Make the case for federalizing game species

[WyoCoalMiner]

Again, people struggle with scale. Does “management” at a national scale make sense for wildlife that roam over square miles? To me, no. For wildlife that move between multiple countries and continents twice each year? Yes. But even at that, the fed involvement is pretty limited to population estimates (due to the international scale of the population), and tracking habitat and harvest.

But still…the states get to determine NR opportunity for waterfowl too. For example: You can only buy one 2 week license in North Dakota as a NR. I believe you must draw a license to hunt waterfowl at all as a NR in South Dakota. The Feds don’t dictate at all how each state chooses to allocate the opportunities within their borders.

Dont want Fed management of wildlife, just pointing out that @Treeshark 's perspective of the antithetical flipflop @Straight Arrow pointed to is not without merit.

 

[Irrelevant]

I think you are just trying to intentionally obfuscate. That’s your prerogative…no amount of dialogue here will change anyone’s viewpoint, so this is all kind of pointless anyway.

The point being made is that, with regards to wildlife specifically, the Feds tend to be made up of folks much farther removed from the outdoors and hunting culture in particular. I predict you would see a general move away from predator hunting initially, followed by “trophy” hunting. At the federal level, there are many more sympathetic ears to anti-hunting messaging than exists at the level of most western states, because many have little experience with hunting outside of what Disney had taught them. They are also beholden to listen to stakeholders nationwide and at that scale, hunters are a much smaller minority than they are at the scale of most individual western states. NR hunters want more of a say, but NR non/anti-hunters will get an equal say, and they vastly outnumber you. Does anyone even pay attention to how fed scale wildlife decisions go? Grizzly delisting? Wolf delisting? Subsistence vs NR caribou hunting in Alaska?(I realize AK is a special case, but still). Predator management on refuges? Trapping on refuges?

While I think you make some good points, you're coming at this issue from a perspective that is not universal. Your State isn't taking away bear and cougar hunting, your State game and fish isn't run by people who are sympathetic to anti-hunting interests. I too feel like there are more than a few folks that want not just a sucker, but want to make sure most other people don't get a sucker.

Hell, look at federal land management, on one hand, I have the BLM streamlining solar farms, on the other I have the FS completely ignoring recreation as an impact on Wilderness. Both instances are less than ideal and could be better solved at the State level. My chukar hunt occurred entirely on State land. It is open to everyone for recreation. You can camp, hunt, fish, or hike (as several other users down low were), it has an active management plan, that includes checks and balances on perceived threats (current and future) and went through a robust public input process prior to implementation. If anything, it best maximizes true public access and use for ALL people, while protecting wildlife.

I feel like this entire argument boils down to a few folks saying I’m entitled to a sucker every year, and if you don’t give it to me I’m going to burn your house down. Seems a common trend lately. If we keep doing this, doesn’t seem like we’ll have any nice things left shortly.

My personal feeling: I feel like residents bear the responsibility of housing said game (yes, even those on public land. We all know they don’t just sit there on the public year round), the impacts of users exploiting said resource, the impacts of the resource itself. I think this does give them more investment, and thus more right, to that resource than someone living elsewhere. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

And yeah there is a shit load of wildlife that does reside year-round on public land. Hell, MT's historically biggest elk herds spent not just the majority of their time on public land, but on public land in another State! Washingtonians completely bear the brunt of public access to our Wilderness from out of State, and often out of country, users, does that mean we should get preferential treatment and benefits to that resource? F^&* No.

Minerals, energy, raw materials, ag products produced on public lands benefit the entire nation and support jobs in multiple sectors nationwide. Not to mention the millions of dollars generated through recreation other than hunting, and the social/mental benefits that recreation provides. If the only value public lands hold for you is your ability to kill something on it, you have an extremely distorted view of the value of that land to this country.

FYI, this is gaslighting, just because some people think that wildlife is a national resource similar to federal land, doesn't mean that hunting on public land is the ONLY thing we care about. It's just that the more I think about it, the more sense federal management makes, at least from my perspective if you view clean air, clean water, and healthy wildlife on equal footing as valued, necessary conditions of the United States of America and the citizens and visitors therein.

...

What has become a burr in my side that I can't seem to leave alone and one that will almost certainly cause me to leave HT, is that typically rational people, completely gaslight any actual discussion about alternative scenarios for wildlife or public land management. There are valid reasons why the State/Fed's can't/shouldn't manage wildlife or public lands. Maybe when all the pro's and con's are placed on the great balance beam of life, it works out for the status quo, but it damn sure isn't a one-sided scale. And it's not ridiculous to have a discussion about them or to hold two logical perspectives about complex ideas.

 

[TOGIE]

What has become a burr in my side that I can't seem to leave alone and one that will almost certainly cause me to leave HT, is that typically rational people, completely gaslight any actual discussion about alternative scenarios for wildlife or public land management. There are valid reasons why the State/Fed's can't/shouldn't manage wildlife or public lands. Maybe when all the pro's and con's are placed on the great balance beam of life, it works out for the status quo, but it damn sure isn't a one-sided scale. And it's not ridiculous to have a discussion about them or to hold two logical perspectives about complex ideas.

This is a two way street. There is a pervasive trend here it seems with folks like you and treeshark where there is simply no acceptance of any argument and then pound the table that you already have it figured out. Then seem to come the accusations of gaslighting and projection.

Hunting Wife is among the most articulate and knowledgeable (and calm) on this board and your ultimate response to her thoughts is "well you're just gaslighting"? I'm starting to shake my head at this thread, like any time this topic comes up and the usual suspects start pounding the table.

One of the biggest problems is how theoretical the concept of 100% fed based wildlife management is. The examples we do have of fed based management, whether they be ESA delisting related or Subsistence in Alaska, that Hunting Wife pointed out, are generally not good for hunters. And, like I already said, could their be a bigger win for the anti hunting movement if they only have one game agency in the entire nation to attack?

The myriad nuances in how every state handles things, from wildlife to their state lands, then throw in the mix all the political muck occurring across nearly every state in all their flavors makes saying "X state is great at Y at therefore they should take over management of Z, too" mean nothing when the other state of K is horrific at Y, so maybe it would be horrible for them to take over Z. Across all fifty states there are endless combinations there that make it impossible to draw an objective conclusion at a broad scale about which bucket everything sould fall in IMO. So, I personally don't accept argument of MY state is horrible at this or that, so the feds should do it ALL, everywhere; or MY state is great at this or that, so ALL states should take it over from the feds. It's not an argument I buy and I think it's so much more fiscally and politically complicated than that if you ask me and glosses over much important nuance.

Hell, look at federal land management, on one hand, I have the BLM streamlining solar farms, on the other I have the FS completely ignoring recreation as an impact on Wilderness. Both instances are less than ideal and could be better solved at the State level. My chukar hunt occurred entirely on State land. It is open to everyone for recreation. You can camp, hunt, fish, or hike (as several other users down low were), it has an active management plan, that includes checks and balances on perceived threats (current and future) and went through a robust public input process prior to implementation. If anything, it best maximizes true public access and use for ALL people, while protecting wildlife.

I'm confused by this. Seems like a good argument for your state to continue to manage its wildlife if they're so much more nimble and efficient with their state land management. Is it an argument for fed land to be taken over by Washington?

 

[Hunting Wife]

While I think you make some good points, you're coming at this issue from a perspective that is not universal.

I hope you are not suggesting that you are coming from some universal perspective? No perspective is universal, so I’m not sure what point you are making.

You haven’t provided anything to refute any assertion I’ve made, and instead have just become angry and accusatory. I said previously, we’re going to have to agree to disagree and no one is changing anyone’s mind here. Let’s not get too wrapped around the axle. As you said, we need to accept there is more than one logical perspective to complex ideas.

FYI, this is gaslighting,

...

Nope. That is a sentiment explicitly posted in one form or another numerous times on this forum by folks who want more NR access. “I’m entitled to hunt on federal land, I don’t care about the other benefits because I don’t live there, if I can’t hunt it then my state shouldn’t subsidize it so give it away”. That’s not gaslighting. That is a demonstrable view expressed on this forum, that strikes me as an odd position to take.

And there went my lunchtime

 

[Wild Bill]

Wild that some of you guys get so worked up.
We're on the internet. Everything here is made up.
Chill out.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Wild that some of you guys get so worked up.
We're on the internet. Everything here is made up.
Chill out.

7 $*)Q!#@$ pages before we get to a sig worthy comment.

If you want to see your hunting & fishing license dollars go to tax breaks for the rich, or social programs, or the military - then federalize wildlife management.

 

[406dn]

7 $*)Q!#@$ pages before we get to a sig worthy comment.

If you want to see your hunting & fishing license dollars go to tax breaks for the rich, or social programs, or the military - then federalize wildlife management.

Okay, okay, you just convinced me.

 

[Forkyfinder]

One other problem with federalizing - it really displaces the advocacy one can do to steer policy.

Someone can contact their legislator, testify to state congress, and speak to state wildlife managers to a degree thats far more effective than nationally.

I realize this is a seperation from the ownership of the land. The issues there are very different - and ultimately come down to state's irresponsibility in keeping those in trust.

Most other arrangements would be worse for all opportunities for all parties. I am hoping the thread demonstrates that.