bighop wrote: assateague wrote: bighop 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?
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.
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.[/quote]
You are paying for the opportunity to HUNT in that state where you purchase an OOS, As in, the act of hunting or fishing, not the results. You can not cast a rod without a fishing license, not sit in a duck blind with a gun in your hands.