Print

Print


You misunderstand the meaning of "intrinsically" as opposed to 
"equivalent."  Under the domain of English Civil Law, wildlife are the 
property of the Crown. This ownership was transferred to the sovereign 
states when the US Revolution was successful. The feds never took 
jurisdiction of most wildlife (there are exceptions, but they don't 
apply here).  The "right of take" is given by the state, and can be 
licensed for a fee, i.e. hunting and fishing licenses. All California 
has to do it make inverts wildlife under the law, and they have this 
jurisdiction.  They have done this.  They have the right to require take 
licenses anywhere in the state of California, including on Forest 
Service, Wildlife Reserves, BLM, etc.  The exception in some states is 
National Park fishing, where there are cases that you only need an NPS 
permit. But this is not automatic. For instance, in Grand Teton NP, elk 
hunting is legal, and you have you have a Wyoming hunting license to 
participate (you also need a NPS permit).  I believe this is also the 
case in the Alaska NPS areas where hunting is allowed.  You are arguing 
some animals are more equal than others, it does not legally wash.

Now, if you want to argue stupid, irrational, counterproductive or any 
synonyms thereof, I am with you, but claiming lack of jurisdiction is 
not valid.

Mike

On 2/20/2016 1:31 PM, Doug Yanega wrote:
> On 2/20/16 11:52 AM, Ivie, Michael wrote:
>> To answer one specific question yes the state does have jurisdiction. 
>> You cannot hunt in the national forest without a state hunting 
>> license.  You cannot fish in the national forest or BLM land without 
>> a fishing license which comes from the state. There's nothing 
>> intrinsically difference between that and the insect permit. Yes I 
>> know you can't Fish
>> on land but you know what I mean.
>>
> These are not equivalent cases; the National Forest Service does not 
> issue hunting or fishing licenses, so there is no conflict of 
> jurisdiction in your example. The National Parks Service DOES issue 
> collecting permits. What's happening is the CDFW is telling the NPS 
> that they should not be granting Federal NPS collecting permits to 
> people who do not already have CDFW collecting permits from the State. 
> This IS a conflict of jurisdiction; as I noted, at least one NPS 
> administrator in California explicitly rejects the CDFW's claims of 
> authority - thereby also directly contradicting your answer.
>
> Peace,
>

-- 
__________________________________________________

Michael A. Ivie, Ph.D., F.R.E.S.

US Post Office Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59717
USA

UPS, FedEx, DHL Address:
Montana Entomology Collection
Marsh Labs, Room 50
1911 West Lincoln Street
Montana State University
Bozeman, MT 59718
USA


(406) 994-4610 (voice)
(406) 994-6029 (FAX)
[log in to unmask]