Any hunters among us?

[Rocketman]

You'll lose your "current use" tax status, and any chance of being friendly with your neighbors, though.

I doubt the latter would be true.  Although if you built a Great Wall around your property, I suppose the neighbors might think you're a little odd...

If you're a reasonable person, most folks will be reasonable in their dealings with you -- I hope and expect this is even more true in the Free State than in more statist states.  BTW, shooting anybody who stumbles onto your property does not strike me as reasonable (unless of course you DO build a Great Wall and somebody is stupid enough to breach it).  If somebody breaks into your house in the middle of the night, by all means shoot first and ask questions later, but discretion had better be pretty darned important when you're talking about taking a person's life. 

[Mark]

In NH if it's not posted, you can hunt.

You should always ask permission from the landowner whether it's posted or not. As for the rude/unneighborly thing, that's giving way to safety and practicality in a lot of areas. Within the last year, my neighbors across the street have had two bullets enter their house through an exterior wall. A nearby property was unposted and people were target practicing in a sand pit. My neighbors have a young child and spoke to the landowner, an elderly gentleman, who immediately posted the land. In nearby Berwick, ME, a family dog was shot by a hunter while on its leash in its back yard. A relative of mine used to complain all the time about hunters entering his land on four wheelers with no permission and leaving trash lying around. Neighborly or not, I've met too many idiots to trust random people with guns on my land.

There are still a ton of public and private hunting areas in the state. An early-morning drive through most of our towns will show you where people go -- you'll see the trucks on the sides of the road.

[Mark]

So people don't respect private property in NH??????

Sure they do. Post your land against hunting and trespassing, and they'll respect that.

You'll lose your "current use" tax status, and any chance of being friendly with your neighbors, though.

Kevin

That's not entirely true. You get more of a reduction in your assessment for allowing hunting, but there's absolutely nothing requiring you to allow hunting on land that is in current use.

It's also worth noting that you can hunt on posted land with permission of the landowner. Establish trust with your neighbors, ask permission, respect their wishes, and you're all set.

[Kat Kanning]

They need more hunters!


Deer and People Clash in Minnesota

By PATRICK CONDON, Associated Press Writer Fri Nov 18, 5:05 AM ET

ST. PAUL, Minn. - So many deer inhabit the area around Pig's Eye Lake just east of St. Paul that one frustrated local official has compared them to unwanted vermin.
ADVERTISEMENT

In a recent aerial survey of the 11-square-mile, mostly residential area, county biologists expecting to find about 100 deer instead counted more than 500. Some of the hooved creatures have been wandering into town, showing up at places like the emergency entrance of Regions Hospital and in front of the pro hockey arena.

Most notably, a big buck broke several windows at the state Capitol before bounding just a few feet away from Gov. Tim Pawlenty and his startled security detail.

"They're just everywhere. You see them every day," said Kathy Lantry, a city councilwoman who represents the area Pig's Eye Lake area. "They've become like rats."

The problem of deer encroaching on cities and suburbs is not new, with some communities considering everything from hiring sharpshooters to deer contraception to cut down the populations.

Earlier this month, a man in Bentonville, Ark., struggled with a deer for nearly 40 minutes after it crashed into his daughter's bedroom, ultimately killing it with his bare hands. A few days earlier, authorities in Helena, Mont., killed four deer that had harassed a newspaper carrier.

Deer flourish in forest areas where there is development but no sport hunting or natural predators and food is plentiful in the form of weeds and residential landscaping.

John Moriarty, natural resource manager for St. Paul's Ramsey County, said residents of deer-heavy areas usually start out liking their hooved neighbors because it seems a little exotic.

"For a long period of time, people were willing to tolerate a little bit of damage, but then you hit people's breaking point," he said. "Then they become the bad, nasty deer that everyone wants to get rid of."

Deer wander on to highways and get hit by cars, 15,000 a year in Minnesota alone. They also damage gardens, lawns and crops, spread Lyme disease and disrupt habitat for species ranging from nesting songbirds to forest vegetation.

"You can't plant anything. They eat it all," said Ann Mueller, who until recently lived near Pig's Eye Lake. At certain times of the year she said she saw deer daily.

Later this month, a sharpshooter hired by Ramsey County will take to the woods to thin the herds around Pig's Eye Lake, a Mississippi River backwater. The goal is to kill about 200 does to both bring down current numbers and reduce future reproduction.

There will be little sport to what Tony DeNicola, president of Connecticut-based White Buffalo Inc., will do when he carries out the project.

For several weeks, he will drop bait at the same time each day to train deer to come to areas where can safely shoot them. He said he typically shoots from a tree or vehicle.

If 200 deer are killed, that means about 10,000 pounds of venison for local food shelves, Moriarty said.

But some oppose this means of thinning the deer population.

In Columbia Heights, a Minneapolis suburb, residents a few years ago formed the "Coalition to Save Our Deer" after the state Department of Natural Resources proposed letting bow hunters into a fenced-off reservoir where a herd of deer had been trapped by post-Sept. 11 security measures.

Hoping to avoid controversy, states like New York and Ohio have had some success shooting does with darts charged with contraceptives. Animal rights groups have advocated wider use ? but that in turn has prompted criticism.

"It just takes forever and it's expensive," said DeNicola. "You contracept a deer and it's still out running around in the field, it can still get hit by a car."

However, John Hadidian, director of urban wildlife programs for the Humane Society of the United States, said he believes the strongest opposition to deer birth control has come from hunters who are afraid populations will decline too much.

"That gets enabled by state fish and game agencies that depend on hunting license revenue for their operations," Hadidian said.

[citizen_142002]

I'm a hunter, but I've got friends who own a lot of land.
By the way TN-FSP, you can get a bear tag added to you NH hunting license for 5.00$, you can bait and dog hunt bears in most parts of the state. Moose permits are issued by lottery only(odds are about 1 in 20.

I'm worried about how much of the state is going shotgun/handgun only. I realize that there are some areas in the East of the state, where it would be dangerous to discharge a rifle, but there is already the 100 yard regulation for that. When a whole town goes shotgun only, it bring the situation in Massachusettes to mind. There are parts of every town where you should not be shooting, and parts of almost every town where it is reasonable to do so.

The NRA started an offshoot organization to defend hunting rights. I think that it's called Free Hunters.

[Malsem]

Anyone should always ask permission before stepping across someone's property line.  If you live by the system that supports a division of owned land--which is a ludicrous concept in and of itself anyway--then you would be a hypocrite in not observing the ettiquete of asking permission to pass.

If you're a "sportsman," and you come onto my property, I probably won't shoot you, but you'll end up either severely injured or hanging upside down in a tree.  I figure, if you're going to call killing animals a sport, even though they don't have guns and don't know the rules, then I'll level the playing ground a bit.

However, if you're an actual hunter who makes his own bow, spear, or whatnot, and hunts with skill rather than technology, as well as utilizes every part of the animal for food, clothing, and tools, and you can show me that you can interpret tracks and identify a particular animal at any given time by its footprints, then you may have a slight chance at passing through.  I just don't see it happening.  I only know one guy around here who can do that anyway.

-M

[Pat K]

Always nice to have folks stop by and threaten us.

[Malsem]

Always nice to have folks stop by and threaten us.

And it's always nice to see a "sportsman" dislocate his ankle when he goes tromping through the woods, trespassing with rifles and scopes and compound bows to kill trophy animals from long, disconnected distances with a ridiculous crutch of technology for only the meat--and a typically poorly placed shot at that--while the rest of the animal is desecrated and disregarded when he could have just gone to the supermarket instead of messing around with population dynamics and social structure of something the federal government doesn't really understand.

If the proverbial shoe fits . . .

-M

[Lloyd Danforth]

Only if he can hunt beer on your property

[Malsem]

Only if he can hunt beer on your property

Nah; the "sportsmen" usually pack that in, then they often leave the carcasses lying around afterward.

I'll admit, there are some guys that have respect and reverence for what Nature provides--but it's rare.

I see three types:

"Sportsmen" -- Have no use for appreciating wildlife or Nature beyond what they can conquer or take without true skill or reverence.

"Hunters" -- Really appreciate what they're given, and give thanks to the amazing gift of life that they are given, but don't understand the depths of spirit involved in the exchange because they were never taught.  Our society doesn't tend to pass on that part of the skill.

"Caretakers" -- Invest their hearts into making the right spear, the right bow, their own arrows, by understanding and appreciating the materials Nature provides, and how important it is to be part of the whole event beyond the shallow act of killing.  Caretakers take in a way that makes the herd healthier so there is provision for the future generations of both deer and humans.  Caretakers wouldn't disrespect another creature by using only part of its gift and tossing the rest aside.  It would be the same as treating a family member in such fashion.  It's not a sport with a season like football.  It's a way of life.

The government, however, doesn't see it that way.  Sport hunting supports the government.  Yes, some money goes toward preservation of lands, but only in a way that preserves the economic viablity of hunting revenue.  The deeper affect of altering the land and all creatures indirectly involved is ignored.  It's far too complicated for a people who do not live closely with the land to be the ones to trust to take care of the land.  In fact, it's downright ludicrous.  But we do it while we live in this modern system.

-M

[9thmoon]

Neighborly or not, I've met too many idiots to trust random people with guns on my land.

My point exactly. 

[Pat K]

Always nice to have folks stop by and threaten us.

And it's always nice to see a "sportsman" dislocate his ankle when he goes tromping through the woods, trespassing with rifles and scopes and compound bows to kill trophy animals from long, disconnected distances with a ridiculous crutch of technology for only the meat--and a typically poorly placed shot at that--while the rest of the animal is desecrated and disregarded when he could have just gone to the supermarket instead of messing around with population dynamics and social structure of something the federal government doesn't really understand.

If the proverbial shoe fits . . .

-M

Well have a nice life.

[Insurgent]

Only if he can hunt beer on your property

Nah; the "sportsmen" usually pack that in, then they often leave the carcasses lying around afterward.

I'll admit, there are some guys that have respect and reverence for what Nature provides--but it's rare.

I see three types:

"Sportsmen" -- Have no use for appreciating wildlife or Nature beyond what they can conquer or take without true skill or reverence.

"Hunters" -- Really appreciate what they're given, and give thanks to the amazing gift of life that they are given, but don't understand the depths of spirit involved in the exchange because they were never taught.  Our society doesn't tend to pass on that part of the skill.

"Caretakers" -- Invest their hearts into making the right spear, the right bow, their own arrows, by understanding and appreciating the materials Nature provides, and how important it is to be part of the whole event beyond the shallow act of killing.  Caretakers take in a way that makes the herd healthier so there is provision for the future generations of both deer and humans.  Caretakers wouldn't disrespect another creature by using only part of its gift and tossing the rest aside.  It would be the same as treating a family member in such fashion.  It's not a sport with a season like football.  It's a way of life.

The government, however, doesn't see it that way.  Sport hunting supports the government.  Yes, some money goes toward preservation of lands, but only in a way that preserves the economic viablity of hunting revenue.  The deeper affect of altering the land and all creatures indirectly involved is ignored.  It's far too complicated for a people who do not live closely with the land to be the ones to trust to take care of the land.  In fact, it's downright ludicrous.  But we do it while we live in this modern system.

-M

I've never been a hunter, for some of these reasons. There are some valid points raised here.

Our family was not a family of hunters nor were any of my friends. I think it's a skill that everyone should have, though particularly in the "caretaker" point of reference.

[Malsem]

I've never been a hunter, for some of these reasons. There are some valid points raised here.

Our family was not a family of hunters nor were any of my friends. I think it's a skill that everyone should have, though particularly in the "caretaker" point of reference.

Imagine if children learned this way of life, this respect, through community.  The reality of living with what we are given--what is real--and not for want or greed or more.

What if they were taught this sense of being not only part of a community that is based upon family, but is part of something so much bigger than video games, money, or status?  What if they learned that although life must be taken for life to continue, that all life is sacred?  Not in the simple way that we all hear and say in the compulsory, "all life is valuable; you shouldn't kill things" when a kid squashes an insect or shoots a bird, but in a way that they feel a sense of place in the community, a community that has a place in the real world, not based upon material things and instant gratifications.

In the reality of Nature, there is no delineation of ranks of life.  It just is.  There is no difference between the death of a plant, a fish, a deer, a human.  Only our perception of value and fear of mortality challenges this.  However there is no separation.  Not only would the skills enable the children to survive if they needed, but they would enable the children to become closer to what is real, and find their true place.

I have found no greater freedom in this.  And society strives to strip it away.  The children deserve the option, at the very least.

-M

[AlanM]

I've never been a hunter, for some of these reasons. There are some valid points raised here.

Our family was not a family of hunters nor were any of my friends. I think it's a skill that everyone should have, though particularly in the "caretaker" point of reference.

Imagine if children learned this way of life, this respect, through community.  The reality of living with what we are given--what is real--and not for want or greed or more.

What if they were taught this sense of being not only part of a community that is based upon family, but is part of something so much bigger than video games, money, or status?  What if they learned that although life must be taken for life to continue, that all life is sacred?  Not in the simple way that we all hear and say in the compulsory, "all life is valuable; you shouldn't kill things" when a kid squashes an insect or shoots a bird, but in a way that they feel a sense of place in the community, a community that has a place in the real world, not based upon material things and instant gratifications.

In the reality of Nature, there is no delineation of ranks of life.  It just is.  There is no difference between the death of a plant, a fish, a deer, a human.  Only our perception of value and fear of mortality challenges this.  However there is no separation.  Not only would the skills enable the children to survive if they needed, but they would enable the children to become closer to what is real, and find their true place.

I have found no greater freedom in this.  And society strives to strip it away.  The children deserve the option, at the very least.

-M

Excellent thoughts. Thank you.