Dr. Williams's Link
Can't get comfortable with bringing back market hunting, but would be delighted to see the end of ALL FORMS of deer/Elk farming & canned hunts.
Privatized wildlife is already an issue; I don't like it. JMO, the bright future lies in educating all concerned about the whole balance issue. As a private landowner, it's not your responsibility to harbor any more deer on your property than you are happy to see. Doesn't mean you have any right to shoot them on sight, but if you want to let somebody onto your place to take out the ones that have been devouring your landscaping, that's fine... within the law.
By the same token, private landowners who don't like hunting can't be allowed to harbor deer on their property at levels which constitute a public nuisance; I'd love to see a few PETA types served with a summons or citation or whatever for harboring nuisance animals!
And JMO, it would go an awful long way if we could just get past this situation whereby it becomes impractical to hunt a property just because you can't get the neighbors to sign off on the deal for recovery rights... Would love to see the legislation enacted... No hunter engaged in the legal taking of a game animal shall be held liable for damages caused by said animal in the process of recovery. In other words, if the deer runs into the neighbor's pool or through a glass door or whatever, well, that's what homeowner's insurance is for. Also like to see "no hunter shall be unreasonably denied access to private property for the purpose of recovering legally harvested game", and "no hunter shall take any game while less than 50 yards from any private property boundary without the permission of the landowners on both sides of the property line".
In other words, you can't sit on the lot line, but if you get a deer in the middle of a property and it makes it onto the neighbor's place, you should be permitted to recover the animal so long as A) you've made a good faith effort to contact the property owner before you cross the line, B) you take no weapons across the line without permission and C) the landowner has no specific reason to deny you access.
Yeah.... THAT'll happen here!
Hard to find the balance point which is why this feels so difficult to figure out.
It may be irritating, and I'm by no means rolling in dough, but I'd pay more for my hunting/fishing licenses if it helped buy more land, manage that land, help improve habitat (tear down out of use dam's for example) etc. It would be a sacrifice, and I'm willing to take that on because above all else, I want wild spaces for my kids and their kids... and I want those that follow us to have some of the same opportunities I have had.
It is interesting, that the root of environmentalism could be described as coming from outdoors folks. Heck, I think I've read Leupold quotes in an E.O. Wilson book! And yet, while "we" have done huge amounts, we get (at least it feels like it) the least "credit" and have a lot of challenges ahead.
You make an excellent point about everyone paying to go to the state parks but get a free ride when enjoying the state forests. Trails that hikers and bikers enjoy cost money to maintain, so why have a use certificate that you carry when on the train?
(Drum roll, please!)
Fees like that affect enough people for it to affect the outcome when a politician who supported the fee goes to run for reelection. Hunters are 2% of the population here - "so screw 'em", say the politicos - if it's not going to tank my campaign, it's not my problem!
It's not that hikers and birdwatchers are bad people… It's just that it has never occurred to most of them that they should perhaps be responsible for helping to support the resources that they enjoy. So when you ask them to pony up, they are going to react poorly. We hunters are already used to paying for licenses, and we are generally not going to buy fewer licenses just because the price went up. Although… Full disclosure… Personally, I used to buy tags for private land rifle, muzzleloader, AND archery. But given the cost of the licenses, I am down to buying just the archery tags these days.
Maybe they figure there's a tipping point where more people will buy more tags if it gets hard enough to fill one.... Right up to where people get so frustrated that they stop buying any at all.
While it's easy to pick on MA for a lot of things politically, one thing that's great, is that it's sustained a level of financial autonomy for MDFW. So at least here, when I dropped almost a hundred bucks for my sporting license, salt water, turkey permit, bear permit, antlerless application, land stamp... that money is going back to those things.
It's practically miraculous that this has stayed the course, but it's great.
I have no idea how, but it would be amazing if FW funds could STAY in house at the state level.
Sure, federal is federal. But at the state level, let the folks focused on wildlife and wildlands use those funds.
Probably a ship that's sailed though eh? Cant imagine a politician letting those funds go back...
State parks and state forests are different to me for a variety of reasons. State parks get a whole lot of use and traffic in the summer compared to state forests. Just go to Squantz Pond on a summer weekend and you will understand my point. Same with Kent Falls, Silver Sands, Indian Wells, etc. Aside from the ones that have beaches that require staff and beach maintenance, all state parks have garbage service and staff that oversee and maintain the parks and the safety of the masses that visit. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see that in any state forest that I go to. The only maintenance that I see on state forest where I hike is along the AT and that is usually volunteer or funded by the AT through their membership. I am sure that there are other volunteer organizations that maintain trails, but I keep jumping over the same logs year after year on state forest trails where I go (and I don't mind it).
yeah, this is a tough one. How about roads that have tolls on them and others that don't? Why the difference when everyone uses them? The state decided which roads will raise the most money to fund more roads and repairs. So if the state needs money to buy open spaces, like Southington just did by buying Hawks Landing Golf course, then why not have some kind of user fee?
When I go I stop at a rest area is it any different than stopping at Rocky Neck State Park? I park, use the facilities, rest for a while, and then go on my way. I consume nothing and afforded the use of the facilities. No fee at the rest area but a fee at the park.
I'm not looking for more fees, don't get me wrong, but some things are just inconsistent.
I don't mind paying to hunt and fish as long as it goes to maintain the resource that makes for an enjoyable experience.
When we went to Italy last fall we had to pay to use all of the public bathrooms, no one complained but then again we don't live there.
OK Bob, just beep the horn and I'll wave when I'm pissing on the side of the road if that ever happens :)
