Legalized robbery that needs to stop.

[bgbuck153]

This isn’t even last years spread sheet.

 

[5MilesBack]

It's not robbery if people willingly give it.

 

[JJ1179]

Wow! Staggering numbers.

 

[Laramie]

I agree, you should stop applying immediately.

 

[Shortschaf]

What am I missing here

 

[MikeDeltaFoxtrot]

You would think the disparate treatment of non-residents would violate the equal protection clause, but that's not how the federal courts see it.

 

[Laramie]

You would think the disparate treatment of non-residents would violate the equal protection clause, but that's not how the federal courts see it.

It is actually written into law for each state that they can do so. The game animals belong to the residents of each state.

 

[Geewhiz]

Lemme guess, another non resident who thinks they are getting shafted?

 

[MikeDeltaFoxtrot]

It is actually written into law for each state that they can do so. The game animals belong to the residents of each state.

State law does not trump federal law. At least since 1865. There is a supreme court case on point that involved the dormant commerce clause. You aren't allowed to discriminate against out of state commerce. IIRC they said that while that was the rule, it didn't apply to recreational hunting and fishing.

 

[Westhunt]

What exactly is the robbery?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Axlrod]

State law does not trump federal law. At least since 1865. There is a supreme court case on point that involved the dormant commerce clause. You aren't allowed to discriminate against out of state commerce. IIRC they said that while that was the rule, it didn't apply to recreational hunting and fishing.

Sounds like what you are saying is state law does not trump federal law, except when it does.

 

[flathead#2]

Every penny I send to State Game Agencies outside of my home state should be a Federal Tax deduction.

 

[MikeDeltaFoxtrot]

Sounds like what you are saying is state law does not trump federal law, except when it does.

What I am saying is that sometimes the federal law doesn't cover the conduct in question, so the state law has full effect.

I Googled this and found a more recent case from the Ninth Circuit in 2002 called Conservation Force v. Manning where the plf challenged Arizona's reserving 90% of tags for residents. The Ninth Circuit found the rule did in fact impact interstate commerce and that Arizona had to show it had no other way of advancing its legitimate interest in preserving wildlife.

The Ninth Circuit sent it back to the trial court to see if Arizona could make that showing. I checked the trial court docket online, but it is too old for the actual pleadings to be available. Arizona eventually prevailed.

So, the conclusion is that it is not against federal law for a state to treat residents and non-residents differently for purposes of hunting licenses.

 

[Jethro]

What exactly is the robbery?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

There is no robbery. The OP just need a click bait title to entice others into another bitch session.

 

[Laramie]

State law does not trump federal law. At least since 1865. There is a supreme court case on point that involved the dormant commerce clause. You aren't allowed to discriminate against out of state commerce. IIRC they said that while that was the rule, it didn't apply to recreational hunting and fishing.

It is a federal law, granting all states ownership of the game that resides there. All states treat residents and non residents differently.

All... why pick just one to whine about. For the record I'm not a resident of wyoming. I'm damn thankful for all the opportunities they give nonresident hunters. Between myself, my son, and my wife, we have shot 5 elk, 3 mule deer, and 9 antelope there in the last 9 years. That's pretty generous imo.

 

[Jbehredt]

It’s robbery the same way my wife “rapes” me.

 

[Scottf270]

The only part that's " criminal" is the folks buying points for tags they won't live long enough to draw. It was eye opening some of the posts outlining this.

Hunting Fool, Cabela's Tags among others are acting in bad faith when they don't provide accurate info about the true draw odds they are suggesting the client puts in for. Age should definitely be a consideration.

But their business is to get as many people as possible to apply regardless of the odds. Their encouragement to apply for everything nets them dollars and has helped clog up the draws.

I called a guy 15 years ago about an Arizona Strip hunt. He asked my age and then informed me I would not live long enough to draw the tag. I appreciated his honesty.

My comments are my opinion and are colored by the fact I didn't plan better when I was 18 years old.

 

[BRTreedogs]

If you think that is bad.
Better not pull numbers on what the feds do to ya

 

[Riplip]

That $12 mill in Preference Point revenue really stands out.....Interesting info.

 

[S.Clancy]

I never knew adult men that could bitch so hard about something