Outfitter Set Asides Legality?

[COSA]

LAST EDITED ON Mar-21-16 AT 06:01PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Mar-21-16 AT 05:56?PM (MST)

LAST EDITED ON Mar-21-16 AT 05:53?PM (MST)

First of all, I have no grudge against outfitters. I have always been curious about the "legality" of these outfitter set aside tags on PUBLIC LAND. Seems to me like states like NV & NM are giving preferential treatment for a public resource on public ground based on a private entity agreement. I understand wildlife belongs to the state, which I'm very much in favor of; not sure these "set asides" would agree with many state laws. Has any of these regs ever been seriously contested?
Another example could be the AK & WY wilderness/guide requirements?
As much as many us of despise the current urban welfare culture & abuse; Is this really that much different? There sure does not seem to be much representation for the majority of applicants. If your of an opposite opinion, I'm all ears to your arguments.

 

[BigFin]

These state-based policies that many find discriminatory, or at least compensatory to a small group, have been upheld by the US Supreme Court. See Baldwin v. Commissioner, a case I think was heard in 1978.

"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"

 

[COSA]

Thanks for your response. That case seemed to be dealing with the fee issue vs. the set asides.
Seems unfair, but not worth opening the state quota debacle from AZ/NV 2004 again. I do understand that outfitters business may benefit from "consistency", but draw odds 300%+ do seem a bit discriminatory.

 

[nfh]

Im a wyoming resident . I have 2 things to say about the wilderness subject

1. It keeps large crowds out and flooding it with hunters. It also keeps a ton of locals out since several people are scared of grizzlies.


2. A non resident can pretty much do what ever he wants in the wilderness but hunt without that guide. Of course that means following other rules and regs




so basically thats how I feel. It has a plus and a minus to it. The plus be able To go hunt and not roll up to a trailnead with 50 non residents. which of course it benifits me and screws you.. if I was a non resident I know that wilderness rule would piss me off to. So I do get it and its frustrating.

 

[mmwb]

I don't loose sleep over them, but don't care for set asides or the restrictions on non-residents in Wyoming Wilderness.

I live in Wyoming and don't hunt wilderness, because good hunting is closer. If it were opened up to non-residents, it might move some off other areas and onto the wilderness. A possible win for both resident and non resident a like. There is no justifiable reason for the restriction. Just there for the outfitters.

 

[theox]

I won't apply for New Mexico anymore. If the state doesn't want my money because I only buy the tags and not an outfitter well then I won't give it to them. most of New Mexico is crappy hunting anyway with the exceptions of a couple prized units. So that being said yes it pissed me off that they set aside tags that only the wealthy can obtain. I'm an average joe with avg income with kids and I can't afford a guide not do I want a guide. I prefer diy anyway.
I do think it is very discriminatory and wrong to have outfitter tags.