Bowsite.com

https://www.guidefitter.com/news-and-advice/battle-for- license-allocations? utm_source=Guidefitter+Outfitter+List&utm_campaign=bffe99 d5ad- Articles_May_19_20155_11_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0 _29e6baac85-bffe99d5ad-248692253

Here is a link to a presentation: http://faculty.weber.edu/jcavitt/WildlifeManagementMaterials/Lectures/Lecture 3. History and Development of Wildlife Law.pdf

Harry Reid is going out....you best hope that some senator from back east does not decide (after being hit by his constituents) to amend the Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident & Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005 to give more teeth to the Feds.It can be done.....

Federal land does not belong to Residents. Residents seem to think it does. Non-residents might just ask to get the wildlife the residents supposedly own to get off the Federal Lands or ask to charge residents an access fee or ask the Feds to charge grazing fees to the states.

Let the reply's begin!

Currently, Federal land is 24 million acres or 36% of our State.

Lots of ways to look at the system and where it needs changing. Lets look at 10 bull elk taken under the current system and who creates revenue for the Colorado Parks and Wildlife:

Archery bull elk success is around 10% in CO. For the average public hunter.

Currently, resident hunters would pay the CPW $4600 (100 tags X $46)

Nonresident hunters would pay the CPW $61,600 (100 tags X $616)

Outfitters, who sold 30 hunts (figuring higher success rate around 30%) @ $3000ea, or $90,000 total, would pay the CPW ? nothing?

Ranchers who sold 30 vouchers (assuming that same higher success rate) for $500ea, or $15,000 total, would pay the CPW $90 ($3 application fee X 30)

Then non residents get 35% of the tags in most limited units (20% in a handful). So in most limited units we are at 45% - 47% available to non residents. Still stinks that its $600+ for a non resident. I don't have a real solution for that. Lower agency budgets, higher resident fees, more outside revenue from nonconsumptive users are all possible places to change, but all would be a battle and all come with some consequences.

Sixby. This gets into whether or not we are Federalist or believe in states rights. If you are a Federalist then I agree with what you say. However if you believe in states rights then you believe that the state has the right to control the dispensation of all fish and game and lands and forests and minerals outside of other than agreed to by state congress treaties and agreements entered into with the will of the populace of said state with the Federal Government.

Federal government ownership of lands within states and control over such lands is specified within the constitution. It includes lands specifically for military forts ect and is pretty limiting. In fact it it greatly and I believe lawlessly overstepped by the federal government.

As it stands at this time individual states do set hunting and fishing seasons and regulations . I highly doubt that any hunter or fisherman would enjoy what would happen if this were to come under the purveyance of the federalist government.

I do have an answer./ If you want to hunt in Montana, Wyoming or any other state that may have hunting that you do not have in your state. Then pay the price of a non resident or move there.

I do agree about the drawings ect but I also understand that while people make a lot of money in Eastern States and enjoy a rich lifestyle that many Western people have paid a great price with poor jobs , long travel, way fewer opportunities for advancement ect than you can even imagine. They pay this price to have the opportunity to enjoy the outdoor experience many of these states afford. I for one have really had to fight for existence for my family to be able to live here. I was glad to get a 2.00 per hour job and my wife and kids and I were thankful for a roof that didn't leak , no heat and sleeping on concrete floors. We also stayed in tents for over two years. Just to be able to live in Oregon. Not complaining but explaining that many of us have lived that way to be able to live the dream. If you want to do the hunt then pay the price. Here you can get it over the counter.

God bless, Steve

I do disagree with your assessment of people in eastern states. You stereotype them unfairly lest you forget the largest economy in the nation is on the west coast. I live in the west and I want to hunt lands that I pay taxes on in other states, yet I cannot get a fair shake due to the greed and the so called ownership of wildlife doctrine you espouse to. Does that mean if I own a piece of property in a state that wildlife live on, I own because its within my boundaries?

High fees is one thing, restriction of drawing the tags on Federal lands is quite another. The winds of change are coming and I implore folks living in the the non federal lands states to stand and fight against the selfishness of those that believe the wildlife within the boundaries of a state is all there's and the mere allowance of a few non-residents is a gift.

Texas doesn't restrict non-residents. Now go for it....bash Texas.

I'm a resident guy who believes it should be easier to hunt in your respective state then those of non-residents. We pay the bulk of all taxes in these states (as you do in your respective state) and those that are out here for an entire week should be cut down.

As Glunt said above, you already have access to a TON of tags (and over the counter)...

I was a CO resident for 15 years, and I either drew or bought OTC elk tags every year. Having lived out of state for the last 5 years now, I STILL draw or buy OTC elk tags in Colorado every year.

Of course I'd rather pay in-state prices, but I truly believe that privilege belongs to the residents of Colorado. There are many reasons, not the least of which is that the heavy lifting for funding organizations and causes that protect critical habitat within any state is done by its residents. That doesn't mean there isn't a lot of support that comes from across the country, both in the form tax revenues and also by funding of national organizations like RMEF, but the critical work is done on the ground by those in the state.

And yeah, I fully understand the potential for the federal government to step beyond its scope and take over the role of state wildlife management. I just think no hunter would want to take this out of the hands of any state, be it Colorado, New Mexico or Tennessee.

Lastly, should the share of resident to non-resident tags be a bit more equal? Probably. But If you're saying that non-residents can't get an elk tag in a good unit every year, they're not looking hard enough.

Good Luck, Doug

I completely agree that NR hunters are getting a raw deal in most states. Their tag numbers definitely don't jibe with the contributions that they make. Something made me feel a bit uneasy about this article, though, is that it didn't do much to address the ones getting the worst deal - the DIY Nonresident.

LOL. No we are not guests, we are consumers and we can make demands with where we spend our dollars. Both for licenses and for your economy. And you can tell us to stay home, but if we did your fish and game dept would either fold or you would be screaming that your licenses were astronomical.

Do you charge guests big money to come to your home? If you did and I stayed with you, you can be sure I would make some demands.

Does the state own the game and can do what they want? Yep.

If a deer is in your backyard, it doesn't make it your deer.

If a deer is on federal land, it doesn't make it the feds deer.

BTW, I'm live in the east and hunt I Montana every fall.

Sounds like you just want to take it to the residents as hard as you can :)

Get rid of the outfitter pool Jim and there will be an all equal 16% NR pool for NM, coupled with all the LO tags(50% of all tags) of which a huge majority go to NR's.

Who owns the wildlife on your private property? You don't. Or can you set your own seasons and kill what you want on your private land?

And of course, animals wandering across native American lands belong to them!

But as has been mentioned, there are an exponential number of factors that go into how many tags are given, and how much they cost, so I fear this will be a never ending argument, and the situation will only get worse for hunters in general and MUCH worse for NR.

Concerning the comparisons above of, if you come to my house you do not voice demands. I would compare it more to going into someone's home and for some crazy reason, you are in a joint ownership of one of the rooms.

I do get both sides of the argument, but I believe the NR really gets the short end of the stick, but there are some states that pretty much stick it to everyone. As far as belief's, I believe in states rights, but when heavy funding comes from the fed's and within the state is property of the federal government, things get a little trickier. One other suggestion about residents of a state paying taxes, etc. so they should pay lower tag fees. When you divvy up the appropriations of those taxes going to infrastructure, schools, and other personal requirements within the state, I would be their contribution to stewardship of wildlife is much, much less than the tremendous cost of a NR license.

As mentioned, a never ending argument, where any determination will make all sides happy.

The guy questioning the audacity of the state gets educated regarding current laws, case law, precedents, and then goes away...

SSDD

I bet you're right or if they are residents, I bet they make some big bucks somehow off of non residents and tags that go to them.....

What exactly is JFWRC again?

Talk about a fair shake..... how about you get the others in your line of business to give nr their diy licenses back?

It seems to me that, more often than not, folks want to have their cake and eat it to by living where they want to but rationalizing why they should have better odds in other states. For them, I have little sympathy. I do feel for the folks whose livings have been adversely impacted by such policy shifts, but that is one of the downsides of living in a democratic republic.

Yes chances, if you realize it or not. Hunting trophy class game in the west is a very limited resource!!!!!! Yes there are lots of average or below average non-trophy class opportunities that goes under hunted every year.

Yes I'm very grateful for all the wonderful hunts I've had over the years. Yes sometimes being self-centered comes to the surface. But it changes nothing but your piece of mind.

Be grateful for what you can do now, because in 10 years it will considerably less I guaranty it!!!!!

People who live elsewhere with lower cost-of-living complain that they have to pay $619 for 30 days of bowhunting elk and trout fishing in their choice of any or all of our 133 OTC hunting units.

Life isn't fair. No really, life isn't fair. Glass half full, or half empty?

The law is the law. With a few exceptions (ESA... a lovely fed bludgeon) wildlife within a state is property of the state. Local management. Otherwise you would have FED management of the state's game. I believe the only exception WRT fed land is in National Parks. Tough tag to pull in most places....

Ask the folks in AK how well that works. Or what a wonderful thing the wolf intro in the west was. I can imagine no worse mess than having a bunch of eastern people managing the wildlife for the west. No more so than the east would appreciate the west managing their resources for them. That is what you are asking for. Federal management. Federal control. Something we could do with far less of across the board the way I see it.

IMO the person who lives there has a greater right to hunt there than someone who does not. I don't see how that is even arguable. These LE tags are limited. The resident SHOULD get the lions share.

A person is free to choose where they live. And are free to choose where they hunt. They are not free to make the rules for others where they live. Nor should they be.

If half our state was federal lands and we had mountains and elk/mule deer we probably would. And we might try and charge enormous prices for NRs, but I would fight that.

"I vomit a little every time I hear "texas"."

It is OK to fear great things. I hope you outgrow your problem

Yea cry me a river NR hunters....

I have said it for years change Colorado to draw only for elk and a hard cap at 80% res to 20% NR.. Put it to a vote to cut out the current corrupt commission. That would fix point creep (for locals anyway ;0) and be the best for the elk.

Or stay home NR's as I know when I am fortunate to draw a tag out of state I sure dont bitch and moan like a lot of you and consider it a privilege!

Yea good old east coasters and their entitlement....

Entitled resident crybaby out, I guess. If I get time I'll post a link to an online dictionary.

Hunting heritage starts with resident hunters. They vote in resident elections. At some point we won't have hunting in Colorado because all the Californians and illegal immigrants who move here took over and VOTED it out.

Maybe if residents had all the licenses we could actually recruit and retain hunters who VOTE.

We lost spring bear season to a ballot referendum VOTE of residents, where by those who don't hunt said no more. Last week I was in a meeting where the game and fish stated they estimate 22,000 hours of game warden time devoted to problem bear call outs. Those game wardens aren't out catching poachers, doing wildlife benefiting projects or educating nonhunters.

Lets not forget nonresidents don't qualify to vote. So while your money is great for budgeting you still can't vote in elections.

On another sad note, is it is not uncommon that the only people who show up at meetings concerning wildlife policy is the guys who earn a living off wildlife.

He does what he needs to do to make a living, and there is nothing wrong with that. Just like there outta nothing wrong with me trying to save my piece of the pie.

The link is an example of our intelligent voters in America.

I hunt other states and I fully appreciate the expense a nonresident has when hunting my state's wildlife. The good news is that even though it the price is higher than hunting deer at home in the east or midwest, a regular guy can hunt elk, deer, bear, mountain lion, pronghorn out west when they choose. You have to be flexible on units and seasons in some cases, but I believe in 40 years what we have now will certainly be the "good old days".

There are dedicated elk hunters that specifically don't live out west. Due to their career and standard of living, the least expensive way to hunt elk is to live and work elsewhere. The cost of tags and travel is well worth it compared to what they would give up in income and the lower cost of living in their home state.

That said, some of the stuff that goes on with landowner tags and all the other tags that effectively get sold or handed out to special interests sticks in my craw. But that's another subject, and now I'm starting to whine myself. Have a good weekend gents. It be Friday. Go find cold beer and yoga pants.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but werent you on the side and a big reason why diy nr lost so many of their tags to push business your way? If not, I must have you confused with someone else and I'm sorry. If so, how can you come on here and complain about this issue?

Just the oposite happened. The outfitter industry tried to protect all non-residnet opportuntiy. It was the resident opposition whom took away the diy non resident quota.

The issue is keeping a fair shake for non-residents here in NM. That does not not include a 90/10 split wanted by many resident hunters.

I will agree that housing is much more expensive, other than that, I might as well move because I would have access to better hunting, plus I might even get a raise.

In truth, this is an internet where people push their adjenda/ point of view. Duh!! So calling people "whiners" is your right, but be sure to look in the mirror when you do that.

I try to argue the merits of my side and try to listen to others point of view. Sometimes, they convince me they are right and vice/versa. I might disagree with you, but I try and respect your point of view.

But labeling people, and name calling. How does that accomplish anything?

Yep summer time - argue all you want but this "article" is nothing more than another outfitter attempting to line his pockets by distorting facts about the Colorado draw anyway.

The article was not to promote discussion in any way but rather to drive traffic to his site so he can make $......

Resident hunters will face more attacks to our way in favor of big money hunting and this is nothing but one more example of that..

The state owns the animals so I will let you "east coast minds" beat the hell out of this horse again.

Hey do you know only residents can hunt in wilderness in wyo LOL!

You sure seem like an unhappy fella every time you post something. Have you ever been checked for food allergies? That can cause irritability, and often the person doesn't even realize it because they're so used to being grumpy and ill-tempered..

Dave, You would be better off stating a comprehensive plan on how you could make a federal tag system work, I am not sure it is even feasible, IMO it is a can of worms that as a hunter you might not want to open since the outcome could be devastating to All hunters, nothing like giving the anti's what they want on a silver platter. Anyway I would be interested in reading your comprehensive plan and don't forget to explain the ramifications of such a plan.

The final numbers came from the resident opposition. The outfitters never proposed less for the DIY non resident. For you to claim otherwise just isn't so. The resident hunter wanted the non resident hunter to have less tags, end of story. The same happened with all draw cow tags and WMA's going to residents. The Outfitter industry did not come up with those ideas. It was the Senator ramrodding the bill whom made the concessions. You can blame him as he will probably be taking a run at all of this again. Of course he was being pushed and given ideas by the resident opposition side.

The whole bill S-196 was pushed by the resident hunters and I personally don't think they really wanted anything but a 90/10 split. We negotiated to keep things the way they were which we fought hard to get when the NMDGF started regulating the outfitter industry in NM with the original bill.

That was even a bigger battle than S-196 and at one point the non-resident hunters were ringing the phones off the hooks of the Game Dept.

P-R funds are primarily used to conserve habitat, not manage wildlife per se. But even more to the point, P-R funds do not represent the majority of funding received by any state's DNR/DFG that I am aware. To imply P-R is the only means of wildlife management funding is disingenuous.

"Second, until somebody proves me wrong, I stand by my contention that the wildlife in a state are not OWNED by the state. I believe the MANAGEMENT of the wildlife of the state was left up to the state in legal doctrine. How does simply having a mailbox in a state entitle one to the wildlife that reside there just because someone years ago drew a line in the sand and called it a state? Remember, this is the UNITED States of America. Indoctrinating the states to assume responsibility to manage the wildlife within its boundaries does not give the right to discriminate. And before any Residents chime in a say they pay more in taxes in the individual state they live in to support those wildlife, you might wanna do some fact checking."

That is like calling the earth flat and then asking someone to prove you wrong. Most states mandate that the wildlife in that state be held in trust for the citizens of that state. No mailbox - no stake.

You might want to do some fact checking yourself. In some states the general fund makes up the largest single component of funding, so unless you are paying income tax in 50 states you would be incorrect.

"Third, our public lands are just that---PUBLIC! That means they are there for the enjoyment of the American people and that enjoyment comes in many forms--hiking, biking, camping, fishing, and yes hunting to name a few. How ironic that most residents don't have a problem with NR's taking part in any of the first four. Yet, they have a problem with hunting because they don't want the competition."

It isn't ironic, you are once again being disingenuous by ignoring that different legal concepts apply to the last 2 of the 5.

Absolutely, the LAND is public, owned by US citizens. Go hike, camp, whatever. Just don't touch any animals, those are owned and managed by the state. And proven so in case after case. So..... um, well, you CAN go take a hike....

A federal land tag system.... good grief....an outfit that FUBARs 99% of what they touch? Say goodby to hunting, that outfit is trying to get rid of it as we speak..... and you think the availability and cost of tags will go down??? But hey, if you like your tags you can keep your tags... is that how it works? Next you'll want tags subsidized (by the rest of us of course) for the more unfortunate hunters....

We could call it "Obamatags"....

"Why do I get the feeling if you lived out west and could not draw a resident tag to hunt big game, due to a 50/50 tag allotment you would be arguing the other way on this?" DING! we have a winner.....

and the residents are called greedy....

No whining or entitlement from me since I am a NR to every state I hunt in the west. I would rather be grateful for what I get to hunt then whine about what I can't.

Lol!

So either keep spinning your wheels, or divert some of those wasted debating energies to figuring out ways to hunt the various species you want. Then go hunting. I can't think of a single state where a guy couldn't bow-hunt some type of big game each year if he chose to. In that regard we are all incredibly blessed here in the USA. You might ask Barty how it works in his country.

Land ownership, whether deeded ownership or as a quasi-owner of public lands, has nothing to do with ownership of wildlife. To connect allocation of hunting opportunity, a state responsibility, to land ownership is incorrect. There is no connection to the two concepts.

To make the connection is an argument of convenience. Under that premise, a false premise, in states with primarily private ownership, we would be required to buy our tags from the private lands on which the animal was standing.

Tons of cases to be read that will dispel the notion that allocation of hunting opportunity is somehow connected to landownership. Not how it is in this country.

The 10th Amendment of the Constitution gives that right/responsibility to the states. A notion upheld in volumes of USSC cases.

For those making these later posts and wanting to change 200 years of legal precedent; go and get lawyered up and spend your money trying to change one of the most valued fundamental constructs of our country - State's rights. Good luck with that.

Non-resident tag allocation affects us all no matter where we live, given we are non-residents in 49 other states.

Carry on .....

There you go, sign up if you dislike being a NR.

I'll try to sum this in one paragraph. Each state is commissioned with the management of all NON migratory animals with-in their boundaries (exception of endangered species). The wording states the ownership/management of these non migratory animals as that of the state they reside in, but that these non migratory animals have to be available to ALL who may pursue them (on public lands), made available to EVERYONE legally allowed to hunt/fish for them(BUT! even this is a grey area as to who can hunt as some states have the legal right to only allow resident hunters to pursue a certain species). However each state is afforded the right to set laws/pricing for the use of these natural resources as the state reps/residents see necessary, and those funds go to the state, not the Feds. BUT! the USFWS can set precedence over the state if necessary. All should look this up just for their own knowledge.

What I find funny is when NR hunters try to compare their resident DEER tags/hunting to elk tags/hunting of the Western states-don't get me wrong I have no problem at all with NR hunters as we hunt with some every year, just a problem with the whiners who for the most part will never hunt outside their own state or the NR hunter who does come West to hunt but doesn't fill their tag and then whines about how much it cost to go home empty handed, that's hunting!. Whiners are going to be whiners!!

Colorado is still the easiest and cheapest state to hunt elk, period! With approx. 22.9 million acres available public access, with the most of ANY state in the West for elk and the most elk. And most of us are willing to help out for the most part, as long as you put forth some effort of your own.

I agree that the article was a ploy to drum up clients/money.

And, yes, you non-resident hunters ARE guests. You get to hunt here because we ALLOW you to. We can cut you off just as easily as we let you in.

Not saying we will or should or that it would be a wise choice ... but it IS an option and there isn't much you could do if we did ... except pitch a fit.

Edit:

WARNING: This statement has been recognized by the state of California as one which could cause anger, stress, discomfort and other health-related issues. Please heed this warning as it is an attempt to allow Governmental oversight to protect you from......you.

In NM we have up to 50% of all elk tags going to LO's which most of those equate to NR license's (basically tags for the well to do, regardless of residence), a 10% outfitter pool of which most if not all go to NR's with the financial ability and 6% that go to NR's that cant afford to apply in the OF'er pool. Now you think that 50% of the NF tags should go to NR's, if you were a resident and liked this setup than you would be the only one, unless of course you were a resident that is in business making money from NR tags.

And for the record, Idaho charges each draw applicant a non-refundable fee when they enter the draw. That's what pays for the draw ... no tax money, no license or tag money, no P-R funds ... just the draw fee.

If you want Idaho to change, come live here long enough to vote and see if you can vote the changes you want. Lots o' luck.

The residents of each state believe what they believe because the courts say it is so, how does that make them selfish? you seem like you are from the Kings court!

All these states rights issues aside, I'm confused about all the outrage about a NR not being able to draw an elk tag in Colorado. When I look at the 2015 draw stats that just got published, here's the overall draw percentage (regardless of hunt choice):

Adult Residents- 30.67% (64,977 out of 211,907 applicants)

Adult Nonresidents- 26.32% (25,085 out of 95,312 applicants)

Leftover Tags- 34,063

Can someone tell me what I'm missing?

Irrespective of my view on your take, it's not going to happen.

Via the courts:

Just getting the USSC to take the case would be a huge uphill battle since they've already ruled on this. They rarely take cases where they can defer to precedent. Then you'd have to get a vote that changes precedent. That rarely happens. You're right, it does happen, but rarely. It would take a ton of money just to do the legal fighting. On top of that, you'd be SOL if the USSC just decided to not take the case as is the reality in most cases that are appealed to the USSC.

Via the executive branch:

Another option would be a presidential order regarding federal lands. While this potentially could happen, the courts could just come back and nullify the order based on turf. Additionally, as has been pointed out, the Feds messing with our tags could end up with everyone of us being worse off. In fact, I'd bank on that. Via the legislative branch:

The only other option would be a new constitutional amendment. That's not going to happen for several reasons: Hunting is not "important" enough to the majority. You'd need a 2/3 conservative congress outside the west to strong-arm this through as most Dems are going to vote no on anything related to hunting. You'd need 3/4 of states outside the west to ratify.

Even if a national "right to hunt" law were passed and the legislation included laws for federal lands as you propose them, the law would go straight back to the USSC and be struck down based on precedent (unless it was a constitutional amendment).

Even if your take is righteous, how would you propose to make this happen? Where's the money going to come from? Which legal avenue are you going to use?

So I wonder why some one 200 years later thinks this needs to change. Are you willing to give up all of your rights in the constitution to be able to hunt nationwide or just the ones that will benefit you?

FWIW, I spent $390 in license and application fees in my home state and with 60 bonus points spread across 8 species I drew one tag.... The fee for that one tag and my PIW fees increased the total spent for one resident antelope tag to $480. Call me unlucky....

http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/HuntingIsConservation/NorthAmericanWildlifeConservationModel.aspx

Dave, you are twisting words again. The wildlife in many states in managed for the benefits of its residents based on the state's constitution. Are we now equating things bestowed upon us under a Constitution as an entitlement? We've already established that the wildlife is separate from the ground on which it lives - public or private. Please stop trying to confuse the issue to suit your agenda.

I'd guess this was ALL about getting LE tags in prime trophy units. And I don't for one second think it's about getting cheap tags.

"Why should residents get preferential treatment?" Entitlement?

Because they LIVE and work there.... not some flippin' mailbox... pretty simple. Yeah, they are very much "entitled". Much more so than somebody who's claim to the local wildlife is they "paid their taxes" hundreds and hundreds of miles away.

I applaud the RMEF also for broadcasting your message.

Article III, Section 2 says this - "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution .....

In other words, the Courts will rule how the Constitution is to be interpreted. Not me, not you, not anyone on Bowsite, not anyone other than the Courts. That is exactly what the USSC has done on many instances related to cases of who holds the rights to manage wildlife in this country; with the states.

What you or I think the Constitution does, or does not, say about wildlife is irrelevant. What the Courts say is what matters. And what the Courts say is two things relevant to the discussion here; 1) The right to manage wildlife was retained by the states, and 2) There is no connection to property ownership, either direct or indirect ownership, and the right to wildlife.

Also, the courts have not ruled that the states "own the wildlife." They have ruled that the states hold the right to manage wildlife under a Public Trust arrangement for the benefit of the citizens of their states. Nobody owns the wildlife until it is converted to possession upon its death. Until then, it is a Public Trust asset to be managed by the Trustees; the states.

The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation was not put to writing until the 2001, so to use it as some sort of precedent or authoritative legal source on a topic that is 200 years old is incorrect. I was on the Board of Directors of the group who started work on the project to give further explanation of how wildlife is managed in North America, as were two of the three authors who did the NAMWC work; Val Geist and John Organ. The NAMWC has no authority in any way shape or form. It is not a regulatory or legal precedent, merely a writing of general tenets of how we manage wildlife in North America.

Additionally, the term "citizens" when used in reference to the court cases cited and to how it is used in the NA Model, refers to the citizens of the state, not of the country. In the quote you provided, the comma separator shows that the term citizen is not connected to the countries mentioned.

Point being, all of this has been long since settled and well defined by the courts. For people here to use the term selfish, entitlement, etc because 200 years of law is against what they want to see, is laughable. It's not selfish or entitlement, it's what the Courts say is the Law.

Whether any of us like it, or don't like it, that is how it is. Though I am sure that arguing the topic on Bowsite provides some entertainment value.

So NR's who want to barge in on our public land stating they have a right to hunt elk on the NF or BLM are completely wrong. The feds don't manage the elk even though they are on federal land, you have to go through the state to hunt them. Yes we all have the right to hunt does not mean we all will. We all have the right to be rocket scientist as well but we all won't be. The whole point is to prevent the "elitist and going back to the Kings game".

There still remains the Constitutional issue of states rights.

Dave, lots of things are NOT mentioned in the Constitution or any of its amendments. That does not make them un-Constitutional or invalid.

Quote from RMEF:The North American Wildlife Conservation Model is the only one of its kind in the world. In the mid-1800’s hunters and anglers realized they needed to set limits in order to protect rapidly disappearing wildlife, and assume responsibility for managing wild habitats. Hunters and anglers were among the first to crusade for wildlife protection and remain some of today’s most important conservation leaders.

It has led to substantial laws being passed. Quote from B&C: International Resources – Because wildlife and fish freely migrate across boundaries between states, provinces, and countries they are considered an international resource. The proper management of certain species of migrating wildlife is to be managed by international treaties and laws. Sportsmen where among the first to recognize the need for international treaties and laws to save what was left of decimated waterfowl populations. Wildfowl that nested in Alaska, Canada and the Lower 48 States, and then migrated as far south as Mexico, could only be saved if restrictions to the loss of their wetland nesting habitats and hunting reached across international boundaries. The Boone and Crockett Club responded with the establishment of the National Wildlife Refuge system (1903) and the passage of the Migratory Bird Act of 1913 & 1917, the Reclamation Act of 1902, and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 all contributed to the recovery and future prosperity of migratory species.

Not everyone gets to hunt spring bears.

By “socialist,” I do not mean a Lenin, Castro, or Mao, but whether if Ryan (the author) falls within the mainstream of contemporary socialism as represented, for example, by Germany’s Social Democrats, French Socialists, or Spain’s socialist-workers party?

By this criterion, yes, both Ryan the author and the OP are socialist or pushing a socialist agenda.

The socialist parties of Europe trace their origins to reform Marxism. After Marx’s death in 1883, Europe’s Marxists rejected the Bolsheviks’ call for socialist revolution and worked within the political system for Marxist goals. Marxists, such as Karl Leibknecht, August Bebel, Paul Lafargue, Leon Blum, and others, formed the socialist parties that we know today. Most emerged from the trade-union movement, and they retain close ties with organized labor today, as does Obama’s Democrat Party.

Whereas, the eighteenth century liberalism of John Locke and Adam Smith gave us our constitution and limited government, Marxism provided the intellectual foundations of the European welfare state and if the author gets his way the American Welfare state…

The European socialists have their welfare state. Even their conservative opponents no longer question the “social state,” despite rising concern about its affordability. In the United States, we are fighting the battle of the welfare state, and we do not know what the outcome will be.

The European welfare state takes one half of national output to provide state health care, pensions, extended unemployment benefits, income grants, and free higher education. Ryan the author believes the same should be done with all hunting licenses at the federal level... Failed nationalizations taught European socialists to leave enterprise in private hands and coerce it through taxation and regulation to contribute to what the state deems the “social welfare.” Ryan would like to see half of all the tags given to “social welfare”…

The November 2011 Declaration of Principles of the Party of European Socialists (PES) summarizes the socialist agenda. Its main points are conduced and compare them with some of the author’s principals as yes he is pushing socialist principles. See if you agree!

PES: The welfare state and state-provided universal access to education and health care are society’s great achievements.

Ryan: Favors universal access to hunting license and associated benefits cant be denied as a push for a critical expansion of the welfare state.

PES: A strong and just society must ensure that the wealth generated by all is shared fairly as determined by the state.

Ryan: Favors progressive way to redistribute tags from residents to NR and to ensure that all pay their fair share.

PES: Collective responsibility makes society stronger when people work together, and all people are enabled to live a dignified life, free of poverty and protected from social risks in life.

Ryan: Article favors collective responsibility protect all from social risks through even distribution of tags, or like programs. Examples would be welfare programs guaranteed health care, the bailing out of big companies, forcing renegotiation of mortgages, class action law suits, and other measures. (Instead of opportunity and incentive to succeed).

PES: The state must insure that economic growth is environmentally “sustainable.”

Ryan: To keep it fair has to favors carbon taxes for travel, higher energy prices, and subsidies licensed for the “common good” of outfitters…

PES: If unfettered by state control, market forces, driven by and greed and shift power to the privileged few, deepen economic, geographic and social inequalities, and create economic crises.

Ryan: His article shows a distrust of market forces and advocates selective de-regulation, subsidies, and taxation to persuade or coerce licens to promote the general welfare of outfitters as he defines it. Industries not part of his collective endeavor are penalized. Industries that serve his conception of “general welfare” (outfitters) are to be promoted at all costs even if the market rejects them.

PES: A strong state must preserve the public good, guarantee the common interest, promote justice and solidarity and allow people to lead lives rich beyond material wealth, so that each individual’s fulfillment is also part of a collective endeavor.

Ryan : Advocates a strong federal control that offers the “positive right” of only outfitters and economic gain. He complains that the U.S. Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties,” that dictates what government “can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”

Yep the author and OP sure pushing a socialist agenda from where I sit… Wonder if they are Obama supporters as well..

Please discuss..

Baldwin asserted his rights were violated as per protections granted under the Privileges and Immunity Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The court disagreed finding non-resident elk hunting to not be a protected right governed by those clauses. And also held that the states had a substantial regulatory interest.

The court held ......

1. Access by nonresidents to recreational big game hunting in Montana does not fall within the category of rights protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Only with respect to those "privileges" and "immunities" bearing upon the vitality of the Nation as a single entity must a State treat all citizens, resident and nonresident, equally, and here equality in access to Montana elk is not basic to the maintenance or wellbeing of the Union.

2. The statutory scheme is an economic means not unreasonably related to the preservation of a finite resource, elk, and a substantial regulatory interest of that State, and hence does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. In view of the fact that residents contribute to the costs of maintaining the elk hunting program, the great increase in nonresident hunters in recent years, the limit in the elk supply, and the difficulties in supervising hunting practices, it cannot be said that either the license fee differentials or the required combination license for nonresidents is irrational.

Maybe the court will some day consider this topic from another angle. Given the history of the USSC not taking cases where a prior precedent has been set, the odds of the USSC changing a lot of this is very unlikely.

That said, if prices were even close to being the same, all states would be on a 90/10 res/nr split. So we have to take some bad with a lot of good

You will never hear me complain about the actual hunting out of state. Mostly Colorado for me, and I am truly addicted to your great state, both for vacations/fishing in the summer (heading up there July 3rd) and for hunting.

And I would be Ok with your limiting our numbers if you don't keep raising the price. Raise yours, pay a bigger share of the cost of doing business and in return get lower NR numbers. But that will never happen.

That should have been the title of this thread.

This entitlement is ruining this country!!!!!

If it was as simple as Dave thinks it is, it would have already been done. USO had all of the motivation in the world to challenge this.

This is a state's rights issue. I'm not sure why that is so hard for some to understand.

Apparently civics was not taught in your school Dave. If you would know about the founding fathers and the US Constitution, you would know that the founding fathers would have never signed on without strong states rights and autonomy.

Good God Dave! In your world, there are no states or state laws or state constitutions. Just one big homogenized country. I have read enough of your thread posts to know you continually advocate for what is best for Dave.

Plenty of folks have stated facts and precedent, yet you continue to spew abstract viewpoints without any facts or foundation in law.

I will not argue with you or waste any more of my time. I have learned long ago that arguing with an idiot is not possible. He/she will overwhelm you with their experience.

Your argument is what? To increase the opportunity for people that can afford to hunt in whatever and as many states as they choose and to lower the opportunity for the majority who cannot afford to hunt out of their state?

Name one western state that has residing in a state 51% of the time as their qualification for residency! LOL you are a true Californian, please don't change your residency!!!

JLS, you got that right!

Please please please Dave, stay put in California! You have been beating this drum for a while and honestly come across like a child banging his head on a wall screaming because he wants his candy..............

And everybody else's as well.

The P-R fund is distributed by the U.S F&W Service. It is based on how much each STATE contributes, not citizen of the US. State meaning locals and local G&F departments. The funds can come from budgets, contributions, hunting license sales, etc.. So for every hour I, me personally for my state, contribute to the local HE program, MY STATE gets paid 3 hours out of the P-R Fund. Now tell me how much you have contributed to every state you are laying claim your P-R funds entitle you to hunt.

Well, I guess you can enlighten us on how recreational hunting has somehow become "fundamental to the union" since 1978?

I IMPLORE you to blow your money trying to rewrite Article 4 P&I precedent.

Your argument isn't about "fairness". It's about trying to overturn the concept of states-rights when it suits your purpose, which in this case is to socialize hunting opportunity and federalize wildlife management. Yeah, that will work. It's been a huge success with wolf management.

Can you point out the phrase in the Constitution where it guarantees "fairness" in every aspect of life? I asked you this once before when you were ranting about this garbage.

I still think you need to get checked for food allergies. No normal person should be this irritable and irrational on a regular basis..

Once I get to the above crossroads, not sure what conversation is left that has any chance to impact the real world rather than just devolve into would of/ could of/ should of. A million forum posts on would/could/should still will not buy one cup of coffee.

So, help me figure out if I am smart with both feet firmly planted in the real world while observing Don Quixote tilting at windmills or...am I Forest Gumping this topic missing a brilliant breakthrough position that will soon have me chasing bighorn sheep in several western states as long as I stay on Federal land?

Dave-I don't think I am entitled to any wildlife. Hunting is a privilege not a right. If the states choose to stop all hunting then I will be SOL.

When does an animal become a state's property? When it crosses the state line. If it crosses multiple state lines in a day, then it belongs to multiple states that day. The reason being that as soon as it steps into a state's boundary, it becomes part of the STATE'S management plan, not a FEDERAL plan. State wildlife agencies do their own research to come up with their own management plans and goals with the exception of endangered, threatened and some migratory species if I'm not mistaken. The state pays the income for all the states wildlife agency employees. The state enforces all state rules and regulations regarding wildlife...Do I need to continue? The Fed's may own the land but that is it. Consequently, if I'm not mistaken, nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government allowed to own the huge amounts of land that it currently does.

Anyone remember cannonball from the wolf threads?

Wait...my mistake...there are a few who think like Dave on monstermuleys.com, and outfitter forums.

You are right in many ways and especially about the federal government owning so much land especially in the western US.

That being said most hunters value the public lands (Federal) highly and are very protective of them. So in this instance the general hunting public likes Federal lands but don't seem to recognize in totality how much the Federal lands actually provide for our (State's) wildlife.

All that analysis proves is that you are as bad at math as you are at Constitutional law. Attached is a link that has data regarding Nevada DOW's budget for 2012-2013. The included data breaks out P-R funding as a % of total funding and reflects that it represented 30.4% of total revenue for the 2013. While that is material portion, it is a far cry from your >75% guess.

I don't know if you are ignorantly or intentionally being dishonest in this discussion, but regardless you are in no position to be calling anyone names or casting aspersions about their character. There's an old saying about stones and glass houses that would be appropriate here...

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/76th2011/Exhibits/Assembly/NRAM/ANRAM231D.pdf

Just remember the P-R is not limited to hunt able game. Any animal species or habitat uses the P-R funds. I think about 62% of P-R funds has been used to buy land and manage it. So when the red spotted horned lizard has a hunt able number make sure you get your tag due to your P-R funds.

Now for your break down here in NM, which I am not saying is fair, but the way our legislature set it up. Yep STATE LAW that has to be followed. It has been challenged many times so try it again. 84% tags goes to R, 6% go to NR, and 10% goes to in-state guides. Now the guides are available to R and NR so I am going to leave them out. A MB elk hunt means R pay $8400 roughly and NR pay roughly $6000 per hunt. If you broke it down to 90/10 it would almost be a 1:1 ratio in funds. Where is your 75% from license sales?

His response was, "No, and I don't agree with that either. We have bigger problems than that in CA though. Won't be long before both Residents and NR's can't hunt in this state."

Then, with all due respect, Dave, I suggest you stay home and fix things in your own state before trying to fix things that are not broken in other states.

Barring that, get the hell out of California.

I'd say it is the one that guessed that more than 75% of NDOW wildlife management revenue, was proven to be way off base, and is now cherry picking stats and adding non-resident license revenue to the mix to try and seem less wrong about their uneducated position.

Funds from an 11 percent excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition [Internal Revenue Code of 1954, sec. 4161(b)] are appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior and apportioned to States on a formula basis for paying up to 75 percent of the cost approved projects. Project activities include acquisition and improvement of wildlife habitat, introduction of wildlife into suitable habitat, research into wildlife problems, surveys and inventories of wildlife problems, acquisition and development of access facilities for public use, and hunter education programs, including construction and operation of public target ranges.

Public Law 91-503, approved October 23, 1970, (84 Stat. 1097) added provisions for the deposit of the 10 percent tax on pistols and revolvers, one-half of which may be used by the States for hunter safety programs. This amendment also provided for development of comprehensive fish and wildlife management plans as an optional means for participating in the program, and changed the maximum limit from $10,000 to one-half percent for Puerto Rico and to one-sixth percent for the Virgin Islands and Guam.

On October 25, 1972, the Act was further amended by P.L. 92-558 (86 Stat. 1172) to add provisions for the deposit of the 11-percent excise tax on bows, arrows, and their parts and accessories for use in wildlife projects or hunter safety programs.

Amendments enacted June 8, 1974 (P.L. 93-313; 88 Stat. 238) provided for a six-month delay, until January 1, 1975, in initiation of collection of the excise tax on bows, arrows, parts and accessories.

Every state in the union has equal access to PR funding. Some states have very marketable hunting opportunities and leverage their assets. I'm not going to delve into where it is right or wrong for me to pay 12x the amount of a resident in Montana, it's life and the laws of supply and demand will take affect.

I could easily argue that the numbers you posted up are quite skewed. You don't think the Director's Office plays a large role in on the ground stuff? Do winter range acquisitions just happen, or do they take significant political legwork to garner support? What about commission meetings and season setting? I guess those aren't important to management.

Of course though, all of this argument is still completely irrelevant to the fact that this is a state's right issue, and the state can choose to manage their wildlife for the benefit of the residents of the state. The information Randy posted clearly supports this.

Obviously, you disagree. Good luck in your lawsuit, keep us posted.

It all goes back to the 1842 court case that started the Public Trust Doctrine. The USSC has upheld it many times. The animals in a state are managed by the state unless managed by USFW, migratory species or endangered species. The voters who have residency in that state elect their representatives to pass state laws. The state laws are what set hunting seasons and bag limits to help manage the animals in the state. So if you are not a resident of that state you follow state law without any say in what those laws are.

Hunting funds may come from the state licenses to improve habitat but does not have to. So revenue from hunting licenses may contribute on the state end but not on the P-R end from the Federal government. The state chooses how to improve their habitat and how to use license funds. Maybe your hunting license money goes into a research project for a totally different species, the state decides.

Teaching concealed carry classes I find it interesting that 90% do not hunt. Unscientific just asking people getting concealed carry permits. Their money from firearms and ammunition sales go into the P-R funds. The same can be said of bow shooters who do not hunt but shoot bows for recreation. So wait for them to start demanding they need to use all the P-R funds to build public ranges in all states. Then they should be able to use any public range, in any state, at anytime, free of charge, because their P-R funds paid for it. Forget about any local range rules. That is what your argument is about.

Dave, give it up and hire a team of lawyers to start your challenge. We're not buying the socialist nonsense you're selling.

Often, when a NR voices dismay at certain statistics, seasons, prices, mgmt practices, etc, the response is, to paraphrase, "if you don't like it, pound sand."

Ok. But NRs do inject a ton of money into western state wildlife mgmt and we take what's given us with little voice at the table.

At least in KY, when you get your "you didn't draw an elk tag" message, they at least thank you, to the tune of 'hey, you didn't draw, but thanks for your $XX that will go towards elk mgmt in our state. Good luck next year." I actually thought that was kinda cool. Perhaps it's fitting that Kentucky has the abbreviation it does. Most states pound us in the rear and don't bother with the lube.

But believe me, I'm very happy to have the opportunities in other states that I do. I still give NV $250/yr for the slim-to-none chance afforded me, along with a dozen other states. I dropped out of WA this year because I just cant stomach paying $110 app fee for each OIL species (Washington needs a dab of Kentucky), so it gets worse.

But as a fellow Californian whose property backs up to Ntl Forest, I can sympathize with the folks who voice the "this is my backyard" argument. It's not "theirs," but it's still their backyard and there's something to that.

As far as the 'if you can't beat em, join em' line, we're gonna. My brother and I are looking at buying a chunk of land in either WY or NM within the next few years because we want land and we might as well get access to LO tags. So the exclusive system will end up with us having tags and a couple more Californians in someone's backyard while we hunt yearly with great tags singing HDYLMK.

No offense guys, but you make the rules. If you make it so cozy for residents/LOs and stick it to NRs, don't be surprised when you have a huge migration to your backyard.

As usual, your perspective contributes positively to the conversation.

As far as your statement, "My brother and I are looking at buying a chunk of land in either WY or NM within the next few years because we want land and we might as well get access to LO tags. So the exclusive system will end up with us having tags and a couple more Californians in someone's backyard while we hunt yearly with great tags singing HDYLMK."

Buying land because you get great tags is like buying a house because it has a great neighbor. That aspect of your purchase is definitely subject to change.

As a Realtor, I also like land. If you buy land, buy it for the land, not the tags. If you get tags then good for you, but making the tags a primary factor in your buying decision could be a mistake. Just my $.02

The fact that you are making such definitive statements about the funding of wildlife management while freely admitting you haven't spent the 30 seconds it takes to do you a Google search to figure out how Pittman-Robertson works is indicative of why your position is so mis-informed.

And I would say CA has their head in the P-R trough as well. You have, and are in fact receiving benefits from it. All states do, not just the few you seem to be obsessed with.

Just because a state has some federal funding (they all do) or federal land within does not make all US citizens residents of that state. I know of NO state that does not differentiate between residents and NR on many levels, from taxes, voting, all the way down to hunting license and tags.

I get it. You want more access to primo tags and you want them cheap. Sorry, it's not gonna happen and you haven't a leg to stand on other than you don't think it's "fair". Meaning fair to you. Residents in these states see it as fair however. In fact many residents see their current systems as unfair to them.

The best you can do is lobby the states, maybe hook up with the outfitters and guides as they seem pretty good at setting tags aside for NRs, if you're guided anyway. DIYs normally are thrown under the bus.

The residents however can and do vote. That's a biggie. In the end the chips fall where they fall.

Next?

As much as I hate to spoon feed the lazy and entitled (the classic liberal mentality?), here is what a 30 second Google search turned up regarding the P-R funding split.

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/federalaid/pittmanrobertson.html

The fact that you are accusing me of not providing facts is hilarious. In regards to the Nevada funding situation, who was the one who did the research and provided the first facts? Who could only provide a guess despite the facts being publicly available to anyone who was willing to make the effort to do a simple search? I bet you conveniently can't remember.

The funding I am talking about is P-R can match up to 75% of what the state contributes, or 3:1. The state puts in 25% and the P-R can match up to 75%. Key part is "UP TO", doesn't mean they do.

The 1:1 ratio is if you base the states 25% solely on license sales on R-NR licenses. The state comes up with their 25% from other sources and not just hunting licenses.

I really want to move to California now, wait I can just move back to Santa Fe.

But in a quick scan I have to say - man some of you boys sure dont have much to do and really must enjoy bitchin and cryin for days over something you can never change...

Retirement must be cool but I hope I can find something better to do!

So tell me do you boys support, defend, and project the Marxist and Socialist ideals in the rest of your life as much as your belief in the allocation of hunting tags? Hahaha or I wonder if some even know they are let alone how to spell Marxist and Socalist LOL!

This is a real question if you can comprehend it.. Or do you guys just pick and choose these ideals when it fits into your personal selfish opportunities? Discuss and dont disappoint as will pry will be back in a week or so to scan this worthless as well as pointless thread again!

I'm sorry you feel that state's rights is a leftist issue. How liberal of me.

While we're at it, I think Alaska should start paying every person in the US a portion of their mineral royalty funds. Then I can use it to pay for my nationwide bighorn sheep permit applications.

I know the USSC has reversed more than one of its own rulings, Dave, but tell me ... to which court does one appeal a USSC ruling?

After 170+ exchanges on this, it should be pretty clear that no one's buying your take on it, and you're not gonna convert anyone. Maybe you want to try another audience.

Regards, Doug

Sorry you're going to endure another crappy day in your life.

I'm busy planning a NR hunt on National Forest where the cost of the NR tag is so ridiculously cheap, relative to everything else in life, that I can't believe we're so lucky to have this awesome opportunity.

Every morning I wake up and am thankful for the awesome opportunities we have here. I'm thankful I'm still alive and healthy enough to enjoy them. I don't have much to bitch about, really, in the grand scheme of things.

The only factual evidence you have, Dave, is that you live in a craphole of a state, have a sour attitude, and want the hunting opportunities others have, but you're either too lazy or unmotivated to move. So you cry and moan about it ad nauseum on internet forums.

WRT cars with out of state plates.... keep one eye on the speed limit signs and the other in the rear view mirror.... or you will find out the difference...

However, the states would certainly have the ability to funnel the monies to highways that provided the most benefit to the residents of the state.

Maybe you and George Taulman should have lunch and share your ideas? Either that, or you could move to a different state as Lou suggested.

So what you are basically indicating to all of is that we have been debating this issue with an individual who doesn't understand that 75%/25% = 3:1? The below is the first line of the 3rd paragraph of the very web link in which you could not find what you were looking for.

"Federal Funding from P-R pays for up to 75 percent of project costs, with the States putting up at least 25 percent."

I had this sneaking suspicion all along I was completely wasting my time posting on this thread - thank you putting my suspicion to rest.

Keep thinking the world is black and white Dave - your mentality more closely resembles that which you ascribe to the liberal mentality than the conservative, but you don't even realize it. JLS nailed that above. I am done trying to have a rational discussion with a guy who brought a spatula to a gun fight.

Actually, Diane Feinstein is a bigger liberal jackass than Harry Reid. Also, Harry Reid had plenty of bipartisan support for the legislation. There were actually 14 co-sponsors of the bill, some from some very "Red" states. Once again, it's not a simple liberal vs. conservative issue.

I also stated many times the P-R is up to a 3:1 match. At least somebody understands it. The only match is due to the STATE putting up 25% or more for habitat improvement. They do not have to use any funds from hunting licenses for that 25%.

Now so I don't lose you our resident license dollars are higher than non-residents dollars. It is not even 1:1 so you still do not contribute as much in license fees as the resident hunters do. So claiming you have a "right" to hunt here based on P-R funds is wrong.

Also I stated many times that P-R funds are for habitats and not game animals. As previously stated we as hunters benefit from habitat improvement.

Now be a man and admit you are wrong. I have wasted enough of my time on this.

You established a false premise in your first post and have spent the rest of your time twisting the narrative to try to support your fantasy. Every one of your posts reeks of red herring. This is a fun middle school debate tactic but doesn't fly with educated adults.

Read the P-R Act. It has nothing to do with hunting opportunity on federal lands. The first sentence in the Act reads: "The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to cooperate with the States, through their respective State fish and game departments, in wildlife-restoration projects as hereinafter set forth." The entire act is focused on states rights and state management of the resources.

The word "hunting" is mentioned exactly once, in a list of activities associated with wildlife.

So shut up and put up a website. You can do it cheaply on Go Daddy. Get a bunch of other malcontents to join your parade. Raise money and go crowd-funding. File a class-action suit and take it all the way to the USSC. Try to make hunting a federally-managed activity with a massive bloated bureaucracy to manage it. Let us know how that works out for you.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will take advantage of the awesome hunting opportunity offered in the other 49 states where we don't live.

Oh wait.....you already did.

Follow Lou's advice. Shut up and do something instead of trying to convince everyone how smart you are and how dumb all of us are.

Put your money where your mouth is. If you succeed in your endeavor, let me know and I'll provide you a hunting spot in Montana where there are elk and you can go and hunt on your nationwide tag.

Never ceases to amaze me when people want to argue facts with "feelings". I once thought it wasn't possible for someone to be as annoying as TBM. I was wrong.

My behavior in this case is exactly how I believe and feel, and I do what I tell others to do. Except for what I'm advising Dave to do, which would be a stupid waste of time and money.

I guess that makes me an anti-hypocrite?

A train wreck ya just cannot completely look away from................ I'm thankful for what I've got, but some will always have the attitude:

""What's mine is mine & What's your's is MINE""

just had a reflexive shudder go down my spine...

Obamatags..... and the residents are accused of entitlement mentality.... must be a community organizer....

Don't like it, pretty simple too: get enough people to agree with you and change the law or take it to court at the federal level.

Barring that, you are just wasting time on the internet. But then it is the offseason...........

I asked it after you claimed that "...anyone who thinks the USSC always gets it right and has never been overturned on appeal has never followed politics."

Instead you went on about new evidence, changes in law after a USSC ruling, blah, blah, blah.

None of that answers the simlple question, ... to which court does one appeal a USSC ruling?

The correct answer, the ONLY answer is, There isn't one! The USSC is the final arbiter ... period.

Now, as I suggested before, go back and straighten out all the game law you dislike in your own state, California, before you go on this crusade to "fix" what is not broken in other states.

Now we are going to talk elk, mature bull, draw tags, standard hunts. Residents cost $90, so $90x84=$7560. Non-residents cost $548, so $548x6=$3288.

Now we are going to talk elk, mature bull, draw tags, quality or high demand hunts. Residents cost $90, so $90x84=$7560. Non-residents cost $773, so $773x6=$4638.

Now let's go to MB hunts that Non-residents can put in for vs. all the antler less and MB hunts that are resident only. Archery are ES so residents and non-residents can put in for those, so we will exclude them. MB-92 hunts. Antler less hunts-100.

This is the STATE MANDATED breakdown on hunting licenses.

So Dave once again you have been proved wrong, but I know why you are so insistent on using the P-R funds. The correct name of the act is "Federal Aid of Wildlife Restoration Act". You want to get your mouth on the Government Teat. 2's out