While this topic doesn't get brought up as much as the ".270 for Elk" or "Wolf" topics, it does get rehashed quite a bit. Here's a link to a thread that had a fair amount of information: http://forum.hunting.net/asppg/tm.as...9&mpage=1&key=

To put it into a nutshell however, in the Supreme Court's ruling on Baldwin vs. Fish and Game Cmmission of Montana the finding was made that "We conclude that where the opportunity to enjoy a recreational activity is created or supported by a state, where there is no nexus between the activity and any fundamental right, and where by its very nature the activity can be enjoyed by only a portion of those who would enjoy it, a state may prefer its residents over the residents of other states, or condition the enjoyment of the nonresident upon such terms as it sees fit."

Regarding the issue of the wildlife happening to be on Federal land they noted "The doctrine that a State "owns" the wildlife within its borders as trustee for its citizens, see Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896), is admittedly a legal anachronism of sorts. See Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U.S. 265, 284 (1977). A State does not "own" wild birds and animals in the same way that it may own other natural resources such as land, oil, or timber. But, as noted in the Court's opinion, ante, at 386, and contrary to the implications of the dissent, the doctrine is not completely obsolete. It manifests the State's special interest in regulating and preserving wildlife for the benefit of its citizens. See Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., supra, at 284, 287. Whether we describe this interest as proprietary or otherwise is not significant."

Where commerce clause comes into play hinges on whether interstate commerce is impacted. Is the fact that by crossing state lines to hunt, thereby spending money in another state, in fact "interstate commerce". In the USO ruling the 9th District Court seems to think so. They get reversed more than any other district, so their interpretation could be faulty, though the Supreme Court did not accept an appeal of that ruling.

My opinion is that "Interstate Commerce" applies to commercial operations, such as a farm raised trout not being subject to the same "taking" rules as river trout. That there are persons who make money from our recreational activities doesn't raise the activity to the level of interstate commerce. Again, that's just my take on it.