An argument for the German model of hunting

daniel craig · Apr 2, 2020

mcb said:
I agree with the idea that deer (wildlife in general) are a commodity owned by the government and I purchase the privilege to hunt with my hunting license (that is another can of worms only tangentially related here). So I have less of an issue with the raw quota/limit on a harvest as they are trying to manage their commodity, but the idea that the government says that I have to do something on my private land whether I want to or not is a problem for me.

Even if they told you you had to say....clean up a toxic spill on your land? This is the last political thing I’ll say because we’re not supposed to get too political but for me, what I can do on my land ends where it impacts the good of others or nature (that’s one of the reasons you have get an evaluation before you do anything with wetlands)

daniel craig · Apr 2, 2020

Fine Figure of a Man said:
For the good of the people" sounds like Karl Marx to me.

Heaven forbid we care about people other than ourselves

Fine Figure of a Man · Apr 2, 2020

daniel craig said:
Heaven forbid we care about people other than ourselves

Most of us do, some of use even know some history about governments that "care for the people".
"The theory of Communism may be summed up in one word: abolish all private property."- Karl Marx

mcb · Apr 2, 2020

daniel craig said:
Even if they told you you had to say....clean up a toxic spill on your land? This is the last political thing I’ll say because we’re not supposed to get too political but for me, what I can do on my land ends where it impacts the good of others or nature (that’s one of the reasons you have get an evaluation before you do anything with wetlands)

I agree with the premise that I can do anything on my land up to the point where I infringe on someone else rights. If I am creating a toxic waste dump that is seeping to my neighbors' land and water I have gone to far. But at the same time you cannot come onto my land and tell me I need to paint my house purple or I need to plant corn or I need to shoot my deer. It is private land and as long as the owner is not violating someone else rights it seems best to let the land owner do what they want. There are some big gray areas in that but I lean towards less government involvement whenever it is possible.

daniel craig · Apr 2, 2020

mcb said:
I agree with the premise that I can do anything on my land up to the point where I infringe on someone else rights. If I am creating a toxic waste dump that is seeping to my neighbors' land and water I have gone to far. But at the same time you cannot come onto my land and tell me I need to paint my house purple or I need to plant corn or I need to shoot my deer. It is private land and as long as the owner is not violating someone else rights it seems best to let the land owner do what they want. There are some big gray areas in that but I lean towards less government involvement whenever it is possible.

Hmm valid. I guess where I different is the fact that we already do tell you how you can and can’t hunt the deer through the creation of seasons and bag limits and tags because they don’t belong to any one person, I see this as an extension to what’s already in place.

40-82 · Apr 2, 2020

Patocazador said:
State laws differ but in Florida Game Wardens are law enforcement officers and have the right to enter private property and even your house if they suspect the law has been broken. This actually allows them to "fish" for violations regardless of whether they have any evidence. All they have to do if confronted is to claim someone gave them a tip.

My SIL works at the prison and says that LEOs sometimes get game wardens to go into a place first because the LEOs don't have a warrant.

Under U.S. law that's playing fast and loose with Fourth Amendment rights. The practical matter goes as follows: mount a Fourth Amendment case that could cost five thousand upwards or just play the fine, which is much less.

mcb · Apr 2, 2020

daniel craig said:
Hmm valid. I guess where I different is the fact that we already do tell you how you can and can’t hunt the deer through the creation of seasons and bag limits and tags because they don’t belong to any one person, I see this as an extension to what’s already in place.

But this extension, inspired by the German system, you are proposing differs in the important fact that you are now compelling someone to do something or compelling them to allow others to do something they may not want to do or have done.

With all the hunting regulation that commonly exist now in the United State now, they all give someone the option to hunt while setting limits on the how, when, and how much. No where in our present hunting regulation is the private landowner ever compelled to hunt or allow someone else to hunt if they do not wish too.

40-82 · Apr 2, 2020

mcb said:
Yes I am being mild, as I could see this becoming very contentious. I am trying to keep and open mind but agree with much of your concerns.

I do have sympathy for people in areas where they have a tough time finding a place to hunt. Even in my area of southwestern Virginia with our extensive national forests, ninety percent of the deer are killed on private land, but I'm not willing to see the Constitution and private property rights gutted for something like this..

redneck · Apr 2, 2020

You also have to look at the perspective the other way. Its not going to be acceptable to private land owners here but I don't know very many American hunters that would be willing to follow the German model either. Showing up on a certain day, being told which stand to use, and told which game to shoot. The articles I have read, and videos I have watched suggest that nobody passes on a buck to get a bigger one, you shoot the game that comes to you and matches a certain criteria, and that is what you get.
In one country for instance they do driven moose hunts and the protocol is that if you see a cow and calf you must shoot the calf first. That way there is no wondering whether or not the calf will survive without the cow. It makes sense to a point, but when you paid the same for a moose tag as everyone else and you have to shoot a 400lb calf because it is what was driven to you and all the other guys take home a mature bull it probably won't sit very well.
You are looking at this as an opportunity to hunt more but most people who have enjoyed hunting public or private land, would consider it an unnecessary burden that takes away the freedoms they currently enjoy. It isn't just putting a control on land owners, it is also putting a control on the hunters.

mcb · Apr 2, 2020

40-82 said:
I do have sympathy for people in areas where they have a tough time finding a place to hunt. Even in my area of southwestern Virginia with our extensive national forests, ninety percent of the deer are killed on private land, but I'm not willing to see the Constitution and private property rights gutted for something like this..

I agree very much. I have been blessed with always having access to private land. A family farm growing up and now my own private land. I feel for those looking for good places to hunt. That said even if I did not own land I would resist the idea of forcing private land owners to hunt or be forced to allow others to hunt the land. The older I get the more libertarian I become.

buck460XVR · Apr 2, 2020

George P said:
Bet they don't have as many ambulance-chasing attorneys looking to sue for some minor thing like we do. Major issue in this country would be liability.

In my state, there is no such liability. Landowners are not liable for damage or injury to hunters that do not pay a fee to hunt on their land. Many folks use the "liability" argument when refusing permission, but it's just a nice way to say "no". Here's how it is stated by the DNR......

When inviting and allowing others to hunt on private property a real concern is whether the landowner is held liable for any accidents that occur while individuals are hunting on their private land. According to Wisconsin state law, landowners are generally immune from liability for injuries individuals receive while on their land. Specifically the law provides landowners with liability protection for injuries or death of people participating in activities such as fishing, hunting, trapping, hiking, camping, boating, and berry picking. These laws have been established to encourage landowners to let others use their land recreationally. There are a few instances when this immunity does not apply. It does not apply if the landowner acted with malicious intent to harm the individual, or if the landowner receives more than $2,000 a year of income from hunting or those hunting on the land.

There are ways for landowners to work with hunters that allows them access to private land. Problem in the U.S. is, the majority of folks that own good hunting land.....hunt themselves. In recent years the biggest shift in land ownership in rural areas, is not for agriculture, but strictly for hunting, aka Recreational land. The whole reason these folks own the land is so they have their own hunting area. Around here, those large farms where the land owner and their family do not hunt and they have issues with crop damage from deer, getting access to hunt is easy. Many times in order for a land owner to collect deer damage from the state, the land owner must prove that X amount of antlerless deer were shot first. In these instances, many times those amount are high enough that the land owner needs help to harvest and actually has to ask folks to come shoot deer. Another way the state has thought about in order to give hunters more access to hunting land is to lease or pay landowners. This has been pretty popular in gaining access to areas to fish and to hunt small game and upland game. Deer hunting is different nail to hit, because deer hunting is such a tradition in Wisconsin. Most all private land already has what the landowners consider "enough", when it comes to deer hunters. Deer hunters have given themselves a reputation, and it's not a very positive image. Another consideration is for the state to charge a fee to hunt public lands. This fee would go towards the acquisition of more public lands, either thru purchase or lease agreements. Like having a "sticker" or "permit" to access state parks, trails and boat landings, one would have to have a permit to use public lands. This would lessen pressure and improve hunting because only folks with permits would be able to hunt on public land and new land would be constantly added to the pot. The state is doing everything it can to recruit new hunters, because license purchases are constantly going down. Free tags, special seasons, mentoring and hunting clinics have helped, but the biggest hurdle most new hunters have, is getting access to decent hunting land. Other than death and old age, it is also the number one reason most experienced hunters have given up hunting.

mcb · Apr 2, 2020

@daniel craig what if we turn this around? Instead of forcing land owner to meet a quota what if we rewarded land owners for meeting the quota. If they meet a needed quota or allow non-family hunters to access their land on a given year they can gain access to DNR resources to help them manage their land or similar pro-habitat pro-hunting rewards for their effort. Obviously safeguards would needed to keep it from being abused but as a land owner if I was rewarded with region compatible seed for my food-plots and/or consultation with wildlife or land-management experts to help me manage my land better for a particular species of interest that would be a nice reward for letting a few people hunt my land.

Carrot instead of stick!

FL-NC · Apr 2, 2020

I never hunted in Germany, but I know people who did. "Red tape difficulty" is how I would describe it.

George P · Apr 2, 2020

This is a good watch

daniel craig · Apr 2, 2020

mcb said:
@daniel craig what if we turn this around? Instead of forcing land owner to meet a quota what if we rewarded land owners for meeting the quota. If they meet a needed quota or allow non-family hunters to access their land on a given year they can gain access to DNR resources to help them manage their land or similar pro-habitat pro-hunting rewards for their effort. Obviously safeguards would needed to keep it from being abused but as a land owner if I was rewarded with region compatible seed for my food-plots and/or consultation with wildlife or land-management experts to help me manage my land better for a particular species of interest that would be a nice reward for letting a few people hunt my land.

Carrot instead of stick!

Not a bad idea, really. Some of the reward could be monetary too. Like 50 cents on the dollar of a license go towards monetary rewards to those people. We’d get closer to a solution but there would still be huge areas of unhunted land that deer populations overabound on. We’d have to come up with a way to fix that.

buck460XVR · Apr 2, 2020

daniel craig said:
Not a bad idea, really. Some of the reward could be monetary too. Like 50 cents on the dollar of a license go towards monetary rewards to those people. We’d get closer to a solution but there would still be huge areas of unhunted land that deer populations overabound on. We’d have to come up with a way to fix that.

Years ago, the Wisconsin Bowhunters Association used to pay landowners a small amount for every deer shot on the property by their members. It wasn't much, but it was a token of appreciation and put a value on letting others hunt. I have land I turkey hunt on a farm that belongs to a good friend. Still, every year I do something to help to show my appreciation. Last year I replaced a sliding door in his barn. Every year it's something different, this year it sounds like his wife has a project for me.

12Bravo20 · Apr 3, 2020

One thing to remember about European countries is that wildlife belongs to the government. This goes way back to the dark ages/Middle Ages when everything was owned by kings. I looked into hunting when I was stationed in Germany from Jan 1992 to Dec 1994. There was a lot of red tape. You had to go hunting with a game warden and he even told you what to shoot , when and how.

A little off topic but funny story:
We were on the machine gun range shooting 4 M2 50 cal machine guns when a pack of wild boar hogs walked onto the range about 650 meters out. Needless to say the German game warden was not very happy with us when we turned all 4 M2s on the hogs.

mcb · Apr 3, 2020

12Bravo20 said:
One thing to remember about European countries is that wildlife belongs to the government. This goes way back to the dark ages/Middle Ages when everything was owned by kings. I looked into hunting when I was stationed in Germany from Jan 1992 to Dec 1994. There was a lot of red tape. You had to go hunting with a game warden and he even told you what to shoot , when and how.

A little off topic but funny story:
We were on the machine gun range shooting 4 M2 50 cal machine guns when a pack of wild boar hogs walked onto the range about 650 meters out. Needless to say the German game warden was not very happy with us when we turned all 4 M2s on the hogs.

I would argue that wildlife belongs to the Government here in the US also. You cannot hunt without the governments blessing and in most cases without paying the government for the privilege even on your own property.

rdnktrkr · Apr 3, 2020

I hunt private land and we have a biologist friend that has said the last 6 yrs we need to "remove" 8 deer, it doesn't seem to matter if we remove 2 or 10 the next year it is 8 ???, we have coyotes that I would like to "remove" more than the deer even though the deer always eat our beans.

Obturation · Apr 3, 2020

daniel craig said:
mandated

daniel craig said:
has to invite

daniel craig said:
have to be inspected after kill

Government over reach, no thanks.
My brother lives in southern Germany , a fishing license requires several "classes" and an expensive permit (I think he said $1000+ per year - haven't confirmed that) . I can only imagine what they want to harvest one of big brothers animals. I like my liberty with a side of freedom & guns.

mcb · Apr 3, 2020

Obturation said:
Government over reach, no thanks.
My brother lives in southern Germany , a fishing license requires several "classes" and an expensive permit (I think he said $1000+ per year - haven't confirmed that) . I can only imagine what they want to harvest one of big brothers animals. I like my liberty with a side of freedom & guns.

I pay over $300 every year for the privilege to hunt my own land here in Tennessee because I live in Alabama

Loyalist Dave · Apr 3, 2020

George P said:
Bet they don't have as many ambulance-chasing attorneys looking to sue for some minor thing like we do. Major issue in this country would be liability. Where I could see it really be helpful is on feral hog control/eradication

They also have mandatory training that one must undergo and pass, before one can get a license to hunt. IF you really "like" that German model....
So the first thing would be the restriction of the number of classes and class size to further control the use of firearms in the United States....
You as the land owner just don't call all your friends over with rifles to get the quota filled, unless your friends are well heeled enough to have paid for and had the time to take those classes.

LD

Olon · Apr 3, 2020

Government already does too much "regulation" of hunting as it is. A mandated quota? I dont think so. Sounds like something that would lead to a lot of waste and government micromanagement which leads to addressing your neighbor as comrade.

Obturation · Apr 3, 2020

mcb said:
I pay over $300 every year for the privilege to hunt my own land here in Tennessee because I live in Alabama

I can understand a nominal fee used for wildlife management , $300 seems like a lot to get the privilege to harvest animals from your own property . I honestly don't know how the breakdown on real costs looks , i don't know what it needs to cost to preserve game habitat/population . good luck

daniel craig · Apr 3, 2020

Loyalist Dave said:
They also have mandatory training that one must undergo and pass, before one can get a license to hunt. IF you really "like" that German model....
So the first thing would be the restriction of the number of classes and class size to further control the use of firearms in the United States....
You as the land owner just don't call all your friends over with rifles to get the quota filled, unless your friends are well heeled enough to have paid for and had the time to take those classes.

LD

Don’t have any friends so yeah, I guess I’m OK with all of these

An argument for the German model of hunting

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads