# Hey Chucky - Take a Look



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Now isn't this interesting? The two bills floating around Congress on this (mentioned a few times in the past on this board) came in the back door. This _*should *_put an end to the commerce clause attacks. It will be interesting to see how Arizona reacts, since they were the only state that actually made any adjustments in response to the Montoya decision. There are some very good folks in ND that have helped this and related issues along. Thanks - you know who you are!

A big hit for the USO/SCI types, and our bud Chucky. Now, if we can only get ND to use its new-found (actually newly-confirmed) power.....

May 11, 2005

NORTH DAKOTA SEEKS TO END MINNESOTA'S HUNTING LAWSUIT

BISMARCK - Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem is poised to file a Motion with the US District Court in Bismarck seeking the dismissal of the lawsuit brought by Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch last year that challenged North Dakota's non-resident hunting regulations.

The motion will be filed as soon as President Bush signs the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill passed by the U.S. Senate last night. That bill provides supplemental funding for the war in Iraq, and the President has said he intends to sign it. Contained within the funding measure is a provision called the Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005. The Act provides that it is the intent of Congress that states continue to regulate the fish and wildlife resources within their boundaries, including regulations that "differentiate between residents and nonresidents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses or permits ... the kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits ... ."

"This Congressional enactment clearly states what we in North Dakota have maintained all along," said Stenehjem. "Congress never intended the Commerce Clause to restrict the states from their historical role in regulating game and fish within their own borders."

"Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem's action today is timely and appropriate," said Governor John Hoeven. "It reaffirms the position we have held all along, which is that the state of North Dakota has the authority to manage its wildlife resources."

The lawsuit brought by Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch and Congressman Collin Peterson against North Dakota Governor John Hoeven and Game and Fish Director Dean Hildebrand in March 2004, challenged the validity of North Dakota's waterfowl and "small game" regulations, alleging that nonresidents should be afforded hunting privileges on equal terms with North Dakota hunters.

"While we have always believed we would ultimately prevail in this litigation, this law makes it abundantly clear that there is no Commerce Clause prohibition on the traditional role of the states in regulating its game and fish resources, and it should lead to a swift dismissal of Minnesota's misguided lawsuit," Stenehjem said.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

The best news I have heard in a long time. Mind you this is not because I want to impose a whole bunch of restrictions on Non-Residents.

I believe that it is important that states remain in control of the Natural Resources within their borders. Fish and Game should be managed by the state.

Turning natural resources into a commodity is a very short sighted and wrong approach in my mind.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Awesome :jammin:


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

:burns: excellent!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

:jammin: :jammin: :jammin:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Good news all the way around! From the Casper Star Tribune:
_____________________________________________________________
*NONRESIDENT HUNTING LIMITS STAND*

By JEFF GEARINO
Star-Tribune staff writer
Wyoming and other Western states will be able to continue limiting nonresident hunting and fishing licenses under a bill passed Tuesday by Congress.

A supplemental appropriations bill approved by the Senate on Tuesday includes an amendment that will protect the traditional authority of states to regulate hunting and fishing, said U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., who cosponsored the bill.

The bill allows states including Wyoming to continue distinguishing between residents and nonresidents when issuing hunting and fishing licenses.

"Wildlife is one of Wyoming's most important assets, and this bill reaffirms that Wyoming citizens, who bear most of the costs associated with managing wildlife, will remain in control," Enzi said in a statement.

The bill now goes to President Bush for his signature.

Wyoming Game and Fish Department officials have been following the bill closely and said the law will help preserve the state's right to regulate hunting within its borders. Game and Fish directors could not be reached for comment late Tuesday.

The agency has long held that Wyoming's limitation on percentages of licenses allocated to residents and nonresidents -- and the cost differential between the two -- is the state's prerogative and not a violation of interstate commerce or equal protection clauses.

Many of the Game and Fish big game license allocations are set by the Legislature through state statutes. For example, the 20 percent of deer and antelope licenses and the 25 percent of bighorn sheep licenses going to nonresidents each year are statutory. Other license allocations are done by Game and Fish Commission regulations.

Enzi's measure was prompted by a 2002 ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The ruling said that Arizona's law allotting just 10 percent of bull elk and antlered deer hunting tags to nonresidents was an act of "overt discrimination."

"The people of Wyoming know how to manage the wildlife in our state better than the 9th Circuit Court or the federal government," Enzi said. "This bill makes sure that Wyoming citizens, who have the most pride in area wildlife, are the people in charge."

Enzi said on Tuesday, the Senate passed the supplemental appropriations bill conference report accompanying H.R. 1268 by a vote of 100-0. The House passed the conference report May 5 by a vote of 368-58.

He said language in a previous Enzi cosponsored bill, which would keep control of hunting and fishing regulations out of the hands of the federal government, was included in the supplemental bill passed Tuesday.

In the meantime, Game and Fish officials are waiting on a ruling in another case that also challenges the state's requirements on nonresident hunters. That case is now before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The lawsuit was brought by former Wyoming resident Donald J. Schutz, a Florida attorney who at one time attended Laramie High School and the University of Wyoming. Schutz's lawsuit alleges that the state's licensing system violates equal protection laws and that the guide requirements for hunting in Wyoming wilderness areas is unconstitutional.

Wyoming won a similar court case and appeal in 2000 in a lawsuit that was filed by the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association in 1998. Wyoming outfitters had long complained before the suit that the limited number of hunting licenses available to hunters from other states hurt the state's outfitters and guides and prevented them from making as much money as they could on hunting revenues.

Reporter Jeff Gearino can be reached at (307) 875-5359 or at [email protected].


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

It is time for Rep Colin Peterson and Chuck to turn their attention towards the waterfowl disaster in Minnesota. The Sportsmen and women of Minnesota did their part. They organizied and had their ralley to tell the politicions what they wanted. Those elected officials expressed support and are now backsliding. If Chuck,Colin, and a few others have the power to instigate a frivolus lawsuit they have the same power to help the waterfowl in the state of Minnesota.


----------



## DuckBuster (Mar 18, 2003)

I agree Old Hunter. There were alot of people at that rally that day and it SEEMED to go very well (support promised all over the place). But when push came to shove, the whole thing died in a hurry. :eyeroll: Very disheartening. I'm glad to see that states are going to be able to manage game based on what they think is right inside their borders. :thumb:


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

One of you guys that were at that rally NEED to keep track of the issue very closely.....for instance, the Forum ran a story this morning on this an Peterson is quoted as saying this legislation does not change anything and they fully expect to continue their lawsuit.

When the time comes to re-elect Mr. Peterson, it sure would be nice to have a record of the issues and a record of how Mr. Peterson voted and didn't vote on MN waterfowl issues. Time for him to put up or shut up.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Reproduced below is the text of Sec.6036 from HR1268, as passed by Congress
and signed into law by the President last night.

*************************************************************
>
>RESIDENT AND NONRESIDENT HUNTING AND FISHING REGULATIONS
>
>
>
>SEC. 6036. STATE REGULATION OF RESIDENT AND NONRESIDENT HUNTING AND 
>FISHING. (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.
>(c) Limitations- Nothing in this section shall be construed--
>(1) to limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law related to the 
>protection or management of fish or wildlife or to the regulation of
commerce;
>(2) to limit the authority of the United States to prohibit hunting or 
>fishing on any portion of the lands owned by the United States; or
>(3) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, supersede or alter any 
>treaty-reserved right or other right of any Indian tribe as recognized by 
>any other means, including, but not limited to, agreements with the United 
>States, Executive Orders, statutes, and judicial decrees, and by Federal
law.
>(d) State Defined- For purposes of this section, the term `State' includes 
>the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
>Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of 
>the Northern Mariana Islands.
:beer:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

It is the most heartening news we have had in a long while. Maybe there is light at the end of the tunnel.


----------

