<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IowaQDM - I think what I actually asked for was a state that didn't provide NR landowners with some privilege/additional tag allocation. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I did indicate that suit has a strong possibility of winning as no other State will not let a non resident hunt land they own. Please indicate if I’m wrong by pointing out another State that does not provide NR landowners with some type of hunting/tag allocation preference? </div></div>
My reponse was:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I can't say that the other States don't choose to give some type of hunting/tag allocation preference but <u>I cannot find where the courts have ruled that they have to.</u> </div></div>
Quoted from
Kansas Case
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
As a nonresident landowner, Taulman <u>
is not allowed to obtain a special transferable Hunt-Own-Land deer permit</u>. <u>
In addition, because his land is in turkey management Unit 4 and he is a nonresident, he is ineligible for the limited number of turkey permits reserved for the resident-only drawing in that unit.</u> </div></div>
The case you linked was reported by ESPN
2-8-05. The Reid legislation was signed
5-10-05 and the Kansas Case ruling was made
9-12-06.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The good news is recent legislation sponsored by U.S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George Bush reaffirmed the authority of states to manage wildlife and recreation which in essence overturned this ruling and let the state of Arizona set take back control of it's NR quota. </div></div>
On May 10, 2005, the President signed into law House Bill 1268, the “Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror,
and Tsunami Relief, 2005.”
Although seemingly unrelated to the general thrust of the
legislation, Section 6063 of House Bill 1268 specifically addresses the issue raised in
this appeal, providing:
(a) SHORT TITLE. – This section may be cited as the “Reaffirmation of
State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act
of 2005”.
(b) Declaration of Policy and Construction of Congressional Silence –
(1) IN GENERAL. – It is the policy of Congress that it is in the public
interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for any purpose
of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by means of laws or
regulations that differentiate between residents and nonresidents of such
State with respect to the availability of licenses or permits for taking of
particular species of fish or wildlife, the kind and numbers of fish and
wildlife that may be taken, or the fees charged in connection with
issuance of licenses or permits for hunting or fishing.
(2) CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL SILENCE. – Silence on
the part of Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under
clause 3 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred
to as the “commerce clause”) to the regulation of hunting or fishing by
a State or Indian tribe.
<u>
Another decision in North Dakota stating NR landowners not entitled to hunting rights.</u>
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Filed:
August 3, 2006
North Dakota law drastically restricts hunting privileges of nonresidents as
compared to North Dakota residents. Some of those restrictions have come under
attack in this lawsuit as invalid under the United States Constitution. Representatives2
of the neighboring state of Minnesota (collectively “Minnesota”) brought this action
against defendants3, officials of the State of North Dakota (collectively “North
Dakota”). The district court4 rejected the Minnesota claims and granted summary
judgment of dismissal in favor of North Dakota. Minnesota appeals. We affirm the
judgment but do so in part on grounds other than those relied on by the district court.
We recognize that North Dakota Century Code § 20.1-03-04 provides, “Any
resident, or any member of the resident’s family residing customarily with the
resident, may hunt small game, fish, or trap during the open season without a license
upon land owned or leased by the resident.” However, this statute <u>does not
discriminate against nonresidents with respect to a fundamental right existing in
property. Rather, it discriminates against nonresident participation in recreational
hunting, which the United States Constitution does not protect under Article IV, § 2.</u>
I am still in favor of doing what is right rather than worring about a lawsuit. There have been multiple decisions in favor of the State and it's right to restrict nonresidents and nonresident landowners with respect to hunting privileges. I still say any suit would just be a waste of the plantiff's money and time. I think there is plenty of precedent defining the States rights.
IMO
