But it will be a federal offense to speed or drink and drive on federal land, instead of a state offense? Since the states have no say on federal land. And a federal highway? And state highways that are maintained on federal land will no longer be, the feds have to maintain it?

quote:

The states have NO rights on Federal land

__

Gatagordo, your quote;

How then do you explain that State Game Wardens can and do enforce laws on Federal Lands within their respective state(s)? I am trying hard to see your point of view on this but it escapes me. Fed agents, e.g., only get involved on matters and things like interstate sale of game species, migratory fowl issues, fishing on the Yellowstone (State guys do, too), etc.

"Game management 101" that you mention is a clear misnomer. It is "People Management 101". The "game" part is secondary and I think that's what Atkinson was alluding to.

quote:

I am trying hard to see your point of view on this but it escapes me

His and the others point of view is, they want to hunt in Western states as residents. But they don't want to live there, pay taxes there, shop there, 365 days a year.

My point is you can't just single out hunting, if the state has no jurisdiction on federal lands regarding hunting, then it should go for everything in every state. I can hunt the federal refuges in Texas and Kansas as a resident. A Wyoming highway patrolman or county sheriff can't ticket me on a federal highway or in a National forest or on BLM. I like this!

This has been one of the funniest discussions I have watched....

I am omniverent to either side, if it changes cool if it don't, oh,well. IMO there are bigger battles to fight.

The fact is that Federal authority always trumps state authority. In cases where states have had their laws upheld over more restrictive Federal laws, it is ONLY because the U.S. Supreme Court (a FEDERAL BODY) has sided with them.

The feds gave the states the responsibility and right to manage land that falls within their borders.( And they can take it away) If the citizens of the U.S. want to change it, they CAN. (I doubt it would ever happen)

Trying to get residents of states to agree to allowing more access and less expensive access to non-residents is a waste of time. If you really want to change it, take your case to the U.S. Congress. If a law is enacted and it is deemed unconstitutional, then the last resort is a constitutional amendment. (Good luck, though!)

IV

quote:

His and the others point of view is, they want to hunt in Western states as residents. But they don't want to live there, pay taxes there, shop there, 365 days a year.

My point is you can't just single out hunting, if the state has no jurisdiction on federal lands regarding hunting, then it should go for everything in every state. I can hunt the federal refuges in Texas and Kansas as a resident. A Wyoming highway patrolman or county sheriff can't ticket me on a federal highway or in a National forest or on BLM. I like this!

Not surprisingly, WRONG again. I am for equal treatment on Federal lands because of the simple fairness of the issue. It ain't the residents of that state's land, it's all the residents (citizens) of the US's land. If you told me tomorrow that I could go hunt anywhere in the US for elk, mt. sheep, etc for free, I probably wouldn't go. In my case, money is not the issue, equal treatment is.

Finally, the Feds ALLOW local law enforcement, state game control, etc on Fed land because it is a convenient system and until the state's got incredibly greedy and unfair relating to game control as they have in the last couple of decades it worked reasonably well. The Feds don't have to allow the states any control on Federal land, and, if the goals conflict, they won't. Again, dummy, see New Mexico vs Udal.

Why don't you try to exercise your state's rights on a military base if you think State's are the ruling authority? Check how much state tax is collected on sales on Indian reservations, which is analagous. Geesh.

As far as your stupid tax issue smoke screen goes, why don't you see how much of your state's game dept income is from PR taxes and from non-resident fees and then tell me who pays for what. Not to mention in most Western states they get much more from Uncle Sugar in cost sharing, highway construction, than the residents of that state pay in. I'm not complaining about this, it is a Union and the rich help the poor, but don't bitch to me about how the locals in most western states pay all the costs. Sheeeit.

Idahovandal:

Not quite true, the Federal courts can mandate equal access, just as they have and still are doing in various places under the intergration laws as they relate to schools. If you don't think so, wait until some Federal judge tells X state game dept head that he and his agency will be held in contempt and pay say $100,000 a day until he/it complies.

on an unrelated topic, I'm a proponent of all local school systems telling the Feds to go screw themselves and stick that federal money where the sun doesn't shine, they (meaning OUR tax monies) only pay roughly 1/16 of the costs of schools yet mandate everything that is done relating to the education of our children. I suspect just complying costs more than they contribute. Of course, the state would have to go along, and being the money whores they are, including as related to non-residents hunting fees, that is extremely improbable.

I don't like the Feds being able to tell the local school boards how to run their schools, how many days a kid has to go to school to go on to the next grade, etc. The Federal example, as in Washington DC, is one of the worst, if not the worst in the country, so why do they think they know anything about how to do it?

If the feds take control, and allow a "supposed"federal tag, equal to all, then who enforces the laws concerning that hunting? Why would the state G&F if management is taken away? The Forest Service is esentially broke, they are auctioning off and selling property in several states right now to try and make budgit constraints. And then you want them to put on Game Rangers to patrol and prosecute game violators on federal land? Same thing for BLM.

Case in point, two years ago, here in Washakie county, BLM had a over zealous Ranger, one for thousands of square miles. Well Mr. Ranger got bored with patrolling the back roads and two tracks trying to find and apprehend arrow head thievs. He took it upon himself to chase, stop, arrest, and fine speeders on the local state highways. Documented and in the local paper, speeding at 5 mph over the limit. His reasoning was that the highway ran through federal land and it was his jourisdiction. His charade lasted about 6 months, our State senators orderd a cease and desist, go back to the fossil thieves, and leave law enforcement to the county and state! BLM gave him a desk job in Monatana.

A whole new can of worms will open if equal tags and prices are placed on federal lands. Like I said I am for a 50/50 split and same price. I know here in Wy it will result in fewer tags for the federal areas. And more for the other lands. And for us residents, we could essentially get a federal tag and a state resident tag.

If control of tags and prices it taken away from the state, the states involved need to completely end all management of wildlife on federal lands.

quote:

Not surprisingly, WRONG again. I am for equal treatment on Federal lands because of the simple fairness of the issue.

Ok Moron, Why would it be "wrong" for me to hunt on all federal lands across the US?

QUOTE;
As far as your stupid tax issue smoke screen goes, why don't you see how much of your state's game dept income is from PR taxes and from non-resident fees and then tell me who pays for what. Not to mention in most Western states they

Smoke screen? I am not talking about taxes towards hunting. I am saying supporting our local communities as a resident. We are here 365 days paying the bills and you want to walk in for a week, buy a tank of gas and a six pack, a tag, and hunt as a resident. And if the federal issue takes over hunting then it should go for everything! Kinda like socialism?

I think this whole equal treatment on public lands is a non issue. No one says you can't recreate on public lands.

This whole "public lands only license" is a fairy tale. Go to the eastern side of Wyoming where public land is intermixed with private. These ranchers have the grazing rights to these public pieces of property (they HAVE to have some base property to qualify, so not every Joe Somebody off the street can get a grazing lease) and many of these pieces of property are land locked....you have to have the permission of the landowner before you can even access them. Yea, it is the PUBLIC's property, but we have NO right to access them! Kinda hard to hunt that school section when you can't even get to it!

Besides, the wildlife on these PUBLIC lands belong to the STATE, not the U.S.! Until the US Government decides to take on wildlife management and law enforcement to protect this resource everywhere, this shouldn't even be an issue. Look at how good a job they are doing on your national forests and BLM land...the whole thing would blow up! I can't remember the last time I saw the USFS LEO in my neck of the woods.

Every citizen already has the right to hunt public land! There already IS EQUAL ACCESS TO PUBLIC LANDS! The state cannot tell folks they can't hunt on public land, you can. Drawing the tag is where it gets tough. I didn't see any nonresidents at our local season setting meeting...do you just not give a shit about our wildlife until you draw a license here? Then you come out and want that 30" buck...GET REAL! Hunting in Wyoming is a PRIVILEGE, NOT ONE'S RIGHT!!

MG

Madgoat:

Read my first post on this thread, page 1, and if you care to enlighten yourself, you will find that the various State's claim to wildlife ownership is specious at best and is false in the eyes of the law. As I said earlier, wildlife is like the air, no one "owns" it until it is reduced to possession.

Kudu:

You maintain your claim to idiocy. Why should your or anyone's support or non-support of your local community have anything to do with whether I have equal access to hunting on FEDERAL lands? I'm still waiting for you or anyone to explain why they believe it is fair for anyone to have preference over anyone else on everyone's, that is Federal, land. You apparently are unable to do so. Obviously you are a believer in affirmative action. I'm not.

Gato; you are grasping for straws. Madgoat summed it up pretty good. Wildlife belongs to the state, other wise who owns it? The managers of the wildlife should own it and do. The Reid bill will pass, it has the support of some pretty influential politicians. And even the President supports states rights and according to Mike Enzi Wy he supposts the bill as written. Now if you and the others want to continue to sue and fight it out in court, so-be-it! Yours and Gearge Taulmans loss!

Nonresidents have freedom to roam all of the federal lands the same as me, hunting is the only thing that is some whatrestricted.

Gato, please look up Wyoming Statue 23-1-103. If clearly says "all wildlife in Wyoming is property of the state".

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/titles/statutes.htm

I don't know what is false about that...it's Wyoming law! And Gato, you DO have equal access to hunting on FEDERAL lands! You can hunt rabbits, sage grouse, and coyotes out there with everyone else. You can camp, hike, bike, picnic...do everything that residents do on public land. The whole license issue has nothing to do with public land...just a sorry excuse for someone who can't have everything the way they want it. The current license system isn't broke, so don't fix it.

MG

Madgoat:

I'm going to reprint this from my first post, so maybe you'll try to do a little research on your own.

"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 previous text:

Wyoming or any other state can CLAIM to own anything they want to, that don't make it so. Federal law trumps state laws when the state law is in conflict with the Constitution, and the interpretations thereof, which your cited code clearly is.

To repeat the Supreme Court "the legal FICTION of state ownership of game". What do you think fiction means?

Yep, I did a little bit of reading. The only reason why Geer v. Connecticut was reversed in this case, was because the minnows (in question) that were seined came from a commercial hatchery, and not from the wild waters of Oklahoma. Oklahoma law at that time did not differentiate between "wild" caught minnows and "farm raised" minnows, and the fact that they were taking across state lines is where Geer was thrown out (violating commerce). If the minnows were caught from the wild, this case wouldn't have made it as far as it did (the guy would have been cited, gone to court, and lost).

I read the docket, it also said that the supreme court has in the past, and would continue to uphold a state's right over it's wildlife.

What you're talking about is TOTALLY different...like being cited for taking an elk off a game farm in July and being cited by a game warden for taking an elk out of season. This has nothing to do with the whole "equal access to wildlife on public land".

You can pick and choose what you want to hear out of that case, but just because Hughes threw out Geer in that instance, doesn't mean it still does not stand on some of it's original merit.

MG

I still can not see what hunting and killing an animal in another state has to do with interstate commerce. Pretty lame angle to file a suit. I have read that some states are closing that loophole, that is making it illegal to sell any parts of a wild animal with the exception of shed antlers.

Kudutroll you sheep descendent, interstate commerce means you take something of value across state lines. Federal means it is for all of us not just homophobic sheep fancying residents of the state in question. Why can't non residents pay the same fees to hunt federal land as residents? Come up with another reply that proves your schooling was as inadequate as yourself.

quote:

Why can't non residents pay the same fees to hunt federal land as residents? Come up with another reply that proves your schooling was as inadequate as yourself.

_____________

Rick,
What you say has merit in theory. But if you have a BLM map handy for any section of, say for examle, eastern Wyoming, have a look at it. What you proffer here would be an enforcement nightmare and an impossibility. Most ALL Federal lands in ALL western states, except for Nat'l forest, are checkerboarded and integrated within privately held pieces. It cannot be done in any reasonable fashion. Many of the Nat'l forest have significant privately held entities within them, too.

If you think NR fees are high at present, just imagine what they would be in order to oversee and enforce what you and others here are saying. The systems are not broke. Those that are out of balance and that are clearly biased (like Az.) will be challenged.

Gatagordo,
It's so nice to know that the Feds "allow" the states to claim ownership of game. That's a good one.

Goat humper Rict, interstate commmerce is in regards to goods, not necessarily dead animals. Making a dead animal commerce likens it to market hunting.

And like I have said sevral times before, is pretty much the point Dungbeetle posted. I am fine with even a 50/50 split, it means I can get a federal tag and a resident state tag. So your wet dream, not the one with Michael Jackson, of a federal tag isn't going to happen. Dream on! Or fantasize!

PS, Dumbass rict, it is available to everyone, you just have to pay the state of Wy for the privelege!

Rict, lets say you drive to Colorado, go on your anal, oops annual hunt, shoot a mule deer fawn, return home with it, and eat the 60 pound beast. Is that interstate commerce? I don't think that is what interstate commerce is! You simply bought a tag and filled it. A privelege not a right or act of commerce. No different than M16 going to Denver for vacation, buying a ring of smoked bologna from a street side vendor and taking it home.

Now on the other hand, when you take your semi to Denver, buy a trailer load of inflatable love dolls and pocket pussies, then return to Texas to sell them to your buddies, and keep a few for yourself of course, I would say that is Interstate Commerce!

rickt300, If you are hunting the fed land and everything connected to it (shooting bullets into the soil....), the cost is the same for res and nonres. If you are hunting the animals that roam/live and are not pysically connected to the land, that is a different story.

Gato/Madgoat, Good legal sparring. It is interesting how these cases can be so easily misused. Practically/Effectively (even constitutionally/legally in my amateur opinion) the state manages/owns the game. There should be NO question that the states owns the licensing process since the feds have no fingers in it or get money from it (as far as I can tell anyway).

Deke.

quote:

Originally posted by Deke:
rickt300, If you are hunting the fed land and everything connected to it (shooting bullets into the soil....), the cost is the same for res and nonres. If you are hunting the animals that roam/live and are not pysically connected to the land, that is a different story.

Gato/Madgoat, Good legal sparring. It is interesting how these cases can be so easily misused. Practically/Effectively (even constitutionally/legally in my amateur opinion) the state manages/owns the game. There should be NO question that the states owns the licensing process since the feds have no fingers in it or get money from it (as far as I can tell anyway).

Deke.

Deke, Put up DOW site and see where they are going to hold hearing on allotment of big game tags. I'm trying to get some guys from our club to get down there Fri. We formally cann't represent the club till we have a meeting but with almost 800 members. I know the small towns and outfitters fought the increase to 60% for resident and 40% for non. Maybe they will up the resident %, as I said in one post I will support the 90% for residents and 10% for non. Tom

This has been an interesting subject.

SA,

Your right, I am a GREEDY Mother F----- of Alaska. So maybe you should be able to get an Alaska permanent fun dividend also???? States right don't mean shit right? I really don't give a shit if non-residents hunt here or not. I do feel that non-residents should be able to hunt, but I am NEVER going to agree to say, "CMON over and kill whatever you like. WHen you are done, we will limit that amount of game that we can harvest and by the way, non-residents have just as much right to shoot the last bull moose on the river as a resident". I don't think I should have an equal in another state as a resident, so why should you have the same as I in my state? We aren't going to EVER agree that a non-resident should have the same rights as a resident. 90-10 split is fine. If that is greedy, so be it. I am sure you would like to see Alaska with quotas and shit like the lower 48, but I can guarantee that us RESIDENTS would fight that for all its worth. Throw all the land into Tier II and see how much of it is hunted by non-residents? I don't think there is much more reason for me to comment on this topic. We will disagree forever. Good luck on your pipe dream on federal land, especially in Alaska. Maybe you might want to read ANILCA and see how that affects the federal land up here. If you can change that, you must have some serious power. SOunds like some liberal bullshit (ACLU CRAP) trying to use the legal court system to get what you want. The cup of coffee burnt me, so I'll sue the coffee maker. Maybe you guys need to get more of your cronies to vote for Kerry next time. Jesus, how much longer until this country is run by left wing liberal whiners? I just hate seeing those people move to Alaska. Please stay in whatever state you are at. We don't need nor want you here.

KUDU56, you are killing me! Laughing hard man!

More good news! rict, M16,gatogordo, Gonehuntin! I feel your pain!

The latest:
Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Senate approved a measure by Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and Ted Stevens (R-AK) that would protect each state’s right to regulate hunting and fishing. The legislation was cosponsored by Senators John Ensign (R-NV) and Ben Nelson (R-NE). It passed the full Senate late last night, as an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act.

“This is a big victory for Nevadans, and for sportsmen everywhere,†said Reid. “Nevada’s hunting and fishing groups help conserve our natural resources through taxes, fees, and old-fashioned hard work. Our sportsmen understand Nevada, and they work hard to take care of it. This bill recognizes and rewards those efforts. I hope the House of Representatives will join us to pass this bill into law.â€

“Alaskans join Nevadans in the proud tradition of hunting and fishing,†said Stevens. “This amendment ensures that our states sportsmen are able to fully partake in the resources and splendor of their own states.â€

“Nevada’s sportsmen embody a proud tradition of western independence and I’m proud to have fought for this measure on their behalf,†Ensign said. “We have protected their interests and maintained important protections for our environment.â€

“Uncle Sam should stay out of the business of regulating state hunting and fishing fees,†said Nelson. “It’s simply a case of states’ rights and the States won an important victory when this bill passed.â€

The bill would allow Nevada, Alaska, and other states to continue distinguishing between residents and non-residents when issuing hunting and fishing licenses.

States have traditionally regulated hunting and fishing within their borders, but a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals questioned how states can allocate hunting tags for residents and non-residents. The new legislation would reaffirm the long-standing right of states to make decisions about tag limits and licenses.

“This legislation will benefit and unite sportsman and conservationists everywhere, as well to help promote continuing pro active wildlife management for generations to come,†said Clint Bentley, Commissioner of the Nevada Board of Wildlife. “I’d like to thank the Senators for standing up for sportsmen and wildlife managers.â€

The House of Representatives still needs to approve the amendment. The Supplemental Appropriations Act will go to a joint Senate/House Conference Committee where that decision will be made.

http://reid.senate.gov/record2.cfm?id=236863

Keep your fingers crossed!!!

Kudo56 give em hell they dont take care of the wildlife like we do in the winter they just want to come up here and shoot the hell out of the animals and go home and tell a tall tale as to how they stalked this animal and went one on one. And from the great state they come they become master hunters like all of those glorious boys from eastmans journal and such.when they get done thanking all the poeple that helped them get there animal they sound like a woman wiining a beauty pagent.Then more of them show up these !@#@!* are not hunters.Non residents and guides are ruining the game population in NORTH IDAHO, only now the asses are becoming rsidents (huge influx).I myself am pondering moving back to SW wyoming where is it to seasonal for there asses!!

They dont have any rights up here, they have already shit where they sleep AND we dont elect any of them to any decisive posts either.And most of their vehicles, and disabled in the woods up here.I dont know does it but it is not me and if I knew who did I would not tell. And that can ruin a hunt.

Ha!HA!Ha!....Hee..heee..heee....HA!

Wow.

I don't even want to touch that one. Where the fuck is VG when you need him?

Idaho "Thats funny!" Vandal

better not wherever vandal transplant. must have hit a NERVE BESIDES WATCH TOUR VULGARITY.

cal30 1906,

You have the right to remain silent. I suggest you use it.

cal30 1906, take you own advice from the bottom of you posts. You have remove all doubt.

cal30 1906, Thanks for the support! SW Wy has changed big time, I don't how long it's been since you have been there, but it is booming!
Again!

Tom,

Would love to go, but free time is an issue right now with a 3wk old baby and three others under 8yrs old. I have contacted the DOW by phone/email/letters in the past and may do so this time. If you get to go, let me know what happens (you can send a PM if you like). It would be nice to see them bump up the res quota 10% so we ACTUALLY get 60% (like I said before, after the nonres buy the landowner tags, it is estimated to be 50/50 in CO).

Deke.

My apologies for the vulgarity, I didn't realize "fuck" would be offensive to one who used "shit" in their own post.... however "transplant?" my family settled in Moscow in 1880's, my great-grandfather was a police chief here in the 30's, (I did spend some time in Seattle,) but "transplant??"
Oh, wait...I see, everyone at UI must be a transplant, right? Actually, I tend to agree with some (but not all) of what you jumbled out. Problem is, you ASSume.

I don't care one way or the other about the whole non-resident/resident argument, to think that some one from "out of state" is any better or any worse at how they treat the areas in which they hunt is a thought process straight out of 19th century. I have seen hunters from Idaho, in Idaho do the same thing. I have seen it Washington as well.

My concern is for wildlife poulations (particularly mule deer) that don't follow your "state borders"; as it stands states have the right to manage how they see fit, how they allocate tags is their own business...but attitudes should carefully consider coordinated efforts between states with regards to management of the actual populations themselves. And, no, don't put words in my mouth, I am not saying the Feds should do it, I have no idea exactly how it should be doe, but it needs to occur in some fashion.

Anyway, good to hear from you KUDU...where in the #$%&@ has Varmintguy been? I would have expected him to weigh in at some point? Must be off killin' #$%^!

Idaho "Please excuse my fucking vulgarity" Vandal

IV, I don't know where in the ***%##@##@%^$^*%#$
Varmit Guy has been!



Keep up the good Mule Deer work and solve the riddles for the states so we can bring them back!

What happend to all of the whinning &%*&$#& Nonresidents? Why aren't they voicing thier ($U*&(&#^$) Oppinions? Well I guess they are just taking a &@)(*&^%$ break!

Eat shit Kudutrool I am still waiing for that reasoned response.

I know I am going to regret stepping into this shit pile but....

What about a compromise of some sort. On one side non-residents have a valid point that federal land is federal land, on the other side, residents can argue that they are burdened (or priveleged-however you want to look at it) with managing game populations. So why not find a way (not involving money) for non-residents to earn the same status as residents by giving back to the hunting community.

One of the strongest threats to the future of hunting is getting kids, women and minorities into hunting. As the voting demographic is continually changing, for every old hunter that dies there is only about .3 to replace them in the voting public. Minorities are increasing in voting demography every year and that increase is outpacing the numbers of minorities who are getting into hunting. Women in hunting has grown significantly but men still outnumber women in the sport by nearly 4 to 1.

Why not have states enter into agreements with each other that allows ACTIVE Volunteer Hunter Education Instructors to purchase resident hunting licenses in one additional state each year?

What about VOLUNTEERING a certain number of hours to EARN the right? (Ever try to put a radio collar on a fawn?)

What is "active?" I don't know. How many hours? I don't know that either.

I am sure something can be come up with. This way, those who claim that hunting in another state is so important to them can put their actions (not their money) where their mouths are.

Idaho "Compromise? What the hell is he thinking!!???" Vandal

IdahoVandal, you talk about non-residents getting involved with there actions, but not with there money.

Some of us non-residents don't have the Luxury to fly to another State and personally get involved in hands on tasks. So money is the way to go. Just remember money is how a lot of the materials are paid for.

The real sad story here is how resident hunters and non-resident hunters are battling. I personally hunt as a resident and a non-resident, but one thing separates me from some of the others here. I don't dislike non-resident hunters. I support and help non-resident hunters in my State. The other thing is, I am sure some of the guys here that are so agents non-resident hunters are probably good guys in a different situation. But we will never know due to the division of resident and non-resident hunters.

Hunters are an independant lot! Some are macho about it, some are just free spirits, others just enjoy the independance of being out in the field alone, man against nature thing, and some are hogs, kill just to kill, want horns on the wall. It is a "manly man" thing and rict300 wouldn't understand! You will neverget everyone on the same page.

The Reid bill will pass, states will be given more and stronger rights, supply and demand will eventually have an effect, and fudge packers like ol rict300 will just have to pout and thow his hissy fits!

quote:

Why can't non residents pay the same fees to hunt federal land as residents?

rict300, becuase you don't live here silly! And each state has it's own indiviual rights,over wildlife, and no lame lawyers, loop hole like the interstate commerce act, is going to change it. If you want to have every state equal, and the same, move to a communist country. Other wise eat baby shit, and !

Redhawk: I wouldn't expect you to go to the state you wanted to hunt, I think if a person volunteers enough for the overall good of the sport in a local capacity that would be enough. Now, at first it may seem like this would only benefit the persons "home" state. But, anti-hunting groups have figured out they are not going to win locally, they are going to take their fight to the national level, thus if I help to get more kids in Idaho into hunting,other states benefit. If someone in Missouri or Texas or wherever, does the same, I benefit.

As far as money goes, yes thats the way the world works, but what I find so interesting about people who want to "buy" their way into places,(I am not saying you- this is a hypothetical point) is that when you ask them to volunteer, they offer hundreds of excuses as to why they cannot (Too busy; too many responsibilities;too many obligations etc.) But these same people will spend 2 weeks in Alasaka on a $$$ hunt; they will spend 4 weeks in Africa on a $$$$ hunt. They go to elk camp or deer camp for 7-10 days. What do they do with their responsibilities and obligations then? Don't get me wrong, what someones economic position in life is, whether "rich"; "poor" or somewhere in between is none of my business. But whatever solution is found it needs to consider that if hunting becomes a sport that is perceived as a "rich man's" sport, we will end up like our friends on the British Isles....no thanks! A solution will have to be found at some point in the future because more and more hunters from states back east or down south seem to be voicing their dislike of the current system (whether you agree with their position is irrelevant) at some point these people may give up hunting all together and then those with a national anti-hunting agenda have moved a little closer to getting what they want.

I agree with you 100% that the real issue here is that residents and non-residents want to battle this out rather than sitting down and looking at the issue sensibly from all sides.

IV

There is no battle to it. If I go out of state I fully expect to pay what ever the market price is! I respect what each individual state requires. Other wise I wouldn't go.

I will say it one more time, I like the idea of a federal tag, everyone draws and pays the same price. That is what everyone wants. It will allow me to have a state tag and a federal tag here in WY. The feasibility is nearly impossible in this day and age, a nightmare for every agency involved, and not as easy as everyone thinks. It can't and won't be accomplished with the simple stroke of a pen!

It ain't gonna happen anyway, not when you have both republicans and democrats supporting the states rights.