Anyone who is so poor a h unter he has to resort to baiting ought to just go buy a sheep and shoot it in the backyard. Better tie it to a tree first. I have been reading all this stuff about Texas land leasing and I have a question- Does the state of Texas give any incentive to land owners to allow people to hunt? Here in Wyoming the state pays land owners for each animal taken from their property. The state applies some pressure on land owners if they are filing large property damages and not letting people hunt by limiting the damage claims that they can file for.
Also find it interesting how this topic works in other parts of the country. Here where there is alot of public land (1/2 the state, about the size of NY state) there is quite a bit of leased land. But most of this is by private out of state clubs. I personally don’t know of anyone who has paid to hunt as most of the hunting I do is on public lands, but I have hunted on private land and have not paided anything.
One thing though is that land owners will charge out of state hunters a “trespass” fee, but when they see that you are a resident (see the bucking bronco on the licence plate) they will let you on their land for free, (just make sure that you give them your land owners tag which they can turn into the state for money). I guess this happens because there is only 450,000 people in the state and as a result everyone knows everyone else to some extent- “do you know so and so?” or “shoot the bull” about whats going on in the state. So how do I feel about land leases for hunting? I personally wouldn’t do it, but then again I have options.
What if I lived in (gulp) Texas, (no flames, just a little humor) well I guess I would do what is normal there to do, and if I didn’t like the quality of the hunt experience I would probably quit. I wouldn’t blame the land owner, I feel that if you own the land you should be able to control who is on it for whatever reason.I have been reading about lease hunting and am reminded of one farmer I know. In the lease for agricultural land it is spelled out in writing that “neither the land owner nor the tenant shall give permission for hunting nor shall either part permit any hunting to occur”.
Furthermore the state game officer has seen the lease and knows this restriction will be enforced by both the landowner and tenant. The land incidentally is rolling pasture, woodland, and general cropland and is 1/4 mile from a state park. I have seen as many as many as 16 deer jump the fence in a group. What are the reasons for this restriction; fear of liability should a hunter hurt him or herself, damage done by inept hunters, value of the registered cattle, and general poor attitude of hunters with respect to landowner’s right.
The landowner has said that hunting will be allowed when the deer do more damage than the trespassing hunters have done. The latest incident involved a neighbor who was first seen climbing on top of large round bales (it breaks the thatch and allows water in to spoil the bales) and jumping from one bale to another with a loaded shotgun. Twenty feet from him was the herd of registered cattle. He was talked to and said he was chasing a deer he had shot on land he had permission to hunt. He was ordered off the bales and off the property (this was via a hunting partner with a radio).
The deer had been seen by the landowner in binoculars. The deer was unable to jump fences because of the wounds and the deer was two fields away from the land he claimed he was hunting. Only because it was a neighbor prevented the game warden from being called. The trespassers was ordered off the land. Another hunter in the area (in his 70′s with arthritis) who had not gotten his deer yet was called and euthanized the deer. He was the one who tagged the deer and kept the meat. The landowner was offered some meat but was so angry about the whole situation that refused any. What does lease hunting do.
Does it provide written records of who has permission to hunt the land for game officers? Does it lay out standards of behavior and liability of the parties ? Does it provide some compensation to the landowner for the hassles of hunters and lost cropland being preserved for gameland ? Does it make up for the hassles of the landowner for having to own blaze orange clothing even if they do no hunting nor allow any. Remember the landowner is the one who pays the taxes on the land. On the question of who does the game belong to once it jumps the fence, I’ve seen that landowner order people off the land who were unarmed but were just across the fence from people hunting adjacent land. The game belongs to whatever land it is on at the time and not to the landowner. However the landowner owns the land and he can restrict access in any way the landowner desires including total barring.
I have listened to the debates on fighting anti-hunters and would like to interject some of my own experience. This might get a bit long but bear with me. I have hunted since I was about 10 years old with my dad. I grew up with it and all of the men in my family hunt as well. It was just part of Thanksgiving for everyone to go out deer hunting while the dinner was being prepared. The opening day of deer season in Alabama used to be on Friday and when that day rolled around most of the boys in my high school were out.
We’ll pick you up in Cape Town and bring you to our beautiful holiday farm on the border of Namaqualand and the Cederberg mountains. For 3 days we’ll teach you to shoot with various hunting rifles. We’ll prepare ammunition to your specific needs for the hunt. Then we’ll introduce you to the finer details of hunting the African games. During these 3 days of training, we’ll vine and dine you to the wonderful cuisine of the “Boers” of the west coast of Africa. Depending on your specific needs, we’ll then proceed into to African veldt, whether that be the open savanna to hunt “plains game” like springbok, gemsbok, blesbok of even ostrich.
Making voting on hunting a priority (after 7 years) is wrong apparently, say the hunting lobby, and not banning hunting at once is a evidence of poor priorities too. This doublethink is typical of the hunting lobby who say that fox hunting is about vermin control and also conserving foxes, that it’s more humane than shooting but it’s so ineffective that most hunts never kill a fox, etc. It seems that whatever arguments seem to work that is what they’ll use and consistency be buggered.
In fact, it says the Cal DFG will manage it as a “non-game” species, which means it may be hunted if necessary (like a rabbit is considered non-game), or it may not, depending on what the scientists determine. Its interesting to note how hunters (like myself) jumped to the conclusion it meant hunting automatically, and anti-hunters jumped to the same conclusion. Hunters and anglers are the true conservationists.
Last year 6,000 permits to hunt swan were issued by the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources. As a result, 3,000 swans were killed. Applying for a permit is simple: no hunting license is required, applicants do not have to be a resident of North Carolina and the fee is only $5.00. Permits are issued based on a computer drawing to be held October 1. Since only one swan is allowed to be killed per permit, the Fund for Animals and the Greenville Chapter of North Carolina Network for Animals are asking activists from all over the country to apply for a permit.
