# Should Landowners Have Special Privileges?



## redlevel (Aug 27, 2008)

Should landowners have special hunting and fishing privileges on their own land?

After all, we are the ones who foot the bill for feeding wildlife all year long.  Don't you think it would be fair for landowners to have special bag limits, even seasons, for certain game animals on their own land?

I'm not talking about leasing to other hunters, but for the owner and his/her family.  I couldn't see anything wrong with letting a property owner get a week head-start on deer season.  After all, after the season officially starts, many of us are afraid to stick our heads out the door.  Then, maybe a long weekend of owner-only hunts during a time that usually coincides with the rut in a given county.  A Friday through Monday hunt during the rut just for landowners, with no other hunters in the woods, would be just fine.

Also, if I plant a corn patch, or a millet field or whatever, what would be wrong with letting me and one or two of my family shoot say 20 doves daily during opening weekend?  After all, I am providing a free service to every other dove hunter in the state by feeding those birds and keeping them healthy.  Even if I don't plant the grain, I think it would be a fine idea to let landowners scatter a little wheat just for family members to shoot over.

That brings up the question of baiting deer.  I think allowing landowners to bait legally would be a fine way for DNR to study the effects of baiting on a larger scale, while giving landowners a little payment-in-venison for all the damage the state's deer do to our farms all year long.

Small game.  If I own a wood lot that is overrun with squirrels, whose business should it be if I want to thin them down a little?  Twelve per day sounds like a lot, but if you only get to hunt two or three days a year, you (the landowner) might like to take maybe twenty per day to better manage the "resource."  (I hear city hunters referring to deer and turkeys as "the resource" a lot.  Squirrels can be "the resource" too, can't they?)  Same with rabbits.  I bet there are 200 rabbits on one little 60 acre place my family owns.  Everybody knows they run in cycles, and whether I shoot them, or let nature take its course, the numbers will be down in a year or two.  

I am not that familiar with fishing regulations.  Is there a limit on what a landowner can take from his own pond, located on his own land, and managed by him?   If there is, it is a travesty.  

Anyhow, I think maybe my idea is one whose time has come.

What do you think?   Other landowners, can you think of some special privileges we should have that I might have overlooked?  I realize I haven't even touched on turkey, ducks, and some other species.  Chime right in with your thoughts.


----------



## Paddle (Aug 27, 2008)

I like your signature, have you read it?


----------



## Randy (Aug 27, 2008)

You are not a land owner.  You are renting the land from the gooberment.  And no, land owners should have to follow the same regulations as everybody else.  These regulations are designed for the most part with the whole resource in mind, not just the resource on your land or my land.  You do already get a little benefit with the honorary liscense.


----------



## Randy (Aug 27, 2008)

Paddle said:


> I like your signature, have you read it?




I had not noticed that.  Kind of makes the post seem ironic.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Aug 27, 2008)

redlevel said:


> Should landowners have special hunting and fishing privileges on their own land?



Nope.

It's the owner's land but it is not the owner's wildlife.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Aug 27, 2008)

"They are to govern by promulgated established laws, not to be varied in particular cases, but to have one rule for rich and poor, for the favorite at court, and the countryman at plough." Locke

That is quite a sig line considering the question!


----------



## Philbow (Aug 27, 2008)

No.


----------



## hevishot (Aug 27, 2008)

bring on the "land owners only rut hunt".....


----------



## redlevel (Aug 27, 2008)

Paddle said:


> I like your signature, have you read it?



Touche.  That was a good catch.  I guess I will change my sig line to another, actually my favorite, quote by Locke.


----------



## shadow2 (Aug 27, 2008)

they already get free tags other than that NO


----------



## redlevel (Aug 27, 2008)

hevishot said:


> bring on the "land owners only rut hunt".....



I figured you would like the idea.


----------



## MudDucker (Aug 27, 2008)

The land and everything on it is mine, including wildlife.  I am for the most part free to do with it as I wish.  I am not required to have a hunting license on my own property, because the State can not grant or take my right to hunt game on my own property without due compensation.  So yes, we do have and should have special hunting rights on our property.


----------



## redlevel (Aug 27, 2008)

I just thought of another special privilege landowners should have:   a twelve month, no bag limit season on does shot on their own land.


----------



## shadow2 (Aug 27, 2008)

MudDucker said:


> The land and everything on it is mine, including wildlife.  I am for the most part free to do with it as I wish.  I am not required to have a hunting license on my own property, because the State can not grant or take my right to hunt game on my own property without due compensation.  So yes, we do have and should have special hunting rights on our property.



Agreed if you can keep all the wild life on your property such as a high fence and with somesort of a cover to keep the birds from flying out.


----------



## NOYDB (Aug 27, 2008)

Not a thing in the world stopping landowners from setting the conditions for hunting on their property with in the state regulations.

Want the rut all to your self, put it in the lease. Lease bow season only. Make the lease every other third Saturday during season whatever suits ya. You may not get any takers, but then hey, you have it all to your self. It's your land do what you want within the law.

Of course don't expect other hunters to subsidize your taxes and maintenance costs so that you can screw them over with goofy restrictions.


----------



## HighCotton (Aug 27, 2008)

It's the owners land............... the landowner should be able to do whatever he/she darn well pleases within regulations.  No special regulation, just the same regs for all hunters.

It would be a courtesy and should be an understanding with hunters leasing the land, however, that the landowner and family may wish to also hunt.  Maybe even adjust the lease rate down a bit to compensate.

HC


----------



## redlevel (Aug 27, 2008)

NOYDB said:


> Want the rut all to your self, put it in the lease. Lease bow season only. Make the lease every other third Saturday during season whatever suits ya. You may not get any takers, but then hey, you have it all to your self. It's your land do what you want within the law.
> 
> Of course don't expect other hunters to subsidize your taxes and maintenance costs so that you can screw them over with goofy restrictions.



You misunderstood.

I'm not talking about leasing my land out.  I am talking about a special early season, and rut season, _just for landowners._  No one else can hunt _anywhere_ during that time.  After all, who is to keep some blind hunter from crossing my fence?  I am afraid to get in the woods during the first week or so because of so many idiots out there. I'm talking _special privileges_ here.

We raise and feed the deer all year, so we should have a special  time just for us to hunt them.


----------



## Randy (Aug 27, 2008)

Both of my leases are my family land and I pay the same lease rate as all the other members and follow the same rules.


----------



## dawg2 (Aug 27, 2008)

shadow2 said:


> they already get free tags other than that NO



It ain't "free."  Nothing is free


----------



## HighCotton (Aug 27, 2008)

redlevel said:


> You misunderstood.
> 
> I'm not talking about leasing my land out.  I am talking about a special early season, and rut season, _just for landowners._  No one else can hunt _anywhere_ during that time.  After all, who is to keep some blind hunter from crossing my fence?  I am afraid to get in the woods during the first week or so because of so many idiots out there. I'm talking _special privileges_ here.
> 
> We raise and feed the deer all year, so we should have a special  time just for us to hunt them.



This is ridiculous.  You are at no greater risk than any other hunter in the woods.

The land is yours.  Go hunt it.  But there should be no special season just for landowners.


----------



## Benjie Boswell (Aug 27, 2008)

since all the wild animals belong to the State, I sure wish they would come get all their coyotes off my land


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Aug 27, 2008)

Development of the State Ownership Doctrine in the United States

1.Martin v. Waddell (1842) - Supreme Court case ruled that fish and wildlife were held in public trust by the State for the benefit of the residents of that state.

2.Greer v. Connecticut (1896) - Supreme Court case that ruled that states had the right to regulate take, use, and commerce in wildlife.

3.Hughes v. Oklahoma (1979) - Supreme Count over turned Greer v. Connecticut (1896).  Within their borders states may conserve and manage wildlife, but the use of the animals cannot be limited to the citizens of one state to the exclusion of citizens of another.


----------



## C.Killmaster (Aug 27, 2008)

redlevel said:


> We raise and feed the deer all year, so we should have a special  time just for us to hunt them.



So I guess there's no deer browse on leased land?  

Ponder this: 
I'm assuming that, since your concerned so much about hunting on adjacent properties, you don't own a large tract of land (>1500 acres).  If this is the case, then I'm also assuming that the enormous hunting pressure around you (source) pushes deer to your smaller property due to less pressure that you provide (sink).  So if you had your special season, logic says that you are the source and the adjacent properties are the sink.


----------



## gadeerwoman (Aug 27, 2008)

We already do. If you hunt on your own land you don't have to buy a hunting license and big game license. Other than that, nope, I see no reason for us to have any more special privilege when it comes to wildlife.


----------



## whitworth (Aug 27, 2008)

*If Obama gets into office*

you "rich landlords" might have to do some poaching to get a square meal.


----------



## redlevel (Aug 27, 2008)

whitworth said:


> you "rich landlords" might have to do some poaching to get a square meal.



That, and plant a turnip patch, maybe.


----------



## HighCotton (Aug 27, 2008)

Landowners can hunt the land for themselves or lease it out.  When the landowner accepts a hunting lease payment, however, he/she has sold for the period of the lease the right to hunt.  Period.


----------



## reylamb (Aug 27, 2008)

Jeff Young said:


> Development of the State Ownership Doctrine in the United States
> 
> 1.Martin v. Waddell (1842) - Supreme Court case ruled that fish and wildlife were held in public trust by the State for the benefit of the residents of that state.
> 
> ...



So if and when I hit a deer with my vehicle the state will pay the any damages incurred by me and my vehicles????  Rhetorical question I know, no answer needed.......


----------



## MudDucker (Aug 27, 2008)

shadow2 said:


> Agreed if you can keep all the wild life on your property such as a high fence and with somesort of a cover to keep the birds from flying out.



Not necessary.


----------



## MudDucker (Aug 27, 2008)

Jeff Young said:


> Development of the State Ownership Doctrine in the United States
> 
> 1.Martin v. Waddell (1842) - Supreme Court case ruled that fish and wildlife were held in public trust by the State for the benefit of the residents of that state.
> 
> ...



All of these deal with migratory animals.  Feds have no interest in any wildlife that is not migratory.  If it don't cross state lines, it is none of their business.


----------



## JBowers (Aug 27, 2008)

http://www.rmef.org/Hunting/HuntersConservation/Model.htm


----------



## Chippewa Partners (Aug 27, 2008)

Why is it that non-resident land owners in many other states can not hunt their own land without a valid state license?   I have to pay non-resident license costs when I hunt my farm in TN and can't even get a buck tag every year for property in MT.

It isn't fair but then I was taught that the first day of law school.


----------



## robertyb (Aug 27, 2008)

redlevel said:


> Should landowners have special hunting and fishing privileges on their own land?
> 
> I am not that familiar with fishing regulations.  Is there a limit on what a landowner can take from his own pond, located on his own land, and managed by him?   If there is, it is a travesty.  QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## deerman1 (Aug 27, 2008)

MudDucker said:


> All of these deal with migratory animals.  Feds have no interest in any wildlife that is not migratory.  If it don't cross state lines, it is none of their business.



§ 27-1-3.  Legislative declarations; ownership and custody of wildlife; preservation of hunting and fishing opportunities; promotion and right to hunt, trap, or fish; local regulation; general offenses 
(b) The ownership of, jurisdiction over, and control of all wildlife, as defined in this title, are declared to be in the State of Georgia, in its sovereign capacity, to be controlled, regulated, and disposed of in accordance with this title. Wildlife is held in trust by the state for the benefit of its citizens and shall not be reduced to private ownership except as specifically provided for in this title. All wildlife of the State of Georgia is declared to be within the custody of the department for purposes of management and regulation in accordance with this title. However, the State of Georgia, the department, and the board shall be immune from suit and shall not be liable for any damage to life, person, or property caused directly or indirectly by any wildlife.

Do you own the airplanes that fly over your property too?


----------



## OLEKAZ (Aug 27, 2008)

Chippewa Partners said:


> Why is it that non-resident land owners in many other states can not hunt their own land without a valid state license?   I have to pay non-resident license costs when I hunt my farm in TN and can't even get a buck tag every year for property in MT.


i know that feeling all to well..515 bucks for most of the lics.deer,turkey,and dove hunting


----------



## win280 (Aug 28, 2008)

MudDucker said:


> The land and everything on it is mine, including wildlife.
> 
> So if your deer jumps out into my vehicle can i sue you for damages or does it become state property when it is on the state right of way an how do we identify the deer as belonging to you or your neighbor.


----------



## gadeerwoman (Aug 28, 2008)

Chippawa, you answered your own question: because the other states are not the  'primary state of residence'.


----------



## MudDucker (Aug 28, 2008)

deerman1 said:


> § 27-1-3.  Legislative declarations; ownership and custody of wildlife; preservation of hunting and fishing opportunities; promotion and right to hunt, trap, or fish; local regulation; general offenses
> (b) The ownership of, jurisdiction over, and control of all wildlife, as defined in this title, are declared to be in the State of Georgia, in its sovereign capacity, to be controlled, regulated, and disposed of in accordance with this title. Wildlife is held in trust by the state for the benefit of its citizens and shall not be reduced to private ownership except as specifically provided for in this title. All wildlife of the State of Georgia is declared to be within the custody of the department for purposes of management and regulation in accordance with this title. However, the State of Georgia, the department, and the board shall be immune from suit and shall not be liable for any damage to life, person, or property caused directly or indirectly by any wildlife.
> 
> Do you own the airplanes that fly over your property too?



I wondered when this would roll out.  Many legal scholars believe this provision is unconstitutional.  To be effective, ownership reservation would have to be expressed in the Georgia Constitution.  Upon passage as an amendment to the Georgia Constitution, if passed, there would be hundreds of suits under the U.S. Constitution claiming that the landowners were due compensation from the state for a taking of their property rights.


----------



## MudDucker (Aug 28, 2008)

win280 said:


> MudDucker said:
> 
> 
> > The land and everything on it is mine, including wildlife.
> ...


----------



## MudDucker (Aug 28, 2008)

gadeerwoman said:


> Chippawa, you answered your own question: because the other states are not the  'primary state of residence'.



Not to be overly argumentive, but state of residency doesn't necessarily answer his question.  His question has to do with rights of land owners regardless of residency.  Property rights are the creature of State law and you have to look to each State's laws to determine what your rights are as a property owner.

About the only "property" right that I know that depends upon residency is the homestead exemption.


----------



## hoyt84 (Aug 28, 2008)

No.  But I do not think it is right to pay thousands of dollars a year (in taxes) on property that you out right own, when the govt does absolutly nothing with that money or any other money to improve the land! Its almost like the govt still owns it and we are renting it from them!


----------



## MudDucker (Aug 28, 2008)

hoyt84 said:


> No.  But I do not think it is right to pay thousands of dollars a year (in taxes) on property that you out right own, when the govt does absolutly nothing with that money or any other money to improve the land! Its almost like the govt still owns it and we are renting it from them!



You will get no argument from me, however, property tax was the first type of tax approved in the U.S. Constitution.  Of course, initially, only tax paying property owners were allowed to vote.


----------



## pnome (Aug 28, 2008)

It's their land, they should make whatever rules they want.  Inside legal boundaries of course.


----------



## 4x4 (Aug 28, 2008)

MudDucker said:


> The land and everything on it is mine, including wildlife.  I am for the most part free to do with it as I wish.  I am not required to have a hunting license on my own property, because the State can not grant or take my right to hunt game on my own property without due compensation.  So yes, we do have and should have special hunting rights on our property.



No, it shouldnt matter if you own the land or not, you should still follow the regulations just like everyone else. It may be your land, but every year you have to pay taxes on it. The wildlife is nobodys to claim, that deer you seen in your back yard could wander to my property, and im not claiming its MY deer, wildlife is there for everyone to enjoy, dont be stingy. 
Also it has to do with the number of game taken in a year, thats why we have a certian # we can harvest to ensure the survival of the game we are hunting. Its the landowners responsibility to follow all game laws just as everyone else does. Just b/c you own land dont give you the right to shoot anything you please, whenever you please.


----------



## moonrise (Aug 28, 2008)

You start down a slippery slope anytime you give special priviliges to anyone or any one group.  Usually when one gets special priviliges or rights, someone else loses part of theirs. On the other hand ,landowners always carry a bigger burden.


----------



## SWbowhunter (Aug 29, 2008)

MudDucker said:


> win280 said:
> 
> 
> > No, when it leaves my property it is no longer mine.  It then belongs to the State.
> ...


----------



## Jack Ryan (Aug 29, 2008)

redlevel said:


> Should landowners have special hunting and fishing privileges on their own land?



You already do. I don't believe landowners have to buy a license to hunt their own land in any state.

Beyond that, NO.


----------



## redlevel (Aug 29, 2008)

SWbowhunter said:


> We are the state collectively



Hmmmm---------sounds just like Communism, doesn't it?


----------



## jimbo4116 (Aug 31, 2008)

Would your question be answered in the context of fish contained within a pond,  with no inlet or outlet, on private property and the application of regulations to such bodies of water.

If you could prove that the wildlife have no ability to enter or leave your property could you not have the arguement you seek.

But lets put this scenario in play.  

A stray  pregnant bovine jumps your fence to the south and takes up residence in your pasture.  Has no markings of ownership. Bears its offspring.  You feed the offspring until it is 3/4s grown.  The calf jumps the fence to the north onto your neighbors property with no markings of ownership.  

The neighbor shoots and butchers the calf.  To whom does the beef belong.


----------



## whitworth (Sep 1, 2008)

Every Georgia landowner already has the special privilege to pay more taxes to the county, so they can run their schools, court house, law enforcement and other county services.

It's called never having paid for the back forty in full.


----------



## Buck Trax (Sep 2, 2008)

No they shouldn't. If every private landowner was a certified wildlife biologist, and they practiced sound management, the state wouldn't have to set harvest regulations. Besides, less than 2% of the land in Georgia is owned by the state. What do you think would happen if every private land owner in GA was allowed to manage the wildlife populations on his or her property as they saw fit?


----------



## beginnersluck (Sep 2, 2008)

Jack Ryan said:


> You already do. I don't believe landowners have to buy a license to hunt their own land in any state.
> 
> Beyond that, NO.



Ditto.  I own land, hunt it and still buy licenses.


----------



## Foxfire (Sep 2, 2008)

Taylor Country, Ga. -- 2007.
Direct Payments, 137 recipients, received $355000.00, Special Privileges.

Foxfire/Y2KZ71


----------



## JBowers (Sep 2, 2008)

Special privileges largely are responsible for mucking up the tax code.


----------



## irishleprechaun (Sep 2, 2008)

Land owners should own and use at their discretion any natural resources on it...

Now take the wildlife argument and apply it to the water table...so per the recent legislation in the GA assembly.  The state of GA owns the water resource whether it is visible lakes/rivers or underground aquifers.  So I have a well that supply's my water, can the state now come in and put a water meter on my well pump and charge me for that water?  

If you follow all the arguments here then the answer would be yes....

I SAY NO!!!!  Enough government, we need less government not more.

If you own a larger tract of land and bow hunt in the middle of it all year round who is gonna know anyway.  It's our land (land owners) so if you don't like it then go out over-achieve and get your own land.  Otherwise be quiet and sit on your suburbian couches and complain that the haves are advantaged over the have-nots.....whiners


----------



## redlevel (Sep 2, 2008)

Buck Trax said:


> No they shouldn't. If every private landowner was a certified wildlife biologist, and they practiced sound management, the state wouldn't have to set harvest regulations. Besides, less than 2% of the land in Georgia is owned by the state. What do you think would happen if every private land owner in GA was allowed to manage the wildlife populations on his or her property as they saw fit?



There wouldn't be nearly as much crop damage as there is now.  I could plant a garden without having to build  a deer proof fence.  Our insurance rates would go down, not nearly as many people would die in deer/automobile accidents, and I would not have to worry nearly as much about trespassing deer hunters coming on my land while I am trying to bird hunt.

Among other things.


----------



## Buck Trax (Sep 4, 2008)

So, everything you're speaking to involves deer rather than wildlife in general (except the last statement). Correct me if I'm wrong, but the limit is 12 per year. Do you frequently kill that many deer per year? You may be in the less than 1% of GA hunters that do, but more than likely you self regulate like everyone else. How many more deer do you want to shoot? If everyone followed the current laws, and killed their limit, and only their limit, you're correct in that there'd be less wildlife related damage. But then again, a couple years down the road everyone (probably you too) would be complaining to WRD that deer hunting isn't what it used to be. As far as trespassers, I don't see how the changes you've mentioned would mitigate that problem. Even if you have your own "private hunt periods", they would still be on your land if they're already doing it now, they just wouldn't be there when you're hunting. I hunt private land exclusively, yet I can't believe you would want to look down your nose at those who don't. Sure there are some bad apples just as there are anywhere, but why would you want to discourage more hunters through increasing regulations on them? Our country is already hurting bad enough for new hunters, why don't we just stomp on their dreams by telling them they're not as good as those of us lucky enough to own land? I understand, to an extent, where you're coming from, but your suggestions and the reasoning behind them are ridiculous.


----------



## easbell (Sep 4, 2008)

Our deer season runs Sept-Jan. and you should be able to hunt your property a some point. You don't need any "special" consideration.

From a fellow landowner


----------



## Xzuatl (Sep 4, 2008)

MudDucker said:


> The land and everything on it is mine, including wildlife.  I am for the most part free to do with it as I wish.  I am not required to have a hunting license on my own property, because the State can not grant or take my right to hunt game on my own property without due compensation.  So yes, we do have and should have special hunting rights on our property.



+1


----------



## JohnK3 (Sep 4, 2008)

Why should lawnmowers have special privileges?  All they're supposed to do is cut the grass.  We already give them gasoline, oil and sparkplugs.  It's the folk behind the lawnmower that really do most of the work, especially if it's not self-propelled.  I say give the person running the lawnmower the special privileges!  They can actually use them!

Oh.  "Landowner" not "lawnmower."



Nevermind.


----------



## iowa-boy (Sep 6, 2008)

MudDucker said:


> The land and everything on it is mine, including wildlife.  I am for the most part free to do with it as I wish.  I am not required to have a hunting license on my own property, because the State can not grant or take my right to hunt game on my own property without due compensation.  So yes, we do have and should have special hunting rights on our property.


 

as it is put it is not your right, it is your privilege. and i am sure this will start the all incensive bru haha. as for special rights to extended seasons and limits,No. we all pay the same for the privilege to hunt in this state nomatter if its your property or not.  if you think its yours than fence your property in. you wont be hunting for long.


----------

