Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game More Ways to Drain Non-Residents of $$$$

Received this today from Utah Fish and Game...another way to increase revenue and lower odds on drawing....

How is this a bad thing? Maybe I am not getting it?

F&G collects more money for a tag you won't draw as the pool will have many with far more PP than you just starting.More entries lowers your odds further for the tag you have been accruing PP for....

Some states only allow a person to apply for one Once in a lifetime animal (sheep, moose or goat)and nothing else or a person could apply for deer, elk, antelope, bear, but not both.
All this does is allow a guy to apply for everything, which after you buy the non refundable license it makes sense to apply for as many hunts as you want to.

There are more hunters than animals to hunt, at least in the western states, therefore one is going to have to pay.

AMEN... and it shouldn't be the locals who pay the bills year round.

Utah can keep there animals I'm out as of now...have to pay for a licence I won't use cause I didn't draw a tag,now this latest ploy.....I have 6PP for elk and Big Horn Sheep and I'm done

I understand dvd,

But... in 5 years you could have a hell of a elk tag in your pocket.
In 10 maybe a bighorn.
You got to be in it to win it.

KC

Sometimes it can be easier for a non-res to get drawn than a res. out west.

Its all screwed up.

Non-resident points don't really mean much unless you are near max points. It's not going to hurt your odds much if you don't buy them.

dvd, do you think those sheep points will ever make a difference? Not much. There is never more than one non-resident sheep tag available in any one draw. That means the tag goes in the random draw. Sure, the more points you have, the better chance you have of being assigned a lower random number. But everyone only gets one random number in the draw, and anyone can get lucky and get assigned a low number. More often than not, the tag goes to someone with less than max points. And remember, 50% of all non-resident tags go in the random draw.

I buy my brother a non-res license every year and some deer and elk points. He'd been busy finishing college, making a baby, etc. When he's ready to hunt, he us STYLIN'.

If it cost MORE than the $100 or so it costs me, I would probably skip it.

These F&W departments have got to realize, we are not made of money... Especially nowadays.

What ever happened with that constitutional challenge about out of staters having to pay more?

You are 30 years to late. Balwin Vs The State of Montana

It was the best case for the rights of residents.

Other Free Encyclopedias :: Law Library - American Law and Legal Information :: Great American Court Cases Vol 17
Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission
Appellant
Lester Baldwin, et al.
Appellee
Fish and Game Commission of Montana
Appellant's Claim
That Montana's state game regulations violated Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
James H. Goetz
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Paul A. Lenzini
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun (writing for the Court), Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell,Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart
Justices Dissenting
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Byron R. White
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
23 May 1978
Decision
Montana's state fish and game laws were constitutional, and the appellant wasnot entitled to any relief from them.
Significance
The ability of states to regulate hunting, fishing, and environmental protection was upheld, even if such regulation discriminated against nonresidents ofthe state in question.
The state of Montana has long been renowned for its hunting and fishing, andmaintains a thriving industry based on the outfitting and guiding of huntingand fishing parties. In the early 1970s, Lester Baldwin, a resident of Montana, was a state-licensed hunting guide specializing in the pursuit of elk. Themajority of Baldwin's clients were from other states and traveled to Montanafor the express purpose of elk hunting. In 1975, Montana's hunting regulations that required state residents pay $4 for an elk-hunting license, while nonresidents were required to purchase a combination hunting license, entitlingthem to shoot two deer and one elk, for $151.
Four of Baldwin's clients, who traveled from Minnesota to Montana each year to hunt elk, balked at the discrepancy between license fees for residents andnonresidents and, along with Baldwin, filed suit against the state in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. The plaintiffs sought relief from Montana licensing requirements, claiming that the state game laws violatedtheir rights as set forth in Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitutionand reiterated in the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court ruled against Baldwin, et al., and the group appealed theircase to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments on 5 October 1977.
Attorneys for the appellants argued that Montana's game laws, by discriminating against nonresidents in their fee structures, violated Article IV, Section2 of the Constitution, which states in part that "citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states," as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states in part that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
The respondents countered that Montana residents already paid for game conservation and regulation programs through their state taxes, and that the stateitself, by emphasizing wildlife conservation, had sacrificed economic development for the benefit of all and was due compensation from residents of more economically developed and environmentally degraded areas. Finally, the appellees presented evidence that nonresident hunters, by virtue of their general lack of experience, were a more difficult enforcement problem for state game wardens than resident hunters.
On 23 May 1978, the Court upheld the decision of the district court. In rejecting the appellants' claim that the Montana game laws violated Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution, the Court noted that this passage had "been interpreted to prevent a state from imposing unreasonable burdens on citizens ofother states in pursuit of their common callings within the state," and thatthe game laws as they existed posed no threat to the right to hunt elk. The Court also found that the state game laws did not violate the Equal ProtectionClause of the Fourteenth Amendment, since the laws' primary intent was the maintenance and improvement of the hunting conditions that drew the appellantsto Montana in the first place. Chief Justice Burger, in a concurring opinion, noted that the right of states to regulate and preserve wildlife for the common good had long been recognized in U.S. law.
Justices Brennan, Marshall, and White dissented, noting that states should only be allowed to discriminate against nonresidents if "the presence or activity of nonresidents was the source or cause of the problem or effect with which the state sought to deal." They added that, "the discrimination practiced against nonresidents bore a substantial relation to the problem they presented." They did not feel that the presence of nonresident hunters had caused anyextraordinary elk conservation problems for Montana.
Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Commission confirmed the ability of states to regulate hunting and fishing and environmental quality within theirborders, even if such regulation is applied unequally to state residents andnonresidents. Environmental and wildlife management legislation was judged tobe both a substantial state regulatory interest and a means of preserving finite resources for the public good, and as such, is beyond the purview of theEqual Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

i read nothing but the post title.

I'm for it!

I'm for it here and against it there!

You may want to check on who is actually the largest funder of some western states F&G programs. IIRC, some states get well over half of the license sale revenue from the 'non-locals'.

Especially if your from NY or Calif. some others, or a major city, etc. and your expecting sympathy from the citizenry, from your every day guy to the legislators of most inter-mountain states over extra charges? Good luck my friend.

I hate to tell you this but most folks especially in the rural areas or small towns would rather you didn't come at all no matter the price, and the more it costs you the better.
Sorry buddy, absolutely nothing personal, just a fact of life here.

You get out and about enough you'll find they don't care much for your if you from Boise much less out of state.

No wonder hunting is taking such a s@#t kicking,we don't even like each other. I live rurally and we get a lot of non resident hunters here each fall. Never heard any complaints around here all are welcome and many have become friends,returning year after year. Maybe the sentiment would be different with big game hunters? I don't know.

Now I know why skinheads took up residence in your state.....

If you knew the whole story you would perhaps see things in a different light. They didn't fare very well here in the end. That attitude is exactly why a lot of the feelings are as they are here, it is a learned response, far more than your thoughts of us all being right out of Deliverance.
I have camped next to guys from large metro area's that you would do anything to help, and then next to guys like you who everyone would rather stayed home.
I was attempting to be nice and let you know how things tend to be to help you with your cry baby feelings, and you attack me with your typical NY, et. superior attitude.
Oh well, I should know better than to say anything, akin to pissin in the wind I guess. Sorry I tried.

Thanks for reinforcing my point,you don't know me from Adam ,where I live or anything more about me but ya got it all figured out