Is hunting a right or a privilege?
- Thread starter Molon Labe
- Start date
- Status
September11
Member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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
Senior Member
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
Member
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
Member
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.
Last edited:
Ed Brunner
Member
Last time I checked, l'etat, c'est moi.
Is that Germaine ?
Is that Germaine ?
biere
Member
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.
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
Member
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.
Perhaps I should not have used the term “ownershipâ€, 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.
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
Senior Member
Golgo-13,
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?
Whose bushes are these, and what are they doing on my property?
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?
Whose bushes are these, and what are they doing on my property?
Freedspeak
Member
Hunting
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.)
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
Member
Is there an official Libertarian view of hunting?
Monkeyleg
Member.
"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.
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
Senior Member
Oh, hell, I think I just sprained something...
publius
Member
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!
Joe Demko
Member
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?
Joe Demko
Member
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.
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.
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.
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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.
- Status
