So because something is merely LEGAL means it's OK to do? You're wavering on your conservative mindset and upholding more of a leftist viewpoint on this one... That because it's LEGAL, it's thus RIGHT. Think of one of the main planks in the conservative platform... and I don't want to turn the thread this direction, but it's an apt analogy at this juncture: Abortion is LEGAL. Does that make it RIGHT? I think you're really starting to stretch yourself thin when you start trying to justify others' actions by the sheer legality of them...
people get so defensive about what they do when they hunt because hunting is a passion and people have strong beliefs about what they do. Now i know working is not my passion maybe for others but when im working and im told something i do it because i dont have a whole lot of passion for my job and yes your right everyone has a different skill level when taking a shot some more comfortable than others me personally i dont like to takke the shot unless its broadside or slightly quartering away but i have friends that will shot the deer head on and kill it so i say good for them i have been brought up to take a good clean kill and if i have any doubt in my mind about the shot not to take it but my friends gave been taught to kill in anyway you can
I think you're starting down a slippery slope when you project your own ethics onto others. Hunting's personal. Ethics are personal. I'm not condoning or condemning anything. Just making a couple blanket statements. I can see the rub when someone airs questionable material. Conceded.
Is no such place. But the writers of our constitution believed it was a right from a Higher power. You'll have to excuse the history lesson since you brought it up. Remember.. 200 years ago.. there was no such thing as a license to hunt.. or a regulated season. People just hunted.. no law was needed because it was the right of any man. After all.. he was feeding his family. It's a man natural right to want to do this. During the first conventions of congress this was even brought up.. as Americans did not want hunting to become a privilege of the wealthy. But it was argued that it was not needed to be in law. I agree. In Europe.. was not so. Hunting there.. even now.. is a privilege (although not like it once was). At one time only kings, nobles and their guests could do it. It was their privilege. A common man would be commiting crime if he did. Hunting is a right decreed upon us by a Higher power. It is a right. Make no mistake about it.
I don't think I ever labeled myself as a conservative or liberal... I feel that because it is LEGAL I have no place to tell someone they can or cannot do it if their actions does not affect me. The mainstream media may interchange "conservative" and "republican" without thought but they are very, very different. Also, your extremist conservative and your average conservative are two completely different people. Abortion is legal... therefore I couldn't care less if you decide to partake in an abortion. Not my place to tell you it is wrong. I won't tell you that you are right either though. Not my place. I am not attempting to justify ones action by the legality of them... I am justifying my stance on "not gonna tell you what you can and can not do" based on the legality of their actions. The Gadsden Flag comes to mind...
The fact that you know to use "mainstream media" along with other "tells" gives you away as conservative in and of itself. I have no problem with this, as I greatly upset the chair of our department in journalism school by wearing a shirt that proclaimed "I don't believe the liberal media". Yeah, try wearing that up and down the halls of the last bastion of communism... And believe you me, I understand the difference between Conservative and Republican. Especially these days.
People just owned other people, too. Was/is THAT a "right" (because it wasn't expressly DISallowed)? We're granted inalienable "rights", by our creator (and our constitution). Those were spelled out, pretty well. Hunting....as a "right"? IMO that's a stretch.
Any one promoting head shots with a bow should be shot in the head himself! Don't mean to be so harsh, but this is wrong!!!!
Give me a break! If hunting were a right, then why do you need a license to participate in such action? Poach a deer and you get jailed/fined, right ? Can you lose your privilege? Who owns the animals anyway? Let me tell you. They belong to the "people" of each individual state collectively. They're not yours! They're not mine! They're theirs! Sure you can hunt all you want but if you take an animal without the people's consent, then you will suffer the wrath of the people-even in Louisana/Illinois! Do you need a license to own a gun? No! At least not yet... I accept the fact that 5-10% of the populations thinks any shot on any animal is unacceptable. I am more concerned with the 80% that, at this point could care less one way or another about hunting. Shooting arrows at radio controlled trucks towing balloons is all fun and games, but when it comes to taking the life of a valued natural resource, the public expects us to take it seriously. If they didn't, we would not have animal cruelty laws. The fact of the matter, we have laws which protect the safety and welfare of both people and our wildlife. Can anyone within any state use field tips to hunt big game legally? If hunting were a right, then I'd say someone will answer yes. So then, why not field tips instead of broadheads? We know feild tips will kill, right? Would it have anything to do with the higher probabiltiy of success? YES! Some laws are written and some are unwritten. We know the difference between right and wrong and so does the general public. They expects us to be responsible with their resource. If we're not, they can and will take it from us! Right indeed-hog wash!
A good read: "One of the founding principles of wildlife management in the United States is that no one owns wildlife. Put another way, everyone owns wildlife equally (though not “owning” it in strictly a legal sense, like a person would own a car or a house). The concept has its roots in ancient Roman law. Under the legal codes established by Emperor Justinian (ad 529), wildlife and other natural resources could not be owned by anyone until it was captured and reduced to possession. For example, no one owned the fish in a lake. But if you caught a fish, it was considered yours. The concept changed in England during the Middle Ages when various kings declared that people could be punished, even killed, for hunting on royal property. Ownership of wildlife and other public resources remained under the king’s authority. Though wildlife was considered in public ownership, only the king could decide who had access to the that wildlife, granting or selling it to those of privilege and wealth. By the 15th century, however, some people in England began to rebel against the crown. The rebellion grew out of religious strife and persecution, which eventually led to a rejection by the public of royal prerogatives and wealth. This rebellious spirit led to the idea that natural resources should be owned and controlled by the general public.Centuries later, the concept would characterize the American attitude toward wildlife. In America’s early years, the question of who had authority over wild animals rarely came up because there appeared to be enough wildlife for everyone to use. But by the late 19th century, the growing human population began to compete for what previously had seemed to be limitless natural resources. Several landmark court cases in the 1800s shaped Americans’ thinking about wildlife management responsibilities. The first was Martin v. Waddell (1842), in which a landowner along the New Jersey coast tried to exclude others from harvesting oysters in the mudflats of his property. Martin claimed that he owned the seashore based on a land grant from the king of England made before the United States declared independence. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, where Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled the king could not grant or give away property held “as a public trust,” and that “since the revolution, the people of each state became themselves sovereign; and in that character, held the absolute right to all their navigable waters, and the soil under them; for their own common use…including the animals living on it.” Taney’s decision became known as the “public trust doctrine.” The concept, upon which wildlife has since been managed and regulated in the United States, maintains that the government holds natural resources in trust for its citizens, and that wildlife should not be privately owned. Another important ruling that helped frame the public trust concept came in 1892 with Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois. Here, the Supreme Court ruled that a state can’t sell off natural resources held in the public trust—in this case, Illinois’s attempt to sell nearly the entire Lake Michigan waterfront of Chicago to a private railroad. Legal experts note that the public trust doctrine does not apply to wildlife in a strictly legal sense. “It’s a concept, not a legal imperative,” explains Bob Lane, chief legal counsel for Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. “As yet, the courts haven’t mandated it as a public requirement.” Though not legally binding, however, the idea that government doesn’t own wild animals but is entrusted with conserving wildlife for the benefit of all citizens is pervasive. “The public trust doctrine is the basic model used for state and federal wildlife laws,” says Lane. “It’s a concept that seems reasonable and logical to most people, but so far no such case has come before the courts.” Most people agree that government should be entrusted with managing wildlife for the public good. But which government? Though state, federal, and Indian governments all have trustee responsibilities for wildlife, debate continues over how those responsibilities are balanced. Generally, the states have primary management authority for wildlife, with several exceptions. The Supreme Court has granted tribal authority on some lands for some purposes, subject to treaty rights. Another exception is the federal Endangered Species Act, under which certain species may not be hunted. And then there are national parks, where hunting is not allowed. The federal government also has authority over migratory birds as part of the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1916, which the U.S. government entered into with Canada, Mexico, and Russia. This treaty provides the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with nearly complete control over the hunting of ducks, geese, swans, and other migratory birds. In some cases it’s commerce, not conservation, that has challenged aspects of state management authority over wildlife. The Supreme Court ruled in 1947 that South Carolina could not charge out-of-state commercial boats 100 times higher shrimping fees than it charged resident shrimpers. The high court cited the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause when it said it is unconstitutional for states to preclude nonresidents from engaging in interstate commercial activities. State conservation agencies have long eyed the commerce clause nervously because it threatens their traditional management authority to limit the number of licenses they sell to out-of-state hunters and to charge nonresidents more for licenses than residents. (On the other hand, some argue that the commerce clause helps keep overly protective states in check and ensures that public resources are managed fairly for all American citizens.) In 1978, the Supreme Court favored the states when it ruled that Montana could charge nonresident elk hunters higher fees than residents. Montana argued in Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission that nonresidents require more enforcement effort (because they don’t know the landscape as well) and that residents pay through taxes for infrastructure such as roads, fire control, and search-and-rescue efforts that nonresidents aren’t funding. The court found support for its conclusion because it viewed hunting as a recreational privilege and not a fundamental right as granted by the Constitution. But the court also gave warning that the disparity between resident and nonresident hunting and fishing fees could not be unreasonably high."
Just lost water all over my monitor. Do you honestly believe this? and I'm one of the few who doesn't have anything against Brackett...Hell I've went Aerial Bowfishing with the guy but to say what you said above is hilarious.
Be serious Huck. There are many things that you have the "right" to participate in, yet require a license! It's simply a way of keeping track of who is "legally" participating in whatever activity and raising money for that activity to continue. Poach a deer and you get jailed/fined? Certainly. But drive a vehicle (with a license) intoxicated and you're going to that same jail. Do these things legally, you have no problems. They're all rights if you participate in a "legal" fashion. I'm off to work now, and that's my right.:D
Quoted to 2nd. Driving never was and never will be a right as far as the government is concerned. Hunting is not a right as far as some state governments and the federal government is concerned. Some states have taken it upon themselves to protect hunting as a constitutional right but the fed has not. From what I understood directly from Mr. Brackett, IMO (InterMedia Outdoors) wouldn't give up any control of the show and it's production to Brackett and that is where the problems started. They did not fire him or refuse to resign him to a contract, he demanded more control over the show, they refused, he walked.
Early, The difference between a "right" and a "privilege" is a privilege can be taken away-a right cannot. A right is God given and no law, no man, can take that away from you. You do not have the right to work. You might think that, but your boss can send you packing anytime he wants. You might think you have the right to drive, but if you cannot see well enough to engage in such activity, then your licenses is revoked. Right =God given and no man/law can take away. Privilege= man given and can be restricted, suspended, denied, or revoked. Ske!etor, I see where you are going with the various states protecting the "right" of individuals to hunt. That so called right is conferred providing that individual is engage in "legal" activity. That right basically says, "While hunting legally, you are afforded quiet enjoyment". If the "People" deny you access to an animal, that right is mute. A case to study would be Spring bear hunting in Colorado. That privilege was suspended back in 1992, and I do not see it being repealed anytime soon. If it were a right, I'd be doing it right now!
The difference between a right and a privelege is that rights are protected in the US (or your states) constitution. These are rights that the government cannot touch (Well... they obviously can... but they are not supposed to). Remember, the US Constitution is not a document outlining what is a right... the US Constitution outlines what rights the Government cannot touch (or are not supposed to touch) but as we have seen in multiple states and even in Washington D.C., the government does not really care about your rights or your constitution.
Exactly. So why are we (well, not all of us) throwing fuel on the fire? Who put those people in office? Simple majority................
