|
RE: A letter from Taulman regarding Nonresident rights...
Money doesn't make a man a bad person. Money doesn't make a man a good person. Just because a person has money doesn't mean he has less respect for the outdoors or the animals. I think the differences between these posts though was the word "majority" rather than "all". Just from experince, there is a clear difference in the way the resident hunter, and the outiftter or NR-one time hunter treat and respect game and land, overall. But is that important to this discussion? in ethics yes, in laws, no. |
RE: A letter from Taulman regarding Nonresident rights...
ORIGINAL: kshunter Spyro, I agree with ya on this statement... I knew it would happen:D I think the differences between these posts though was the word "majority" rather than "all". Just from experince, there is a clear difference in the way the resident hunter, and the outiftter or NR-one time hunter treat and respect game and land, overall. But is that important to this discussion? in ethics yes, in laws, no. If you want to get right down to it, most 'civilized societies' have little respect for their food sources because they have become so distanced from death and food is so accessible. A girlfriend once said, when I asked her to just go hunting with me, "In my world, I like pretending that meat grows on trees in white trays wrapped in cellophane. I don't need to watch you kill dinner." We come from a civilization that eats meat with EVERY meal but the vast majority have never seen an animal processed let alone harvested. If you don't witness the death (e.g. the sacrificing of it's life to yield meat), can you fully respect the meat with which you have been blessed? I show my respect to the animal in a couple of different ways... like treating the meat with absolute respect... but my favorite is one that I learned from a family member. It involves giving the animal it's last drink, last meal and a quiet prayer of thanks in given. Anyway, I just really don't think that respect for the animal or the outdoors is any greater for residents than nonresidents. Again, we can point to game violations, like poaching, and it is overwhelmingly residents that are getting busted. A man that poaches or knowing breaks game laws has no respect for the animal or the outdoors. SA |
RE: A letter from Taulman regarding Nonresident rights...
I thought that 140 years ago the question about whether we're 1 nation made up of 50 states or 50 countries was settled once and for all. I wish people would get off their high horses about "my rights are more important than your rights, because you're from that state and I'm from this state" mentality.
Men and women from all 50 states of this one nation under God have worked, sacrificed and many died to give us all the wonderful lives and rights. There were men from every state who've run up the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima for all of us to preserve this Republic. Why be so tight fisted as if we've paid the whole price. How about we start sharing those gifts that none of us have earned nor truly deserve, but are given by our Creator. Practice more humility and kindness to those from wherever they happen to live. Give and it'll be given to you. As you do to others it'll be done onto you. |
RE: A letter from Taulman regarding Nonresident rights...
SpyroAndes,
From your posts, it sounds like someone is walking around playing a violin behind you. In all honesty, in your long-winded posts, I doubt you changed anybody's mind, let alone mine. If you don't like how other state's manage and charge for their game, then don't go there. You pay to play in someone else's backyard, simple as that. Sure, the prices for a non-resident elk tag might be high as hell ( I know I would never pay for one myself, only because I don't care for elk hunting ) and in a sense I agree with you that they are too high in some parts of the country. You might gripe and refuse to pay for a tag like that, but the facts tell me that there is thousands of others who pay to play every year. You're better off saving all the B.S. and packing up your **** and moving to one of these states that you like to hunt, or just hunt in your own state. That phucking idiot George Taulman ain't on your side at all. |
RE: A letter from Taulman regarding Nonresident rights...
[quote]
That phucking idiot George Taulman ain't on your side at all. |
RE: A letter from Taulman regarding Nonresident rights...
Here's a scenario. What about the kid that wants to go to college out of state, but can hardly afford it because of out-of-state tuition. Maybe the NR student should sue the state for allowing the school to disciminate between residents and non-residents. That ways when the tuition for residents is raised and the chance of getting into the school is lower, many of the local kids won't be able to go to college since they can't afford it or not get accepted. But this way we'll have a few(low percent) NR students that will benefit by lower tuition and a better chance at the "school of their choice". Sound like a good idea? Only if you want a higher percentage of dumb kids.
|
RE: A letter from Taulman regarding Nonresident rights...
I find it interesting that G. Taulman and Conservation Force say that the courts have always found in favor of Non resident hunters. That isn't what any quick search of Supreme court cases.
In Baldwin Vs. Montana here is quoting directly from the majorit opinion. 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 |
RE: A letter from Taulman regarding Nonresident rights...
Wyoming passed a law this year to allow instate students, with 3.5 and no record of bad behavior, free tuition at any state college. Now lets hear the nonresidents bitch about that!
|
RE: A letter from Taulman regarding Nonresident rights...
Here is a letter that was posted on another forum from the SCI.
It sounds fair enough to me! They got thier digs in but the bottom line is what it should be. quot;SCI believes the recent lawsuits were ill advised and ill conceived. They pit hunter against hunter, resulting in unintended negative consequences and actions which may ultimately affect our freedom to hunt. For nearly a hundred years, our game species have been well managed by state agencies who utilize local and professional game biologists and agents who are answerable to the local and state residents. Now, as a result of the recent lawsuits, many aspects of game management are in the hands of the federal courts and ultimately may be in the hands of Federal Government bureaucracy. SCI strongly opposes the involvement of the federal government in state and local game management. Therefore, SCI believes that under the circumstances, federal legislative action negating the recent federal court decision may be necessary. However, SCI strongly urges the states to be mindful of the equities of nonresident hunters. Much of huntable land, particularly in the west, is federal land that belongs to all citizens. Every American should have a reasonable opportunity to hunt in states that have hunting. Additionally, nonresident hunting remains and should remain an important part of state fish and game department funding therefore SCI urges the states that have generous quotas to maintain those quotas (for example, Colorado which provides 40% of its quota to non-residents, and New Mexico which provides 22%), and other states to adopt a quota for non-residents of not less than 15%." |
RE: A letter from Taulman regarding Nonresident rights...
ORIGINAL: RandyA However, SCI strongly urges the states to be mindful of the equities of nonresident hunters. Much of huntable land, particularly in the west, is federal land that belongs to all citizens. Every American should have a reasonable opportunity to hunt in states that have hunting. Additionally, nonresident hunting remains and should remain an important part of state fish and game department funding therefore SCI urges the states that have generous quotas to maintain those quotas (for example, Colorado which provides 40% of its quota to non-residents, and New Mexico which provides 22%), and other states to adopt a quota for non-residents of not less than 15%." Here is another person chiming in on Non-Resident Discrimination... Former Utah Dept of Wildlife Employee turned Magazine Owner... Garth Carter From April 2005 Huntin' Fool Garth's Soap Box Avid western big game hunters can no longer depend on picking up a tag the day before the hunt. The time has passed when year after year an entire family of three generations can plan on sharing a hunting camp. For the most part, it's only the casual hunter who applies for and/or hunts only the state he is a resident in. I am not saying the guy who only hunts his home state doesn't cherish every minute he's in the woods, but because good tags aren't availible to him each year, he has probably had to expand his recreation to areas other than hunting. It's the die-hard hunters who apply for and hunt several states a year who are the major supporters of wildlife and the restoration of habitat. It's guys like you and me who belong to and spend large amounts of money with every major pro-hunting wildlife conservation organization we can find that funds wildlife projects. It's guys like you and me who pay the inflated application fees and non-resident license fees in all the states. This is the money that allows the states to keep their programs afloat. Don't get me wrong; the resident license dollars are critical to every western state. However, if all non-residents pulled their dollars out of wildlife, if we stopped funding FNAWS, Grand Slam, RMEF, SCI, MDF and each and every state and local wildlife conservation group - wildlife in the West would fall flat on it's face. Whether you agree or not, it's the die-hard hunters, like the Huntin' Fools who are members of our service who demand proper game management. It's the Huntin' Fools who pressure the states, through politics and money, to make right decissions concerning wildlife. When you read the wildlife agencies' press releases concerning any progressive wildlife projects, there is one common thread --- non-profit wildlife groups funded the project. The avid non-resident western hunter is a huge positive influence in each and every western state. Some state wildlife agencies threat non-resident hunters like enemies instead of allies. In some cases it's rediculous --- Nevada has only been issuing 5% of their elk tags to non-residents, Oregon only allocates 1.5% of antelope tags and 2.5% of deer and elk tags to non-resident hunters through the draw, and several western states are only issuing up to 10% of their big game tags to non-residents. Most hunters believe that there should be some form of non-resident quotas on big game tags and there are a few western states that have set reasonable quotas for either some or all of their tags. New Mexico's 22% quota for non-residents, Wyoming's 25% quota for non-residents on sheep, and Colorado's up to 40% non-resident quota for deer, elk, and antelope are a few examples. Reserving the bulk of the tags for resident hunters allows the youth to have a better chance to hunt and gives the resident a better chance to enjoy the great sport. Non-resident tag quotas are good, but states need to set fair percentages. A large amount of land in each western state is federal, which means it's owned by all US citizens. Nevada is made up of an amazinf 83% federal land, only giving non-residents 5% of their elk tags seems a little low. Many distrubing trends to unfairly dicriminate against non-resident hunters are surfacing throughout the West. Extremely low quotas, skyrocketing fees, and resident-only species and units, are only a few of them. If the western wildlife commisioners and managers treat non-resident hunters unfairly, they risk alienating us to the point we spend our money on court batles instead of wildlife projects. The non-resident hunter has been one of the western state wildlife agencies' strongest supporters. It's a delicate balance, but I sincerly hope that these agencies make policy decisions that benifit residents and non-residents alike --- before it's too late. Federal Land in the West ----------------------------- Arizona 47.20% California 45.10% Colorado 36.20% Idaho 61.60% Montana 27.90% Nevada 83.00% Oregon 52.40% Utah 62.20% Wyoming 48.90% |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:31 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.