Fight for Nonresidents Rights...

[Spyro Andes]

Guess what I got in the mail today?  A letter from Mr Taulman...

Congress Attacks Hunter's Rights

Dear Fellow Hunter:

Your right to hunt and fish on federal public lands, lands you and I and every other American own, is about to be taken away from us via legislation by our very own Congress.

A Bill introduced in Congress by Nevada Senator Harry Reid (S # 339) and another by Colorado Representative Mark Udall (H.R. #731) will allow the Rocky Mountain States to exclude you from hunting and fishing on National Forests, BLM and other public lands soley because you are a nonresident.  In fact, every State could keep you out if this law pases.

This bill will allow states to discriminate against you, to treat you like a second-class citizen, and to deny your right to apply and hunt for elk, mule deer, antelope, sheep and every other specie on public land.  States could and would impose strictor nonresident limits than on residents on public fishing areas.

Senator Reid calls it "A bill to reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities."  Its' real purpose is to circumvent recent court decisions that favored nonresidents and allow states to again discriminate against nonresidents in allocating licenses, limits, and setting license fees.  In other words, States could restrict nonresidents, like you, from receiving any licenses to hunt or fish on public lands, or allow States to charge you thousands of dollars for the same hunting licenses that residents would pay only a few dollars for.

This isn't make believe.  Even though the US Supreme Court has ruled in Hughes vs Oklahoma, that the wildlife belongs to all Americans equally, nonresidents are still subjected to severe discrimination today.  Let me give you just a few examples:

Colorado no longer allows nonresidents to apply for the Ranching for Wildlife Areas.  Once nonresidents were removed from these high quality elk and deer areas, the State passed a quota on nonresidents to keep them from drawing too many of the few remaining high quality tags left to apply for in the State.

New Mexico's highly prized Valle Calderas National Preserve was bought for $101 million in Federal money just a few short years ago.  Now the NM Game and Fish Department has put a strict quota on nonresidents.  Last year non residents donated over 65% of the application money for these elk tags, but only received 19% of the tags.  New Mexico's sheep license is $3000 for a nonresident and $100 for a resident.

Utah, just in the past few weeks, passed a regulation starting in 2006 that will give 25% of the existing nonresident tags and a paltry 5% of resident tags to a yearly convention in Salt Lake City.  The rules allow you to have chance of getting one of these tags only if you travel to Utah in person and apply.  They know you won't.  In other words, they will transfer these nonresident tags into resident hands.  In more discrimination, Utah does not allow any nonresidents to apply for the draw to obtain the high quality Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit tags, only residents.

The Montana process keeps you from drawing the quality tags; they only allow nonresidents "up to 10%" of the sheep, moose and mountain goat tags.  When applying for the quality limited elk areas, you have to first apply for the low quality combination tag which is guaranteed to be drawn every two years.  Residents get to apply yearly as their combination tags are over the counter.  Once you have drawn the combo tag at a cost of $660, then you reapply for the quality limited areas.  At one time, if you did not draw the quality tag, you simply sent the poor quality combination tag back to them for a refund.  Montana did not want the nonresidents to return these licenses so they passed a regulation that you can only get a 50% refund for the poor quality combination tag.  So it costs you $330 for a 1 in 20 chance of drawing a quality tag or you are stuck with the combination tag.  Not a tough decision for nonresidents to not apply, so the residents win... again.

In Wyoming, nonresidents apply nearly blind at the quality limited entry tags.  Wyoming give up to 20% of the elk tags to nonresidnets, but deducts 2 nonresident tags for each nonresident landowner who qualifies and owns as little as 2000 acres in that unit.  But when they calculate the draw odds, they act as if each tag was in the drawing.  Trying to get this information on the real numbers is time consuming, usually inaccurate, and often exasperating.  For added discrimination, Wyoming uses an outdated true preference point program and quota system for their sheep and moose that gives you virtually no hope of drawing unless you started years ago.  Wyoming also forces you to hire or use a resident to hunt wilderness areas.

Arizona and Nevada were highly discriminatory toward nonresidents until the recent Montoya vs. Manning decision by the Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals which forces these states to treat all hunters equally.  Arizona is no looking for ways to dodge the law and actually advertised for ideas on how to discriminate against nonresidents.  They may try to take elk licenses up to an outrageous $3200 each.  Nevada already charges $1200 for an elk tag to nonresidents.  Nevada is also attempting to defy the court system by only opening up certain units to nonresidents and excluding nonresidents altogether from millions of acres of federal lands.

On top of all this discrimination, nonresidents already pay the majority of the budgets for the Rocky Mountain States' game and fish departments, even though we get only a fraction of the licenses.  In addition, Arizona, Nevada, Montana, and Idaho collect millions of dollars from nonresidents each year for general hunting licenses.  They basically extort money from the nonresident because the nonresident is forced to purchase a general hunting license in order to either apply and/or obtain a bonus point.  This general hunting license rarely gets used so it is free money to the State.  Little does the nonresident know that the quota is the main deterrent to his drawing a tag.  It is about to get worse if S.339 and HR.731 becomes law.  This Bills expressly permit unlimited discrimination on price allocation on all lands and waters.

If these bills pass, it won't be a matter if you have family in one of these western states or own property in the state.  It does not matter if you hire a guide or not, does not matter if you are a bow, muzzleloader, or rifle hunter, and does not matter if you have served your country in the armed services.  As long as you are residing in another State you will feel the sting of discrimination.

Ranchers and farmer won't be able to sell hunting opportunities to nonresidents.  So much for private property rights!

This is bad.  Very bad.  This is un-American and the greatest threat to the hunting tradition to come along in a very long time.

We must act now, together, to protect our right to hunt, fish and travel in our own country.  As American citizens and the bill payers, we have the right not to be discriminated against because of the State we live in.  We live in the Untied States of America, remember!  This isn't about States rights.  This isn't about conservation!  This is about selfish and politically influential local hunter wanting to keep everyone else out of our federal public lands in their State, nothing more.

Due to many years of litigation and personal sacrifice, courts are now supporting the nonresident.  Now only the politicians, like reid and Udall, can pass legislation to continue the discrimination against us.  If residents of the states outside the Rocky Mountains don't speak up against this legislation, you stand to lose your right and your children's right to ever hunt in a quality unit in the Rocky Mountains.

You and your friends must call and mail your States' US Congressional Representatives and US Senators.  Tell them to oppose S.339 and HR.731.  This is the most important task you must do.  Attached is a sample letter.  Lift out the paragraphs that you like and send it to your own Representative.

Contact your local and national hunting organizations and tell them the importance of defeating this legislation.  Don't let them use any excuse, even if their headquarters is in one of the Rocky Mountain States trying to take your rights away, they are supposed to be representing you, not trying to obtain tags and hunting opportunities for themselves.

Non-taxable donations can be sent to the Conservation Force and label them "Nonresident Legal Fund".  For more information, call or e-mail:

Conservation Force
3900 N. Causeway Blvd. Suite 1045
Metairie, LA 70002-1746
504-837-1233
504-837-1145 FAX
cf@conservationforce.org

Here is the included letter for your Senator and Representative...

Date _______, 2005
RE: My Rights as a Non-Resident

Dear (Your Senator and Representative),

    Senator Reid has introduced a Senate Bill S.339 and Congressman Udall has introduced House Bill H.R. 731 to transfer to states unlimited authority to discriminate against non-resident hunters and anglers.  The legislation expressly authorizes states to discriminate against non-residents in both allocation and pricing of licenses.  It includes both recreational sportsmen and women and those who commercially ply related trades from state to state.

   The legislation would deprive me and my family from equal access and fair license fees on federal lands in the West.  This is not truly a states' rights issue as it is being represented.  I have no say in Western states' legislatures or before their commissions, so I have to turn to you, me representative to protect my right to equal treatment on federal lands.  Please, please protect my rights to hunt and fish on federal lands and waters.

  There are 2 million hunters and 12 million fishermen who hunt and/or fish out-of-state each year (National Survery 2001).  We should at least be entitles to equality on federal lands and waters.

  The resident hoarding and discrimination has been worsening which, in turn, has led to litigation.  The litigation was necessary to discourage worsening practices by the Western states.  There will be no return to equal treatment on federal lands because the states have refused to treat non-residents fairly and that has been worsening.  This legislation would eliminate that last avenue of protection.

  It will worsen the reciprocal price warring between the states that is so un-American.  We are supposed to be one indivisible nation.  In fact, foreigners may have greater rights to equal access on federal lands than me and my family.  Aren't we all Americans?  Please protect my interest as a citizen of the United States.

  This issue is not wildlife management.  It does not matter to conservation where a hunter lives.  Many of the game species are migratory, particularly waterfowl.  They cross state lines, live on federal lands, and cannot be claimed solely for the citizens of one state.  Americans should have equal rights to enjoy their federal public lands, and hunting opportunities provided by those lands.

Most sincerely,

[Thomas Krupinski]

He's at it again!  Back in the history of our country commercial hunting of game animals depleted and almost drove a number of specie to extention.  Sport hunting was eliminated until a number of game speci were reintroduced into the west and subsequent management keeps these populations viable to hunt.

This was the  excuse (sport hunting as a commercial business involving interstate trade) this character (an outfitter with a background of very questionable practices) used in a court to overturn some nonresident limits on some highly prized hunts.  Although those caps were not being reached, this outfit was out to destroy the process so they could sell more business.  Now we lost the online draw capability this year till Game & Fish can get this mess he created straightened out.

You would be fooled to think he is out for your rights, it's strictly a money making scheme for them.  As the populations of the western states grow, the demand for hunting opportunities increases.  Nonresidents have always been welcome in Arizona, and it's hard even for residents to to get drawn for big game hunts.  

Most resident hunters don't have the time off or resources to hunt out of state, so it really ticks them off when someone applies in every western state to get drawn and eliminate their big game hunting for that year.  I don't know about other western states, but here in Arizona, resident hunters have been pretty helpful to nonresident hunters often eliminating the need for a guide or outfitter.  There are both resident and nonresident slobs and some slobs engaged in commercial activity primarily for their own enrichment.

[Elwood]

Well put Tom.
Once again Mr. Krupinski is a moderating voice of reason.

Elwood

[Redhawk1]

I think it is a shame the way AZ game & fish department is purposing a big trophy fee and higher tag fee's for non-resident hunters. I do not mind paying a higher tag fee for a non-resident tag but when they are purposing  $3400 trophy fee on top of the high non-resident tag it is just to much. I dropped out of the USO and AZ Elk hunt I had booked. The bad thing is all hunter will loose in  the end.  :evil:

[Lawdog]

I think it is a shame the way AZ game & fish department is purposing a big trophy fee and higher tag fee's for non-resident hunters. I do not mind paying a higher tag fee for a non-resident tag but when they are purposing  $3400 trophy fee on top of the high non-resident tag it is just to much. I dropped out of the USO and AZ Elk hunt I had booked. The bad thing is all hunter will loose in  the end.  :evil:

I agree with you and on your decision to back out of the hunts.  I'll bet many non-resident hunters follow your lead.  Not me either.  Lawdog
 

[Spyro Andes]

He's at it again!  Back in the history of our country commercial hunting of game animals depleted and almost drove a number of specie to extention.  Sport hunting was eliminated until a number of game speci were reintroduced into the west and subsequent management keeps these populations viable to hunt.

This was the  excuse (sport hunting as a commercial business involving interstate trade) this character (an outfitter with a background of very questionable practices) used in a court to overturn some nonresident limits on some highly prized hunts.  Although those caps were not being reached, this outfit was out to destroy the process so they could sell more business.  Now we lost the online draw capability this year till Game & Fish can get this mess he created straightened out.

You would be fooled to think he is out for your rights, it's strictly a money making scheme for them.  As the populations of the western states grow, the demand for hunting opportunities increases.  Nonresidents have always been welcome in Arizona, and it's hard even for residents to to get drawn for big game hunts.  

Most resident hunters don't have the time off or resources to hunt out of state, so it really ticks them off when someone applies in every western state to get drawn and eliminate their big game hunting for that year.  I don't know about other western states, but here in Arizona, resident hunters have been pretty helpful to nonresident hunters often eliminating the need for a guide or outfitter.  There are both resident and nonresident slobs and some slobs engaged in commercial activity primarily for their own enrichment.

Arizona has been good to the non-resident?

You must be  joking me...  HOw about the $1200 that they Arizona G&F fish has extorted out of me for the past 12 years to essentially maintain my bonus points?

Arizona has been very UNGRACIOUS to the nonresident hunter.

A 10% tag allotment for nonresidents, coupled with tags at 10x the resident rate and the $100 annual expense for a license to maintain points...  Arizona screws over the nonresident.

This latest fiasco, where they'll hit the nonresident for $3200 for an elk tag, is just like a child throwing a tantrum.  Doing it because they can.  Frankly, it is going to be their undoing.

Time for the western states to stop financing the majority of their Fish and Game Department's funding from nonresident tag fees and nonresident licenses (success and unsuccessfully drawn).  These Game and Fish departments are funded by license sales, tag sales and Federal funding.  In most states, resident tag/license fee are less than 25% of the total bugdet.

Arizona has subsidized their residents' hunting for years by over charging the nonresident.

Let me put it this way, an elk tag and license for a successfully drawn resident is ~$100.  For an unsuccessfully drawn nonresident, the cost to apply was ~$120.

What would Arizona residents do if all non-Arizona Public Universities charged their sons and daughthers $8,000 (about what most residents would pay in tuition.  in other words, successfully drawn applicants) to apply for admission to these Universities?

Would your kids have the grades to make into the now incredibly competitive ASU or NAU?  Or would you just come to grips that they won't be able to goto college because of the cost?

Atleast, the discrepency in in-state and out-of-state tuition can be explained because public universities receive their funding from STATE TAXES unlike the Game & Fish.

Here is another one...

A resident of Phoenix gets a ticket for speeding that costs $20.  Should a nonresident of Phoenix have to pay $900 for the same violation?  

The only reason why nonresident tag prices, allocations and requirements for maintaining points are set the way they are...  Is because these state, up until the Taulman suit, could set the prices as high as they wanted because their was no fear of political repercusion.

How is it that Colorado continually raises noresident tag fees almost every year but residents haven't had experienced an increase in fees since 1992.

This is exploitation to the nth degree...  the only reason why residents even try to justify it is pure GREED.  They want all the hunting opportunities to themselves and they want it for peanuts.

[Redhawk1]

Spyro Andes, very well put. A Men brother...

[Thomas Krupinski]

Will try to remember a few of your points as I answer this, but in case I don't I will try to get back to them later.

First I don't believe Arizona extorted you to apply for any of our hunts or even encouraged you to come to Arizona for that matter.  That was your choice and you buy into it like anything else, just like those absurd real estate prices in California and a bunch of other states.

If your state did as good as Arizona on it’s game management, habitat development and maintenance (you can thank the resident volunteers and land lease holders for that) you may have adequate hunting opportunities for all of your population that wishes to participate in sport hunting in your state.  

Of course those opportunities would be limited to the available number of game animals, but I am sure that California and its residents would graciously accept years of rejection to hunt in their quality local areas, especially if it would mean that nonresidents would have a special number of set aside permits designated only for them.   I believe that is what USO was really after, set aside permits for nonresidents rather than competition for available permits between all applicants, resident and nonresident.

When you mention that proposed $3,200 tag fee for nonresident ceiling, that is on the new "Premium" Early Bull Elk Hunt and I think it is high, but so is the proposed resident ceiling of $350 for that hunt.  However the regular season bull elk hunt for nonresidents has a proposed ceiling of $775 (ceiling was $400) while the resident ceiling for the same hunt is proposed for $150.  Nothing says you can’t take a nice trophy during the regular hunts if you work at it, but if you want the edge before the others get it, looks like they will be charging you for it.  

I agree that it is greed, pure and simple.  But the greedy are those who flood other states with their applications reducing the hunting opportunities for the residents who can’t afford such expensive practices.   Why do they do it, it's because they can and their money talks!

Arizona has previously been a pretty reasonable priced state to live in.  The cost of living was reasonable and the wages were correspondingly lower.  Lately the pressure from out of state investors, some suffering from shock on their own real estate prices, are paying way too much for property and driving residents out of the market.  The same thing is happening with hunting.  Residents are being driven out of the pool by money from nonresidents.  Now I have been told by a number of nonresident hunters that I have taken around that Arizona has had a pretty reasonably priced structure for nonresident hunting compared to some other states they have hunted in.  

Now I am really sorry if any nonresident hunters don’t like it or feel they are being victimized.  Might be nice if they tried to see things from the resident hunters perspective instead of just their own greedy self interests.  I know I am going to be looking at nonresident hunters differently now.

[Rustyinfla]

The reason they feel free to stick it to the out of state hunters is  because you don't have a vote. As long as they keep the home folks happy all is well.

          Rusty <><

[Graybeard]

Guess I don't see it as my business what any state does on land they own or which is owned by residents of that state. BUT on federal land non residents should have an equal chance at permits. I do agree that the cost of out of state permits is out rageous compared to those for residents. Again on federal land I think the price should be the exact same for both.

Yup know the old saw about who owns the game. Matters not. If it's on my land you can't come hunt it without paying me. So if it's on federal land all should pay the same as we all equally own that land.

[Thomas Krupinski]

That's almost right about ownership of the game.  The state owns the game and they have even been sued over damage caused by them.  That really went far.  But the Feds own quite a bit of Arizona land.  

You can come and use that land as the Federal agencies who administer restrict your access and use.  You can come and nature watch, hike, pan for gold, graze livestock, climb rocks and anthing else they allow by the rules they allow those usages.  

But the state owns and administers the wildlife.  They make the rules on season, limits and manner of taking whether it be on private, state or federal land in the state.

Game and Fish conduct public meetings and took imput on what should be done and those increased fees were actually very minor amoung the many proposals that were fielded.  Some included requiring nonresidents to use a licensed guide who is an Arizona resident (residency  definition is pretty definite here), to requiring all nonresident hunters to take and pass an Arizona specific hunter safety course here, to setting us a system of conservation bonus points to be awarded to folks who participate in game management construction projects like building and maintaining water catchments, debris cleanup and other stuff that helps maintain the habitat.

Those fees folks are compaining about are certainly not the end of the story, it may get a whole lot more restrictive.  I don't think the nonresident really comprehend the extent of the anger that the lawsuit caused.  It's deep and widespread, and not likely to settle down soon.

[Don Fischer]

Amusing, the wealthy non-resident hunter's have finally found a price they're not willing to pay. Who knows, maybe the people who live in my unit will be able to hunt again one of these day's.

You've come from out of state and got the tags in unit's that are, like mine 95% private property. Then to ensure you've a place to hunt, you've laid out huge sum's of money to buy up hunting right's to the private property. Then you lock yourself inside gates and poach, even on public property. By the way, the federal government own's no land in any state other than that necessary for federal offices, at least that's what the constitution say's, remember that thing we used to have here? You know, that thing the rich use and love when it suit's their purpose?

You rich people need to go cry to someone else about how much you have to pay, you brought it on yourselves. I got it, why don't you californians just hunt in california, oh that's right, you've about got it ruined! But don't worry, you can buy your way into anything you want, if your still willing to pay the price.

You people don't bring anything into our local economy. You bring your trash and leave it for us to clean up, that's about it. You make such a big fuss about the dollar's you spend in the local economy,,,bull! Then if every thing doesn't go your way, you just encroach on other private property you don,t have right's to. Do us a favor, be really angry and stay home! Maybe then I can get a tag to hunt in my own back yard then!

[Spyro Andes]

That's almost right about ownership of the game.  The state owns the game and they have even been sued over damage caused by them.  That really went far.  But the Feds own quite a bit of Arizona land.  

You can come and use that land as the Federal agencies who administer restrict your access and use.  You can come and nature watch, hike, pan for gold, graze livestock, climb rocks and anthing else they allow by the rules they allow those usages.  

But the state owns and administers the wildlife.  They make the rules on season, limits and manner of taking whether it be on private, state or federal land in the state.

Game and Fish conduct public meetings and took imput on what should be done and those increased fees were actually very minor amoung the many proposals that were fielded.  Some included requiring nonresidents to use a licensed guide who is an Arizona resident (residency  definition is pretty definite here), to requiring all nonresident hunters to take and pass an Arizona specific hunter safety course here, to setting us a system of conservation bonus points to be awarded to folks who participate in game management construction projects like building and maintaining water catchments, debris cleanup and other stuff that helps maintain the habitat.

Those fees folks are compaining about are certainly not the end of the story, it may get a whole lot more restrictive.  I don't think the nonresident really comprehend the extent of the anger that the lawsuit caused.  It's deep and widespread, and not likely to settle down soon.

Ignorance must be bliss, Thomas...

States CLAIM that they own the wildlife but they don't...

If they did, the State of Wyoming would be collecting revenues to fish Yellowstone Park.

The Feds own the wildlife in Yellowstone and nonresident of Wyoming or resident of Wyoming pays the exact same amount to fish Yellowstone.

There are no quotas on how many nonresidents can fish yellowstone.

The only reason the states have been able to make monies off of wildlife on federal lands and regulate wildlife on federal lands is because the Feds have let them do it.

Before spouting off about States owning wildlife, maybe you should review the decision in Hughes vs Oklahoma where the Supreme Court ruled that wildlife belongs to all Americans equally.

Have a good day

[Don Fischer]

Well Mr Krupinski I certainly hope you enjoyed your lesson in socialism for today. You have to wonder if Mr Andes spends this much effort on hunting right's in his own state?

The fish in Yellowstone belong to all of us because the federal government has decided it own's land the constitution say's it can't own!
And the rich shall inherit the earth!

[Thomas Krupinski]

Like you said Don, once they screw up their own state they try to encroach upon the people in others with their big money.  I really wish they would devote their efforts to developing the resources in their own home states rather than tell us how to handle ours.  I mean they have such wonderful gun control laws and other restrictions, it must be heaven there.

Yellowstone, like the Grand Canyon is a national park.  You can't hunt there due to federal firarm rules.  If hunting was permitted in the Grand Canyon then the state of Arizona would be setting the rules for the game that is in their boundries.  Now I believe Arizona does set the fishing rules for their, I don't fish there and I may be wrong on that but I think I recall seeing that in the regulations.

Now ignorance is bliss, but those wealthy nonresidents and their lackeys are the ones who are both ignorant and arrogant about the folks who live in those states.  Now they are just getting a taste of their own medicine and they don't seem to like it.

[Redhawk1]

Amusing, the wealthy non-resident hunter's have finally found a price they're not willing to pay. Who knows, maybe the people who live in my unit will be able to hunt again one of these day's.

You've come from out of state and got the tags in unit's that are, like mine 95% private property. Then to ensure you've a place to hunt, you've laid out huge sum's of money to buy up hunting right's to the private property. Then you lock yourself inside gates and poach, even on public property. By the way, the federal government own's no land in any state other than that necessary for federal offices, at least that's what the constitution say's, remember that thing we used to have here? You know, that thing the rich use and love when it suit's their purpose?

You rich people need to go cry to someone else about how much you have to pay, you brought it on yourselves. I got it, why don't you californians just hunt in california, oh that's right, you've about got it ruined! But don't worry, you can buy your way into anything you want, if your still willing to pay the price.

You people don't bring anything into our local economy. You bring your trash and leave it for us to clean up, that's about it. You make such a big fuss about the dollar's you spend in the local economy,,,bull! Then if every thing doesn't go your way, you just encroach on other private property you don,t have right's to. Do us a favor, be really angry and stay home! Maybe then I can get a tag to hunt in my own back yard then!

Don Fischer, I do not think you know what you are talking about. Not one thing you posted make any sense to normal thinking people. Maybe in your mind you make sense. Non-residents put a lot into the States they hunt in. Federal land belongs to the Federal Government not the State. Federal land is funded by the Federal Government and that is all residents of the United States. If you think for one minute that if non-residents did not hunt in your State, that you the resident will not pick up the financial responsibility for your game & fish, you my friend are sadly mistaken. Your fee's will increase to make up for the lost revenue us non-resident spend.
If we have a lease on private property it is not poaching as you have stated in your post.

You need to do some research and find out how much the federal Government contributes to all States for Game & Fish and wildlife.

To me it sound like you have a problem with people that are financially secure. (Rich) as you put it. That is far from the issue at hand.

[Redhawk1]

Like you said Don, once they screw up their own state they try to encroach upon the people in others with their big money.  I really wish they would devote their efforts to developing the resources in their own home states rather than tell us how to handle ours.  I mean they have such wonderful gun control laws and other restrictions, it must be heaven there.

Yellowstone, like the Grand Canyon is a national park.  You can't hunt there due to federal firarm rules.  If hunting was permitted in the Grand Canyon then the state of Arizona would be setting the rules for the game that is in their boundries.  Now I believe Arizona does set the fishing rules for their, I don't fish there and I may be wrong on that but I think I recall seeing that in the regulations.

Now ignorance is bliss, but those wealthy nonresidents and their lackeys are the ones who are both ignorant and arrogant about the folks who live in those states.  Now they are just getting a taste of their own medicine and they don't seem to like it.

Nothing wrong with the State of Delaware concerning Wildlife and hunting. We did not mess up our hunting in Delaware and now want to come to your State and mess it up. We have a lot of good programs in place and the deer population is booming. It is small minded people such as you and Don Fischer, that spout off about matters you have no real knowledge about. Do some research before you post about things you have no idea about.

I did not know it was not my right to not be able to hunt in other States in the United States, with out simple minded people thinking we are going to trash there States. You will find most hunters are very careful not to trash there hunting areas in other States. It is the local people that trash there own States. We have pigs in Delaware as well as you have in your States. Look around on the back roads and see trash, beds, couches. The non-resident hunter did not do that, it was your local Boys.

I thought with age came wisdom, but not in either one of your cases.

[Thomas Krupinski]

Well Redhawk, I believe you are wrong again.  Hunting is not a right like voting but a privlege like driving a motor vehicle or obtaining a business license.  The states decide the rules and administer them.  Some states choose to do it differently.

I have absolutly no interest in any hunting opportunity in Deleware and could care absolutly less about it.  My interest is in my home state.  Actually I believe resident are a tad more acquainted with the problems and issues in their states than nonresidents.  

In addition to locals who trash the habitat, we also have another federal benifit, that being illegals who leave a path of litter and crime in their wake.

Perhaps when you mature and take a hard look at issues from the perspective of the folks impacted you may gain some insight and wisdom.  Now I doubt there is anything that I can find useful in your comments.  I am sure that Don Fisher can speak for himself, but I really don't want to start a name calling thing here and keep it civil.

Over the years I have taken many nonresident hunters out on big game hunts here and I always found those folks enjoyable to be with.  I am sure that there are slobs that are both resident and nonresident, but issue is really one of privledge and access.  The people who live and work here really find it offensive when their only opportunities are taken away from them.  Maybe it would not seem so bad if they didn't live in the areas and realize the opportunities they are loosing.

[Graybeard]

Either this stops being personal and the posts address the issues and not the people posting or this thread dies. No further warnings.

[Spyro Andes]

Well Redhawk, I believe you are wrong again.  Hunting is not a right like voting but a privlege like driving a motor vehicle or obtaining a business license.  The states decide the rules and administer them.  Some states choose to do it differently.

Well Thomas, the next time you are RIGHT about something will be your first.

If ignorance = bliss then thomas = blissful

You might want to change your opinion on hunting being a right.

Arkansas
Constitutional Right to Hunt
Bill Number: SJR 1, 2003
Status: Died
Proposes a constitutional amendment, to be known as the Sportsperson’s Bill of Rights, guaranteeing the right to hunt, fish, and harvest game.

California
“The people shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the
State and in the waters thereof, excepting upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water containing fish that have been planted therein by the State; provided, that the Legislature may by statute, provide for the season when and the conditions under which the different species of fish may be taken.” (California Constitution, Article 1, Section 25, 1910)

Florida
Hunting, Fishing, & Gaming Rights
Bill Number: HJR 453, 2002
Status: Died in Committee
Constitutional amendment establishing the right of the people of the state to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions as prescribed by general law and state constitution. Amends s. 26, Art. I.

Georgia
Right to Hunt and Fish
Bill Number: HB 301, 2001
Status: Passed and signed into law 4/18/2001
This bill amends the Georgia Code to declare that Georgia citizens have the right to take fish and wildlife, subject to the laws and regulations adopted by the board for the public good and welfare. In addition, this bill prohibits local governments from regulating hunting, trapping, or fishing by local ordinance.

Constitutional Right to Hunt
Bill Number: SR 563
Status: Senate Passed/Adopted 1/26/04; House Committee Favorably Reported 2/12/04
Proposes an amendment to the Constitution so as to provide that the people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject only to reasonable restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law.

Indiana
Constitutional Right to Hunt
Bill Number: HJR 2, 2004
Status: Referred to Committee on Rules and Legislative Procedures 1/13/04
Amends the Indiana constitution to provide that the people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest game.

Louisiana
Constitutional Right to Hunt and Trap
Bill Number: SB 47, 2003
Status: In Committee, session ended (no carryover)
Amends the constitution to preserve the right to hunt, fish, and trap.

Michigan
Hunting Rights
Bill Number: HJR L, 2003
Status: In Committee
Establishes hunting, fishing, camping, or taking game as a Constitutional right.

Minnesota
The Hunting and Fishing Amendment
Bill Number: SF 41, 1997-1998
Status: Amendment Passed
A bill for an act proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution, article XIII, by adding a section affirming that hunting and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage.

Mississippi
In 1997, the Mississippi legislature considered putting a similar state constitutional amendment before the voters, but the measure did not pass.

Missouri
Constitutional Right to Hunt
Bill Number: SJR 24, 2004
Status
Amends the state constitution to provide for a constitutional right to hunt, fish, and harvest game.

Montana
Constitutional Right to Hunt
Bill Number: HB 306, 2003
Status: Chaptered 4/3/2003
Amends the state constitution forever preserving the right to hunt.

Nebraska
Preserve Hunting Rights
Bill number: LR 4CA, 2003
Status: Carried over to Second Regular Session
Constitutional amendment to preserve the right to fish, trap, and hunt
Attorney General’s Opinion #04003: Whether LR4CA, a proposed amendment to the Nebraska Constitution regarding hunting, fishing, and trapping, will have an affect on the Nebraska Constitution and various existing statutes.

New Hampshire
Codifies the Right to Hunt, Trap, and Fish
Bill Number: HB 273, 2001
Status: Passed
This bill amends the New Hampshire Code by stating that the fish and game department will recognize, preserve, and promote hunting, fishing, and trapping and will provide opportunities to carry out such activities in accordance with title XVIII.

New Mexico
Right to Hunt
Bill Number: SJR 1, 1999
Status: Died
The “right to hunt” resolution would have made it a constitutional right to hunt and fish, placing that use above and beyond all other non-consumptive wildlife uses.

North Dakota
Hunting, Fishing, Trapping for the Public Good/State Heritage
Bill Number: Constitutional Measure 1, 2000
Status: Passed
This constitutional amendment, passed in 2000, provides that hunting, trapping, and fishing are a valued part of residents’ heritage and will be preserved for the people and managed by law and regulation for the public good.

Pennsylvania
Right to Hunt
Bill Number: HB 1512, 2003
Status: Passed House 2/9/04; In Senate Committee
Proposes an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing the right to hunt and fish. Hunting and fishing are already legal in the state.

Rhode Island
“The people shall continue to enjoy and freely exercise all the rights of fishery, and the privileges of the shore, to which they have been heretofore entitled under the charter and usages of this state. But no new right is intended to be granted, nor any existing right impaired, by this declaration.” (Rhode Island Constitution, Article 1, Section 17, 1844)

South Carolina
Declaration of Rights
Bill Number: H 3702, 2003
Status: In Committee, session ended (03-04 carryover)
Proposes an amendment to the State Constitution; relates to the declaration of rights; provides for the right of the people to hunt, fish, and take game.

South Dakota
Bill Number: HJR 1004, 2003
Status: Introduced, session ended (no carryover)
A joint resolution, proposing and submitting to the voters at the next general election an amendment to Article XXI of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, relating to hunting, fishing, and trapping.

Texas
Right to hunt
Bill Number: HJR 14, 2001
Proposing a constitutional amendment relating to the right to hunt and fish.
Status: Died

Vermont
“The inhabitants of this State shall have the liberty in seasonable times, to hunt and fowl on the lands they hold, and on other lands not inclosed, and in like manner to fish in all boatable and other waters (not private property) under proper regulations, to be made and provided by the General Assembly.” (Vermont Constitution, Chapter 2, part 67, 1777)

Virginia
Right to hunt
Ballot Measure 2, 2000
Status: Passed
This Virginia ballot measure, passed in 2000, provides by constitutional amendment that “the people have a right to hunt, fish, and harvest game, subject to such regulations and restrictions as the General Assembly may prescribe by general law.”

Washington
Right to hunt and fish
Bill Number: HJR 4204, 2001
Status: Died in Committee
Adds the right to hunt and fish to the Constitution of the state of Washington.

Wisconsin
“Right to Hunt”
Bill Number: AJR 1, 2003
Status: Amendment Passed
Calls for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to hunt, fish, and trap.

[Spyro Andes]

Yellowstone, like the Grand Canyon is a national park.  You can't hunt there due to federal firarm rules.  If hunting was permitted in the Grand Canyon then the state of Arizona would be setting the rules for the game that is in their boundries.  Now I believe Arizona does set the fishing rules for their, I don't fish there and I may be wrong on that but I think I recall seeing that in the regulations.

Now ignorance is bliss, but those wealthy nonresidents and their lackeys

Wyoming claims, like Arizona, that they own all the fish AND wildlife inside their state boundries.

They regulate hunting and fishing on Federal Lands already...  Why not Yellowstone?

Because the Feds stepped in and claimed all of the fish and wildlife is theirs because it is on federal property.

Yet these states still claim that all the wildlife is the property of their residents.

They are wrong...  The court says they are wrong...  The Feds have proven them wrong...

Now if they want to maintain control of the fish AND game inside their state boundries, that are on federal lands, they can not discriminate against nonresidents.

This is a simple concept here, thomas.  Don't let the resident greed of wanting hunting for peanuts blind you.

Nobody is going to stop these states from managing the wildlife...  the Courts have just said no more raping of nonresidents.

With my 10 points, I'll see you in Unit 8 this Sept!

Might even see you on the Strip as well!

[Thomas Krupinski]

Spyro,

Just running through through those examples you reference, it seems that your use of a "right" is a little different than what I think I would consider a "right".  

In those cases the states are referencing what they will allow you to do within their rules.  That's a privledge, they grant that to you when you purchase their license and you have to follow their rules.  A right is something that you have that is not awarded, purchased or granted as from the government, but rather something that the government can not restrict.  If it was a right you would not have to purchase a license for it, nor would it be restricted to the extent that hunting, driving, practicing medicine and law, and whole bunch of other activities.

Quite a few of those examples you quote seem to have died a legislative death.  Does that mean that it is in effect just because someone in a state legislature proposed it.  There is all kind of crazy stuff that gets proposed in state legislatures, but never becomes codified.

Are you really sure that's what you wanted to demonstrate?

[Elwood]

Dear Graybeard,
Since this thread is primarily of a political nature and includes a letter for our congressional representatives for us to cut and paste. Since this thread is so inflammatory and polarizing, I respectfully propose that you transfer it to a more appropriate forum such as political issues. I know of at least one duplicate topic in deer hunting (I think). I propose moving that also.
I am tempted to post a reply with a letter for our representatives in support of this proposed legislation that like minded individuals could cut and paste. I said tempted not that I will do it but "what is good for the goose is good for the gander".

Thank You for your attention to this problem,
and for the use of your forum.
Elwood