There is nothing morally reprehensible about managing, harvesting and consuming renewable natural resources provided it is done within the bounds established by scientists and experts to maintain the health of those resources. Some animists and others who worship trees and rocks try to co-opt the “high” ground in this debate but we must remember that often times their opinions are formed by experiences they had in childhood being manipulated by corporate moguls such as Walt Disney, interested in selling products to the infantile.

The tendency by landowners to post their holdings against trespass and the taking of wildlife is a giant step backward to practices of middle Europe and England. The obscenely wealthy and royalty would employ gamekeepers to catch and punish “poachers” who dared to enter their property. This led to social upheaval; witness Robin Hood, a well-known poacher of the day who robbed from the rich and gave to the poor.

As Daryl DeJoy so aptly frames his argument [in a Sept. 14 BDN letter], these landowners believe the wildlife on their land is “their wildlife.” In America, we have no royalty, and wildlife is established as a resource “held in common” and managed by the people through the auspices of the state.

Because of their migratory and transient habits, wildlife moves easily from open land to posted land and back. It is the same wildlife resource; it truly belongs to all citizens, only the opportunity to access it for harvesting purposes changes. As game species migrate to posted ground, for all intents and purposes, it becomes the exclusive benefit of the landowner, and those they may select to enjoy harvesting opportunities. This practice is definitely un-American.

Taking tracts of land effectively out of the equation through posting makes wildlife management far more difficult and leads to many problems between animals and people. As an example one need go no farther than the suburbs and sell all the encounters people are having with deer in the gardens, bears at the bird feeders and rabid fox attacking domestic pets.

Shrinking opportunities to hunt and fish are having a negative impact not only on the health of wildlife populations, but on local economies as sportsmen take their business and dollars where they are welcomed. A proposal that may be considered to counter this practice is to regain some measure of financial recompense.

Perhaps those who post large tracts of forest land should be taxed at a higher rate for that land and the money thus generated dedicated by the state to the Land for Maine’s Future program. This would serve not only to reward those landowners who keep their land open, but also help a program that seeks to ensure access to open land for all citizens, even those of us who are not wealthy, or royalty.

Andrew Rudzinski is a small woodlot owner and a landowner who lives in Corinth.