Correct and immediately S.339 was signed into law, reaffirming the states rights to regulate wildlife within its borders and discriminate against NR hunters any way they want.
Including, but not limited to, issuing ZERO NR licenses...also made the issue USO sued over moot, since this bill nullified the 9th circuit decision on AZ and the Dormant Commerce Clause.
All this leading to the States absolutely having the legal right to not issue NR's a single tag for any species they manage...and rightfully so.
Lumpy needs to get with the times...there is no law that forces any state to issue a single tag for any species to a NR hunter. No limit on how much they charge, season length, etc. States can discriminate any way they choose when it comes to NR's, period end of story:
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 339
To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 9, 2005
Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska,
Mr. Ensign, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Salazar,
Mr. Craig, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Kyl) introduced the
following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary
April 21, 2005
Reported by Mr. Specter, without amendment
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and fishing activities.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL
SILENCE.
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS.
Nothing in this Act 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.
SEC. 4. STATE DEFINED.
For purposes of this Act, 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.
Calendar No. 85
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 339
________________________________________________
What was that three responses to my post. Someone’s a little insecure about something 
