by that logic, i could say "since my license dollars manage that wildlife i should have unfettered access to your private land to hunt my wild animals."
falls flat on it's face.
Devaluing Non-Residents
- Thread starter rjthehunter
- Start date
- Status
by that logic, i could say "since my license dollars manage that wildlife i should have unfettered access to your private land to hunt my wild animals."
falls flat on it's face.
If you paid for his private land, then yes- you should. If not, the logic of your comparison fails.
Sure is, let the Feds keep that open since the type of recreation isn’t limited by residency.
Otherwise if a minimum allowance (ratio ) that is set by the Feds, why allow anyone to access for that purpose. Seems like it’s discriminatory in its use of federal property that is own by all Americans.
Wyhunter
Well-known member
The wildlife is managed by the State in the instance of Wyoming. Outside of a few federal grants, the money to run wyo game and fish, comes directly from the tags/points sales. I even posted pictures for those that dont like to read.
Manage it all you want. The Feds don’t have to grant access to hunt on it. There is federal property that’s not open to hunting. Go ReAd that….
FI460
Well-known member
Seems like a great way to create a bunch of land transfer advocates to me...
I get your point, but there really isn't an accurate analogy here. I can't think of any other public resource held in trust by a state for it's citizens.
I don't think it matters anyway. Such an unlikely hypothetical that we don't need to worry about.
I wish I agreed with you on this, but I think it’s highly likely that there is a legitimate push for this within the next 10 years.
Wyhunter
Well-known member
Outside of national parks, military installations, camp grounds, and landlocked areas, i am unsure of what federal lands youre talking about. Do you think you should be able to hunt wherever you want because you pay a miniscule amount in taxes? I dont understand your argument, but maybe Im uneducated on the matter. Can you elaborate
no it's all the same entitlement. just cause i'm a trustee and a beneficiary of a state's wildlife resources doesn't mean i'm allowed to hunt them whenever and wherever they are even if i think so. just like being a federal public land owner doesn't grant one any degree of special ownership, allotment, or say over a state's wildlife resources.
Last edited:
water.
western water law and its public trust doctrine has a great many similarities to wildlife. plenty of differences too.
You are comparing difference scenarios as if they are the same: one is exclusionary, one is universal.
Yes you absolutely are, if others are as well. Togie, your analogy game isn’t firing yet this morning my man
the analogy is all about law.
i can't walk into the foothills near my house and trespass on private property and shoot several wintering fatty boools. i'd be charged for wildlife crimes and criminal trespass even if i think i'm entitled to that as a beneficiary, trustee, owner, of the wildlife i just shot. no, i have to adhere to the laws.
public trust doctrine, and it's laws, mean NR's are not beneficiaries, trustees, owners of the widllife, full stop, end of story. being a federal public land owner does not make an NR a trustee of the wildlife and therefore the NR cannot demand an allotment as that's not what the law says, regardless of what one thinks.
rjthehunter
Well-known member
Interesting article I came across this morning. Look at the charts showing upfront costs to apply, and nonrefundable costs.
www.gohunt.com
How much does it actually cost to apply for hunting tags in every Western state? // GOHUNT. The Hunting Company
A deep dive into upfront and nonrefundable fees when applying across 15 western states
I’m not sure, I think HT tends to way overplay the reach and permanence of that. As you demonstrated by abandoning the attempt to explain that logically, it is not based on logic or equity.
Even so- just because that’s the law today, doesn’t mean it always will be.
Nick87
Well-known member
I don't think anti -hunters have anything to do with the differences between R amd NR. Are you saying they infiltrated game agencies and are setting prices and allocations?
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
No, HT merely cites the strongly established legal precedence and high level judicial emplacement of firmly tested law.
'Wanna bet?!
but you could say that about anything right? therefore rendering any argument about anything invalid?
"but it could change!"
anything can change. but the reality is the current reality.
in any event i have trouble believing states will let go of any 10th amendment powers without putting up substantial fights and, in reality, they'll barely have to lift a finger due to the US constitution and case law. and even if the disgruntled hunters of the east manage to lobby congress and outlaw hunting on federal lands out of spite i only see that to diminish their opportunity even more. so, they're just kind of moot hypotheticals IMO.
The feds don’t have to demand an allocation. They can require it as stipulation for access for the activity.
The state can choose not to and then access for that activity isn’t granted. Laws change and rules change. Federal mandates aren’t a new thing.
The state can choose not to and then access for that activity isn’t granted. Laws change and rules change. Federal mandates aren’t a new thing.
FI460
Well-known member
It just seems too pie in the sky to me. I don't see such a mandate overcoming the filibuster to pass congress, court precedent exists so it would be susceptible to lawsuits, and the pushback for executive action would be immense.
Sort of candy land.
- Status
Similar threads
