I don't think the 10th Amendment gives residents the "right" to hunt on Federal land...or any land for that matter. Hunting, especially on Federal land, is a privilege that can be taken away. Can you imagine how private landowners would react if they had the same restrictions placed on them? The states can make hunting regulations all day long but that doesn't give residents the right to hunt on private or Federal land.
On a separate topic, I find it incongruent of you to want the Feds to manage public lands because the states are too corrupt but then say the Feds are the last ones you want to manage hunting regulations. I would say that if the State can't be trusted to manage land then it can't be trusted to manage wildlife as evidenced by the Wilderness law in Wyoming.
You may not think the 10th Amendment gives residents the "right to hunt ......." according to the rules of their state, but the courts do. So, I guess that is what matters. If you doubt the states are granted the right to determine who gets to hunt and who doesn't, at what price or what discount, then I suggest you read the volumes of court cases that say so. Don't take my word for it.
As to private landowners,they could have the same restriction placed upon them if ever a state were stupid enough to make hunting tags off limits on public land; the dumbest idea anyone could ever dream up. A state would be fools to even think about such a crazy idea, so to use that scenario in this discussion is moot. But, states set the rules of where your tag is valid, by resident of non-resident, etc. If you doubt that, look at states that give resident landowners a tag for their deeded private lands, but they do not give non-resident landowners a tag for their deeded private lands. Lots of examples where states can make statutes that apply to private v. public lands.
Nobody is saying that states can control all that happens on private or Federal land. They don't own those lands. States are not vested in that right.
But, they can place restrictions on what, where, who, and at what price people enjoy the wildlife the state holds in trust for its citizens. Exactly what WY has done with the absurd wilderness restriction on non-residents. Without a tag that is valid for where you are standing, it doesn't matter who owns the land, you are not allowed to legally take wildlife. In that reality, a reality supported by the courts, the states hold the power to do what is the topic of this most recent topic, WY wilderness restrictions.
You are more than welcome to find it incongruent that I support state's rights in wildlife and Federal ownership of land, two different rights held by two different governments, but that is how the courts currently hold it to be in this country. It is how the rules have been in this country since long before my family came to this country from Scandinavia 110 years ago.
I have no problem with state management of assets, if it is really about management of the lands in a way that is beneficial to all. If you think the effort to transfer Federal lands to the states is about management, then we will disagree. Unless, you classify sale and disposal of management.
Make no mistake, it is completely about disposal and granting to their friends. Whenever we ask these "transfer" politicians if they would restrict the deeds such that any sale/disposal by the state would restrict the deed to provide perpetual public access, they fly off the handle. They have every excuse why perpetual access cannot be provided. We point to them all the mechanisms by which perpetual access could be provided under a transfer scenario. When we do, they change the subject.
When we ask them to change rules that restrict recreation and hunting access on state lands to make that access similar to what we enjoy on Federal lands, they balk. They have a long list of reasons as to why state lands need the access restrictions that currently exist. I was in the fight to allow hunting access to state lands in MT in the late 1990's. We offered to pay a fee for that access and they still bitched, even though maximizing revenue is the Constitutional mandate for those lands. They don't want those lands open to the public as they are now.
Since they started this movement 40 years ago, they pitched it as "sale of public lands." Yet, when they learned that "sale of these lands" was rejected by Americans, they repackaged it as "transfer." Same people, same motives, same story. Feel free to believe them, if you want. I don't. And that is why I support Federal ownership of those lands, in spite of the many instances I would like to see better management of Federal lands.
If you think states are not qualified to manage wildlife, then I suggest you get lawyered up to change the 10th Amendment and override all of the court cases that vest that right in wildlife to the states as trustee for the citizens of their state.
