Your Opinion

[Spurs Up]

Yes. Outside of migratory game birds, game animals aren't regulated on a federal level. Turkeys are regulated by the state. So the fact that it's federal land, sure you have a right to be there as an out-of-stater just like you have a right to be on any other public land. But the state does not have the responsibility or requirement to grant you the privilege of hunting turkeys on that land. That's the state's resource and they can grant or restrict those opportunities in any way they see fit for management.

This.  Non-migratory wildlife in each state is "held in trust" (OWNED) by/for the residents of the state.  This is existing wildlife law across the country. In addition, that wildlife, whether it be on public land or PRIVATE land is still OWNED by the residents (all of them...hunters and non-hunters alike) of the state. 

Simply stated, it is the responsibility of wildlife managers to 1) firstly, protect the resource by managing it properly, and 2) secondarily, protect the interests of those residents of the state for whom the resource is "held in trust". The status of the public land (state or federal) does not come into play in that formula.

Now, I am not saying it is right or wrong...but, it is what it is. To change the system, existing wildlife law has to be changed. But beware, changing the system as it now exists is a very slippery slope.  There are potential ramifications to that beyond those being discussed...and they are not necessarily good for us "consumptive users".

Sorry but that's a widely-held myth. Case law is firmly on the side of the feds and their primacy when we are talking about management of wildlife on federal properties.

https://wildlifeforall.us/myth-busters/do-states-have-primary-jurisdiction-over-wildlife-on-federal-lands/

[GobbleNut]

Sorry but that's a widely-held myth. Case law is firmly on the side of the feds and their primacy when we are talking about management of wildlife on federal properties.

https://wildlifeforall.us/myth-busters/do-states-have-primary-jurisdiction-over-wildlife-on-federal-lands/

Not wanting to be argumentative about it, but I suggest anybody that is interested in this issue take a look at the mission statement of the organization (and article) referenced ("Wildlife For All"). it seems apparent to me that this is an organization that is promoting the concept referenced above (federal autonomy over wildlife on federal lands) in a covert effort to curtail hunting on those lands. 

Simply stated, anybody can form an organization and take a position on a subject...as well as have some "authoritative figures" state that their position is factually based. If anybody truly believes that the feds have cart blanche autonomy over wildlife on federal lands, I suggest you organize and sue the government and see how far that position gets you. Based on the historical and existing interpretation of wildlife law in this country, I think you will be disappointed.

It is true that on certain federal lands such as federal refuges, monuments, corp lands, and such, that the feds have some level of autonomy. Those properties are the exception, not the rule. In addition, the feds also may take authority over certain species that are considered to be threatened and endangered in some cases.

[Sir-diealot]

Not on federal lands unless they want to give up any and all federal funds and rights/benefits. Even then I am not sure they have the ability or right to mess with federal lands. I do not feel they should.

[ChesterCopperpot]

The longer this thread has gone on the more abundantly clear it's become that some amongst us care much more about their own selfish interests than they do the resource. The "slam" mentality marked a very pronounced shift in our ranks. I really do think we, the overwhelmingly obsessed few, the tenth legion, used to be better than that. And with declines happening almost across the board the timing couldn't be worse. ME ME ME ME ain't just the call of a lost poult.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joey46]

If "selfish interest" means wishing for equal footing on federal lands than I guess I'm guilty. My latest trigger was a certain state cutting two weeks from a non-residents opportunity on federal land while still allowing a three bird limit.  Who's kidding who?

[joey46]

To clarify a position and give an example The Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area is within the boundaries of both Kentucky and Tennessee.  This 160,000 acre + area has quota hunts for both turkey and deer.  When, as a now resident of Florida, I apply in February for a turkey quota my application and any preference points are given equal consideration in the selection process.  A resident of KY or TN gets no extra credit.  Since this is Federal property and I'm a resident of the U S that is how it should be.  I am of the opinion that if turkey hunting continues in popularity more and more public areas will, by necessity, have limited draw quota hunts.  If the land involved is federally owned all citizens should receive equal consideration.  No more no less.  If more and more states continue the "it's all about appeasing the residents", even on federal land,  the more chance the obvious motives will be easily seen and it could eventually bite them in the butt. 

[PalmettoRon]

It's a complicated issue. I would prefer the states continue to control wildlife on federal land. The local wildlife agencies are in a far better position to know what is best in their local area, not some bureaucrat in DC.

There are tons of issues related to federal lands and the states role with those lands.

Federal control of western land: two perspectives

The Conversation
https://theconversation.com › federal-control-of-wester...

[Prospector]

Merriamsman, you live in a beautiful state. And as a resident you do absolutely deserve perks because you live there... but not exclusive or mostly exclusive rights to public NF. That's my opinion I realize but being from MS myself I feel that way despite my home state being virtually raped by NR and R hunters every spring. NR tags should go up AND NR bag limits esp should go down. Everybody's ease of access and participation difficulty should get harder. Every AMERICANS opportunity should stay exactly the same- or else let me choose to keep whatever miniscule portion of my income that goes to the whole Natl Forest falsehood.

[Prospector]

As far as having a "Slam mentality " I deny that absolutely. I love to Turkey hunt. I have only hunted Easterns. I have traveled to other states and only hunted Easterns which btw are readily available in my home state. Would I enjoy an Osceola hunt? Sure. What about sunshine on a Merriams fan? No doubt. But I am mostly about just plain ol spring turkey huntin. And I believe since I am an American. And I live in these 50 states ( and not 50 separate small countries). And it's called NF and Public land- that I and any other citizen should be able to utilize said acreage the same as any other American. IMHO.

[ChesterCopperpot]

So what's the proposal here? A nationwide quota system on all federal lands for all game species with equal opportunity draw odds? "Screw the fellow half a mile down the road who doesn't own private land and can't afford to travel. If he draws he draws."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joey46]

There is no "proposal".  Just a discussion and opinions. The entire system needs a tweak. If quota hunts happen on Federal land living within a mile should not get a gimme access.  We are now a very mobile nation and Federal land should be equally available to all.
BTW - at this time there is no need for a national quota system on all federal land but when some states decide to limit access to only their residents that is a problem and very discriminatory. 

[ChesterCopperpot]

There is no "proposal".  Just a discussion and opinions. The entire system needs a tweak. If quota hunts happen on Federal land living within a mile should not get a gimme access.  We are now a very mobile nation and Federal land should be equally available to all.

Some are, "a very mobile nation." The whole air of this conversation reeks of privilege. And that in a nutshell has been the course of America's hunting culture of late, which I guess makes sense in so much as it tracks with pretty much everything else in this country at this point. The fact that an, "I'll take away that persons only opportunity because I want more," mindset doesn't strike anyone as selfish self-interest likewise tracks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joey46]

Jeez!  A very socialistic view. Maybe we could include the National Forest system into the welfare system.

[ChesterCopperpot]

Jeez!  A very socialistic view.

No, its decency. If the turkey population in the state of Mississippi cannot support tags for every turkey hunter in the United States, which of course it can't, and the turkey population got low enough in Mississippi that it couldn't support any out of state hunters, I'd be fine with not hunting turkeys in Mississippi knowing that someone who is there can take their son or daughter afield. I'm good with that. I'll stay home. Now I'd hope the state was actively working to mitigate and reconcile that population decrease, and I'd hope that one day it'd reach levels I could, but until it reached a number sustainable for outside pressure again, again, I'm fine staying put. If that makes me a socialist in your mind, have at it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joey46]

 You've missed the whole point. Have a good evening.