Non-resident tag pricing

[FLIPPER]

But why is it that every year this topic comes up...it always is about what a western state can do to make more money???


Here are a couple of quotes from 2 of our top guys from the Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency on revenue...

During the season setting meetings, someone might suggest a loss of revenue if we do something, or suggest we might gain some revenue if we do something else. But it is a group of biologists and law enforcement folks in the season setting meetings. We simply do not deal with the financial aspects. Nor do we have any training in it. So, anything suggested is pure speculation. The Commission consists of businessmen. They have expertise in it. And we do have a revenue department. But the season recommendation, presented to the Commission, is compiled by the wildlife people, field and staff, not the revenue section.

We recommend regulations based on biology and what's good for the resource (in fact, we're mandated to operate that way). We then take into account hunter desire and try to accomodate the masses as long as the resource is not impacted.

 

[Big Fin]

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.

For some reason, I am not surprised that you see little reason to discuss the rest of my comments.

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.

You learned the legal principle that Federal law trumps state law, eh? Wow.

Did you also learn that it only trumps when the Federal law is constitutional. In other words, it doesn't violate the constitution.

How many of the lawsuits you refer to actually made it to the US Supreme Court? The last one the USSC heard related to non-resident treatment was the Baldwin case I referred to earlier. The state of Montana won that case.

So, please, inform us of these other lawsuits you speak of and show me where they are being upheld by the USSC. I must have been sleeping while those cases made their way through and were ultimately heard by the highest court in the land. Please post them hereafter.

Your implication that Federal laws can be passed to impose more restrictions on state wildlife management will run into the constitutional issues I mentioned previously. They may stand up in some lower courts, and probably the wing nuts who sit on the 9th Federal Circuit, but I would doubt the US Supreme Court would allow it and undo 230 years of precendent that court has set protecting the states rights in managing wildlife.

So yes, the USSC has said states can be as fair or unfair as they want when it comes to non-residents. If you want to change that, I suggest you get some Federal legislation passed and let it work to the USSC. Until then, suck it up.

I apply as a NR in every western state. I know they have the power to put the screws to me, if they want. If I don't like it, as with WY preference points on moose and sheep, I just don't send them my money. Their Constitutional right to do what they want. My right to send them money, or not. Pretty simple.

 

[ringer]

Please go read the recent legislation introduced by Harry Ried of Nevada that was passed by an overwhelming majority. Then go away and have your pity party. You have a chance to hunt in every western state except for Tule elk in California and they are hogging those for people who actually pay taxes in their state. Imagine that.

 

[Tom]

Do you know if the federal government could collect for a federal elk stamp or moose stamp,etc. for someone to hunt on federal land? Heck, I buy a federal duck stamp (even to hunt on state or private land), and a state stamp, so is it easy to come up with some federal big game stamps? I don't remember the constitution saying they can't do that, but I don't know a lot about constitutional law.

You are correct, the cases challenging the states management practices taking advantage of non-residents have not made it past the supreme court yet.

Ringer, the federal stamp for big game could be supported with an argument like you just made for CA tule elk.

 

[AZ402]

And the gayness continues...............

 

[Frequently Banned Troll]

No kidding. Stan: Remember don't take no shit from no body.

 

[schmalts]

No kidding. Stan: Remember don't take no shit from no body.

He takes that kind on a daily basis sicko

 

[AZ402]

No kidding. Stan: Remember don't take no shit from no body.

HAHA!! To bad you can't post that gif on this thread!

 

[BuzzH]

ringer said, "You have a chance to hunt in every western state except for Tule elk in California"

Wrong, nonresidents can now apply and draw Tule Elk tags in California

 

[ringer]

Cool! I am going to put in.

 

[BuzzH]

Good luck Ringer! Hope you draw.

 

[Tom]

Flipper, I think I'm starting to get it, those western states have so much federal land, they can't hardly make any money living there, so making money off of non-resident hunters for the welfare of the residents is pretty much the only way to do it. To heck with the wildlife management, just make some money for us, so we can at least hunt cheap. If the federal land was sold off and the money used to buy some more in every state, to distributed more evenly, we'd be a lot better off. Especially, if it was constitutional, eh?


"Toms right. Laws can be changed by the majority for the better! "
Pretty smart there Pa man!

Big Fin, I googled that lady lawyer and I googled the journal article. It seem like the journal is defunct now, at least I can't easily find it from here, do you have a link? Maybe you can just send me a copy of the actual paper, I mean you said you've been working on it for 10 years, maybe you have a copy easy to e-mail, please? Or do you have a link for the paper?

 

[BillyGoat]

Yo Big Fin, I'm a little slow (but not anywhere near as slow as Tom). If the states own the wildlife, why can I legally kill a limit of upland birds in two different states the same day but not waterfowl?

 

[ringer]

For you slow witted sister pokers--even if the feds somehow decided to change all of the state's rights rules in the constitution so you whiners could buy a trophy elk tag for a hundred bucks we could charge you $5000 for a non-resident hunting license to hunt within our borders. You will never live long enough to change this issue. Dorks.

 

[Tom]

Ringer, Don't be silly, whatever you charge us, we'll charge you 20 times more to get on federal land in your own state, we'll put you in jail a long time for poaching. All the tax payers in the whole US will benefit from getting some income off of the federal land. You ever heard of the interfering with interstate commerce law?

That's a challenge of constutionality against a state keeping others out. Big Fin might know something about it.

 

[Nemont]

Ringer, Don't be silly, whatever you charge us, we'll charge you 20 times more to get on federal land in your own state, we'll put you in jail a long time for poaching. All the tax payers in the whole US will benefit from getting some income off of the federal land. You ever heard of the interfering with interstate commerce law?

That's a challenge of constutionality against a state keeping others out. Big Fin might know something about it.

Thank god the founding father's were smart enough to allocate an equal number of Senators per state. Let's see even the Republic of Texas get anything done in the Senate without the help and support of the western Senators.

In addition if you spent 30 seconds on google and correctly typed in the subject line you will soon learn that the dormant commerce clause is suspended in regards to hunting license. If you would like I could get you the correct law and accompanying lawsuit from which said law sprouted.

So please go ahead and continue have diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.

Federal law does not trump states rights unless
1. it is written in the constitution or 2. the States voluntarily give up said rights.

Nemont

 

[Tom]

I picked 20 because I think that's what Montana charges NR for a just buy it tag for elk compared to residents. Its probably higher now, I haven't looked for a while.

Here's what I got in 30 seconds, what do you have?

Commerce clause
According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the States, or to the people. The Commerce Clause is one of those few powers specifically delegated to the federal government and thus its interpretation is very important in determining the scope of federal legislative power.

The Commerce Clause has been cited in many cases that have allowed the federal government to limit what were previously considered rights "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Court ruled that federal regulations of wheat production could constitutionally be applied to wheat grown for "home consumption" on a farm--that is, wheat grown to be fed to farm animals or otherwise consumed on the farm. The rationale was that a farmer's growing "his own wheat" can have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, because if all farmers were to exceed their production quotas, a significant amount of wheat would either not be sold on the market or would be bought from other producers. Hence, in the aggregate, if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat, it would affect the interstate market in wheat.

In Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985), the Court announced that it would no longer regard Tenth Amendment questions as justiciable, holding "[t]he political process ensures that laws that unduly burden the States will not be promulgated" by Congress.

In United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995), a federal law mandating a "gun-free zone" on and around public school campuses was struck down because, the Supreme Court ruled, there was no clause in the Constitution authorizing it. This was the first modern Supreme Court opinion to limit the government's power under the Commerce Clause. The opinion did not mention the Tenth Amendment, and the Court's 1985 Garcia opinion remains the controlling authority on that subject.

Most recently, the Commerce Clause was cited in the 2005 decision Gonzales v. Raich. In this case, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by Federal agents. Medical marijuana was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215; however, marijuana is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act. Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana, citing the Wickard v. Filburn decision. It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the penumbra of the Commerce Clause.

That last case has state laws trumpted because of the interstate commerse clause, right?

 

[Big Fin]

Tom:

I am impressed that you are now actually looking this stuff up.

But, go read the Baldwin case that has been mentioned as the last time the USSC took an issue related to non-resident hunter treatment.

It was brought under the Interstate Commerce Clauses. The exact theory as you have cited.

Guess what?

The USSC ruled that elk hunting in MT was NOT interstate commerce. AND therefore the Interstate Commerce Clauses do NOT apply and are NOT a valid reason for overriding the state (MT) right (pricing of non-resident hunting).

Sorry, try again.

For you to sit at your computer and try to dream up something that hasn't already been tried and defeated is as fruitful as me trying to explain this stuff to you. It is a dead end.

Things (non-resident pricing and allocation) are as they are for a reason.

Do you not think legal minds have not considered this same problem; thought about how to tackle it; only to have come to the conclusion that the case law and legal precedent gives them no legal basis for doing so?

So, this will be my last post on this thread. I promise! :BLEEP:

 

[ringer]

Tom-you are making all people from Texas look like morons. Just go to search here or on monster muleys or on bowsite and type in USO. You will educate yourself on the matter you are referring to since USO/Montoya sued Arizona and threatened other western states based on the commerce clause. The courts and congress decided it did not apply to hunting and that is very current law. This is old information in the hunting community and your continued harping is making you look ignorant. Well, maybe just confirming your ignorance. I am also finished with this stupid crying thread. Later.

 

[Washington Hunter]

Tom, another thing to consider if somehow more tags were given to non-residents than residents in states with lots of federal land is that it would not really look good to the non-hunters of this country. Most people support hunting if it is for meat and not "trophy" hunting. Hunters driving from say, Florida, to hunt Mule Deer in Montana, is obviously not going to be for the meat. It's common sense that most tags should go to the people who live the closest. If hunting big game in the west is a priority for somebody who lives back east, well, they ought to just move back west to the state of their choice.