Non-resident tag pricing

[Calif. Hunter]

I don't really care so long as I can afford it. If I can't, I don't go.

The interesting thing, though, is that almost everything else has been delegated to the Feds. Federal lands, federal taxes, endangered species (don't they belong to the "States" too?), federal standing army, formerly a draft into military service, migratory bird stamps, etc. But game animals are some sacred item that must remain with the state?

I do fear that hunting may get priced out of the reach of my kids or grandkids. I guess it is up to me to see that they get into some lucrative field or that I leave 'em enough not to worry about it. The price of the NR tag is just one small factor - the locking up of access to public land by private landowners, leasing by outfitters, subdivsions screwing up winter feeding grounds or migratory routes, etc. are more important factors IMHO. even the RMEF has locked up public land by acquiring or trading private land for public, and closing off access except to their own officers and big-money supporters.

 

[Tom]

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.

 

[Gunner46]

I've been away for a couple of days, so I haven't been able to keep up on this debate. I think my orignal post may have been mistaken as an access issue. I didn't intend it that way.

My isssue is, and always will be, the cost of the license (for anybody) that hunts on Fed funded public land. Whether or not the animal crosses between private/ public land is not of issue. If my $0.02 went into supporting public land in Wy, or NY, or Ca, or Fla, or AK then anyone who put their $0.02 into that public lands support should pay the same amount for the license, Resident or not.

If the property is privately owned access is up to the land owner.

 

[mtmiller]

NC and TX....hummmmm

 

[Tom]

MT and ID..... makes sense, eh?

 

[Frequently Banned Troll]

Tom, do you have cousins in Delaware:

Tom's cousin recently hunts in Idaho

 

[Tom]

No, why do you ask?

I just checked this on google.

Population of NC 8.8 million, TX 23.5 million.

Population of MT <1 million, ID 1.5 million.

When the US votes, who has more votes?

 

[Nemont]

Population of NC 8.8 million, TX 23.5 million.

Population of MT <1 million, ID 1.5 million.

When the US votes, who has more votes?

When Montanans vote or Idahoans vote for their own legislators how many Texans and North Carolinians get to vote in those elections?

The state legislators set the laws for the several states and since (for the 30th time) the several states own and control the critters the state legislatures get to set the laws.

So either rewrite the U.S. Constitution or move.

Nemont

 

[Nemont]

My isssue is, and always will be, the cost of the license (for anybody) that hunts on Fed funded public land. Whether or not the animal crosses between private/ public land is not of issue. If my $0.02 went into supporting public land in Wy, or NY, or Ca, or Fla, or AK then anyone who put their $0.02 into that public lands support should pay the same amount for the license, Resident or not.

If the property is privately owned access is up to the land owner.

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

 

[Tom]

Nemont, come on, you limit the tags to manage the herds, but you would give the tags out for federal land proportional to its support. So, like ID and MT have about 2.5 million and TX and NC have about 32.3 million, so for every 5 tags to ID and MT there would be 64 tags to TX and NC. Fair and square distribution then. I guess we could figure in the taxes paid, but that's not all the animals for all the people, that's all the animals for those who can pay.

 

[ringer]

Texicans and southern people aren't too bright. What part of Supreme Court and Congress regarding the state's total authority over animals on federal land do you two not understand? There is no point in repeating your WISH for this to change. It was finally put to bed following USO vs Shrouf/Arizona.

 

[Nemont]

Nemont, come on, you limit the tags to manage the herds, but you would give the tags out for federal land proportional to its support. So, like ID and MT have about 2.5 million and TX and NC have about 32.3 million, so for every 5 tags to ID and MT there would be 64 tags to TX and NC. Fair and square distribution then. I guess we could figure in the taxes paid, but that's not all the animals for all the people, that's all the animals for those who can pay.

Fine, the 64 tags will cost $1,300 a piece and only be good on federal lands and the 5 for MT and Idaho will cost $5 and be good anywhere in the state.

In addition you cannot hunt on Block Management nor state owned lands and cannot cross, access or even view private lands. In addition each person from Texas or NC will be required to wear a hunters orange dunce cap or carry a large neon sign declaring their home state.

Nemont

 

[Tom]

You can have all the state land tags, but if block management is paid out of the $1300 and the state land is paid out of the $1300, then we get some. Otherwise, we'd have a Montana elk party, like the Boston Tea Party, taxation without representation. The $1300 should be set for management, not for resident welfare.

The private tags, those guys can transfer them if they want. Anybody can buy one from the landowner who gets it, its America, free markets there.

Ringer, every so often the issue is put to bed and every so often it wakes up, ok?

 

[MattK]

Tom- the issue may wake up but obviously the coffee in your house hasn't been brewing long enough...Hunt TX and be happy...leave the rest alone. Thanks.

 

[AZ402]

Once again, Ho L Y C H I T.

 

[Big Fin]

I have concluded that hunters can be some of the most ignorant mo' fo's in the world.

I will summarize what I read in Tom's illogic.

Even though the consitution tells us that landownership has nothing, NOT A FRICKIN' THING, to do with the states right to manage wildlife, he refuses to acknowledge that fact.

It doesn't matter whether it is private land, state land, Federal land, or WTF.

There never has been, and unless we change the constitution and convince states to grant their wildlife interests to the Feds, there never will be a DEED that conveys wildlife interest to the holder of that DEED.

If some of these dumbasses would take a simple law class they would learn a few things about private property rights. Something they love to spout off, but obviously know nothing about. They would learn that private property rights consist of somethings, such as:

developement rights,
access rights,
timber rights,
mineral rights,
etc., etc.

These rights do not include:

Wildlife.

I will pay Tom $500 if he can come up with one legal deed that conveys an ownership in wildlife to the holder of the deed. If he can't find one, he can pay me a nickel.

Any other people who can't get it through their friggin' thick skull that wildlife is not an interest attached to real property can take me up on the same offer.

Tom doesn't like the law, so he comes up with some dumbass comment implying that some states having lots of people could will change the laws, which would require a change to the constitution. Was civics not taught where Tom went to school?

I don't think I can tolerate further participation in a discussion where such a straighforward concept is so hard for people to understand, or where so many people refuse to admit it.

For the last time - |oo |oo |oo |oo

FEDERAL LAND BEING A PUBLIC ASSET HAS NO RELATIONSHIP TO, OR CAUSE TO TERMINATE, THE STATES' INTEREST IN WILDLIFE THAT THE STATES WERE GRANTED AS PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.

I better turn the caps off, or you guys will think I am Bessy from over on MM. JUDAS FRICKIN' PREIST!

 

[A-con]

Big Fin, I’m not arguing with you because frankly I think your few posts on this subject spew common sense all over it, but what about landowner’s rights to “OWN” the animals in “High Fence” situations ? Not just farm animals like exotics in Texas, but all of the fenced whitetail operations where the animal is native, and the landowner is basically selling the animal.

 

[Big Fin]

A-Con:

I am not familiar with these state laws where the whitetails are held in high fence situations.

It did happen with elk in NM back in the early 90's and the landowner got hammered for taking a public asset.

Not sure what happens when these wild whitetails may get enclosed in such a pen. I am sure it happens, though.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

There are states where a license is not required to hunt on your own land.

No one has responded to my question about the Feds, the USFWS and endangered species. I guess the Feds decide which wildlife belongs to the State? Migratory birds - what about animals that cross state lines, if that is the explanation for the waterfowl Federal laws?

No real dog in this fight, just wondering how this is explained.

 

[Big Fin]

Cali:

Migratory birds are covered under the Migratory Bird Act. Here is how it works. It is really controlled by the states and their participation in the Flyway Councils to which each state belongs.

Each year, hunting regulations for migratory birds are developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) after input and consultation with the Atlantic, Mississippi, Central and Pacific Flyway councils. The flyway councils are comprised of representatives from state and provincial wildlife agencies that work together with the USFWS to cooperatively manage North America's migratory bird populations.

The states do this by choice. The Flyway Council members (states) make management recommendations. Each state then selects one of the options available to states in its Flyway Council.

These options are set based on populations. Adaptive Harvest Management (ADH) sets season types and limits for conservative, average, and liberal seasons. Some states may pick one of the options with higher limits, but shorter seasons. Others may pick lower limits and longer seasons.

My home state of MT participates in both the Pacific and Central Flyway Councils. As such, we have two sets of regs. One set of the Central Flyway of eastern MT and one set for the Pacific Flyway of Western MT.

Each set of regs has different season dates and different limits.

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.

Hope this answers your questions.