Bullshot
Well-known member
In light of recent nuclear meltdowns regarding WY 90/10 or MT set asides, etc, I have one question I just can't ever seem to get my head around and would like INFORMED people to provide some insight and references and then hope the powers that be will lock the thread if it exceeds 1 page after having been answered. Ok, here goes.
First, let's put aside private and state owned land for a minute as my question does not apply there.
Next I FULLY understand that it has been determined that states own their wildlife.
I concede that the State has the right to charge whatever they want to take an animal and to choose the types of methods that are allowed and to provide licenses acknowledging that.
But...I cannot keep my mind from drifting to the issue of Federal lands owned by all and how hunting seems to be the only legal recreational activity on Federal land that is OK to provide quotas depending on your residency (I could be wrong, please provide examples). This creates a bit of a paradox. One wonders if hunting on federal land, as an activity, should be open to all equally in regards to the chance of obtaining a licence. But upon taking an animal you may be subject to whatever the state wishes to charge (i.e., using the State's pricing power, which is not in dispute, to influence behaviors). Most people hate this as much as quotas, as it may exclude as others have said, the "common man." I share that worry, but it is not the State's obligation to share that worry as well. However, I struggle for consistency as to why camping, or hiking, or canoeing, or wildlife photography or birdwatching, etc. are not subject to quota efforts. Some of those latter activities are focused on and reliant on State-owned wildlife. Quotas on non-consumptive uses (and traffic, competition, etc) could arguably improve the enjoyment of those activities by residents. But quotas would seem ridiculous, un-American on their face. That said, does the state's ownership of wildlife REQUIRE that the act of hunting is only equivalent to the right to kill? Or does it only give the state the right to herd up the animals as livestock if they wish, or protect them, or sell them at whatever price they want (including to hunters). Please read, and re-read this post before answering this nuanced question... summarized as: does ownership of the animal allow preferential quotas of an activity by residency on federal land.
First, let's put aside private and state owned land for a minute as my question does not apply there.
Next I FULLY understand that it has been determined that states own their wildlife.
I concede that the State has the right to charge whatever they want to take an animal and to choose the types of methods that are allowed and to provide licenses acknowledging that.
But...I cannot keep my mind from drifting to the issue of Federal lands owned by all and how hunting seems to be the only legal recreational activity on Federal land that is OK to provide quotas depending on your residency (I could be wrong, please provide examples). This creates a bit of a paradox. One wonders if hunting on federal land, as an activity, should be open to all equally in regards to the chance of obtaining a licence. But upon taking an animal you may be subject to whatever the state wishes to charge (i.e., using the State's pricing power, which is not in dispute, to influence behaviors). Most people hate this as much as quotas, as it may exclude as others have said, the "common man." I share that worry, but it is not the State's obligation to share that worry as well. However, I struggle for consistency as to why camping, or hiking, or canoeing, or wildlife photography or birdwatching, etc. are not subject to quota efforts. Some of those latter activities are focused on and reliant on State-owned wildlife. Quotas on non-consumptive uses (and traffic, competition, etc) could arguably improve the enjoyment of those activities by residents. But quotas would seem ridiculous, un-American on their face. That said, does the state's ownership of wildlife REQUIRE that the act of hunting is only equivalent to the right to kill? Or does it only give the state the right to herd up the animals as livestock if they wish, or protect them, or sell them at whatever price they want (including to hunters). Please read, and re-read this post before answering this nuanced question... summarized as: does ownership of the animal allow preferential quotas of an activity by residency on federal land.
Last edited:
