The We The People Amendment

  A proposed Constitutional Amendment introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington):

Section 1. [Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights]

The rights and privileges protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights and privileges of natural persons only.

An artificial entity, such as a corporation, limited liability company, or other for-profit entity, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign State shall have no rights under the Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. 

The privileges of artificial entity shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2. [Money is Not Free Speech]

Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

Section 3. 

This amendment shall not be construed to abridge the privilege secured by the Constitution of the United States of the freedom of the press.”.

I like it. The concept that corporation are people is problematic in every sense, but particularly in regard to the idea that they have the same rights, or some of them, as natural-born real people.

This clearly attacks the Citizens United decision, which frankly was decided wrongly.  Indeed, early in the country's history not only was this idea completely foreign, but the formation of corporations was strictly constrained and relatively rare.

Unfortunately, of course, even in this hyper populist era, this populist idea, as it's from the populist left, is probably stillborn.  The McCarthy GOP isn't going to pass anything that a Democrat comes up with, particularly as its a minoritarian party in some significant ways that might fear the result.

Bill would allow ‘physical force’ to ‘terminate’ suspected trespass

Bill would allow ‘physical force’ to ‘terminate’ suspected trespass

Lex Anteinternet: The 2023 Wyoming Legislative Session. Corner Crossing.

Lex Anteinternet: The 2023 Wyoming Legislative Session. End of the f...: SF 180 would make decriminalize corner crossing.

SENATE FILE NO. SF0180

Corner crossing-trespass exception.

Sponsored by: Senator(s) Rothfuss and Gierau and Representative(s) Chestek, Provenza, Sherwood and Yin

A BILL

for

AN ACT relating to crimes and offenses; providing an exception to the offenses of criminal trespass and game and fish trespass regarding incidental contact associated with crossing two (2) adjacent parcels as specified; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

Section 1.  W.S. 6‑3‑303 by creating a new subsection (d) and 23‑3‑305(b) are amended to read:

6‑3‑303.  Criminal trespass; penalties.

(d)  For purposes of this section, a person does not commit criminal trespass if the person incidentally passes through the airspace or touches the land or premises of another person while the person is traveling from one (1) parcel of land that the person is authorized to access to another parcel of land that shares a common corner with or is immediately connected to the first parcel and that the person is authorized to access.

23‑3‑305.  Hunting from highway; entering enclosed property without permission; penalty; hunting at night without permission prohibited.

(b)  No person shall enter upon the private property of any person to hunt, fish, collect antlers or horns, or trap without the permission of the owner or person in charge of the property. Violation of this subsection constitutes a low misdemeanor punishable as provided in W.S. 23‑6‑202(a)(v). For purposes of this subsection, a person does not commit trespass under this subsection if the person incidentally passes through the airspace or touches the land or premises of another person while the person is traveling from one (1) parcel of land that the person is authorized to access to another parcel of land that shares a common corner with or is immediately connected to the first parcel and that the person is authorized to access.

Section 2.  This act is effective July 1, 2023.

As is probably obvious, that's a Democratic bill and will likely go nowhere in this legislature.

Lex Anteinternet: Wednesday, October 18, 1972. Congress overrides Nixon to enact The Clean Water Act, The Soviet Union agrees to pay on Lend Lease, ZZ Top in Kentucky.

Lex Anteinternet: Wednesday, October 18, 1972. Congress overrides N...: 

Wednesday, October 18, 1972. Congress overrides Nixon to enact The Clean Water Act, The Soviet Union agrees to pay on Lend Lease, ZZ Top in Kentucky.

Congress overwhelmingly overrode Richard Nixon's veto to pass the Clean Water Act. The Senate voted 52–12 for an override, and the House 247–23.

It was clearly a different era.  It's almost impossible to imagine the GOP supporting the act today, and the television "news" would be full of vindictive comments.

The public had been mobilized by Rachel Carson's 1962 book Silent Spring, back in the day when it still could sit and read a book, and the 70s saw a host of environmental legislation pass.  As the ABA has noted:

The 1970s was a seminal decade for environmental protection. Its first year saw three major accomplishments: the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Air Act, and the creation of the EPA. NEPA alone was groundbreaking

All of which is an understatement.   And that text omitted the Endangered Species Act.

The counter reaction set in soon, and already by the mid 1970s there were those who urged the repeal of nearly everything that had been passed, although it never occurred. What has occurred, however, is that an increasingly polarized public, fed slop by such things as "news" outlets that cater only to a person's preformed views, and loud voices on Twitter and Facebook, have made listening to unpleasant scientific news a political act that can be disregarded if it conflicts with a person's preformed views.  This reflects a wider crisis in the culture on political issues, that are similarly fed, which is rapidly making the United States nearly ungovernable

On the same day, the USSR agreed to pay the United States $722,000,000 over 30 years for repayment for Lend Lease.  The Soviets reneged the following year, but started again, with a reduced amount, under Gorbachev.  They paid until 2006, with payments of the renewed obligation having been scheduled to run through 2030.  In 06, however, the Russians paid in full and retired the debt.  About that same time, the United Kingdom did as well.

ZZ Top preformed at Brannen's Tobacco Warehouse in Bowling Green, Kentucky.

Lex Anteinternet: Jury finds you can cross corners in Carbon County.

Lex Anteinternet: Jury finds you can cross corners in Carbon County.: 

Jury finds you can cross corners in Carbon County.

Elk Mountain as viewed from Shirley Basin.

Big news on the public access to lands front:

Jury finds four corner-crossing hunters not guilty of trespass

Now, what this isn't.

It isn't a court declaration that's binding precedent on the whole state.  It's one jury, in a circuit court case. That's it.

It does mean that these four guys are not going to be convicted.

And beyond that, it shows that juries, quite frankly, are unlikely to convict anyone for corner crossing.  Not only in Carbon County, but anywhere in the state.

And it doesn't end the issue, actually.  A civil suit remains, and it's far more likely to have a bigger impact, as it will likely be the one that ultimately goes to the Supreme Court and the Wyoming Supreme Court will then determine the issue.

It does send a signal, however, both to courts (of course) but to the legislature on how average Wyomingites view these issues, and that likely is summed up by a comment made in court by the defendants' lawyer:

He believed the whole mountain was his and that no one but [he] was allowed to be there … like a king.”

DEFENSE ATTORNEY RYAN SEMERAD ON RANCH OWNER FRED ESHELMAN

Eschelman is an entrepreneur who is noted for his charitable donations. . . and his donations to right wing politicians as well.  He's apparently humble and generous. Not so generous, however, that the South Carolinian saw fit to just turn a blind eye to this matter or to generally allowing some of the less well funded access to public land, not his land, on his Wyoming ranch.

The original encounter, moreover, was caught on audio and video, with Eschelman's employee stating to law enforcement;“Do they realize how much money my boss has? …and property?”

And indeed, his having a Wyoming ranch brings to mind Thomas Wolfe's comment on that in his book A Man In Full.

On the topic of decisions, this also points out the dangers of pursuing something best left untouched, something that was pointed out a couple of years ago in the Wyoming ve. Herrera case.  Sometimes, there are issues that you'd rather leave undecided.

Indeed here, the County Attorney, an elected official, made the decision to prosecute, no doubt based on prior interpretations of the law, which would have favored the same.  But in doing so, she's accidentally taken the side of a wealthy out of stater against the interest of common Wyomingites.  This probably never crossed her mind, but it likely has crossed the mind of a lot of locals by this point, and the effective statements of the defense now doubt have taken root.  Eschelman, in the words of the defense, is a would be king and oppressor.  I've now seen public comments that the County Attorney prosecuted as she was influenced by his wealth.  That's extremely unlikely, she was probably influenced by the law, and may very well not be in the class to whom this issue is dear to the heart, but she's no doubt aware that it is to many now.  How this also plays out is yet to be seen.

And indeed, this takes us back to the topic of allmannsretten, which we've addressed elsewhere.

As noted, this story is still playing out.  It'll be very interesting to see where it goes ultimately.

A Tribune op ed and some thoughts on outfitters and locals.

We recently ran the item below.

The Agrarian's Lament: Two Hunting Season Reflections

A column appears in the Tribune today, by an outfitter, congratulating the Legislators involved in this matter (voting the bill down) for their thoughtfulness.  Interested folks can find it here:

Outfitters: Senators deserve our thanks for taking a thoughtful approach

The argument basically is the one I noted.  The bill would have reduced, the way the op-ed termed it, "hunter tourists" by 50%.  And that's true.

That doesn't rise to the level a good argument in my view. After all, legalization of marihuana was subject to the same pocket book interest. And Colorado was, and probably still is, getting stoner tourists. But that is the way that a lot of people tend to look at any question, and this question in particular.

The bill claims the Senators were verbally attacked, which if true is inexcusable, but which probably does show the deep seated cultural feelings on this issue here in this state.  Natives, of which I am one, tend not to be too sympathetic to this argument.

Why would that be?

It's  not, by and large, that most natives and long time residents are opposed to people keeping their jobs and we generally don't want to hurt the owners of restaurants and hotels and the like.   And we're keen on sporting goods stores. So none of that is it.

What is it, is being locked out.

Hunters and fishermen have sort on odd admiration/aggravation relationship with farmers and ranchers (quite a few of which, we should note, are hunters also).  And outfitters have made this worse.  It has to do with access to land.

Now, I'm not going to wax too romantic about this and there's always been places that hunters and fishermen, and from here out we'll just refer to both as "hunters" as fishermen are simply fish hunters, could not go.  But they were much fewer before outfitting became a big business in the state.  

That wasn't until the 1980s and the impact wasn't immediately felt. But by the 90s it was.  Outfitters were part, but not all, of that.

Indeed, out of state land ownership was also a big part of that.  Rich people would buy ranches in Wyoming and lock them up, if they could, whereas the same lands before had been ones of ready access for hunters.  Outfitters, however, came in and bought the hunting access, often locking up public lands that were landlocked by private lands at the same time.

Ranchers and farmers of course participated in this for a variety of reasons, simple economics being one but also because that often meant that they didn't have to deal with the minority of hunters who were some sort of a problem to them.  The outfitters guided their clients and hence controlled them.  

The entire development has impacted the local land culture a lot.  Access to private lands is harder to come by than it once was.  Given that, local hunters are unlikely to love outfitters if they've been pushed off of their former hunting lands.

The Game & Fish, for its part, has tried to redress this and has done so fairly successfully by effectively becoming sort of an outfitter, sort of, itself, by buying access to hunting lands under various agreements with landowners. That's a great program that I highly encourage, but of course it still isn't going to engender love by the locals for outfitters.

With only so much wildlife to go around, and so many places that it can be found, reserving licenses for out of state hunters, while generally supported by the locals, loses some of its appeal when the argument fails to ignore the impact of what outfitting has helped to create in the state.  

It's a classic agrarian conflict.

Indeed, it very closely replicates the agrarian conflict that took place in the 30 years following the Civil War in the South, to some extent, a conflict that came near to violence on multiple occasions.  That won't occur here, but that local hunters will back such bills if they can, and that the outfitting industry will oppose them, should be no surprise.

All of which gets back, in some ways, to my earlier arguments about creating a subsistence hunting license in the state, but that's not seemingly too likely to happen any time soon, and if it did, chances are that those with a trophy focus, and outfitters, might oppose that.  Or might not.

Two Hunting Season Reflections

I went out to the Game & Fish this week as I didn't quite grasp the turkey regulations.

It was my fault, I just wasn't reading them correctly.  The reason for that, in part, was an element of hypervigilance on my part due to recent in the field discussions I've had with young game wardens, and also being acclimated to the regulations the way that they were, rather than the way they currently are.

Anyhow, the pleasant surprise is that there are now so many turkeys in Wyoming that you can get two or even three licenses. The bad news is that the extra licenses were already all taken.  Indeed, that surprised the very helpful warden who was helping me, as he had hoped to get an extra tag himself.

I meant to get around to checking this a couple of weeks ago, but I didn't as I was too busy.  

I also meant, fwiw, to apply for a buffalo license, the deadline for which was yesterday, but I forgot to do so.  I tend to do that.

In discussing the turkey licenes with the Game Warden, I noted that I should have expected this as it seems that COVID 19 is causing people to get outdoors.  He said that was really true and that this year they'd seen a record number of out of state big game licenses applied for. Far more, by a huge margin, than ever before.

That likely will mean the same for in state licenses as well.

This gets back to this bill in the Wyoming legislature, and my earlier comments on it:

March 3, 2021

Sometimes you learn of these bills in surprising ways.

A bill has been introduced and advanced in the legislature which seeks to adjust the percentages of licenses between natives and out of staters.  I'm sure I wasn't in the intended audience, as I'm an instater.

It reads:

2021

STATE OF WYOMING

21LSO-0423

 

 

 

SENATE FILE NO. SF0103

 

 

Resident and nonresident hunting license issuance and fees.

 

Sponsored by: Senator(s) Hicks, Kolb, McKeown and Schuler and Representative(s) Burkhart, Harshman, Henderson, Laursen, Stith, Styvar and Wharff

 

 

A BILL

 

for

 

AN ACT relating to game and fish; modifying provisions governing resident and nonresident hunters; modifying resident and nonresident license reservations; increasing resident and nonresident fees as specified; repealing nonresident license reservation requirements for elk, deer and antelope; making a conforming amendment; and providing for an effective date.

 

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:

 

Section 1.  W.S. 23‑1‑703(e), 23‑2‑101(e), (j)(intro), (xv), (xvii), (xix), (xxi), (xxiii), (xxv), (xxvii), (xxix), (xxxi), (xxxiii), (xxxviii), (xxxix) and (k) and 23‑2‑107(c)(intro) and (e) are amended to read:

 

23‑1‑703.  Limitation of number of certain licenses; reservation of certain licenses; reservation of certain unused licenses.

 

(e)  The commission shall reserve eighty percent (80%) of the moose and seventy‑five percent (75%) of the ram and ewe and lamb bighorn sheep, mountain goat not less than ninety percent (90%) of the limited quota big game animal, wild bison and grizzly bear licenses to be issued in any one (1) year for resident hunters in the initial license drawings.  In any hunt area with less than ten (10) licenses available, the commission shall not issue any licenses to nonresident hunters under this subsection. The commission shall determine the allocation of resident and nonresident mountain lion harvest.

 

23‑2‑101.  Fees; restrictions; nonresident application fee; nonresident licenses; verification of residency required.

 

(e)  Resident and nonresident license applicants shall pay an application fee in an amount specified by this subsection upon submission of an application for purchase of any limited quota drawing for big or trophy game license or wild bison license.  The resident application fee shall be five dollars ($5.00) seven dollars ($7.00) and the nonresident application fee shall be fifteen dollars ($15.00) seventeen dollars ($17.00). The application fee is in addition to the fees prescribed by subsections (f) and (j) of this section and by W.S. 23‑2‑107 and shall be payable to the department either directly or through an authorized selling agent of the department. At the beginning of each month, the commission shall set aside all of the fees collected during calendar year 1980 and not to exceed twenty‑five percent (25%) of the fees collected thereafter pursuant to this subsection to establish and maintain a working balance of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00), to compensate owners or lessees of property damaged by game animals and game birds.

 

(j)  Subject to W.S. 23‑2‑101(f), 23‑1‑705(e) and the applicable fee under W.S. 23‑1‑701, the following hunting licenses and tags may be purchased for the fee indicated and subject to the limitations provided:

 

(xv)  Nonresident deer license; one (1) deer

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372.00 655.00

 

(xvii)  Nonresident youth deer license; one (1) deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  110.00 150.00

 

(xix)  Nonresident elk license; one (1) elk, fishing privileges . . . . . . . . . . . .  690.00 1,100.00

 

(xxi)  Nonresident youth elk license; one (1) elk, fishing privileges . . . . . . . . . . . 275.00 300.00

 

(xxiii)  Nonresident bighorn sheep license; one (1) bighorn sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,318.00 3,000.00

 

(xxv)  Nonresident mountain goat license; one (1) mountain goat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,160.00 2,750.00

 

(xxvii)  Nonresident moose license; one (1) moose

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,980.00 2,750.00

 

(xxix)  Nonresident grizzly bear license; one (1) grizzly bear . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6,000.00 7,500.00

 

(xxxi)  Nonresident antelope license; one (1) antelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  324.00 600.00

 

(xxxiii)  Nonresident youth antelope license; one (1) antelope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  110.00 125.00

 

(xxxviii)  Resident turkey license .  14.00 20.00

 

(xxxix)  Nonresident turkey license . 72.00 75.00

 

(k)  Any resident qualified to purchase a moose or ram big horn sheep hunting license under subsection (j) of this section may pay a fee of seven dollars ($7.00) ten dollars ($10.00) in lieu of applying for a moose or ram big horn sheep hunting license.  Payment of the fee for a particular species under this subsection shall authorize the person to accumulate points under W.S. 23‑1‑703(b) for that year in the same manner as if he had unsuccessfully applied for a hunting license for that species. Payment of the fee shall be made in compliance with application dates.

 

23‑2‑107.  Wild bison licenses.

 

(c)  Subject to the limitations imposed by W.S. 23‑1‑703(e), the commission shall promulgate reasonable rules and regulations regulating wild bison licenses and the management of wild bison.  The rules shall provide for:

 

(e)  A resident applicant shall pay a license fee of four hundred twelve dollars ($412.00) for a license to harvest any wild bison or two hundred fifty‑eight dollars ($258.00) for a license to harvest a female or calf wild bison and shall pay the fee required by W.S. 23‑2‑101(e).  A nonresident applicant shall pay a license fee of four thousand four hundred dollars ($4,400.00) six thousand dollars ($6,000.00) for a license to harvest any wild bison or two thousand seven hundred fifty dollars ($2,750.00) for a license to harvest a female or calf wild bison and shall pay the fee required by W.S. 23‑2‑101(e). The fee charged under W.S. 23‑1‑701 shall be in addition to the fee imposed under this subsection.

 

Section 2.  W.S. 23‑2‑101(f) is repealed.

 

Section 3.  This act is effective January 1, 2022.

 

(END)

As can be seen, it dramatically increases the costs of out of state licenses, in some categories as well.

Well so be it.

I learned of this bill when an outfitter that I really don't know except by business name sent an email "alert" to my email on this, noting that it would supposedly destroy my ability to hunt in Wyoming, by which it meant a state that it though that I, as a visitor living elsewhere, would only be visiting to hunt, and wouldn't be able to.

This taps into a long running slow burn cultural battle in the state that really began in the 1970s.  Prior to that time outfitting wasn't really a statewide business and may not have been a full time business of any category at all.  In that timeframe, however, there was an effort basically to attempt to stabilize the business, more or less at their request, by requiring they be hired in certain areas for those who came from out of state.  

Since that time, the business has really grown and there have been real efforts to directly aid them, including even granting them some licenses to be sold directly.  For native Wyomingites this has been a huge issue as natives don't use guides at all and the feeling is that these efforts directly impinge on a sort of native right.  This feeling has increased as some outfitters have locked up ranch lands in deals which reserve the lands for the outfitters clients.  There's various arguments on this on both side, some of which they will not commit to in print but will openly voice.  The printed one, form the outfitters, is that out of state hunters bring in a lot of revenue to the state.

For native hunters the counter is that they largely don't care.  They don't benefit economically from it, and indeed, the opposite is true in that they loose opportunities to hunt. The past few years this loss has been keenly felt as licenses that were once easy to get now no longer are.  Indeed, I haven't drawn an antelope license for two years running at this time.

With an influx of outdoorsmen of all types due to the Coronavirus pandemic, this has been all the more the case.

An interesting aspect of this bill is the absence of sponsoring names that appear on the "hot" topics this year.

On other matters, a bill a bill has advanced allowing the holders of real property to remove racially restrictive covenants from their deeds.

Such restrictions are void in any event, so this bill simply allows such restrictions to be officially removed.  As few people read their deeds and as people likely generally don't repeat the illegal

I don't know why the bill failed, but I'd really hoped it would pass.

Later I heard that Wyoming tends to be unique in regard to out of state licenses in holding more for out of states than other states.

I don't know why the bill failed, but I'd really hoped it would pass.

Later I heard that Wyoming tends to be unique in regard to out of state licenses in holding more for out of states than other states.  I don't know why we do this, although I do know that some years ago an asshole who lived out of state sued the state under the Equal Protection Clause claiming that the Game & Fish should make no distinction between in state and out of state licenses. That suit failed, and I hope that his lawyer was charging that guy something like $5,000/hour and he went bankrupt, but I've wondered if the G&F has been a bit gun shy since that time about adjusting these numbers. After all, they've withstood the test of litigation, so I'd get that.

If that is it, I'd yield to their considerations of those factors.

On the other hand, a common argument has to do with the dollars that out of states bring in for hunting, fishing and everything else they come in for.

Wyoming has undoubtedly been in the economic dumps for some time, due to the state's reliance on fossil fuel extraction for income.  Everybody knows this, but nobody is willing to do anything much about it, yet.  There are things that could be done.  We have other raw products, beef, wool, etc., we produce, but we don't bother to finish them as we prefer to live like a colony. . . oh wait, that's not it.  We don't do that as we're used to the petrol and coal bucks and can't really grasp anything else, even though we didn't always rely on those things.  We had sheep, cattle, wheat, etc., before we ever had oil and coal in a marketable fashion, and we have uranium right now in addition to the fossil fuels. We're not, however, going to look at state sponsored meat packing plants, wool processing plants, or nuclear power, and if we started to somebody, probably somebody from somewhere else, would start decrying a "slide into socialism".  So we're going to wait for things to get really bad.

In the meantime we're going to make reference to tourist dollars, such as in this instance.  This rings the money in, the argument goes.  And I suppose it does.

But money isn't everything and to the extent changing these percentages would impact things I doubt it would do so in a very harmful way.

Outfitters, as noted, were very much against this bill, but here too we have to consider the oddities of this.  Right now, in order to go on the public land hunting in some areas of the state you need an outfitter by law. This is the case, as a friend of mine pointed out, even if I am from Alaska and hunt in the wilderness all the time.  And its also the case if I come into the state to fish, rather than hunt, or to hike.  The argument that out of state hunters will get lost is a dog that doesn't hunt, and we know that. The law is just a way to help guaranty employment for outfitters.

Outfitting used to be a part time job done mostly by guys whose full time jobs allowed them to have the fall off, which is still partially true.  And it used to be a part time job for ranchers.  Now, however, outfitters often hire out of state guides whose familiarity with the wilderness is probably not that much better, in real terms, than the people they're guiding from time to time.  Some time ago, for instance, I spoke to a guide who was here for the season from Tennessee.  Not exactly the rough Wyoming cowboy spending the winter as a guide as people might imagine, before he starts riding the grub line.  Given that, I don't think outfitters would really be that hurt by a change in the law, and I really don't care if out of state guides are hurt. They can stay in Tennessee for all I care.  Local outfitters, if they're busy enough to hire Tennesseans, can decline to do so and take care of their business themselves.  That may sound callous, but I don't mean for it to be, and I think they'd be okay, money wise.

Which also gets back to this.  In something like this there's an entire set of competitive interest over a limited resource.  That resource, it seems to me, should be scaled towards residents and more than that, scaled towards subsistence.

Sort of a combination of Subsidiarity and Field to Table, if you will.

I'm serious about that.  I'm not going to argue that the general public has a right to dictate what ever square inch of private property is used for, but the table is a basic.  At the end of the day, hunting is for food, and food directly acquired is acquired in the best way possible.  I don't begrudge somebody from far away coming to hunt in Wyoming, but we should be honest.  First of all, in spite of what people may think, there are hunting opportunities in every state in the United States. Even Hawaii has big game hunting.  There's nothing wrong with crossing state lines to hunt, but if you are trophy hunting in another state chances are high that the Chile con Carne aspect of it is probably not what took you there.  

Again, that's fine, but the Chile con Carne hunting is something deeper and more meaningful.  It really ought to be the thing that controls.