VermontHunter Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions [ QUOTE ] From the standpoint of the State....if you take a piece of the Pie by offering Tax Incentives...wheres that funding going to come from otherwise? [/ QUOTE ] I don't know about you Gary,, but I would definately support a sensible increase in license fee's to to have better hunting mangament... And as for liability to land owners that let hunters have access to their property, here in Vermont as long as NO fee's are required, a land owner can't be held liable for hunting accidents or theft...and this law is wriiten in stone.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VtBowhunter Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions I've often mentioned Tax Break programs to local officials and they always say it won't work.......bottom line, they don't want to lose money. Trying to open private land is tough. There needs to be more room for hunter and more room to control deer herds, but at the same time you have to be able to respect the privacy of the landowners........and what about the land owner that hunts his/her own land? Are they supposed to just slide over and lose out on there own land? Doc, you have some great ideas, and I'm happy to see that under the right conditions you can see a place for AR's as a tool for increased herd health. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VermontHunter Posted January 6, 2006 Report Share Posted January 6, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions [ QUOTE ] what about the land owner that hunts his/her own land? Are they supposed to just slide over and lose out on there own land? [/ QUOTE ] What are they losing out on Josh ?? other than the break on the tax insentive that they aren't willing to share with their fellow hunters.... Of course this type of program would extremely benifit those land owners that have 100's of acre's to share, rather than those that only have the 15-20 acre's, but I see this type of program in helping them to have access to better hunting grounds... I too realize there are pro's and con's to this type of program, but isn't it better to have tried than not ? I see it has the other side of the coin to AR... I've seen large land owners shut down thier property to other hunters, just to go off and hunt out of state or some other property... Not that this isn't their right to do so, but where doe's the little guy fit into the equation of hunting ?? I definately understand there isn't no simple answer to this delima,, but something has to work from state to state before it's too late for us all.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VtBowhunter Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions No state is going to give tax breaks for letting others on your land to hunt......but that's not where my question comes from........ ..........Whenever deer hunting gets tough, hunters start telling state officials "You should find a way to get the private land opened up".......I'm wondering how you do that without forcing landowners to do so. We've always been really good about letting folks on our land.....that is until folks screwed that up by shooting our cows, and dumping trash. Bottom line is that you'll never get owners to open their land if they don't want it open.......even if you could get tax breaks in place (which I doubt) landowners have been paying the taxes right along......now to save a few bucks, they're going to let people they don't know on their land? What about the increase in landowners insurance they'll have to get to cover their own butts from lawsuits due to morons falling out of trees because they weren't smart enough to wear a harness? I like the ideas, but what's in it for the landowner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VermontHunter Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions [ QUOTE ] What about the increase in landowners insurance they'll have to get to cover their own butts from lawsuits due to morons falling out of trees because they weren't smart enough to wear a harness? [/ QUOTE ] Well if you live in Vermont, you can count that out becuase you can't hold a landowner liable for your own neglagence if they didn't charge a lease fee for hunting privlages... It's not a fact of forcing land owners to open up there lands,, it's a voluntary incentive... The choice to paticipate in such a program would be up to the landowner... And yes I do see where you are coming from with the vandleism aspect,, this is what destoryed alot of the hunting access across not only this state but most of them... and it's always a concern.... Unless your land is posted the general public has access to your property anyhow with or without your permission, I know it's crazy but that's what the law states.. Landowner Liability Acceptance of risk by user : Under Vermont law (12 V.S.A. Section 1037, “Acceptance of Inherent Risk” in Appendix 1), recreationists accept the risk in the sport they perform. This means they cannot successfully sue a landowner for injuries sustained as a result of the risk inherent to the activity, when snowmobiling, crosscountry skiing, mountain biking, or even walking. Legal protection of landowners: _ Vermont’s landowner liability statutes do an excellent job of protecting landowners from liability. The general statute (12 V.S.A. Section 5791) says that no owner is liable for any property damage or personal injury to a person who uses the property for recreation, providing a fee is not charged.* _ Other specific statutes provide additional protection for landowners who allow snowmobiling, all-terrain vehicle (ATV) riding, horseback riding, and bicycling. See Appendix I to this booklet. _ The strong landowner liability protection laws make it very difficult for a party to bring a successful suit unless the landowner has intentionally created a danger or engaged in willful or wanton misconduct. * NOTE: Landowner liability increases if a fee is charged for use of the property for recreation, since a “higher level of care” (responsibility) is owed to recreationists. And about the access to your private land.... When permission is not needed from the landowner: Vermont law allows people to hunt, fish, and walk on private property without permission unless the land is legally posted. All of this State Law and info was qouted from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources Department of Forests, Parks & Recreation http://www.uvm.edu/~mceroni/ecotourism_course/pubrec.pdf#search='vermont%20landowner%20liability' So if it's just a liablity issue,, I think Vermont Law has put that one to rest with very good protection for the landowner... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VtBowhunter Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions But we're discussing NY, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VermontHunter Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions I understand that fact,,, Josh... I was just trying to show that laws can be inacted to protect land owners from fear of every sico out there trying to bring law suits against land owners that would like to open their lands for recreation purposes.... And you asked what the land owner benifited from particapating in land management practices,, They would get property tax reductions according to a score they would recieve from just how much they investested into their property for game management,, and hopefully some trust worthy hunters to protect their investment from vandales.... Maybe Im in over my head with suggestions,, without proper knowledge that others have... I could be just ranting, what do I know..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VtBowhunter Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions As I've stated before, I've mentioned the tax break to lawmakers and they want NO part of it........they're afraid it will cost the state too much money. I like the idea, and I'm still pushing that with senators from my area, along with the idea for a tax break for farmers who are willing to leave part of their crop standing for deer and other wildlife. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VermontHunter Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions Ken I apologize for hijacking your thread,,, that wasn't very nice of me at all.... SORRY.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions One thing I've noticed is that when the state decides to do something, everything just seems to simply fall in line. The best example of that is the STAR program. So if the state decided that any of these proposals were the thing to do, I believe it would happen. And the DEC IS part of the state government. Of course it wouldn't hurt if there was a bit of a grass roots effort from the hunters and other concerned individuals to spur them along a bit. Also, there must be some non-tax things that the state can do in terms of opening up land. When I look at the hundreds (maybe thousands) of miles of trout streams that the DEC has gotten opened up for fisherman access, I know that there are ways to persuade landowners to cooperate. In reading a lot of threads on a lot of forums, one thing is getting crystal clear, and that is that this problem of lack of hunter access is growing rapidly. If we think as hunters it is a big problem, think about how much of a problem it is becoming for the state who has to manage resources on these inaccessible properties. They know as well as we do that without hunter access, there is no way that they can do the job that they are charged to do. It is already a problem for them, and imagine what it will be like in a couple of short decades. Believe me, they are thinking about that. So they are highly motivated to do something about accessibility. I believe that they are motivated enough (desparate enough) to successfully do whatever is required to open up as much land as possible. And a lot of the roadblocks that we think are impossible to overcome will disappear as desparation levels get high enough. As far as landowner liability, I think that concern has gone away a long time ago. As long as you are not charging fees for access, and you are not "maintaining some sort of artificial hazard" on your property, you are free from liability. That has been that way for a long time and perhaps it is something that the DEC ought to be advertising since it appears that a lot of people still have some outdated notions on that point. By the way, the comment about hunter abuse of landowner's hospitality is a good one. I think that there has to be some sort of state law enforcement support for for cooperating landowners that encounter this kind of abuse (litter, destroyed equipment and fences, etc.), A landowner who is cooperating with the government should not be left to fend for himself when that cooperation results in property abuse. In terms of financing habitat improvements on state lands, I might point out that some of this already goes on to a limited extent. So, obviously there is already a line item for that sort of thing in the budget already. The trick is to shove money around a bit and re-prioritize expenditures. Also, I would be very surprised to find that the DEC has reached their maximum financial efficiency. perhaps they need a dose of some of the thinking that has improved efficiency in the private sector. I remember that if my boss had a project that had to get done, the last thing he wanted to hear is a whole bunch of excuses as to why it couldn't be done. And by the way, those impossible projects always DID get done. Perhaps the DEC need a bit of that kind of motivation. Another thought on habitat improvement that is relatively cost free is to utilize farmers and loggers. Many of the state lands still have open fields or fields that could easily be opened back up. It seems to me that somewhere in the neighborhood, there must be some farmers that would just love to have some FREE cropland. Perhaps restrictions would have to be placed as to what crops would be grown and when they would have to be harvested, but it sure would be a free way of getting food plots established. The state land next door to me HIRES people to come in and bush-hog several fields annually. That really can't be too cheap. Especially when you consider that farmers would likely not only mow the land but also plant high nutrition crops there too. Also, I know that in a lot of public lands, limited logging is already allowed. However, perhaps more of this kind of habitat improvement could be done. This would be a way of actually collecting some money for further habitat and facilities improvements. Things really don't get done by having everyone throw up their hands and immediately declaring defeat. Goals have to be set and then people have to go away and figure out how to get around all the roadblocks through some creative and innovative thinking. I think we have successfully tackled much tougher problems before. Thinking up all the reasons why something can't be done is just the first step in figuring out how to get the job done. But that is definitely not the step to stop at. Doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWSmith Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions Every Landowner that I've talked to could use some of that information Doc...they all think that they could and would be sued sooner or later if they let people hunt their land. AR may be something that could be done on Public land....but I believe that it will cost in losing more of the numbers of hunters than we have now. I still dont believe that this States Government will offer tax incentives of any kind...it would mean a loss of income to their budget...which every year goes UP. Information handed out to landowners about the protection they already have in place may do more than attempting to get any Government money in the form of incentives. The printing of informational phamplets that could be given to willing hunters, and be handed out to landowners, in the hopes they may allow hunting...Thats something I could understand and back with a hike in license fees! It would not cost the Government anything...its paid for by hunting license purchases. Even if they simply made a professional looking page on the website, with clearly stated facts for landowners, that could be printed off and distributed by us the hunters that would be fantastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VtBowhunter Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions One thing that should be recommended to your local power companies is something that ours has been doing here for years, and your's may be doing...... .......every year, tree care companies have to go out onto rights-of-way and clear trees from growing up into the power lines. Here our electric companies have planted low growing vegetation, to include apple trees. This low growing browse feeds the wildlife, and chokes out any tree growth. The power company saves money every year, by not having to hire tree trimmers, and the animals have food.......it's a win/win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 7, 2006 Report Share Posted January 7, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions Another thing that I have been wondering is just how involved gun clubs and archery clubs are getting in terms of volunteerism. I haven't been a member of a archery club for 20 years now, and I never was a member of a gun club (that's the problem with living out in the boonies). But anyway, I was wondering if lending a hand to the DEC on specific projects is ever discussed at many of these club meetings? Have they ever been asked to help? Perhaps the DEC has to begin a few more PR activities and start cultivating a working relationship with these various sportsman's clubs. Free manpower ........ you can't beat it. You see not everything has to cost a lot of money to do, if the DEC would only spend a bit of time brainstorming ideas and recognize that not every task requires a team of degreed biologists. Doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VermontHunter Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions I like that idea Josh,,, and you're right it's a win/win situation for everyone... Your right Doc not everything has to cost a fortune,, more thought process would be nice, and your also correct in saying not everything that needs to be done needs to be done by a team of biologists... I think this discussion has really brought out some great idea's,, and shows not everything has to be a shouting match and one sided thinking.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LETMGROW Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions Doc, don't jump the gun on the "General Obligations Law" quite so quickly. You are correct up to a point, but the fact remains, in NY state anyone can be sued for any thing at any time. The General Obligations Law does afford some protection to landowners if they are sued, however the law doesn't absolve anyone totally. The biggest problem here is defense costs if you are sued. You better hope your homeowners policy is good. The General Obligations Law May provide relief ,but don't count on it as a total shield. If you are sued you are going to court... If the GOL is a defense it may afford you some protection, but hungry lawyers are still going to eat away at you! The GOL as it is written only applies if you are NOT paying a consideration to the landowner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VermontHunter Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions [ QUOTE ] The GOL as it is written only applies if you are NOT paying a consideration to the landowner. [/ QUOTE ] As it should be in my opinion, if you are charging a fee for recreation, then you should be held to a higher standard as it is written... This letter of the law was written this way to discourage landowners from charging a fee and making accessability easy for the general public... And I also agree with Doc that states should impose laws to futher assist landowners against vandalism and not leave them on thier own... We as hunters and recreationalist need to insure we have hunting grounds for the future,, and that landowners can feel free from vandals and frivalous law suits.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born2Hunt Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions What happend to the antler restriction conversation?????????????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VermontHunter Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions [ QUOTE ] What happend to the antler restriction conversation?????????????? [/ QUOTE ] There's way more to proper herd management than Antler Ristrictions.. ,, if antler resrictions aren't favored by local hunters alternatives need to be looked at.... land management is just one part of those alternatives... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born2Hunt Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions I understand that! I just believe we have gotten off the topic of AR's and Heard management. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VermontHunter Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions [ QUOTE ] I understand that! I just believe we have gotten off the topic of AR's and Heard management. [/ QUOTE ] Land Management is part of Herd management.. But you are right this thread was on AR,,, which Im in favor of.... but what I believe in doesn't neccessarily work for everyone,, thus the alternatives..... Makes for a tricky topic doesn't it ??... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born2Hunt Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions It's been fun watching the thread bounce around. It has gotten a lot of attention! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VtBowhunter Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions In a round about way this is still about AR's, but in order for a lot of hunters to be willing to have them, they want to see all this other stuff being done first. Doc, you hit on something with local clubs. I've never heard of a club not wanting to help. They usually jump at the chance to help out anyone. Our Archery club was never asked to help the state, but we have been out with the QDMA working on lands and just doing little things like putting on 3D archery shoots to inform the public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions [ QUOTE ] The GOL as it is written only applies if you are NOT paying a consideration to the landowner. [/ QUOTE ] Yep ...... that's what I said. Also, as I mentioned, if you are knowingly maintaining an un-natural hazard on your property, you are not protected. As far as frivolous lawsuits, there is not much you can do about that. So far, judges have not seen fit to throw those out of court even when it is clearly warranted. However, you are subject to that kind of abuse even with trespassers, so locking up your property with posted signs does not even protect you against that sort of thing. A salesman walking up your steps that gets hurt is in just as good a position to try to sue you as some hunter. Doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VtBowhunter Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions We're lucky here then.........posted signs remove all liability from the landowner.......trespassers are unprotected if they get hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Re: Fellow NY\'s - Do you favor antler restrictions [ QUOTE ] Doc, you hit on something with local clubs. I've never heard of a club not wanting to help. They usually jump at the chance to help out anyone. [/ QUOTE ] Well, one thing that would help would be for the DEC to at least ask. If they haven't, then I think they are missing out on an opportunity to "do more with less" (one of the new favorite phrases of progressive and successful private industries). It sure seems like a partnership that the DEC ought to be encouraging. Doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.