This is from, John J. Jackson, III, Chairman of Conservation Force

The voice of nonresident hunters and anglers has been silenced by Congress. On May 11th the Reid bill, S.339, passed as a rider to an emergency military appropriations measure, H.R.1268, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and

Tsunami Relief, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005. It was signed by President Bush on the night of May 11th.

Senator Reid portrayed the amendment as one of "States' Rights." The new law grants the unlimited right to states to discriminate against residents of other states when issuing hunting and fishing licenses. The new law delegates to states the authority the Federal Courts have said is reserved to Congress by the U.S. Constitution. The law expressly authorizes states to charge nonresident hunters and anglers any price for licenses and to discriminatorily limit the number of license available to that class of applicants.

John J. Jackson, III, Chairman of Conservation Force, an organization supporting fairer treatment of nonresidents, stated that, "It is the first and only natural resource law of its kind in the nation. It is unthinkable for states to hoard any other natural resource. States have tried to hoard their resources such as petroleum and natural gas without success. Now they can do it with game and fish. What is incredible is it passed without legitimate debate in the Senate or House as a rider to an appropriations measure when it was not even an appropriations issue."

Congressman Collin Peterson of Minnesota, past-Chair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, was one of the few who made a dash to stop the "fast track" measure. The Congressman challenged the Reid rider before the Rules Committee because it was not germane to the emergency military appropriation. He argued that it was a substantive matter unrelated to the appropriation for the military.

Reid claims that the measure was necessary to overcome a 9th Circuit court decision in Arizona last year. That case held that discriminatory licensing of nonresident hunters was "unconstitutional." The elimination of such warring between the states

was the very reason for the Convention that adopted the U.S. Constitution, according to the court.

"The new legislation eliminates the last hope for nonresidents to be more fairly treated when hunting or fishing out-of-state," said Jackson. "It makes no difference if it's public or federal land or a migratory species that flies across the nation and is otherwise largely regulated by the USF&WS. Nonresident sportsmen and sportswomen

have been relegated to second-class treatment on federal lands and to leftover game. It's no coincidence that Senator Reid represents Nevada, which has limited nonresident licensing of deer, elk and pronghorn antelope to as low as 5 percent of available licenses, even though more than 85 percent of that state is federal land."

"Some have seen the issue as an undesirable contest between hunters over a limited resource," Jackson said. "It is not a contest, because it is one-sided. Nonresidents are underrepresented before state legislatures and game commissions that determine license allocations and prices. The contest was already uneven, now nonresidents have lost

their U.S. Constitutional protection and Congressional representation.

It's inherently unfair, particularly on federal lands and with migratory species. It's also unfair to private landholders and businesses that cater to nonresidents. The whole multi-billion dollar interstate hunting and fishing industry has been compromised, even though it has been a growth component of the larger industry. One out of seven hunters hunt out-of-state each year. It remains to be seen if

they will be able to in the future."

Jackson promised that, "Though the fledgling rights of nonresidents have been silenced, it's not over. We will be watching closely. The states have made it a Congressional issue. Indeed it now will be if the discrimination worsens."

Since you decided to present this story through the lens of "John J Jackson III" I can only assume you agree with his position.?.?

He's a whiner and certainly not a conservative...

quote:

John J. Jackson, III, Chairman of Conservation Force

He is in bed with George Taulman. There won't be any wholsale slaughter of uninhibeted price gouging of nonresident fees! And those that think there will be, are as lame as George's concern for rights. It's all about money from George's stand point. And that is all GT is concerned about, "the bottom line" just like corporate America.

He's definitely in bed with Taulman, but he's partially right. Wyoming is already proposing changes such as the $75 for a preference point for Sheep or Moose.
http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/prefptNRletter1.pdf

Brad, I posted what was sent to me. No, I do not agree with conservation force.
They were the origins of the Lawsuits and USO"S BS here in AZ.

quote:

Senator Reid portrayed the amendment as one of "States' Rights." The new law grants the unlimited right to states to discriminate against residents of other states when issuing hunting and fishing licenses. The new law delegates to states the authority the Federal Courts have said is reserved to Congress by the U.S. Constitution. The law expressly authorizes states to charge nonresident hunters and anglers any price for licenses and to discriminatorily limit the number of license available to that class of applicants.

I agree, it IS an issue of State's Rights. The Feds have no business being involved in the issue whatsoever.

Coues, glad to hear it.

You know fellows, as long as you out-of-staters force MY fish and game to spend MY license money managing wolves (that we did not want to begin with), I'm going to support any and all price increases so we can use out-of-staters money to manage the game. JMO, Dutch.

quote:

Originally posted by Dutch:
You know fellows, as long as you out-of-staters force MY fish and game to spend MY license money managing wolves (that we did not want to begin with), I'm going to support any and all price increases so we can use out-of-staters money to manage the game. JMO, Dutch.

Jayco

Let me see, why would anyone actually want to come to places like Montana, Idaho and Wyoming to hunt? Is it because their home states have little or no game left, is it that we have species that are not available in a highly urbanized area, is it that our game commissions aren't bullied by animal-rights groups? Got me, I have no idea since I don't live there. Chances are that you also have little understanding of "us" and our motivations since you do not live here.

Don't give me the economics leason, just because you have money doesn't mean I have to sell you my birthright.

I dislike Sen. Reid's stance on many issues, but in my view he has the good of his state and the other small population inter-mountain west states at heart. If it wasn't for our senators Montana would be TOTALLY ignored.

If not for his bill one of 3 things would have to occur here in Montana: 1. All hunting, resident and non alike would be be lottery only. ( That would not go over well with residents at all.) 2. As a result of choise #1 or instead of it, Montana would revert to residents only hunting and or a ban on the outfitting industry (which has a serious PR problem with residents already). 3. License fees for everyone would go sky high, the result? See option #2.

So, how do non-residents benifit from this? If the hunting stinks where you live, do something about it. If you really want to hunt here, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, move here, contribute to the economy in a real way, put up with the long winters, low pay and high costs. The residnets here do, good hunting is our reward.

P.S. Please don't go on about the National Forest, BLM access stuff, if you turn over 1/3 of your state to unlimited public access, then we can talk.

quote:

You know fellows, as long as you out-of-staters force MY fish and game to spend MY license money managing wolves (that we did not want to begin with), I'm going to support any and all price increases so we can use out-of-staters money to manage the game. JMO, Dutch.

Damn I love the way you think~

quote:

You know fellows, as long as you out-of-staters force MY fish and game to spend MY license money managing wolves (that we did not want to begin with), I'm going to support any and all price increases so we can use out-of-staters money to manage the game. JMO, Dutch.

Well Dutch that should be a moot issue now. Since states will now have the federal governments blessing to manage the wildlife within their borders get your legislators to open the wolf season and maybe even add a bounty on their ears.

You know I am having second thoughts on the Reid amendment. This could wind up being a good deal. Hopefully states will raise non-resident fees high enough where poor people cannot afford a tag. Lets say at least $1000 for a deer tag and $2500 for an elk tag. That should knock the majority of non-residents out. I'm gonna have a lot less competition for tags in the future.

Since state wildlife departments always need more money and they can get twenty or forty times more money for non-resident tags the non-resident quota will be increased. This is gonna be a win/win situation.

Damn, am I agreeing with Kudu and Madgoat? Kudu is jumping for joy after a president from Texas signs the Reid amendment. What's this world coming too?

This bill was a response to the USO victory in Arizona. My guess is things will go back to the way they were before USO initiated the lawsuit.

quote:

The Pittman-Robertson Act, which was approved by the U. S. Congress in 1937, established the program that is now known as Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. Since its implementation the program has provided essential monetary support for the restoration and management of our country's wildlife populations and the habitats on which they depend.

Yeah, western states continue to take my tax dollars to build and manage their herds, but want to deny me the chance to hunt there.

Sounds perfectly fair to me. Why not reverse the idea? States that lack sufficient tax revenues for education, highways, welfare, medicaid, and medicare should not receive money from the federal government to meet their shorfalls.

Fair is fair.

Crowrifle, don't worry, the royalties from mining and logging will more than make up for it if the feds leave and take their regs with them. But, then again, that's not what you wanted, either, was it?

M16, the states managing wolves? Yeah, that'll happen...... FWIW, Dutch.

No sir, I just want the chance to go west, pay my dues and take an elk.

quote:

Originally posted by Dutch:
You know fellows, as long as you out-of-staters force MY fish and game to spend MY license money managing wolves (that we did not want to begin with), I'm going to support any and all price increases so we can use out-of-staters money to manage the game. JMO, Dutch.

Yah, Dutch! Just think. As soon as the average Joe can't afford to purchase a non-res license there, you will lose all non-res hunter support from the average-Joe hunter. You will be left with only input from the pro-wolf and anti-hunting folks. The only non-res hunters left will be outfitted by big outfits, who will lease up the best land. Ranchers will lose more access to federal land. And federal land will be managed for the protectionists from out-of-state. Maybe the feds will even expand wilderness areas and parks for non-game species management. Then they can lock out all hunters, res and non-res alike!!
Won't that be great?!?!?!

Actually, the argument was stupid in the first place, and its too bad the states had to waste the time and money to defend their rights. I'm glad the states won this round. Hopefully, for future hunters (I've already had my lifetime quota in western states, although I'm lucky enough to be able to afford any hunt, if I desire), the states will use wise judgement and not dig their own graves like Dutch wants. Be careful what you wish for.

By the way, I'm ordering a bunch of "Run Hillary, Run!!" bumper stickers. Anybody want one? Democrats can put them on their back bumper. I'm gonna put one on my FRONT bumper.

quote:

Damn, am I agreeing with Kudu and Madgoat? Kudu is jumping for joy after a president from Texas signs the Reid amendment. What's this world coming too?

M16, that is scary as hell! When your ready to try for your elk let me know I will show you some spots!

Crowrifle, all you got to do is apply and draw. The land is there to hunt.

Boreal, you are such a pessimist! I would wager $500 that if the Wyoming tag went to $750 for a nonresident, every tag would still be sold. And as for Ducth's idea of paying for your wolves with income from the tags! GREAT IDEA~~~ And throw the grizzly management into it to. This state already uses almost $1,000,000 a year of license money to manage them!

I want to see Hillary run against Condilezza Rice!!!! Run Condi run!

quote:

Sounds perfectly fair to me. Why not reverse the idea? States that lack sufficient tax revenues for education, highways, welfare, medicaid, and medicare should not receive money from the federal government to meet their shorfalls.

This is right on the mark. I would put special emphasis on ranch/farm subsidies. I don't see any reason to support ranchers who must rely on public land and then can't run a business well enough to make a profit. If they lose their land why are they better than the steel/factory worker who loses their home when they can't meet the mortgage paymnet or for that matter any small business person. If I can't hunt on federal public land without paying a much higher rate and then be limited by a draw why should anyone outside that state want to permit public grazing or pay subsidies. The worst though is having to hire a guide. That's the big joke that some states push on you. Federal land is all the peoples land and should not be profited from by any state.

quote:

Crowrifle, don't worry, the royalties from mining and logging will more than make up for it if the feds leave and take their regs with them. But, then again, that's not what you wanted, either, was it?

It never fails to amaze me how little some people understand about economics and business in general.

Perhaps more amazing is that so many refuse to get in bed with "business and economics" now and then. Some things are more important.

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
Boreal, you are such a pessimist! I would wager $500 that if the Wyoming tag went to $750 for a nonresident, every tag would still be sold.

$750 ??
Pfffffftt!
I thought you guys were talking about real money.
Hell, I think I paid $650 or something for an elk/deer tag last time I went to Montana for elk. That's pocket change!

Hillary vs. Condi in a race? Hillary's ass would be dragging on the ground in minutes! Oh that's right, it already is.

Yeah, sure, but with the wages we make out here, the $50 or so we pay for a license and tags is about the same as your $650..... Dutch.

Pathfinder, for someone from "The Constitution State" you sure don't seem to "get" state's right's, seperation of power, etc. Guess what? I don't pay taxes in CT and don't receive any of the benefit's of CT residency. Same for you in MT.

I love all the people who have moved to another state talking about residents rights.

It is a good law..

quote:

Originally posted by HunterMontana:

Don't give me the economics leason, just because you have money doesn't mean I have to sell you my birthright.

P.S. Please don't go on about the National Forest, BLM access stuff, if you turn over 1/3 of your state to unlimited public access, then we can talk.

I'm curious, when did your birthright as a citizen of a State trump that which you share with every other so-called-bastard in the United States of America?

As to this business about 1/3rd of Montana being public property, why then impose limits on private, individual citizens of this country, prohibiting them from hunting or fishing in a manner consistent with other citizens of this country (even local citizens)?

Seems a bit hypocritical when you stop to think that these same publicly held lands are regularly parceled out to timber companies.

And no, I'm not a tree hugger; I'm a sportsman who lives in Minnesota, where there's still a fair amount of public property on which to hunt and fish.

I'm not, mind you, against some differentiation of license fees, the end of which being that those who do not live in-state contribute in a fair and reasonable way to the management of game in the state hunted/fished. Those license fees, it would seem, naturally should be higher than resident.

I just don't think, however, that the present fee scales are fair. In fact, they're little more than extortion.

P.S. Be careful about throwing around the "States Right's" mantra; it has the subtle ring of isolationism. Where would Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming be were it not for the fact that they, like every other state in the Union, not have two, and only two, Senators?

I guess I'd have to go in with the state's rights crowd. Yes, this law will probably make no difference from what we have seen in the past, but it is the state that is charged with managing the herds and wildlife.

There are a couple of items in this discussion that I thought I'd throw some comments at,
1. friarmeier, Look in the constitution and give me the definition of the United States of America and then we can discuss the citizen's rights. Let me give you a hint..."the 10 square mile area (Washington DC) and territories" (Guam, Puerto Rico, USVA). If it isn't interstate commerce, which started all of this, or commom defense, the USA can bugger off.
2. The states can do more to make themselves independent but choose not to lose the almighty federal dollar. What is the speed limit in Montana now and why did it change? Can we say highway tax dollars from the feds? Same with the school systems. We don't want to lose those federal dollars, now do we? So a lot of public schools still suck.
3. Can anyone tell me where the US has the authority to take state land and make it a National Park, or BLM authority? States gave it away.
4. I agree....run Hillary run. At least she is more conservative than Kerry. Condi would still kick her ass, thankfully.

Just some thoughts.

There is no difference between a state blocking non residents from hunting and the District of Columbia saying that the Smithsonian Museum is off limits to people that live outside the beltway.

quote:

Originally posted by larrys:
4. I agree....run Hillary run. .

Sigh. Didn't anybody get the part about putting the "Run Hillary, Run" bumper sticker ON THE FRONT BUMPER?

Crowrifle, of course it is different.

The district of Columbia doesn't pay for the upkeep of the artifacts on display. It doesn't pay for the law enforcement of the regulations, it doesn't pay for any of it.

States are responsible for the management and operations of all game seasons, even on Federal Land. Including non-game species, search and rescue, law enforcement, etc. In many areas, the cost of law enforcement, ambulance service and search and rescue is more than 50% of the county budget. Thanks a LOT!

The Federal public gets to watch, observe, hike, camp, and otherwise benefit from this State effort at no charge. Now you want to have the rest for free, too? FWIW, Dutch.

quote:

Originally posted by Dutch:

States are responsible for the management and operations of all game seasons, even on Federal Land. Including non-game species, Dutch.

Dutch,
They get around that real easy with the Endangered Species Act. Its magic! Just list a species as "Special Concern" or something and pretty soon the 'habitat" is off limits to state management, development, and most other uses. Our state has been denied snowmobile trails, trout habitat development, even all access to the public (for any reason) because a special plant of some kind grows there. They won't even tell us where the plant is, so we can confirm their claims.

Dutch, at no point did I say that I wanted anything free. My previous post only said that I only wanted to 'go west, pay my dues, and take an elk'. The Smokie Mountain National Forest is in NC, the most heavily visited national treasure in the US because of its proximity to large east coast cities. No one here cries foul because our state tax dollars are spent for maintenance. Personally I would rather see tax dollars at work there than many other places. But no one is advocating closing it to tourist from outside NC.

I personally fail to see the logic or equity behind western states trying to prevent or severly limit non-resident hunters from utilizing resources that are funded by federal tax dollars.

quote:

The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, popularly know as the Pittman-Robertson Act, was approved by Congress on September 2, 1937, and began functioning July 1, 1938.

The purpose of this Act was to provide funding for the selection, restoration, rehabilitation and improvement of wildlife habitat, wildlife management research, and the distribution of information produced by the projects.
The Act was amended October 23, 1970, to include funding for hunter training programs and the development, operation and maintenance of public target ranges.

Funds are derived from an 11 percent Federal excise tax on sporting arms, ammunition, and archery equipment, and a 10 percent tax on handguns. These funds are collected from the manufacturers by the Department of the Treasury and are apportioned each year to the States and Territorial areas (except Puerto Rico) by the Department of the Interior on the basis of formulas set forth in the Act. Appropriate State agencies are the only entities eligible to receive grant funds. Funds for hunter education and target ranges are derived from one-half of the tax on handguns and archery equipment.


The State Wildlife Grants program provides federal dollars to every state and territory to support cost-effective conservation aimed at preventing wildlife from becoming endangered. Congress created the program in 2001. Funds appropriated under the State Wildlife Grants program are allocated to the states according to a formula that takes into account each state’s size and population. A non-federal match requirement assures local ownership and leverages state and private funds to support conservation. In an era of tight budgets, the State Wildlife Grants program represents how limited federal dollars should be invested to get the most results for taxpayers.

State Wildlife Grants support projects that prevent wildlife from declining to the point of being endangered. Projects supported by State Wildlife Grants restore degraded habitat, reintroduce native wildlife, develop partnerships with private landowners, and collect data to find out more about declining species. Statewide strategic plans (CT's strategy) will ensure that funds are spent wisely and effectively on actions to restore and enhance wildlife populations

My question is why should I support federal taxes that are distributed to a few states that are priviledged to have big game species such as elk, sheep, and goats when the states in turn prohibit me from ever realizing the oportunity to pay a fair price and then have a fair chance at harvesting such?

By the way, we apparently disagree on this subject and may never fully appreciate the other's posiiton but it is nice to trade ideas with someone and not have to stoop to trading insults.

crowrifle, Doesn't every state benefit from the tax on firearms etc plus the other ones you mentioned. My wife and I never had kids but our Fereral tax dollars goes to support school,teachers etc plus 50% of our property tax bill. You kind of have to look at the big picture just cann't be about me and what I want. I bet you Texas and Calif get a bigger share of those tax dollars from firearms etc that say Wy or Colorado. We had in 2004 appr 75,000 resident that drew deer tags in Co and 288,000 that couldn't hunt in there home state that applied for tags and had appr 186,000 non resident apply for deer tag but they could hunt in there home state they gave out appr 26,000 non resident tags so had a total of appr 101,000 deer tags state wide those hunter harvest appr 47,000 deer of those 33,000 were bucks. You guys back east should stop and think for a minute we had appr over 1/2 million hunters applying for 33,000 bucks we just don't have the land to grow any more bucks to hunt.
crowrifle I bet you Alaska gets more game dollars than another state in the union they got the land for the game. Sure we get Federal grant money for some game programs just like every state but the purchase of Land comes from the state not the federal government. I will tell you one thing if it wasn't for the state of Colorado you wouldn't have hunting or fishing. We had the Federal game wardens go after one of the biggest poaching operation in the sate of Co and they spend million trying to put Troulesome Creek Outfitters owner in jail all he got was a loss of hunting and community servive think was 800hrs. If they would of let the locals handle it he still be in jail. Thats the federal government for you.

Larry,

Though I'm not an academic scholar of our Constitution, I nevertheless consider myself an educated man. Perhaps you would clarify your comments in point #1. From your brief statement, it seems you hold the point of view that the United States is more or less a "confederacy."

If so, I would argue that the question of whether the United States is a confederacy or a union was settled in 1865.

What I mean is this: individual states and their citizens do not have the perogative to impinge the rights of other citizens of the United States.

Now, granted, hunting cannot be properly considered a constitutional "right." It seems, though, to come awefully close.

As for your point regarding federal authority with reference to possess state lands, we might begin with T. Roosevelt. Can I be specific in which actions, historically, took place to set this precident? With time, yes. I think we can agree, however, that the federal goverment does have such authority. How that authority came to be is the arena of--as you suggest--constitutional scholars and lawyers.

Perhaps, in the end, I simply disagree. Some think it is their right, priviledge, and perogative to jealously restrict (even to the end of complete prohibition) hunting and fishing of those who live outside a given state.

I would disagree. For if that is the case, then our country shall be short-lived indeed!

friar

Let me look at this a bit differently. Let's just say that Montana must now allow anyone who wants to hunt here do so and for the same fees as the residnets of the state. What outcomes can we expect from this? Here is a potential outcome, not necessarily a sure outcome or the only one.

1. The number of deer and elk hunters in Montana increases by a factor of 2 or 3 or maybe 15, hard to tell exactly.

2.MT-FWP imposes strict limits to preserve the remaining elk and or deer. Now depending on just how many of you still want to come here your, and my, chances of drawing a tag get to be 1 in 3 or maybe 1 in 50? Whatever, a lottery system is a sure bet.

Far is far you say and now everyone is on the same footing. Just apply to as many states as you can and hope you get drawn somewhere.

Nice if you can afford it. And here is where the devil comes to play. IF I can't afford to hunt out of state, as I suspect the majority of Montana hunters can't, where does that leave me? I could just play the tag lottery and get to hunt every few years or I could just give up hunting alltogether and do something else. IF I quit hunting I will also loose any interest in hunters rights and may even become resentful of those who can afford to hunt, human nature at work here.

Now our friends the anti-hunting folks have an opening, less hunters, less motivated pro-hunting voters, and maybe just a few pissed off former hunters. Yes, SCI can run a great ad campain to save hunting, but why will I vote for it if I never to get to hunt anyway?

Can't happen? How much luck have you guys in California or Oregon or Washington had fighting the anti's? What percentage of your population hunts? 10%? 20%? Certainly not enough to carry an election. Hunters in Montana make up a voting block that will crush any anti-hunt legislation, as long as they get to hunt.

In a state with only 900K population, a shift of a few thousand voters can, and has in the past, affected a sea-change in state policy.

Be careful when you ask the devil for a favor, you may get more than you bargained.

Heres a quote out of the Idaho Statesman(Boise Idaho) on the bill.
"It's a tough one, a divisive thing. As an organization we don't have a position and are not likely to take one," said Dan Crockett, a spokesman for the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in Montana.

Both sides have legitimate arguments, he said.

"I understand the concern that if you live in New York or Nebraska and you have to pay roughly 148 times as much to hunt for the same elk I hunt for in Montana," Crockett said Thursday.

At the same time, "the last time I checked, Montana was 46th or 47th in per capita income, so sometimes people make a deliberate trade-off to live somewhere and have these sort of opportunities," he said.

Though other states use restrictive criteria for some hunts, Nevada is the only state that uses a quota system for all big game species."

Jayco

Friar- I feel that you would have a different viewpoint on this subject IF you lived in a state with resricted hunting and hunters outnumbering the game animals. Your logic is fine when you are figuring that the game animals are in such abundance that Over-The-Counter hunting would not destroy the game herds. Problem is that the Western States Game herds are fragile and stable at best. Many residents of western states wait 1-8 years to hunt in THEIR OWN state.

Minnesota residents can hunt every year, and shoot multiple deer. If you had to wait 1-8 years to draw a tag then I doubt you would be happy if a guy from Utah or Florida was vieing for the same tag, with you getting no preference because you are a resident.

Let us also investigate Minnesota and how they discriminate: Nonresidents CAN NOT apply for or obtain an Elk permit in Minnesota. Nonresidents CAN NOT apply for and obtain a Moose permit. Bear: Resident cost is $39 while Nonresidents pay $196. Deer: Resident $53, Nonresident $271. Nonresidents must pay 5x more than residents fro the same tag.

If you don't agree with the Discrimination of Nonresidents then why don't you lobby your own state to change its laws. Maybe because it is self serving???

You can argue and argue, hunting is a privelege, not a right. The states right to manage wildlife,has now been granted by the federal governement. It's over for now!


What some who don't hunt or live here, elk, deer,and antelope, do not live all year on federal land. I can show you places where elk are present on National Forest until sept or early oct or the first snow, and they move to private or state land. I can argue this as long as nonresidents can argue equal or fair licenses on federal land. How do you begin to manage federal, state, and private lands???? It would be a nightmare. It could be done, will it be done? I doubt it! I don't think the system is that unfare, you buy a bear, lion, small game, or bird license and hunt all public land in Wyoming. Elk, deer, antelope, sheep, moose and goat are limited and more costly. Some sheep areas, the last time I checked,with max points, have better odds for nonresidents than for residents. And cost more, but still cheaper than a canadian or Alaskan guided hunt.

Bottom line, States have the rights to decide, if you don't like don't go!

quote:

Pathfinder, for someone from "The Constitution State" you sure don't seem to "get" state's right's, seperation of power, etc. Guess what? I don't pay taxes in CT and don't receive any of the benefit's of CT residency. Same for you in MT

Brad,
Just so you understand I own homes in CT, PA, and AZ and spend time in all of them. I could
buy one in MT or anywhere else but I pay way too much in various taxes already. I don't even mind sending some of those tax dollars to needy states like Montana.You do receive the benefit of taxes paid by CT residents into the federal government but you don't seem to understand state allocations from the federal government. Just wanted to clarify that point. But that has nothing to do with Federal land which we all own and should share equally. I won't argue state land, that, as far as I'm concerned, belongs to the people of that state. However Federal lands belong to all citizens like it or not.

HunterMontana & MC,

If you will take a little care in reading my initial post, you'll see that we're making similar points, at least in principle:

quote:

I'm not, mind you, against some differentiation of license fees, the end of which being that those who do not live in-state contribute in a fair and reasonable way to the management of game in the state hunted/fished. Those license fees, it would seem, naturally should be higher than resident.

I just don't think, however, that the present fee scales are fair.

Please note that I'm not suggesting that fairness is simply about "leveling" the playing field. You are very right to point out that residents ought to have preferential treatment in terms of selection and fees.

My contention is that many states, Minnesota & Wisconsin included, have unfairly weighted their criteria.

As for your implication, MC, that I support the present Minnesota regulations, you are mistaken. I agree that a nr license costing 5x the amount of a resident's is nonsensical and unjust. Clearly politicians, in large part at the behest of constituents, are simply selfish and greedy. It is unfortunate and sad.

May I politely suggest, MC, that you refrain from putting words into my mouth.

Lastly, let me say this. I have two young children. I would very much like to take them deer hunting every year in Wisconsin, where our family has long owned lake property. Nevertheless, I am a man of finite income, as I am a Lutheran pastor. Yet if Wisconsin continues to increase the cost of its nr licenses, I doubt I'll be able to afford, annually, three nr licenses, to say nothing of what a Wyoming elk license would cost.

Does that sound like the American way to you?

friar