Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Elk Hunting
Baiting or normal ranching practice?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WahooYahoo" data-source="post: 2641147" data-attributes="member: 94632"><p>Sounds like there are a couple of problems.</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Land owners using their land to allegedly obtain profit from the guides/ hunters. This is the norm in some western states that have inaccessible public land inside their fences which is legal but viewed by people on the outside of the fence and a travesty. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The states paying land owners for damages to their crops from wildlife. Seems like some laws only favor the land owner… if you're not a landowner. But if you pay the debt maintenance, taxes, upkeep, ag inputs and suffer the losses during, say, an historic drought, you might see it differently. </li> </ol><p>Maybe. The bigger problem might be that <strong>both</strong> are allowed. It can seem like double dipping. Seems like if I allowed access to the hunter to remove animals that are causing the damage the damage might be reduced. If the landowner doesn't do what he can to limit his loss the state (taxes citizenry) shouldn't have to reimburse the land owner because he accepted the loss despite offered remedies. </p><p></p><p>I get a little sideways about number 1 and 2. But as a land owner it is my choice. And fairness is BS.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WahooYahoo, post: 2641147, member: 94632"] Sounds like there are a couple of problems. [LIST=1] [*]Land owners using their land to allegedly obtain profit from the guides/ hunters. This is the norm in some western states that have inaccessible public land inside their fences which is legal but viewed by people on the outside of the fence and a travesty. [*]The states paying land owners for damages to their crops from wildlife. Seems like some laws only favor the land owner… if you’re not a landowner. But if you pay the debt maintenance, taxes, upkeep, ag inputs and suffer the losses during, say, an historic drought, you might see it differently. [/LIST] Maybe. The bigger problem might be that [B]both[/B] are allowed. It can seem like double dipping. Seems like if I allowed access to the hunter to remove animals that are causing the damage the damage might be reduced. If the landowner doesn’t do what he can to limit his loss the state (taxes citizenry) shouldn’t have to reimburse the land owner because he accepted the loss despite offered remedies. I get a little sideways about number 1 and 2. But as a land owner it is my choice. And fairness is BS. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Elk Hunting
Baiting or normal ranching practice?
Top