Titties

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Poachers

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:11 pm

assateague wrote:
bighop wrote:
assateague wrote:
Actually, no you haven't. Nor have I reframed the argument or added any stipulations- I stated this back on page 3. Not my problem I had to restate it again and again, since it was so frequently ignored. Read the whole thing next time.

For cryin out loud, I've read the whole thing. You've referred to the state owning wildlife, the State owning wildlife, and it being held in trust, and probably other iterations as well. I still don't really know what your position here is, other than that you want the state to pay for your body work when you hit a deer, which is odd, because it's your money they're using to pay you.

Own it but can't use as you please?
guns
cars
knives
clubs
fertilizer
gasoline
land


I missed the part where I have to have a permit to use a knife, club, fertilizer, gasoline, or land. I also missed the part where the government tells me when I may use a club, knife, fertilizer, gasoline, or land. Or where I can buy my knife license, authorizing me to use a knife only during November and December. As for cars, my 6 year old may drive my Jeep all over the back 40 anytime she wants. You may be confusing driving a car on the road to owning a car. Which is perhaps understandable, since you're either being purposely obtuse or you just aren't that bright.

bighop wrote:
assateague wrote:State control of everything they wish to control.

So if the Dakotas make the limit 100 mallards each hour of legal shooting, what happens to Arkansas? Just tough titties, I guess?


Pretty much, yes. Why does a resident of South Dakota have to buy an out of state license to hunt federally regulated birds in Arkansas? Doesn't he have just as much right to shoot them as a resident of Arkansas, since under your scenario and belief the South Dakota resident is just as much an "owner" of those ducks as the Arkansas resident, no matter where they are?

Try and build an oil processing plant in a residential area on land that you own....Good luck with that.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58093
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana


Re: Poachers

Postby assateague » Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:16 pm

I already told you, nobody owns land, it's just "leased" in perpetuity. Don't believe me? Stop paying taxes on it.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Poachers

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:22 pm

boney fingers wrote:
shoveler_shooter wrote:
bighop wrote:So if the Dakotas make the limit 100 mallards each hour of legal shooting, what happens to Arkansas? Just tough titties, I guess?

It doesn't work like that.
Every state has their own biologists to study populations and they all do a perfectly adequate job of managing deer herds, pheasant, elk, quail, everything else. It wouldn't be any different for migratory birds.


First, do deer, elk, pheasant or quail migrate in large numbers from the Dakotas to Arkansas? Second would those states be able or be willing to do the studies needed to make those determinations. Third, don't we get more bang for our buck when one agency is doing the work instead of 50 agencies doing the same work. Im a small government states rights guy, but this is one of the few areas I believe it makes sense for the feds to be involved. I also believe national defense is a fed issue, this dosent make me a commie. I do have to admit though, a spring season with no limits would be cool (in my state but not yours).

There are a few taxidermist in Louisiana that are given Federal permits to shoot migratory waterfowl for studies and for mounts in state museums. Spring hunting is common for some studies.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58093
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Poachers

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:24 pm

assateague wrote:
shoveler_shooter wrote:
bighop wrote:So if the Dakotas make the limit 100 mallards each hour of legal shooting, what happens to Arkansas? Just tough titties, I guess?

It doesn't work like that.
Every state has their own biologists to study populations and they all do a perfectly adequate job of managing deer herds, pheasant, elk, quail, everything else. It wouldn't be any different for migratory birds.



Exactly. It always amazes me when the folks start crying that the if the federal government didn't regulate birds they'd be nonexistent in a year, because they think the states can't handle it. And ironically enough, most of these folks are states' rights people for most, if not all, other issues. So it boils down to the "it's my cause, so it's the most valuable cause" mentality. Welfare folks feel much the same about their benefits.

Wild turkey restoration. They were almost hunted to extinction. Research the comeback of the wild turkey across America.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58093
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Poachers

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:26 pm

assateague wrote:
boney fingers wrote:
shoveler_shooter wrote:
bighop wrote:So if the Dakotas make the limit 100 mallards each hour of legal shooting, what happens to Arkansas? Just tough titties, I guess?

It doesn't work like that.
Every state has their own biologists to study populations and they all do a perfectly adequate job of managing deer herds, pheasant, elk, quail, everything else. It wouldn't be any different for migratory birds.


First, do deer, elk, pheasant or quail migrate in large numbers from the Dakotas to Arkansas? Second would those states be able or be willing to do the studies needed to make those determinations. Third, don't we get more bang for our buck when one agency is doing the work instead of 50 agencies doing the same work. Im a small government states rights guy, but this is one of the few areas I believe it makes sense for the feds to be involved. I also believe national defense is a fed issue, this dosent make me a commie. I do have to admit though, a spring season with no limits would be cool (in my state but not yours).



Arkansas doesn't have oil and natural gas like North Dakota. Should that be "regulated" and "fairly shared" with the other states as well, or is that just ducks? California and Florida grow a lot of oranges, but Montana doesn't. That's not fair, since Montana needs its share of oranges to.

As for "more bang for the buck", no, absolutely not. What you get are two additional layers of wasteful bureaucracy at least, one when the tax dollars go through a state to filter up to the fed, and then another when the fed filters it back down to the states. Do you think the guy in Arizona is getting a good "bang for his buck" when he's paying in tax dollars to use for ducks, when it's the guy in Arkansas killing all the ducks the guy in Arizona "paid for"? Of course not. A large bureaucracy hardly ever leads to a better bang for the buck. It leads to people who have no knowledge of the conditions or needs of people on the ground, yet dictating to them how much it's going to cost and how it's going to work.

And yes, your'e damn right the states would be willing to do those studies, because they know exactly how much they would lose if the ducks disappear.

Again, I don't care how near and dear a particular cause is to anyone's heart, or how much they think it "helps". If it's not an enumerated power, then the federal government should NOT be doing it. Period. Encouraging it because you think the states would eff it up is a form of nannyism no different than the state telling you your kids have to wear a helmet and elbow pads to ride a bicycle. Because hey, why should you be trusted to take care of your kids? Without them telling you what to do to protect them, all the kids would be dead in 3 years, and then where would we be?

show me how oil flies from Canada to Arkansas and you have a valid argument....
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58093
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Poachers

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:28 pm

assateague wrote:And aside from counting them, what "study" of ducks is necessary? Pretty sure we already know all we need to know to manage ducks. But the self-perpetuating bureaucracy which you think gives a better "bang for the buck" will never let the "duck studying budget" go away, because that's what they live on, now. The bureaucracy, not the ducks.

Paging Larry Reynolds....if he will post again on this thread, but I venture a guess that he is done.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58093
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Poachers

Postby boney fingers » Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:31 pm

There are a few taxidermist in Louisiana that are given Federal permits to shoot migratory waterfowl for studies and for mounts in state museums. Spring hunting is common for some studies.[/quote]

Know of any job openings? Having seen the you tube videos of some of the "snipers" they bring in for controlled hunts, I might be of use to those guys. For a number of reasons (pair bonding, winds not as favorable, saving energy, no hunting pressure ect...) the spring migration is much better here than the fall; just a few days is all I need.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Poachers

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:33 pm

bighop wrote:
assateague wrote:
bighop wrote:
assateague wrote:
Actually, no you haven't. Nor have I reframed the argument or added any stipulations- I stated this back on page 3. Not my problem I had to restate it again and again, since it was so frequently ignored. Read the whole thing next time.

For cryin out loud, I've read the whole thing. You've referred to the state owning wildlife, the State owning wildlife, and it being held in trust, and probably other iterations as well. I still don't really know what your position here is, other than that you want the state to pay for your body work when you hit a deer, which is odd, because it's your money they're using to pay you.

Own it but can't use as you please?
guns
cars
knives
clubs
fertilizer
gasoline
land


I missed the part where I have to have a permit to use a knife, club, fertilizer, gasoline, or land. I also missed the part where the government tells me when I may use a club, knife, fertilizer, gasoline, or land. Or where I can buy my knife license, authorizing me to use a knife only during November and December. As for cars, my 6 year old may drive my Jeep all over the back 40 anytime she wants. You may be confusing driving a car on the road to owning a car. Which is perhaps understandable, since you're either being purposely obtuse or you just aren't that bright.
[/quote]
What you missed was where you asked what else you "owned" that you couldn't use in any way you pleased. It was an attempt to set a precedent that you own plenty of things that are regulated in their use. You are now attempting to apply the argument in reverse and want to know what you own that is regulated in the same manner as wild game is regulated. That's like me asking you what species of game you are required to take an 8hr class learning about, prove proficiency in the feeding of, and pass a background check before you can carry concealed in your pocket. Of course it doesn't work the same way going forward and backwards.

assateague wrote:
bighop wrote:
assateague wrote:State control of everything they wish to control.

So if the Dakotas make the limit 100 mallards each hour of legal shooting, what happens to Arkansas? Just tough titties, I guess?


Pretty much, yes. Why does a resident of South Dakota have to buy an out of state license to hunt federally regulated birds in Arkansas? Doesn't he have just as much right to shoot them as a resident of Arkansas, since under your scenario and belief the South Dakota resident is just as much an "owner" of those ducks as the Arkansas resident, no matter where they are?

The feds don't dictate OOS license fees, the state does (isn't that what you want?) And what makes you think your license fee is "purchasing" a duck? You're purchasing the state's permission to hunt there, not the duck.

I went to LA and didn't catch a keeper fish, but I bought a license. I went back to the store and demanded my money back or a limit of reds and trout, I gave them the choice. For some reason, they laughed.

The SD resident has as much right to them as the AR resident, but that doesn't mean AR has to let him hunt for free. In your model, I suppose a ND OOS license would probably go for about $2mil, and a AR OOS license would be about $0.50. ND doesn't have any incentive to letting a single duck pass it's southern border, after all.[/quote]
You are paying for the opportunity to HUNT in that state where you purchase an OOS, As in, the act of hunting or fishing, not the results. You can not cast a rod without a fishing license, not sit in a duck blind with a gun in your hands.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58093
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Poachers

Postby boney fingers » Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:42 pm

States contribute plenty to migrating waterfowl, habitat, law enforcement, banding, just to name a few; this is what you are paying for with your OOS liscence.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Poachers

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:44 pm

assateague wrote:I already told you, nobody owns land, it's just "leased" in perpetuity. Don't believe me? Stop paying taxes on it.

You keep moving the goal post.
Well now that is a tangent on this topic. Define "Own" for this discussion please so everyone is on the same page.


If a robber breaks into my house and steals the ducks I have in my Frig. without my consent, Can I press charges for theft? And be reimbursed for damages and loss? Works for storm losses.....
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58093
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Poachers

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Sep 10, 2013 7:44 pm

boney fingers wrote:
There are a few taxidermist in Louisiana that are given Federal permits to shoot migratory waterfowl for studies and for mounts in state museums. Spring hunting is common for some studies.


Know of any job openings? Having seen the you tube videos of some of the "snipers" they bring in for controlled hunts, I might be of use to those guys. For a number of reasons (pair bonding, winds not as favorable, saving energy, no hunting pressure ect...) the spring migration is much better here than the fall; just a few days is all I need.

No.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58093
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Poachers

Postby bighop » Tue Sep 10, 2013 8:43 pm

Indaswamp wrote:Define "Own" for this discussion please so everyone is on the same page.

He won't.
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 7698
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Poachers

Postby :-) » Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:09 pm

Is this what you're looking for?

Own

1 a : to have or hold as property : possess b : to have power or mastery over <wanted to own his own life>

2 : to acknowledge to be true, valid, or as claimed : admit <own a debt>
intransitive verb: to acknowledge something to be true, valid, or as claimed —used with to or up

I'm so lost...I need to know the relevance of this definition.
User avatar
:-)
hunter
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:57 pm
Location: Texas Coast

Re: Poachers

Postby bighop » Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:12 pm

:-) wrote:Is this what you're looking for?

Own

1 a : to have or hold as property : possess b : to have power or mastery over <wanted to own his own life>

Nope, Webster is wrong, per AT
assateague wrote:Possession is not even close to the same thing as ownership. They call it "reduced to possession" because it isn't yours in the first place. You're just holding it.
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 7698
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Poachers

Postby bighop » Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:19 pm

Underradar wrote:Jim shoots ten ducks over the limit....
...explain why.

assateague wrote:I take personal offense to this thread.

Jim didn't shoot more than 10 ducks over his limit because he missed all the pintails, then ran out of gas because of the fake can.
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 7698
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Poachers

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:25 pm

bighop wrote:
Underradar wrote:Jim shoots ten ducks over the limit....
...explain why.

assateague wrote:I take personal offense to this thread.

Jim didn't shoot more than 10 ducks over his limit because he missed all the pintails, then ran out of gas because of the fake can.

Now that post is talent people! :clapping: Awesome!
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58093
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Poachers

Postby :-) » Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:30 pm

bighop wrote:
:-) wrote:Is this what you're looking for?

Own

1 a : to have or hold as property : possess b : to have power or mastery over <wanted to own his own life>

Nope, Webster is wrong, per AT
assateague wrote:Possession is not even close to the same thing as ownership. They call it "reduced to possession" because it isn't yours in the first place. You're just holding it.


Roger that. I was lost for a second.

Y'all both have valid points. It's safe to say its time for duck season to hurry up, and get here...there are some bored people on this site.

Thanks to all of you for keeping us entertained! Lol It better than anything on TV.
User avatar
:-)
hunter
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:57 pm
Location: Texas Coast

Re: Poachers

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:33 pm

:-) wrote:
bighop wrote:
:-) wrote:Is this what you're looking for?

Own

1 a : to have or hold as property : possess b : to have power or mastery over <wanted to own his own life>

Nope, Webster is wrong, per AT
assateague wrote:Possession is not even close to the same thing as ownership. They call it "reduced to possession" because it isn't yours in the first place. You're just holding it.


Roger that. I was lost for a second.

Y'all both have valid points. It's safe to say its time for duck season to hurry up, and get here...there are some bored people on this site.

Thanks to all of you for keeping us entertained! Lol It better than anything on TV.

Tru Dat!!! :lol3: :yes: It's rare for me to watch TV. I'd rather do something else.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58093
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Poachers

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:20 pm

replacement cost of 1 Canada goose....

All American Holiday Young Goose Raised Without Antibiotics 10 - 12 lbs
Our Price: $81.95

Ducks are about the same....
How many you got in your freezer after goose season? I know some people that made some bank after Katrina!
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58093
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Poachers

Postby The Duck Hammer » Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:51 am

Indaswamp wrote:replacement cost of 1 Canada goose....

All American Holiday Young Goose Raised Without Antibiotics 10 - 12 lbs
Our Price: $81.95

Ducks are about the same....
How many you got in your freezer after goose season? I know some people that made some bank after Katrina!

Holy crap.


Sent from my Vox Mortem
“When you're at the end of your rope, tie a knot and hold on” - Theodore Roosevelt
jaysweet3 wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:easy...just manipulate the ruler to make the inch shorter so that 28" reads 30"..... :thumbsup:

That's how I got a 13" pecker.
User avatar
The Duck Hammer
hunter
 
Posts: 3710
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:27 am
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Poachers

Postby Underradar » Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:07 am

Title is only an evidence of ownership. One can have title, yet not be the owner.
My lab died, and no one on Duckhuntingchat even cared.

Google I'm feeling lucky: DU biologist stole my car

You may win a fight, but you can never win an argument.
User avatar
Underradar
hunter
 
Posts: 5166
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 5:09 pm
Location: Rut Coon, LA

Re: Poachers

Postby assateague » Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:34 am

bighop wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:Define "Own" for this discussion please so everyone is on the same page.

He won't.



Who owns the ham sandwich?



Why do I have too define "own"? You guys are the ones that are saying I, and everyone else, "owns" a duck. I'm certainly not saying that. I say BS, because you can't do 1-7 on my list, and to me, not being able to do 1-7 means that I do not own it. So why do I have to define ownership? Probably because you know you have no argument, but are perfectly comfortable saying that I don't either. Fine.


But here you go:

"own"- to have a claim over all others for the use and disposal of something.


There you are. Simple. The AT definition of "own". Now please feel free to define what you mean by "own". And I'll tell you again, based on your definition, please just leave the keys in "your" vehicle. I'll be there to get it next Thursday, and don't bitch that someone else took it. Because while I'm driving away in it, it will be in my possession.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Poachers

Postby :-) » Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:41 am

assateague wrote:
bighop wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:Define "Own" for this discussion please so everyone is on the same page.

He won't.



Who owns the ham sandwich?



Why do I have too define "own"? You guys are the ones that are saying I, and everyone else, "owns" a duck. I'm certainly not saying that. I say BS, because you can't do 1-7 on my list, and to me, not being able to do 1-7 means that I do not own it. So why do I have to define ownership? Probably because you know you have no argument, but are perfectly comfortable saying that I don't either. Fine.


But here you go:

"own"- to have a claim over all others for the use and disposal of something.


There you are. Simple. The AT definition of "own". Now please feel free to define what you mean by "own". And I'll tell you again, based on your definition, please just leave the keys in "your" vehicle. I'll be there to get it next Thursday, and don't bitch that someone else took it. Because while I'm driving away in it, it will be in my possession.


I'm on your side in this debate. Thank you for coming back...it was starting to get boring!
User avatar
:-)
hunter
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:57 pm
Location: Texas Coast

Re: Poachers

Postby :-) » Wed Sep 11, 2013 8:42 am

Image
User avatar
:-)
hunter
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:57 pm
Location: Texas Coast

Re: Poachers

Postby Indaswamp » Wed Sep 11, 2013 9:00 am

assateague wrote:
bighop wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:Define "Own" for this discussion please so everyone is on the same page.

He won't.



Who owns the ham sandwich?



Why do I have too define "own"? You guys are the ones that are saying I, and everyone else, "owns" a duck. I'm certainly not saying that. I say BS, because you can't do 1-7 on my list, and to me, not being able to do 1-7 means that I do not own it. So why do I have to define ownership? Probably because you know you have no argument, but are perfectly comfortable saying that I don't either. Fine.


But here you go:

"own"- to have a claim over all others for the use and disposal of something.


There you are. Simple. The AT definition of "own". Now please feel free to define what you mean by "own". And I'll tell you again, based on your definition, please just leave the keys in "your" vehicle. I'll be there to get it next Thursday, and don't bitch that someone else took it. Because while I'm driving away in it, it will be in my possession.

Did the market hunter that could do 1-7 on your list "own" the ducks he shot?
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58093
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron