[Molon Labe]

I am an avid outdoorsman and hunter, and I fight efforts by animal rights and environmental extremists in their quest to eliminate hunting.

During political discussions on this topic I have heard other hunters talk about their "right to hunt animals." But then I got to thinking... do I really have a God-given, inalienable right to hunt? Or is it a privilege? After all, hunting is regulated, and we must pay licensing and tag fees.

So while I definitely believe we have a God-given and inalienable right to bear arms and defend ourselves, I question if we have a right to hunt. And if we don't, should we call it a privilege?

[Joe Demko]

Right to hunt? Where? On your own land, you could possibly make the case that if the animal is on your land, it is your animal and you have the right to kill it. I wouldn't bet on that case being too widely accepted, though. The present school of thought is that wildlife is a resource "owned" by all the citizens with the gummint acting as stewards of that resource. Therefore, it may be on your land, but it ain't your animal. Do you have a "right" to hunt on public land or another person's property? Really, I don't see how.
Can't recall anything in the Constitution that could be construed as giving you a right to hunt, either. Not unless you construe it so broadly as to render it meaningless, anyway. Kind of like the gummint did with interstate commerce.

[Chaz]

I believe that rights are granted by a higher authourity than man. Privledges are permissions given by man.

But all that put aside I believe it works like this:

Tell a hungry man that hunting is a privlege and see where it gets ya!

Happy hunting.

[Keith]

I think we may have a "right" to hunt in the most general sense. All citizens have the right to share in the natural bounty of the nation. Public lands are held in trust for all of us and those resources (to include hunting) should be available to all.

That's balanced by the duty of the government to be a steward of those resources. Unlimited hunting would remove the right - there would be nothing to hunt.

On private land, there is no question of it being an unfettered right. Hunting on private land is no different than raising and eating carrots grown on private land.

Keith

[gun-fucious]

the second amendment protects the right to hunt unfeathered TURKEYS

[Joe Demko]

Tell a sufficiently hungry man that stealing isn't a right and see where it gets ya!

[boyd425]

We have a Right not to have the sport of hunting eliminated (operative word here "we") by political opportunists who broadcast emotional lies and deception to advance a narrow (and IMHO often simply anti human) political agenda.
Do we have a right to overtax limited resources (throw every Tom Dick and Harry into the field for as many kills as they want)? Well that's a different question and I would argue that hunters for hundreds of years have proven by their actions that they (far more then the freaks in ELF and other anti hunting eco terror groups) respect the ecosystems that support hunting populations. B u t that second question seems a bit more complicated to me then the first. All of this is entirely my personal opinion.
Boyd Kneeland

[Blain]

Is hunting a right or a privilege?

Are eating and self sufficiency rights or privledges?



BTW, animals don't have rights.

[Joe Demko]

Are eating and self sufficiency rights or privledges?

You have no right to eat or to "self-sufficiency" at the expense of others.

Nobody but you said anything about animals having rights.

[SW 586]

This might help.
http://www.bible.com/answers/ahunting.html

[C.R.Sam]

You have no right to eat or to "self-sufficiency" at the expense of others. Key
Would apply to darn near anything.
"At the expense of others" brings most things to a halt.

Sam

[Joe Demko]

If my idea of self-sufficiency and my belief that I have a right to eat leads me to your house, where I forage in your garden, raid your chicken coop, and rummage through your pantry, are you going to listen to me tell you about my "rights" or are you going to hold me at gunpoint for the po-po?

Until the issue of "who owns the wildlife?" has a definitive answer, this whole debate can go nowhere.

[Molon Labe]

Originally posted by Blain:
Are eating and self sufficiency rights or privledges?
No.

You do not have a right to food, oxygen, shelter, clothing, transportation, a job, etc.

As it should be.

[KC]

Molon:
If you really believe what you say is correct, then why are you wasting space on this board? Why do you think you have a right to spout lines like "You do not have a right to food, oxygen, shelter, clothing, transportation, a job, etc."? How would respond to a statement that you are a waste of genetic material and poor use of oxygen? What part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" did you not understand?
BTW, this has no relavency to the question "is hunting a right or privlidge?"


For what it's worth, the constitution does not address hunting per se (I cannot seem to find any refrence to deer, duck, bear, rabbit, Ted Nugent, etc.) It does give Congress to act on matters of interstate commerce. If an animals migratory patterns take it over state lines, and persons in both state use those animals (for whichever commecerial purpose), then it would seem that Congress does have some authority to regulate this sort of activity. The obstacle it would seem to run into is the rights of property owners a given critter is on or over.

[Edward429451]

It does give Congress to act on matters of interstate commerce. If an animals migratory patterns take it over state lines, and persons in both state use those animals (for whichever commecerial purpose), then it would seem that Congress does have some authority to regulate this sort of activity.

Now THAT IS funny. Oxygen crosses state lines also. Have you ever crossed a state line? Hup!, stand up and be regulated...:rolleyes:

[KC]

"Oxygen crosses state lines also...stand up and be regulated"

And you think it isnt? Go and look at Enviromental legislation coming from the federal level. Ever wondy why there is an EPA in this country? Have you looked at a car and wondered why there is such a thing as "50 states emmissions legal" (or something to that effect)?

How about regulations on farming for personal substinance?
Tobacco or alcohol manufacture for personal consumption?
Fabrication of a firearm(s) for personal use? (even related to this board...)


All are fall under federal mandate, one way or another. I'm not by any means suggesting that it is right and proper that this is so; simply that it is.

[Keith]

If you really believe what you say is correct, then why are you wasting space on this board? Why do you think you have a right to spout lines like "You do not have a right to food, oxygen, shelter, clothing, transportation, a job, etc."?

Molon is absolutely correct. If you think citizens have a "right" to something, then anyone denying that right is a criminal! If you own a cow and I'm hungry, I should be able to take your cow, right? And if you try and stop me, I should be able to shoot you for infringing on my "rights"... right?

If I'm homeless, I should be able to move into your house. If I need a job, you must hire me because it's my "right" to have a job. If I don't have a car, and you have two - give one of them up and right now, you fascist!

You have a right to PURSUE happiness, not a right to take it from someone else. You have a right to shake your fist, but when it contacts my nose you are infringing on MY rights.


Keith

[rock jock]

Golgo nailed it. Most prey is considered a resource owned by the people. Cattle, exotics, etc. are different since they are not native.

Right now there is a debate in Texas about allowing unregulated hunting of high-fence trophy deer. The idea is that these deer are no longer "wild" and are therefore not part of the population that is considered a natural resource . They have been raised for the express purpose of food. Interesting discussion. As for me, I have no desire to shoot what is essentially a cow.

[Sergeant Bob]

You have the right to take things to their absurd extreme.

[Carlos Cabeza]

If the animal is not domesticated you cannot own what is considered a free range animal. The deer that are in the high fenced ranch are LIVESTOCK. The idea of hunting for sustenance is a right I was born with. just as my right to self preservation. The question lies in how to manage the resource so that it will be there for future generations. Being a good environmental steward is what hunters should practice.

[Carlos Cabeza]

You're right RockJock, thats not hunting, thats pot shooting an animal inside of a petting zoo.................:rolleyes: Matching wits with a trophy buck in it's own environment is a feat few will ever have the determination and motivation to achieve.

[Joe Demko]

The idea of hunting for sustenance is a right I was born with.

Sez who? You? You have a right to hunt and kill every animal that is your personal property. Since wildlife belong to everybody, not just you, you have no particlular right to it for your own personal use. Just try setting up camp on the courthouse lawn or some other piece of public property. Be sure to tell them you have a right to shelter.

[cuchulainn]

You do not have a right to food, oxygen, shelter, clothing, transportation, a job, etc.Don't let the socialists' perversion of the word right make you think like this. We do have the right to such things -- that right just doesn't translate into our neighbor's (or society's) debt.

I have the right to food, but no one owes me food. And so on.

By justifying rights with needs, we started confusing them...I do have the right to as much quality in my life as possible. What I don't have -- and what the statist social engineers fail to understand that I lack -- is the right to be given what I need to fulfill that right. I have the right to pursue my needs be they physical, like food, or emotional, like pretty paintings, or spiritual, like finding God. But my need does not equal someone else's debt.

"Needs Make Rights: a Bad Meme"
Liberzine.com (www.liberzine.com/seanoberle/ 000613needs.htm), June 13, 2000

[atek3]

cuchu, I think we are agreeing that we all have a right to pursue all of the above items, but Molon is simply trying to dispel the notion of "positive rights" that is rights requiring some action or behavior from someone else (for example surrendering their food or house because you "need" it)
I think we're in agreement.
I also think that this government has bo-jiggered the concept of "rights" in this
country such that de jure we have NO rights only priviledges decided upon by the supreme court and legislatures. When the owner of a piece of land does not have the right to build a cabin on his land without seeking permission from the facists in the zoning board, one could say we have NO rights.

atek3

[Blain]

You have no right to eat or to "self-sufficiency" at the expense of others.

I never said one did.

[cuchulainn]

cuchu, I think we are agreeing that we all have a right to pursue all of the above items, but Molon is simply trying to dispel the notion of "positive rights" that is rights requiring some action or behavior from someone else (for example surrendering their food or house because you "need" it) Then he should have written, "You do not have a right to be given food, oxygen, shelter, clothing, transportation, a job, etc.";)

[September11]

Are you talking about hunting as a sport or an occupation?

[Chris Rhines]

You have the right to do anything at all which does not injure any other person, or their property. Some types of hunting fall into this category.

- Chris

[September11]

anything? maybe - in a vacuum

you have the right to remain silent...:)

[greyhound]

I wouldn't worry, if the current crop of Democratic presidential candidates is any indication, hunting is the LAST thing they want to take away. And they really, really, really want you to know that....:rolleyes:

[Molon Labe]

originally posted by KC:
Molon:
If you really believe what you say is correct, then why are you wasting space on this board? Why do you think you have a right to spout lines like "You do not have a right to food, oxygen, shelter, clothing, transportation, a job, etc."? How would respond to a statement that you are a waste of genetic material and poor use of oxygen? What part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" did you not understand?
BTW, this has no relavency to the question "is hunting a right or privlidge?"

As others have pointed out, you only have a right to pursue and possess these things. And your “pursuit” cannot infringe on anyone else’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You do not have a right to force someone or something else (e.g. your neighbor, the government, etc.) to give them to you. Another way of stating all of this is that you can possess clothes, food, etc. as long as you purchase the stuff, work for the stuff, or it is voluntarily given to you. I thought this was implicit in my statement, but apparently I was wrong.

[Blain]

Dude, I thought that it was implicit in my statement as well? The right to life, food, etc, is no different than the right to firearms. No one here assumes that the right to KABA means that you force people to supply you with guns, so why would anyone assume any differently for other rights?

[Joe Demko]

Because, Blain, it appears that you are saying that your "right" to eat and be "self-sufficient" trumps the ownership rights the rest of the citizens have in the game resources. Once again, the animals aren't ownerless. They belong to the nation as a whole. You have no right, as such, to personal use of them. Public property is just that. You have a share in it and a say in its disposition, but not free and unfettered use or consumption of it.

[Ed Brunner]

Wild animals are the domain of all the people and as such have no owner.
The government owns nothing but what the constitution allows.
Why is this a problem?

[Blain]

Once again, the animals aren't ownerless. They belong to the nation as a whole.

The nation owns nothing, it has no rights aside the powers granted to it in the constitution.

I, on the other hand, CAN own animals. If I own a private game reserve I own all the animals in that land area. If an animal comes onto my property, it is also at my mercy.


Anyone wanting to preserve animals should chip in and buy private reserves where they can be free and protected from hunting. But don't try to tell me what I can do on my land with my property. If you care for animals enough, you shouldn't mind paying for their protection.

The Government has NO part in it.

[Joe Demko]

Okay, buckaroo, how about I sue you because you didn't keep your deer on your property and it ran out on a public road causing a car accident where my car was damaged and my family was injured? You seem to think it being on your property makes it yours and that having it at your mercy makes it even more your property.

So, if you wander onto my property are you mine? If I put a gun to your head do I own you?

The nation owns nothing? That's just plain hilarious! Take your overly-beloved M-14 and try walking through the gates of a military base with it. Tell the nice MP's to eff-off because the nation owns nothing and you have a right to hunt there if you want.

[Blain]

Okay, buckaroo, how about I sue you because you didn't keep your deer on your property and it ran out on a public road causing a car accident where my car was damaged and my family was injured?


Yes, if it was my deer that would be an appropriate course of action.


About the government not owning anything, I should rephrase it to say that they are not supposed to own anything except the powers granted to them by the constitution. Yes, we live in very troubled times.

[Tamara]

Hunting is neither; it's a fact.

Somewhere on the Serengeti right now, a leopard is gnawing on what's left of a critter, not wasting one neuron's activity wondering whether it was his right or his privilege to bring down lunch...

[Balog]

Tamara, you've hit it on the head. I've always been amused by the fact that the people who are most dedicated to the idea that humans are nothing but animals spend so much time trying to stop us from acting like all the other animals.

[Keith]

a leopard is gnawing on what's left of a critter, not wasting one neuron's activity wondering whether it was his right or his privilege to bring down lunch...

Hehe! And on Monday, a bear in Alaska was gnawing on two "environmentalists" and was equally untroubled...

Keith

[Joe Demko]

Right now a dog is pissing on a tree.
Right now a cat is licking its @ss.
Right now a buck is rolling in its own urine.
These things too are facts.
The question is whether any of these facts are germane to the debate.

[Keith]

The question is whether any of these facts are germane to the debate.

Let's leave the damned Germans out of this!

Keith

[Tamara]

Right now a dog is pissing on a tree.
Right now a cat is licking its @ss.
Right now a buck is rolling in its own urine.

You and I are free to do these things, too, regardless of their utility. ;)

Hunting is just something that is; it's how the world works. One can worry about the ethics of bothering bambi or what fraction of each deer belongs to an individual taxpayer, but all that goes out the window if the critter is standing near a hungry predator, either four-legged or flannel-shirt-wearing.

A lot of folks seem to wonder why they have pointy teeth these days... :uhoh:

[Monkeyleg]

Interesting arguments here, but why stop with Bambi? If a mouse gets into my garage, do I have the right to kill it? I have no idea if it lives on my property or someone else's, and I certainly didn't buy it or raise it.

[adobewalls]

Hmmm good topic, just for fun let me throw this into the mix:

If I remember correctly, at least for Texas wild animals are defined to be owned by the State and are further classified into various lower tier categories such as game animals, vermin, varmits, non-game animals, etc. For game animals there are classifications for regulated and non-regulated game animals.

You as the hunter request from the State the permission to capture a regulated game animal, which the State grants in the form of a hunting license. The permission to capture has conditions associated with it, those laws associated with hunting.

Now exotics, non-native animals purchased and raised for hunting, are private property and belong to the individual that procured them. These animlas are not covered by the game laws, but you may need to have permission to hunt in the form of a license also.

So do you have a "right" to hunt wild animals? Legally only if you obtain permission from the State and follow its conditions in capturing the animal.

Now, what happens if you are destitute and starving; well that's a bit trickier, but I think the federal government states you have a right to life - but you might forfeit your liberty based on how a jury of your peers judges your actions.

[Glock Glockler]

Tamara,

Is genocide something that just is? Somewhere there is a Nazi that is stuffing a Jew into the over, and that type of thing has always happened throughout history, and I guess he's free to do it if he is doing it, is that so?

Blain,

I suppose that the deer might be at your mercy but do you have a right to do anything you want to it? I suppose you could demand that the owner compensate you for whatever damages you incurred as a result of the deer's trespass but his tresspssing does not make him yours.

[Tamara]

If I remember correctly, at least for Texas wild animals are defined to be owned by the State

Last time I checked, l'etat, c'est moi. ;)

[Tamara]

Is genocide something that just is?

Perhaps we could pass laws against it? ;)


To get to brass tacks, though:

1) There is a difference between wanton killing and predation.
2) There is a difference between extraspecific and intraspecific violence.
3) Yes, genocide happens. Come down to nuts and bolts, that's why you and I own guns, isn't it? To keep the entire world's population of Glocklers or Tamaras from being wiped out at a stroke, right?

[Glock Glockler]

Tamara,

I accept the practical reality of the world and that people will seek to destroy me if I give them the chance. I will not give them that chance but that does not excuse their actions.

Rights are a concept which exist among people in a state of peace, the main part of the de facto agreement that enables "society" to exist. When things break down and society ceases to exist, that Hobbesian state of every man against every man is resurected and rights become a meaningless concept.

I believe that this discussion was about hunting within civilized society and not in the Hobbesian jungle.

[Tamara]

I believe that this discussion was about hunting within civilized society and not in the Hobbesian jungle.

If one believes that civilized society is impossible to maintain without a Hobbesian benevolent dictatorship overseeing it, mayhaps you have a point.


Tell you what, let's phrase it this way: Is eating blackberries a right or a privilege?

[Blain]

Blain,

I suppose that the deer might be at your mercy but do you have a right to do anything you want to it?


Yes. Anything caught trespassing on my property, two or four legged, belongs to me. It has no right there.

[September11]

It sounds like some people think that if a person has the capacity to do something it is a right... I could walk out and find a deer and kill it - so it must be my right!!! My grandaddy did it. My daddy did it. I have the right to do it too! But you can't do that... unless it is hunting season and you bought your tag and paid the fee, etc, etc. If you own a deer ranch and you raise and kill your own venison that is different but still has issues.

Life, Liberty and the pursute of happiness is the best that the founding father could come up with because it is a really tough subject... so that is all you get. Live free and die. Everything else is a trade-off.

I think the question is about hunting, not animals being hunted. Some people think this is an animal right's question... maybe the initiator should clarify...

If it is about the right to hunt, then do you hunt to live, keep yourself free or to pursue happiness.
If you do it to stay alive, certain rules apply.
If you do it to keep someone from enslaving you - I don't think so.
If you do it for fun, other rules apply.

It seems to come back to rules. Someone already said that rules are the fabric of society. We are a free society. Follow those rules and you stay free!

All very good. Great question. Interesting responses. Thanks.

[goalie]

It is a right here in Minnesota. We added an amendment to our constitution a few years ago that really, really pissed off the liberals. I guess they didn't want to really know how many people hunt in this state, and a ballot initiative shoved down their throats was hard to swallow.

[Glock Glockler]

Wrong, Blain.

Ownership of it does not transfer to you because it trespasses on your property any more than I have ownership of the heartbreakingly well-developed blonde that brushed against me at the bar last Saturday night.

Tamara,

Whose blackberries are they? If they're your blackberries it is a right but if you and I were sitting down for afternoon tea at Casa de Glockler and I suddenly decided to substitute baclava for the blackberries you could not claim the blackberries as a right.

If one believes that civilized society is impossible to maintain without a Hobbesian benevolent dictatorship overseeing it, mayhaps you have a point.

You're not going to start the anarchist debate again, are you?:) You can just cut right to it and pencil me in as a ragingly statist, govt-loving Nazi because I do believe in a limited govt whose job it is to enforce property rights.

[Tamara]

So if I find the blackberries in my back yard, it's safe to assume that I may eat them, even if I didn't plant them there? They're not the State's blackberries? I don't need to go to the DNR for a blackberry tag? ;)

[Joe Demko]

Yes. Anything caught trespassing on my property, two or four legged, belongs to me. It has no right there.

I'm going to presume that you posted this for shock effect, because you can't be that irretrievably stupid and not be living in a group home.

[Joe Demko]

You and I are free to do these things, too, regardless of their utility.

Well, thank you for the offer, and I do find it sorely tempting; but I must regretably decline for now.;)

Re: Blackberries- no, you don't need a permit, but blackberries aren't a regulated or protected species, either. If you check into it, you will find that harvesting some wild plants is regulated.

Unregulated harvesting of wildlife already cost us numerous species and led to the near extinction of others. If everybody were as ethical as you, Tamara,I might be convinced that hunting simply is. As long as there are greedy fatheads around, I will maintain that the "right" to hunt is at best a restricted right.

[Ed Brunner]

Last time I checked, l'etat, c'est moi.

Is that Germaine ?

[biere]

I currently consider the hunting permits and license to be similar to what other states have for ccw. Ohio raised their prices on permits for hunting and fishing and that driving permit license thing also got a raise I believe. There were some more prices raised, the above is sufficient. Overall you are paying for permission, so regardless of what you think, the gov. has decided it is a privelege you must pay for.

In ohio as a land owner I can shoot one deer during season on my property and not pay for a permit. I am expected to take it in to be inspected though. This is what I read in last years hunting pamphlet, it is not something I have done since I lack a freezer for meat storage. And this could change since they can change their mind as easily as a printed pamplet.

My problem with hunting on public lands is that some amount of my tax dollars already goes to cover those "expenses" the gov. incures. I think a lottery for x number of deer allowed for those who apply would be more acceptable, I dislike the hunting permit.

[Balog]

Anything caught trespassing on my property, two or four legged, belongs to me.

Why does the phrase "Looks like the spider's caught himself a couple of flies." come to mind? You don't own a pawnshop or have any good friends named Zed do you?

Seriously tho', something's presence on your property does NOT give you ownership of it. You can certainly force people to leave, but by your definition if I walk into a grocery store I belong to the store. The postal employee delivering my mail belongs to me. If you set foot on government property you belong to the government.
I'm also intigued that you think you can "own" someone else. You seem to be saying that if someone trespasses on your property, they become your slave. That's an extremely wacky view. I hope your property is well marked.

I've honestly never heard this POV before, and I'd love to know what you base it upon.

[Blain]

Perhaps I should not have used the term “ownership”, however, you have the right to do what you wish to one who is on your property without permission. In fact, I do believe that Texas has a similar property rights law, I know that in the past many states adhered and lived by such a law as well, back when this was a much freer country.

I know that in this day and age it seems shocking that one should be able to protect what’s theirs. However, consider this fact.

If you can not do what you wish with your property, then it is not your property. It is no different than killing a thief for stealing your property, which some of you are also against I’m sure. However, if you can not defend your property, if you do not have the right to do that, than it is not yours. If you can not threaten someone who is squatting on your property with force, and be able to back up that force if need be, then it is not yours.

Otherwise, how do you get undesirables off your land? How do you get rid of squatters who do not wish to vacate? Ask them nicely to leave? Call the police to come in (the men with the guns)? Sue them (backed up with the threat of guns to comply)? If someone is on your land trespassing, there has to be some incentive to make him get off, and if it is not force then there will be no incentive. Force, and fear of force is the main driving mechanism behind the fear of consequence for a criminal’s actions. Notice how there isn’t too many break-ins in Texas.

Glocker, the Blonde/bar example is not relevant because it is not your property. The bar invites customers in (yet they still have to abide by the company’s rules), you agree to these rules the moment you step inside the bar door. You do not have to go there, it is a free choice. The same thing applies to you, Balog, and your fly example. Though in that case, if you commit fraud and make customers think you are a business where they can shop, and then tie them up and keep them, that is a violation of liberty. It is fraud.

[Tamara]

Re: Blackberries- no, you don't need a permit, but blackberries aren't a regulated or protected species, either.

Ah, and who decides which berries are regulated or protected species?

You mean I can eat the berries off this bush growing on my property, but if I eat the berries off that bush growing on my property, I'm going to jail? :uhoh:

Whose bushes are these, and what are they doing on my property? :confused:

[Freedspeak]

An interesting aspect in Florida is that as far as Wild Hogs are concerned there is no season or limits and they are concidered as livestock on a persons land.

They may roam over many parcels but as far as the regs. are concerned they are the property of the land owner (where you shoot them) to dispose of as he wishes.

Most other game is regulated for the best balance of population. I have seen where prohibitions on hunting have resulted in mature bucks weighing under 100 lbs live weight. (N.Y.)

[answerguy]

Is there an official Libertarian view of hunting?

[Blain]

Yes, whoever controls the land, controls the hunting.

[Monkeyleg]

"Ownership of it does not transfer to you because it trespasses on your property any more than I have ownership of the heartbreakingly well-developed blonde that brushed against me at the bar last Saturday night."

Said blonde is a human being, not a plant, tree, insect or animal. If Bambi has rights, then so do all of the other plant, insect and animal forms that invade my property on a daily basis. Just ask PETA and ELF. They know not only about "The Silence of the Lambs," but also about the Screams of the Tomatoes.

[Tamara]

Just ask PETA and ELF. They know not only about "The Silence of the Lambs," but also about the Screams of the Tomatoes.

Oh, hell, I think I just sprained something... :D

[publius]

On private land, there is no question of it being an unfettered right. Hunting on private land is no different than raising and eating carrots grown on private land.


Not when it comes to wild animals. I own about 9 acres of swamp out back. There are plenty of gators. Shooting one would be a felony. Now, when it comes to critters that are raised to be hunted, that's a different matter.

That brings me to rock jock's post on high-fence hunting. Contrary to the ALF-ELF-PETA propaganda, what those game ranches are selling is not the opportunity to step into a pen with a tame animal and blast it. Most such ranches cover many thousands of acres, and hunting the animals there is not too different from hunting them in the wild. In other words, it's darn difficult. The reason is, that's the experience hunters want! Almost no one wants to step into a pen and blast a tame animal. Hunters do want to hunt exotic animals, and they want to do so with reasonably good odds of success. That's the experience game ranches sell. Long live rich Americans with guns (http://www.lewrockwell.com/fontova/fontova39.html)! :D

[Joe Demko]

Perhaps I should not have used the term “ownership”, however, you have the right to do what you wish to one who is on your property without permission.

Please turn over all your guns to grammaw or some other responsible adult until you have a better grasp of reality and law than is evidenced by this post.

So, if you trespass on my property, it's okay for me to have you mauled and sodomized by trained mandrils?

[Blain]

So it's ok for the government to shoot tresspassers, but not us common folk, eh? Let me guess, product of public education?

[Joe Demko]

Show me a documented instance of the government summarily shooting trespassers, Blain. The government does indeed prosecute people for trespass. Frequently, in fact. You have the ability to do the same thing.
If you honestly believe the law is on your side and that you can do "anything you wish" to anybody who trespasses on your property, then you have prison as a very distinct possibility in your future. Good thing you're tough enough to join the SAS. That should cut down somewhat on your problems with being beaten and raped.
What's your educational background, Blain? Your somewhat...unusual...ideas regarding basic concepts of law makes me curious.

[Navy joe]

I personally don't have a problem with widlife regulation. First, it is done at the right level as in by state/local government. WRT migratory species and saltwater fish I believe that it is within the Fedgov's purview to regulate them as a national resource aka interstate commerce.

I believe I have a right to hunt. Being a, non-church going evolution believing Genesis is an allegory, christian I derive this right from the first book of the Bible in that man was given dominion over all the animals. Were I to exercise this right unfettered I would eventually trample all over my neighbor's right to hunt as I would eventually kill everything worth killing. Enter the state gov. They issue me a permit for a reasonable fee and tell me, based on research of sustainable take, breeding patterns, etc; what to kill and when to kill it. I have no problem with that. The state fish cops are not some evil totalitarian bunch. Yes their job could be done by a private enterprise, but that bunch would pretty much duplicate the fish cops and I'd probably have to pay higher fees to pay their salaries where now I pay the fish cops through state income taxes.
The main reason I don't see a problem with the current standard is that hunting permits are "shall issue", they serve not as a means to deny hunting, just quota control. It used to be that in the old country the king's foresters maintained the king's forests and their beast for the express hunting pleasure of the king and selected nobility. That is where hunting is a privilege.

In regard to shooting whatever crosses onto your land, not likely. Back to infringing on your neighbor's right to hunt that animal may just be passing through your place. I think there are more gentlemanly ways of addressing two-legged encroachers than just shooting, it helps to be mature if you are going to own guns and land. The fact that a poacher's truck might not work so well after his hunt is not the same as shooting him, and directly addressing the problem with polite words is also acceptable.

Now, hypothetical situation. Say you lived on an island with ten other landowners and no publically held land. Ought to be perfectly within your capabilities to get together with your neighbors and work out a sustainable hunting scheme without gov't help. Reality says that one neighbor will be an enormous ____ who just moved in from _____big city and ignores you other 10 while shooting everything that moves. In that case the best you may be able to is make your other lands more attractive to wildlife and spread lots of predator scents on Mr. enormous_____'s land. Short of running him off the island that is , buying him out might be nice.

So, I think hunting is a right for all, anyone that thinks unregulated hunting works might want to ask what happened to the buffalo, heck we used to have them and many other fine critters in Virginia and other current strip mall locales. It's only a right if you can exercise it without harming your fellow man's right to do the same. That's why I prefer our limited gov't concept, it attempts to recognize that rights are exercised within a community of responsibility, not a vacuum of human selfishness.

[Balog]

First off, let's try to keep this civil people. I don't want to see this thread get locked because you feel the need to insult each other's education and intelligence.

Blain: I fully believe in the use of force to protect property. While it is against the law in pretty much every state (with a few narrow exceptions such as Texas's "criminal mischief at night"), I feel it is morally acceptable to defend one's property with force (up to and including lethal force). This assumes the force is appropriate to the threat, of course. Shooting Mormons for walking into your yard to knock on your door and try to talk to you is clearly inappropriate, both legally and morally. Whether you choose to ignore those laws is up to you. I'd compare the situation to the NFA. I know I have an absolute right to own a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16". I choose not to exercise this right because I know that if I should be caught, I'd be thrown in a (to quote "Office Space") "Federal, pound me in the @$$ prison." Is that morally right for the government to do? Not at all, but it is the reality of the situation.

However, even if we disregard the legal aspect and focus solely on the moral, I would still disagree with your contention that you can do "whatever you want" to people on your property. First, I don't consider trespassing alone to be moral justification for the use of force. Should the trespasser be harming your property or refuse to depart, maybe. But simple trespass does not warrant the use of force. And even when force is justified, this does not give you the right to do "anything." Raping someone for trying to steal your car is NOT acceptable. Neither is castration, branding, amputation, torture or any other of the things that have been done in the past for violation of property rights. I think this is where the disagreement over your choice of the phrase "do anything I want" comes from.

Golgo: You say natural resources such as wild animals are the property of the people. You then say this gives the government authority to regulate them in the name of the people. It seems to me that these are the statements which most of the people who are arguing with you seem to take umbrage at. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I just thought it might help everyone if the core issue of this debate was defined.


P.S. The "spider and fly" comment was a tongue in cheek reference to the movie Pulp Fiction. No offence intended, it merely seemed appropriate.

[Balog]

Being a, non-church going evolution believing Genesis is an allegory, christian I derive this right from the first book of the Bible in that man was given dominion over all the animals.

While I most definitely don't want to insult or hassle you in any way, I'm really curious about something. If the Creation account is allegorical, why should you take the dominion passage literally? I mean, how does one pick and choose which parts to believe in as literal and which parts to take as allegory? Again, not trying to start a religious discussion, just not understanding your POV.

[Joe Demko]

Certain types of resources do belong to everybody and the government is the best available instrument for preservation and renewal of those resources.
If a river flows through your property, does that make it your river and give you the right to pollute it with chemicals and sewage?
Do you have the right to pollute the air because the air over your property is yours?
Ucontrolled harvesting (and also habitat destruction) already cost us the Carolina Parakeet, the Passenger Pigeon, and others. We nearly lost the buffalo, the Florida Panther, and the California Condor due to greedy or uncaring fools with guns.
I'm very much in favor of property rights, I simply don't believe that certain things can be individually owned.

[answerguy]

Yes, whoever controls the land, controls the hunting.

I don't see New Hampshire being a sportsman's paradise after the
'great experiment' starts.

Libertarian philosophy seems fine for many things like say; pollution. I can generate as much pollution on my property as I want but if it goes onto your property you would have the right to sue me. That makes sense. You drill for oil and suck it out from under my land, you owe me. That makes sense.

But wildlife are movable resoures and only renewable to an extent.

Let's say you and I and 98 other property owners live in a country called Liberty. I and the 98 like to see eagles flying around. You like to eat them. And you'll shoot everyone that perches in one of your trees.
Since Liberty is a small country and the eagles will eventually fly over everyones land, including yours. How do we protect the eagles from extinction?

[Cal4D4]

None of you have ANY rights. Your very existence is a priviledge GRANTED by whatever is above you on the food chain. The rules of fang and claw are only moderated by the rules of etiquette. See what happens to your Diety granted rights when the currently controlling group chooses to revise the contract. Chaos or submission. Usually both.

Now back to discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[Keith]

Now back to discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

How fat are those Angels?

Keith

[Balog]

Cal4D4:

That is one of the most evil, Machiavellian, "might makes right" statements I've ever heard. I'm really hoping you're being sarcastic.

[answerguy]

That is one of the most evil, Machiavellian, "might makes right" statements I've ever heard. I'm really hoping you're being sarcastic.

I agree with Cal4D4. Whether you say a certain right is inalienable or not makes little difference if the government you live under doesn't let you exercise that right.
You can scream as loud as you want that your short barreled shotgun is protected by the constitution, no one will hear you while you're in jail.

That's why it's up to all of us to elect people that support the rights that we hold dear.

[ojibweindian]

Cal4D4 has an interesting point.

[Brian Dale]

Centuries ago in England, game (and other wild animals, IIRC) were specifically defined by law to be the property of the king. Hunting without the king's permission was punishable as an offense (or should that be "offence?") against the king's authority. Poaching was held to be minor treason as well as theft from the king, and people were executed for it.

This country threw off the notion that governments ruled by divine right. We have carried on some of the practices of our forebears, for purposes of our own and in accordance with our own views. adobewalls gave a clear description of the situation in Texas. North Carolina might or might not define game animals as state property; I know that they're legally defined as "not my property." I think of them as essentially having an easement to walk across my property unless they do damage. I have heard a NC game officer say, precisely, that "hunting is a privilege" here. For purposes of practical game management, we the people have granted state and federal governments the authority to regulate the activity of hunting. Hunting laws are constantly subject to review and revision, subject to the authority of the people and through the efforts of our employees in state government. The same NC deer cop (above) encouraged all of us who were listening to shoot our limit of deer every year. And the Greenies need to learn that habitat preservation by hunters, and with our money, is what really keeps species of all kinds from being wiped out. We need more hunters; I haven't noticed any shortage of shopping malls.

goalie, I'm pleased to read that Minnesota has defined hunting as a legal right. That seems very cool. Navy joe, great description. I think that the "shall issue" aspect of it is the key to hunting laws being non-infringing of rights. Tell you what, let's phrase it this way: Is eating blackberries a right or a privilege? Tamara, eating blackberries is a religious experience. :D

[rock jock]

You have the right to do anything at all which does not injure any other person, or their property. Some types of hunting fall into this category.
Once again, a ridiculous statement with no basis in fact.

BTW, you don't.

[Balog]

I agree with Cal4D4.

Really? You believe you have no rights? Please send me your address, I'll be right along to kill you and steal all your valuables. I'll probably rape any attractive women who might be around, then kill them as well. Of course I'll be torching the place afterward to cover up my crimes. I won't have violated anyone's rights. Because no one has any. I might get caught. I might be punished. But I'll be happy in the knowledge that I've done nothing immoral. Of course, the government might convict someone else of my crimes. They might even put them to death for it. But that wouldn't violate their rights. Because they have none. I don't know what those wacky colonials were smoking when they came up with that whole "Constitution/Bill of Rights" thing. Everyone is slave to whoever has more power than them.

What's that you say? You have rights even if they're violated? Even if they're not recognized?

[rock jock]

So if I find the blackberries in my back yard, it's safe to assume that I may eat them, even if I didn't plant them there? They're not the State's blackberries? I don't need to go to the DNR for a blackberry tag?
I am assuming you don't understand the concept of hunting or hunting laws because if you did that would indeed be a very ignorant statement. *Sigh*

Plants don't travel from place to place. Therefore, if you eat all the blackberries on your own property, you are not infringing on other landowners from doing the same. Deer, ducks, moose, etc. tend not to limit their living area to your property so when you shoot all the deer on your own land, you are in fact reducing a natural resource available to everyone.

[answerguy]

Golgo-13

Kind of like the gummint did with interstate commerce.


You unlocked an age old mystery for me. I always wondered what <insert best Walter Brennan impersonation> "Dab Gummint!" said by the grizzled old prospectors in old western movies meant. Obviously they were referring to the Damn Government. Now if I can figure out what 'Carn Sarn it' means.

[Joe Demko]

Notice how there isn’t too many break-ins in Texas.

There aren't? Do you now or have you ever lived in Texas?

[Cal4D4]

Hi Balog..

We can stomp our feet about our rights and such all we want, but they only exist in the context of social control. Big brown bears don't care squat about your right to life. Neither do sociopaths. Rights are a form of etiquette so we don't have to start each day slaughtering those around us. Rights have to be recognized to exist. Do the pillaged victims have a right to Life, Lib and pursuit of happiness if the conquering hordes don't care?

Elect only those who recognize and agree with what your rights are, or be victimized.

[publius]

I'm very much in favor of property rights, I simply don't believe that certain things can be individually owned.


U R correct, sir. answerguy mentioned that common property resources are a place where libertarianism fails, and that's also true. The tragedy of the commons will ensue where there can be no ownership. That's true of air. It's generally true of water (but don't try to tell me I don't own my particular pond... ;)). It's also true of non-stationary creatures.

Libertarian philosophy seems fine for many things like say; pollution. I can generate as much pollution on my property as I want but if it goes onto your property you would have the right to sue me.

Not fine. Let me give an example. In South Dade county, where I used to live, many households are on groundwater wells. Nearby, along US1, certain dry cleaning and fuel establishments leaked stuff into the ground. It went on for years. Business owners came and went. Homeowners came and went. People moved, people died, life went on.

About 15 years ago, it was discovered that many of the wells in a certain area were contaminated. Let's say it was one of mine (it wasn't). Who am I supposed to sue, again? The people who did the polluting are mostly gone, and even if they're still there, proving in court that the particular contaminates I'm sucking up are thiers is going to be difficult, not to mention expensive. (edit to mention that what they did was mostly legal at the time they did it.) The best answer I've seen is to establish which things can be disposed of where, and in what amounts, preemptively. In other words, government regulation.

Now that I've twisted some libertarian panties, I'd just like to point out that I've been a member of the LP since I voted for Ron Paul for President in 1988. OK, now flame away. Or better still, leave me alone and go out and kill your limit of deer like that game warden said you should. :)

[Tamara]

Plants don't travel from place to place.

Right, they've been growing on that spot since time immemorial, and their seeds blew in from noplace else, and their pollen doesn't fertilize my neighbours blueberries.

Never met a Republican Collectivist before, rock jock; congrats on being the first! :)


Sing it with me and Woody, now! "These deer are your deer, these deer are myyy deer!..." :p

[Glock Glockler]

Said blonde is a human being, not a plant, tree, insect or animal. If Bambi has rights, then so do all of the other plant, insect and animal forms that invade my property on a daily basis. Just ask PETA and ELF

Monkeyleg,

You completely failed to grasp my point. I do not believe that the blonde should become my personal property, though it certainly would be fun, but rather that her touching my body without consent legally constitutes assault. If she trespasses on my property (touches my body) should I not be able to claim her as my own?

[Balog]

Hi Cal4D4. You said We can stomp our feet about our rights and such all we want, but they only exist in the context of social control. Big brown bears don't care squat about your right to life. Neither do sociopaths. Rights are a form of etiquette so we don't have to start each day slaughtering those around us. Rights have to be recognized to exist. Do the pillaged victims have a right to Life, Lib and pursuit of happiness if the conquering hordes don't care?

This is so blatantly self-contradictory I almost don't know where to start. Are you even familiar with the definitions of the words you are using? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm honestly curious. "Rights" by definition are completely different than "etiquette" (or privileges).

You are confusing "inalienable" which means "1: incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another 2: not subject to forfeiture" with "inviolable" which means "1. Not violable; not susceptible of hurt, wound, or harm (used with respect to either physical or moral damage).

Let me put it to you this way. I possess certain rights merely by existing. My possession does not mean that they cannot be violated or suppressed.

I think our difference is one of worldview.

You have shown a subjective worldview. This translates into your opinion that crimes such as rape, murder, and theft are not violations of an absolute right; they are simply a breach of etiquette no different than tracking mud into a friends house, or not using a coaster.

I have an objective worldview. I believe in an absolute morality. Some things are inherently wrong. This does not mean they cannot happen. It simply means that when they do happen, they are wrong. Because of this inherent wrongness, they should be fought; and those who perpetrate them should be punished.

So to answer your question, yes. Victims do have rights. Even if they are violated. You'll forgive me if I withdraw from the debate at this time. It's becoming apparent that this is like arguing geography with someone who believes the Earth is flat. We disagree on such a fundamental level that I simply cannot communicate with you on a meaningfully, at least about this subject. I'd have to change your entire viewpoint of the nature of reality, and I don't think that I can do that. Even if I could, I hardly think philosophical debates on the nature of reality are appropriate for this forum. This isn't an insult to you, just a statement of fact as I see it. So I'll say "Good day to you, sir."

[Monkeyleg]

Glock Glockler, it's not a question of my not having grasped your point. Actually, I don't want to grasp any part of you, pointed or not. ;)

Your hypothecal Blonde is a human being, and has rights bestowed upon her by God, or Wicka, or the Dalai Lama, or--if she's particularly curvaceous--the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Bambi, Rocky the Squirrel, Bugs Bunny, Charlie the Cabbage and other lesser forms of life have no rights. They are subservient to Man, and exist to sustain mankind.

Certainly we have to exercise stewardship over all of these four-legged creatures and sprouting vegetables. But the decision as to how to exercise that stewardship doesn't grow from PETA's claims of equal rights for man and potatoes.

We exercise that stewardship by determining where these animals and vegetables are more or less populous, then issue the directive: ready, aim, fire (or pluck, in the case of Charlie the Cabbage).

For the next two days I'm going to be trying to convince hunters that they have a God-given right to shoot two-legged threatening human vegetables, and to do so with weapons concealed under their coats.

I look forward to your reply, certainly much more so than I do the grunts I'm going to receive from the "hunters and sportsmen" at this gun show.

Have a good weekend.

[Brian Dale]

Go get 'em this weekend, 'Leg! :D

[Balog]

What Bob said. Give 'em hell, my Leggy friend.

[Cal4D4]

Balog,

I don't really disagree with your feelings as much as with the limited scope you put on your worldview. No condescending semantics or moralizing necessary, please. Do note that some individuals are exempt from our concepts of morality. Quick example is the insanity defense. Often the sociopath is not punished, only healed. All animals are pretty much exempt from morality. There is no morality involved in a cat torturing a mouse. For mankind, I still feel all rights end up a negotiated contract. Ancient kings often had first night rights. Seemed ok at the time, maybe even for all involved. Very subjective. My inalienable right to keep and bear arms turns into a felony if I drive to the range with my unloaded '70s era S&W not locked away from my practice ammo in the cab of my truck. Inalienable? Very subjective. You can call a right violated or call it repudiated. Word games. PETA would define human rights to include animals also. If they were more powerful, it would be so. My old Webster's Unabridged defines etiquette as "the formalities or conventions required by polite society and established by usage". Sometimes a bit of a stretch, but I see most of what you would like to claim as a right actually being defined and established as more of a convention. Sorry I am not up to your standards of discourse, I will try again on another subject sometime.:cool:

[Joe Demko]

Ancient kings often had first night rights. Seemed ok at the time, maybe even for all involved. Very subjective.

Also untrue. Find a better example.

[Chris Rhines]

Once again, a ridiculous statement with no basis in fact.

BTW, you don't. And I know that you're going to explain why I don't, right, rj? A logical statement, based on ethical principles?

- Chris

[Cal4D4]

Golgo-13?

Better example of what? By current standards this would be rape under color of authority.

[Double Naught Spy]

Like so many things in formal and highly structured society, hunting is something that is allowed within given circumstances...just like starting and running a business. There are limitations.

Contrary to the opening post, the right to keep and bear arms,specifically guns, is NOT God-given but Constitutional. You can call it God-given all you want, but that won't make it so. Guns can be removed from consideration WITHOUT infringing on the 'God-given' right to bear arms if you are referencing Biblical passages to justify having arms. As described in some detail in the Bible, there are a variety of arms and NONE of them are guns. By your 'God-given' rights, you are still armed without guns.

The concept/notion of stating that it is one's 'God-given' right to possess firearms is a reasoning flaw that is called an emotional appeal to disembodied authority. You cite God as there is no higher authority only nobody can directly query said authority on the issue. How convenient. The emotional aspect pertains to the invocation of God and that people would not want to make God cross/upset by questioning said authority or doubting it. This is also a passive form of indirect threat. What makes the reasoning so flawed is that it cannot be independently verified. I have yet to see anyone provide definitive evidence that God is either pro-gun or not. As with other arms, nobody has shown if God is pro chemical, nuclear, or biological arms or not either. Such statements that guns are a God-given right are simply convenient interpretations of Biblical passages, not statements of fact.

[Brian Dale]

DoubleNaught, what's your reaction to a definition of fundamental rights without that invocation of higher authority? These are no guns in the Bible; fine. My view of what are called "God-given" rights is that they are those rights that are necessary for life as a human being. The need for water is another of our "God-given" or inherent requirements.

These characteristics are conditions that we require, attributes that we have, somewhat like arms and legs. Without arms and legs, I would be constrained. I could do a huge number of things, but without arms and legs, many of the things that I wished to achieve would take extra time and effort. This is only an analogy, and not an equivalent situation. Lack of arms and legs affects only my ease of movement; violation of the right to defend my life affects my character.

To be able to protect my own life, with whatever weapons I can make practical use of, is necessary for me to live as a human being. If I am prevented from having that ability, by my ignorance or by my peers, then I cannot fully live the life proper to man. That's what a "God-given" right is.

[MeekandMild]

I might conjecture that humanity is undergoing early divergent speciation. We laugh at the concept of sheeple but it is distinctly probable that assortive mating is occurring which follows the rule 'like begets like'.

In which case hunting is not only a right but a requirement for us to maintain our human traits lest our grandchildren merge with the herd of bovine-americans. :p

[answerguy]

Blain-

I'd be greatful to hear your response to my comments below.

I don't see New Hampshire being a sportsman's paradise after the
'great experiment' starts.

Libertarian philosophy seems fine for many things like say; pollution. I can generate as much pollution on my property as I want but if it goes onto your property you would have the right to sue me. That makes sense. You drill for oil and suck it out from under my land, you owe me. That makes sense.

But wildlife are movable resoures and only renewable to an extent.

Let's say you and I and 98 other property owners live in a country called Liberty. I and the 98 like to see eagles flying around. You like to eat them. And you'll shoot everyone that perches in one of your trees.
Since Liberty is a small country and the eagles will eventually fly over everyones land, including yours. How do we protect the eagles from extinction

[Blain]

Show me a documented instance of the government summarily shooting trespassers, Blain. The government does indeed prosecute people for trespass. Frequently, in fact. You have the ability to do the same thing.

Believe me, if you trespass on the White House, or a top secret military institution, and do not heed their calls to stop or turn back, you WILL be shot. Many top secret government locations have signs that say, “trespassers will be shot on sight”. You care to test them out? The mere fact that those signs exist tells you all you need to know about the government’s power to execute trespassers. Why don’t I just trespass on in your house while we are at it?



If you honestly believe the law is on your side and that you can do "anything you wish" to anybody who trespasses on your property, then you have prison as a very distinct possibility in your future. Good thing you're tough enough to join the SAS. That should cut down somewhat on your problems with being beaten and raped.

Heh, I am not saying that the law is on my side and that I can do whatever I wish, I am speaking from a purely moral perspective. I am speaking of what should be, not what is. I also do not plan to go to prison, I believe in personal sovereignty. If the law gets in my way, the law goes down and I'm willing to *die* to protect my sovereignty. So threat of prison is of little fear to me, because I'd never go. I have a feeling being an outlaw is going to be very popular in the near future.


What's your educational background, Blain? Your somewhat...unusual...ideas regarding basic concepts of law makes me curious.

Freedom is an unusual concept for you, eh?


I personally don't have a problem with widlife regulation. First, it is done at the right level as in by state/local government. WRT migratory species and saltwater fish I believe that it is within the Fedgov's purview to regulate them as a national resource aka interstate commerce.

Nobody has the authority to tell me what to do with myself or my property, as long as what I do does not infringe upon the free will of others. Why does the government need to regulate such natural resources? If wildlife is held so dear and important than people will take steps to preserve it without the authority of government. Such as buying large areas of land where the animals will be protected, a type of private wildlife preserve. You can buy animals and breed them, you could buy and tag an animal, etc. If so many people view animals as being important, than they will find ways to preserve them whether the government steps in or not.


Now, hypothetical situation. Say you lived on an island with ten other landowners and no publically held land. Ought to be perfectly within your capabilities to get together with your neighbors and work out a sustainable hunting scheme without gov't help. Reality says that one neighbor will be an enormous ____ who just moved in from _____big city and ignores you other 10 while shooting everything that moves. In that case the best you may be able to is make your other lands more attractive to wildlife and spread lots of predator scents on Mr. enormous_____'s land. Short of running him off the island that is , buying him out might be nice.


Why not just fence off his property ensuring that no animals even get in? 90% of the land on your side is surely enough to be able to do it.

So, I think hunting is a right for all, anyone that thinks unregulated hunting works might want to ask what happened to the buffalo…

If the buffalo were so important, how come people didn’t take active steps toward preserving them? The Indians had no private property rights, they had a communal ownership belief sytem. They also had a tendency to stampede herds of buffalo off of cliffs, not the most conservative hunting practice. Without private property rights, things get exploited. If someone tries to poach a buffalo on my private land, he is going to be the one who ends up being shot instead. A similar thing happened in Africa, where they gave various tribes ownership of the elephants. Poaching went way down because the tribespeople would shoot the poachers.


Certain types of resources do belong to everybody and the government is the best available instrument for preservation and renewal of those resources.

Resources are unlimited and do not need to be regulated. The real resource is the human mind.


If a river flows through your property, does that make it your river and give you the right to pollute it with chemicals and sewage?
Do you have the right to pollute the air because the air over your property is yours?


That section of the river is mine. If I pollute the river, and that pollution then runs off of my property and pollutes the property/ies of my neighbors, then that is a criminal action. I am violating their property rights then, not just mine. If I can somehow contain the pollution to just my property, then I am only harming myself, however, once I start to violate the property of others then I am infringing upon their liberties and thus in the wrong.

Let's say you and I and 98 other property owners live in a country called Liberty. I and the 98 like to see eagles flying around. You like to eat them. And you'll shoot everyone that perches in one of your trees.
Since Liberty is a small country and the eagles will eventually fly over everyones land, including yours. How do we protect the eagles from extinction?

There are several ways around this. One is to offer to work something out with your neighbor, maybe offer to pay him a trespassing fee every time an eagle lands on his property so he doesn’t shoot them. Another is to breed them, or keep eagles in a fenced off area like they do at the zoos, or better yet, install one of those dog type collars, or implants, in them that will keep them enclosed in an electronic barrier. Those who care will find a way to preserve them.

[Bob Wright]

Woody's original version:

This land is my land
And only my land
If you don't get off
I'll blow your head off
I got a shotgun
And you don't got one
This land was made for only me

[Blain]

Ha! That is the way you're supposed to write a song.

[Publicola]

Okay, in a legal sense every state treats hunting as a privilige. Even the states which have constitutions proclaiming that hunting is a Right. The state &/or federal government charges you a fee & subjects you to conditions in order to apply for permission to hunt. They can deny you a permit for any reason they choose, but the most common one is child support delinquincy.

That being said, hunting is a Right. Here's how it works:

Rights are certain things that are necessary & proper for one to do. In some cases they are essential fro a person's life or growth. There are many kinds of Rights but the one's that are most important to this discussion are individual, Natural (or God Given) Rights.

When it all started God, Nature, Insert belief system here, gave us a few things. These things are Natural or God given Rights. The most important of which is Free Will, but that's another subject altogether.

Life, Liberty & Property are the big three that concern us & this discussion. Now Life is pretty easy - we're alive. Liberty means we can travel freely, & of course property means we can own possessions. But let's look a little closer at Life & Property:

Life is something that comes fairly automatically most of the time. At other times it needs assistance. Self Defense is a derivitive Right that comes from Life. & The Right to Arms is a derivitive of Self Defense. Each derivitive in that chain makes the root Right possible.

Now another derivitive of the Right to Life is the Right to Sustinence, of which Hunting is a part.

Here's where y'all seem to be getting confused:

Having a Right, such as the Right to Life or the Right to Sustinence does not mean that those things will be provided to you or that no one is capable of taking them away from you. A Right is not a guarantee. A Right simply means that no one, not your neighbor, sister, father, policeman or government should prevent you from attempting to achieve the exercise of those Rights. This doesn't mean no one is physically capable of depriving you of these things, it just means they shouldn't deprive you of those things.

Further an attempt at exercising your Right does not entitile you to deprive the Rights of others unprovoked. Now naturally if a person attempts to kill you & you've done nothing to instigate his attempt, then you have the Right to Self Defense even if that results in taking away his Life. But it does not mean you'll be successful, just that you shouldn't be prohibited from trying.

Likewise the Right to Sustinence does not mean you can raid your neighbor's garden unprovoked. But it mean your neighbor should not hamper you from seeking out your own means of sustinence.

Now the questions most frequently brought up concern Property Rights; who owns the game & who may hunt it?

The answer to the first part is nobody. Nobody owns live, wild game animals. While alive they are simply not property in the traditional sense. That is not to say we cannot possess them & use them for good or ill as we see fit. But for our purposes here there is no ownership of wild game.

& I am referring to wild game that is alive. I'm aware of the game ranches that have wild or semi-wild animals & they are considered property, but for our purposes here we're speaking of wild game that is not under the direct & immediete control of another.

So if nobody owns the live, wild game animals then nobody has a Right to hunt? Nope. It's kind of like rain. Nobody owns rainwater while it's falling, but once it finds itself in our possession we use it as we see fit & treat it as our property.

So the question is not who owns the animals but rather who may attempt to own the animals through hunting?

& the answer to that is anybody that has a need to sustain Life. It's hard for most of us to imagine, but for some hunting is the difference between being fed decently & being malnourished. Now this does not mean it's permissable for a person to kill 100 deer to feed his family of 3 per year, but it is an exercise of that Right for him to gain whatever sustinence he has need of through hunting. Likewise this does not give him any authority to trespass or otherwise hurt someone else's property Rights, but it does justify him hunting on public land without having groveled for permission & paying a fee first.

Now those who hunt for sport, or for tradition's sake who do not consume what they eat are not engaging in a Right, but rather engaging in actions that are similar to a Right. It's like the Right to Arms. I think most of us can agree that we have a Right to walk down the street armed if we so choose, but we do not have the right to randomly shoot at people. The first is the exercise of a Right, while the second is the exercise of actions that are superficially related to a Right. It's crucial to understand that difference, otherwise you'll be fooled into surrendering part of your Rights for the sake of regulating actions that are not Rights but hold some resemblance to the actions used to exercise a Right.

Now as to the hunting permit system that's in place today in all states, I have seriously problems with it. First of all I do not believe it is absolutely necessary for the preservation of wildlife or even certain species. There are less intrusive ways this could be accomplished.

What it does do, just like CCW permits, is to condition the people to believe that hunting is in fact a privilige that the state controls. This may be how it's applied practically, but that does not make it correct.

Another thing that no one has brought up is that hunting licenses are used to deny people the Right to Hunt. If you're disqualified from owning a firearm in most states (either a domestic violence misdemeanor or a crime punishable by more than 1 year in jail) then you cannot hunt. Further if you're behind on child support you cannot hunt. What? You thought the SS# on the license application was for tax purposes?

Now let's examine that last one for a second. A man gets laid off from work. He has trouble finding a job. He is making little or no money. He seeks to supplement his & perhaps his child & his child's mother's diet with fresh game or fish. But because he's behind on his child support he cannot purchase a license to hunt or fish. Yep, it's probably a rare occurence in today's world, but that does not make it acceptable.

& fees. One reason states such as NC get so offended when you say that hunting is a Right is that the courts have ruled repeatedly that you cannot be charged for the exercise of a Right. That's what most states will fight tooth & nail against any law or amendment that claims hunting is a Right. Thye simply do not want to loose the cash.

& NC by comparison is almost benevolent compared to some other states. Colorado for example milks the hunting license for all it's worth. Ya se in NC a big game license costs $30 or so. You can grab it at any Wal-Mart & it's good statewide. The state's divided into 4 sections & as long as you're in a section with an open season you can hunt that game. BTW, it's 4 or 5 deer, 1 bear & 1 wild turkey if I recall correctly.

In Colorado a resident pays $13 for 1 turkey tag, $20 for 1 deer tag, $30 for 1 elk tag & don't ask about moose or sheep. Colorado is divided up into wildlife management areas & all except the turkey licenses are good only in that one area. I think the biggest area covers most of a county. & again except for turkey you tag is only good for 1 season. There are 4 or 5 deer & elk seasons each lasting about a week. Further is that there's adrawing system for damn near everything, so if you definitely want a license to hunt elk you have to have the money, have your documentation (i.e. hunter's ed. certificate), not be prohibited, & know where you want to hunt & when by sometime around March.

So even if I bought the idea that hunting is a privilige I'd still have problems with the system.

But as it is, hunting is a Right. Governments should not charge people nor deny them permission.

As for the people who seem to think that all wild game belongs to all people & only government can arbitrate, all i can tell ya is that you're mistaken. Wild game belongs to know one until it is reduced to possession. When it is reduced to possession then it's the property of the one who possesses it. & at that point it becomes subject to what we refer to as Property Rights (thought I'd forgotten that one didn't ya?). Since the property in question is gained without any transgression upon the Rights o another, then there is no justification to take away said property, or attempt to extort someone with the threat of removing said property from his keeping. This applies prior to possession as well as post-possession.

I know, you're worried about people running white tails off cliffs by the hundreds & therefore think hunting must be regulated. Nope. the answer is not to regulate through government things that the government should have no authority over, but to educate the populace as to what is responsible treatment of wild game. Don't regulate; educate.

By opening up hunting to government regulation you're not only expressing contentment with steel shot or paying the extra $ for Bismuth or some other lead substitute, but you're throwing the door wide open to everything from a complete prohibition on hunting (it occurs now with certain species in certain areas) to having to tie a pink ribbon around your barrel & using lead free bullets when hunting big game cause it might hurt the game you're hunting if they get lead in their system.

& to those who argue hunting is simply a natural state & debating it is kind of silly - I agree. But even though it's silly it's necessary to discuss the basics in life when we attempt to interact with each other. Personally I think it's silly to discuss having a law that 'permits' someone to carry a weapon, concealed or openly. A bear doesn't back away when he sees your permit. he backs away when you shoot him enough times to make him think it's not worth it. But it's not the bears we're trying to convince of either. It's each other. & that unfortunately involves some discussion about things that just are.

So to sum up, hunting is really similar to the Right to Arms; the government treats it as a privilige even though it's a Right. It justifies the permit system by claiming it does some good, when the truth is a non-governmental system would actually accomplish more good. But government hates ot cede power &/or control, so it hangs on to the various permit systems & tries to convince people that it's for the best.

& y'all keep in mind this is a very complex subject. I've basically just tried to hit the hig spots in it as it were. I'll be more than happy to elaborate on any part if anyone wishes.

Y'all let 'er rip.

[answerguy]

There are several ways around this. One is to offer to work something out with your neighbor, maybe offer to pay him a trespassing fee every time an eagle lands on his property so he doesn’t shoot them. Another is to breed them, or keep eagles in a fenced off area like they do at the zoos, or better yet, install one of those dog type collars, or implants, in them that will keep them enclosed in an electronic barrier. Those who care will find a way to preserve them.

I think the Libertarians are going to have to keeep working on this one to get my vote.

[Blain]

What's wrong now, answer guy?

[yy]

The short take:

Hunting is a right. No government shall infringe on it.

But we the people must treat it as a priviledge.



I see the real question here is whether our government has the right to tax, regulate, license, or otherwise set limits on each individual's access to hunting equipment, game, and place. The bureaucrats already do set limits.

I don't like it. Some argue it's necessary. Others may accept it as a compromise. Still others argue it's okay if it's reasonalbe.

But the bottom line is that the bureaucrats will have any and all rights that WE don't keep from them. We being the tax paying voters.

[jimpeel]

Even the bankruptcy laws recognize this right. You are allowed to keep one rifle and one shotgun in a bankruptcy. This goes back to the times when you might have to hunt to feed your family and the government is not allowed to take that from you.

[answerguy]

Even the bankruptcy laws recognize this right. You are allowed to keep one rifle and one shotgun in a bankruptcy. This goes back to the times when you might have to hunt to feed your family and the government is not allowed to take that from you.

That's interesting. I'd like to see a link to that for proof.

[answerguy]

What's wrong now, answer guy?

It just doesn't seem to be a very practical method of ensuring that species survive. If I want the eagle to survive my choices are: bribe you, construct a fence around your property higher than an eagles flight pattern, or capture all the eagles and put shock collars on them.

This hunting issue will have to have a better answer from the Libertarian party to get many votes from dedicated hunters.

[jimpeel]

Here's the answer, Guy.

http://www.abiworld.org/newslet/99febcain.html

Lien Avoidance on Firearms Under §522(f):

Lethal Weapon or Household Good?
In Rhines, Hon. John L. Peterson, recognizing our courts’ lack of unanimity on whether firearms meet the definition of "household goods," chose to follow the reasoning of the Fourth Circuit. The unique issue presented in Rhines, as opposed to other lien avoidance litigation involving firearms, is that the issue of home protection was not proffered by the debtor as a reason for their possession. Rather, evidence was presented that the rifle and shotgun were the primary means of providing debtors with meat for food. Uncontroverted testimony at the hearing revealed that the debtor used the rifle to hunt for deer, antelope and elk and that he used the shotgun to hunt grouse and turkey. Additional testimony indicated that hunting was his primary means of obtaining meat and fowl to feed his family, except for the purchase of the occasional chicken. Evidence was also presented that the debtor did not use the rifle for target shooting or other purposes.13

The court opined that a household good includes personal property that enables a debtor and his dependents to live in a usual and comfortable manner, even though the property may be used away from the home. A household good that enabled the debtor to feed himself allowed him to continue living as such in a "usual and comfortable manner."

Citing Raines, the court held it would be difficult to find a more "functional nexus" between a good and household than the nexus between a firearm and the household that depends on it for food.14



The State of Oregon:
http://www.oregonbk.com/keep.htm

also:

http://www.americanbankruptcy.com/pdfexemptiontables/oregon.PDF

LISTING OF EXEMPT PROPERTY

One rifle or shotgun and one pistol. The combined value of all firearms claimed as exempt may not exceed $1,000.

The State of Arizona:
http://www.doney.net/code/ars33-1125.htm

ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES

Article 2 - Personal Property Exemption

7. One typewriter, one bicycle, one sewing machine, a family bible, a lot in any burial ground, one shotgun or one rifle or one pistol, not in excess of an aggregate fair market value of five hundred dollars.

The State of Iowa:

http://www.wartburg.edu/ca/stein/ch11.htm

one shotgun and either one rifle or one musket

Here are the exemption tables for all states of the Union.

http://americanbankruptcy.com/pdfexemptiontables/states.html

I found that there is some problem with their links. This can be worked around by entering the state name in the address line manually.

Example:
http://www.americanbankruptcy.com/pdfexemptiontables/<STATE NAME>.PDF

ie: for Michigan, the address would look like this http://www.americanbankruptcy.com/pdfexemptiontables/michigan.PDF which states Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6023(1)(a) Family pictures, arms required by law, wearing apparel, fuel and
provisions for 6 months
Applies to: 5 6 8 Less Common: 33

[RocketMan]

Adobewalls:

...but I think the federal government states you have a right to life - but you might forfeit your liberty based on how a jury of your peers judges your actions.

As stated, that "right to life" sounds more like a privilege to me.
Are you sure you don't want to look at that one again?