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: Poachers

Postby La. Hunter » Sat Sep 07, 2013 11:09 pm

Lreynolds wrote:I suspect that when things get to the point that people like you and I really and truly NEED to feed our families off the land, society will have degraded to the point where game laws will be irrelevant.


I agree with you 100%!
User avatar
La. Hunter
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5675
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:13 am
Location: Northeast Louisiana


Re: Poachers

Postby :-) » Sun Sep 08, 2013 12:32 am

This should make you feel warm and toasty about Red Snapper regulations. Our government cares so much about the conservation of Snapper that they feel the need to protect them from being overfished.

This is from back in February, but I don't think anything has changed.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPHZ5QhToB ... PHZ5QhToBY

http://www.atmorenews.com/2013/02/27/fe ... d-snapper/
User avatar
:-)
hunter
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:57 pm
Location: Texas Coast

Re: Poachers

Postby assateague » Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:17 am

Lreynolds wrote:
assateague wrote:
Lreynolds wrote:
Underradar wrote:No one can "steal" wild ducks by shooting them over the limit. Wild ducks belong to no one until they are reduced to possession. Then the guy holding them owns them, not the public. I get so sick of those communistic claims that ducks belong to the public. The only thing the public owns is those things built or bought with our tax dollars. And that ain't ducks. Common law calls it The Rule of Capture.


That's not true, and you know it. The most important foundation of the North American Wildlife Management Model is that wildlife is a public-owned resource. Only through regulations promulgated by a representative system are hunters allowed to "reduce that public-owned resource to private possession". That is why the process for setting hunting regulations MUST consider the public's views, both hunting and non-hunting, through public comment periods. That is a major reason why ordinary guys still have access to hunting opportunity without owning land. That is why/how game laws are promulgated and enforced.

Get as sick of it as you like because it is clearly the law of the land.



Next time I hit a deer, I'm sending the bill to the state. It's either their deer, or they are the legal custodian of it, per the public trust model. I have to pay them to shoot them, they tell me where, when, how, and how many I may kill. I'd say that makes them theirs. And as such, it's no different than if my kid, or a kid I have assumed legal guardianship of, throws a rock through the neighbor's window- I get the bill.

So why doesn't the state have to pay for the damage "their" animal did?


Because YOU are part of "their". You are as much owner of that deer as everyone else. That is why you have as much right to kill that deer and do with it what you want within the agreed-upon regulations promulgated through a representative process as anyone else, and you bear the same risk and responsibilities of those deer as everyone else. That is why there are depredation permits issues to reduce populations of public-owned wildlife that are causing problems. I believe there are some instances where property damages are reimbursed, like if sheep or calves are killed by re-stocked wolves.


I most certainly am not part of the "their". An "owner" is one thing, a "custodian" is another. The state has appointed themselves "custodians" of the game. That word applies not only to the well-being of the game, but also a responsibility for it as well. Which is pretty much demonstrated in your last sentence, regarding compensation for certain damages. In for a penny, in for a pound.

In short, if my kid breaks my window, I'm on the hook. And if he breaks someone else's window, I'm on the hook for that as well. And perhaps while we're on the subject, perhaps someone could point out where in the constitution it says the federal government should be responsible for 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: Poachers

Postby jaysweet3 » Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:55 am

They are the "Kings deer" no hunting in Sherwood Forrest.
The road to diabetes will be sweet.
User avatar
jaysweet3
hunter
 
Posts: 8058
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:42 am
Location: N. Illinois

Re: Poachers

Postby Underradar » Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:10 am

I think my work here is done.

Anyone have a good Golden Plover recipe? My family is hungry.
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: Poachers

Postby OGblackcloud » Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:34 am

:yes:
User avatar
OGblackcloud
hunter
 
Posts: 11989
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 12:38 pm

Re: Poachers

Postby shoveler_shooter » Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:50 am

jaysweet3 wrote:They are the "Kings deer" no hunting in Sherwood Forrest.

:lol:
UmatillaJeff wrote:This load would drop ducks and geese like thors hammer in my hands, I would bet the equity in my house on it.
User avatar
shoveler_shooter
hunter
 
Posts: 3223
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Stillwater and Owasso

Re: Poachers

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:36 am

Underradar wrote:I think my work here is done.

Anyone have a good Golden Plover recipe? My family is hungry.

Let me find it..... :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: 56144
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Poachers

Postby TrapperRob » Sun Sep 08, 2013 10:29 am

Indaswamp wrote:
Underradar wrote:I think my work here is done.

Anyone have a good Golden Plover recipe? My family is hungry.

Let me find it..... :wink:


The bad part is... It wouldn't shock me if you had a recipe for baby seal, I bet it's delicious too!
I went into the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.
-Henry David Thoreau
User avatar
TrapperRob
hunter
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 5:56 pm
Location: Middle of Delaware

Re: Poachers

Postby aunt betty » Sun Sep 08, 2013 3:43 pm

The lions, tigers, and bears belong to the wizard. Copyrighted. :)
Everything else but waterfowl belongs to the state.
Waterfowl is public except for Mallard ducks.
They are MINE. Y'all need to quit shooting my ducks.
INTERNET CREDIBILITY is...an OXYMORON. :moon:
User avatar
aunt betty
hunter
 
Posts: 9986
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:09 pm
Location: Go HOGS!

Re: Poachers

Postby Anoldhuntersc » Sun Sep 08, 2013 3:48 pm

Roast Golden Plover

Origin: Scotland Period: Modern

Ingredients:

500g new potatoes
4 celery sticks cut into 2 cm lengths
1 leek cut into 2cm lengths
2 small courgettes cut into 2cm lengths
12 baby asparagus tips
8 baby onions
3 tbsp olive oil
60g butter
4 whole Golden Plovers (cleaned)
120g shallots
2 stalks fresh thyme, chopped
30ml Madeira
260ml beef or game jus
4 slices black pudding
salt and black pepper to taste


Delicious!!!
User avatar
Anoldhuntersc
hunter
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:41 pm

Re: Poachers

Postby Lreynolds » Sun Sep 08, 2013 4:01 pm

assateague wrote:I most certainly am not part of the "their". An "owner" is one thing, a "custodian" is another. The state has appointed themselves "custodians" of the game. That word applies not only to the well-being of the game, but also a responsibility for it as well. Which is pretty much demonstrated in your last sentence, regarding compensation for certain damages. In for a penny, in for a pound.

In short, if my kid breaks my window, I'm on the hook. And if he breaks someone else's window, I'm on the hook for that as well. And perhaps while we're on the subject, perhaps someone could point out where in the constitution it says the federal government should be responsible for waterfowl.


Then sue the state for damages to your car caused by your deer, and see how it goes. You might actually have some success in a region where deer hunting has been eliminated or curtailed by public referendum or other non-biological action. But if there is a season set through a standard regulatory process, you almost certainly will not.

Federal control over migratory birds via the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was upheld in Missouri vs Holland in 1920. A quick google search gets you to numerous sites to read about it.
Lreynolds
hunter
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Poachers

Postby assateague » Sun Sep 08, 2013 5:44 pm

Segregation was upheld in Plessy v. Ferguson. Slavery was upheld in Dred Scott v. Sanford.

Arguing constitutionality based off of court decisions is both lazy and not very accurate. So where in the constitution is the federal government granted authority over birds?
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: Poachers

Postby aunt betty » Sun Sep 08, 2013 6:26 pm

AT.
Wildlife belongs to the people and not the government, corporations, or individuals.
Sue us.
Attachments
1378686374556.jpg
INTERNET CREDIBILITY is...an OXYMORON. :moon:
User avatar
aunt betty
hunter
 
Posts: 9986
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:09 pm
Location: Go HOGS!

Re: Poachers

Postby assateague » Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:30 pm

No it doesn't.
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: Poachers

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:37 pm

assateague wrote:No it doesn't.

O.K. Assa, If it is not owned by the people, who owns it then?
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: 56144
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Poachers

Postby Lreynolds » Sun Sep 08, 2013 7:54 pm

assateague wrote: Arguing constitutionality based off of court decisions is both lazy and not very accurate. So where in the constitution is the federal government granted authority over birds?


OK, but you still have to read it for yourself.

You see, I'm not arguing constitutionality. That's what the Supreme Court does. I'm not interested in arguing your view, my view, or anyone else's view of what is and isn't constitutional because those views are not relevant. The Supreme Court's decisions provide the foundation for the way things are, and the federal government clearly has authority over migratory birds. That's the way it's been for nearly 100 years, and I'm not aware of any new challenges that might change that anytime soon.
Lreynolds
hunter
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Poachers

Postby Underradar » Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:59 pm

In the English language, authority is not the same thing as ownership.
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: Poachers

Postby assateague » Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:07 pm

Lreynolds wrote:
assateague wrote: Arguing constitutionality based off of court decisions is both lazy and not very accurate. So where in the constitution is the federal government granted authority over birds?


OK, but you still have to read it for yourself.

You see, I'm not arguing constitutionality. That's what the Supreme Court does. I'm not interested in arguing your view, my view, or anyone else's view of what is and isn't constitutional because those views are not relevant. The Supreme Court's decisions provide the foundation for the way things are, and the federal government clearly has authority over migratory birds. That's the way it's been for nearly 100 years, and I'm not aware of any new challenges that might change that anytime soon.



Well, since that's "the way it's been", I guess that settles it.
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: Poachers

Postby assateague » Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:09 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:No it doesn't.

O.K. Assa, If it is not owned by the people, who owns it then?


If I own something, then i own something. It is mine to use as I please. If something is held in trust for me, it is held in trust for me. Those are two entirely different concepts, and are far from interchangeable.
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: Poachers

Postby assateague » Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:11 pm

But to answer your question, I would argue that, de facto, the state has appropriated ownership of wildlife. They tell me who, what, where, when, why, and how someone can hunt wildlife. I'd say that makes it theirs, unless I'm missing something.
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: Poachers

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:12 pm

assateague wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:No it doesn't.

O.K. Assa, If it is not owned by the people, who owns it then?


If I own something, then i own something. It is mine to use as I please. If something is held in trust for me, it is held in trust for me. Those are two entirely different concepts, and are far from interchangeable.

O.K., I see your line of reasoning....
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: 56144
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Poachers

Postby copterdoc » Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:51 pm

Three guys and a chick went out on a day long private fishing charter.
They didn't catch any fish. But, the chick went home with a Red Snapper.
User avatar
copterdoc
hunter
 
Posts: 5814
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:55 pm

Re: Poachers

Postby Botiz630 » Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:53 am

assateague wrote:But to answer your question, I would argue that, de facto, the state has appropriated ownership of wildlife. They tell me who, what, where, when, why, and how someone can hunt wildlife. I'd say that makes it theirs, unless I'm missing something.


But when it comes to migratory birds, the federal government tells the state what they are allowed to tell you.
B Squad Captain
If do right, no can defense
User avatar
Botiz630
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 15959
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:24 pm

Re: Poachers

Postby assateague » Mon Sep 09, 2013 4:31 am

When I said "the state", I should've said "the State", referring to govt in general. But I was referring specigically to the federal government in regard to "control over birds".
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

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests