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 SpinnerMan » Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:38 pm

assateague wrote:Commerce among the states and foreign nations, to me, does not include regulating and appropriating things that fly around through the air, from place to place. It includes commerce between states and foreign nations.
I really don't think this is stretching the intent at all. The valuable natural resource moves across international borders. The natural place for that to be regulated is at the federal level.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15791
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL


Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:10 pm

Not really. It was not enacted to "protect commerce", but to protect the birds. I doubt in 1918 that either hunting licenses or the hunting "industry" in general generated much "commerce" (read "revenue") Perhaps if the bird treaty had been enacted in 1990 or something, then there would be a "commerce" leg to stand on. But that isn't the case. It was strictly done to exercise control over the birds, something clearly not covered in the enumerated powers. Matter of fact, it could be argued that it HURTS commerce in certain states, by limiting seasons and takes. Unless you're a believer in that communistic principle of the "common good".

Matter of fact, here is the basis for upholding the bird treaty

"If Congress possessed plenary powers to legislate for the protection of the public domain, then it had to take into account all possibility for such protection", including protection of migratory birds, "these natural guardians" against "hostile insects, which, if not held in check ... would result in the inevitable destruction" of "both prairie and forest lands".


So it has nothing whatsoever to do with commerce, and everything to do with insects. Something else I can't find in the Constitution. But before you try a "general welfare" argument based on the perceived "War on Bugs", I will preemptively argue that the damage caused by geese specifically far outweighs any protections granted to them.
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 assateague » Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:15 pm

boney fingers wrote:
assateague wrote:I'd say probably the 10th amendment. Not certain how migratory birds (or anything of the sort, really) falls under the purview of the federal government. They're not "imported", there' no "commerce" aside from intrastate hunting licenses, no "general welfare" that I can see. Just seems like one of those feel-good appropriations of power. If anything, it violates the 10th by telling states what they may or may not do, with something which the federal govt isn't supposed to have any say in. Just my opinion, though.


Do you consider things like Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement constitutional?



After some quick Googling, I'd say yes, at least to the parts regarding water quality. I would say working with a foreign government to insure citizens aren't exposed to toxic chemicals in their drinking water would certainly fall under the nation's general welfare. And it's not like Wisconsin or Michigan could really do anything to prevent Canada from dumping nuclear waste in Lake Superior if they wanted to. Some of the other stuff regarding shoreline habitat and such seems to be yet another EPA "stretch", but the main chunk of it certainly makes sense to me.
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 SpinnerMan » Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:56 am

assateague wrote:Not really. It was not enacted to "protect commerce", but to protect the birds. I doubt in 1918 that either hunting licenses or the hunting "industry" in general generated much "commerce" (read "revenue") Perhaps if the bird treaty had been enacted in 1990 or something, then there would be a "commerce" leg to stand on. But that isn't the case. It was strictly done to exercise control over the birds, something clearly not covered in the enumerated powers. Matter of fact, it could be argued that it HURTS commerce in certain states, by limiting seasons and takes. Unless you're a believer in that communistic principle of the "common good".

Matter of fact, here is the basis for upholding the bird treaty

"If Congress possessed plenary powers to legislate for the protection of the public domain, then it had to take into account all possibility for such protection", including protection of migratory birds, "these natural guardians" against "hostile insects, which, if not held in check ... would result in the inevitable destruction" of "both prairie and forest lands".


So it has nothing whatsoever to do with commerce, and everything to do with insects. Something else I can't find in the Constitution. But before you try a "general welfare" argument based on the perceived "War on Bugs", I will preemptively argue that the damage caused by geese specifically far outweighs any protections granted to them.

So you think the Senators from Maryland were not thinking about their hunting industry? Louisiana was worried about bugs in da swamp?

The reasons were likely many as this effects many things.

Just as the federal government and not the state of New York is the responsible party for negotiating the use of the Niagara river. The reason being that if Canada were to take all the water or dump massive amounts of pollutants into the river, the state of New York is not empowered to enforce any agreements with force. They can however use force against their citizens.

I really think this is within the purview of what was intended by the Constitution. They were practical and practically this falls to the federal government and I believe the commerce clause is explicitly where that power comes from. Commerce is really all social interactions and not just those that involve trade. The actions on either side of the border in this regard have a direct impact on those on the other side and not some indirect impact.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15791
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:02 am

Nope. You can "think" whatever you want, but just because you do so does not mean its valid if it flies directly contrary to what the stated purpose of the treaty was. And it wasn't about the "hunting industry".
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 » Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:12 am

assateague wrote:Nope. You can "think" whatever you want, but just because you do so does not mean its valid if it flies directly contrary to what the stated purpose of the treaty was. And it wasn't about the "hunting industry".

So Assa, How do you propose we manage the resource and maintain it without putting stress on the population?
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: 56102
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby :-) » Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:18 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:Nope. You can "think" whatever you want, but just because you do so does not mean its valid if it flies directly contrary to what the stated purpose of the treaty was. And it wasn't about the "hunting industry".

So Assa, How do you propose we manage the resource and maintain it without putting stress on the population?


Our elected officials are taking care of that issue as we speak.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr3018/text
User avatar
:-)
hunter
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:57 pm
Location: Texas Coast

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:39 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:Nope. You can "think" whatever you want, but just because you do so does not mean its valid if it flies directly contrary to what the stated purpose of the treaty was. And it wasn't about the "hunting industry".

So Assa, How do you propose we manage the resource and maintain it without putting stress on the population?



It's a state issue. Period. You cannot choose to believe in, and admire, small, decentralized, constitutional government, and then accept big government when it's in regard to something you "like" without being considered a tad hypocritical.
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 » Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:58 pm

assateague wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:Nope. You can "think" whatever you want, but just because you do so does not mean its valid if it flies directly contrary to what the stated purpose of the treaty was. And it wasn't about the "hunting industry".

So Assa, How do you propose we manage the resource and maintain it without putting stress on the population?



It's a state issue. Period. You cannot choose to believe in, and admire, small, decentralized, constitutional government, and then accept big government when it's in regard to something you "like" without being considered a tad hypocritical.

Look into the controversy over mottled duck limits between texas and louisiana. Louisiana for the longest time had a 3 mottled duck limit. It was believed that mottled ducks were a local bird and did not migrate. Banding studies have recently confirmed that mottled ducks do migrate, but east west, not north south. Mottled ducks from the coastal texas plain fly east to the fresh water marshes of louisiana for the winter. As such, the limit was reduced to 1. Who is going to over see whether louisiana reverts back to a 3 mottled duck limit if it is a states issue? A duck is a resource and as such, when it crosses state lines, it becomes a federal issue. No different than when a walmart truck loaded with goods drives on the interstate and crosses state lines.
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: 56102
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby jehler » Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:31 pm

Indaswamp wrote: Banding studies have recently confirmed that mottled ducks do migrate, but east west, not north south.

dont let tangier see this :lol3:
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: 17110
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 2:52 pm
Location: Traverse City, MI

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:12 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:Nope. You can "think" whatever you want, but just because you do so does not mean its valid if it flies directly contrary to what the stated purpose of the treaty was. And it wasn't about the "hunting industry".

So Assa, How do you propose we manage the resource and maintain it without putting stress on the population?



It's a state issue. Period. You cannot choose to believe in, and admire, small, decentralized, constitutional government, and then accept big government when it's in regard to something you "like" without being considered a tad hypocritical.

Look into the controversy over mottled duck limits between texas and louisiana. Louisiana for the longest time had a 3 mottled duck limit. It was believed that mottled ducks were a local bird and did not migrate. Banding studies have recently confirmed that mottled ducks do migrate, but east west, not north south. Mottled ducks from the coastal texas plain fly east to the fresh water marshes of louisiana for the winter. As such, the limit was reduced to 1. Who is going to over see whether louisiana reverts back to a 3 mottled duck limit if it is a states issue? A duck is a resource and as such, when it crosses state lines, it becomes a federal issue. No different than when a walmart truck loaded with goods drives on the interstate and crosses state lines.




Weren't you just complaining recently about the Feds interfering in the redfish fishery in Louisiana?

A duck flying from Minnesota to Louisiana is NOT interstate commerce. Does Louisiana pay the northern states for their ducks? No money crosses state lines.
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 » Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:42 pm

assateague wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:Nope. You can "think" whatever you want, but just because you do so does not mean its valid if it flies directly contrary to what the stated purpose of the treaty was. And it wasn't about the "hunting industry".

So Assa, How do you propose we manage the resource and maintain it without putting stress on the population?



It's a state issue. Period. You cannot choose to believe in, and admire, small, decentralized, constitutional government, and then accept big government when it's in regard to something you "like" without being considered a tad hypocritical.

Look into the controversy over mottled duck limits between texas and louisiana. Louisiana for the longest time had a 3 mottled duck limit. It was believed that mottled ducks were a local bird and did not migrate. Banding studies have recently confirmed that mottled ducks do migrate, but east west, not north south. Mottled ducks from the coastal texas plain fly east to the fresh water marshes of louisiana for the winter. As such, the limit was reduced to 1. Who is going to over see whether louisiana reverts back to a 3 mottled duck limit if it is a states issue? A duck is a resource and as such, when it crosses state lines, it becomes a federal issue. No different than when a walmart truck loaded with goods drives on the interstate and crosses state lines.




Weren't you just complaining recently about the Feds interfering in the redfish fishery in Louisiana?


red snapper. And the issues are not related in any way to this. The FEDs are basing their decisions of faulty Data and extrapolations. They do not count fish holding on rigs, only natural reefs.

A duck flying from Minnesota to Louisiana is NOT interstate commerce. Does Louisiana pay the northern states for their ducks? No money crosses state lines.

Is a Duck a resource, yes or no?
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: 56102
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:45 pm

Yes. But it is only a resource in the state which receives money for it. It is NOT a resource to the state which does NOT receive money for it. Thus, Hawaiians are paying for you to shoot ducks and geese.
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 assateague » Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:46 pm

You don't "buy" that duck from North Dakota, for example.

And why don't the feds count resident Canada geese towards their figures? Seems like that is exactly the same thing as the red snapper issue.
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 » Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:47 pm

assateague wrote:Yes. But it is only a resource in the state which receives money for it. It is NOT a resource to the state which does NOT receive money for it. Thus, Hawaiians are paying for you to shoot ducks and geese.

How are Hawaiians paying for me to shoot ducks and geese?
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: 56102
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:49 pm

Looks like I'm paying for a goose I never get to shoot. I'm O.K. with that...
http://www.ducks.org/hunting/waterfowl-id/hawaiian-nene-goose
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: 56102
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:58 pm

assateague wrote:Yes. But it is only a resource in the state which receives money for it. It is NOT a resource to the state which does NOT receive money for it. Thus, Hawaiians are paying for you to shoot ducks and geese.

you can't BUY ducks and geese Assa. No one can exchange money for them. There was at one time a market for them and as such, these rules were put into place. Independent of that fact, ducks and geese are still a natural resource.

So your entire argument rests on the fact that you can't sell them.... :rolleyes:

Lets assume for a minute that market hunting were still legal, how would this impact your argument, because the regulation of waterfowl under the commerce clause started while market hunting were legal.
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: 56102
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:06 pm

assateague wrote:You don't "buy" that duck from North Dakota, for example.

And why don't the feds count resident Canada geese towards their figures? Seems like that is exactly the same thing as the red snapper issue.

Use to could buy ducks form North Dakota...or New England, or the marshes of Louisiana. Again, the rules regulating waterfowl were established during market hunting days where all your arguments are rendered moot. Why was market hunting ended?
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: 56102
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:08 pm

No, it doesn't. My entire argument has NEVER rested on the selling aspect, but you seem to want it to. But back to what we were talking about here-

Nobody gets to hunt the nene, because they are endangered. And how do Hawaiians pay for you to hunt ducks? Because they pay federal taxes, that's how. And I know you can't buy or sell geese or ducks- so please explain how that qualifies them as "interstate commerce". Your argument seems to be "the thing we're talking about cannot be purchased or sold, retailed or wholesaled, and is owned by nobody. So I'm gonna call that 'interstate commerce' ". And that really doesn't make sense to me.
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 » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:12 pm

assateague wrote:No, it doesn't. My entire argument has NEVER rested on the selling aspect, but you seem to want it to. But back to what we were talking about here-

Nobody gets to hunt the nene, because they are endangered. And how do Hawaiians pay for you to hunt ducks? Because they pay federal taxes, that's how. And I know you can't buy or sell geese or ducks- so please explain how that qualifies them as "interstate commerce". Your argument seems to be "the thing we're talking about cannot be purchased or sold, retailed or wholesaled, and is owned by nobody. So I'm gonna call that 'interstate commerce' ". And that really doesn't make sense to me.

because they are a resource assa. Ducks and geese have value, it is that value that is regulated irregardless of whether they are sold or not. You don't like that. Fine. But that is the way it is. You want that changed, you got a long road to hoe in front of you.
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: 56102
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:12 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:You don't "buy" that duck from North Dakota, for example.

And why don't the feds count resident Canada geese towards their figures? Seems like that is exactly the same thing as the red snapper issue.

Use to could buy ducks form North Dakota...or New England, or the marshes of Louisiana. Again, the rules regulating waterfowl were established during market hunting days where all your arguments are rendered moot. Why was market hunting ended?



Actually, quite the opposite is true. My argument it, has been, and always will be, that the government appropriated ownership of waterfowl, and that wildlife is owned by the government, both state and federal, and not by me. You argue that before market hunting was regulated out of existence, my arguments are rendered "moot"- of course, because the government hadn't appropriated their ownership, yet. And then they did.
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 assateague » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:15 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:No, it doesn't. My entire argument has NEVER rested on the selling aspect, but you seem to want it to. But back to what we were talking about here-

Nobody gets to hunt the nene, because they are endangered. And how do Hawaiians pay for you to hunt ducks? Because they pay federal taxes, that's how. And I know you can't buy or sell geese or ducks- so please explain how that qualifies them as "interstate commerce". Your argument seems to be "the thing we're talking about cannot be purchased or sold, retailed or wholesaled, and is owned by nobody. So I'm gonna call that 'interstate commerce' ". And that really doesn't make sense to me.

because they are a resource assa. Ducks and geese have value, it is that value that is regulated irregardless of whether they are sold or not. You don't like that. Fine. But that is the way it is. You want that changed, you got a long road to hoe in front of you.



What I don't like is the federal government overstepping its bounds anywhere. What I don't like is the fact that so many consider it "ok" that the federal government has decided they get to own waterfowl. So I'll ask again- where in the constitution is it granted to the federal government the authority over wildlife? This should be very simple.
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 » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:15 pm

Because the sale is restricted, does not mean that they can not be sold or have value, that is the flaw in your argument. Can I sell them, yes. Do they have monetary value, yes. Am I breaking the law to do so, yes. Why? because at that point, I am market hunting-which is illegal and restricted.
Do you want to go back to market hunting days..yes or no?
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: 56102
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:16 pm

assateague wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:You don't "buy" that duck from North Dakota, for example.

And why don't the feds count resident Canada geese towards their figures? Seems like that is exactly the same thing as the red snapper issue.

Use to could buy ducks form North Dakota...or New England, or the marshes of Louisiana. Again, the rules regulating waterfowl were established during market hunting days where all your arguments are rendered moot. Why was market hunting ended?



Actually, quite the opposite is true. My argument it, has been, and always will be, that the government appropriated ownership of waterfowl, and that wildlife is owned by the government, both state and federal, and not by me. You argue that before market hunting was regulated out of existence, my arguments are rendered "moot"- of course, because the government hadn't appropriated their ownership, yet. And then they did.

I'll post pictures this season and you can tell me which ducks are owned by the U.S. and which ones are owned by 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: 56102
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:18 pm

assateague wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:You don't "buy" that duck from North Dakota, for example.

And why don't the feds count resident Canada geese towards their figures? Seems like that is exactly the same thing as the red snapper issue.

Use to could buy ducks form North Dakota...or New England, or the marshes of Louisiana. Again, the rules regulating waterfowl were established during market hunting days where all your arguments are rendered moot. Why was market hunting ended?



Actually, quite the opposite is true. My argument it, has been, and always will be, that the government appropriated ownership of waterfowl, and that wildlife is owned by the government, both state and federal, and not by me. You argue that before market hunting was regulated out of existence, my arguments are rendered "moot"- of course, because the government hadn't appropriated their ownership, yet. And then they did.

So you are saying that there are not things on this earth that you own, but can't 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: 56102
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 6 guests