Your Opinion

[PalmettoRon]

I cant wait till the states say camping , hiking , driving roads , boating , bird watching , sightseeing , entering , leaving , climbing , taking pictures on federal lands is regulated and restricted  to you differently because your house is on the other side of the line . Even though they used the resources from your house side of the line in the federal land for camping , hiking , driving roads , boating , bird watching , sightseeing , entering , leaving , climbing and taking pictures . They already have a name for me , called non resident , proud to be a citizen , I still have that.

For any of those things mentioned, restrictions are increasingly being put in place in a lot of places. The common thread in almost all of those instances is that there are too many people doing too many things that are negatively impacting the landscape and resources to a degree that managers have no choice but to put those dreaded restrictions in place. That is not just related to federal lands, but also to any public lands, federal or state, that need protection. It is also not restricted just to nonresidents. Most of those types of restrictions apply to everybody. 

Regarding equal hunting access to all on federal lands, that issue is waaayyy more complicated than many seem to believe it is.  ...And it also opens a waaayy bigger "can of worms" than any of us might think it will. Again, be careful what you wish for...

Yes, I agree. Be very careful what you wish for. I also was not clear. While there are and may well be more restrictions on access to federal lands, there will not be restrictions for those non hunting activities based on residency status.

[Paulmyr]

The management and maintenance of the National Forest is the responsibility and payed for by the US Forest Service. They manage the forest and provide infrastructure that allows the public to access the national forests.
For the state the regulate wildlife on these federal lands solely for benefit of residents definitely reeks of privilege.

The Same can be said for management on BlM land, corps land, or any other federal land. The management and maintenance is the responsibility of these entities respectively.

Now we're going to get into the weeds here. Let's take Ms as an example. Not necessarily a representation of the west but a good example east of the Rockies.

Pre 1900's the resident loggers and farmers decimated the forest and left a degraded worthless landscape. Does the Dust Bowl sound familiar? In the early 1900's the federal govt came in and offered to buy this worthless land, much of which had been abandoned and left to sit in a state of degradation and decay. The  land owners and the state were more than willing to sell this worthless land to the federal gov't who In turn planted trees to stop erosion. Built  a series of inpoundments to hold back flood waters allowing for the infrastructure to make the state economically viable and dragging Ms into the 20th century.

Now that the land has been revitalized and is being maintained by the US Forest Service the Residents of Ms have the audacity to claim the wildlife on this federal land as their own and regulate it on behalf of the residents who's ancestors destroyed it.

Before we go about calling non residents selfish because they want equal privileges on  land revitalized and maintained by the federal gov't maybe take a look back at why the land was purchased in the 1st place. Ms should be thanking non residents for helping them become an economically viable state instead many get black balled for a period of time from the privileges allowed  residents on this federal land and the lucky few that get to enjoy these privileges are treated like a pariah and harassed by  residents.

The claim that wildlife on federal land is held in trust for the benefit of residents of that state is a grey area. Here's an excerpt from a 2003 publication from the Animal Law Web Center.

"While the state government is the sovereign, the powers and the responsibility of the federal government do come into play.  While the U.S. Constitution does not mention animals or wildlife specifically, in the exercise of some of the federal powers, the federal government will trump the power of the states, circumscribing their authority.  The first area of federal authority impacting wildlife is the power to negotiate and adopt treaties with other country.  There is no constitutional limitation on the subject matter of a treaty.  Migratory birds and endangered species clearly are acceptable treaty topics for federal action as they represent issues about which other counties have concerns.  Another area is authority is that of federal land ownership.  If the federal government owns land, then as a general rule, it is not bound by laws of the state as federal agencies make decisions about the use of federal land.  Finally, there is the powerful commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. While the primary use of this power is to justify new federal laws controlling some activity, it is also the basis for limiting state laws, like those that deal with capture and transportation of wildlife."

I'm not familiar with the author but he seems to give a thorough analysis of the powers given to state and federal governments pertaining to this matter. You can read all  of the publication here
https://www.animallaw.info/article/american-wildlife-law-introduction

Wildlife managers definitely have their work cut out for them and where it applies they need to manage wildlife for all the vested interests of said wildlife. Just because the Federal gov't doesn't or hasn't exercised it's authority in the matter doesn't mean it's not there.


Resident sportsman need to consider this authority while lobbying the state for special treatment on federal land and the state needs to be careful when regulation is put in place because they may invoke a response  that's not inline with the interests of sportsman resident and non resident alike. The same can be said for non residents. Tread lightly because as Gobblenut stated it's a slippery slope.

[Dougas]

I misunderstood this entire thread until yesterday. I thought that the gist was that one should be able to access federal land in any state without going through state licensing channels and getting a state non resident tag.

Now that I understand that it is about equal opportunity for both resident and non resident hunters on federal land, I think that sounds OK with me. There should be equal opportunity for both. In Oregon, we have state forests, national forests and BLM land. I was not aware that residents in some states had more opportunity on federal land than nonresidents. I won't hunt out of state, so I didn't know about this.

[merriamsman]

Guys, this issue has already been litigated in the courts. A case concerning differential fees for elk licenses in Montana went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court reaffirmed Montana's right to regulate resident and nonresident hunters as the state sees fit regardless of land ownership. While this case specifically dealt with license fees, if you read to the bottom it's mentioned that this may be used to regulate hunter numbers. I've attached a screenshot of a summary of the case. I've also attached a link to a more detailed article about the case.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/436/371/




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[GobbleNut]

As long as we are diving into the weeds on this issue, here's another matter to consider when speaking of unintended consequences.  Many states have added some sort of phrasing into their state constitutions protecting the right of the citizens of the state (and nonresidents who come there) to hunt.  As far as I know there is no such provision on the federal level (perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong about that).

So, what happens if the feds take authority over wildlife management on its lands within a state?  Does that provision of state-constitutional rights apply on those federal lands? Personally, I would doubt it...and if not, how long do any of us think it is going to take until the anti-hunting crowd is pushing for an all-out ban on hunting on federal lands? (The fact is that they are already doing so, but with management of wildlife currently being the purview of each individual state, their influence at the state level is lessened).

With our (hunter) numbers being in the 5%-of-the-population range...and anti's being in the 25% range, the odds of protecting any of our rights to hunt on those lands would be questionable, at best. 

Again...and again...and again...be careful what you wish for... 

[dah]

I cant wait till the states say camping , hiking , driving roads , boating , bird watching , sightseeing , entering , leaving , climbing , taking pictures on federal lands is regulated and restricted  to you differently because your house is on the other side of the line . Even though they used the resources from your house side of the line in the federal land for camping , hiking , driving roads , boating , bird watching , sightseeing , entering , leaving , climbing and taking pictures . They already have a name for me , called non resident , proud to be a citizen , I still have that.

States have been regulating wildlife on federal lands for many years. The scenarios you propose represent a strawman argument. It is not a new phenomenon for state wildlife agencies to regulate and restrict NR hunting on federal lands.

Everyone is paying taxes for the upkeep on federal lands, so no one's access for non hunting or non fishing activities will be restricted. No one is paying the freight to maintain non migratory wildlife in a state other than their own whether on private or federal land.

 



I don't see the strawman argument . We have been loosing our rights before the ink dried on the paper granting them . You know the list . I was an Inspector for 17 years in the capitol of Oklahoma and saw the peoples rights taken away just to replace a ceiling fan , water closet or fix a leak in their own yard . On and on. Restrictions for all to protect the recourse might be warranted as long as it is enforced equally .
  Federal land hunting and tribal land hunting are very similar. The tribes in Oklahoma challenged the state on their hunting rights on tribal land . They stated they never gave up the right to hunt  on tribal land , therefore , no license is required on their lands . Went to court and they won . Therefore they are granted non fee hunting license with some tags . I have never heard anything restricting a hunter who is not native American from hunting tribal land . This is land that was regulated by the Department since the agency was formed and changes were made . Because an agency has been regulating something does not mean  that it is untouchable.
  You admit that everyone is paying taxes for upkeep on federal land but yet support regulating its use differently to the citizens . 
  I just don't feel we bend the knee on property owned by the people for the people to 50 different agency's to restrict as they see fit. I worked for one and saw where that gets you.

[/quote]

[Paulmyr]

Guys, this issue has already been litigated in the courts. A case concerning differential fees for elk licenses in Montana went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court reaffirmed Montana's right to regulate resident and nonresident hunters as the state sees fit regardless of land ownership. While this case specifically dealt with license fees, if you read to the bottom it's mentioned that this may be used to regulate hunter numbers. I've attached a screenshot of a summary of the case. I've also attached a link to a more detailed article about the case.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/436/371/




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Just because the supreme court states the argument isn't supported by the immunities and privileges clause doesn't mean the litigation has been finalized. It just states that the specific clause used in argument is not valid. It means the entity bringing argument before the court chose the wrong basis for its argument. It told them to go back to the drawing board and bring a valid argument.

[merriamsman]

"Just because the supreme court states the argument isn't supported by the immunities and privileges clause doesn't mean the litigation has been finalized. It just states that the specific clause used in argument is not valid. It means the entity bringing argument before the court chose the wrong basis for its argument. It told them to go back to the drawing board and bring a valid argument."

Well, that case was in 1978 and no one has successfully challenged the outcome, so...

[joey46]

As we are seeing on several recent issues the SCOTUS isn't afraid to rethink issues some thought were written in stone. When I think of a non-resident on federal property I think Canadians and Mexicans. IMO MS blatantly selling high priced non-resident licenses then cutting the non-resident out of the first two weeks on National Forest land was such an obvious resident appeasement scam that they may have shot themselves in the foot  This screams for federal intervention.  We are headed for quota hunts being the norm on federal lands.

[Paulmyr]

"Just because the supreme court states the argument isn't supported by the immunities and privileges clause doesn't mean the litigation has been finalized. It just states that the specific clause used in argument is not valid. It means the entity bringing argument before the court chose the wrong basis for its argument. It told them to go back to the drawing board and bring a valid argument."

Well, that case was in 1978 and no one has successfully challenged the outcome, so...

Read the 2003 publication in the the link I posted and get back to me.

"Just because the supreme court states the argument isn't supported by the immunities and privileges clause doesn't mean the litigation has been finalized. It just states that the specific clause used in argument is not valid. It means the entity bringing argument before the court chose the wrong basis for its argument. It told them to go back to the drawing board and bring a valid argument."

Well, that case was in 1978 and no one has successfully challenged the outcome, so...

That's a far cry from

"the court reaffirmed Montana's right to regulate residents and non residents as it see fit."

[merriamsman]

"Read the 2003 publication in the the link I posted and get back to me."

I read it and it does nothing to change the current system that states have control over the management of resident wildlife within their borders regardless of land ownership. The feds do have the authority to override state authority on federal land but only when the resource is threatened. How does limiting nonresident hunting threaten the resource when it's being done to protect the resource? The authority of the feds is to make more restrictive regulations, not less restrictive as some are advocating regarding nonresident hunting on federal land.

[deerhunt1988]

If the Mississippi situation ever did become an issue (it won't), the state could simply regulate ALL non-residents with a statewide non-resident draw. Boom, problem solved. Just like Kansas recently did. Like Iowa has done forever. Then non-residents may not even get to hunt the land they own or lease in MS. Like someone mentioned, be careful what you wish for.

[joey46]

Whatever MS and a few other states does should never be a surprise.  Resident appeasement is their only goal.  A three bird limit makes that obvious. It really isn't about the turkey.
You do realize this is about non-residents on FEDERAL land. What happens on private land and leases is a different situation but do you honestly think a non-resident landowner would give a rat's butt if not "allowed" to hunt his land?  Be realistic.

[Old Swamper]

I wonder what influenced so many non resident hunters to converge on big cypress all of the sudden.

Gee I don't know.  The WA couple I met at BC was in about 2006.  THP was still in short pants.  Meateater was still a concept.  Nobody even heard of YouTube.  I was the only one at the Bear Island camp with a Florida tag on my truck.  LOL at the "all of a sudden".

Anyone who does not believe youtube's Pinhead Project was the sole contributing factor to what has happened to the Bear Island, Turner River, and Corn Dance Units of the Big Cypress Swamp, has their head up their a##. Always been out of staters "wintering" and also hunting in small numbers every year, but never like it has been in the past 5.

[joey46]

Oh boo hoo.  Times change. Ships sink.