Nonresident Exclusions

[Will_m]

This issue was litigated at the federal level. It went to the US Supreme Court back in the late 70's. The state has the right to do basically what it wants in this regard.

Do you know the name of the case or have a case citation? My understanding was that they had right to regulate hunting, not necessarily the land itself. Put another way, go in the WY wilderness area all you want, but if you are hunting big game, you better pay the troll at the bridge.

 

[307]

Do you know the name of the case or have a case citation? My understanding was that they had right to regulate hunting, not necessarily the land itself. Put another way, go in the WY wilderness area all you want, but if you are hunting big game, you better pay the troll at the bridge.

Yeah, that's how I understand it currently. Go into the wilderness all you want, no rule against that, but you cannot hunt there outside of the state's rules.

 

[BuzzH]

I would think this could give rise to a constitutional level challenge in federal court, but I may be wrong. I seem to remember something along the lines of this type of argument against the nonresident prohibition in WY Wilderness areas. If I remember correctly, it didn't work there essentially because the court held that the state could manage it however it liked.

Nope...its already been challenged constitutionally and legislation was written and passed to deny claims of non-residents being discriminated against when it comes to wildlife. S. 339 specifically.

You wont win in court...

S. 339

To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and
fishing activities.


_______________________________________________________________________


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 9, 2005

Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska,
Mr. Ensign, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Salazar,
Mr. Craig, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Kyl) introduced the
following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary

April 21, 2005

Reported by Mr. Specter, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL



To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and
fishing activities.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Reaffirmation of State Regulation of
Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL
SILENCE.

(a) In General.--It is the policy of Congress that it is in the
public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for
any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by
means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and
nonresidents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses
or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the
kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees
charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting
or fishing.
(b) Construction of Congressional Silence.--Silence on the part of
Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of
Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the
``commerce clause'') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State
or Indian tribe.

SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(1) to limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law
related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or
to the regulation of commerce;
(2) to limit the authority of the United States to prohibit
hunting or fishing on any portion of the lands owned by the
United States; or
(3) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, supersede or
alter any treaty-reserved right or other right of any Indian
tribe as recognized by any other means, including, but not
limited to, agreements with the United States, Executive
Orders, statutes, and judicial decrees, and by Federal law.

SEC. 4. STATE DEFINED.

For purposes of this Act, the term ``State'' includes the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.




Calendar No. 85

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

 

[wind gypsy]

I don't like the wilderness exclusion in WY or the guide requirements for Sheep/griz/goats in AK. That said, I much prefer state having rights to manage it's resource for it's residents to any entitlement of NR to equal rights to shoot game in a state they choose not to live. WY has what, 600k people, what a shame it would be if 328 million americans who choose to live elsewhere could do the same as the 600k people who choose to live in WY.

 

[Will_m]

Nope...its already been challenged constitutionally and legislation was written and passed to deny claims of non-residents being discriminated against when it comes to wildlife. S. 339 specifically.

You wont win in court...

S. 339

To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and
fishing activities.


_______________________________________________________________________


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 9, 2005

Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska,
Mr. Ensign, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Salazar,
Mr. Craig, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Kyl) introduced the
following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary

April 21, 2005

Reported by Mr. Specter, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL



To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and
fishing activities.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Reaffirmation of State Regulation of
Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005''.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL
SILENCE.

(a) In General.--It is the policy of Congress that it is in the
public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for
any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by
means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and
nonresidents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses
or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the
kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees
charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting
or fishing.
(b) Construction of Congressional Silence.--Silence on the part of
Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of
Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the
``commerce clause'') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State
or Indian tribe.

SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(1) to limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law
related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or
to the regulation of commerce;
(2) to limit the authority of the United States to prohibit
hunting or fishing on any portion of the lands owned by the
United States; or
(3) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, supersede or
alter any treaty-reserved right or other right of any Indian
tribe as recognized by any other means, including, but not
limited to, agreements with the United States, Executive
Orders, statutes, and judicial decrees, and by Federal law.

SEC. 4. STATE DEFINED.

For purposes of this Act, the term ``State'' includes the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.




Calendar No. 85

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

Well.......shit.

 

[Will_m]

I don't like the wilderness exclusion in WY or the guide requirements for Sheep/griz/goats in AK. That said, I much prefer state having rights to manage it's resource for it's residents to any entitlement of NR to equal rights to shoot game in a state they choose not to live. WY has what, 600k people, what a shame it would be if 328 million americans who choose to live elsewhere could do the same as the 600k people who choose to live in WY.

Hello, Wyoming resident. What a shame it would be if you (or a WY resident, if you aren't) wanted to do something in another state, but couldn't, simply due to the fact of your residency. Surely you can see the problem.

I completely understand that those who receive the benefit of the rule love it. I would too. That doesn't make it right.

 

[dreamingbig]

Non-resident lives matter!

But in all seriousness... allowing hiking and fishing but not hunting is pure protectionism on behalf of the state. The only way you get them to change is with your pocket book. Problem is not enough will sit it out. Game theory at its best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OXN939]

As a nonresident, I'm all for the NR restrictions in Alaska. The discrepancy between supply and demand for Sheep, Goat and Grizz hunts is obviously huge. So, there has to be a bottleneck somewhere. From everything I've heard, allowing it to be connected to an economic benefit via the guide rule does a lot for conservation, management and the pocketbooks of lots of local businesses. That and the fact that Alaska has insane opportunities for NRs... only place you can plan to hunt moose in the U.S. without a lifetime of preference points, plus OTC Black Bear, Blacktail and Caribou. Already a very generous state as is.

The Wyoming wilderness rule is a little confusing. Pretty sure I pay thousands of dollars of federal taxes every year that maintain those wilderness areas, so then, after I pay another $700 for just the nonresident deer tag, I'm still not allowed to hunt them on my own? Seems silly. Doesn't the fact that it's much harder for me to do the scouting, bring the equipment, organize the logistics and draw a tag give enough of an advantage to WY residents without preventing me from hunting on public land?

 

[Ndbowhunter]

What entitles a person to have what someone else owns in a different state?

I don’t get that disposition.

NR deer tags are a bargain in Wyoming at 379$

Wyoming has no say in what lands are wilderness or national park or forest service. But the animals contained within the boundaries outside of NP and wind river res are owned by the state. How they distribute the tags is up to the residents to decide.

far as I can tell they distribute more percentage of deer and antelope tags to NR then any other western state.

i know SoDak doesn’t allow nr any elk, sheep or goat tags, east river deer, muzzleloader buck and only 8% of west river deer and antelope. Doesn’t hurt my feelings one bit.

 

[BuzzH]

As a nonresident, I'm all for the NR restrictions in Alaska. The discrepancy between supply and demand for Sheep, Goat and Grizz hunts is obviously huge. So, there has to be a bottleneck somewhere. From everything I've heard, allowing it to be connected to an economic benefit via the guide rule does a lot for conservation, management and the pocketbooks of lots of local businesses. That and the fact that Alaska has insane opportunities for NRs... only place you can plan to hunt moose in the U.S. without a lifetime of preference points, plus OTC Black Bear, Blacktail and Caribou. Already a very generous state as is.

The Wyoming wilderness rule is a little confusing. Pretty sure I pay thousands of dollars of federal taxes every year that maintain those wilderness areas, so then, after I pay another $700 for just the nonresident deer tag, I'm still not allowed to hunt them on my own? Seems silly. Doesn't the fact that it's much harder for me to do the scouting, bring the equipment, organize the logistics and draw a tag give enough of an advantage to WY residents without preventing me from hunting on public land?

What you're confused about is land ownership and wildlife ownership are mutually exclusive. Your federal tax dollars are of no significance in regard to Wyoming's authority, and legal right, to discriminate against you as a NR any way they see fit in regard to the wildlife within their border. That includes telling you that they don't want NR's to be issued a single tag for elk, deer, pronghorn, moose, goat, whatever.

Wyoming also has the legal right, and authority to discriminate against NR's in regard to pricing.

I learned long ago, to just be grateful that Residents of the 49 other states I'm a NR of, allow me ANY opportunity they are willing to give up to NR's in regard to their wildlife resources.

I don't disagree with the others, that the Wyoming Wilderness Guide law is ridiculously bad legislation, it is. I feel the same way about AK's requirement of guide requirement for grizzlies, goats, and sheep as well. But, just because I don't like the law, I still agree with the principles of each State having the right to manage wildlife within its border any way they choose to the greatest benefit of the Residents of the State.

 

[wind gypsy]

Hello, Wyoming resident. What a shame it would be if you (or a WY resident, if you aren't) wanted to do something in another state, but couldn't, simply due to the fact of your residency. Surely you can see the problem.

I completely understand that those who receive the benefit of the rule love it. I would too. That doesn't make it right.

It may suck but it's not a "problem" nor is it "wrong" IMO. Your residency is your choice. I'm a MN resident. My home state has pretty minimal demand from NR sportsman but us 'Sotas sure put a lot of pressure on the ducks/geese/walleyes/perch in the dakotas, whitetails in WI and IA, and Muley's in eastern MT. In the past I have lived in ND strictly for waterfowl hunting opportunity. It sure wasn't for pretty women or high wages. The benefits of resident hunters slowly diminished in the name of NR opportunity while I lived there. States like WY and the dakotas struggle to keep productive contributors as residents and a lot of times it takes outdoor opportunity to retain folks. I still might move to WY or MT one of these days, but I sure wouldn't if it didn't come with OTC elk/deer tags in the name of "fairness" to NR.

I can't apply for certain elk, sheep, or goat tags in MT as a NR. I cant apply for elk at all in ND or SD. NM gives unguided NR a whopping 3% of their tags. The examples are endless.

Demand far outpaces supply for big game resources and each state has the right to decide how best to allocate the opportunity. Where to draw the line on how to limit access to hunting tags is different for everyone but it would not play out well to give everyone who wants to shoot an elk/deer/sheep/moose/etc the same opportunity to do so.

 

[OXN939]

What you're confused about is land ownership and wildlife ownership are mutually exclusive.

To be clear, I'm not confused about anything; I just disagree with this rule. I paid over sixteen times as much for my deer tag as a resident, after paying for preference points for years, had to put in for the NR draw to get my unit/ region, and even after all that Wyoming still prevents me from hunting all the public land available within the area I get. I think that's a little much.

To each his own.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

Wyoming's guide requirement for non-residents hunting in wilderness areas rankles me as well and is one reason I haven't seriously entertained elk hunting in WY. The policy is blatant protectionism for the state's guiding industry, and they get away with it because most people are willing to accept without question the old "states 'own' the wildlife" (even where the feds own the land) canard. I've yet to hear a good argument for why a US citizen residing in another state—who is subject to the same federal taxation scheme as a WY resident—should have to pay thousand(s) more dollars in guide fees (on top of a 10 times more expensive tag) to hunt the 4 million acres of federal wilderness area lying inside WY, land to which a non-resident has just as strong an "ownership" claim as a resident.

 

[BuzzH]

To be clear, I'm not confused about anything; I just disagree with this rule. I paid over sixteen times as much for my deer tag as a resident, after paying for preference points for years, had to put in for the NR draw to get my unit/ region, and even after all that Wyoming still prevents me from hunting all the public land available within the area I get. I think that's a little much.

To each his own.

You clearly aren't required to apply for a deer tag in Wyoming or buy points here either. If you don't like the way Wyoming manages its wildlife, I hear good things about Utah and Idaho.

Also, Wyoming is NOT preventing you from hunting all the public land available with your deer tag. Each WY resident can sign off for 2 NR hunters a year or you can pay for an outfitted hunt.

You aren't excluded from anything.

 

[BuzzH]

Wyoming's guide requirement for non-residents hunting in wilderness areas rankles me as well and is one reason I haven't seriously entertained elk hunting in WY. The policy is blatant protectionism for the state's guiding industry, and they get away with it because most people are willing to accept without question the old "states 'own' the wildlife" (even where the feds own the land) canard. I've yet to hear a good argument for why a US citizen residing in another state—who is subject to the same federal taxation scheme as a WY resident—should have to pay thousand(s) more dollars in guide fees (on top of a 10 times more expensive tag) to hunt the 4 million acres of federal wilderness area lying inside WY, land to which a non-resident has just as strong an "ownership" claim as a resident.

Case law and the law I cited above....that's the only argument required.

Again, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean the State shouldn't look out for the interest of their wildlife resources to benefit the residents (who the wildlife is held in trust for).

 

[VernAK]

It may suck but it's not a "problem" nor is it "wrong" IMO. Your residency is your choice. I'm a MN resident. My home state has pretty minimal demand from NR sportsman but us 'Sotas sure put a lot of pressure on the ducks/geese/walleyes/perch in the dakotas, whitetails in WI and IA, and Muley's in eastern MT. In the past I have lived in ND strictly for waterfowl hunting opportunity. It sure wasn't for pretty women or high wages. The benefits of resident hunters slowly diminished in the name of NR opportunity while I lived there. States like WY and the dakotas struggle to keep productive contributors as residents and a lot of times it takes outdoor opportunity to retain folks. I still might move to WY or MT one of these days, but I sure wouldn't if it didn't come with OTC elk/deer tags in the name of "fairness" to NR.

I can't apply for certain elk, sheep, or goat tags in MT as a NR. I cant apply for elk at all in ND or SD. NM gives unguided NR a whopping 3% of their tags. The examples are endless.

Demand far outpaces supply for big game resources and each state has the right to decide how best to allocate the opportunity. Where to draw the line on how to limit access to hunting tags is different for everyone but it would not play out well to give everyone who wants to shoot an elk/deer/sheep/moose/etc the same opportunity to do so.

The pressure on Alaska's wildlife is growing rapidly and the better guides, outfitters and flight services are booked at least a year in advance if not more. If you find a guide or flight service that is soliciting for business this late, you need to ask questions.

The pressure on Dall Sheep is especially extreme and a new organization was recently created to reduce the number of guides and non-resident hunters. RHAK [resident hunters of alaska] is lobbying to reduce the number of NRs in the bush.

As a 50 year resident, I have to draw a tag for Dall Sheep in several areas adjacent to where I live. Some of those areas are walk-in only. The odds of drawing are 2% for that tag.

I don't see the situation improving with more hunters.

 

[slick]

Case law and the law I cited above....that's the only argument required.

Again, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean the State shouldn't look out for the interest of their wildlife resources to benefit the residents (who the wildlife is held in trust for).

Can’t say it any more simple than this.

The last part is all the reason they need..

It’s really not that complicated.

 

[VernAK]

Maybe three years ago, I was in SD hunting pheasants and saw some great opportunity for waterfowl hunting but I couldn't buy a license for a federally regulated migratory bird and I think ND had some serious restrictions on the number of NRs for waterfowl hunting.

I respect that as I've seen so many great hunting and fishing spots destroyed by over harvest or the habitat damaged by just too many people.

The Kenai River was probably the greatest King Salmon fishery of the world. Don't bother going there now as it's not 10% of what it once was.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

Case law and the law I cited above....that's the only argument required.

I didn't say I've never heard an argument; I said I've never heard a good argument. "Because some bureaucrats in Washington DC said so" isn't a good argument. I realize that, for practical purposes, it's the only argument required and that this whole thread will have no more effect than pissing into the ocean, but appealing to a poor "argument" made by an authority figure is still a poor argument.

Again, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean the State shouldn't look out for the interest of their wildlife resources to benefit the residents (who the wildlife is held in trust for).

Yet another example of accepting without question that the state rightly owns all wildlife within its borders.

If WY were willing to purchase from the feds the wilderness areas within its borders and refuse federal funding to manage those lands, a non-resident would have no basis for complaint. But as it is, WY consumes taxpayer resources derived from citizens all across the US then charges some of those taxpayers a much higher fee to hunt on certain lands that all federal taxpayers helped fund.

 

[Lawnboi]

I understand limiting non resident pressure when needed.


I just wish they didn’t make it a pay to play endeavor for many of the big hunts. Many hunts I will never go on with my wage. Just is how it is.

I’m happy getting out to hunt antelope/elk/mule deer every year. Hopefully it’s not something that will price out the middle class anytime soon.

And before you get up on your high horse I know I can change to make more money, but I’m not going to. I’m happy being the guy putting his boots on everyday.