sgsjr
Banned
Is a big insurance company's ag policy dictating our game laws????? Below is an article written by Hubert Bickley and published in the April 2005 issue of Georgia Outdoor Adventures paper. It makes for a sound and awakening read, especilly after reading the DNR's 10 year management plan. Please read it over and take it all in. Pay close attention to items 7, 18, 21, and 32.
I have not read the GFB policy referenced in this article but will request a copy. The author has and stands by this published article. I have obtained written permission from the author to put his article on this board.
Below is the article:
[B]Georgia’s Hunters: Threatened or Endangered Species?[/B]
It is quite obvious at this point in time; that we are in and will remain in an uphill struggle as far as all aspects of hunting is concerned. There is a constant barrage of bills at the federal level and proposed ordinances in many of the cities that would prohibit or severely restrict the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; the right to keep and bear arms. There are a lot of major cities in the USA that the mere possession of a firearm is viewed as a major crime with mandatory prison time. It is a good idea to check the firearms laws before traveling through another state.
Let’s take a look at what has been going on in hour home state. The population of Georgia has almost doubled in the last 30 years while there has been no increase in the land size. Therefore land prices have increased to meet the expanding population. This is the major reason that so many of the timber companies have began their massive land sales. Regretfully, this trend will continue and there are going to be fewer and fewer places to hunt. It is a lesson of simple economics. The land values have risen to levels that are not economically feasible to retain the land for the production of fiber.
Another alarming statistic is that the number of hunters has actually declined in the past few years. This translates to less political clout at all levels of government. Also, the Pittman-Robinson funds from the federal level are based on the number of license sales for each state. So an increase in the license fees may have a negative result in total funds if the proposed increase causes a reduction in the total number of licenses sold. I keep reading where people want to raise the non-resident license fees. There is a point where the non-residents will go hunt in another state that is more non-resident friendly, or where the DNR-WRD manages the wildlife resources for the hunters and not to benefit the insurance companies, developers, farmers and other special interest groups.
I just finished reading the Georgia Farm Bureau’s 2005 AG POLICY, changes and additions, as approved by their delegates and would like to share some of them with you. Georgia Farm Bureau is in all 159 counties and is probably the most influential player in Georgia politics. The following are statements from Wildlife Management-125 G of their AG POLICY And I quote:
(1) We recommend that the game laws be reassessed to make sure that Georgia wildlife is managed to have limited impact of farmers.
(2) We recommend a lengthened deer-hunting season with more antler-less days and increased overall bag limits, and we encourage hunter/landowner educational program to manage the overpopulated deer herd in Georgia.
(3) We urge the Georgia Department of Natural Resources to seek input from the farm sector in regards to wildlife and hunting regulations, and work with the farmer where there is a problem of crop damage form deer or a need for clarification of hunting regulations.
(7) We recommend legislation to set standards that will establish private property damage, including crop and vehicle, as a primary consideration in wildlife and game management.
(11)Due to inconsistent hunting regulation between arbitrary hunting regions across the state,. We urge the implementation of uniformity in hunting season and hunting laws.
(14) We recommend Georgia Farm Bureau support legislation to be passed which will allow beekeeper the right to selectively harvest nuisance bears, which cannot be controlled by the use of electric fences.
(15) Any federally protected game or other wildlife destroying a crop should be able to be controlled by the landowner without penalties.
(17) As a result of the wildlife which has been released in our state over the past 20 years, (i.e. deer, coyotes, turkeys, and geese) we strongly recommend that a committee be formed of legislators and farmers form all geographic areas of the state. This committee should meet what the Georgia Department of Natural Resources to evaluate the impact that wildlife has on agriculture-specifically in the regard to crop and property losses before the introduction of additional wildlife.
(18) We urge the state legislature and Georgia Department of Natural Resources to study way in which farmers can be compensated for the crop damage done by wildlife.
(19) We recommend the adoption of a lay that would prevent the introduction of new game wildlife into Georgia until the economic impact on the farmers (who usually have to feed this wildlife) is established by farmers, Department of Natural Resources and legislation.
(20) Due to increased crop damages caused by deer and wild hogs, we recommend that the GFB explore the possibilities with the DNR of assessing hunting license or using funds from the Georgia wildlife tags to cost-share a program of building fences around specialty crops such as fruit orchards and nurseries to keep these animals outs.
(32) By law, the Georgia deer population is owned by the state of Georgia. We recommend that the state be liable for the damage to crops and automobiles.
Want to verify or obtain a complete copy of the 2005 Ag. Policy? Call the Georgia Farm Bureau Legislative Department at 1-800-342-1192
By: Hubert Bickley, buau@alltel.net or 770-468-6284, printed in Georgia’s OUTDOOR ADVENTURES, April 2005 Issue. www.teamgoa.com
I have not read the GFB policy referenced in this article but will request a copy. The author has and stands by this published article. I have obtained written permission from the author to put his article on this board.
Below is the article:
[B]Georgia’s Hunters: Threatened or Endangered Species?[/B]
It is quite obvious at this point in time; that we are in and will remain in an uphill struggle as far as all aspects of hunting is concerned. There is a constant barrage of bills at the federal level and proposed ordinances in many of the cities that would prohibit or severely restrict the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; the right to keep and bear arms. There are a lot of major cities in the USA that the mere possession of a firearm is viewed as a major crime with mandatory prison time. It is a good idea to check the firearms laws before traveling through another state.
Let’s take a look at what has been going on in hour home state. The population of Georgia has almost doubled in the last 30 years while there has been no increase in the land size. Therefore land prices have increased to meet the expanding population. This is the major reason that so many of the timber companies have began their massive land sales. Regretfully, this trend will continue and there are going to be fewer and fewer places to hunt. It is a lesson of simple economics. The land values have risen to levels that are not economically feasible to retain the land for the production of fiber.
Another alarming statistic is that the number of hunters has actually declined in the past few years. This translates to less political clout at all levels of government. Also, the Pittman-Robinson funds from the federal level are based on the number of license sales for each state. So an increase in the license fees may have a negative result in total funds if the proposed increase causes a reduction in the total number of licenses sold. I keep reading where people want to raise the non-resident license fees. There is a point where the non-residents will go hunt in another state that is more non-resident friendly, or where the DNR-WRD manages the wildlife resources for the hunters and not to benefit the insurance companies, developers, farmers and other special interest groups.
I just finished reading the Georgia Farm Bureau’s 2005 AG POLICY, changes and additions, as approved by their delegates and would like to share some of them with you. Georgia Farm Bureau is in all 159 counties and is probably the most influential player in Georgia politics. The following are statements from Wildlife Management-125 G of their AG POLICY And I quote:
(1) We recommend that the game laws be reassessed to make sure that Georgia wildlife is managed to have limited impact of farmers.
(2) We recommend a lengthened deer-hunting season with more antler-less days and increased overall bag limits, and we encourage hunter/landowner educational program to manage the overpopulated deer herd in Georgia.
(3) We urge the Georgia Department of Natural Resources to seek input from the farm sector in regards to wildlife and hunting regulations, and work with the farmer where there is a problem of crop damage form deer or a need for clarification of hunting regulations.
(7) We recommend legislation to set standards that will establish private property damage, including crop and vehicle, as a primary consideration in wildlife and game management.
(11)Due to inconsistent hunting regulation between arbitrary hunting regions across the state,. We urge the implementation of uniformity in hunting season and hunting laws.
(14) We recommend Georgia Farm Bureau support legislation to be passed which will allow beekeeper the right to selectively harvest nuisance bears, which cannot be controlled by the use of electric fences.
(15) Any federally protected game or other wildlife destroying a crop should be able to be controlled by the landowner without penalties.
(17) As a result of the wildlife which has been released in our state over the past 20 years, (i.e. deer, coyotes, turkeys, and geese) we strongly recommend that a committee be formed of legislators and farmers form all geographic areas of the state. This committee should meet what the Georgia Department of Natural Resources to evaluate the impact that wildlife has on agriculture-specifically in the regard to crop and property losses before the introduction of additional wildlife.
(18) We urge the state legislature and Georgia Department of Natural Resources to study way in which farmers can be compensated for the crop damage done by wildlife.
(19) We recommend the adoption of a lay that would prevent the introduction of new game wildlife into Georgia until the economic impact on the farmers (who usually have to feed this wildlife) is established by farmers, Department of Natural Resources and legislation.
(20) Due to increased crop damages caused by deer and wild hogs, we recommend that the GFB explore the possibilities with the DNR of assessing hunting license or using funds from the Georgia wildlife tags to cost-share a program of building fences around specialty crops such as fruit orchards and nurseries to keep these animals outs.
(32) By law, the Georgia deer population is owned by the state of Georgia. We recommend that the state be liable for the damage to crops and automobiles.
Want to verify or obtain a complete copy of the 2005 Ag. Policy? Call the Georgia Farm Bureau Legislative Department at 1-800-342-1192
By: Hubert Bickley, buau@alltel.net or 770-468-6284, printed in Georgia’s OUTDOOR ADVENTURES, April 2005 Issue. www.teamgoa.com
Just gonna give me two cents worth 
I agree with Randy and Sandhill...
