Legalized robbery that needs to stop.

[ThorM465]

The Supreme Court in 1896 gave all state's that authority under the Public Trust Doctrine.

Greer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519 (1896)
"In Greer, the Supreme Court expanded the PTD to include wildlife. Specifically, the Court concluded that states held all the wildlife within their borders in public trust, and could therefore regulate the management and harvest of wildlife."

And last I checked, since its inception in 1790...The Supreme Court is the highest level of Federal authority. And therefore says, all wildlife within their borders, which means all land that falls within the state. Federal, State, and Private. Quit beating a dead horse, your federal land argument is wrong and pointless. Or go tell the Supreme Court they are wrong

The courts do not have the Constitutional authority to make policy or law. This ruling is unconstitutional as I'm reading it here.

SCOTUS is absolutely not the highest level of Federal authority. The state propaganda of public education strikes again. The Founders intentionally gave the courts the least amount of powers in the Constitution because they feared/ knew that the courts were the most likely form of the state to violate the Rights of the Individual, see the Constitutional Debates and the Federalists Papers.

You have exactly the same right to access the federal lands as a resident just not to the states game!!! The points have been proven over and over here, you just dont want to accept it!!!! Youre not special, youre not entitled to anything other than the opportunity to apply for a permit. If you dont like it then dont play the game or become a resident

Where exactly was it proven?

It includes federal lands.

Where was that? I didn't see it.

 

[Dave_]

Obviously I don't otherwise I'd have the same access as residents. Why is that so hard to understand? I'm not crying about anything. I'm simply making an argument. I'm NOT sorry if that hurts your feelings.

Why EXACTLY is that fair? The case has been made here is to why it's not, but no one has countered that argument as to why it is.

The courts have made many illogical rulings and will make more in the future. The courts said is not a good argument. The argument that minerals, fossil fuels, timber, and edible wild life are all natural resources is senseless? Please explain why they're not.

Jethro​

I'm not going to quote your images here, but I do sincerely appreciate you posting that. The scope of this as I read it is state owned land, and privately held land within a state, to that I would completely agree with the state discriminating against NRs as they see fit. My argument is on Federal lands and federal lands only.

Please read: all sorts of answers to your questions.
PART 24—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE POLICY: STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIPS
Authority:43 U.S.C. 1201.
Source:48 FR 11642, Mar. 18, 1983, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-43/subtitle-A/part-24

"Nevertheless, Federal authority exists for specified purposes while State authority regarding fish and resident wildlife remains the comprehensive backdrop applicable in the absence of specific, overriding Federal law."

"This policy is intended to reaffirm the basic role of the States in fish and resident wildlife management, especially where States have primary authority and responsibility, and to foster improved conservation of fish and wildlife."

"24.7 Exemptions.
(b) Nothing in this policy shall be construed as affecting in any way the existing authorities of the States to establish annual harvest regulations for fish and resident wildlife on Federal lands where public hunting, fishing or trapping is permitted."



Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[bmart2622]

Its the law, its policy!!! What more proof do you need?!?! You say you dont have the same access to federal land which is completely false!!!! You can access as freely as a resident!!! Its been posted several times that the federal govt has granted control of wildlife to each state!!! Just take the L and move on!!!!

 

[ThorM465]

The difference between minerals etc and wildlife, is that the consumer isn’t going to retrieve those resources themselves, unless we’re talking about firewood/post pole permits.

This isn't true at all. Pirating minerals without a permit is a thing. Just off the top of my head I know it happens in the apparatchiks with coal.

If there isn’t resident preference, then the residents are competing against the whole country to hunt near home. Want to make hunting expensive?

So? Again I'm only talking for Federal land. They'd still have a monopoly on state land.

He doesn’t get! He’ll never get it! It’s been 4 hours, the cows can tape something by now!

I think I get it.

Yes Lawd GIF - Yes Lawd My Precious - Discover & Share GIFs

Click to view the GIF

tenor.com

 

[Cameron.25]

The courts do not have the Constitutional authority to make policy or law. This ruling is unconstitutional as I'm reading it here.

SCOTUS is absolutely not the highest level of Federal authority. The state propaganda of public education strikes again. The Founders intentionally gave the courts the least amount of powers in the Constitution because they feared/ knew that the courts were the most likely form of the state to violate the Rights of the Individual, see the Constitutional Debates and the Federalists Papers.


Where exactly was it proven?

Where was that? I didn't see it.

Its been asked before but i dont think you answered it. Have you ever hunted in WY before? As has been stated, its possible to hunt elk there every year as a NR, even if you dont draw an either sex tag. There is cow tags and leftovers to be had

 

[LostArra]

No that's sound practice.

Sorry.
If your tarp is $7 the week before the hurricane and is $100 the day after then you will have a problem with visitors from Mr DeSantis.
Sound practice or ignorance of the law is not a great defense.

Now back to Wyo elk tags......

 

[wytx]

Read Dave's post above, it clearly spells it out and use his post to look the link up.
Holy cow man.

 

[Jethro]

Where was that? I didn't see it.

Sorry, you’re on your own from here. You are only seeing what you want to see

 

[wapitibob]

Read Dave's post above, it clearly spells it out and use his post to look the link up.
Holy cow man.

The sovereign citizen types like to argue.

 

[MuleyFever]

I dont know why I keep reading this thread.

 

[ThorM465]

Please read: all sorts of answers to your questions.
PART 24—DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE POLICY: STATE-FEDERAL RELATIONSHIPS
Authority:43 U.S.C. 1201.
Source:48 FR 11642, Mar. 18, 1983, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-43/subtitle-A/part-24

"Nevertheless, Federal authority exists for specified purposes while State authority regarding fish and resident wildlife remains the comprehensive backdrop applicable in the absence of specific, overriding Federal law."

"This policy is intended to reaffirm the basic role of the States in fish and resident wildlife management, especially where States have primary authority and responsibility, and to foster improved conservation of fish and wildlife."

"24.7 Exemptions.
(b) Nothing in this policy shall be construed as affecting in any way the existing authorities of the States to establish annual harvest regulations for fish and resident wildlife on Federal lands where public hunting, fishing or trapping is permitted."



Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

So then the resource is owned by the Federal gov and as such the Federal gov has delegated management authority to the state.
My stance is still that the state should not discriminate against NRs on federal land. I recognize that per this they have the authority to do so as given to them by the Feds. What the feds give the feds can taketh.

There appears to be 2 options here.
1. Lobby the Federal government to correct this. I think this is a can of worms that will do us all a disservice in the long run.
2. The states can do the right thing and treat NRs more fairly, so that we don't need to go the nuclear route that is option 1.

Its the law, its policy!!! What more proof do you need?!?! You say you dont have the same access to federal land which is completely false!!!! You can access as freely as a resident!!! Its been posted several times that the federal govt has granted control of wildlife to each state!!! Just take the L and move on!!!!

This is great. Thank you.

 

[ThorM465]

The sovereign citizen types like to argue.

And the sheep like to bah.

Its been asked before but i dont think you answered it. Have you ever hunted in WY before? As has been stated, its possible to hunt elk there every year as a NR, even if you dont draw an either sex tag. There is cow tags and leftovers to be had

No I have not. I'm hoping 2024 will the first of many. I sincerely thank you for your leftovers.

Sorry.
If your tarp is $7 the week before the hurricane and is $100 the day after then you will have a problem with visitors from Mr DeSantis.
Sound practice or ignorance of the law is not a great defense.

Now back to Wyo elk tags......

Legality does not equal morality or common sense for that matter.

 

[ThorM465]

Sorry, you’re on your own from here. You are only seeing what you want to see

See Dave_ 's post above where he cited the federal policy. If the Feds didn't have supremacy over the resources on federal land it wouldn't have the power to enforce said policy. The existence of that policy proves my point, unless you're arguing the feds have gone beyond its authority, again.

 

[Cameron.25]

And the sheep like to bah.

No I have not. I'm hoping 2024 will the first of many. I sincerely thank you for your leftovers.

Legality does not equal morality or common sense for that matter.

They arent "my" leftovers, im an OR resident. I filled 2 reduced price cow tags 2 years in a row in WY, also met a guy in the same unit that bought an either sex leftover tag and he was packing out a 7x8 bull he killed on his 1st day in the unit. This isn't a sought after unit either. Have you even applied for a WY tag before? IMO they are very generous with NR tags compared to other states. Literally the only thing i wish was different about hunting there is the wilderness rule. I just don't understand what you're complaining about if you haven't experienced the process of obtaining a tag and hunting there yet?

 

[Pony Soldier]

I know that I am way behind on my reading but here is the answer to a question that was asked. Oil and gas as well as coal became a leasable mineral in the 1920s and is left to the disgression of the federal government as to its availability. Often they are leased for the money but then permits to explore or develop are denied by politics. Often for years or have such severe environmental controls that it is not feasible to follow through.

For gold there is a broad variety of rules and situations. In some situations there is split estate where the surface is private but the minerals are federal. In most school sections the minerals are owned by the state and under certain citcumstances may be leased.

Under patented land the minerals for the most part are owned by the surface owner however I have seen where there can be multiple owners segregated by depth and or commodity.

In Montana less than 20% of the land has the potential for metallic minerals. For those areas with development potential that number is likely closer to 2%.

The development potential is further limited by state and federal permitting, withdrawals and environmental restrictions such as the endangered species act and others. A detailed study was done on each of the western states by the US Bureau of Mines in the 1980s. I can't remember if they were published or released as open file reports. The titles were: Inventory of Land Use Restraints ( ILURP) of the respective states. I supplied the mineral potential maps of Montana after I moved back and contributed to the reports on Oregon and Washington as a BOM employee.

Makes you sorry you asked right?

 

[wyosam]

This isn't true at all. Pirating minerals without a permit is a thing. Just off the top of my head I know it happens in the apparatchiks with coal.


So? Again I'm only talking for Federal land. They'd still have a monopoly on state land.


I think I get it.

Yes Lawd GIF - Yes Lawd My Precious - Discover & Share GIFs

Click to view the GIF

tenor.com

I suppose you could pirate elk too, lots of folks do. So are you advocating for separate licensing, management, and enforcement of game depending on what agency manages that land? You think anything would get better with the federal government managing the vast majority of western big game hunting, since most of it happens on federal land? I’m sure that would go great.

Monopoly on state land? Do you realize that the bulk of state land in Wyoming is made up of isolated 1 square mile sections surrounded by private or federal lands, and that there really isn’t much of it? At this point, there are probably more non residents hunting private in Wyoming than residents- most private that is at all productive has the hunting rights bought up by outfitters, and most residents aren’t going to pay that money to hunt.

 

[Szwampdonkey]

More examples roll on in.

And $700 to hunt Elk is just stupid.

 

[wyosam]

More examples roll on in.

And $700 to hunt Elk is just stupid.

It’s really easy not to do. You just don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jethro]

See Dave_ 's post above where he cited the federal policy. If the Feds didn't have supremacy over the resources on federal land it wouldn't have the power to enforce said policy. The existence of that policy proves my point, unless you're arguing the feds have gone beyond its authority, again.

I'm done with legalities. Lobby if you want.

Hope you put as much effort into learning WY's system as you have in this thread. There's a chance once you learn how to get tags, you wont feel discriminated against.

I have applied to WY 6 times in the last 9 years. Drew tag 4 of those 6. Bull/any elk tags. I did not lobby Congress and I don't feel slighted. Good luck to you.

 

[Szwampdonkey]

It’s really easy not to do. You just don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, that’s why i don’t.