******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.******
This is pure communist dogma and you don’t even know it.
Privatization takes care of access because people will have to fund management by letting people use the land. Letting the state run things gives guns to the state to run people off the lands with NO oversite. If you can’t see the difference, you ar willfully ignorant.
Using the land is different than allowing hunting on it. This seems like a great notion until wealthy PETA supporters start buying prime hunting areas and maintaining them by charging fees or leases for other activities apart from hunting and fishing which they detest. As an advocate of private property, I would concur that is their choice, but it ultimately shrinks and eventually limits huntable areas. Hunters make up about 5% of the population and that number is shrinking. At present there is a solid % of the population that doesn't hunt, but supports hunting, but that number is shrinking as well.
"PRIVATIZE and have the state oversee is how this country was FOUNDED!"
Our founders would have, I think, found the notion of private ownership of wildlife abhorrent based on their outright rejection of the notion feudalism. Who "owns" a deer? Does a deer standing on your property remain your property until such time as it crosses into your neighbor's property and become his?
Suppose a neighbor sets out a salt lick on his property, near where it abuts your property. If that deer, drawn by the salt lick wanders onto your property, does it become yours to do with as you see fit? If not, what or whom governs what may be done with that deer?