Community > Advocacy, Agencies, Access
Hunting, "right" or "privlege?"
Palmer:
I don't know if this info is 100% correct. But I remember learning somewhere that in Europe hunting was a right if you owned land. For example a lord owned a huge plot of land and all the game within it.
I don't know when the concept of "privelege" was started, but Americans wanted to make sure that no one had a right to the game simply because they owned the land. Instead hunting was a privelege so that everyone could have an opportunity to harvest an animal. As a privelege there is a need for the government to manage wildlife and habitat on public and private lands. I would think this would prevent animals from being harvested into extinction in some areas. I've heard that whitetails and turkeys were becoming scarce 50+ years ago.
It looks to me like parts of Europe has lost some of its game due to lack of management and the concept of "right to hunt any game on one's own land." I hear there are few deer left in England and are there any wolves left in Europe? Italy has lots of game animals.
singleshot12:
You made some very good points Palmer.With that being said,it makes it a right and a privlege,and I agree.But lets not let anybody use the "privlege" part of it-to be used against us and our constitutional "right"...to hunt.
Bofire:
Palmer,
Look in the game rules, you'll see "hunter orange" is listed as a "rule' the Game commision(appointed positions) can make rules and do not have to submit them to anyone. Some of the regs. we must follow are LAW, like dogs and baiting for bear, that was passed as a referendum, not by legislation.
Part of it is needed, how could seasons be set, limits change if the commission had to go to the legislature every time? You can read RCW 77.15 on line and see what is Law, RCW or WAC, and what is Rule. You will be surprised. Most of the things in the regs, book are identified if they are by Law, see WAC232-12-828 for handicap hunters, vs-rule 12 on page 66, which is the prohibited use of electronic calls, note Turkey was added last spring by a RULE, not Law. Another note is that you can follow everything in the Hunting Rules Phamplet and still be in violation of state Law, it is the hunters responsibility to know the rules and regs, and laws. Look on page 9 of the rule book WAC summary information. I have the RCW book open in front of me. RCW77.15 is the chapter, 77.15.020 states: "Authority to define violation of rule as infraction. If the commission or director has authority to adopt a rule that is punishable as a crime under this chapter, then the commission or director may provide that violation of the rule shall be punished with a notice of infraction under RCW 7.84.030" so you see They DO have the right to make rules and enforce them as Law.
I do NOT know all this stuff it is very confusing.
Carl
Palmer:
I'm glad you enjoy looking up the laws. I'm an electrician and the state adopts the National Electrical Code Book every year so I have to study a bit of law myself. As far as I know the code is adopted and is therefore law. I thought it would be the same for any rules in the regs.
Its helpfull to know your rights out there. I've been harassed several times by people who just don't like hunters period. No matter how nice I am to them they keep raising their voice at me. I've also had a fellow drive his car up and down an area honking his horn on opening day of deer modern fire arm. Its interesting to know that they are actually breaking the law when they harass us.
Palmer:
--- Quote from: Bofire on November 05, 2007, 11:51:07 AM --- RCW77.15 is the chapter, 77.15.020 states: "Authority to define violation of rule as infraction. If the commission or director has authority to adopt a rule that is punishable as a crime under this chapter, then the commission or director may provide that violation of the rule shall be punished with a notice of infraction under RCW 7.84.030" so you see They DO have the right to make rules and enforce them as Law.
I do NOT know all this stuff it is very confusing.
Carl
--- End quote ---
Because RCW 7.15.020 states: "Authority to define violation of rule as infraction," I would think this is saying that all rules stated in the regs are adopted as laws under the revised code and administrative code of Washington. I'm probably boring everyone to death but if the state constitution stated you had the "right" to hunt then only the state supreme court would have the jurisdiction to interpret the scope of "right to hunt." The RCW 7.15.020 would be in violation of the state constitution if there was a right to hunt amendment. No RCW or WAC is higher then a constitutional amendment.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version