They are either owned by the state or the feds. Since states make ALL decisions in managment, issue tags, and prosecute all crimes against wildlife violations they do in fact "own" the animals. If the land played any part of it then once an animal went on private land you could either shoot it a will or you'd have to get a Federal tag. Just use a little common sense, the state does in fact own the animal. The same animal can go from Federal land, to state land and to private land. In all cases the state funds and makes all decisions about that animal. If the animal crosses from Utah to Colorado, that animal changes ownership and the management of that animal comes out of someone elses pocket altogether and becomes someone elses opportunity. If everyone owns them then I could chase that animal across the border.

Federal funds in most cases go to improve federal lands, if the money ends up benfitting wildlife it wasn't the main intention. The benefitting of wildlife from federal funds in nearly every case is incedental. Your tax federal tax dollars go to improving your camping, hiking and site-seeing experience. Not your hunting experience, that is done by the state. If you don't like the word "own' thats fine, switch it out with the state has "full authority and responsibility." They have "dominion over." Anyway you wanna slice it, it essentially belongs and is funded by the state.

Be consitent. If you believe the land "belongs" to someone then the animals "belong" to someone. You can't say no one "owns" the animals and then turn around and use the federal land argument as to why you have an equal right to hunt that animal.

It certainly is not crap, its a fact.