Non-resident tag pricing

[IDHunters]

So what does your state charge the average American from the other 49 states?

The exact same thing we charge the rich American and the poor American from the other 49 states. Out west, we screw everyone equally.

 

[Tom]

... Out west, we screw everyone equally.

except the people in the 50th state.

 

[Nemont]

I wish I was as eloquent as the Justices of The Supreme Court:

"We conclude that where the opportunity to enjoy a recreational activity is created or supported by a state, where there is no nexus between the activity and any fundamental right, and where by its very nature the activity can be enjoyed by only a portion of those who would enjoy it, a state may prefer its residents over the residents of other states, or condition the enjoyment of the nonresident upon such terms as it sees fit."

Does the distinction made by Montana between residents and nonresidents in establishing access to elk hunting threaten a basic right in a way that offends the Privileges and Immunities Clause? Merely to ask the question seems to provide the answer. We repeat much of what already has been said above: Elk hunting by nonresidents in Montana is a recreation and a sport. In itself - wholly apart from license fees - it is costly and obviously available only to the wealthy nonresident or to the one so taken with the sport that he sacrifices other values in order to indulge in it and to enjoy what it offers. It is not a means to the nonresident's livelihood. The mastery of the animal and the trophy are the ends that are sought; appellants are not totally excluded from these. The elk supply, which has been entrusted to the care of the State by the people of Montana, is finite and must be carefully tended in order to be preserved.

Equal protection.

when used to allocate access to recreational hunting. Appellees argue that the State constitutionally should be able to charge nonresidents, who are not subject to the State's general taxing power, more than it charges its residents, who are subject to that power and who already have contributed to the programs that make elk hunting possible. Appellees also urge that Montana, as a State, has made sacrifices in its economic development, and therefore in its tax base, in order to preserve the elk and other wildlife within the State and that this, too, must be counted, along with actual tax revenues spent, when computing the fair share to be paid by nonresidents. We need not commit ourselves to any particular method of computing the cost to the State of maintaining an environment in which elk can survive in order to find the State's efforts rational, and not invidious, and therefore not violative of the Equal Protection Clause.
A repetitious review of the factual setting is revealing: The resident obviously assists in the production and maintenance of big-game populations through taxes. The same taxes provide support for state parks utilized by sportsmen, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1; for roads providing access to the hunting areas, Tr. 156-158, 335; for fire suppression to protect the wildlife habitat, id., at 167; for benefits to the habitat effected by the State's Environmental Quality Council, id., at 163-165; for the enforcement of state air and water quality standards, id., at 223-224; for assistance by sheriffs' departments to enforce game laws, Defendants' Exhibit G, p. 13; and for state highway patrol officers who assist wildlife officers at game checking stations and in enforcement of game laws. Forage support by resident ranchers is critical for winter survival. Tr. 46-47, 286. All this is on a continuing basis.

What is idiotic Tom is that you act as if each hunter in a Western State is a selfish game pig because they simply live and work within the confines of the laws, constitution, court decisions and heritage of hunting in our country. In fact the system in Texas is a relatively new one and invokes more similarities to the hunting I did while stationed in Germany then to what hunting is in America.

We are not screwing anybody because hunting out of state in and of itself is expensive and the license is just one of those expenses.


Nemont

 

[AZ402]

I going to write the word Nemont on my presidential election ballot, seriously, I am.......

 

[IDHunters]

except the people in the 50th state.

No, Hawaiians get screwed also. The 43rd state, however, is a different deal

Trust me, as bad as you think the current system is, what in the world makes you think it would be better, more fair, more hunting, etc if the federal gov't was in charge?

 

[Tom]

That's good and that's relevent Nemont, I see that. I understand the case law interpretation is that its not illegal yet. That's not the discussion I'm having, I agree the cases from the past have been interpreted as the practices being legal back then. If you want to screw somebody more or a bunch of them more, that's not necessarily legal to screw them more in the future, just because you screwed them a little in the past. Fair, an idea like that, its also up for discussion. Being fair is different than being legal. One of my new years resolutions is to read about what T. Roosevelt meant by having lands set aside to hunt by the average American. What do you have on that, anything?

I guess the basic response for the federal issue is that on issues with federal votes, eveyone gets a say, so that is fairer. Remember the taxation without representation idea, we're all taxed for federal land management, so we all have a say in it. Letting rancher's cattle eat the grass cheap or letting in state hunter's elk eat the grass cheaper can be of concern to the Federal taxpayers.

 

[TLC]

Tom, legally, you can not transfer the free landowner tags or let someone else use them.

 

[Nemont]

Tom,

Stop for a moment and think, Why do you think that ranchers have successfully defended the super cheap grazing fees? How is that a minority as small as public lands grazers has been able to keep and maintain a system that they are really the only winners? Where do you think such political clout comes from for such a small number of people?

When you figure that question out you will understand why you are pissing against the wind in regards to federal lands and access to hunting for everyone. There is not taxation without representation going on that is just smoke and mirrors.

There is not the ground swell support out there to overturn over 200 years of the status quo. Nobody else wants a systems like Texas has. Texas sold off nearly all of it's public lands because they were short sighted. Just because you forefathers figured that public hunting was a bad deal doesn't me that those of us who for generations have hunted in other parts of the country have to make guys like you happy. If you wish to enjoy all the advantages of living in one of the real western states that has free ranging native critters then move.

Nemont

 

[coopaloop]

Tom,

I think this is pretty clear. I'm not sure how you can argue with this, but....I'm sure you will.

36-103. WILDLIFE PROPERTY OF STATE -- PRESERVATION. (a) Wildlife Policy.
All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the
state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho.

- Coop

 

[JoseCuervo]

You guys need to open up your minds and listen to Tom's arguments, not just bash on him because he happens to be a Texan. There is not a more corrupt/mismanaged organziation in this country than State Fish and Game Commissions appointed by a bunch of partisan Governors. If you think for a minute that a bunch of Ranchers/Campaign Donors appointed by some elected politician have any business/knowledge/experience managing game departments, I have a bridge in Juarez to sell you.

The Feds are managing a big part of the land in the west, and the Feds are the ones with the $$$$ and the "ologists" to be able to effectively manage the Land AND the Game on the land. It is ridiculous that a bunch of Fish and Game commissions want to charge non-residents outrageous fees to hunt Federal Land in order to give some six-fingered resident banjo picker a $12 deer tag.

Wake up and listen to Tom and don't be so close minded.

 

[AZ402]

You guys need to open up your minds and listen to Tom's arguments, not just bash on him because he happens to be a Texan. There is not a more corrupt/mismanaged organziation in this country than State Fish and Game Commissions appointed by a bunch of partisan Governors. If you think for a minute that a bunch of Ranchers/Campaign Donors appointed by some elected politician have any business/knowledge/experience managing game departments, I have a bridge in Juarez to sell you.

The Feds are managing a big part of the land in the west, and the Feds are the ones with the $$$$ and the "ologists" to be able to effectively manage the Land AND the Game on the land. It is ridiculous that a bunch of Fish and Game commissions want to charge non-residents outrageous fees to hunt Federal Land in order to give some six-fingered resident banjo picker a $12 deer tag.

Wake up and listen to Tom and don't be so close minded.

OK.........

 

[Tom]

How about that Jose guy, eh, he's a genius.

Nemont, I don't know why those few ranchers have such political clout, is it because of the original BLM laws? I don't know why they are hard to overturn, do you? I'll accept your last argument in general, but don't interpret the details like you did, but that's ok, we are far apart with different viewpoints. The basic difference with Texas is that the federal government gave the state the federal land to pay war debts from the war for independence. It was designated for that. Remember the Alamo! That's the battle cry of freedom! The state kept the mineral rights from a lot of it and it supports our Permanent University Fund, which supports a lot of educational development in the state.

Coopaloop, Here you go, here's some history on how federal laws have trumped the state laws claims to ownership. Its not an argument, its a fact, its history.

"The constitutionality of the landmark Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 was first upheld in Missouri v. Holland (1920). The case established the supremacy of federal treaty-making power by upholding the protective duty of the federal government over state claims of ownership of wildlife. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes disposed of the ownership argument in two ways. First, he explained that wild birds were not the possession of anyone. Second, he insisted that the Constitution compelled the federal government to protect the food supply, forests, and crops of the nation. The federal government assumed unprecedented responsibility for wildlife jurisdiction due to the migratory nature of the protected species and employed the first federal wildlife enforcement officers through the Biological Survey. In 1934, the passage of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (known as the Duck Stamp Act) created a major stimulus for funding the refuge system. What remained unclear was the extent of federal obligation and affiliated power.
The government had prohibited all hunting in Yellowstone National Park since 1894 without officially sanctioned jurisdiction, but a more concrete answer to the issue of property rights and responsibilities was provided by Hunt v. United States (1928). The case involved the secretary of agriculture's directive to remove excess deer from the Kaibab National Forest. While the secretary insisted that the deer threatened harm to the forest from overbrowsing, state officials arrested people for carrying out the orders. The Supreme Court decision was explicit. The power of the federal government to protect its lands and property superseded any other statute of the state.

from http://www.answers.com/topic/wildlife-preservation

 

[noharleyyet]

You guys need to open up your minds and listen to Tom's arguments, not just bash on him because he happens to be a Texan. There is not a more corrupt/mismanaged organziation in this country than State Fish and Game Commissions appointed by a bunch of partisan Governors. If you think for a minute that a bunch of Ranchers/Campaign Donors appointed by some elected politician have any business/knowledge/experience managing game departments, I have a bridge in Juarez to sell you.

The Feds are managing a big part of the land in the west, and the Feds are the ones with the $$$$ and the "ologists" to be able to effectively manage the Land AND the Game on the land. It is ridiculous that a bunch of Fish and Game commissions want to charge non-residents outrageous fees to hunt Federal Land in order to give some six-fingered resident banjo picker a $12 deer tag.


Wake up and listen to Tom and don't be so close minded.

....

 

[Nemont]

How about that Jose guy, eh, he's a genius.

Nemont, I don't know why those few ranchers have such political clout, is it because of the original BLM laws? I don't know why they are hard to overturn, do you?

Our own Montana Senator Baucus Chairs the Senate Finance Committee in addition his family has a HUGE piece of NF leased to graze sheep and cattle. Suppose he will let anything change the status quo with grazing fees? I think there are only about 26,000 or there about grazing permitees in the country and yet they seem to have alot of political clout. It because for the most part all 26,000 stick together come hell or high water and they have an organized political arm that is active in Washington.


Hunters are their own worst enemies they are neither organized nor willing to work together on anything. Just look at this thread. Hunters have political power in some of their home states but on a national level they are not organized nor vocal enough for anyone to listen.

I bet there are alot of hunters even in Texas, perhaps even a majority of them that could give a rats ass about what any other states charge for NR hunters because they do not travel out of state to hunt.

Figure out how small of a number of people actually hunt as Non Residents every year and it is a way small number as a percentage of hunters and many of those that do hunt out of state don't mind the current system. Some even vocally support not changing it. There is not enough of a people hunting out of state that a pissed because of the cost to matter to politicians and those with money simply pay whatever it costs, federal land or no federal lands.

So a politician can either support a very small minority of people in this country who hunt in the West on Federal lands and risk pissing off the resident hunters (who by the way help elect him or her to office) or simply defer to the status quo. Which do you think they will do? Check out Harry Reid's reaction.

Nemont

 

[drahthaar]

The Feds are managing a big part of the land in the west, and the Feds are the ones with the $$$$ and the "ologists" to be able to effectively manage the Land AND the Game on the land.

Are you freaking kidding me? You think the Forest Circus is effectively managing the forests of the West? Their management is no management. Their mission statement should read, "Finding more ways to spend money and not accomplish a $%@& thing." Let me put it to you this way, if the Feds managed the animals like they managed the forests, slowly over time, hunting would not exist, you would be allowed to look and not touch. And if hunting were allowed to continue, changes to the regulations according to the needs of the herds, such as more tags or less tags, extended seasons, etc, would take YEARS, so much time would pass that those changes would become meaningless. Does the wolf issue not give you any insight into how poorly the feds manage animals? I don't want the feds even thinking about the animals in this state.

 

[Tom]

What state are you talking about?

Its pretty amazing, 26,000 of those federal leases. There's more non-resident hunters than that in lots of single states it seems like.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Are you freaking kidding me? You think the Forest Circus is effectively managing the forests of the West? Their management is no management. Let me put it to you this way, if the Feds managed the animals like they managed the forests, slowly over time, hunting would not exist, you would be allowed to look and not touch. And if hunting were allowed to continue, changes to the regulations according to the needs of the herds, such as more tags or less tags, extended seasons, etc, would take YEARS, so much time would pass that those changes would become meaningless. Does the wolf issue not give you any insight into how poorly the feds manage animals? I don't want the feds even thinking about the animals in this state.

Sorry, but last time I looked, there were actually National Forests out there. The Feds seem to be able to keep the forests managed for the benefit of the Game. don't know what state you are referring to, but State Lands here are raped for $$$$$ and timber to support hillbilly sawmill workers who need to pay off their bar tabs run up by drinking 18 Keystone Lights every night at the Casino Club.

The Wolf issue is a great example how a bunch of Welfare Ranchers that are State Legislators and Fish&Game Commissoners and how big of whiners and babies they are and don't want to add new game speceis for hunters to hunt. We have the Feds bringing us a healthy and vibrant Wolf population and we have the inbred Wyoming Welfare Ranchers in the State Legislature whining about how much more importnat it is to run their range maggot sheep on MY public lands instead of allowing Wolves.

Sorry, but taxing out of state hunters to pay for Welfare Ranchers on the Game Commissions to maximize spike hunting for their cousin/wife (one and the same) ain't too good of example of managing hunting for the benefit of hunters.

 

[Nemont]

What state are you talking about?

Its pretty amazing, 26,000 of those federal leases. There's more non-resident hunters than that in lots of single states it seems like.

Tom,

Here is some info.

The US Forest Service reported in fiscal year 2000 that there are 7,509 authorized permits on National Forest lands across the country. These permits allow for grazing of 1,234,520 cows, 6,583 horses or burros, and 952,580 sheep or goats. Authorized use is 8,274,060 head months (time in months that livestock remain on the range).

In fiscal year 2000, The Bureau of Land Management administered approximately 18,212 permits nationally. Animal Unit Months authorized included 8,890,057 cattle, 55,253 horses and burros, and 892,278 sheep and goats.

Not much has changed since 2000 so 18,212 BLM permits + 7,509= 25,721 permits on BLM and Forest Service.

There are few other permits on National Parks and USFWS but they are fairly small in comparison.

So 26,000 was a round number for the total number of permitees nation wide, not just one state.

Nemont

 

[Nemont]

Jose,

Kind of figured you for a States rights guy. What would your hunting be like if the Feds controlled tags? I know I would be fine most likely because I have access to enough private land but my kids would likely drop out of hunting if they have compete every year with NR hunters and their money.

Just curious how you feel the feds will improve anything.

Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

Jose,

Kind of figured you for a States rights guy. What would your hunting be like if the Feds controlled tags? I know I would be fine most likely because I have access to enough private land but my kids would likely drop out of hunting if they have compete every year with NR hunters and their money.

Just curious how you feel the feds will improve anything.

Nemont

Don't you think Bush has done an awesome job of taking all our state's National Guard Units and activating them, running an incredibly well thought out War of Terror in Iraq and then leaving all the Guard's assets in Iraq and returning our Guard troops back to the States without equipment?

My hunting would be awesome if the Feds controlled the permits. I would love to drive 70 miles and whack some of the nice Oregon mule deer. Then, I would love to drive 100 miles and start hunting some of the Nevada deer that I know where they live. Last time I hunted the Wyo/Idaho border made me want to hunt Wyoming.

Why should I be limited to a chance at 10% of the AZ elk tags? If they are on MY public lands, let me at them.....