Tired of the public land argument
08-03-2004, 12:41 PM
#31
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scottsdale Arizona USA
Posts: 527
RE: Tired of the public land argument
Jay-I have no disagreement there. This state has very poor hunting in most of it and a very small population of animals in the rest. I have never stated a position on lowering the number of non-res tags. This USO thing has nothing to do with us hogging game and everything to do with greed. Why do you suppose they sued on the interstate commerce clause and not on general hunting discrimination? I would hope that you will someday understand that our Game and Fish department is #1 non political and #2 has done an exceptional job of fairly managing the resource. Taulman really wants unlimited access and private land tags like he got in NM. We will manage the resource here and end up beating the 9th district and I hope you do have a chance to creep up on a big bull someday.
08-03-2004, 02:11 PM
#32
Typical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 590
RE: Tired of the public land argument
Now I'm new to this issue, but here's what I think USO is trying to do.
Okay, a lot of nonresidents are going yeah, sic' 'em boy, but what you ought to be doing is putting together a posse to lynch those USO guys right now, because as I see it, it's going to be nonresidents howling up a storm when this all plays out. In the long run, I don't think this USO action is going to have much effect on resident hunters.
Here's what I think is going to happen. For starters, remember that NM has a law that nonresident hunters must have a guide or an outfitter. WY has a similar law, applicable only in wilderness areas. Well, guess what every state in the west is going to do in the first ten years after the USO action takes effect? They are going to pass laws just like NM, saying to nonresidents, "Hey welcome to our state, but you gotta hire a guide!" Where do you think the champions at USO are going to be when this happens? Why, they're going to be popping champagne corks in the back office, that's where.
The days of the do-it-yourself nonresident hunt are numbered. That's USO's real target.
Okay, a lot of nonresidents are going yeah, sic' 'em boy, but what you ought to be doing is putting together a posse to lynch those USO guys right now, because as I see it, it's going to be nonresidents howling up a storm when this all plays out. In the long run, I don't think this USO action is going to have much effect on resident hunters.
Here's what I think is going to happen. For starters, remember that NM has a law that nonresident hunters must have a guide or an outfitter. WY has a similar law, applicable only in wilderness areas. Well, guess what every state in the west is going to do in the first ten years after the USO action takes effect? They are going to pass laws just like NM, saying to nonresidents, "Hey welcome to our state, but you gotta hire a guide!" Where do you think the champions at USO are going to be when this happens? Why, they're going to be popping champagne corks in the back office, that's where.
The days of the do-it-yourself nonresident hunt are numbered. That's USO's real target.
08-03-2004, 03:22 PM
#33
Typical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cedar Valley Utah
Posts: 977
RE: Tired of the public land argument
ORIGINAL: MA Jay
If anti's are trying so hard to keep us from hunting .. and residents are fighting to not allow non-residents to hunt, how the hell can we win? If this is the future of hunting .. then I really hope you enjoy it in Arizona. Because according to your logic every state in the Union can and should make it EXTREMELY hard for you to hunt outside of it. I've been to Arizona, other than a shot at a truly large Bull ... the hunting quality and diversity is very weak in comparison to most states west of the Mississippi ... hell, even compared to East of the Mississippi.
If anti's are trying so hard to keep us from hunting .. and residents are fighting to not allow non-residents to hunt, how the hell can we win? If this is the future of hunting .. then I really hope you enjoy it in Arizona. Because according to your logic every state in the Union can and should make it EXTREMELY hard for you to hunt outside of it. I've been to Arizona, other than a shot at a truly large Bull ... the hunting quality and diversity is very weak in comparison to most states west of the Mississippi ... hell, even compared to East of the Mississippi.
First no one here is saying "NO non-res's should hunt in my state." We're not even calling for less tags. Just to simply keep it as it was. No one was complaining before. You as a non-resident have so many tags alotted for you guys to go get and thats fine. But we as residents want a decent chance to hunt our own state. You're right, the hunting isn't even all that great out here anymore. Can you see why this we don't want this. If the animals belonged to the nation then I guess we'd have to grin and bear it. But they belong to the state so we should get a majority of the tags. Besides if the hunting isn't all that good then what are ya bitching about?
08-03-2004, 03:27 PM
#34
Typical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cedar Valley Utah
Posts: 977
RE: Tired of the public land argument
ORIGINAL: Dirt2
Here's what I think is going to happen. For starters, remember that NM has a law that nonresident hunters must have a guide or an outfitter. WY has a similar law, applicable only in wilderness areas. Well, guess what every state in the west is going to do in the first ten years after the USO action takes effect? They are going to pass laws just like NM, saying to nonresidents, "Hey welcome to our state, but you gotta hire a guide!" Where do you think the champions at USO are going to be when this happens? Why, they're going to be popping champagne corks in the back office, that's where.
The days of the do-it-yourself nonresident hunt are numbered. That's USO's real target.
Here's what I think is going to happen. For starters, remember that NM has a law that nonresident hunters must have a guide or an outfitter. WY has a similar law, applicable only in wilderness areas. Well, guess what every state in the west is going to do in the first ten years after the USO action takes effect? They are going to pass laws just like NM, saying to nonresidents, "Hey welcome to our state, but you gotta hire a guide!" Where do you think the champions at USO are going to be when this happens? Why, they're going to be popping champagne corks in the back office, that's where.
The days of the do-it-yourself nonresident hunt are numbered. That's USO's real target.
Thats not any good either. I'm fine with an outside chance of drawing a tag to hunt another state but making an outfitter mandatory isn't good. Only promotes the "rich man". Thats not good for the future of hunting for the average Joe.
08-03-2004, 03:57 PM
#35
Dominant Buck
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 39,060
RE: Tired of the public land argument
ORIGINAL: PLB
Those out there that think that "Their" federal tax dollars are supporting the AZ elk herd simply don't know what they are talking about.
Federal dollars coming in for the game and fish come from the Pittman/Robert act which was enacted by hunters to tax themselves thru purchases of guns ammo etc. in order to manage wildlife. Later the Dingle/Johnson act was passed to tax fishing products to promote and foster fishing in each state. These monies are divided up by the amout of supplies sold in each state and are used by the game and fish. I don’t see NR money in large quantities supporting the Arizona game and fish. The out of state fees at 10% of the tags is not even 1% of the budget.
Those out there that think that "Their" federal tax dollars are supporting the AZ elk herd simply don't know what they are talking about.
Federal dollars coming in for the game and fish come from the Pittman/Robert act which was enacted by hunters to tax themselves thru purchases of guns ammo etc. in order to manage wildlife. Later the Dingle/Johnson act was passed to tax fishing products to promote and foster fishing in each state. These monies are divided up by the amout of supplies sold in each state and are used by the game and fish. I don’t see NR money in large quantities supporting the Arizona game and fish. The out of state fees at 10% of the tags is not even 1% of the budget.
That's not true. The Federal Aid dollars are distibuted according to the land area and the number of licenses issued by that state. So your NR's help to get you federal money.
08-03-2004, 06:20 PM
#36
Join Date: May 2004
Location:
Posts: 1,148
RE: Tired of the public land argument
Pittman-Robertson Act funds are used to "maintain" national forests, and perhaps enhance game management. They also use them to build Kiosks, Visotors Centers, pave parking lots, and in the case of Colorado, purchase land to build a prison (interesting court case if you want to look it up).
There is probably no other fund out there more abused than this one. Hunters should wake up and see where their dollars are going.
There is probably no other fund out there more abused than this one. Hunters should wake up and see where their dollars are going.
08-03-2004, 06:31 PM
#37
Dominant Buck
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 39,060
RE: Tired of the public land argument
ORIGINAL: AlaskaMagnum
There is probably no other fund out there more abused than this one. Hunters should wake up and see where their dollars are going.
There is probably no other fund out there more abused than this one. Hunters should wake up and see where their dollars are going.
08-05-2004, 03:00 PM
#38
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Raleigh NC USA
Posts: 352
RE: Tired of the public land argument
To be honest, I don't understand all of the legal mumbo jumbo contained in these quotes, but at least it should put the debate on wildlife ownership to rest. I pinched these quotes from the Siskiyou County Farm Bureau site. There's a lot of information there, but I think these excerpts are faithful to the underlying arguement.
This is a cross-post with a USO thread, but given its relevance I thought it fitting to share it in this thread as well.
__________________________________________________ _______________________
In Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Comm'n., 436 U.S. 371 (1978,) Justice Blackmun explains the reasoning behind early claims:
"Many of the early cases embrace the concept that the States had complete ownership over wildlife within their boundaries, and, as well, the power to preserve this bounty for their citizens alone. It was enough to say "that in regulating the use of the common property of the citizens of [a] state, the legislature is [not] bound to extend to the citizens of all the other states the same advantages as are secured to their own citizens." Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546, 552 (No. 3,230) (CC ED Pa. 1825).
It appears to have been generally accepted that although the States were obligated to treat all those within their territory equally in most respects, they were not obliged to share those things they held in trust for their own people. (emphasis added)
Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896) In Geer, a case dealing with Connecticut's authority to limit the disposition of game birds taken within its boundaries, the Court roundly rejected the contention "that a State cannot allow its own people the enjoyment of the benefits of the property belonging to them in common, without at the same time permitting the citizens of other States to participate in that which they do not own." 161 U.S., at 530. (emphasis added)
"In more recent years, however, the Court has recognized that the States' interest in regulating and controlling those things they claim to "own," including wildlife, is by no means absolute. States may not compel the confinement of the benefits of their resources, even their wildlife, to their own people whenever such hoarding and confinement impedes interstate commerce. Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U.S. 1 (1928); Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553 (1923); West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U.S. 229 (1911). (I imagine the USO case will fall into this category)
And a State's interest in its wildlife and other resources must yield when, without reason, it interferes with a nonresident's right to pursue a livelihood in a State other than his own, a right that is protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948). See Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410 (1948).
Yet, in his concurring opinion in Baldwin, Chief Justice Burger still reveal an attachment to the belief in common public ownership of game found within a State and a State obligation to manage as a public trust.
"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."
This is a cross-post with a USO thread, but given its relevance I thought it fitting to share it in this thread as well.
__________________________________________________ _______________________
In Baldwin v. Montana Fish and Game Comm'n., 436 U.S. 371 (1978,) Justice Blackmun explains the reasoning behind early claims:
"Many of the early cases embrace the concept that the States had complete ownership over wildlife within their boundaries, and, as well, the power to preserve this bounty for their citizens alone. It was enough to say "that in regulating the use of the common property of the citizens of [a] state, the legislature is [not] bound to extend to the citizens of all the other states the same advantages as are secured to their own citizens." Corfield v. Coryell, 6 F. Cas. 546, 552 (No. 3,230) (CC ED Pa. 1825).
It appears to have been generally accepted that although the States were obligated to treat all those within their territory equally in most respects, they were not obliged to share those things they held in trust for their own people. (emphasis added)
Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896) In Geer, a case dealing with Connecticut's authority to limit the disposition of game birds taken within its boundaries, the Court roundly rejected the contention "that a State cannot allow its own people the enjoyment of the benefits of the property belonging to them in common, without at the same time permitting the citizens of other States to participate in that which they do not own." 161 U.S., at 530. (emphasis added)
"In more recent years, however, the Court has recognized that the States' interest in regulating and controlling those things they claim to "own," including wildlife, is by no means absolute. States may not compel the confinement of the benefits of their resources, even their wildlife, to their own people whenever such hoarding and confinement impedes interstate commerce. Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U.S. 1 (1928); Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553 (1923); West v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 221 U.S. 229 (1911). (I imagine the USO case will fall into this category)
And a State's interest in its wildlife and other resources must yield when, without reason, it interferes with a nonresident's right to pursue a livelihood in a State other than his own, a right that is protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948). See Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410 (1948).
Yet, in his concurring opinion in Baldwin, Chief Justice Burger still reveal an attachment to the belief in common public ownership of game found within a State and a State obligation to manage as a public trust.
"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."
08-05-2004, 03:13 PM
#39
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scottsdale Arizona USA
Posts: 527
RE: Tired of the public land argument
Cal-Good info and this was why those sneaky lawyers sued based on the interstate commerce and the transport of hides, horns, ivories and meat. I feel pretty confident that with multiple state lawsuits the supremes will have to take the appeals and make a final decision with the weight of precedent on game animals in favor of state control. Guess we will have to wait for the final decision.
Thanks.
Thanks.
08-06-2004, 01:57 PM
#40
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 18
RE: Tired of the public land argument
Hmm..I feel like I've been in a box regarding this topic. I'm not sure what the conflict is.
I believe that in my location the license fees go to the folks that do the enforcement, regulations, etc. So wouldn't that be the same whether the land is owned by the feds, staties, or even privately?
I believe that in my location the license fees go to the folks that do the enforcement, regulations, etc. So wouldn't that be the same whether the land is owned by the feds, staties, or even privately?