Geez, here I go and research the topic and post the information and yet it gets ignored.

The state most certainly does "own" the animal. Although as you can read in my earlier post, the term is acknowledged as an "anachronism".

That at least has some validity, as you said "should be". "Should be" and "have to be" are two different things. If they were then in a way the residents would be subsidizing the out of staters.

Appellees argue that the State constitutionally should be able to charge nonresidents, who are not subject to the State's general taxing power, more than it charges it residents, who are subject to that power and who already have contributed to the programs that make elk hunting possible. Appellees also urge that Montana, as a State, has made sacrifices in its economic development, and therefore in its tax base, in order to preserve the elk and other wildlife within the State and that this, too, must be counted, along with actual tax revenues spent, when computing the fair share to be paid by nonresidents. We need not commit ourselves to any particular method of computing the cost to the State of maintaining an environment in which elk can survive in order to find the State's efforts rational, and not invidious, and therefore not violative of the Equal Protection Clause.

A repetitious review of the factual setting is revealing: The resident obviously assists in the production and maintenance of big-game populations through taxes. The same taxes provide support for state parks utilized by sportsmen, Plaintiffs' Exhibit 1; for roads providing access to the hunting areas, Tr. 156-158, 335; for fire suppression to protect the wildlife habitat, id., at 167; for benefits to the habitat effected by the State's Environmental Quality Council, id., at 163-165; for the enforcement of state air and water quality standards, id., at 223-224; for assistance by sheriffs' departments to enforce game laws, Defendants' Exhibit G, p. 13; and for state highway patrol officers who assist wildlife officers at game checking stations and in enforcement of game laws. Forage support by resident ranchers is critical for winter survival. Tr. 46-47, 286. All this is on a continuing basis.

We perceive no duty on the State to have its licensing structure parallel or identical for both residents and nonresidents, or to justify to the penny any cost differential it imposes in a purely recreational, noncommercial, nonlivelihood setting. Rationality is sufficient.

The appellants point to the facts that federal land in Montana provides a significant contribution to the elk habitat, and that substantial apportionments to the State flow from the Federal Aid in Wild Life Restoration Act, 50 Stat. 917, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 669- 669i (1976 ed.). We fail to see how these federal aspects transform a recreational pursuit into a fundamental right protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause, or how they impose a barrier to resident-nonresident differentials. Congress knows how to impose such a condition on its largess when it wishes to do so.

Think twice before you ask for equal licensing costs for residents and non-residents. This line from the Montana ruling could send a chill up your spine: "On the other side of the same ledger is the great, and almost alarming, increase in the number of nonresident hunters--in the decade of the 1960's, almost eight times the increase in resident hunters." That was in the 60's. Just think of all us Californian's trekking on up to the Dakotas buying hunting leases, blazing away at game, and squeezing you locals out. Trust me, you don't need a bunch of people crazy enough to pay $800,000 for a 3 bedroom house and $60,000 for a monster SUV coming into your state!


This has been an interesting discussion, but I think I joined it late. I suspect most everyone else has tired of the "yes the are, no they aren't" quality of the ownership discussion responses.