How Much Responsibility...
 

I'm a strong believer in property rights and this rancher has the right to
allow whom ever he wants to fish or hunt there. The liberal Sierra Club
Yahoos that try to run roughshod over property owners should stick to the
parks. If we want more public land, then we should make an offer that will
enable us to buy the property, or shut up and leave. Here in the east,
they're passing laws that prevent the property owners from developing their
land, but refuse to compensate them for the huge losses. Talk about bending
the constitution to suit an interest group's agenda! When the whole story
is revealed, which the liberal media so conveniently left out, it appears
there were indeed posters indicating he was on private property. Knowing
this, I think the guy should have to pay the ranch their fee for a day worth
of fishing besides his fines, etc.

Yeah, I'm disturbed too. I think I'll write to Orvis and tell them how
happy I am that the ranch thwarted another poacher.

Gene

"Dave Jackson" wrote in message
...

After reading this I am really disturbed by what happened to this fellow.

I think we all should write/email Orvis regarding their sponsorship of
these types of ranches, at least expressing our concern that they are
helping move the sport away from the general public.

Dave

How Much Responsibility...
 

I'm a strong believer in property rights and this rancher has the right to
allow whom ever he wants to fish or hunt there. The liberal Sierra Club
Yahoos that try to run roughshod over property owners should stick to the
parks. If we want more public land, then we should make an offer that will
enable us to buy the property, or shut up and leave. Here in the east,
they're passing laws that prevent the property owners from developing their
land, but refuse to compensate them for the huge losses. Talk about bending
the constitution to suit an interest group's agenda! When the whole story
is revealed, which the liberal media so conveniently left out, it appears
there were indeed posters indicating he was on private property. Knowing
this, I think the guy should have to pay the ranch their fee for a day worth
of fishing besides his fines, etc.

Yeah, I'm disturbed too. I think I'll write to Orvis and tell them how
happy I am that the ranch thwarted another poacher.

Gene

"Dave Jackson" wrote in message
...

After reading this I am really disturbed by what happened to this fellow.

I think we all should write/email Orvis regarding their sponsorship of
these types of ranches, at least expressing our concern that they are
helping move the sport away from the general public.

Dave

How Much Responsibility...
 

Gene Cottrell wrote:
I'm a strong believer in property rights and this rancher has the right to
allow whom ever he wants to fish or hunt there. The liberal Sierra Club
Yahoos that try to run roughshod over property owners should stick to the
parks. If we want more public land, then we should make an offer that will
enable us to buy the property, or shut up and leave. Here in the east,
they're passing laws that prevent the property owners from developing their
land, but refuse to compensate them for the huge losses. Talk about bending
the constitution to suit an interest group's agenda! When the whole story
is revealed, which the liberal media so conveniently left out, it appears
there were indeed posters indicating he was on private property. Knowing
this, I think the guy should have to pay the ranch their fee for a day worth
of fishing besides his fines, etc.

Yeah, I'm disturbed too. I think I'll write to Orvis and tell them how
happy I am that the ranch thwarted another poacher.

How about, say, a "shoot to kill" law, Gene, so landowners could
actually back up those arrogant, blustering, redneck warning signs, like
"survivors will be prosecuted"?

It seems to me that the fault isn't so much with the property owner, or
with Orvis, or with the hapless trespasser. The fault is with the State
of Colorado, with its restrictive stream-access law (compared to several
other western states), with its overly harsh trespass law (no posting
required), and with its irrational F&G game laws (trespass more serious
than poaching).

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

How Much Responsibility...
 

Gene Cottrell wrote:
I'm a strong believer in property rights and this rancher has the right to
allow whom ever he wants to fish or hunt there. The liberal Sierra Club
Yahoos that try to run roughshod over property owners should stick to the
parks. If we want more public land, then we should make an offer that will
enable us to buy the property, or shut up and leave. Here in the east,
they're passing laws that prevent the property owners from developing their
land, but refuse to compensate them for the huge losses. Talk about bending
the constitution to suit an interest group's agenda! When the whole story
is revealed, which the liberal media so conveniently left out, it appears
there were indeed posters indicating he was on private property. Knowing
this, I think the guy should have to pay the ranch their fee for a day worth
of fishing besides his fines, etc.

Yeah, I'm disturbed too. I think I'll write to Orvis and tell them how
happy I am that the ranch thwarted another poacher.

How about, say, a "shoot to kill" law, Gene, so landowners could
actually back up those arrogant, blustering, redneck warning signs, like
"survivors will be prosecuted"?

It seems to me that the fault isn't so much with the property owner, or
with Orvis, or with the hapless trespasser. The fault is with the State
of Colorado, with its restrictive stream-access law (compared to several
other western states), with its overly harsh trespass law (no posting
required), and with its irrational F&G game laws (trespass more serious
than poaching).

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

How Much Responsibility...
 

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:27:15 GMT, rw
wrote:

Gene Cottrell wrote:
I'm a strong believer in property rights and this rancher has the right to
allow whom ever he wants to fish or hunt there. The liberal Sierra Club
Yahoos that try to run roughshod over property owners should stick to the
parks. If we want more public land, then we should make an offer that will
enable us to buy the property, or shut up and leave. Here in the east,
they're passing laws that prevent the property owners from developing their
land, but refuse to compensate them for the huge losses. Talk about bending
the constitution to suit an interest group's agenda! When the whole story
is revealed, which the liberal media so conveniently left out, it appears
there were indeed posters indicating he was on private property. Knowing
this, I think the guy should have to pay the ranch their fee for a day worth
of fishing besides his fines, etc.

Yeah, I'm disturbed too. I think I'll write to Orvis and tell them how
happy I am that the ranch thwarted another poacher.

How about, say, a "shoot to kill" law, Gene, so landowners could
actually back up those arrogant, blustering, redneck warning signs, like
"survivors will be prosecuted"?

It seems to me that the fault isn't so much with the property owner, or
with Orvis, or with the hapless trespasser. The fault is with the State
of Colorado, with its restrictive stream-access law (compared to several
other western states), with its overly harsh trespass law (no posting
required), and with its irrational F&G game laws (trespass more serious
than poaching).


Any chance that they're using trespass laws to combat poaching, among
other things? Sometimes an agile poacher can be difficult to catch
with the goods, but being present on private land is an easy charge to
make stick.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

How Much Responsibility...
 

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:46:05 GMT, rw
wrote:

Peter Charles wrote:

Any chance that they're using trespass laws to combat poaching, among
other things? Sometimes an agile poacher can be difficult to catch
with the goods, but being present on private land is an easy charge to
make stick.

How about landowners poaching on their own land? I'll bet you could find
a couple of wingnuts right here on ROFF who would think that should be
legal. After all, doesn't applying game laws to private property amount
to a "taking" by the government?


No doubt, but such a regime would never consider them to be part of
the problem, now would they? I'm asking about the motivations behind
the law, not how justifiable it is.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

How Much Responsibility...
 

Peter Charles wrote:

No doubt, but such a regime would never consider them to be part of
the problem, now would they? I'm asking about the motivations behind
the law, not how justifiable it is.

If you want my gut feeling, backed up by no objective evidence
whatsoever, and based purely on my limited, local personal experience
and acquaintance with our local F&G people and practices:

There is very little attention, if any, given to enforcing game laws on
private land. The personnel are stretched way beyond what they can
handle on public land.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

How Much Responsibility...
 

Peter Charles wrote:

No doubt, but such a regime would never consider them to be part of
the problem, now would they? I'm asking about the motivations behind
the law, not how justifiable it is.

If you want my gut feeling, backed up by no objective evidence
whatsoever, and based purely on my limited, local personal experience
and acquaintance with our local F&G people and practices:

There is very little attention, if any, given to enforcing game laws on
private land. The personnel are stretched way beyond what they can
handle on public land.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

How Much Responsibility...
 

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:22:39 GMT, rw
wrote:

Peter Charles wrote:

No doubt, but such a regime would never consider them to be part of
the problem, now would they? I'm asking about the motivations behind
the law, not how justifiable it is.

If you want my gut feeling, backed up by no objective evidence
whatsoever, and based purely on my limited, local personal experience
and acquaintance with our local F&G people and practices:

There is very little attention, if any, given to enforcing game laws on
private land. The personnel are stretched way beyond what they can
handle on public land.

Which then goes back to my original point -- they're getting at the
poaching problem by having regular cops and landowners prosecute
trespassers since there aren't enough F&G officers to go round and
charge them with poaching. Win-win for everyone except the
unsuspecting fisherman.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

How Much Responsibility...
 

"Gene Cottrell" wrote in message
...
I'm a strong believer in property rights

No ****? I mean, are you serious......or is this some kind of elaborate
joke?

and this rancher has the right to
allow whom ever he wants to fish or hunt there.

Well, you're going to have to explain this to the rest of us........we're
all a bit slow, you know.

The liberal Sierra Club Yahoos

Ah! O.k., so this is going to be one of those well reasoned, dispassionate,
and balanced disquisitions, eh? Well, please bear with us if we're a bit
slow to get it........we aren't used to this sort of disinterested view of
things.

that try to run roughshod over property owners should stick to the
parks.

Or, perhaps, they should stick one of those parks where your head resides,
huh? :)

If we want more public land,

Did someone say something about wanting more public lands? I remember
hearing something about LESS of them........but I be go ta hell if I can
think of anyone who said we should have more. Who was that?

then we

We, Tonto?

should make an offer that will
enable us to buy the property,

Well, how much you got?

or shut up and leave.

Ah! Now THERE'S a plan!

Here in the east,
they're passing laws that prevent the property owners from developing
their
land,

Land's been there for ten thousand years.....at least.....and that's just
since the last ice age. All reports are that it was doing quite nicely
without any help from you for virtually all of that time. What's to
develop?

but refuse to compensate them for the huge losses.

How do you compensate someone for the loss of neurons?

Talk about bending
the constitution to suit an interest group's agenda!

You know, it isn't everyone that can demonstrate in a single offering to
this group that he is every bit as stupid as many of the regulars who have
been assiduously demonstrating their awesome stupidity for years. You GO,
son!

When the whole story
is revealed, which the liberal media so conveniently left out, it appears
there were indeed posters indicating he was on private property.

See, this is EXACTLY how you do it. That single "liberal media" magic
bullet is all the badge anyone will every need to prove that he or she is
every bit as stupid as the most ardent idiot that ever posted here. What's
puzzling is how so many fools manage to hit on it so quickly.

Knowing
this, I think the guy should have to pay the ranch their fee for a day
worth
of fishing besides his fines, etc.

Yeah, but thinking people everywhere think you should lie down and die
quietly and thus save those who agree with you the further embarrassment of
your further existence. Who's to say what's best, ainna?

Yeah, I'm disturbed too.

No kidding? We were about THIS close to guessing that.

I think I'll write to Orvis and tell them how
happy I am that the ranch thwarted another poacher.

Yeah, and they'll give a ****, right? :)

Wolfgang
who dreams of being so influential.