Who owns the Wildlife?

quest

Very Active Member
Messages
2,025

Doesn’t the state own wildlife and manage it as a trust resource?​

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). (See pp. 907-911).
Most states use trust or trust-like language in proclaiming their “sovereign ownership” of wildlife, meaning that wildlife must be managed in the public interest for state citizens. This trust responsibility is a serious one, but most states have done little to clarify what affirmative conservation duties go along with this trust responsibility. As is the case with the public trust doctrine more broadly, there are many unanswered questions about the exact parameters and possible applications of a “wildlife trust,” if the term is to be taken literally. (See pp. 806-808).
Also important to recognize is the trust responsibility of federal land management agencies. Many federal land laws include trust-like language pertaining to the national interest in federal lands, non-impairment of their resources, and intergenerational responsibility that further clarifies the federal obligation to conserve wildlife. This trust responsibility is acknowledged in case law and Interior Policy (43 C.F.R. § 24.1(b)). (See pp. 902-906).
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
4,771
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.
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.
 

quest

Very Active Member
Messages
2,025
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
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
4,771
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
Commerce clause no longer applies.


RENO, Nev. ” A bill affirming the authority of states to regulate hunting and fishing has been signed into law by President Bush.

The legislation frees states to set their own regulations and in some ” including Nevada ” upholds rules that favor residents over out-of-state applicants.

The hunting provision states it is in the public interest for any state to be able to regulate fish and wildlife programs within its boundaries, “including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and nonresidents” or fees charged, and declares the issue does not fall under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.
 

nfh

Long Time Member
Messages
6,768
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.

I was to the understanding a certain someone in Colorado owns the wildlife in wyoming.
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
4,771
Commerce clause no longer applies

Where did you find that information?
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.

https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=mulr

In 2002, advocates against discriminatory nonresident hunting regulations challenged Arizona's regulations based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the Ninth Circuit held that Arizona's discriminatory nonresident hunting regulations that regulated typical recreational hunting violated the Dormant Commerce Clause." As a consequence, other states' nonresident hunting regulations were challenged, and in 2005, Congress enacted Public Law Number 109-13, section 6036 ("section 6036"), which reaffirmed a state's right to regulate hunting." The purpose of section 6036 was to prohibit courts from declaring nonresident hunting regulations unconstitutional based on the Dormant Commerce Clause.
 

quest

Very Active Member
Messages
2,025
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?
 

quest

Very Active Member
Messages
2,025
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
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
4,771
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?
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.

Not sure what the confusion is?

The case you just posted about is regarding a Federal Act of congress regarding Bald Eagles.

That's not different than the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the federal authority to manage those.

States have the authority to manage wildlife within their borders, to discriminate against NR's any way they choose, and are not going to be successfully sued via the commerce clause.

BTW, Harry Reid was a sponsor of that bill.
 

BuzzH

Long Time Member
Messages
4,771
Commerce clause no longer applies

Where did you find that information?

SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL
SILENCE.

(a) In General.--It is the policy of Congress that it is in the
public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for
any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by
means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and
nonresidents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses
or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the
kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees
charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting
or fishing.
(b) Construction of Congressional Silence.--Silence on the part of
Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of
Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the
``commerce clause'') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State
or Indian tribe.

SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(1) to limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law
related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or
to the regulation of commerce;
(2) to limit the authority of the United States to prohibit
hunting or fishing on any portion of the lands owned by the
United States; or
(3) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, supersede or
alter any treaty-reserved right or other right of any Indian
tribe as recognized by any other means, including, but not
limited to, agreements with the United States, Executive
Orders, statutes, and judicial decrees, and by Federal law.

SEC. 4. STATE DEFINED.

For purposes of this Act, the term ``State'' includes the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.
 

BLooDTRaCKeR

Very Active Member
Messages
2,307
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.
 

Butts

Active Member
Messages
674
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.
You just gotta through one of his “ hunt in progress “ signs in the bed of a so called guide s pickup.
He has lost more than one Drive train. Being a dumbass and trying to block forest service roads.
 

Bluehair

Long Time Member
Messages
6,077
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
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.

Feds manage the animals in National Parks. Witness the bison hunts down in AZ. And I don’t care beyond condemning their obvious efforts to create a circus with hunters in the center ring.
 

roadrunner

Long Time Member
Messages
4,370
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.

For UT, yes. For NM it's if your name begins with Tall and ends with man.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Top Bottom