Privilege or right?

[huntindad]

Maxximusgrind

I didn't feel that way at all and totally agree that much is lost in translation in forums and probably accounts for most of the disagreements on the forums.No apology necessary I understood your post as a simple question not a challenge.In my initial post I meant to say we as Americans while in an area where it is legal can hunt non-game animals(such as Nevada) and in reading the post I can see it came accross as we can do so in CA.Bill

[Maxximusgrind]

It is good to know there are places like that,thats what made me curious-I didnt know there were any left.thanks

[KentuckyWolf]

It's a right. A basic inalienably human right. Just like Air is not a privilege, and freedom is not a privilege.

[-Achilles-]

"As a citizen of these United States of America, our "rights" are spelled out in our "Bill of Rights". I don't see "hunting" listed."....This is exactly my point.

We have let them infringe our 2nd amendement right and our founding fathers gave the constitution to the Gov to let them know what they can and cannot do.

They don't pay attention to it now so why would you think we have a right to hunt when it is not even in the bill of rights?

The bill of rights are just the most important rights.

When you buy a hunting license or permit you are in fact asking permission to hunt.

You have to know the difference between rights and privilege.

A point I was trying to make earlier is would you rather pay for a permit=asking permission?

Or pay for a wildlife restoration tax?

I would rather pay a wildlife restoration tax where I am not asking permission and I understand that the tax is for restoring wildlife populations.This way it can stay a inherent natural right but every hunter understands that to keep populations strong we need the tax for restoration programs.

You might say most hunters do understand and want to pay for permits.

But remember when you ask permission to do something you are ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO DO IT and giving the other party the power to take it away.

I'm looking for the right word here
Wildlife restoration fee?tax?...I think tax is the correct word but I may be wrong.

[freefeet]

Originally posted by -Achilles-:
I'm looking for the right word here

I think the word isn't right or privilege, but rather "commodity".  If you can afford it you can buy it, if you can't afford it then you can't.

That's the way it works in every capitalist society.

Governments (as dictated to by their corporate masters) decide on what will be allowed as a right, what is bestowed as a privilege and what will ultimately be exploited as a commodity.

[hunt it]

If it was a RIGHT you would not need a license to do it. In Canada our First Nations people are the only ones with a RIGHT, rest of us need a License which makes it a Privilege.

[Brian Krebs]

"Governments (as dictated to by their corporate masters) decide on what will be allowed as a right, what is bestowed as a privilege and what will ultimately be exploited as a commodity."

well - we can see THAT happening !!

[-Achilles-]

"Governments (as dictated to by their corporate masters) decide on what will be allowed as a right, what is bestowed as a privilege and what will ultimately be exploited as a commodity."

Thats why its so important for people to understand what the constitution is and its importance.

If we let them take any of those rights away the others will surely fall.

Imo we have let the Gov take away many of them through the patriot act,gun laws which were not theirs(the gov) to take away in the first place.

The thing is though that the bill of rights are natural,inherent rights you are born with.

You must lose the term "constitutional rights" from your vocabulary.

That term implies that the constitution gives you these rights.

The constitution is a piece of paper given to the Gov by the people as a guideline for THEM.

The Gov can shred it or burn it if they want but they can't take away something that is inherent.

[freefeet]

Originally posted by -Achilles-:
The thing is though that the bill of rights are natural,inherent rights you are born with.

The bill of rights was written by one of your past governments, not by the people.  There's nothing natural or inherent about it.

[huntindad]

A government created for the people by the people "OF" the people.

They had it right but somehow it has become so wrong.

Not all rights are listed many were just so obvious to the people creating the Bill of Rights their mention was unnecessary. Things such as feeding ones family or protecting it from danger.

If the purchase of something makes it a privilege or a commodity then almost every right we exercise is a privilege or commodity.

A right is intangible and cannot be held in your hand such as gun ownership we all have the right but the gun must be purchased and taxes paid to the govt.on the gun and ammo.

The right to hunt is also intangible and as I have pointed out above you can hunt for free without license or tag for certain species in certain parts of the U.S. or you can choose your species just as you can choose your gun and purchase the one of choice for a price(the tag and license). The tag only validates that you paid your "tax" for ownership of that animal.

The "BASIC RIGHT" to hunt is there and god given under the heading Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and can be practiced at will for free in certain GREAT places in this country that still understand the Govt. works for us.

Bill

[Tsalagi]

Pardon my nitpick, but feeding one's family isn't really a right in the United States. Feeding one's family actually happens through work. Let a corporations profit margins fall by 1% and they'll lay off thousands who then lose their homes. Look at the American Rust Belt states. Detroit looks like Berlin at the end of World War Two. Some people stridently defend the so-called "right" of a corporation to make those kinds of decisions that ultimately badly impact our entire society in order to further enrich an already rich 1/2 of 1% of the population. If we're talking about the right to feed one's family, then private entities shouldn't have the ability to deprive people of that in order to protect a percent on the profit margin. Let's also not forget the banks have enormous power that they use in ways that cause massive job losses, home losses, and social destruction and all just to further enrich themselves. Thomas Jefferson warned of the power of banks. The years 2008 and 2009 saw the biggest transfer of wealth in history from the working people and middle class to the top 1% of the population. And it's still going on. These are parasites fattening themselves on the blood of the country.

Don't get me wrong. I agree 100%---feeding your family is a right. I think we need laws to ensure that, since the Bill of Rights was written in a period when the power of massive banks to deprive citizens of a living was unforeseen. No one should have that kind of power. Not governments, not corporations, not banks.

[Bowwild]

Hunting is a privilege I've enjoyed since Dad started taking me when I was about 5 years old -- 51 years ago.  However, it is as precious and important to me as a right and I will always treat anyone or anything that tries to remove the privilege as if they are trying to take a right from me. The reason I consider it a privilege is because I strongly believe anyone who poaches (no license, over bag, wrong equipment, etc.) should have their hunting privileges removed for a period of time.  I will admit guys that I'm pretty biased as I'm a retired wildlife biologist (IN, KS, MO, and KY).

[coffee]

I have to agree with the post that it is not mentioned in the United States Constitution. With that said Wisconsin did put it into our State Constitution so until that one ever gets challenged in court that is the law here.  Others would argue since humans are predators and have hunted since the beginning of time that it is a naturual right or even a God given right if you want to bring religion into it. Whatever ever it is lets just continue to hunt and while living this great tradition continue to protect this "right" or "privilage".

[Bowwild]

I generally support the trend to make hunting a constitutional right by states'.  It makes me a bit nervous though for fear that the push will fail in some state and embolden the anti's.  As a recently retired state agency Deputy Commissioner, and still active in the shooting sports I'm glad to see the antis have generally become much less a persuasive force these days. They've shot themselves in the foot (pun intended) with some of their really stupid attacks. I hope they keep it up.  The more kooks from Hollywood they enlist the worse off they'll keep doing too.

[Custer]

I believe it is a right but the courts have never agreed with me on this.

The King owned the game and the states assumed this role when the country was founded.

There are now too many things that are deemed a privilege now because the government wants to regulate it and collect revenue.

I have never figured out why someone created the idea that driving was a privilege, not a right and it is as accepted by people as one of the 10 commandments.

[thorn242]

the reason that driving is a privilege is that it basically it didnt exist then.....not in th fashion it does today.....you have a right to travel, but not to drive a vehicle to do it.....hunting, on the other had, did exist then....and it was being done with both the bent stick and the musket.....the problem with it is that we assume it to be a right.....and you know what they say about assumptions......

[PJ]

I think it is a right but that dosen't mean that one can sit back and not get in the fight to maintain it. The way legal decisions are made today it seems the law is not relevant.

[Jon Swanson]

I believe it is a right on public ground.....a privilege on private ground.  

I travel a lot for my job.  What gets me is how people who live in cities and rarely if ever get out to the country have the nerve to try and tell my what is 'right' and 'wrong'.  Growing up on a farm, I get irked by the lack of respect that is given to farmers, people who love the outdoors, etc.  Just my 2 cents.  I enjoy educating them though  

[OkKeith]

I'll state my opinion at the on-set. Hunting is a privilege, not a right. Those that disagree and don't want to waste time on listening to my rationale can stop reading now.

"Rights" as defined by modern society cannot be given or taken away. By that definition Freedom is not a right, anyone who commits crimes against society or violates social morays to a defined extent will be locked up and their freedom curtailed. Even the pursuit of Happiness is allowed only to the extent that it doesn't hurt anyone or go against the outer boundaries of common convention. Even Life is debatable; many states still have the death penalty. Rights are supposed to be inviolate, privileges granted according to the worthiness of the individual.

I have no problem with the idea that my Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness are not rights. I shouldn't be able to sit on my butt and expect to be handed the important things. I don’t want to have to depend on anyone else to keep me safe, happy and alive. Anything worth having is worth fighting for. I don't want anything given to me, I want to earn it. I want everyone else to be worthy and earn it as well.

Hunting is licensed, controlled, regulated according to level of training and education then doled out once certain economic conditions are met. Doesn’t sound like a “right” to me. There are enough Bozo’s out there as it is without the idea that EVERYONE should be able to hunt regardless of how, where or when, right? How many times have we spent hours and hours on this message board complaining about topics such as crossbows? If hunting is a right, shouldn’t crossbow hunters have the right to hunt when and where they like as anyone else does? Why do we have seasons? Why do we have certain areas closed to certain methods or during certain times of the year?

Time after time “hunters” are ticketed and/or arrested for either killing game out of season, after hours, or in closed areas. In my experience nearly every one of them, when facing a fine or jail time for repeated offences, spout the phrase, “I have a right to feed my family, I have a right to hunt!”. My response was always, “If your family is hungry you should have sold the $600 bow, $800 rifle, $10,000 ATV or the $50,000 truck before you resorted to breaking the law.” Should these people be defended and their “right” to hunt preserved? I think their privilege should be revoked.

For those of you that stuck with me through all of the explanation, I thank you. In my opinion hunting will always be a privilege worth fighting to keep and that should be taken away from those who, through their actions, show they don’t deserve it. Things that are given to you are free and therefore worthless. Things that must be earned and fought for are priceless.

I guess it comes down to the idea of worthless rights or priceless privileges.

OkKeith

[Brian Krebs]

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.