Trad Gang
Main Boards => Hunting Legislation & Policies => Topic started by: sam barrett on September 10, 2009, 05:56:00 PM
-
I wanted to post this in the pow wow, but thought it might get moved here anyway. After reading Ray Hammond's thread today (and agreeing with) I started to think. Is hunting a privilege or right? I completely believe its a right. We have the right to persue happiness in this country. Also, our elected officials are to be "servants" to us, not ruling over us doling out whatever "privileges" they see fit for us, plus the bible, my own personal authority, says that man is to have diminion over animals and use to our benefit. And finally if you believe hunting is a privilege then when did we become so screwed up in this country that killing a baby (abortion) is a right, but killing an animal is a privilege? Thanks for your thoughts.
-
Sam, interesting post. Sure it's a right...unless the hunter breaks the law, negatively affecting another person, and then the right should be revoked. Splitting hairs? Maybe so. It should spark some discussion.
-
It is a right. I know many states consider it a privilege- but we have as humans; bowhunted for over 50,000 years. That is in a traditional manner. That I can defend.
Traditional bowhunting honors bowhunting by staying within the limitations of the basic premise of a bow.
Aldo Leopold said that there should never be so many bowhunters as to effect management of game; we should be as insignificant as normal mortality predators aside.
So- when it comes to the right to bowhunt; I totally believe that traditional bowhunters have an inherent right to bowhunt.
Hunting is a right; it is one we have to do in a responsible manner; and if someone is abusing wildlife; selling game= or shooting and letting it lay - or sawing off antlers and leaving the meat... well that is no more hunting: than rape is to consenting sex.
Sex is a primal instinct; bowhunting is a primal instinct; a connection to something outside of ourselves: is a primal instinct.
There are those states that consider hunting a privilege and not a right.
Well - lets look at what the reintroduction of the wolf has brought out- in us that are effected by it.
Anti-hunters have pretty much ruled and controlled the wolf situation; and it has led to decreased and endangered elk populations in some areas.
I think we can see that we cannot continue to hunt- without becoming involved in some way: politically.
But too: I believe we can see how many people are irked about not being able to hunt - not only because of reduced numbers of elk and deer; but because the elk and deer are always on high alert.
It has created a rumbling: that is not being ignored.
To leave the right to hunt as a privilege- is to allow the possibility: that the right will not be protected as it should be.
We can see that with other things; like gun control.
How did we get so screwed up in this country Sam? Well we did it through apathy.
When this country was formed; only 40 % of the people that lived here participated in any way shape or form- to separate from England: and become independent.
That means 60 % of the people held no interest in having freedom and rights that England did not give them.
That 60 percent was not asked to leave when the country was formed. They were not prevented from influence.
So - why respect those that of the same ilk ?
The right to hunt is part of the instinct of 'man'. It was not enumerated in the Constitution; because in my belief; nobody thought it was inconceivable that someone would try to stop hunting. At that time; game was plentiful somewhere. There were major other considerations; like the right to free speech; and the other things noted in the bill of rights.
There had been a game law in a sense early on before the country was a country; and that was not to use some precious food fish for corn and crop fertilization. But it was not until hunters started getting political and stopped market hunting: that we saw a concern for wildlife.
Hunters were the first to care about the loss of game animals; and the loss of game animals to anti-hunters is of no consequence now - as evidenced by the wolf situation we see in Montana; Idaho and Wyoming. Anti-hunters are willing to let all game die: to allow the wolf to roam.
That is not conservation; it is not logical; it is not biological.
Now; as in the time of Teddy Roosevelt - we hunters are the ones concerned with the wild.
And that is because in part; of our instinct to hunt.
That's all too much to be just a privilege.
Its a right.
The older I get; the sorer my muscles at the end of the day; and the start of the next. Yes I see the fact for me personally; my drive to hunt becomes only the privilege- of my drive to stay healthy and alive.
So Sam.. hunting is a right. An intrinsic human right. I treat it that way; and I will always consider it that way.
-
Hunting is a right in its purest form. Man and woman have a right to sustain life to obtain food, water shelter. Hunting was part of that right and is part of our history, heritage and how it is we survived as a species ourselves. If we did not hunt we would not live. At least that's what I think and I am rarely wrong just ask my wife. As far as wolves look at WI, the wolf has dessimated the deer herd and any dog that get close in the northern half of the state. Slim pickens north of hwy 8
-
My interest in wildlife and hunting has been with me since I was born. As a small child I wore out the A and B volumes of the encyclopedia- animals and birds. When I got my first BB gun I became a hunter. At 14 I started bowhunting deer. It's not something I have done by choice- it's in my blood.
How could something like that be even considered as a mere "privilege"? For me, it goes even deeper than the concept of a "right". I think it's genetic.
"Let that boy boogie-woogie. It's in him, and it's got to come out!" Boogie Chillen', John Lee Hooker.
-
Thanks for the responses guys. It is reassuring to find some like minded people. What is scary though is that alot of people, on this site even who should know better, believe hunting is a privilege. They will do whatever the gov't tells them without question. Thanks again.
-
Whether we feel hunting is a right or privilege is immaterial in the eyes of the law.
In many states, hunting is a right protected by the state's Constitution. It would take a constitutional amendment to change that. The regulation of hunting however is a power granted to the game agencies and/or state legislature. That's where we need to be active.
-
Whether we feel hunting is a right or privilege is immaterial in the eyes of the law.
Well said.
As a citizen of these United States of America, our "rights" are spelled out in our "Bill of Rights". I don't see "hunting" listed.
I'm not saying it's specifically EXCLUDED, but it's not in the document.
If hunting was a "right", we'd have no restrictions on it. We do (and plenty). Privileges can be tightly regulated and, with little justification, taken away. "Rights" present greater obstacles to confiscation.
If something must be provided to us at the expense of someone else in order for us to have it, then it may be an entitlement, a privilage, or an act of charity – but it is not a “right”.
We're best served when we leave emotions out of such discussions.
-
Originally posted by sam barrett:
And finally if you believe hunting is a privilege then when did we become so screwed up in this country that killing a baby (abortion) is a right, but killing an animal is a privilege? Thanks for your thoughts.
This hits the nail right on the head... well said, Sir, well said!
-
That question is suited for another thread, and has nothing to with whether HUNTING is a right or priviledge.
-
Thanks for posting this in the appropriate forum.
-
Originally posted by GMMAT:
Whether we feel hunting is a right or privilege is immaterial in the eyes of the law.
Well said.
As a citizen of these United States of America, our "rights" are spelled out in our "Bill of Rights". I don't see "hunting" listed.
I'm not saying it's specifically EXCLUDED, but it's not in the document.
[/b]
Yes, but there are several other rights that are rights not listed in the Bill of Rights. Really, it boils down to interpretation of the law... which is what courts do.
In the final analysis, let's see how well the public supports anti-hunting legislation when they have to explain to their children why there are so many dead deer on the side of the road or why their cats keep being eaten by coyotes... OR black bears start roaming into their yards looking for garbage... OR deer eat all the money they invested in flowers and plants in their gardens... OR... need I go on??
PLUS, as I stated in another reply, big business runs this country, not the people... unfortunately (how else can we explain why a bunch of bankers can rob the country, get a 'bail-out', a bonus or golden parachute and continue to screw us?)... The good news about that is that hunting and fishing is a billion dollar business and there is NO WAY any legislator with even 3 functioning brain cells could possibly want to shut down that huge a sect of the market... it would have immense repercussions on the economy... no politician wants that on their resume come election time... and let's not forget the silent majority in the country, many of whom hunt or fish.
-
Morally, hunting is a right, IMO. Legally, it depends on your state's Constitution. Here in Illinois it is legally classified as a privilege; licensed and controlled.
If hunting were to become illegal, I would need to become better and more discrete.
-
Even among us there are those that would say hunting is a privilege and those that say it is a right.
The muzzleloader man Jim Shockey says about hunting; 'for some its what they do; for others its what they are'.
Keeping that in mind; you will get two different views.
Not all rights that Americans have are spelled out or enumerated in the Constitution. There is no right to have sex. There is no right to breathe; there is no enumerated right: for a lot of rights we have.
-
It's might that makes things allowable, not right. Those with the might (usually government) dictate rights and privileges. The mighty assign rights and privileges according to their whims, usually whatever allows them to maintain their grip on their might - ie, they want your votes.
For example, in Europe the mighty passed the "human rights act", and then the mighty told the masses what their human rights were. The masses were never allowed to tell the mighty what their rights were.
In the uk it's illegal to bowhunt. We've been shooting bows here longer than any human has live in North America, yet we have no right to continue to do so because the mighty have taken the right away. They took it away because they could, because they had the might.
At the end of the day, nothing in Nature has any rights whatsoever. Everything exists through it's might to do so.
IMHO :)
-
You are in the right frame of mind, politically and morally Sam.
The problem is definition.
How something is defined makes it a right, a priviledge, a misdemeanor, a felony, etc..........
Be advised, when it come to anything involving a tool that can be defined as a weapon, government is against it. The folks over in the UK know this all too well.
Tools/weapons in the general populations hands' is not popular with government-because armed folks are harder to control.
So be it sport shooting, hunting, swords, hatchet throwing........whatever. A government is against that-or is steadily headed towards being against it.
This is often sold to us under the guise of safety or being a "more civilized society".
Franklin had several quotes-about governments rights in regulation of rights. They are to the principal of government what the Proverbs were to the Bible in most cases.
Be afraid of any government that is afraid of you being armed.
God bless,
Farmer
-
I'm no preacher and I miss my fair share of church but I believe man has had a way of screwing up a lot of good things. One of those is the rights granted by God. Genesis 1:26-28 - From creation man was given dominion over all animals. As far as privileges those that govern me have the privilege to do so and can be removed by a well educated group of hunters who hold their rights sacred. Emotion governs everything if it is no longer part of your discussion your dead.
-
I think that I have the right to feed my family.
I really don't care what the law says. If my family is hungry, I will feed them.
-
Control resources - food, water, shelter, access to information - and you control the lives of those who depend on those resources. That's slavery, pure and simple.
-
Originally posted by NorthernCaliforniaHunter:
Control resources - food, water, shelter, access to information - and you control the lives of those who depend on those resources. That's slavery, pure and simple.
It's called "Hydraulic Despotism". Read all the "Dune" saga by Frank Herbert. He who controls the spice, controls the universe.
Basically, pick any essential that people need and control who gets it and how much in order to manipulate said people and you have "Hydraulic Despotism".
Once again, it comes back to who has the might.
-
Good topic this.
-
Hydraulic Despotism hmm He who health care, the banks, the irs, the fed, auto industry, energy the military the spice, controls the universe. Why does that sound so familiar.
-
This is a great thread. I believe hunting is a right. I also believe it is my right to pick blackberries, apples, acorns, walnuts, and mushrooms that are not on private property. Just because a supermarket exists does not negate those rights.
Where we got waylaid is when it came to pass that we had to beseech the government to exercise rights that we have had from the beginnings of our species. The discovery of spearpoints in Cro-Magnon caves tells us our species has always had personal arms. And also hunted. Therefore, where we're being cheated is that it is supposed these rights descend from the hand of the government or even from the Bill of Rights. These rights always existed. Our most ancient ancestors fought their way up the food chain and secured them. Not some flaccid bureaucrat wtih a bad combover.
-
I also believe its a right. I do beleive in proper managment of animals, just so there will always be animals to hunt. I always obey the laws of the land because thats what God says to do. But hunting is a right and not a privilege like some states like to think.
-
It is my right to hunt. And as long as the government does not cross God's word, I will continue to obey its laws but when the Government crosses God that is when I cross the government. They is probably considered a terrorist statement by the government but so be it.
-
This is not a government of Gods word. This is not a Christian country; this is a country with a lot of Christians; but a lot of other religions too.
This discussion is about the right to hunt versus the privilege to hunt.
We are a country that values rights.
Not all rights are enumerated.
'We hold these truths to be self evident; that all men are created equal; and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights- and among these- are life; liberty; and the pursuit of happiness.'
I feel hunting falls under liberty; and the pursuit of happiness; and it is my life.
~'some people hunt because its what they do- some people hunt because its what they are'- and for me; it is: what I am ~
-
Well said Brian.
-
The banks have created many times the amount of money as there is assets in the world. Look at what Arnold is trying to pull off in California, an end run around the global warming scam, so that the control and taxes can still be put into place. There are big dollars going toward the claiming of massive water rights, to the point that it can be illegal for you to dig a well on your own land. If the power brokers can pull scams like this off with no one stopping them, they can snap up our hunting rights as well. they will just hire Blackwater security forces to act as game wardens. Look at what is happening in Austin Texas, our rights are under attack, we have to WAKE-UP.
-
Pavan, you need to read "Army of the Republic" by Stuart Archer Cohen. I am serious. Get this book. It's fiction, but I've never read a book as relevant to what's going on today.
-
It is my right as a human being to hunt, If only becouse I am the top of the food chain. :) There is not such thing as a mighty goverment. we only let them think this, until we are fed up with the crap they are dishing out. The power is in the people. No man has any power over me, other than what I let him. I have the ability to over rule him at any time, this power was given to me by my god, and winchester! So there for I hunt becouse I want to, Not becouse they say I can.
-
Originally posted by GMMAT:
If something must be provided to us at the expense of someone else in order for us to have it, then it may be an entitlement, a privilage, or an act of charity – but it is not a “right”.
We're best served when we leave emotions out of such discussions.
Our freedoms are provided to us at the expense of others (those who gave their lives to protect them), are they not our right?
-
Not to quibble, but we're born with rights, whether or not someone dies to defend them. The Declaration of Independance states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
True, others have given their lives to secure and safeguard those rights, but the rights existed beforehand.
Securing food is a natural right. As living beings, we must eat. Therefore, food is a human right, as is water. And that will lead a lot of people into very interesting political territory, but if hunting is a right, access to food period is a human right. I believe that to be so in both cases.
-
Originally posted by Tsalagi:
Securing food is a natural right. As living beings, we must eat. Therefore, food is a human right, as is water. And that will lead a lot of people into very interesting political territory, but if hunting is a right, access to food period is a human right. I believe that to be so in both cases.
And when there's not enough food and water to go around, who has the right to what there is? Everyone can't have it.
-
Freefeet, there is more than enough food and water to go around. I worked in a fruit packing shed and saw tons of good fruit being thrown away, just to keep the prices up. I've seen fields full of vegetables, left to rot. You could smell them miles away. I advise you to read this book: Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal by Tristram Stuart
I'm not saying food aid shouldn't have strings attached. Birth control is a string that must be attached. But when we're sitting here throwing away mountains of food and people are starving, this is inexcusable.
Trust me on this, Freefeet. if the time comes that there literally isn't enough food and water to go around and that we are fighting over food and water, we are done as a species and a few years from extinction. Or a mass die-off on a scale that would make an all-out nuclear war look like nickles-n-dimes. The end result of which would make the Dark Ages look like the Enlightenment.
-
You're missing the point i was trying to make.
If human rights are unalienable, granted by god, whatever anyone claims them to be, what happens to the right of everyone to have food when there isn't enough food to go around?
Ie., there cannot be an unalienable, or god given, right to something when there isn't enough of the something to be had by all that that encompasses. What happens then?
I do sometimes like to play the devils advocate (and i'm 1/2 through a nice bottle of Jacob's Creek Shiraz 2006 (not as good as the 2007 :knothead: ) ) , so please don't be offended. :D
-
I look at hunting as a right; but I do follow the rules about how many of a species I kill; so that I don't destroy a species.
Conservation of our wildlife is logical.
The vast overwhelming percentage of people that hunt stay within the bounds of the law.
I do think we have a right to drink and eat; and eating involves something dying; plant or animal.
We can see in Haiti how the lack of food and water means the strongest survive. When food is given out and water given out- fights erupt in areas where people have gone long without either.
With our bows; we are not going to be the winners in a fight for food; if that food is wild animals.
Rifles and scopes and range finders make 900+ yard shots at elk; and deer; and even trotting coyotes at that range and more possible.
So - we trad bowhunters would not be the winners in a world where people have to hunt to survive.
Hunting is a right; a human right; but being human also brings responsibilities.
We are not to the point in most of the world to have to kill on our own to survive.
This discussion is not about the day after Armageddon - its about now- and that is where the discussion should stay - IMHO.
-
I agree with Brian. He said it better than I can.
-
I think its funny that so many think that hunting is a right yet they ask for permission via permit,registration to carry a gun even though its clearly stated in the constitution as a right.
-
Well, hate ta tell ya this, but try being unemployed with a weapons-related misdemeanor on your record that you MUST list on job applications because they ask and WILL do a pre-hire background check. I agree with you, but trust me, brother, it isn't worth the arrest, fine, and lifelong record following you around.
Take-away lesson? Get the CCW permit or if they say you can't carry such-and-such type of knife, well, don't carry that knife.
-
So then we would have to except then that neither hunting or guns is a right.If you have to get permission then its not a right.
-
Well, Achilles, I don't totally disagree with you. But if we didn't have hunting laws, there wouldn't be any game left. Look what almost happened to the buffalo. Look what did happen to the Passenger Pigeon and Carolina Parakeet. The Aurochs was hunted to extinction in Europe.
Hunting laws do serve a purpose of regulating how much of a species you may take. Without which, some corporations would hire market hunters (like the ones who nearly wiped out the buffalo) to stock boutique gourmet markets with wild game meat and end up wiping out entire species in the never-ending corporate pursuit of "25% growth per year". Kill 25% more elk every year, do the math, and you'll learn that elk would become extinct within a few years. Let's not forget that in absence of hunting laws, corporate market hunters would be using helicopters for elk and 4 gauge punt guns to bring down entire flocks of ducks and other game birds. And let's also not forget that every slob hunter and his brother would be out there "sprayin'-n-prayin'" at everything that moved with every high-cap semi-auto from Kalashnikovs to AR-15s.
Myself, I'd rather have the protection of laws of which I don't agree with some than have zero protection and no laws. There is a place where people can go live that basically has no laws and cannot enforce those it does have. A country called Somalia.
Laws are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. Even tribal societies have laws, or they couldn't exist. With rights come responsibilities. Unfortunately, human beings have proven themselves unable to overcome their own personal greed or penchants for harming other human beings in order to live in a law-free society where rights are absolute and without laws to regulate them. Therefore, laws are the "road signs" that inform what the right entails and the proper way the right is to be exercised. No, it's not perfect. But there never has been a perfect civilization on Earth. Every law will rub someone the wrong way. But a society cannot exist without them, not even a primitive hunter-gatherer society.
-
I don't think anyone disagrees with hunting laws but they would disagree with the evergrowing prices of licenses and tax.My point is if you ask the Gov for permission to hunt then you are not free and Gov can take the privledge away.The 2nd amendment clearly states we have this right but we let them take that away and now we have to ask permission...So why would anyone of you think that we have a right to hunt?
-
Well, Achilles, I agree with some of that. For example, here, I cannot afford an elk tag. That's not right. My belief is hunting is a right that should not be taken away because a handful of people don't agree with hunting morally. Now, a ring of elk poachers here just lost their hunting rights. I fully support that. People like that don't deserve them.
The 2nd Amendment is a case of a right that has some limitations. Yes, our government has gone way too far in restricting that right, but it's usually state governments that do that (such as California, for example.) Does that mean I think people should be allowed to own anything they like? No. There is no valid reason for individual persons to own something like, say, a 155mm self-propelled howitzer, for example. But do I think society has a valid reason to forbid carrying a personal weapon for self-defense? No. Society has a collective right to defend itself against private ownership of things like artillery pieces, nuclear weapons, bioweapons, bombs, and so forth through enacting laws forbidding private ownership of same. But the individual has an equal individual right to defend him or herself through ownership and carrying of personal weapons. Because of this, there are restrictions on types of weapons one can own and so forth. Unfortunately, this has gone too far in the direction of trampling individual rights and the collective rights of society are not served because it does not make for a safer society but, rather, makes a less safer society by ensuring a supply of defenseless victims. The flip side of that coin is we could have no laws at all and people could own heavy artillery and we end up with 1980s Beirut with rival gangs shelling one another's neighborhoods.
I didn't ask permission to hunt. I attended a hunter safety class and then purchased a license that the fees of which go to support wildlife. I'm a firm believer in paying my fair share for the animals I take from the peoples' land. (Yes, it's government land, but theoretically it belongs to the people.) One thing that can be done to stop the rising prices of license and tags is to get active in your community and stop the government subsidies being paid to corporations and sports teams to build factories and stadiums in your state. Those things have to be paid for somehow, usually by taking money away from other state programs and agencies like game and fish among others. Almost every major league sports stadium built in a community is paid for by raiding parks and recreation, schools, or other programs (like wildlife departments)for the money which is given to the sports team in subsidies. There's one place to start in making sure we're not paying in increased tag fees for someone more than able to afford paying their own way.
-
And the people can take that right away at any time...I disagree on your gun stance...The right to bare arms is clearly stated and I should be able to own any gun I want,right to carry without permit or registration...But we have given that right away and it will take revolution to get it back...Eventually we will be disarmed completely but it won't happen overnight...Our only hope of solving this problem in a peacful matter is to get out and vote for libertarian candidates like Ron,Rand Paul.
-
Where to begin.. first the libertarian party at one time suggested all federal land should be sold at auction to pay off the national debt.
If you want to hunt where you used to: contact the Chinese consulate.
I believe the first gun law taken to the Supreme court had to do with a sawed off shotgun. As it had no military use; it was not covered by the protection of the constitution. Actually though- it was a favored arm in WW1 trench warfare.
How we ended up the direction it has taken from there: is a long twisted trail.
There are a lot a rights that have limitations; like free speech- you cannot scream 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater.
You have a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure... go board a plane and you will find out the meaning of 'reasonable'.
You have a right to be tried before your peers- but you might have to settle for whats there.
There is a right against cruel and unusual punishment; but hanging; the electric chair and death by needle: are not considered cruel.
Our rights are subject to opinions of the supreme court.
Hunting IS a right in some states- like Vermont.
In most states it is considered a privilege. (That we could change).
Couple things I want to straighten out- the passenger pigeon was not hunted to extinction.
The passenger pigeons all bred at the same time; and they would fill every tree in a wooded area with nests.
When the eggs hatched; and the squabs were big but not feathered - the people in the communities would chop down trees and fill their larder with squabs.
It got down to the last tree with nests in it- and that is what did them in: mothers with canning jars.
The bison was killed almost off - not for the hides and meat or by products; but instead it was an encouraged act by the government to destroy the food and resources- that the bison provided the native Americans. The killing of the bison was to starve out the 'Indians'.
The first organized anti-hunters -were rifle hunters- united against: bowhunters.
I see bowhunting as a right.
-
Achilles, you disagree on what part of my gun stance? The part about not owning 155mm artillery pieces? Sorry, but I cannot in any way support that. Having seen nifty things like claymore mines discharged, I in no way support private ownership of such weapons. People that want to play with those, well, the army is always looking for such people. That's where I got that out of my system, heehee! :D Hey, they paid me for it! :)
Voting for libertarians isn't our only hope, and neither is a revolution. People getting off their keesters and getting involved in their communities, caring about and helping their neighbors, watching their local officials closely and gathering petitions to unseat them when they do wrong, and organizing their own communities is what needs to happen. There's more to freedom and rights than guns, my friend. Much more.
-
"Voting for libertarians isn't our only hope"...The Democrats and Republicans are on the same side going in the same direction in different ways.If we keep voting for either party we will lose all our rights that are inherent.The constitution doesn't give you these rights you are born with them.The constitution was written to let the Gov know what they could do and what they couldn't.We are looking at martial law in america if and when another terrorist attack like 9/11 happens.The Gov has no right to use military against its citizens and it has in fact already done so in new orlands with door to door gun confiscations.People need to wake up!...This is why I support oathkeepers.org.
-
I 4got to answer your question...lol..."I didn't ask permission to hunt. I attended a hunter safety class and then purchased a license that the fees of which go to support wildlife."...If you had to get a licence or permit to do it then you asked permission...look it up in the dictionary..."The part about not owning 155mm artillery pieces?"...I think the 2nd amendment gives us the right to have automatic guns but I'm not sure what a 155mm is so I can't comment...lol...hand grenades or bombs I wouldn't support...I'm sure you know what the 2nd amendment was meant for....revolution,protection
-
Well, Achilles, again, I support some of what you say. But, again, without hunting licenses and tags, how do you propose to keep the gourmet markets from killing every elk they can using helicopters, aerial spotters radioing herd location to hunters on ATVs, and so forth? Bear in mind, every corporation now demands 25% growth per year. So, if Acme Wild Game Meats' board of directors demands 25% growth per year, how do you think they will accomplish that? This is why game laws were enacted in the first place.
In general, early on, the U.S. had very little in the way of laws. But, as I said, people could not overcome their own personal greed or penchant for destroying Nature or the lives of others to attain that wealth. So, this is why those laws were enacted. Yes, you might hunt ethically without game laws, but will everyone else? No, they won't.
I'd rather have game laws than go out tomorrow and find the skeletons of the last deer herd here, wiped out by market hunters. I'd rather have game laws than go out tomorrow and find all the rabbits were poisoned to death and then all the raptors ate them and died. All too often, people (usually people after absolute power themselves) will tell you that you're not free in an attempt to get you to accept their ideology. And they might even be right that you're not as free as you should be. But the ideology they plan to install will make you not only less free, but a slave. Beware of "We have all the answers and our system is perfect!" political parties. The ideology of "no laws" espoused by some libertarians is actually the ideology of those with the most weapons making the rules. Much of what some libertarians espouse isn't anything new. It was once called feudalism. That's not the kind of world I want to live in.
People do need to wake up. But there's a lot more to it than guns, my friend. Guns are merely part of the tip of the iceberg.
-
Um .... exsqueese me : but isn't that line "periscopes are merely part of the tip of the submarine" ??
-
It depends on if it's the Yellow Submarine or not.
-
Tsalagi...I am all for game laws but maybe they should call it something other then a license?...wildlife restoration fee?...The libertarian party isn't the party of no laws, the founding fathers were christian and libertarian and they wrote down the laws in the constitution for the Gov to know what it can and cannot do.
-
-
Achilles, if it's an issue of semantics, go ahead and call the license a "wildlife resoration fee" now and avoid government involving itself once again. :D
-
Does it really matter if its a right or a priveledge-Truth is if you dont play by their rules or pay whatever they tell you to you get put out of the game.there was a guy named Claude Dallas(I think,it was a while ago)decided to live off the land and didnt care about asking the government-It didn't end well.
-
Claude is doing fine now.....now.
-
"Truth is if you dont play by their rules or pay whatever they tell you to you get put out of the game."
Kind of like driving. Wait, that's not really a right. Ok, kind of like owning a house; i.e. property tax and zoning laws.
-
Yep.So even if its a right they can still take it away,or take you away.I have the right to hunt but if I cant afford the licence what difference does it make?
-
I agree. I can't afford elk tags here. I'm not saying they ought to be free, but need to be affordable to working people and not just wealthy people. But I've seen the price of your "sports pak" in Oregon and you guys are getting a heckuva better deal than we do here. Our elk tag alone costs almost as much as your sports pak.
-
I agree,its not that bad yet by comparison.And most years I do get sportspac even though I usually dont fill a tag.But even though the cost may be comparibly low there are those who cant afford it.I am not whining,I have been pretty blessed,but I was just stating that if you cant afford an elk tag where you live it really doesn't matter if your state calls it a right or a priveledge.The only thing that matters is that you should get to hunt.
-
I agree. I tend to think there should be a "sliding scale" based on net income. Bring in a paycheck stub and that's how your tag and/or license fee should be set. It makes no sense that some rich lawyer can fly in from out of state, hire guides and outfitters, and bag an elk that he may or may not even want the meat from while a working man who could use that meat can't afford the tag. This is what'll cause the demise of hunting.
-
You may verry well be right my friend,but what are we to do?We all should have a right to hunt,but more and more people are getting left out because thay cant pay to do it.If the powers that be,want to take away the right-it can be done as easily by raising fees as it can by changing laws.
-
Yes, I totally agree with you. It's a problem all over the spectrum in this country and hunting is just one more symptom of it.
I think it takes getting involved in grass roots organizing on the issue. It would take people in the state to attend the game and fish public meeetings and start bringing this up. Oh, they're going to give you the poppycock that "Well, tags have only gone up 11.364% since fiscal quarter whozits when Commissioner McFlapdoodle was in!" That's when you ask the guy what his take-home pay looks like and, usually, it will be more than yours. And also point out that even if they've only raised the tag fees by 11%, wages have only increased by less than 6% for the majority of Americans since 1980. Basically, wages are stagnant and have been since the 1980s and haven't kept up with the prices of many things. There are several books where you can prove those statements, too. They're also going to tell you that we have to pay for wildlife and wilderness programs and that's great. But maybe it's time to start looking into fiscal acountability. Where exactly is the money going? Is it really going to wildlife, or is it disappearing down various ratholes of "studies", "grants", and "research" where it's basically a huge gimme-gimme-gimme handout for colleges and highly-paid scientists.
No one will tell you this, but I tend to think some game departments raise the price on elk tags to corner a certain market and garner more money. They know that wealthy out-of-state hunters will pay huge sums of money for a tag and so that's who they aim at. If the tag fees for resident hunters is high, they're less likely to buy them and, thus, maybe this frees up more tags for the out-of-state market. This is the problem with running our governments like a private enterprise instead of the public service they're supposed to be.
There's a number of people out there taking up the cause of pushing a living wage. These are people to learn from. We need to have tag and license fees that are predicated on the true income levels of hunters and not just prices set by bureaucrats out of touch with what Americans really take home in pay. I'd call it "Fair Fees" and use that as the bare bones to start an organization to empower hunters to organize and demand fees based off their income levels.
-
Yes and the problems nothing new,remember the old stories of the $600 hammer?
When I vote its simple-no new taxes,no bigger government ,and no new laws.with the only compromize being that if they learn to spend and account for my money more responsibly,I may agree to give them more.
-
The $600 hammer came from the fact they were funneling that money into "black works" projects like Aurora and White Winter. And also it didn't hurt that retired military officers become executives for defense contractors and one hand washes the other.
-
I agree,and when you add reduced access,wolves,and who people dont care about the rights of hunters because they dont hunt and dont see how it affects them,its hard to stay positive-but I will definately try
-
I think we all need to attend fish and game public meetings; and find out who is who; and help explain who is who.
Here in Idaho; the price of non resident tags went up; and there were left over elk and deer tags after the seasons were over- and it used to be that tags were all sold out by April or even earlier.
We residents could buy the non resident left over tags- but AT THE NON RESIDENT FEE.
Anyone else notice as we make post here; our number of posts recorded- remains the same? :confused:
-
Hunting is a right. I think the higher cost of hunting is caused a lot by ourselves. When I was a youngster I used to get by on a lot smaller hunting budget--meaning less camo, less equipment/gps/optics, less expensive bows/arrows etc but still had fun and killed stuff.
-
In this country if its a right its free if its a Privilege we pay for it. So therefore legelly it is a privilege. Because this year I will be paying around $100.00 to do it!!
-
You pay for a license and tag not the right just as you pay for a gun or ammo to practice the right of gun ownership. Bill
-
hunting is a right at least to me and if they ever try to take that away i will poach and they will turn me in to one angry person its not the goverments right to have control over us and tax the **** out of us what did we rebel against in the american revloution over taxation and they do that to us now with the hunting and fishing permits in ct at least all go up each year and dont even help wild life they just get thrown into the general fund so ass much as i hate to say this beacuse i love america f the goverment we need to stop the career congress men and have regular people who no what america needs in office
-
If it's a right then you won't need permission or licence from the politicos, and it won't cost you any money other than the equipment you chose to hunt with.
Comparing buying bullets from your bullet maker to paying an tax set by some scumbag politico is beyond crass, to say the least.
And those who claim that they'll fight if the politicos take their right away only make themselves look like fools as they turn up every year to pay the government's lackeys their hard earned dollars to buy their "rights" back. Yeah guys, great fight you put up as you give them your money. They've taken your rights away already and now they're taking your money as well. But if it helps your egos to pretend otherwise don't let me change that. :knothead:
Come live in England and see what "rights" you have.
-
Freefeet, maybe you'd like to come over here and show us how it's done? :rolleyes: Let us know how you plan to deal with the Bradleys and M1 Abrams. Oh, and you might be pleased to know many of our state and county police departments now have tanks and APCs, too. See, unlike yours, our cops not only have guns, they have a LOT of guns. Oh, and tanks, as I just said.
See, nobody will fight because this country is too divided. The overlords keep the proles fighting amongst themselves over nonsensical wedge issues. It's two-party Kabuki theater. They have power because the people are all busy fighting one another over nonsense, usually involving things that are other peoples' personal business in the first place. People act like voting in one or the other will change things. Nope. It's just like song by The Who:
"Meet the new boss...same as the old boss..."
Oh, things could change. It just involves people seeing common interests rather than insisting everyone else be a carbon-copy of themselves. :wavey:
-
Not sure where to start freefeet but I would guess it is no more or less "CRASS" for me to compare the price paid for ammo to tax than you to compare the price paid for shoes to a tax.
I truly believe that hunting is a right and will never stop and it has nothing to do with ego it is who I am.They don't charge us to hunt they charge for a tag to validate the possession of a game animal and my proof to this is I am not required to have a license to hunt non-game animals such as coyotes and ground squirrels.
The statement that those who say they will fight if hunting is taken away only make themselves look like fools simply reinforces my belief that europeans must not understand U.S. citizens still to this day much the same as they did not in the past when they thought they could oppress them from overseas without retaliation.Every man I know that hunts would continue to do so after the govt. said we must stop. The only reason that people in this country have not rebelled over current problems is we have learned to pick our battles and the majority have it so good that the taxes and indiscretions of our govt. seem a small price to pay to justify a rebellion as we have so much to lose.
Oh and by the way the last I knew we still have a few more rights than those of you on the other side of the pond so we must be still fighting somewhat successfully. As far as taking our money (taxes) do they not tax you in England?
No, I won't be moving to England any time soon and cannot understand why anyone would leave here for any other country....
Oh and I almost forgot... :knothead: :knothead:
Back at ya :D
-
Huntinddad,
Is it true that you dont need a licence to hunt non game animals in Cali.?I'm prety sure you need a licence to hunt here,but will double check.
This has been an enjoyable conversation and verry interesting points of view.thanks guys.
Robert
-
"Shoes are a tax on walking..."
These boots were made for walking. And that's just what they'll do. One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you...
I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. My apologies to Nancy Sinatra. Sorry, Freefeet, I couldn't help myself. :wavey:
-
Maxximusgrind I think a license is required in CA and many states to hunt even non-game animals. What I meant to say is there is some states NV included where you are not.
My point being that people who say hunting is not a right often say a right is free and cannot be paid for or bought and the fact that any person pays for any tag in any state makes it true that hunting is not a right. I feel the opposite to be true if any man can hunt for free and without license and fees then hunting can be done legally and without license therefore it must be a right , a heavily regulated right just as gun ownership but a right nonetheless.Bill
-
Originally posted by GMMAT:
Whether we feel hunting is a right or privilege is immaterial in the eyes of the law.
Well said.
As a citizen of these United States of America, our "rights" are spelled out in our "Bill of Rights". I don't see "hunting" listed.
I'm not saying it's specifically EXCLUDED, but it's not in the document.
If hunting was a "right", we'd have no restrictions on it. We do (and plenty). Privileges can be tightly regulated and, with little justification, taken away. "Rights" present greater obstacles to confiscation.
If something must be provided to us at the expense of someone else in order for us to have it, then it may be an entitlement, a privilage, or an act of charity – but it is not a “right”.
We're best served when we leave emotions out of such discussions. [/b]
"Find out just what people will quietly submit to, and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress"
Frederick Douglas
-
I guess I still dont understand the true point of the question,although the discussion has been verry interesting.
I know that I have the right to own and carry a gun and that there is no law in my area against it-but I also know that if I strap on a sixshooter like the wild west and stroll around town long enough,there is a verry good possibility of ending up with six cops pointing their guns at me.Not for breaking a law,but because it doesnt seem normal and scared someone.It really doesnt matter that its my right-it is considered something that I shouldnt do
I think that where I live hunting is considered a priveledge,but I am allowed to-as long as I follow the rules.I feel it should be my right,but I am allowed to do it
-
Hey Huntindad,
Please dont feel like I was in some way trying to pick apart your post or disrespect you because of my question.I realize that communicating this way makes it easy to loose alot in the translation,I was truly curious,so I appologise if it came across wrong.
Robert
-
Maxximusgrind
I didn't feel that way at all and totally agree that much is lost in translation in forums and probably accounts for most of the disagreements on the forums.No apology necessary I understood your post as a simple question not a challenge.In my initial post I meant to say we as Americans while in an area where it is legal can hunt non-game animals(such as Nevada) and in reading the post I can see it came accross as we can do so in CA.Bill
-
It is good to know there are places like that,thats what made me curious-I didnt know there were any left.thanks
-
It's a right. A basic inalienably human right. Just like Air is not a privilege, and freedom is not a privilege.
-
"As a citizen of these United States of America, our "rights" are spelled out in our "Bill of Rights". I don't see "hunting" listed."....This is exactly my point.
We have let them infringe our 2nd amendement right and our founding fathers gave the constitution to the Gov to let them know what they can and cannot do.
They don't pay attention to it now so why would you think we have a right to hunt when it is not even in the bill of rights?
The bill of rights are just the most important rights.
When you buy a hunting license or permit you are in fact asking permission to hunt.
You have to know the difference between rights and privilege.
A point I was trying to make earlier is would you rather pay for a permit=asking permission?
Or pay for a wildlife restoration tax?
I would rather pay a wildlife restoration tax where I am not asking permission and I understand that the tax is for restoring wildlife populations.This way it can stay a inherent natural right but every hunter understands that to keep populations strong we need the tax for restoration programs.
You might say most hunters do understand and want to pay for permits.
But remember when you ask permission to do something you are ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO DO IT and giving the other party the power to take it away.
I'm looking for the right word here
Wildlife restoration fee?tax?...I think tax is the correct word but I may be wrong.
-
Originally posted by -Achilles-:
I'm looking for the right word here
I think the word isn't right or privilege, but rather "commodity". If you can afford it you can buy it, if you can't afford it then you can't.
That's the way it works in every capitalist society.
Governments (as dictated to by their corporate masters) decide on what will be allowed as a right, what is bestowed as a privilege and what will ultimately be exploited as a commodity.
-
If it was a RIGHT you would not need a license to do it. In Canada our First Nations people are the only ones with a RIGHT, rest of us need a License which makes it a Privilege.
-
"Governments (as dictated to by their corporate masters) decide on what will be allowed as a right, what is bestowed as a privilege and what will ultimately be exploited as a commodity."
well - we can see THAT happening !!
-
"Governments (as dictated to by their corporate masters) decide on what will be allowed as a right, what is bestowed as a privilege and what will ultimately be exploited as a commodity."
Thats why its so important for people to understand what the constitution is and its importance.
If we let them take any of those rights away the others will surely fall.
Imo we have let the Gov take away many of them through the patriot act,gun laws which were not theirs(the gov) to take away in the first place.
The thing is though that the bill of rights are natural,inherent rights you are born with.
You must lose the term "constitutional rights" from your vocabulary.
That term implies that the constitution gives you these rights.
The constitution is a piece of paper given to the Gov by the people as a guideline for THEM.
The Gov can shred it or burn it if they want but they can't take away something that is inherent.
-
Originally posted by -Achilles-:
The thing is though that the bill of rights are natural,inherent rights you are born with.
The bill of rights was written by one of your past governments, not by the people. There's nothing natural or inherent about it.
-
A government created for the people by the people "OF" the people.
They had it right but somehow it has become so wrong.
Not all rights are listed many were just so obvious to the people creating the Bill of Rights their mention was unnecessary. Things such as feeding ones family or protecting it from danger.
If the purchase of something makes it a privilege or a commodity then almost every right we exercise is a privilege or commodity.
A right is intangible and cannot be held in your hand such as gun ownership we all have the right but the gun must be purchased and taxes paid to the govt.on the gun and ammo.
The right to hunt is also intangible and as I have pointed out above you can hunt for free without license or tag for certain species in certain parts of the U.S. or you can choose your species just as you can choose your gun and purchase the one of choice for a price(the tag and license). The tag only validates that you paid your "tax" for ownership of that animal.
The "BASIC RIGHT" to hunt is there and god given under the heading Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and can be practiced at will for free in certain GREAT places in this country that still understand the Govt. works for us.
Bill
-
Pardon my nitpick, but feeding one's family isn't really a right in the United States. Feeding one's family actually happens through work. Let a corporations profit margins fall by 1% and they'll lay off thousands who then lose their homes. Look at the American Rust Belt states. Detroit looks like Berlin at the end of World War Two. Some people stridently defend the so-called "right" of a corporation to make those kinds of decisions that ultimately badly impact our entire society in order to further enrich an already rich 1/2 of 1% of the population. If we're talking about the right to feed one's family, then private entities shouldn't have the ability to deprive people of that in order to protect a percent on the profit margin. Let's also not forget the banks have enormous power that they use in ways that cause massive job losses, home losses, and social destruction and all just to further enrich themselves. Thomas Jefferson warned of the power of banks. The years 2008 and 2009 saw the biggest transfer of wealth in history from the working people and middle class to the top 1% of the population. And it's still going on. These are parasites fattening themselves on the blood of the country.
Don't get me wrong. I agree 100%---feeding your family is a right. I think we need laws to ensure that, since the Bill of Rights was written in a period when the power of massive banks to deprive citizens of a living was unforeseen. No one should have that kind of power. Not governments, not corporations, not banks.
-
Hunting is a privilege I've enjoyed since Dad started taking me when I was about 5 years old -- 51 years ago. However, it is as precious and important to me as a right and I will always treat anyone or anything that tries to remove the privilege as if they are trying to take a right from me. The reason I consider it a privilege is because I strongly believe anyone who poaches (no license, over bag, wrong equipment, etc.) should have their hunting privileges removed for a period of time. I will admit guys that I'm pretty biased as I'm a retired wildlife biologist (IN, KS, MO, and KY).
-
I have to agree with the post that it is not mentioned in the United States Constitution. With that said Wisconsin did put it into our State Constitution so until that one ever gets challenged in court that is the law here. Others would argue since humans are predators and have hunted since the beginning of time that it is a naturual right or even a God given right if you want to bring religion into it. Whatever ever it is lets just continue to hunt and while living this great tradition continue to protect this "right" or "privilage".
-
I generally support the trend to make hunting a constitutional right by states'. It makes me a bit nervous though for fear that the push will fail in some state and embolden the anti's. As a recently retired state agency Deputy Commissioner, and still active in the shooting sports I'm glad to see the antis have generally become much less a persuasive force these days. They've shot themselves in the foot (pun intended) with some of their really stupid attacks. I hope they keep it up. The more kooks from Hollywood they enlist the worse off they'll keep doing too.
-
I believe it is a right but the courts have never agreed with me on this.
The King owned the game and the states assumed this role when the country was founded.
There are now too many things that are deemed a privilege now because the government wants to regulate it and collect revenue.
I have never figured out why someone created the idea that driving was a privilege, not a right and it is as accepted by people as one of the 10 commandments.
-
the reason that driving is a privilege is that it basically it didnt exist then.....not in th fashion it does today.....you have a right to travel, but not to drive a vehicle to do it.....hunting, on the other had, did exist then....and it was being done with both the bent stick and the musket.....the problem with it is that we assume it to be a right.....and you know what they say about assumptions......
-
I think it is a right but that dosen't mean that one can sit back and not get in the fight to maintain it. The way legal decisions are made today it seems the law is not relevant.
-
I believe it is a right on public ground.....a privilege on private ground.
I travel a lot for my job. What gets me is how people who live in cities and rarely if ever get out to the country have the nerve to try and tell my what is 'right' and 'wrong'. Growing up on a farm, I get irked by the lack of respect that is given to farmers, people who love the outdoors, etc. Just my 2 cents. I enjoy educating them though :)
-
I'll state my opinion at the on-set. Hunting is a privilege, not a right. Those that disagree and don't want to waste time on listening to my rationale can stop reading now.
"Rights" as defined by modern society cannot be given or taken away. By that definition Freedom is not a right, anyone who commits crimes against society or violates social morays to a defined extent will be locked up and their freedom curtailed. Even the pursuit of Happiness is allowed only to the extent that it doesn't hurt anyone or go against the outer boundaries of common convention. Even Life is debatable; many states still have the death penalty. Rights are supposed to be inviolate, privileges granted according to the worthiness of the individual.
I have no problem with the idea that my Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness are not rights. I shouldn't be able to sit on my butt and expect to be handed the important things. I don’t want to have to depend on anyone else to keep me safe, happy and alive. Anything worth having is worth fighting for. I don't want anything given to me, I want to earn it. I want everyone else to be worthy and earn it as well.
Hunting is licensed, controlled, regulated according to level of training and education then doled out once certain economic conditions are met. Doesn’t sound like a “right” to me. There are enough Bozo’s out there as it is without the idea that EVERYONE should be able to hunt regardless of how, where or when, right? How many times have we spent hours and hours on this message board complaining about topics such as crossbows? If hunting is a right, shouldn’t crossbow hunters have the right to hunt when and where they like as anyone else does? Why do we have seasons? Why do we have certain areas closed to certain methods or during certain times of the year?
Time after time “hunters” are ticketed and/or arrested for either killing game out of season, after hours, or in closed areas. In my experience nearly every one of them, when facing a fine or jail time for repeated offences, spout the phrase, “I have a right to feed my family, I have a right to hunt!”. My response was always, “If your family is hungry you should have sold the $600 bow, $800 rifle, $10,000 ATV or the $50,000 truck before you resorted to breaking the law.” Should these people be defended and their “right” to hunt preserved? I think their privilege should be revoked.
For those of you that stuck with me through all of the explanation, I thank you. In my opinion hunting will always be a privilege worth fighting to keep and that should be taken away from those who, through their actions, show they don’t deserve it. Things that are given to you are free and therefore worthless. Things that must be earned and fought for are priceless.
I guess it comes down to the idea of worthless rights or priceless privileges.
OkKeith
-
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-
OkKeith, I read through your post and it is thought-provoking. I hope you will read through mine.
While rights or freedom can be taken away, they cannot be taken away without due process of law. This is far and away much different than saying unless rights are inviolate, you don't really have them. Priveleges are something that can be taken away without, necessarily, due process of law.
OkKeith said:
"I don’t want to have to depend on anyone else to keep me safe, happy and alive."
Oh, but you have. If you were born before 1990, I might say that, theoretically, the Strategic Air Command kept you alive by deterring a Soviet attack. I would also add that if a fire department put out a fire anywhere within a 10 mile radius of your house, they kept you alive, or at least happy. Because the fire didn't spread, as in the Great Chicago Fire. I'll also add that unless you're getting water from your own personal well, your municipal water department keeps you alive because you're not dying of water-borne diseases.
It's easy to be the "rugged individual" and say we don't need anyone else, but the fact is, we do. We're social animals and we evolved that way as a species. We learned that cooperation during a hunt results in a downed Wooly Mammoth and plenty of meat as opposed to one poor sap that ended up as toe jam between the toes of said mammoth because he tried to do it himself. Humans won't survive living like Praying Mantises. That's not how we evolved and that's not how our brain works. Solitary creatures never evolved past "Need food, need sleep, need water, need dry hole". This internet wouldn't exist if people weren't social animals. And, if I may say so Keith, if you don't rely on others for happiness, why do you use the internet and this forum? Surely you must derive some sort of satisfaction from it, else why do it?
The Founding Fathers determined that people, at least in the United States, are born with rights. They need not "earn" them---however one does that. If, for example, I said I "earned" my rights because I served in the army, I would be wrong. I have no more or no less rights than the Americans who never served. Saying that people must "earn" their rights is a sure-fire recipe for having a nation where some despot sets the bar so high, no one can achieve it. Then you have a society like Ancient Sparta, full of helots. The Founding Founders were well aware of that, which is why they said:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Ergo, every American has rights here, from birth. No one "earns" anything. Having people "earn" rights" is how you end up with loyalty oaths that must be signed at every swearing in of a new leader, people stripped of rights for voting for the losing side of an election and having to "earn" back those rights through serving the new regime. I know that's not what you meant, Keith, but that's how the "earning rights" gig plays out in reality among human beings. That's why the Founding Fathers wrote the proviso the way they did.
-
OK - that was good.
-
Tsalagi,
I read your post and agree with the better part of it. You quoted me accurately when I said,
"I don’t want to have to depend on anyone else to keep me safe, happy and alive."
Don't want to, yes. Under modern social convention, have to; to some degree. I agree that certain rights are granted from birth and should be defended with all possible fervor. Those rights are just not worth much if we don’t work to make them meaningful. I didn't mean to imply anything else, and apologize if it seemed that way. I just don’t believe that hunting as we practice it today is part of that.
My feeling is that having the right to something (life, liberty, and happiness) doesn't mean I am ENTITLED to it. Maybe I should have put that in my earlier discourse. After all, we are only guaranteed the right to pursue happiness. If I am unhappy, I shouldn’t rest on my laurels and expect someone to come and make me so. If my life or liberty is threatened it seems ridiculous (to me at least) to wave my hands in the air and DEMAND someone else do something about it while I do nothing. I don’t require the internet to be happy. It’s just something I enjoy. If it went away, I would find other things to spend my free time on just as I did before it got here. True, it would suck, but I would get over it.
I still think hunting is a privilege. One that is, and should be, earned. In Oklahoma if someone is born after a certain date, they must attend a Hunter’s Safety Course and pass a test in order to buy a license and tags. Buying these licenses and tags doesn’t guarantee that someone can hunt. It only affords the buyer the opportunity. The would-be hunter must then obey the laws governing the use of public lands or meet the requirements of hunting on private land not owned by them. If they own the land, it’s still not a free-for-all. There are laws that govern time of year/day, bag limit and method. Meet each of these requirements and the hunter can earn the privilege to hunt.
Individuals in Oklahoma that have committed egregious violations of the laws governing hunting (and fishing) have lost their hunting privileges FOR LIFE! So, would this be unconstitutional? Here in my state we had a vote to insert hunting and fishing into the state constitution as a right:
“Oklahoma Right to Hunt and Fish, State Question 742 was a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. It enacted law to give all people of the state the right to hunt, trap, fish and take game and fish, subject to reasonable regulation.”
Arguments about what “reasonable regulation” even means aside, I actually voted against this. It was meant to head off anti-hunting groups and prevent organized hunter-harassment events. I felt there were other ways to prevent these things. Now there is a group of habitual poachers and general wildlife vandals that have filed suit to get their hunting privileges back on the grounds that not allowing them to kill game indiscriminately is a violation of their rights. How can that be (for lack of a better term)…right?
As I have said before: I have hunted all my life. It’s not just something I do or an intense hobby. It has informed my personality since birth through my parents and into adulthood by way of my own experiences. I can’t imagine a life without hunting. I will preserve my privilege to hunt through my voice, my pen, my wallet and the finger I use to punch the ballot button. I will ensure that privilege by continuing to earn it through following both the letter and the intent of the law.
Tsalagi, I appreciate your learned response to my earlier post. I think you and I would enjoy each other’s company around a camp fire, even if we didn’t see every issue the same way. How boring would life be if we all agreed on everything?
OkKeith
-
For me I believe it is a right. I don't believe the people we elect to serve us should decide how we use a resource given by God. But just like anything else if they can find a way to make money they will. Alot of people believe getting married is a right but have paid for a license to do so for many years. In fact some look down on a man and woman who say they are married in gods eyes but not recognized buy the court. Do we have rights to a property that we purchase, if so why is it we must pay the govt rent to live there for the rest of our lives. Sorry to go on like this but these kinds of subjects have always been a sore spot for me. Rights are what should be the rule of the land. Privileges just take in more money and thats what we live with everyday.
-
OkKeith, I agree with much of what you say. I believe strongly in hunting ethics. If hunting wasn't regulated, we would have idiots out there doing amazingly cruel things. Just take the already cruel things poachers do and magnify it by several thousand. I tend to look at things like this: You have a right to own a gun. But commit a crime with a gun and you lose that right. Ought to be the same with a car. And the same with hunting. A right to hunt, yes, but with rights come responsibilities. Break the law, lose the right.
I disagree with:
"My feeling is that having the right to something (life, liberty, and happiness) doesn't mean I am ENTITLED to it."
My thinking is we are entitled to life. That's been a basic of the concept of compassion for quite some time now. That every human being is entitled to life. That no person has the right to take another's life without solid, justifiable reasons of self-defense. I would classify capital punishment as self-defense, for the purpose of this discussion. We once again get into a problem of defining who has a right to live if we do not assume all people are entitled to life at birth.
About this:
"If my life or liberty is threatened it seems ridiculous (to me at least) to wave my hands in the air and DEMAND someone else do something about it while I do nothing."
Ah, but that's been the basis of professional armies--and so-called civilization---since the dawn of agricultural civilization. The civilians since the Ancient Egyptians have waved their hands in the air and demanded Pharaoh, or Caesar, or the King, or the President do something about it. And they did. That's why they were paying their armies. And why the civilians, in turn, paid taxes to pay those armies. Now, take Ancient Middle Eastern armies, for example. Yes, you could call up a peasant levy to fight. But put them up against highly skilled and trained chariot crews with skilled chariot archers and you can watch your peasant levy become pincushions rather quickly. This is the entire concept of "demanding someone else do something" while you do nothing. The same applied to Soviet bombers, since the average American couldn't fly an interceptor without training. We train and pay people to become professionals to defend us, be they military, police, or firefighters. I was trained and paid to be a soldier, years ago. I wasn't drafted, the government paid me for my services. This is how an agricultural civilization works. Always has. Always will. So long as you have to defend your cropland, however you define that, you have to have professionals to do it. Or you don't hold on to it long. In short, you then plow for someone else.
This is a very interesting discussion and very good points made. I agree, it would be great to all sit by a campfire. With some homemade jerky!
-
A campfire indeed!!!
-
It is a right. period. That being said I feel priveledged to have the right and the ability and I thank almighty God for blessing me in this manner.
-
GOD gives me the right to hunt.
-
interesting question... i'd like to think it's a right, but perhaps a privilege as well.... could it be both?
-
The ability to buy a hunting or fishing license, as with a drivers license, is a privilege for a good reason.
The reasoning for making licensing a privilege, be it for hunting, driving, running a restaurant/health codes, etc, is that if don't play by the rules, you can have the privilege/license taken away.
For example, say a drivers license was a right. If I decide I like to drive drunk all the time, taking that right away is very difficult. What if I'm a deer hunter and I don't agree with bag limits, baiting laws, jacklighting laws, etc. Hunting is a right, correct? So even if I'm repeatedly caught violating or breaking the rules, I can't really get any fine levied against me because hunting is a right, not a priviledge. Right?
Now, I do believe that if you want to put up a pen and "hunt" game however you like, then until high fences are banned, "hunting" in that pen is a right and you can decide how, when and what method is used. If in your pen you want to shoot a deer at 2am with a spotlight and a rifle in June, that is your right.
But if you want to hunt the free ranging game that belongs to all citizens of the state in which you live? Then, like driving an auto, obtaining a license is a privilege and you must play by the rules set forth for all of us or you may lose that privilege.
Think of it like voting. Contrary to belief, there is no "right to vote". Here is the SCOTUS decision on "the right to vote"...
In its 2000 ruling, Alexander v Mineta, the [U.S. Supreme] Court ... affirmed the district court's interpretation that our Constitution 'does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.' And it's state legislatures that wield the power to decide who is 'qualified.'
So, just as with voting, making hunting a privilege allows DNR's, NRC's and legislatures to determine what behaviors can disqualify you in the privilege to buy any hunting license.
-
Mojo,
I understand your argument, but I have to disagree with your premise that because an elected government creates a law that requires a qualification (acquire a hunting license) to engage in an action (hunting) that action is no longer a right, but now becomes a privilege.
What man has understood and what our founding fathers eloquently enshrined in our Declaration and Constitution is that our Creator gave to us our lives to govern and this earth to utilize for our benefit. My sad attempt to summarize John Locke is: because the Creator gave to all of us this earth it is only with the addition of labor that a man may turn something into his private property. So, when I spend time in the woods, track down a deer, and (finally!) take one (I am a new hunter by the way) that deer becomes my property to feed my family. This right to hunt was given to us before any government existed and therefore cannot be taken by any government nor made into a privilege.
So, you might ask why then do we have Departments of Fish/Game/Wildlife? Great question! I think we can all recognize that men are not angels and therefore require some type of civil government to create and enforce basic laws to protect each individual’s right to do with his property (including himself) as he sees fit. So, we as individuals delegate to an organization SOME authority and agree to live by the rules establish by that organization as long as those rules do not go beyond the delegated authority. That does not mean we relinquish our rights that were given to us before any government existed. The same logic applies to hunting. We create departments within the States and delegate the authority to track, study, and manage our resources so that we and our future generations may hunt and enjoy them. By creating this relationship and allowing the state to create and enforce laws that govern our behavior and are intended to preserve the ability to hunt we in no way give up our right to hunt; we only delegate the authority to determine when/where we can hunt, what methods we may use, and how many animals we may take in a day and a season to another. As long as those laws do not infringe upon our right to hunt then they are legitimate laws. We are then bound by our honor to abide by those laws and we agree to accept the punishment if we violate those laws.
That a result of delegating some authority leads to the creation of qualifications to hunt (hunter’s Ed and license) is the area where I believe an argument (if only theoretical) can be made that the laws may infringe upon our right to hunt. However, just because the state requires you to show a basic knowledge of safety and basic knowledge of the law it does not mean that your right to hunt has been taken. It is only an attempt to ensure that all hunters understand their responsibilities and limitations since the action they are about to engage in will impact not only them, but anyone else in the field with them. Neither do the accomplishment of education and the presence of a license (hunting or automobile) negate the need for laws. I think Calvin Coolidge was proven correct when he said ‘the world is full of educated derelicts.’ I know I have seen them!
In short: hunting is a right and it is one we each need to be active in protecting.
Cheers!
Rob
-
It's not my argument or premise. It's the basis of our common law.
-
Here's a good read on the subject. As hard as it is for hunters, the natural resources are for all citizens, not just hunters.
If hunting was deemed a pure "right", we'd have what we had during the market hunting years. No regulations, no laws to enforce, no licenses to raise monies, for if a right, you could hunt whatever you wanted, whenever you wanted, by whatever means and without bag limits.
We all do have the "right" to participate in some form of hunting, as long as we follow the common rules agreed upon and for a fee. Given that, hunting, in legal terms, is a privilege and not a "right", in legal terms.
If one thinks hunting is truely a right, go shoot a half dozen deer today (August) with a centerfire rifle, get arrested and plead your case in court. You'll quickly find that you didn't have the right to do what you did and that the "right" to participate in the fall deer seasons is a privilege. You'll also find that the state owns the deer and not you.
If hunting was a "pure" right, then nobody could ever keep firearms (or xbows) out of archery season. In fact, there would be no more archery only seasons if hunting were a "true right", since non-archery deer hunters would have their "rights" violated under equal protection.
Again, you have the right to participate as long as you follow the rules, just as you have the right to get a drivers license, as long as you follow the rules.
Now, if you put up a high fence and are not hunting "the peoples game", you can shoot whatever you want, with whatever you want, no bag limits and no license required. But even then, you don't necessarily have the right to put up a high fence just anywhere, anymore.
How the ‘King’s Deer’ became the ‘People’s Deer’
By Jim Posewitz
For several years residents near Loch Coille-Bharr in Scotland have debated the possible release of the largest mammal to be legally reintroduced in Britain. The project failed in 2005 as critics called it a menace and landowners vigorously opposed the project. Scottish conservationist Simon Jones describes the beast as “a relatively big animal…a large tubby squirrel with short legs and big teeth. The beast is the beaver, it has been extinct in Britain for 250 years, and conservationists are trying to bring it back, welcome to the European Model of wildlife conservation.
Most of us were born into a place and time that included an abundance of wildlife. It is difficult to imagine the landscapes we know without beaver, deer, elk, wild geese and the wily coyote. The truth is, however, the lower forty-eight states of North America were once virtually stripped of all the animals that had a market value.
In 1885 Theodore Roosevelt described the commercial carnage with a story of a northern plains cowboy who had just ridden a thousand miles, and then told TR that he “was never out of sight of a dead buffalo and never in sight of a live one.”
Our hunting heritage sat on the brink of oblivion. The buffalo, elk, bison and other animals were indeed in peril and could have passed to extinction here, just as the aurochs, boar, bear, wolf, reindeer and beaver did in Britain. Our American wildlife legacy might have ended late in the 19th Century were it not for the emergence of a new deal for wildlife—and for people. In time, that deal would be described as the North American Model of Fish and Wildlife Conservation.
Simply put, the North American Model of Fish and Wildlife Conservation (the Model) is how our society found a way to value, restore, conserve and share the wild resources of a continent. The Model is rooted in our legal system, our political system, and our cultural will.
Since none of our nation’s founding documents addressed fish and wildlife, it was left to the courts to define our relationship with the wild. In a long series of decisions dating back to 1842, fish and wildlife have been defined as public resources held in trust by the states, for all the people. In that first case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that by virtue of the Declaration of Independence the people in our democracy were the sovereign. What that meant in short was, the king’s deer became the people’s game.
Learning to live with this new reality was difficult, and America went through a very dark time when commercial interests slaughtered wildlife for the market, and by 1885 game populations were near collapse.
In 1887, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bird Grinnell, Gifford Pinchot and others formed a club for the restoration of wildlife to America. When TR became our president he used the ‘bully pulpit’ to embed a conservation ethic in our culture, setting aside roughly 84,000 acres a day for every day he held the White House.
When wildlife restoration faltered, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called the first North American Wildlife Conference in 1936. He called upon the people to unite in the fish and wildlife conservation effort. The people responded by creating a national affiliation of sportsmen’s clubs, and within a year won landmark federal legislation to fund the recovery. Back in their communities these hunters and anglers went to work on the restoration of habitat and the protection of wildlife, while enriching the conservation ethic in the people.
By the time the 20th Century came to a close, three generations of those sovereign people had successfully restored wildlife across the country: When Theodore Roosevelt entered the White House, there were about half a million deer in the nation; today there are more than 30 million whitetails alone. In 1907 the nation’s elk population stood near 40,000, there are now at least a million. When Franklin Roosevelt called the hunters together, there may have been a million Canada geese on our continent. By 2003 the annual goose harvest was climbing toward 3 million.
This massive restoration of wildlife was probably the greatest environmental achievement in human history.
In England, where ‘the king’s deer’ passed to private property, the aurochs, boar, bear, beaver, wolf and reindeer went extinct. In America, where wildlife became the ‘people’s game’ we have deer in our suburbs, bears in our orchards and goose dung on every golf shoe in America. None of this happened by accident.
Finding our way to a conservation ethic that would work wasn’t easy, we had to hunt for it. In the process, we learned that if we were to hunt at all, we all had to conserve and share. That is how—and why—it worked.
In 2001 three wildlife biologists described the Model in a professional paper titled: Why Hunting Has Defined the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. In 2002 the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies endorsed the Model and its seven basic principles:
•Wildlife as Public-Trust Resources
•Elimination of Markets for Wildlife
•Allocation of Wildlife by Law
•Wildlife Can Only be Killed for a Legitimate Purpose
•Wildlife is Considered an International Resource
•Science is the Proper Tool for Discharge of Wildlife Policy
•Democracy of Hunting
It is, however, still up to the people in our democratic form of governance to embrace and protect these fundamental principles that brought wildlife to our time.
History teaches that those who would privatize and commercialize the people’s game, or dredge up an aristocracy of hunting, are not new. They were around in Theodore Roosevelt’s time and he left us some guidance. The following passages are his:
“The movement for the conservation of wildlife, and the… conservation of all our natural resources, are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose and method.”
“We do not intend that our natural resources shall be exploited by the few against the interests of the many. Our aim is to preserve our natural resource for the public as a whole, for the average man and the average woman who make up the body of the American people.”
“Above all, we should realize that the effort toward this end is essentially a democratic movement. It is… in our power… to preserve game…and to give reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the skill of the hunter, whether he is or is not a man of means.”
“There have been aristocracies which have played a great and beneficent part at stages in the growth of mankind; but we had come to the stage where for our people what was needed was a real democracy, and of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of a plutocracy.”
For three generations, conservationists addressed habitat challenges, biological puzzles and law enforcement issues to bring the people’s game into a new century. As we entered the 21st Century, we noted with alarm that the component of our culture responsible for this wildlife renaissance, the hunter, was in decline.
How could an activity so profoundly linked to our lifestyle for a century find itself fading from our culture? Since this unique North American Model and the abundance it has restored are worth keeping, we need to examine the various social influences impacting hunter numbers.
The impact commercialized hunting is having on opportunity and recruitment has received precious little attention.
Commerce, or some form of exchange involving dead wildlife, has been a constant in our human evolution. At times our commercial companions have been fundamental to the success of fish and wildlife restoration. The best example of their positive potential remains the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts, excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment that are returned to state wildlife agencies.
However, to see the dark side of commerce, simply check the advertisements for exclusive hunting experiences found in most sporting journals. None of these advertisements include the words: the public is welcome to share the abundance. A new plutocracy of the hunt seems to be emerging, and like the aristocracy of previous times, it is not likely to honor that democracy of the hunt principle basic to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.
Historian Daniel Justin Herman wrote an article titled Hunting Democracy in which he stated, “American citizens, not those who governed them, were sovereign. In the U.S., moreover, every adult … enjoyed another right that only kings and aristocrats had held in earlier centuries: the right to hunt … The right to hunt and the right to make political choices (vote) emerged simultaneously in the U.S.”
Herman went on to observe: “At one moment, hunting has operated in American culture as a rite of democracy and at the next, as a rite of aristocracy. That pendulum swing continues today.”
As that pendulum swings toward aristocracy, it knocks more hunters out of field than the anti-hunters could ever have hoped to. The problem with many forms of commercialized hunting opportunity is not that they seek some compensation for the landowner or for services provided. The problem is their own belief that they must exclude every common or aspiring hunter unable or unwilling to pay the toll.
The North American Model worked because we the people willed it, and then made it happen. Let us aspire to sustain the model and the seven principles that make it work. Perhaps it would not be unreasonable to have paying clients and free hunters hunting the same marsh, both taking time to learn and appreciate why the other is there.
Perhaps we could choose to not confront an aspiring hunter with a sign declaring hunting as private. As never before, we need to protect the two special pillars of the North American Model that made the whole process work: wildlife as a public trust and the democracy of the hunt.
In 1883, on his first trip to hunt buffalo on the vanishing American frontier, a 24-year-old Theodore Roosevelt spent several nights in Gregor Lang’s cabin on North Dakota’s Cannonball Creek. They held spirited discussions on topics important to our young nation. Gregor’s son Lincoln listened from his bunk as the men talked late into the night.
Years later Lincoln would write: “It was listening to those talks after supper in the old shack on the Cannonball that I first came to understand that the Lord made the earth for all of us and not for a chosen few.”
Now, 115 years later, that is a perspective worth hanging on to and taking to the field, forest and marsh. The future of hunting in America may depend on it.
The list of reasons for the decline may be long, with some being obvious and others simply superficial distractions. For example, much has been said about the many influences competing for the attention of our youth. This issue is among the obvious and many hunting organizations have launched excellent youth programs. These programs are necessary, and we all need to pitch in and help make them work.
Since the word superficial was used to define the other end of the spectrum, let me suggest that anti-hunting groups and their campaigns occupy more of our time and attention than they deserve. They have been around for a century, and while they raise a lot of money and live well, they have not damaged hunting. Hunting is still clearly okay with most Americans. Even those aspiring to be our nation’s president continue to create photo-ops with dog and gun.
-
I agree with Mojo, the fact that you must qualify for and then repeatedly purchase a license and game specific tags in itself make hunting a privilege. As he also said, add in the fact that there are season dates and bag limits, that even more so makes it a privilege according to the law. If hunting were a right, anyone could hunt with no tags or license at anytime for any animal.