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 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!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56490
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: 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 9:31 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!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56490
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: 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 9:34 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!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56490
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!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56490
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: 21277
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: 2338
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!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56490
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!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56490
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

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!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56490
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!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56490
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!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56490
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!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56490
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!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56490
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!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56490
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!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56490
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.
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: 15930
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!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56490
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!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56490
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:
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: 15930
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
hunter
 
Posts: 10575
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: 21277
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
hunter
 
Posts: 10575
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:09 pm
Location: Go HOGS!

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests