Grandfathering license holders creates problems
On Thursday, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission will almost certainly vote to allow lifetime license holders living out of state to hunt the entire duck season on state-owned wildlife management areas.
This is very interesting because Jim Goodhart, the commission’s lead counsel, spent months articulating a compelling legal argument about why lifetime license holders living out of state should not have the same duck-hunting privileges that Arkansas residents have on WMAs.
In summary, Goodhart argued that lifetime license holders prepaid all of their hunting license fees, state waterfowl hunting permits and WMA hunting permits when they bought the non-expiring $1,000 license. However, Goodhart argued, that license did not convey lifetime resident status on its holders. If they move out of state, their license fees are still fully paid in perpetuity, but they are still residents of the state in which they live and are thus considered non-residents for hunting purposes. They do not have to pay extra for non-resident WMA hunting permits or non-resident state waterfowl stamps, but they are limited to hunting on WMAs for a total of 30 days during a 60day season, in 10-day blocks in each of the season’s three segments.
Goodhart insisted vehemently that the Game and Fish Commission does not have the authority to sell permanent Arkansas residency within a hunting and fishing license.
Non-residents aggrieved by the policy argue that promotional phrasing for the Lifetime Sportsman’s License says otherwise.
Being the son of a judge and the brother of a lawyer, and as one who often seeks lawyers’ opinions, I understand Goodhart’s reasoning.
On the other hand, solid legal reasoning does not necessarily equate to being right. A majority of the commissioners believe the current policy to be clearly wrong, and in June, the commission ordered Goodhart to make it right.
The solution was to “grandfather” in all Lifetime Sportsman’s Permits purchased before Sept. 1, 2021, to the privileges that existed before the commission created its current non-resident WMA waterfowl hunting regulations. The adjustment required amending six different items in the Wildlife Code.
Any Lifetime Sportsman’s Permit bought before Sept. 1 will have an identifying code. Penalties will also be enhanced for anybody caught in possession of an illegally obtained Lifetime Sportsman’s Permit.
It is a major offense to fraudulently obtain a lifetime license. It will be an even bigger offense to do it after Sept. 1.
While that might seem a just solution for non-residents that already have lifetime licenses, it appears to expose the commission to liability from potential litigants who buy lifetime licenses after Sept. 1 and later move out of state. The commission seems to be on the verge of creating two classes of lifetime license holders, providing unequal protection under the law.
Current non-resident waterfowl hunting regulations make a Lifetime Sportsman’s Permit bought before Sept. 1 more valuable and more portable than one bought after Sept. 1. By implication, people that hold a pre-Sept. 1 lifetime license have greater rights and privileges than those who hold a post-Sept. 1 license, whether they establish residency in another state or not.
Had the commission never created a distinction between lifetime license holders living out of state and those living in state, residency would never have been an issue. Now, if the commission approves the new policy, it most certainly will have sold perpetual residency to one class and withheld it from another.
A lesser question is how Goodhart might justify what appears to be an arbitrary cutoff date. Of course, Sept. 1 takes effect before the main duck season, but from a housekeeping standpoint, it would be more logical for the cutoff to be Dec. 31. To our knowledge, the commission did not conduct research to determine what, if any, effect might occur on WMAs by extending the cutoff date an additional 90 days, so there appears to be no rationale behind that date.
Goodhart is probably quite aware of these deficiencies should the new policy be challenged in court. His winning percentage is impressive, but he will be challenged to repudiate his own arguments to date defending the current policy. They are all conveniently archived on YouTube.