The resident short game. Long term consequences?

[RMM]

I feel he was making a point. Some people contribute to things that they don’t directly benefit from. He provided personal examples to illustrate that fact -not tooting his own horn. Op suggested that not allowing every non resident to draw the tag they want will lead to a massive loss of support for conservation groups. Basically that if nr can’t kill it personally they won’t support it. Buzz example was spot on a lot people support things they will never personally use or get direct benefit from. Providing personal examples of that is just that. A real life example. I might have misinterpreted what you were saying?

Right, I'm not disagreeing that he posted to prove a point. But to then go on and say that he doesn't discuss these things after he just did seems a little ironic. That's all I was driving at.

 

[Kimber7man]

No, not it at all. Believe it or not there are people out there that do things when there is nothing in it for them.

There's plenty more things I've done to benefit others that I don't discuss.

What good is it and how does it benefit me to tell a bunch of people that could care less?

Your reasoning falls flat.

I agree, what good is it? Why did you list 12 things you’ve donated to? No disrespect and good for you to donate to all those causes. Plus others.

 

[WYhuntshoot]

There are similar issues going on in Wyoming. The only thing I have a hard time with for WY residents vs Non residents is the trophy tag allocation. They have since fixed that. I however wish they hadn’t made it more challenging for non residents to get deer, antelope and elk tags. That is where the bulk of license sales are.

 

[Btaylor]

Every state has the legal right to do it, codified in federal law.

Can you give a link to this codified law? I have been unable to find it. Apparently I am not very good with the google.

 

[BuzzH]

Can you give a link to this codified law? I have been unable to find it. Apparently I am not very good with the google.

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

 

[Squincher]

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

I would have thought you would have posted a federal law to prove something was "codified in federal law." You know what you posted isn't a law and didn't become a law after it passed, right?

 

[BuzzH]

I would have thought you would have posted a federal law to prove something was "codified in federal law." You know what you posted isn't a law and didn't become a law after it passed, right?

I know that states have the right to discriminate against nr hunters any way they choose reaffirmed via s.339. Right?

Fire up the lawsuits and try suing a state that charges a nr more, or only issues nrs 5% of their tags.

Be sure to post up your results, good luck to you.

 

[Squincher]

I know that states have the right to discriminate against nr hunters any way they choose reaffirmed via s.339. Right?

Fire up the lawsuits and try suing a state that charges a nr more, or only issues nrs 5% of their tags.

Be sure to post up your results, good luck to you.

Stop deflecting. Show us where it's "codified in federal law" like you said it was.

I could show you where that authority actually comes from, and even explain to you what "codified in federal law" means, but it's a lot more fun to watch you flail.

 

[BuzzH]

Stop deflecting. Show us where it's "codified in federal law" like you said it was.

I could show you where that authority actually comes from, and even explain to you what "codified in federal law" means, but it's a lot more fun to watch you flail.

Do what you want. Acts of congress are law.

 

[Squincher]

Do what you want. Acts of congress are law.

Statutes are laws. Congress passes lots of things that aren't laws.

The title of the bill you posted should have tipped you off, if you had any clue what you are talking about.

 

[BuzzH]

Statutes are laws. Congress passes lots of things that aren't laws.

The title of the bill you posted should have tipped you off, if you had any clue what you are talking about.

You win, and every state will continue to legally discriminate against NR hunters.

That would be a win-win.

 

[mossyoak52]

, what about Maine

Have you ever hunted black bears or even deer in Maine ?

 

[mossyoak52]

I feel he was making a point. Some people contribute to things that they don’t directly benefit from. He provided personal examples to illustrate that fact -not tooting his own horn. Op suggested that not allowing every non resident to draw the tag they want will lead to a massive loss of support for conservation groups. Basically that if nr can’t kill it personally they won’t support it. Buzz example was spot on a lot people support things they will never personally use or get direct benefit from. Providing personal examples of that is just that. A real life example. I might have misinterpreted what you were saying?

Bullshit trap that's all buzz does is pat himself on the back and take credit for chit he h nothing to do with or brag about how many tags he gets etc etc if he could sell ego by the pound he would be the Donald trump of Wyoming he's a joke and an ego tripping fool

 

[robby denning]

Bullshit trap that's all buzz does is pat himself on the back and take credit for chit he h nothing to do with or brag about how many tags he gets etc etc if he could sell ego by the pound he would be the Donald trump of Wyoming he's a joke and an ego tripping fool

And that’s why Buzz is no longer here.

 

[Trap]

Have you ever hunted black bears or even deer in Maine ?

I have never even been to Maine can’t remember what this thread was about either ha ha just popped up on my e mail

 

[Trap]

Bullshit trap that's all buzz does is pat himself on the back and take credit for chit he h nothing to do with or brag about how many tags he gets etc etc if he could sell ego by the pound he would be the Donald trump of Wyoming he's a joke and an ego tripping fool

I agree with alot of that about buzz. Have had many arguments and disagreements with him and the ego is large with him. except in this case I think he made a good case for people supporting stuff they don’t always benefit from personally

 

[260madman]

And that’s why Buzz is no longer here.

Now my ignore list is short one? Dang it. Who‘s next?

 

[Rich M]

You make it seem like I hunted out west - I hunted out east. The quota changes will affect me less than most. When the dust settles, will have hunted out west 3 times.

I'm against special youth days cause it gives folks an excuse not to take their kids all the time. Lotsa guys have "their hunts" and then take the kid 1 day a year, then can't figure out why the kid can't shoot or hunt cause they get a youth hunt. There's a lot of guys on here who do it right, but just as many who don't.

Why is it so hard for some folks to get off their asses and take their kids hunting that they need a special season and bag limits?

@LoggerDan

For some reason i wwnt to respond to you.

Im deaf. Started hunting in 1978 - before the assinine kid seasons. Got first doe in 1985, buck in 1990. Not bad for a deaf kid, now old man.

We got parapelgic seasons, vet seasons, and youth seasons for the kids who’s parents are dicks and wont take em during regular seasons.

What else do we need? Keep lining up the special interest folks? Change the rules for each?

God knows we dont want no NR seasons cause they are trouble.

Folks only support what helps them. I’m tired of wasting hunting seasons on folks who dont need it. Cant walk normal? Sure. Anyone else - really? Do they really need it?

Again im deaf and get nothing special from anyone. Would you hunt w double hearing protection? Yeah, ima hardass.

 

[Rich M]

I agree with alot of that about buzz. Have had many arguments and disagreements with him and the ego is large with him. except in this case I think he made a good case for people supporting stuff they don’t always benefit from personally

Buzz aint a bad person, he’s offered help w a lot of stuff. Its all in the presentation.

 

[Hnthrdr]

OP made some good points, I’m 33. Have been hunting big game hard since I came back to the home state (CO) with the army 9 years ago. My home state has doubled in population size, development seems to have been non stop since I was younger but is at a fever pitch pace now. Not sure what the answer is on how to be fair when it comes to hunting opportunities. I know that in the last 5 years spots in my backyard have changed (as far as tags go) and it is frustrating to deal with that. To be honest part of my plan is to work hard, invest wisely and save money to buy my own hunting y property some day, probably won’t be in Co, but at this rate unless you have a place to hunt in a “right leaning” state the future of hunting could be pretty bleak. Wolves are going to rip right through the biggest elk herd in the country and I’m not sure what will be left on the other side of that? Anyhow all you guys that travel west get ready it might not be long before you are MF’ing all the Colorado plates heading to your state to deer hunt, or making property values skyrocket, so your kids can’t afford to live where your family has for generations.
Basically what any local Co person has been saying about coasties especially CA for the last 15 years…