Non-resident Hunting and the North American Model

[Kearnsie14]

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.

I think VikingsGuy is agreeing with you (as do I) as a policy matter that it’s generally far more preferable for the states to manage a good many things than for the feds to step in. I think he’s simply pointing out that when the feds want to bigfoot things, they generally find a way. They’re just not generally interested in big footing state management of wildlife.

 

[Irrelevant]

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.

Clean air
Clean water
Public land
-Forest Service
-BLM
-National wildlife refuge system
-NPS
-etc...

Highways
Tariffs
ESA management (at least the federal portion)
Education (minimum mandates)
Civil Rights
Post Office (at least for the vast majority of it's existence)

Where would Mississippi or Alabama be if not for federal civil rights legislation? What about the Ohio River, would there even be fish?

What do the State's do with a positive approval rating?

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

Sure. They can still be different while having wildlife managed as a public resource just like federal lands are, or should we turn those over to the states as well?

 

[BuzzH]

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.

As to question 1...it's called the endangered species act. Congress had to establish, and pass an act of congress for them to manage endangered species. It makes sense for a wide variety of reasons and I won't bother to explain why, it's intuitively obvious even to a casual observer.

As to the rest of the discussion watch Randys video "the king's deer"... tons of case law, the arguments made by a whole slew of butt-hurt nonresidents over tag fees and allocations that they lost. Also recently passed federal legislation reaffirming the states rights to manage wildlife within in its borders...including specific language that states can discriminate against nr hunters any way they want. S.339 specifically.

Sorry, but no state is going to give it's rights to wildlife management away because NRs aren't getting their way. USO tried it and the immediate response was federal legislation reaffirming state wildlife management authority.

I don't want any state to give an inch on that, nor should they...and to think it ever will, is not even half decent wishful thinking.

People are free to believe what they want...but imo, you're pissing up a rope thinking you're going to see states wildlife management rights changed over nr tag allocations. It most likely won't ever happen.

 

[mtmuley]

USO. That's the one I remember. mtmuley

 

[BuzzH]

USO. That's the one I remember. mtmuley

Right, and if there ever was a chance for the federal government to try to reclaim some federal over-sight on state game management it was right then. Instead the Federal response was to pass legislation to make sure States kept the right to manage wildlife.

The Federal government is wise to stay out of it, again for a whole herd of intuitively good reasons.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Clean air
Clean water
Public land
-Forest Service
-BLM
-National wildlife refuge system
-NPS
-etc...

Highways
Tariffs
ESA management (at least the federal portion)
Education (minimum mandates)
Civil Rights
Post Office (at least for the vast majority of it's existence)

Where would Mississippi or Alabama be if not for federal civil rights legislation? What about the Ohio River, would there even be fish?

What do the State's do with a positive approval rating?


Sure. They can still be different while having wildlife managed as a public resource just like federal lands are, or should we turn those over to the states as well?

Yeah all of those are kinda my point... maybe not roads, though people were kinda pissed about having to adopt speed limits in MT.

Remember the agencies Rick Perry was going to get rid of on day one? Commerce, Education and Energy.

 

[Irrelevant]

Yeah all of those are kinda my point... maybe not roads, though people were kinda pissed about having to adopt speed limits in MT.

Remember the agencies Rick Perry was going to get rid of on day one? Commerce, Education and Energy.

What do you mean that that's your point? I must have missed it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

What do you mean that that's your point? I must have missed it.

People hate the fed, they hate the state too but it’s the evil they know.

 

[BuzzH]

People hate the fed, they hate the state to but it’s the evil they know.

Correct and the "evil" that they share a city, county, and state with. At least at the state level we still have reasonable access to contact decision makers. I can't even begin to imagine trying to explain even the most simple wildlife related concepts to federal level representatives. It just makes one thing to keep things as they are in regard to state wildlife control...and that's sense.

 

[VikingsGuy]

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

Yup several - and as Congress had not acted states prevailed. That is not the same thing as saying Congress couldn’t act.

 

[mtmuley]

Yup several - and as Congress had not acted states prevailed. That is not the same thing as saying Congress couldn’t act.

So the ruling in the USO case means nothing? mtmuley

 

[VikingsGuy]

It is interesting that we don’t trust the fed with the animals but trust the state. But in turn don’t trust the state with land but do trust the fed. Seems more like comfort with status quo than disciplined approach to governance.

 

[BuzzH]

Yup several - and as Congress had not acted states prevailed. That is not the same thing as saying Congress couldn’t act.

I agree that they could act...just not very likely at all.

 

[VikingsGuy]

So the ruling in the USO case means nothing? mtmuley

In that case 9th circ said states must manage non-res tags in “least discriminatory manner possible” basis equal protectiondormant commerce clause. Reed crammed an unread late night rider into a spending bill where Congress “authorized” states to manage as they wish. Not sure why that was supposed to end the question as Congress can’t fix constitutional failings. The whole thing is a house of cards that folks think is made of granite.

CORRECTION: Looks like 9th circuit went with dormant commerce clause - Reid's bill created congressional action that closed the door on that argument. SCOTUS would not re-consider the 9th circ ruling. So while AZ & NV won the day, they essentially did so in a way that admits Congress can regulate state tags, but congress expressed its will as of 2004 that it chooses not to. So, we are 218 representatives and 51 senators (60 if the filibuster is still around in a year) away from fed big game licensing

 

[mtmuley]

Just what we need. Congress involved in state wildlife management. Hell, they got involved in baseball. mtmuley

 

[BuzzH]

It is interesting that we don’t trust the fed with the animals but trust the state. But in turn don’t trust the state with land but do trust the fed. Seems more like comfort with status quo than disciplined approach to governance.

I don't trust states to manage land because they don't have the money to do it in places like Montana or wyoming that have lots of federal land. It's not the management I don't trust it's their desire to sell it rather than manage it. They don't have the funding or the expertise...in particular when congress has imposed various acts, laws, and regulations that are required for land management. Many of those would still apply to the States. It's one thing for a State to manage 3-4 million acres, 30-40 million or more is another whole can of worms.

 

[BuzzH]

In that case 9th circ said states must manage non-res tags in “least discriminatory manner possible” basis equal protection. Reed crammed an unread late night rider into a spending bill where Congress “authorized” states to manage as they wish. Not sure why that was supposed to end the question as Congress can’t fix constitutional failings. The whole thing is a house of cards that folks think is made of granite.

Lots of co-sponsors on S.339.

Wasn't crammed through, it was all over the net and elsewhere and had wide support across congress.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I guess I look to the State’s records with regards to management of resources before deciding. For lands, many states have sold the majority of the lands they received at statehood. Most of the rest is managed for profit first, often inaccessible, and provides little other benefit to residents. Track record, in my opinion, is largely bad on land management.

Wildlife, game species in particular, in many states was brought back from a very bleak point by the states, largely at behest of resident sportsmen. If it weren’t for that, we likely wouldn’t be having this conversation right now, and we are still enjoying the fruits of those labors today. Track record on wildlife management, in my opinion, largely good.

I still fail to see a compelling argument for upending this system. Or am I too discombobulated from the time change to comprehend a logical argument?

 

[antlerradar]

I can't even begin to imagine trying to explain even the most simple wildlife related concepts to federal level representatives.

With Liz Chaney as your representative, You are giving me nightmares' just thinking about it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I still fail to see a compelling argument for upending this system.

I don't disagree.

The reason it is this way is because we believe that is the best answer in 2021. But not because 1600's English common law said so, or some 1890-ish case said so, or because the NAM requires it, or because state residents pay the most to manage wildlife, or because some law review article said so, or because the 10th A guarantees it. All arguments that get thrown out as the final unassailable answer every time this comes up.

Let's make the case that this is the best system (amongst less than ideal options). And if it is broken let's find ways to repair it before someone burns it down.