Non-resident Hunting and the North American Model

[TOGIE]

Why should wildlife be different (other than case law)?

i dunno. it's a good question.

why should water be a public trust resource on a state level and not federal?

is it a matter of efficiency? i.e. the thing is too complicated, large, and composed of too many unique local issues to be effectively managed federally?

is it a state right's issue to manage wildlife on a state by state basis or is it only case law? i really don't know. is there a constitutional reason for this? @VikingsGuy

there's gotta be good reasons. but if not and it's just a "well that's how it ended up and it should be different" ... then what to what end? should state management of public trust resources just not be a thing at all? that also seems like a bad rabbit hole.

should some guy in new york have equal representation with his fellow americans on water matters in colorado? hellllll to the no i say. he can pound sand. but should he?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I'm starting to support a more general infrastructure, MT gets 100k tags, no R vs NR. It's a lottery on who gets them. Landowners can get tags for their land only. And I do not think that if the entire "industry" said boycott MT anything would change. One no one would boycott it, I bet they would have even more applicants because people are greedy and would see a potential advantage.


Versus the State doing it? WA has slashed it's wildlife budget over and over again. We're always talking about alternative ways to fund wildlife, giving more people a say might accomplish that. Or it might not.

Sure. But I have a say in management of elk in WY vs right now I don't.


Do I get a preference for a camping slot in the Enchantments because I'm a local? No.
Does @MTGomer get a preference for a non-guided trip down the Grand Canyon because he lives in AZ? No.
Why should wildlife be different (other than case law)?

In the specific cases folks made arguments for and against, essentially they had this debate and we are living with the result.

I need to watch Randy's videos again, but I think it kinda boils down to this.

Camping in the Enchantments, using federal land same thing with Grand Canyon.
Cutting a tree, the tree is attached to the earth so the landowner decides aka Forest Service.

Animals move between properties therefore state ownership.

Birds migrate between countries therefore federal laws, due to the necessity of international treaties. Colorado can't have an independent treaty with Mexico and Canada.

 

[Corn king 60]

Totally agree, well said!
Matt

Yeah can’t argue with many of his points especially the one about walking out your door growing up in the 60-70S and hunting pretty much any where you wanted .

 

[TOGIE]

Colorado can't have an independent treaty with Mexico and Canada.

in theory it could so long as congress approves.

interstate water compacts are exactly that, treaties.

i digress though

edit: i originally said in this post mexico was party to the colorado river compact. it's not. the US has a separate treaty with mexico regarding that flow delivery

i digress further

 

[Deleted member 28227]

in theory it could so long as congress approves.

Exactly you can't do it without the federal gov: Article II Section 2 Clause 2

10th Amendment. aka State Wildlife Management
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Elk aren't timber, and they don't require a international treaty to manage, so States.

(Grossly oversimplified)

and @neffa3 I disagree I think hunting groups could dissuade hunters, and I think even the idea of them telling their memberships not to hunt that state would get people to back down.

 

[Irrelevant]

i dunno. it's a good question.

why should water be a public trust resource on a state level and not federal?

is it a matter of efficiency? i.e. the thing is too complicated, large, and composed of too many unique local issues to be effectively managed federally?

is it a state right's issue to manage wildlife on a state by state basis or is it only case law? i really don't know. is there a constitutional reason for this? @VikingsGuy

there's gotta be good reasons. but if not and it's just a "well that's how it ended up and it should be different" ... then what to what end? should state management of public trust resources just not be a thing at all? that also seems like a bad rabbit hole.

should some guy in new york have equal representation with his fellow americans on water matters in colorado? hellllll to the no i say. he can pound sand. but should he?

I believe all rights not explicitly granted to the feds are the states. I don't know why the feds get to manage ESA animals but not non ESA animals.

Animals move between properties therefore state ownership.

But elk don't walk across state lines? Salmon don't swim through Canadian waters?

I don't think it's a black and white. And I think we can and should rethink what we're doing and why.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I believe all rights not explicitly granted to the feds are the states. I don't know why the feds get to manage ESA animals but not non ESA animals.

But elk don't walk across state lines? Salmon don't swim through Canadian waters?

I don't think it's a black and white. And I think we can and should rethink what we're doing and why.

Because of the ESA... the fed is only party to interstate crimes because of the Lacey act.

To do what your suggesting you would need to pass a law. You are then opening yourself up for California managing predator hunting for the rest of the country.

 

[Irrelevant]

You are then opening yourself up for California managing predator hunting for the rest of the country.

Maybe. I can think of more pluses right now than minuses.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I believe all rights not explicitly granted to the feds are the states. I don't know why the feds get to manage ESA animals but not non ESA animals.

Aside from the Constitutional detail that wildlife were not reserved by the feds, therefore they fall under the States purview...ESA only comes into play (in theory) when the States “dropped the ball”, so to speak. Once the species is secure, it goes back to the States. ESA was never meant to take species under federal control in perpetuity. The ESA is not any kind of model for wildlife management IMO.

The “stability” you see with regards to bureaucracy is exactly why the feds should not assume blanket management of wildlife. The ship is much too slow to respond to dynamic resources that can fluctuate wildly depending on harsh winters, disease, drought, etc., particularly at the relatively tiny scales that most big game are managed at (and should be managed at).

Not to mention having congressional oversight of wildlife resources would put most of the control with people who have no interest in hunting or its preservation. How many times recently has there been draft legislation at the national level to ban trapping? These are the same folks that gave us the Wild Horse and Burro Act, btw. And banned importation of hunting “trophies”. I don’t at all think hunting would be more equitable or “safe” under federal management. Quite the opposite, actually.

 

[Irrelevant]

Aside from the Constitutional detail that wildlife were not reserved by the feds, therefore they fall under the States purview...ESA only comes into play (in theory) when the States “dropped the ball”, so to speak. Once the species is secure, it goes back to the States. ESA was never meant to take species under federal control in perpetuity. The ESA is not any kind of model for wildlife management IMO.

The “stability” you see with regards to bureaucracy is exactly why the feds should not assume blanket management of wildlife. The ship is much too slow to respond to dynamic resources that can fluctuate wildly depending on harsh winters, disease, drought, etc., particularly at the relatively tiny scales that most big game are managed at (and should be managed at).

Not to mention having congressional oversight of wildlife resources would put most of the control with people who have no interest in hunting or its preservation. How many times recently has there been draft legislation at the national level to ban trapping? These are the same folks that gave us the Wild Horse and Burro Act, btw. And banned importation of hunting “trophies”. I don’t at all think hunting would be more equitable or “safe” under federal management. Quite the opposite, actually.

So the BLM and FS have no control on how they manage their various districts? Everything must go through Congress? Why could there not be a local branch of the FWS that handles variations in smaller regions? Is managing a wildlife resource really all that different than a forest, with 10x more users, that burns and changes entirely every dozen years?

Would the FWS cave to outfitters demands for more tags? Would they prevent people from hunting wilderness areas? Would they charge people 10x more depending on where they were born or found a job?

Put all those thoughts on our public lands, and tell me that's fair.

As a wise person just mentioned in another thread, "wildlife are a condition of the land" -public land; public wildlife.

 

[Hunting Wife]

So the BLM and FS have no control on how they manage their various districts? Everything must go through Congress? Why could there not be a local branch of the FWS that handles variations in smaller regions? Is managing a wildlife resource really all that different than a forest, with 10x more users, that burns and changes entirely every dozen years?

Depends on the subject. There is quite a bit of latitude in some areas, almost zero in others. It all depends on how the legislation is written, and the policies that are adopted. All of that comes from politicians. Certainly you’ve seen how politicians typically choose to manage wildlife by now.

Would the FWS cave to outfitters demands for more tags? Would they prevent people from hunting wilderness areas? Would they charge people 10x more depending on where they were born or found a job?

Put all those thoughts on our public lands, and tell me that's fair.

As a wise person just mentioned in another thread, "wildlife are a condition of the land" -public land; public wildlife.

You still haven’t convinced me that state wildlife aren’t public.

The feds cave all the time when people start screaming “government overreach”. Why else would Bundy still be adding onto a millions of dollars trespass grazing bill? Oh, and reinterpreting Mig Bitd Treaty Act? Do you really think the states, who already scream gov overreach on public lands, would cede their well-established state right to manage their wildlife? And I can guarantee you the feds won’t touch that with a 100 ft pole.

I work for the feds on wildlife. The states are much more nimble and responsive than we could ever be. I think hunting would be in jeopardy if it was solely at federal discretion.

 

[mottlet]

As a wise person just mentioned in another thread, "wildlife are a condition of the land" -public land; public wildlife.

Play this one out for me. The vast majority of critters wandering around these United States aren't on public land. The NAM has to consider more than how often I can draw a Type 9 in the Bighorns.

 

[Irrelevant]

Play this one out for me. The vast majority of critters wandering around these United States aren't on public land.

Is public air confined to public land?

The NAM has to consider more than how often I can draw a Type 9 in the Bighorns.

NAM should treat wildlife like a public resource, not a state owner resource like trust lands. We've heard it a dozen times, the plight of CO trust lands, that they're not "public" land they're property of the state. With wildlife it's not that that state is locking the public out, is that they're prioritizes certain geographic classes of people.

 

[VikingsGuy]

is it a state right's issue to manage wildlife on a state by state basis or is it only case law? i really don't know. is there a constitutional reason for this? @VikingsGuy

First off. I am not pushing for a change. The current rules are a mess and any future fed rules would be a mess too. I am happy to take what MT and WY choose to offer at the price they choose to charge, and if I ever decide it is too much for too little I will do something else and not lose sleep over it. But I do grow weary of folks who act like the current law was etched in stone by the hand of God and can't ever change. It is simply not so.

There is no legal mandate that the current system continues in its present form - it is entirely a political choice (or more accurately, 90+% voters and congress members don't care enough to fight for a change).

Can the federal government, if it so chose, regulate big game tags/quotas and NR rules related thereto? Unquestionably, yes. The commerce clause has been used to trump the 10th amendment 99% of the time - and for matters far more removed from federal interests than this. Plenty of good faith "hooks" for feds to use. Big game can and do cross state borders. Hunters can and do cross state borders and as such are engaged in interstate commerce. Big game can and do cross international borders. Big game can and do reside on federal lands. Hunters licensed by states can and do hunt big game on federal land. States accept significant federal $$ from PR funds. States accept significant federal $$ for other conservation/wildlife reasons. etc. etc. etc.

Remember when insurance, most crime, education, etc, etc, etc, etc . . . used to be viewed as issues reserved for the states? Been a long time since that was the law - not during my lifetime anyway. I would have preferred these stay state focuses and protected by the 10thA, but that ship has sailed.

Also, besides the federalist/constitutional argument that doesn't hold water, the theory that those that spend the most should control the issue doesn't even work in fact. If you add together federal funds, conservation organization funds collected out of state, NR licenses/tags, etc, my guess is the people of WY spend less than NRs on wildlife management within WY. Start with the facts that 46% of WY's entire state budget is funded by NRs (meaning the fed and the NR taxpayers that fund the feds) and that F&W is almost entirely self-funded (largely by NR licenses and tags) and the answer is fairly obvious.

Another theory is local landowners bear a heavy share of the burden of wildlife management. And I agree on this point. But this is just an argument for landowner tags and we know how popular those are on this site.

So, landowner, NR taxpayers and NR license/tag purchasers clearly fund more wildlife management than resident non-land owners. That pretty much guts the, "residents pay so residents rule" argument. Frankly, the folks that pay the least (resident non-land owners) have the most control - that seems a little off, doesn't it?

So, why do we have the current state supremacy on the issue? Because historically they did fund local wildlife, local landowners could almost always get tags due to easier availability, there was less federal and conservation group funding going to the states, the feds had yet to creep into every corner of our lives and hunting had less cross-border footprint. With that historical backdrop, it made perfect sense. And no group has gathered enough momentum to change course. But not because it must be so, but because most folks don't care.

 

[Irrelevant]

Play this one out for me. The vast majority of critters wandering around these United States aren't on public land. The NAM has to consider more than how often I can draw a Type 9 in the Bighorns.

That original thought for me went something like, the US bought/fought for all of these westerns lands, and would have continued to own them had they not deliberately given lands to states via land grants or to private citizens for homesteading (or industry). But those wildlife resources are a condition of lands the feds/public paid for. The State of Montana did not buy itself from France as part of the Louisiana purchase.

But I backed off all of the above because I don't like the way it addressed or didn't our treatment of native Americans.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Is public air confined to public land?

NAM should treat wildlife like a public resource, not a state owner resource like trust lands. We've heard it a dozen times, the plight of CO trust lands, that they're not "public" land they're property of the state. With wildlife it's not that that state is locking the public out, is that they're prioritizes certain geographic classes of people.

Say I own a cabin with all my extend family. We agree to rent it for 10% of the summer to pay for the property taxes, then we the whole family get to stay there the rest of the year we divide up the days evenly. We rent the cabin for $300 a night to the public, and then ask family members to just pay for what they use, Soap, trash bags etc.

Wildlife is owned by the residents of the state, the state is therefore allocating how many animals can be harvest by residents aka co owners and how many should be allocated for sale to non owners aka "non-residents".

The price difference, I think accurately can be understood as a shareholder discount.

 

[Irrelevant]

Say I own a cabin with all my extend family. We agree to rent it for 10% of the summer to pay for the property taxes, then we the whole family get to stay there the rest of the year we divide up the days evenly. We rent the cabin for $300 a night to the public, and then ask family members to just pay for what they use, Soap, trash bags etc.

Wildlife is owned by the residents of the state, the state is therefore allocating how many animals can be harvest by residents aka co owners and how many should be allocated for sale to non owners aka "non-residents".

The price difference, I think accurately can be understood as a shareholder discount.

Correct, in your example and in reality, wildlife are not public resources, they are private resources of the state, and if that IS the NAM, then I don't support it.

I will not advocate for a private resource that I have no shared ownership of. I will focus on clean air, clean water, and public land.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Say I own a cabin with all my extend family. We agree to rent it for 10% of the summer to pay for the property taxes, then we the whole family get to stay there the rest of the year we divide up the days evenly. We rent the cabin for $300 a night to the public, and then ask family members to just pay for what they use, Soap, trash bags etc.

Wildlife is owned by the residents of the state, the state is therefore allocating how many animals can be harvest by residents aka co owners and how many should be allocated for sale to non owners aka "non-residents".

The price difference, I think accurately can be understood as a shareholder discount.

The state as owners of all wild animals (vs counties vs feds vs landowner vs some interstate compact across an animal's natural range) is an arbitrary construct. One that could be changed "by the stroke of a pen" - and that would then give you different answers. If one presupposes this is the one and only proper framework then every argument will lead you back to the current state, but there is no reason logically one must accept that initial construct over the other options if we are discussing what is "best" in 2021. Also, it is not at all clear that residents of a state are "co-owners" in the animals - that sounds nice but they in no way have any of the rights of co-ownership that would vest in any other title. It's like me calling the Social Security Administration and asking for my account balance - Social Security as a "savings account" is a marketing gimmick to gin up popular support. So is "co-ownership" of wildlife.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The state as owners of all wild animals (vs counties vs feds vs landowner vs some interstate compact across an animal's natural range) is an arbitrary construct. One that could be changed "by the stroke of a pen" - and that would then give you different answers. If one presupposes this is the one and only proper framework then every argument will lead you back to the current state, but there is no reason logically one must accept that initial construct over the other options if we are discussing what is "best" in 2021. Also, it is not at all clear that residents of a state are "co-owners" in the animals - that sounds nice but they in no way have any of the rights of co-ownership that would vest in any other title. It's like me calling the Social Security Administration and asking for my account balance - Social Security as a "savings account" is a marketing gimmick to gin up popular support. So is "co-ownership" of wildlife.

I like the idea of calling to check my social security account balance .

Not meaning to be intentionally vague or cryptic here, but for a number of things... guns/ wildlife etc. I can certainly see an argument for how a fed system would work better, in many ways top down systems do work best. China get's some chit done let's just say that.


That said things done at a federal level seem to be wildly unpopular, with the exception of maybe the military I can't think of anything the fed does with a positive approval rating across the county. I think this has a polarizing effect and in many was is bad for America.

My understanding of America is that it works because CA and WY are different and their allowed to be different.

 

[mtmuley]

I looked around, but I'm sure there was a lawsuit years ago that dealt with the cost difference of Resident vs NR fees. wllm 1313? mtmuley