Landowner rights have little or nothing in most cases to do with the mammals or birds that are considered game and /or are protected. If you think you have total land rights just because you own a piece of property then go out to your pond (out of regular hunting Season of course) and blow away some migratory birds. Then call up the game management and tell them you did so. A landowner can not even keep a cottontail bunny rabbit for his kids by law, little alone tell game managment that they can't interfer, in any state that I have ever heard of anyways. Obviously this is a pure conflict case or it wouldn't have made the news anyways. I hate government getting into anything, but if they were called about a mammal or migratory bird on my property I would let them do as they are hired to do. Those elk are not his property to interfere in, by law they run under a wild animal which course can not normally interfered with whether killing or pennning. Ownership of property often doesn't include rights to change animals that pass on it, factors such as streams, minerals it possesses ,rightaways for roads and utilites, etc.- Management of game is certainly not granted to landowners in most cases. If so, we would have some people killing everything that walked on their property and others saving praire dogs. A fair balance is therefore needed, the government by several methods including hunting decide this balance, not landowners.

 

I'm from Nevada and I'm moving back at the end of this month. There's a p'ing contest going on between the BLM and land owners in the Elko, Jarbidge area. It all started when some folks decided to open up a public road in an area that was shut down after a flash flood. The BLM stated that the creek near the road had some endangered fish in it and refused to open the road. About a hundred paople grabbed shovels and opened it themselves.
The BLM sue'd the folks because they said the road being opened up again was going to kill the fish. The BLM in Nevada has their fingers in a lot of pies. They have sue'd some sisters in the Winnemucca area for grazing their own horses on what the BLM says is BLM land, even though the sisters have owned the land for decades.
Sadly, the people in Nevada have become bitter to any government office that says it's for the land or wildlife. I think what the landowner did was wrong, but knowing what I know about the B.S that goes on there, I understand the mistrust he felt.

 

Well, first off.... Didn't you guys ever watch cartoons??? He'd have eventually begun losing weight, at which point, his arm would have become smaller, and would have slid right out of there.

And, if evolution has stopped, boy are we in trouble. You mean to tell me the best this species can do is a guy getting stuck in the vending machine over a Coke.. Uhh, I'd like to change species now, are there any openings with the Chimpanzee union?

Perhaps it's the onlooker's responsibility to either shoot the guy, or the elk, to help evolution along. Maybe not.
But lets be honest, who really WANTS 2 elk battling to the death in their backyard. Not the kind of thing I want to see in the AM, couple of bloody, dead elk laying in the back yard. Why NOT allow someone to at least get them out of your yard? Or take SOME action? Even if it was to kill them, do something. Elk are big, and therefore, as a landowner, I'd be concerned about what kind of damage they are going to do to my property while engaged in this battle.

More importantly, we have interfered with nature every step of the way, in every single aspect, since the beginning of our ability to crawl.. If there's a species, land mass, or cloud in the sky, we've messed with it in some means or another along the way, why would everyone be up in arms suddenly about man interfering with 2 angry elk?

 

How do two animals engaged in a natural act negate some person's rights? This is turning into a conservation question. You can't stop one animal from killing another, or two animals from killing each other. Government has no right to interfere unless it is an unlawful event such organized **** fights, dog fights etc.

Thread edited for content By FTE


<How come more people will respond to this and defend an animal, but will not defend the baby humans that get butchered in abortion clinics.People need to look deep inside their hearts and figure out what is really important>

 

Gotta agree with 1952 Henry. Animals die. That is what they do when they are through living.

 

I do not think the landowner was wrong and it was entirely within his right to let the animals die on his property. Probably bad enough if they tell you when and when you can not hunt on your own land for your own food.

Vultures, wolves, and worms have to eat too. That being said, I would have had the animals darted and freed or shot and eaten. But, that would have been a choice left to me, not the government.

Plus, I am willing to bet that no one asked "pretty please" when talking to the property owner.

 

to the ones of you who think they should be aloowed on the property that is incorrect if the land owner doesnt want them on his land then he has all right to shoot them especially if the elk where right near a no trespassing sign. many deer elk and other animals dies when they fight each other in the wild and where they where was the wild before people over took there land no wonder so many deer elk are killed by vehicles the population of this country is growing at a ridiculous rate. i'm sure everyone looking at this thread has hit or almost hit a deer sometime in there life
P.E.T.A
i love animals they are delicious

 

Yeah, population is controlled by Guess who... The game management..( via culling through hunting) .....also the people called to take care of the situation. Better get out your LAW 101 book,, a wild animal is not possessed by a private individual-- The governing Laws give rights to game mangement not private individuals that is whom is chosen to make educated decisions because apparently the population can't. I will have to say that game management plays the biggest role in our ability to hunt . Fight them all you can and you are just losing your ability to do so.

<As far as the little comment about abortion isn't that a political religious stance.I really don't think that has a time or place except to invoke severe arguments on this website.I suggest if you want to worry about that subject use your right to vote.Not pi$$ people off>

A landowner just can't go shoot an animal on most cases - animals are regulated by both state and federal laws- Duh, that's why we have a hunting season. Some ignorant guy here in Kansas just shot some whopping cranes because he "just thought you can shoot something". Lets' see what they do to him. Common sense will tell you that their ability to gain access to the property later by the court system indicates who has the governing authority over animals/property. Again ,Duh, or they wouldn't have granted it. All the landowner did was create more problems in his area for those dealing with GM, and waste two animals.

 

Excuse me, but you are making this a conservation question when conservation laws do not apply in this case. Nobody was poaching or attempting to poach. There were 2 animals killing themselves on some man's property. The question was asked if the land owner had the right to deny conservation officers access to the property. No crime was being committed. The land owner was 100% correct in either way he chose to respond. He was not keeping these animals for pets. He was not poaching them. So, If you can say that Conservation Officers had the right, you quote what section and chapter of the law. I for one am not one to care about what others think. I could care less if I annoy somebody, and yes I do vote. As for conservation, it does have it's place and rightfully so.

<As far as abortion it is a moral stand.I feel it is murder.Chose not to take a stand and let the government do what it wants to you.Do not tell others just to allow somebody to impose their will upon them.>

 

AS I said before I guess you didn't take any law class-- It is about the the first thing you learn in law. A wild animal is not controlled by any individual, when the landowner decided to not allow the representives from the state of Nevada access to his land, he chose to involve himself. Again, obviously when the court system granted them rights to access "HIS" property - well definitely the ball was in thier court. No one made it a conservation statement at all. The simple fact of the matter is All animals that are considered Game are protected either by the state or federal or both governments.Therefore running on the protection - not of some simpleton land owner that wants to defy the government or anyone else. The responsibility was given by the court system to the Game officials. Landowners do not govern the rights of protected animals at all. Alot of the above information is far from being corrected. Do a search on any credible law site and you will find out that you simply are not allowed to change course, keep, or kill any animal unless stated otherwise-- which goes back to what we call hunting which again is a privlage and not a right. And I guess you might want to look up what governs Game Management-- they can impeded anmals other than cockfighting, etc. , it doesn't have to be an unlawful event as quoted earlier, that is a small part of their role. Sometimes it pays to know what you are talking about before you give bad advice. Again there is nothing in a land contract that states you have ownership of wild animals or the authority over them, But, funny the Game Managment does.

 

Perhaps the landowner has had run-ins with the wardens before, like killing wolves that ate his cattle, and wanted to stay away from the beaurocracy at all costs.

One of those damned if you do, damned if you don't situations.

Just a thought.

Rick

 

First of all I have taken law classes. I have probably forrgotten more about law than you will ever know. Second of all if you read the thread correctly it stated that the court had denied access to the biologist's. Only after the animals were dead that they were allowed access. That means that the landowner allowed them access to his land. If the land owner was wrong, then why did the courts deny access. Where do you keep coming up with these statements, they are as wild as the animals were. There has been no advice given. Nobody said that they owned wildlife that was on their property. You prove your statement with something that is verifiable, such as the law in all of it's legaleese and I will cease. Like I said, I have taken law. I never said that anybody had the management over any animals on ther land, you said I did. Learn how to comprehend what you read. Obviously you did not pay attention in school, or you should have paid better attention.

 

Shoot them? didn't you just say there was no need for them to die?

There's a reason it's called 'natural selection'. What if one of them was meant to have survived but now he's got a bullet in his brain.

how does anyone know that they weren't 10 year old bulls with 5 years of who knows how many offspring. Room has to be made for the next generations too.

 

i bet with in the week you'll see 2 bull elk antler sets for sale on ebay farmer will profit from it some how ya know

 

Please ....all user's....
Be VERY careful on the use of the word You

Once a person types the word You, any discussion that violates our personal comments guideline ,can be cause for thread closure,post deleted,& hopefully not suspension's being handed out.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here are 4 Good examples of Negative Personal Comments

I guess you didn't take any law class-

Sometimes it pays to know what you are talking about before you give bad advice.

I have probably forrgotten more about law than you will ever know.

Learn how to comprehend what you read. Obviously you did not pay attention in school, or you should have paid better attenti