Kansas Hunters getting screwed
08-16-2003 | 05:42 PM
#121
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Kansas Hunters getting screwed
I think the National NRA is getting ready to go to the real " grass roots" of gun ownership and 2nd amendment rights. Look out Outdoor organizations and Govermental Agencies. From the American Hunter Magazine the President of NRA, September 2003
By Kayne Robinson, President NRA
If the most vulnerable hunter is forced out by burgeoning costs and red tape, our political base will be gone, because that’s where our big numbers are.
Every year a new crop of administrative rules, red tape, raised fees, imposed costs, and land closings are added to last year' s crop and piled on the backs of hunters. Seldom are any repealed.
Who is this " vulnerable hunter?" It could be a man or woman, but for the sake of simplicity, I' ll use the word " he." He gets a license every year or two. He has an older shotgun or rifle maybe a Mossberg or Savage or Remington. He has a 6-year-old pickup truck. His hunting clothes are not new, but they work fine.
He makes the things we use, he fixes our furnace. He' s the only guy at the gas station when we drive in. He' s up on the power line in the February sleet, or on the fire truck when we smell smoke. He drives the IS-wheeler, bringing our groceries from afar.
He punches a clock, so once he' s at work it' s almost impossible to leave and run errands for the game agency. He has very little time with his son or daughter, so a chance to hunt deer or pheasant with his kid is a very big deal.
Laws, administrative rules, enforcement tactics, all affect him differently than the fancier hunter-for example, the wealthy lawyer in a big law firm can easily take off and run errands when government offices are convenient and open. He can get his secretary to fill out the forms. He can hire an outfitter to handle the licenses, permits, and problems. He may even accept red tape as the norm.
The vulnerable hunter may find all of this a big hardship, more expense and exasperation than he can tolerate. So he drops out. And hunting loses an important friend.
Here' s the problem: If the most vulnerable hunter is
forced out by burgeoning costs and red tape, our political base will be gone, because that' s where our big numbers are. Without huge numbers, hunting will be dead for everybody-rich and poor alike. It will be dead for WalMart, Cabela' s, and Bass Pro Shops, for Mossberg as much as for Merkel. And, hunting will be dead for NRA and Safari Club and Ducks Unlimited. It will be dead for the state game agencies, it will be dead for the hundreds of wildlife agents who have good relations with hunters as well as those who are disrespectful.
Unfortunately, some agencies and a few members some hunting specialty organizations say, " Good! If you can' t afford fancy equipment, if you won' t devote large amounts of time and money, if you aren' t a passionate devotee of a special game type, if you don' t talk in fancy trophy scoring lingo-if you are offended by aggressive law enforcement tactics when there is no probable cause that you have done anything wrong-then get out! Take up bowling!"
Well, if the most vulnerable hunters do continue to get out, we' re all out of
business. As a civil rights organization, NRA defends rights. And, like all civil rights organizations, we have to view rights from the standpoint of the most vulnerable member.
Our emphasis, therefore must be: How does this law, rule, policy, or government action affect the most vulnerable hunters? Sometimes rules, fees, and costs about hunting and game are absolutely vital and clearly needed. Sometimes they are not.
Sometimes the unnecessary laws, rules, and fees are spawned by anti-hunters, sometimes for bureaucratic or law enforcement convenience, or from a paternalistic government agency attitude that says: " We' re the boss and we run hunting!"
In the end, the motivation doesn' t matter much-what matters is the effect. If a particular law, rule, or regulation freezes out hunters and gun owners for no vital reason, then it must be defeated! When administrative rules, fees, and hunting laws are being considered, who is at the table? Are rules constantly ratcheted up because everybody at the decision table is a booster of the agency? Is there not even one advocate for the most vulnerable hunter?
We desperately need the hunting specialty organizations that have done tremendous work to restore habitat of and game. They should be honored and supported. Many game agencies and agents are completely dedicated to hunting and respectful of hunters. It is just as important that the average hunter not be choked by red tape and driven from the field.
12 American Hunter . September 2003
By Kayne Robinson, President NRA
If the most vulnerable hunter is forced out by burgeoning costs and red tape, our political base will be gone, because that’s where our big numbers are.
Every year a new crop of administrative rules, red tape, raised fees, imposed costs, and land closings are added to last year' s crop and piled on the backs of hunters. Seldom are any repealed.
Who is this " vulnerable hunter?" It could be a man or woman, but for the sake of simplicity, I' ll use the word " he." He gets a license every year or two. He has an older shotgun or rifle maybe a Mossberg or Savage or Remington. He has a 6-year-old pickup truck. His hunting clothes are not new, but they work fine.
He makes the things we use, he fixes our furnace. He' s the only guy at the gas station when we drive in. He' s up on the power line in the February sleet, or on the fire truck when we smell smoke. He drives the IS-wheeler, bringing our groceries from afar.
He punches a clock, so once he' s at work it' s almost impossible to leave and run errands for the game agency. He has very little time with his son or daughter, so a chance to hunt deer or pheasant with his kid is a very big deal.
Laws, administrative rules, enforcement tactics, all affect him differently than the fancier hunter-for example, the wealthy lawyer in a big law firm can easily take off and run errands when government offices are convenient and open. He can get his secretary to fill out the forms. He can hire an outfitter to handle the licenses, permits, and problems. He may even accept red tape as the norm.
The vulnerable hunter may find all of this a big hardship, more expense and exasperation than he can tolerate. So he drops out. And hunting loses an important friend.
Here' s the problem: If the most vulnerable hunter is
forced out by burgeoning costs and red tape, our political base will be gone, because that' s where our big numbers are. Without huge numbers, hunting will be dead for everybody-rich and poor alike. It will be dead for WalMart, Cabela' s, and Bass Pro Shops, for Mossberg as much as for Merkel. And, hunting will be dead for NRA and Safari Club and Ducks Unlimited. It will be dead for the state game agencies, it will be dead for the hundreds of wildlife agents who have good relations with hunters as well as those who are disrespectful.
Unfortunately, some agencies and a few members some hunting specialty organizations say, " Good! If you can' t afford fancy equipment, if you won' t devote large amounts of time and money, if you aren' t a passionate devotee of a special game type, if you don' t talk in fancy trophy scoring lingo-if you are offended by aggressive law enforcement tactics when there is no probable cause that you have done anything wrong-then get out! Take up bowling!"
Well, if the most vulnerable hunters do continue to get out, we' re all out of
business. As a civil rights organization, NRA defends rights. And, like all civil rights organizations, we have to view rights from the standpoint of the most vulnerable member.
Our emphasis, therefore must be: How does this law, rule, policy, or government action affect the most vulnerable hunters? Sometimes rules, fees, and costs about hunting and game are absolutely vital and clearly needed. Sometimes they are not.
Sometimes the unnecessary laws, rules, and fees are spawned by anti-hunters, sometimes for bureaucratic or law enforcement convenience, or from a paternalistic government agency attitude that says: " We' re the boss and we run hunting!"
In the end, the motivation doesn' t matter much-what matters is the effect. If a particular law, rule, or regulation freezes out hunters and gun owners for no vital reason, then it must be defeated! When administrative rules, fees, and hunting laws are being considered, who is at the table? Are rules constantly ratcheted up because everybody at the decision table is a booster of the agency? Is there not even one advocate for the most vulnerable hunter?
We desperately need the hunting specialty organizations that have done tremendous work to restore habitat of and game. They should be honored and supported. Many game agencies and agents are completely dedicated to hunting and respectful of hunters. It is just as important that the average hunter not be choked by red tape and driven from the field.
12 American Hunter . September 2003
06-22-2004 | 06:02 AM
#123
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
From: Western MO
RE: Kansas Hunters getting screwed
What drives the leasing of hunting land is pretty simple if you are a landowner. Its always a confusing issue to the non landowner why the previously easy access and free hunting gets handed to someone else in a lease deal...sure money plays a role but if you think leasing hunting rights is a big moneymaker, you just dont understand the cost of land ownership.
Many leased farms involve far more than money. The guys who lease the ground make a conserted effort to aid in management of the herd....depending on the lease and the owners it can and often does include doe harvest numbers, selective buck harvest, help in habitat maintainence, etc.
The money made off a lease allows that landowner to do much more. In Kansas there are huge problems with invasive weeds like sericia lespedeza and musk thistle and controlling them is required by law as weandowner wants tho not have them...but it costs money! Fencing is huge expence today as is fertility, maintainence, taxes, etc.
I guess the lease issue is a hot topic but for those of us who own land and clearly know what it costs to be a landowner, we can relate to those who lease ground. Fixing fences after hunting season is a major problem. Even hunters we know who normally you would assume would take care of property often leave behind a bit of damage. Picking up trash, having to deal with all the 4 wheeler damage in stream beds and areas where they never should go....and then tresspassrs and all they bring...often times the guys who lease a piece of ground are the best guard aginst tresspassers.
Dont condem a landowner because he leased the ground. He may have just gotten fed up with all the tresspassres and freeloaders.
Many leased farms involve far more than money. The guys who lease the ground make a conserted effort to aid in management of the herd....depending on the lease and the owners it can and often does include doe harvest numbers, selective buck harvest, help in habitat maintainence, etc.
The money made off a lease allows that landowner to do much more. In Kansas there are huge problems with invasive weeds like sericia lespedeza and musk thistle and controlling them is required by law as weandowner wants tho not have them...but it costs money! Fencing is huge expence today as is fertility, maintainence, taxes, etc.
I guess the lease issue is a hot topic but for those of us who own land and clearly know what it costs to be a landowner, we can relate to those who lease ground. Fixing fences after hunting season is a major problem. Even hunters we know who normally you would assume would take care of property often leave behind a bit of damage. Picking up trash, having to deal with all the 4 wheeler damage in stream beds and areas where they never should go....and then tresspassrs and all they bring...often times the guys who lease a piece of ground are the best guard aginst tresspassers.
Dont condem a landowner because he leased the ground. He may have just gotten fed up with all the tresspassres and freeloaders.
06-22-2004 | 07:06 PM
#124
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Kansas Hunters getting screwed
Fixing fences after hunting season is a major problem. Even hunters we know who normally you would assume would take care of property often leave behind a bit of damage. Picking up trash, having to deal with all the 4 wheeler damage in stream beds and areas where they never should go....and then tresspassrs and all they bring...often times the guys who lease a piece of ground are the best guard aginst tresspassers.
That's why we were fighting for longer seasons, and for wore of the public land closed to firearms in Kansas to be opened back up to Firearms big game hunting. And to have a protocol and criteria in place to check on if land is actually being closed for true safety reasons, convienence, or to make a nice off limits area for state fellows to hunt only. That has occured in the past and is occurring at 3 lakes in Kansas now. It was all in the 5 year public land plans.
06-25-2004 | 06:47 PM
#126
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Kansas Hunters getting screwed
Hey Bowfanatic, How are things in WI (?).
The reason for the TTT was we had some of the same tired old arguments starting to evolve again, and instead of rehashing it again, I directed the misdirecte individuals hera and put it TTT so they could find it.
It did no good anyway, because they failed to read it and the various arguments, pro and con.
I think it is one of the most contentious and involved threads I have ever read on huntingnet.com, with good arguments made on all sides of the issue. Argued out the passion and emotion, until we were down to fact,....then came the Game Commission appoints.
like Rosanrosanadana said, "Well, Jane...it's always something!"
DB
The reason for the TTT was we had some of the same tired old arguments starting to evolve again, and instead of rehashing it again, I directed the misdirecte individuals hera and put it TTT so they could find it.
It did no good anyway, because they failed to read it and the various arguments, pro and con.
I think it is one of the most contentious and involved threads I have ever read on huntingnet.com, with good arguments made on all sides of the issue. Argued out the passion and emotion, until we were down to fact,....then came the Game Commission appoints.
like Rosanrosanadana said, "Well, Jane...it's always something!"
DB
