in English common law for centuries game and fish had belonged to the Crown (or to nobles granted land or fiefs by the Crown) -- in the US this legal tradition evolved into public ownership of wildlife (by assuming that the people as a whole took the place of the Crown as owner of wildlife) -- in Europe in contrast the same tradition of royal ownership evolved into ownership by landowners (by assuming that landowners took the places of fief-holders of the Crown as owners of wildlife) -- as a result Europe has in general had a sorry record for conservation of wildlife in this century . . .

Lacey Act 1894 and US Supreme Court (Geer vs. Connecticut 1896) upheld the view that wildlife belongs to the people (in other words to the democratic government) -- see Wild land and wildlife for more on how important this precedent was for conservation in the US

Geer vs Connecticut 1896 however held that wildlife belonged to states not to federal government -- note that Yellowstone at this time was in a US territory -- not yet the state of Wyoming -- so Lacey Act did not conflict with Geer vs Connecticut -- remained unclear whether or not Congress could pass laws protecting or regulating wildlife within states

because much wildlife and birds in particular often move from state to state, management of wildlife by each state separately would result in disaster -- in fact in 1800's states were unable to pass effective wildlife regulations

why this failure of the states?   think about predation by wolves preying on migratory caribou -- why did we conclude that this situation was unlikely to result in prudent predation?   so can we expect states to manage migratory waterfowl prudently?

it took a few more decades before it was established that Congress could pass laws for protection and management of all wildlife . . .

Congress passed Migratory Bird Bill (Weeks-McLean Act) 1913 in part to protect egrets (endangered at that time because of commercial hunting for their plumes) -- but courts quickly ruled that this law violated Tenth Amendment of the Constitution (reserving all powers to states that are not explicitly granted to federal government by the Constitution) -- it became accepted that states own wildlife -- not the federal government -- it looked like egrets were headed for extinction in the US

here is how this situation was reversed . . . US arranged the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds with Britain 1916 (at that time the proprietor of Canada) -- subsequently Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 1918 to enact the treaty (at a time when US troops were fighting in Europe)

this Act upheld by US Supreme Court 1920 because treaties are not excluded by the Tenth Amendment -- famous Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes dismissed the arguments about state ownership of wildlife on the grounds that "the subject-matter is only transitorily in the state" -- he was a judge who called it like it was!

the matter of state versus federal ownership was finally settled in 1979 by another US Supreme Court case (Hughes versus Oklahoma) -- an Oklahoma law that prohibited sale of out-of-state minnows was overturned -- wildlife was found to satisfy conditions for articles of commerce (presumably because they could move across state lines) -- so now Congress could regulate fish and wildlife under the power granted to the federal government to regulate interstate commerce!

the important point in this bizarre thread of legal history is that wildlife in the US has become firmly established as the property of all people -- this single development (together with the treaty with Canada) has made the US and Canada the world leaders in conservation this century -- because it gave the US and Canadian governments working in cooperation the power to manage the wildlife of nearly an entire hemisphere

Reference

Weinberg, P., and K. A. Reilly. 1998. Understanding environmental law. Matthew-Bender.