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
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?
Exactly! Or, how Jane Goodall has now decided that mountain lions are endangered and should not be hunted -- ANYWHERE! $%^&*^%%$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Muley Stalker:
I specifically addressed the "ownership" of game animals in my first post responding to you on this. To repeat, the legal basis for the idea that the states are the "owners" of the game goes back to some very questionable court decisions in the 1800s that have since essentially been overturned by more modern interpretations. IIRC one of the first was a dispute between states about fishing grounds, but it has been a while since I looked at it. There are some modern court decisions that specifically give stewardship of game animals, the regulation and taking thereof, on Fed land to the Feds. See the New Mexico decision I referrred to. In short, while the states and their game agencies would like you to think that they own the game, it ain't necessarily so. Now, is that addressing the issue enough for you?
CAT, sorry I'm not trying to piss you off. I haven't read all the supporting information you presented, but it seems that IF Fed is given stewardship for their lands, then they'd have to give ME stewardship of MY land. If I lived in NM, I'd be in court driving for that logical extrapolation. Of course, that'd send the game management straight down the tubes -- go visit Germany some time and try to hunt <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> !
Again, I'm not trying to start a fight or dispute your facts. Sorry I missed the stewardship piece earlier...
Muley Stalker and any other interested parties:
Read this, it gives a quick and somewhat dense version of the issues involved and shows that the legal basis for state "ownership" of game is pretty widely considered a fiction. I just found this, so am not saying that it is correct, but it does trace the development of the concepts.
http://www.snowcrest.net/siskfarm/fshngm2.html
For those who don't or won't read far enough, here is the crux of the issue on the second page.....note: Bold emphasis added by me.
The case of Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 (1979,) was the demise of the "State-ownership" argument that had been embodied in Geer v Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519. The court held that:
"The Geer decision rested on the holding that no interstate commerce was involved, because the State had the power, as representative for its citizens, who "owned" in common all wild animals within the State, to control the "ownership" of game that had been lawfully reduced to possession, and had exercised its power by prohibiting its removal from the State.
"(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. Pp. 326-335.
"(d)
States may promote the legitimate purpose of protecting and conserving wild animal life within their borders only in ways consistent with the basic principle that the pertinent economic unit is the Nation; and when a wild animal becomes an article of commerce, its use cannot be limited to the citizens of one State to the exclusion of citizens of another State. Pp. 338-339."
End quoted text.
And more along the same lines from an earlier case, Toomer vs Witsel 334 U.S. 385, 402 (1948)
"The whole ownership theory, in fact, is now generally regarded as but a fiction expressive in legal shorthand of the importance to its people that a State have power to preserve and regulate the exploitation of an important resource. And there is no necessary conflict between that vital policy consideration and the constitutional command that the State exercise that power, like its other powers, so as not to discriminate without reason against citizens of other States."
And from an earlier dissent stating the basis for the modern correct interpretation:
"A State does not stand in the same position as the owner of a private game preserve and it is pure fantasy to talk of `owning' wild fish, birds, or animals. Neither the States nor the Federal Government, any more than a hopeful fisherman or hunter, has title to these creatures until they are reduced to possession by skillful capture. . . . Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519, 539-540 (1896) (Field, J., dissenting). The `ownership' language of cases such as those cited by appellant must be understood as no more than a 19th-century legal fiction expressing `the importance to its people that a State have power to preserve and regulate the exploitation of an important resource.' [Citing Toomer.] Under modern analysis, the question is simply whether the State has exercised its police power in conformity with the federal laws and Constitution." 431 U.S., at 284.
End quoted text:
This may be a bit dense, but it should lead those who read it to the water. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />
I'd argue the "pretty widely considered" statement and will now leave this discussion. Thanks for the link. I scanned through most of it, but one of the "next" links died, so I don't know how much I missed.
My hope, if it ever comes to it is that the Supreme court would hold up the states stewardship, if not ownership and things would go on as they have been. Otherwise, a huge can of worms will be opened and I'd hate to see what is left of our wildlife after it is sorted out.
I certainly hope that anti's aren't monitoring this stuff as this is certainly a candidate for "divide and conquer."
Muley Stalker:
Those quotes above ARE Supreme Court Decisions and likely were some of the basis for the recent ruling in Ca......which I admittedly have not read.
I don't know how much more "widely considered" it can be than the law of the land which is the status of SCOTUS decisions.
Told you so. Or haven't you guys been paying attention to my ranting about the "subsistence" farce here in Alaska. Short version: The Feds have claimed "ownership" of all "subsistence" animals in the state, and claim they have the right to "manage" these animals across federal, state, and private lands. They also decide who gets access to them, based on race and zip code address. Courtesy of US Congress and the 9th Circuit Court, with serious suck up by former Governor Tony Knowles - a Democrat, of course. He killed our appeal to the US Supreme court in return for Naitive support in the election, and won by 600 -um- "reimbursed" votes from the North Slope. The 9th dropped it "with predjudice" meaning it can never be considered again. At least in that form
Last time the Feds "managed" Alaska's resources, it took us 20 years of statehood to bring them back.
Interestingly, I just read some figures on Alaska's F&G budget. Roughly 40% of it comes from licenses and fees. The rest is matching (various ratios) funds from the Feds, primarily Pittman/Robinson funds. 75% of the licenses and fees come from non-residents. So yes, if this goes through, it looks like residents of all states will get to bend over and assume the position when it comes time to hunt in their own states. Besides increased fees, everyone will almost have to go on a drawing lottery system. I hate them things. I don't believe it will affect guiding requirements - if anything, the states will enhance them, as I believe they do have dominion over "services" regulation within the state - and it will be a quick way to recoup some of the non-resident fees involved. I also don't know if the states will retain the power to issue only so many non-resident permits, or regulate the removal of wildlife parts from the state- which may be a backdoor hunter management technique
las
Gotta agree with most everything you say, except the guide requirement... if a person is a person, and they have equal rights to access, then they all must be treated the same. I think a challenge to the guiding requirement would hold up. assuming the equal rights aspect of access also held...
art
So, to sum up the operating budget for Alaska F&G, approximately 90% of it comes for other than Alaskan sources. Interesting.
I tried to find a similar break down of Colorado license fees, but could not, so far.
"Told you so. Or haven't you guys been paying attention to my ranting about the "subsistence" farce here in Alaska. Short version: The Feds have claimed "ownership" of all "subsistence" animals in the state, and claim they have the right to "manage" these animals across federal, state, and private lands. They also decide who gets access to them, based on race and zip code address"
The feds just did that very thing. Now if you have a zip code of Craig 99921 (or any island zip code) you can help kill (or even sell) 600 steelhead this spring. If you have a zip code of Ktown 99901 (or any other non-island zip code) it is catch and release. The zip coders of 99921 even tried to stop all zip coders from 99901 (or any other non-island zip code) from even fishing for steelhead.
Similar Sitka Blacktail proposals will go before the Fed Board again this spring. Last year the Fed Board narrowly failed (4 to 3 vote) a prop to stop non-island zip coaders from killing any deer.
Murkowski told Ketchikan residents during his campaign there was a simple fix to the subsistence problems and that he would work on it right away. So just after his watch began this precedent setting decision by the Fed Board on Steelhead passes with little or no fanfare and no reaction from Murkowski.
Here in Wyoming the breakdown is around 85 - 15. 85% of the $s come from outside the state and 15% of the license go to nonresidents. I'm surprised it has taken this long for someone to put together a viable lawsuit.