Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KDM" data-source="post: 443440" data-attributes="member: 314"><p>Interesting take, but IMO, a worst case scenario attitude with a baseline assumption.&nbsp; Assumption: Access will be totally denied.&nbsp; Is it possible that a landowner would grant access, but not to everyone and any time?&nbsp; I let lots of people hunt on my land, but I don't think it's too much to ask to be able to enjoy my own land by myself for a few days of the season and to choose who and how many other people can do the same.&nbsp; Second Assumption: Deer (game) will stay on the land where the habitat is placed.&nbsp; Good habitat ALWAYS produces more animals than it can carry.&nbsp; Take Yellowstone National Park.&nbsp; Everyone wants to hunt land next to the park for elk and deer.&nbsp; WHY?&nbsp; Because there is ALWAYS surplus animals spilling out of the park.&nbsp; Do you really think that the same thing won't happen on my small patch of land where habitat is good or where the habitat is planted on other lands?&nbsp; If I were in charge, this program would preferentially focus on lands directly connected to public land.&nbsp; Thereby, significantly increasing the public benefit from the habitat on private lands.&nbsp; As a whole, I think this little program might actually prove to be of some public benefit by increasing the overall carrying capacity of ND as a whole.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="KDM, post: 443440, member: 314"] Interesting take, but IMO, a worst case scenario attitude with a baseline assumption. Assumption: Access will be totally denied. Is it possible that a landowner would grant access, but not to everyone and any time? I let lots of people hunt on my land, but I don't think it's too much to ask to be able to enjoy my own land by myself for a few days of the season and to choose who and how many other people can do the same. Second Assumption: Deer (game) will stay on the land where the habitat is placed. Good habitat ALWAYS produces more animals than it can carry. Take Yellowstone National Park. Everyone wants to hunt land next to the park for elk and deer. WHY? Because there is ALWAYS surplus animals spilling out of the park. Do you really think that the same thing won't happen on my small patch of land where habitat is good or where the habitat is planted on other lands? If I were in charge, this program would preferentially focus on lands directly connected to public land. Thereby, significantly increasing the public benefit from the habitat on private lands. As a whole, I think this little program might actually prove to be of some public benefit by increasing the overall carrying capacity of ND as a whole. [/QUOTE]

Verification

What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA