8 replies [Last post]
arrowflipper's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Joined: 01/03/2011
Posts: 579
Federal vs. State

After reading the article on the Montana rancher being fined by the Feds for protecting his livestock, I decided to post a question to all the guys who read this forum. Who should control wildlife, the state or the Feds? And why??

BikerRN's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Joined: 05/23/2011
Posts: 714
States

The power should reside with the states and not the federal government.

hunter25's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!
Location: Colorado western slope
Joined: 11/13/2009
Posts: 3023
I say the states as well as

I say the states as well as they have a much better idea of what's going on with the animals and the effect that they have in the area. Supposedly they belong to the state so they should be able to control what happens to them.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Federal vs State

This one's easy...state.  The Constitution's pretty clear about the default responsibility for just about anything.

WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2370
state or Fed

I'll say state on this one.  But at what point does the Federal aspect come into play?

I'll play devils advocate here.....what happens when the state violates the rights of the citizen or violates the constitution?  Not to get off subject, but just think of how the whole gun control issues have played out across the country over the years.

Not meant to be inflamatory or start a heated debate, but I see hear it all the time among opinionated politically active concervatives and liberals alike.  When the state is violating their rights or tries to enact power in a certain arena that people think it shouldn't, everyone uses the Federal jurisdiction argument.  When the Federal government does something we think it shouldn't, the same people argue that the state should have the power. Just throwing it our there for some thought.

expatriate's picture
Offline
Location: Arizona
Joined: 10/26/2002
Posts: 3207
Federal vs. State

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and I'll agree that federal intervention can guarantee such rights.

However, there's nothing in the Constitution about wildlife management.  Under the 10th Amendment, if the Constitution doesn't specifically give a power to the federal government, it belongs to the states.

WesternHunter's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Posts: 2370
wildlife

expatriate wrote:

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and I'll agree that federal intervention can guarantee such rights.

However, there's nothing in the Constitution about wildlife management.  Under the 10th Amendment, if the Constitution doesn't specifically give a power to the federal government, it belongs to the states.

Yup, and that's why I said State on this particular wildlife issue.

Ca_Vermonster's picture
Offline
Grand Slam Challenge Winner!Moderator
Location: San Diego, CA
Joined: 07/27/2007
Posts: 5783
Pretty much in agreement with

Pretty much in agreement with everyone else, I believe that the State should control most aspects of things within it's  boundaries. I think the government should be responsible for our national defense, most everything else should lie in the state.

dustin ray's picture
Offline
Location: So Cal
Joined: 06/27/2010
Posts: 100
The State should. just look

The State should. just look at the border and wolfs

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Federal Dollars Used as a CarrotCVC603/24/2009 08:24 am
338 federal?vssb102/14/2009 16:45 pm
Bear Baiting Bansmsleri109/28/2004 23:26 pm
National Forest, non-resident hunting license???ELKNUTZ607/24/2008 21:17 pm
SAKO 7MM REM MAG FOR SALETRENT GUFFIN109/02/2008 07:07 am