quote:
Originally posted by salty849quote:
Originally posted by archerquote:
Originally posted by salty849Getting back on topic, I have thought long and hard about this 8 deer deal You let this get passed and it will lay the ground work for more regulations, which we don’t need. Don’t think for a second that once a tag system and bag limits are in place that they wont be reduced further in the future. And go ahead and push to ban dog hunting fellas, I haven’t hunted deer with dogs in 8 years, and Im well aware of the issues with rogues. But guess what happens next? They come after your corn piles, then your high powered rifles, next thing you know you better be able to shoot a bow or you wont be able to hunt. A bunch of hunters fighting amongst themselves will be the downfall of us all.
It’s not a matter of making regulations and/or limits based on what hunters need. Regualtions and limits are put in place to manage the resource and its needs. If managing the resource properly doesn’t make some hunters happy, tough. Without a properly managed resource, NO HUNTERS get to enjoy the pursuit of said resource. The US tried that before and nearly wiped the whitetail deer off of the planet in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.
And as far as “coming after your corn piles,” I’m pretty sure that just recently (within the last two years) baiting was made legal throughout the state.
Sout Carolina is the most liberal state, with regards to hunting regulations (or lack thereof), in the country. But I guess when people are convenced the world is out to get th
quote:
Originally posted by Skeeter22quote:
Originally posted by archerquote:
Originally posted by salty849Getting back on topic, I have thought long and hard about this 8 deer deal You let this get passed and it will lay the ground work for more regulations, which we don’t need. Don’t think for a second that once a tag system and bag limits are in place that they wont be reduced further in the future. And go ahead and push to ban dog hunting fellas, I haven’t hunted deer with dogs in 8 years, and Im well aware of the issues with rogues. But guess what happens next? They come after your corn piles, then your high powered rifles, next thing you know you better be able to shoot a bow or you wont be able to hunt. A bunch of hunters fighting amongst themselves will be the downfall of us all.
It’s not a matter of making regulations and/or limits based on what hunters need. Regualtions and limits are put in place to manage the resource and its needs. If managing the resource properly doesn’t make some hunters happy, tough. Without a properly managed resource, NO HUNTERS get to enjoy the pursuit of said resource. The US tried that before and nearly wiped the whitetail deer off of the planet in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s.
And as far as “coming after your corn piles,” I’m pretty sure that just recently (within the last two years) baiting was made legal throughout the state.
Sout Carolina is the most liberal state, with regards to hunting regulations (or lack thereof), in the country. But I guess when people are convenced the world is out to get t
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejquote:
Originally posted by Skeeter22quote:
Originally posted by skinneejquote:Maybe you should have checked out Wikipedia since your wallet didn't do you justice:
Originally posted by Skeeter22I particuarily like the first part that clearly states, “Name of active privilege” and the last part in bold RED that clearly states, “END OF PRIVILEGES LIST.”
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/a01.php
"SECTION 25. Hunting and fishing.
The traditions of hunting and fishing are valuable parts of the state’s heritage, important for conservation, and a protected means of managing nonthreatened wildlife. The citizens of this State have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife traditionally pursued, subject to laws and regulations promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly. Nothing in this section shall be construed to abrogate any private property rights, existing state laws or regulations, or the state’s sovereignty over its natural resources."
I particularly like the part where it says “The citizens of this State have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife”
Unfortunately, it’s not in red, but I hope you still find credibility in this old black and white state constitution…
We have already been through this one Skinnee. Not
quote:Again, I am all for stiffer penalties, but loss of hunting rights, 5K fines and jail time is rediculous. Again, tell me 1 dog hunter who can afford to pay $400 per hound every weekend? I don't know any that can afford it. Warbler wants $5K per hound!!!
Originally posted by archerJust my personal belief and opinion, harsher/stiffer penalties would help.
Earn it everyday
If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.
quote:Now, THIS is a red herring... Yes, there is a LAW that you must have a hunting license while hunting. But please tell me again that hunting is NOT a right when it clearly says so in the state constitution. Let's stick to the argument here...
Originally posted by Skeeter22Alright Skinnee, you go hunting next season and get caught without your purchased privileges and see just how far your “right to hunt” legislative pathway for providing hunting in the state takes you. I’m banking on a very stiff fine that if you refuse to pay will land you in jail. Do that, and win…then you will have me in a corner. Otherwise, you are in dreamland about your “rights,” and you know it.
2012 Skeeter ZX22 Bay
Yamaha 250 hp SHO
Minnkota Riptide 101
And just for the record, I have been cited with an expired fishing license before just a mere week after it expired. I did not get a stiff fine or jail time… I was told that I had to get it renewed before my court date and if I did, there would be no fine. If I did not, the fine was like $135 or something like that…
Dreamland… Ha ha ha… Please, just tell me that I misread the state constitution… That’s all you need to do… Tell me that the state constitution does not dictate the right to hunt…
When did I ever say anything about jail time? I did mention losing your hunting/fishing priviledges and stiffer fines, of which I firmly believe in.
For me, and again this is my personal opinion and belief, if a person doesn’t want to lose their hunting/fishing priviledges and/or can’t afford stiff fines, then they need to make sure they’re not guilty of any violations. To me, it’s as simple as that. I don’t care if you hunt with dogs or you’re a still hunter or a bow hunter or a rifle hunter…play by the rules and you don’t have to worry about the consequences. Break a rule, pay the price. Period.
Earn it everyday
If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.
quote:Warbler mentioned that. This isn't a private message.
Originally posted by archerWhen did I ever say anything about jail time? I did mention losing your hunting/fishing priviledges and stiffer fines, of which I firmly believe in.
Archer, let’s say that you shot a deer and he ran into a neighbor’s property and died. It offends him and his kids who have never seen an animal suffer. Would you think it’s reasonable to lose your hunting “privileges” over that?
Or better yet. If the deer you shoot runs out into a road and a car hits it where the driver dies on impact, do you think prison time is appropriate for you?
I have a problem with people riding around at night shooting deer out the window. So hey, let’s outlaw all rifle hunting for deer.
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejDreamland… Ha ha ha… Please, just tell me that I misread the state constitution… That’s all you need to do… Tell me that the state constitution does not dictate the right to hunt…
Ok Skinnee, if you are trying to get me to say the State Constitution says we have the “right to hunt” then clearly you are right because it is in black and white. However, in the context of your position, what you are really trying to do is equate the “right to hunt” to something like the “right to remain silent.” The two are NOT the same. One is purchased while the other is delineated to all citizens…get this, for free and just for being a citizen. The “right to hunt” is only a so called “right” if you purchase individual privileges from the state in order to be able to lawfully conduct or participate in a specific hunting action, which makes it NOT a real “right” in the context of your argument or in the first place. All it really does is provide a pathway to let people hunt and for the state to tax us for individual privileges under the “right to hunt” in the form of a license. If you purchase a license, you have the “right” to hunt, but if you did NOT purchase a license, you do NOT have the “right” to hunt. Again…making it not a right at all. But Yes, Skinnee, in its simplest thoughtless form, you have the “right” to hunt; however, it’s not even remotely close to real rights. The two are not the same, nor do they have the same meaning. Now, if you are not trying to put the two “rights” in the same boat as I explained, then you simply are not applying any critical thinking or not presenting what you are really trying to say. Instead, you are playing a gotchacovered tactic from the political forum. Great guy, BTW. Helped me out big time with boat insurance.
quote:
Originally posted by Skeeter22quote:
Originally posted by skinneejDreamland… Ha ha ha… Please, just tell me that I misread the state constitution… That’s all you need to do… Tell me that the state constitution does not dictate the right to hunt…
Ok Skinnee, if you are trying to get me to say the State Constitution says we have the “right to hunt” then clearly you are right because it is in black and white. However, in the context of your position, what you are really trying to do is equate the “right to hunt” to something like the “right to remain silent.” The two are NOT the same. One is purchased while the other is delineated to all citizens…get this, for free and just for being a citizen. The “right to hunt” is only a so called “right” if you purchase individual privileges from the state in order to be able to lawfully conduct or participate in a specific hunting action, which makes it NOT a real “right” in the context of your argument or in the first place. All it really does is provide a pathway to let people hunt and for the state to tax us for individual privileges under the “right to hunt” in the form of a license. If you purchase a license, you have the “right” to hunt, but if you did NOT purchase a license, you do NOT have the “right” to hunt. Again…making it not a right at all. But Yes, Skinnee, in its simplest thoughtless form, you have the “right” to hunt; however, it’s not even remotely close to real rights. The two are not the same, nor do they have the same meaning. Now, if you are not trying to put the two “rights” in the same boat as I explained, then you simply are not applying any critical thinking or not presenting what
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejquote:It's not a red herring... It is a digression... A digression is an unintentional consequence of getting off topic for a brief period of time. A red herring is a mechanism used to lead readers to a false conclusion.
Originally posted by WarblerThis whole right/privilege sideshow is such red herring. Your “right” to drive deer with dogs ends at my property line.
The first rule of fight club is…
No, a red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. That’s what the right/privilege sideshow is doing. It really has little if anything to do with whether doggers should be allowed to do what they’re currently doing…but you already knew that. You just can’t argue heads-up on this issue b/c you have no good answers.
The first rule of fight club is…
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejquote:I already asked you to clarify your question. If you don't clarify it, I still don't understand. I would like to answer your question, but you haven't asked one that I understand yet. All I know is you have an "injun question"...
Originally posted by WarblerEnough, how about my question?
The first rule of fight club is…
Here it is again below. There’s nothing to clarify. Read the scenario and then answer the question posed at the end:
As to the “invasion of privacy” angle, you’re still not getting my point. Let’s try this: here’s a scenario (I could come up with a hundred of these, both involving hunting on my land or not):
I’m down at my pond. Got my wife, my kids, my dog. We’re cooking out. Enjoying the afternoon. The kids are throwing the ball in the pond for the dog to retrieve. Then I hear it—those f’ing deer hounds yap, yap, yapping away. They’re clearly on my property and getting closer. After chasing a deer around my “back forty” for a while, they lose the trail and come meandering up to us at the pond. My lab goes to check them out and starts tangling with a couple of them so as I’m dealing with that (after all, they’re invading his territory), another one of the bastards steals some food off my tailgate. Being a nice guy, and especially since my wife and kids are there, I don’t blow them all to hell. In fact, maybe even I suspend my family activity, round up as many of the mutts as I can, and take them down the road to a dogpen. Even leave them some water. (You see, unlike doggers, I’m a good person…hell, I probably treat their d
quote:1) You could always look up the definition. Nobody is keeping you from doing that. 2) I don't know why you are accusing me of not engaging in a heads up argument. That too would also be false since I have addressed your points. While you are looking up the definition to "Red Herring", you can also go back to page 6 and see that it was Skeeter who basically corrected me on "rights" vs "privileges". My original point was that your ideas of fines of 5k per dog, jail time and loss of hunting (insert whatever you like here) a
Originally posted by Warblerquote:
Originally posted by skinneejquote:It's not a red herring... It is a digression... A digression is an unintentional consequence of getting off topic for a brief period of time. A red herring is a mechanism used to lead readers to a false conclusion.
Originally posted by WarblerThis whole right/privilege sideshow is such red herring. Your “right” to drive deer with dogs ends at my property line.
The first rule of fight club is…
No, a red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. That’s what the right/privilege sideshow is doing. It really has little if anything to do with whether doggers should be allowed to do what they’re currently doing…but you already knew that. You just can’t argue heads-up on this issue b/c you have no good answers.
The first rule of fight club is…
quote:
It really has little if anything to do with whether doggers should be allowed to do what they're currently doing..
Which has nothing at all to do with this topic, which is a change of management laws to 8 deer a season and $15 in permits. WTF?
Capt. Larry Teuton
Cracker Built Custom Boats
“Ships are the nearest things to dreams that hands have ever made.” -Robert N. Rose
quote:I already answered this question... What part of "fine" do you not understand?
Originally posted by WarblerHere it is again below. There’s nothing to clarify. Read the scenario and then answer the question posed at the end:
As to the “invasion of privacy” angle, you’re still not getting my point. Let’s try this: here’s a scenario (I could come up with a hundred of these, both involving hunting on my land or not):
I’m down at my pond. Got my wife, my kids, my dog. We’re cooking out. Enjoying the afternoon. The kids are throwing the ball in the pond for the dog to retrieve. Then I hear it—those f’ing deer hounds yap, yap, yapping away. They’re clearly on my property and getting closer. After chasing a deer around my “back forty” for a while, they lose the trail and come meandering up to us at the pond. My lab goes to check them out and starts tangling with a couple of them so as I’m dealing with that (after all, they’re invading his territory), another one of the bastards steals some food off my tailgate. Being a nice guy, and especially since my wife and kids are there, I don’t blow them all to hell. In fact, maybe even I suspend my family activity, round up as many of the mutts as I can, and take them down the road to a dogpen. Even leave them some water. (You see, unlike doggers, I’m a good person…hell, I probably treat their deer dogs better than they do). In any event, put on your honest injun hat for a second—is that something that I should have to deal with?
The first rule of fight club is…
And again, I asked you a follow up question. Who do you blame when it’s not dogs, but coyotes?
quote:Nice catch!!! Looks like Warbler is the master of the red herring!!! LOL!!!
Originally posted by Cracker Larryquote:
It really has little if anything to do with whether doggers should be allowed to do what they're currently doing..
Which has nothing at all to do with this topic, which is a change of management laws to 8 deer a season and $15 in permits. WTF?
Capt. Larry Teuton
Cracker Built Custom Boats“Ships are the nearest things to dreams that hands have ever made.” -Robert N. Rose
quote:
Originally posted by salty849I bet your fun to be around solely from the fact of your current tone to a few folks on this forum Belittling people for running rogue is one thing, but these boys on here don’t seem to do that. And to tell the truth, I’d rather deal with my current situation of a dog or 2 running on me every few weeks than have to deal with a 10 acre plantation owner from the city who has big ideas and wants to change the world.
So now those who are defending property rights are changing the world…I see. Just b/c you choose to have your rights trampled upon doesn’t mean I should. I’m not belittling anyone, unless you’re a degenerate redneck rogue dogger POS, in which case you deserve to be belittled.
The first rule of fight club is…
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejquote:1) You could always look up the definition. Nobody is keeping you from doing that. 2) I don't know why you are accusing me of not engaging in a heads up argument. That too would also be false since I have addressed your points. While you are looking up the definition to "Red Herring", you can also go back to page 6 and see that it was Skeeter who basically co
Originally posted by Warblerquote:
Originally posted by skinneejquote:It's not a red herring... It is a digression... A digression is an unintentional consequence of getting off topic for a brief period of time. A red herring is a mechanism used to lead readers to a false conclusion.
Originally posted by WarblerThis whole right/privilege sideshow is such red herring. Your “right” to drive deer with dogs ends at my property line.
The first rule of fight club is…
No, a red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. That’s what the right/privilege sideshow is doing. It really has little if anything to do with whether doggers should be allowed to do what they’re currently doing…but you already knew that. You just can’t argue heads-up on this issue b/c you have no good answers.
The first rule of fight club is…