No King's Deer

[Straight Arrow]

I think his point is that all of your references to "laws" are counter, or at least inconsistent with, the actual verbaige and [arguably] intent of NAM.

Got it. But arguments don't clearly support that "inconsistency" with the NAM.

 

[Treeshark]

Got it. But arguments don't clearly support that "inconsistency" with the NAM.

My interpretation differs, but it really doesn’t matter. States are free to do what they wish for the most part, NAM is not a law.

 

[rogerthat]

Also, just so we're clear, I'm fully aware and reasonably well versed in the legal details of how we got here. I can reference all of the same court cases as you. That arguement in my eyes, is more, what is the best way to manage wildlife, and to the point of the OP, isn't this still, at least sort of, the kings deer? There may not be one single king that controls all wildlife but the reasource is still disproportionately shared with a minority user group that, again, from the outside looking in, is incredibly resistant to even discussing that disproportional allocation.

The disproportional allocation is R vs NR? Apologies if I misunderstand.

 

[Irrelevant]

The disproportional allocation is R vs NR? Apologies if I misunderstand.

yes, both in actual quotas, but also in economic disparity. Someone might be able to afford $16 resident deer tag but not a $744 for the non-resident.

As always, Nameless comes in with great, sound logic. If we drop the entire reference to NAM and just focus on how we want crittters we hunt to be managed, I'm more inclined to simply support the status quo because I can't think of a lot of better ways to manage such a finite resource that people would agree to. I don't want federal management, unless we have a constitutional right to hunt and fish, otherwise every 4-8 years I don't get to hunt anymore (or at least that's the fear). I do want residents to pony up a reasonable fee for the product they're getting. And I do think all citizens should have some gauranteed access to wildlife, even if it's a smaller percent than residents.

 

[Elky Welky]

To play devil's advocate a bit.

The public can hunt public lands. They already can't explicitly hunt private, so granting wildlife to land ownership would change very little. And "the public" doesn't own the wildlife, with a few exceptions, the state holds it in trust for it's citizens. The difference is incredibly stark for NR when compared to actual "public" land. A fact you'll support because you "were born and raised" in Montana and not RI. NAM isn't intrinsically any better than any other system, they all have there merits and shortcomings, and, most importantly, they can all be abused. We have NAM as a response to the system we were under that was abused.

You understood what I was going for here (thoughtful discussion). And I don't think anything you are saying here is incongruous with the original post, with one exception, and that being you saying granting wildlife to land ownership would "change very little." Wildlife doesn't know boundaries, but if we suddenly change our philosophy on this, that then entitles a landowner to create boundaries wildlife can't cross. At that point it no longer becomes wildlife and simply becomes livestock.

But you did identify that central tension, which is the lack of public land in other states. My concern (at least here) is far less with NRs who want to come hunt (other threads have tackled that), but with new state residents who bring the philosophy with them that landownership entitles landowners to wildlife, and sway our law and policy makers to agree with that sentiment. And then try and use the NAM for cover.

Others and you have helped tease out the second half of what I said: that the NAM is not the be-all-end-all, and is in fact laced with multiple interpretations. My post was pointing toward earlier philosophies underpinning the right of the citizens to manage wildlife for all. And those philosophies still have deep resonance in states with more public land.

Thanks @Treeshark @Irrelevant @Nameless Range, among others, for keeping it interesting and civil. @cgasner1 I'm not sure which category you'd put me in but I don't think I fit that neat of a box, so I'm gonna go with @Forkyfinder's expanded list and self-identify as a "useful idiot."

 

[Irrelevant]

You understood what I was going for here (thoughtful discussion). And I don't think anything you are saying here is incongruous with the original post, with one exception, and that being you saying granting wildlife to land ownership would "change very little." Wildlife doesn't know boundaries, but if we suddenly change our philosophy on this, that then entitles a landowner to create boundaries wildlife can't cross. At that point it no longer becomes wildlife and simply becomes livestock.

But you did identify that central tension, which is the lack of public land in other states. My concern (at least here) is far less with NRs who want to come hunt (other threads have tackled that), but with new state residents who bring the philosophy with them that landownership entitles landowners to wildlife, and sway our law and policy makers to agree with that sentiment. And then try and use the NAM for cover.

Others and you have helped tease out the second half of what I said: that the NAM is not the be-all-end-all, and is in fact laced with multiple interpretations. My post was pointing toward earlier philosophies underpinning the right of the citizens to manage wildlife for all. And those philosophies still have deep resonance in states with more public land.

Thanks @Treeshark @Irrelevant @Nameless Range, among others, for keeping it interesting and civil. @cgasner1 I'm not sure which category you'd put me in but I don't think I fit that neat of a box, so I'm gonna go with @Forkyfinder's expanded list and self-identify as a "useful idiot."

I guess I don't think that ownership implies unrestricted access. I "own" my land, but I still have to abide by a plethora of rules and regulations regarding what I can and cannot do with/to it. I would argue that private land owners could "own" there deer and still not be allowed to contain/barracade them in nor kill more than the regulations allow, or whatever restrictions we would still want to place on it.

 

[Elky Welky]

I guess I don't think that ownership implies unrestricted access. I "own" my land, but I still have to abide by a plethora of rules and regulations regarding what I can and cannot do with/to it. I would argue that private land owners could "own" there deer and still not be allowed to contain/barracade them in nor kill more than the regulations allow, or whatever restrictions we would still want to place on it.

And this is exactly why Pierson v. Post is one of the very first cases law students read in their property law classes across the country, because it introduces them to the nuance of "ownership." The metaphor law students then learn and have beaten into their heads for the rest of the semester is one of a "bundle of sticks" and the different rights and privileges that go with ownership of property.

So yes, though "ownership" might be overbroad and subject to restriction, that doesn't change the prevailing attitude and sense of entitlement that comes with the word "ownership"-- "It is mine to do with as I please."

 

[El Jason]

Democratic management and opportunity, at least IMO.

I’m slow today. Is this in reference to R/NR disparity, or hunter/non hunter disparity?

 

[Big Sky Guy]

I ain’t reading all that, but Montana should totally do transferable landowner tags.

Sure, as long as they are only valid on lands owned by the landowner.

Getting a tag valid unit or statewide just because you own land is complete BS and antithetical to the idea that the wildlife do not belong to the individual but rather the public trust.

To me this is the best solution. It worked great in Ohio. They weren’t transferable which is another topic in and of itself but allowing someone the opportunity to hunt on their OWN land without cost makes sense to me. Giving them preference to hunt land they do not own outright, but rather equally own with the other fellow citizens, does not make sense.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Sure, as long as they are only valid on lands owned by the landowner.

How is that enforced in ohio?

I cant imagine theres public land (especially easily accessible by private and hard by public) thats worth leaving your own land for there. I dont feel the same is true for all situations out west.

 

[Nick87]

I cant imagine theres public land (especially easily accessible by private and hard by public)

Plenty of it in illinois. Cant imagine Ohio is much different.

 

[Treeshark]

Getting a tag valid unit or statewide just because you own land is complete BS and antithetical to the idea that the wildlife do not belong to the individual but rather the public trust.

A landowner tag/voucher only provides the opportunity to hunt, it does not guarantee anyone possession of an animal.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

How is that enforced in ohio?

I cant imagine theres public land (especially easily accessible by private and hard by public) thats worth leaving your own land for there. I dont feel the same is true for all situations out west.

It’s probably more of an honor system, never heard much on enforcement issues. I used it as a son of landowner two or three times. Before my grandparents passed I could only use it on my dad’s 5 acre parcel. It sorta felt like poaching because you don’t ever get a tag and they would require you to make your own tag by attaching your info and date of harvest to the animal. Then you just call it in and they give you a 16 digit tag ID number as your permanent tag, but even that you would just write down and attach in place of the temporary tag you created.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

A landowner tag/voucher only provides the opportunity to hunt, it does not guarantee anyone possession of an animal.

So why does a landowner have more of a right to opportunity to hunt public land than the rest of the public? Don’t state because they provide habitat, because I agree with that (for the most part) and providing a tag that is valid on their lands compensates them for the habitat they provide. Again, I think this addresses issues because the amount of game on their private land will likely correlate to the amount of habitat provided.

 

[Treeshark]

So why does a landowner have more of a right to opportunity to hunt public land than the rest of the public?

Because they provide the habitat.

Also- the public has equal opportunity to purchase landowner tags (very democratic, in harmony with the NAM).

 

[Nick87]

 

[mtmuley]

Because they provide the habitat.

Also- the public has equal opportunity to purchase landowner tags (very democratic, in harmony with the NAM).

I could do landowner preference here in Montana. I don't. mtmuley

 

[Forkyfinder]

Because they provide the habitat.

If i buy a property with ducks and a pond existing on it (often as a selling point). Should i later be subsidized for having said ducks and pond?

 

[Big Sky Guy]

Because they provide the habitat.

Also- the public has equal opportunity to purchase landowner tags (very democratic, in harmony with the NAM).

Do explain, how does the landowner provide the habitat on public land?

Again, I maintain issuing landowner tags VALID ONLY on the land they own IS compensation for the habitat provided and is something I would support. Issuing landowner tags for land they do not provide the habitat for just because the provide habitat on land they own elsewhere is asinine and antithetical to NAM.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

I could do landowner preference here in Montana. I don't. mtmuley

Virtue signal received.