This is an entertaining thread and now here you come making posts that imply we should use common sense when hunting. You're ruining it for everyone Ben.
Is there any limit to it? So can a guy legally kill 10 bucks a year if he has friends to tag them for him?
I said, IMO. Whats the point of owning something and not having rights to use it? I have a gun yet I can't keep and bear it...and so on and so on....stupid laws ruin our civil rights. I think you would fine that more often then not a land owner would want to manage a herd on HIS land...like I said MO.
Good point, im gunna say, a buck walks by and not a doe...like I said his land his deer his choice...
If you want to own deer, put up 10' high fences and put some tags in their ears. Otherwise, game animals are a shared resource. As soon as you start giving ownership to free ranging animals, you will really see how ugly people will get over "their" deer. It won't be pretty...for hunters or the resource.
As long as the other hunter Is present It's legal. I hate cross tagging of bucks. I wish this was Illegal In the whole state. Just SE Mn It's Illegal In. Party hunting Is alright In my book but too many people abuse It. As for people who tell non hunters or whoever to buy a tag so they (another person) can fill It pisses me off to no end. It's a very common practice around here, specially during the gun season. Years ago I was helping a guy fill what I thought was his tag. We were hunting 100 yards apart from each other and I shot a doe and later found out he put his wife's tag on that deer. She's never stepped foot In a woods her whole life. If I would've known this ahead of time I never would've helped this guy out.
I agree Vito, I wasn't trying to say that I agree with breaking the laws, I was saying that in some cases the laws could be changed to better suit some people who own land. It doesn't seem right to me that a guy who owns 100 acres of land is limited to a single deer while the guy on the 10 acre neighboring property has the same right. I was saying give a little freedom back. Thats all. After thinking about it a little more I think the laws that are in place now are doing a good job of managing the deer herd in North America and to start changing that around would be a mistake. Besides I think that there are things landowners who want to take some more deer out of thier herd can do by contacting a game warden. I don't believe the Whitetail deer can be compared to the buffalo, if you'll take agricultural tags that farmers recieve to manage herds destroying there crops as an example. You will see that thier deer population does not dissapar all together. It would take alot of very dedicated woodsman to kill off all the whitaile and a very long time. I do agree that Whitetail are a shared recource. When I said they are owned while on someones land I ment sort of in the same way that if you shoot a deer and it goes on another persons land you need that persons permission to claim it. So I more or less just ment that if a deer stumbles on your land in shooting range its your right to kill it. which is true..legally of course. I withdraw my previous statment that some laws should be changed. I still don't think it's a big deal that the guy used his wifes tag. whats the difference between her killing it or him? it's a dead deer regaurdless.
It likely wouldn't take long at all if the demand for venison and deer hides went up. Late 1800's During this historical period, about 1850 to 1900, we saw an exploitation of the whitetail deer by hunters who hunted for profit, much like the Buffalo hunters. They were almost hunted to extinction, primarily for the venison meat. Railroads with refrigerated cars were available to bring the venison to many markets throughout the country. Venison was considered a delicacy of sort, many families served venison at special occasions, like Christmas. Demand for deer meat, venison, grew and markets sold what they could get. As the deer populations decreased, laws were passed to help protect whitetails. These laws were not enforced very well or taken very seriously. Bounties were paid, by governments, for killing and trapping the natural predators of the whitetail deer like wolves and mountain lions. It wasnft until the federal gLacey Acth of 1900-which prohibited interstate traffic in wild game taken in violation of state law, that there was any effective legislation passed. The gLacey Acth was meant to help protect and restore the whitetail deer, along with other game animals and birds. Also at this historical time, deer hunting activity and pressure decreased because the whitetail deer were becoming scarce. At the turn of the century, in 1900, estimates of our nations total whitetail deer herd were about 500,000 animals (thatfs less than half of what Minnesota has today, in 2006). By this time very few hunters were hunting the whitetail deer. http://www.the-deer-hunting-guide.com/whitetails/deer-hunting-history/
That's an interesting thought. Adjust the games laws to suit people that own property to the detriment of people that do not own property. To use that ol' speeding analogy that everyone likes: Suppose we let people that own expensive cars, mercedes, rolls, bmw, etc., drive faster, you know, a different speed limit for them, because they can afford more expensive cars, while those that can afford less expensive cars have to drive slower. Great idea. Laws to better suit people depending on what they own so that those that own more have more freedoms within the law than those that own less.
I agree Vito, I wasn't trying to say that I agree with breaking the laws, I was saying that in some cases the laws could be changed to better suit some people who own land. It doesn't seem right to me that a guy who owns 100 acres of land is limited to a single deer while the guy on the 10 acre neighboring property has the same right. I was saying give a little freedom back. Thats all. After thinking about it a little more I think the laws that are in place now are doing a good job of managing the deer herd in North America and to start changing that around would be a mistake. Besides I think that there are things landowners who want to take some more deer out of thier herd can do by contacting a game warden. I wasn't trying to stand up for guys who own alot I own nothing my family owns nothing. I hunt exclusivly on public land. I withdrawl any statment that things as they are should be adjusted. My point here was that people should be offered a little more freedom in SOME CASES. If I said that there should be a poor person tag. that a guy with a sub level income should have the right to take a deer in the summer time you may agree with that? But I'm not saying that. Like I said the laws are doing a good job of managing the herd and there are options for people that own alot of land to take more deer off thier property. Just as there are options for guys with sub level income to get food they need. "Great idea. Laws to better suit people depending on what they own so that those that own more have more freedoms within the law than those that own less." This statment is completly true and is the reason I withdrawl previous statments.
If its illegal in your state, then its illegal, plain and simple. I'd add, its not only a legal question it is an ethical question as well. For the OP, its not your job to watch your neighbor or collect evidence. If you have a decent game warden, they will determine the legitimacy and seriousness of the issue. Then they will perform an invesitgation, which most likely is NOT going to consist of showing up on your neighbor's doorstep and asking the wife to draw a bow. They are likely going to perform in interview, and look for inconsistencies in stories. I just read through 9 pages, but the original post seemed to indicate the problem was probably not with just one tag, but many. So, the warden is going to have a few people to interview and look for inconsistencies. If it is investigated, and nothing comes of it, then at the very least your neighbor will likely know the word is out and quit doing this. The warden isn't going to show up and say "hey, your neighbor told me this, is it true?" Personally, I tend to feel we have a civil obligation to report suspected criminal activity if the suspicion is valid enough. Further, the reason we have law enforcement, and wardens is to invesitgate crimes - that their job, not ours.
