Government owns the wild animals

I recently moved in with my dad who owns a couple thousand acres and runs a ranch and a hunting business. The land is populated with hundreds upon hundreds of wild turkeys.

Now, I've hunted before and know you have to buy a permit and what not, but I decided to get some arrows for my bow in order to shoot a turkey. My old man told me I would need to go and purchase a permit to shoot a wild turkey, on our own land, because the government owns the birds.

How outrageous is this? I have to go purchase a permit in order to shoot a wild animal on my own land! Forget the permit, these are the kinds of laws that I feel are ridiculous. I will not buy a permit in order to hunt on my own land. The government does not own the wild animals.

I'm all worked up right now. I had never put much thought about buying a permit before until now and I say nay.

Any hunters here?

Damn, I wouldn't want to be caught crossing your fields

I haven't looked into the ownership question, but I do know for a fact that a permit is not required in Alabama to hunt on your own property during season. You are still expected to obey the game laws as to weapons type allowed, number and gender of animals taken, etc.

The drawback around here is that the property lines are not all well-marked. In a forested mountain range, it is very easy to be standing a few hundred yards from where you think you are, even on ground you are familiar with. Also, if a game warden comes up to you, you are required to provide proof that you own the property.

It's also an interesting point to note that here, game wardens tend to stick to either state hunting areas or property where they have been requested to patrol. I have actually had them ask my permission to patrol my property (which I refused to give). Whether or not they have carte blanche authority against the owner's wishes I do not know for sure... this may be simply a custom designed to keep them from being shot for trespassing. That can and has happened.

Also, you can apply for an out-of-season permit if you can demonstrate that the wildlife is damaging crops or other property. When hunting under such a permit, you are required to leave the animal laying; you cannot use it for meat (a requirement I personally consider to be unconscionable). You are also restricted to the area of damage itself; no hunting across your entire place because the deer are eating your garden... you have to shoot them in the immediate vicinity of the garden.

It's usually just easier to get the blooming permit, though.

TheRedneck

This is in Nebraska by the way. The property is clearly marked with miles of barbed wire fence.

It probably is easier to get the permit, but that's the problem. We are always taking the easy way out and that's why we, as humans, face the problems we do today. Taking a stand on little things like this makes a difference.

[edit on 19-4-2010 by doped00]

Originally posted by doped00
This is in Nebraska by the way. The property is clearly marked with miles of barbed wire fence.

It probably is easier to get the permit, but that's the problem. We are always taking the easy way out and that's why we, as humans, face the problems we do today. Taking a stand on little things like this makes a difference.

[edit on 19-4-2010 by doped00]

People like you with the mentality that you should be able to kill anything you want as long as its on your land are why so many species have gone extinct. I'm sorry, but regulation of wild animal kills is necessary to ensure the survival of some species.

Because history shows that, given freedom to kill whatever they want, people will drive entire species to extinction.

I know that in Pennsylvania, if you fence off your property to open a pay-to-hunt game preserve, the state counts the deer on the property after the fence is erected, then they charge the landowner for the number of deer that they fenced in.

Same stuff here in New Zealand, however permits here go to NZ fish and game. This is a group who goes to court to fight for land access rights, provides the officers who check for permits, develop artificial wetlands for new hunting and ecological areas, makes tracks, provides, conducts and funds studies into sustainability and impact of hunting amongst other things.
At a few hundred USD for a permit depending on what you are trying to catch, you can either take a chance or support a system that supports you back. They seem to get much more done than the government who takes about 1/3rd or more of our wages usually

Have a look and see where the money is going. If it's not going into sustainability/hunters rights and straight into the state coffers I say stuff em if you're on your own land.

I am a hunter and have a B.S. In Wildlife Ecology. I can tell you that state laws regarding licensing to hunt on your own land vary from state to state, but if your state requires it, then I would recommend purchasing the license, as it's not worth the potential fine. If you are a true steward of your land and look forward to hunting in the future, then you should have no problem purchasing the license, as the proceeds go towards the protection and sustainability of wildlife.

The main reason states have it set up this way is because wildlife migrate and; therefore, what is on your land today was on your neighbor's land yesterday. Too many court battles have been fought over this issue (i.e., feuds between neighbors), so the states step in and assume ownership in order to please all parties involved. All parties involved also include the average citizen, whom place an intrinsic value on wildlife, simply by knowing that the wildlife exists in the event they so choose to partake in the nature experience.

Now, if your land is overpopulated then most state wildlife agencies will allow for additional harvesting permits at no extra charge.

Now, I want to go back to something I addressed above, sustainability

In Texas, decades ago, the Eastern Turkey was hunted until there was regional extinction, due to lack of understanding about sustainable populations. The state went through tremendous efforts to reestablish populations in the decimated areas. How did they do it? With revenue generated from licensing. Why did they do it? Because (1) the citizens demanded it and (2) turkeys are a part of the natural environment, without which, other segments of the ecosystem may fail, causing devastating ecological consequences.

A license doesn't cost that much, it promotes sustained wildlife and protects adjacent landowners rights to the same enjoyment.

As a side note, I will let you know that game wardens do not require a search warrant to come onto your premises and they can confiscate illegally taken game, guns and vehicles used in the taking of illegal game. Fines can be steep and jail sentences can be, and usually are, imposed.

EDIT: to add a link to information about the efforts to reestablish Turkey populations in Nebraska.

www.ngpc.state.ne.us...

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Aggie Man]

reply to post by Yazman


Your misunderstanding me. I'm all for the conservation of the animals and obeying things like bag limits. I'm not going to go out and mass murder these turkeys.

Your missing the point. I'll reply more when I get the time.

reply to post by doped00


You don't own the animals on your land. The state or federal gov't does.

In most states you don't need a license to hunt on your own land, but you need to follow all laws that pertain to that land and animals. For instance, in semi-rural areas, you may need a minimun of x acres in order to fire a gun on that property even for target practice. Some states you need a permit to build a too high for animals (deer usually) to jump over to escape your land.

Better for you to go to your state's on-line info for hunting. Do take anything from our words here as gospel. Know the laws, not get info from our heresay.

reply to post by Aliensun


See that's what I'm getting at. I'm not saying I own them. I don't own them and neither does the government, but they sure act like it. In order to go out and shoot an animal on my land I have to go get permission. aka. buying a permit.

The point is, NOBODY OWNS THESE ANIMALS. I don't and neither does the government. I should not have to go get permission from the government to hunt on my land. As long as I'm following conservation procedures and all that good stuff, there shouldn't be a problem.

Now, I should look into and see where the money is going, to see if it's going towards conservation programs and what not.

reply to post by Yazman

That is sort of a knee-jerk reaction, don't you think?

Humans eat to survive. The food we eat comes from other life. Period. We do not eat rocks; we eat plants, animals, and animal products. If we do not eat these, we starve and die.

Food does not come from the supermarket. That may be where you get yours, but it is just a distribution center. The food comes from farms and ranchers, where animals and plants are killed to provide it.

Some people do not want to buy their food from a supermarket, for a myriad of reasons. Concern over quality and concern over future availability and price are among those reasons. Instead, some people choose to harvest their own food, be that via growing a garden or hunting wild game.

Additionally, some of us own land which we work hard to maintain. I personally own about 90 acres, mostly virgin forest on a mountainside. I have game here. If I choose to eat the game instead of buying food pre-processed at a supermarket, who are you to tell me this is wrong? You kill as well to survive, only you have others do the 'dirty work' for you for money. The concern over species survival is invalid; in all the years I have lived here, not a single species has gone extinct.... rather, the deer population is now so heavy as to make it possible I will have to get one of thowe out-of-season permits soon.

There is also the concern that, if the government has laid claim to ownership of the animals, then by what authority do they do so? They do not own my land. The animals are on my land. If I own cattle and I do not keep them on my land, I am financially responsible for any damage they may do. So if the government owns these animals and they do not keep them on their land, is the government not then responsible for any damage they do? Can I not sue the government for damages to my garden, damage to my yard, damage to my car should I hit one? That is the law concerning livestock ownership, after all...

I think it is an excellent question, and I see no indication the OP is interested in wiping out any species... he is only interested in hunting livestock that is roaming freely across his own property.

Would you deny him that? Would you deny him the right to food?

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The concern over species survival is invalid; in all the years I have lived here, not a single species has gone extinct....

Take a quick look at the link I provided in my post above (from the Nebraska Wildlife Dept.). Turkeys were hunted into extinction in the state of Nebraska. The state wildlife dept. reintroduced the species.

Sort of valid now, isn't it?

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Aggie Man]

Originally posted by Yazman
People like you with the mentality that you should be able to kill anything you want as long as its on your land are why so many species have gone extinct. I'm sorry, but regulation of wild animal kills is necessary to ensure the survival of some species.

Because history shows that, given freedom to kill whatever they want, people will drive entire species to extinction.

No. Its poachers and idiots that make animals suffer.
Not the average hunter.
Your statement should be retracted for blatant generality.

You can't assume that all hunters are going to drive species to extinction.
Especially deer, turkey, and other North American wildlife.

Yell at the loggers in Brazil, tearing down forests for major profits....
They are responsible for more extinction than hunters in North America.

History shows that if you want to drive a species out of an area...
Kill its food source.

I.E., the mass slaughter of millions of bison/buffalo for extinction of Native Americans.
That is the only example you can vouch for and we clearly define in history.

reply to post by Aggie Man

Perhaps valid for Nebraska... still invalid for me. I accept responsibility for my actions, not the actions of others.

Don't get me wrong: there is a need for game laws, and that is why I obey them. However, to attribute extinction to those who choose to live off the land is to ignore the facts about mankind's relationship with nature.

I wonder, was the over-hunting spurred by a desire for food, or by the desire to simply kill something (a'la the infamous 'canned hunt')?

TheRedneck

Not trying to be obtuse here but didn't the OP state the property where he wanted to hunt turkey was also ranch and hunting business? Could that have any bearing on his remark? There might be "inventory" reporting or something that added more regulation - or there might be a farm subsidy in effect, who knows.

But hey if it was me, I'd take the bow and go for it, but I might not flaunt the feathers afterwards! Guess my point is you're always free to ignore the regulations and do what you want - with thousands of acres you'll have no problems (except Dad).

gj

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Aggie Man

Perhaps valid for Nebraska... still invalid for me. I accept responsibility for my actions, not the actions of others.

Don't get me wrong: there is a need for game laws, and that is why I obey them. However, to attribute extinction to those who choose to live off the land is to ignore the facts about mankind's relationship with nature.

I wonder, was the over-hunting spurred by a desire for food, or by the desire to simply kill something (a'la the infamous 'canned hunt')?

TheRedneck

Per my source above:

The wild turkey was extirpated from Nebraska by about 1915.

I doubt they had canned hunts in those days. Although it really doesn't matter in the OP's case, as revenue from hunting license were used to reestablish populations, the Turkey belong to the great citizens of Nebraska, all of the citizens; thus a special permit is required to hunt them.

OP, I understand your frustration. It's your land and you want to harvest from it...we all do! But I must say, there is no evil plot here. Rest assured, your license fee goes towards conservation. A profession that is under paid and under appreciated (my little rant).

Think of it this way: If it were not for the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, you wouldn't even have turkey on your property to ponder harvesting.

What's $12.50 in the grand scheme of things? (that is the price of a turkey permit for adult land owners in your state) EDIT: if you are 15 years or younger, your permit will cost a whopping $6

[edit on 19-4-2010 by Aggie Man]

I will end up paying $12.50 for the permit. I will also ask where the money goes.

The ranching and hunting business is ran by my dad and does not pertain to any laws regarding permits, etc.

Here I am with a couple thousand acres of land in front of me. I just want to go and hunt some wild animals which I will eat to put food in my belly and enjoy the outdoors. In order to do so, I have to go PAY the GOVERNMENT. That's where my frustration sets in.

reply to post by Yazman


"Because history shows that, given freedom to kill whatever they want, people will drive entire species to extinction."

Really? The Native Americans had the freedom to kill whatever they want and did not drive entire species to extinction. They took only what was needed and nothing more. Who was it that damn near killed all the buffalo? Not them.

Now, we should all have that freedom. I should have the freedom to hunt on my own land without having to pay a fee. If you abuse that freedom, like the Europeans did to the buffalo population, that's where the problems arise.

I'm also talking about bow hunting here. I know for a fact I could not cause these turkeys to go extinct using a bow. With close to 1,000 turkeys on our land, singlehandedly, with a bow, it would be impossible. I'm guessing you haven't done much hunting.

doped00. ill tell you what this planet needs.

this planet we call earth needs more souls of your kind with the naturalistic mentality of following the ways of the universe.

some of the replies on this thread truly made my belly bounce.

I agree with you 111%. these responses are like they are assuming you are going to go "mass murder" some damn turkeys.

If only they understood the potential harmonious synchronicity of nature and our race.

Our race has reached a point where I do not know what to do, because anything I wish I could do requires a permit and for me to kiss my governments ass and plead to be free.

I'll tell you what, and you probably feel the same way... If I was hungry and didn't want to go buy some meat jammed full with preservatives and sodium bromide or some #, I'd love to go kill a turkey to fill my belly.

BUT YOU SEE!: it's not the killing i love, in fact that's the one thing i absolutely hate the most. It's the THANKING PROCESS that I would go through afterwards, that I love. The feeling of personal spiritual meditation in order to thank the creator for the food that has evolved to be on this planet in order to keep the flow of life running like a smooth, gentle, clear river.

I would have a complete feeling of euphoria after filling myself with a nutritious meal from nature just because I would be feeling the connection between MY physical body and the planet that I live on like there was a rope from the core tied around my brain.

When a soul in a human body lives in harmony with the soul of the planet they are on at that moment, it no longer feels like they are just 1 person out of a trillion on some rock that they call Earth.

It feels like you are in infinite communion with the essence of life that we call spirit.

This is what these people don't understand.

And this is just the TIP of the ice berg....

[edit on 13-5-2010 by Mayan_Soul]

[edit on 13-5-2010 by Mayan_Soul]