Contributors to this thread:
Just posted on the Wyoming Legislative website: Proposed Senate Bill SF0094 Failed Introduction, with 28 Nays and 1 Aye...the one Aye being the bill's sponsor, Sen. Hicks. The vote was recorded @ 2:32 MST, 2/12/2020.
That is great news. Thank you.
Here is another one from Idaho.
Jason, thanks for posting that. Some great comments in the comments section....
" Pat F. - posted 1 day ago on 02-11-2020 01:55:39 pm goHUNT INSIDER
Maybe nonresident fees and tag allocations should be tied to the amount of federal public land in Idaho! Many of their big game herds reside on federal land habitat that all U.S. citizens already pay for through our taxes. So, Idaho is already receiving support from nonresidents because much of their big game resides on these federal lands. My experience with hunter numbers in Idaho is not a nonresident problem, especially with multiple kills by a single hunter! Maybe the federal government should be charging Idaho, and other western states an AUM fee for the big game on federal lands just like they do for livestock grazing! Fair is fair! "
Ok now let’s see what the real deal is going to be. This was just the pump primer. 90/10 is coming down the pike ...
Pat's comment makes no sense. The wildlife on Federal land is owned and managed by the states, not by the feds, or the public. The federal government has no authority to charge states fees for the big game on federal land. Livestock is a private asset using federal land, so the feds have every right to charge fees for grazing.
Matt
Says a lot about the bills author to introduce legislation knowing u are the only vote in the entire chamber.
Even the other senate sponsor of the bill voted against it. That's gotta sting Hicks a bit.
Matt
Sounds like hicks is tired of seeing out of state plates at his trail head! Haha
I didn't look up the exact verbiage but I believe the Fed govt as the supreme being owns the resources (lands/waters/wild critters, etc) and delegates management and oversight authority to the states to do as they see fit. I seen that discussion quite a while ago here on BS. There were several clauses and rulings on that.
A little deviate but I looked around and found this great legal site that discusses the "who owns the animals" question. It's an interesting topic.
RE: Jason's link. Comments about who owns wildlife are ridiculous. It is settled law. Doesn't matter whether you or I like it. It is what it is. The states own the wildlife.
We are a non resident in at least 49 states. (50 if you live outside of US!) If I see out of state plates where I hunt, they are hunters like myself. If you are ethical and good stewards of the land, I don't care where you live.
Z Barebow x2. Living in a state that is mostly Federal land. The income from out of state hunters really helps the small town folks. I see more SLOB resident hunters than out of staters. JimH
If you ask most residents of NW Kansas, its the residents that cause most of the problems during hunting season. Trespassing, trash, poaching, leaving gates open....etc. I havent hunted KS in several years ,but this was always the comment we heard from local ranchers.
Z, if you haven't done it, you may want to read the all of the info at the link about Federal and state's rights dealing with ownership of the animals within a state(s). Below is an excerpt from part of the discussion. Note the last sentence discussing the caveat to the state ownership doctrine being subject to Federal powers and rights. So yes, the govt can come in and supersede a state's wildlife authority in the interest of "federal powers and rights". Also, check out paragraphs A., B., and notably C. that give examples. To say the states are the sole or final overseers of wildlife within their state isn't factually and legally true.
"Thus, the Supreme Court strongly affirmed the right of the states to control the access to and the use of wild animals. In addressing the statute in question , the Court noted that its purpose is to confine the enjoyment of a state resource to the boundaries of the state.
Notwithstanding the narrow issue or the questionable logic, the advocates of state control have used the general language of the case to try and thwart all interference with state control. The caveat that the state ownership doctrine was subject to federal powers and rights seems to have been lost in the excitement."
"Comments about who owns wildlife are ridiculous. It is settled law. Doesn't matter whether you or I like it. It is what it is. The states own the wildlife."
Exactly
If you read even further down on JL's link, you will see this quote:
"The Court, in fact, directly acknowledged "the legitimate state concern for conservation and protection of wild animals underlying the 19th century legal fiction of state ownership." Thus, the state ownership doctrine, although turned back on several fronts, is still a legitimate basis for the exercise of state police power."
So, for all practical intents and purposes, the states control the wildlife. There is no law, or legal precedent, that would give the Feds the right to charge states fees for their wildlife. So, while Pat may think the federal government should control wildlife as they do grazing on public land, it simply can't happen under current law, nor should it, IMO. Wildlife is a state resource, livestock is a private for-profit asset. Apples to oranges.
Matt
I thought this was the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not the SEPERATE STATES OF AMERICA.
I sure as heck don't want the Feds in charge of the animals! Look how well they manage the wolf and grizz.
Matt,
I would concur the states oversee, manage and "own" the wildlife up until the Fed powers and rights are challenged...then the Fed wins. That is what the courts have ruled as the caveats. If we want to say the states "own" the wildlife as ruled and reaffirmed by the state ownership doctrine, that's fine. In the same sentence you would also have to say what was pointed out in the last sentence above. That is the state ownership doctrine can get trumped by the Feds when their "powers and rights" caveat card is played. I don't think any state can be supreme above the Fed govt or another state.
"The caveat that the state ownership doctrine was subject to federal powers and rights seems to have been lost in the excitement."
Exactly, midwest. Apparently the conservative ideology of smaller government doesn't apply with respect to wildlife management to some NR hunters. That's an interesting dichotomy.
Matt
