IE: someone who does not own land. I wonder if he's willing to take all the locks off the doors and windows of his home, and the fine gate to his back yard? I think not.
Posted on 10/18/2005 4:12:02 PM PDT by SJackson
Chai Vang's sentencing in the killings of six fellow hunters is scheduled for Nov. 8. I agree with his mother's comment, "All of this could have been prevented if we could only learn to respect one another." Her plea for respect should motivate us to develop a constructive land use ethic for the North Woods.
The assistant attorney general gave us a clue to needed changes in his opening remarks at the trial. He described and justified the hunters' response to Mr. Vang's trespassing as "natural." Many readers will not have any trouble with this remark. I do! Such a statement implicitly gives institutional sanction to such behavior. It suggests that the group's behavior was without fault.
I believe it is time we begin a discussion of a new land use ethic for the 21st century by identifying how we can mitigate the most negative aspects of private property rights.
For example, it's clear that private property tends to separate, divide and establish barriers. It limits our freedom of movement and choices. There is an increasing need, both locally and globally, for more porous and fluid boundaries that will lessen potential conflicts and expand access to increasingly limited land resources.
What would this new land use ethic look like? We need to begin by emphasizing greater stewardship and responsibility on both sides, the landowner and hunters. After all, our environment is for all the people. Clearly the public's demand for greater access to hunting lands will need to be more creatively and equitably managed in the future.
Most of all, a new land use ethic will emphasize that all land is on loan to us from our Creator. Thus its care and use is a shared sacred responsibility and privilege.
Such an ethic would help ensure that both sides would treat each other with greater respect and dignity. Rather than relating in an uneven power status, the emphasis would be upon mutual love of the land and the joy of hunting. A paradigm shift that respects this axiom would serve as a sound basis for future land use planning and management.
I would like to propose that farmers and other landowners consider opening up their land for hunting and other recreational uses by voluntarily adopting or sponsoring one or more urban dwellers who wish to hunt and fish. In the same spirit that Americans have recently opened up their homes to evacuees from the Gulf Coast states, Wisconsin rural landowners could voluntarily participate in a self-created, managed and operated "hunt-share" program.
Another approach would be for landowners to set aside some portion of their land during the hunting season. This also would be a voluntary, self-conceived, self-directed and self-managed program, perhaps assumed by some appropriate and existing private association. To get this program started it would only take two or three landowners to volunteer and the press to write about it.
Informally, of course, such a voluntary sharing of hunting land already exists. What is needed perhaps is a further expansion and formalization of this practice along with more equitable access to such land.
Also before many more hunting seasons pass I respectfully suggest that the DNR's section of the bureau of law enforcement carefully re-examine their use of Wisconsin citizens as "undercover agents" to report trespassers.
It seems to me that the Vang incident should give us pause and prompt the state to develop a DNR educational program that recognizes that our present land use ethic is badly outdated for the 21st century, and that to continue to ignore this would likely result in further confrontational, "I gottcha," kind of situations.
God forbid that we ever have another such incident, but if we do, hopefully it will not be viewed by the state of Wisconsin's law enforcement officials as "natural" for landowners in a future incident to respond as they did here. Surely no trespassing incident or taking of deer or other game should result in the death of six human beings.
William R. Benedict lives in Madison and works as a small group and social systems consultant.
Guess the Vang ping list will be with us forever. Talk about blaming the victim. For those not familiar with the case can search the keyword Vang, or perhaps those keeping the list will post some links.
Does this "land ethic" also pertain to Federal property? Betcha not!
Dear Mr. Benedict,
Feel free to walk my swamp. It is absolutely gorgeous, to me at any rate.
Btw, its a habitat for some canebrakes, so as long as you don't disturb me when you wake the big guys, (they are quite shy and really bad tempered) I won't bother you.
Love,
Opus
PS - Will you pay my property tax while you enjoy the ride, or do I have to send the bill to the Big Guy in Heaven? If you can't make it back to the main highway in time, you can hand deliver it, ok?
IE: someone who does not own land. I wonder if he's willing to take all the locks off the doors and windows of his home, and the fine gate to his back yard? I think not.
I feeling like singing Kumbya.
What a doofus.
Essentially? He's pretty direct.
What a great idea! Let's just do away with property rights and everything would be utopian! Where does Mr. Benedict reside? I may want to move in with him. Where's the key to his Lexus or do I have to jimmy the ignition? Those clothes in his closet may fit me as well. Hey, I could get ahead on this deal. Down with property rights . . .chant
Hope he at least appreciates it, without pulp he'd be out of a job.
theres no excuse for murder but this is a credible point - man has hunted and fished for milennia and that is all going by the wayside.
All the land is being posted, there are a million laws that preclude going out and filing the freezer with fillets, and all this benefits no one and destroys the reason for having canine teeth.
I remember when the "city " people used to go up to northern Pa , buy property, post it and build a cabin that they used a few days a year. That left 360 days for the locals to torch the place and keep hunting the area they had hunted all their lives.
Gee, what a surprise to find that this dolt lives in Madison, Wisconsin! Of course, we should all be obliged to "share the land" with whoever decides they want to use it for whatever purpose. Buying the land and paying taxes on it is just a way the "landowner" gets to feel even better about being rolled over.
Too angry to post anything coherent ... it's only a matter of time before his proposal is a reality ...
Enough said.
Pink sheep* on the left wing ping.
Huh. "Benedict". Figures.
* - Ref. www.ejectejecteject.com
I really like my neighbor on his side of the property line and the police on their side.
Everybody, group hug!
The writer of this piece assumes landowners can "set aside" a portion of their land during hunting season. Obviously it is necessary to post and fence such property one way or the other to "set aside" any of it.
So, what's the problem? And why should we not expect others, particularly those decked out to hunt, including having the proper licenses, to understand posts and fences?
One reason might be a practice some have referred to as "partial posting and fencing". You set up your blind in an appropriate place, near the adjoining public lands. You wait until the far more numerous hunters on the public lands drive the deer towards your property which is fenced in such a way that the only opening is near your blind.
Theoretically you should be able to harvest your limit on deer far faster and easier than other hunters.
I have no doubt these situations cause other hunters (particularly those who do not own private property abuting the public lands) to feel resentment, or even to come to feel that the guys with the blinds are simply not sporting.
Still, that's not what happened here. The response was worse ~ an opportunist who recognized the setup sought to make use of it. No doubt he thought the deer just flow through these areas and he'd be in and out before the owners showed up.
Surprise! The landowners arrived, or, he got the wrong blind. (I don't know for a fact that these landowners had failed to fence between their property and the public lands in the area).
IMHO the reality of the situation in this particular case is far removed from the theories discussed by the writer concerning hunting on private land.
A change in the hunting laws might be in order ~ you put up a blind, you put up a fence too, so that none of the game on the adjoining public lands flee to your property. Let the game wardens enforce that one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.