• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

hmmmmmmmm

we can only hope it will fail Happy.....my guess, it will get laughed all the way out the door of the capital building. I just cant imagin how any legislator would want their name connected to such a thing.

This is the exact kind of mentality east river people have to deal with. If you look at the bill, every single one who sponsered this bill is from LB's neck of the woods.
 
I believe--all animal accidents are cover under the comp not the collision part of your Insurance. Comp may have a deductible collision almost always has some kind of deductible.

To say the landowner isn't responsible for anything, is not true, it would depend on the facts of the case. The insurance company will decide that through the police report/ investigation.

For Instance; If both side of the road are fenced, the fence is adequate and the landowner has done everything he can to keep the animal off the road. It would be the auto insurance that covers it.

If on the other hand the landowners cows are in the roadway and the fence is in poor shape, the landowner would be responsible. Most times it is the insurance companies who decide who is at fault and they will many times take it to court. One insurance company against the other.

The State owns/controls/manages the wildlife. They claim to own/control/manage them in every aspect unless you hit them with your car.

I feel like this, if the public feels the need for this recreation, the public/agency in control of this recreation should be responsible for the cost of it.

I have a couple question and would like to know what you think.
How do you feel about GF&P putting collars on these Mountain Lions giving GF&P the ability to know where these lions are at all times?

Who would be responsible if one of these collared lions came into a school yard or within your curtledge and killed a child or your child?
 
SJ I think you and some others from Harding Co. spend way to much time in the sun......but I dont hold it against you or take it personnally.

GF&P cannot pay for things like this due to some of the money is matched with Fed. funds and anytype of payments like this would be illegal use of that type of monies.

The radio collars are for research and they dont constantly monitor each lion, unless they are in their black helicopters then they monitor all of us.

Just because the lion is collared does not make it any less wild, and as all of us who live in the country with rattle snakes, black widow spiders, and Mt. Lions we all need to learn to live with them and take a little extra precautions like opening the shed door and listening for a rattle, or look around for a lion Etc. It is called education learn to live in your environment just like your relatives did.
 
SJ as stated those collars are for research and not to monitor minute to minute activity. Although the GPS collars can give you many readings, it is the man power to monitor and read the data that ALL states lack.
No court of law and I mean NONE with a zero is going to hold any state Liable for wildlife that kills anyone. That would be like saying the police,sheriff's dept knows of convicted and released child molesters live and if they molest then how about we hold the police or the sheriffs office 100% liable for these crimes? Pure nonsense in all cases described.
States have control of wildlife but not imitate control or to the ability to monitor any and all animals that may cause problems. You have radio collared,ELK, Goats,Sheep,Deer and coyotes in research in many states each or anyone causes damage you want retribution because of it? I know your anti game dept as well, you can see it in your post, why is the question I have? Who should control wildlife in each state?
This is a nonsense bill and should have been declared such before it ever hit your states floor! The sad thing is it will lend itself to LB and the creditability others see she had or will loose because of these acts!
The public sees the need to control species numbers and many of them are best controlled through hunting, let's get this straight hunting is a benefit to all in society, not just hunters!
 
Publichunter
The radio collars are for research and they dont constantly monitor each lion, unless they are in their black helicopters then they monitor all of us.
Click to expand...

I'll agree they don't monitor them constantly

BUT

I believe with these new 3200 dollar collars they could monitor these lions from there desk?

You are probably right it doesn't matter that GF&P knows where this lion is and you don't.

When you state "learn to live in your environment just like your relatives did" Do you mean without GF&P?
 
with or with out GF&P whatever it takes to educate your kids and grand kids to live. What does GF&P have to do with it other than your so ANti-GF&P I am sure you remove those letters out of your alphabits and your spaghettios.....befor eyou or your kids and grand kids eat them. Perhaps LB could introduce legislation to outlaw those letters in the soup.
 
I am not anti GF&P---I have a right to disagree with GF&P rules regs. and state laws.
Publichunter--I am sure you remove those letters out of your alphabits and your spaghettios.....befor eyou or your kids and grand kids eat them.
Click to expand...


I don't.

I do however teach my kids and grandkids to stand up for what they believe in a respectful way and if they can't sign there name to what they believe to keep it to themselves.

I will sign my name again if someone has forgetten --Susan Clarkson
 
SJ you think any biologist has the time to sit and watch mt lion's or any other species at there desk 24/7? Really think that? Then LB would be complaining the state has people on the pay roll sitting and watching mt lions all day every day.
 
Happy--No court of law and I mean NONE with a zero is going to hold any state Liable for wildlife that kills anyone. That would be like saying the police,sheriff's dept knows of convicted and released child molesters live and if they molest then how about we hold the police or the sheriffs office 100% liable for these crimes?
Click to expand...

That is a pretty bold statement but probably true.
How about the tiger in San Francisco?

We are made aware of molesters— many sheriffs do make there citizens aware of a molester in the area, many times the sheriff did his job when he put them in jail but then it is out of his hands —it was the judges who failed and some of them are taking quite a little heat over it.

If it were your child who was molested by a known child molester who was let go, who do you think should be responsible? Is it just an act of God? I guess I think that somewhere along the line someone has to take responsibility for there actions and responsibilities.

Hunting as it is is not a management tool. Hunting is a recreation. Hunting is big business. The only one who is charging you to hunt if you want to hunt is GF&P.

Your statement; "You know I am anti GF&P", would be like me saying I know you are anti landowner, I don't know that and I don't believe you are. You have a different opinion than me.

Happy -SJ you think any biologist has the time to sit and watch mt lion's or any other species at there desk 24/7?
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure they won't. I didn't have a say at whether they should be collared or if they should be monitored. Is it beneficial to society? Maybe to some probably not to others. Do the benefits out weigh any losses that could have been prevented if they had monitored it 24/7? It probably depends on what the loss is and who it affects.

The questions were asked to see what others thought. I have my thoughts. You have yours.

Betty's bill has been called nonsense a waste of time and money. Everyone has a right to their opinion. I to believe some bills are a waste of time and money-- such as the seat belt law, the helmet law, the abortion law and many more.

My question is;
Is it okay to make an argument by maliciously personally attacking a person for how they believe?

I asked a question and respect your view.
 
SJ said:
Hunting as it is is not a management tool. Hunting is a recreation. Hunting is big business. The only one who is charging you to hunt if you want to hunt is GF&P.
Click to expand...

Hunting is not a mangement tool????

So I suppose the 3042 deer that were shot in 06 in just Harding county would have just up and died or not reproduced this year??? Half of them also being does.

You can disagree with GF&P all you want but don't sit there and tell me they don't try to mange the herd. You idea of mangement is enough deer to shot once a year. Their idea is to maintain an average size hear over a 20 years.
 
Publichunter--I never said anyone attack anyone I merely asked a question.


Pjoe

You are right one way or another it is management.

It depends on what you believe there definition of management is or what I believe there definition of management is.

Management for numbers or management for licenses to be sold.


How is the average looking?
 
SJ said:
Pjoe

You are right one way or another it is management.

It depends on what you believe there definition of management is or what I believe there definition of management is.

Management for numbers or management for licenses to be sold.


How is the average looking?
Click to expand...

Everything works in swings, 10 years ago around here, there was more deer than you could shake a stick at. GF&P has increased licenses every year. This year during the season, I didn't see as many deer as last year or even the year before that. Hindsight is 20/20.

Maybe your area is harder to manage because of lack of hunting pressure and success rate. 53% I think it was. Kinda of low I think. Do you think that the "Lock Out" may have something to do with those numbers??

Please don't give me the speech that this is our land and we will do what we want and you aren't entiltled to hunt and go buy your own piece of land and private property rights crap. Just follow this train of thought. Since you guys resist GF&P and their management plan and you have no other "LEGAL" tool to mange it your selfs, how can you blame GF&P for your herd sizes and problems????

The Landowners really control the herd numbers, want less deer allow more hunting and demand does to be shot. Want more deer, limit the hunting to big bucks only. Pretty simple science.

I see your point, but at sometime you and GF&P are going to have to come to some type of terms if you ever want to Manage the wildlife again.
 
Pjoe,

I feel we have the right to know who is on our land and why.

I feel GF&P's asking permission is a pretty small thing to ask.

I don't believe that the majority of hunters or landowners have criminal tendencies.

My concerns have been for the hunter as well as the landowner.

I had choices;

1. give up my rights and allow free public hunting and have added liability.
2. give up my rights and be paid.
3. Or find another remedy.

There is a remedy, it is in full view, it takes a lot of time, energy and research to find it.

I personally have come to terms and the wildlife is being dealt with in perfectly legal manner without allowing hunting.
 
SJ
You are right you do have the right to know who is on your land.
GF&P will never, (unless your warden is doing somewthing wrong) enter your private land with out permission or unless they see hunting going on, then they have the right which is upheld and protected by the Constituition and Supreme Court decesions.
Allowing hunting unless you charge for it does not add ANY liability to any landowner, unless you accept money for the hunting.
If you accept money then I beleive you should collect sales tax for the state, have liability insurance in case your paying customers hurt them selves and pay commercial property taxes on your land, after all you are offering a "service" business.
I guess you are just smarter than myself if you have found a way to manage wildlife without hunting and doing it legal, or maybe you just think it is legal?
Hunting is a tool even though you do not beleive it and it is very effective if allowed to happen.
 
Publichunter--GF&P will never, (unless your warden is doing somewthing wrong) enter your private land with out permission or unless they see hunting going on, then they have the right which is upheld and protected by the Constituition and Supreme Court decesions.
Click to expand...


Show me where it states this in writing? Not that I believe GF&P should be able to enter without probable cause, reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed.

Have you read the case law GF&P refers to, and the AG used to make an opinion which in the end is just that an opinion.

Show me a case that has had no prior probable cause, reasonable suspicion or was under investigation of a crime before law enforcement exercised the open fields doctrine?

Hunting is not a crime on the face. Being a hunter is not a crime. Being a landowner is not a crime.

publichunter--Allowing hunting unless you charge for it does not add ANY liability to any landowner, unless you accept money for the hunting.
Click to expand...

Who carries the liability for free hunting?



Publichunter--I guess you are just smarter than myself if you have found a way to manage wildlife without hunting and doing it legal, or maybe you just think it is legal?
Click to expand...

I am not smarter than you but have done my home work on the legality of my statement.

publichunter
Hunting is a tool even though you do not beleive it and it is very effective if allowed to happen.
Click to expand...


That is your opinion and I respect it but differ.
 
For you guys arguing over who owns wildlife- heres an article with a little history of how it came about:


http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/01/27/news/state/22-decision.txt
 
Good article oldtimer enjoyed reading it. Thanks again.

Picked this article up off the internet. Not at to do with this thread but a little history, and I thought it was worth reading.

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.


'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who s ays he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
 
SJ said:
Good article oldtimer enjoyed reading it. Thanks again.

Picked this article up off the internet. Not at to do with this thread but a little history, and I thought it was worth reading.

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.


'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who s ays he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Click to expand...

Yep-- Of American Presidents thats my hero...After I got done working cows this afternoon- I sat in my office chair and caught about 40 winks while watching the news on tv....They were asking a lot of people on the street who was the greatest and the worst President-- like I figured quite a few said Lincoln was greatest- some said Kennedy--but several also said old Teddy.....
The concensus was a lot higher on who was the worst President- but I won't go into that.... :wink: :lol:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top