Mountain man in court

[steveh_131]

Incorrect. Some animals are varmit/pest animals and can be shot at will.

Game animals are not your property, they are property of the State of Indiana.

Says who?

I think mice are valuable. I think I should be entitled to 1/300,000,000 of the mice in this nation.

Want to kill them? Get a permit.

I understand the legal difference, but from an ethical standpoint your argument is completely inconsistent.

 

[Dolton916]

"Then shooting any wild animal on your own property is the same as killing your neighbors cow.

Right?"

For anyone other than my family and me yes. I either hunt my own property or others WITH permission, If you have my permission, which you can only get by proving your hunt is legal (And proving you're not an idiot, but someone who can handle their weapon and the situation) you can hunt my land. I have a hunting license and a tag for the animal I'm taking. I'm not poaching. You're not welcome to anything on my land with out my permission and the legal right as defined by LAW to take it. If a squirrel runs through my fence onto someone Else's property I no longer feel the right to protect that squirrel but my neighbor may.



If I go to your property and take your cow, T.V. or well, just anything else I want, I'm stealing. It's against the LAW and "Free Men" will hold me liable.

See it's the difference between honorable men and those who wish to lower their standards and act as if they wish it, so it is.

 

[Dolton916]

Incorrect. Some animals are varmit/pest animals and can be shot at will.

Game animals are not your property, they are property of the State of Indiana.

I agree with this as long as you're on your own property, some may feel it's a moral call, but sometimes killing pests is required to protect livestock and property.

True game animals are not our property but I will protect them from illegal hunting on my land.

Steveh_131 send me your address and I'll send you my share of the mice too!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Says who?

I think mice are valuable. I think I should be entitled to 1/300,000,000 of the mice in this nation.

Want to kill them? Get a permit.

Says the Rule of Law.

You think mice are valuable? Cool, get a bill sponsored and I'll see you in committee.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

Government is nothing more than an intangible tool created by people within a society to provide a framework of rules to facilitate harmony for everyone.

The State of Montana was created by the people who lived there when the State was first organized and recognized by a higher State, the Federal Government of the United States.

In the initial creation of the State of Montana the people in all their wisdom created a foundation upon which future generations added to, modified, and removed rules as their wisdom guided.

In the end, all the people of Montana need to do to effect change is either pressure their State legislators or run for office themselves to promote reformed or removed rules regarding fishing licenses. ALL power rests in the hands of the people of Montana.

Whether they have the focus, wisdom, or will to effect such change is another issue...?

Regards,

Doug

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I understand the legal difference, but from an ethical standpoint your argument is completely inconsistent.

I don't think its ethically inconsistent. Game animals are a resource. A source of food, recreation, trophy, etc. They have a value that society recognizes. You simply declaring mice are valuable doesn't make it so. Obviously mice do have some value as lab animals, as food for pet snakes, etc and there is a market for them. Wild mice destroy property, carry disease, and trick cats into running into dog houses and hitting the large dog with a frying pan while trying to whack the mouse, inevitably resulting in injury to the cat*. They are detrimental and have no value. Its pretty reasonable to protect a resource while promoting the eradication of a varmint.



*everything I know about mice I learned from Saturday morning cartoons.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Even varmints have their place in the food chain

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

To All,

Government is nothing more than an intangible tool created by people within a society to provide a framework of rules to facilitate harmony for everyone.

The State of Montana was created by the people who lived there when the State was first organized and recognized by a higher State, the Federal Government of the United States.

In the initial creation of the State of Montana the people in all their wisdom created a foundation upon which future generations added to, modified, and removed rules as their wisdom guided.

In the end, all the people of Montana need to do to effect change is either pressure their State legislators or run for office themselves to promote reformed or removed rules regarding fishing licenses. ALL power rests in the hands of the people of Montana.

Whether they have the focus, wisdom, or will to effect such change is another issue...?

Regards,

Doug

Good post. Game laws demonstrate a couple of things: Laws can, in fact prevent behavior (at least by a substantial amount) they are written to regulate. As someone mentioned earlier, I am of an age that I can remember a time where the sighting of a deer in the wild was akin to spotting Sasquatch. Secondly, man acting only on his selfish interests, without something to regulate his behavior, can be a destructive force. They may not be perfect but they have demonstrated they can work to provide needed regulation to help ensure those natural resources will be available in the future.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Even varmints have their place in the food chain

Some of them provide targets for my truck when they dart out into the road too.

 

[hornadylnl]

Good post. Game laws demonstrate a couple of things: Laws can, in fact prevent behavior (at least by a substantial amount) they are written to regulate. As someone mentioned earlier, I am of an age that I can remember a time where the sighting of a deer in the wild was akin to spotting Sasquatch. Secondly, man acting only on his selfish interests, without something to regulate his behavior, can be a destructive force. They may not be perfect but they have demonstrated they can work to provide needed regulation to help ensure those natural resources will be available in the future.

The left feels the same way about money, healthcare.....

 

[Maximinus Thrax]

The left feels the same way about money, healthcare.....

Minus the part about being available in the future...

 

[Whosyer]

Incorrect. Some animals are varmit/pest animals and can be shot at will.

Game animals are not your property, they are property of the State of Indiana.

Why isn't the State liable for the damage caused by their property? If my livestock gets out on the road, and is hit by a car, am I not liable for the damage? Why the double standard? The deer only belong to the people, when someone posesses one without permission. ( even if you hit one with your car, you still are required to get a permit to posess, if you want to take the deer home to eat)

 

[MDave]

I would say you should ask a farmer if a Deer is a pest or not.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The left feels the same way about money, healthcare.....

Yes, they (Left = most democrats = many republicans) believe they should take from the individuals they believe don't deserve it and giving to whom they believe are more deserving. Not exactly the same, but whatever.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Why isn't the State liable for the damage caused by their property? If my livestock gets out on the road, and is hit by a car, am I not liable for the damage? Why the double standard? The deer only belong to the people, when someone posesses one without permission. ( even if you hit one with your car, you still are required to get a permit to posess, if you want to take the deer home to eat)

The state doesn't own the air, but the state is tasked with the regulation of pollutants put in to that air for the benefit of its citizens. This does not mean you get to sue the state when the air becomes a tornado and knocks over your barn. Similarly, the state doesn't own the deer. The state is tasked with regulating the taking of the deer.

 

[steveh_131]

Says the Rule of Law.

You think mice are valuable? Cool, get a bill sponsored and I'll see you in committee.

So in your view it is morally A-OK to kill game animals without a permit, it's simply a matter of legality. You don't believe you're actually stealing from the populace. Right?

Why isn't the State liable for the damage caused by their property? If my livestock gets out on the road, and is hit by a car, am I not liable for the damage? Why the double standard? The deer only belong to the people, when someone posesses one without permission. ( even if you hit one with your car, you still are required to get a permit to posess, if you want to take the deer home to eat)

A perfect example of the inconsistency. If game animals are the property of the collective, then the collective is liable for the damage they cause.

 

[rambone]

Game animals are not your property, they are property of the State of Indiana.

Similarly, the state doesn't own the deer. The state is tasked with regulating the taking of the deer.

So why the disagreement? There must be a deed or something that can settle this, unless they are truly wild and unowned.

 

[joliverjr]

ETA: this straw man attempt to discredit my position by arguing that we cannot trust others is irrelevant to my position.

You don't seem to notice this, but the main thing discrediting you is your argument style. As I read this exhaustive thread, you unwittingly undermined yourself with logical fallacies. You keep twisting others' words so badly that it is actually laughable. When your words become laughable, they become discredited no matter how true your position might be. I think you make some good points, but you make it difficult to back up. Don't you realize that even when people agree with you, they don't want to be associated with the guy that twists words as a mode of argument? Granted, I think phylodog makes more good points, but his presentation may play a part in that.

A word of advice: If you start with "so," you are likely about to twist someone's words. "So you're okay with mob rule." "So slavery is okay. . ."

Seriously, I only say this because I think you had some good points buried in there and presentation changes could lend them a little more credibility.

 

[CarmelHP]

So why the disagreement? There must be a deed or something that can settle this, unless they are truly wild and unowned.

IC 14-22
ARTICLE 22. FISH AND WILDLIFE

IC 14-22-1
Chapter 1. General Provisions

IC 14-22-1-1
Wild animals property of the people; department to protect and manage resources
Sec. 1. (a) All wild animals, except those that are:
(1) legally owned or being held in captivity under a license or permit as required by this article; or
(2) otherwise excepted in this article;
are the property of the people of Indiana.
(b) The department shall protect and properly manage the fish and wildlife resources of Indiana.
As added by P.L.1-1995, SEC.15.

Kirk is correct, BB1 is correct only to the extent that he does not contradict Kirk.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So why the disagreement? There must be a deed or something that can settle this, unless they are truly wild and unowned.

No disagreement, in the words of Don E. Baker, Esq., "it's state law . . . Randy."