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?
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.