LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-11 AT 09:48AM (MST)[p]Packmule...I'm a Wyoming resident and I'm not a fan of the Wilderness guide law.
That said, you need to catch up with the times. All states have the right to discriminate against NR hunters...via SB339, which passed a few years ago.
You can whine, cry, and carry on all you want...take it to court and you're toast.
S 339 IS
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, and Mr. ENSIGN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
(See this link
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.339: )
History behind the legislation:
Congress was given the power to regulate interstate commerce by Article I of the Constitution. This power to regulate has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to also give Congress the power to regulate activities which negatively impact interstate commerce, commonly referred to as the ?negative? or ?dormant Commerce Clause.?
The Court has cited the dormant Commerce Clause when denying the states the power to unjustifiably discriminate against or burden the interstate flow of articles of commerce. If a state regulation has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, then the subject matter of the state regulation, which could be regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause, becomes subject to the dormant Commerce Clause.
Congress does have the power to specifically exempt a state regulated activity from the dormant Commerce Clause. In 1890, when the Supreme Court decided that the regulation of alcoholic beverages lay beyond the reach of the states, Congress promptly overrode that decision with the Webb-Kenyon Act. Thereafter, the Court upheld Congress? authority to commit the regulation of liquor imports to state authority.
Motivation for legislation:
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded that a state recreational hunting regulation substantially affects interstate commerce such that the dormant Commerce Clause applies and ruled that state laws that distinguish between state residents and non-residents for the purpose of affording hunting and related privileges are constitutionally suspect.
Although the Ninth Circuit found the purposes of such regulation to be sound, the Court questioned the validity of tag limits for non-resident hunters.
The Ninth Circuit ruling has spawned litigation in other states, and several pending lawsuits threaten each state?s wildlife regulatory authority.
What the Bill Would Do:
The bill creates an exemption to the dormant Commerce Clausein order to give each state the right to regulate access to hunting and fishing. This is done by
renunciation of federal interest in regulating hunting and fishing. The reasons for creating this exception include the following:
Allowing states to distinguish and/or discriminate between residents and non-residents ensures the protection of state wildlife and protects resident hunting and fishing opportunities.
Protecting the public interest of individual states? conservation efforts. Sportsmen and local organizations are extremely active in the conservation of fish and game. They support wildlife conservation through taxes, fees, and locally led non-profit conservation efforts.
Respecting the traditional authority of individual states. The regulation of wildlife has traditionally been within a state?s purview. It is in the best interest of the state and federal governments to ensure that states retain the authority to regulate wildlife.
END
