Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="bravo" data-source="post: 256142" data-attributes="member: 1778">This was actually a pretty good compromise. If its truly about property rights (debatable), both sides should be happy. Again what bothers me is how the reps who are landowners all but said they do not like hunters, people who don't own land should stay out of the countryside, and they will be posting all their land solid (as if they didn't already) in revenge if this bill doesn't pass as they see fit. Dramatic tales of hunters ripping down signs and daring farmers to kick them out, such made up BS. All this after 1.) minimalizing public input, 2.) keeping everyone in the dark about details until the last minute, 3.) scrapping the landowner database, the default open unless otherwise stated nature of the new bill, and 4.) not having a funding plan, or impact study in place, so if it doesn't work after two years, then everything is posted. THEN, they have the audacity to say that irate sportsmen wanted no part of compromise, offer no input, and just want to be able to do what they please. Never had a problem with hunters on our land (neighbor kids on utv's and snowmobiles, different story), nor have I heard about anything major when it comes to problems with trespassing in my area.Sportsman's groups know they need to work with landowners. They are not "entitled", 100% of the time gracious and respectful. I am a landowner and a member a couple foundations. They volunteer to fix fence, pick up trash, work on riparian habitat, help move cattle, pay for and put up signs etc., all in the name of mutual benefit and good relations. And yet these reps did an outstanding job painting a picture and driving a wedge between us.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA