Ghost said:Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution gives the feds control of 10 square miles of Washington DC. It further states that land within the boundaries of a state may only be acquired if they first have the consent of the state legislature. The federal government is limited in it’s acquisition of land to four purposes, military forts, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings. Nowhere in the constitution does it grant the federal government the power to “own” millions of acres. The so called "public lands" that they currently control must be returned to the states.
so I get it your are for federal control , like the lead ban, ridiculous license cost, 2nd amendment ban. the right to bear arms.
I get your drift. the federal government has nothing to do with our rights as hunters. far as game management they are terrible at it .
this is the worst management I have seen in 45 years. so we are not going to agree. period end of story . and I have given you respect.
I am absolutely in favor of federal control of our public land. California has neither the resources, infrastructure, or the desire to manage our lands properly. I am confident that any wildlife professional with the outdoorsman's best interests in mind would agree. CA would sell off our land to the highest bidder to private interests, of which there is already precedence. I understand what you have been sayingn and I understand your grievances. The fact remains that the federal government created the North American model of wildlife conservation (something we all learned about in hunter safety class) and it is still the best management practice we know of, and they are the only government body with the resources to do the necessary work. I'm not saying it is always good, or that there is never room for improvement (there always is and always will be), but it is good and right.