Legalized robbery that needs to stop.

[ThorM465]

Where the WILD game reside means zero with respect to ownership.

Then what does exactly?

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.

Who owns the Trust and if its the state what gives them that authority?

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?

If its animals on federal land and both the resident and I had equal opportunity to the tag, then yes, yes I do.

Again why is it that minerals or fossil fuels taken from federal land is a federally owned resources but the wildlife on the same property is not? What about herds that migrate between different states, why does one state have the authority to claim ownership when they issue a tag?

 

[ThorM465]

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.

No I don't. Try again boss. Those ranchers do so with a grazing permit or under other federal regulations that permit grazing.

 

[bmart2622]

And to hunt you need a permit right?

 

[bmart2622]

I dont know why you have such a hard time understanding this!!! You have every right to access and use the federal lands. If you want to hunt the animals owned by the state then put in for a permit and if you draw then hunt away!! Residents get cheaper tags and higher allocations which is more than fair!! Youre not changing anything by crying here!! Pay the money and take part or dont, pretty simple!!!

 

[wyosam]

Then what does exactly?


Who owns the Trust and if its the state what gives them that authority?


If its animals on federal land and both the resident and I had equal opportunity to the tag, then yes, yes I do.

Again why is it that minerals or fossil fuels taken from federal land is a federally owned resources but the wildlife on the same property is not. What about herds that migrate between different states, why does one state have the authority to claim ownership when they issue a tag?

Nobody is claiming ownership. The states manage the wildlife for sportsman opportunity, herd health, and other uses. Per the courts, they can give residents preference for those sportsman opportunities. When those animals migrate across state lines (or unit boundaries for that matter), then harvest in those other areas has to be considered in harvest quotas just like all the other factors. Comparing wildlife management to mineral/fossil fuel extraction is senseless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jethro]

 

[Jethro]

 

[IdahoBeav]

The guys supporting these prices aren’t realizing how this affects blue collar workers that would love to hunt in a western state but get eliminated by these crazy prices.

Sounds like you need to move to a western state. Why cry about what you allegedly cannot afford when there is a solution you can take to address the issue?

 

[Szwampdonkey]

Mind boggling how many are ok with being gouged because of the “you have to pay to play” mentality. I think it’s true, the US school system is failing horribly. There are so many supporting examples this is just one.

 

[IdahoBeav]

"Price Gouging" is a term made up by economic illiterates.

 

[LostArra]

Price gouging is $10/gallon gas and $100 blue tarps right after the next hurricane hits Florida.

$700 elk tag is not

 

[IdahoBeav]

If there is a buyer, there is a fair price. What is overpriced doesn't sell. What I cannot afford is my own fault.

 

[ThorM465]

I dont know why you have such a hard time understanding this!!! You have every right to access and use the federal lands. If you want to hunt the animals owned by the state then put in for a permit and if you draw then hunt away!! Residents get cheaper tags and higher allocations which is more than fair!! Youre not changing anything by crying here!! Pay the money and take part or dont, pretty simple!!!

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.

Nobody is claiming ownership. The states manage the wildlife for sportsman opportunity, herd health, and other uses. Per the courts, they can give residents preference for those sportsman opportunities. When those animals migrate across state lines (or unit boundaries for that matter), then harvest in those other areas has to be considered in harvest quotas just like all the other factors. Comparing wildlife management to mineral/fossil fuel extraction is senseless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

 

[ThorM465]

Price gouging is $10/gallon gas and $100 blue tarps right after the next hurricane hits Florida.

$700 elk tag is not

No that's sound practice. In natural disasters resources are limited, but fear is not. In a disaster, if you can do without a resource that others need you should leave it for someone else. Without increased prices there is not enough incentive to ensure there are resources left for others. If you can't afford the increased prices, you couldn't afford to wait until the natural disaster to stock up. If you do, pay the piper.

 

[Archer86]

 

[mntnguide]

Who owns the Trust and if its the state what gives them that authority?

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

 

[bmart2622]

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

 

[Jethro]

My argument is on Federal lands and federal lands only.

It includes federal lands.

 

[wyosam]

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.

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. If there isn’t resident preference, then the residents are competing against the whole country to hunt near home. Want to make hunting expensive? Have EVERYONE crisscrossing the country to shoot a deer. Unless you’re in a neighboring western state, the tag isn’t the expensive part of a western elk hunt. It’s a drop in the bucket. States are managing a resource for their residents.

If you don’t like the opportunities available near where you live (be they hunting, employment, weather, or anything else), move where you want to be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AG8]

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