El Jason
Well-known member
Yes. Go first please.
Migration initiative on the ropes
- Thread starter BuzzH
- Start date
I have spent considerable time thinking about it.
The conclusion I have come to is wildlife and habitat management is more nuanced than a simple and smug “wildlife is a state-owned resource” dismissal.
We need to rethink how we view this complex relationship, including how it is funded and exploited.
El Jason
Well-known member
So tell me how the impact of federal land management decisions does not directly affect the wildlife resources that utilize and migrate across said federal lands?
It appears to me you are trying to fit your own bias on this issue and not looking at it pragmatically.
It absolutely does directly affect it. My point is that is not a federal problem under the current wildlife management framework.
Wildlife is a state-owned resource. That would be their challenge to manage.
El Jason
Well-known member
That is an opinion and we’ll have to agree to disagree.
It is based upon USSC precedent from 1842 (from which my personal opinion differs).
I respect yours as well, and I appreciate the discussion.
I have tremendous respect for Big Fins opinion on groups like this. Unfortunately, from miles away its a struggle to fully understand the importance and impact. It probably makes it easy for those making any spending reductions when the impact is irrelevant or unknown.
No doubt that our federal budget situation is a complete mess. Long term our country will have to spend less, tax more, or some combination thereof.
No doubt that our federal budget situation is a complete mess. Long term our country will have to spend less, tax more, or some combination thereof.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Two thoughts.
1. Anyone proposing a project or action that impacts a state resource has to show what effects it will have and what the proposed mitigation will be.
2. Migratory wildlife should be understood regardless of State lines. The feds are in the better shoes to tackle that.
In a perfect world wildlife and land management might be more consistent, but this isn't a perfect world, and the only other options I see floated are worse for both.
1. Anyone proposing a project or action that impacts a state resource has to show what effects it will have and what the proposed mitigation will be.
2. Migratory wildlife should be understood regardless of State lines. The feds are in the better shoes to tackle that.
In a perfect world wildlife and land management might be more consistent, but this isn't a perfect world, and the only other options I see floated are worse for both.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 3,285
Tell that to the usfws and don’t forget the endangered species act. You need to spend more time thinking about this. Don’t over simplify and let the butt hurt go away. Most emotional trauma is cured with time.
Right or wrong, the makeup (and possibly the existence) of both of these entities is currently being reconsidered.
Dougfirtree
Well-known member
Should we just pull out of migratory bird partnerships with Canada and Mexico, too? Animals don't care about state/country lines... I think your argument is weak and sounds mostly informed by bitterness that tags are harder to get than you'd like. This is bad for wildlife. Period.
rtraverdavis
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2016
- Messages
- 4,156
@Treeshark You're clearly an intelligent guy. I think the campaign you've been waging to illustrate the point that western states want to have their cake and eat it too (make wildlife management decisions that hose NRs while receiving the benefits of federal funding) has been loud and clear to any astute reader. I agree with you that western states should strive to continue to maintain opportunity for NRs at a reasonable price. But if states don't meet your standard of fair and reasonable opportunity, does that mean that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater?
It's been demonstrated ad nauseum what the (highly) probable outcome would be if federal public land is handed over to the states. It would (very) likely mean a tremendous loss of access for all Americans, people like you and me and our kids. I know that isn't the focus of this discussion but it is all related. Losing funding for studies like the Migration Initiative is a loss of valuable knowledge for all of us. Do you really want to live in a country where we destroy things just because they have no immediate and obvious benefit to you? You don't strike me as that kind of a guy.
It's been demonstrated ad nauseum what the (highly) probable outcome would be if federal public land is handed over to the states. It would (very) likely mean a tremendous loss of access for all Americans, people like you and me and our kids. I know that isn't the focus of this discussion but it is all related. Losing funding for studies like the Migration Initiative is a loss of valuable knowledge for all of us. Do you really want to live in a country where we destroy things just because they have no immediate and obvious benefit to you? You don't strike me as that kind of a guy.
Dougfirtree
Well-known member
Potsie
Well-known member
Wildlife migration happens across state lines - which is the same reasoning needed to put commerce regulation in the domain of the federal .gov via the commerce clause.
So why would the feds not fund it?
So why would the feds not fund it?
Well thanks for giving me the benifet of the doubt, and I don’t see me that light either.
I’m not wishing for the destruction of anything- I am concerned about the future opportunities for NR hunting in Western states and exploring (wishing for) a better path forward.
Because wildlife, even on federal land, is strictly a state-owned resource held in trust for the benifet of the residents of each state. Part of owning something is owning the financial obligations that come with it.
Kind of a silly old-school setup that dates all the way back to a time before women could vote and slavery was abolished
Last edited:
El Jason
Well-known member
It’s not owned by the state. It’s held in trust to benefit the public. Big difference.
It is allowable for states to give preferential benefits to the residents of the state.
Go back and read @Irrelevant ’s post. The federal government must mitigate impacts on the states by its management decisions. Hence the reason why there are mitigation properties the feds purchased for states when they put in the Snake River and Columbia River dams.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the USGS wildlife research was at some point tied to federal mitigation. @Ben Lamb?
Last edited:
rtraverdavis
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2016
- Messages
- 4,156
But are these arguments you’re positing being made in good faith? It just seems to me that anyone who loves wildlife and wild places would want to conserve them through any means necessary—full stop. Even if they don’t benefit that person immediately or directly, and even if it comes at a cost. I’d be willing to bet that you feel the same way, but your line of argumentation makes it seem like you don’t.
The thing is, with everything that wildlife and wild places are challenged with right now, we hunters need to come together and quit fighting over little stuff, or we’re totally boned. I’m not saying NR tag allocations and price are little things, but they aren’t enough to be justified in saying to burn it all down.
*Edited my poor syntax.
Last edited:
Laszlo Cravensworth
Well-known member
Why does it matter what level of government the purview of wildlife falls under in regard to research? The federal government supports American academic research across a massively diverse range of topics. Stakeholders in all 50 states aren't a requirement to support a research topic.
