|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
The lower 48 attitudes are creeping up
Posted by thenarwhal on Jan 12 2006
Stop right now if you don't want to read a long, esoteric post.
There are several interesting items in this discussion. It feels like the attitudes of some of the lower 48 states relating to hunter access and game ownership are moving north. Public vs. private use/ownership is something I've been thinking about for years and haven't found many answers yet. From the tone of this discussion, it seems Alaskan hunters are feeling the effects of pressure and changing attitudes, similar to the way things are down here.
Start with the premise that all wildlife belongs to the state, therefore it is a public resource no matter where it is located, available equally to all who are eligible or qualified to take it. This is true; as far as I've been able to determine every state has some variation of this law. Does selling the right to access private land amount to selling the public resource? Does an increased fee for a killing a trophy animal on public land amount to selling a public resource? When does that public resource become private property? How can this be policed? Who has the right to protect the public asset? The state or the individual?
I've never hunted in Alaska (coming in September 06) but I've been to several southern, eastern and western states. Consider these scenarios:
1. Hunting on an Indian reservation in a western state. There are no perimeter fences and the game can come and go. The reservation has a sliding price scale for game killed. The larger the animal, the more it costs. If you were unfortunate enough to shoot a world record elk you would get a bill for 60 grand. But not only a trophy fee, they also have a sliding price scale for access to the better areas of the reservation. For example, it's $100 bucks to hunt javelinas on the part of the reservation where javelinas don't exist. It's $150 to hunt where there are a few, $175 where they are common. Same animal, difference of a few miles of scrub brush, almost double the price. The issue here seems to be the native regulation of wildlife. The reservation is essentially a sovereign nation, with the rights to regulate resources and make laws. By hunting there, you agree to be bound by them. Except where those regulations and laws conflict with treaties or the federal constitution, they're generally valid. Witness all the Indian casinos. If the hunter shoots the elk in the neighboring national forest, he has a new world record for the cost of the license. If the bull wanders across the reservation line, he has to mortgage his house to get it. What if he shoots it on public land and it runs to the reservation to die?
Does anyone know the status of the native corporations in Alaska? Could this be how they are authorized to set increased fees?
2. In several western states large property holders may be able to get landowner tags. The state essentially gives the landowner an number of tags in exchange for allowing limited public hunting access. A few lucky hunters draw a tag to hunt there and the landowner sells or gives away the other tags to anyone he or she pleases. Five lucky drawing hunters might get to hunt the huge trophy elk ranch just for the cost of the license. Ten other rich guys will pay $15,000 each for access and a landowner tag. Private sale of the public resource? Probably. Legal? Apparently, it's been going on for years. The justification seems to be that the state, and therefore the public, gets some benefit through the public access for the fortunate few and this is enough to compensate for the landowner making thousands off the public resource. I think of it like a mineral or oil/gas lease on public land. Public resource, the state gets pennies on the dollar, the corporation gets a good return. (This is not an indictment of the oil and gas industry. Don't blast me. I've just tried to find ways to reconcile these things.)
3. Large landholder in a southern state. Plans to erect high fence around the property and release a captive bred deer herd for hunting (or shooting, if you don't consider this hunting). There are native, free-ranging deer on the land. The day the landowner closes the fence and traps those deer, do they become his? What about when he turns 300 captive deer loose and the wild and domestic can no longer be differentiated? Still a public resource? Public can't get in without paying the $5000 fee. Landowner can sell the captive deer more or less as livestock with little regulation of when, how, or who kills them. No license, no season, no limit. Pay and shoot all you want. What's the status of the wild deer?
4. Hunter in a western state on private land with permission. He shoots a huge mule deer buck. Buck runs and jumps a nearby fence onto the neighbor's land. Buck dies within sight. Hunter, being considerate of property rights, goes to the neighbor's house, tells him what happened, asks for permission to trespass to retrieve the deer. The neighbor learns it's a big buck, tells the hunter he can't come on the land and retrieves the deer himself. Hunter calls the sheriff to complain and ask for assistance to get his deer. Sheriff threatens to arrest him for harrasment if he contacts the neighbor again, and trespass if he tries to go take the deer. The hunter was properly licensed and had permission to be where he was, the deer was legal and the hunter killed it. Once it is dead, the animal is presumably reduced to possession and becomes no longer a public resource, but the private property of the person who killed it. It was a public resource on private property throughout, it just ended up in a place the hunter had no legal means of retreiving it or enforcing his rights. The neighbor was clearly a miserable SOB, but does the hunter have any recourse? Apparently not if law enforcement wouldn't get involved. A civil lawsuit to reclaim his property maybe. It would be a weak case and by the time it was over the deer would be converted to fertilizer and the antlers would be on Ebay.
The last item was relayed to me. I have first-hand knowledge of the others.
If you read this far looking for answers, sorry for wasting your time. If anyone knows of any court cases involving public vs. private ownership of Alaskan wildlife, I'd like to know about them. It's kind of a hobby.
Previous: The State Does It, Too Mark Jan 11 2006
Next: scenarios GunsmithRob Jan 12 2006
 Message Thread:
|
