Fine Figure of a Man
Member
For proof of what a disaster this would become look at the existing government farm programs.Obviously safeguards would needed to keep it from being abused but as a land owner if I was rewarded
For proof of what a disaster this would become look at the existing government farm programs.Obviously safeguards would needed to keep it from being abused but as a land owner if I was rewarded
"First they came for......Don’t have any friends so yeah, I guess I’m OK with all of these
CA game warden told me the same. In fact it was the first thing out of his mouth.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.
They can recommend what you take. But they should never be able to fine you. It's your land.True. But I guess I’m in the minority in that I see deer in NY as more than just a commodity on my land but as a pool as a whole that needs to be managed. Since I can’t have data from the whole state it would be nice if the state said to me, ‘look mate we need you to take 8 deer off your property this season, we don’t care who you need to invite as long as they had a license. And if you don’t you get a grace period next year but if you fail that year too we’re going to have to charge per deer you failed to harvest.’ I’d honestly be ok with that. Especially if it means fewer ‘kill and leave’ nuisance permits have to be issued.
That's a much better idea. I would actually go for something like that. My only issue is what the government thinks is a well managed herd and what I do would probably differ. But 80 percent of my meat is wild game. I only buy chicken because I don't want chicken poop everywhere.@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!
They can recommend what you take. But they should never be able to fine you. It's your land.
The government has too much power as it is. Don't suggest more.
An example of the government doing "good" is not allowing people to kill birds of prey. You drive around and see hawks on every power pole and struggle to find quail, rabbits, partridge, etc.
They can recommend what you take. But they should never be able to fine you. It's your land.
The government has too much power as it is. Don't suggest more.
I agree that some oversight is needed. Like everything, there needs to be balance. Total protection isn't balance. Just like in the OP, telling someone what they have to kill instead of what they can is authority out of balance.Subject for another thread but I think you will find raptors fall under the same contentious vane as wolves. I love having raptors around and on the family farm growing up we have a large Oak tree that has had a Redtailed hawk nesting in it (for several generations of hawks) every year going back as far as I have memories. We have never had a shortage of rabbits to hunt, it was the first critter I hunted and was the main critter I hunting until I got into college.
As much of a small gov libertarian as I portend to be allowing the states to regulate bag limits and protection of certain species is a good think IMHO. We would not maintain the population we do without their oversight in many cases.
That actually sounds like a great suggestion.The FWC has suggested I remove 1 doe and 1 or 2 bucks from my 150 acres. It turns out that's what I did. I got a doe and a 6 point buck, however, I also killed an 8 point on public land.
My cameras showed at least 8 other bucks and approx. 9-11 does. I appreciate a suggestion but I rebel against a demand.
Part of my land butts up to a WMA so I may get more deer when pressure pushes them off the adjacent public land.
This.I appreciate a suggestion but I rebel against a demand.
Farmers and landowner partner with hunters because they have quotas to meet. On year a farmer could be mandated to kill 60 deer that year and if he can’t do it himself has to invite hunters to hunt the land so that the quota can be filled.
Usually people get together as hunting parties and make a weekend out of it and there’s often a warden there (all the deer have to be inspected after kill too).
Almost no land is allowed to go unhunted too.
Difference there is who owns the game. Land owner, citizens or government.I'm one of those tax paying private land owners. Germany can do what it's citizens will tolerate, this is The United States of America. I will decide who hunts my ground and who doesn't without "help" from the government.
They can if there are covenants attached to the deed. It’s why I would never buy in a deed restricted development.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.
It's a big jump from hunting seasons, bag limits and licenses to the government dictating who gets to hunt on private land. Surely everyone can see that.Difference there is who owns the game. Land owner, citizens or government.
Farmers and landowner partner with hunters because they have quotas to meet. On year a farmer could be mandated to kill 60 deer that year and if he can’t do it himself has to invite hunters to hunt the land so that the quota can be filled.
Usually people get together as hunting parties and make a weekend out of it and there’s often a warden there (all the deer have to be inspected after kill too).
Almost no land is allowed to go unhunted too.
I have driven a lot around Germany. Last visit was Bavaria in January. Last trip before that was August 2019. In lots of fields you see deer stands and in some places stands with overlapping fields of fire. Most are two stories high and look pretty nice.
Except for the Western states, many east of the Rockies also have a lack of public land for hunting. I had previously posted a few boar hunting videos that were shot in Europe. There, while the hunting method differs (driven style) and the meat is sold to restaurants, the land hunted is private. I think a Euro-style driven boar or deer hunt would be an interesting thing to introduce Americans to.
@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!
They also have mandatory training that one must undergo and pass, before one can get a license to hunt.
I've hunted in Germany and Austria, my father in law is a retired Austrian Forstmeister, who arrange most of my hunts.
Honestly IF you want to turn hunting into a regimented sport for the elite, it's a great system to go to. The education requirements to get a licence are long and difficult. The game is highly managed as to quality and quantity. Most of the reveres (hunting areas) are owned either by wealthy family's or corporations and the best animals are reserved for clients and or high paying trophy seekers.
Yes, the Jeagermeisters get a talley of how many animals need to be taken that year, to include by trophy quality, but often he ends up shooting the lower quality animals himself. High end trophies get reserved for the special folks. The meat from the animals goes to a specialty shop, where it's sold to support the revere, (Jager's salary, equipment, animal feed, etc.)
On the hunts I went on, about 12 all together (Chamois, Boar, Stag), all were fantastic quality, but for each one I had a Jager telling me to "shoot the one on the left" as that's the one that was "OK" for me. I got really good animals as my FIL had a part in determining what he forest could support and was on great terms with several Jagers.
IF a similar system were to be adopted here, I see it going the same route. The odds are hunting license sales would diminish drastically, while the costs would increase dramatically.
I don't find it troubling to discuss "socialized hunting" but I would find it troubling to have to live with socialized hunting hence my willingness to discuss it and hopefully argue against it.Does anyone else find it troubling that we are even discussing "socialized hunting"?
They can if there are covenants attached to the deed. It’s why I would never buy in a deed restricted development.
Some States have some elements of this in effect. CRP, free tree seedlings, etc.
You might want to rethink that position...., it's not a hunter safety level class...it's like a college class...In the United States it 's one class one time, but if you want to hunt everything in Germany it's like a full college course and a "Master Hunter" certificate is needed.As do most US States. Hunter Safety.
As do most US States. Hunter Safety. Fortunately, it's not a yearly or expensive thing.
I think that was entropy's point as well.You might want to rethink that position...., it's not a hunter safety level class...it's like a college class...In the United States it 's one class one time, but if you want to hunt everything in Germany it's like a full college course and a "Master Hunter" certificate is needed.
LD
You might want to rethink that position...., it's not a hunter safety level class...it's like a college class...In the United States it 's one class one time, but if you want to hunt everything in Germany it's like a full college course and a "Master Hunter" certificate is needed.
LD
The $25-$30 fee is the primary reason for the class requirement.
Failure to carry proof of certification or deferral while hunting is a Class C, Parks and Wildlife Code Misdemeanor which is punishable by a fine not less than $25 nor more than $500.