|
RE: Tired of the public land argument
GleninAZ - I certainly hope that Arizona takes this on up to the Supreme Court. Rulings coming out of the 9th District are overturned more often than any other district court. That alone tells you something about their misguided judgement process.
I got curious and made my best attempt to read through the Supreme Court's ruling on Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of Montana. Certainly there's been 26 years of other rulings and I certainly ain't no lawyer, but there are a few findings there that give cause for hope. More from the Supreme Court: FN11. The District Court concluded: "The elk is not and never will be hunted commercially." 417 F.Supp., at 1007. Appellants do not deny that the activity which they wish to pursue is pure sport. The hunter is entitled to take only one elk per year, Montana Department of Fish and Game, Deer, Elk, Bear, and Mountain Lion Regulations, Feb. 27, 1977, and statutory restrictions are placed on the buying and selling of game animals, or parts thereof, taken in Montana. Mont.Rev.Codes Ann. § 26- 806 (1967) FN14 (some portion omitted) 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." Id., at 1010. All of the remaining quotes are from the recent Montoya v. Shroufe ruling. Now, reading some of the findings of the 9th District in its ruling, Next, the Ninth Circuit determined that the Rule overtly discriminates against nonresidents, since it restricts access to Arizona's hunting resources based soley on the applicant's residence. And later... The Nine Circuit did not "foreclose the possibility that the goal of ensuring a state's citizens' access to recreational opportunities may justify limited consideration of residency in the allocation of hunting tags in some curcumstances." This court's inquire on remand is whether the Rule is the "least discriminatory alternative" to serve Arizona's legitimate interests. From a very simple layman's viewpoint, the Supreme Court has already stated that this is acceptable. The ruling goes on to say that Arizona is violating the Commerce Clause, but appears to mix in a "everyone is equal" arguement regarding residents and non-residents. They almost appear to give the concept that Arizona could favor its own residents a smile and back-hand slap at the same time. They acknowledge that Arizona has a legitimate right to manage the game, but give very limited acknowledgement to the thought that Arizona could take residency into account. In this regard the Supreme Court ruling doesn't seem all that ambiguous and the Ninth Circuit's logic appears to be in error. I understand that USO really leveraged the Commerce Clause to get this ruling. From reading the Supreme Court's decision it appears that they considered the fact that Montana restricted the sale of animal parts, unlike Arizona. It also seems as if the Ninth District is making new law by taking the Commerce Clause off into new (to me) territory. The Ninth Curcuit held that the Rule substantially affects interstate commerce (and thus, that the Commerce Clause applies) for two reasons. First, hunting in Arizona substantially affects the interstate flow of hunters who travel to the state to participate in hunts subject to the 10% nonresident caps. Second, Arizona hunting substantially affects the interstate flow of goods through the channels of commerce since Arizona allows the nonedible portions of bull elk and antlered deer taken from its lands to be sold in interstate and international markets. The second part has already been discussed. But the first part seems pure nonsense. That would mean that anytime someone gets into their car and drives to another state they're committing interstate commerce. By that logic no state should be able to differentiate resident from non-resident on pretty much anything. Seems that the Supreme Court has already said that ain't so. Anyway, I sure hope that Arizona pursues this upwards and the Ninth Circuit gets another helping of crow in the near future. |
RE: Tired of the public land argument
Cal-It's nice to have a smart research assistant for all of us AZ hunters.:) You did good and it looks like the SC will favor AZ on appeal if they consider the courts previous decisions which they have to. I sure hope we have good enough AG people to get this done and enough clout to force an early decision.
Thanks. |
RE: Tired of the public land argument
Tags on public land should be priced the same for all U.S. residents. The state does not own the animal. If they did then they should be responsible for all damage caused by animals and for keeping them off the hiways. If it is state land then the stae should manage the seasons and tags. If its federal land then everyone should have the same options.
|
RE: Tired of the public land argument
The state does not own the animal. The state most certainly does "own" the animal. Although as you can read in my earlier post, the term is acknowledged as an "anachronism". Tags on public land should be priced the same for all U.S. residents. 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. If its federal land then everyone should have the same options. 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! :D:D:D 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. :D |
RE: Tired of the public land argument
A few years back, a group of land owners tried to bring an action against the state for damages to crops and deer damage to cars on the hiways. The state made it very clear that they do not own the wildlife and have no responsibility for thier actions. The only thing they offered to do and did do was set extra seasons on antlerless deer in areas where ghigh crop damage was a proven fact. They made it clear to the land owners that if they did not allow sport hunting on thier land then it was thier own fault as that is the only means by which they can reduce the damage. This issue was a hot one in South Dakota where all land is posted by law. They wanted to charge hunters to hunt thier land then have the state control problem animals. It didn't fly. I attended all the meeting as I am both a hunter and a landowner in that state. It almost came to blows;) Now is SD it is pretty easy to get permission to hunt if you have doe tags.
We already have the fat cats including Cabelas buying up hunting land for big money and then charging up to 400 dollars a day per gun for Pheasant and goose hunting. Its raised hell with land values and PROPERTY TAXES. I was spoiled by many years of cheap hunting and most people with a little effort could hunt all of North America. Those days are gone and a majority of the hunting public will never have the chance to hunt freely as my generation did. You would have to make a hunting trip like that a priority and save then most likely borrow and max out the credit cards then spend years paying it off. Anyone who can apply and hunt where ever they please are very fortunate indeed. Its something that now takes more than just hard work as many states population like ours would have to fork ouit a year or mores averave wage for a hunt. That don't leave much for everything else.:D |
RE: Tired of the public land argument
Another angle to this story.........
The number of hunters in this country is at an all time low. Going lower with each generation. I personally, as a NR (except in bygawd Texas) only wish to get a chance...slim or otherwise. If there are leftovers, as in Colorado, then a chance there too. It is a fact that hunting has become a "money" intensive endeavor. We can reminisce of days gone by and how one could go and hunt for little or nothing, but no more. Come and gone. My concern is that as the costs go up, the interest from those that follow us dwindles, and game management does it thing.........there may be more tags available than an individual state can sell. Already the case in Colorado. Here in Texas, we don't have that problem. Hunting is pure capitalism. You either own the land or lease the land or you don't hunt!!! (Very little public land) As for the arguement that the animals belong to the state and therefore the residents.............works in theory..........but what happens when landowners "high fence" their property and those animals become permanent??? Yep, you guessed it........just became private animals with no compensation to the state or it's residents. So remember that when you are writing you state congressman. |
RE: Tired of the public land argument
but what happens when landowners "high fence" their property and those animals become permanent??? Yep, you guessed it........just became private animals with no compensation to the state or it's residents. Hey, thats why I love this state. :D But actually whitetail deer that are on high fenced ranches are not "private animals" they still techincally belong to the state etc, so all hunting regulations still have to be followed. |
RE: Tired of the public land argument
Red-AZ is still a place where a teenage kid has just as good a chance of drawing as Bill Gates. No private land tags. A $76 tag for an elk is within anyone's means. We have no shortage of hunters coming up and with new volunteer points we should be able to get more kids involved in the sport. If you are a landowner here you can post and keep people out but you can't sell tags to hunt your property. When you allow landowners to take control of the hunt then greed sets in and you end up like NM and Texas. I have no problem with either state but think that it will take dedication from a lot of good people to preserve Arizonas opportunity and heritage. The smell of money will ruin our sport faster than anything else.
|
RE: Tired of the public land argument
TX....state owned and regulated. But accessable to only those with the keys.
I don't have problem with a landowner doing whatever he wants with his property. But there should be an accurate count of animals entraped and a price paid for animals. Me......the whole thing has turned me off of deer hunting. Me and my pards now spend our hunting dollars on trips to Co in search of game. For us at least, it is the pleasure is in the "doing", the process, and all this crap about Trophies and high fences and citizens rights just sticks a little too much in my craw. I hate to cast general aspersions, but show me a hunter that is all about trophies and kills.........and I only see a sad person that has no concept of what being in the great outdoors is all about. I feel sorry for them. Don't mean to ruffle feathers, each to his own and more power to them. Just remember that there are others out here that don't share your "greed". The greatest "trophy" hunt I was ever on was the taking of relatively small whitetail doe on our lease here Texas. No high fences, no record book animals involves, at least not by the standards set forth by some group of individuals with initials for names. Watched my hunting partner use his bow to kill his first deer after several failures. He was 12 and my stepson. And that moment was only slightly better than all the failed attempts. That is why I hunt. It can be a soletary endeavor enjoyed immensely, but the passion when shared is the ultimate. All this other "stuff" only matters when it infringes on that passion. |
RE: Tired of the public land argument
RRH, I can't speak for Texas and what's going on there. The start of this thread was in response to the lawsuit by USO and other comments made about Western states. As you know since you are an avid hunter in Colorado much of our Western states are still public land. The whole reason why I started this thread was I got sick and tired of out of staters claiming they had as much right to hunt an animal as residents because the animal was on public land. The animal and land ownership are two entirely different things (Speaking about western states, not high fences. Thats a can of worms in itself) Again I'm not against non-resident tags but residents should get a garanteed majority. Public land is funded by federal dollars but game management is funded by state dollars. In my state there are still plenty of hunting opportunities for the non-resident. And like Glen pointed out a 17 year kid has just as much an opportunity to draw as Bill Gates.
|
RE: Tired of the public land argument
But accessable to only those with the keys. But there should be an accurate count of animals entraped and a price paid for animals. If the state ever charges landowners for the deer on their property then they (the state) better start taking financial responsibilty for "their property". The day I can send the state a bill for the $5,000+ in crop damages that their deer do each year, is the day they can start billing private ranches for "entrapping state owned deer". If the state wants to charge a private landowner X amount of $$, then the state better be prepared to pay for the millions of dollars that deer cause in damages each year. |
RE: Tired of the public land argument
TX. High.........
I am sorry!!! Didn't realize that those high fences were there to "protect" property. I'll be, if that don't beat a hen peckin' on frozen biscuit! Good thing them fences are there then, otherwise the deer on the outside would want to come in there and eat those food plots intended for the deer on the inside!!! Me.....I like my fish in open water. Barrels are just too confining....but each hunter to his ability. Guess we'll just agree to disagree. Reading some of your other posts, not a surprise. Hope the AZ and Utah problems work out for all. Just hate to hunters have to engage in such with other hunters. |
RE: Tired of the public land argument
TX. High......... I am sorry!!! Didn't realize that those high fences were there to "protect" property. I'll be, if that don't beat a hen peckin' on frozen biscuit! Good thing them fences are there then, otherwise the deer on the outside would want to come in there and eat those food plots intended for the deer on the inside!!! |
RE: Tired of the public land argument
I am grateful for the opportunity to hunt elk in the state of Colorado. But I also feel I earn the right to do so when I pay the price they are charging me for my tag.And I do not think that I should have to pay an outfitter on top of that if I wish to go it alone. I have spent $1200 to hunt elk 3 of the last 4 years and taken 1 bull elk, but that does not include all the other money I spend when I come to the state to hunt.The res. of Colorado benefit from the money I and others spend in their state, the money from the tags goes toward the herds and the habitat and their management. Res. should have first choice but the non-res. improve the opportunities for the res.
As far as the outfitters go I do not think they should have any influence on the ability of a non-res. to draw a tag on public land, but if after a non-res. has been drawn, then they should have the ability to hire a guide if they choose to do so. Colorado must be doing something right look at the GREAT # OF ELK they have with the system they have used for the past several years. Maybe AZ. and NM. should take a closer look at what they have accomplished. |
RE: Tired of the public land argument
Indiana-I wish it was that easy. The issue is AZ has very little acreage that is prime elk habitat. They don't do well in the cactus and that is most of the state. Colorado, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming etc have rain. We get very little. I would bet that our herds are close to maximized for the habitat we have.
|
RE: Tired of the public land argument
The situation is the same here in Nevada also. We have tons of land, but very little rain, and the habitat is less than desirable. Thats the reason tags cost so much. The Department of Wildlife has to get money somehow, and the state is broke in the first place. The Department of Wildlife gets very little funding from the state general fund, and we have no income tax either, so the majority of the operating funds comes from the sale of licenses, tags, stamps, permits for guiding, etc.
The bottom line is that when a state is 89% public land, there are not very many people who are into wildlife management on the private end of things. What little private land there is - is tied up in hay fields and cattle operations. Ranchers are not going to spend the time to try to manage wildlife AND livestock. There is no guarentee that people will buy a hunt, but people have to buy beef. So, no private land to hunt, except in very isolated circumstances, leads to the state running the wildlife, which leads to the state controlling the wildlife population through cost. Supply and demand, there is not enough supply to satisfy everyone's demands, so prices go up, welcome to Economics 101. |
RE: Tired of the public land argument
Ranchers are not going to spend the time to try to manage wildlife AND livestock. There is no guarentee that people will buy a hunt, but people have to buy beef Most of the time down here you can get the same price for a 5 day trophy buck hunt as you can for 3-5 cattle. Out in Arizona and Nevada it can take up to 100 acres just to support 1 cow, it takes less then that to support elk and besides 1 elk is worth alot more then 1 cow. If the landowners out west would realize the potential from wildlife they would have alot less worries and it would open up more oppurtunites for hunters. |
RE: Tired of the public land argument
Indiana elkhunter - colorado has crap for bulls. ALL quantity NO quality. the only places were you can get big bulls in colorado is along the utah or arizona borders.
|
RE: Tired of the public land argument
New here on the board and boy is this subject a sore one!
I hunt in Colorado and very seldom take elk in the "public no draw areas" (second gun season when everything worth hunting has been shot at or run over). I too complained and still do when the licensce went from $ 250.00 to $ 480.00 on so called "Federal" Land. But I still go, and as most hunters do support less small businesses, I hear guys say "I'll bring my own food, haul my own gas etc. and I've even thought of just going and watching the other hunters and saving my $ 500.00 and just film the adventure. I've taken my fair share of game in my time and now I just hope I can share the experience with my boys when they get old enough. Heck, if I win the Lottery I'll just take up residence in one of these areas and hunt for $ 35.00 on "Federal" land. By the way, If it is and was OK to drill for oil in Texas and send it everywhere else in the U.S. for less than I pay for it .... you have my permission to drill anywhere in the U.S.!!!! Oil derricks haven't affected the deer down here so why would it hurt a grizzly? |
RE: Tired of the public land argument
NVMike, now unless I'm mistaken the Arizona Colorado border is about the size of a pencil tip isn't it? How many elk can you fit on it? At least they'd be easy to find.;)
Duroman, I just wanted to respond to your post. As you can tell this is a subject that itches at me good. By the tone of your post I got the impression you are irked by the hunting opportunities on Federal land. You see the land has got nothing to do with it. A Texas resident has as much right to hunt Federal land in Colorado as a Colorado resident. BUT...you gotta get a tag to harvest a state funded, state managed animal. That costs more for non-res's than residents. Remember non-res's pay quite a bit on tags but as residents we still pay the taxes that go to elected and appointed officials who run the departments and make decisions on the animals. You've got a lottery system to pay for, you've got to pay all the costs of actually printing licenses on a large scale, you've got state employed biologists and experts to pay for, decision makers to pay for, you've got law enforcement to pay for that make sure game laws are being followed, and all law enforcement that investigate crimes and prosecute law breakers. All those people are state employees and ALL are state funded. In reality no one truely "owns" the animal. It's more like who has dominion over them. In this case it's the state. The land they are on has got nothin to do with it. Because based on the Federal Land, should be Federal animals then once a deer or elk jumps on private property does that mean the property owner owns it? What if it's on state land, state residents only? |
RE: Tired of the public land argument
I have to respond by the thought mentioned earlier that the reason most of us from other states think the prices have skyrocketed the last few years were because of "other" out of staters... moving in to say Colorado by the hords and making it more difficult (votes) for hunters in general. Get rid of the guys from out of state that help out the small local businesses during the downtime ( in between summer tourism and skiing ) and you can control the entire state. (See easterners and California lefties taking over Colorado etc. Hollywood is telling us when and where to hunt. Just wait till Kerry gets elected, at least we'll all be on equal ground hunting with a slingshot if we're lucky.
RedRiverHunter and I agree....along with Mike Eastman..."No fences here". Hunting now is so commercialized and it has come down to the almighty dollar. I just got back from The Texas Trophy Hunters show and was amazed by some information I got from an Outfitter that has a fenced in hunting area saying he could "create" a record book buck by tranquilizing him and altering his antlers while in velvet! I feel the same about records being broken in baseball etc. I know longer think it has meaning! It's like seeing some big fat guy harvest a record bull elk. I know he didn't hike 200 yards much less a few miles of stalking and climbing....he paid someone several K's to get his picture with a dead animal walking (standing) probably in a fence somewhere. Just look at hunting magazines 20 years ago compared to today. That's one reason I'll (as long as I can) still hunt public land and gripe about the $ and as I said have less money to give to the mom and pops even though they are not the voters that jacked up the price! |
RE: Tired of the public land argument
Agree with some of what you say, I hunt public land like yourself.
To my knowledge the issue of raising big game license fees in Colorado (who at the time lagged behind nearly all other states for non-resident big game fees) was not put before the voters, but was decided upon internally by CDOW. For folks doing an away from home/remote big game hunt (barring the really exotic stuff), the cost of license is the least of the expense compared to travel, camp, and time of from work or away from business. EKM |
RE: Tired of the public land argument
Lets get real on the gun issue, duroman you don't honestly think if John Kerry is elected you are going to loose your guns. I for one am far more concerned about our economy then what the Republicans and the NRA would have us believe about what just is not going to happen .At the rate we are loosing jobs in my area there are very few guys heading out west due to the fact that they just cant afford it this year. George Bush is to busy stocking game on his ranch to worry about guys like us.
|
RE: Tired of the public land argument
George Bush is to busy stocking game on his ranch I like the way that sounds, especially when your talking about a President. Its good to know that he likes to hunt and fish. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:19 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.