A non-resident has as much right to recreation on federal land as any resident. However, animals are defined as state property. Hunting glamour species have become extremely profitable as opportunities have shrunk due to our massive population. States are money hungry and NR's don't vote. I'm all for states rights and resident opportunity. I also believe that hunting needs to kept affordable for both NR's and residents. How are our youth going to get fired up about our passion if they can't afford it and there is very little opportunity?

Pathfinder...

We pay taxes here which support, for instance, the building and mainatainance of Nuclear Submarines. Our state receives NO benefit from them other than some sort of "peace of mind" (right). CT on the ohter hand receives tremendous financial benefit ala Groton. CT is the most industrialized (per capita) state (or was) in the USA, a fair bit of which is defense related, supported by Montanan's tax dollars, none of which ads any financial benefit to us... do you see there's never total "equity" in any situtaion where Federal money is involved.

The benefits a state like CT recieves via Federal money are tremendous. Likewise MT. It is not, however, an equal playing field and can never be because of CT's population, location, infastructure, industry and political power.

Personally, I don't whine about such things nor living in a state with nearly the lowest wages in the US (49 out of 50). I chose to be here, though I do enjoy some fringe benefits of residency (cheaper tags) ala my tax dollars.

The game is owned by and (mostly) state managed (not federally), so I'm sure we can best make our own decision's about tags and management which should benefit state resident's first and foremost.

Brad, I want to hear them argue with your post!

Friar, as to my first point, the main proposition is that the states, not the federal government, were designed to have the huge majority of rights in America. They have voluntarily given them away. We are a union of those states, not to be confused with being a big pool of US people without other boundaries than oceans, Canada and Mexico. The war between the states did not settle the states rights question. That is why we do not have US driver's licenses, etc. because we are citizens of our state first. Legally, all of the states volunteered, by voting, to become part of the union and yes, legally, they can vote to leave it again. But that partly goes back to the fact that the states have given away their rights, like hunting regulations, in most cases. If you don't think the states have given away their rights as to hunting, try hunting wolves in Montana, or spotted owl in Oregon.

Anyway, I don't think the US government should have been able to take away, nor give permission to any state to charge any fees they see fit to best manage the state herds or commerce. Again, we will not go into interstate commerce issues.

You raise an interesting point, Larry, as to whether we are citizens first of the union or the state. But how to determine where one's primary citizenship lies?

If it is with the state, then do we ascertain citizenship by the state in which one was born, or in which one currently lives? And what about those who reside part of the year in one state and in another for a different part of the year?

Simply from a practical perspective, we would have to agree that the federal government holds greater sway in terms of taxes, selective service, and social security. It has (again, how this came to be is another conversation) the authority to regulate trade between the states (and I do agree that hunting is, rightly, not inter-state commerce). The union is the only body that can declare or wage war. And every state's constitution must pass muster against the union's constitution. If there is a disagreement as to whether a state's law is "constitutional," is this not decided at the federal level?

Please understand, I'm not advocating that the federal government concern itself or burden us with the relative minutia of hunting regulations and fees (though I'm well aware it does). I think the best, most equitable outcome would be for neighboring states to come to consensus on their own.

This is very difficult, of course, as the "negotiations" between Minnesota and North Dakota regarding duck hunting have shown. And this would not necessarily resolve questions regarding non-neighboring states.

It would be a good beginning, however, at reigning in this tit-for-tat madness that has become nr fees. I still have not seen a rational, defensible argument justifying why Minnesota (or any state) charges its fellow American citizens 5x the cost of its residents.

As I have said in prior posts, I think some differentiation is useful and justified. Perhaps 3x or so. But 5x? To this, I can never agree. The only rationale for charging 5x or more the amount is greed; it's as simple as that.

Anyway, this has been an enjoyable conversation with all of you, and I hope no one takes these comments of mine as a personal attack. Certinaly they are not intended to be so.

friar

Kudu, the silence is sorta deafening...

I've stayed out of this but I think that there is a fair solution.......in the past, at least one state had reciprocal charges for licenses and tags......that is, if one western state charged $750.00 for a license or big game tag then citizens of that state would pay the same fee for licenses or tags in an eastern state.(I know of one eastern state that did this, don't know if they still do) What could be more fair????????

Joe

quote:

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.

A) Yes they do. See New York's Sullivan Law.
B) Hunting is a privilege, NOT a right. The bunny huggers know this, you should too.

DD,

What's Sullivan's law?

And in case you missed the point of my quote, I said that hunting comes "close" to being a right.

That means it's not a right in and of itself.

I do understand that.

friar

quote:

posted 20 May 2005 09:07
Kudu, the silence is sorta deafening...

Oh but not for long. Wyoming wants to raise the fee for preference points, to nonresidents, to $75. I think Arizona is $140. I do agree with them on that one though, that is a little steep just for a point.

Yes but let's look at the good news. According to the hunting fool Wyoming has lowered the non-resident grizzly fee from only $17,500 to a measly $5000. Things are looking up! On the downside there is no current grizzly season so what difference does it make.

Probably be able to hunt a grizzly before we can hunt a wolf!

Friar, I agree, just good conversation. I certainly have not been offended by anything you have said.

As to your points, the states have decided where you are a "citizen" by their residency requirements. Yes, the federal government does hold more sway, but did you know we volunteered for that as well. Take taxes, the constitution stipulates that there be no more than 2% income tax and only in time of war. How do they get around it? The 14th Amendment allowed for indentured servitude, voluntary slavery, so the slaves did not have to leave their farms. Then the Federal Reserve Act was signed and the two were put together by the banks. The card you sign when you get a bank account will have bank rules on it and one of them will say something like, "by signing this card you agree to abide by all other bank policies that may be changed from time to time." The other policies happen to be the IRS rules, if you search far enough. Hence you volunteered to pay taxes.

As to the inequities in hunting prices, I agree that 5X may be too much, but I don't know all the costs involved. I happen to live in Kansas which has some of the worst descrepancies between resident and non-resident hunting fees in the nation. Up until a very few years ago, like 5 if memory serves, nr's were not allowed big game tags at all. So in return, what has Missouri done? They charge an extra surcharge to residents of Kansas, Iowa and Oklahoma above any other non-residents because they think these three states charge too much. That may be a case for descrimination, but no one has won yet. But it is rediculous.

All in all, it is refreshing to have a civil disagreement with someone and not hear a bunch of flaming.

I sure agree with kudu and the Reid bill. I believe Alaska has the largest amount of federal land in the U.S. and we as residents can't hunt in certain areas. I don't have a problem with it nor do I have a problem with other states charging non-residents a much larger fee. That is the way it should be. Residents of each state should have lower fees, and first "dibs" on their wildlife. I will hunt Montana in the future and will have no problem paying the non-resident fees to do so. If Alaska was "equal" access to both residents and non-residents, there would be a severe shortage of game which would lead to crappy drawing permits etc. I WOULD never want to see that for any state. Now off to kill some bears over bait. Sure wish the whacked out states that banned that could do it.

Gentlemen,

I think we've about come to the end on this one, and probably hold more agreement than anyone would have first thought.

I will be interested to hear Dan's synopsis of the Sullivan law. It should be interesting.

Until then, take care, and thanks...

friar