Review of NWRs and Fish Hatcheries

[SAJ-99]

I agree. But also, wildlife is held in trust by the state (and therefore should be funded by them).

Who “owns” wildlife can be very complex, most certainly not black and white. Good illustration of a tricky and evolving issue.

Not all. Waterfowl are managed federally. Salmon are managed across states and in international waters. It is complex but you want to oversimplify. The problem will become apparent when we see changes to wetlands protections or if they transfer hatcheries to state or tribal control. All to save a $.

 

[Treeshark]

Not all. Waterfowl are managed federally. Salmon are managed across states and in international waters.

But other species, which also migrate across state and international lines, are managed/held in trust by the state.

I see that it is a very complex and evolving issue (as the recent developments that compelled this thread illustrate).

*This post may contain my opinions.

 

[SAJ-99]

But other species, which also migrate across state and international lines, are managed/held in trust by the state.

Please point out a game species where 90% of the population migrates across state lines where management is in the states hands.

Doing a "review" after a 20% staff reduction is the worst way to run an organization. It explains why Trump bankrupts everything he touches. There is zero intent to fix anything. The decision was made before this was ever announced. The USFWS won't make it 3 more years. If it does, it will be two guys and a dog running the place.

https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/briefs/u-s-fish-and-wildlife-sees-nearly-20-drop-in-staff-since-trump-took-office/

 

[Treeshark]

Please point out a game species where 90% of the population migrates across state lines where management is in the states hands.

What migration percentage is the cutoff for wildlife to be held in trust by the state vs managed federally? I’ve never heard of that requirement before.

The article you posted bemoaned the plight of scientists studying salamanders (among other species, in fairness). Do 90% of salamanders migrate across state lines?

If wildlife is indeed a resource held in trust by the states, it begs the question: should the USFWS even exist in the first place? It is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that states could (and should) fully manage wildlife in a better and more efficient manner.

*This post may contain my opinions.

 

[SAJ-99]

What migration percentage is the cutoff for wildlife to be held in trust by the state vs managed federally? I’ve never heard of that requirement before.

The article you posted bemoaned the plight of scientists studying salamanders (among other things). Do 90% of salamanders migrate across state lines?

I made up the 90%. Make it 51%. I don't care. Name a species. I am not going to consider a small population of WY elk that migrate into ID, or SE Montana pronghorn that migrate to WY. So it has to be a majority of the pop. There may be one, buy I can't think of it.

I don't get the salamander reference. Those species would be covered under ESA, which is federal, if they were threatened or endangered. We could talk about the "streamlining" of the ESA review process going through the House (link below to save you the time). You can't expect much of review process when you have a skeleton staff. Even if there are some positives in the Bill, I would be shocked to see much denied.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1897

 

[Treeshark]

I don't get the salamander reference. Those species would be covered under ESA, which is federal, if they were threatened or endangered.

It was from the article you posted.

You you bring up another very valid point: why is there a federal ESA in the first place (especially for non-migratory species) if wildlife is indeed held in trust by the state? Are the states unable to manage such a situation?

 

[SAJ-99]

It was from the article you posted.

You you bring up another very valid point: why is there a federal ESA in the first place (especially for non-migratory species) if wildlife is indeed held in trust by the state? Are the states unable to manage such a situation?

You are avoiding my question.

The trust is to keep one citizen of the state from exploiting the resource at the expense of another citizen. The Public Trust Doctrine is set up to control intra state conflicts more than inter state conflicts.

The ESA was set up to protect things we all collectively thought were worth protecting. For example, I doubt there would ever be a mosquito on the ESL. It is mostly to protect them from the engine of capitalism. States do play a critical role. Not sure if they will in the future given the funding cuts.

You are clearly a Libertarian.

 

[Gulf of America]

It was from the article you posted.

You you bring up another very valid point: why is there a federal ESA in the first place (especially for non-migratory species) if wildlife is indeed held in trust by the state? Are the states unable to manage such a situation?

 

[Straight Arrow]

should the USFWS even exist in the first place?

why is there a federal ESA in the first place

View attachment 398302

Yep!!!

 

[Treeshark]

so you admit the supposed inappropriateness of the funding is your opinion and not an objective truth?

No, I don’t believe that to accurate.

Since my viewpoint is not influenced by personal feeling or opinions in considering and representing facts, it is therefore an objective truth.

*This post may contain my opinion.

 

[Irrelevant]

Non-migratory

Wildlife is a state resource

Columbia River salmon cross up to 3 state boundaries and are managed through the North of Falcon process that allows the 3 states, feds, and tribes to established the collective management strategy.

...stay in your lane

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

Rep Russ Fulcher Public Land open letter.

Logic cannot be applied where it does not exist.

www.hunttalk.com

again...

 

[Irrelevant]

@Treeshark, you're attempting to oversimplify wildlife management. There is an absolute litany of legislation that has led to the nuanced management of salmon in the Columbia River. Much of it either implicitly or explicitly establishes reasons, limits, and mandates for why the Feds pay for it.

You should be thankful, because one of the large drivers was the Federal gov't construction of Grand Coulee Dam, which allowed us to win wwii.

 

[BuzzH]

What migration percentage is the cutoff for wildlife to be held in trust by the state vs managed federally? I’ve never heard of that requirement before.

The article you posted bemoaned the plight of scientists studying salamanders (among other species, in fairness). Do 90% of salamanders migrate across state lines?

If wildlife is indeed a resource held in trust by the states, it begs the question: should the USFWS even exist in the first place? It is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that states could (and should) fully manage wildlife in a better and more efficient manner.

*This post may contain my opinions.

There is no cutoff percentage wise. What you need to do is understand Natural Resource Policy and the various acts that landed us here, but, yes, absolutely the USFWS should exist.

The reasons are pretty cut and dried.

In the case of anadromous fish and migratory waterfowl, there has to be federal oversight. The Federal Government has negotiated agreements, treaties, etc. with other countries, tribes, etc. in regard to the aforementioned types of wildlife. It would be impossible, and impractical for every U.S. State to negotiate with Canada, Mexico, Indian Tribes, etc. in the case of migratory birds and anadromous fish. It makes total sense to collaborate and have the Federal Government negotiate with the other countries, entities, etc. Just imagine the nightmare of 50 different agreements with Mexico, 50 different agreements with Canada, 50 different agreements with the tribes. Plus, I'm not even sure a state would be allowed to legally form an agreement with another country.

As to endangered species, once again it makes total and complete sense. First of all it's a federal law, therefore it should have federal over-sight and a Department to administer. The way it works is that as a nation, we've decided to not allow endangered species to vanish. As such, it would put a tremendous burden on any one, or group of states, to entirely fund recovery efforts. Plus, if it were left up to States, some would want to take measures to help Endangered Species, some would just say F-it, we don't want to be bothered. If you're going to pass Federal law, which supersedes State law, then a Federal agency should be the managing agency. If you read the ESA that's spelled out that the Feds will work with the states and also support via funding, biologists, and other management.

So, that's the long version of yes, the USFWS does need to exist and yes it makes sense for certain species to be managed by the Federal Government.

 

[Treeshark]

@Treeshark, you're attempting to oversimplify wildlife management.

I’m trying to do the exact opposite: I agree it that managing wildlife successfully is very complex and expensive, to the point that states clearly are not capable of managing it solely by themselves in some instances.

That comes into direct logical conflict with the current structure of states’ ability to retain up to 100% of the privilege of exploitation for themselves.

If it is truly held in trust for the residents of each state, is not the financial obligation of managing the resource part of their sovereign duty?

 

[BuzzH]

I’m trying to do the exact opposite: I agree it that managing wildlife successfully is very complex and expensive, to the point that states clearly are not capable of managing it solely by themselves in some instances.

That comes into direct logical conflict with the current structure of states’ ability to retain up to 100% of the privilege of exploitation for themselves.

If it is truly held in trust for the residents of each state, is not the financial obligation of managing the resource part of their sovereign duty?

No.

 

[Treeshark]

No.

Financial responsibility of managing trust= federal.

Privilege to exploit resource: state.

Gotcha

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

I would be useful to some here to go back and learn about the origins of agencies like USFWS. It is precisely because states were mismanaging their wildlife resources that the federal government had to get involved.

Or would you leave a state or group of state's resources (or another country for that matter) that is getting gutted by another state, completely without recourse?

Waterfowl always comes up because they have seasons. But most don't even realize the origins of the refuge system began by protecting birds that provide plumage for the hat trade.

 

[Irrelevant]

I’m trying to do the exact opposite: I agree it that managing wildlife successfully is very complex and expensive, to the point that states clearly are not capable of managing it solely by themselves in some instances.

That comes into direct logical conflict with the current structure of states’ ability to retain up to 100% of the privilege of exploitation for themselves.

If it is truly held in trust for the residents of each state, is not the financial obligation of managing the resource part of their sovereign duty?

Ok, now I see your point, and I don't completely disagree. But with regard to Columbia River salmon, it's not a capability issue. There is no legally binding mechanism for WA to be forced to work with OR or ID if there is not an overarching federal nexus. Plus many fish, specifically salmon, have remained a commercial species managed under the Magnus-Stevens act.

I don't disagree that there is a logical argument to be made that more wildlife should be managed federally, or at least the feds should have a seat at the table, but mostly to drive adjacent states to co-manage populations. This is clearly needed as we learn about more and more trans-state boundary migrations. Luckily, in almost all cases, the States already work together to manage those populations. It doesn't make any sense why we want the feds to manage perch on some pothole in Wisconsin, or whitetail on a ranch in Texas. But managing sage grouse the migrate from WY to MT or Canada to MT, or whatever, that probably does make sense.

 

[Straight Arrow]

It makes no sense and is really a waste to present factual information and legal / legislative history with reasonable and logical conclusions where reason and logic is void.

It does make sense to accept that "discussion" and apparent unwillingness to accept the valid information is based on the continuous thread of remarks which express a sore-ass
attitude regarding the right of states to treat NRs differently than residents in providing hunting opportunity, with a differing license cost structure. That is the common thread which continues to flavor the irrational "debate". 'Seems rather odd and skewed mental gymnastics in reaching the opinion that NWRs and USFW are unneeded because states manage wildlife on behalf of the residents of the state, respectively.