The guide that was using two of my leased peanut farms wont be using them ever again. I walked up a few weeks ago and that guy must of had twenty damn hunters on my land.
Yeah its called NONE. The farmer whom leased my land had sublet to this guide @ 4000 a season. I had that crap stopped immediately and since the lease was up, I had it added "just to make sure its clear" Land owner owns ALL hunting rights. I have a Vietnam vet who lives on a corver plot whom had a deal my my uncle to be the only hunter and he keeps meth cookers and others away. And thats fine with me. He only hunts deer. and has a nice little setup IF I ever deer hunt again i'll hunt with him!I’ve said it before. None of this is going to stop until people quit booking with these guides. I’d wager that most of the clients don’t even care what the kind of illegal activity the guide is doing as long as they kill something and don’t get busted themselves.
My opinion won’t be a popular one, but if the landowner is held liable for illegal activity on their land, they’d be a lot more selective on who they let hunt their places.
Ok, let’s do it.The big guide here spends tens if not hundreds of thousands in lease fees. They are corporate backed and 99% of their clients are corperate execs from across the country and not local. It would take 5 or 6 digit fines, loss of license or OK privileges or all three to sting them.
I’m not totally against this idea on one proviso…they only can be held liable for commercial activity! (Guiding/leasing)My opinion won’t be a popular one, but if the landowner is held liable for illegal activity on their land, they’d be a lot more selective on who they let hunt their places.
Making land owner liable will shut down ALL hunting. No way a landowner can know everything that hunters are doing without being with them constantly.I’ve said it before. None of this is going to stop until people quit booking with these guides. I’d wager that most of the clients don’t even care what the kind of illegal activity the guide is doing as long as they kill something and don’t get busted themselves.
My opinion won’t be a popular one, but if the landowner is held liable for illegal activity on their land, they’d be a lot more selective on who they let hunt their places.
Well, that is the topic of this discussion.I’m not totally against this idea on one proviso…they only can be held liable for commercial activity! (Guiding/leasing)
It would definitely take a huge chunk out of the equation.Making land owner liable will shut down ALL hunting. No way a landowner can know everything that hunters are doing without being with them constantly.
No it won't. An intelligently worded contract to lease, and an intelligently crafted bill to address this issue isn't that complicated.Making land owner liable will shut down ALL hunting. No way a landowner can know everything that hunters are doing without being with them constantly.