boney fingers wrote: shoveler_shooter wrote:
bighop wrote:So if the Dakotas make the limit 100 mallards each hour of legal shooting, what happens to Arkansas? Just tough titties, I guess?
It doesn't work like that.
Every state has their own biologists to study populations and they all do a perfectly adequate job of managing deer herds, pheasant, elk, quail, everything else. It wouldn't be any different for migratory birds.
First, do deer, elk, pheasant or quail migrate in large numbers from the Dakotas to Arkansas? Second would those states be able or be willing to do the studies needed to make those determinations. Third, don't we get more bang for our buck when one agency is doing the work instead of 50 agencies doing the same work. Im a small government states rights guy, but this is one of the few areas I believe it makes sense for the feds to be involved. I also believe national defense is a fed issue, this dosent make me a commie. I do have to admit though, a spring season with no limits would be cool (in my state but not yours).
Arkansas doesn't have oil and natural gas like North Dakota. Should that be "regulated" and "fairly shared" with the other states as well, or is that just ducks? California and Florida grow a lot of oranges, but Montana doesn't. That's not fair, since Montana needs its share of oranges to.
As for "more bang for the buck", no, absolutely not. What you get are two additional layers of wasteful bureaucracy at least, one when the tax dollars go through a state to filter up to the fed, and then another when the fed filters it back down to the states. Do you think the guy in Arizona is getting a good "bang for his buck" when he's paying in tax dollars to use for ducks, when it's the guy in Arkansas killing all the ducks the guy in Arizona "paid for"? Of course not. A large bureaucracy hardly ever leads to a better bang for the buck. It leads to people who have no knowledge of the conditions or needs of people on the ground, yet dictating to them how much it's going to cost and how it's going to work.
And yes, your'e damn right the states would be willing to do those studies, because they know exactly how much they would lose if the ducks disappear.
Again, I don't care how near and dear a particular cause is to anyone's heart, or how much they think it "helps". If it's not an enumerated power, then the federal government should NOT be doing it. Period. Encouraging it because you think the states would eff it up is a form of nannyism no different than the state telling you your kids have to wear a helmet and elbow pads to ride a bicycle. Because hey, why should you be trusted to take care of your kids? Without them telling you what to do to protect them, all the kids would be dead in 3 years, and then where would we be?