Straight Arrow
Well-known member
grandejuan, thank-you for the important perspective. Well said.
belly-deep, why the question and what's your point?
Why are non-resident hunters allowed tags in limited quota areas ?
- Thread starter MTBirdhunter
- Start date
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,595
Mtbirdhunter would be happy to know that MT definitely does not allow non residents to apply for all limited quota permits such as moose sheep and goat. It's even less fair than the Wy wilderness hunting restrictions..
Steelhead
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2009
- Messages
- 701
1. We've found the enemy and it is us
2. This will be helpful in a fight to keep our public lands public
3. This makes me feel better about giving my money to Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico
2. This will be helpful in a fight to keep our public lands public
3. This makes me feel better about giving my money to Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico
MTBirdhunter
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Messages
- 109
I wrote UP TO in original post...writing that federal lands have nothing to do with NR tags, can be argued, From research I have read, there was legal action threatened against Montana and other western states with large federal land holdings if NR where shut out of certain tags, believe it was a gentleman from Pennsylvania, an attorney I read. Yes, people of Montana thru our reps could change the law, or even an amendment on the ballot, but I am sure living in such a litigious society it would be challenged, and then a judge would decide the case.
MTBirdhunter
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Messages
- 109
So, they name calling begins.
MTBirdhunter
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
- Messages
- 109
Topgun 30-06
Active member
Not only was legal action threatened suits were filed and argued in court, federal I believe. The judge upheld the States right to show preference to residents, which all states do. Have fun footing the bill by yourself if you were to ever get your way....
BuzzH
Well-known member
Better keep reading, as there is nothing that ties federal land to tag allocations. In fact, the right for States to discriminate against NR's has been upheld in court multiple times.
Where Montana residents would suffer, is with reciprocal laws, not litigation on discriminating against NR's.
You aren't well read or educated on this issue...and IMO, way off base on your thoughts regarding tag allocations.
DRAFTSTUD
Well-known member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqVOGlq31GU&list=PL6EEEB4550CD16B35&index=2 That's all I got to say about that. John
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
Again, this has nothing to do with federal land holdings. I'm not sure why you are asserting that it does.
There have been lawsuits filed that challenged the ability of states to charge more for non-resident licenses than they do resident licenses. The state's right to do so has been upheld numerous times, and the basis for doing so was completely independent of land ownership status.
You may be thinking of the lawsuit that US Outfitters filed against a number of western states in the mid 2000s, where they alleged that their clients were being discriminated against under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. They claimed that their clients being limited to a certain percentage of tags was interfering with their ability to do business. Senator Reid introduced legislation that negated any claim under the Commerce Clause, but again, this has nothing to do with land ownership.
A most recent ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court states that restrictions on allocations of NR license quotas must be "as non-discriminatory as possible". It states nothing about amounts of federal land, but it does reference the Commerce Clause. I will say this one more time, really slowly, the presence and/or amount of federal land ownership in a state has absolutely NO bearing on the state's ability to manage wildlife for the benefit of its residents. None. Zippo. Zilch.
If you aren't going to pursue this through legislation or a citizen's initiative, how else do you propose to do it? If a law or initiative is constitutional, it doesn't matter how litigious society is.
I notice when folks bring facts to the table, you avoid them and go for the lower hanging fruit.
If you're going to be greedy, at least be willing to admit that you are doing so.
Last edited by a moderator:
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
If you are suggesting that NR tags should be allocated on percentage of federal land, then I suppose there should be some nexus to where the NR hunting occurs.
My guess is an awful lot of outfitting happens on private.
teamhoyt
Well-known member
I'm Sure glad the elections are over so we can have this to discuss!
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
So as not to derail the Cooney thread, I thought there might be some entertainment value in resurrecting this. Does this thread qualify as a diatribe?
TheGrayRider
Well-known member
See the US Supreme Court holding in
Appellants brought this action for declaratory and other relief claiming that the Montana statutory elk hunting license scheme, which imposes substantially higher (at least 7 1/2 times) license fees on nonresidents of the State than on residents, and which requires nonresidents (but not residents) to purchase a "combination" license in order to be able to obtain a single elk, denies nonresidents their constitutional rights guaranteed by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2, and by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge District Court denied all relief to appellants.
Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm'n of Montana, 436 U.S. 371 (1978) (holding the Priviliges and Immunities Clause does not prohibit a discriminatory law on recreational activity).
Appellants brought this action for declaratory and other relief claiming that the Montana statutory elk hunting license scheme, which imposes substantially higher (at least 7 1/2 times) license fees on nonresidents of the State than on residents, and which requires nonresidents (but not residents) to purchase a "combination" license in order to be able to obtain a single elk, denies nonresidents their constitutional rights guaranteed by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2, and by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge District Court denied all relief to appellants.
MO Betta
Well-known member
This kind of stuff takes some of the shine off places I love to visit and hunt. Completely opposite from my view. We don't need money from out of state hunters here in Missouri, but I always push for new and expanded opportunities here for NRs - because (thankfully) most aren't like the OP.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I found the old quote from Jose to be particularly entertaining.
I honestly believe that in MT we need to take a look at NR allocations along with resident license fees. Resident license fees are ridiculously cheap IMO.
Of course FWP and the outfitter/ranch lobby needs hordes of NR hunters to help with there war on game animals.
Of course FWP and the outfitter/ranch lobby needs hordes of NR hunters to help with there war on game animals.
Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 789
Just so everyone is arguing based on logic, research and well thought out opinions, the Baldwin case was decided by the US Supreme Court. And if you remember your high school civics class, a law meets the constitutional requirements if it is rationally related to a governmental purpose.(protected class excluded) “fair” is not in the constitution.
6-3 decision in favor of the state of Montana, Justice Blackmun wrote the opinion for the majority. The court found that the licensing system bore some rational relationship to legitimate state purposes. The court concluded that the nonresidents' interest in sharing the limited resource on more equal terms with residents simply did not fall within the purview of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Equality in access to state elk was not basic to the maintenance or well-being of the union, and whatever rights or activities were fundamental under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, elk hunting by nonresidents was not one of them. The legislative choice was an economic means not unreasonably related to the preservation of a finite resource and a substantial regulatory interest of the state because it served to limit the number of hunter days
6-3 decision in favor of the state of Montana, Justice Blackmun wrote the opinion for the majority. The court found that the licensing system bore some rational relationship to legitimate state purposes. The court concluded that the nonresidents' interest in sharing the limited resource on more equal terms with residents simply did not fall within the purview of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Equality in access to state elk was not basic to the maintenance or well-being of the union, and whatever rights or activities were fundamental under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, elk hunting by nonresidents was not one of them. The legislative choice was an economic means not unreasonably related to the preservation of a finite resource and a substantial regulatory interest of the state because it served to limit the number of hunter days
