Regardless of anyone’s opinion, this is a money grab to further fund the KDFWR. The state of Kentucky has never required a resident landowner to purchase a license to hunt/fish their own land. (At least as long as I can remember). This is simply more government overreach.
So Joe Bob buys 2.96 acres in rural western Kentucky. He builds a house on the hill and hires Jonny the excavator to build him a 1 acre pond in the valley below is house. Joe Bob then hires Southeastern Pond Management to test his water quality, recommend a maintenance plan and stock the pond at his own expense because the KDFWR no longer stocks private impoundments (fact). Then the state expects Joe Bob, his wife and every dependent over 12 to purchase a license to fish their own private impoundment? Ridiculous!
Please keep in mind this “law” was put in place by the same geniuses that said you could hunt elk in Kentucky with a 300 Blackout but not a 264 Winchester Magnum because of the .277 minimum bullet requirement. 277 Wolverine is fine, but no 6.5 PRC!
I enjoy handguns and I really like shotguns,...but I love rifles!
Around here it just depends on what the circumstances are on who owns the deer. If you shoot one out of season it’s their deer and if you hit one with a vehicle it’s your deer. On the small parcel people not getting no cost land owner permits, who does more for the wildlife? The guy that owns 3 or 5 or 10 acres and puts foot plots and ponds in and manages just for wildlife or the guy that has 40 or 80 acres and has so many cattle on it that you can see a lizard go across his land because he has it over pastured ?
The legal control of wildlife, as recognized under the state ownership doctrine, is based on the fundamental premise that state government has the power to control the taking (by capturing or killing) of all wild animals found within their jurisdiction. This power is exercised under the broad concepts of police power, but is mixed with public trust concepts. ( See Barrett v. State , 220 N.Y. 423, 116 N.W. 99 (1917). Note that the doctrine is not based upon the claim that the government owns the wildlife as an individual might own a dog or goat (see infra for more discussion on the nature of the ownership asserted by states). The state ownership doctrine is still sufficiently viable today to give primary responsibility and control of wildlife to state governments. Substantial inroads upon this power have been made, however, and the states can no longer claim exclusive control of wildlife. ( See George Coggins, Wildlife and the Constitution: The Walls Come Tumbling Down , 55 Wash. L. Rev. 295 (1980). Some of the inroads and limitations include private rights under the federal constitution, Indian rights under various treaties and the power of the federal government in associated areas.
Thanks for sharing that. I'm not surprised.
Yes you are ya dumb s chit. You've been saying the exact opposite for 3 pages....
For those that think the state owns the animals, try suing the state the next time a deer or bear runs out in the road in front of you and totals your new vehicle and see how that works out for you.
The state doesn't own the animals and I don't believe anyone said it did. The animals are owned by the citizens of each state.
Besides that, your example is a bad one.
Here in Iowa game viaolators pay fines and restitution for the for the animal, you hit one with your car its a non resident ani
Regardless of anyone’s opinion, this is a money grab to further fund the KDFWR. The state of Kentucky has never required a resident landowner to purchase a license to hunt/fish their own land. (At least as long as I can remember). This is simply more government overreach.
So Joe Bob buys 2.96 acres in rural western Kentucky. He builds a house on the hill and hires Jonny the excavator to build him a 1 acre pond in the valley below is house. Joe Bob then hires Southeastern Pond Management to test his water quality, recommend a maintenance plan and stock the pond at his own expense because the KDFWR no longer stocks private impoundments (fact). Then the state expects Joe Bob, his wife and every dependent over 12 to purchase a license to fish their own private impoundment? Ridiculous!
Please keep in mind this “law” was put in place by the same geniuses that said you could hunt elk in Kentucky with a 300 Blackout but not a 264 Winchester Magnum because of the .277 minimum bullet requirement. 277 Wolverine is fine, but no 6.5 PRC!
That 8 foot fence he has around his 3 acres to keep HIS deer in isnt' cheap. The license would be cheap compared.
But since he has a big high fence and the deer are his alone, then he wouldn't need a license. Like owning cattle.
Free range public deer OTOH...
Yes its a tax. And if we don't gain control of this country quickly, like next election, none of this will matter. You will have to stand in line for many things as a serf.
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
Private pond thing is BS, call it aqua farming and get a tax break for ag property. They need to band together and make a difference.
Still chuckling at the 3 acres of prime hunting land.
Around here if you own a quarter section or more you qualify for a reduced price doe tag. Otherwise it's the same price for everyone, you're guaranteed a tag for your own property with the 160 acres minimum though, that's the preference for landowners
Beware of any old man in a profession where one usually dies young.
Local Mennonite has a butcher shop. A few years ago he was busted on a variety of charges by a local game warden. Got him for selling deer meat, which he was getting from donated deer. He had a couple of large ponds on his property, and was raising bass and crappie...........and selling them, for which he was also fined, because they are considered game fish in Kentucky, and cannot be sold. As part of the deal he was given, he had to give up the butcher shop for several years. He's back in business now, but recently one of his teenage sons was caught banging a sister, along with some of the farm animals. So, he's also back in trouble, as the state removed all the children from the home, and is investigating him and his wife for covering the stuff up.
I think that no matter what laws are passed, there are always going to be those people who do not believe that the law applies to them. Every state probably has some archaic law on the books that has never made any sense, Kentucky included. While I haven't always agreed with KDFWR, especially on the way the elk drawing is handled, and the way they love to sell deer and turkey tags, even though the system needs tweaking, they have usually done a halfway decent job.
I happen to believe that private ponds should be off limits to KDFWR. It's a little different from private land and game animals, as those animals travel between one property to another, while the fish in that pond were put there by the owner at their expense.
Regardless of anyone’s opinion, this is a money grab to further fund the KDFWR. The state of Kentucky has never required a resident landowner to purchase a license to hunt/fish their own land. (At least as long as I can remember). This is simply more government overreach.
So Joe Bob buys 2.96 acres in rural western Kentucky. He builds a house on the hill and hires Jonny the excavator to build him a 1 acre pond in the valley below is house. Joe Bob then hires Southeastern Pond Management to test his water quality, recommend a maintenance plan and stock the pond at his own expense because the KDFWR no longer stocks private impoundments (fact). Then the state expects Joe Bob, his wife and every dependent over 12 to purchase a license to fish their own private impoundment? Ridiculous!
Please keep in mind this “law” was put in place by the same geniuses that said you could hunt elk in Kentucky with a 300 Blackout but not a 264 Winchester Magnum because of the .277 minimum bullet requirement. 277 Wolverine is fine, but no 6.5 PRC!
The valley below his house?
2.96 acres?
Heck yeah! I just used that as an example because lots of small tracts here with ponds. It’s pretty common in my part of Kentucky.
It’s just another form of taxation and government overreach. That’s the real issue. It has nothing to do with a guy shooting a deer crossing his property.
I enjoy handguns and I really like shotguns,...but I love rifles!
@joken2, that only applies to hunting out of season. Not to requiring a license/tag to hunt your own property during season.
My point is, regardless whether in or out of legal hunting season, if only the state Fish & Game can determine and set the regulations as to when, where, how many, what sex, etc., how can the animals be a landowner's property?
Also, I'm pretty sure depredation tags are valid both in and out of hunting seasons.
I'm going to say this as nicely and politely as I possibly can. I mean no harm to anyone in what I am about to say to you, or anyone else, so please don't take offense if anything I write strikes a nerve with you. It's not directed in a bad way to you or anyone else.
With that said, who gave the state the authority to regulate anything that is on your property? The state? Or, the landowner?
Of course, we all know it's the state who granted themselves authority. And we all know why. More BS laws like this. more power to them. More money to them. Less rights and less say by the landowner.
Truth is, most landowners are far better conservationists than the state employees. Planting nut trees that the wildlife eats. Making sure they have a good habitat and doing everything they can to make sure they have what they need there for their survival. For that matter, where I live, the "tag limits" often do not match up to reality. For instance, there are years where I see more bucks than you do doe. Yet, the hunting regulations allow you to kill more doe than bucks. In keeping up with what's on my piece of land with trail cameras placed year round, the states hunting limits are often backwards of conservation from what I am seeing on my land.
No different than the bear biologist, who, quite frankly I am not a big fan of, uses "scientific" data to pull out whatever number they want to use on any given day and who stood there in a county meeting and said it was their goal to have a happy medium to where there are few complaints and so the state didn't get sued (AGAIN--emphasis he added) by animal rights activists.
At the end of the day, it's a problem they created i the first place.
There have been years where I have not deer hunted at all because their numbers were so far down that I wasn't comfortable hunting any of them.
Yet, if I paid the tag, I could've still killed a bunch of them. Not that would've made it right, or would've done anything to help ensure that I have anything to hunt next year. But, everything would've been alright if I had just paid some state agency for the ability to use my land however I wanted in a manner that I felt was appropriate.
My piece of property is still far larger than what the state has now said would come under their licensing scheme. For now. Until they see how well this new scheme goes over and if it goes as they hope, the next step will likely just say that everyone has to have a hunting or fishing license next regardless. That's what I expect will happen.
For those that think the state owns the animals, try suing the state the next time a deer or bear runs out in the road in front of you and totals your new vehicle and see how that works out for you.
Wait. What? You can’t bang your own sister or your own farm animals in Kentucky. Since when?
😉😉😉
I was driving across Tennessee the day Kentucky's anti-sodomy laws were taken out of effect. The Ride Home DJs were having a field day. Talking about the backups on I- 65 and 24, stores sold out of lube, guys calling off work the next day......
Parents who say they have good kids..Usually don't!
Obviously didn’t want to read through all the legal BS, gotta go back to English common law. Look up zoning regulations and court cases will pop up that affirm .gov has the right to tell you what to do with your land.
After the American Revolution and during the 1800s, the increasing commercial value of wildlife and fisheries resulted in increased efforts by the states to control these natural resources. During the 1800's the Supreme Court, through a series of opinions, addressed the issue of ownership of wildlife. The first solid statement by the Court about state control or interest in wildlife was in McCready v. Virginia (see above), but the full articulation of the concept of state ownership of wildlife was not presented until 1896 in the case of Geer v. Connecticut , 161 U.S. 519 (1896).
Since Geer is considered the landmark case of this area of law, it will be helpful to examine it in some detail. The Connecticut statute in question prohibited the possession of certain game birds with intent to transport the birds beyond the state boundaries. The defendant was charged with the possession of woodcock, ruffled grouse and quail killed during the proper hunting season but with intent to transport the birds out of state. The defendant claimed the statute was unconstitutional since it interfered with the federal powers under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Justice White began the opinion with a very scholarly discussion of the history of governmental control over wildlife, covering Roman, English and French civil law concepts. His ultimate conclusion was:
Undoubtedly this attribute of government to control the taking of animals ferae naturae , which was thus recognized and enforced by the common law of England, was vested in the colonial governments, where not denied by their charters, or in conflict with grants of the royal prerogative. Its also certain that the power which the colonies thus possessed passed to the states with the separation from the mother country, and remains in them at the present day, in so far as its exercise may be not incompatible with, or restrained by, the rights conveyed to the Federal government by the Constitution.
Thus, the Supreme Court strongly affirmed the right of the states to control the access to and the use of wild animals. In addressing the statute in question , the Court noted that its purpose is to confine the enjoyment of a state resource to the boundaries of the state.
Private pond thing is BS, call it aqua farming and get a tax break for ag property. They need to band together and make a difference.
Still chuckling at the 3 acres of prime hunting land.
Around here if you own a quarter section or more you qualify for a reduced price doe tag. Otherwise it's the same price for everyone, you're guaranteed a tag for your own property with the 160 acres minimum though, that's the preference for landowners
It only takes an acre to support a cow in KY. How many acres does it take to support a cow in CO?
Private pond thing is BS, call it aqua farming and get a tax break for ag property. They need to band together and make a difference.
Still chuckling at the 3 acres of prime hunting land.
Around here if you own a quarter section or more you qualify for a reduced price doe tag. Otherwise it's the same price for everyone, you're guaranteed a tag for your own property with the 160 acres minimum though, that's the preference for landowners
It only takes an acre to support a cow in KY. How many acres does it take to support a cow in CO?
We weren't even talking cows, they are grazers and deer browse. Not sure how the two directly compare unless you hunt cows? Let's talk AUMs if you want to go that route. The state average for Kentucky is 2-4 AUMs per acre, which is much higher than Western states, but your statement claims 12, which is false and not by a little bit. My guess is you just don't know what you're talking about, especially since the state code for SD is south Dakota and you don't seem to know that. Your move.
Beware of any old man in a profession where one usually dies young.
