It's sounds like the "elitist" hunters, do not want to put up with the public hunters.
They should be happy to save money, not leasing the land.
They should be happy to save money, not leasing the land.
Dear Fudds...
- Thread starter Muleskinner
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Publicly owned land opened to the whole public who purchases a hunting license and applies to the lottery.
Hmmm. That is SOOOOO gun grabber.
Nobody is removing hunters from state lands. It's making public land available to more than an exclusive clique, as it should be. Hence, your correlation is moot as there is no cause and affect. Kind of like vaccinations and autism; your cause and affect just ain't there.
The lottery system is there to keep the place from being flooded on opening day and facilitate habitat and game management. Practiced in quite a few states and EVERYONE who applies has the same chance. Uh oh, that pisses off the clique elites who want exclusive use of public land, doesn't it?
Edit: Oooh. This reminds me of people like Robert Redford wanting mountain streams closed to fishing, except to a special few like himself who deserve it because they appreciate ecology and nature.
Last edited:
Well, it's the states land to do as they wish. I don't see this as an "attack" on anything.
Czechnologist
Concerned Citizen
- Mar 9, 2016
- 6,531
Bisleyfan44
Ultimate Member
danb
dont be a dumbass
^This!!
Publicly owned land opened to the whole public who purchases a hunting license and applies to the lottery.
Hmmm. That is SOOOOO gun grabber.
Nobody is removing hunters from state lands. It's making public land available to more than an exclusive clique, as it should be. Hence, your correlation is moot as there is no cause and affect. Kind of like vaccinations and autism; you're cause and affect just ain't there.
The lottery system is there to keep the place from being flooded on opening day and facilitate habitat and game management. Practiced in quite a few states and EVERYONE who applies has the same chance. Uh oh, that pisses off the clique elites who want exclusive use of public land, doesn't it?
Edit: Oooh. This reminds me of people like Robert Redford wanting mountain streams closed to fishing, except to a special few like himself who deserve it because they appreciate ecology and nature.
And ^^ this!!
danb
dont be a dumbass
I've read the proposal I am not sure what the problem is. Restructuring the leases and pooling tracts will increase, not decrease hunting. Lack of public access to hunting is a major problem.
Some people will lose their lease. Oh well. They can still hunt the ground.
Be thankful I am not in charge. I would not do a lottery, I'd do it based on hunting productivity. And if your an ungrateful PITA, no ground for you. I suspect in that case a few complainers would have zero chance, vs the chance they have now.
Some people will lose their lease. Oh well. They can still hunt the ground.
Be thankful I am not in charge. I would not do a lottery, I'd do it based on hunting productivity. And if your an ungrateful PITA, no ground for you. I suspect in that case a few complainers would have zero chance, vs the chance they have now.
This is a great move. I don't see how offering more public hunting access is an attack on hunting or 2A. The linked presentation even states that there is only 2% turnover on the leases, thus proving that it is the same people holding on to the leases year after year. Public land should have public access. Hunting pressure can still be managed via lottery as suggested.
Park ranger
Ultimate Member
- Dec 6, 2015
- 2,327
2A has nothing to do with hunting, those that think it does is closer to a "Fudd".
DutchV
Ultimate Member
- Jul 8, 2012
- 4,722
If you improved a property, knowing that the lease might not be renewed, that's your mistake.
terp91
Active Member
As someone currently on one of the existing leases, I am not a fan of the proposed changes. I don't have an issue with converting some of the larger tracts to public land, but would want to see the clubs that lose leases be given first shot at picking up a new one the following year. People on the outside who complain there's no hunting land and want to take away others' places to hunt likely don't understand the work that goes in to maintaining these leased properties. Plus if you're willing to drive and put in the time there is still a lot of public land available. I probably split my time 50-50 between the lease and public land last year.
Negatives I see coming from this include:
1. A sharp decrease in the quality of both herd and property management. How many will put in the time and money on a property they may not have in a couple years? Why try to manage a herd for the benefit of the next guys?
2. Small clubs will lose out on leases to large clubs (the more people you have, the more lottery entries you have on a property your club wants). With not knowing the quality of a lease going into it, this will become a numbers game for large clubs to collect leases until the 'better' ones are all known and the large clubs compete for them every time they become available.
3. The lease cost is likely to increase quickly. Since the leases are not going to be as well cared for, the cost for the state to maintain/clean them up will increase and be passed on to the leases.
Example: The property I hunt now is being partially logged this year. Because we have a vested interest in the property, all of the roads on it have been well maintained. If they had not been maintained the past few years the state would be eating a significant cost to improve them in order to get the trucks in to log the property. When we first got it, the previous club had violated a number of rules regarding placing structures on the property, setting up permanent tree stands, cutting down trees, damaging trees, littering, it wasn't properly posted, etc. All the clean up work was done by us, because we had a vested interest in it. Take away the ability to renew leases and I'd bet most people will not put in the time, energy, and money needed to keep these leases nice.
Negatives I see coming from this include:
1. A sharp decrease in the quality of both herd and property management. How many will put in the time and money on a property they may not have in a couple years? Why try to manage a herd for the benefit of the next guys?
2. Small clubs will lose out on leases to large clubs (the more people you have, the more lottery entries you have on a property your club wants). With not knowing the quality of a lease going into it, this will become a numbers game for large clubs to collect leases until the 'better' ones are all known and the large clubs compete for them every time they become available.
3. The lease cost is likely to increase quickly. Since the leases are not going to be as well cared for, the cost for the state to maintain/clean them up will increase and be passed on to the leases.
Example: The property I hunt now is being partially logged this year. Because we have a vested interest in the property, all of the roads on it have been well maintained. If they had not been maintained the past few years the state would be eating a significant cost to improve them in order to get the trucks in to log the property. When we first got it, the previous club had violated a number of rules regarding placing structures on the property, setting up permanent tree stands, cutting down trees, damaging trees, littering, it wasn't properly posted, etc. All the clean up work was done by us, because we had a vested interest in it. Take away the ability to renew leases and I'd bet most people will not put in the time, energy, and money needed to keep these leases nice.
GrimReaper
Ultimate Member
Sounds like the OP is just butthurt because hes losing his hunting property. Cant blame him really but this is not an attack on the 2a or some evil plan by frosh that hes making it out to be. This is probably the first time frosh has actually done something good.
Public property is public and a few people should not be given exclusive rights to it indefinitely.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Public property is public and a few people should not be given exclusive rights to it indefinitely.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
- Nov 11, 2009
- 30,900
This is Brian Frosh we're talking about. He has never, and will never, do anything good for firearms owners in Maryland.
Eventually his true motivation will become apparent. Meanwhile, he's driving wedges into our community, just to see what he can break.
I doubt he would even know what this is all about. The legislature passed a law in 2002 to make the land available to the public and some staff attorney has finally gotten around to push the DNR to change 'the way things have always been done'.
My take on this is that it is a trap of some sort. Brian Frosh could care less about hunters and the public. He is only interested in the demorats and illegals that he can get to vote for him and the communist party that the they are becoming. There is no way that Frosh is doing this for the "good of the people". He actively works to disarm us and there is a pitfall in this plan somewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if it was suggested by PETA for some reason.
Biggfoot44
Ultimate Member
- Aug 2, 2009
- 33,131
My views on the first point have been stridently expressed many times , and not motivated to repeat this morning .
On the second point , that's not anti hunter , that's actually pro hunting . Public hunting lands should be available to the public, not restricted to small groups of well off and/ or well connected people . I do get it , that they indeed like having tracts of land where they can control access, and manage the habitat intensively . That's a fine goal . They are perfectly free to lease hunting rights of whichever privately owned tracts they wish, on mutually agreeable terms .
On the second point , that's not anti hunter , that's actually pro hunting . Public hunting lands should be available to the public, not restricted to small groups of well off and/ or well connected people . I do get it , that they indeed like having tracts of land where they can control access, and manage the habitat intensively . That's a fine goal . They are perfectly free to lease hunting rights of whichever privately owned tracts they wish, on mutually agreeable terms .
Public owned hunting land hunted by the actual public instead of some rich guys in a rich guy club “leasing it” from the public to keep the public out seems ok to me and in no way anti gun
And calling the public land hunters Fudds because they ain’t rich enough to join the rich guy club seems to be kinda anti gun on its face
And calling the public land hunters Fudds because they ain’t rich enough to join the rich guy club seems to be kinda anti gun on its face
This. Inquiring minds want to know.... you can PM the information and location.....
8900 acres going to public hunting? Yeah, I'm all for that.
