Non-resident Hunting and the North American Model

[Kearnsie14]

If you have the time could you expand on that? Confused as to what the fed could instruct.

He's just saying that Congress has chosen not to intervene in state management of wildlife, which is why existing case law supports continued state management of wildlife. If they chose to intervene, the Commerce Clause and possibly the Equal Protection Clause may give them a hook upon which to do so. They currently have no desire to intervene, however, so state management of wildlife continues (and I'm glad). As far as what they would "instruct," that would depend upon whatever the prevailing political sentiment was at that time.

 

[406dn]

I agree that in practice there is no push for a change, but let's be clear it could happen without any amendment to the constitution and without any consent of the mountain west states. The commerce clause already grants the feds the authority and equal protection could be re-considered to do the same (happens all the time). As for state's consent, first of all, the mountain west does not alone have a filibuster-proof number of senators, and many states get bribed to go along. Just look at the 55mph speed limit and DUI-related federal rules to see how the game is played and the states dance to the tune of federal $$.

There would have to be something BIG for courts to upset long standing precedent. It would open a Pandora's box. How would changing state's sovereignty regarding game laws affect how water rights are allocated across the west? I will not lose one second of sleep worrying it might happen, it won't

To change the constitution, if my civics class from 50+years ago is correct, takes a 2/3's majority in each house of Congress,, then 3/4's of the states. I'm not worried about that one either.

 

[BigHornRam]

All the numbers in Montana's budget are influenced by Federal $s. Hence why the Legislature is looking at their Covid check and figuring out how to allocate it.

Differing philosophies though. Cut costs or raise taxes.

Montana budget strong, but tax hikes on the table

Montana's general fund balance is high enough to cover any coronavirus-related revenue losses in the coming fiscal year, state financial analysts said Wednesday, but the budget deficit could grow to

helenair.com

 

[BWALKER77]

Back to the subject at hand.
Does anyone think that the founders of the NAM envisioned a day where people thought it was their right to trophy hunt in many different states?
I used the trophy verbiage on purpose, because that's what NR in the vast majority of cases when one considers the costs involved.

 

[VikingsGuy]

If you have the time could you expand on that? Confused as to what the fed could instruct.
On a side note if the fed was to assert jurisdiction over the states I think the whole take control of public lands from the feds would gain significant support.

Kearnsie covered your question.

As for the side note - fed could regulate wildlife on state and private land too, so it really has nothing to do with the public lands question.

 

[Trial153]

Yeah Teddy Roosevelt wasn't much of a traveling trophy hunter at all....

 

[VikingsGuy]

There would have to be something BIG for courts to upset long standing precedent. It would open a Pandora's box. How would changing state's sovereignty regarding game laws affect how water rights are allocated across the west? I will not lose one second of sleep worrying it might happen, it won't

To change the constitution, if my civics class from 50+years ago is correct, takes a 2/3's majority in each house of Congress,, then 3/4's of the states. I'm not worried about that one either.

We agree it is a low probability at this point due to a lack of political interest.

But it is wrong to tie to water rights - a completely different issue.

And it is completely incorrect to reference the constitutional amendment process as NONE is needed.

The states currently have the right to manage. It is a historical artifact that will likely stand for some time due to a lack of political will/interest. There are NO legal or constitutional barriers if the Fed decides to change its mind.

It stands because "it's the way we have always done it", vested incumbents care a lot about preserving a status quo that personally benefits them, and a very small percentage of the broader population gives a damn. That's it. No other reason. Not English common law, not Supreme Court rulings, not state constitution right to hunt amendments, not the US Constitution, not some purposeful weighing of who best should manage.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Back to the subject at hand.
Does anyone think that the founders of the NAM envisioned a day where people thought it was their right to trophy hunt in many different states?
I used the trophy verbiage on purpose, because that's what NR in the vast majority of cases when one considers the costs involved.

I am no expert on the topic, but from my perspective, much of the NAM was adopted/championed by wealthy and prominent hunters - most of whom hunted all across the country (and the globe). These guys would be buying Governor's tags if alive today.

 

[SAJ-99]

Differing philosophies though. Cut costs or raise taxes.

Yeah. That is the narrative in the R vs D debate. But don't tell anyone, it is really a question of who pays? Cutting costs might be a way to balance a budget, but for the government it is essentially a cut in services. Those who use those services are the ones who ultimately "pay". A tax cut is easier to see because it converts to real $ and it is clearer who would pay.

 

[Handlebar]

Kearnsie covered your question.

As for the side note - fed could regulate wildlife on state and private land too, so it really has nothing to do with the public lands question.

If you believe that federal intervention into commonly hunted big game species would not produce a significant reaction.. well I don't know what to say

 

[JLS]

Back to the subject at hand.
Does anyone think that the founders of the NAM envisioned a day where people thought it was their right to trophy hunt in many different states?
I used the trophy verbiage on purpose, because that's what NR in the vast majority of cases when one considers the costs involved.

Interesting you would interject the term “trophy hunting“ into this discussion. Needing more hyperbole are we?

 

[VikingsGuy]

If you believe that federal intervention into commonly hunted big game species would not produce a significant reaction.. well I don't know what to say

I agree it would create a reaction. Just not clear it would attach itself to a different issue or that it would matter. The folks most upset probably already have their mind made up about fed lands.

In MN there were some regulations put in place regarding field setbacks along waterways. It was an environmental issue. But farmers and rural legislators decided to make it a "hunter's issue" but saying if it passed, no farmer in MN would ever again give permission to hunters to hunt deer or pheasant on their lands as a punishment to those trying to regulate them. The law passed, the whining stopped, there was never a single demonstrated example of a farmer who used to grant hunting access stopping after this change. More often than not the boy cries wolf on these types of issues. Or at best/worst folks just double down on their pre-existing sentiment.

 

[Handlebar]

I agree that those most upset are already set in their belief. One of the arguments that was commonly used was that the feds take more money throught the public lands than they return ( I am not argueing in favor) and that the people of the state should be free to determine their own policies , this argument has found favor with some. This would be just another example to use. I fear it could swing some. Would it be enough to create a groundswell, I dont know

 

[BuzzH]

I get the "starve the beast" scenario - but that's not really happening here. This isn't about whether WY/MT citizens reduce what they are paying into DC, it's about their propensity to overspend what they have and look for the fed (i.e. other states to make up the gap). It also doesn't explain while equally "conservative" states with a similar philosophy actually pay their way to the same extent as other states (ND, KS, UT for example). I think the feds should stop differentially funding states that seem to be willing to overspend their means. That would inturn reduce the DC beast (it would need less if it was subsidizing less).

Good idea...be sure to bring a half dozen spare tires and a new set of shocks when you pass through the dirt roads formerly known as Interstate highways across Wyoming. Take a few more days off from lawyerin' no more traveling across Wyoming going 85.

Land mass and no population and having to maintain infrastructure that are used by all US citizens is real? Wouldn't you agree?

 

[BigHornRam]

Good idea...be sure to bring a half dozen spare tires and a new set of shocks when you pass through the dirt roads formerly known as Interstate highways across Wyoming. Take a few more days off from lawyerin' no more traveling across Wyoming going 85.

Land mass and no population and having to maintain infrastructure that are used by all US citizens is real? Wouldn't you agree?

Make the interstate highways in Wyoming toll roads and you will hear a bunch of non-resident whining!

 

[VikingsGuy]

Good idea...be sure to bring a half dozen spare tires and a new set of shocks when you pass through the dirt roads formerly known as Interstate highways across Wyoming. Take a few more days off from lawyerin' no more traveling across Wyoming going 85.

Land mass and no population and having to maintain infrastructure that are used by all US citizens is real? Wouldn't you agree?

I am sure with appropriate income and gas taxes your roads would be just fine with a funding level closer to ND or KS. Or better, use $1,000 NR elk tags to help fund the roads. Also, I am sure we could have world-class highways across WY for us dirty NR hunters for far far less than you are getting from the evil feds currently.

If it is great to be in a low pop, large land mass state (and I can definitely see the benefits) then please also accept the downsides of the resulting low tax base. But I get it. Better to enjoy the benefits of low population state and skipping on necessary taxes while being subsidized by other states. It's a great deal, I understand why you fight so hard to keep it. Like @SAJ-99 alluded to earlier - it's a great deal being a "fully independent adult" while living in your parent's basement.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Make the interstate highways in Wyoming toll roads and you will hear a bunch of non-resident whining!

If you were willing to pay 75% of your bills like North Dakota or Utah I would take the deal in a heartbeat, and thank you for the savings.

 

[406dn]

But it is wrong to tie to water rights - a completely different issue.

Really, they are both a natural resource, products of the earth so to speak, both freely cross state lines.

As I said earlier, all of this is a political non starter that I am not worried about, at all.

 

[BigHornRam]

If you were willing to pay 75% of your bills like North Dakota or Utah I would take the deal in a heartbeat, and thank you for the savings.

You would still find a reason to complain.

 

[BigHornRam]

I am sure with appropriate income and gas taxes your roads would be just fine with a funding level closer to ND or KS. Or better, use $1,000 NR elk tags to help fund the roads. Also, I am sure we could have world-class highways across WY for us dirty NR hunters for far far less than you are getting from the evil feds currently.

If it is great to be in a low pop, large land mass state (and I can definitely see the benefits) then please also accept the downsides of the resulting low tax base. But I get it. Better to enjoy the benefits of low population state and skipping on necessary taxes while being subsidized by other states. It's a great deal, I understand why you fight so hard to keep it. Like @SAJ-99 alluded to earlier - it's a great deal being a "fully independent adult" while living in your parent's basement.

What happened to your plans to buy a Wyoming ranch property? Slow times being a stuffed shirt lawyer?