Contract hunting: Ban would harm property owners
Published Feb 21, 2012 at 3:00 am
(Updated Feb 20, 2012)
How does prohibiting a specific use of one’s property protect private property rights? To get the answer, you’ll have to ask Rep. Joe Duarte, R-Candia. He not only claims that it can be done, but that he’s done it.
Duarte is a co-sponsor of House Bill 1339. It would prohibit anyone with a hunting, fishing or trapping license from paying a private property owner for the exclusive rights to hunt, fish or trap on said owner’s property. This is plainly an abridgement of both private property rights and the right to contract. Duarte, though, says it isn’t.
“This bill would prevent giving exclusive right to hunt for payment and excludes others who have the right to hunt while protecting property rights by placing the penalty on the licensee,” he claims in the House Fish and Game Committee’s report recommending passage of the bill.
In other words, Duarte says the property owner’s rights are protected because the bill prohibits the hunter, not the property owner, from entering into a contract for exclusive hunting rights.
That’s preposterous. The bill would ban property owners from leasing their own land to anyone, even friends or family members, for the purpose of hunting, trapping or fishing. In a rural state that relies as heavily as New Hampshire does on property taxes, that would deprive some landowners of a source of revenue that could mean the difference between their being able to keep their property or being forced to sell it.
This bill ought to be rejected as the unnecessary infringement on property and contract rights that it so obviously is.
Comments
To improve the chance of seeing your comment posted here or published in the New Hampshire Union Leader:
- Identify yourself. Accounts using fake or incomplete names are suspended regardless of the quality of posts.
- Say something new, stay on topic, keep it short.
- Links to outside URLs are discouraged, if used they should be on topic.
- Avoid comments in bad taste, write well, avoid using all capital letters
- Don't cite facts about individuals or businesses without providing a means to verify the claim
- If you see an objectionable comment please click the "Report Abuse" button and be sure to tell us why.
Note: Comments are the opinion of the respective poster and not of the publisher.
clifford newton said:
As the House Calendar recommendation says the Public Trust Doctrine is the principle of common law that establishes who owns and manages wildlife including game animals it is the core principle of the north American Model of Wildlife Management. The Public Trust Doctrine is based on three principles. 1.State holds wildlife in trust for all the people. 2.The state has affirmative duty to fulfill the responsibilities created by this trust. 3.The state has no power to abrogate its trust over wildlife by transferring ownership or management of wildlife to private concern of individuals. Today, the state licenses hunters and fishermen to encourage the use of these resources through efficient public management. Every individual licensed by the state is expected to follow a set of rules and every individual licensed by the state has the right to expect that every other licensee will not only abide by the same rules but will also respect the privilege of every other licensee to be able to take fish and game without interference due to the contrivance of any other licensee. This bill would prevent giving exclusive right to hunt for payment and excludes others who have the right to hunt while protecting property rights by placing the penalty on the licensee. It is absolutely clear that the state could not manage its wildlife resources if these resources were hijacked by market hunters or by coalitions of licensees through formation of consortiums who could through leasing in particular, wall off hunting and fishing to all other licensees. For example, imagine if a group of investors bought the exclusive rights to the paper company land up north and closed it to hunting and fishing except for their select group. People against the bill do not appear to understand that if a deer is on my land, I do not own it nor does a hunter have the right to selectively contract buy exclusive rights to hunt it. The bill also is a start to the discussion that needs to take place to examine what is happening in other states. that being, select groups are purchasing the rights to post large portions of someone else's land for their own hunting of wild game protected by the public trust doctrine.
Without affecting the rights of property owners to permit or deny access to their property, all HB1339 says is that any licensee who pays any land owner to restrict access of any other license forfeits their right to hunt or fish for a period of three years.Cliff NewtonChairman N.h. House Fish and Game Committee
(Report Abuse)
February 21, 2012 6:32 am
Dale St Laurent said:
Replubican = less government intrusion - Right? This helps with jobs - Right? Property taxes are heading nowhere but up, and now we want to limit even more what a taxpayer can do with the property they pay taxes on? What the hell is wrong with these elected officials? Another waste of taxpayer money and time on things that do not need to be "fixed", let alone addressed!
(Report Abuse)
February 21, 2012 7:07 am
Jeff Swett said:
Many states have large clubs or guide services that lease land for their exclusive use. It does make it hard for the hunter who prefers not, or can't afford, to join to find a good place to hunt. Hunters pay for conservation and without those dollars we would not have the fairly abundant, often too abundant, wildlife we have today ( anti-hunting ** aside). We need to find a way to keep more land open for everyone to hunt, not just those folks who can afford to buy exclusive leases of guided hunts. I'm not sure this bill is the way but the conversation needs to begin before we become like Ohio or Illinois, where most of the deer are on private leased land and unavailable to anyone not willing or able to spend big dollars.
(Report Abuse)
February 21, 2012 7:11 am
Spike said:
Rep. Newton, I believe we have identified the heart of the problem: not a bill that prevents the voluntary use of property, but a "Doctrine...of common law" that stands citizens' rights on their heads, and an alleged Republican in a leadership role who fleshes it out to maintain his own power.Rep. Newton graciously offers that the bill will not "affect...the rights of property owners." Merely, if they should EXERCISE those rights, the bill would withdraw their hunting and fishing licenses--using those licenses not for their designated purpose, stewardship of wildlife, but to ensnare licensees and enforce obedience. Rep. Newton mentions that, in other states, private agreements (purchases of rights) are being used to ensure orderly hunting arrangements. This is only a problem because it is what the Fish and Game Commission claims it needs martial-law powers to accomplish.There is no reason why the State should hold anything "in trust for the people," not wildlife, not my withholdings, not my health care. If we believe this, then we are indeed required to believe Rep. Newton's correlaries, that the state has "an affirmative duty" (that is, plenary power) which it MUST exercise by trampling the concerns and voluntary agreements of its citizens. Unfortunately, this fantasy sets our model of constitutionally limited government squarely on its head.Every day it becomes clearer why our Tea Party legislature can make no progress reining in or repealing the licensing boards and the PUC. Democrats put the government on steroids--Republicans make the numbers work. They are merely the "tax collectors of the welfare state."
(Report Abuse)
February 21, 2012 7:15 am
Stephen Boyington said:
Why pay the landowner for the use of his land.... when I can MAKE him let me use it for free? Bad bill. See, Spike, I agree with you and the UL on occasion.
(Report Abuse)
February 21, 2012 12:24 pm
Spike said:
Stephen Boyington: Yes. I am noting the date.
(Report Abuse)
February 21, 2012 4:05 pm
Matt Lulling said:
This is how they do it down South. A typical deer lease costs thousands. If this bill doesn't pass, only the rich will be able to hunt, which is why the UL is against it. They want to do their part to turn NH into a some fascist southern backwater where only Ole Massa gets to hunt. The wildlife does not belong to the property owner, it belongs to the people.
(Report Abuse)
February 21, 2012 4:37 pm
Ron Remillard said:
Stephen Boyington, what an asinine comment. Private property can still be clearly marked off limits to hunters and others. You can not now nor in the future make anyone let you use it for free.
(Report Abuse)
February 21, 2012 7:42 pm
John Whorfin said:
Rep. Newton- Isn't the state moose lottery just someone paying a high premium to the state in order to hunt when the average person cannot? Will this bill then revoke the hunting licenses of those participating in that hunt? OK for the state to profit from select hunting, but not the little guy? Seriously? Am I wrong that I can hunt and fish for all those "wild" animals on my own property, without a license? If so, I guess I own those critters, don't I? Not buying this bill, sorry.
(Report Abuse)
February 21, 2012 8:34 pm
Stephen Boyington said:
Ron, please read the bill.
(Report Abuse)
February 21, 2012 9:19 pm
Stephen Boyington said:
The Liberty Alliance? That is an interesting take on liberty.
(Report Abuse)
February 21, 2012 9:32 pm
John Mercier said:
Stephen Boyington...I think you might have hit the NH Liberty Alliance page on the bill.But Ron is correct.The process to enter into the contracts is for a private landowner to post land against hunting... then to allow through written permission those they chose to have access. In this case for monetary gain.Even should the bill become statute... the landowner may still maintain the land in a posted manner.
(Report Abuse)
February 21, 2012 11:15 pm
judith seward said:
I think I see where this is going. No more posting?
(Report Abuse)
February 22, 2012 12:52 am
kevin croteau said:
Nothing wrong with this law, And in Maine, 2007 same issue was challenged. Does a person have the right to purchase the right to wild animals that are native to the land.A Maine Guide up in the Alligash region sued a hunter, an independent hunter with no guide, for taking a bear 200 yards off his bait buckets. (trophy bear) Fish and Game refused to cite the hunter because 200 yards is clearly out of site and smell of any bait that was set to bring a bear in for harvest and the bait was 60 yards off the gravel road and the bear was taken 200 yards beyond that. And that 200 yards before the bait is an acceptable distance to be for the bear to open for any hunter. And the Court favored Fish and Games decision.This is good.
(Report Abuse)
February 22, 2012 7:20 am
Post a comment
© Union Leader Corp.
