Democrats don't suport states right Kudutroll fudgepacker of sheep, hope you get shit on your boots.

Obviously they do! They are the ones that introduced this bill and the ones at the front are democrats. When it comes to the vote, it will probably be repubs that carry it.

Either way you are not going to get your way!

Come on rickyt, you can do better than that! You running out of adjectives? Or is the prosac taking affect?

It's doubtful that a true democrat would give a rats ass for any individual state having any say over their all powerful Uncle Sam or fairness as far as that goes.

quote:

It's doubtful that a true democrat would give a rats ass for any individual state having any say over their all powerful Uncle Sam or fairness as far as that goes.

Man I hate to agree with "you" on anything, but I do on that statement! But the &$*^^%@&^%@!^%)( Democrats love social programs!

I wonder. Does a non-resident have any "right" to hunt in my state? Hell! Do I even have the "right" to hunt in MY state? Well, only if the state declares that I can.
I've been following this pissing contest since it started. It has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. On e MOUTH from Texas complains because he can't get the hunting prividges he'd like (Cheap elk tag in AZ.)yet has access to several ranches that have big deer. He's posted the pictures. He doesn't have to draw for a deer in his home state. I do. I not only have to draw, but if I'm lucky, I get drawn maybe once every three or four years for a season that's a damn piss poor four days long. Same for elk.
We have people with wealth, some not so fortunate, and some that are elderly and on fixed incomes, all who happen to like to hunt.
I don't think that most non-resident fees are fair, but then, they never have been. I paid them for deer hunts for years when I was working, and paid for a few elk tags too. Raising a family with four kids kind of puts the kibosh on much out of state hunting trips.
By the time I reached retirement age, well, I've been priced out of probably any out of state hunt now, and thanks to Taulman, most of the chances for a decent hunt in my own state.
Do I resent out of state hunters? No, not really. I'm willing to bet that just about anybody on this site could share a hunting camp with me and we'd probably get along just fine.
I guess the point I'm trying to get at is, this pissing contest is only helping out the anti-hunters.
UNITED WE STAND. DIVIDED WE FALL.
This donnybrook is getting us nowhere. If we cannot agree on some kind of contruction system to end this problem without the selfish attitudes of some that have posted and pissed on this thread, them we might as well just take all out toys and go home.
Paul B.

quote:

How about you explain to me... Why does a non-resident alien have the exacts same rights as a non-resident when it comes to hunting in these states?

Actually in Alaska a non-resident ALIEN requires a Guide for all big game hunting. A US non-resident only requires a Guide for Brownies, Sheep, and Goat.

So the alien doesn't have the same rights, at least not here.

Paul B,

Your right, it's all about greed. People don't run from State to State hunting game for subsistence. It's a sport and nothing more. Some of these folks are willing to drag in the Feds just to get more access to areas in which they chose not to live.

Yet these same people will bitch about Federal interference in other areas of their lives.

They are residents somewhere and if they're not happy with that location they should move. But modern air travel and excess cash lead some to tear down State rights in a selfish manuveur to stick another rack on the wall.

I've already shown exactly what happens when the Feds take over game management from the State, and despite the obvious negative effects, some folks here just keep pushing the issue, mindless of the outcome.

PaulB and BW,

You guys are right on the mark

Deke.

What would happen if more non-residents decided to move to the western States for the sake of hunting. Like some of you suggested, "if you want to hunt here move." Just say there was a mass influx of people moving to the western States, how would that affect hunting in your area then? I just think some of you should be careful what you ask for.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Redhawk1:
What would happen if more non-residents decided to move to the western States for the sake of hunting.[QUOTE]

You must be living under a box... it's been happening for over a decade in the Rocky Mountain West...

Senator Reid's bill is in a conferenece committee. Sounds like it is almost a done deal and they are saying it should be law within a week.

Unless the a$$holes tie amendments to it!

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Redhawk1:
What would happen if more non-residents decided to move to the western States for the sake of hunting.[QUOTE]

You must be living under a box... it's been happening for over a decade in the Rocky Mountain West...

Sorry Brad, but I don't live under a box. People move in and out of States all the time. I am aware of that, I was speaking in massive numbers and just for hunting. Most people more to better there income or to retire, but not just for the hunting. But thank you for your input, I would have never known.

Redhawk,

Unless there is alot of public land given to private and habitat suffers accordingly, there is going to be a certain # of tags available regardless. There is a certain population interested in hunting out west, if they move west then the nonres interest will not be as strong and more tags will be given to the stronger res interest to offset the migration. Should not affect our hunting significantly. We that are already here will benefit from the increased business.

Deke.

quote:

What would happen if more non-residents decided to move to the western States for the sake of hunting.

We moved for lifestyle considerations, and resident hunting opportunities and access to public lands were considerations in the decision making process. In return for the privilege, I leave a lot of money on the table each year in the form of foregone salary. To us, assimilation was preferable to merely "buying in" every now and then. The "buy in" people are trying to have it both ways. This only works with unlimited resources.

Well we will see if Bush puts up or shuts up on this one! I liked the vote tally!

Nonresident hunting limits stand

By JEFF GEARINO
Star-Tribune staff writer Wednesday, May 11, 2005




Wyoming and other Western states will be able to continue limiting nonresident hunting and fishing licenses under a bill passed Tuesday by Congress.

A supplemental appropriations bill approved by the Senate on Tuesday includes an amendment that will protect the traditional authority of states to regulate hunting and fishing, said U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., who cosponsored the bill.

The bill allows states including Wyoming to continue distinguishing between residents and nonresidents when issuing hunting and fishing licenses.

"Wildlife is one of Wyoming's most important assets, and this bill reaffirms that Wyoming citizens, who bear most of the costs associated with managing wildlife, will remain in control," Enzi said in a statement.

The bill now goes to President Bush for his signature.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department officials have been following the bill closely and said the law will help preserve the state's right to regulate hunting within its borders. Game and Fish directors could not be reached for comment late Tuesday.

The agency has long held that Wyoming's limitation on percentages of licenses allocated to residents and nonresidents -- and the cost differential between the two -- is the state's prerogative and not a violation of interstate commerce or equal protection clauses.

Many of the Game and Fish big game license allocations are set by the Legislature through state statutes. For example, the 20 percent of deer and antelope licenses and the 25 percent of bighorn sheep licenses going to nonresidents each year are statutory. Other license allocations are done by Game and Fish Commission regulations.

Enzi's measure was prompted by a 2002 ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The ruling said that Arizona's law allotting just 10 percent of bull elk and antlered deer hunting tags to nonresidents was an act of "overt discrimination."

"The people of Wyoming know how to manage the wildlife in our state better than the 9th Circuit Court or the federal government," Enzi said. "This bill makes sure that Wyoming citizens, who have the most pride in area wildlife, are the people in charge."

Enzi said on Tuesday, the Senate passed the supplemental appropriations bill conference report accompanying H.R. 1268 by a vote of 100-0. The House passed the conference report May 5 by a vote of 368-58.

He said language in a previous Enzi cosponsored bill, which would keep control of hunting and fishing regulations out of the hands of the federal government, was included in the supplemental bill passed Tuesday.

In the meantime, Game and Fish officials are waiting on a ruling in another case that also challenges the state's requirements on nonresident hunters. That case is now before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The lawsuit was brought by former Wyoming resident Donald J. Schutz, a Florida attorney who at one time attended Laramie High School and the University of Wyoming. Schutz's lawsuit alleges that the state's licensing system violates equal protection laws and that the guide requirements for hunting in Wyoming wilderness areas is unconstitutional.

Wyoming won a similar court case and appeal in 2000 in a lawsuit that was filed by the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association in 1998. Wyoming outfitters had long complained before the suit that the limited number of hunting licenses available to hunters from other states hurt the state's outfitters and guides and prevented them from making as much money as they could on hunting revenues.

Reporter Jeff Gearino can be reached at (307) 875-5359 or at gearino@trib.com.

quote:

Originally posted by Redhawk1:
What would happen if more non-residents decided to move to the western States for the sake of hunting. Like some of you suggested, "if you want to hunt here move." Just say there was a mass influx of people moving to the western States, how would that affect hunting in your area then? I just think some of you should be careful what you ask for.

with the exception of me, of course, everyone should have stayed where they were.. out of staters screwed up eastern montana so bad I wouldnt even live there any more..

It was signed into law by the president yesterday in the oval office according to news reports.

Where are all the whinners now?

I'm not against nonresidents coming to my great state to hunt, I just think those folks who eek out an existance here should have a little privy to their wildlife...that's all.

MG

way up...

This was in the paper today!

State hunting rules stand

By DAN LEWERENZ
Associated Press writer Wednesday, July 13, 2005




CHEYENNE -- The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a Florida man's lawsuit, ruling that the higher fees and restrictions Wyoming imposes on out-of-state hunters are not unconstitutional.

In a ruling handed down Monday, a three-judge panel agreed with plaintiff Donald J. Schutz, of St. Petersburg, Fla., that Wyoming's rules place out-of-state hunters at a disadvantage -- making fewer licenses available, charging more for those licenses and requiring that out-of-state hunters hire guides to hunt big game in certain areas.

However, the court ruled that state was justified in giving preference to its residents. And because hunters are not a protected class and hunting is not a right, states are not always required to treat residents and nonresidents equally.

"Many reasons exist, in fact, for states to adopt a preference scheme," Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich wrote. He cited residents' financial and political support for preserving the state's wildlife populations, as well as the infrastructure -- "adequate highways, off-road and hiking trails, fire protection and search-and-rescue programs" -- that make hunting possible.

"The in-state preferences is a logical and reasonable way to reward this support and foster the long-term success of wildlife management programs," Tymkovich wrote.

In a telephone interview, Schutz said he hadn't decided whether he would appeal. Schutz said he still found the guide statute "problematic," but the court determined that he hadn't proven that the statute had prevented him from hunting.

"The guide statute, I think, is unconstitutional, but they're not going to let me argue it," Schutz said.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department officials could not immediately be reached for comment, but they said earlier that the case was an important one to protect the state's ability to manage wildlife the way it sees fit.

Schutz also argued that the state law unconstitutionally impeded interstate commerce. In 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an Arizona rule alloting out-of-state hunters no more than 10 percent of the state's big-game licenses "burdens interstate commerce at its point of supply."

But Tymkovich noted that Congress, which is empowered by the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce, voted in May to allow states to treat residents and nonresidents differently when awarding hunting and fishing licenses.

"Congress has unmistakably foreclosed ... petitions challenging state hunting and fishing statutes that treat nonresidents differently than residents," Tymkovich wrote. "We therefore find, and Schutz has conceded, that his claim that the Wyoming statutes are an unconstitutional infringement on interstate commerce is moot ...."

NewsTracker

* Last we knew: Congress passed, and the president signed, a bill protecting the right of states to continue distinguishing between residents and nonresidents when issuing hunting and fishing licenses.

* The latest: A federal court threw out a Florida man's lawsuit challenging Wyoming's preferences for in-state hunters.

*E-

Good Going Wyoming. If I decide to Antelope hunt their in October, I will look forward to it, despite not being treated like a resident.

Deke.

Deke, come and enjoy! If you have any problems and need some help get ahold of me! Good Luck on the hunt! Where are you going"?

Kudu,

Last year I hunted private land in area 30 outside Douglas. It was a great opportunity to take my older kids (8 & 6, last year the 6yr old was sick). I got a reduced doe tag since that is what the budget allowed and had a great time crawling through the grass with my daughter making a clean kill on a VERY windy day. The shot and the butchering afterwards was impressive to my daughter and she was a real sport, diving into the endeavor in every way. I hope to take more of the family this year and maybe get two tags. Gonna have some Antelope sausage this morning, ahhh, the memories.....

Deke.

Deke, good for you and your family, those kids will remember that for years. It reminds me of my kids and days gone by. Good luck on your hunt and like I said if you ever want to try a new area or come up this way, Big Horn Basin, let me know.

Kudu,

Thank you for the offer. I have heard of Big Horn Basin. Will have to look into a trip to it one of these days.

Deke.