Changing game laws

MThunter · 12-03-2005, 11:55 AM

There has been a lot of discussion recently on poaching, and what certain states penalize those who break the law. I'm curious what game laws you all would change and why?

In Montana, we used to have a law that allowed you to recover game (with the game warden) if it ran onto private land. The land owners did not have a choice but to let you recover your animal. That law was repealed about 4 years ago, and now land owners (and many do)do not have to grant you access, and can allow your animal to rot. They cannot touch it themselves, so this law has resulted in the waste of many animals.Worst law in the history of hunting. At least let the game warden go get it and donate the meat or something.[:@]

uncle matt · 12-03-2005, 01:39 PM

I would have to say that ANYTIME good game goes to waste - that IS NOT CONSERVATION.

aluminumshooter · 12-03-2005, 04:42 PM

I wonder why this Montana law was changed. Hard to imagine why it would be changed. There's got to be a story behind it.

MThunter · 12-03-2005, 05:34 PM

Land owners complained. A lot of people were shooting animals on the property line with this law in mind. Game Wardens were probably getting tired of the calls and the land owners being unhappy.

tangozulu · 12-03-2005, 08:28 PM

I guess everyone has forgotten to whom the game belongs. In Canada we say, "to the crown", meaning the public. I always thought it was the same inthe USA. It seems money is getting its way.
Wildlife is going back to being owned by the King. This was one reason people left the old country in the first place.

Quote:

ORIGINAL: MThunter

Land owners complained. A lot of people were shooting animals on the property line with this law in mind. Game Wardens were probably getting tired of the calls and the land owners being unhappy.

kevin1 · 12-04-2005, 05:47 AM

If I could change just one game law here it would be our "one buck rule" . I would change it to an Earn a Buck rule instead , we have way too many does here . With regard to poaching penalties I would stiffen them , ours are a bit of a joke IMO .

Sylvan · 12-04-2005, 06:01 AM

Quote:

I wonder why this Montana law was changed. Hard to imagine why it would be changed. There's got to be a story behind it.

I very much doubt Montana law ever allowed even a game warden to pursue a deer onto private property. I hear this a lot but evertime it turns out not to be true.But if there was such a law it wouldn't suprise me a bit if it was challenged on a constitutional basis. Fortunately, private property still means something in this country and to think anybody should be able to superseed the rights of the owner simply for something as trivial as they want to pursue a deer is absolutely ridiculous. Deer hunting is important to me and to you and the thought of a rotting deer makes me sick, but when things are put in perspective, private property rights in this country is far far more important than deer hunting.

Sylvan · 12-04-2005, 07:30 AM

Quote:

I guess everyone has forgotten to whom the game belongs. In Canada we say, "to the crown", meaning the public.

No, everyone has forgotten to whom private property belongs, and in this country it definately does not belong to the public! That's true in communist coutries but not here. There are millions of acres of public hunting land in the U.S. Everyone with a hunting licensehas a right to hunt there (even Canadians). People hunt on public land with the consent of the public/owners. No one has the right to hunt on private property without the consent of the owner and that's how it should be.

tangozulu · 12-04-2005, 10:04 AM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Sylvan

Quote:

I wonder why this Montana law was changed. Hard to imagine why it would be changed. There's got to be a story behind it.

I very much doubt Montana law ever allowed even a game warden to pursue a deer onto private property. I hear this a lot but evertime it turns out not to be true.But if there was such a law it wouldn't suprise me a bit if it was challenged on a constitutional basis. Fortunately, private property still means something in this country and to think anybody should be able to superseed the rights of the owner simply for something as trivial as they want to pursue a deer is absolutely ridiculous. Deer hunting is important to me and to you and the thought of a rotting deer makes me sick, but when things are put in perspective, private property rights in this country is far far more important than deer hunting.

As a land owner myself I agree private property should be private. But what do you think about landowners who control access to public land or charge access to hunters. What about grazing leases?
I also believe public land is the greatest asset any country can have.
As far as laws go -I would make charging access to hunters illegal. It has just become another way for the king to steal back the game.

Happy Hunting

Sylvan · 12-04-2005, 10:26 AM

Quote:

As a land owner myself I agree private property should be private. But what do you think about landowners who control access to public land or charge access to hunters. What about grazing leases?
I also believe public land is the greatest asset any country can have.
As far as laws go -I would make charging access to hunters illegal. It has just become another way for the king to steal back the game.

When you say control access to public land or charge access to hunters I assume you mean that a private land owner owns land adjacent to public land and is charging a fee for hunters to pass through his land to get to the public land. If that's what you mean then as far as I'm concerned its the right of the land owner to charge whatever he wants for people to use his land. With regard to grazing leases I really don't know what it is but I assume it means that a land owner is charging money in return to allow someone to have their cattle graze on that land. Again, if that's what you mean then I have to problem with it at all. It's just an agreement between 2 parties.