Non-residents hunting Federal Public land??
12-20-2006, 03:12 PM
#31
Fork Horn
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 220
RE: Non-residents hunting Federal Public land??
There are many reasons why non resident hunters pay higher big game fees even if they are hunting on Federal lands. One is that the Supreme Court has said in Baldwin Vs. Montana
This pops up at least once a year and it is a very old issue. Here is what I would tell you. Congress, especially if Harry Reid is the majority leader, is going to ensure that states can continue to regulate the number of NR hunters within their borders. He is the author of S339 that reaffirms states rights to regulate wildlife.
I grow weary of the, "NR hunters pump money into the local economies" crowd. If you wish hunting to become just about how much money NR spend while hunting you are being very short sighted. NR hunter numbers continue to increase, especially in the west, regardless of the cost of the trip, regardless of limited tags, regardless of outfitters and guides, etc.
Nobody is keeping you from accessing the federal lands, you can access them any time you want. The hunting in the States is controlled by the residents of the State. Just because there is Federally owned land does not change the way states are regulate their big game populations.
NR hunters are a vital source of funding for the State of Montana and therefore a NR can be guaranteed a NR elk/deer combo every year if you go with an outfitter sponsored license. In addition there are land owner sponsored licenses and the general draw. There is always more applicants then there are licenses so there is no incentive for the State of Montana to reduce the prices.
Federal land ownership does not impart a right to hunt, sorry.
Nemont
"Does the distinction made by Montana between residents and nonresidents in establishing access to elk hunting threaten a basic right in a way that offends the Privileges and Immunities Clause? Merely to ask the question seems to provide the answer. We repeat much of what already has been said above: Elk hunting by nonresidents in Montana is a recreation and a sport. In itself - wholly apart from license fees - it is costly and obviously available only to the wealthy nonresident or to the one so taken with the sport that he sacrifices other values in order to indulge in it and to enjoy what it offers. It is not a means to the nonresident's livelihood. The mastery of the animal and the trophy are the ends that are sought; appellants are not totally excluded from these. The elk supply, which has been entrusted to the care of the State by the people of Montana, is finite and must be carefully tended in order to be preserved. Appellants' interest in sharing this limited resource on more equal terms with Montana residents simply does not fall within the purview of the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
Equality in access to Montana elk is not basic to the maintenance or well-being of the Union. Appellants do not - and cannot - contend that they are deprived of a means of a livelihood by the system or of access to any part of the State to which they may seek to travel. We do not decide the full range of activities that are sufficiently basic to the livelihood of the Nation that the States may not interfere with a nonresident's participation therein without similarly interfering with a resident's participation. Whatever rights or activities may be "fundamental" under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, we are persuaded, and hold, that elk hunting by nonresidents in Montana is not one of them....
Equality in access to Montana elk is not basic to the maintenance or well-being of the Union. Appellants do not - and cannot - contend that they are deprived of a means of a livelihood by the system or of access to any part of the State to which they may seek to travel. We do not decide the full range of activities that are sufficiently basic to the livelihood of the Nation that the States may not interfere with a nonresident's participation therein without similarly interfering with a resident's participation. Whatever rights or activities may be "fundamental" under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, we are persuaded, and hold, that elk hunting by nonresidents in Montana is not one of them....
I grow weary of the, "NR hunters pump money into the local economies" crowd. If you wish hunting to become just about how much money NR spend while hunting you are being very short sighted. NR hunter numbers continue to increase, especially in the west, regardless of the cost of the trip, regardless of limited tags, regardless of outfitters and guides, etc.
Nobody is keeping you from accessing the federal lands, you can access them any time you want. The hunting in the States is controlled by the residents of the State. Just because there is Federally owned land does not change the way states are regulate their big game populations.
NR hunters are a vital source of funding for the State of Montana and therefore a NR can be guaranteed a NR elk/deer combo every year if you go with an outfitter sponsored license. In addition there are land owner sponsored licenses and the general draw. There is always more applicants then there are licenses so there is no incentive for the State of Montana to reduce the prices.
Federal land ownership does not impart a right to hunt, sorry.
Nemont
12-20-2006, 06:45 PM
#32
Typical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cologne, MN
Posts: 510
RE: Non-residents hunting Federal Public land??
Heck, $495 for Elk in Colorado is cheaper than some. I accept that I'll pay more in other states to hunt and that the residents get a break. It's a privilege just to be able to hunt out there in the west. Look at Iowa. They charge non residents $310.50 to hunt deer whereas the residents pay $43.00. No different than others.
Minnesota passed in reaction to some North Dakota regs and perhaps in reaction to Iowa charging alot more for deer a regulation that states "Non resident fees from states that charge more than Minnesota for this license will be the same as a Minnesota resident would pay in that state". Guess it's form of forced reciprocation. Not saying whether I agree with it or not but that's what it states...
Minnesota passed in reaction to some North Dakota regs and perhaps in reaction to Iowa charging alot more for deer a regulation that states "Non resident fees from states that charge more than Minnesota for this license will be the same as a Minnesota resident would pay in that state". Guess it's form of forced reciprocation. Not saying whether I agree with it or not but that's what it states...
12-29-2006, 10:21 PM
#33
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: MN USA
Posts: 1,392
RE: Non-residents hunting Federal Public land??
For the reasons others have already stated about costs to keep up Game and Fish Dept. (state) and other reasons, like... they can do it and X% of people will pay to hunt animals they otherwise couldn't in their own states. I'm not going to tell you where to hunt. But there are some states that have limited "reduced fee" licenses for some species for non-residents. If you happen to get drawn for such, it could save you a couple hundred from what you say you're paying to hunt Elk in CO.
Just think though. You're getting the opportunity hunt a animal species that has survived for thousands of years in land that still has what is as close to "wild" as most of us from midwestern or eastern states will ever see. You can possibly shoot an Elk that the Indians and earliest white men explorers marvelled at how they moved seemingly so effortlessly up the steep grades that we can barely walk up. Take time to take in and share that awesome experience next time you have the opportunity and give thanks that you can do what only a few thousand people in all world today ever see or have a chance to hunt. I think you'll come away with a different perspective, if you do. I'm grateful each time I've been granted the privilege to hunt in the West for Elk and am always amazed at the experiences when I do.
Just think though. You're getting the opportunity hunt a animal species that has survived for thousands of years in land that still has what is as close to "wild" as most of us from midwestern or eastern states will ever see. You can possibly shoot an Elk that the Indians and earliest white men explorers marvelled at how they moved seemingly so effortlessly up the steep grades that we can barely walk up. Take time to take in and share that awesome experience next time you have the opportunity and give thanks that you can do what only a few thousand people in all world today ever see or have a chance to hunt. I think you'll come away with a different perspective, if you do. I'm grateful each time I've been granted the privilege to hunt in the West for Elk and am always amazed at the experiences when I do.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Stick Bow
Big Game Hunting
30
10-14-2007 07:36 PM
