Indaswamp wrote:assateague wrote:Indaswamp wrote:assateague wrote:Nope. You can "think" whatever you want, but just because you do so does not mean its valid if it flies directly contrary to what the stated purpose of the treaty was. And it wasn't about the "hunting industry".
So Assa, How do you propose we manage the resource and maintain it without putting stress on the population?
It's a state issue. Period. You cannot choose to believe in, and admire, small, decentralized, constitutional government, and then accept big government when it's in regard to something you "like" without being considered a tad hypocritical.
Look into the controversy over mottled duck limits between texas and louisiana. Louisiana for the longest time had a 3 mottled duck limit. It was believed that mottled ducks were a local bird and did not migrate. Banding studies have recently confirmed that mottled ducks do migrate, but east west, not north south. Mottled ducks from the coastal texas plain fly east to the fresh water marshes of louisiana for the winter. As such, the limit was reduced to 1. Who is going to over see whether louisiana reverts back to a 3 mottled duck limit if it is a states issue? A duck is a resource and as such, when it crosses state lines, it becomes a federal issue. No different than when a walmart truck loaded with goods drives on the interstate and crosses state lines.
Weren't you just complaining recently about the Feds interfering in the redfish fishery in Louisiana?
A duck flying from Minnesota to Louisiana is NOT interstate commerce. Does Louisiana pay the northern states for their ducks? No money crosses state lines.