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 Indaswamp » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:45 pm

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

Should the federal government regulate the natural resources (oil, water, minerals, wild animals)? Is that the larger argument you are making?
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: 64819
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana


Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:46 pm

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

did you even read any of the links I posted???
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: 64819
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:58 pm

What rights of yours are being infringed by the federal gov. overseeing the management of waterfowl Assa?
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: 64819
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:09 pm

And Good luck overturning the influence the Magna Carta has had on this issue and many others...like it or not, that document has shaped a lot of our early history. You should research it more.
Forgive me for being such a stanch public trust doctrine advocate, there are numerous landowners here in louisiana attempting to claim state waterbottoms as private against the common law practice of the public trust doctrine. Louisiana went so far as to put forth an initiative to put it into the state constitution, but was defeated by monied interests.

http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/article/public-trust-doctrine-legal-cases-challenge-wildlife-ballot-initiatives-tha

I'm figuring you would be supportive of the use of leg traps since you use them.....
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: 64819
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:28 pm

Louisiana Public Trust Doctrine:
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/legislativeatlas/lawDetails.jsp?lawID=606

Maybe other states do not have such a strong public trust doctrine history, but Louisiana sure does. We have thousands and thousands of miles of shoreline....bayous, rivers and lakes everywhere. disagreements abound and some landowners were claiming areas they had no right to. It is still not over yet though....
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: 64819
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Sep 14, 2013 10:58 pm

Here is a statement from the Mississippi WL&F's...

The Public Trust Doctrine holds that certain natural resources, including water, fish, and wildlife, are entrusted to the government to be managed on behalf of the public. Consequently, governmental institutions do not own trust resources, nor do individuals; rather, these resources are owned by the public and are entrusted in the care of government to be safeguarded for the public’s long-term benefit.

Mississippi law makes the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (DWFP) responsible for conserving, managing, developing, and protecting wildlife and the Commission on Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks responsible for rulemaking for wildlife conservation. Because the goal of wildlife management programs is to protect the respective species, each of the department’s programs should be based on science, with the goal of sustaining the wildlife population.
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: 64819
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:11 pm

More on Public Trust Doctrine from Wisconsin:
In its ruling, the court stated, "The wisdom of the policy which, in the organic laws of our state, steadfastly and carefully preserved to the people the full and free use of public waters, cannot be questioned. Nor should it be limited or curtailed by narrow constructions. It should be interpreted in the broad and beneficent spirit that gave rise to it in order that the people may fully enjoy the intended benefits. Navigable waters are public waters and as such they should inure to the benefit of the public. They should be free to all for commerce, for travel, for recreation, and also for hunting, and fishing, which are the mainly certain forms of recreation."
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: 64819
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:18 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".

Do you have a link to the actual treaty? I can't find it.

BTW, I'm not playing word games. It is not the purpose of the treaty. It is the reasons why the government would seek a treaty with this purpose that matters.

I just don't think there is any doubt that how the U.S. or Canada treats this natural resource directly impacts international commerce as originally intended. Any other method of regulating migratory waterfowl would be totally unenforceable by any other governing body. The Canadians could nearly wipe out our resources and we theirs. Maryland couldn't do a damn thing to protect them while outside of their boundaries. And that is why the treaty is not necessary at all for the federal government to have jurisdiction, if they so choose, over migratory wildlife, but not over non-migratory wildlife. This makes the purpose irrelevant anyways. They don't need a treaty. It is not an expansion of power. It is simply implementation of existing powers enumerated in the Constitution.

They did not use the word trade. They used the far more encompassing word of commerce. It was not an accident I am quite sure.
Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe. Thomas Sowell
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 18269
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Sep 15, 2013 8:47 am

SpinnerMan 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".

Do you have a link to the actual treaty? I can't find it.

BTW, I'm not playing word games. It is not the purpose of the treaty. It is the reasons why the government would seek a treaty with this purpose that matters.

I just don't think there is any doubt that how the U.S. or Canada treats this natural resource directly impacts international commerce as originally intended. Any other method of regulating migratory waterfowl would be totally unenforceable by any other governing body. The Canadians could nearly wipe out our resources and we theirs. Maryland couldn't do a damn thing to protect them while outside of their boundaries. And that is why the treaty is not necessary at all for the federal government to have jurisdiction, if they so choose, over migratory wildlife, but not over non-migratory wildlife. This makes the purpose irrelevant anyways. They don't need a treaty. It is not an expansion of power. It is simply implementation of existing powers enumerated in the Constitution.

They did not use the word trade. They used the far more encompassing word of commerce. It was not an accident I am quite sure.

Treaty:
http://www.fws.gov/le/USStatutes/MBTA.pdf
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: 64819
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:44 am

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.

you asked for constitutional muster, and it is under the commerce clause at the time the law was enacted during market hunting days. They had the authority to regulate it whether you like it or not. But I do get the catch 22 argument you are making...
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: 64819
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun Sep 15, 2013 1:06 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.

you asked for constitutional muster, and it is under the commerce clause at the time the law was enacted during market hunting days. They had the authority to regulate it whether you like it or not. But I do get the catch 22 argument you are making...

Commerce is not just trade, it's not just business, it is more expansive than that. Donations are commerce. Even organizations are commerce.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commerce
1 : social intercourse : interchange of ideas, opinions, or sentiments
2 : the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place


If I am giving knowledge and information, that is commerce. If it crosses an international boundary, the feds can regulate it if they so choose.

Or made they really only meant the third definition.
3 : sexual intercourse

And who said they didn't have a right to regulate what goes on in your bedroom. At least if it is an interstate or international bedroom :rolleyes:
Stupid people can cause problems, but it usually takes brilliant people to create a real catastrophe. Thomas Sowell
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 18269
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Titties

Postby aunt betty » Sun Sep 15, 2013 2:35 pm

Sexual intercourse and titties are both very good subjects.
They are of major importance.. .right above BACON!
If you can use BACON, TITTIES, AND SEXUAL INTERCOURSE in a single sentence...it has to be good.
INTERNET CREDIBILITY is...an OXYMORON. :moon:
User avatar
aunt betty
memberhip was not approved
 
Posts: 11694
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:09 pm
Location: Go HOGS!

Re: Titties

Postby Underradar » Sun Sep 15, 2013 5:46 pm

I rebel against the Evil Public Trust. I do not comply. I never was offered a vote on it.
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 assateague » Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:05 pm

Especially when the trustee cannot be removed.
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 aunt betty » Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:18 pm

You know...there's a fitty fitty chance dat y'all will b still arguin bout this in Febuary.
INTERNET CREDIBILITY is...an OXYMORON. :moon:
User avatar
aunt betty
memberhip was not approved
 
Posts: 11694
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:09 pm
Location: Go HOGS!

Re: Titties

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:36 pm

aunt betty wrote:You know...there's a fitty fitty chance dat y'all will b still arguin bout this in Febuary.

:lol3: We've BEEN arguing this since 2008!!! :lol3: :lol3:
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: 64819
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Titties

Postby beretta24 » Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:45 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
aunt betty wrote:You know...there's a fitty fitty chance dat y'all will b still arguin bout this in Febuary.

:lol3: We've BEEN arguing this since 2008!!! :lol3: :lol3:

And there's a 100 % chance betty will still be applying the 50/50 rule incorrectly :)
User avatar
beretta24
hunter
 
Posts: 7722
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Titties

Postby vincentpa » Mon Sep 16, 2013 6:51 am

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



Face it. You're nothing more than a subject, a vassal, a servant...

As a doctor with a degree from WebMD, I recommend you accept this realization that you are who you are and there is absoloutely nothing you can do about it. Once you come to peace with yourself, you will be much more happy and your average blood pressure will decrease by eliminating the spikes you experience upon reading the newspaper or visiting the CI Forum.
In a free society, it is not the obligation of the citizen to prove to the government that he is a good person. It is the obligation of the government to prove to the rest of the citizenry that the citizen is a bad person, with probable cause.
User avatar
vincentpa
hunter
 
Posts: 7773
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:50 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: Titties

Postby assateague » Mon Sep 16, 2013 8:07 am

I consider it exercise. Some jog or run on treadmills to elevate their heart rate. I watch the news. Same result, less effort.
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 aunt betty » Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:44 pm

I quit watching news otherwise I would have heard how every rural king got robbed the night they stocked their new gun departments.
One store got hit twice, pistols one night, rifles the next. Dayum...
INTERNET CREDIBILITY is...an OXYMORON. :moon:
User avatar
aunt betty
memberhip was not approved
 
Posts: 11694
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:09 pm
Location: Go HOGS!

Re: Titties

Postby aunt betty » Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:48 pm

Once the duck that I shot is in my belly, who does it belong to?
The next morning...who then? rofl.
Flush.
Thread closed. Argument over. :grooving:
INTERNET CREDIBILITY is...an OXYMORON. :moon:
User avatar
aunt betty
memberhip was not approved
 
Posts: 11694
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:09 pm
Location: Go HOGS!

Re: Titties

Postby ohioboy » Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:14 pm

aunt betty wrote:Once the duck that I shot is in my belly, who does it belong to?
The next morning...who then? rofl.
Flush.
Thread closed. Argument over. :grooving:


poop is public. or would be eventually.....
User avatar
ohioboy
hunter
 
Posts: 2402
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:28 pm
Location: MoCo, MD

Re: Titties

Postby beretta24 » Wed Sep 18, 2013 7:30 am

assateague wrote:I consider it exercise. Some jog or run on treadmills to elevate their heart rate. I watch the news. Same result, less effort.

Might have to try this excuse with the wife.
User avatar
beretta24
hunter
 
Posts: 7722
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Previous

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests