Thought experiment

[Coldfusion]

Thought I'd post this here also. I posted this in deer hunting area also, but thought some of you spur chasers may not venture over there. I really like this idea and just wondered what y'all thought.

One thing I have advocated, but told by scn it will never happen, is to delay out of state hunters for one week. This is particularly for public land benefits. And most the impact would help turkey season more. But I would like to see the first week of each season (turkey, deer) for residents only. I'm not advocating cut out all out of staters as I know that generates income. I'm just saying give us life long tax payers a head start. It's very frustrating to go out to a wma on opening day of turkey to find almost every parking area has out of state tags parked there already. I know catman had a bad incident with some out of staters last turkey season.

An argument I received back for this idea was that we wouldn't want other states to do that to us. My thought on this is why not? It's their animals and I can go a week later, I think a state should take care of it's own before others. I would have no problem with other states implementing such a policy. Actually I would tip my hat to their loyalty to their sportsman.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[TX300mag]

Re: Thought experiment

Build a wall! [emoji847]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheLBLman]

Re: Thought experiment

Much of these "problems" could be eliminated if our TN turkey season simply opened a week later.

We open a week or two earlier than so many other states that it makes us a significant non-resident destination, particularly by KY residents. Not saying anything good or bad about this reality. It's a mixed blessing.

Many of us would be crying foul, "MY FOWL" :mrgreen: if there was a proposal for licensing costs to increase because of the loss of the non-resident hunters currently subsidizing our costs.

Meanwhile, many of our most avid TN turkey & deer hunters regularly hunt (often "earlier" than our seasons open) in other states such as Alabama & Kentucky. Note how many posting on this board are down farther south turkey hunting before our season opens in TN. Note how many are archery deer hunting in KY weeks before our archery season opens in TN, as well as rifle gun hunting in KY before our rifle season opens.

Different states have different season opening dates (and season everything) for a variety of reasons.
One of those reasons is actually to attract non-resident hunters, which in turns allows for the opportunity of license fees costing less for residents. The "trick" is for them to get everything in a good reasonable balance, i.e. how many non-resident license sales are too many, how few are too few? Also, it's not just about the money brought in by non-resident license sales, as anyone who visits another state will typically "bring in to that state economy" far more money than just the cost of their licenses.

Non-residents coming into our state is actually a good thing for our state and local economies,
albeit I do agree it often creates a rift when they show up in our favorite hunting or fishing spots.

But most of these resident "problems" with non-residents hunting & fishing in our State kinda work out as "fair play" if we take a look over a bigger picture. How many of us go hunting or fishing in another state for better or different opportunities? Or how about a family vacation to any state other than our own?

For most of us, what goes around comes around, so as they say,
"Be careful what you wish for."

 

[Coldfusion]

Re: Thought experiment

Much of these "problems" could be eliminated if our TN turkey season simply opened a week later.

We open a week or two earlier than so many other states that it makes us a significant non-resident destination, particularly by KY residents. Not saying anything good or bad about this reality. It's a mixed blessing.

Many of us would be crying foul, "MY FOWL" :mrgreen: if there was a proposal for licensing costs to increase because of the loss of the non-resident hunters currently subsidizing our costs.

Meanwhile, many of our most avid TN turkey & deer hunters regularly hunt (often "earlier" than our seasons open) in other states such as Alabama & Kentucky. Note how many posting on this board are down farther south turkey hunting before our season opens in TN. Note how many are archery deer hunting in KY weeks before our archery season opens in TN, as well as rifle gun hunting in KY before our rifle season opens.

Different states have different season opening dates (and season everything) for a variety of reasons.
One of those reasons is actually to attract non-resident hunters, which in turns allows for the opportunity of license fees costing less for residents. The "trick" is for them to get everything in a good reasonable balance, i.e. how many non-resident license sales are too many, how few are too few? Also, it's not just about the money brought in by non-resident license sales, as anyone who visits another state will typically "bring in to that state economy" far more money than just the cost of their licenses.

Non-residents coming into our state is actually a good thing for our state and local economies,
albeit I do agree it often creates a rift when they show up in our favorite hunting or fishing spots.

But most of these resident "problems" with non-residents hunting & fishing in our State kinda work out as "fair play" if we take a look over a bigger picture. How many of us go hunting or fishing in another state for better or different opportunities? Or how about a family vacation to any state other than our own?

For most of us, what goes around comes around, so as they say,
"Be careful what you wish for."

You made some interesting points especially the delaying of the season. But wouldn't delaying it a week cause many non residents to come (referring to others arguments, which maybe true idk). I personally still don't think you would see as big of a negative impact as some have said. And with the delaying a week, why couldn't residents hunt that earlier week? Would all be the same to non residents wouldn't it if they were gonna be delayed a week anyway?

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[TheLBLman]

Re: Thought experiment

Many of the non-residents are mainly coming to TN to turkey hunt BEFORE the season opens in their home state.
This is a period of time when they can't hunt near their homes, but COULD hunt in another state.

Let's say the TN turkey season opens 2 weeks earlier than the KY turkey season,
and you're an avid turkey hunter who lives in KY. You could gain about a third more days to turkey hunt simply by purchasing a TN non-resident license. And, for those KY residents living near the TN-KY state line, many have closer to their homes places to turkey hunt in TN than they do in KY.

But, if TN's turkey season opened only 1 week prior to your home state's,
you would have less opportunity to gain by going to TN to turkey hunt.
Fewer KY residents would opt to purchase that non-resident TN license.

Or, how about this:

What if TN's & KY's turkey seasons opened on the same Saturday?
This COULD happen if TN decided to open a week later, and
KY decided to open a week earlier --- I'd love to see that happen.

With archery deer hunting,
KY would sell a lot fewer non-resident big-game licenses if
TN opened archery deer season on the same Saturday as does KY (which is currently 3 weeks earlier than TN's).
The appeal of the earlier archery season is zero to me,
but to some it's the appeal of taking a buck with antlers still in velvet.

Considering that few states open this early (like KY),
should TN follow, we would expect a significant increase in non-resident deer hunting licenses.
Personally, I'd be happier if TN's archery season opened in October rather than September.

How ever it's done, there will be different pros & cons.

 

[Roost 1]

Re: Thought experiment

Wes, you make great points. I'm an example of one that pays $306 for the NR license just to turkey hunt for the 2 weekends prior to the KY opener. Now if you would just allow me in on one of your leases I'd have a place to deer a few days as well.
However, I do love turkey hunting in TN because the first of April is my favorite time to hunt. When May rolls around I'm ready to do some cat-fishing.

 

[Mike Belt]

Re: Thought experiment

You want more birds? Quit shooting the hens in the Fall.

 

[poorhunter]

Re: Thought experiment

You want more birds? Quit shooting the hens in the Fall.

 

[duckriver]

Re: Thought experiment

You want more birds? Quit shooting the hens in the Fall.

I agree with this too. Something has changed the last 4-5 years. There used to be a turkeys around here and on opening morning could hear a dozen toms up and down the bottoms and now it's usually 1 or 2 and no where near as many hens. It's been 3 years since I seen a good group of jakes in the spring running around

 

[Coldfusion]

Re: Thought experiment

I've never fall turkey hunted as I'm also a deer hunter. Also from what I've been told they have about as much meat as a jake....which isn't much. I just don't see why you would want to shoot a hen. I'm with y'all, let them reproduce more.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Southern Sportsman]

Re: Thought experiment

Legally speaking, I don't think you could bar out-of-staters completely while the season is open for residents. You can charge them more to hunt and make it more difficult for them to draw quota tags, but an outright "no non-residents allowed" segment of the season would probably be illegal from a federal constitutional standpoint (right to interstate travel, which is much broader than just actual "travel").

 

[Coldfusion]

Re: Thought experiment

Legally speaking, I don't think you could bar out-of-staters completely while the season is open for residents. You can charge them more to hunt and make it more difficult for them to draw quota tags, but an outright "no non-residents allowed" segment of the season would probably be illegal from a federal constitutional standpoint (right to interstate travel, which is much broader than just actual "travel").

I disagree. I do not believe the constitution even comes into play as far as hunting seasons. South Dakota already has a residents only pheasant season and Maine does a resident only deer hunting day also. A state may regulate it's hunting seasons. I'm fairly well versed in the constitution and can't think of anything that would remove this power from the state's.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[prstide]

Re: Thought experiment

Legally speaking, I don't think you could bar out-of-staters completely while the season is open for residents. You can charge them more to hunt and make it more difficult for them to draw quota tags, but an outright "no non-residents allowed" segment of the season would probably be illegal from a federal constitutional standpoint (right to interstate travel, which is much broader than just actual "travel").

State's have the right to restrict travel. If our WMA's were resident only then there would never even be an argument(not saying that should happen, just stating that for purpose). Look at what California did back a few months ago saying their state entities wouldn't travel to states opposed to LGBT legislation.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/lo ... 244564.php

 

[Southern Sportsman]

Re: Thought experiment

A state may regulate it's hunting seasons. I'm fairly well versed in the constitution and can't think of anything that would remove this power from the state's.

Commerce clause, most notably. And possibly privileges and immunities clause to the extent the regulation adversely affects hunting guides. If one state bans non-residents from paticipating in a portion of thier hunting season, it directly affects license sales by non-residents. Therefore the commerce clause is applicable (dormant commerce clause, more specifically).

Conservation Force, Inc. v. Manning, 301 F.3 985 (9th. Cir. 2002) - New Mexico hunting guides successfully challanged Arizona's overly-restrictive cap on non-resident bull elk license sales.

With all of that said, I had not previoulsy researched this but there was a federal law created in 2005 (the "Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005") in response to the Conservation Force, Inc. case, that was intended give states more authority to pass protectionist laws that favor in-state hunters over out-of-state hunters. Because some congressman had state's rights at heart, the Act was buried within the much bigger, and more importatn, 2005 "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief." But along with the bigger bill, it was signed by Bush and therefore, courts have refused to apply the commerce clause in these circumstances, and game laws adversely affecting non-residents are probably okay now.

 

[Coldfusion]

Re: Thought experiment

A state may regulate it's hunting seasons. I'm fairly well versed in the constitution and can't think of anything that would remove this power from the state's.

Commerce clause, most notably. And possibly privileges and immunities clause to the extent the regulation adversely affects hunting guides. If one state bans non-residents from paticipating in a portion of thier hunting season, it directly affects license sales by non-residents. Therefore the commerce clause is applicable (dormant commerce clause, more specifically).

Conservation Force, Inc. v. Manning, 301 F.3 985 (9th. Cir. 2002) - New Mexico hunting guides successfully challanged Arizona's overly-restrictive cap on non-resident bull elk license sales.

With all of that said, I had not previoulsy researched this but there was a federal law created in 2005 (the "Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005") in response to the Conservation Force, Inc. case, that was intended give states more authority to pass protectionist laws that favor in-state hunters over out-of-state hunters. Because some congressman had state's rights at heart, the Act was buried within the much bigger, and more importatn, 2005 "Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief." But along with the bigger bill, it was signed by Bush and therefore, courts have refused to apply the commerce clause in these circumstances, and game laws adversely affecting non-residents are probably okay now.

While you make an interesting point, I don't believe it's applicable still. There is no dormant clause in the constitution it's has been inferred by courts debating article 1 of the constitution . The commerce clause does not list natural resources as a regulated entity of the clause. The argument could only be if natural resources were considered a commodity. While common sense would make someone say, "of course it's a commodity", the only definition of commodity in relation to the constitution I could find addresses agricultural (wheat, grain etc) and reptiles specifically, with no mention of any mammals. Of course it mentioned manufactured good and others but I'm trying to stay on point.

Also if you review most case laws pertaining to this clause they have involved industrial monopolies, which in my interpretation is what this clause was written to protect against.

With other states having similar laws already I still believe a state can regulate it's own wildlife laws. Now if we talked about banning ALL non resident hunting entirely then I think your argument would be extremely strong, but not with allowing residents a week. And to violate the article 1 of the constitution you would have to prove that the law actually inhibited interstate commerce, which it wouldn't. Non residents would still be allowed to come after the resident only days. If they CHOOSE not to come that is their decision, but since their freedom to do so is not revoked then I don't believe they can make that argument.

Either way even if we disagree I appreciate you bringing a legit argument instead of a biased opinion.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[PickettSFHunter]

Re: Thought experiment

Florida limits Nonresident turkey hunters to 10% of quota permits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Southern Sportsman]

Re: Thought experiment

[
While you make an interesting point, I don't believe it's applicable still. There is no dormant clause in the constitution it's has been inferred by courts debating article 1 of the constitution . The commerce clause does not list natural resources as a regulated entity of the clause. The argument could only be if natural resources were considered a commodity. While common sense would make someone say, "of course it's a commodity", the only definition of commodity in relation to the constitution I could find addresses agricultural (wheat, grain etc) and reptiles specifically, with no mention of any mammals. Of course it mentioned manufactured good and others but I'm trying to stay on point.

Also if you review most case laws pertaining to this clause they have involved industrial monopolies, which in my interpretation is what this clause was written to protect against.

With other states having similar laws already I still believe a state can regulate it's own wildlife laws. Now if we talked about banning ALL non resident hunting entirely then I think your argument would be extremely strong, but not with allowing residents a week. And to violate the article 1 of the constitution you would have to prove that the law actually inhibited interstate commerce, which it wouldn't. Non residents would still be allowed to come after the resident only days. If they CHOOSE not to come that is their decision, but since their freedom to do so is not revoked then I don't believe they can make that argument.

Either way even if we disagree I appreciate you bringing a legit argument instead of a biased opinion.

I'm all for states rights and I'm all for Tennessee passing laws that protect our natural resources and give Tennesseean's a leg up over non-residents. I applaud Arkansas for changing their WMA permit system to make it much more costly and difficut for non-residents to go hunt Arkansas public ground. That's Arkansas looking out for Arkansans. So I have no problem being wrong on this one, and I wish TN would limit the out-of-staters.

My original comments were made before I knew about the 2005 law that expressly allowed states to pass those kinds of protectionsit laws. But before that law passed, there was plenty of case law to say that non-resident hunting permits/licenses/regulations do affect interstate commerce, and therefore would fall under the interstate commerce clause. The Conservation Force, Inc. v. Manning case is just the most cited example. You are clearly up to speed on your constitutional law, so you must know that the commerce clause has been interpreted as absurdly broad giving the federal government power to regulate things that should be entirely up to the states. Until the 2005 act, this was no different.

Regardless, the debate is moot because of the 2005 Act. Either way you look at it, I agree that states can now pass laws that disadvantage non-residents in favor of residents when it comes to recreational hunting regulations.

 

[TX300mag]

Re: Thought experiment

[
While you make an interesting point, I don't believe it's applicable still. There is no dormant clause in the constitution it's has been inferred by courts debating article 1 of the constitution . The commerce clause does not list natural resources as a regulated entity of the clause. The argument could only be if natural resources were considered a commodity. While common sense would make someone say, "of course it's a commodity", the only definition of commodity in relation to the constitution I could find addresses agricultural (wheat, grain etc) and reptiles specifically, with no mention of any mammals. Of course it mentioned manufactured good and others but I'm trying to stay on point.

Also if you review most case laws pertaining to this clause they have involved industrial monopolies, which in my interpretation is what this clause was written to protect against.

With other states having similar laws already I still believe a state can regulate it's own wildlife laws. Now if we talked about banning ALL non resident hunting entirely then I think your argument would be extremely strong, but not with allowing residents a week. And to violate the article 1 of the constitution you would have to prove that the law actually inhibited interstate commerce, which it wouldn't. Non residents would still be allowed to come after the resident only days. If they CHOOSE not to come that is their decision, but since their freedom to do so is not revoked then I don't believe they can make that argument.

Either way even if we disagree I appreciate you bringing a legit argument instead of a biased opinion.

I'm all for states rights and I'm all for Tennessee passing laws that protect our natural resources and give Tennesseean's a leg up over non-residents. I applaud Arkansas for changing their WMA permit system to make it much more costly and difficut for non-residents to go hunt Arkansas public ground. That's Arkansas looking out for Arkansans. So I have no problem being wrong on this one, and I wish TN would limit the out-of-staters.

Do you think that the fact that the equivalent of a Sportsman license is over $700 for an out-of-staters doesn't limit nonresidents? Man, I hate to be negative but finding ideas to limit OTHERS for our own benefit never seems to end.

 

[Coldfusion]

Re: Thought experiment

[
While you make an interesting point, I don't believe it's applicable still. There is no dormant clause in the constitution it's has been inferred by courts debating article 1 of the constitution . The commerce clause does not list natural resources as a regulated entity of the clause. The argument could only be if natural resources were considered a commodity. While common sense would make someone say, "of course it's a commodity", the only definition of commodity in relation to the constitution I could find addresses agricultural (wheat, grain etc) and reptiles specifically, with no mention of any mammals. Of course it mentioned manufactured good and others but I'm trying to stay on point.

Also if you review most case laws pertaining to this clause they have involved industrial monopolies, which in my interpretation is what this clause was written to protect against.

With other states having similar laws already I still believe a state can regulate it's own wildlife laws. Now if we talked about banning ALL non resident hunting entirely then I think your argument would be extremely strong, but not with allowing residents a week. And to violate the article 1 of the constitution you would have to prove that the law actually inhibited interstate commerce, which it wouldn't. Non residents would still be allowed to come after the resident only days. If they CHOOSE not to come that is their decision, but since their freedom to do so is not revoked then I don't believe they can make that argument.

Either way even if we disagree I appreciate you bringing a legit argument instead of a biased opinion.

I'm all for states rights and I'm all for Tennessee passing laws that protect our natural resources and give Tennesseean's a leg up over non-residents. I applaud Arkansas for changing their WMA permit system to make it much more costly and difficut for non-residents to go hunt Arkansas public ground. That's Arkansas looking out for Arkansans. So I have no problem being wrong on this one, and I wish TN would limit the out-of-staters.

Do you think that the fact that the equivalent of a Sportsman license is over $700 for an out-of-staters doesn't limit nonresidents? Man, I hate to be negative but finding ideas to limit OTHERS for our own benefit never seems to end.

No i don't. I also see that you being an out of stater it benefits YOU to not have it changed. This is an opinion page and this is just for thought and obviously isn't going to happen. Your fine to share your opinion also and I think most of us welcome it. But don't always come in with an attitude towards others that have a different opinion than you.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[TX300mag]

Re: Thought experiment

/