Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Constitution and NonResidnet Fees

Discussion in 'Hunting' started by SomeDude, May 1, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SomeDude

    SomeDude Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Messages:
    127
    Location:
    St. Louis Metro
    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....
     
  2. countertop

    countertop Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,640
    Location:
    At the diner
    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.
     
  3. moosehunt

    moosehunt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    Messages:
    893
    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!
     
  4. kanook

    kanook Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,974
    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:
     
  5. moosehunt

    moosehunt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    Messages:
    893
    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!
     
  6. dogrunner

    dogrunner Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,187
    Location:
    E/Cntrl Fla.
    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.
     
  7. WardenWolf

    WardenWolf member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Messages:
    5,884
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    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.
     
  8. moosehunt

    moosehunt Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    Messages:
    893
    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.
     
  9. alsaqr

    alsaqr Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,418
    Location:
    South Western, OK
    This has been to SCOTUS. SCOTUS ruled that states can charge high fees for non-resident hunting licenses.
     
  10. MCgunner

    MCgunner Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    25,288
    Location:
    The end of the road between Sodom and Gomorrah Tex
    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:
     
  11. JWF III

    JWF III Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,183
    Location:
    Mansfield, Georgia
    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
     
  12. LATex79

    LATex79 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2008
    Messages:
    30
    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:
     
  13. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    43,774
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    ""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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page