You bet, I agree. Game animals residing on private only was the “problem” I was responding to.
No King's Deer
- Thread starter Elky Welky
- Start date
You bet, I agree. Game animals residing on private only was the “problem” I was responding to.
Gulf of America
Well-known member
I know by now that this is the hill you're willing to die on, so I can't imagine that I'm going to change your mind, but pretty much every property that would be cashing in on landowner tags has hunting VERY carefully managed throughout the season to ensure those pests stay on the property all season. Landowner tags wouldn't change the number of hunters during the season, but they would be extra $$$ since the outfitter could sell the hunt and the tag. Maybe some shoulder season scraps for the peasants who want to pay $1000 to shoot a cow off a pivot. You just don't know what you're talking about because you haven't actually hunted here, but by all means, keep throwing it out there.
Gulf of America
Well-known member
Transferable tags are working really well in Idaho. https://www.themeateater.com/conser...ho-man-exposes-black-market-for-big-game-tags
That would be up to Montana residents to ensure that scenario doesn’t happen.
New Mexico’s structure would prevent that from happening.
Why so Hell bent on Montana offering transferable land owner tags? Residents here have demonstrated over and over again we aren't interested. mtmuley
Idaho does not have a transferable landowner program. Illegal activity is illegal, no different than poaching imo.
Because I feel it’s best for the resource and makes the most sense.
Montana residents also seem to overwhelmingly support hunting mule deer with a rifle during the rut. That doesn’t mean it’s the best course of action.
One important point of distinction regarding the “Kings Deer” concept as it relates to things like landowner tags: these are not allocating wildlife. They are allocating opportunity in the form of tags or vouchers.
An important point of distinction as @Elky Welky illustrated in his analysis of the Pierson decision: The Court found that until the animal was reduced to "capture" and within the possession of the hunter, that it was, quite literally, fair game.
Tags and vouchers do not necessarily equal game animals, as we’ve all experienced ourselves.
An important point of distinction as @Elky Welky illustrated in his analysis of the Pierson decision: The Court found that until the animal was reduced to "capture" and within the possession of the hunter, that it was, quite literally, fair game.
Tags and vouchers do not necessarily equal game animals, as we’ve all experienced ourselves.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,228
At some point - governments are the ones resposible for bad laws that are unenforceable.
Heres some proof exactly in the scenario- try and police 131 people (who can quite easily, with some paperwork transfer it to an "employee") only allowed to hunt only on "land they own or lease for agricultural purposes"
You suppose the game wardens got a running list of LLCs, ag leases, and employee lists?
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Democratic management and opportunity, at least IMO.
I guess I don't know what group I'm in. I've hunted 13 days this year, and not a single one on a tag I have.
I really like debate and intellectual discussion. Others just like to be right. I'll tip my cap to TS because he at least can keep it civil with others devolve to insults and mocking.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,228
The problem with that - it (like our existing programs) will never be enough and it will become a new political football.
You might have more faith in madison than montanans have in helena.
CowboyLeroy
Well-known member
Thank you for your kind acknowledgement
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Yes, and held in trust for citizens of the state holding the habitat resided in by the wildlife ... as dictated by federal and state laws of, by, and for the people and the wildlife.
Although uncertain of the meaning of "allocated", if responsibility of managing wildlife by providing hunting opportunities is meant, again the laws provide for each state to decide and administer the hunting privilege opportunities on behalf of the wildlife, on behalf of the citizens of the state, and, fortunately for nonresidents, on their behalf but to a more limited degree. All aforementioned within the structure of democratic representative rule of law, upheld and confirmed by a number of legal challenges.
Yes, and wildlife can and does roam across a broad spectrum of USA internal and international boundaries. But wildlife is not "owned" by anyone, but is held in trust for citizens of the state holding the habitat resided in by the wildlife. If the wildlife crosses a boundary, then the rules, policies, and hunting regulations regarding management are those of the state crossed into.
Yes, however in accordance with the laws and regulations of the STATE in which the wildlife and fish reside. Similarly, every person blessed to be a USA citizen has equal opportunity to reside in a state which provides the important quality of life aspects of priority to that citizen ... whether it be economic opportunity, desirable climate, lakes to fish, or hunting opportunities and privileges. Equal opportunity is there for you and me and all USA ... you decide, based on the federal and state laws, established regulations, and factors which may vary from state to state.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I think his point is that all of your references to "laws" are counter, or at least inconsistent with, the actual verbaige and [arguably] intent of NAM.
As someone on the outside looking in, the difference in my concept of "public" and yours, is clearly exacerbated by the distinctly different mangement of "public" lands.
Correct.
Seeing the word “state” implied in the wording of the seven pillars requires a level of imagination I don’t seem to possess
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Also, just so we're clear, I'm fully aware and reasonably well versed in the legal details of how we got here. I can reference all of the same court cases as you. That arguement in my eyes, is more, what is the best way to manage wildlife, and to the point of the OP, isn't this still, at least sort of, the kings deer? There may not be one single king that controls all wildlife but the reasource is still disproportionately shared with a minority user group that, again, from the outside looking in, is incredibly resistant to even discussing that disproportional allocation.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Thank-you. However, it's not based on my "interpretation". It's based on years of studying and monitoring this very state wildlife management and hunting opportunities issue. The many well researched and written explanations are very clear on the distinctions. HT's boss, Big Fin, has written pages of posts over the years on this very forum, posts that clearly explain in more detail and with more legal, judicial, administrative, and factual information.I appreciate your interpretation @Straight Arrow
Nameless Range
Well-known member
The NAM is an ideal, and there are certain parts of it that are more held to than others, but bear in mind it's literally a list of things Geist wrote in 2001. A lot of law precedes it.
As to the democratic allocation of wildlife belonging to all citizens as public trust, one needs to really dig into what "public trust" means. A portion from Geist's paper:
Public Trust as Law.— Sax (1999) identified 4 fundamental concepts of public trust:
1. Public trust is common law. There is no legal code specific to the Public Trust Doctrine because it has never been officially enacted. It is “judge-made law” that is interpreted and evolves through court decisions. For the last century or so, most of our laws have been statutory coded laws, but for most of the development of the Anglo-American legal system, common law prevailed.
2. Public trust is state law. As such, there is no single law but many. Yet each embodies a unifying principle of the fundamental rights of all citizens.
I bolded the word state there.
I used to lean on the NAM as an ideal more than I do now, because as Irrelevant and others point out it is confusing and conflicting. I think instead, more ground might be gained by just focusing on the future hunters want and what is feasible within those desires given more than a century of established law and precedent. Let's talk proposals and consequences and how those align with the aforementioned.
“Whilst the fundamental principles upon which the common property in game rests have undergone no change, the development of free institutions has lead [sic] to the recognition of the fact that the power or control lodged in the State, resulting from the common ownership, is to be exercised, like allot her powers of government, as a trust for the benefit of all people, and not as a prerogative for the advantage of the government, as distinct from the people, or for the benefit of private individuals as distinguished from the public” (161 U.S. 519, 1896).
Bolded the word state again there.
As to the democratic allocation of wildlife belonging to all citizens as public trust, one needs to really dig into what "public trust" means. A portion from Geist's paper:
Public Trust as Law.— Sax (1999) identified 4 fundamental concepts of public trust:
1. Public trust is common law. There is no legal code specific to the Public Trust Doctrine because it has never been officially enacted. It is “judge-made law” that is interpreted and evolves through court decisions. For the last century or so, most of our laws have been statutory coded laws, but for most of the development of the Anglo-American legal system, common law prevailed.
2. Public trust is state law. As such, there is no single law but many. Yet each embodies a unifying principle of the fundamental rights of all citizens.
I bolded the word state there.
I used to lean on the NAM as an ideal more than I do now, because as Irrelevant and others point out it is confusing and conflicting. I think instead, more ground might be gained by just focusing on the future hunters want and what is feasible within those desires given more than a century of established law and precedent. Let's talk proposals and consequences and how those align with the aforementioned.
“Whilst the fundamental principles upon which the common property in game rests have undergone no change, the development of free institutions has lead [sic] to the recognition of the fact that the power or control lodged in the State, resulting from the common ownership, is to be exercised, like allot her powers of government, as a trust for the benefit of all people, and not as a prerogative for the advantage of the government, as distinct from the people, or for the benefit of private individuals as distinguished from the public” (161 U.S. 519, 1896).
Bolded the word state again there.
