Make the case for federalizing game species

[Straight Arrow]

Why does it have to be another state's resource? Why isn't it our resource? Aren't bald eagles ours, salmon, ducks?

Although you've been on HT several years less than I, yet you have almost twice the number of posts. Me thinks you have been talking more than listening or you would already understand the answers to those questions. 'Just sayin'.

 

[Irrelevant]

Although you've been on HT several years less than I, yet you have almost twice the number of posts. Me thinks you have been talking more than listening or you would already understand the answers to those questions. 'Just sayin'.

If you're referring to case law, I'm well aware. But the only compelling argument I've heard as to why it "should" be this way (which is a completely different discussion than why it is this way), was from @Hunting Wife about the ability of the State to be more agile than the Feds adjusting to seasonally changing conditions that warrant changes in the regulations. That is a valid and pertinent point.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Why does it have to be another state's resource? Why isn't it our resource? Aren't bald eagles ours, salmon, ducks?

On your second point, is money the missing element preventing us from having better wildlife management?

For a few reasons:

1. Landowners in the state will carry the primary burden of the housing the animals. At the federal level - their voice is/will be near powerless. I realize that probably makes some folks salivate - but the reality is i think it would lead to some serious unintened consequences of incenctives to have wildlife on your property collapsing. At the end of the day - that spells a shit show.

2. Provided the resource isn't endangered - each state can have their own management structure that works for them that can be changed. All of these states have a massively different approach to managing wildlife that they can change more readily to deal with micro and macro changes. A one sized fits all approach would be hell. If Montana's war on elk were nationalized or "high fence" - think about the damage. Ideally, other states can learn from other models and make changes accordingly. Montanas "block management" comes to mind.

3. States own other resources - such as streams, minerals, oil/gas, and nowadays the wind that blows and the sun that shines. Federalizing those would be a disaster too.

 

[huntin24/7]

I can’t even imagine the draw odds in the western states where game is managed at all if this were to happen where everyone gets equal opportunity regardless of residence. You’d be waiting 30 years to draw a mediocre tag. Lol. Montana would stay the same and we’d all be competing over hunting field mice and pigeons. lol

 

[Forkyfinder]

One of the reasons I’ve steered clear of jumping into this thread is that these usually devolve into ad hominem attacks- people get frustrated by their inability to discuss/debate a point, so they resort to personal attacks.

Posts like that one @Straight Arrow , as well as the discussion of a boxing match (seriously- is this place becoming 24hour Campfire…?), make me glad I avoided it.

Yuck.

I am interested in you losing this debate in a single place in a healthy way, for what its worth.

I apologize if making jokes made it feel personal to you. Its "cheesy" and you probably didnt take it how i meant.

P.s. go huskers

 

[Straight Arrow]

I'm well aware.

'Sorry, I took your questions to be serious more than rhetorical. Being "well aware" you must accept the reality of historical precedent and critical case law. Soooo ... the woulda, coulda, shoulda discussion is kinda a waste of energy ... moot, in a word.

In light of recent national discussions regarding important state and federal issues, any game species management and hunting rules to make it easier for me to acquire a Utah or New Mexico bull elk tag are no where near the top of the priorities list!

 

[Irrelevant]

For a few reasons:

1. Landowners in the state will carry the primary burden of the housing the animals. At the federal level - their voice is/will be near powerless. I realize that probably makes some folks salivate - but the reality is i think it would lead to some serious unintened consequences of incenctives to have wildlife on your property collapsing. At the end of the day - that spells a shit show.

2. Provided the resource isn't endangered - each state can have their own management structure that works for them that can be changed. All of these states have a massively different approach to managing wildlife that they can change more readily to deal with micro and macro changes. A one sized fits all approach would be hell. If Montana's war on elk were nationalized or "high fence" - think about the damage. Ideally, other states can learn from other models and make changes accordingly. Montanas "block management" comes to mind.

3. States own other resources - such as streams, minerals, oil/gas, and nowadays the wind that blows and the sun that shines. Federalizing those would be a disaster too.

1. Yes, that is a worthy and compelling case for many scenarios. But what of Nevada, a state almost entirely public, why does the 14% of privately held land get a disproportionate share of interest in the public resource?
2. Why would your default assumption be that it would be a one-size-fits-all all approach? Are not different blocks of public land managed differently? We have 4 different national forests, that each manage our federal lands differently. I can cut standing dead firewood on one but not the other, I can operate a SxS on one but not the other, etc. I actually have a lot of local say in how our closest national forest is managed, as opposed to the State, where I have to travel to Olympia and compete with 9 million other yahoos for a say.
3. I don't think that's true beyond the borders of their fee title lands. The Clean Air Act regulated clear air for all of us, same for the Clean Water Act. I know Water in WA is managed as a public resource, with no specific differentiation based on where a user lives. A Texan (or MSFT) can equally own a water right as I can.

 

[brymoore]

I can’t even imagine the draw odds in the western states where game is managed at all if this were to happen where everyone gets equal opportunity regardless of residence. You’d be waiting 30 years to draw a mediocre tag. Lol. Montana would stay the same and we’d all be competing over hunting field mice and pigeons. lol

NM trophy species used to be one draw pool for R/NR. Very low draw odds until the combined pool requirement was overturned.

 

[Irrelevant]

'Sorry, I took your questions to be serious more than rhetorical. Being "well aware" you must accept the reality of historical precedent and critical case law. Soooo ... the woulda, coulda, shoulda discussion is kinda a waste of energy ... moot, in a word.

Practically yes. But I still find value in the discussion.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

1. Because while life isn't fair, and never will be, it, fairness, is an admirable goal. So granting someone born in Connecticut the same right to Rocky Mountain elk as someone born in Montana seems more just.
2. It is the same level of shared access that is already granted to other cherished yet finite resources, like public land. Which most people seem to think is a good idea, and is even referred to as a "birthright"
3. Lastly, because the people who promote the current state based systems benefit the most from it. Which simply for me doesn't feel right, feels greasy, feels like something a politician would do.

...
Sunday was a damn near perfect chukar hunting day. I was overflowing with joy smiling for hours on end. The struggles and sweat, rolling talus, austere colors, gentle breeze, punctuated by moments of intense surprise and an explosion of clucking feathers. And I found myself wishing that all of you could experience it at least once. Even if it meant I couldn't go as often. Not joking... As long as the resource didn't suffer. Which, IMO is where much of the animosity towards "other users" comes from. Maybe I'd see it differently if I lived elsewhere, but even if I did, I can't see where a different position would come from anywhere not rooted in selfishness.

This is the most well articulated point I've seen on the topic. You're talking about equatability here, which is a noble pursuit, but I think it's impossible to discuss as a hypothetical here without accounting for all of the other trade offs that so commonly come up. Those trade offs are the reality of the situation.

In the scheme of big game hunting it would be more equitable for every American to have the same opportunity to draw a tag. But what about the sacrifices folks have made for the last handful of generations to live in the mountain west? I hope if we're leveling the field for big game tags we're simultaneously addressing educational opportunity, quality of healthcare, and evening out wages.

 

[Fire_9]

1. Because while life isn't fair, and never will be, it, fairness, is an admirable goal. So granting someone born in Connecticut the same right to Rocky Mountain elk as someone born in Montana seems more just.

I get what you’re saying but does that same person in Connecticut not have the option to move to a state that has elk? Life is made up of a series of choices. If someone wants something different in life, it’s up to them to make that change. Ive always wanted to hunt dall sheep. I’ve never been willing to pay the price, and I’ve never been willing to move to AK. I have nobody to blame for that but myself…

 

[Irrelevant]

This is the most well articulated point I've seen on the topic. You're talking about equatability here, which is a noble pursuit, but I think it's impossible to discuss as a hypothetical here without accounting for all of the other trade offs that so commonly come up. Those trade offs are the reality of the situation.

In the scheme of big game hunting it would be more equitable for every American to have the same opportunity to draw a tag. But what about the sacrifices folks have made for the last handful of generations to live in the mountain west? I hope if we're leveling the field for big game tags we're simultaneously addressing educational opportunity, quality of healthcare, and evening out wages.

All valid points, though is your list of inequalities any different than West Virginia's? Mississippi's?

Some of the housing-to-income disparity could be pointed to the large package of benefits currently offered to State citizens of the ountain est. Maybe if that benefit package wasn't so enticing fewer, more affluent people, wouldn't move and drive up the housing costs. I will acknowledge that's potentially irrelevant as the benefits of living in the west far exceed hunting tags.

As westerners we already have disproportionate access to public lands, must we also have disproportional access to the wildlife on them?

 

[Irrelevant]

I get what you’re saying but does that same person in Connecticut not have the option to move to a state that has elk? Life is made up of a series of choices. If someone wants something different in life, it’s up to them to make that change. Ive always wanted to hunt dall sheep. I’ve never been willing to pay the price, and I’ve never been willing to move to AK. I have nobody to blame for that but myself…

Some people have that option. Moving is a luxury of the affluent and the young (and the latter getting harder and harder each year). I can move, but I have family that couldn't. That's a reality.

 

[Fire_9]

Some people have that option. Moving is a luxury of the affluent and the young (and the latter getting harder and harder each year). I can move, but I have family that couldn't. That's a reality.

And that’s where you’re wrong. You’re choosing to stay for various reasons that are more important to you. I agree that moving is not easy. But it’s an option that is available to anyone that wants to do it. You just have to want it bad enough…

 

[Deleted member 16864]

Ukraine Fired U.S.-Made Missiles Into Russia for First Time, Officials Say

The attack came just days after President Biden gave Ukraine permission to use the weapons to strike targets inside Russia.

www.nytimes.com

The Feds are too busy starting a world war currently……..

 

[mtmiller]

I can move, but I have family that couldn't. That's a reality.

That is a decision.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

All valid points, though is your list of inequalities any different than West Virginia's? Mississippi's?

Some of the housing-to-income disparity could be pointed to the large package of benefits currently offered to State citizens of the ountain est. Maybe if that benefit package wasn't so enticing fewer, more affluent people, wouldn't move and drive up the housing costs. I will acknowledge that's potentially irrelevant as the benefits of living in the west far exceed hunting tags.

As westerners we already have disproportionate access to public lands, must we also have disproportional access to the wildlife on them?

Maybe... I feel like you depopulate Montana and Wyoming in your hypothetical though

 

[406dn]

On your second point, is money the missing element preventing us from having better wildlife management?

While you seem a congenital pot strirrer, money is a limiting factor on almost every human endeavor.

More money could be used for any number of things, management, enforcement, access, game damage mitigation, among them.

 

[Irrelevant]

That is a decision.

Why the Poor Get Trapped in Depressed Areas

It’s harder than ever for the poor to simply pick up and move.

newrepublic.com

"...because while the suggestion to “go get a U-Haul” sounds simple, it’s an impossible task for somebody with no savings."

^This has been what I've observed. My best friend moved to Connecticut. It cost no less than $5k. He had it, so it wasn't a big deal. But yeah man, I have family that I doubt has $100 in savings. Maybe that's a decision, that kind of depends on where you land on a spectrum of philosophical positions about people and the economy.

 

[Sytes]

Why the Poor Get Trapped in Depressed Areas

It’s harder than ever for the poor to simply pick up and move.

newrepublic.com

"...because while the suggestion to “go get a U-Haul” sounds simple, it’s an impossible task for somebody with no savings."

^This has been what I've observed. My best friend moved to Connecticut. It cost no less than $5k. He had it, so it wasn't a big deal. But yeah man, I have family that I doubt has $100 in savings. Maybe that's a decision, that kind of depends on where you land on a spectrum of philosophical positions about people and the economy.

Randy commented something to this affect as well. He moved from Minnesota and took a pay cut, ate it simply to have what Montana provides. I'd say he's doing pretty good - now.

Family is a challenge though it is a decision not a suppression of psychological attachment to family beyond immediate. We all make choices how we make, save, spend $. Where we live, how we hold our moral compass, etc. It really is, to each his or her own for the decisions we make.