No King's Deer

[Ben Lamb]

We’ll see. I could see some horse-trading with 90/10 etc, but I could be wrong.

If not this year, eventually.

The immovable object will not yield to this easily resistible force.

 

[SAJ-99]

I'd wager that most people who poach aren't doing it for the antlers.

Probably true, but transferable landowner tags isn’t high on their priority list either.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Probably true, but transferable landowner tags isn’t high on their priority list either.

Very true.

But take away the easy license, and you'll have more.

 

[shootbrownelk]

I remind myself that every single day some politician, corporation, special interest group, industry or other entity is trying to steal the public's water, land or wildlife. Those attacks come in different forms, and IMO those efforts are intensifying.

Re wildlife, special tags based on land ownership have shown considerable success of late. Access to surface waters is restricted in many States, and is continually under attack here in Montana. Dumbing down water quality standards away from numerical standards to now having to prove damage before action is taken. Dumbing down both NEPA and MEPA allow more damaging actions without fully disclosing the consequences.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of hunters and anglers will remain complacent until it will be gone.....and then say "someone should have done something about that"...and of course most of those erosive changes are irreversible.

Keep your eye on Lee from Utah. He sure ain't done yet.

 

[SAJ-99]

Very true.

But take away the easy license, and you'll have more.

Maybe, but these people probably weren't hunting private ranches anyway. What you point out is the reaction function = anger over favoring the "haves" versus them, the "have nots". Basically, you create more psychopaths who drive by a ranch and pop a bull elk and leave it because the state decided to issue transferrable LO tags. Pretty messed up, but that is certainly something to consider.

I'm not sure what the answer is. As you point out, there are probably multiple answers, each different for the each state. Democracy rules. I have said MT can certainly increase objective numbers and buy landowner agreement with LO tags. They did the second part already, just need to increase the objectives now. WY isn't much different. There are already LO tags. LOs just want to be able to sell them. I often wonder how big of a deal this is to the 300,000 voters in WY. But look, if the WY citizens don't want that, then it shouldn't happen.

 

[Ben Lamb]

MT just increased objective ranges in 23.

WY just loudly said no to these licenses in 25.

 

[antlerradar]

I'd wager that most people who poach aren't doing it for the antlers.

That is a bet I think you would lose.

With all the doe, and cow tags these days, there really isn't that much reason to poach to put food on the table. It has been years since I had to deal with someone that was just hungry. Today it is all about ego and bragging about antlers.

 

[Ben Lamb]

That is a bet I think you would lose.

With all the doe, and cow tags these days, there really isn't that much reason to poach to put food on the table. It has been years since I had to deal with someone that was just hungry. Today it is all about ego and bragging about antlers.

Butte, America has entered the chat.

I think there's a big piece of the King's Deer involved here as well.

Take the ability of the average person to harvest an antlered animal while telling them a cow or a doe is all you get - you will have civil unrest in at least the northern rocky mtn states.

 

[Treeshark]

I’m a bit confused as to how we got to residents losing the ability to harvest antlered game as a byproduct of transferable LO tags. That’s a bit of a stretch.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

I would like to see that argued in front of a judge. "Sorry judge, I didn't draw a tag which caused an invitation, if not obligation, for me to poach in an effort to fill the void in my soul. It's pretty much human nature."

The opportunity for that argument is possible and I like it. Absurdities from the courtroom come to mind like affluenza or glove don’t fit. So if a resident was not drawn, hunted anyway, busted and the legal fees were of no concern? That could create a real humdinger of a precedent throughout the whole 10th district. I hope that future asshole poacher is represented by the sort of soulless maniac that would fling that at the jury and it just might stick.

 

[ropeup79]

I’m a bit confused as to how we got to residents losing the ability to harvest antlered game as a byproduct of transferable LO tags. That’s a bit of a stretch.

In WY landowner tags come out of the total available quota. Currently not all landowners who could get LO tags do. If they could sell them more would apply and that cuts into the numbers available to other residents. LO’s have every right to charge $ for access but guaranteed sellable tags is a nonstarter to the majority of WY hunters. I also believe that landowner tags should only be valid on private land.

 

[Treeshark]

In WY landowner tags come out of the total available quota.

That’s an easy fix- issue more tags (to coincide with more access), create a separate quota or pull tags from NR pool.

Add general tags in applicable areas and you’d be set.

 

[Treeshark]

guaranteed sellable tags is a nonstarter to the majority of WY hunters.

Hunters represent a small (albeit vocal) minority of Wyoming voters.

 

[ropeup79]

That’s an easy fix- issue more tags (to coincide with more access), create a separate quota or pull tags from NR pool.

Add general tags in applicable areas and you’d be set.

Quotas are set based on herd numbers and herd health not how many people want a tag. Issuing more tags in an already hurting mule deer herd is not a good strategy.

 

[Treeshark]

Correct. In areas where game populations do not support more tags, the other levers should be considered.

 

[17remhunter]

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.

Out in Central Nevada where I was raised taking a deer for food was usually ignored as long as the Game Warden new what it was being used for. 99% of hunters today aren’t out hunting to feed their families. Hunting has become a huge money making business. When Im out of work venison is fair game as it should be. Unfortunately its now property of the Government or the King