To keep things moving some direction and to try and get more folks to either open up voice their opinions or to get more people to give up on the fight with Anti-hunters, what is everyone's opinion.

Question:
What is your view or belief as far as hunting is concerned?

Choices:
Yes, I believe hunting is my right.
No, I believe hunting is a priveldge.
I don't care either way, but do feel we are in danger of having it outlawed.

 

I think the govermental entities that have a concern will call it a privelege.Hence their issuance of a "license or permit" not unlike a drivers license.I voted it makes no difference,as I would hunt anyway if I needed to eat without any concern if is a right or privelege,I treat it like a privelege and obey all game laws.

Believe what you want, hunting, like driving is a privilege granted by the state in which you live. But my belief, it is a privilege to be protected by laws and participants, and for future generations.

State constitutions differ. Currently, residents have a right to hunt in six states. Several other states are considering adding a right to hunt provision in their constitutions. However, in every state, the game animals belong to the state.

Hunting is a way of life to me.

In Wis the right to hunt was added to the consitution.

Okay, just a question here about the states that have stated that hunting is a right. Does that mean that you do not have to buy a license to hunt and does that right only apply to residents of those states?

Hunting is a right and just because you need to acquire a license don't make it any less a right. You have a right to VOTE but you still have to REGISTER to do so. No difference.

quote:

You have a right to VOTE but you still have to REGISTER to do so. No difference.

How much does it cost to register to vote????

You're right Crazyhorse. If it's a right then it must be free to everyone. It costs money for a license and to hunt on state owned land so hunting is a priviledge and is becoming more of a priviledge with more land tied up in private hands and no trespassing signs go up.

Thankfully it is a constitutionally protected right in my state, and it is my belief that the founding fathers intended that to be the right of anyone who is a legal citizen of the USA.
It costs a hell of a lot to vote in reality, and it is funded with our tax dollars to an insanely unjustifiable amount.

License fees fund game and fish departments in addition to tax dollars these departments receive from their respective states, and fed funding.
I appreciate the comparison to voting and it's cost, but there are many opportunities to hunt without cost, for certain of our citizens, i.e. senior license fee exemptions, veteran programs, youth and handicap programs and such.

It is certainly a right that many wish to invalidate, due to their personal feelings about hunting. These are the same type of folks that feel others don't have the right to eat certain foods-say eggs for example-because they don't like the way the eggs are harvested, or the way the hens are treated, or just because they don't think we should be allowed to eat eggs...

We as a group certainly need to support those groups that further our rights, as I believe the original founders of our country intended.

It does not cost one dime to vote, you register and it is your choice whether to exercise that right or not, but NO ONE pays a dime to register to vote.

If hunting was an ACTUAL right, the states, even the ones that claim hunting is a Right, would not require a person to buy a license to participate in the activity.

Any activity that a person has to buy a license to participate in, is not a right, the person is paying for the Priviledge to participate.

At NO PLACE in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution or the Bill of Rights is there ANY wording stating that hunting is a right.

Crazy, read my post, it damn well does cost a lot to vote. Trust me, it isn't as simple as saying they don't charge you when your register, if you ask me for my OPINION, a lot of the funding for our military is due to protecting our RIGHT to vote. I ain't gonna debate the nuances of what you call a right and what you don't, but if your standard is nobody charges you for it, than a lot of illegal immigrants have a RIGHT to health care!

It is DAMN WELL a right in my state to hunt, and that doesn't have anything to do with me having to buy a license, which BTW, I never have to do since 2001, when I purchased the right to a lifetime license, for a one time fee....boy that oughta be confusing.

If you don't think it's a right, you are of course TOTALLY welcome to your opinion, that is your right IMO--LOL.

I disagree with your definitions it seems. It is a complex technical distinction to be sure, but I hold that it is a right, and most surely is in our state.

PS, I like your thread, and the discussion!

I think of it as a priviledge. Something that should be carefully guarded by us. And should be closely policed by us.
If a state can vote to add hunting to our list of priviledges, they can vote to take it away.

Fish,

I agree that this is an interesting discussion. Comparing voting with hunting seems like apples and oranges, however, as it relates to this discussion the bottom line is that the Poll tax was abolished becaused it disenfranchised people who couldn't afford to pay and vote. So if the states want it to be a right for its citizens then everyone in that state should be able to participate regardless of their ability to afford it. BTW medical care is not a right, everyone gets charged, some just choose not to pay and there are a lot more legals than illegals who choose not to pay.

Fish30114, if you have to pay for it to do it, it is not a right.

You don't have to pay to register to vote and you don't have to vote.

Hunting as we know it today is a priveledge, at one time it was neccessity, but when they started creating laws and mandating that a person had to have a license it became simply a priveledge in my opinion.

Under your definition of voting, thenFrredom of religion is not free but costly. I have never had anyone charge me a single dime when I went into a church.

I have never had anyonme charge me a single dime when I go into the polls to vote.

But to go hunting, I do have to pay for a hunting license, just like everyone else, it is not part of the taxes I pay every year, if it were, after registering the first time the state would send me a new license every year and I would not have to hand anyone any money out of my pocket.

A long as I am registered, I can vote. If I want to I can walk in the door of the church of my choice and in neither cae will I have to pull money out of my pocket/write a check or use a credit card to do either.

If I want to hunt, it is a whole different matter.

No one is going to throw me in jail because of who I voted for, or for worshipping in the wrong church.

I go out and shoot a deer without a license that I paid for in my pocket, I am going to be introduced to the legal system.

Hunting never has been a right, don't care how far you want to go back in history after humans became civilized, kings/emporers, rulers of any kind decided who could or could not hunt, and if a person did not have permission from that ruler, the penalties were severe.

As for your comment about the lifetime license, all it did was give you permission to hunt for the rest of your life, without having to buy another license or pay for the increases.

However, it was still a license, but just for a longer duration than a yearly license. It is however till a licene and if you did not have it, you could not just go out and hunt, now could you?

Just like driving a car is not a right, it is a priveledge, think it isn't, get in a car and take off driving without a license and get stopped by an LEO and see how that works for you.

This is kind of like Social Security. Legally it probably should not have happened, but now people are used to it, depend on it, and it will not get reversed. I think originally hunting in the US was intended to be a right but gradually land owners got more powerful than hunters. For example, when I was a kid in eastern Nebraska the law was that one could hunt if the land was not posted, and posting one's land kind of made the owner look like a grump. That law got changed about the time that the set aside land program for farmers got going strong. Initially it looked like since tax payers including hunters were paying the farmers not to raise crops that free hunting would be available on that land. Not so. Anyway, if you live in a state like Iowa where there is almost no public land except the roadsides, and do not own land, and do not pay to hunt, hunting is pretty much a privilege.

Crazy, I do see your view, but think a little differently--technically I may be wrong, heck I detest lawyers, but went to law school, and I don't even remember what GA law says about the difference in any field as to right or privelege, it may in fact be as simple as 'if you pay' for it it's a privelege.

I definitely understand and agreee with your point of what happens if you don't have the appropriate licenses. I guess I simply don't agree that it can't be a right if you have to buy a license or such....

I will say that like IowaDon, it has evolved with time, and once upon a time, in AZ, I could hunt without any license, permit or whatever on State land, but honestly, that may have been cause my Grandpa did have one, and I was so young that since he did have a license that didn't mandate that I bought a license even if I hunted--having said that, I hunted a lot by myself, and Grandpa would have damn well INSISTED that I had whatever license, tags etc. that I needed if they were required.

I also am aware that most civilized societies evolved such that the ruling leaders/class owned the game animals of their lands, and regular folks got little to any 'rights' to them--(maybe access is a better word than 'rights'??)....but that is also a reason, lacking specific language that I can recite, that I feel the founders of our contry intended that 'we the people' have equal 'rights' to the game in this country....of course like so many things, hunting has evolved, and things that once were, are no more.

In GA, if you are 65 years old or older, you don't have to buy a license. If you are hunting on your own land, you don't have to have a license. Certain veterans, disabled people, and people 16 or under don't have to have a license or pay for them...so maybe it becomes a right when you hit 65

I guess it just isn't crystal clear to me, but again, just because you may have to pay a fee, doesn't eliminate it being a right IMO. I will say that as opposed to it just being my opinion, I could be flat out wrong!

Hunting is a privilege as evidenced by the need for a license in order to legally participate.

"License" is defined as official or legal permission to do something that would otherwise be against the law. It is strictly illegal to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway. You will be arrested for the simple act of driving a car unless you have an official "permission slip" in the form of a driver's license.

It is exactly the same situation with hunting. You cannot 'hunt' without first beign granted some form of license to do so. Of course, the definition of what constitutes 'hunting' (as discussed in another thread) enters into the discussion. You can legally shoot a rat in the backyard garden with a .22 without a license but shoot the deer standing next to it and see how it works out for you. Both the rat and deer are 'wildlife.' Some degree of skill and luck is necessary to sneak up and get off a lethal shot on either one. Both are eating your garden. And, yes, depending on your culture, both are edible. So why do you need a license to shoot the deer but not the rat? Conversely, you can shoot as big an animal as you want (and can pay for) any time you want inside a high fence, no license required.

A "license" can take many different forms. It might be a physical piece of paper and/or a tag of some kind. Or it may be a legal declaration that states that certain people (such as senior citizens, landowners and Indians) are automatically given official permission to engage in certain forms of hunting. Even then, there are conditions that are strictly spelled out.

My home state of Wisconsin has a "right to hunt" clause in its constitiution. But it's more of a "feel-good" affirmation of a part of our state's culture than an individual right.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
It does not cost one dime to vote, you register and it is your choice whether to exercise that right or not, but NO ONE pays a dime to register to vote.

Try not ever paying your taxes and then see if they let you vote after you are convicted of tax evasion...

In fact try to estimate how much money you have spent on hunting licenses over the years and then estimate how much you have paid in federal, state, local, property, and sales taxes.

Good post Fish30114. I really do see the points you are making. Many of them make sense, and in all actuality, hunting possibly should be treated as a right.

The problems arise in the reality that if it was not for the rules/regulations and the fact that people that want to hunt have to be licensed, anyone could just go out and kill an animal any time they got ready.

Look how hard it has been for the anti gun faction to get our Second Ammendment Rights taken completely away from us. Yes, things are different than 40 years ago when it comes to buying a gun. Yes there are forms to fill out and delays, but for the most part, honest, law abiding citizens gan go to the gun store of their choice and buy a gun.

With hunting, we have to buy a license, in many states we have to take a Hunter's Education course, we have seasons and bag limits and other restrictions on what we can or cannot shoot. In many states we are restricted as to the size or type of equipment or ammunition that we can use.

Regulated sport hunting is just that, regulated and regulated in such a manner to ensure that future hunters will have viable populations of game animals and game birds to hunt.

While I wished hunting was a right, it can't be, because if it was there are those amongst us that would abuse that right.

A right doesn't have to be free. You have the right to buy and own property, but you have to buy it and pay appriate fees and taxes associated with it. You have the right to own guns, but have to aquire them within the laws, which may include purchasing them and paying appropriate sales taxes.

The fact is, hunting license fees were legislated based on the lobbying efforts of US (hunters). WE saw the need to create a user-pays system to fund wildlife and habitat conservation. It's a tax we put on ourself to help ensure the future of our resource.

Yes, a person has the right to buy/sell and own propety, but a person also hs the right to inherit property from some one or receive property as a gift.

A person has the right to buy firearms or get them as a gift or inherit them from someone.

But,there is no season on when a peron can obtain land or a gun. There is no limit on the amount of land or guns a person can own at any particular time.

A person can actually buy a car without a driver license, they just can't legally drive said car.

By your logic, that privileges have licenses and rights do not, firearm ownership must be a privilege because some states and local governments require permits and approval to own firearms.

Also, I have to buy a gun, so again, by your reasoning, it it not a right

I believe hunting is a right and my state's constitution agrees with me.

The fact that a government tramples or does not recognize a right does not mean it is not a right. Rights are bestowed by our Creator, not a government. Governments only recognize or ignore/suppress rights.

I believe hunting is a God given right.

Gen 1
27So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

28And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."



BTW, see my sigline.

My $.02 for what is worth:

Hunting is a privledge granted by property owners. The states and the Feds decided that they could make money from the wants of the people and require fees to be paid for the opportunity. I wouldn't mind the fees so much if I knew for certain they were used to further conservation. I fear the day when the Feds find a way to tap into conservation funds such as Pittman Robertson in an attempt to balance the budget.....Then again I could be totally off base too.

Sasquatch

Well, first of all, I think the differentiation between shooting a rat or a deer is pretty simple, most states have classifications for animals, e.g. vermin, big game, small game, migratory game bird and so on. Pests and vermin are exempt from game laws typically, and you can kill them as you see fit, as long as it doesn't violate some other law, i.e. using dynamite in our back yard, or DDT spraying for critters such as these. ....an interesting side-note, an ALLIGATOR is considerd SMALL GAME in GA--go figure

As to the landowners owning the game and extending a privelege, I don't agree with that one. You can be granted permission to hunt on someone elses property, but all particulars regarding hunting that you do on that property is subject to state hunting regulations. As others have mentioned, the State has dominion over (I prefer that to 'owns') the game animals.

And yes Crazy, we absolutely need the regulations in place to manage the game populations, or as you stated, some folks would just take whatever whenever.

I do agree that most license and hunting fee programs were brought about by demand from sportsmen, and this with the goal of preserving these resources for healthy populations for the future.

Never said anything about landowners owning the game.

I have always been under the belief the animals belong to the state. If you are hunting ANYWHERE without permission of the property owner you are poaching IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by drewhenrytnt:
Never said anything about landowners owning the game.

I have always been under the belief the animals belong to the state. If you are hunting ANYWHERE without permission of the property owner you are poaching IMO.

Ah yes, poaching the King's deer.

The idea the animals belong to the King or his nobles is very European.

Here, the tradition is the game belongs to THE PEOPLE, not the state. Although the state now acts as if the animals are theirs alone.

Hunting might be a tradition, but its certainly not a right! How can it be a right?? If it can be taken away, then its certainly not a right! Break the law, and lose your ability to hunt in many states throughout the country. That's certainly not a right. Here in CO, fail to pay your child-support and lose your ability to hunt/buy license.

Buying/drawing a hunting license has stipulations, like age limits, hunter safety requirements, resident/non-resident status, etc, etc. Obviously not a right.

The constitution guarantees us the "right" to bare arms, not to hunt.

quote:

The constitution guarantees us the "right" to bare arms, not to hunt.

And I always wear short-sleeved shirts to show them off, too.

BTW, just FYI, the right to bear arms and the right to vote can also be taken away. That's what any felony conviction does.

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:

quote:

The constitution guarantees us the "right" to bare arms, not to hunt.

And I always wear short-sleeved shirts to show them off, too.

BTW, just FYI, the right to bear arms and the right to vote can also be taken away. That's what any felony conviction does.

Ya, not sure where my spelling brain was on that one? And you make a good point too!

Legally, if you are a non Indian, it is a privelage.

Look at all the legal pressure to ban it, or all the odd rules (no rifle season in Iowa but Nebraska seems to manage just fine?)

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Hunting might be a tradition, but its certainly not a right! How can it be a right?? If it can be taken away, then its certainly not a right! Break the law, and lose your ability to hunt in many states throughout the country. That's certainly not a right. Here in CO, fail to pay your child-support and lose your ability to hunt/buy license.

Buying/drawing a hunting license has stipulations, like age limits, hunter safety requirements, resident/non-resident status, etc, etc. Obviously not a right.

The constitution guarantees us the "right" to bare arms, not to hunt.

Do you believe the second amendment is a right?

Felons lose that right.

How about to vote?

Yup, Felons lose that too.

Of course rights can be taken away or ignored.

Alabama

Amendment 597 ratified

Sportsperson's Bill of Rights.
(a) All persons shall have the right to hunt and fish in this state in accordance with law and regulations.
(b) This amendment shall be known as the "Sportsperson's Bill of Rights."

quote:

Originally posted by Duckear:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Hunting might be a tradition, but its certainly not a right! How can it be a right?? If it can be taken away, then its certainly not a right! Break the law, and lose your ability to hunt in many states throughout the country. That's certainly not a right. Here in CO, fail to pay your child-support and lose your ability to hunt/buy license.

Buying/drawing a hunting license has stipulations, like age limits, hunter safety requirements, resident/non-resident status, etc, etc. Obviously not a right.

The constitution guarantees us the "right" to bare arms, not to hunt.

Do you believe the second amendment is a right?

Felons lose that right.

How about to vote?

Yup, Felons lose that too.

Of course rights can be taken away or ignored.

Yes guys, I understand that. My point was, you do start out with the right to BEAR arms, and of course it can be taken away too. But no one starts out with the "right" to hunt, or rarely for sure.

Not saying I agree with it, but just commenting on the exact question.

We have a narrowly limited number of rights. People are forever cooking up new rights, as if it was a matter of popularity and boosterism. I don't think there is a right to hunting. Hunting is a privilege. It is a privilege I highly value. I'm very excited about a DIY elk hunt I'll be doing in about 10 days, my third such DIY elk hunt. Notwithstanding, it is my opinion -- others are free to think differently -- that hunting is a privilege.

Rights and Privileges are the topic of discussion brought to light whenever individuals feel they, are losing, lost and/or are miss informed about either topic.
I have spent the last 30 years employed working in the penal, employment and education systems. What seems to be a right or a privilege primarily depends on each individual’s ability to follow the basic rules of society. I have the right to apply for and then take a driving test to acquire a driving license. It is a privilege to keep that license if I follow the rules of the so called road.
What I have found through my work experiences is that the right gives each individual a chance to attain some type of goal, were a privilege has been earned through competition of the goal and/or attaining some type of training or certificate.
Is hunting a privilege or right? I have the right to attain a hunting safety certificate if I pass all the required courses. I have the right to attain a hunting license if I do not have any legal issues blocking my application.
It is a privilege to hunt on public land and to treat it with respect. It is a privilege to hunt with permission on private land and to treat it with respect. It is a privilege to have a license and to treat the animals hunted with respect before, during and after the kill.
To me the biggest privilege/honor is sharing the hunting experience with family friends and new hunters.. Olefish

Hunting for the neccessity of food is a right. It is a basic law of nature and wild animals still live that way. However, Hunting game as a human in today's society where food is available all over the place is a priviledge,
Able to be taken away from those that abuse it or prove themselves unworthy.

The right to hunt is derived from the same stream as the right to bear arms. Read the book.

We recently passed the "Right to Hunt" provision to the Constitution here in TN. What this means is that the state cannot eliminate hunting, and there is the implication that the state must allow for seasons that allow the citizens to hunt for the game that belong to the people. The state, through taxpayers taxes and license fees will then act as police, conservationists, and environmentalist to protect the species of game animals that belong to the people. The state will then establish seasons and limits to help ensure the preservation of the people's game.

That's what it is supposed to mean.