the wildlife. It means the landowner, in your example, is determining what activities are allowed. The same as a private landowner.

Your WY elk tag doesn't say "This tag allows you to hunt on property posted no hunting/trespassing." It allows you to hunt where landowners allow hunting, either private landowners or public landowners.

Why do people continue to confuse access to land (controlled by the landowner), with the cost to hunt (controlled by the state).

Since WY, MT, and ID have control over the wildlife in their state, they can charge non-residents more than residents. They have the trustee duty to manage wildlife and if they want to do charge varying fees, they can.

If they wanted to charge residents and non-residents the same, they could.

If you want to know more about the right of states to charge different fees to non-residents, go research a case called Baldwin v. Commissioner. It is a case that started in MT by a non-resident. It was argued by Jim Goetz, a Bozeman attorney who I talk with on these issues, and went all the way to the US Supreme Court.

Guess who won? State of Montana. The USSC stated that states have control, citing the cases back to the 1800's, and that ownership of land and hunting license fees have absolutely no connection.

I hope I answered your question Gunner.

 

[mtmiller]

Stop imitating Hose queervo, it isn't funny.
Hey it is Friday night, and your single and sitting in front of your PC Don't you have a date with a jar of Skippy?

It's early...if things don't work out it will be Jiffy....rookie.

 

[shoots-straight]

Cool, there's like five different fights going on the same thread, Hey BHR your moma. Six. It'sa bar room blitz... I'll have another..

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Thanks, Big Fin. How come the Feds still decide whether wolves, for example, can be hunted or not once they have recovered? (Aren't some States arguing now with the Feds about getting Federal approval of their "wolf management" plan?) Or are endangered species an exception mandated by the ESA?


(I ought to just ask my brother - he is with USFWS.... I'll have to call him tomorrow.)

 

[FLIPPER]

Ok...here is what I can gather from these 4 pages of...um....entertainment


Nemont wants Tom to have this for xmas...

Tom wants to share some candy with Nemont...

schmalts and mtmiller....you guys are funny...

AZ402...I prayed for you...

buzz...I saved this one just for you

And to all the rest...that I didn't mention....

 

[FLIPPER]

Why do people continue to confuse access to land (controlled by the landowner), with the cost to hunt (controlled by the state).

Your statement is incorrect.It should have read, "Why do people continue to confuse access to land and the cost of the hunt(controlled by the landowner),ie...trespass fees, and the cost of the tag/license (controlled by the state).

 

[pa mt man]

So using the same logic about my two cents: I should get to fly a F-16, Captain a Nuclear Powered Submarine, ride on the space shuttle, get free WIC, have medicaid etc, etc.

Can you point to anything that says that because your tax dollars go to support it you get equal access to anything. Why would hunting licenses be any different? Can you imagine the state of public lands if what you advocate actually came to pass? Would be a blade of grass left on any of it.


Nemont

"Why would hunting licenses be any different? "






They are different. We all have EQUAL access to any of the things you posted above. If you are trained and qualified to operate the equipment or poor enough and need it you get it.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT STATE YOUR FROM!
IT"S EQUAL!!!

Toms right. Laws can be changed by the majority for the better! (for me)



Flipper, your flashing post gave me a headache.

 

[1_pointer]

WOW! I've been gone fore a few days and this crap storm hits.

Just an FYI, everyone has equal access to federal lands...

 

[ringer]

When all of you flatlanders start showing up to work habitat projects I will listen to your whining. As far as the majority only 5% of the population hunts so you are screwed for life.

 

[A-con]

you are screwed for life.

I thought that was the problem, but thanks for confirming.

 

[Tom]

Big Fin, your summary of "my" illogic is in error from the beginning. I have not refused to acknowlege that states manage the wildlife. I have argued that their management is often unfair, not in the spirit of "the most good for the most people for the longest time". There's little reason, that I see at the moment, to discuss the rest of your summary, if it starts out in error.

The point you seem to be making is that the states can be as big an asshole as they want when they set the rules and fees for non-residents. The wolves and the migratory birds are examples where their is federal intervention. Federal law trumps state law, I learned that legal principle. Several of the law suits against the states have used federal law principles, trying to claim the states are in violation with their outrageous treatment of non-residents. If not successful in the courts, I don't see that it will require the constitution to change, for the federal laws to impose more restrictions on what states can and cannot do with wildlife management. I will read your posts and Nemonts posts to see if there is reference to that, but I doubt I will find it anytime soon.

 

[pa mt man]

When all of you flatlanders start showing up to work habitat projects I will listen to your whining. As far as the majority only 5% of the population hunts so you are screwed for life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ringer
you are screwed for life.

I thought that was the problem, but thanks for confirming.

Makes a NR want to slit his throat!

 

[JoseCuervo]

If we let ourselves get into this “what the market will bare” frame of mind, sooner or latter the market will out pace most of us.

Why should allowing poor people to hunt be a management objective/goal for any Game Department?

If the poor people wanted to hunt, they could go get a job and earn money to be able to pay market rates for the tags.

Don't you think that Supply and Demand would eventually find the place where the appropriate number tags are sold for the maximum total revenue to fund to manage the game?