Community > Advocacy, Agencies, Access

Hunting, "right" or "privlege?"

<< < (2/7) > >>

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:

--- Quote from: Bofire on October 09, 2007, 07:46:59 AM ---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

--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page