|
Post by x-demoman on Feb 3, 2012 21:14:02 GMT -6
Guess I missed something. When did the antis take away or trapping priviliges?
Gene
|
|
|
Post by jaredskillen1 on Feb 3, 2012 21:47:38 GMT -6
YES!!
|
|
|
Post by feathhd on Feb 4, 2012 0:36:38 GMT -6
demoman, How many ethical anti trapping rules / regulations does it take to strangle folks who just simply enjoy trapping?
Every time you turn around they are trying to force a new rule or regulation in as a means to make it harder for guys to enjoy the sport. You see what I am saying?
They have done these things and each time we have to mount support be it dollars and staff to fight off many restrictive rules pushed by those who love nothing more than to see you not trap at all.
They deprive us from our limited resources forcing us to spend money to battle them on just about every level and as long as we are not spending money promoting our way of life and dumping it down a legal drain hole, is a simple means to an end for them. They will keep at it unless we stop this horse play and get serious about protecting our heritage and our kids futures.
Trust me they love nothing more than to see us waste money fighting with them over every little thing they can bring up.
If you don't think it's happened and it's not part of their end game, guess again.
|
|
|
Post by Griz on Feb 4, 2012 15:13:00 GMT -6
You would still have to abide by the rules and laws, regulations as outlined in the following. Therefore, the Legislature intends that the citizens of Iowa have a right to hunt, fish, Trap and take game, subject to the regulations and restrictions prescribed by general law.Penalties / violations etc are still subject to law as are the requirements of licenses / fees etc. What it does is protect your present opportunties from ever being lost by those who seek at every measure to make it harder to hunt fish, trap or take wild game by lawful methods perscribed by law. Or does it? Even the right of freedom of speech has consistently had certain legal restrictions. For example, one can not yell "Fire" in a crowded auditorium. Thus, if as you say "those who seek at every measure to make it harder to hunt fish, trap or take wild game by lawful methods perscribed [sic] by law." use "subject to the regulations and restrictions prescribed by general law." to restrict the right to the point that one effectively doesn't have the (right) any more than if the current (privilege) is restricted by general law? For example, suppose your Constitutional Amendment passes: "The Legislature intends that the citizens of Iowa have a right to hunt, fish, Trap and take game, subject to the regulations and restrictions prescribed by general law." And, general laws are passed by "those who seek at every measure to make it harder to hunt fish, trap or take wild game by lawful methods perscribed [sic] by law.": Trapping is hereby legal only on private property, with written permission of the land owner, from Monday through Friday. It would seem to me that your Constitutional Amendment is mostly political eye wash that sounds good, but in fact has little content because it may not be what it seems to be on the surface. Sort of a political version the big print (Constitutional Amendment Right) giveth and the fine print (subject to the regulations and restrictions prescribed by general law) taketh away.
|
|
|
Post by furman on Feb 4, 2012 15:38:56 GMT -6
OK then lets not do anything...and fight the fires when they come and have NOTHING in writhing to protect our rights just like Florida, New Jersey, Arizona,Colorado,Massachusetts, California and Washington where they lost there trapping rights.... sounds like a plan
|
|
|
Post by Griz on Feb 4, 2012 15:43:47 GMT -6
OK then lets not do anything...and fight the fires when they come and have NOTHING in writhing to protect our rights just like Florida, New Jersey, Arizona,Colorado,Massachusetts, California and Washington where they lost there trapping rights.... sounds like a plan To do nothing is to lose in all cases. We will be required to fight to maintain what we have regardless of whether it is labeled a "right" or a "privilege".
|
|
|
Post by furman on Feb 4, 2012 15:46:02 GMT -6
like i said lets fight the fires when they come and not to try to do anything in the mean time...sounds like a smart plan to me...lay back and wait
|
|
|
Post by Griz on Feb 4, 2012 15:53:10 GMT -6
like i said lets fight the fires when they come and not to try to do anything in the mean time...sounds like a smart plan to me...lay back and wait Sounds like we are saying the same thing!
|
|
|
Post by furman on Feb 4, 2012 15:55:49 GMT -6
i'm sure the antis are on your side also....so your not alone
|
|
|
Post by Griz on Feb 4, 2012 15:58:07 GMT -6
i sure the antis are on your side also....so your not alone
|
|
|
Post by furman on Feb 4, 2012 16:02:02 GMT -6
do a poll with a bunch of anti trappers i bet 99% would agree with you
|
|
|
Post by Griz on Feb 4, 2012 16:14:20 GMT -6
OK then lets not do anything...and fight the fires when they come and have NOTHING in writhing to protect our rights just like Florida, New Jersey, Arizona,Colorado,Massachusetts, California and Washington where they lost there trapping rights.... sounds like a plan To do nothing is to lose in all cases. We will be required to fight to maintain what we have regardless of whether it is labeled a "right" or a "privilege". Are you saying that 99% of anti's agree with you that we should roll over and do nothing? That is not what I said. I said that we will be required to fight to maintain what we have regardless of whether it is labeled a "right" or a "privilege". The fights will be necessary to stave off regulations and restrictions prescribed by general law regardless of whether it is labeled as a "right" or a "privilege".
|
|
|
Post by feathhd on Feb 4, 2012 16:26:08 GMT -6
I guess you may have missed the point with in reason or as prescribe by previous law in which said issues can be deferred to historical rules and guidelines as the base line and anything above that could be dismissed as frivolous and doesn't warrant any further actions than already prescribe by general law.
I call it , have a nice day. come back yah here!
|
|
|
Post by furman on Feb 4, 2012 16:35:00 GMT -6
i'm glad you'r out there doing what you do feathhd....it's a good thing to have you out there on the sportsmen side
with you saying .....I call it....i'm guessing that your going with the other agenda and this will be put on the back burner
|
|
|
Post by dspree on Feb 4, 2012 22:17:45 GMT -6
To do nothing is to lose in all cases. We will be required to fight to maintain what we have regardless of whether it is labeled a "right" or a "privilege". Are you saying that 99% of anti's agree with you that we should roll over and do nothing? That is not what I said. I said that we will be required to fight to maintain what we have regardless of whether it is labeled a "right" or a "privilege". The fights will be necessary to stave off regulations and restrictions prescribed by general law regardless of whether it is labeled as a "right" or a "privilege". This was pretty much what I was trying to say.
|
|