The social security thread got me to thinking...

Can the government do anything they want to restrict and/or ban hunting privileges, or is hunting a God-given right not to be stripped?

As much as we would want it to be a right, it's probably more in the privilege category. You have to have access to hunting land, and if the Gov't outlaws hunting on Federal land, you'd have to be a land owner. If the state outlaws it all together, even the land owners are screwed. Nothing about hunting in the Bill of Rights, so it would take a Constitutional Amendment to change that. Probably not going to happen.

I know that's not the answer we want to hear, but it's reality.

Taking guns away is a completely different fight. There is Constitutional backup for not outlawing them.

Hmmm, this could get interesting.

It is interesting that if you review TPWD documents, it is always referred to as "hunting privilege".

Like driving, I was taught hunting is a privilege, and one that we should fight to keep. Personally, I view it as a privilege.

This should be an interesting conversation of personal values vs. what's officially in the books.

"axe, cow, plow, gun ,and FIRE"--know them and use them

That is close..because it is nominally also the aquisition of food. I'd say it is a privilege more than a right, but you also have a right to food, and to use your property as well.

quote:

---

Nothing about hunting in the Bill of Rights

---

Curious as to your take on the 9th Amendment.

A privilege? Hunting seems to me one of the most basic human rights ever. We wouldn't even be here without hunting.

What ... you guys listen in on an argument I had earlier with someone who posts here? Honest, we argued about this same exact thing.

His take: a privilege. Mine ... a right.

He brought up the driving comparison. I told him that didn't fly because I can drive on my land (maybe not far) without a drivers license. So by that logic, I can hunt on my land without a license.

The constitution ... You are correct. It's not specifically named in the constitution, of which I am a great fan. But neither is eating, breathing, farming, marrying, having kids, adopting kids and a thousand other things we take for granted. You think I'm crazy about having kids being a right vs privilege? Ask China about that ...

Do you really think the founding fathers thought it necessary to list such a basic means of survival? "The Eleventh Amendment: You have the right to eat." I don't think so.

What did the earliest people do to survive? hunt and fish. Do you think it was a privilege to them? No. So, to now call it a "privilege" means it changed somewhere along the line.

If it's only a privilege now, it's because we stupidly gave up our rights to Ma Governent.

The only reason we have a hunting/fishing license is because we gave that right to the gov to prevent over-hunting and fishing.

It saddens me to see how willingly we hand over our rights, actually it does more than sadden me.

Privilege. The State owns the wildlife.

Good point, Ag83

quote:

---

Privilege. The State owns the wildlife.

---

It's a Right. The PEOPLE of the state own the wildlife.

In 18th and 19th Centuries, the upper classes in Britain got the Government to seize the land, forests and game that common people survived on. Then who did the commom people have to rely on. The goverment and rich people. Sound familiar.

Your post was a hell of a lot better than mine markandles.

Which is why if we don't watch ourselves and how we conduct ourselves, the PEOPLE who own the wildlife could remove the privilege. As society changes (further urbanization) this is going to become even more important.----just some food for thought.

Good thoughts so far.


"axe, cow, plow, gun ,and FIRE"--know them and use them

Do you own the land?

quote:

---

Privilege. The State owns the wildlife.

---

Really. The state would certainly like to think so. Who the hell owns ducks then?

Federal. They're migratory.

That was sarcasm

It's a complete privilege that needs protecting. The people may own the wildlife as a judicially designated "public trust" but the federal and state governments reserve the rights to manage wildlife for the protection of lands and species. We owe that to Theodore Roosevelt. If we are poor stewards of wildlife conservation, our hunting "privelage" can be taken away very easily. They do this every year when the new TPWD Almanacs come out. This isnt a bad thing, but it's evidence that big brother controls our hunting privelege.

America is the largest consumer of resources in the world bar none. With our accelerated population increases and our growing upper middle class, these resources will become more and more limited. If we dont act now to save our hunting privelage, the future looks bleak. Conservation of natural resources for protection of our hunting heritage should be the ultimate passion and goal for anyone who enjoys hunting or fishing.

hunting is one of the oldest acts of man, who on earth feels that they are important enough to disallow others to do it, id say that person needs to be reminded of their humanity

quote:

---

Conservation of natural resources for protection of our hunting heritage should be the ultimate passion and goal for anyone who enjoys hunting or fishing.

---

quote:

---

Safety record aside, what many hunters and trappers fail to realize is that the opportunity to hunt and trap is a Privilege; not a Right. Rights have protections in our Constitution and other laws. Privileges are only protected to the extent that the majority of citizens support the continued existence of the activity. Why is this important? Because today’s expanding human population, combined with an ever-increasing interest in outdoor recreation, is a potential recipe for conflict.

---

quote:

---

The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams running through or bordering said reservation is further secured to said Indians; as also the right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens of the Territory, and of erecting temporary buildings for curing; together with the privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land.

Hell Gate Treaty 1855

---

quote:

---

Hunting is a privilege, not a right! PLEASE, keep the hunting tradition alive and only hunt species that are plenty full, so that our children and their children can experience the essence of self sustainability and beauty of mother nature.

---

Thought provoking thread so I thought I'd see what Google has to say about the subject. I'm among the general concensus that hunting is very much a priviledge that should be treated with both the responsibility and respect it deserves. Abuse theses priviledges, and like your priviledge of operating a motor vehicle, etc, it can and should be taken away.

A right is something in which you're entitled by simply being born. If we don't practice conservation and intelligent management of the game animals, they will disappear. Since they have the capability to disappear, and if they DO disappear, they won't be around when you're born, so that makes hunting a privilege.

Q.E.D.

quote:

---

hunting is one of the oldest acts of man, who on earth feels that they are important enough to disallow others to do it, id say that person needs to be reminded of their humanity

---

so is violence and procreation but you better have a good reason for the firt and permission for the second

I'll put it this way -

Hunting is a right, but where I hunt may be a privilege.

A landowner could give me (charge me for) the privilege of exercising my right to hunt on his land.

It's a regulated recreational activity, with associated laws pertaining to participation. Hunters are required to fulfill certain legal obligations.

That makes it a privelege.

I like it that way. I don't want poachers, roadshooters, and other vermin of that sort thinking they have any right to engage in that activity. I hate it when I see a poaching article and it refers to the offender as a hunter.

Those people aren't hunters. They're criminals.

[This message has been edited by Cowtown Red (edited 4/12/2007 3:06p).]

I don't think anyone ever said a privilege could be taken away but a right could not.

Which definition would you prefer apply to hunting?

Right - a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something

Privilege - a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor

Most definitely a privilege. It's true indeed that the people of the state own the wildlife, but the government is an institution created by the people, of the people, and for the people to enact measures to protect things important to the people. Therefore, the government acts to ensure that our hunting privilege is responsibly and sustainably maintained from one generation to the next.

If you're a felon and want to purchase a firearm for hunting aren't you denied the right to the firearm?

What's that got to do with hunting being a right or not? Was there no hunting before the invention of firearms?

It is a god given right to hunt for food.

"Just because it's on paper, don't make it so."

And just because it's not on paper don't make it so.

I believe it is a privilege, although I wish it were a right.

I say its a privilege because in order to do it you must meet the criteria for obtaining a license which in turn gives you the special right to hunt. Even though a multitude of people may be eligible for obtaining a license, only those who can afford to pay their $13, actually get one. There are other criteria involved, but they're extraneous to my point.

The reason I presented the felon example was to illustrate that if a right (ex. 2nd Ammendment) can be restricted, then for darn sure a privilege can be even more restricted.

If the felon in my example, still wants to hunt and decides he wants to use a firearm to do so he can appeal to ATF as a form of recourse. If he decides to forego that route he can still hunt by means of bow & arrow, I would think. Either way he's provided some sort of relief.

Now if the state prohibits felons from getting a hunting license (conjecture on my part), he has no recourse that I know of save for trying to change the law. I don't think he could take it to court, because where does it say he has the right to hunt?

Hunting is definitely less protected than the right to bear arms, which is sad in my opinion.

Just my two pennies.

Just because something can be taken away from you because you haven't taken every precaution to be legal and responsible doesn't mean it's a previledge.

Hunting is a right and one that will never be taken away from me. I'm not trying to be a tuff guy, but nobody is going to take my guns or my right to hunt with them. Hopefully it never comes down to it, but I'll do anything to keep that right. I'll fight, go to prison, or anything else it takes to perserve that right for me and my family. I will never turn in a gun to the government and as long as I'm physically able I will use my guns to hunt and protect my property and family from anyone.

I would hope everybody would take on this attitude or are government will one day try to take these rights away from us.

I won't get this quote right, but a Christian in Germany that was put in a consentration camp said this," When they took the comunists I did not speak out, because I was not a comunist. When they took the Jew I did not speak out because I was not jewish. When they came for me there was no one else to speak on my behalf because I did not speak out."

We all should remember this every time any right is taken away from the people of this great nation, because pretty soon there will be no one left to fight for the rights that you personally hold dear to you.

what about the right to vote? Can it not being taken away from you under certain circumstances? It is still a right, though there are stipulations. You have to vote in a certain place. You can only vote once. You must register. Yet it is a right.

by the way, I had the right to go fishing this morning, but because there was a 20 mph NWN wind it sucked and I felt previledged to get back to the boat ramp before I was beat to death by the chop.

Don't ever forget the difference between Natural Rights and State Rights.

It was mentioned that if game is over hunted and disappears, the next generation will not be born with the right to hunt...but I'd say the next generation will not be born...period.

Hunting is a natural right...and while I am completely against 90% of any regulation that a government can put down, that last 10% usually always deals with laws and regulations that attempt to negate the parasitic nature of humans. In order to insure that consuption of resources is less than or equal to production sometimes a group effort is necessary...

but the right to hunt can never be taken away...If I was stripped of all except one material posession, I'd keep a rifle.