Community > Advocacy, Agencies, Access

Hunting, "right" or "privlege?"

<< < (7/7)

ok  then im new to all this stuff lol im kind of ileturate  lol when it comes to this kind of thing but i do know that our right to hunt and fish are very important . i just want to put myself out there to say i want to help but somebody needs to get me on the right track as to how.   

Be careful what you wish for.  What will this actually do for us?  Rights are often much harder to take from people than privileges.  For instance, I would imagine taking one's right to hunt for poaching would be legally more difficult than taking one's privilege to hunt...


--- Quote from: Palmer on December 23, 2007, 06:17:55 PM ---Sounds to me like some states have a NOMINAL RIGHT which is no better than what we have in our state.  Perhaps I'm missing something but what is the point of making hunting and fishing a right if the state legislature can still regulate your rights.  That's no right at all.

--- End quote ---

 I disagree Palmer, on the basis that once it is part of the State Constitution, it is similar to the US constitution, it may be "regulated" to a certain degree, only if it does not enfringe upon your right to hunt and fish. A lot of it would depend on how the Bill was written, if it was not written adequately than that is a different story. The key difference is right now, the State could bow to special interest groups and close hunting areas for various reason's. With this type of Bill, emphasizing at the State level the same requirement's of the recent executive order, it begin's to make a very tough legal case for the State to bow to small special interest groups without recognizing the; 2nd Amendment, Executive Order on hunting/ fishing and a State level Constitutional right to hunt and fish. Another key advantage I see potentially also, is co-management status for the resident's of the State equivalent to that of the Tribe's. If we 'sportsmen' have more say in what our public agency does behind closed doors with the Tribes without disclosure, I think it would smooth over some issues that have created some friction within the State and be more productive that the atmosphere of distrust that has developed since the Boldt decision.

I want to protect the sport of hunting and keep areas open.  I think this is a good cause.  I just get concerned when the state and the federal gov.  regulate our rights.  I think the less regulation of our rights the better. 

I'll keep reading what others have to say on this thread.  It's all interesting.

Pope Shawn, right now criminals lose all sorts of rights if convicted. I dont see that as a problem, BUT you are correct in that we must look at this very closely!
Palmer, the problem is right now we are being regulated without any say so, no representation. The Game Commission can do what ever they want regardless of any 'majority'  or anything.


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version