MT's I-143 under attack

[Washington Hunter]

Marland, our entire wildlife management system in this country is and always has been based on the fact that all wildlife is publicly owned. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-31-2003 11:55: Message edited by: Washington Hunter ]</font>

 

[Washington Hunter]

I found an interesting article on the Oregon State University web site. Here is one paragraph that pertains to this discussion:

"The right to hunt wild game became a privilege in many Asian and European countries. The king of England and his nobles, for example, claimed ownership of game animals and exclusive hunting rights until the Magna Charta was signed in 1215 A.D. Although the Magna Charta transferred ownership of wildlife from the crown to the people, land ownership and thus access to game was still largely controlled by the noble class. By the fifteenth century, the practice of setting aside hunting parks and preserves for privileged hunters was well established in both Europe and Asia. This class distinction in the access to wildlife to some extent persists today in many countries, and serves to separate wildlife conservation in the United States from other countries."

Here's a link to the article for anyone who wants to read it: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/fw251/notebook/history.html

 

[RockyDog]

You dam communist.

 

[Tom]

Red deer are the European elk, called the King's deer also. I like that we can hunt them here all year, that individuals can own them, just like individuals can own land in the US, not just the king, like in the old days.

The states manage the wildlife, some states tell individuals to help them manage it, collect some fees for the state, take care of the animals, control hunter harvests and access. MarlandS may be right that this was never illegal, a state could do that now, for sure.

 

[danr55]

WH, that's only part of the reason a lot of folks in the colonies faught a little war commonly referred to as the American Revolution. To stop the class distinction that was so prevalent in Europe and to stop the oppression which permitted the nobility to tell freemen what they could and couldn't do to make a living. Now,, can we relate any part of that to this situation?

 

[MarlandS]

Sorry WH I do know, the States own the animals as illustrated by this article on the ESA http://www.ti.org/esaoped.html

Or , this passage from the Utah STate Wildlife Policy http://ipl.unm.edu/cwl/statbook/utah.html
All wildlife existing within this state, not held by private ownership and legally acquired, is the property of the state (23-13-3). All wildlife within this state, including but not limited to wildlife on public or private land or in public or private waters, shall fall within the jurisdiction of the Division of Wildlife Resources (23-15-2).

Shall I go on?

 

[RockyDog]

Marland, seems to me your reference proves WashingtonHunter right not you.

This issue was resolved years ago in Montana when F&G stopped ranchers from mowing elk down with machine guns because they were considered pests. I believe they were stopped under a law stating that taking of publicly owned wildlife on private land is not legal. In some other states like NM it must be different because the ranchers still slaughter the elk some years.

Your other analogy about the noblemen makes no sense to me either but ive not got the patience to phuck around here anymore.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-31-2003 16:08: Message edited by: RockyDog ]</font>

 

[MarlandS]

Oh it does does it

 

[Washington Hunter]

FYI, from the RMEF website:
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:


Believes that raising captive elk, red deer and other Cervids on private game farms in states with wild, free-ranging elk populations poses serious risks to the health and viability of those wild elk herds due to the potential of disease transmission and genetic pollution from hybridization with escaped exotic game-farm animals.

Encourages additional research, when necessary, to further define the significance and long-range impact of these risk factors.

Believes that the loss of habitat through fencing of winter ranges and migration corridors may be detrimental to wild free-ranging elk populations.

Supports the enactment of game farm regulatory legislation, at both the state and federal level, crafted to protect the health and viability of wild free-ranging elk populations.

Supports the continued involvement of state wildlife agencies in the regulation of the game farming industry in matters related to the protection of the health and welfare of wild, free-ranging elk populations.

Believes that the raising of red deer, other non-native (exotic) Cervus species, sub-species and hybrids presents an unacceptable threat to wild, free-ranging elk populations.

Objects to any form of game farming for the purpose of raising red deer, other exotic Cervus species, sub-species or hybrids thereof in states with wild, free-ranging elk populations.

 

[MarlandS]

WH before you get too fired up check my post immediately before your last, we wre postig at the same time.

 

[MarlandS]

Actually if you get right down to it, the ownership of wildlife could go either way.

The Founding Fathers were probably as in love with the idea of owning property (land) as much as the ideal (at that time) of Liberty. That being said, it would seem to fly in the face of personal liberty to have to get a tag to harvest a critter on their property. Or , destroying their property. or to feed their family. Or to have to listen to others to about what to do with what is on their property. just more fuel for the fire.

 

[Tom]

Back before the 80s elk used to be game animals in Texas. Then red deer that had escaped high fence ranches crossed with the elk in the wild. People would get their red deer back, and argue with the state about offspring. Did they belong to the states or did they belong to the red deer owners. Texas had so few elk, they just dropped them as game animals. Now, either elk, red deer, or sika (the Asian elk), whether free ranging, or in a fence can be shot by whoever has landowner permission. I.e. elk are year round hunting here, like the red deer and the sika. I imagine that is one reason RMEF has this policy. The disease issue has not been a problem here. I'm happy we have the red deer (King's deer) here and the sika, but if we ever had a bunch of elk, things might be different here. The state here, that has jurisdiction over the elk, turned the jurisdiction over to the landowners. To shoot one, requires a $35 over the counter liscense. I've seen landowners with cows for like $500, bulls are way more.

I think the US law and the supreme court have ruled nobody owns the wildlife in the US, until you kill it and tag it, then its yours. Its just that the states administer the tags, etc. so they act like they own the wildlife. This gets discussed regularly at these threads, but I don't know if it still on line. There are supreme court references for the federal law though.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-31-2003 17:03: Message edited by: Tom ]</font>

 

[MarlandS]

http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:-wZ718-cBNEC:www.rw.ttu.edu/2301_wilde/pdf%2520files/Wildlife%2520Law.pdf+%22+U.S.+Constitution+%22+,+wildlife&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

 

[GilaMonster]

Thank you MarlandS.

 

[BuzzH]

Washington Hunter, I agree with you on this issue 100 percent. Keep at it, theres plenty of real hunters out there who think the same about game farms, should be banned.

Tom said, "Back before the 80s elk used to be game animals in Texas. Then red deer that had escaped high fence ranches crossed with the elk in the wild. People would get their red deer back, and argue with the state about offspring. Did they belong to the states or did they belong to the red deer owners."

With this statement, I have to wonder why you would question MT not wanting game farms??

I gave you that as one of MT's legitimate reasons to ban them, then you describe the same problem in Texas. WOW!!!

Elkchsr said, "Don't accuse any one on this site about being simple minded or the like"

Why? I dont think you could argue that there arent a bunch.

As far as being a resident, I was a resident when 143 was voted on and I voted for it. Further, I feel that having lived in MT for 32 years gives me the absolute right to have an opinion about what goes on there. Not to mention that as a nonresident MT hunter, I have a right to an opinion on what goes on there in regard to wildlife and its management.

By the way Elkchsr, just exactly how long have you lived in MT? From the way you post apparently long enough to know everything about everything.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-01-2003 11:49: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[danr55]

Buzz/WH, You still don't get it.. This isn't about gamefarms or wildlife or hunting. This is about the Government butting in and shutting off someones livelihood because folks don't like what they are doing. It's not about being legal or illegal. It's not about being a hunter or not. It's not about liking or not liking what a person does for a living. It's about Big Brother sticking his nose into the private affairs of a citizen and running part of that person's life. Nowhere in this discussion did I say that I favor game farms or ranches. I purposely tried to steer away from that to make a point.

Anytime the government butts in and tells you how you can or can't make a living if you are not in violation of the laws of the land, then something is terribly wrong with society. The Government has reached too far. Imagine this... Wyoming and Montana suddenly become innundated with Kalifornicators who are all members of PETA. They put a referendum before the state legislature to forbid the taking of wildlife. NO HUNTING!.. It gets passed by a majority of the voters... maybe by one or two votes. Suddenly no more hunting. What do you do then??? Same principle...

 

[Tara]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Buzz/WH, You still don't get it.. This isn't about gamefarms or wildlife or hunting. This is about the Government butting in and shutting off someones livelihood because folks don't like what they are doing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

with that logic it must also be ok to manufacture meth, pimp out the local cheerleaders, grow dope, ect ect ect.
the key thing here is that the people of montana didn't want them big brother was doing what the people wanted!!

 

[Michaelr]

oops, the above post belongs to me, My wife was still logged in and I didn't catch it.

 

[BuzzH]

Danr, the bunker air getting stagnant?

You babble about rights, well what about MY RIGHT to have a state free of disease ridden, mongrel elk, that threaten MY WILDLIFE. Who's looking out for them? By the way 143 was a legally passed initiative, so yeah, big brother can tell you what you can and cant do. No different than telling you its illegal to sell drugs out of your house, open a cathouse, etc. etc. etc.

The way to assure the future of hunting is to keep a clean image and EDUCATE. There arent many true antis out there. However, one thing that any nonhunter or antihunter can see is a FREAKING disgraceful game farm pen shoot. So, if you really care about wildlife, you wouldnt support any game farm. They arent doing real hunters any good at all.

 

[danr55]

The air in the bunker isn't stale, but I am beginning to wonder about the great outdoors. You can't seem to get past the game farm issue.

I guess Maslow had a point when he talked about heirarchys. It may apply to wants as well as needs.