# Is Hunting a "RIGHT" or a "PRIVILEGE"



## Justice

I hear alot of old timers say, "in the hay days of the 60's... blah blah" that they were killing monster bucks and there were plenty of deer for everyone. But I have to wonder how it was back in the 1860's?

I wonder how much crying people did when they made regulations to only take one deer a year?

Isnt the simple truth that with the hunting population at an all time high that the hunted population is in a severe drought? please disagree with me that something has to be done to limit the number of animals taken each year. If not why dont we just turn people loose the way it use to be? Gee, I wonder what the animal numbers would be then?


----------



## bullsnot

I understand your point but I don't think anyone is saying there shouldn't be limits. I think what some are saying is that we have a mule deer plan in place. A lot of resources went into creating that plan and a lot of money has been spent yet after only 2 years we are changing that plan without an identifiable biological benefit. 

I'm all for limits, but putting limits in place that make sense are the key to the current disagreements going on with mule deer hunting in Utah.


----------



## LoneClarity

bullsnot,
Are you more concerned about the 29 unit system, or 18 buck to doe ratio?


----------



## yfzduner450

It's a privilege and should be regulated. If it wasn't there would be no more deer in 1 year.


----------



## Huntoholic

Justice said:


> .....Isnt the simple truth that with the hunting population at an all time high that the hunted population is in a severe drought? please disagree with me that something has to be done to limit the number of animals taken each year. If not why dont we just turn people loose the way it use to be? Gee, I wonder what the animal numbers would be then?


The hunting population is not at an all time high, but trending down. Most people will agree that there needs to be something done, but at that point it is where the heart ache comes. Some people think it is a right to be able to see one buck for every doe. Some people think it is a right to see a 30" buck around every corner. Some people think it is a right to not see another soul on the mountain while they are there.

Here is the definition of "privilege"
"The rights and advantages enjoyed by a relatively small group of people, usually as a result of wealth or social status."

Sounds to me like hunting has become a privilege..............


----------



## bullsnot

LoneClarity said:


> bullsnot,
> Are you more concerned about the 29 unit system, or 18 buck to doe ratio?


My more serious concerns are surrounding the buck to doe ratios. Here why:

1 - By increasing the buck to doe ratios by 3:100 the average Utah hunter will see one more buck per day in the field than they are accumstomized to seeing. (If you assume the average hunter sees 33 does per day and sees 5 bucks already per day) Seems like a very small payoff for 13,000 people being unable to hunt and losing all that revenue.

2 - The stage is set for more serious tag cuts. If the mimimum buck:doe ratio is not met in a unit then tags are cut. Those tags will not be added to other units and will not come back in that unit until the ratio is at 25:100. This is a reason why I don't like the micro concept either.

3 - I do not believe in stock piling bucks so that only a few can hunt monsters. I do believe in having enough bucks for a healthy herd. So for me I draw the line for the number of tags to handed out between those 2 concepts.


----------



## Bowdacious

Hunting is a GOD given RIGHT! Animals are here for man's benefit and use....however, with this right there comes a RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE what God has given us!


----------



## Igottabigone

yfzduner450 said:


> It's a privilege and should be regulated. If it wasn't there would be no more deer in 1 year.


Hunting is a right IMO. Rights can also be regulated.


----------



## yfzduner450

Igottabigone said:


> yfzduner450 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a privilege and should be regulated. If it wasn't there would be no more deer in 1 year.
> 
> 
> 
> Hunting is a right IMO. Rights can also be regulated.
Click to expand...

Honest question: How so??? What makes it a right?


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

When I started hunting back in the late 70's you could buy a buck archery tag, a buck rifle tag, and usually always draw a doe tag all in the same year. There were 149000 deer hunters in the field on opening day and hunter success was around 30%. Slightly lower for bowhunters at around 21%. There were deer everywhere and lots of nice bucks.

Now, I'll tell you what there weren't a lot of back then. People, Elk, and cougars. The population of Utah was still under a million people. Now there are almost three million in the state. There was no limit on cougars and anyone who wanted could buy a permit and go shoot one. There weren't many elk pushing the deer off the range either. So, consequently the deer basically had free run of the place.

This trend continued clear through the 80's and into the 90's. Then we started raising more elk, killing WAY less cats, and filling the state with habitat robbing homes and deer killing highways.

It's really simple people. You want more deer? Kill more elk, kill WAY more cats, and stop building houses where deer winter. Duh...

Manage for a higher buck doe ratio??? :? Ya, that'll work! :roll:


----------



## Vanilla

Very well put Tex-O-Bob!

If hunting is a privilege, then I guess everyone should be okay that there are groups who are trying to make it so only the rich can do it. Utah becomes more like England for sportsman every year it seems...


----------



## hoghunter011583

TEX-O-BOB said:


> When I started hunting back in the late 70's you could buy a buck archery tag, a buck rifle tag, and usually always draw a doe tag all in the same year. There were 149000 deer hunters in the field on opening day and hunter success was around 30%. Slightly lower for bowhunters at around 21%. There were deer everywhere and lots of nice bucks.
> 
> Now, I'll tell you what there weren't a lot of back then. People, Elk, and cougars. The population of Utah was still under a million people. Now there are almost three million in the state. There was no limit on cougars and anyone who wanted could buy a permit and go shoot one. There weren't many elk pushing the deer off the range either. So, consequently the deer basically had free run of the place.
> 
> This trend continued clear through the 80's and into the 90's. Then we started raising more elk, killing WAY less cats, and filling the state with habitat robbing homes and deer killing highways.
> 
> It's really simple people. You want more deer? Kill more elk, kill WAY more cats, and stop building houses where deer winter. Duh...
> 
> Manage for a higher buck doe ratio??? :? Ya, that'll work! :roll:


You nailed it!! You can't fix a problem by making up some hair brained "plan". You have to stop doing what is causeing the problem. That is like drinking a bottle of Vodka everynight and taking vitamins for your liver!!


----------



## hoghunter011583

I say hunting is a privilege, that is why you need a license. It is the same as driving a car. Owning a gun is a right, having children is a right, hunting and fishing are privileges.


----------



## Finnegan

Hunting is a right. We obviously have to check ourselves to conserve resources, but hunting is still a right.

Our government remains a government by the people. When the government fails to represent the will of the people, it loses control. (Remember the 55 mph speed limit?) A change that Tex didn't mention was that in the 60's and early 70's, hunters had little regard for regulations because those regulations didn't make sense. So party-hunting, double-tagging, bogus tags and poaching were common practices. Hunters had no voice and little respect for the regulations that attempted to control them. When hunters gained a voice and confidence in the regulations was restored, an attitude of respect for regulation became the norm.

In the recent Board decision, Perkins suggested a compromise that at least reflected the will of the RACs. The Board rejected that suggestion. I hope they come to see the wisdom of it as they consider the rest of their new management plan because if they lose the support of hunters, it will probably be the death knell of mule deer in Utah.


----------



## Theekillerbee

If I could add one more item to Tex's post. We used to poison the piss out of dead cows and sheep. Lots of predators met their demise to poisoned animals. Too many tree huggers pissed and moaned about how it killed raptors...blah, blah, blah, so we stopped doing it! Bring back the poison!!!! It'll kill way more yotes cats and foxes than any trapper/hunter can, and it'll probably take out a few of those wolves as well!


----------



## killdeer

_Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary_ rivilege,n:right granted as an advantage or favor.

So, it is a right a long as I pay and apply for the favor. Actually I might have the advantage over many of you. I exercise my right to hunt any time and place I choose. I take whatever and any number of weapons I choose. At select times I might even take an animal. I hunt both public and private lands. I subscribe to the idea that rights exist with responsibility. So for the good of our collective resources I only take animals in the subscribed ways and times identified by those I grant the privilege of representing and protecting the rights of the masses in man made law, I also believe in private ownership, so I only hunt private land with permission.

I visited a friend in jail once. Didn't like what I saw. His rights were somewhat impacted. So I protect my rights with responsible behavior. :mrgreen:


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

> A change that Tex didn't mention was that in the 60's and early 70's, hunters had little regard for regulations because those regulations didn't make sense. So party-hunting, double-tagging, bogus tags and poaching were common practices.


You don't think that crap still happens today? C'mon Finn! There will always be dirtbag hunters out there ruining it for all of us. The only difference now is there are less deer for those guys to kill as well. The pool of lunatic fringe and idiots hasn't dwindled over the years, just the pool of animals for them to shoot at. More people might be a little more aware of WHY we have game laws, but just as many people still don't give a sh*t.


----------



## sawsman

Bowdacious said:


> Hunting is a GOD given RIGHT! Animals are here for man's benefit and use....however, with this right there comes a RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE what God has given us!


A-FREAKING-MEN!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

sawsman said:


> Bowdacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunting is a GOD given RIGHT! Animals are here for man's benefit and use....however, with this right there comes a RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE what God has given us!
> 
> 
> 
> A-FREAKING-MEN!
Click to expand...

I disagree, and policy shouldn't be dictated by suppositions about god or any other dogmatic belief for that matter.

BUT, I do believe it is our duty as beings of superior intelligence to limit ourselves and to take responsibility to see that everything under the sun is taken care of with good con_science_. We simply have too much power as human beings to dictate who gets to ride on the bus. When ego and money driven policy is put into place, on any plane, consciousness and common sense are threatened, resulting in negative results, especially when nature is concerned.


----------



## sawsman

Treehugnhuntr said:


> sawsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bowdacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunting is a GOD given RIGHT! Animals are here for man's benefit and use....however, with this right there comes a RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE what God has given us!
> 
> 
> 
> A-FREAKING-MEN!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree, and policy shouldn't be dictated by suppositions about *G*od or any other dogmatic belief for that matter.
> 
> BUT, I do believe it is our duty as beings of superior intelligence to limit ourselves and to take responsibility to see that everything under the sun is taken care of with good con_science_. We simply have too much power as human beings to dictate who gets to ride on the bus. When ego and money driven policy is put into place, on any plane, consciousness and common sense are threatened, resulting in negative results, especially when nature is concerned.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for ya Tree. 

I like science too and we should be using it to help the deer herds. :?

I'll throw up a prayer if that'll help.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

sawsman said:


> I'll throw up a prayer if that'll help.


It'd be sure to help at least as much as the recently accepted management revisions. :mrgreen:


----------



## TEX-O-BOB

Treehugnhuntr said:


> sawsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll throw up a prayer if that'll help.
> 
> 
> 
> It'd be sure to help at least as much as the recently accepted management revisions. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Tree, you don't throw up when you pray do you? :mrgreen:


----------



## Bowdacious

TEX-O-BOB said:


> Treehugnhuntr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sawsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll throw up a prayer if that'll help.
> 
> 
> 
> It'd be sure to help at least as much as the recently accepted management revisions. :mrgreen:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tree, you don't throw up when you pray do you? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I'm sure he does....at least just a little bit in his mouth! _(O)_


----------



## sawsman

I just hope he doesn't throw up when he prays over his meal when eating in public. That would be a site.. _/O


----------



## Daisy

When looking at the USA as a whole, there are a few examples (i.e. Tennessee, Arkansas, etc) that have hunting/fishing a right by including this activity in their State constitution. Clearly this right is not recognized by a majority of States. Conventional wisdom indicates that our various founding fathers thought hunting/fishing a privilege and not a right, by not contitutionally including it in these documents that our country is based on.


----------



## proutdoors

The Constitution does NOT define individual rights! It defines the LIMITS the government has. There are numerous rights not specified in the Constitution.


----------



## Daisy

proutdoors said:



> The Constitution does NOT define individual rights! It defines the LIMITS the government has. There are numerous rights not specified in the Constitution.


And what does Article 1 of the Utah State Constitution define?

For example:

Article I, Section 6. [Right to bear arms.]
The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

http://le.utah.gov/~code/const/00I01.htm


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt

Daisy said:


> When looking at the USA as a whole, there are a few examples (i.e. Tennessee, Arkansas, etc) that have hunting/fishing a right by including this activity in their State constitution. Clearly this right is not recognized by a majority of States. Conventional wisdom indicates that our various founding fathers thought hunting/fishing a privilege and not a right, by not contitutionally including it in these documents that our country is based on.


I am not a constitutional expert by any means but I would assert that at the time the constitution was written as well as most if not all state constitutions the authors of the documents would not have even thought to include hunting or fishing as protected rights. The overwhelming majority hunted and fished for subsistence and was what we would consider rural today. Sometimes when reading these documents it is important to not only read the words as written but read from the perspective of what daily life was when the words were written.


----------



## WEK

The answer depends entirely on how you define "right" for purposes of the question. 

If you're asking whether hunting is a "right" for purposes of US Federal Law, the answer is pretty clearly no. 

If you're asking whether hunting is a "right" for purposes of the laws of the several states, it is up to each individual state to declare what constitutes a right under its state constitution. 

If, however, you're asking whether hunting is a "natural right," (i.e., a "God-given" right or a right which is inherent to all mankind) then the answer may be entirely different. 

WEK


----------



## hoghunter011583

I think we need to take a deep look at what a right is in the first place. To say it is only a right if it is in the constitution is then letting the founders (men) tell me what a right is in the first place. So with that attitude I just asking some other person to give me a right. Fact is they said Life, Liberty and the persuit of happyness are the God given rights. I don't think hunting is a right, just like driving a car. Doing what I want for work, starting a business, getting married to who I want to marry, having kids, living where I want to live, etc. These are RIGHTS and I am not asking anyone to grant me the right. Snowmobiling, fishing, mountain bike riding, hunting, these are priviledges because they are just fun stuff do to. You are harvesting or using a natural resourse and so I can't see you or I have a right to take it. That is like me saying I am going to build a log cabin and I have a right to go cut down trees on national forest to build it. Now, if you have private land, it is your right to do what you want with that land and the animals. Public land is a different story though.


----------



## Igottabigone

hoghunter011583 said:


> I think we need to take a deep look at what a right is in the first place. To say it is only a right if it is in the constitution is then letting the founders (men) tell me what a right is in the first place. So with that attitude I just asking some other person to give me a right. Fact is they said Life, Liberty and the persuit of happyness are the God given rights. I don't think hunting is a right, just like driving a car. Doing what I want for work, starting a business, getting married to who I want to marry, having kids, living where I want to live, etc. These are RIGHTS and I am not asking anyone to grant me the right. Snowmobiling, fishing, mountain bike riding, hunting, these are priviledges because they are just fun stuff do to. You are harvesting or using a natural resourse and so I can't see you or I have a right to take it. That is like me saying I am going to build a log cabin and I have a right to go cut down trees on national forest to build it. Now, if you have private land, it is your right to do what you want with that land and the animals. Public land is a different story though.


WOW!


----------



## Uni

hoghunter011583 said:


> I think we need to take a deep look at what a right is in the first place. To say it is only a right if it is in the constitution is then letting the founders (men) tell me what a right is in the first place. So with that attitude I just asking some other person to give me a right. Fact is they said Life, Liberty and the persuit of happyness are the God given rights. I don't think hunting is a right, just like driving a car. Doing what I want for work, starting a business, getting married to who I want to marry, having kids, living where I want to live, etc. These are RIGHTS and I am not asking anyone to grant me the right. Snowmobiling, fishing, mountain bike riding, hunting, these are priviledges because they are just fun stuff do to. You are harvesting or using a natural resourse and so I can't see you or I have a right to take it. That is like me saying I am going to build a log cabin and I have a right to go cut down trees on national forest to build it. Now, if you have private land, it is your right to do what you want with that land and the animals. Public land is a different story though.


 Completely agree, and no this isn't a troll post. Hunting isn't a right no matter how much we might want it to be.


----------



## BugleB

Hunting is more than a right or a privilege, it is a necessity.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

How so?


----------



## RECURVE

History lesson reminder. My intent is not to seem more educated, or in any other way superior to any of you. As stated in this document I only feel myself equal in the rights and opportunites granted to me by my Creator as any of you. I also would only like this to be a reflection of my gratitude for the freedoms I enjoy and in remembrance of Pearl Harbor Day and the Christmas season.

We hold these truths to be* self-evident,* that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their* Creator *with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever* any *Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--


----------



## elkfromabove

hoghunter011583 said:


> I think we need to take a deep look at what a right is in the first place. To say it is only a right if it is in the constitution is then letting the founders (men) tell me what a right is in the first place. So with that attitude I just asking some other person to give me a right. Fact is they said Life, Liberty and the persuit of happyness are the God given rights. I don't think hunting is a right, just like driving a car. Doing what I want for work, starting a business, getting married to who I want to marry, having kids, living where I want to live, etc. These are RIGHTS and I am not asking anyone to grant me the right. Snowmobiling, fishing, mountain bike riding, hunting, these are privileges because they are just fun stuff do to. You are harvesting or using a natural resourse and so I can't see you or I have a right to take it. That is like me saying I am going to build a log cabin and I have a right to go cut down trees on national forest to build it. *Now, if you have private land, it is your right to do what you want with that land and the animals. Public land is a different story though*.


I have 3 points to make!

1) Let's get closer to the source! Per the Royal Standard English Dictionary by William Perry, printed Brookfield, Massachusetts in October,1809. (This was the most popular dictionary of that time and was probably the one used in the education of our Founding Fathers, and is representative of the thinking of the day.)
Privilege, _s_. (subject/noun) public right; peculiar advantage:
Right, _s_. the side not _left_; just claim; justice; interest; prerogative; privilege; property:

It appears that in the minds, writings, conversations, and debates of those who founded our country the two words were pretty much synonymous/interchangeable, the only difference being the peculiar advantage part. Maybe that's where this debate comes in. Personally, I think they were/are synonymous and that hunting was/is a right and the reason it was never addressed in the Constitution was because it was considered just a part of living/"Life".

2) IMHO, "the pursuit of happiness" certainly includes "fun stuff to do".

3) You're certainly welcome to do what you want with your _land_, but the wild animals on it are mobile and thus do not belong to you. They belong to the public and are protected via DWR and Wildlife Board regulations. You can't legally kill those darn deer eating your petunias anytime you want!!! Yah, I know some of those wild animals are not protected, and some of them fall under the jurisdiction of other agencies, but that's not your decision to make just because they happen to be on your land!!

Well, on with the debate!


----------



## Igottabigone

The Declaration of Independence is a great document. However, it is not part of the legal standards followed by courts today. The Constitution on the other hand is the foundation of our legal standards. Therefore, when entertaining this argument in a legal sense it would likely be best to refer to the Ninth amendment of the Constitution. The Rights retained by the people include hunting animals in my opinion. This is not to say there are no restrictions on this right. Rights are restricted all the time. An easy illustration of this is the restrictions placed on speech and on bearing arms. Hunting, in my mind, is a right and is subject to reasonable restrictions. Hunting has been part of man's history for thousands of years. Whether for substinence or sport, it is still a right.


----------



## hoghunter011583

BugleB said:


> Hunting is more than a right or a privilege, it is a necessity.


How do you figure that? Don't tell me that you HAVE to hunt for food. I mean for me it saves me money but I would prolly make more money if I devoted all the time and thought about hunting into work, I'd be able to use that money to buy food and still save a little.


----------



## 1BandMan

Huntoholic said:


> Justice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the definition of "privilege"
> "The rights and advantages enjoyed by a relatively small group of people, usually as a result of wealth or social status."
> 
> Sounds to me like hunting has become a privilege..............
Click to expand...

It's been that way for a while.....its just now becoming more and more painfully obvious.


----------



## MadHunter

proutdoors said:


> The Constitution does NOT define individual rights! It defines the LIMITS the government has. There are numerous rights not specified in the Constitution.


Very well stated Pro. Not all rights are stated in the constitution, US or state(s).

On that note...I heard a professor once say in a lecture that *"rights cannot be restricted or taken away, privileges are regulated and granted".* However, I see a lot of things I would consider rights being restricted. I have the right to marry, but only 1 person and it has to be a female (in my case being male) and I need a license to do so. I can live in any state I wish to, unless I am on parole or probation. The constitution says that my "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", however I cannot buy a gun if I have been convicted of a violent crime.

I think that out of necessity and by the fault of abusers, criminals and other such people we have found ourselves in the situation of having to regulate every right and privilege that we have. We have legislated our selves way to much and we have been affected in many negative ways because of it. Now we have this trend of legislating from the judicial bench and things get even worse.

Personally I think that long ago hunting was a right and a necessity in order to eat. Now it is a sport and has gone from a right to a privilege.


----------



## massmanute

Igottabigone said:


> Hunting is a right IMO. Rights can also be regulated.


I echo that view.

That said, I don't believe hunting is mentioned in either the State or Federal Constitutions. This would put it in the realm of a right that is not explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution, but in my view it is implicitly covered in the 9th and 10th amendments.


----------



## massmanute

Historically, hunting was a privilege, reserved for the King and his cronies. Hunting by common folk like you and I was a crime. Fortunately, we fought a revolution to change the social structure to do away with special privileges granted to the King.


----------



## Vanilla

A natural right, yes. A legal right, no.


----------



## massmanute

TS30 said:


> A natural right, yes. A legal right, no.


A very interesting perspective.


----------



## Springville Shooter

Treehugnhuntr said:


> I disagree, and policy shouldn't be dictated by suppositions about god or any other dogmatic belief for that matter.
> 
> BUT, I do believe it is our duty as beings of superior intelligence to limit ourselves and to take responsibility to see that everything under the sun is taken care of with good con_science_. We simply have too much power as human beings to dictate who gets to ride on the bus. When ego and money driven policy is put into place, on any plane, consciousness and common sense are threatened, resulting in negative results, especially when nature is concerned.


Hey Tree, Where did you get the part about "beings of superior intelligence"? I'd like you to cite your source on that statement.:rotfl:I think that some on this very forum create a viable arguement to this idea.----SS


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

How does the saying go?

"You can lead a human to knowledge but you can't make them think"


----------



## derekp1999

Even though the definition of the 2 words seem intertwined... in my mind 
right = entitlement 
privilege = opportunity.

For me I would say that hunting would be a privilege. I am entitled to a lot of things in life... I don't feel that hunting is one of them.


----------



## Lonetree

This is one of the reasons that some of the founders were against the Bill of Rights. It was thought that it could be interpreted that anything not enumerated, was not a right. The founders were well aware of English common law, and the strides made since the Magna Carta. In 1217, the Charta De Foresta which was a sister document to the Magna Carta was issued. This is the document, that declared that the deer belonged to the people, and not to the king. This became English common law, that stands to this day. Rights granted by the Magna Carta, and the Charte de Foresta that were English common law at the time of the United States Constitution being written, were bestowed upon all free men of the time. The Founders borrowed heavy from English common law, and any rights bestowed by that common law, were recognized and carried over into the founding of this nation. Many had lived under those laws, for 200 years, on this continent, prior to our founding.

Hunting has been a natural right forever, but recognized law since at least 1217. Carte De Foresta is the basis for almost all public lands and water doctrines in the world, including ours. Carte De Foresta of 1217 is the long lost great grandfather of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation

With that in mind, go read all the new, and rewritten language for the Dedicated hunter program here. 
http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/info/2013-11_rac_packet.pdf It is towards the end. They remove the word conservation 11 times, it remains only once.

With the same mind frame, read this: http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2012/03/group-founder-declares-north-american-hunting-model-%E2%80%9Csocialism%E2%80%9D

It is not Socialism, it is a right and a responsibility.

We did not have to ask if hunting was a right or a privilege all that long ago, it was well established that it was a right of both nature and law. But if things continue the way they are going, some may be asking this question more often. And that is exactly how some people want it, as they rewrite, and take away our rights. Being something untangible, unlike a gun, many of you don't even realized what has, and is being taken from you and your children.

Is the "The right to bear arms"(self defense), a privilege or a right?


----------



## Old Fudd

Tex>> Nail on the Head. Started hunting in the early 60's 230.000 hunters. a freaking zoo.
Lots of Drunks Lots of Crazyness.. Ton and Tons of Party Hunting.. Holly Shyte!! Scary Scary..to many anterless tags to many units allowed.. 3 deer BEAVER for one.. Is it a Right? or a Privilege..? I feel blessed to get a tag anymore..


----------



## High Desert Elk

TS30 said:


> A natural right, yes. A legal right, no.


So who decides what is a natural or legal right? Historically and from a survival standpoint it is a right, not privelage. To serve others for a greater purpose is a privelage.

Only lawyers and twisted politicians confuse the two.


----------



## Lonetree

High Desert Elk said:


> So who decides what is a natural or legal right? Historically and from a survival standpoint it is a right, not privelage. To serve others for a greater purpose is a privelage.
> 
> Only lawyers and twisted politicians confuse the two.


Who are you going to let decide?


----------



## KineKilla

This post is 2+ years old....however....

I think hunting is a right more than a privilege. It is a right that had to be regulated because of the growing population. 

The problem we have here in UT is that we have become so dependent on the revenue that these animals provide, we are now having to find creative ways to do what is right for the animals, without hurting our bottom line.

As always, my .02


----------



## Lonetree

KineKilla said:


> This post is 2+ years old....however....
> 
> I think hunting is a right more than a privilege. It is a right that had to be regulated because of the growing population.
> 
> The problem we have here in UT is that we have become so dependent on the revenue that these animals provide, we are now having to find creative ways to do what is right for the animals, without hurting our bottom line.
> 
> As always, my .02


I already noted that privileges can be regulated, that is not the issue. The problem is that there is a trend, and a movement away from the roots of how hunting was established as a right of law, 800 years ago. As that right and its foundation is challenged, it gets replaced with law and doctrine that weaken our rights, until eventually as sportsmen, our existence has little semblance of the heritage that spawned it. Hunters not understanding their rights, or where they come form, only leads us further down this path, until once again, the deer belong to the king, and he alone decides who can hunt them.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> I already noted that privileges can be regulated, that is not the issue. The problem is that there is a trend, and a movement away from the roots of how hunting was established as a right of law, 800 years ago. As that right and its foundation is challenged, it gets replaced with law and doctrine that weaken our rights, until eventually as sportsmen, our existence has little semblance of the heritage that spawned it. Hunters not understanding their rights, or where they come form, only leads us further down this path, until once again, the deer belong to the king, and he alone decides who can hunt them.


Points taken and I agree but I also recognize the fact that 800 years ago their was just about as many people on the entire Earth that now live in the U.S. alone. The game that was gifted to us has not fared nearly as well.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Points taken and I agree but I also recognize the fact that 800 years ago their was just about as many people on the entire Earth that now live in the U.S. alone. The game that was gifted to us has not fared nearly as well.


That is irrelevant to the argument of whether hunting is a right or a privilege. Key provisions of the doctrine that was set forth by the Charte De Foresta have been reaffirmed and upheld, world wide, over the last 800 years. The charter stood in England until the 1970s when parts were then reaffirmed and superseded by new laws, not all for the best of those in the UK, especially those that hunt. Much of that came about because of the very argument you just put forth. Our own Supreme Court has upheld several pieces of the Charte De Foresta doctrine. Time is precedence, and precedence is the strength of law, it can also become its weakness without vigilance.

Wildlife declines lead to a reduced opportunity, reduced opportunity creates demand, demand increases value, and value then dictates the power structure, one incremental change at a time. That power structure then decides whether hunting is a privilege or a right of the people. I mean, we are doing this for the kids and the deer, its a good argument, right?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> That is irrelevant to the argument of whether hunting is a right or a privilege. Key provisions of the doctrine that was set forth by the Charte De Foresta have been reaffirmed and upheld, world wide, over the last 800 years. The charter stood in England until the 1970s when parts were then reaffirmed and superseded by new laws, not all for the best of those in the UK, especially those that hunt. Much of that came about because of the very argument you just put forth. Our own Supreme Court has upheld several pieces of the Charte De Foresta doctrine. Time is precedence, and precedence is the strength of law, it can also become its weakness without vigilance.
> 
> Wildlife declines lead to a reduced opportunity, reduced opportunity creates demand, demand increases value, and value then dictates the power structure, one incremental change at a time. That power structure then decides whether hunting is a privilege or a right of the people. I mean, we are doing this for the kids and the deer, its a good argument, right?


Once again I agree with most of it but I also think that somethings have to change with time as they have. I have read the literature and studied history as well and have a fairly good idea how supply and demand works. Fact is though when there is not sufficient supply to meet the demand for each person that wants to hunt, to actually hunt, it becomes a privilege. Define it how you want and try to explain it away with a lecture or an attempt to look smarter than the next guy. I am not going to argue the erosion of freedom with you. Fact is if there is always a bowl of candy to eat on the table people take it for granted, next thing you know when the candy is all gone the same people that ate it all are left wondering where it went. Having another piece of candy at that point in time becomes a privilege to those that want it.

Grab a gun and go polar bear hunting or try something as simple as bringing whale bone across the border. Let me know how the right vs privilege argument works for you. If hunting polar bear were strictly a right they would be extinct.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Once again I agree with most of it but I also think that somethings have to change with time as they have. I have read the literature and studied history as well and have a fairly good idea how supply and demand works. Fact is though when there is not sufficient supply to meet the demand for each person that wants to hunt, to actually hunt, it becomes a privilege. Define it how you want and try to explain it away with a lecture or an attempt to look smarter than the next guy. I am not going to argue the erosion of freedom with you. Fact is if there is always a bowl of candy to eat on the table people take it for granted, next thing you know when the candy is all gone the same people that ate it all are left wondering where it went. Having another piece of candy at that point in time becomes a privilege to those that want it.
> 
> Grab a gun and go polar bear hunting or try something as simple as bringing whale bone across the border. Let me know how the right vs privilege argument works for you. If hunting polar bear were strictly a right they would be extinct.


There is the good old defeatist that I know, err uh, I mean I don't know, but then again, how did I recognize the defeatism, huh?. There is a difference between regulation, and the erosion of "freedom". I will assume you meant rights, as they are two different things, and it is rights that are at the center of this discussion.

YOU can slice it up and explain it however you want. *****************************************************

Hunting is a right of the people, by law, and how we got there matters. Arguments that take away from that, are in essence anti hunting, whether they come from "hunters" or not.

If my intellectualism bothers you, its not my problem, take some responsibility, and go deal with it. Don't make me tell you again....


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

It is your lack of intellectualism and overwhelming abundance of elitism that bothers me. If you would read and then comprehend, you would see my comments have had nothing to do with money. I was simply stating that there are more hunters right now than the deer population can afford. There are more hunters than animals in general can afford. More people than animals can afford. I have spoken out against the SFW more times than you could ever imagine. Lost a friend to it in fact. I am against everything that the money chain creates. We are talking two different things. Sorry you can't see that.

I hope we meet again to see if you would like to repeat the same comments you just made. I would bet you turn a shade yellow. If you choose to speak the same you will be doing so from your back.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Lonetree said:


> Who are you going to let decide?


Decide what?


----------



## Lonetree

High Desert Elk said:


> Decide what?


Whether its a right or a privilege.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> It is your lack of intellectualism and overwhelming abundance of elitism that bothers me. If you would read and then comprehend, you would see my comments have had nothing to do with money. I was simply stating that there are more hunters right now than the deer population can afford. There are more hunters than animals in general can afford. More people than animals can afford. I have spoken out against the SFW more times than you could ever imagine. Lost a friend to it in fact. I am against everything that the money chain creates. We are talking two different things. Sorry you can't see that.
> 
> I hope we meet again to see if you would like to repeat the same comments you just made. I would bet you turn a shade yellow. If you choose to speak the same you will be doing so from your back.


I never mentioned money, this is about philosophy and doctrine, and who supports what. You are making the argument that hunting is not a right, and you are using the same false pragmatism that the SFW crowd uses to promote this sentiment.

I may or may not be at the Northern RAC, depends on my daughters still undetermined schedule. Or I will be at the Brigham WMA Saturday planting bitterbrush and sagebrush seed. We can arrange something beyond that if neither of those work for you.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

It quit being a right once regulation and licensing became a requirement. It has always been a privilege for me regardless of what laws are written and how long they have been in existence and I have treated it as such. End of subject for me.

I may run into you again some day. I would never make it a special trip though. Not worth the effort.


----------



## Lonetree

No body cares how you "feel" about whether it is a right or a privilege, that's what is at the core of this issue. Regulation and licensing, are just the responsibility part, of our RIGHT to hunt.

You can't support your arguments, so you start talking trash, can't do the dozens, so you threaten violence, and then you back peddle.......Really? Just remember, much of this argument is about origins, and how they matter.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Lonetree said:


> Whether its a right or a privilege.


Why do I have to choose to let anyone decide for me? I am quite certain I am capable of doing that myself.

Much of the time that is the problem. Too many people allow others to decide what is best for them when in truth the "deciders" are so far removed and clueless they often do not know what is even best for themselves. The deciders are only in it for personnal gain and, frankly, really do not care about the overall outcome that affects everyone else. Deciders use decorative interpretation to accomplish a shallow purpose. Case in point, the ACA.

Hunting is both a right and privelage. It's my right as a parent and spouse to provide for a family and a privelage to teach my kids values in life through hunting.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> The fact that you will make the arguments that you are making, with Don Peay's dick in your mouth


This is what you resort to and I am talking trash? I am done Lonely.


----------



## Lonetree

High Desert Elk said:


> Why do I have to choose to let anyone decide for me? I am quite certain I am capable of doing that myself.
> 
> Much of the time that is the problem. Too many people allow others to decide what is best for them when in truth the "deciders" are so far removed and clueless they often do not know what is even best for themselves. The deciders are only in it for personnal gain and, frankly, really do not care about the overall outcome that affects everyone else. Deciders use decorative interpretation to accomplish a shallow purpose. Case in point, the ACA.
> 
> Hunting is both a right and privelage. It's my right as a parent and spouse to provide for a family and a privelage to teach my kids values in life through hunting.


You can ignore freedom of choice if you like, that is a right also.

My point is that hunting as a right has largely been settled as law, and reaffirmed by law, over and over again, for centuries. But only in the memorable past, do we question that. The reasons for this are quite disturbing, its not a healthy trend.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> This is what you resort to and I am talking trash? I am done Lonely.


Yes, you started in with making this about me, you initiated the ad homenin attacks, I responded, that is how the dozens go. If you had stuck to an argument that was about the issue at hand, I would have responded in kind.

But as usual, you have quips, rather than contributions. This is just more back peddling.

I think I have heard this hollow promise before.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Lonetree said:


> You can ignore freedom of choice if you like, that is a right also.
> 
> I guess I don't follow, but I would have to disagree about the right to ignore freedom of choice. By doing that, or exercising a right, wouldn't you be effectivly taking a right away from someone else? Freedom of choice allows you to govern yourself. Ignoring that is counterintuitive of what a right is in the first place.


----------



## Lonetree

Yes, choosing to not choose, is choice.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Or indifference. ;-)


----------



## Vanilla

To clarify my statement on natural vs legal rights....

Yes, I believe hunting has always been a natural, God-given right. For millennia, hunting was the most prominent way people provided food for their table. (or rock, before there were tables) Our ancestors across the globe didn't need a license, or leave of the government to be able to go get meat for the family or village. I fully believe that it is a natural, God-given right to be able to chase these critters for food and raiment. Nobody will ever be able to convince me otherwise. So yes, I believe this is a natural right. 

And yes, rights can be regulated. But once they become so regulated by laws, they cease to become rights from a legal standpoint, IMO. Call it what you want, but if I have to pass tests issued by the government, and obtain licenses, and get permission from the government to do something EVERY time I want to do it, I have no legal right to do that activity. Hence, why I said it is not a legal right. An example of another natural, God-given right that I believe in some places of the world has been taken away as a "legal right" is the right to believe and worship as your own conscience dictates. Why did people leave England to come to this land? Because they had a natural right that had been taken away from them by the government, and as much as you kicked and fought about it being a natural right, it certainly was not a legal right for them. 

That is how I feel about hunting today. I feel it is a God-given right for me, and you, to pursue these animals for food and raiment. I believe that right has been so regulated that it no longer exists as a legal right, but that doesn't change the foundation. Heck, even the laws talk about "hunting privileges." That ought to tell you where we are on this. 

So again, a natural right? Yes. A legal right? No. There is absolutely no confusion for me on the difference between the two.


----------



## Lonetree

Freedom of religion was being fought over in England, for 200 years before the Puritans came to this continent. Long before my family became part of the Mayflower company, we were fighting the king, and the kings church, on his home turf. We understood that freedom of religion, was more than just a natural right, and we were willing to stand by that.

So.....the second amendment is no longer a right? I mean its heavily regulated, so we should just give up on it, right? 

It is through this kind of apathy, false pragmatism, and just plain ignorance, that rights revert to something less that what they are.

To make the argument that regulation of our rights is needed to preserve them, and maintain them, is very reasonable. Charte De Foresta, does not explicitly say "man has a legal right to hunt" It spells out that the deer of the forest, even the kings forest, belong to all men. This is bestowing the right of responsibility of those deer, onto us. The greater the right, the greater the responsibility, and vise versa.

Those that currently promote that hunting is not a right, or that the deer do not belong to all of us, do so in an attempt to transfer the rights and responsibilities of us all, to the few. And in many ways this has already been accomplished to a great degree.

It is easy to sway people this direction, in this day and age. I mean you are not giving up legal rights, in your minds you will always have your "privilege", or natural right. YOU are giving up responsibility, and that is an easy sell for a lot of folks these days.

Its a legal right, and responsibility, until we decide otherwise. Then it belongs to someone else.


----------



## Vanilla

Lonetree, 

No reason to name call. Take a step back from the computer, take a Prozac, and call it a day. I didn't come on here calling you ignorant because you don't understand the legal rights vs natural right aspect I'm describing. You have your opinion, I have mine. Why does one of us have to be ignorant? Can't two people just happen to disagree on a subject, and have that be okay? 

The funny part is we actually are saying substantially the same thing. I'm just recognizing the reality of the situation, and you're holding on to some facade of freedom. Go "shake that tree"....let us all know how it goes.


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> Lonetree,
> 
> No reason to name call. Take a step back from the computer, take a Prozac, and call it a day. I didn't come on here calling you ignorant because you don't understand the legal rights vs natural right aspect I'm describing. You have your opinion, I have mine. Why does one of us have to be ignorant? Can't two people just happen to disagree on a subject, and have that be okay?
> 
> The funny part is we actually are saying substantially the same thing. I'm just recognizing the reality of the situation, and you're holding on to some facade of freedom. Go "shake that tree"....let us all know how it goes.


I'm not calling names, ignorance is a state, not a name. How is it that you can ignore 800 years of law, that bestows rights on you? Easy it also bestows responsibility. We can disagree, it does not change the facts and laws, of the last 800 years. Why won't you or anyone answer the question about the second amendment, as it relates to your arguments of false pragmatism? Playing the "current reality" card, is being a false pragmatist, and it breeds apathy, defeatism, and the erosion of rights.

I mean come on, we have so many people in the world, its not the same place it was in 1776, and we have so many regulations, we should just give in and accept that the second amendment, just does not apply anymore. That is the argument that you are making. And if such false sentiments were only to your demise, I would not care, but they affect me, and all hunters.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner, Go slop some mud. Liking posts by others that are arguing with me does not exactly support your stance of being done. I might take you seriously, if you stuck to your word.


----------



## Lonetree

Its the small justifications, and those that readily, and frequently make them, that lead to the big demises.


----------



## Vanilla

Comparing the current state of hunting to the current state of the 2nd amendment is not even apples to oranges, but apples to corn. They aren't even close. I don't have to pass a test, nor do I have to ask the government for a little piece of paper that gives me permission every time I want to possess a gun. You could argue background checks are similar, but they are not. Even with that, I can get online and buy thousands of guns without having to pass one, totally legal. And "the write to hunt" is not articulated in either the federal or state constitution, whereas the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms is written in both. So your question about the 2nd amendment is neither comparable, nor relevant, to the discussion you are trying to have here. 

You want to have an intelligent conversation, then let's have one. Not this red herring and fallacy infested bologna.


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> Comparing the current state of hunting to the current state of the 2nd amendment is not even apples to oranges, but apples to corn. They aren't even close. I don't have to pass a test, nor do I have to ask the government for a little piece of paper that gives me permission every time I want to possess a gun. You could argue background checks are similar, but they are not. Even with that, I can get online and buy thousands of guns without having to pass one, totally legal. And "the write to hunt" is not articulated in either the federal or state constitution, whereas the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms is written in both. So your question about the 2nd amendment is neither comparable, nor relevant, to the discussion you are trying to have here.
> 
> You want to have an intelligent conversation, then let's have one. Not this red herring and fallacy infested bologna.


The current state of affairs does not matter in the context of whether or not it is a right. That has been my point all along. I can get online and buy hundreds of hunts, no regulations also.

The right to hunt is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, but neither is the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The bill of rights did not exist at the time of the writing of the Constitution. So does that mean that the right to bear arms did not exist in 1777?

That can be the problem with the Bill of Rights, as pointed out by many founders. It was believed, and rightfully so, that people may interpret the Bill of rights to a limiting document, when it was not. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, hunting as a right was "English Common Law", and had been for hundreds of years, as had been the right to bear arms. Both of these RIGHTS have their origins in the 1200s of England.

The Utah state Constitution, just like the Charte De Foreste of 1217, bestow ownership of wildlife to the people. The deer belong to the people, even if they reside on the "kings" private property. Why is this? The fish belong to the people, as does the water they swim in, why? Because we as a people have a right(and responsibility) to them. This has been the law of the Western world for 800 years. The current state of regulation, does not negate these as rights, unless they are given up by the people.

This is not an apples to oranges comparison, we are talking about laws and RIGHTS that have the same origins, and the same history of reaffirmation, and being upheld as law. No red herrings, these facts are self evident, and documented.

"If you knew your history, you would know where you are coming from, then you wouldn't have to ask me, who the hell do I think I am"---Bob Marley


----------



## Vanilla

The bill of rights weren't written in the original constitution, but they are now. Therefore, what the crap does it matter? 

If we the people pass a constitutional amendment tomorrow, it has the full force of law that any word in the document has. Therefore, LEGAL rights. You don't have a batural right to abort a baby. But you've been given the legal right to do so. 

You keep talking about the last 800 years of common law. So to use your own question....Before that was hunting a right?

(Hey look at me everyone...I can play the circular argument game too!)


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> The bill of rights weren't written in the original constitution, but they are now. Therefore, what the crap does it matter?
> 
> If we the people pass a constitutional amendment tomorrow, it has the full force of law that any word in the document has. Therefore, LEGAL rights. You don't have a batural right to abort a baby. But you've been given the legal right to do so.
> 
> You keep talking about the last 800 years of common law. So to use your own question....Before that was hunting a right?
> 
> (Hey look at me everyone...I can play the circular argument game too!)


When laws were written, when they were recognized, and their origins matter, because precedent trumps. I mentioned the difference in the Constitution time frame verses the Bill of rights because there were many years where the Second Amendment is not in existence, in the early years of our country. So did that mean the right to bear arms did not exist? No, because existing law, with a long precedence was in place, ensuring that right, along with the right to hunt.

You mentioned abortion, this is covered under the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" Under the Ninth Amendment, and lacking all other reaffirmations of hunting being a right, which have happened in the last 200+ years. The Ninth amendment would still uphold hunting as a right, because if was a right of "common law" at the time of the Ninth Amendment's inception.

As for natural rights of abortion, it occurs in nature, intentionally, all the time. So I don't know what you mean by that. Separate discussion.

Prior to 1217 hunting was a right, at least a natural right, and one that was being fought for. Charte De Foreste was a response to a king and kingdom that had taken more and more away from the people. In many ways parts of it were a reaffirmation, and taking back of rights that had been held earlier. So why does the Magne Carte and the Charte De Foreste matter? Because we can draw a straight line to those laws and rights, and the laws and rights that they spawned, and the laws and rights built and affirmed from those, and so on, right through to our Constitution, and the laws and rights we have today. It is an unbroken chain, stretching back 800 years, and if precedence is the strength of law, then it does not get much stronger than this.

Of greater concern, is that this is questioned at all. And how the current agenda of some, particularly in this state, want to increase and grow the power of their dynasty on such treasonous ideology.


----------



## osageorange

Until it's decided who's definition of a right and who's definition of a privilege your going to agree to, you're chasing your tail in circle, with your head so far up your butt you won't know a right from a privilege if it jumped out of your keyboard and slapped you on the a$$. Like we could ever agree to a definition, neither God nor Caesar are capable of identifying a single point of agreement between two hunters let alone 20 of us. We'll ripe and tear each other to shreds and then, by he!!, jump up on the stump and beat our chest and scream how everyone else ruined it. 50% of the country can't identify reality from a train car full of rat sh!t then their inbreed enough to go off bragging about it! Good luck grinding this one into oblivion.


----------



## Lonetree

osageorange said:


> Until it's decided who's definition of a right and who's definition of a privilege your going to agree to, you're chasing your tail in circle, with your head so far up your butt you won't know a right from a privilege if it jumped out of your keyboard and slapped you on the a$$. Like we could ever agree to a definition, neither God nor Caesar are capable of identifying a single point of agreement between two hunters let alone 20 of us. We'll ripe and tear each other to shreds and then, by he!!, jump up on the stump and beat our chest and scream how everyone else ruined it. 50% of the country can't identify reality from a train car full of rat sh!t then their inbreed enough to go off bragging about it! Good luck grinding this one into oblivion.


Thanks for the great contribution, and all the history and information that helped to clarify your amazing point of nothing. It really opened my eyes, I mean such insight. Its a good thing that as hunters we have such greatness among us, to help us figure out the tough stuff. Thank you again, very much.


----------



## Lonetree

Those with unfounded, and unstable platforms, must resort to casting doubt, like life lines, towards the solid foundations of others. Because it is the only support they can find.


----------



## osageorange

(Does, "opinion cause Wisdom"? Seems like you might think it does, by golly.), You really are full of wisdom for such a un-scorched soul. Your perfectly right though, your nothing = my nothing, as I said, if you could have read the spaces between the amazing points, as you passed through the refining flames.


----------



## Lonetree

osageorange said:


> (Does, "opinion cause Wisdom"? Seems like you might think it does, by golly.), You really are full of wisdom for such a un-scorched soul. Your perfectly right though, your nothing = my nothing, as I said, if you could have read the spaces between the amazing points, as you passed through the refining flames.


See, just doubt, no substance, nothing solid, just doubt. Just an attempt at Cooptive thievery, because you hold nothing of value, to counter with. Cling to that rope, you're going to need it.


----------



## Lonetree

"Wisdom doesn't shine on the young, without scorching fire." While something I surely relate to, it is not about me, is a tribute to my cousin, who was laid to rest earlier this year, with full honors and a fly over. 

You got the next line bag ready, there are rapids ahead.


----------



## osageorange

My, my how poetic, you've proven once again the hunting community is no respecter persons, we reject no one. 

Surely, yours being the single pylon to which we, the lost, and dizzy, with two left feet, must tie our moorings to........that's a he!! of a way to communicate for one with such a diverse and studied history. Why not just spit it right out there..........."Any body that doesn't agree with me is .................!" You fill in the blank son, you're the self appointed Aristotle here.


----------



## Lonetree

Right or privilege? Obviously you don't think it is a right, because of the way you are coming at me. You have to cast doubt at me, because my argument, and the 800 years of hunting being a right, is solid, and you don't have anything to counter it with. You go after the messenger, because the message is solid, seems to be a popular tactic amongst the faint of thought around here. 3 life lines toss, and you still can't hit. Those rapids are fast approaching, you need to find something solid, that YOU can grab onto. I am high and dry on the bank, that water looks cold, how is it?


----------



## Lonetree

Still gasping.......


----------



## osageorange

I'd just wager you do relate. 

No disrespect to your cousin, it's you and like minded guys, who believe their study, their experience, their philosophy, their cognitive superiority, who daily exercise their eyes by glaring down their snouty noses at any person, by GAWD, that dares express a different thought.

You have no idea if I or anyone else has anything of value, in the first place, you reject everyone, out right. Your an equal opportunity rejector. You certainly have no knowledge as to any value I have or don't have, I haven't shared any, but as you always do, what ever mine or anybody else's is, you reject it categorically, with out regard. It could never, ever measure up to your brightness and profundity, so why even read it. You Word is Truth and Light, in your founded and stable state.

You got your tail yet? With your self pride and grit, I suspect it'll be a while before you're bored. You're conditioned. But it's entertaining huh, you're digging it! You love it, the fire, I mean, polishing the steel, so to speak, but you knew what I met, clever scholar that you are.


----------



## osageorange

Right-Privilege? Personally, I would never express my opinion, because you or some other pseudo would pounce on it because yours and/or theirs is more founded, more stable, has a better platform, and is built on a stronger foundation..............regardless! 

Your not the only one sonny, there a plenty here that match your opinion of self importance, so don't get overly puffed up in your the misguided satisfaction that I'm referring to just you. But you'll do for tonight!


----------



## Lonetree

:mrgreen: Still coming at me? And why, because I can support the argument that hunting is a right. Must steam you a bit when that fact, when that truth, cuts at your ideology, and further weakens your flimsy platform, that you and your ilk are perpetrating against the hunters of this nation. 

PBH might be one hell of a fisherman, but when you can get a bottom feeder, that might surface only a few times a year, to rise at perfectly placed dry flies, again and again, well....what can I say, there is something to that. The pattern, the placement, maybe my position on the bank, maybe I know this fish?


----------



## osageorange

Come on Lonetree, it's only 10:36 pm. The nights young, lets swim a bit.


----------



## Lonetree

Right or a privilege?


----------



## osageorange

That's better. 

Now, a wise man doesn't make assumption, my son. You need to ask questions, inquiry, listen carefully, think past the answers. If your half as brilliant as you think you are you can get me to open up. As if you give a sh!t, your just enjoying the evening.

Are you teachable Grasshopper, by anyone I mean, or is there anything you don't already know? I know I can't help you but there are others......if your not perfectly hardened by the forge of your young life yet. 

Dumb question, I already know your hard set, on self, but it never hurts check a ball bearing for grease every once in a while. 

My GAWD, you got me talking to myself, this is refreshing.


----------



## Lonetree

Still no answers, still no supportive argument, no opinion even, to the question/s at hand. Just a fixation on me. Don't get me wrong, I like foreplay, and drunk chicks, but when they can't even stand up, there is just not much interest.


----------



## osageorange

See....there you go again. Making assumptions that my remarks have anything or everything to do with rights or privileges.

I don't care if you believe hunting a right or a privilege. You piss me off, you and others, that have to be right on every frecking issue that comes up on this forum. 

You speak as if your the only one with half a brain and everybody else is a mindless moron. You, and others, do it on every subject, every day, regardless of the discussion, you belittle, poke fun, amuse and abuse anyone for what ever they think or express.

But you like it, and you really like it when you can play your false intellectual superiority and vocabulary to demonstrate your elevated knowledge. Sh!t, even an idiot like me has a thesaurus.


----------



## Lonetree

So I'm vain, because you have an issue with me? 

Why are you posting on a thread about whether hunting is a right or an opinion? Oh yeah, because I'm here. Your issues with me, are about you. I don't dumb things down when I come on here, you know why? because a lot of people that read this forum are very intelligent people. If you, for some reason, perceive me to be smarter than you, and it bothers you, that's not my problem. Join the conversation, contribute to the thread, and quit being a creepy stalker chic that's hung up on me.

Seriously, I'm going to unfriend you on FB.

Oh yeah, is it a right, or a privilege?


----------



## osageorange

Seriously, do it. 

Clearly, our conversation this even has made you uncomfortable. But then had you not responded so politely to my expression of frustration to the pervious 8 pages of discussion you most likely wouldn't have heard another word from me. 

Had you wrong though, I didn't think you'd get bored this quickly. 

Don't take this so personal. I gave the same bit of advice to another chap, (more or less) earlier the week. He took it about like you but it wasn't as late in the day so i didn't have the time to play ping pong with him. I think he's a pr!ck too, in my un-humble opinion. 

It sounds like maybe, just maybe you finally listen carefully enough to what I said, it has nothing to do with the question of: is hunting right or privilege. It took a few minutes but you finally, by he!!, listed long enough to get the real message. You've graduated.

Regarding your invitation to join the conversation, not a chance. Like you said, but I said it first, there are a lot of very intellectual people that read this forum. They already know everything, they're founded and stable and they sure as he!! are not interested in anyone else (little alone mine) observations, concerns or opinions, and as they do with everyone else, they'll be there with their sarcasm, their ridicule, their belittling, their name calling, etc. etc. Of course they'll quickly remind me I'm the pot calling the kettle black, I get it.

When I have something to say or a case to make, it sure as he!! will not be in this kind of format, to this audience. As I said in my first remark: we could ever agree to a definition, neither God nor Caesar are capable of identifying a single point of agreement between two hunters let alone 20 of us. There's an opinion you take to the fishing hole and feel secure in that coke hardened reality. This thread and this forum re-prove it hourly.

Granting your request, I shall fixate else where.


----------



## Lonetree

"sarcasm, their ridicule, their belittling, their name calling, etc. etc" :shock: I know, they can't seem to stay on the subject at hand, so irritating.


----------



## Lonetree

Osage, I hear what you are saying, but I think Van Zandt said it better.


----------



## Old Fudd

Lonetree. **** man u just flat get after people.. You ever work in a court of law?


----------



## Lonetree

oldfudd said:


> Lonetree. **** man u just flat get after people.. You ever work in a court of law?


Some points are more important than others, and carry greater consequences and responsibilities than others. And some people........well, you read it.

I've been in a court of law  The judge just about came off the bench when I plead "innocent".


----------



## Dunkem

Lonetree said:


> Osage, I hear what you are saying, but I think Van Zandt said it better.


Take care into the hall. RIP TVZ:rip:


----------



## bigbr

The tenth amendment states that all powers not vested in the constitution are herby reserved for the state and or the people. As such, wildlife residing within a state boundary becomes property of the state. It was later clarified in 1905 with the migratory bird act that some migratory birds could have federal regulations.

The second amendment clearly defined the right to own and bare arms as an individual right of the people. Common law of the Colonials and British common law also gave presidential finding to firearms ownership being a right of self preservation. 
Hunting is a privilege granted under State ownership whereas firearms ownership and usage is an individual right without infringement.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Nope, hunting is a right. I falls under the 'Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness'. Hunting makes me happy, so it's a right :grin:


----------



## Lonetree

bigbr said:


> The tenth amendment states that all powers not vested in the constitution are herby reserved for the state and or the people. As such, wildlife residing within a state boundary becomes property of the state. It was later clarified in 1905 with the migratory bird act that some migratory birds could have federal regulations.
> 
> The second amendment clearly defined the right to own and bare arms as an individual right of the people. Common law of the Colonials and British common law also gave presidential finding to firearms ownership being a right of self preservation.
> Hunting is a privilege granted under State ownership whereas firearms ownership and usage is an individual right without infringement.


Migratory birds have federal regulations, because they do not reside solely in the United States. The ownership, and said rights to such migratory wildlife, are shared, in trust, collectively, by more than just us. Or U.S. as my grandfather would say.

We the people, are the State of Utah, we own the wildlife, not some separate, alien entity, referred to as the "state". This is long held philosophy, constructive concept, and law. Ownership denotes a right, not a privilege. Do you have a right, or a privilege, to private property? And does the same apply to property held collectively, such as that identified as belonging to the United Sates, or the State of Utah? Or is being a natural born resident, of this state, and this Nation, just a privilege?


----------



## Vanilla

When I saw this video I couldn't help but think about Lonetree's failures in trying to continually talk in circles here...


----------



## Lonetree

TS30, seeing as how you are so comfortable with hunting being a privilege, try this: Take a piece of paper, and a pen, and write down why you "feel" that way. And justify why you feel that it is a privilege of the few, and not a right of the people. Explain why you hold others privileges, over your rights, and the rights of your children, and your grandchildren. Now sign your name to it, and place it in an envelope. See to it, that your children, or grandchildren will get it in the future. This way, they will have more than just your feelings and their feelings, to show for why hunting is no longer a right. I mean its the least you can do for them, so they don't wonder, or make the same mistakes.

I'm not talking in circles, my opinion is solid ground, of linear logic, starting in at least 1217, and continuing right on through to today. 

If I am talking in circles, you should be able to easily unravel my argument. It is not one of shifting sands, it is not moving, or relative in nature. It has stood solid in the same place for a very long time. Throwing rocks through the windows, will not cause it to fall so easily.


----------



## Vanilla

Here we go round the mulberry bush..... 

Go back to the beginning of the thread, re-read it, and then punch yourself in the face. Don't put arguments in my mouth. You don't speak for me. I originally thought you must be a 1st year law student all hopped up on a common-law wet dream. Now I'm thinking you just have spent too much time studying Black's Law Dictionary at your constitutionalist dinner parties. It's fun when your kind shows up, for about 5 minutes. Then you just become annoying. 

My belief in hunting as a right goes much further back than 1217. But I'm sure you'll tell me I believe otherwise. After all, why address the real argument when making one up for the other party is so much easier?


----------



## Lonetree

If you believe it is a right, why do you feel compelled to come at me, when I make the all encompassing argument that it is a right. Feelings on the matter, and beliefs in natural rights, are well founded and justified. In the greater scheme, of law, and how those can be supported, applied, or taken away from hunters, they are just that, feelings and beliefs. In the construct of actual application, it is law, and decree, and precedence of such, that applies weight to those feelings, and beliefs. With out that weight, and structure, they are free to just float away, or in most cases, taken by someone else.

If your issue is with me, its not my problem, but rather yours. If your issue is with my argument that hunting is a right, well then back it up.

I love you guys that hit me for being educated, its weak, its very weak. I have not attended a full weak of school since I was in the 7th grade, and I dropped out of high school when I was 16. Letters behind peoples names don't hold water where I'm from.

Given that I am just a high school dropout, talking circles. You would think that my position should be pretty easy to dismantle? And if it is just trivial wet dreaming, then it should not cause you so much concern, don't you think?


----------



## osageorange

What can you tell about an individual from the people they look to for direction and whom they identify with?

If Townes Van Zandt's is who you'd turn to for the scorching fire of wisdom, we should look into Van Zandt so we can better understand those that believe he said it better.

Your go to guy's history may reveal a lot about you and why you behave the way you do.

Wiki Quote:
"Van Zandt struggled with heroin addiction and alcoholism throughout his adult life. At times he would become drunk on stage and forget the lyrics to his songs. At one point, his heroin habit was so intense that he offered Kevin Eggers the publishing rights to all of the songs on each of his first four albums for $20.[54] At various points, Van Zandt's friends saw him shoot up not just heroin, but also cocaine, vodka, as well as a mixture of rum and Coke.[55] On at least one occasion, he shot up heroin in the presence of his son J.T., who was only eight years old at the time.[25]


----------



## Lonetree

osageorange said:


> What can you tell about an individual from the people they look to for direction and whom they identify with?
> 
> If Townes Van Zandt's is who you'd turn to for the scorching fire of wisdom, we should look into Van Zandt so we can better understand those that believe he said it better.
> 
> Your go to guy's history may reveal a lot about you and why you behave the way you do.
> 
> Wiki Quote:
> "Van Zandt struggled with heroin addiction and alcoholism throughout his adult life. At times he would become drunk on stage and forget the lyrics to his songs. At one point, his heroin habit was so intense that he offered Kevin Eggers the publishing rights to all of the songs on each of his first four albums for $20.[54] At various points, Van Zandt's friends saw him shoot up not just heroin, but also cocaine, vodka, as well as a mixture of rum and Coke.[55] On at least one occasion, he shot up heroin in the presence of his son J.T., who was only eight years old at the time.[25]


:mrgreen: Yep, that sounds like Townes. For a stronger argument, at least on this forum, you might want to look at my other Youtube offerings.

:rotfl:

If you don't have an argument, just attack the lives, of the music artists, that your opponent listens to.


----------



## Lonetree

Like I said, "Wisdom doesn't shine on the young, without scorching fire." Is a tribute to my cousin. A soldier, a veteran, that was first deployed in 2002, with his last deployment in 2012. 14 years of service to this country, full military honors, with fly over at his service. And you insist on going after his tribute, after knowing full well what those words are, again. Talk about the things we can tell about people and their behavior. You are a low life bitch, with no honor.


----------



## osageorange

Don't need to look at any of your Youtube offerings, I already know way too much about your view of yourself. The lives people live have consequences, their behavior starts with their thoughts, their words follow and precede their actions. They taught you that in the 8th grade but you weren't there too learn it.

Not every brilliant person makes brilliant decisions and a lot of them lack the social intelligence to succeed. Being brilliant is no guarantee that your right. Lets suppose that you are of superior intelligence, what good does it do you, or the rest of us inferior beings, if your so caustic no one can stand you be within 50 miles of you. 

By your own admission you can't function unless you have your way, unless everyone agrees with your encompassing argument. 

With your gifted mind, image what you could accomplish if you'd learned some interpersonal skills. 

But you wouldn't know a compliment from an insult because your too focused on having your head up your own a$$.


----------



## Lonetree

That's your response? More about your fixation and issues with me? And a dodge, after willfully, and knowingly insulting a dead soldier. **** you! And you are going to lecture me, about interpersonal skills, and social intelligence? Really, I'm caustic?


----------



## Lonetree

I think we know what church Osage attends: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

I'll hang with you Osage. I like your style of caustic.


----------



## Lonetree

"The lives people live have consequences, their behavior starts with their thoughts, their words follow and precede their actions"--osageorange

Indeed they do.


----------



## Lonetree

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I'll hang with you Osage. I like your style of caustic.


Just for clarification, would that be the caustic part about "scorching fire"?

Make sure you read, and understand the full exchange here. Then by all means, weigh in.


----------



## Vanilla

You keep talking about precedent and law. It may benefit you to actually read the law if you are going to try and use it to support your statement.

From Utah Administrative Rules: 
A certificate of registration may be suspended if the participant is under a judicial or administrative suspension order suspending any wildlife hunting or fishing *privilege* within Utah or elsewhere.

(4) A certificate of registration is invalid if the participant's *big game hunting privileges* are suspended in any jurisdiction during the participant's enrollment in the program.

Although I agree with your statement that game belong to the people and not "the state"....you may want to go and challenge this code in Utah: 
http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE23/htm/23_13_000300.htm (count for us how many times it refers to hunting as "privilege" vs "right"...return and report)

And for a reference of how Utah law...not what you think it is, but what it actually says...feels about right vs privilege, this link may be helpful: http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE23/htm/23_19_000900.htm

You can disagree and quote any non-relevant piece of literature they handed out at the last constitutionalist Mary Kaye party, but precedent don't mean squat as long as the law is on the books.

Yes, I believe hunting is a right. And yes, I believe it has been regulated so much that the states have taken that away from us, and is now applied as a privilege. Utah code backs that up. Challenge it in the courts. See how it comes out. Return and report.


----------



## Lonetree

TS30 said:


> You keep talking about precedent and law. It may benefit you to actually read the law if you are going to try and use it to support your statement.
> 
> From Utah Administrative Rules:
> A certificate of registration may be suspended if the participant is under a judicial or administrative suspension order suspending any wildlife hunting or fishing *privilege* within Utah or elsewhere.
> 
> (4) A certificate of registration is invalid if the participant's *big game hunting privileges* are suspended in any jurisdiction during the participant's enrollment in the program.
> 
> Although I agree with your statement that game belong to the people and not "the state"....you may want to go and challenge this code in Utah:
> http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE23/htm/23_13_000300.htm (count for us how many times it refers to hunting as "privilege" vs "right"...return and report)
> 
> And for a reference of how Utah law...not what you think it is, but what it actually says...feels about right vs privilege, this link may be helpful: http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE23/htm/23_19_000900.htm
> 
> You can disagree and quote any non-relevant piece of literature they handed out at the last constitutionalist Mary Kaye party, but precedent don't mean squat as long as the law is on the books.
> 
> Yes, I believe hunting is a right. And yes, I believe it has been regulated so much that the states have taken that away from us, and is now applied as a privilege. Utah code backs that up. Challenge it in the courts. See how it comes out. Return and report.


*"23-13-3**.* *Wildlife declared property of the state. *All wildlife existing within this state, not held by private ownership and legally acquired, is the property of the state." We are the state, we therefor own the wildlife. Ownership denotes a right.

"(1) As used in this section, "license or permit privileges" means the privilege of applying for, purchasing, and exercising the benefits conferred by a license or permit issued by the division." Hunting is a right, rights can be regulated. So as a right, of all the people, there has to, by law, be a mechanism of equal opportunity of access, to said right. That is part of draws, for species that we do not have enough supply for OTC tags. In the case of hunting, part of that regulation is age, hunters education, etc. These regulations create qualifications, which limit the population that can exercise their right to the wildlife. Because of these qualifications, licenses, permits, and applying for them are privileges, not available to every citizen.

Huge kudos TS30, seriously, and sincerely, that was a great post.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

TS30 said:


> You keep talking about precedent and law. It may benefit you to actually read the law if you are going to try and use it to support your statement.
> 
> From Utah Administrative Rules:
> A certificate of registration may be suspended if the participant is under a judicial or administrative suspension order suspending any wildlife hunting or fishing *privilege* within Utah or elsewhere.
> 
> (4) A certificate of registration is invalid if the participant's *big game hunting privileges* are suspended in any jurisdiction during the participant's enrollment in the program.
> 
> Although I agree with your statement that game belong to the people and not "the state"....you may want to go and challenge this code in Utah:
> http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE23/htm/23_13_000300.htm (count for us how many times it refers to hunting as "privilege" vs "right"...return and report)
> 
> And for a reference of how Utah law...not what you think it is, but what it actually says...feels about right vs privilege, this link may be helpful: http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE23/htm/23_19_000900.htm
> 
> You can disagree and quote any non-relevant piece of literature they handed out at the last constitutionalist Mary Kaye party, but precedent don't mean squat as long as the law is on the books.
> 
> Yes, I believe hunting is a right. And yes, I believe it has been regulated so much that the states have taken that away from us, and is now applied as a privilege. Utah code backs that up. Challenge it in the courts. See how it comes out. Return and report.


My thoughts exactly. Which is why I stated before that it became a privilege once licenses and regulations became required.

The fact that world has changed over the past 800 years is also relevant to the argument IMO. Fact is slavery was practiced for the better part of 10,000 years and was even included within the Constitution via the 3/5 Compromise. Time and perception change things that were once accepted and common practice. Many things that were once considered normal are now considered taboo. Prostitution, human sacrifice and slavery come to mind.

The line drawn between rights and privileges is a very fine line on many fronts. Even my "right" to own property has been violated thanks to eminent domain. We "owned" land that the state and TRAX needed. They conveniently obtained the land that they wanted from me, at their set price, and left me the fringe property since it was not in their best interest to obtain the entire piece of property. We had to sell the remaining portion at a loss because it was now sitting right next to some train tracks. I never owned the land to begin with when the rubber met the road.

Whether a person believes that it is a right or privilege is not what is at stake anymore. Fighting to preserve the opportunity and protect the resources while we are here is what matters.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> Just for clarification, would that be the caustic part about "scorching fire"?
> 
> Make sure you read, and understand the full exchange here. Then by all means, weigh in.


Lonetree I am a veteran and didn't take what he said within the same context as you. My comment was just based on the fact that I find his approach suites me.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

Lonetree said:


> *"23-13-3**.* *Wildlife declared property of the state. *All wildlife existing within this state, not held by private ownership and legally acquired, is the property of the state." We are the state, we therefor own the wildlife. Ownership denotes a right.
> 
> "(1) As used in this section, "license or permit privileges" means the privilege of applying for, purchasing, and *exercising the benefits* conferred by a license or permit issued by the division." Hunting is a right, rights can be regulated. So as a right, of all the people, there has to, by law, be a mechanism of equal opportunity of access, to said right. That is part of draws, for species that we do not have enough supply for OTC tags. In the case of hunting, part of that regulation is age, hunters education, etc. These regulations create qualifications, which limit the population that can exercise their right to the wildlife. Because of these qualifications, licenses, permits, and applying for them are privileges, not available to every citizen.
> 
> Huge kudos TS30, seriously, and sincerely, that was a great post.


exercising the benefits = hunting

does it not?


----------



## Lonetree

"Whether a person believes that it is a right or privilege is not what is at stake anymore. Fighting to preserve the opportunity and protect the resources while we are here is what matters."

That pretty much says it all right their, complete relativism, and defeatism. Just as we have come to expect from you.

"Lonetree I am a veteran and didn't take what he said within the same context as you. My comment was just based on the fact that I find his approach suites me."

So after being apprised of what that sentence means, what it embodies, osage goes right at it again. And then you promptly throw your arm around him? Because you did not take it in the same context? **** dude, you are a piece of work.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner

defeatism? Again?

*Fighting to preserve the opportunity and protect the resources while we are here is what matters.

*I fail to see defeatism in the word fighting.

You actually must think that you are the only person that does anything worth a ****. Guess what? You're not. Furthermore your opinion is your opinion and bears no more weight than any other person that is doing what they think is right. You are not the bottom line. You are not the final say. I know that kills your inferior interior/elitist exterior but that in fact is the self evident truth. Learn it, Live it, Love it.............oh and while you are at it.........feel free to SHOVE IT!


----------



## Lonetree

ray:


----------

