Why are non-resident hunters allowed tags in limited quota areas ?

[Straight Arrow]

grandejuan, thank-you for the important perspective. Well said.

How much federal land do you outfit on?

belly-deep, why the question and what's your point?

 

[The Hedgehog]

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]

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

 

[MTBirdhunter]

First off, your state does not guarantee a single NR LQ permit for any species, its UP TO 10%.

Secondly federal land holdings have nothing to do with the number of available tags or permits. Its up to the State to decide how many they want for themselves and how many they want for NR's, since they hold the public wildlife assets in trust for the citizens of Montana.

What you're recommending can be done, totally eliminate LQ tags for NR's. It would require legislation more than likely, and at the least you would have get the commission to take action (not sure how your statute's and/or regulations are written). WY tag allocations are not specific to the number that NR's must be allocated(with the exception of elk), only minimum percentages for Resident allocation.

Know that in many States, you would likely experience reciprocal laws to spring up, that Montana residents would not be allowed to apply for LQ tags such as elk, deer, pronghorn, sheep, moose, goat and bison in Wyoming. Matter of fact, I would probably be involved in writing such legislation if MT takes the path you're suggesting.

But, it is ultimately up to each individual state how they want to proceed with the distribution of their wildlife resources.

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]

I think the biggest reason is that the rest of Montanans aren't so greedy.

So, they name calling begins.

 

[MTBirdhunter]

Maybe we should just build a wall around MT to keep all those rotten bastards out. How dare they drive on our roads, use our hospitals, and call our police!

Get over it dude. Everyone should at least have some kind of chance to draw a tag. Up to 10% is still pretty low. Just because we live in MT doesn't mean we get to keep everything to ourselves.[/QUOTE
Typical internet cowardly response, no facts, just emotion.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Maybe we should just build a wall around MT to keep all those rotten bastards out. How dare they drive on our roads, use our hospitals, and call our police!

Get over it dude. Everyone should at least have some kind of chance to draw a tag. Up to 10% is still pretty low. Just because we live in MT doesn't mean we get to keep everything to ourselves.[/QUOTE
Typical internet cowardly response, no facts, just emotion.

Now that was a ridiculous, lame response to what were true facts mentioned by Fire_9! Face it, what else would you call it but greed in what you have posted?! He calls you greedy, which you are with that OP, and then you come back and call him cowardly! You may well want to quit while you're behind, LOL!

 

[jabber]

So, they name calling begins.

Typical internet cowardly response, no facts, just emotion.

Pot meet Kettle

 

[mplane72]

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.

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]

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.

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]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqVOGlq31GU&list=PL6EEEB4550CD16B35&index=2 That's all I got to say about that. John

 

[JLS]

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.

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.

 

[belly-deep]

belly, what does that have to do with anything?

GJ, very well said.

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]

I'm Sure glad the elections are over so we can have this to discuss!

 

[JLS]

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]

See the US Supreme Court holding in

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]

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]

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?

I found the old quote from Jose to be particularly entertaining.

 

[BWALKER77]

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.

 

[Dakotakid]

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