quest
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 2,192
There was some discussion about this topic (WY 90/10) I’d like know myself? I found this on the web https://www.cfc.umt.edu/bolle/federal-lands-wildlife/faqs.php
Partly correct, partly incorrect.Wildlife is owned by the people of the state, regardless of land ownership. It is managed by the state, for the people of the state. There is no private, or federal ownership of wildlife. The basis of this is actually tied to constitutional framework of state vs. fed.
Nothing is absolute, but there is a mountain of legal precedent, case law, etc. on wildlife ownership.So it’s not absolute?
Commerce clause no longer applies.Here’s something else I read
Does the federal government have any authority to manage wildlife on federal lands?
Yes. 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 requirethe conservation and management of wildlife by federal land agencies. See
Partly correct, partly incorrect.
The wildlife is held in trust for the people of the state it resides in with some exceptions:
1. Threatened and Endangered Species
2. Anadromous Fish
3. Migratory Waterfowl.
The other exception is that wildlife once reduced legally to bag by a state or federally licensed hunter, that wildlife is then owned by the license/tag holder. Privately owned at that point.
By paying attention when it happened in 2002ish with USO. They challenged both AZ and NV (successfully) and Arizona had to hold another draw to issue more NR hunting licenses.Commerce clause no longer applies
Where did you find that information?
The commerce clause does not apply, law was passed in 2005, signed by George Bush, to reaffirm the States right to discriminate against NR hunters any way they wish. Also nullified the arguments regarding the commerce clause as unconstitutional.June 8, 2020, marked the eightieth anniversary of the Bald Eagle Protection Act—the first federal statute to rely on the Commerce Clause for the authority to prohibit the taking of wildlife. Its enactment marked a turning point in federal wildlife law
I don’t know what you mean BuzzH?
Commerce clause no longer applies
Where did you find that information?
You just gotta through one of his “ hunt in progress “ signs in the bed of a so called guide s pickup.Ok, I’ll get this thread started right…
No one owns the wildlife unless your name starts with Moss and ends with back. Then, and only then, do you have rights to temporarily own roads and land that said wildlife being pursued in on. Those rights end once animal is on the ground. Then a change of ownership from entitled to payed-to-be entitled takes place.
Yeah, it’s complicated. But it works with the right funding for ownership.
I honestly thought it was just a lecture. You would have had better fishing if you had linked to a blog post by your nephew claiming that he has proof that the feds were coming to take our hunts away.I got to go and I read what you posted I don’t know if that’s a narrow interpretations? I hope more people post on this subject. Thanks
Ok, I’ll get this thread started right…
No one owns the wildlife unless your name starts with Moss and ends with back. Then, and only then, do you have rights to temporarily own roads and land that said wildlife being pursued in on. Those rights end once animal is on the ground. Then a change of ownership from entitled to payed-to-be entitled takes place.
Yeah, it’s complicated. But it works with the right funding for ownership.
God owns the wildlife..man does a great job of screwing up the shepherding..There was some discussion about this topic (WY 90/10) I’d like know myself? I found this on the web https://www.cfc.umt.edu/bolle/federal-lands-wildlife/faqs.php