Discussion in 'Hunting' started by daniel craig, Apr 2, 2020.
For proof of what a disaster this would become look at the existing government farm programs.
"First they came for......
CA game warden told me the same. In fact it was the first thing out of his mouth.
Kinda took me back a bit as no one had asked him to leave or anything yet.
I asked another LEO buddy of mine if that was true and he said it was not. But I wouldn't know. I also don't hardly ever take any LEO word for legal gospel on its own.
What does bug me is that the 4A exists (for an increasingly good reason). The warden I was speaking to was just about telling us that he was flat out going to abuse that power.
My folks don't hunt.
The .gov abuse of power in CA is out of hand.
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.
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.
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.
Historically the Government got into the game management business because the private sector was decimating the populations through market hunting. Like all programs it started out with good intentions....ie: not hunting game during the birthing and hatching period, allowing the newborns to mature, putting limits to insure population stability. That was a good thing, the private sector didn't show the discipline it should have.
Like most programs those guidelines became blurred, overreach to enforce who has power of the property gets messy. The state owns the game....until it causes damage, then it's someone else's problem. Have a vehicle accident with property of the state, or someone is killed as a result....not their problem anymore. The state only wants to own the property as long as they can financially benefit from it. Often wondered why the states don't insure their game populations to compensate those damaged by their management practices.
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.
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.
That actually sounds like a great suggestion.
We could just let the Government take our land (they already just let us rent it year by year because we will be evicted if we don’t make annual payments they call taxes) and then they could charge other people to take our resources and invade our privacy...
On 2nd thought, that idea doesn’t sound very good to me at all. To be fair, my opinion is biased as an owner of land. I understand others that would like to use it regardless of what I think or feel, might look at things differently.
Does anyone else find it troubling that we are even discussing "socialized hunting"?
I voiced my objection to it as “Highroad” as I could.
A sore subject for me because my Grandmother had a piece of property taken under the guise “eminent domain”, or the right of Government to expropriate private land for public use. It was used to construct a parking lot for a private business, that didn’t want to pay her market value for the land and likely found it cheaper to send members of the city council on a few nice trips...
Difference there is who owns the game. Land owner, citizens or government.
They can if there are covenants attached to the deed. It’s why I would never buy in a deed restricted development.
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.
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.
Very undemocratic; it's an antiquated holdover from an autocratic age, adapted to socialism.
The hochsitz has found it's way across the pond, and is alive and well in Texas.
Will the peasants be allowed to participate, except as drivers? The last time they were in Europe, it was the Pliestocene epoch, and it was about survival. As soon as fuedalism was established, hunting became the realm (pardon the pun) of the 'nobility' and ghillies, or Jaegermeisters.
Some States have some elements of this in effect. CRP, free tree seedlings, etc.
As do most US States. Hunter Safety. Fortunately, it's not a yearly or expensive thing. MN does have a class required by one member of each successfully drawn moose permit. Up to six people can apply on one permit.
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.
A agree and when we bought the property in TN we made sure there were none of those and that we had full mineral rights etc.
We use to get trees and seed from Ohio Division of Natural Resources. I and several of my cousins planted ~1500 trees one summer on the family farm. But there was no requirements to hunt or allow hunting attached to that. We simply applied and they were granted. Do states actually reward land owners with these types of resources for hunting or allowing others to hunt their land? That was what I was referring too; having a reward system for allowing others to hunt your private land.
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.
It’s also not required by all. At least not in my State. I guess they figured younger people would be more accepting of their rights being restricted. That’s why, when it started, it only required kids to take it. If you were born on or after Sept 2, 1971, you had to take it. If your older than that you don’t have to have permission from the bureaucracy.
I think that was entropy's point as well.
I, for one, oppose government mandated hunter safety classes as it is.
The idea that someone is a safer hunter after having gone to a 4-6 hour class is ridiculous.
The $25-$30 fee is the primary reason for the class requirement.
Yup, to include a whole bunch of material that we take for granted:
Hunting is allowed throughout Germany provided certain conditions are met. First, a hunting license is required; then a hunting permit is needed for a specific type of hunting, or a set period. A hunting license issued outside Germany may be sufficient to obtain a hunting permit. If this is not the case, the full German license is needed.
The national hunting examination must be taken and passed to qualify for a hunting license. The exam includes a written and an oral test as well as a shooting test. The main areas covered are: Knowledge of different species of game, basic animal biology, game damage prevention, farming and forestry, firearms laws and techniques, hygienic inspection and treatment of game, determination of game meat for human consumption, wildlife, nature and landscape conservation laws.
The guy that just bought his rifle from Walmart and hits the range once a year to verify his zero, isn't passing their shooting test. Hunters are a distinct minority in Germany and most of Europe, the requirements, costs, access etc. keep it that way.
The concept of "must shoot X number of animals" probably briefs well to guys without access thinking that they'll get to whack a couple to "help out", but it's not the way it's worked out in Europe.
That’s short sighted.
I am going to go out on a limb and guess no one has just been charged the $25 amount...
Same thing goes for red light cameras in the city. If they wanted to stop people from running red lights, they would just take their license. That however, would stop the revenue stream. Same thing for speeding.
Worth noting that you can even have taken the course but not be carrying the piece of paper and still get it. It’s not incorporated into the State issue plastic DL or CHL.
Separate names with a comma.