Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Yes we even have nanny state bastards in Alabama. "New law requires Ala. hunters to report turkey, deer kills."

Regular reader Scott forwards this with the comment:
I have a real problem with this and I haven't been hunting since the late 90's.
So, if you own or lease private land this is in essence saying it's not your game on that land. It's the government's.
Of course this is the natural next step from a right being converted into a privilege by the citizens conceding the government the right to license it.


Anonymous said...

The REAL problem here is Americans thinking that the word privilege means something it does not. It's not an antonym of rights - it's a SYNONYM.

PLEASE, anyone, give a read of the Fourteenth Amendment. Privileges and immunities are what you can BY RIGHT do and NOT be punished by government for doing!

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the allowances (or permissions) or immunities of the Citizens of the United States??

C'mon folks, that doesn't make any sense by any semi intelligent reading.

We can't fix anything until we end the bastardizarion of the word privilege. For those who choose to argue with that how about looking to SCOTUS? Please deconstruct the sentence that follows from Thomas -

I agree with the Court that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to the States. I do so because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship.

The right IS a privilege. Same thing. Equal. Synonym. Peer. Mirror image. Interchangeable.

A right means we need no PERMISSION from GOVERNMENT! Period.

thedweeze said...

Simple enough:

Kill it.
Cook it.
Clam up.

Anonymous said...

Wasn't "the King's Deer" one of the prime reasons behind the Robin Hood legend?

FG said...

Robin Hood showed the correct method for giving "The King's Deer" all due respect.

On a roasting spit.

j said...

But.... it's ALWAYS been this way; the King owns all the forests and the game, and the lowly peasants may be permitted by the King to take an occasional animal for their starving families, as long as they pay their taxes. This IS Nottingham, right?

Anonymous said...

A long time ago it was declared that game belongs to the state. That's the reason states have the right to regulate the taking of game animals, including defining hunting seasons, game and fish limits, etc.
In other words, game does not belong to the landowner. In old England, game did belong to landowners. So, only landowners and their friends could hunt the game. Now, you only need written permission from the landowner to hunt on his property. Many times the landowner won't charge a fee for that. Maybe you would like it to be the way it was in merry olde England again, huh?
- Old Greybeard

Anonymous said...

Serfs may not poach the royal game in the King's forest. The punishment for such impudence is death.

Jerry Carter said...

There is an upside to this. I live (and fail to hunt though I do sit, armed, in trees on occasion) in Ohio where they ask you to report kills on your own land and prefer that you do to aid with herd tracking and management. When they know there are more deer being taken in an area, they have a good metric on herd size and location and can use it to determine how many permits to issue the next year. By controlling permits (and believe me, there really are a lot of deer bagged in Ohio), they provide a good throttle on the deer population so we don't have the under story in our woods being stripped out by emaciated deer in the winter time.

There's a wildlife refuge near here, privately owned, that does NOT allow enough managed hunts on their land (and no hunting otherwise) and there is a large and sickly deer herd there in the winter. It's sad to see for many reasons.

I'm a conservationist in the true sense - take care of what God has blessed us with. That means taking responsibility for helping to control the deer and turkey population. If the DNR wants some data from me when I do, I'm OK with that. If they make me buy a tag for taking off my own land, that I have a problem with. Ohio law currently lets you bag anything in or out of season on your own land, but they strongly prefer you do it in season and share the info.

Anonymous said...

All feral animals are the property of the Crown ...

Wait a minute - you guys ejected the 'crown' and formed a Constitutional Republic!

Kiwi III

Anonymous said...

You guys remember the Birmingham bus boycott? Just asking. Not trying to start any trouble.

But one does wonder what the state would do if they were eyeball deep in sickly starving deer eating all the shrubbery in suburbia.

Anonymous said...

In MN and WI, we report our kills. A phone call to an automated system or a few clicks on the DNR web site is all you need to do.

The information is used to infer population of game animals to decide # and types of permits for the next season. Science...

Scott J said...


The way it was in Jolly Old doesn't preclude a land owner granting free permission to hunt his deer.

This law declares they're all the king's deer no matter how much land you own.

Paul X said...

"By controlling permits (and believe me, there really are a lot of deer bagged in Ohio), they provide a good throttle on the deer population..."

I suspect the same thing could be done at little cost and without a self-serving bureaucracy. Think about it - virtually all people like to see SOME deer in healthy condition; not too many and not too few. All we need is for government to get out of the way and let it happen (for example, farmers could sell access to their land on their own). The state wildlife bureaucracies have gone overboard just like every other part of government has.

Killing the king's deer without permission or fee is on my bucket list. We need to get rid of our tendencies to always submit.

Oleg write about that here:

Anonymous said...

Good grief.

We need a DNR to manage wildlife populations?

What a pile of bullshit.

DNR requires just that line of knee jerk reaction to stay in operation.

DNRs everywhere are an impediment to rational thought and wildlife use - they exist only to justify their own existence. The idea that wildlife departments stabilize game populations is a foolish myth.

Wake up folks. .Gov does nothing for you - only to you.

Dakota said...

Been that way a long time in Dakota Territory. However a rich dick came along a few years back and he wanted to start his own shooting preserve for himself and his pals. The State told him that the Turkey, Deer, Pheasant, Grouse etc were property of the State.

He in turn informed the State in writing thru a letter that he was going to build a large fence around his property and the State had so many days to get their property off his property. I thought it was pretty damn brilliant and as far as I know he won.