What this means practically is hunting on federal public land can be restricted and/or eliminated through a department rule or Presidential executive order.
Alaska unlike other western states has dual management of wildlife due to federal legislation and state case law.
The issue is subsistence v. non-subsistence use.
Alaska State lands
McDowell V. State
"This case challenges chapter 52 SLA 1986 which grants a preference to rural residents to take fish and game for subsistence purposes. The only requirement to be met by a subsistence fisherman or hunter is residency in a rural area of the state.
The rural preference is challenged under several provisions of the Alaska Constitution: the common use clause, article VIII, section 3; the no exclusive right of fishery clause, article VIII, section 15; the uniform application clause, article VIII, section 17; the equal rights clause, article I, section 1; and the due process clause, article I, section 7. In addition, violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the United States Constitution is claimed. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the rural preference violates article VIII, sections 3, 15 and 17 of the Alaska Constitution."
Alaska Federal Lands
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
Lower 48 federal lands are not subject to ANILCA.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 states:
That nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the Secretary concerned to require Federal permits to hunt and fish on public lands or on lands in the National Forest System and adjacent waters or as enlarging or diminishing the responsibility and authority of the States for management of fish and resident wildlife. However, the Secretary concerned may designate areas of public land and of lands in the National Forest System where, and establish periods when, no hunting or fishing will be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, or compliance with provisions of applicable law. Except in emergencies, any regulations of the Secretary concerned relating to hunting and fishing pursuant to this section shall be put into effect only after consultation with the appropriate State fish and game department.
In Alaska the Federal government has the ability to enforce rules about hunting, esp. regarding subsistence. The methods of take banned by the Obama administration occurred on USFWS NWR where the USFWS has jurisdiction. All across the US refuge rules are different than USFS or BLM.
The specific rules you seem to be condemning.
(3) This rule prohibits the following practices for the taking of wildlife on Alaska National Wildlife refuges (except for subsistence uses by federally qualified subsistence users in accordance with applicable Federal laws and regulations):
- Taking black or brown bear cubs or sows with cubs (exception allowed for resident hunters to take black bear cubs or sows with cubs under customary and traditional use activities at a den site October 15-April 30 in specific game management units in accordance with State law);
- Taking brown bears over bait;
- Taking of bears using traps or snares;
- Taking wolves and coyotes during the denning season (May 1-August 9); and
- Taking bears from an aircraft or on the same day as air travel has occurred. The take of wolves or wolverines from an aircraft or on the same day as air travel has occurred is already prohibited under current refuge regulations.
There is a lot of case law regarding state management of wildlife. If hunting becomes illegal in a state it will be done by referendum or through pressure on the wildlife management agency or through, ESA protections of species.
Federal law already protects hunting on federal lands to some extent see FLPMA above.
Constitution rights to hunt won't override ESA, or federal land management policy they may or may not stop ballot box biology.
What will? Growing the base of hunters, allowing NR opportunity so that folks from other states feel compelled to advocate for and protect something they value.
www.outdoorlife.com
