Arkansas to reopen state parks May 1st TO RESIDENTS ONLY!

[agesilaus]

NOTE THIS WAS THE CASE WHEN THIS WAS POSTED BUT THAT IS NO LONGER TRUE

 

The governor of Arkansas has announced that the state parks will reopen, but only to State Residents. This is clearly unconstitutional. What next out of state tolls on state roads, triple fuel tax at the pumps?

A letter to that governor would be a good idea from the Escapees

Quote

Camping: Limited to in-state guests only with private recreational vehicles with self-contained bathroom facilities starting May 1, 2020.

Parks update

Edited September 19, 2020 by agesilaus
Time marches on

[chuckbear]

Can you provide the section of the Constitution that deals with State Park restrictions on visitors? I can't seem to find it. Chuck

[agesilaus]

Quote

Article. IV

Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.... 
 Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States....

Quote

Introduction

As the Supreme Court sees it, the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the Commerce Clause of Article I serve the common goal of unifying the country economically.  The primary purpose of the clause is to prevent states from placing unreasonable burdens on non-residents "in their pursuit of common callings within the state."  The concern of the framers was that discrimination against non-residents by one state would lead to discrimination of the same sort by other states, to the detriment of the nation as a whole.

 

[filthy-beast]

Good option for the people of Arkansas.  The governor's other choice would be just to keep them closed to everybody.

 

 

[mptjelgin]

States have control over their own parks and how they choose to administer them.  I am not a big fan of states that charge significantly higher camping fees to out-of-state residents than to residents, but I understand their right to do so. I suppose you would interpret this as "clearly unconstitutional" as well.

What about much higher prices for non-resident vs. resident hunting and fishing licenses? Those have been the case in every single state we have visited. 

[bobsallyh]

What I'd like to see is reciprocal charges. We lived near the Maryland/Penna. state line in Penna. Penna. state parks are free for picnicking and a couple of other things. Maryland charged for anything in their state parks. So on weekends the PA. parks would be flooded with Maryland residents. As for fishing and hunting licenses, do the same thing. If PA. charges out of state people $96.00 for an out of state fishing licenses and a PA. resident wants to buy an out of state fishing license in Michigan, make it reciprocal, get the check book out for $96.00!

[mptjelgin]

50 minutes ago, bobsallyh said:

What I'd like to see is reciprocal charges. We lived near the Maryland/Penna. state line in Penna. Penna. state parks are free for picnicking and a couple of other things. Maryland charged for anything in their state parks. So on weekends the PA. parks would be flooded with Maryland residents. As for fishing and hunting licenses, do the same thing. If PA. charges out of state people $96.00 for an out of state fishing licenses and a PA. resident wants to buy an out of state fishing license in Michigan, make it reciprocal, get the check book out for $96.00!

I agree. As a Texas Resident and regular TPWD Volunteer,  I am acutely aware of the fact that Texas State Parks charge the same entrance and camping fees for  residents and non-residents. And, that Texas State Parks have large numbers of out-of-state visitors, especially during the winter.  So it galls me a bit when I am forced to pay more in many states as a non-resident, but I understand the concept. 

It seems like Texas State Parks could set fees based on reciprocity agreements with other states, but what a bureaucratic nightmare that would be. 

[chuckbear]

On 4/29/2020 at 9:50 AM, agesilaus said:

 

That's really a bit of a stretch. But whatever floats your boat. Chuck

[agesilaus]

OK, OP here. I have to confess that I looked into this more in depth and found there was a Supreme Court case where some out of state hunters challenged Montana's hunting license fees. The court decided that recreational activities do not fall under this constitutional provision. So my complaint is just wrong.

[Twotoes]

For a full timer RVing is not a recreational activity. 

[Kirk W]

11 hours ago, Twotoes said:

For a full timer RVing is not a recreational activity. 

I doubt that you could win a suit based on that since state parks are provided for recreation and not to provide places for us to live. 

Quote

Act 172, created the seven-member State Parks Commission “to select and acquire such areas of the State of Arkansas which, by reason of their natural features, scenic beauty and historical interest, have educational, recreational, health, camping and out-door life advantages,” as well as to preserve native flora and fauna for purposes of promoting Arkansas and attracting visitors.

 

[mptjelgin]

11 hours ago, Twotoes said:

For a full timer RVing is not a recreational activity. 

And yet, you have no right to demand to be able to live in a state park when you want, for however long you want. No more than I have the right to a cabin in a park if I don't own a home or an RV. 

[Twotoes]

I never said I have a right to live in a State Park. I almost never go to State Parks because they do not have full hook up. I just said that for a full timer RVing is not a recreational activity. Finding a place to stay is essential. Thank goodness I am a member of Escapees and can stay in one of their parks. 

[Beerboy]

On 4/30/2020 at 12:48 PM, agesilaus said:

OK, OP here. I have to confess that I looked into this more in depth and found there was a Supreme Court case where some out of state hunters challenged Montana's hunting license fees. The court decided that recreational activities do not fall under this constitutional provision. So my complaint is just wrong.

Yes, I had a university class from one of the attorneys in that case.  I think his name was Bill Goetz (?).  This was 35 years ago, but he claimed he thought they were very close to winning and if they had framed their argument differently they would have.  Be interesting to see if this issue ever comes up again. 

[Vladimir]

On 5/2/2020 at 8:14 AM, Beerboy said:

Yes, I had a university class from one of the attorneys in that case.  I think his name was Bill Goetz (?).  This was 35 years ago, but he claimed he thought they were very close to winning and if they had framed their argument differently they would have.  Be interesting to see if this issue ever comes up again. 

I don't know IF this was the same case or similar....but it was more along the lines "did the Federal government (Forest Service, BLM, USFWS) have the authority to manage "animals" on their lands.  The time frame is about right.

Traditional the States have managed "animals".  Which is why you get a state license to shoot a animal or kill a fish.  The Federal government, on the other hand, managed habitat.

Well, if the Federal government "owns" the animals on Federal lands, then all you need is Federal permission to hunt and fish on lands owned by the Federal government.  In many states, there go almost all the fishing and hunting license revenues!!!

When both sides realized that the Federal government was going to win the court case, it was quickly dropped by the "higher" levels in the Federal government.

Be careful what you wish for.....when you get it...it might turn out differently.

It might be a different case, I believe, the one I was thinking of was in New Mexico.

Section 2 and the equal protection clauses in the Constitution are interesting.  I am really surprised that more lawsuits are not filed under those two provisions.

BUT, what do I know...I am just a immigrant to this country.

Edited August 15, 2020 by Vladimir

[agesilaus]

Well they must have decided it in favor of the Feds, because you do need a federal permit, only, to fish in the NPS parks.

[bigjim]

49 minutes ago, agesilaus said:

Well they must have decided it in favor of the Feds, because you do need a federal permit, only, to fish in the NPS parks.

I don't claim to know. But this sure doesn't sound correct to me. If true it could be along the lines of being able to fish from the shoreline of ponds/lakes within the bounderies of Texas State Parks even if you have to have a state license for any other part of the same lake or stream.  A possible example might be lakes/streams in Yellowstone NP.  

[2gypsies]

On 4/30/2020 at 9:48 AM, agesilaus said:

OK, OP here. I have to confess that I looked into this more in depth and found there was a Supreme Court case where some out of state hunters challenged Montana's hunting license fees. The court decided that recreational activities do not fall under this constitutional provision. So my complaint is just wrong.

You might want to go to your post and edit it.

The resident only rule is understandable during coronavirus.  Their stats have been steadily increasing.

https://www.arkansasstateparks.com/news/arkansas-state-parks-begin-phased-reopening-camping-and-other-services

Edited August 15, 2020 by 2gypsies

[agesilaus]

First fishing licenses, it depends on the park. Yosemite for example you need a California license, it Yellowstone:

Quote

Permits. Anglers 16 years of age or older must be in possession of a valid Yellowstone National Park fishing permit to fish in the park. State fishing licenses are not valid and aren't required.

As for modifying the title of the thread: at the time it was correct and thus should be left as is for historical purposes.

[Blues]

On 8/15/2020 at 8:20 AM, agesilaus said:

As for modifying the title of the thread: at the time it was correct and thus should be left as is for historical purposes.

You could strike though it so it's still visible, and then add "I was wrong--see below" or something.  That way it's not the final word for people who are too lazy to scroll down, or who look for outrage and see that and start spreading it themselves without bothering to verify it.

[Ray,IN]

On 5/1/2020 at 4:09 PM, Twotoes said:

I never said I have a right to live in a State Park. I almost never go to State Parks because they do not have full hook up. I just said that for a full timer RVing is not a recreational activity. Finding a place to stay is essential. Thank goodness I am a member of Escapees and can stay in one of their parks. 

Friends who are full-timers have been in an Arkansas commercial RV park since May. Other friends, also full-timers have been in a  W. Washington TT park since March(time limit waived for full-timers)

[agesilaus]

Quote

State Parks because they do not have full hook up

Well that depends on the state, doesn't it? Florida SP for example almost all, or maybe all, have FHU. The FDEP has been reworking the campgrounds in all the parks. Giving them FHU. I'm not sure if they are finished yet.

Other states have FHU tho maybe not in all or most of their parks.

Florida is very serious about their State Parks, I used to think that we could visit and/or camp at every one of the SP but that has become very difficult they are adding new parks faster than we can get to them. 175 right now. Many are underdeveloped to say the least but the parks people are working on that too.