Resident vs. Nonresident
03-04-2005, 05:22 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW Wyoming
Posts: 312
Resident vs. Nonresident
The battle goes on, but maybe some closure is coming. Go suck a big one, George Taulman!
Bill protects resident hunting preference
By JEFF GEARINO
Star-Tribune staff writer Friday, March 04, 2005
U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., has joined a group of lawmakers seeking to ensure the right of Wyoming and other states to limit nonresident hunting and fishing licenses.
Wyoming Game and Fish Department officials called the bill an important measure to preserve the state's right to regulate hunting within its borders.
Enzi said Thursday he is cosponsoring the measure in the Senate along with Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Max Baucus, D-Mont.; Ted Stevens, R-Alaska; John Ensign, R-Nev.; and Ben Nelson, D-Neb.
Enzi said the bill would protect the traditional authority of the states to regulate hunting and fishing. It would allow states to continue distinguishing between residents and nonresidents when issuing hunting and fishing licenses.
Enzi said in a press statement the bill was introduced in direct response to a recent court ruling in Arizona by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"This legislation represents a reality check for the 9th Circuit," Enzi said. "We are not going to give control to the federal government of one of Wyoming's most important assets."
The 9th Circuit Court tossed out Arizona's 10 percent cap on nonresident big game licenses after a New Mexico outfitter and other hunters sued over the state's cap, which was set in 1990.
A U.S. district judge originally upheld Arizona's assertion that hunting was recreation and sport, not commerce, and let the cap stand. But the appeals court overturned the 2002 ruling, calling the cap discrimination against nonresident hunters.
The court concluded that charging different prices for licenses for nonresidents and state residents, and by limiting the number of nonresident hunting licenses, the states could be violating federal interstate commerce laws.
The ruling sent a ripple of concern throughout the West, where many states, including Wyoming, have similar rules.
"Wyoming's wildlife is Wyoming's wildlife, and it's worth our watching out for who manages it," Enzi said. He noted "it's the state that bears most of the cost of wildlife management, even for species like the wolf and grizzly bear."
Game and Fish deputy director Bill Wichers welcomed the legislation and said the bill, if passed, would firmly uphold Wyoming's right to limit nonresident license sales.
"This legislation would very clearly state, through an act of Congress, that our limitation on percentages of licenses allocated to residents and nonresidents -- and the cost differential between the two -- is the state's prerogative and not a violation of interstate commerce," Wichers said in an interview.
Meanwhile, Wichers said Wyoming is waiting on a ruling in another case challenging the state's requirements on nonresident hunters. That case is now before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The lawsuit was brought by former Wyoming resident Donald J. Schutz, a Florida attorney who at one time attended Laramie High School and the University of Wyoming.
Schutz's lawsuit alleges that the state's system of allocating nonresident licenses violates equal protection laws and interstate commerce laws. He further alleges that the guide requirement for nonresident hunting in Wyoming wilderness areas is unconstitutional.
"This is still a very big case for us... That (appeal) decision could come almost any time now," Wichers said.
U.S. District Judge William Downes ruled in favor of the state in the Schutz lawsuit, which was filed in September 2002. Downes agreed with state attorneys who argued in briefs that nonresident hunters are not a suspect class, that hunting is not a fundamental right, and that Wyoming statutes are rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
Many of the Game and Fish big game license allocations are set by the Legislature through state statutes.
For example, the 20 percent of deer and antelope licenses and the 25 percent of bighorn sheep licenses going to nonresidents are statutory. Other license allocations are done by Game and Fish Commission regulations.
Wyoming won a similar court case and appeal in 2000 in a lawsuit that was filed by the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association in 1998.
Outfitters had complained for a number of years before the suit that a limited number of hunting licenses available to hunters from other states hurt Wyoming's outfitters and guides and prevented them from making as much money as they could on hunting revenues.
Bill protects resident hunting preference
By JEFF GEARINO
Star-Tribune staff writer Friday, March 04, 2005
U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., has joined a group of lawmakers seeking to ensure the right of Wyoming and other states to limit nonresident hunting and fishing licenses.
Wyoming Game and Fish Department officials called the bill an important measure to preserve the state's right to regulate hunting within its borders.
Enzi said Thursday he is cosponsoring the measure in the Senate along with Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev.; Max Baucus, D-Mont.; Ted Stevens, R-Alaska; John Ensign, R-Nev.; and Ben Nelson, D-Neb.
Enzi said the bill would protect the traditional authority of the states to regulate hunting and fishing. It would allow states to continue distinguishing between residents and nonresidents when issuing hunting and fishing licenses.
Enzi said in a press statement the bill was introduced in direct response to a recent court ruling in Arizona by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"This legislation represents a reality check for the 9th Circuit," Enzi said. "We are not going to give control to the federal government of one of Wyoming's most important assets."
The 9th Circuit Court tossed out Arizona's 10 percent cap on nonresident big game licenses after a New Mexico outfitter and other hunters sued over the state's cap, which was set in 1990.
A U.S. district judge originally upheld Arizona's assertion that hunting was recreation and sport, not commerce, and let the cap stand. But the appeals court overturned the 2002 ruling, calling the cap discrimination against nonresident hunters.
The court concluded that charging different prices for licenses for nonresidents and state residents, and by limiting the number of nonresident hunting licenses, the states could be violating federal interstate commerce laws.
The ruling sent a ripple of concern throughout the West, where many states, including Wyoming, have similar rules.
"Wyoming's wildlife is Wyoming's wildlife, and it's worth our watching out for who manages it," Enzi said. He noted "it's the state that bears most of the cost of wildlife management, even for species like the wolf and grizzly bear."
Game and Fish deputy director Bill Wichers welcomed the legislation and said the bill, if passed, would firmly uphold Wyoming's right to limit nonresident license sales.
"This legislation would very clearly state, through an act of Congress, that our limitation on percentages of licenses allocated to residents and nonresidents -- and the cost differential between the two -- is the state's prerogative and not a violation of interstate commerce," Wichers said in an interview.
Meanwhile, Wichers said Wyoming is waiting on a ruling in another case challenging the state's requirements on nonresident hunters. That case is now before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The lawsuit was brought by former Wyoming resident Donald J. Schutz, a Florida attorney who at one time attended Laramie High School and the University of Wyoming.
Schutz's lawsuit alleges that the state's system of allocating nonresident licenses violates equal protection laws and interstate commerce laws. He further alleges that the guide requirement for nonresident hunting in Wyoming wilderness areas is unconstitutional.
"This is still a very big case for us... That (appeal) decision could come almost any time now," Wichers said.
U.S. District Judge William Downes ruled in favor of the state in the Schutz lawsuit, which was filed in September 2002. Downes agreed with state attorneys who argued in briefs that nonresident hunters are not a suspect class, that hunting is not a fundamental right, and that Wyoming statutes are rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
Many of the Game and Fish big game license allocations are set by the Legislature through state statutes.
For example, the 20 percent of deer and antelope licenses and the 25 percent of bighorn sheep licenses going to nonresidents are statutory. Other license allocations are done by Game and Fish Commission regulations.
Wyoming won a similar court case and appeal in 2000 in a lawsuit that was filed by the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association in 1998.
Outfitters had complained for a number of years before the suit that a limited number of hunting licenses available to hunters from other states hurt Wyoming's outfitters and guides and prevented them from making as much money as they could on hunting revenues.
03-04-2005, 06:14 PM
#2
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,395
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
I have nothing against non-resident hunters. I just hope western states can control how many non-resident hunters are awarded tags in the draw?
Seems only fair to me that resident hunters have better odds.
Seems only fair to me that resident hunters have better odds.
03-04-2005, 08:42 PM
#5
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,052
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
OK then you guys in the western states need to write checks back too Washington for the BILLION$ we have spent in your states through the various Federal restoration/management programs like Dingell-Johnson, Wallop-Breaux and that GOLDEN GOOSE that brought the plains and mountain game back known as the Pitman-Robertson Act.
Go ahead, get those checks ready... (Otherwise be quiet and move over, its ALL our game!)
RA
Go ahead, get those checks ready... (Otherwise be quiet and move over, its ALL our game!)
RA
03-04-2005, 09:09 PM
#6
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW Wyoming
Posts: 312
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
The wildlife belongs to the states. It is on the books here and has been so since the state was founded.
We have ventured far away from the intent of our founding fathers which envisioned a confederation of independent SOVERIGN STATES under the umbrella of a federal government which was to act on their behalf only in certain restricted areas of common interest or concern.
As you recall, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states "Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
For those of you who haven't read it lately , Section 8 of THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION enumerates most of the specific duties of the federal government.
IMHO most of the federal judges today either have not read these basic documents upon which our nation is founded or they have taken the words and letters therein from them and rearranged them as necessary to satisfy their own desires and prejudices.
We have ventured far away from the intent of our founding fathers which envisioned a confederation of independent SOVERIGN STATES under the umbrella of a federal government which was to act on their behalf only in certain restricted areas of common interest or concern.
As you recall, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states "Article [X.]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
For those of you who haven't read it lately , Section 8 of THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION enumerates most of the specific duties of the federal government.
IMHO most of the federal judges today either have not read these basic documents upon which our nation is founded or they have taken the words and letters therein from them and rearranged them as necessary to satisfy their own desires and prejudices.
03-04-2005, 09:10 PM
#7
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: WV
Posts: 4,485
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
ORIGINAL: RedAllison
OK then you guys in the western states need to write checks back too Washington for the BILLION$ we have spent in your states through the various Federal restoration/management programs like Dingell-Johnson, Wallop-Breaux and that GOLDEN GOOSE that brought the plains and mountain game back known as the Pitman-Robertson Act.
Go ahead, get those checks ready... (Otherwise be quiet and move over, its ALL our game!)
RA
OK then you guys in the western states need to write checks back too Washington for the BILLION$ we have spent in your states through the various Federal restoration/management programs like Dingell-Johnson, Wallop-Breaux and that GOLDEN GOOSE that brought the plains and mountain game back known as the Pitman-Robertson Act.
Go ahead, get those checks ready... (Otherwise be quiet and move over, its ALL our game!)
RA
03-04-2005, 09:12 PM
#8
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW Wyoming
Posts: 312
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
You open federal lands here, everyone equal, then all federal lands in every state need to be the same. Wetlands and marshes included. Same fee, same opportunity.
Just because an elk is on federal land doesn't make it federal property, a very small percentage of the big game here, stays on federal land all year long.
Nope we ain't giving up states rights!
Just because an elk is on federal land doesn't make it federal property, a very small percentage of the big game here, stays on federal land all year long.
Nope we ain't giving up states rights!
03-04-2005, 09:16 PM
#9
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW Wyoming
Posts: 312
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
Using the interstate commerce act as a game management tool and regulation for hunting is just a ploy by lame lawyers much the same as suing gun manufacturers for people killing people with guns! It has nothing to do with wildlife and hunting, it is about money. Commerce has no place in hunting. If it does then bring back market hunting!
03-04-2005, 09:20 PM
#10
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW Wyoming
Posts: 312
RE: Resident vs. Nonresident
The only thing I agree with is the appeal of the requirement for a guide or resident in wilderness areas of Wyoming. You can trap, fish, hike, ski, snowshoe,ride horses, and skip around naked in Wilderness areas, 365 days a year here, but you can't hunt. I have a problem with that as a resident.