Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire 9th Circuit Court of Appeals/ Resident vs. Nonresident

It appears that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco Ca. has ruled that the Arizona game and fish dept. cannot charge a nonresident more than a resident for a elk license. This has the potential to completly upset the entire structure of every western game and fish dept. On to the the U.S. supreme court.

The 9th is the most-overturned bench in the country... must be that KA air! Will be very interesting to see how this pans out.

If they cannot charge extra for a non-resident license it would seem the requirement that a non-res use a guide would have to be thrown out as well???
Thanks for the news!
art

You can read the opinion at www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nfs

It won't come up for me and I cannot find it on their home-page??? Any ideas?
art

That damn 9th Circuit has dropped way too much acid in their day. I am not sure they are capable of a coherent and logical thought any more. They really have become a joke.

What this will mean for you and I is that we will ALL pay out of state fees regardless of where we hunt because states will just raise the resident fees to match. There is no way, given the state of finances of most states, that they will lower any fees.

Hmm, reminds me of an argument I made a year or so back saying exactly the same thing regarding game on US public land and the hunting thereof.

IIFID
PtttuuuyyyEEEEE! Damn crow feather!

I humbly remember...
art

Unfortunately, I think CAS is right -- if this nonsense isn't overturned.

IIFID, remember that game is "owned" by the state -- not the land owner, so US public land is NOT part of the equation -- it simply dictates who can use that property. I pay a boatload of state and local taxes that maintain the roads, etc. that make nonresident fees look like peanuts. Sorry, I'll try to stay off that soapbox <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />!

MS
Don't get IIFID started, he won last time... I think.
art

Muley Stalker:

I'm not going to go over old ground again, and I haven't read this ruling, so it may not have any relationship to what I argued before. But the idea that the game is owned by the state is more a de facto situation than actual legal fact. The concept originates in some 19th century court rulings which are highly suspect for their legal basis. And, if the game is not on state controlled land, that is instead it is on Federal (public) land, there have already been some opposite court rulings to the effect that Federal control of the game on public lands supercedes state regulations. New Mexico in recent years is one instance.

If you wish to research it, there are multiple sources on the web that have information on it, including copies of some of the relevant court cases. Suffice it to say, that your opinion, while commonly held, is not written in legal stone. This does not make it wrong either, but there is certainly an opposite view with some legitimacy.

And, finally, I pay a boatload of Federal taxes that some portion of goes to maintain those very properties that the states so fondly seem to call their own when it comes to game regulations, but that are IN FACT owned by all of the US citizens which deserve equal treatment under the law. Most roads and improvements on Fed lands are administered and paid for by some branch of the Dept of the Interior, I believe.

IIFID, I won't argue (too much <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> )! I pay those Fed taxes too, on top of my state ones.

My point is that I "donate" a heck of a lot more to my state than you do -- 5 figures each year for me, so a little (relative term) break on the hunting license fees seems due.

Besides, if ownership of the land supercedes the current (albeit not written in stone) laws regarding who owns the animals, then there are a lot of land owners who will now "own" their own big game herds. That's what this seems to be all about -- land ownership prevailing. It can't be both ways -- (Fed) Public owned wildlife on Fed lands but not private owned on private lands.

I'll do my best to leave it there.... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I strongly side with Muley Stalker on this one. Also that ruling if it's not overturned will really screw things up. There's already waaaaay too much demand for the non-resident licenses in Montana. Making the non resident prices the same as the resident would mean much less of a chance for non-residents to draw if they actually lowered the prices. If they raise them to non-resident levels it would nearly shut down the locals as Montana has some of the worst wages per capita in the nation. This is clearly a case of trying to fix something that isn't broke and then really @#%*ing it up!!!!!!!!!!!! In fact the more I think about it that ruling pisses me off on an unlimited amount of levels.

Most people and that probably includes you don't "donate" monies to the state, they pay taxes, just like all citizens of the several states do.

As far as deserving a break on state hunting licenses, that is perfectly fine with me, IF you are talking about state lands. IN FACT, a huge percentage of most of the lands administered by the various Western State wildlife depts are Federal and IMO you have no more right to any of that game on those lands than any other citizen of the United States, and should, if anything, pay more for the right to hunt on OUR lands, because your access costs are less. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Your last statement might hold some water if you were talking to someone from western Montana where public land abounds, but you are talking to someone from eastern Montana were there is very little public land. On top of that what little public land there is, much of it is land locked by private land and therefore unaccessible. If you want to get on a rant that is a cause worth attacking. We all pay taxes for that land, but can't even set foot on it let alone hunt on it.

CAT, if you win you lose because if they had to charge non-residents the same as residents they would restrict the number of non-resident tags so that the resident hunters would not swamp them with complaints. tom

Pumpgun:

You are missing the point, residents of any particular state should have no hunting priority and no preference over non-residents on Federal, that is US citizen commonly owned land, that happens to be inside the boundaries of that state and anything that does so is probably in violation of the Constitution. If whatever managing agency that is in charge decides that only "x" number of permits (licenses) should be issued for a given area, then those permits should be allocated on some random basis to ALL citizens of the US who apply for them for the same price.

Just for your and others reading pleasure, here is part of Art IV sec 3 of the US Constituion:

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice
any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Hmmmmm......

And, I already said I'm not going to start this over again and here I've been lead (or am leading myself) down that path, so I am stopping with this post, I hope. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

CAT, it is a no win issue to debate I agree. I know that if I want to return to Texas for a deer hunt I have to pay the same for a hunting licence that you would have to pay for a deer tag here in Colorado. tom

Isn't the 9th circuit the same degenerate liberal loser morons who said the Pledge of Alliegence is Unconstitutional and the 2nd isn't an individual right?

CAT, what you aren't addressing is "ownership" of the game animal. If states have stewardship of their game populations, then the issue is mute. We ALL have equal access to Federal public lands (maybe not entirely true, to Big Sky's point).

Pumpgun is exactly right -- this is an issue where right and wrong are matter of perspective. Personally, I hope things don't change.

BTW, another can of worms: if the Fed gov't is given stewardship of game, then bye bye state game agencies! Oh, then next, game issues will be to a national vote rather than state! Personally, I don't want Californians, New Yorkers or any other states citizens voting on what is best for Colorado!

Muley Stalker, you wouldn't mean like how other states decided Montana would be a good place to reintroduce wolves?