Hunting, "right" or "privlege?"

[Bofire]

  In this state, WA, hunting is legally a "privlege" I read where some state in the South East passed an amendment that made hunting a legal "right" last year.

Anbody know about this? How does one organize this kind of thing? a referendum? Any lawyers here?
Carl

[singleshot12]

Don't know anything about it,but is it wrong to be a "Right" ?

[Bofire]

here since it is a privlege, the game commision makes rules, like hunter orange, without having to go through the process of making it a "law". I think we would have much more protection if our hunting was a "legal right", such as a constitutional amendment.
Carl

[jackelope]

the right to hunt bill in washington died in legislature. HR4204
http://www.serconline.org/huntandfish.html

[Ray]

They need to get this done before the enviro-wackos erase the rights one by one. They'd rather have the world swimming in a fish bowl looking at the outside world as if it was Mars or Jupiter.

[Dman]

 I had proposed a rework of that failed submittal for next session. I still plan to do so if I have time. There were many thing's about that failed submittal that doomed it to failure, I think could be changed to get it passed. I've been told done the right way, it would succeed by folks inside State GOV.

[Bofire]

I am willing to help, if I can.
Carl

[bearhunter59]

At what point did fishing and hunting in this state become a "priveledge"?  When this state became a state?  Because I have never figured out where they get off calling it a "privledge".  Unless there was something in the state constitution, then our "right" to hunt and fish for "subsistance" purposes, like the Indians, has been illegally infringed by the State.

I would love to see a class-action lawsuit brought against this state, on behalf of all non-native hunters and fishers, for discrimination, and violating our "natural" right to harvest natural resources in this state; to put food on our tables for our families.  Why shouldn't we go after the state, using the same arguments the Indians have all these years.  Our forefathers lived off the game and fish, just the same way as the Indians were relieant on the game and fish to subsist.  They say their rights were granted in the original treaties.  Well, out right was granted in the original constitution, and I haven't seen an amendment yet, which revoked my right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

[huntingnut]

I would be on board to help round up support to make it a right.

[Palmer]

here since it is a privilege, the game commission makes rules, like hunter orange, without having to go through the process of making it a "law". I think we would have much more protection if our hunting was a "legal right", such as a constitutional amendment.
Carl

I believe the commission must form a committee to adopt rules.  The rules must then be submitted to the legislature where they are probably adopted into the RCW and the WAC so therefore, they are laws.  Refer to RCW Title 77 or WAC Title 220.

I'm a little confused.  I've thought of this concept before but if it was a right, then I have some questions:

Could the state force you to buy a tag and a license?
How would the WDFW get funded?
How could you restrict the quantity of fish and game being harvested?
Would the state illegally harass and intimidate us to purchase a license to hunt?  (similar to a concealed weapons permit or has the Federal Supreme Court upheld the CWP?)

All I know is that there can be no law that could legally conflict with an amendment to the state constitution that stated we have the right to hunt.  In other words if a hunting offense were to go to trial using a law that conflicted with the constitution then it would be up to a juror to call out that law as bogus and acquit the defendant being charged with an illegal law.  Or the defendant could take their case to the state supreme court.

[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]

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

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.