• 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

You carry the liability for free hunting SJ, just as many americans carry it on their property's and the walk ways in front of their houses.
The problem gets to be alot more when you have a fellow get hurt on your property that has paid 1500-3000 to go on a deer hunt or other kind of hutn and gets injured. First if your insurance company has not been notified that you are running a pay to hunt business and you try to make a claim for injury or your client attorny does, I'm betting your insurance is going to deny any claim with no knowledge of a business taking place!
That is the problem with many and the gamble they are taking, buy not paying taxes and No business liability is a much greater risk than the regular liability people keep on their property. Which would generally cover accidents on your property.
 
How come you get off the subject. The subject the gfp paying for wildlife/auto accidents. Stay on the subject please.

What about cattle i have asked. West river, there is often NO fences at all. Only cattle guards. There are warnings that tell you that. WHO is responsible if i hit a cow at one of those places? There is NO fence there!

I AM. thats what i am trying to get at. I AM responsible for a domesticated animal accident with my truck. Not the landowner. How can anyone with any bit of sense think the GFP needs to pay for wild animal accidents then. YA the public owns that animal. You cant even pay for the accidents of your own animals!

I dont care about mountainlions or child molesters or any of that crap on this the thread. Make another thread if you feel that needs to be brought up. I have posted a question and have recieved no real answer.

You tell me the rancher is not responsible if the fence is in good condition.

WHAT ABOUT NO FENCES!
 
The rancher owns that property where there is a cattle guard. Anyone who drives one of these roads is granted the priveledge to drive this road but also assumes the risk. If he doesn't want to assume the risk........don't travel the road.
 
That's the old apples and oranges scenario.

Different...................if the public owns the wildlife..................

A question....................why do the farmers anf ranchers have to feed the publics wildlife?
 
passin thru said:
The rancher owns that property where there is a cattle guard. Anyone who drives one of these roads is granted the priveledge to drive this road but also assumes the risk. If he doesn't want to assume the risk........don't travel the road.
Click to expand...


I don't think he's talking about private roads. He's talking about Hiways where the rancher in not made to fence his cattle off.
 
I even believe on these roads that the ranchers own the property on both sides of the road and in order for the gov agencies to get a road for the shortest route to somewhere...............they had to install cattle guards in order to achieve a road easement.

In other words the rancher or landowner esssentially said ..............."if you want a road on me I still have to have full acess to my property and if someone wants to cross they must assume full responsibility"
 
So, if that is that case.....how much anually do you think this will cost the gov? You know as well as me, the gfp dont have that kind of $$. How much $$ will come from the govoner? What programs will get cut because of it. Keep in mind, every pheasant, raccoon, jackrabbit, you name it.......$200.
 
passin thru said:
That's the old apples and oranges scenario.

Different...................if the public owns the wildlife..................

A question....................why do the farmers anf ranchers have to feed the publics wildlife?
Click to expand...

Not really, west river falls under the open range law. where as the rancher has the rights to graze the ditches and such. East river doesn't have the open range law, which really doesn't matter because if you hit a cow\calf you are responisble. Period west river. East river, if you can prove the framer always had cows out or had terrible fences then he could be held responisble, but it will be a court fight.

Back to my point though, PT if you are considering west river open range laws, then wouldn't the wild life fall under the same prinicple??? Meaning that it is a risk you take driving down any road, since our wildlife is open range????

AND please SHUT UP about who feeds the wild life. WE KNOW, but wasn't that part of the deal when you purchased your land. Isn't every piece of land purchased with an assumption that their will be 'some' wildlife on it???

I don't go plant a cornfield and then turn around and expect GF&P to keep every coon, deer, and rabbit out of it. Have a little common sense already would you?
 
Isn't every piece of land purchased with an assumption that their will be 'some' wildlife on it???
Click to expand...
Some yes....................but to the extent they are now, heqq no. But we both know that gfap want more wildlife so they can sell more licences

Back to my point though, PT if you are considering west river open range laws, then wouldn't the wild life fall under the same prinicple??? Meaning that it is a risk you take driving down any road, since our wildlife is open range????
Click to expand...
Like I said before...........when gf&p accept some of their responsibility in feeding them. I hope I don't have to explain it again...............but I'll bet I do.



I don't go plant a cornfield and then turn around and expect GF&P to keep every coon, deer, and rabbit out of it.
Click to expand...
Being a little dramtic there aren't you. Like I said when numbers increase like they have and I am expected to feed any increase in numbers.........yes the gf&p needs to accept some responsibility


AND please SHUT UP about who feeds the wild life
Click to expand...
HE77 no I won't shut up until the gfp accepts some resposibility

gfp has only one objective"
Sell more licenses to make more bucks so they can have more power
Sell more licenses to make more bucks so they can have more power

Sell more licenses to make more bucks so they can have more power
Sell more licenses to make more bucks so they can have more power

I help feed the wildlife so those hunters have something to shoot at.........real simple..............hope you can understand
 
Passin thru easy sell nothing but doe license for 3 years and your numbers will be back inline. If you don't purchase a doe tag all 3 years then you get no buck tag after the 3 year period.
You agree with this? This will help solve all belly aching about feeding the added deer numbers correct?
 
passin thru you didn't answer the question?

Many states give out more than ample tag numbers, the problem being many don't want to shoot doe's, so you don't curtail reproduction to any degree with open winters and little disease factors.

What I'm stating is NO buck hunting for 3 year periods and not only do the bucks mature, you get the doe harvest needed to make effect in roads in supressing deer numbers. You do this program on as needed basis and I'm betting No complaining of too many deer.
For every doe you shoot you take out 3 deer, for every buck you take out nothing at all! Would you agree to a serious deer reduction program? The problem is the pay to hunt crowd would be without a check for 3 years but the quailty of the bucks would be far greater as least for a few years at a time.
 
You need to up the doe licenses yes, but I see no need to curtail buck licenses. If you did this there would be a huge glut of bucks which would create a nightmare rut. You say the pay for hunt guys wouldn't like it........you are probably right, however the ones who would never have it your way is gf.................look at what revenue they would lose. There is no way they would stop buck tags. Why not for every doe taking (verified) then they would get a preference point..........three points puts you at the top of the list for a buck tag draw. If you curtail buck tags you are possibly losing a youngster who would be a future advocate of hunting. There is no better way to spark a youngsters interest than a rack.
 
PT. I promise you I feed more deer in a couple hundred acres of corn than you do your whole ranch and your neighbors!! Don't tell me it's to dramatic!!

Take a look at the license increases. Over the last 3 years, GF&P has increased doe tags EVERY YEAR.

Why don't they bring back shoot a doe earn a buck tags back??? I be 100% for it.

PT, ya know if you would just allow hunting, and specify doe only to those you let on, maybe you wouldn't have to feed so many deer!!! :shock: :lol:
 
Why don't they bring back shoot a doe earn a buck tags back??? I be 100% for it.
Click to expand...
I see no problem

PT, ya know if you would just allow hunting, and specify doe only to those you let on, maybe you wouldn't have to feed so many deer!!!
Click to expand...
Oh. I allow hunting.................I do control the hunting, if I didn't they would be running into each other...............and they have. At no charge I might add.

PT. I promise you I feed more deer in a couple hundred acres of corn than you do your whole ranch and your neighbors!! Don't tell me it's to dramatic!!
Click to expand...
Be careful of promises you make..................couple hundred acres ya say...............be mighty careful of your promises...............just don't bet the ranch(er farm) on it.
 
PT that is where we strongly disagree, you don't need to teach young hunters about killing racks at the top of the game, it is the pursuit and being outdoors that is the challenge and excitement, any animal is the frosting on the cake!
The first 3 deer taken by me as a youngster where all doe's and all hold a special place in my mind, as that was hunting with my family and being successful. Those deer I remember most of all with fond memories, sure I have taken a few decent to what some call really nice bucks, but they mean less to me.
You/we all need to bring the excitement to youngsters in hunting, that the pursuit and camaraderie is more important than the number or how big the rack on there heads are! If we don't change this we will always fight a herd management issue or pay a lot more for alternative control methods.
 
I think we can both agree that we need youth in hunting, which really is my main focus in the hunting issue. I do not want this tradition to die.

That being said................heaven forbid some youngster get a rack (spike or not) to hang on his wall to remeber his first success.

Oh and I almost forgot................there can be deer taken that are management bucks as well as does.
 
Just when I thought things were gonna mellow out....................you go and start calling names.

Chalk a brownie point up to hunters on that comment. You do so well in getting support for your cause with those kind of statements.
So I guess there is no need in responding to your stupid statements.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top