Screwing over the Non-resident (or not)?

[Treeshark]

Ok, you fly high too, big "bawler"...

Ok one more. That one was pretty good Buzz, made me chuckle- glad we can end on a high note.

Need to spend some time outdoors today, adios to this one for a while.

 

[The Hedgehog]

To all the crybabies.

There’s a video linked to the first post in this topic - did you listen to it?

Carry on.

 

[Gerald Martin]

This conversation powered by…. Still going.

 

[Sytes]

Summary: We have a state-based system. Residents benefit from non-residents in many ways. Residents are Beneficiaries and non-residents are stakeholders (big difference). Wildlife is separated from the land, defeating the "I pay taxes on Federal Land" argument.

Anyhow, always a fun topic to see the comments and realize how much hunters do/don't understand the basics of the systems we have and the history of how we arrived at these systems for allocating wildlife opportunity in disparate manners.

@Big Fin (from your podcast with Marcus):

A lot of people say, “I’m a U.S. Citizen. I’m a quasi owner of those federal lands. I should have the same rights as a Resident” That’s the normal rationale and before I get into all the details of why under our law, our constitution, and our Supreme Court cases, that’s an incorrect lens to view it through. Really, you’re making the premise that if you own land you should be allocated the hunting opportunity. So in a State like Montana where 2/3, do you really want to give 2/3rds our tags and you gotta go through a private land owner?

When I usually throw that out, they’re like, “Well, it still isn’t fair.” Well, you know what, I get that but we have a United States Supreme Court Case in 1842, Martin vs Waddel..."

*********
So, I hopped into my google mobile and drove into the less informed though want to understand rabbit hole regarding the laws pertaining to your comment above.

I understand the "U.S. Public Trust Doctrine" that, for U.S. sake, originated from your referenced Martin v. Waddell, 41 U.S. 367 (1842)

Martin v. Waddell, 41 U.S. 367 (1842)

Martin v. Waddell

supreme.justia.com

Along this rabbit hole "blade runner" type Google journey, I came across a great review by none other than our own Montana FWP: (See attached .pdf) This PDF spelled the Public Trust Doctrine and State Wildlife Agency involvement in a manner I, as a "Joe Hunter" could understand. For any interested in the topic - it's a great read! (smith-2011-wildlife-professionals-under-the-public-trust-doctrine)

Followed by the latter discussion with Marcus on the Resident vs Non-Resident fee "disparity" portion of your podcast:

Randy: “…not a serious public land advocate” I get that rationale but let’s talk practicality:
The reason that these discussions sometimes frustrate me is because whether we fight about how that allocation occurs or what the price disparity is, it doesn’t put one more elk on the hills. It doesn’t put one more wild sheep on the mountain. It doesn’t put one more duck in the air. It’s like well, we’re going to fight over this, let the pie keep shrinking, let the herds keep shrinking and someday we’ll just have to fight over who gets to kill the last elk.

Marcus: We’ve talked about this quite a bit recently: a lot of the things we argue about concern ourselves as hunters are social problems are things less biological and more social but it’s important for us to take into account things that affect us as hunters… even though it’s again probably not going to effect anything biologically… I think it’s important for people to advocate for biological things in addition to the social things.

Randy using the example regarding South Dakota Elk: You’re gonna have to move there to draw one. Why? Same theory. It is a State based system where the trustees, first and foremost, have to look out for the beneficiaries [Resident of the State]. Non-Residents are merely stakeholders and as a stakeholder, that doesn’t come with rights like being a beneficiary does.
Non-Residents have to make the State trustees think of me as an asset.

Markus: Do you think there’s a good balance there in terms of balancing Resident versus Non-Resident opportunity?

Randy: I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have a 90/10 split in pretty much every State. In Montana, we don’t have a 90/10 split. We have a statutory requirement that we have to issue 17,000 elk tags to Non-Residents. If there were two elk left in this state, right now under this statute, we’re selling 17,000 Non-Resident elk tags.
The bigger point is the funding mechanism. Here’s one thing I hear all the time, and it’s a legitimate complaint. I pay $25 for my Montana elk tag and my brother pays (by the time it’s all done) 40-45 x’s that with addons and everything else. That’s a pretty weird disparity. But there’s no shortage of demand.

And then followed your reference to the State turned SCOTUS Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978) Which ALSO affirms State authority over wildlife and the distinction between Resident and Non-Resident.

Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978)

Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Montana: The Privileges and Immunities Clause requires only that a state treat all resident and non-resident citizens equally with respect to privileges and immunities that relate to the vitality of the nation as a single entity. Recreational hunting does not...

supreme.justia.com

FACTS

Obtaining an elk-hunting license in Montana cost at least seven and a half times as much for non-residents as it did for residents. Non-residents also were required to obtain a combination license to get a single elk, while residents did not have this requirement. Non-resident hunters sued to enjoin the state from enforcing the hunting license laws and also requested damages for the licensing fees that they had paid. The trial court found that the Privileges and Immunities Clause did not support their claim.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause is limited to areas that affect the vitality of the United States as a single entity. Equal treatment of residents and non-residents is not required in other areas, such as recreational hunting. The well-being of the nation does not require granting equal access to elk, and the livelihood of the non-residents is not undermined.

All this noted and identifying my beef with notable States such as Alaska and Wyoming with respect to Non-Residents required to be hand held by outfitter guide or resident for select big game species. Most specifically, for my own interest in Wyoming as it holds personal history, reasonable proximity, and managed expense to reach and pay the Non-Resident fees.

Wyoming (as my intended interest) appears to restrict the Non-Resident person him/herself - not for wildlife sake in the U.S. Wilderness Protected Areas. Wyoming has made it clear, as other States, the managed ability to limit tags for Residents and Non-Residents. Wyoming grants 90/10. That has been established. Limited areas to draw for a tag. The intent is for the biological over/under regulation counts of select big game.
**The wildlife is the trust of the States via our Public Trust Doctrine. Not the person, him/herself.**

What I am getting at: There are established practices for the quantity of Resident and Non-Resident opportunities for the purpose of regulating over/under counts of game species - i.e. limited draw.
And yes, there is this Wyoming Supreme Court decision that holds the same specifics as my "beef"... I believe the dissenting view is spot on the money:

O'Brien v. State

O'Brien v. State - 1986 WY 8, 711 P.2d 1144

law.justia.com

Wyoming Supreme Court Dissention Justice opinion:

"The provision suggests that the statute seeks objectives other than hunter safety." i.e. Outfitter and Resident exclusivity on U.S. Wilderness designated areas.

[¶38.] I cannot reconcile Schakel with the majority opinion. Schakel attacked the statute in question, § 23-54, W.S. 1957 quoted on pages 7-8 of the opinion, as having little if any relationship to promoting hunter safety. One reason for the attack was that nonresident antelope hunters were not required to have a guide. The statute in this case does not require nonresident small game hunters or fisherman to have a guide. It would seem that nonresident small game hunters and fishermen are as likely to lose their way in a wilderness area as are big game hunters. And, if the potential problem is the handling of firearms, there is nothing to suggest that nonresidents are any more likely to mishandle their firearms than are residents.

[¶39.] Schakel also held that § 23-54 had little to do with safety because it provided that a resident, without qualifications, could guide up to two nonresident hunters if he did so without compensation and after filing an affidavit with the Game and Fish Commission. A very similar provision is now found in § 23-2-401(b), W.S. 1977. Schakel stated that this provision was "impossible to reconcile with the theory of safety unless one indulges in the violent presumption that mere residence in this State makes a competent, knowing guide * * *." If an affidavit will suffice to qualify a guide, why cannot a nonresident supply the Game and Fish Commission with the same information as a resident and qualify? The reason he cannot can only be understood by indulging in "the violent presumption" referred to in Schakel.

[¶40.] Schakel also questioned the provision of § 23-54 which permitted the uncompensated resident guide to guide no more than two nonresidents in any calendar year. This same provision is found in § 23-2-401(b). There is no apparent reason why, after guiding two nonresidents, the uncompensated guide becomes a threat to hunter safety and can guide no more. The provision suggests that the statute seeks objectives other than hunter safety.

In conclusion:

• At least the late Justice G. Joseph Cardine of the Wyoming Supreme Court didn't have his head up WYOGA's arse and followed the same thoughts I hold. (This is my personal consolation prize)

and...

• SCOTUS has ruled this is for each State to define as hunting is not a necessity of life. I'd argue it is though to no avail - Haha!.

Thanks for the podcast. You and Marcus make a quality duo when discussing topics and this one is a bitch to accept. Is what it is. My axe has been ground to the handle. No more available for me to grind.

 

[TOGIE]

I would hope you would have a great experience, and if you ever decide to do it I would be happy to help make sure you do have a good time. Lots of public here, and I hunt it 100% (never shot a big game animal on private land in any state and hope that never changes).

Maybe you’d be surprised- it’s different but it’s still a lot of fun, can’t decide which one I like better. @TOGIE did a cool write-up, it sounded like he enjoyed his time here.

Fantastic time. I was spoiled. I’m convinced I could have just as good a time on public and if that’s the only way I could do it I’d likely continue to go as I can

 

[TOGIE]

I believe that as opportunity to do something diminishes, support for the activity goes down right with it.

In the case of hunting in recent history, all states seem to follow this path:
1) Everything is OTC, anyone come and have fun.
2) Too much pressure on the resource leads to the first restriction, NR are limited.
3) Both R and NR are limited.
4) This step the anti hunt crowd sees their opening and starts to push their agendas. Species and methods get limited.
5) Complete removal of hunting a species.

All states pretty much at this point are at least at step 2 and some states as far as 5 (California, Washington).

@Treeshark's point is just that as step 2/3 happens, removing the support aspect that follows suit with those restrictions hurts the ability to fight against step 4 and 5. All you have to do is look at states where this has already happened.

i don't think that road map has much to do with NR's and their support or lack thereof.

steps 3 to 4 have no relation, at all, IMO, and only coincidentally if the correlation exists.

step 4 occurs at a certain level of political color change and resident population size, most notably exhibited by urban centers developing a massive voting power hold across states where the changes have occurred. huge population gains always occur as a result of the explosion of urban centers. these types of electorate changes are so easily leveraged and manipulated by agendas it's scary, obviously.

idaho and montana are not in danger of this path because of their lack of generosity to non residents, they're at danger of this because of what's happening to the populations in boise and bozeman.

i don't think the antis will be jumping at cracks in wyoming as a result of ever tightening NR allocations. wyoming will see these crack in the armor when Laramie can outvote the rest of the state and we're a damn long ways away from that happening.

i believe there may be some dangers to losing NR support in the west. but the antis gaining traction is not one where NRs help, not when these issues are 100% decided by resident voters in each state.

i could be wrong, but i think @Treeshark is more alluding to the privatization of wildlife. if there is a danger to losing NR support, that's where a danger lies.

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

Randy made a really powerful point in the podcast that we as a hunting community need to act on before it's too late. Let's say a state decides to jack up the NR elk tag price. That is the state's right, and I wouldn't take that right from them. But the herd size continues to shrink so then they decide to cut out NR elk tags completely. That is the state's right. But the herd still shrinks so now they make resident tags a draw. That is the state's right. And still the herds shrink, and the resident population grows and eventually the residents are clawing for the last elk tag. And after all that, did more elk get put on the mountain? Nope. Did more lands get opened up to access? Nope. I truly believe we can reverse course, and create more opportunities for more people, but it will require hard work, and compromise, from ALL parties involved

 

[BuzzH]

Randy made a really powerful point in the podcast that we as a hunting community need to act on before it's too late. Let's say a state decides to jack up the NR elk tag price. That is the state's right, and I wouldn't take that right from them. But the herd size continues to shrink so then they decide to cut out NR elk tags completely. That is the state's right. But the herd still shrinks so now they make resident tags a draw. That is the state's right. And still the herds shrink, and the resident population grows and eventually the residents are clawing for the last elk tag. And after all that, did more elk get put on the mountain? Nope. Did more lands get opened up to access? Nope. I truly believe we can reverse course, and create more opportunities for more people, but it will require hard work, and compromise, from ALL parties involved

I don't think residents or non residents are much worried about clawing for the last elk here.

We're trying to figure out how to control numbers. Offering crying NRs 3 tags at reduced prices isn't working.

 

[Treeshark]

i could be wrong, but i think @Treeshark is more alluding to the privatization of wildlife. if there is a danger to losing NR support, that's where a danger lies.

Yes, that is what I meant in my earlier post.

 

[mtmuley]

Yes, that is what I meant in my earlier post.

So transferable landowner tags are dangerous. Right? mtmuley

 

[Treeshark]

So transferable landowner tags are dangerous. Right? mtmuley

Not ideal, but likely inevitable in my opinion.

 

[mtmuley]

Not ideal, but likely inevitable in my opinion.

So, privatization. mtmuley

 

[brymoore]

So transferable landowner tags are dangerous. Right? mtmuley

#keephammering

 

[mtmuley]

#keephammering

And they will. mtmuley

 

[Treeshark]

So, privatization. mtmuley

That depends on how you look at it, I guess.

Privatization of the monetary value of the privilege to harvest a big game animal: yes.

Privatization meaning that the hunt must occur on private land, not necessarily.

 

[brymoore]

That depends on how you look at it, I guess.

Privatization of the monetary value of the privilege to harvest a big game animal: yes.

Privatization meaning that the hunt must occur on private land, not necessarily.

Abandoning North American Model of Wildlife Management?

 

[mtmuley]

Privatization meaning that the hunt must occur on private land, not necessarily.

Maybe I'm missing something, but that's what landowner tags are all about. mtmuley

 

[Treeshark]

Abandoning North American Model of Wildlife Management?

Not me, I’m just a stakeholder.

At this time, I have no say in what Western states decide to do with their big game regulations.

NAM isn’t a law, it’s a philosophy. If beneficiaries decide that it is in their best interest to offer these opportunities, who am I to criticize them?

As @Big Fin has correctly pointed out: as a NR, our current options are:

1. Move to a western state and become a trustee or…

2. Assess the situation as a stakeholder and choose to participate or not based upon the regulations decided upon by the trustees.

It is really that simple, despite all of our (NR’s) handwringing over the subject.

 

[Treeshark]

Maybe I'm missing something, but that's what landowner tags are all about. mtmuley

That is not at all accurate. There are various states that currently offer unit-wide transferable landowner tag opportunities.

 

[mtmuley]

That is not at all accurate. There are various states that currently offer unit-wide transferable landowner tag opportunities.

Wasn't aware. Just hope we keep it out of Montana. mtmuley