Legalized robbery that needs to stop.

[Wyo_hntr]

I didn't ask for equity, I asked for equality.

I suggest you boycott until your dream becomes reality

 

[Archer86]

I didn't ask for equity, I asked for equality.

Nr hunters are guaranteed tags for elk in idaho,montana,wyoming,arizona,new mexico,nevada,colorado, oregon, utah, and washington I am sure I am missing one somewhere. how many more tags does one group of hunters need?

 

[bmart2622]

As an out of stater you get no say in any part of it, you dont get to vote or elect officials who make those decisions or have a voice, and whining on RS certainly won't get you very far

 

[KurtR]

And then no NR would be allowed to hunt on state land?

If they want the special privileges of hunting federal land in other states sounds like a fair trade. My post was extreme sarcasm for the cry baby’s whining about not getting tags and costing to much.

 

[Dave_]

I am equally as entitled as every other US citizen, yes. That doesn't mean I'm entitled to a guaranteed tag. It's a limited resource that must be managed.

You have completely missed the point. You need to read up on US wildlife law, public trust doctrine. As many have said, wildlife is owned and managed for the residents of that state, period. Tax dollars and federal lands have absolutely zero to do with your privilege (not right) to take a wildlife resource from another state. The same is true for your state.

No one is preventing you from accessing or recreating on fed lands, only limiting your privilage to take an animal that is owned by the residents of that state. You can still access, fish, hunt small game, camp, hike, collect firewood, + 100s of other things on fed lands without an elk tag in your pocket. I get more pissed when private land owners they own the wildlife on their property, b/c they don't.

The public trust doctrine is at its heart of the North American model of wildlife Conservation. If you just plainly disagree that's fine, lobby your representatives and attend wfgd public meetings, use actual tools. But I don't know why you want to potentially dismantle the most successful wildlife conservation model in history just so you can have a slightly better chance at an elk tag.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[Dave_]

I'll add also that an elk tag alone is not related/connected to land access or recreation. It's a legal document that allows you to transfer ownership of a legally harvested wildlife resource from the public trust to an individual.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[S.Clancy]

Better watch out who you piss off in WY. Enough non residents did enough ruffling of feathers to royally screw up their shed hunting privileges forever. Just pointing out facts.

My brother and I pissed off a lot of residents packing tens and sometimes over a hundred lbs of horn off the mountain. I guess you can lump working harder under "ruffling feathers".

 

[ThorM465]

You have completely missed the point. You need to read up on US wildlife law, public trust doctrine. As many have said, wildlife is owned and managed for the residents of that state, period. Tax dollars and federal lands have absolutely zero to do with your privilege (not right) to take a wildlife resource from another state. The same is true for your state.

No one is preventing you from accessing or recreating on fed lands, only limiting your privilage to take an animal that is owned by the residents of that state. You can still access, fish, hunt small game, camp, hike, collect firewood, + 100s of other things on fed lands without an elk tag in your pocket. I get more pissed when private land owners they own the wildlife on their property, b/c they don't.

The public trust doctrine is at its heart of the North American model of wildlife Conservation. If you just plainly disagree that's fine, lobby your representatives and attend wfgd public meetings, use actual tools. But I don't know why you want to potentially dismantle the most successful wildlife conservation model in history just so you can have a slightly better chance at an elk tag.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

It seems we've gone full circle. One of the first questions I asked>

If oil or gold is discovered on federal land such as BLM who owns that resource, the State or the Federal Gov? I'm asking as I genuinely don't know the legalities here.

You should stop listening when politicians tell you the sky is pink.

Again, I'm talking about taking game on FEDERAL land. Whether its taken in another state or another planet is irrelevant other than who manages the wildlife and collects that tax.

Yes it is a Right. Allow to me explain. I'll start at the top.

School circle time.
Per the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Per our founding document every individual is endowed with the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness, in that order of precedence. Not the government, not a monarch, and not the mob, it's the Individual. Only the Individual is endowed with self-evident Rights. This is what made our country a radical new kind of country. It was this departure from British Common Law. Not the self governance or any of the other BS that had been tried before. It's Rights endowed by our Creator to the Individual. Don't believe in God, then call it the universe, the idea still stands.

It's from this foundation that we get these 2 points.
1. All rights, if they do exist, must be derived from the Individual's Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. In this case we'll discuss the derivation of the right to property. First what is property? It is the product of an individual(s') labor and/or intellect which is the product of an individual's Life and is therefore derived from the Right to Life so it holds the same precedence over the Right to Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.
2. If this is all true where does the power and authority of the state come from? Under our form of government we bestow power onto the state (be it federal or state level) per a Constitution. You might ask what is the genesis of that power? The ideas within the DOI presume a finite universe. In a finite universe everything is a zero sum game, e.g., the first law of thermodynamics. The Creator endows the Individual with Rights and nothing to the state. Therefore if the state is to have power (rights), it must be taken from the Individuals' Rights and given to the state. Fundamentally this is what our Constitutions do, they take Rights from its Individual citizens and give power to the state in a defined and limited manner, so that the state can fulfill its basic duty to protect the Rights of the Individual and as a result we get a functioning society from what otherwise would be a mob. It's also important to understand that per this framework a Constitution can only do 3 things: it can give authority to the state through taking rights from the Individual, it can set a requirement of the state (force it to do something), and it can limit the power of the state e.g., 1st & 2nd Amendments. Repeat after me, "There is no such thing as a 'Constitutional Right.'"

Everything owned by the state is owned by the Individual citizens of said state, per the Individual's Right to Property. Now it's not a sole Right as your property claim on say your rifle, this is a shared right. Just as when you own a share of a publicly traded corporation, you in fact have a property right claim to said corporation as a citizen you have a property claim right to the property of the state. This doesn't mean that I can buy a share of Boeing and then walk into the South Carolina plant and take position of my newly finished 787. This would be utter chaos and would ultimately result in the violation of the other 605,925,925 shareholders property right to that 787. The solution to this was and is to create of a governing body of executives to manage the rights of the individual owners through governing the corporation such that the maximum number of shareholders receive maximum benefit. This is precisely what the state is tasked with doing in regards to public property, exchange Shareholder for Individual. As such it must discriminate to ensure most effective use. Which finally brings us to the topic at hand.

The debate here is, "What is appropriate discrimination to a Federal resource." I've put forth that it is not appropriate to discriminate against NRs of a state for a federal resource that happens to lie within said state. As of yet no one has provided an argument as to why that's appropriate other than "it would break the system."


On a side not, if you read all of that, you're probably wondering what is the difference between a publicly traded corporation and a state. The answer is effectively very little. Publicly traded corporations are effectively modern states and as such present the same inherent threat to the Rights of the Individual as the State. However, that's another topic for another thread.

 

[TaperPin]

I thought by the title of this thread y’all were talking about concert or Super Bowl tickets. *chuckle*

 

[Wyo_hntr]

The debate here is, "What is appropriate discrimination to a Federal resource." I've put forth that it is not appropriate to discriminate against NRs of a state for a federal resource that happens to lie within said state. As of yet no one has provided an argument as to why that's appropriate other than "it would break the system."


.

Game animals aren't a federal resource

 

[Marshfly]

The debate here is, "What is appropriate discrimination to a Federal resource." I've put forth that it is not appropriate to discriminate against NRs of a state for a federal resource that happens to lie within said state. As of yet no one has provided an argument as to why that's appropriate other than "it would break the system."

Wild game is not a federal resource.

 

[ThorM465]

Game animals aren't a federal resource

Then what is game animals that reside primarily on federal land? Is privately owned livestock not a resource owned by the ranch owner?

 

[Gerbdog]

mmm... its a state resource i'd assume (elk animals).... ranchers who let their cattle graze and reside federal land doesnt suddenly mean the cattle belong to the feds (can you imagine the meltdown if it did?). Same theory goes for elk on private land as mentioned above, just cause the elk are on someones private land, doesnt mean those elk belong to that private land owner (can you imagine the meltdown if it did?)

 

[Marshfly]

Then what is game animals that reside primarily on federal land? Is privately owned livestock not a resource owned by the ranch owner?

Where the WILD game reside means zero with respect to ownership. Livestock were purchased by someone. That someone holds "title" to them and can do whatever they want with them. They could sell you the right to hunt them if you want.

 

[LostArra]

just cause the elk are on someones private land, doesnt mean those elk belong to that private land owner

I agree, but it's very close

 

[Wyo_hntr]

Where the WILD game reside means zero with respect to ownership. Livestock were purchased by someone. That someone holds "title" to them and can do whatever they want with them. They could sell you the right to hunt them if you want.

What he said ^^^^^^

I get it, you want what you want. It's not reality.

 

[wapitibob]

The animals are held in trust by the state, for the citizens of the state. Said state can discriminate against NR of that state per Court Ruling. Don't like the ruling, there's a course of action you can take.

 

[idelkslayer]

Then what is game animals that reside primarily on federal land? Is privately owned livestock not a resource owned by the ranch owner?

Wildlife is owned and managed by the state. It doesn't matter if the animal is standing on private, federal or state land.

You have just as much opportunity to recreate and enjoy the land as any other citizen of the country. However, if you want to kill an animal that is owned by the state you must follow state rules and allocations.

What many eastern hunters seem unable to understand is that hunting opportunities in the west are more limited than in the east. Distributing tags equally to all U.S. citizens with no state residency preference would result in a lot of western state residents not getting a tag at all. It is already the case in some western states where all tags are allocated on a limited quota and not even all residents can get a tag every year.

Does your sense of entitlement to a tag go so far as to think that you should have a tag while a resident of that state does not?

 

[KurtR]

Not a federal resource so your argument dies there along with your hopes and dreams of never ending nr elk tags.

 

[bmart2622]

Then what is game animals that reside primarily on federal land? Is privately owned livestock not a resource owned by the ranch owner?

Yep, and when those livestock are grazed in federal or state lands they still are owned by the rancher. By your logic you think you are entitled to those cattle based off of where they are currently living.