Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacNut, Feb 19, 2017.
States should handle the wild life as it sees fit, not the Feds
But trump is a protected president.
As were the retards before him . Chapo Guzmán did not care and put a 5 million bounty on trump
Well the Bounty Man is fairly burley.
How about we let the local people living in the area handle it instead of the state. I doubt the natives living near those refuges who live sustainably off of the land will appreciate sport hunters coming in from the city and wrecking the ecosystem.
I get the feeling that "States Rights" only applies when you agree with the decision of the state.
sure, except these are national wildlife refuges
I'm going to guess that you don't hunt, or even know how wildlife is managed or the actual impact the dollars that out of state hunters have on state economies . My deer tags about 35. Out of state 300-400 depending on tag , cheapest I have seen was 160 and I forgot the state or game. W/o guides you are likely to have tag soup. I had to eat tag soup 4 years in a row. Game wardens depend on money , states depend on money. And don't worry, they won't kill the golden goose just for money
--- Post Merged, Feb 19, 2017 ---
trust the game wardens to do the right thing . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees who are entrusted to be stewards of our nation’s wildlife refuges work hard to ensure a healthy future for wildlife and people. They are on the front lines innovating ways to conserve and restore America’s wild heritage. They look for ways improve outdoor experiences for hunters, anglers, photographers and families. Their work is not only important; it’s also cool.
--- Post Merged, Feb 19, 2017 ---
So it's ok to kill a hibernating bear or some den full of wolf pups?
Ask the game warden of the state, let me know how that works out for you
Doubt that's true with @jkcerda, I think he is probably the least hypocritical Conservative here by a long way.
Oh? Ask him about what he thinks about states rights when it comes to California gun laws.
Is the second part of the CONSTITUTION? the constitution IMHO separates state from the Feds. You can always ask me directly. I don't have you on ignore.
The Republican party and its president are simply anti-humanist - I don't get why people would vote for these individuals as they don't care about those voters. It's perverse.
I haven't had you on ignore for a while.
Do you think there is no constitutional basis for the federal government having some say in a state's regulation of wildlife?
Game wardens are state and don't work for them. They work with them. If it's a refuge then I don't trust them to do he right thing all the time. State and federal should be separate. If they want the refuge to be state sponsored and run by game wardens then it should be 100% paid by said state.
I'm pretty biased here and can't think of a reason for the Feds to do so , states are the ones better suited to manage game as they see fit , there is money involved as well as the well being of the ecosystem that comes into play . Can the Feds do good at times? Sure, iirc Obama did just that. I'll fish for the link. Currently on the phone so give me a bit .
cuz like her emails man
Hillary having a few dodgy emails doesn't sound so bad now after the Month of Trump.
As a hunter I "lost" hunting land, as a conservantionist I my KIDS gained land that will not be developed.
My old hunting area is under threat, from pos developers who continue to love into the mountains I rather lose the area entirely to the Feds as a national monument than to developers , too many idiots love in close to the mountains and the are horrified by cause "whiskers" or "patches" was dragged away by a coyote or a bear.
State game laws already prevent such things as shooting hibernating bears. That's one of the reason for hunting seasons.
Always remember that hunters' regulations and ethics allow game species to remain viable for hunting. In essence, hunters' take is much like the interest on capital; they don't spend capital.
Hunter money from license fees and the 11% tax on firearms pay for game wardens and wildlife biologists. Very little comes from general revenue budgets.
No game animal is endangered or even threatened (other than in some localized anomalous situation). In many areas, the main threats to wildlife populations are weather and the habitat loss from suburban development.
The worst enemies of rational management of wildlife were Felix Salter (author of Bambi) and Walt Disney. They induced the anthropomorphizing of wildlife such that too many suggestions for management are based on emotion instead of science.
There is a ton of information on the subject, including Supreme Court decisions that confirm the federal government's role. Here is the briefest introduction that helps to establish the federal right to have some say in wildlife regulation ...
And this was a precedent setting Supreme Court decision on the matter: Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 (1979)
tl;dr: states don't have exclusive control, and under certain circumstances, federal authority exceeds states.
I'm. Not in the mood for facts right now. At the movies, read it tomorrow
interesting. state had stupid laws...thanks for the link.
Hughes seems irrelevant to the thread's subject. It overturned a state decision, not a federal law.