Now there's a real laugh. Private portions of ranches usually contain the ranch house, if there is one. So ranchers are going to start letting us shoot near the house?
I favor finding ways to incentivize ranchers to be better stewards of the land for wildlife, but this is idea is ridiculous and suggests that some of our ranchers are not too tightly tethered to reality.
Ranchers lease public lands for a single purpose: grazing. Now they think their grazing leases have purchased them the right to sell wildlife. Since when?
If anyone finds their proposal logical, try this: We'll all go file mining claims on ranchers' leased land, pay the small fee required to register the mine, scratch around in the dirt occasionally to keep the claim qualified as active, and then if the rancher wants to build a road, tank or fence, he can pay us for the right to do it! After all, if we've paid for the right to mine, why can't we have the right to sell other rights?
With respect to the logic employed, how's that any different from what these ranchers are proposing?
I don't mean to paint all ranchers with the same brush, but some are dumber than their cattle.
Ranchers lease public land with the understanding there will be wildlife on it and the public will come there to hunt. If they can't accept that, they shouldn't lease public land in the West. They should move to Iowa and buy a farm.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>