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 assateague » Tue Sep 10, 2013 8:58 am

Indaswamp wrote:
assateague wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:I CAN sell Red Snapper, which is a recreational fish as well as a commercial fish, but to do so, I have to sell it to a commercial processing facility to ensure it is handled properly under USDA regulations for resale. I can not sell it as a recreational fisherman, I must have a commercial license to do so for health reasons. Duck use to be sold by commercial hunters If you remember back that far.....



Why can't I sell a duck if it's mine?

Years ago you could-if you were a commercial market hunter. I let you figure out why you can not do so today.

Are you claiming that the ducks were owned during market hunting days, but now they are not?



What I am claiming is fairly simple to understand. I'll let you figure it out. (See, two can play that game)
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 bighop » Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:00 am

assateague wrote:Hey Copterdoc, you have to get a permit to use your kidneys? Does any governmental organization tell you what days of the week and months of the year you can use them? Do you have to pay an annual fee for the privilege of filtering your blood?



That was one of the dumbest analogies I've ever heard used, and that's saying something.

I think you meant me, not copterdoc, and it's as dumb as the definition of owning something being that you're able to sell it.

And if you did sell your kidneys, all of the above would apply to your dialysis.
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 7683
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Poachers

Postby bighop » Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:07 am

Assa, honest question (and if you've previously posted, I'll settle for a link,) but what would your proposed game management system look like?
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 7683
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Poachers

Postby assateague » Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:10 am

State control of everything they wish to control. There is no rational reason for the federal government to soak up the dollars they do to control birds. It's just silly.
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 » Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:13 am

bighop wrote:
assateague wrote:Hey Copterdoc, you have to get a permit to use your kidneys? Does any governmental organization tell you what days of the week and months of the year you can use them? Do you have to pay an annual fee for the privilege of filtering your blood?



That was one of the dumbest analogies I've ever heard used, and that's saying something.

I think you meant me, not copterdoc, and it's as dumb as the definition of owning something being that you're able to sell it.

And if you did sell your kidneys, all of the above would apply to your dialysis.


No, the only one which would apply is the last one. And it wouldn't be paying to use my kidneys, because I wouldn't have them anymore, would I? So there goes that one out the window, too.


If it's dumb, then you'll have no problem answering this one:


assateague wrote:So what else do I "own" that I have to:

1. Get permission from someone else to use
2. Pay someone else for me to use it
3. Be told when I can use it
4. Be told where I can use it
5. Be told what I can do with it when I'm not "using" it
6. Be told how I can use it.
7. Have my use of it revoked for not using it in the way they told me I had to



If anyone actually believes the "people" own the ducks, they're a silly fool.
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 bighop » Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:23 am

assateague wrote:So what else do I "own" that I have to:

1. Get permission from someone else to use
2. Pay someone else for me to use it
3. Be told when I can use it
4. Be told where I can use it
5. Be told what I can do with it when I'm not "using" it
6. Be told how I can use it.
7. Have my use of it revoked for not using it in the way they told me I had to



If anyone actually believes the "people" own the ducks, they're a silly fool.

You can keep adding as many stipulations as you want, your original assertions were "What do I own that I can't use as I please?" and "If I own it I can sell it."

We've given examples of multiple items those each apply to, not just migratory birds....
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 7683
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Poachers

Postby assateague » Tue Sep 10, 2013 9:45 am

bighop wrote:
assateague wrote:So what else do I "own" that I have to:

1. Get permission from someone else to use
2. Pay someone else for me to use it
3. Be told when I can use it
4. Be told where I can use it
5. Be told what I can do with it when I'm not "using" it
6. Be told how I can use it.
7. Have my use of it revoked for not using it in the way they told me I had to



If anyone actually believes the "people" own the ducks, they're a silly fool.

You can keep adding as many stipulations as you want, your original assertions were "What do I own that I can't use as I please?" and "If I own it I can sell it."

We've given examples of multiple items those each apply to, not just migratory birds....



Actually, no you haven't. Nor have I reframed the argument or added any stipulations- I stated this back on page 3. Not my problem I had to restate it again and again, since it was so frequently ignored. Read the whole thing next time.
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 bighop » Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:13 am

assateague wrote:
bighop wrote:
assateague wrote:So what else do I "own" that I have to:

1. Get permission from someone else to use
2. Pay someone else for me to use it
3. Be told when I can use it
4. Be told where I can use it
5. Be told what I can do with it when I'm not "using" it
6. Be told how I can use it.
7. Have my use of it revoked for not using it in the way they told me I had to



If anyone actually believes the "people" own the ducks, they're a silly fool.

You can keep adding as many stipulations as you want, your original assertions were "What do I own that I can't use as I please?" and "If I own it I can sell it."

We've given examples of multiple items those each apply to, not just migratory birds....



Actually, no you haven't. Nor have I reframed the argument or added any stipulations- I stated this back on page 3. Not my problem I had to restate it again and again, since it was so frequently ignored. Read the whole thing next time.

For cryin out loud, I've read the whole thing. You've referred to the state owning wildlife, the State owning wildlife, and it being held in trust, and probably other iterations as well. I still don't really know what your position here is, other than that you want the state to pay for your body work when you hit a deer, which is odd, because it's your money they're using to pay you.

Own it but can't use as you please?
guns
cars
knives
clubs
fertilizer
gasoline
land

assateague wrote:State control of everything they wish to control.

So if the Dakotas make the limit 100 mallards each hour of legal shooting, what happens to Arkansas? Just tough titties, I guess?
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 7683
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Poachers

Postby :-) » Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:22 am

It time for someone else to join in.

First, we don't own any wildlife...even if we purchase them. Please justify why our government feels the need to regulate non native species that were purchased by me at an auction to hunt on my property. Let Africa deal with their own issues.

http://gantdaily.com/2012/04/07/exotic- ... protected/

Also, if you really believe that the Feds have any interest in migratory birds other that the revenue they generate you're sadly mistaken. They could care less about us, or the birds.

I honestly believe that if any form government is going to regulate wildlife it should be at the state level...I like being able to choose the people that set the regulations I have to live with.
User avatar
:-)
hunter
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:57 pm
Location: Texas Coast

Re: Poachers

Postby whistlin_wings » Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:31 am

You're not allowed to sell birds but can you trade them for services? My buddies dad has a family he always gifts coots and ringnecks to because they think they taste good. So could he trade 15 coots for 3 hours of labor at their house?
You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.
User avatar
whistlin_wings
State Moderator
 
Posts: 9281
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:54 am
Location: CENTEX

Re: Poachers

Postby bighop » Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:34 am

whistlin_wings wrote:You're not allowed to sell birds but can you trade them for services? My buddies dad has a family he always gifts coots and ringnecks to because they think they taste good. So could he trade 15 coots for 3 hours of labor at their house?

Damn, the going rate down here is 2 coots per hour. Your buddy's dad is getting ripped off.
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 7683
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Poachers

Postby shoveler_shooter » Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:39 am

bighop wrote:So if the Dakotas make the limit 100 mallards each hour of legal shooting, what happens to Arkansas? Just tough titties, I guess?

It doesn't work like that.
Every state has their own biologists to study populations and they all do a perfectly adequate job of managing deer herds, pheasant, elk, quail, everything else. It wouldn't be any different for migratory birds.
UmatillaJeff wrote:By his very nature this tends to be a modest man who is loved by woman, children and dogs and well though of in all social circles.
We will call him the 10ga man
User avatar
shoveler_shooter
hunter
 
Posts: 4044
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Stillwater and Owasso

Re: Poachers

Postby whistlin_wings » Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:42 am

bighop wrote:
whistlin_wings wrote:You're not allowed to sell birds but can you trade them for services? My buddies dad has a family he always gifts coots and ringnecks to because they think they taste good. So could he trade 15 coots for 3 hours of labor at their house?

Damn, the going rate down here is 2 coots per hour. Your buddy's dad is getting ripped off.

He hasn't traded for services yet just an example
You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.
User avatar
whistlin_wings
State Moderator
 
Posts: 9281
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:54 am
Location: CENTEX

Re: Poachers

Postby Slack Tide » Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:23 am

shoveler_shooter wrote:Every state has their own biologists to study populations and they all do a perfectly adequate job of managing deer herds, pheasant, elk, quail, everything else. It wouldn't be any different for migratory birds.


My buddy is a retired DEC biologist for NY and said the same thing you said but also added that there are also sanctions and agreements with other countries that we abide by because of a more global and less local effort to manage wildlife. Case and point is that for my entire life, our bread and butter bird is the Black Duck....and yet our limit is one...while we are inundated, other areas just don't have them at all..
"I've been left for dead before but I'll still fight on, don't wait up, leave the light on, I'll be home soon"
Chris Smither
User avatar
Slack Tide
hunter
 
Posts: 5531
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:06 pm
Location: On the northeast corner of the southwest side

Re: Poachers

Postby assateague » Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:25 am

shoveler_shooter wrote:
bighop wrote:So if the Dakotas make the limit 100 mallards each hour of legal shooting, what happens to Arkansas? Just tough titties, I guess?

It doesn't work like that.
Every state has their own biologists to study populations and they all do a perfectly adequate job of managing deer herds, pheasant, elk, quail, everything else. It wouldn't be any different for migratory birds.



Exactly. It always amazes me when the folks start crying that the if the federal government didn't regulate birds they'd be nonexistent in a year, because they think the states can't handle it. And ironically enough, most of these folks are states' rights people for most, if not all, other issues. So it boils down to the "it's my cause, so it's the most valuable cause" mentality. Welfare folks feel much the same about their benefits.
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 » Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:31 am

bighop wrote:
assateague wrote:
Actually, no you haven't. Nor have I reframed the argument or added any stipulations- I stated this back on page 3. Not my problem I had to restate it again and again, since it was so frequently ignored. Read the whole thing next time.

For cryin out loud, I've read the whole thing. You've referred to the state owning wildlife, the State owning wildlife, and it being held in trust, and probably other iterations as well. I still don't really know what your position here is, other than that you want the state to pay for your body work when you hit a deer, which is odd, because it's your money they're using to pay you.

Own it but can't use as you please?
guns
cars
knives
clubs
fertilizer
gasoline
land


I missed the part where I have to have a permit to use a knife, club, fertilizer, gasoline, or land. I also missed the part where the government tells me when I may use a club, knife, fertilizer, gasoline, or land. Or where I can buy my knife license, authorizing me to use a knife only during November and December. As for cars, my 6 year old may drive my Jeep all over the back 40 anytime she wants. You may be confusing driving a car on the road to owning a car. Which is perhaps understandable, since you're either being purposely obtuse or you just aren't that bright.

bighop wrote:
assateague wrote:State control of everything they wish to control.

So if the Dakotas make the limit 100 mallards each hour of legal shooting, what happens to Arkansas? Just tough titties, I guess?


Pretty much, yes. Why does a resident of South Dakota have to buy an out of state license to hunt federally regulated birds in Arkansas? Doesn't he have just as much right to shoot them as a resident of Arkansas, since under your scenario and belief the South Dakota resident is just as much an "owner" of those ducks as the Arkansas resident, no matter where they are?
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 shoveler_shooter » Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:32 am

assateague wrote:Exactly. It always amazes me when the folks start crying that the if the federal government didn't regulate birds they'd be nonexistent in a year, because they think the states can't handle it. And ironically enough, most of these folks are states' rights people for most, if not all, other issues. So it boils down to the "it's my cause, so it's the most valuable cause" mentality.

As this thread has progressed, pretty much the exact same thoughts have gone through my head. Similar to how the CRP thread went.
UmatillaJeff wrote:By his very nature this tends to be a modest man who is loved by woman, children and dogs and well though of in all social circles.
We will call him the 10ga man
User avatar
shoveler_shooter
hunter
 
Posts: 4044
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Stillwater and Owasso

Re: Poachers

Postby boney fingers » Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:39 am

shoveler_shooter wrote:
bighop wrote:So if the Dakotas make the limit 100 mallards each hour of legal shooting, what happens to Arkansas? Just tough titties, I guess?

It doesn't work like that.
Every state has their own biologists to study populations and they all do a perfectly adequate job of managing deer herds, pheasant, elk, quail, everything else. It wouldn't be any different for migratory birds.


First, do deer, elk, pheasant or quail migrate in large numbers from the Dakotas to Arkansas? Second would those states be able or be willing to do the studies needed to make those determinations. Third, don't we get more bang for our buck when one agency is doing the work instead of 50 agencies doing the same work. Im a small government states rights guy, but this is one of the few areas I believe it makes sense for the feds to be involved. I also believe national defense is a fed issue, this dosent make me a commie. I do have to admit though, a spring season with no limits would be cool (in my state but not yours).
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Poachers

Postby shoveler_shooter » Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:48 am

boney fingers wrote:
shoveler_shooter wrote:
bighop wrote:So if the Dakotas make the limit 100 mallards each hour of legal shooting, what happens to Arkansas? Just tough titties, I guess?

It doesn't work like that.
Every state has their own biologists to study populations and they all do a perfectly adequate job of managing deer herds, pheasant, elk, quail, everything else. It wouldn't be any different for migratory birds.


First, do deer, elk, pheasant or quail migrate in large numbers from the Dakotas to Arkansas? Second would those states be able or be willing to do the studies needed to make those determinations. Third, don't we get more bang for our buck when one agency is doing the work instead of 50 agencies doing the same work. Im a small government states rights guy, but this is one of the few areas I believe it makes sense for the feds to be involved. I also believe national defense is a fed issue, this dosent make me a commie. I do have to admit though, a spring season with no limits would be cool (in my state but not yours).

That's why the states would have a big meeting (or every flyway), reporting all the statistical categories which occur/are relevant to their state. Don't see why that wouldn't work. About the bang for our buck....I would have to look up some numbers to determine that, but I'm not so sure you're right about that...because the states would just end up hiring a few more employees, which I will venture to say they probably wouldn't be getting paid federal salaries, all those benefits, free housing, etc. :hammer:
I completely understand your reasoning, but IMO the states could do it pretty easily.
UmatillaJeff wrote:By his very nature this tends to be a modest man who is loved by woman, children and dogs and well though of in all social circles.
We will call him the 10ga man
User avatar
shoveler_shooter
hunter
 
Posts: 4044
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Stillwater and Owasso

Re: Poachers

Postby Underradar » Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:10 pm

Louisiana doesn't own ducks nor do the greedy grave-robbing Feds. Yes! Grave robbing through inheritance tax. They are out of control and running wild!
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 » Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:34 pm

boney fingers wrote:
shoveler_shooter wrote:
bighop wrote:So if the Dakotas make the limit 100 mallards each hour of legal shooting, what happens to Arkansas? Just tough titties, I guess?

It doesn't work like that.
Every state has their own biologists to study populations and they all do a perfectly adequate job of managing deer herds, pheasant, elk, quail, everything else. It wouldn't be any different for migratory birds.


First, do deer, elk, pheasant or quail migrate in large numbers from the Dakotas to Arkansas? Second would those states be able or be willing to do the studies needed to make those determinations. Third, don't we get more bang for our buck when one agency is doing the work instead of 50 agencies doing the same work. Im a small government states rights guy, but this is one of the few areas I believe it makes sense for the feds to be involved. I also believe national defense is a fed issue, this dosent make me a commie. I do have to admit though, a spring season with no limits would be cool (in my state but not yours).



Arkansas doesn't have oil and natural gas like North Dakota. Should that be "regulated" and "fairly shared" with the other states as well, or is that just ducks? California and Florida grow a lot of oranges, but Montana doesn't. That's not fair, since Montana needs its share of oranges to.

As for "more bang for the buck", no, absolutely not. What you get are two additional layers of wasteful bureaucracy at least, one when the tax dollars go through a state to filter up to the fed, and then another when the fed filters it back down to the states. Do you think the guy in Arizona is getting a good "bang for his buck" when he's paying in tax dollars to use for ducks, when it's the guy in Arkansas killing all the ducks the guy in Arizona "paid for"? Of course not. A large bureaucracy hardly ever leads to a better bang for the buck. It leads to people who have no knowledge of the conditions or needs of people on the ground, yet dictating to them how much it's going to cost and how it's going to work.

And yes, your'e damn right the states would be willing to do those studies, because they know exactly how much they would lose if the ducks disappear.

Again, I don't care how near and dear a particular cause is to anyone's heart, or how much they think it "helps". If it's not an enumerated power, then the federal government should NOT be doing it. Period. Encouraging it because you think the states would eff it up is a form of nannyism no different than the state telling you your kids have to wear a helmet and elbow pads to ride a bicycle. Because hey, why should you be trusted to take care of your kids? Without them telling you what to do to protect them, all the kids would be dead in 3 years, and then where would we be?
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 boney fingers » Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:53 pm

assateague wrote:
boney fingers wrote:
shoveler_shooter wrote:
bighop wrote:So if the Dakotas make the limit 100 mallards each hour of legal shooting, what happens to Arkansas? Just tough titties, I guess?

It doesn't work like that.
Every state has their own biologists to study populations and they all do a perfectly adequate job of managing deer herds, pheasant, elk, quail, everything else. It wouldn't be any different for migratory birds.


First, do deer, elk, pheasant or quail migrate in large numbers from the Dakotas to Arkansas? Second would those states be able or be willing to do the studies needed to make those determinations. Third, don't we get more bang for our buck when one agency is doing the work instead of 50 agencies doing the same work. Im a small government states rights guy, but this is one of the few areas I believe it makes sense for the feds to be involved. I also believe national defense is a fed issue, this dosent make me a commie. I do have to admit though, a spring season with no limits would be cool (in my state but not yours).



Arkansas doesn't have oil and natural gas like North Dakota. Should that be "regulated" and "fairly shared" with the other states as well, or is that just ducks? California and Florida grow a lot of oranges, but Montana doesn't. That's not fair, since Montana needs its share of oranges to.

As for "more bang for the buck", no, absolutely not. What you get are two additional layers of wasteful bureaucracy at least, one when the tax dollars go through a state to filter up to the fed, and then another when the fed filters it back down to the states. Do you think the guy in Arizona is getting a good "bang for his buck" when he's paying in tax dollars to use for ducks, when it's the guy in Arkansas killing all the ducks the guy in Arizona "paid for"? Of course not. A large bureaucracy hardly ever leads to a better bang for the buck. It leads to people who have no knowledge of the conditions or needs of people on the ground, yet dictating to them how much it's going to cost and how it's going to work.

And yes, your'e damn right the states would be willing to do those studies, because they know exactly how much they would lose if the ducks disappear.

Again, I don't care how near and dear a particular cause is to anyone's heart, or how much they think it "helps". If it's not an enumerated power, then the federal government should NOT be doing it. Period. Encouraging it because you think the states would eff it up is a form of nannyism no different than the state telling you your kids have to wear a helmet and elbow pads to ride a bicycle. Because hey, why should you be trusted to take care of your kids? Without them telling you what to do to protect them, all the kids would be dead in 3 years, and then where would we be?



Comparing ducks and oranges is like comparing, well ducks and oranges. Ducks breed in the north and winter in the south, all states in between share in their survival (you obviously know this). To manage them properly everyone has to be on the same page. Under your system each state would have to do the same studies and ultimately arrive at the same conclusions. This would take tons of extra money and in the end all info would be shared and agreed apon resulting in exactly what we have today at a higher price tag. As far as enumerated powers, I believe it falls under the treaty clause.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Poachers

Postby assateague » Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:00 pm

And aside from counting them, what "study" of ducks is necessary? Pretty sure we already know all we need to know to manage ducks. But the self-perpetuating bureaucracy which you think gives a better "bang for the buck" will never let the "duck studying budget" go away, because that's what they live on, now. The bureaucracy, not the ducks.
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 » Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:30 pm

Quack.
INTERNET CREDIBILITY is...an OXYMORON. :moon:
User avatar
aunt betty
memberhip was not approved
 
Posts: 11696
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:09 pm
Location: Go HOGS!

Re: Poachers

Postby bighop » Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:38 pm

assateague wrote:
bighop wrote:
assateague wrote:
Actually, no you haven't. Nor have I reframed the argument or added any stipulations- I stated this back on page 3. Not my problem I had to restate it again and again, since it was so frequently ignored. Read the whole thing next time.

For cryin out loud, I've read the whole thing. You've referred to the state owning wildlife, the State owning wildlife, and it being held in trust, and probably other iterations as well. I still don't really know what your position here is, other than that you want the state to pay for your body work when you hit a deer, which is odd, because it's your money they're using to pay you.

Own it but can't use as you please?
guns
cars
knives
clubs
fertilizer
gasoline
land


I missed the part where I have to have a permit to use a knife, club, fertilizer, gasoline, or land. I also missed the part where the government tells me when I may use a club, knife, fertilizer, gasoline, or land. Or where I can buy my knife license, authorizing me to use a knife only during November and December. As for cars, my 6 year old may drive my Jeep all over the back 40 anytime she wants. You may be confusing driving a car on the road to owning a car. Which is perhaps understandable, since you're either being purposely obtuse or you just aren't that bright.
[/quote][/quote]
What you missed was where you asked what else you "owned" that you couldn't use in any way you pleased. It was an attempt to set a precedent that you own plenty of things that are regulated in their use. You are now attempting to apply the argument in reverse and want to know what you own that is regulated in the same manner as wild game is regulated. That's like me asking you what species of game you are required to take an 8hr class learning about, prove proficiency in the feeding of, and pass a background check before you can carry concealed in your pocket. Of course it doesn't work the same way going forward and backwards.

assateague wrote:
bighop wrote:
assateague wrote:State control of everything they wish to control.

So if the Dakotas make the limit 100 mallards each hour of legal shooting, what happens to Arkansas? Just tough titties, I guess?


Pretty much, yes. Why does a resident of South Dakota have to buy an out of state license to hunt federally regulated birds in Arkansas? Doesn't he have just as much right to shoot them as a resident of Arkansas, since under your scenario and belief the South Dakota resident is just as much an "owner" of those ducks as the Arkansas resident, no matter where they are?

The feds don't dictate OOS license fees, the state does (isn't that what you want?) And what makes you think your license fee is "purchasing" a duck? You're purchasing the state's permission to hunt there, not the duck.

I went to LA and didn't catch a keeper fish, but I bought a license. I went back to the store and demanded my money back or a limit of reds and trout, I gave them the choice. For some reason, they laughed.

The SD resident has as much right to them as the AR resident, but that doesn't mean AR has to let him hunt for free. In your model, I suppose a ND OOS license would probably go for about $2mil, and a AR OOS license would be about $0.50. ND doesn't have any incentive to letting a single duck pass it's southern border, after all.
Rick Hall 2016
He'll turn it all around. Unless he doesn't.
User avatar
bighop
Sugar Daddy
 
Posts: 7683
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Texas

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests