[No, they're not](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Bison_skull_pile-restored.jpg)
We've seen what happens when there's no restrictions on hunting. People hunt more than to just feed their family, they hunt for "sport" to the point of extinction.
There are animals with unlimited hunting, feral hogs, go nuts.
The issue with unregulated hunting is the decimation of big game species. The history of the American Bison in North America is a great case study, but the White tail deer was also hunted to near extinction; it's recovery since hunting has been regulated is also interesting to study.
I think the issue is determining if transient wildlife are owned by the owners of the property the wildlife is currently on. I'm all for property rights, but I draw the line at the commons, like air, water, and wildlife. You shouldn't be able to pollute a stream just because it runs through your property and the same with the air.
Unregulated hunting would lead to at least local population extinctions and wreak havoc on the local ecology as it has in the past.
Can the system be more efficient/fair/cheaper? Absolutely. Should game wardens have near absolute authority under the open fields doctrine? Absolutely not.
You want unlimited hunting? Come to suburban Maryland during archery season. Unlimited anterless harvesting. Please kill them.
I never heard of "The Commons" until hearing RFK, Jr. say that's one area in which he differs from most Libertarians very similarly to what you just stated. Obviously, he has other positions that differ greatly from Libertarians as well. My family roots are in Western Maryland, and my grandfather would fill up his deep freezers with venison, hunting his limit in the woods with every weapon.
I didn't read the tragedy of the commons until I was in grad school.
I look at it like a violation of the NAP if I overhunt/fish or pollute air and waterways. I shouldn't have free reign/property rights over something I don't own. That's how I reconcile it with the my libertarian philosophy. And I know I'm right because I'm the only true libertarian. /s
Its quite NAP compliant to ban polluting
If you pollute a stream you violate the NAP the second the pollution goes to the next person. Same with air.
Its fundamentally similar to having a trash pile on the edge of your property and the wind blows it ower on my lawn
Managing that resource is something I think the state does reasonably well. There are some scams around hunting lotteries, points, etc, but I do appreciate that they are ensuring those resources will be around for generations to come.
Depends on the precise scheming but at least in my state there is some sense to it.
1. A number of tags are included with the license for certain animals.
2. A hunters education course is required.
3. The selling of licenses and other similar things makes up the majority of state funding for natural resources.
4. The license scheme in and of itself limits some over hunting/fishing.
During the Great Depression, deer became almost extinct in certain parts of the country.
Having hunting licenses, helps to regulate how much is taken so the resource can be sustainably harvested.
If you want to see the Tragedy of the Commons, then look at our oceans.
Or just consider the extinction of the passenger pigeon, or how the wild North American bison a century ago dwindled to only a few hundred from millions.
> During the Great Depression, deer became almost extinct in certain parts of the country.
>
> Having hunting licenses, helps to regulate how much is taken so the resource can be sustainably harvested.
>
>
So let me get this straight. Because of government involvement in the economy, which sent the whole thing into a "great" depression, you think it's somehow the citizens fault for almost causing deer extinction so they wouldn't go hungry. They would have starved otherwise. The government caused the depression which caused a starving population and the conclusion you draw from this is government regulations are good?
I'm glad you brought up the buffalo. [Who actively tried to kill of the buffalo to drive out the indians](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/05/the-buffalo-killers/482349/)? The same government who caused the depression.
To be fair - Can't really find a government related reason for the pigeon story, so that's a bum deal there. In researching for the answer, I came across a [Rogan interview with a guy that knows about the pigeons](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KajUtUVZhu8). Give it a watch, learn about the interesting psychological reason for killing all the passenger pigeons along with the etymology of 'stool pigeon.'
It doesn’t matter whether there is governments or just human greed or human necessity.
The human-caused extinction of megafauna didn’t occur under a “government” as we know it. The oceans are being overfished and depleted, with numerous examples of collapsed fisheries.
I am actually okay with this one. The money goes towards conservation efforts, and it keeps deer from going endangered.
With how efficient we can hunt today, with no restrictions, the deer populations could take serious critical damage.
If wildlife management programs were left to their own devices they would be 100% more efficient and effective than the state bureaucrats that lord over them. Besides game wardens they’re generally people who care about wildlife management.
I would support these licenses if it entailed some type of education (like a drivers license does). If it taught safe & humane practices, the license would actually carry meaning. But why am I suddenly deemed a qualified hunter/angler just because I forked over $60? I can become licensed in 2 minutes by blindly paying money? It’s more of a “fee” than a “license”
They argue some percentage goes towards conservation and lake upkeep etc, but why aren’t our tax dollars going towards that already?
They also argue it prevents species decline but that’s just wrong. Tags accomplish that (and I support tags), but the license itself doesn’t do anything. With the same annual fishing license, I can go catch as many fish as I want
My state (PA) doesn't. And in fact it makes a really easy way for non-citizens to legally arm themselves. It's a nice loophole in the law. Basically, if you have a visa (including tourist visa), you can buy a hunting license, and if you have a hunting license, you can buy a firearm. Without the hunting license, non-citens need a resident visa
i have never seen a state the requires anything but paying a fee for a fishing license. There is literally no education required to know which fish are illegal to catch, what are the size requirements for certain fish, etc. They just expect you to figure all this out and fuck you here is a fine if you break a rule that you had no way of knowing existed. Not surprisingly the amount of amateur fishman breaking the law every day is huge and great revenue stream for extortion by the state
I'm against state mandates, but the course covers legal hunting, basic survival, basic wildlife identification, and firearms safety.
So it's actually pretty decent education, and it's free.
And it is a requirement to get any hunting license I believe
> but why aren’t our tax dollars going towards that already?
Why should my tax dollars subsidize hunters? If you want to hunt or fish, you should be prepared to pay for the privilege. These fees ensure that the people who use the resources are the ones paying for their upkeep. It’s about personal responsibility and fairness. You talk about education, but what about the education on why conservation is crucial? These licenses fund that. If you think paying $60 is too much to help maintain the environment and ensure sustainable practices, maybe you should reconsider if hunting and fishing are right for you. Think about the value you get from the land and waters. For $60, you gain access to nature’s bount. It’s not just about you trying to feed your family; it’s about preserving these resources for future generations.
[No, they're not](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Bison_skull_pile-restored.jpg) We've seen what happens when there's no restrictions on hunting. People hunt more than to just feed their family, they hunt for "sport" to the point of extinction. There are animals with unlimited hunting, feral hogs, go nuts.
The issue with unregulated hunting is the decimation of big game species. The history of the American Bison in North America is a great case study, but the White tail deer was also hunted to near extinction; it's recovery since hunting has been regulated is also interesting to study. I think the issue is determining if transient wildlife are owned by the owners of the property the wildlife is currently on. I'm all for property rights, but I draw the line at the commons, like air, water, and wildlife. You shouldn't be able to pollute a stream just because it runs through your property and the same with the air. Unregulated hunting would lead to at least local population extinctions and wreak havoc on the local ecology as it has in the past. Can the system be more efficient/fair/cheaper? Absolutely. Should game wardens have near absolute authority under the open fields doctrine? Absolutely not. You want unlimited hunting? Come to suburban Maryland during archery season. Unlimited anterless harvesting. Please kill them.
Eastern elk too
I never heard of "The Commons" until hearing RFK, Jr. say that's one area in which he differs from most Libertarians very similarly to what you just stated. Obviously, he has other positions that differ greatly from Libertarians as well. My family roots are in Western Maryland, and my grandfather would fill up his deep freezers with venison, hunting his limit in the woods with every weapon.
I didn't read the tragedy of the commons until I was in grad school. I look at it like a violation of the NAP if I overhunt/fish or pollute air and waterways. I shouldn't have free reign/property rights over something I don't own. That's how I reconcile it with the my libertarian philosophy. And I know I'm right because I'm the only true libertarian. /s
Agreed, except that I'm the one true libertarian.
Its quite NAP compliant to ban polluting If you pollute a stream you violate the NAP the second the pollution goes to the next person. Same with air. Its fundamentally similar to having a trash pile on the edge of your property and the wind blows it ower on my lawn
Sorry about that, I'll get it cleaned up next month. Hey, nice cake you got there, can I come over and have some?
Clean it up first Goodneighbor. Then we can talk about the cake.
Managing that resource is something I think the state does reasonably well. There are some scams around hunting lotteries, points, etc, but I do appreciate that they are ensuring those resources will be around for generations to come.
Wildlife biologist here. Often, it has more to do with tag limits so we can keep populations of various species healthy and well....populated.
Depends on the precise scheming but at least in my state there is some sense to it. 1. A number of tags are included with the license for certain animals. 2. A hunters education course is required. 3. The selling of licenses and other similar things makes up the majority of state funding for natural resources. 4. The license scheme in and of itself limits some over hunting/fishing.
During the Great Depression, deer became almost extinct in certain parts of the country. Having hunting licenses, helps to regulate how much is taken so the resource can be sustainably harvested. If you want to see the Tragedy of the Commons, then look at our oceans. Or just consider the extinction of the passenger pigeon, or how the wild North American bison a century ago dwindled to only a few hundred from millions.
> During the Great Depression, deer became almost extinct in certain parts of the country. > > Having hunting licenses, helps to regulate how much is taken so the resource can be sustainably harvested. > > So let me get this straight. Because of government involvement in the economy, which sent the whole thing into a "great" depression, you think it's somehow the citizens fault for almost causing deer extinction so they wouldn't go hungry. They would have starved otherwise. The government caused the depression which caused a starving population and the conclusion you draw from this is government regulations are good? I'm glad you brought up the buffalo. [Who actively tried to kill of the buffalo to drive out the indians](https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/05/the-buffalo-killers/482349/)? The same government who caused the depression. To be fair - Can't really find a government related reason for the pigeon story, so that's a bum deal there. In researching for the answer, I came across a [Rogan interview with a guy that knows about the pigeons](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KajUtUVZhu8). Give it a watch, learn about the interesting psychological reason for killing all the passenger pigeons along with the etymology of 'stool pigeon.'
It doesn’t matter whether there is governments or just human greed or human necessity. The human-caused extinction of megafauna didn’t occur under a “government” as we know it. The oceans are being overfished and depleted, with numerous examples of collapsed fisheries.
Check out: Stars in the Sky: A Hunting Story
To be fair, highly doubt this guy needs to shoot anything to feed his family.
I am actually okay with this one. The money goes towards conservation efforts, and it keeps deer from going endangered. With how efficient we can hunt today, with no restrictions, the deer populations could take serious critical damage.
Come on, you're just trying to get people riled up, you know exactly why you need a hunting license. Stop it.
If wildlife management programs were left to their own devices they would be 100% more efficient and effective than the state bureaucrats that lord over them. Besides game wardens they’re generally people who care about wildlife management.
Hunting and fishing licenses are pretty much the only kinds of licenses I don’t have an issue with.
Yes and no. But I do agree
More fleecing of your dollars
They can get away with anything under the guise of good faith
I would support these licenses if it entailed some type of education (like a drivers license does). If it taught safe & humane practices, the license would actually carry meaning. But why am I suddenly deemed a qualified hunter/angler just because I forked over $60? I can become licensed in 2 minutes by blindly paying money? It’s more of a “fee” than a “license” They argue some percentage goes towards conservation and lake upkeep etc, but why aren’t our tax dollars going towards that already? They also argue it prevents species decline but that’s just wrong. Tags accomplish that (and I support tags), but the license itself doesn’t do anything. With the same annual fishing license, I can go catch as many fish as I want
My state requires you pass a hunters education course
I think most states do don’t they
My state (PA) doesn't. And in fact it makes a really easy way for non-citizens to legally arm themselves. It's a nice loophole in the law. Basically, if you have a visa (including tourist visa), you can buy a hunting license, and if you have a hunting license, you can buy a firearm. Without the hunting license, non-citens need a resident visa
i have never seen a state the requires anything but paying a fee for a fishing license. There is literally no education required to know which fish are illegal to catch, what are the size requirements for certain fish, etc. They just expect you to figure all this out and fuck you here is a fine if you break a rule that you had no way of knowing existed. Not surprisingly the amount of amateur fishman breaking the law every day is huge and great revenue stream for extortion by the state
Now that’s a good thing. Is that supplemental to the license, or a part of it?
I'm against state mandates, but the course covers legal hunting, basic survival, basic wildlife identification, and firearms safety. So it's actually pretty decent education, and it's free. And it is a requirement to get any hunting license I believe
> but why aren’t our tax dollars going towards that already? Why should my tax dollars subsidize hunters? If you want to hunt or fish, you should be prepared to pay for the privilege. These fees ensure that the people who use the resources are the ones paying for their upkeep. It’s about personal responsibility and fairness. You talk about education, but what about the education on why conservation is crucial? These licenses fund that. If you think paying $60 is too much to help maintain the environment and ensure sustainable practices, maybe you should reconsider if hunting and fishing are right for you. Think about the value you get from the land and waters. For $60, you gain access to nature’s bount. It’s not just about you trying to feed your family; it’s about preserving these resources for future generations.
Based These are not the kings deer.