Impoundment Buffers

[Palmetto Bug]

I hunt on a diked club off the Cooper River. River hunters regularly sit on the river side of the dikes. If they get out of the boat, they are trespassing. If they send their dogs over to get a duck on the private property, they usually risk not seeing him again due to the alligators inside the dike. They also risk that some kook that shoots trespassing dogs will kill their dog, like we hear about with deer hunting.

It has always been my understanding that if you want to make sure you have a view from your property, you need to buy it. If our club wants a buffer, we need to move away from the boundaries to make one, not expect one to be created on public land to protect us.

[GobblerHntr]

blah blah blah, blah blah me, blah blah blah blah, me me me

It's just more of the S.O.S. It's how S@%! get's done on SCDucks! [img]graemlins/thumb2.gif[/img] Give your selves a hand! [img]graemlins/smiley01.gif[/img]

[rp]

Don't duck hunt if you have to trespass to do it. Don't sky bust ducks going into a protected area. You can't get them if you are lucky enough to hit one.

If you have an impund. They are not your ducks until they are in your bag. Other people can hunt them. Just not on your land. And thank you for feeding the ducks.

[rp]

Squatty, go back to your corner.

[GobblerHntr]

[img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img]

[GMAC]

In the American system of property rights, rooted in English common law, all land is titled in someone. Some is held by the state, some privatly. Neither form is "better", or even different than the other. The origin of every private title is a state grant. And no private owner has a broader title than that which the state granted in the first place.

So, if public title is identical to private title, (which it is), and we are to have buffers to keep the public off of a portion of its own land in order to protect the interests of those on the other side of the property line, does it not make sense that the buffer should be mutual? No one goes within X yards of the property line on either side? Then the public is protected from the private landowner, and the private owner gets the same benefit.

[Candor]

That argument could only hold water if the public property had restricted access. Only then would the private land owner have any restriction from advancing on the public's buffer.

If you want a buffer, then buy it. Otherwise property rights are being infringed.

[Nab]

GMAC - if any way to do it makes sense, that one comes the closest.
Now, am I glad the impoundment owners plant and take care of the property - yes. Does that make a duck that visits their place "their" duck, yes, but for only as long as it is on their property. If a particular land owner is having a problem, but no laws are broken then he has two ways to fix it - try and get the law changed or create a buffer using his own land.
Just because an impoundment owner spends the time and money to manage his land does not create a debt "owed" to him - he is doing it of his own free will - and yes, the public hunter should be educated to respect the job the private landowner has undertaken - the thing that still keeps any cooperation from happening is this - the private landowner thinks he is "owed" something and the public hunter always hears how he should give up something when he has also been forced over the yrs to give up alot due to the amount of quality public land that has been lost and is still being lost - and I'm not talking just about WMA's here - until both sides - and yes, like it or not there are 2 sides to this issue - work together nothing will change.

[GMAC]

Access to one is identical to the other. The public can restrict access to its own land, and often does. The private ownwer could, if he so chose, open his land up to the public. Consider the situation in which private land borders a refuge. The owner invites 6 or 8 friends to line up along the boundary and pass shoot birds as they fly in and out of the refuge. This private landowner is benefitting from the public's stewardship of its resources, exactly as the dike sitter benefits from the landowner's stewardship.

[rp]

If a property owner HAS to maintain a buffer on his side of the line, just as the public would on their side, I can see where the property owner could say that he has lost the use and value of the property and seek compensation.

On some of the lands I hunt, I am very familiar with the fact that the neighbor is going to shoot at deer on "my" fields and "my" cornpiles. Therefore I work the same in areas that he can't get to. I have created my own buffer and I have better hunting for it. If a duck hunter/impoundment owner wants better hunting, he needs to allow for his neighbors also. It is part of the cost of hunting.

[Claimer]

Just another rich mans idea of saving his ducks.

[Swamp Rat]

We've kicked this around for years.

What it really boils down to, in my personal opinion, is that you can't legislate manner and ethics. Especially on public water.

I don't see how buffer areas to protect private impoundments from neighboring pressure would work. Stepping back, I can see both sides. There has been talk of enforcing some form of "blind spacing", but I don't know that would work either. Who got there first? Etc... etc....

I AM in favor of reducing pressure to the extent reasonably possible in those areas that are holding birds. Otherwise, we the public hunters will force many of those birds deeper into private impoundment areas (and thus out of reach) or out of state entirely. I saw some ringers re-appear last year after running them off a pond... they all came back with Miami Hurricane jerseys and Mickey Mouse ears.

[CAMO SNOB]

buffers? so my land butts up to your impound and I cant hunt there, that's bullshit to try and tell a man he cannot hunt his on fucking land during an open season on land he has owned and paid taxes on. And you call yourselves republicans??? WTF? Why don't we increase welfare and Social security too...hell even get a tax increase.

If its public water than it should be just that, public. If it is not public then the proper authorities should handle it. Feel free to beat the "dike sitters" to the spot and hold it if it is in fact public.

[BigBrother]

The attorney's lobby would never let it happen. If we reduce the amount of land someone can injure themselves on and the landowner be responsible for, the lawyers would lose countless billions in lost lawsuits.
[img]graemlins/bambulance.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/bambulance.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/bambulance.gif[/img]

[Nab]

Duck Tape I do believe the same words have come the impoundment owners' mouths also when rest days and cutoff times were brought up in the past - so IF any of these ideas were to ever reality boths groups would have to work together and up until now I have yet to see where that would happen.
You for one have shown over the yrs that you are all for something until you see it might adversely affect you for even a short time.

[Rubberhead*]

Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

[Mergie Master]

Originally posted by Claimer:
Just another rich mans idea of saving his ducks.

Huh? [img]graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

What is rich? What's *your* definition? I would bet it isn't the same as mine. Matter of fact I'd bet if every member on here gave their definition no two would be the same. To a homeless person with no income a welfare recipient would probably be rich. To a welfare recipient I or you would probably be rich. And so it goes.

Just because someone has land and an impoundment doesn't mean they're rich by any means. The land may just be in their family and the money they spend on the impoundment just may be how they want to use their expendable income. They may forgo the $300k home and 3 new SUVs in the garage and spend their money on ducks.

I personally know some people who are land poor. They've spent all their money accumulating acreage and they don't have any liquid funds to speak of...but they hope their children will benefit from the land someday.

So don't play the class warfare card...it's way too vague to be meaningful because it's all relative.

And anyway I've found that the 'so-called' *rich* have the same problems I have and then some. Usually those problems are magnified due to the fact that other people think of them as *rich*. Maybe that's why the divorce rates, rate of alcoholism, and the suicide rates are higher among the so-called upper class affluents.

[Nab]

And you keep on egging things on so we'll have something to bitch about next yr.
How many times have I heard you say nobody is gonna tell you when to hunt since you're already doing the "right way" when we've discussed coordinating hunting, having cutoff times, closures - you name it; how you're for helping the refuge until you think might affect you - do I need to go on?
How about this - JABIII, we're gonna have cutoff times and some day cloures and everybody - pubic and private - are gonna have to follow these rules - you in? how about you Duck Tape?
And while we're at it, we would like to perform some surveys in new areas to determine duck populations and would like to survey ya'll's ponds, ya'll in? We also think food - grown or poured out - will help hold birds in the state and help now and even more in the future - can we count on ya'll's support if we get the public's?

[Swamp Rat]

Originally posted by Nab:
And you keep on egging things on so we'll have something to bitch about next yr.

Damn if that ain't the pot callin' the kettle black...

[Rubberhead*]

I don’t just want to shoot ducks. I want to hunt ducks.

I don’t need high fences and controlled access. I need wide open spaces with room to think and breath and live.

I don’t want impounded corn and a landscaped blind. I want a natural cypress with Spanish moss and I want my skill with a duck call to matter.

I’m not so rich that cost doesn’t matter, nor am I so poor that I have to kill a daily pile of ducks just to survive.

There are those that think I envy how they get to hunt. I think pity is a better description.