constitutional right to hunt and fish

[2thDoc]

looks like its coming back to the General Assembly.

thoughts?

At first glance, I am all in favor of this....but I wonder whether or not its smart to put it in writing and let the government have a say in it. Seems like it will only make it easier for them to pull it from us in the future. I think the first time through, there was some wording that was at odds with what the NRA wanted....(i admit i am not a huge fan of the NRA)....but what are y'alls thoughts on this potential bill?

[Glenn]

I think that it will drum up a lot of support based on it's title and on the emotion of the issue. Should be popular with most of us "bitter/clingers".

But like you I wonder why I need Gov't and a piece of paper to tell me I have that right. And you and I both know that anything the Gov't "gives" you comes with a price and can be taken away much like a teenager and his car that Mom and Dad gave him.

[Swamp Rat]

You run a risk, when you put it to a vote, of having it shot down by an unforeseen opponent.

I think it's best left not addressed.

[Mergie Master]

I agree with y'all. It sounds good on the surface to paper it as a right. But some things are best left silently 'understood'.

If they make it an amendment and put it on paper it could later become a target to the antis for a repeal. Just my 2¢

[DRDUCK]

I am gonna hunt and fish and don't give a shit what they say. How bout that 2th.

[rp]

It will be our right for them to control even more. They will be telling us how to do it.

[DeltaDucks]

I agree, I think it is a bad idea. Sounds good on the surface, but we, the sportsman of SC have nothing to gain from this.

I'll admit I'm not a fan of the NRA either.

[rp]

The original wording referred to "tradional" methods of hunting. They gave no definition of "traditional". Being that our crew in the Statehouse is becoming more & more left wing, they may later construe "traditional" to be with a bow and arrow, no guns, or maybe no guns more that a black powder. That was the killer but why should they be saying what is our right when we already do it?

[CAMO SNOB]

I will NOT allow any government to tell me I have the right to hunt and fish... God gave me that right when I was born in this world and NO one will EVER take it away, no matter what

This is just more wasted time by our stupid fucking government, is there really nothing better for them to do?

[MDman]

I will NOT allow any government to tell me I have the right to hunt and fish... God gave me that right when I was born in this world and NO one will EVER take it away, no matter what

So, this means you dont buy hunting/fishing licenses and hunt/fish wherever you want to and take as many game as you want?

[Stripa Swipa]

While there are precious few things in this world more important to me than hunting and fishing, it doesn't mean that I agree with someone else just because they like to hunt and fish as well. As an example, this so called "right" is often used by deer doggers because they don't want to understand that they are actually trampling on other's true rights. The perverse use of this perceived right already does damage to our common cause. These kinds of laws also have a history of hampering valuable conservation initiatives that in the long term often help hunting and fishing. Think about how bag/creel limits currently get set in SC. Go to a public discussion about changing those kinds of laws and listen to what the average opinion/approach is.
My opinion.....slippery slope that seems to be driven by special interest groups in need of political capital.

[Glenn]

Spot on J, spot on.

[justpracticin]

Codifying a God-given right is a slippery slope. It leads to problems.

[MC]

Excellent points Stripa.

I've had all the government influence in my life I care to take...this country is choking to death on governement as it is. Despite what they think, politicians are not the fix for our woes. Even the Republican party has fallen into the trap of big government being all things to all people.

I fall on the side of the issue of not believing my ability to hunt and fish is any sort of "right".

I am priviledged to live in an area where we have abudant natural resources of which I can participate in the taking, management and preservation of those resources. This is a priviledge afforded me by geography, biology, my good health and a few other factors. I can enjoy this priviledge because it has not been trampled on in excess by my fellow man to a point where we either no longer have those natural resources to enjoy, or lack access to land suitable to pursue game in the way we prefer.

Make no mistake, if the government (in whatever form) were to seek to hinder my ability to hunt and fish, I would be in the front of the line of opposition. However I wouldn't be defending my "right" to hunt and fish. Nobody gave me the "right" to hunt and fish, therefore, nobody can take away my "right" to hunt and fish. It is a priviledge, and every one of us has the responsibility to uphold that priviledge.

[justpracticin]

The bill has been filed for years. It passes the house each time. The senate did not take it up because Jake Knotts held it off because the NRA did not agree with the wording.

If it passed it would be set in stone and be great for our long term right to hunt.

Spoken like a true politician

[ccleroy]

I think that it will drum up a lot of support based on it's title and on the emotion of the issue. Should be popular with most of us "bitter/clingers".

But like you I wonder why I need Gov't and a piece of paper to tell me I have that right. And you and I both know that anything the Gov't "gives" you comes with a price and can be taken away much like a teenager and his car that Mom and Dad gave him.

Couldnt have said it any better...........

[SCDAWG]

I thought the same thing JP. Nothing like a man telling me what will be better for me in the future. I don't care if it is the local school board, people that have a desire for public office have a touch of a power trip.

Lindsey Graham voted for the immigration bill, while people of this state didn't want it. I guess he felt like he knew better than us. Same thing with John McCain. The people of Arizona wanted something different, but he knew better and had a national agenda.

The right to hunt, how many numb-nut "good 'ole boys" would be ALL for that. Duck Tape gave a perfect example of a politician's way to influence the uneducated and non thinkers.
"If it passed it would be set in stone and be great for our long term right to hunt." He must be one us!

When are the elected people going to start saying that it isn't government's responsibility?

[MC]

When are the elected people going to start saying that it isn't government's responsibility?

It is going to take the people who keep electing them to get tired enough to demand different before anything will change.

[WhitewaterDuck]

While there are precious few things in this world more important to me than hunting and fishing, it doesn't mean that I agree with someone else just because they like to hunt and fish as well. As an example, this so called "right" is often used by deer doggers because they don't want to understand that they are actually trampling on other's true rights. The perverse use of this perceived right already does damage to our common cause. These kinds of laws also have a history of hampering valuable conservation initiatives that in the long term often help hunting and fishing. Think about how bag/creel limits currently get set in SC. Go to a public discussion about changing those kinds of laws and listen to what the average opinion/approach is.
My opinion.....slippery slope that seems to be driven by special interest groups in need of political capital.

I grew up "deer doggin." My family, long before I was born grew up "deer doggin" in MS. This was long before such sophisticated asses like yourself came along and decided that "deer doggin" was trampling on your precious rights. Some hunt right; some hunt wrong. Some still hunting clubs take 60 to 70 bucks a year with less than 10% being 3+ years of age. Is that wrong? Who gives you the right to say? Maybe I prefer the taste of a young deer to an old one, and if I only kill young ones, the the trophies are still out there producing offspring for trophy hunters like yourself, right? So, what are your going complain about next? Just so you know, I haven't been on a dog drive in fifteen years, and I have bowhunted primarily with a recurve for the last twelve years; I still support the wonderful tradition of dog driving because it is a method of hunting that has been around since long before I was born and who the heck am I to try to say it is bad. Who are you to make that claim? All I know is that twenty years ago, we, Americans who wanted to hunt, were a lot better off than we are now. Now we are overrun with pompous wankers who think that just because they have an opinion, that opinion is correct. There are a lot of hunters out there who use a lot of various means to hunt; as long as they are within the law's written word, chill. There are enough antis out there without you helping their cause. And before you give me this "lets not give the antis any ammunition" crap, let me preemptively say, grow a spine.

[Mergie Master]

I've never had a problem with doggers as long as they stay on their own land. When they let their dogs run amuck on other people's property then I have a problem. When they do that they are violating other people's rights. No matter how old the "tradition" is, that part is wrong.

When Thomas Jefferson first penned the term "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" he penned "Life, Liberty and Property" but changed it due to the debate on slavery. Private property and the rights that go with it are one of the cornerstones of this great nation. When you interfere with someone else's you are always in the wrong.