auction, (big elk)

[kidoggy]

I think you need to slow down and read.

The commercial side of wildlife is tightly controlled via all kinds of laws, a vast majority of it by the States with a vast majority of the laws being State law. Your worry about the "feds and California" controlling wildlife in Idaho is a red herring, best case, and an unfounded worry. Neither California, nor the Feds, have anything to say about how Idaho chooses to manage deer, elk, bears, sheep, goats, moose, grouse, quail, bears, yellow perch, crappie, bass, sunfish, etc. etc. Further, there is no legal path for them to interfere in, or pass laws, regarding Idaho's management of same...including the sale of antlers.

Any law pertaining to wildlife management in Idaho, is strictly the business of the Residents of Idaho...case law matters, and there is a long legal history of the individual States rights of wildlife within their border. I fully support the individual States to make their own decision and pass any law they see fit to manage their wildlife assets. If Idaho decides to ban the sale of antlers...nobody to blame but the citizens of Idaho.

BTW, the (you) that you refer to is not from California...

I understand that is the way it is.

I do not care what state you are from, I believe you got my drift.
your ."if only obviously"' implied you do not think that is the way it SOULD BE. if that is not correct ,please clarify

 

[BuzzH]

For the third time, and from my last post, that you quoted but apparently didn't read.

I fully support the individual States to make their own decision and pass any law they see fit to manage their wildlife assets.

 

[Tim McCoy]

You're in luck...if you knew much of anything about the case law regarding States rights in regard to wildlife management, you wouldn't need to get out in the weeds on the "federal government or California getting involved in such decisions".

The Feds and California have no legal path to control Idaho's wildlife...if only obviously.

I know you are making a general point, relative to Fed control, but one needs to add some addemdums IMO. The Feds control wildlife in the states all the time, they have several paths. The way most germane to the jousting you and Kidoggy are having is to declare a species threatened or endangered, like the wolf. Look at the recent efforts to declare the Sage Grouse and a T&E species. Oh boy would that have impacted regular hunting with restrictions on a bird. So in that sense I think KD is right to be concerned about Federal control.

The other minor point, that I think is creating disagreement, is defining what one means by Commercial Hunting, which in it's broadest application covers what most call Market Hunting. I think if one partitions Commercial Hunting into types, most would be 100% against Market Hunting, and just fine with Commercial Hunting ( regulated by the states ) done by Outfitters, Guides, Trespass hunts, etc. A point of clarification that may help move the discussion along.

Myself, while I understand selling legally taken trophies does help incent, monetarily, some poaching, I'm perfectly OK with it where allowed. States might want to treat violations more like the States/Feds do if you take archeological artifacts and/or theft, which if I recall correctly, are more severe than poaching/antler/illegal taking etc. violations.

 

[BuzzH]

I know you are making a general point, relative to Fed control, but one needs to add some addemdums IMO. The Feds control wildlife in the states all the time, they have several paths. The way most germane to the jousting you and Kidoggy are having is to declare a species threatened or endangered, like the wolf. Look at the recent efforts to declare the Sage Grouse and a T&E species. Oh boy would that have impacted regular hunting with restrictions on a bird. So in that sense I think KD is right to be concerned about Federal control.

There was no mention of T&E species, implied or otherwise, and was not pertinent to the discussion about selling antlers. Further kdoggy, made direct reference to the fact that the feds, as well as California (but apparently none of the other 48 states) could swoop in and impose federal law on how Idaho chooses to deal with the sale of shed antlers, legally harvested big-game, etc.

That's not true, the feds have no legal path, or authority of any kind, to impose or interfere with how ID or any other state decides they want to handle their wildlife assets.

But, in fairness, if we're going to discuss T&E and the ESA...most do not have a good grip on what is required, how species are listed, etc. Most believe the feds get to just do what they want, decide to list on a whim, etc. Not true.

Dragging T&E species into the discussion is a much different case, mainly because then the Federal Government is within its legal authority via the ESA to intervene. That is not to mean that the States still don't have a whole lot to say about how the Feds manage those species on the list that are found in their States. They absolutely do, and in fact, the ESA requires that the Feds partner with and cooperate with the respective states were recovery efforts are taking place. Sec. 6 [U.S.C. 1535] a-d, address federal funding and responsibility of the feds to cooperate with the States.

Further, as in the case of Sage Grouse, the states have responded proactively to keep them off the list. Good move on their part, and in particular in the case of Wyoming, that is clearly the leader in a collaborative approach to sage grouse management.

But, again, its a stretch to say that the Feds just take total control of wildlife within a State even in the case of T&E species, its just not reality to make such a claim.

 

[Tim McCoy]

You said "no legal path to control Idaho's wildlife". That statement is wrong or overly broad, or possibly you misspoke, no idea, all I have to go on is your words... Wildlife has a meaning, wild animals collectively. If you simply say antlers, different meaning. A great recent example is the Feds controlled ID wolves for quite some time. Happens all the time.

 

[BuzzH]

If you simply say antlers, different meaning. A great recent example is the Feds controlled ID wolves for quite some time. Happens all the time.

Do you know why the feds were "controlling" wolves for so long? Do you know what flexibility the States enjoyed in managing wolves via 10(j) from the first day that wolves were reintroduced?

It doesn't happen all the time, and in the case of wolves, is a poor example to prove your point of total federal control. The ESA and Feds were not the reason that wolves were not being managed by the State of Idaho sooner...it was Wyoming.

 

[Tim McCoy]

Buzz, go try and pick up and retain an eagle feather, naturally cast off, much like a shed antler, and let me know how it works out for ya...absent a permit/permissions. Feds control wildlife all the time, game and non-game species, both in terms of take and even activities where the wildlife is present. Ya, one can beg big brother for some permission or limited control, but the Feds hold on to the yes/no, which is control. Pretty simple.

What you might want to consider, is changing your point, removing the broad term wildlife ( which is what made your assertion incorrect, and why I interjected ), and possibly narrowing your remarks to shed antler from a state regulated game species, or some such qualification. Define it narrowly enough, and all the sudden the Feds are out and the state can control that item/activity.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Strange where this thread has gone considering it was just a pic of a rack on an auction site.

 

[kidoggy]

For the third time, and from my last post, that you quoted but apparently didn't read.

I fully support the individual States to make their own decision and pass any law they see fit to manage their wildlife assets.

then what the heck are you arguing about???????

 

[BuzzH]

Buzz, go try and pick up and retain an eagle feather, naturally cast off, much like a shed antler, and let me know how it works out for ya...absent a permit/permissions. Feds control wildlife all the time, game and non-game species, both in terms of take and even activities where the wildlife is present. Ya, one can beg big brother for some permission or limited control, but the Feds hold on to the yes/no, which is control. Pretty simple.

What you might want to consider, is changing your point, removing the broad term wildlife ( which is what made your assertion incorrect, and why I interjected ), and possibly narrowing your remarks to shed antler from a state regulated game species, or some such qualification. Define it narrowly enough, and all the sudden the Feds are out and the state can control that item/activity.

I apologize to wrongly making the assumption that most hunters probably have at least a basic understanding of the 10th Amendment of our constitution, and the 3 specific cases of "federal wildlife control". Those that have been retained by the Federal Government via Acts of congress, specifically migratory birds, anadromous fish, and T&E species.

I also wrongly assumed that, since the OP was about antlers, that we weren't talking about eagle feathers and black footed ferret pelts. Didn't see the need to qualify what constituted "wildlife" since the discussion was entirely about State Managed wildlife. I didn't drag T&E species into the discussion...someone else did.

Also, since the only wildlife assets the states don't control are those reserved by the Federal Government, again, I didn't see the need to qualify what constitutes "Idaho's wildlife assets". Its implied in the 10th...

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[blb078]

Strange where this thread has gone considering it was just a pic of a rack on an auction site.

I was just thinking the same thing. However if commercial hunting isn't allowed, how are restaurants allowed to sell elk or deer burgers? That usually farm raised animals I guess?

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

I was just thinking the same thing. However if commercial hunting isn't allowed, how are restaurants allowed to sell elk or deer burgers? That usually farm raised animals I guess?

That is correct, as far as I know. In some states this applies to sport caught fish too.

 

[JimP]

I was just thinking the same thing. However if commercial hunting isn't allowed, how are restaurants allowed to sell elk or deer burgers? That usually farm raised animals I guess?

All farm raised and they go through a USDA inspection their whole lives.

 

[Gr8bawana]

I was just thinking the same thing. However if commercial hunting isn't allowed, how are restaurants allowed to sell elk or deer burgers? That usually farm raised animals I guess?

Meat that you buy at stores and restaurants is not commercially hunted at all. It is bred, raised and slaughtered specifically for the meat market and hunting of any kind is not a factor.

 

[JNDEER]

IF a study was to show that poached animal parts became sold for profit THEN I would be all for stricter regulations on the sale of such parts. (I know animals get poached and I know many times certain poached items are sold for $, but I am not sure if specifically trophy antlers are targeted for the reason of being only or mostly sold for profit).

Regulations on poached animals for the commercial sale for profit hold much higher fines then just your average poacher killing bambi to feed his family (not that one is more justified then the other). So, if it can be shown that poached trophy animals do in fact mostly get poached for sale and profit then I would be all for stricter regulations on the sale of such items or not being allowed to sale them at all.

 

[ivorytip]

they ended up getting sold for $850.00 this turned into an interesting read.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

IF a study was to show that poached animal parts became sold for profit THEN I would be all for stricter regulations on the sale of such parts. (I know animals get poached and I know many times certain poached items are sold for $, but I am not sure if specifically trophy antlers are targeted for the reason of being only or mostly sold for profit).

Regulations on poached animals for the commercial sale for profit hold much higher fines then just your average poacher killing bambi to feed his family (not that one is more justified then the other). So, if it can be shown that poached trophy animals do in fact mostly get poached for sale and profit then I would be all for stricter regulations on the sale of such items or not being allowed to sale them at all.

I see lots of reports of deer & elk killed and their heads removed and the meat left to rot. They are doing something with the antlers.

 

[shootbrownelk]

I see lots of reports of deer & elk killed and their heads removed and the meat left to rot. They are doing something with the antlers.

That's exactly what I thought. The scum that kill an animal just to take the head and leave the meat to rot should be punished a lot more severely than what the Judges are imposing now. Loss of a new vehicle would get their attention.

 

[NE69]

My personal experience with poaching it goes on more than most people realize. As the rack size increases more of our better deer around here are poached. It's a small % of "shooters" that do it, but they really impact the herd. Very tough to catch them too. My uncle and I report every instance to the Warden and I have started keeping a log of suspicious activity any time I'm out in the field. I write down vehicle plates, description, time, anything I think might help later. Someone attempted to poach a 200"+ buck I was hunting this year and it really had an impact on our season. I can't prove it YET, but I think a few of the deer in our area are poached and turned in as archery kills. As per regulations here in Nebraska, all archery deer are checked in electronically so if someone is wanting to break the law there is almost zero chance of getting caught.
Dave

 

[kidoggy]

we don't need stricter regulations . we already have laws calling it illegal to do that.we do not need "common sense bone laws."

AS I SAID BEFORE STRICTER FINES AND OR PENALTIES , is something I could get on board with but I will never advocate for more silly laws, that do nothing more then appease the granolas.


if a bear hunter kills a bear, should it be illegal to sell the gall bladder?how about ivory jewelry from elks teeth?

I believe almost every hunter would agree that poaching for those things is bad. but that is not what we're talking about. we're talking about the selling of these things when legally obtained.
if I killed an elk,(let's just say 10 years ago , for feces n giggles) have it mounted,say 10 years go by, I have to sell my home(for whatever reason)and no longer have the space to hang it. should it be illegal for me to sell that trophy?should there be a law saying it is only legal to throw it in the garbage or donate it to a museum?
I do not see how any rational human would not find such a law to be ridiculous.