Poachers

[Woody]

Guess it's a grey line. I like to believe that the public land and animals belong to the people. But it needs to be regulated by the state because jack asses like the ones in the OP don't care.

Would you go out and butcher a milk cow for the fun of it? Or a laying hen? Probably not, because you know how to manage it to get the most bang for your buck.

Ain't nothing gray about it.

Who do I have to pay to hunt them?
Who sets the regulations about hunting them?
Who writes me a ticket?
Who gets the money?
Who tells me when I can hunt them?
Who tells me where I can hunt them?
Who tells me what I can hunt them with?


Not a damn thing gray about it. They want to exercise the control and the privilege without assuming a damn bit of the responsibility. And that's bullshit. They want to be in charge of them? Fine. Then I send them a bill when one jumps out in front of my Jeep, or eats my garden one night. To claim control without assuming responsibility is weak sauce.

How about this:

I'm allowed to kill unlimited does and 10 bucks a year. Instead of killing them, I catch one of each, and then raise babies on my farm. Then those deer are no longer "managed" by the state, and I can do what I please, right? Nope, because I'm not allowed to catch them or raise them. Why can't I catch a couple buffleheads, clip their wings, and raise all the wild ducks I want? By their very definition, they aren't "wild" anymore, and what do they care if I catch 2 or kill 6? It's all a money-making proposition, nothing more. And if you believe that states are in it for the "good of the wildlife" rather than the money, then you're a fool. You need to look no further than the antler restrictions Hammer noted. Is that for "the good of the animals", or is it to have a deer herd which will draw hunters and generate revenue? If they want to "manage" all the public land they control, more power to them. But to tell a landowner that he may not shoot a deer which is on his property is just silly, from a logical perspective, if you're trying to argue that "we" own the wildlife.

While I agree with you, your argument may be wrong, regarding antler restrictions...

Correctly or not there is thought to be a correlation between "good" genes and large antlers. If they want a healthy herd that can servive disease, famin, harsh winter, etc... They want the best genes.

Then its a fucking miracle how these poor stupid wild animals survived thousands of years on their own before us humans stepped in to save them in the last hundred years.

In an ecosystem without trophy hunters (humans) the weakest are culled from the herd. Leaving only the strongest to reproduce and pass on good genes. Really it is more exceptional that they have managed to survive despite us. We removed their natural predators that prevented over grazing and disease spread.

[assateague]

I don't see it as the governments animals. They are yours, mine, and everyone else's.
But we've shown in the past we can't be trusted to manage those animals without enforced regulations.

They are not mine. They are the state's. Pretty sure I've demonstrated that at least 3 times, in this thread alone.

If I have to pay the state to hunt them, why should the state not have to pay me when they damage my property? They are limiting my ability to protect my own property, and then claiming "not our problem" when something is damaged. You still haven't even tried to tap dance around that question, much less tried to answer it. You've simply posted the equivalent of stamping your feet with your fingers in your ears, muttering "la la la, I can't hear you because I don't want to".

[assateague]

And why can't I catch two deer and raise my own? I can gather acorns in a state forest and raise my own oak trees.

[Woody]

I don't see it as the governments animals. They are yours, mine, and everyone else's.
But we've shown in the past we can't be trusted to manage those animals without enforced regulations.

They are not mine. They are the state's. Pretty sure I've demonstrated that at least 3 times, in this thread alone.

If I have to pay the state to hunt them, why should the state not have to pay me when they damage my property? They are limiting my ability to protect my own property, and then claiming "not our problem" when something is damaged. You still haven't even tried to tap dance around that question, much less tried to answer it. You've simply posted the equivalent of stamping your feet with your fingers in your ears, muttering "la la la, I can't hear you because I don't want to".

government of the people, by the people, for the people

[DeadEye_Dan]

APRs do help the herd somewhat. It helps keep the buck to doe ratio in check making the bucks lives a lot easier. (But less enjoyable)

If there were no game laws, there would be no game left to hunt in a short time.

I know you live in a communist state, but most of our game laws are set up to appeal to the most hunters as possible as well as maintaining preserving the game. Yes it is a money game, but the NRC does a lot of work to keep public lands open and hunting rights preserved.

Pretty sure waterfowl regs are set by a commission of volunteer hunters and not government officials. Guidelines are put in place by the government from studies, then the hunters set their regs within those guidelines. Then the government enforces the laws.

Anarchy isn't the answer to everything.

Curious that you feel "private property rights"="anarchy".

Animals don't fall under private property rights. Just like oil rights, water rights, and airspace. You own the land and things attached to it. That's all. The rest belongs to everyone, and saying there should be no rules to regulate that is anarchy.

Well, then if they are "everyone's" property, then "everyone's" government ought to pay me for my alfalfa that "the peoples" deer are eating.

[Woody]

APRs do help the herd somewhat. It helps keep the buck to doe ratio in check making the bucks lives a lot easier. (But less enjoyable)

If there were no game laws, there would be no game left to hunt in a short time.

I know you live in a communist state, but most of our game laws are set up to appeal to the most hunters as possible as well as maintaining preserving the game. Yes it is a money game, but the NRC does a lot of work to keep public lands open and hunting rights preserved.

Pretty sure waterfowl regs are set by a commission of volunteer hunters and not government officials. Guidelines are put in place by the government from studies, then the hunters set their regs within those guidelines. Then the government enforces the laws.

Anarchy isn't the answer to everything.

Curious that you feel "private property rights"="anarchy".

Animals don't fall under private property rights. Just like oil rights, water rights, and airspace. You own the land and things attached to it. That's all. The rest belongs to everyone, and saying there should be no rules to regulate that is anarchy.

Well, then if they are "everyone's" property, then "everyone's" government ought to pay me for my alfalfa that "the peoples" deer are eating.

In the end, those of us who have valuable property for them to damage, are the ones who will foot the bill. Directly from our pockets or our taxes. Does it really matter which?

[DeadEye_Dan]

I think you are grossly underestimating the damage they do

[NuffDaddy]

I've got nothing left that hasn't been said.

[Woody]

I think you are grossly underestimating the damage they do

No, I agree with what you are saying... if they want o control them, then they should be fully responsible.

That leaves two options, give up control (not a good idea) or pay for the damages (we (as a nation) can't afford that).

[DeadEye_Dan]

Option 3.

Reduce the number of animals doing damage....but that hurts their license revenue.

[Woody]

Option 3.

Reduce the number of animals doing damage....but that hurts their license revenue.

How do you reduce the population responsibly?

[NuffDaddy]

Put up a high-fence if you don't want animals to get at it.
Just because you buy land doesn't mean you should be able to eradicate all the animals on "your" land.

[Woody]

Put up a high-fence if you don't want animals to get at it.
Just because you buy land doesn't mean you should be able to eradicate all the animals on "your" land.

Not true... if they are animals that only reside on your land you can do whatever you want... that is why there are high fence hunting ranches.

[aunt betty]

There is a comment in this thread about "whose land is public land?"... that Arkansas game warden tried getting upset with me for the horrible terrible things I had done ON HIS WMA.
He had fire in his eyes, looked straight into mine and said, "I'm getting super PISSED at you". I gulped and thought, "what can I say to calm this guy down before he kicks my ass?".
All I could come up with is, "its not personal. Why are you taking it to a personal level. I'm in a bad spot here. Lets see if we can work together and get this over. I want to cooperate".,

He grinned and we got busy.

[NuffDaddy]

Put up a high-fence if you don't want animals to get at it.
Just because you buy land doesn't mean you should be able to eradicate all the animals on "your" land.

Not true... if they are animals that only reside on your land you can do whatever you want... that is why there are high fence hunting ranches.

I don't think you can fence in wild animals though. You can fence, then buy animals and do whatever you want inside the fence then.

[aunt betty]

Put up a high-fence if you don't want animals to get at it.
Just because you buy land doesn't mean you should be able to eradicate all the animals on "your" land.

Not true... if they are animals that only reside on your land you can do whatever you want... that is why there are high fence hunting ranches.

I don't think you can fence in wild animals though. You can fence, then buy animals and do whatever you want inside the fence then.

Nuffdaddy. Can you use Google maps? Google Rantoul, Illinois.
Look at the southwest corner. Find Chandler road and follow it to where it ends just east of interstate 57. On both sides of that road is Spechio farms. They raise deer for hunters. Look at the corrals and fences. They have deer and elk.

[one2many]

APRs do help the herd somewhat. It helps keep the buck to doe ratio in check making the bucks lives a lot easier. (But less enjoyable)

If there were no game laws, there would be no game left to hunt in a short time.

I know you live in a communist state, but most of our game laws are set up to appeal to the most hunters as possible as well as maintaining preserving the game. Yes it is a money game, but the NRC does a lot of work to keep public lands open and hunting rights preserved.

Pretty sure waterfowl regs are set by a commission of volunteer hunters and not government officials. Guidelines are put in place by the government from studies, then the hunters set their regs within those guidelines. Then the government enforces the laws.

Anarchy isn't the answer to everything.

Curious that you feel "private property rights"="anarchy".

Animals don't fall under private property rights. Just like oil rights, water rights, and airspace. You own the land and things attached to it. That's all. The rest belongs to everyone, and saying there should be no rules to regulate that is anarchy.

i own water rights and mineral rights. sorry but you are wrong

[DeadEye_Dan]

Option 3.

Reduce the number of animals doing damage....but that hurts their license revenue.

How do you reduce the population responsibly?

Shoot them.

In absence of that pay for the damage they do.

[Tomkat]

What about the law breakers?

[sws002]

Going back a bit here, but as far as I'm aware, Michigan is the only state that uses citizens (CWAC I believe) to set their regs. Just an FYI, I know ours is completely done by our Game and Parks commission, following input from hunter's surveys. Just an FYI.

[one2many]

What about the law breakers?

what lawbreakers? the ones from the opening post? fuckem and feed them beans.they should be busted just for being too fucking dumb to get caught

[NuffDaddy]

APRs do help the herd somewhat. It helps keep the buck to doe ratio in check making the bucks lives a lot easier. (But less enjoyable)

If there were no game laws, there would be no game left to hunt in a short time.

I know you live in a communist state, but most of our game laws are set up to appeal to the most hunters as possible as well as maintaining preserving the game. Yes it is a money game, but the NRC does a lot of work to keep public lands open and hunting rights preserved.

Pretty sure waterfowl regs are set by a commission of volunteer hunters and not government officials. Guidelines are put in place by the government from studies, then the hunters set their regs within those guidelines. Then the government enforces the laws.

Anarchy isn't the answer to everything.

Curious that you feel "private property rights"="anarchy".

Animals don't fall under private property rights. Just like oil rights, water rights, and airspace. You own the land and things attached to it. That's all. The rest belongs to everyone, and saying there should be no rules to regulate that is anarchy.

i own water rights and mineral rights. sorry but you are wrong

Because you bought the mineral rights. It's separate from the land above it.

[one2many]

APRs do help the herd somewhat. It helps keep the buck to doe ratio in check making the bucks lives a lot easier. (But less enjoyable)

If there were no game laws, there would be no game left to hunt in a short time.

I know you live in a communist state, but most of our game laws are set up to appeal to the most hunters as possible as well as maintaining preserving the game. Yes it is a money game, but the NRC does a lot of work to keep public lands open and hunting rights preserved.

Pretty sure waterfowl regs are set by a commission of volunteer hunters and not government officials. Guidelines are put in place by the government from studies, then the hunters set their regs within those guidelines. Then the government enforces the laws.

Anarchy isn't the answer to everything.

Curious that you feel "private property rights"="anarchy".

Animals don't fall under private property rights. Just like oil rights, water rights, and airspace. You own the land and things attached to it. That's all. The rest belongs to everyone, and saying there should be no rules to regulate that is anarchy.

i own water rights and mineral rights. sorry but you are wrong

Because you bought the mineral rights. It's separate from the land above it.

not in all cases. out west lots of the land is surface owned only and fed govt owning mineral rights. but that is not the case all the time especially in the midwest

[assateague]

APRs do help the herd somewhat. It helps keep the buck to doe ratio in check making the bucks lives a lot easier. (But less enjoyable)

If there were no game laws, there would be no game left to hunt in a short time.

I know you live in a communist state, but most of our game laws are set up to appeal to the most hunters as possible as well as maintaining preserving the game. Yes it is a money game, but the NRC does a lot of work to keep public lands open and hunting rights preserved.

Pretty sure waterfowl regs are set by a commission of volunteer hunters and not government officials. Guidelines are put in place by the government from studies, then the hunters set their regs within those guidelines. Then the government enforces the laws.

Anarchy isn't the answer to everything.

Curious that you feel "private property rights"="anarchy".

Animals don't fall under private property rights. Just like oil rights, water rights, and airspace. You own the land and things attached to it. That's all. The rest belongs to everyone, and saying there should be no rules to regulate that is anarchy.

i own water rights and mineral rights. sorry but you are wrong

Because you bought the mineral rights. It's separate from the land above it.

So how do I buy animal rights?



You got an answer to why I can't catch two deer instead of killing them and raise my own yet?

[NuffDaddy]

[quote="NuffDaddy"]APRs do help the herd somewhat. It helps keep the buck to doe ratio in check making the bucks lives a lot easier. (But less enjoyable)

If there were no game laws, there would be no game left to hunt in a short time.

I know you live in a communist state, but most of our game laws are set up to appeal to the most hunters as possible as well as maintaining preserving the game. Yes it is a money game, but the NRC does a lot of work to keep public lands open and hunting rights preserved.

Pretty sure waterfowl regs are set by a commission of volunteer hunters and not government officials. Guidelines are put in place by the government from studies, then the hunters set their regs within those guidelines. Then the government enforces the laws.

Anarchy isn't the answer to everything.

Curious that you feel "private property rights"="anarchy".

Animals don't fall under private property rights. Just like oil rights, water rights, and airspace. You own the land and things attached to it. That's all. The rest belongs to everyone, and saying there should be no rules to regulate that is anarchy.

i own water rights and mineral rights. sorry but you are wrong

Because you bought the mineral rights. It's separate from the land above it.

So how do I buy animal rights?



You got an answer to why I can't catch two deer instead of killing them and raise my own yet?[/quote]
Nope. I think there is a way to do it, but you need a bunch of permits and inspections. Then there are a bunch of regulations to keep diseases from spreading to wild animals.
You're barking up the wrong tree and I'm done arguing in circles about something I don't give a shit about.

[assateague]

Option 3.

Reduce the number of animals doing damage....but that hurts their license revenue.

How do you reduce the population responsibly?

The state has no responsibility to the wildlife, they have a responsibility to the citizens.

What tangible benefit is there to having the numbers we do now? Aside from generating revenue for the state, I can think of none. Before anyone puts out the "it's for everyone to enjoy" argument, I'll list these tangible drawbacks:

Wildlife causes damage. That's real money, from real people's pockets. Quite tangible.


Why SHOULDN'T the federal government get a bill from US Airways for their geese crashing a plane? Are the lives of 200 people not "tangible", but "enjoying wildlife" is? There is no excuse for the lack of responsibility, and government in general has got quite good at avoiding it.

-A building inspector controls what and how you build something, but if they screw up and miss something, and your house burns down in an electrical fire because of it, they have no responsibility.

-The FDA controls what drugs the pharma companies may bring to market, but if they screw up and people die, the FDA has no responsibility for it.

-The state controls what and how you may hunt, but if the wildlife damages something, they have no responsibility for it.


The whole idea is repulsive to me. I'm not advocating anarchy, and if you bothered to read what I said, you would see that that is true. I am advocating for either taking responsibility, or abrogating control. You cannot have one without the other. Right now, they have no skin in the game. Their decisions on wildlife and population numbers have ZERO consequences for them, and I'm tired of government being the only ones who don't suffer consequences. You said they couldn't afford to pay damages if they assumed responsibility- fine. Then I bet that rather quickly they would figure out a way to manage the wildlife which wouldn't cause so much damage.


I'll just speak to this area, and my particular experience. Deer cause an insane amount of damage. That is why I get crop damage tags. The state official who issues these comes out every two years to assess the crop damage done, and that is how they determine the number of damage tags. However, the amount is capped by the state, I believe at 30. And I'm not allowed to shoot bucks. Why? Do bucks not eat beans? I could care less what I shoot, but when I watch a bachelor group of 15 bucks browsing through a corn field, it's pretty damn stupid that they get a free pass.

An acre of corn averages about 155 bushels an acre on the farms I hunt. Last year, when the damage assessment was done, he averaged out a 14% loss due to wildlife (yes, that includes geese eating wheat, but good luck getting rid of those) Fields are small here, and the guy who farms this land has a total of a little over 440 acres to tend. A bag of corn seed is $300, and will seed around 3 acres. So that's $44,000 in seed alone. We won't even get into fertilizer, chemical, fuel, and time. 14% of $44,000 is $6160 worth of seed which will not produce anything, but which has to be paid for, anyway. Then factor in the lost revenue- 61 acres eaten, which will grow no corn. At an average of 155 bushels per acre, at an estimate of $5 a bushel, that's $47,000. Now add the $6,000 worth of seed, and you get a total of $53,000 lost to deer, and that's just one farmer. Don't tell me there's no real loss due to wildlife.

What is the state's responsibility to him? Their decisions cost him almost $60,000 a year. But yet I have to hear about how wildlife is held "for the good of all". Bullshit.

[assateague]

Nope. I think there is a way to do it, but you need a bunch of permits and inspections. Then there are a bunch of regulations to keep diseases from spreading to wild animals.
You're barking up the wrong tree and I'm done arguing in circles about something I don't give a shit about.

Good, because you haven't even "argued" yet. To "argue", you state your position, and then support it. I'm not certain you've done the former, and I know you haven't done the latter.

[NuffDaddy]

Nope. I think there is a way to do it, but you need a bunch of permits and inspections. Then there are a bunch of regulations to keep diseases from spreading to wild animals.
You're barking up the wrong tree and I'm done arguing in circles about something I don't give a shit about.

Good, because you haven't even "argued" yet. To "argue", you state your position, and then support it. I'm not certain you've done the former, and I know you haven't done the latter.

We need enforced regulations because history has shown we can't do it on an individual basis.
Is that an argument then? Or is
"I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want on my property and the government should pay me for damage the animals do because it's tyranny if I can" a better argument.

[Eric Haynes]

Nope. I think there is a way to do it, but you need a bunch of permits and inspections. Then there are a bunch of regulations to keep diseases from spreading to wild animals.
You're barking up the wrong tree and I'm done arguing in circles about something I don't give a shit about.

Good, because you haven't even "argued" yet. To "argue", you state your position, and then support it. I'm not certain you've done the former, and I know you haven't done the latter.

We need enforced regulations because history has shown we can't do it on an individual basis.
Is that an argument then? Or is
"I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want on my property and the government should pay me for damage the animals do because it's tyranny if I can" a better argument.

I guess you really just can't comprehend what Jim is saying. Some people just don't get it.

[assateague]

We need enforced regulations because history has shown we can't do it on an individual basis.
Is that an argument then? Or is

This argument is premised on the belief that animals bring a tangible benefit rather than a tangible detriment. I've asked repeatedly- what tangible benefit does the existence of the numbers of wildlife we have now bring? Perhaps we "didn't do it on an individual basis" in the past because it wasn't beneficial to do so. Just as we "didn't do it on an individual basis" with the wolf. Why not? Because having them around was a detriment, not a benefit. So please explain what tangible benefit results from government management of wildlife on private property, if you're arguing it's a good thing.

"I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want on my property and the government should pay me for damage the animals do because it's tyranny if I can" a better argument.

Despite the fact that you've tried to rephrase in a light which is favorable to your point of view, you still didn't accomplish much. Even as you've phrased it, it is still a better argument, because it is based on the principles of private property rights, rather than some ideological pie in the sky "goodness" argument, which is all that you've even attempted to articulate, so far. Furthermore, I'd say that it's a better argument because nowhere in the constitution does it say that the federal government is in charge of regulating wildlife, nor am I aware of anywhere in most state constitutions where it says such a thing.

If the state engages in something which is harmful to citizens, then I'd say that that pretty much fits the definition of "tyranny", despite your attempt at hyperbole. Maybe you could explain how it doesn't. In your opinion, why should I NOT be allowed to do "whatever the fuck I want on my property", as long as it doesn't hurt other people? Matter of fact, based on the damages, I'd actually be HELPING other people by "doing whatever the fuck on I want on my property" in regard to wildlife.

I'll wait.