|
The United States laws regarding wildlife come to us through English
common law. At one time, all wildlife were considered property of
the king. This ownership was eventually stripped from the Crown and
assigned to the citizens.
The term“ferae naturae, Latin for "nature [wild] animals," is a
legal term used to describe any animals that are not designated
domesticated animals by law. In property law, ferae naturae residing
on real property are not usually considered part of the property
unless the animals have been tamed or captured.
For most of the history of the United States, this has been the
standard by which sportsmen went into the field. Over the years it
has been modified through legislation which required licensing, set
bag limits and specifying times that hunting would be permited. No
legislative action has ever been taken to alter ownership of
wildlife. However, in Oklahoma today a disguised effort is being
made to change that.
During the last session of the Oklahoma Legislature, Sen. Kenneth
Corn introduced Senate Bill 95. It was passed overwhelmingly by both
the Senate and the House, but fortunately for Oklahoma sportsmen,
was vetoed by Governor Brad Henry.
This was a fine example of what happens when legislators do not take
the time to look below the surface, especially when dealing with
legislation with such long-reaching implications. The bill was
pushed by members of the newly formed organization among who was a
well-known Washington lobbyist and some of his well-heeled friends.
Also involved were some large corporate interests. The group wined
and dinned legislators urging their support for SB 95. In the end,
they were successful.
The bill, an “anti-trespassing” measure, was touted as a “property
owner’s issue.” And, that really appealed to our legislative
leaders. “How can anyone be against property owner’s rights?” We
believe that most thinking individuals support “property owner
rights.” However, when doing so one must acknowledge there are
instances where the ownership of property does not extend to all
things. One must be mindful that everything doesn’t fall into the
mold. In this instance, wildlife.
But to take it a step further, as in the last legislative session,
there were some property owners who weren’t considered. Our
legislators’ rush to stand up for “property owners’ rights”
abandoned them: the Oklahoma sportsman.
As noted at the beginning of this article, we begin with the premise
that all wildlife in the State of Oklahoma belongs to the people and
is a longstanding concept. The sportsmen of Oklahoma fund the
Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation and its many programs
through licenses and other fees, the department’s sole source of
funding. They put up the money and, therefore, have an inherent
right to share in all our state’s wildlife. Or at least that is the
way it has been.
What legislation such as SB 95 accomplishes is the transfer of
ownership of wildlife from the sportsmen to the property owners.
You, the average sportsman, no long can lay claim to owing a share.
Oh, you can still go hunting, but get ready to pony up the dollars
for a hunting lease or to pay large outfitters a huge fee to hunt
their thousands of acres of leased/owned land. “Joe Blow,” the
neighborhood mechanic with a small shop and a wife and three kids is
now out of luck even though he represents the thousands of Oklahoma
sportsmen who have paid the bill for years.
Areas of fertile hunting, once open to the public, will become a
“pay-to-play” and eventually with more out of state “hunters” than
Oklahomans enjoying deer season. This trend has already begun to
happen.
Speaking of “property owners’ rights,” isn’t it about time our
legislators start thinking about the property owner rights of
Oklahoma sportsmen? It’s also time you had a visit with your state
representative and senator.
|
