one of us
| Jeff:
The only thing this will do is jack up rates for out of state hunters and provide even less opportunity.
When only the rich can hunt, we are all done for.
I have never drawn an elk tag, and frankly, never count on one. I hunt all over. I live in AZ for a couple of reasons: cheap airfares for my business, and lots of places to shoot rifles at very long distances. |
| | | Posts: 7578 | Location: Arizona and off grid in CO | Registered: 28 July 2004 | 
IP
|
|
one of us
| I agree that when hunting is only available to the wealthy it will be finished in this country becasue the masses of people who vote will have no incentive to keep a sport which they can't participate in legal.
We need only look to Britian for evidence of that.
That being said, the states out west have some hunting opportunities that are unavailable in the east and south.
If you won't let me come and hunt in your Arizona, why should I give a hoot if some greenie weenine federal regulator trys to ban hunting in your national forest?
Why should I use my vote to protect your hunting interests if you won't let me hunt?
By being greedy and keeping out of state hunters away you are hastening the loss of what you seek to protect.
All hunters are in this together, we have to stick together if we want to keep our right to hunt. The quota law only divides us and makes us weaker.
Just a little food for thought |
| | | Posts: 399 | Location: Cass County, Texas | Registered: 25 January 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| JNC:
You will be able to come out and hunt; it will just cost you a lot more in a few years. If you can afford it, your odds of being drawn are going to be a lot better, because those don't make a lot of money won't even bother applying.
Have you ever hunted in the UK? I have. Red stag are a pretty inexpensive animal to hunt - 400 bucks a day. It is wonder though, how it is even legal there, as so few even hunt. |
| | | Posts: 7578 | Location: Arizona and off grid in CO | Registered: 28 July 2004 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Arizona simply bans all non-residents from hunting in Arizona, then it's not un-Constitional?
In that case, I vote for the non-res ban... |
| | |
one of us
| Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Arizona simply bans all non-residents from hunting in Arizona,
Makes no diff whether only some or all. Still a violation of the interstate commerce clause because it prevents NRs from selling/buying parts of wildlife , i.e. antlers and hides as cited in this case. -TONY |
| | | Posts: 3269 | Location: Glendale, AZ | Registered: 28 July 2003 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| That is exactly my point. At the end of the day, this will shut the door for more people than it will open.
My advice to anyone who wants a lifetime of hunting adventure is to figure out how to make a lot of money, stay in shape, and learn to shoot. Those three things take home the trophies. |
| | | Posts: 7578 | Location: Arizona and off grid in CO | Registered: 28 July 2004 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Quote:
My advice to anyone who wants a lifetime of hunting adventure is to figure out how to make a lot of money, stay in shape, and learn to shoot. Those three things take home the trophies.
Now you're talking. Glad to see you come around. |
| | |
one of us
| Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Arizona simply bans all non-residents from hunting in Arizona,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes no diff whether only some or all. Still a violation of the interstate commerce clause because it prevents NRs from selling/buying parts of wildlife , i.e. antlers and hides as cited in this case. -TONY
Hmmm... so what if the State also bans the sale of big game parts? That's not much of a stretch, as some big game parts (bear gall bladders for example) are illegal to sell in some States.
Now it's a situation where there's no non-resident hunting at any price, and no inter-state sales of big game parts. |
| | |
one of us
| Quote:
Hmmm... so what if the State also bans the sale of big game parts? That's not much of a stretch, as some big game parts (bear gall bladders for example) are illegal to sell in some States.
As I have typed in several threads here already, that is certainly ONE of the options that is under consideration, but it will have to be worded properly. And I seriously doubt any complete ban on NR is in the works.
As with any law, there's going to be a downside to it, however. For example, I recently sold a frozen Coues deer cape that I had decided not to use. A ban would have made that impossible.  Of course, if the ban means I can get an elk or desert sheep permit next year, I'm all for it.  -TONY |
| | | Posts: 3269 | Location: Glendale, AZ | Registered: 28 July 2003 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Sorry to cause you to re-write previous info. But, I wanted to make certain that those who support this kind of ruling realize there could be a serious downside if States decide to get tough.
Personally, I wouldn't mind it at all, even though I'm considering doing some transporting in Alaska. It would kill many fine Guide and Transportering companies up here, and they don't deserve that treatment. But, it would cause them to wake up and get their already powerful lobbying mechanisms underway to help make sure this sort of stuff is reversed and not tried elsewhere.
We all make sacrifices when we choose where to live, and I have little sympathy for a non-resident who supports this sort of thing for their own personal benefit. |
| | |
one of us
| Although I have only a very small dog in this fight, it only shows you what happens when you let greedy people and entrepenuerial lawyers have a say in anything. And please, outdoor writer, I'm not interested in any of your bullshit, so let my simple statement stand alone. |
| | | Posts: 2037 | Location: frametown west virginia usa | Registered: 14 October 2001 |
IP
|
|
One of Us
| Quote:
The protection of interstate commerce which was written into the Constitution is one big factors that have contributed to the great wealth and economic prosperity we enjoy today.
So regardless of what most of the members of this forum think about quota's for out of state tags, they are unconstitutional, the 9th Circuit got it right for once.
IMHO...
Jeff Collins
Take off the blinders already, that court ruling effects a lot more than just commerce. You pinko liberals got one helluva case of tunnelvision..  |
| | | Posts: 10182 | Location: Tooele, Ut | Registered: 27 September 2001 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Quote:
...so let my simple statement...
No disagreement with that either. -TONY |
| | | Posts: 3269 | Location: Glendale, AZ | Registered: 28 July 2003 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Quote:
As the law stands, not as to whether it is good for Arizona hunters or conservation.
Exactly, and why the 9th Circuit Court wrote its ruling as it did, basically saying Arizona has the right to protect its limited resources but just has to come up with another way to do it. Obviously the next solution can't run afoul of the commerce clause. -TONY |
| | | Posts: 3269 | Location: Glendale, AZ | Registered: 28 July 2003 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Quote:
By extension, if the Commerce Clause were applicable to a state's management of game then a disparate fee for residents and non-residents would be unconstitutional as well.
Probably not because the higher fees do not restrict someone from "conducting commerce;" all they do is make it more costly to do so.
Only a guess, but if the higher NR fees were also an issue, the courts would have addressed it on the recent case. And from what I'm hearing through discussions with game department folks, fee increases have pretty much been cleared as a viable but partial option under consideration. -TONY |
| | | Posts: 3269 | Location: Glendale, AZ | Registered: 28 July 2003 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Quote:
Quote:
The protection of interstate commerce which was written into the Constitution is one big factors that have contributed to the great wealth and economic prosperity we enjoy today.
So regardless of what most of the members of this forum think about quota's for out of state tags, they are unconstitutional, the 9th Circuit got it right for once.
IMHO...
Jeff Collins
Take off the blinders already, that court ruling effects a lot more than just commerce. You pinko liberals got one helluva case of tunnelvision..
I'm no pinko liberal, I'm just stating what the law is on this matter, if you don't like it don't flame me, you need to amend the constitution.
This is not an intrastate transaction becuase a hunter coming from out of state bringing the transaction within the definition of interstate commerce.
States are allowed to charge higher fees for out of state hunters on the same basis that out of state tutition at colleges is allowed because the in state hunter pays state taxes which go to the game and fish program that the out of state hunter does not pay. |
| | | Posts: 399 | Location: Cass County, Texas | Registered: 25 January 2002 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| Quote:
state taxes which go to the game and fish program
The above is not true in many states that are self-supporting and get NO money from the state's general tax revenues. AZ is one of them. -TONY |
| | | Posts: 3269 | Location: Glendale, AZ | Registered: 28 July 2003 |
IP
|
|
new member
| This may be a little off topic, After reading what little I have one thought keeps coming to mind. How do you all think the resident hunters are going to react to a non resident hunter when they meet in the feild or in town?. After a court ruling limits the residents chances to draw a tag. I know that when I hunted Colorado as a non resident I was not very popular just because of the license plates on my Jeep. I fear that the anger for non resident hunters will get out of control. I imagine that you will see the resident hunters trying to make the non residents experience so bad that they will not want to come back. This would be the beginning of the end for hunting. Of course this will not really affect the rich hunters who go to a privatly guided ranch, but it will affect the hunters who really put out an effort and the time to do a do-it-yourself hunt on public ground, this would be a shame. |
| | | Posts: 30 | Location: Wyoming | Registered: 02 June 2004 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| You have a very good point, WyoXJ, and I do indeed think it likely. It occurs to some degree now, and if the residents start getting restricted more at the cost of non-residents, it will increase. Lest someone read in more than I said, I will clarify that I don't condone such, merely predict it. Also, I won't be a party to it, but it will occur, increasingly. |
| | | Posts: 747 | Location: Nevada, USA | Registered: 22 May 2003 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| WyoXJ, Well, I for one hope that doesn't come to pass. I have a NR friend that applies for an elk tag with me every year, and I'm not about to say he can't anymore because of this ruling. The lawsuit and result is certainly not the fault of every NR who has or will hunt in AZ -- or those other states that will soon be affected. Now, if they're from Texas, that's a different matter all together!!! Save your cards and letters, M16; that was a joke! -TONY |
| | | Posts: 3269 | Location: Glendale, AZ | Registered: 28 July 2003 |
IP
|
|
new member
| Could you just imagine all the crap that would go on?. I have seen it to a small degree in Colorado before where a residents F-350 just happen to break down and blocked off a access road to a great area. What was amazing is how quickly it started when his buddys called him on his two way radio to let him know they knocked down a few Bulls in the area he blocked off. All he said to me was I should stay in my own state. I am absolutly sure this will happen everyday in every unit in the western states. This will ruin hunting, antis will attack when they see us so weak fighting with each other. They need to leave the draw laws as they stand. I sure hope enough people take the time to send emails to knock out the USO and remove thier sponsors support. |
| | | Posts: 30 | Location: Wyoming | Registered: 02 June 2004 |
IP
|
|
one of us
| I'm with you, Writer, but it will happen (if this deal restricting residents severly to appeas non-residents sticks). Don't forget, I'm a non-resident hunter fairly often myself. I reckon when I hunt elk in CO with my buddy, we'll stash my pickup at his house or somewhere and use his. Not so obvious who I am then. |
| | | Posts: 747 | Location: Nevada, USA | Registered: 22 May 2003 |
IP
|
|
-TONY
