Is hunting a right or a privilege?

[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.

 

[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 sightâ€. 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]

Hunting is a right

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]

answerguy

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?