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..

Moderator: Smackaduck

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: 21278
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!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 65984
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: 21278
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: 21278
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!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 65984
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!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 65984
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!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 65984
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!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 65984
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: 21278
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!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 65984
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: 21278
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: 21278
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!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 65984
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!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 65984
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!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 65984
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:25 pm

assateague wrote:
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.

You need to understand how a trust works. That's like saying that solomon smith owns my grandfathers trust and the moneys contained within it....that ain't so, they are bound by fiduciary responsibility to carry out the trust as written through a legal and binding document.
You have ownership confused and conflated my friend. The Gov. does not own them, they hold power over the resource in a public trust. They are the executor of that trust.
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: 65984
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:29 pm

Where in the constitution is the federal government granted authority over waterfowl?


This has NOTHING to do with selling. You're the one that brought up interstate commerce, not me. I'm only referencing buying and selling as a way to explain why your "interstate commerce" doesn't hold water.
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: 21278
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:31 pm

assateague wrote:Where in the constitution is the federal government granted authority over waterfowl?


This has NOTHING to do with selling. You're the one that brought up interstate commerce, not me. I'm only referencing buying and selling as a way to explain why your "interstate commerce" doesn't hold water.

you introduced selling initially as one of your "rules" of ownership. I contend that you can own something, yet not be able to sell it-either practically or legally.
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: 65984
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:33 pm

Where in the constitution is the federal government granted authority over waterfowl?
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: 21278
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:34 pm

assateague wrote:Where in the constitution is the federal government granted authority over waterfowl?


This has NOTHING to do with selling. You're the one that brought up interstate commerce, not me. I'm only referencing buying and selling as a way to explain why your "interstate commerce" doesn't hold water.

Through the extrapolation of the public trust in numerous court cases involving other natural resources. oil and water as two examples. I say it also applies to waterfowl because waterfowl are a natural resource.
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: 65984
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:36 pm

...and the principle of federalism in general...
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: 65984
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:36 pm

So, "nowhere" is your answer.
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: 21278
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Titties

Postby ohioboy » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:38 pm

assateague wrote:Where in the constitution is the federal government granted authority over waterfowl?

The same place it says after 20 years of service in the the US military you can retire, collect a pension and get free healthcare. This is in there right?
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2404
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:39 pm

assateague wrote:Where in the constitution is the federal government granted authority over waterfowl?

Never figured you for such a strict Constitutionalist Assa. I say it's a stretch of a case you have. Good luck changing the way natural resources are managed.
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: 65984
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:42 pm

assateague wrote:So, "nowhere" is your answer.

I don't see what your point is after 200 some odd posts on this thread. What do you want changed and how?
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: 65984
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests