Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Fish and Game Without the State

rated by 0 users
This post has 1 Reply | 1 Follower

Top 500 Contributor
Posts 186
Points 4,290
TANSTAAFL Posted: Thu, Dec 15 2011 12:18 PM

I live in Minnesota and hunting and fishing is 'regulated' by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). As an avid hunter and fisherman I have been contemplating how hunting and fishing would be regulated absent the state.

From my point of view the DNR doesn't really know what they are doing. For those that don't know much about MN it has an interesting geography that allows game to flourish. Within the boundaries of MN the northern boreal forest, the eastern hardwood forest, and the western prairie all converge. The land is also dotted with lakes and various types of wetlands. When europeans first arrived here woodland caribou, moose, whitetail deer, mule deer, elk, bison, black bear, wolves, and cougar were all plentiful. By the late 1800's settlers had decimated the population of all game animals and the DNR was born. Shortly thereafter game laws, limits and seasons were introduced. Over the last century only the whitetail deer and black bear have managed to survive at a high enough population to allow for hunting (there are still moose and elk seasons only open for residents but the number of tags issued is very small).

Over time the regulations and attempts at managing animal populations have become a convoluted mess. There are hundreds of lakes that have specific rules that only apply to that particular lake. There are now slot limits on fish and antler restrictions on deer in some areas. When I was a kid in order to harvest a doe one needed a special tag that was given out in a lottery drawing and was allowed only one deer per hunter per year; today I can buy a regular license and up to 5 additional anterless tags for the same area. In the span of some twenty years under the management of the DNR deer went from being scarce to overpopulated. Interestingly enough the DNR seems unwilling to publish any studies on whether any particular regulation improves or ruins hunting or fishing.

There also seems to be little consistency from state to state in hunting and fishing regulations. For example, in WI an angler can use two lines but in MN you may only use one, unless you are fishing on the river that shares the border with WI. How many poles you are allowed seems irrelevant when there is still a daily and possesion limit for all fish. In many states an individual is allowed to harvest two or three buck deer if they purchase the right tags, but in MN you can only tag one buck and you still have to buy a license to hunt each season (bow, gun, muzzleloader).

The only real positive I see with state involvement is the public access the state is able to provide. In MN water (lakes, rivers, streams, ponds) cannot be owned. If anyone can get access to the water from a road, other waterway, or easement they are free to go and fish or hunt anywhere on any body of water. There is also an abundance of state land, national forest, and county owned land that is all open for anyone to hunt. Additionally the state has made agreements with companies that own large tracts of land that if the company allows public use for hunting the company is given a tax break.

 

 

Obviously the whole dynamic would change without the state and a system of private ownership. The two questions I have are: 1) Absent the state, who or what ensures people do not decimate game and fish by harvesting too much? 2) How would a person that does not or canot afford to own a property ever be able to enjoy hunting or fishing?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 304
Points 4,800
cporter replied on Thu, Dec 15 2011 1:31 PM

TANSTAAFL:

Obviously the whole dynamic would change without the state and a system of private ownership. The two questions I have are: 1) Absent the state, who or what ensures people do not decimate game and fish by harvesting too much? 2) How would a person that does not or canot afford to own a property ever be able to enjoy hunting or fishing?

 

1. "Too much" is subjective. The market, through ownership and pricing, would ensure that the optimal number of game and fish exist. It is this ownership and pricing that the State prevents, causing overuse.

2. You would get a permission to hunt on someone else's land. Businesses already exist that sell permits to private hunting reserves.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (2 items) | RSS