kshunter

Howler, I do agree with you. For example; about a month ago, I talked to a landowner with 300 acres that i've been hunting since I was a little kid. She is a nice single lady in her 40's, with a very low income job, living in the area that she lives in. She was called up by some out-of-staters who offered her $9 an acre to bowhunt deer. She said she couldn't pass it up figuring she's barely making the monthly payments.

Jobs in the remote rural areas aren't near as high-paying or nearly available as other areas, like Cal. That's an advantage that city folks have. And when somebody offers them 1/8 of what they make all year, without an extra work, they'd be stupid not to do it. I don't blame her one bit for leasing it out.

Sypro, you and the nice lady here in Kansas obviously aren't equal in your resources that is received, and money made, due to where you both live. That's your advantage with not living in rural Kansas, where she doesn't have your resources. But you think that the nice lady's resources are as much yours as they are hers?

On a different note Howler, did you notice how the people supporting Taulman didn't say one thing about Kansas Game Management and financial management, and how their plan would ruin it? Taulman and his people call landowners sellouts, and residents greedy. Unbeleivable!

ironranger

Wonder why they call it the "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". Not seeing that here...

SpyroAndes

No doubt... It is the People's Republic of Kansas and the People's Republic of Wyoming trying to keep the evil invaders out of their motherlands.

Hikchick

If that's all that you've gotten out of any of these posts then you need to go back to school and learn how to read and conceptualize!

hillbillyhunter1

Actually this whole thing is about the rights of the state as stated in the Constitution of the United States of America---Bill of rights---Article X

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

SpyroAndes

Do you know what that amendment means?

Let me put it this way...

You have an 18 yr old son, Tommy, so he is considered an adult.

You are letting Tommy drive your truck because you have other vehicles but you own the truck. You have the pink slip of the truck and the registration is in your name.

Your other child is supposed to be getting rides from Tommy but you find out that Tommy isn't giving rides.

In fact, you find out that Tommy is trying to charge your other child $20 a ride when he decides to give a ride.

You get pissed off and tell Tommy that you want your truck... He says "It is his truck because he has been driving it and washing it."

Time for all you to give the truck back to daddy...

kshunter

Haha... the level of intelligence that we are dealing with...

I think Hikchick said it best,

hillbillyhunter1

I don't agree or have the slightest idea what your talking about

What it does mean is exactly what it says--If the federal government hasn't been given the rights by the constitution to govern over a particular subject (ie hunting/fishing)--then those rights belong to the state---

I hope you're not one of those "living document" types--which means that the constitution is supposed to change based upon the interpretation of the modern society

The founding fathers were all very much in favor of limiting the power of the federal government--as Thomas Jefferson stated many, many times--You want the quotes?

This article was put in to place to do that very thing--federal government has no rights except those expressly given to it by the constitution---Now I know that some of these rights have been seized erroneously by the fed and that is part of the entire problem with the country today.

SpyroAndes

The right to govern over hunting/fishing on federal land IS the right of the Federal Government.

Don't believe me? Look at Yellowstone, the Feds are governing the fishing.

Just because the Feds have let the states govern the hunting/fishing on Federal lands (e.g. drive their car), does mean that the Feds will continue to govern those lands (e.g. they'll take their truck back).

The only reason the states have been able to govern fish/wildlife on Federal Lands is because the Feds have LET the states do it.

hillbillyhunter1

If it's the right of the fed then perhaps you should apply to Washington DC for your elk permit--as long as you promise to stay on federal land like a good little boy