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: Titties

Postby bighop » Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:23 pm

assateague wrote:Well then. There you have it. Next deer I hit I'm suing the state for damages.

Did you miss the non-liability part of the rule of capture?
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 6621
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas


Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:41 pm

Did you miss the "legal claim or title" part of ownership?
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: Titties

Postby jehler » Thu Sep 12, 2013 2:59 pm

copterdoc wrote:Okay, I'm officially cornfused.

What just happened?

And BTW, suck it Jehler.

Have you seen my new watch?
Buy it, use it, break it, fix it,
Trash it, change it, mail - upgrade it,
Charge it, point it, zoom it, press it,
Snap it, work it, quick - erase it,
Write it, cut it, paste it, save it,
Load it, check it, quick - rewrite it,
Plug it, play it, burn it
User avatar
jehler
thread hi-jacking expert and a great guy
 
Posts: 17136
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: Traverse City, MI

Re: Titties

Postby La. Hunter » Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:15 pm

jehler wrote:
copterdoc wrote:Okay, I'm officially cornfused.

What just happened?

And BTW, suck it Jehler.

Have you seen my new watch?


I doubt he has. Why don't you email it to him?
User avatar
La. Hunter
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5745
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:13 am
Location: Northeast Louisiana

Re: Poachers

Postby Broken Paddle » Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:24 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 do not own ANYTHING! You are only LEASING it from the, federal, state & local government!!!!!!!!

If I wanted to remodel my former house, I had to get permission from the town, "zoning", anything within 100' on "my" river bank, National Park Service, Wild & Scenic River designation. :mad: I damn near had to get permission to vacuum 1/2 of my house closest to the river!

Fed., state & local govt. can take your property at any time, just ask the folks in New London, CT!!!!!!!!!!!
Broken Paddle
hunter
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:55 pm
Location: Fomerly in Riverton, CT Now wandering spaceship Earth

Re: Titties

Postby jehler » Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:57 pm

La. Hunter wrote:
jehler wrote:
copterdoc wrote:Okay, I'm officially cornfused.

What just happened?

And BTW, suck it Jehler.

Have you seen my new watch?


I doubt he has. Why don't you email it to him?

Shouldn't post it here?
Buy it, use it, break it, fix it,
Trash it, change it, mail - upgrade it,
Charge it, point it, zoom it, press it,
Snap it, work it, quick - erase it,
Write it, cut it, paste it, save it,
Load it, check it, quick - rewrite it,
Plug it, play it, burn it
User avatar
jehler
thread hi-jacking expert and a great guy
 
Posts: 17136
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: Traverse City, MI

Re: Titties

Postby Lreynolds » Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:14 pm

Indaswamp wrote:And to end this thread, I'll post this definition... (Kudos and 1000 points to Underradar.)

Rule of capture
The rule of capture or law of capture is common law from England,[1] adopted by a number of U.S. jurisdictions, that establishes a rule of non-liability and ownership of captured natural resources including groundwater, oil, gas, and game animals. The general rule is that the first person to "capture" such a resource owns that resource.


Those Ducks are mine when I shoot them and the dog brings them to me and I thus maintain them in my possession.


Absolutely right. But you can not shoot wild game whenever, wherever, however, and in any number that you want. Furthermore, you can not do whatever you want with the game AFTER you have taken private ownership of it. Why?

Because those are the pre-established rules that you agreed to abide by in exchange for taking game. Those things are controlled through regulations established through a representative process in which ALL citizens can participate. Why?

Because Supreme Court rulings have dictated that "wildlife is owned by the public" and ALL citizens, including all of us, are the "public". Consequently, ALL citizens are eligible to take wild game under those regulations, and ALL citizens can participate in the regulatory process that governs the taking of that game.

States regulate the take of resident game because they typically don't move between state jurisdictions; the feds regulate take of migratory birds because they clearly do move between states and countries. Those animals are owned by all of us, the public, until an individual, within the bounds of established hunting regulations, "reduces them (it) to possession". By successfully hunting, you have transferred ownership from the "public" to the "private". And if you don't follow the regulations and get caught, you get to reimburse the "public" for what you stole from them (all of us, the public, each and every one of us). And if those publicly-owned game animals damage your property, you will NOT be compensated outside of a previously-negotiated settlement ..... just like the previously-negotiated regulations that allowed you to transfer ownership form public to private during the hunting season.

All of you know these simple things to be true. But if you don't believe me, feel free to take game animals out of season or in excess of the limit, and see what happens when you are caught.
Feel free to sue the state or the feds over property damage caused by wildlife, and see what happens.

Nothing new, nothing innovative, nothing deeply philosophic ..... man, this thread goes above and beyone to obfuscate the obvious. :clapping: :clapping:
Last edited by Lreynolds on Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Lreynolds
hunter
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Titties

Postby whisperin' duck » Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:14 pm

jehler wrote:
La. Hunter wrote:
jehler wrote:
copterdoc wrote:Okay, I'm officially cornfused.

What just happened?

And BTW, suck it Jehler.

Have you seen my new watch?


I doubt he has. Why don't you email it to him?

Shouldn't post it here?


If its the watch I'm thinking about than no.
LadyK wrote:Ya know, day to day, government collapse, zombie apocalypse. A woman's job never changes. :lol3:
User avatar
whisperin' duck
Forum & State Moderator
 
Posts: 6681
Joined: Tue May 08, 2012 2:11 pm
Location: North East Arkansas

Re: Titties

Postby bighop » Thu Sep 12, 2013 4:51 pm

assateague wrote:Did you miss the "legal claim or title" part of ownership?

You can't legally claim a duck?
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 6621
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:22 pm

Try it in June and get back to me. I have no legal claim to any specific duck at any time, either.
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: Titties

Postby bighop » Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:25 pm

So you can legally claim a duck?
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 6621
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:28 pm

Lreynolds wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:And to end this thread, I'll post this definition... (Kudos and 1000 points to Underradar.)

Rule of capture
The rule of capture or law of capture is common law from England,[1] adopted by a number of U.S. jurisdictions, that establishes a rule of non-liability and ownership of captured natural resources including groundwater, oil, gas, and game animals. The general rule is that the first person to "capture" such a resource owns that resource.


Those Ducks are mine when I shoot them and the dog brings them to me and I thus maintain them in my possession.


Absolutely right. But you can not shoot wild game whenever, wherever, however, and in any number that you want. Furthermore, you can not do whatever you want with the game AFTER you have taken private ownership of it. Why?

Because those are the pre-established rules that you agreed to abide by in exchange for taking game. Those things are controlled through regulations established through a representative process in which ALL citizens can participate. Why?

Because Supreme Court rulings have dictated that "wildlife is owned by the public" and ALL citizens, including all of us, are the "public". Consequently, ALL citizens are eligible to take wild game under those regulations, and ALL citizens can participate in the regulatory process that governs the taking of that game.

States regulate the take of resident game because they typically don't move between state jurisdictions; the feds regulate take of migratory birds because they clearly do move between states and countries. Those animals are owned by all of us, the public, until an individual, within the bounds of established hunting regulations, "reduces them (it) to possession". By successfully hunting, you have transferred ownership from the "public" to the "private". And if you don't follow the regulations and get caught, you get to reimburse the "public" for what you stole from them (all of us, the public, each and every one of us). And if those publicly-owned game animals damage your property, you will NOT be compensated outside of a previously-negotiated settlement ..... just like the previously-negotiated regulations that allowed you to transfer ownership form public to private during the hunting season.

All of you know these simple things to be true. But if you don't believe me, feel free to take game animals out of season or in excess of the limit, and see what happens when you are caught.
Feel free to sue the state or the feds over property damage caused by wildlife, and see what happens.

Nothing new, nothing innovative, nothing deeply philosophic ..... man, this thread goes above and beyone to obfuscate the obvious. :clapping: :clapping:



That's nice. And as I said, the Supreme Court also ruled that negroes were property, 3/5 of a man, or entitled to only "separate but equal" treatment. I'm not certain if you don't understand what i'm saying, or are being especially obtuse, but either way, your "because that's the way it is" argument isn't going to fly.
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: Titties

Postby Underradar » Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:32 pm

Reynolds, earlier you cited the US Supreme Court case of Missouri v. Holland from 1920. Did you even read the opinion? It was written by Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes, who specifically wrote that migratory birds are owned by no one. If you have another Supreme Court opinion that rules otherwise, please post up a cite and prove me and Justice Holmes wrong. Until then, please stop your outrageous obfuscation.

Some people here may think you are being serious.
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: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:37 pm

assateague wrote:I most certainly am not the one jumping through semantic hoops.

You say the rule of capture grants you ownership. Then it really shouldn't be hard to define what you think "ownership" means. I'm curious to hear what it means to you and others.

"ownership" as it applies to game is when I have it dead in my hand, or hanging on my game strap...

See above post from UR... :wink:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56519
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:44 pm

Good. Then that dovetails nicely with what I've been saying. Who "owns" it before its hanging on your strap? And using your insurance analogy, if you get paid for it when you lose power, who gets paid for it if you shoot it when you're not supposed to?
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: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:56 pm

assateague wrote:Good. Then that dovetails nicely with what I've been saying. Who "owns" it before its hanging on your strap? And using your insurance analogy, if you get paid for it when you lose power, who gets paid for it if you shoot it when you're not supposed to?

You would agree that you "own" your body, correct? I'd like to see you sell it to someone else. Not a part of it like a kidney or blood-your entire body- and have someone be able to use it in the same way that you do. I'm not talking about any form of slavery or indentured servitude. Sell it to someone else and you leave your body, then have them be able to use it in the same way that you have.
Not possible with today's medicine. Clearly there are some things which you own that you can not sell.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56519
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:57 pm

assateague wrote:Good. Then that dovetails nicely with what I've been saying. Who "owns" it before its hanging on your strap? And using your insurance analogy, if you get paid for it when you lose power, who gets paid for it if you shoot it when you're not supposed to?

*see Larry's post. Read it again...
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56519
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:00 pm

Assa-see "Public Trust Doctrine" and law, as it applies to this issue.

***edit because I'm feeling generous...link added:
http://www.huntright.org/where-we-stand/public-trust
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56519
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:11 pm

Here, I'll just post it here for the Tapatalk crowd...
Orion the Hunters' Institute Position Statement

June, 2010

2,000 years of evolving law holds that live wild animals can be owned by no individual, but are owned collectively by all and held in trust by the government for all citizens. When the we defeated the English during the revolutionary war, the power of the King as trustee of wildlife was transferred to the new State and Federal governments. In other words, the King's deer became the people's game. Since that time a series of Supreme Court rulings have firmly established the public trust as it relates to wildlife (Martin v Waddell, Geer v Connecticut, and Illinois Central R.R. v. Illinois).

public trust doctrineThe responsibility of a trustee is one of the highest under the law. The trustee's fiduciary duty is to look out for the best interests of the trust resource and for the beneficiaries both now and into the future. In Illinois Central the Court wrote that the "state's trustee relationship to the resource did not just allow, but mandated, that the state take action to protect the public trust resources, and disallowed any abdication of that duty." (Horner, July 1999)

The Public Trust Doctrine of wildlife is a bedrock concept of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. The implementation of the principles articulated in this Model is why we enjoy the greatest diversity, quality, and quantity of game animals and other wildlife in the world.

According to attorney James H. Goetz, in a memorandum on the public trust doctrine prepared in 2004 for Orion-The Hunters' Institute, for any public trust to be alienated, the following principles apply:

Any grant of public trust resources must be made by explicit (usually legislative) authorization.
The process must be transparent - that is, open and visible to the public, with full right of public to comment.
The judiciary has the prerogative to set aside acts of the legislature, which convey the public's interest in public trust resources.
The standard to be applied by the judiciary is strict scrutiny - that is, the Courts will take a "close look" at any conveyance of public trust resources to make sure that the impairment is not substantial and that its purposes are consistent with the public trust.
Conveyances of public trust resources are subject to retroactive nullification - that is, private entities which may be granted interests in public trust resources take "subject to the public trust," meaning that subsequent legislative acts (or judicial acts) may undo the grant.

Goetz goes on to say:

In my opinion each of these strictures is important. Taken cumulatively, these public trust principles constitute a powerful body of law which can be quite useful in protecting the rights of the public, as beneficiaries, to public trust resources.

Orion urges concerned citizens, conservationists and organizations to come together to defend the public's right of collective ownership of our wild animals, force our government to live up to its fiduciary duty as trustee.

The greatest conservation president our country ever had was Theodore Roosevelt. In 1905 he wrote:

The professional market hunter who kills game for the hide or for the feathers or for the meat or to sell antlers and other trophies; market men who put game in cold storage; and the rich people, who are content to buy what they have not the skill to get by their own exertions - these are the men who are the real enemies of game.

References Cited:

-Geist, Valerius, Shane P Mahoney and John F. Organ. 2001, Why Hunting has Defined The North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Transactions of the 66th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.
-Goetz, James H. Esquire. 2004, Potential Utility of the Public Trust Doctrine in Regulation of Wildlife. Unpublished memorandum.
-Horner, S.M. 2000. Embryo, not fossil: Breathing life into the public trust in wildlife. Univ. of Wyoming College of Law, Land and Water Law Review. 35 (1):1-66.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56519
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:17 pm

assateague wrote:Try it in June and get back to me. I have no legal claim to any specific duck at any time, either.

collectively you do as part of the public trust relationship. Do you have private ownership of them-No, not until you shoot them and your dog retrieves them to your hand and you put them on your game strap. But you do have a public ownership of them collectively along with the citizens of Mexico and Canada.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56519
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:23 pm

History of the Public Trust Doctrine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trust_doctrine
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56519
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:57 pm

I don't care about a public trust doctrine. I care about ownership.


Simple question: is a trustee an owner? Nope.


So, earlier you were speaking of verbal gymnastics and semantics. As I said, I'm not the one engaging in them.

I'll ask again- what is YOUR definition of ownership?
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: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:02 pm

assateague wrote:I don't care about a public trust doctrine. I care about ownership.


Simple question: is a trustee an owner? Nope.


So, earlier you were speaking of verbal gymnastics and semantics. As I said, I'm not the one engaging in them.

I'll ask again- what is YOUR definition of ownership?

private or public?
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56519
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:04 pm

public ownership
Web definitions

Public property is property which is owned collectively by the people as a whole. This is in contrast to private property, owned by a individual person or artificial entities that represent the financial interests of persons, such as corporations.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56519
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Lreynolds » Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:13 pm

assateague wrote:That's nice. And as I said, the Supreme Court also ruled that negroes were property, 3/5 of a man, or entitled to only "separate but equal" treatment. I'm not certain if you don't understand what i'm saying, or are being especially obtuse, but either way, your "because that's the way it is" argument isn't going to fly.


For the second time, it's not an argument. It's the law of the land.
Lreynolds
hunter
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:27 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests