>"So, who does own the animal?"
>
>
>According to the law as it
>stands right now wild animals
>are owned by the state.
> In reality that translates
>to the government owns the
>animals. Nobody likes to
>here that answer but its
>the truth. They sit
>above the law and they
>decide the fate and management
>of the wild native, and
>sometimes non-native animals.
>
>" And what determines ownership?"
>
>Law.
>
>" And who has the right
>to determine it's fate?"
>
>This is a very broad question.
> First think of it
>as permission. Your elected
>and appointed government officials have
>that right in most cases,
>but at times they will
>hand down that right to
>private citizenry to decide.
>It already occurs. With
>the game management and harvest
>management we use today.
>
>
>" And who should be allowed
>to market and earn money
>from the hunting/killing of an
>animal they own (or don't
>own)?"
>
>That is a fairly complicated question
>as well. Obviously the
>government is getting to market
>it. Obviously land owners
>are getting to market it
>also in some cases because
>in some cases they control
>trespass rights. In some
>cases private individuals get to
>market the game. Also
>to answer this question we
>need to make solid designations
>between live animal marketing and
>post mortem animal marketing.
>Right now some states
>already allow secondary sales of
>tags. Some do not.
>
>
>All these are really valuable questions
>you asked and a good
>way to get to the
>root of a lot of
>our wildlife management dilemmas.
So we know (sorta) what's happening currently which seems to work for some of us, but not for others.
Now, I'd like to know how you think it should be.
Who should own the animals and why?
What criteria should determine the laws regarding ownership, ie; inside fenced property?, adoption (per wild horses and burros)?, sales (per pet stores or livestock auctions)?, government agency?, etc.
Who should have the right to determine its fate?
The last question will probably be answered by the above questions.
I know you would prefer that the government get out of the management of wildlife as much as possible and you refer to Texas as an example, but I don't see how the Texas system would work in Utah given the fact that the vast majority of our big game (and small game) habitat is public property (BLM, Nat Forest, National Parks and Monuments, Military, Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, Division of Wildlife Resources, State Trust Lands, State Parks and others), and given that the animals are indeed wild and can, and do, travel many miles on a yearly (even daily) basis and don't seem to recognize boundries, and given that hunting has been a long established affordable family activity. Our arrangements may not agree with the ideal conservative view of total private ownership of everything, but it has worked for the majority of Utah hunters for a long time and we find now that many of us are being eased out of the system for social/trophy reasons. And some of us are resisting the trend by speaking out in forums and meetings, and social media.
However, having said all that, I, for one, would like to hear your answers to get your "perspective" (Sorry, there's that nasty word again.
Lee Tracy (UWC)