Property Rights?

pretty much all 0f them. But specifically the ones that ASSUME facts that aren't mentioned in the editorial. I realy like the one that stated they could build a fence t0 keep out 600 deer in the same time it takes to write 2 paragraphs.
 
pretty much all 0f them. But specifically the ones that ASSUME facts that aren't mentioned in the editorial. I realy like the one that stated they could build a fence t0 keep out 600 deer in the same time it takes to write 2 paragraphs.

There is quite a bit of missing information and many are having to assume.:rolleyes: But I see nothing wrong with hunters gaining access to hunt if feasible(sp). However there is not a season there right now so that is moot.

However there are many options left to said landowner besides whining in a letter done by a possible neighbor or themselves?
 
What about the comment that this area just had a long doe season. uhhhh no it didn't. I happen to know a couple of the guys who are impacted by this and it isn't the first time this happened.

In addition the FWP office offers fencing material if you allow public access.

I just thought the whole letter was funny as she worked in the 2nd Amendment, property rights and that somebody should pay for all the damage these deer have done.

Nemont
 
One Good Comment......

Powder_River_Cats 4 hours ago
It is enitely possible that this fellow DOES allow public access. But that his neighbors do not! Thus giving sanctuary for these deer during the hunting season. That was the premise behind some of the harboring legislation that we seen in this years legislature. So before everyone starts throwing rocks at this person, and just assume that he/she doesn't allow public access for hunters, get the full story first, before you start throwing rocks. Otherwise your comments just look plain foolish and selfish.

One bad comment...........

NO, Roxanne, the deer are not intruders. YOU ARE!

Sad to see the hunter/landowner divisiveness that is going on in E. Montana right now Nemont.
 
Back
Top