Blackcat if the regs get dropped on private land then the hunters that hunt public would cry that they are regulated,and we all know you can't have laws for some and not the others.Well only in the GOV.
Like you say, we already have a plethora of different rules and regs that apply differently, both objectively and subjectively, to different people, many of which are only applicable on public property. (And the government employee reference was not lost on me; so true.)
Some Private land owners would wipe the herd out that is on/around their property.Now forcing more hunter into the regulated land (public ) now we have more whiners.
Deer on land that is owned by someone who wants to "wipe the herd out" are probably inaccessible to hunters already, so there is not likely much if any "forcing" of more hunters onto public land.
I'm not the first to say this:
Nature gives all living things but three options: Adapt, migrate or die. When a given landowner wants to "wipe the herd out," those deer on his land will adapt (most likely), migrate (by definition only temporary) or die (some usually do.) The results of any or all of these options will not likely cause any "forcing" of more hunters onto public land. Indeed, if there is accessible hunting land nearby, its herd just may incorporate those that migrate.
I agree, we do have whiners. Furthermore, a true whiner will accept no solution.
A land owner has the option to regulate the herd on their property now,if the DOW says a hunter can take 1 antlered deer and 3 antlerless the land owner has the right to take all 4 or 1 for that matter.A farmer can get damage control permits to take more if they want.Thinning the herd or letting them grow it is the land owners/hunters choice.Just remember laws are like locks they keep an honest man honest
I thought laws were like sausages.
Back on point, and you make a good one:
You are correct in that a private landowner can unofficially set bag limits at or below those of the state. My first counterpoint, perhaps the only one given my present state of mind, is to ask: Which privately owned land mass could affect the carrying capacity of its surrounding habitat? I suggest, not one. Perhaps collectively there are/could be some, but not individually.
You are also correct in that a private landowner can both unofficially set season dates within those of the state, and designate which weapons can be used among those approved by the state. Again I ask: What impact would it have on the "big picture" were a landowner to allow hunting on other dates or with other weapons?
(OK, now I have to climb on a rickety chair to change the battery in our smoke detectors. This is a test. Were it an actual emergency, you would be directed to tune into…Do any of you have a headache like this one?
Drinking rum before noon does not a pirate make.)