Elky Welky
Well-known member
Something about this weekend inspired me to think about this topic. But basically, what sets the United States apart from so many other countries is that wildlife is not tied to the land, but instead the management thereof belongs to the people. This is, of course and sadly, in theory moreso than in practice in many places. Some states, like those along the east coast and in the South, have such limited public land that I've noticed people from those places tend to equivocate the ownership of land and the access to the wildlife as being one in the same.
But the myth of Robin Hood was originally as a "poacher" in a different sense of the word, because he would kill the "King's Deer" to feed the poor. Ownership of the wildlife was with the Crown, not the people. This is illustrated in one of the earliest property law cases out of New York State that all law students in the US have to read, Pierson v. Post, which was decided in 1805. The case is about a fox hunt in which one hunter felt they were entitled to a fox because they were the one hunting it, and then someone else killed it. The Court found that until the animal was reduced to "capture" and within the possession of the hunter, that it was, quite literally, fair game:
"We are the more readily inclined to confine possession or occupancy of beasts feræ naturæ, within the limits prescribed by the learned authors above cited, for the sake of certainty, and preserving peace and order in society. If the first seeing, starting, or pursuing such animals, without having so wounded, circumvented or ensnared them, so as to deprive them of their natural liberty, and subject them to the control of their pursuer, should afford the basis of actions against others for intercepting and killing them, it would prove a fertile source of quarrels and litigation."
Earlier in the case, the Court considers the concept of "ratione soli" which is fancy latin for: "by reason of the soil." This concept is exactly that: if someone owns the land, they own the wildlife. This was not explicitly adjudicated one way or another in this case (as it occurred on what would now be considered public). However, the rationale that the Court used to find that until the animal is deprived of its liberty by one hunter, it is not owned by any other hunter, supports the notion that in America, at least, wildlife belongs to us all.
I've seen people on this website tie themselves in knots to justify giving away wildlife based upon landownership, and cherry pick the NAM to justify those ends. By arguing that the legislature can vote to give away wildlife to landowners, the argument goes, the wildlife has therefore been "democratically allocated" per the 3rd tenet of the NAM. This ignores the 6th, however, which states that every person has an opportunity under the law to hunt and fish. Depending on the website you use (B&C, Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.) the NAM becomes more flexible. But at no point does it apply the Animal Farm logic of "everyone is equal, just some are more equal than others" or quantify opportunity based upon wealth and landownership.
As shown above, this uniquely American ideal, however, of rejecting the King and the King's Deer, is deeper than the NAM.
I proudly sport a "Don't Texas My Montana" bumper sticker (thanks @Beignet). As a born and raised Montanan, I still believe that our wildlife belongs to us all, and landownership is wholly irrelevant. But as more people from states with less public land migrate here, they seem to be bringing some of the old-world views that the landed gentry are somehow more entitled to our wildlife than the rest of us.
If we don't continue to stand up against this notion of the King's Deer, however, then we will suddenly find ourselves back in the service of Kings. And that, my friends, is un-American.
But the myth of Robin Hood was originally as a "poacher" in a different sense of the word, because he would kill the "King's Deer" to feed the poor. Ownership of the wildlife was with the Crown, not the people. This is illustrated in one of the earliest property law cases out of New York State that all law students in the US have to read, Pierson v. Post, which was decided in 1805. The case is about a fox hunt in which one hunter felt they were entitled to a fox because they were the one hunting it, and then someone else killed it. The Court found that until the animal was reduced to "capture" and within the possession of the hunter, that it was, quite literally, fair game:
"We are the more readily inclined to confine possession or occupancy of beasts feræ naturæ, within the limits prescribed by the learned authors above cited, for the sake of certainty, and preserving peace and order in society. If the first seeing, starting, or pursuing such animals, without having so wounded, circumvented or ensnared them, so as to deprive them of their natural liberty, and subject them to the control of their pursuer, should afford the basis of actions against others for intercepting and killing them, it would prove a fertile source of quarrels and litigation."
Earlier in the case, the Court considers the concept of "ratione soli" which is fancy latin for: "by reason of the soil." This concept is exactly that: if someone owns the land, they own the wildlife. This was not explicitly adjudicated one way or another in this case (as it occurred on what would now be considered public). However, the rationale that the Court used to find that until the animal is deprived of its liberty by one hunter, it is not owned by any other hunter, supports the notion that in America, at least, wildlife belongs to us all.
I've seen people on this website tie themselves in knots to justify giving away wildlife based upon landownership, and cherry pick the NAM to justify those ends. By arguing that the legislature can vote to give away wildlife to landowners, the argument goes, the wildlife has therefore been "democratically allocated" per the 3rd tenet of the NAM. This ignores the 6th, however, which states that every person has an opportunity under the law to hunt and fish. Depending on the website you use (B&C, Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.) the NAM becomes more flexible. But at no point does it apply the Animal Farm logic of "everyone is equal, just some are more equal than others" or quantify opportunity based upon wealth and landownership.
As shown above, this uniquely American ideal, however, of rejecting the King and the King's Deer, is deeper than the NAM.
I proudly sport a "Don't Texas My Montana" bumper sticker (thanks @Beignet). As a born and raised Montanan, I still believe that our wildlife belongs to us all, and landownership is wholly irrelevant. But as more people from states with less public land migrate here, they seem to be bringing some of the old-world views that the landed gentry are somehow more entitled to our wildlife than the rest of us.
If we don't continue to stand up against this notion of the King's Deer, however, then we will suddenly find ourselves back in the service of Kings. And that, my friends, is un-American.
