Is this not a free country?
There is no king to own all the deer.
Maintenance of the forests happen real well in California where they don’t remove debris and wildfires kill people. Where did all the fees go?
I'm not sure what that has to do with this article. Certainly it's a free country, and there's no king. That said, wildlife management/maintenance at some level are needed if the government is going to protect respective rights of individuals and property owners. You can argue the degree of regulation, the wildlife management policies, etc., but let's take a look at what happens if the government makes no provisions for hunting on public lands, or maintaining them to one degree or another.
1. The only people who will be able to hunt will be:
a. People who own or can lease a large enough tract of land on which to hunt.
b. People who have a friend or family with enough land on which to hunt and will let them.
c. People who are willing and able to pay for access to a privately owned hunting area.
This precludes a lot of lower income folks, people who live in towns and cities, and younger adults. They will effectively be inhibited from hunting. It's really tantamount to saying that anybody who doesn't own their own lake shouldn't be able to enjoy boating.
2. We may not have "The King's Deer", but without some type of management at the state level, we would essentially be returned to something like feudal lordships in terms of wildlife management. Hypothetically, lets suppose a state abolished all game laws, bag limits, hunting seasons, etc. In theory, 2, 3 or 4 large property owners could, within a year or two, wipe out virtually all the deer in a county, harvesting pregnant does, fawns, unlimited bucks over the course of all 12 months. It might be an exquisitely grand expression of private property rights, but I would much rather have an elected legislature establish tag limits, seasons, etc. as the elimination of a species from those 2, 3 or 4 holdings would certainly impact the ecology beyond their individual properties.
I think, in as much as our states were set up to be 50 laboratories of republicanism, it is something that should be managed at the state level. I think the citizenry should be able to express through their legislatures the setting aside of public lands for hunting, fishing and other outdoor recreation if they so choose. Once that's established, the legislators are really put into a position where they have to enact rules for the fair use of said lands. We can all debate what those rules should say,how they should be enforced, the penalties for violating them, etc. but IMHO, it's really a proper exercise of representative government.