Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Question???

CAT <BR>Did a bit more research with folks actively engaged in the legal battles here. Their contention is that the federal position, backed by the courts is based on a "trust" position held by the states in perpetuity. <P>The feds can step in when that trust is not being managed to their satisfaction, which generaly leads to lawsuits. Those run about 50-50, they say, on whoever has the better arguments, with the onus being on the feds to prove abrogation or dereliction to the trust.<P>But they clearly have significant victories at the Supreme Court level backing your position. I grudgingly concede that point.<P>Realize too, I agreed many posts ago, that the higher fees and guide requirements were wrong on principle and should be changed.<P>Wonder if the poster boy for Tourette's Syndrome is willing to concede anything?

IIFID's,<P>Good stuff, not that I understood it, but still good. [img]images/icons/wink.gif" border="0[/img]<P>There are Federal rules about hunting in Alaska, so I agree, that obviously the Feds have some authority, even over State wishes.<P>I guess, I just wonder why the Federal Government needs to own such a large part of our State. And quite frankly, if that allows non-residents access to an equally large portion on our States game, then I have a problem with that. It may be pure selfishness, but I still feel that if I'm the ones who lives here all year long, then I should should have top priority to <B>all</B> the resources in the State.<P>I don't know what's going on in the other western States, but in Alaska the Feds are forceing rules on the State which violate our States Constitution. That being the preference given to Natives based on race. The State Constitution says that the resources belong to all the citizens of the State, with no bias towards race or area.<P>This has been a pleasant exchange of information and opinions, I've enjoyed it very much!<P>Take Care!

Brian<BR>Ak does not give a native preference. What it gives is a rural preference, the right to do so being granted by ANILCA, and to paraphrase a salient part; the signers give up all aboriginal rights (sic) and agree to hunt and fish "in common with" all other state residents.<P>In return they were allowed to select land to be held in trust by them. It has very strict disposal and division rules attached.<P>You are correct, it violates the state constitution, as determined by the state supreme court.<P>Realize though that big money is at stake, because it involves tariffs on the trans-AK pipeline. It is going to be tough to over-turn. <P>I hope no one construes this as native bashing on my part. Frankly, I think they could get a better deal, for everybody, by renegotiating.<BR>art

Just to set the record straight the state does not own all the game. -- no

Sonnie-To set the record Straight as far as Wyoming is COncerned.....THE STATE OWNS THE GAME.....They may not own it in Texas but they do in Wyoming. Just for the record. SLayer, I hope I get to lay eyes on you in the wilderness that I showed ya in confidence. [img]images/icons/laugh.gif" border="0[/img] [img]images/icons/laugh.gif" border="0[/img] Could be alot of fun. bcat

Just for the record, step on any Indian Reservation and they will show you who own their game. They will arrest you on their Reservation, would there happen to be any in Wyoming? -- no

bcat - here's a saying that I think you'll like. I heard it from an old boss:<P>"I dont give a s**t, I don't take no s**t, I aint in the s**t business..."<P>IIFID - preferring Sharpton and or Jackson ? That's worse than you shooting the .270 Win. <shudder><P>As for on topic, well, I have no real quarrel with non-residents paying more for licenses/tags than residents. I do like the concept of state to state reciprocity for license cost though. <P>What bugs me is what I consider the arbitrary manner in which certain states decide whether or not you need to use a guide. <P>Granted the states can rationalize this using "safety for the hunter", but again, this is seems to be nothing but rationalization.<P>In Wyoming's case, step a foot into a (Federal) wilderness area while hunting, and you need a guide. Hike naked in winter with no guide, no problem [img]images/icons/smile.gif" border="0[/img] In Alaska's case, hunt for grizzly or goat and you need a guide. Hunt the exact same areas for other game, and you don't need a guide (Yep, I realize there probably won't be any other game in the goat areas, but again substitute hiking naked for hunting) <P>As far as residency = competency, how about the following:<P>Joe Bob was born and raised in AK/WY (take your pick). Lived there for 40 yrs. Moved out of state for a year or two, and then decides to hunt back in his old state. Doesn't have any relatives still in his old state. Well, AFAIK, he has to use a guide. Said guide may not as much he does, has less experience, maybe has stock/equipment that is inferior to Joe Bob's, etc... <P>I'd also like to get statistics from AK on how many resident hunters get mauled or worse while hunting for non-grizzly game (or fishing for that matter), versus actually hunting for grizz. Subjectively it would seem that someone deliberately going after game that bites back would be less likely to get nailed than someone that was out in a more "casual" fashion. <P>What it boils down to is the fact that the states with the more expensive tags, and more restrictions on what/where you can hunt without a guide will eventually suffer a backlash of sorts, if they haven't already. <P>I think some states have realized this, and thus you don't see the sort of anger about their game laws as you do about WY, or AK. Take CO for instance. CO has figured out that their game is a resource, and the most lucrative means of them marketing this resource to non residents is to provide over the counter tags as well as draw tags, and without silly guiding restrictions. Those hunters that decide they want/need a guide are free to book one. Those that figure they can do it on their own do so. Any hunter needing their b*tt rescued has already paid a buck into the rescue fund when they purchased their license. Even hikers can purchase a hiking certificate to put that buck into the SAR kitty. Hikers without the certificate or hunting license get to pay the whole cost of rescue.<P>At any rate, it's been an interesting topic, and really entertaining to see the reactions of different individuals here.<P>Regards,<BR>Scott

capt_e(Scott)<P>Just to shed some light on an increasingly murky thread, I hate to admit this, since a man is often judged by his friends, but I have become somewhat friendly with Sitka Deer via the net and consider him to be a friend, although a somewhat opinionated one. LOL And we mutually take just about every chance available to poke fun at each other. Mostly in jest, since I would probably have to think long and hard before I chose The Very Reverend Al over him in a tent. Perhaps a gallon of gasoline might solve the problem?<P>As far as the .270 goes it is a fine round, I am just not sure for what.<P>And finally, I think your analysis of the license cost/guide issue is pretty much the way most hunters feel about it, and the states that continue to gouge non-residents will probably lose some percentage of tourist hunting revenue because of it, and eventually, resident economic pressure will either relieve the problem somewhat or the Feds might take a more active role, which is well within their rights as outlined in the US Supreme Court decision above and a few others that I have read.<P>I agree with the consensus that the Feds rarely manage anything correctly which is all the more reason for the states to be reasonable in their management practices.<P>This thread, and most threads with some controversy, is an exercise in psycho-sociology and while there are some interesting observations to be drawn, the subjects are too near the ends of the bell curve to make it suitable for intensive study. Not including me, of course. LOL

Sonnie-You are right about one thing...What is on the reservation can be killed by the indians, but the state still owns the game...They just turn their head. Are you part indian? HEHEHE I liked the saying about giving a $hit....LOL It ties right into several sayings I have... [img]images/icons/laugh.gif" border="0[/img] [img]images/icons/laugh.gif" border="0[/img] bcat

bcat, -- since we both attended the same school, I imagine we could teach the salors a thing or two about sayings. Went down to Boggys today, will call you tomorrow evening. When does the deer season in area "D" start. The book says tentatively 1 Oct. <BR>-- no

Sonnie-It starts October 1st as far as I know. I doubt they will change it. Look forward to talking to ya tonight Sonnie. I have another saying I like too. "Its a matter of mind over matter, If ya dont mind , It dont matter".. [img]images/icons/laugh.gif" border="0[/img] [img]images/icons/laugh.gif" border="0[/img] [img]images/icons/laugh.gif" border="0[/img] bcat