Montana reducing nonresident deer tags

[Chris in TN]

No you’re not understanding the precedent that has been set for years. The state holds the animals in trust. It doesn’t matter who owns the land private or public.

State ownership of wildlife doesn’t negate the prerogative of landowners to engage in management activities, including controlling who hunts or what they kill.

 

[Fire_9]

State ownership of wildlife doesn’t negate the prerogative of landowners to engage in management activities, including controlling who hunts or what they kill.

They still get to do those things. Landowners are constantly working with state agencies but just owning land should not grant one unfettered access to wildlife. If that was the case, hunting for the common person would be dead

 

[KurtR]

State ownership of wildlife doesn’t negate the prerogative of landowners to engage in management activities, including controlling who hunts or what they kill.

Yes it does it’s been hashed out in courts . If you don’t like it move to a state that doesn’t suck for hunting

 

[Chris in TN]

They still get to do those things. Landowners are constantly working with state agencies but just owning land should not grant one unfettered access to wildlife. If that was the case, hunting for the common person would be dead

You’re arguing against a point I didn’t make.

 

[Chris in TN]

Yes it does it’s been hashed out in courts . If you don’t like it move to a state that doesn’t suck for hunting

Case cite for where landowners weren’t allowed to restrict access or set harvest restrictions?

ETA: also, courts don’t make law. Or they shouldn’t, anyway, but that’s a separate issue.

 

[Fire_9]

You’re arguing against a point I didn’t make.

Then just what exactly is the point you’re trying to make?

 

[Chris in TN]

Then just what exactly is the point you’re trying to make?

State ownership of wildlife doesn’t negate the prerogative of landowners to engage in management activities, including controlling who hunts or what they kill.

 

[Fire_9]

State ownership of wildlife doesn’t negate the prerogative of landowners to engage in management activities, including controlling who hunts or what they kill.

They currently have those rights now. What am I missing here? Explain it to me like I’m 10…

 

[KurtR]

Case cite for where landowners weren’t allowed to restrict access or set harvest restrictions?

ETA: also, courts don’t make law. Or they shouldn’t, anyway, but that’s a separate issue.

So your saying your going to get 300 million plus people to agree on who to let hunt and harvest restrictions on the land we “ all own” Bold strategy cotton

 

[Chris in TN]

They currently have those rights now. What am I missing here? Explain it to me like I’m 10…

I’m saying usfs and blm should alleviate overhunting of federal lands by restricting access beyond what the state allows.

Cities do this now - see Ft. Collins Colorado (red mountain). State parks do it now with controlled hunts in many states (CO, TN, SD off the top of my head have tightly controlled hunts on state parks). Land between the Lakes NRA (federal land) restricts seasons tighter than state rules. State and national parks often require visitors to pay for access and some restrict when access is allowed. Military bases and ammunition plants tightly regulate hunter access.

There’s a mountain of precedent for federal landowners to restrict hunting access or land access in general. My point is that it should be done to alleviate the circus effect that plays out every year. Federal lands should be managed so that those who use the land can actually enjoy it. If game animal age structures are being harmed by hunting pressure, the landowner (fedgov) owes it to the stakeholders (citizens in all states) to restrict access as needed to mitigate or reverse this damage, with no preference given to residents of any given state.

I haven’t had a mule deer tag in 30 years. I’d love to hunt them again but don’t have the points for a good tag and I’ve prioritized elk for the last 15 years and hunted them when I could. I may never hunt mule deer. I can’t afford to do everything I’d like. But it would be nice to have a way to get a tag every decade or so without having to move out west or buy preference points that don’t guarantee anything or depend on a random drawing. I’d love to simply be able to tell the forest service I’d like to apply for hunting access to some certain block of land once every decade and be able to plan that in advance. I can’t really do that now. But apparently MT residents see me as a threat to their buck on public land that they get every year. People love ‘free’ stuff.

 

[Chris in TN]

So your saying your going to get 300 million plus people to agree on who to let hunt and harvest restrictions on the land we “ all own” Bold strategy cotton

I’m saying you claimed something had been hashed out in court and while I reject the prerogative of activist judges to use the bench for legislation, I’d like to see a case cite for this claim of yours.

And there’s already a system where 300 million people come to agreements (through their trustees, fedgov employees), shaky though they are, about federal land usage.

 

[Chris in TN]

@KurtR which case? When was this ‘hashed out in court’ and when did we start encouraging judicial activism?

Yes it does it’s been hashed out in courts . If you don’t like it move to a state that doesn’t suck for hunting

 

[KurtR]

@KurtR which case? When was this ‘hashed out in court’ and when did we start encouraging judicial activism?

8




The foundational case giving states the right to manage wildlife is Geer v. Connecticut (1896), where the U.S. Supreme Court established the state's "public trust" power to control game for the common benefit of its citizens, rooted in the idea that wildlife is common property. Later cases like Lacoste v. Department of Conservation (1924) reinforced this, noting states own wildlife in their sovereign capacity, allowing regulation for public good

 

[ianpadron]

@KurtR which case? When was this ‘hashed out in court’ and when did we start encouraging judicial activism?

Do you need us to show you how to use Google as well?

Just for Chris in TN

This is a really well done overview of PTD in the US, along with countless cases that reinforce it.

FYI, being a dude presumably in TN, who admittedly hasn't hunted mule deer in 30 years, gives your opinion on the matter about as little weight as possible, and exemplifies my earlier points about NRs essentially being clueless when it comes to the situation at hand, despite being the most opinionated.

 

[Chris in TN]

8




The foundational case giving states the right to manage wildlife is Geer v. Connecticut (1896), where the U.S. Supreme Court established the state's "public trust" power to control game for the common benefit of its citizens, rooted in the idea that wildlife is common property. Later cases like Lacoste v. Department of Conservation (1924) reinforced this, noting states own wildlife in their sovereign capacity, allowing regulation for public good

But none of that refutes my point about landowners having the prerogative to manage habitat or hunter pressure/density or hunter harvest on their lands.

My point is in perfect harmony with what you’re saying. States ‘own’ wildlife in public trust but landowners still retain the rights to dictate who can or can’t hunt on their property.

In short, you’re not even making an argument. You’re asserting something I (and everyone else I know) already freely concede. Landowners can’t set looser rules than the state but they can most assuredly set tighter rules.

Please try to articulate an actual argument in the future. Stop appealing to a point that both sides already understand. It just shows how poorly you understand the issue.

 

[Chris in TN]

Do you need us to show you how to use Google as well?

Just for Chris in TN

This is a really well done overview of PTD in the US, along with countless cases that reinforce it.

FYI, being a dude presumably in TN, who admittedly hasn't hunted mule deer in 30 years, gives your opinion on the matter about as little weight as possible, and exemplifies my earlier points about NRs essentially being largely clueless when it comes to the situation at hand.

lol. Another guy who had to go to Google because he can’t grasp that I’m not arguing against public trust, I’m simply asserting the concept of property rights.

It’s humorous that you’d call me clueless when you don’t even understand the problem yourself. Public trust doctrine doesn’t give a state carte blanche to let hordes of its residents invade non-state-owned lands every fall.

It’s that simple. So let me repeat it:

Public trust doctrine doesn’t give a state carte blanche to let hordes of its residents invade non-state-owned lands every fall.

Fedgov - not as a government entity, but as an owner of land - has the right to set access rules. Its that simple.

 

[KurtR]

But none of that refutes my point about landowners having the prerogative to manage habitat or hunter pressure/density or hunter harvest on their lands.

My point is in perfect harmony with what you’re saying. States ‘own’ wildlife in public trust but landowners still retain the rights to dictate who can or can’t hunt on their property.

In short, you’re not even making an argument. You’re asserting something I (and everyone else I know) already freely concede. Landowners can’t set looser rules than the state but they can most assuredly set tighter rules.

Please try to articulate an actual argument in the future. Stop appealing to a point that both sides already understand. It just shows how poorly you understand the issue.

And that has nothing to do with public land you’re trying to make up some farfetched point about public land. It’s hard to discern what your even trying to say there is so many circles

 

[Chris in TN]

And that has nothing to do with public land you’re trying to make up some farfetched point about public land. It’s hard to discern what your even trying to say there is so many circles

I’m saying fedgov should limit hunters on federal lands.

It’s only hard to understand if you don’t want to understand it because you like having free places to hunt and don’t want to share.

The entire issue boils down to this: The state has every right to issue you a tag and the fedgov has every right to say ‘sorry, we’re full, go fill your tag elsewhere’.

Anything else is obfuscation.

 

[ianpadron]

lol. Another guy who had to go to Google because he can’t grasp that I’m not arguing against public trust, I’m simply asserting the concept of property rights.

It’s humorous that you’d call me clueless when you don’t even understand the problem yourself. Public trust doctrine doesn’t give a state carte blanche to let hordes of its residents invade non-state-owned lands every fall.

It’s that simple. So let me repeat it:

Public trust doctrine doesn’t give a state carte blanche to let hordes of its residents invade non-state-owned lands every fall.

Fedgov - not as a government entity, but as an owner of land - has the right to set access rules. Its that simple.

Multiple people in this thread have directly asked you what point you're even trying to make with regards to our deer herds...

How about you move along since no one has a clue exactly what your soliloquy has to do with managing the mule deer herd in MT.

Nothing in this thread is about land access, and I'm guessing a grand total of zero of us MT residents care what a guy from Tennessee thinks about how things should be run here.

 

[KurtR]

I’m saying fedgov should limit hunters on federal lands.

It’s only hard to understand if you don’t want to understand it because you like having free places to hunt and don’t want to share.

The entire issue boils down to this: The state has every right to issue you a tag and the fedgov has every right to say ‘sorry, we’re full, go fill your tag elsewhere’.

Anything else is obfuscation.

Why after 249 years would they start making rules up. You’re just salty you live in a crappy place and don’t get to hunt. This will really blow your mind nr can’t hunt wilderness in Wyoming with out a resident or a guide.