posted
I just hope Tom that you don't have a desire to hunt Elk in a western state as the opportunities are fast becoming harder to obtain. It is as Art says a truly tragic for us, our kids and theirs. I hope they bring elk back to Iowa for you it may soon be your only chance for a tag.
Good luck
Kip
-------------------- The American system of democracy will prevail until that moment when politicians discover that they can bribe the electorate with their own money Posts: 4491 | From: San Luis Obispo, California | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Check your security settings. I just opened both links and they worked fine. These links are the web addresses?
Good luck
-------------------- The American system of democracy will prevail until that moment when politicians discover that they can bribe the electorate with their own money Posts: 4491 | From: San Luis Obispo, California | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have me Art on "prevailing rights" as I know nothing about them and could find no mention of them in a search relating to wildlife resources. But, Pittman-Robertson dollars are allocated to the state agencies for state projects, and are not utilized to pay for the salaries of Forest Service employees or for general Forest maintenance although state and federal agencies will collaborate on projects at times with PR dollars being utilized. This money is distributed based on the size of the state and the number of hunting licenses it sells.
Iowa with its "very small allocation" of nonresident licenses provides a good example of how nonresident demand can vary among states. The neighboring states of Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin all sell nonresident deer hunting licenses over-the-counter. In these states nonresident hunters make up from less than 3% to a little over 5% of each state's deer hunters.
In Iowa, with its "very small allocation" of nonresident licenses, nonresident hunters make up over 5% of its deer hunters. The difference is purely demand; what one would consider to be "wide open" in one state is suddenly "restrictive" in another because the demand is higher.
If an individual is a resident of a state without a wildlife resource that is in high demand, over-the-counter license sales work fine. But for other states it does not work as well.
Since elk would not be a good fit for Iowa; a state that is dominated almost entirely by row crops, I will not hope for them here. But I trust elk hunting opportunities will remain available and understand a license may not be able to be obtained on an annual basis just as some nonresidents find when their desire is to hunt Iowa whitetails.
Posts: 42 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Tom it is clear that you are NOT an ELK hunter and never intend to be. If you were you would fine the trend western states are following is disturbing. U.S. outfitters did win a law suit over non-resident tags in federal court against the state of Arizona unfortunately it was over turned by appeal. I do not believe that this case set presidence because that state had never allow more than 10% tag allowance. And you may want to study up a bit on the funding of the Pitman Robertson Act. Those funds can and are being used by both state and federal agencies.
Posts: 131 | From: muskogee ok | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Art, I have hunted elk before (do-it-yourself hunts), but you are right, I do not define myself as an "elk hunter"; I am a hunter.
The U.S. Outfitters utilized the Commerce Clause in their successful suit regarding license allocations (although the Court acknowledged that the purpose of the license regulations was sound). This concerned many states as it would have had an immediate effect on license allocations no matter what their current allocation percentages were.
However, it was felt the Commerce Clause was never intended to be utilized for this nation's wildlife resources (one could have argued that the prohibition of market hunting violated the Commerce Clause) and this prompted our federal government to ratify the following law in 2005 (it was passed as an attachment to a budget resolution):
109th CONGRESS 1st Session 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. END
Here is a very recent link that addresses the impact of this law and other cases and it even makes mention of a "Privileges and Immunities Clause", perhaps these are the provisional rights you speak of?
I believe you will find if you investigate that projects on federal lands where PR funds are utilized are collaborative projects with the state agencies as these funds are allocated to state wildlife agencies. If you care to do some research here are two links; one gives a summary of the act and how the funds are distributed and the other is the US Code that regulates the accrual and distribution of these funds. If you find the source that cites dispersal of these funds to federal agencies I would be interested in seeing it.
The funding regarding our country's wildlife resources is complex and I do not pretend to be well-versed on all aspects but I do have some knowledge. The same is true for who has "rights" to those resources at a state and nationwide level. However, it seems that there was a lot less argument over wildlife resources when they were treated as a source for recreation/food rather then commercialized into businesses and big dollars.
Just my thoughts.
Posts: 42 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reguardless of what some would reguard as States rights to regulate the fish and game, one must remember National Parks, National forest,lakes and interstate waterways all fall under the right of use clause. This is the very reason that states can not totally prohibit non-residents from at lest a persentage of the tags issued. The only exception I can remember in resent years would be when Colorado prohibited non-resident from applying for there "ranching for wildlife program". If this were not the case states would be able to lock out all non-residents as some would like to do. Basicly non-residents have been losing ground for quite sometime. The fact that you dont concider yourself an elk hunter is consistent with your attitude in the matter!
Posts: 131 | From: muskogee ok | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Brovo Iowa Tom, I could not have said it better myself. In western states like AZ and NM demand for tags far outweighs their availabilty. People can't expect to have their cake and eat it too.
Agencies like the Forest Service and BLM manage the land. The state's wildlife agency manages the wildlife which belong to the state's residents.
Pittman/Robertson Tax funds are allocated to each state based on population, geographic size, and number of hunting licenses sold annualy.
As a Resident of AZ I have drawn 2 bull elk tags in the last 15 years. I don't think a nonresident drawing one or two AZ bull tags in their lifetime is a great social injustice considering the demand from both res/nonres hunters.
Posts: 6 | From: AZ | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
you can go a life time as a resident and never draw a tag in AZ. If one only applyed for the early bull tags with a rifle or a muzzleloader or even archery tags in unit 8,9,or 10 you may never drawn a tag. All of these elk tags are almost impossible to draw as a NON-resident. The real unfairness is how this state mandates how NON-residents apply. NON-residents have to buy a out of state hunting license to even apply for tags. The license alone cost 151.00 then after applying for say 7 or 8 years to have a chance to draw any tag NON-residents the pool they have to draw from is only 10%. Again despite what the Loons in Washington have ruled, 85% of the lands in AZ hunted are owned by the fed. NOT the state. I agree resident hunters should have an advantage by a wide margin. But to only give the NON-resident a meger 10% is just not American.
Posts: 131 | From: muskogee ok | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
I gotta say here NM is not a western state, though many think it qualifies. If you want to hunt elk you are looking in the wrong part of the country. Washington State has over the counter archery tags for the majority of the state. The prime zones are spike only and draw for branch antler tags. Much of the state early season you can hunts bulls anywhere you want.
The state owns the animals and the people of that state have the right to decide to limit out of state tags or even do away with them entirely. If you a want a good changce to hunt prime country with record book bulls then it is better to live in the state where those units exist. If you don't like the out of state rules move! Then you can vote and make change in that state. Guess what, I have never heard a resident new or otherwise argue for more out of state tags to be granted.
This is a free country and you can choose to move to optimize your chances to hunt elk. Lots of folks like to point fingers and be frustrated when they feel thwarted. The state owns the animals and the states make the call.
If you want to have great elk hunting come to Washington. Pull your over the counter tags and have at it. We have tons of elk, tons of open hunting lands, and great early season weather. I hosted a california hunter here last early season and we got on a lot of elk. Throw in that Washington is pretty darn cheap on tags and licenses and you have a win win for everyone.
-------------------- Clay Walker Skill is not born into anyone. It is earned thru hard work and perseverance. Posts: 3246 | From: Vancouver, WA. | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
