hoshour,
I'm not going to go 15 rounds with you on this issue, but you are lacking in the basic understanding of how our representative republic works, why the Federal Government controls some wildlife, as well as the constitutional authority of our republic.
The 3 particular instances of the "federal" control of wildlife has nothing to do with the Supreme Court or a sitting president. Anadromous fish, Migratory birds, and T&E species are all controlled through Acts of Congress. It makes sense for a lot of reasons for them to control all 3 of those particular cases. It would make no sense for Idaho, for example, to have steelhead and salmon hatcheries/spawning habitat if Washington and Oregon killed every steelhead/salmon that entered the Columbia. The Feds have to intervene to make sure that there is enough escapement, so that anadromous fish reach spawning habitat, hatcheries in Idaho...and also that Idaho Residents have some fish to catch. That's why there is Federal "control".
Same with migratory birds, where large portions of the birds aren't even reared in the United States. It makes total sense for the Feds to control that, for a lot of reasons including but not limited to, entering into treaties and agreements with other countries where the birds migrate to and from, consistent bag limits across the flyways, etc. It would be an absolute nightmare if every state had to enter into treaties and acts with Russia, Canada, Mexico, etc. Would also be a nightmare trying to get 49 states on the same page with regard to bag limits, seasons, etc.
Finally, T&E species control via the Feds is also a good idea. The reasons are many, but there has to be over-sight when a species is required by law/act to be recovered. It also makes sense from a funding standpoint, that the Federal Government pay a vast majority of the bill for recovery efforts. Without funding and over-sight by the feds, there would be nothing to compel a state to recover a species and there would be inconsistent funding and management between the States. Again, it would make no sense to have 5 different recovery plans, or for ONLY the individual states to be saddled with the cost of recovering a T&E species.
What you have to keep in mind, is that these 3 cases, were specifically excluded by Acts of Congress...not the President. Again, the President, I don't care who they are, simply cannot sweep in and take control of wildlife within a states borders, other than the 3 specific cases I mentioned. Further, a President cannot swoop in and nullify the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Endangered Species Act, Mitchel Act, etc. etc. Sure, they could attempt to do so, but good luck with that. I would reckon that any President that attempted to force Congress to repeal the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is going to be met with some severe backlash not only from Congress, but also those that he/she works for (American Public).
But, to say that any President can just take over the control of wildlife like deer, elk, pronghorn, etc. that are under state control is not being truthful. If so, I would really like you to identify the laws/regulations/statutes that the Feds have passed in regard to elk, deer, pronghorn, moose, bighorn, badgers, fox, marten, mink, etc. etc. etc. in any State in the Union.
The rights of the individual States to control wildlife within their borders has been upheld by Supreme Court decisions, except those expressly reserved by the United States Government via Acts of Congress.
Take 17 minutes and watch the video...
