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.