THe only problem I have with non-residents hunting is that they tend to 'wander off the range' if you know what I mean. For instance, 2 years ago I caught a band of about 6 guys hunting on my land. They already had a campsite set up, a fire going, and had already taken 3 deer and were after more. When I informed them that they were hunting on private and posted property, they gave me lip. One of them insighted a fistfight and I ended up calling the game warden. I wasn't about to try and whip 6 men. They ended up being Hoosiers, and when they left, they left my land a wreck. beer bottles everywhere and garbage all over the place. This caused me to go get permission from the courthouse to have my land posted as " Trespasers Will Be Prosecuted!". This has not set very well with me, but you have to do what you have to do!

quote:

Originally posted by D99:
Redhawk your an Apache? How about if we open up the White Mountain Res. to the public? Do a lottery and make all Indian Reservations open to lottery just like the rest.

We'll do 50% tribal hunters and 50% non tribal and the price will be $50 for everyone.

That's fair, that's what your talking about, right? Make it all equal.

Since you Easterners all think it's goverment property, let's make it open to everyone.

You analogy is ridicules. The issue has nothing to do with White Mountain Res.

You are just trying to push some buttons and it almost worked.

I sure wish we could be in the same room and you brought up such B.S. I would put my foot so far up you ass, I would make you think twice.

You are just a Troll looking to start shit. I could bet you are about 5 foot 5 inches tall and suffer from small man syndrome.

You don't even deserve my time. TROOL

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:


tom holland, what do you personally contribute to the growth of the animals in your State????
Last time I checked nature takes care of itself almost all the time. We are just there to manage it.

Yes we have the weather what we call winter kill then fish and game does a survey per unit then sets the quota(draw) per unit based on a buck/doe ratio. As far as I know Redhawk1 thats how Colorado manages the deer herds. Mother nature is just one part the rest takes money. We have too many hunters for the amount of deer in this state. If we stop the over the counter elk tags hopefully the amount of non residents appling for deer tags may drop. We only have two season now that you can walk in a buy an over the counter bull tag.
I don't know the laws govering the hunting on an Indian Reservation by an Native American that doesn't live on a reservation but would think since you are an Apache you would be hunting on some of the tribal land and supporting the local tribal economy. Since you claimed to of lived in Colorado I would assume you hunted the 4 corners reservation that offers great buck hunting. I know the White Mountain Apache offers special season and tags to it's members. You claim to be an Apache (life Member)whatever that is hope it's not like Ward Churchill but you have access to tags and cost that most would love to have but those are your rights. The White Mtn tribe has found a good balance between tribal hunting rights and charging a non tribal and that money pays the biggest share of their wildlife dept and also gives them a profit. They have a real model system on managing their wildlife.

tom holland, I have never hunted on any reservation. So I would not know the prices or what I would pay. I was never registered with a tribe so I do not think I fall under there tribal rules. I am sure I would have to pay as any other person hunting there.

Redhawk,

Push your buttons hardly! I had thought that someone who posted Apache "life member" at the bottom of there post, would have more of a connection to the Res in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah or Colorado. If you grew up in the East, it's what you know. I had guessed that you were a Indian that got some education and got off the res. I had also thought, that the analogy I used would make sense to you.

There was nothing offensive about it. You post at the bottom of your post that you are a Native American (Apache) Life Member. Then you get pissed when someone uses an indian reference.

Then to top it all off, you say your were ever registered as part of the tribe. Why's that? So how would you be a life member if you weren't registrered as part of the tribe?

I think there are enough stupid threats on this website to fill a 20,000 gallon shit tank. But still you threaten me, good for you! Feel like a big man? Your an Apache, hmmm most of the Apache men that I know are 5'7, 5'8 tops. Who's the little man?

If you can't have a rational conversation on this website without threats, how big a man are you?

D99,

Your previous post makes absolutely no sense. Tribal land is no different from private land. The sticking point is who should have to right to hunt on federal land that supposedly belongs to everyone. Private landowners and owners of tribal lands should be able to charge what the market will dictate.

It's amazing that almost everyone in this thread has accepted the old saw "the state owns the game". It flat does not.

I'm not about to take the time to address this complicated issue point by point but from the US Supreme Court case Hughes v. Oklahoma, 99 D. Ct. 1727 (1979) (bold emphasis mine) "a) Geer v. Connecticut, supra, is overruled. Time has revealed the error of the result reached in Geer through its application of the 19th century legal fiction of state ownership of wild animals. Challenges under the Commerce Clause to state regulations of wild animals should be considered according to the same general rule applied to state regulations of other natural resources."

End quoted text:

In fact, there is NO question under Scotus rulings and the application of common sense and the 14th Amendment that the US government has total authority on ALL federally owned lands if they choose to exercise it. As a matter of convenience over the years, the federal gov. has ceded the management of the game on these lands to the states, but, in fact, they can do with it as they wish as in their view such uses would benefit either the land and the game on it or the citizens of the US en toto. See New Mexico State Game Commission v. Udall, 410 F. 2nd 1197 (C.A.N. M. 1969).

In my mind and just using common sense, there is no question that the unequal treatment of citizens of one state v. citizens of any other state regarding license costs to hunt game ON FEDERAL LANDS violates the priviledges and immunities clauses of the Constitution. And, this is not even including the interstate commerce provisions which are oft cited as well.

BTW, I am not singling him out, but since his reply was directly above mine as I type this, the statemtent "tribal land is no different than private land" is completely ridiculous. One limitation on state action is Indian treaty rights. Many of the treaties signed over a century ago had a provision which assured Indians the sole right to hunt and fish on their reservation lands and a right to hunt and fish in other areas "in common" with non-Indians. When dealing with Indians under treaties, the states must respect them as another sovereign since the treaty is with the federal government and thus the law of the land.

What difference does it make in the context of who has the right to hunt a parcel of land whether by treaty or deed? For all intents and purposes entry is limited by who has control.

Well, MI6, the first and most obvious difference is that hunters on private lands are subject to that state's game laws and regulations, tribal lands are not. Entry is not the point, regulation and license fees are, and private land hunters have to pay the applicable state license fees, follow the state's regulations (for instance, hunter safety course requirements,) etc, hunter's on tribal areas do not but rather have to follow the tribal set of the above. In fact, the comparison between private lands and tribal lands is much the same as comparing land within a state that is either owned by individuals, corporations, or the state and federally owned land that is within that state.

As an example, rather than fight it out in court, if some state should decide to ignore the equal rights clause regarding hunting on federal lands, the US gov could simply charge an access fee for anyone with a firearm of say $1000/day and there would be no question in anyone's mind that the Feds would be within their rights.

I don't begrudge anyone living anywhere the free access to "my", meaning "our" Federal lands. I do begrudge them my having to pay more for the same right of access and hunting of "our" game than they do.

Gatogordo, You are quite correct. I get your point now. I hadn't considered the regulation part. Your posts make a lot of sense and I think it will eventually wind up that way.

quote:

Originally posted by D99:
Redhawk,

Push your buttons hardly! I had thought that someone who posted Apache "life member" at the bottom of there post, would have more of a connection to the Res in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah or Colorado. If you grew up in the East, it's what you know. I had guessed that you were a Indian that got some education and got off the res. I had also thought, that the analogy I used would make sense to you.

There was nothing offensive about it. You post at the bottom of your post that you are a Native American (Apache) Life Member. Then you get pissed when someone uses an indian reference.

Then to top it all off, you say your were ever registered as part of the tribe. Why's that? So how would you be a life member if you weren't registrered as part of the tribe?

I think there are enough stupid threats on this website to fill a 20,000 gallon shit tank. But still you threaten me, good for you! Feel like a big man? Your an Apache, hmmm most of the Apache men that I know are 5'7, 5'8 tops. Who's the little man?

If you can't have a rational conversation on this website without threats, how big a man are you?

D99, Not that I feel I need to explain anything to you, but seeing as you think I am not educated, I will fill you in on a little something. I am a collage grad. Paid for by myself (I wanted to add that so later you won't try to say I got federal money). My family income is in the 6 figure's. I work hard for what I have.

Also you reference to the reservation was not meant as information, but a jab at me. As far as me having "Native American (Apache) Life Member"
on the bottom of my post, one it does not make it an open invitation to your comments. As far as me not being registered as part of the tribe. My ancestors did not go to the reservation, they were the ones causing all the problems and fighting agents going to reservations. So there for my Great Grandfather, Grandfather and father were never registered to a tribe. But I am Native American by blood. So hence the phrase "Native American (Apache) Life Member"

As far as me being a big man, how about 6'0" 240 and not fat may I add. And always ready to dance.

So in closing, when you want to step up to the plate and start taking a jab at someone, expect it to come back at you, especially if it is me.

You guys waiting for the Feds to give out free non-residents licenses on Fed lands better not be holding your breath.

In the meantime, move, or pay.

I know that sounds harsh, but it's only meant to point out that some folks sacrifice alot to live in places like Alaska. For that, residents here get to hunt 3 big game animals without a guide. Big deal, right?

So when others start whining that they can't leave their cushy job and 72 degree weather, yet want equal hunting rights, it tends to fall on deaf ears.

quote:

Originally posted by BW:
You guys waiting for the Feds to give out free non-residents licenses on Fed lands better not be holding your breath.

In the meantime, move, or pay.

I know that sounds harsh, but it's only meant to point out that some folks sacrifice alot to live in places like Alaska. For that, residents here get to hunt 3 big game animals without a guide. Big deal, right?

So when others start whining that they can't leave their cushy job and 72 degree weather, yet want equal hunting rights, it tends to fall on deaf ears.

BW, I think you need to re-read all the posts. Not one person here said free. You just added that yourself. I don't think the anyone here said anything bad about Alaska, If you read my post you will see how I loved going to Alaska and I do not mind paying to hunt there.

And as far as our cushy job and 72 degree weather. Come to Delaware in December and January. Maybe not nearly the amount of snow and cold you get in Alaska, but we get very cold here. We all are not Florida.

Redhawk,

Okay, I added 'free' but I think everyone knows what I mean. Without going back to re-read my posts, I'm not sure where I inferred that anyone was talking bad about Alaska. I simply use Alaska as an example because...

it has lot's of Fed land
the State Requires a Guides for non-res to hunt brownies, goat, and sheep
I know it best

I'd also like to say that having the Feds run a huge portion of your Fish and Game laws is a royal pain in the arse. It's a constant source of agravation and confusion. Nothing like having a bunch of granola crunchers from the esat coast trying to manage a resource via long distance.

Remember it's a Fed law the USO is using against the western states now.

Oh yeah, where I live now it's usually warm, but I do recall the winter of '89 when we lived in Fairbanks. It hit -60 degrees there for a week. No wind chill, as there was no wind.

BW, where you living now? I would love to move to Alaska, but my wife is not sold on the idea.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
It's amazing that almost everyone in this thread has accepted the old saw "the state owns the game". It flat does not.

I'm not about to take the time to address this complicated issue point by point but from the US Supreme Court case Hughes v. Oklahoma, 99 D. Ct. 1727 (1979) (bold emphasis mine) "a) Geer v. Connecticut, supra, is overruled. Time has revealed the error of the result reached in Geer through its application of the 19th century legal fiction of state ownership of wild animals. Challenges under the Commerce Clause to state regulations of wild animals should be considered according to the same general rule applied to state regulations of other natural resources."

End quoted text:

In fact, there is NO question under Scotus rulings and the application of common sense and the 14th Amendment that the US government has total authority on ALL federally owned lands if they choose to exercise it. As a matter of convenience over the years, the federal gov. has ceded the management of the game on these lands to the states, but, in fact, they can do with it as they wish as in their view such uses would benefit either the land and the game on it or the citizens of the US en toto. See New Mexico State Game Commission v. Udall, 410 F. 2nd 1197 (C.A.N. M. 1969).

In my mind and just using common sense, there is no question that the unequal treatment of citizens of one state v. citizens of any other state regarding license costs to hunt game ON FEDERAL LANDS violates the priviledges and immunities clauses of the Constitution. And, this is not even including the interstate commerce provisions which are oft cited as well.

BTW, I am not singling him out, but since his reply was directly above mine as I type this, the statemtent "tribal land is no different than private land" is completely ridiculous. One limitation on state action is Indian treaty rights. Many of the treaties signed over a century ago had a provision which assured Indians the sole right to hunt and fish on their reservation lands and a right to hunt and fish in other areas "in common" with non-Indians. When dealing with Indians under treaties, the states must respect them as another sovereign since the treaty is with the federal government and thus the law of the land.

_______________
Gatagordo, your 1st sentence and statement. When poachers and outlaws are caught, they most often have to make restitution for "the replacement cost value of that species". That payment is made to the respective State.

This is not to argue with your post but that's what I've seen. From that, I'd say the State does "own" the animal, be it direct or de facto.

I am sure that there is probably 50 states that would argue about who owns the wildlife. Hopefully the Reid bill will pass soon and the whinning will subside. It blows my mind that anyone would bitch about paying $200 or $300 more than a resident to hunt, I would pay it every year if I so desired to hunt in other states.

George Taulman has to go down in history for the biggest tard, that might affect hunting more than any anti-hunter or anti- hunting group has ever even attempted.

The $200-300 dollars is not the problem. The problem is getting a decent chance to draw a tag. The problem is having to buy a license to get preference points.

If the state owns the wildlife why don't they pay for damages when you hit one with a vehicle. Or should they charge you restitution if you run over one of their animals?

I apply for deer. elk, and antelope every year. I draw one of the three tags about every other year. Thats pretty slim hunting for a resident. I would love to see a point system for residents, then I might actually get one tag each year. The good news is that the WG&F is going to do it in 2006.

Quote:
If the state owns the wildlife why don't they pay for damages when you hit one with a vehicle. Or should they charge you restitution if you run over one of their animals?

I think if you run over one of our animals your insurance company should pay the state of Wy. In fact you or anyone else from Texas should be fined and locked up for poaching if you hit one . Wy has an open range law, you hit it, your on your own!

quote:

I apply for deer. elk, and antelope every year. I draw one of the three tags about every other year. Thats pretty slim hunting for a resident.

Who's whinning now? I feel your pain. I get 5 whitetail and 2 mule deer tags every year and I don't have to apply for anything. As a non-resident you can get the same. It comes with the license. I also get around 30 MLD permits per year. I can use these myself or sell them. We don't discriminate agaist non-residents.

I accept and I am content with what I get, no whinning or sniveling like the nonresidents who want resident status in every state. I don't need to draw and kill 7 deer every year to prove my man hood. I am content with one of the three license's when I am fortunate to get one.

I don't have the need or desire to try and change every law to make hunting and killing more conduceive to my way of thinking or personal desires.

I'm not going to argue this ad infinitum. But simply because a state or any government for that matter claims they own something or have the rights to do something does not necessarily make it so. Among other things, the use of the
"eminent domain" law to condemn private property by local governments so other private property owners can use if for a use that the local government deems better is a current example that is before the SCOTUS now. Same thing can apply to the use of the various "wetlands" laws that curtail the use of private property by their owners. These are just a few examples of where one of the states or the Feds claim they have the right or ownership but, in fact, don't necessarily have it, if someone could litigate it far enough.

There is no disputing that states claim ownership of the game and have laws to that effect. There is also little dispute that most of those laws, depending on exact wording etc. are based on a false assumption. However, it takes MAJOR amounts of money to fight such assumptions and most people don't have the time or the money. It's similar to paying a speeding ticket that you don't believe is accurate but you got it on you way home in another state and fighting it would cost multiples of what paying it would AND you might still lose, even if you are right. So.....most people take the easy way out.

Finally, it is simply put, not fair and violates the priviledges and immunities clauses for ANYONE to have an advantage over anyone else when it comes to hunting on Federal lands, whether that advantage be by preference, biased distribution of hunting licenses, or monetary cost of licenses. BTW there is no dispute that the various states have a police power and public good interest in MANAGING the game laws and thus the game, but managing them ON FEDERAL LANDS to the advantage of their citizens and the detriment of other US citizens is the sticking point. Equally managing is not owning. They manage the speed at which we drive but don't claim to own the cars for a simplistic example.

The only people who seem to think the current system is fair are those who are the beneficiaries of such unfair treatment, including. but not limited to. all of the various state game departments involved and most of hunters in those states which represents a huge political and economic block. That doesn't make it right. They're just like welfare recipients, they've been getting it, so why shouldn't they keep getting it?

Would someone, anyone, please explain your rational as to why any hunter should have preferential treatment over any other hunter on federal land?

Gatogordo, You would have to have two separte dept handling the wildlife. One for federal land the other for the rest of the land as well as two separte type license. If you look at the total picture you may see why the state runs the wildlife and has ownership. We have elk that summer up in the national forest "our land" then they move off for the winter. Part of the budget for wildlife is the feeding of the elk and deer or paying for crop damage. The national forest or "our land doesn't support the wildlife. Outside of Kremmling, Co they have a pretty big state shooting range but it closes in the winter for the wildlife as a feeding area. I have deer that winter where I live and there gone in the spring. We got a herd of elk about 5 miles northeast of me and there isn't any federal land and no hunting except special draws and very few license given out. People around here consider them as our animals and no state money takes care of them. Were lucky to live where we do I don't know too many out here that doesn't enjoy just going up to the mountains and watching, my wife an I took off for afew days last week saw some sheep,elk,deer and antelope hate to say this but the sheep were the only ones on federal land but they had a viewing area for sheep.

Tom:

No, you wouldn't have to have 2 separate game depts. It would operate just as it does now, but for hunting on Federal lands, the residents of the state and non-residents would have to be treated equally. Its not hard to do or to understand, just the people who have something to gain or to lose, depending on how you look at it, don't want to do what is obviously fair and right. The fees that non-residents pay go a long ways toward feeding those elk, etc that you referred to. Those fees would have to either be lowered and the locals raised or whatever would be a fair and equal treatment of US citizens hunting on US land, seems fair to me.

I understand the line of thought used by Gatogordo, but I don't agree with it. I would rather see the F&G Depts of each state pay some kind of grazing permit fee, rather than give nonresidents equal rights.

Lets all face the fact that OUR OWN states charge more or allocate tags differently between residents and nonresidents. Yet no one I know of is out there trying to get their own states to change the way they do it. Even Delaware charges a guy double to hunt Fedral lands.

In my home state, the legislature pulled over $6 million from the general gunds to aid wildlife. Also, over $3 million was allocated to improve winter and summer ranges on Fedral lands.

Everyone chooses to live where they do and as such they reap or are left out of certain benefits. I wonder how guys from Kentucky would feel about nonresidents getting the bulk of their elk tags. I choose to live in my state, hunt other states, and not whine about the way they divy up the tags.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Tom:

No, you wouldn't have to have 2 separate game depts. It would operate just as it does now, but for hunting on Federal lands, the residents of the state and non-residents would have to be treated equally. Its not hard to do or to understand, just the people who have something to gain or to lose, depending on how you look at it, don't want to do what is obviously fair and right. The fees that non-residents pay go a long ways toward feeding those elk, etc that you referred to. Those fees would have to either be lowered and the locals raised or whatever would be a fair and equal treatment of US citizens hunting on US land, seems fair to me.

You want one set of rule for federal land and another for the balance not hard to understand or just make everything as if it was federal land but charge the non resident less and the resident more make sure the tags are given equally. OK! sound like a another non resident plan to me.

The issue of different regulations for Federal land verses state/private land is no worse than different regulations for units within states. Regulations like this are enforced all the time......this is just another "straw" that you western folks are grasping at.......and it is a bogus argument......

Drawings for hunting federal land in my state make no consideration as to residence......a non resident has the exact same chance of drawing a tag as I do.......and that is the ONLY fair and equitable way to issue tags for federal lands.

You western whiners best get ready......you have enjoyed "wildlife welfare" too long and you are about to see what the rest of us have to deal with in order to hunt!

If you want to play..... you got to pay!

quote:

You western whiners best get ready......you have enjoyed "wildlife welfare" too long and you are about to see what the rest of us have to deal with in order to hunt!

We whine? LOL! Your funny, it's the nonresidents that started this whole thing and demand equality. I am all for it, but every state had better impliment the same programs. Sounds like socialism to me but what the heck. Why not jsut make it a national deer, elk, bear tag, same price in every state. We can't discriminate over land, state, county, or federal. It's all the same to every one. A utopia! Even though like Tom said, and it has been mentioned before, federal land is intermingled with private, state, county, and railroad land all over the west. The wildlife wanders in and out of all of these lands all year long. Who will police that?

It's a pipe dream, the Reid bill will pass and the nonresidents can suck a hind tit. Then the crying will start all over agian. Mean while I will buy my $55 elk tag and you can pay $400! I know it just isn't fair! And living in a particular state, supporting all facits of that state all year long means nothing.

Who is the one crying about not getting to hunt in your own state?????

You still don't get it......non-residents are only asking for equality when it comes to federal lands......you know, the lands that ALL US taxpayers pay for......not private land, not state land......FEDERAL LAND!!!

You keep bringing up the fact that non-residents don't support "all facits of that state all year long".....I'd sure like to know what that has to do with this discussion......I always thought that non-resident hunters SPENT MONEY and contributed to the economy in the states they visit??? Lot's of business would go bankrupt without the dollars spent by non-resident hunters So, you pay sales tax and property tax while living in your state......what does that have to do with hunting on FEDERAL LAND????

I can legally take 7 deer per year in my state......more than that if I draw any "special hunts".......I have a lifetime license so I pay NOTHING for those tags....the cost of that license was $300 when I bought it several years ago......I wouldn't want to live where I could only hope to draw a tag every 3 years......

I never have, and probably never will hunt big game in a "western" state......but I'll be first in line to vote for equal opportunity for all US citizens to hunt on Federal land......

Here's something for you to think about......the majority of hunters in the US DON'T live in western states.......if it comes down to a vote......who do you think will win?????

Don't hang your hat on the Reid bill......even if it passes, it can still be struck down as unconstitutional........

I will tell you one thing for sure and for certain......after having this discussion on a couple of different boards and seeing the selfishness displayed by people like you.....if it comes down to a vote, I will vote to close ALL hunting on Federal lands before I'll vote to allow states to discriminate against non-residents.....and there are a bunch of folks out here who feel the same way I do......after all, we have nothing to lose and we are sick and tired of paying for your playground.......

Your vote really scares me! Dream on and maybe your fairytale will come true. It matters not to me, I can still go for hikes and enjoy the federal lands every day with out hunting or killing. I live here becuase I love this state and the people that like it the way it is with out trying to change it to see what more they can take with out giving. Like the Okatexans that want to change the world to their way of thinking because they screwed everything up where they live.

If public land hunting ended tomorrow I wouldn't lose any sleep! I can still go watch the wildlife and still enjoy it.


You don't get it do you? The federal land is checkerboarded with private, state, county, rail road, logging companies lands! You don't have a clue, the only blocks of pure 100% federal land is some BLM and the stuff in Yellowstone. You and the rest of the cry baby nonresidents need to get over it, you are not going to get residents rights and live in another state. Your logic is

You have equal rights to hunt any where on federal land, so long as you have a license from the state in which you hunt. The same as we do. In Wyoming you stand as good as or even better odds of drawing as I do!!! You just have to pay a little more because you don't pay taxes here, buy food, gas, clothes, pay utillitiy bills, support the children, schools, businesses, work, go to church,etc;etc;

quote:

apply for deer. elk, and antelope every year. I draw one of the three tags about every other year. Thats pretty slim hunting for a resident. I would love to see a point system for residents, then I might actually get one tag each year. The good news is that the WG&F is going to do it in 2006.

__________________

Kudu,
I hear what you're saying but I dont think that's anywhere close to the whole story. Your lack of yearly success is due to the "hot" areas you are trying to get drawn for. Wanna list them for us for each of the species? Then we can look at the draw success ratio for those areas? Not flaming you or others that say this but that's pretty much the bottom line on it, I think. Same for Co., N.M. and other western state's residents. It is not quite like you and others are being excluded and discriminated against.
Dungbeetle

If you look at the limited quota areas, pretty much the only ones with deer in them any more, you will see the draw odds are about the same for resident as nonresident. Reason being, more residents apply than nonresidents. None of the areas are "hot" areas, they are near my home and the general areas are pretty poor deer populations, now as for elk it is about the same except general elk has more elk and better elk hunting than general deer. Bear, same for every one, lion same for everyone, goat and sheep, odds are better for nonresidents than residents with full points. I have checked and even asked the G&F and about giving up residency and apply for sheep as a nonresident so I could draw before I die. But they told me no!!!!!!!! Antelope, most areas the odds are pretty close for both. Moose, you stand as good of a chance as I do. You just pay more!

Our odds are actually getting worse as more and more people move in, I don't feel discriminated against nor do I harbor any hard feelings, I would put the WYG&F up against any state.

You are no more a resident of Federal Land than I am.......you don't "buy food, gas, clothes, pay utillitiy bills, support the children, schools, businesses, work, go to church" on federal land than I do......and none of those things you listed have anything at all to do with the federal land issue!

We are not asking for residents rights, we don't use your schools, we don't take your jobs, in fact, we don't consume anything that we don't pay for while in your state......when we buy gas, food and clothes while in your community we pay our own way........your federal taxes aren't any higher than mine yet you want to continue to reap the benefit of my tax dollars......and you say that's fair because you live in a different state than I do?????

The "fact" that "The federal land is checkerboarded with private, state, county, rail road, logging companies lands!" is of no consequence.....I deal with property lines every time I go hunting.......the game wardens in my state enforce laws in accordance with property ownership every day.....I OWN land and I UNDERSTAND that a deer on the neighboring property is NOT fair game.....this is simply another one of your irrelevant rants that have no bearing on this discussion.....

You say: "You have equal rights to hunt any where on federal land, so long as you have a license from the state in which you hunt." I believe that is the dumbest thing you have written so far! You want to keep us from getting the license while telling us we are welcome to hunt as long as we have one........

I'll say one thing for you.....you are good at throwing up smoke screens!

When this all started, you and people like you had an ally against USO....I was against them.....what you and other people like you have done and continue to do through your selfishness is alienate the very people you are going to want on your side later.......the anti hunters will surely vote against you.......think you can carry the weight all by yourself????

It would be more profitable for me to beat my head against a rock than to discuss this with you......I don't believe I'll ever change your mind.....and, in the end, it won't really matter......the courts will decide.........

Yes the courts will and they will side with the states, states rights granted by the constitution. The entire fiasco will only harm hunting and hunters priveleges. Your excuse that it is everyones land and you have the same right to hunt it as I do is a feeble attempt to get something for nothing. Keep on dreaming, if USO brings down hunting on public land so be it. Life will go on and I will still live here.

No one is trying to keep you from getting a license, you just have to pay for it and you don't want to.

quote:

Originally posted by kudu56:
If you look at the limited quota areas, pretty much the only ones with deer in them any more, you will see the draw odds are about the same for resident as nonresident. Reason being, more residents apply than nonresidents. None of the areas are "hot" areas, they are near my home and the general areas are pretty poor deer populations, now as for elk it is about the same except general elk has more elk and better elk hunting than general deer. Bear, same for every one, lion same for everyone, goat and sheep, odds are better for nonresidents than residents with full points. I have checked and even asked the G&F and about giving up residency and apply for sheep as a nonresident so I could draw before I die. But they told me no!!!!!!!! Antelope, most areas the odds are pretty close for both. Moose, you stand as good of a chance as I do. You just pay more!

Our odds are actually getting worse as more and more people move in, I don't feel discriminated against nor do I harbor any hard feelings, I would put the WYG&F up against any state.

_________________

You got a laugh out of me with your non-res Sheep comment/strategy. My stake in this is that I'll be a Wyoming res in 2006.

Agree with what you said on Wy F&G.

Now comes the part where we discuss why the Feds own land in any State anyhow?

Yes, we've done this topic before

I think the residents of many western States would like to see the Feds get out and give the land back to the States. After all, how many of you live in a State that was purchased as part of the Louisiana Purchase? Big chuck if land bought and paid for by the US government. I'll be down there with my rifle tomorrow to hunt the whole darn parcel.

There were other land purchases during the settlement of the west, so watch out in those areas too.

Funny how we never talk about that Federally paid for land, just the land that still looks good to non-resident hunters.

All hunters should be able to get their tag in the state they reside. After that the non-residents should get whats left over. Alot of people whining about this have no problem getting a deer tag in their home state. All of our deer tags in Colorado are by draw and on average I bet we only have a 50/50 chance of getting a buck tag.

As far as Federal land and State Game. This is a constitutional issue and if you don't like it, then move to another country (I bet you would move back fast). There is NO mistreatment of non-residents on Federal land. You can walk/ride/drive/camp as easy on Federal land in my state as I can. If you want to hunt our game, you gotta play by our rules. If hunting our game is that important to you then pack your bags and become a resident just like we did, but stop your big puss whining and law suits, it is destructive to hunting, and the American way of life.

Deke.

quote:

You can walk/ride/drive/camp as easy on Federal land in my state as I can.

So why can't I have the same chance to hunt and fish on Federal land the same as you can?

Deke:

It ain't "your" meaning belonging to the residents of "your" state when it is on Federal land. It is "our" game on "our" land. "Our" meaning all the citizens of the US.

BW:

There isn't any "giving it back to states" question. The states NEVER owned it, Texas being one notable exception , to start with, so where is the "back" part. The only reason Alaska has ANY state lands is that the citizens of the US decided to give some to the new state. A relevent question is why Alaska is allowed to collect royalty or severance taxes on what is probably Federal oil.

As far as the Louisiana Purchase goes, all they purchased was the lands claimed by France. Any and all private land claims, both French and Spanish in origin were honored (well, more or less, like most land issues, there were huge illegalities in many cases but time has healed or obscurred those issues). In addition, the US government over the years sold, traded (with the railroads for one), or allowed to be settled and thus converted to private ownership most of the remaining land in the Louisiana purchase so it no longer owns very much land in that area. As far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to come down and hunt on any Federal land anywhere and YOU SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE ABLE TO DO SO UNDER THE SAME RULES AND LICENSE COSTS AS SOMEONE WHO LIVES NEXT TO THE TRACT YOU DESIRE TO HUNT ON.

I don't have a problem with state game depts continuing to manage game within their state's boundaries, most of them do a great job, the problem is the politicians of the state, just as in "welfare", are giving their constituents a "reduced fare ride" on Federal game and lands compared to the costs to non-residents of that state. Please define why you think this is fair?

State owned lands, or private land inside a state.....charge what you want to whomever you want, discriminate all you want, if the discriminees will pay it, more power to that state. Federal lands.....charge whatever you want to EVERYONE. EVERYONE has the same set of rules and costs. The courts have ruled on this already, and, duh, guess what, the whiners who suck up to their cheap in state license costs lost. Whether that decision will be upheld on appeal is another question, but I believe it will. Right is right and wrong is wrong. And the states charging exorbitant fees in relation to what they charge residents to hunt on Federal lands, which is a HUGE percentage of the hunting land available in most western state is flat wrong. Nobody had a problem with it (even tho it was just as wrong) when the state game depts weren't so greedy, but they've killed that golden goose.

quote:

Originally posted by M16:

quote:

You can walk/ride/drive/camp as easy on Federal land in my state as I can.

So why can't I have the same chance to hunt and fish on Federal land the same as you can?

You can in Colorado for elk just walk in and buy one apply for a deer tag non residents only get 40% of the draw tag but you can get a leftover tag if all the tags aren't drawn it's a first come deal. As to fishing just walk in and buy a license have to pay a non resident fee just like I have to in Texas. We do have limit units for elk that are on a draw hunt and 40% goes to non resident but every hunter who doesn't draw a tag get points towards the next years hunt. Is the system fair no . Not in the eyes of the nonresident or the resident who cann't draw a tag in their home state. Afew years ago the resident and non resident were on a 50% draw each. We now have the NRA sticking their nose in the Habitat fee here and appointing non sportman to that group. We have so many non hunters trying to run the hunting end here it's a wonder anything gets done. If it was up to the Boulder group there won't be any hunting in the state period. We got the forest service trading "our land" good habitat land to developers as the public we don't normally find out about these things till after it done. The forest service will normally get more land but it up on a hill couldn't support a goat. Give you a good example over in Breckenridge a district range approved a new ski run on forest service land never held a meeting or anything just said OK paper got hold of that well the run was put on hold till further review had that paper not found out only way of knowing would of been when that run was being constructed. The forest service care taker of our land is forcing this state by trading away good habitat land now we are having to buy land to support those herds of deer and elk.