Wyoming G&F, how de we get a voice as NR's?

[KurtR]

Imagine if SD could survive on anything but all that federal $$$ being pumped in. Seems odd someone wants to live in a state that needs so much support because they can't support themselves.

Seems like federal welfare, fun fact WY is also in the top 15 of federal suckling like SD . But hey, people who spend 0 days in SD fund your state so go on...

take out the reservations and get back to me. We don’t need the revenue from big game the pheasants take care of that.

 

[WRO]

That’s just not how it works in reality.

I know, not saying residents shouldn't get preference but keep in mind that 48% of Wyoming is federal land and that land is all maintained by everyone's tax dollars. That's the case with most western states.

 

[manitou1]

Thanks, but still that is a tiny number of tags.

How many freakin' elk do you suppose you should come in and slaughter annually?

 

[manitou1]

I know, not saying residents shouldn't get preference but keep in mind that 48% of Wyoming is federal land and that land is all maintained by everyone's tax dollars. That's the case with most western states.

Enjoy the public land brother! Wyoming owns the animals though.

 

[np307]

Horseshit it belongs to all citizens as it lives mostly in federal land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe you've forgotten how the system in the US works but the land the animals live on doesn't determine who owns the animals.

 

[Marshfly]

I find this entire thread amusing.

If you want a say, buy land in the state and pay taxes. If you become a resident you can vote. If you buy enough land and donate to the right politician you can get a say there also.

If you aren’t willing to do one of those two things and put your money where your wishes are too bad.

If you can’t currently afford or don’t want to do those options that’s life. Change it or don’t.

If you don’t like that animals belong to the residents of the states you are free to lobby congress or even run for congress to change that. That’s how America works.


The game you need to play is very obvious and well mapped out. Complaining about it is useless. Either choose to play or don't.

 

[Fordguy]

That’s just not how it works in reality.

Until a case is heard in a high enough court. These are the key words in the public land trust doctrine "kept in trust by the state for the common use of the people". "The people" as in "We the people of the United States", including but not limited to the the citizens of the state in question.
The public land trust doctrine applies to fish and wildlife as well as land. States can and should manage hunting opportunities as they wish on state-owned lands. Federally owned lands should offer an equal opportunity to all since neither the State nor its residents "own" federal lands or wildlife (anywhere in the state) simply because they assert that they do.

If you believe otherwise, try telling the feds that you're going to manage the grizzlies as you see fit because they belong to you and try telling the game wardens that you're not going to buy a federal duck stamp to hunt ducks on state/resident owned properties.

I'm not a lawyer, but I won't be surprised if/when this makes its way to court. It's going to be interesting to see how things shake out.

Im pretty sure that similar (meaning non-residents pay more but otherwise have equal access to opportunity) precedents have already been established for nonresidents fishing federal waters in coastal states.

 

[Marshfly]

Until a case is heard in a high enough court. These are the key words in the public land trust doctrine "kept in trust by the state for the common use of the people". "The people" as in "We the people of the United States", including but not limited to the the citizens of the state in question.
The public land trust doctrine applies to fish and wildlife as well as land. States can and should manage hunting opportunities as they wish on state-owned lands. Federally owned lands should offer an equal opportunity to all since neither the State nor its residents "own" federal lands or wildlife (anywhere in the state) simply because they assert that they do.

If you believe otherwise, try telling the feds that you're going to manage the grizzlies as you see fit because they belong to you and try telling the game wardens that you're not going to buy a federal duck stamp to hunt ducks on state/resident owned properties.

I'm not a lawyer, but I won't be surprised if/when this makes its way to court. It's going to be interesting to see how things shake out.

Im pretty sure that similar (meaning non-residents pay more but otherwise have equal access to opportunity) precedents have already been established for nonresidents fishing federal waters in coastal states.

Individual states are considered sovereign in the United States. There is no common "people" in laws such as you suggest. The actual Supreme Court cases pertaining to this are pretty clear in that.

 

[Marshfly]

This document is a very lengthy and complete compilation of all(most?) of the case law pertaining to this topic. it is primarily about water right because that is the primary thing argued but it's references concerning the public trust doctrine are pretty clear.

https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1247&context=idaho-law-review

 

[Fordguy]

Individual states are considered sovereign in the United States. There is no common "people" in laws such as you suggest. The actual Supreme Court cases pertaining to this are pretty clear in that.

Again, look at previously established precedent

 

[Marshfly]

Again, look at previously established precedent

You could post a link to back up your assertion.

 

[SummitsCalling]

take out the reservations and get back to me. We don’t need the revenue from big game the pheasants take care of that.

SD doesn't need federal money or big game money? Please tell me your joking, state couldn't survive without it. ~$65 Mil/year just on wildlife is in SDs budget. That's 50% more than you spend on your entire tourism department.
It doesn't come from the lowly taxes collected in the state, just another welfare system paid by people who don't live there.

You should prob read your states budget

 

[Gutshot007]

If i lived and wyoming i would be more concerned about anti hunting groups and not NR's. After they get all the predators introduced to ALL federal lands in the US . Next up is Outlawing hunting on those lands . Dont kid yourself they will push from all legal angles you can think of to make it illegal to hunt "state owned game " on federal land . Im sure like like everywhere else there's plenty of private land access around (not really). It will come down from the federal level whether we like it or not

 

[Fordguy]

"States don’t “own” wildlife in the way most commonly understood. When states have argued that their “ownership” of wildlife necessarily trumps that of the federal government, the Supreme Court called state ownership of wildlife a “19th-century legal fiction.” Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 (1979)"

For every argument you pull up that establishes "state ownership" of wildlife, I can probably find an example of a ruling that establishes that states do not in fact "own" wildlife, but in most cases are given the responsibility of managing it- until/unless their management conflicts with federal (national) interests.

In the past, when people.didnt think they had to hunt a western state every year, this wasn't a big deal. Nonresident numbers were small and both residents and nonresident had more opportunities. Personally as a nonresident, I'd be happy to see nonresidents limited to every other or every third year for a successful application, with no points purchasing allowed in the meantime.

Just my opinion, and I do enjoy a debate.

Every state I've lived in, both east and west of the Mississippi has offered equal opportunity to resident and nonresident hunters on federally.owned public lands, and usually on state-owned land as well. The funny thing is, I hear less complaining about it in those states.

 

[Fordguy]

You could post a link to back up your assertion.

If you like, I can post several of them, I'll just have to look for them. I've posted many of them in previous discussions in the same topic

 

[Marshfly]

If you like, I can post several of them, I'll just have to look for them. I've posted many of them in previous discussions in the same topic

Thank you. Please do when you have the time. More clarity is always better than less. This is the first discussion on this particular topic that I have followed here.

 

[Marshfly]

Link to the above referenced Hughes v. Oklahoma for those interested in facts and not feelings. LOL

Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 (1979)

Hughes v. Oklahoma: A law that discriminates against interstate commerce on its face or impractical effect will be upheld only if the law serves a legitimate local purpose that cannot be promoted as well by alternative non-discriminatory means.

supreme.justia.com

What I find interesting about this case is that the court decided that the act of taking converted the game in question into an article of commerce. Unless I missed it, it does not strike an opinion on the management of that game prior to it's taking.

 

[Fordguy]

"The assertion that the public trust doctrine applies—or should apply—to wildlife rests on shaky legal ground. A familiar argument in favor of applying the public trust doctrine to wildlife has been that states own wildlife on behalf of the public. But the argument is founded on a mistaken understanding of the law relating to ownership of wildlife. Under the common law, wildlife is considered res nullius—meaning it is unowned until it is captured and reduced to private possession. Thus, living wildlife species are neither owned by the state nor by private individuals."

The Limits of the Public Trust Doctrine | PERC

Does the public trust doctrine apply to wildlife conservation?

www.perc.org

 

[Fordguy]

More from the same source-
Thus, the states’ authority with respect to wildlife derives from their police power, not ownership, and is therefore limited by the constitutional enumeration of federal powers and the constitutional protections of private property. Clearly, states can regulate the hunting of wildlife, including on private lands, but they cannot impose regulations that would result in an unconstitutional taking of those lands. Correspondingly, private landowners can prohibit and permit access to their lands by hunters, just as they can control access for any other purpose, with very narrow exceptions.

 

[Fordguy]

Also IIRC this - https://www.umt.edu/bolle-center/federal-lands-wildlife/faqs.php

It's been a while since I've read through this one, so my recollection may or may not be accurate.

"The U.S. Constitution grants the federal government the authority to manage its own lands and resources, fulfill its treaty obligations, and control interstate commerce, even in the face of objections from the states. Federal land laws also require the conservation and management of wildlife by federal land agencies."