The Constitution and NonResidnet Fees


PDA






SomeDude
May 1, 2009, 01:32 PM
Long ago I had grown tiresome of paying $100 for an Iowa non-resident hunting tag so I could hunt pheasants with my grandpa for a weekend. But I love my grandpa and I love hunting with him so I left it alone.
Well anyway, I look at all the hoops that non-residents have to jump through in some states just to hunt and I think it's gotten out of hand.
So I look at article 4, section 2 of the Constitution that says "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." Now maybe I'm just a fundamentalist Constitutionalist but shouldn't that mean that a hunter shouldn't have to pay higher fees or apply for lotteries? I'm sure that many will disagree....

If you enjoyed reading about "The Constitution and NonResidnet Fees" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
countertop
May 1, 2009, 02:39 PM
Sure,

and you are allowed to hunt there.

But you have to pay for the privilege - just like an in state resident does.

The difference though is that the in state resident pays substantial taxes within the state that you don't and so they are entitled to pay less for their hunting license since the money is being recouped elsewhere.

moosehunt
May 1, 2009, 02:47 PM
True enough, and really, it all balances out, i.e. I have to pay non-resident fee to hunt CO or NM or ID, etc., but guys from there have to pay the non-res fee to hunt here in NV. An even, fair system. And when a state has a unique huntable specie, invariably limited, it is justified in holding it for their residents only. After all, who was/is primarily responsible (monetarily) for its existance? Not the non-resident!

kanook
May 1, 2009, 07:23 PM
I live in Florida and own property in Georgia. I hunt my land in Georgia. I pay almost $200 for an "non resident" hunting license:banghead:

moosehunt
May 1, 2009, 09:54 PM
Justifiably so! You're not a resident of Georgia! You don't squawl about paying resident fees in Florida. You can only be a resident in one place. Pick one! Yes, you pay some property tax in Georgia, but you don't approach paying into the system there what you pay into Florida, where you live. A little bit of property tax doesn't justify resident status. Be happy that you can still hunt--and that you can still travel between states. If we don't get our poop in a hoop, we'll loose those freedoms!

dogrunner
May 1, 2009, 10:15 PM
While some argument might exist relative to State or private lands the fact remains that exorbitant fees when using either BLM or National forest lands is another issue altogether.............I really find it hard to accept any justification for large non resident fees for using either.

WardenWolf
May 1, 2009, 10:36 PM
Technically, it may violate the clause that states only Congress may regulate interstate commerce. It is effectively a tariff applied to out-of-state hunters.

However, these fees exist for a reason, and that reason is to ensure in-state hunters get a fair chance. Say, for example, you wanted to hunt a particular type of animal. The animal exists and is huntable in your home state, but the best hunting and chance of success is in another state. That state is effectively the best state to hunt that particular animal. Were it not for non-resident fees, many people would go there instead of their home states and the people who lived there would have less opportunity because there's fewer permits available and they're competing with out-of-state hunters.

moosehunt
May 1, 2009, 10:54 PM
Pretty much agree. It should be noted that the Feds don't do much, if any, of the game management on Federal land (BLM, NFS)--the states do, and NOT with Fed $$. The fact that the land is Fed doesn't correlate with who (state) is footing the bill regarding game management. The arguement that "it is Federal land, I should be able to hunt regardless of state" doesn't fly. Use it, yes, but capitalize on the resident game populations, no.
I haven't drawn a deer tag in my state for 9 years, and that's with resident "preferance". If there was no resident preference, I'd likely never draw one in my life. The easterners have a different view because they have a completely different situation. Understandably, they don't generally understand the western state situation regarding game availability. It is much different than on the east side of the big creek.

alsaqr
May 2, 2009, 08:10 AM
This has been to SCOTUS. SCOTUS ruled that states can charge high fees for non-resident hunting licenses.

MCgunner
May 2, 2009, 10:46 AM
Whaderya bitchin' about? I pay close to 120 dollars every year to hunt IN MY STATE. 65 bucks for supercombo (fish, hunt, all applicable stamps and stuff), 48 bucks for a annual public hunt permit. I HAVE had to pay for hunting club membership, 800 bucks a year and had a bird lease for a while, 300 bucks a year.

A hundred bucks seems like a bargain for out of state. Texas is 300 and I think New Mexico is up near that now. Was 120 20 years ago. Stop bitchin' and consider yourself lucky. :rolleyes:

JWF III
May 2, 2009, 11:45 AM
I live in Florida and own property in Georgia. I hunt my land in Georgia. I pay almost $200 for an "non resident" hunting license

I have to say that is wrong. It's the law, but that doesn't make it right.

I live in Georgia. I've hunted in most of the southeastern states. And I haven't had a problem paying nonresident fees. I don't live there. I don't pay taxes there. I don't own land there.

But kanook does own land there (GA). He does pay taxes there (property taxes). He should not have to pay nonresident fees.

Wyman

LATex79
May 2, 2009, 01:41 PM
I agree that Kanook is getting a rotten deal as well. If a man owns the property he should be able to hunt with an in state permit. I battle the same things. I was raised in Louisiana but now I live in Texas. At least when I go back to Louisiana to hunt there is a native sons law that allows me to purchase a 3 day in state liscense if I provide a certified copy of my birth certificate. On the other hand, when I go to Mississippi to hunt the 200 acres that I inherited and my family has been paying taxes on for 60 years, I am required to purchase an out of state liscense. Seems like a scam to me. :cuss:

Art Eatman
May 2, 2009, 02:53 PM
""The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." Now maybe I'm just a fundamentalist Constitutionalist but shouldn't that mean that a hunter shouldn't have to pay higher fees or apply for lotteries?"

"Privileges and immunities" refers--as near as I can tell--to other issues, not to fees involved with hunting or access to hunting. Hunters as a group themselves instituted these fees and lotteries as part of the overall effort to ensure that there will continue to be a surplus of game animals. A surplus is the only way to justify any hunting at all. (In essence, we spend the interest on the principal, not the principal.)

As far as higher fees for non-resident hunters, and lotteries of whatever sort for whomever, this is a rare case of a proper governmental use of the marketplace: Control over total numbers of hunters for a limited supply of game, and favoring locals over foreigners as to access within a state.

That the fees might be too high or that the lottery odds too high as well are different matters entirely.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Constitution and NonResidnet Fees" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!