MA Jay

This line disturbs me. While some may see it as a victory for states now, what has happened is the ruling and the merits upon that ruling are now legal precedence. What happens when an outfitter or hunter who has "purchased services" comes with a lawsuit? Well, according to this ruling there may be legal merit... and that disturbs me.

This is clearly not "over" and this ruling may hurt other states.

silentassassin

Hunting access is a type of access. If I pay taxes on it then I have should have an equal right to reap the benefits from it i.e. hunting. Like I said, so long as the state doesn't affect my right to hunt on federal ground then go for it. I wish something would be done to help control the sky rocketing costs of licenses and permits though. I think the feds should jump in and establish it's own set of standards, rules, regulations, limits, and pricing for all the federally owned or maintained parcels of land in which hunting is allowed.

Also, if I am buying a license then i am purchasing a product and if I hire a guide or outfitter then I am purchasing a service.

kshunter

/.

Nemont

There are many things that I pay taxes on that I don't have access to. Just out of curiosity, who is going to police these federal tags? Have you looked at a map of most western states. Public and Private land is checkerboarded. The USFWS doesnt have the man power and the BLM and Forest Service do not have the budget. In addition what the new law says is that the States are allowed to call the shots. The idea of federal lands hunting tags is fine but it is not very practical out in the field.

Nemont

Slamfire

Intra state commerce don't count in marijuana cases, now some folks want equal access to the game in some other state. Let's just do away with the states, one less layer of goobermint to pay for. [:-]

Nontypical234

Nemont - a Montana resident I suppose? Take a look at the SE 1/3 of your state and tell me how I can access the hundreds of thousands of checkerboard acres that I help pay for there. I can't corner jump, most ranchers have private roads blocked and a helicopter is out of my budget.

Nemont

NonTyp,
A Minnesota Resident I suppose?
I didn't even bring up the subject of landlocked public lands. It is a problem. Look I hunt public land all the time I don't want to lock anybody out nor did I say that I agree with people who do. Since you brought it up tell me how having the Feds issue tags would improve your access to that land?

But if there is not a historic Right of way or a public road to access public land then it is entirely within a landowners legal right to not let people cross his/her land. It sucks but last I checked that is what private property in the US of A means.

If you don't think land is checkerboarded then you need a new map. Why do you think there is an access issue down there?

Access to land and having a tag are two totally different issues.


Nemont

P.S. you guys are the ones who had you AG go after ND not me. I can't help if a judge says ND can restrict NR waterfowl and upland bird hunters. Come to Montana to hunt waterfowl and upland birds we let you hunt the same dates and places as residents. I still don't know what that has to do with landlocked public land in SE Montana.

Nontypical234

The summary of this topic (and the lawsuit) is one of equal rights between residents and nonresidents. If I want to for sure hunt deer in Montana it will cost me $777+ an outfitter fee (another raquet) and then because of checkerboarding (which you did bring up first) it will be difficult to get access to hunt on much of "my" land. If you go to Minnesota it will cost you $136 for a gaurenteed tag to hunt on your own with very little problem of accessing public land. The issue is one of reciprocity - what you do to me is what I will do to you - yes, states rights. And remember, the checkerboard system was established at the demand of resident ranchers who wanted to "control" more grazing opportunity (another raquet).

Nemont

Why would I go to Minnesota to hunt? I have world class Mule deer, white tail, elk, pronghorn antelope, waterfowl, upland birds (including Pheasants), black bear, varmits, and if ever drawn sheep, goats and moose. So I will save you the trouble and ban myself from wanting to hunt in Minnesota.

I brought up checkerboarding land in context of how would the Federal Government and State government police it. It would be a dual system of tags and permits which would be a nightmare, even for the people who would get federal permits. What do you think the quality of hunting would be if everyone that wanted to hunt in Montana could just march in and buy OTC tags?

You are incorrect on how checkerboarding started. It started when the west was settled and some land was homesteaded and those people proved up on it and got a deed. Over time a lot of that deeded land was consolidated but the land that wasn't claimed as homestead or was claimed but not proved up on was titled to the U.S. Government. In addition there is State Trust land, Indian Land Railroad land etc, etc that is also checkerboarded in there. Checkerboarding happened long before grazing access by federal permitees was even an issue. Go read the Taylor grazing act.

I am as opposed to Outfitter Sponsored tags as anyone. Why should an outfitter be guaranteed a client base, they should take all of the those tags and put them into the general draw. Then if a NR wanted to hire an Outfitter they could have those Outfitters compete for their business. I have no issue with that.

Where has it ever been written that owning the land guarantees you a tag. I would like to know because my family has a large ranch and so does my wife's family and In 28 years of hunting in Montana and applying I have yet to get a LE Elk tag, Moose, sheep, goat etc.

I don't know why you are pi$$ed off at me. I didnt' settle in Minnesota I decided to stay in Montana and make the most of it. If you can't access public land why don't you fight for a Right of way to it. Most of that land down in SE Montana can be accessed if you look at state land adjacent to federal, in addition there is a group of us here who are getting ready to sue some large landowners who don't allow access to public land. But I am sure you only think I am a greedy resident because I live in Montana. I have have freely given advice and insight to anyone who asked, helped NR hunters with game and access they wouldn't otherwise have had. The federal lands argument is getting a little old.

So if you want be treated like a Montanan move here. Sorry it is that simple.

Nemont

CalNewbie

While this topic doesn't get brought up as much as the ".270 for Elk" or "Wolf" topics, it does get rehashed quite a bit. Here's a link to a thread that had a fair amount of information: http://forum.hunting.net/asppg/tm.as...9&mpage=1&key=

To put it into a nutshell however, in the Supreme Court's ruling on Baldwin vs. Fish and Game Cmmission of Montana the finding was made that "We conclude that where the opportunity to enjoy a recreational activity is created or supported by a state, where there is no nexus between the activity and any fundamental right, and where by its very nature the activity can be enjoyed by only a portion of those who would enjoy it, a state may prefer its residents over the residents of other states, or condition the enjoyment of the nonresident upon such terms as it sees fit."

Regarding the issue of the wildlife happening to be on Federal land they noted "The doctrine that a State "owns" the wildlife within its borders as trustee for its citizens, see Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896), is admittedly a legal anachronism of sorts. See Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., 431 U.S. 265, 284 (1977). A State does not "own" wild birds and animals in the same way that it may own other natural resources such as land, oil, or timber. But, as noted in the Court's opinion, ante, at 386, and contrary to the implications of the dissent, the doctrine is not completely obsolete. It manifests the State's special interest in regulating and preserving wildlife for the benefit of its citizens. See Douglas v. Seacoast Products, Inc., supra, at 284, 287. Whether we describe this interest as proprietary or otherwise is not significant."

Where commerce clause comes into play hinges on whether interstate commerce is impacted. Is the fact that by crossing state lines to hunt, thereby spending money in another state, in fact "interstate commerce". In the USO ruling the 9th District Court seems to think so. They get reversed more than any other district, so their interpretation could be faulty, though the Supreme Court did not accept an appeal of that ruling.

My opinion is that "Interstate Commerce" applies to commercial operations, such as a farm raised trout not being subject to the same "taking" rules as river trout. That there are persons who make money from our recreational activities doesn't raise the activity to the level of interstate commerce. Again, that's just my take on it.