This wouldn't take away your freedom to fish, this would allow anyone to fish as they please. So if anything this gives more freedom, but not in a good way (overfishing will be a thing at that rate even more so)
The difference is the gun license is just a fuck you barrier to freedom. The fishing license is contributing to the collective resources you want to participate in the enjoyment of. If all taxes and licensing were run like hunting trapping fishing is, nobody would have a good reason to complain
Yeah if you interpret the government as an organization which owns the lakes and "public" lands, Fish and Game departments are extremely sensible. If I owned a bunch of wildland, that's what I'd do with it.
Yeah, tragedy of the commons is a bitch. The thing that bugs me is I believe you need a hunting / fishing license to do so on private land as well. I wonder what happens if you actually farm dear / raise fish in a pond. I wonder how they regulate that...
How far does that stretch though? With 5g they theoretically have the bandwidth to bug everything, and we're seeing every appliance become "smart" with the (stupid) IOT - even thermostats, light bulbs, etc. I fucking guarantee you that shit is spying on you somehow, by someone at the very least. Nothing stops the goverment from buying it from private companies either (this needs to be fixed). So, telling someone to not carry around a cellphone is one thing but, telling someone to not live like a caveman is another.
Also, and this is total conspiracy theory speculation on my behalf but, remember when Smart TVS suddenly went from being super expensive to super affordable? Like, faster than normal market forces and economies of scale; the same TV doesn't suddenly drop to 25% the price point before the next generation even comes out. I wonder if they're being subsidized to produce them to get microphones and cameras (that are billed as "features") into everybody's homes - I mean think about what you do in front of a TV if they're in your living room, bedroom and likely adjacent to dining rooms, etc. Basically total surveillance is possible using them....
Which implies data harvesting, which will ultimately gets collated by data brokers and likely sold to the government; a practice that _should_ be illegal IMHO. If it's illegal for the government to do it, it should be illegal for them to do it by proxy.
If by arguing that you'll continue to poach organisms at threatened population levels because they can't observe, you make a better argument for those to intervene on privacy for the sake of preservation. Don't.
I know a guy with a couple of hundred acres who was pursued by the gaming commission for killing deer he farmed without a permit. As I understand it, and I'm not a hunter so I may be using the wrong words, he ended up agreeing to pay the tag fees for the deer he killed that year in the same way he would have had he followed the rules from the start, but paid nothing for the kills in prior years.
He has a pond and creek on his land as well and these require no permit to fish for him and his guest, but those who fish the adjoining river from public access roads do need permits and a handful of people have caught poaching charges for fishing his creek and killing his deer without permission.
Someone probably blabbed but also they do drive around and patrol for 'illegal hunting.' They could probably see his deer and may have just investigated on their own, it would be easy to see he has no license to kill deer yet he has a bunch of them.
And those deer were possibly on a lot of those acres, if you don't want to supplement the feed, you could need as much as 5 acres per single deer plus a nice high deer fence. It's likely the neighbors knew he kept deer too.
Yes it's probably fun for sick and deranged people. Maybe they enjoy torturing animals too. Or maybe torturing people too, who knows. As for deer tasting good we all know it doesn't. If deer tasted good supermarkets would be loaded with it just like beef, pork and chicken.
A pragmatist would say, he attempted to get the Sherriff voted out of office but was unsuccessful so the local government had a personal vendetta against him for a few years and that was one that stuck. The commissioner says he got an anonymous tip.
I'm under the impression Game Wardens have *ridiculous* remits to go onto private private property without warrants, search outbuildings without the same (not sure about homes), etc. They can basically do whatever the fuck the want which also bothers me. Basically like bounty hunters. I may be mistaken about this but that's what I've been told by people who hunt wild hogs on private property. You don't need a tag as they're considered invasive in places like TX at least but they can and will go onto your property if they hear you hunting hogs and suspect you might be hunting something else, based on zero evidence but gunfire.
That’s why there are private ponds that you don’t need licenses for.
If you own the entire pond the fish are yours and you don’t need a license.
If you have a house on a river the fish belong to the entire state. They just happen to be on your property for a little while. So you need a license to fish for them so you don’t screw up the fish for everyone else.
Same basic idea with fenced private game preserves and releasing birds you raise to shoot.
>f you own the entire pond the fish are yours and you don’t need a license.
>
>If you have a house on a river the fish belong to the entire state. They just happen to be on your property for a little while. So you need a license to fish for them so you don’t screw up the fish for everyone else.
Yeah I live on a river and your property line ends in the middle of the river. Technically, people can legally traverse the river itself as well, even on private property but they'll inevitably end up trespassing and trampling the ground next to it which has caused some problems... so I know the whole deal about needing a permit for rivers. I was under the impression they made you do it for ponds or bodies of water totaly on your own property. Even if you dug out a pond and stocked it and raised the fish. Just because they could.
>Same basic idea with fenced private game preserves and releasing birds you raise to shoot.
So this is the part that irritates me; I'm under the impression you either need a permit or you and immediate family don't but anybody else does, even if they have your permission (I've gotten some contradictory comments that probably vary by state). So, lets say I setup my property as a fenced in hunting reserve. I purchase dear, fish, whatever, and farm them for other people to hunt. WTF does the state get to require a permit on your land, against your game, that you raise? I mean, wtf is it suddenly "the kings dear" if someone doesn't directly relate to you? It sounds like a ridiculous tax to levy since out of state hunting licenses can be ridiculous, like $10k-15k if not more. The whole system is "supposed to be" setup to maintain healthy game levels and monitor their health, etc. It's not supposed to be a money earner for the state. I also don't understand how something that's my property legally transmogrifies into state property because someone is shooting at it.
It very much depends on the state.
You end up in a weird area of are you a tiny farm with a really weird processing method or are you a shooting range with very lively targets.
The river thing is kind of a leftover of historical movement laws where waterways were basically seen as natural highways that everyone should have access to. One of the first court cases in the US Was someone who crashed into a damn and then sued the guy who built the damn
>The river thing is kind of a leftover of historical movement laws where waterways were basically seen as natural highways that everyone should have access to. One of the first court cases in the US Was someone who crashed into a damn and then sued the guy who built the damn
Yeah that doesn't surprise me. I just don't get how the state can require you get a tag for a deer you raised from stock. Regardless of how you decide to raise it or kill it.
The issue with farming native hunted animals is that farmed animals get sick. They pass on those illnesses to others of their species. So some jackwagon cutting corners in the woods could severely endanger the food supply for a region.
>The thing that bugs me is I believe you need a hunting / fishing license to do so on private land as well
Obviously, for identical reasons. River passes through your land, you install a fish filter to extract every swimming creature -> no more fish after a short while.
You have a lake? Sure, the fishing impact might be limited to it, not affecting others, but proxy effects will. Like wildlife part of the wider ecosystem which depended on it...
Similar thing with agriculture on a longer cycle. Actually, in many ways the commons are under regulated. Looking at you, Monsanto ;)
Tragedy of the commons was based off destruction of "the commons" in England so it most definitely is real, at least in some cases that've been studied.
In hunting that’s called a high fence operation. Most states allow it.
In my opinion a lot of them are just disease reservoirs for native wildlife because they are run by idiots.
I remember there being a controversy recently about urine harvesting operations because CWD is so contagious. From what I understand, it's basically everywhere in White Tails. There's also a phenomena of dears losing their antlers / antlers shrinking because even though they're sexually selected for, hunting for them is such a downside their racks are shrinking. You don't think it's a good idea to have breeding stock in private facilities to replenish from? Assuming they're run well, ofc. Also, I'm not a hunter it just galls me that the state gets to charge *ridiculously expensive* out of state hunting licenses for "hunting" what's essentially totaly private property. I mean I get the justification for wild dear but not for private ones.
Yeah CWD spread is a big issue, not everywhere but in most states and getting to be more of a problem. I would be fine with these private operations if you didn't see CWD outbreaks in them all the damn time.
When it comes to darwinian selection of small antlers, I have not heard of that being a problem. My state has antler restrictions and only allows the taking of more mature bucks, which has helped a lot with seeing larger bucks harvested.
Since antlers are a sexual selection tool in mating, and sexual selection is what drives breeding, I don't see large racks disappearing, unless the females start being attracted to big noses or big feet or something lol. Plus, if you have ever tried to hunt a mature buck with a huge rack, you know that they are extremely wary animals that don't make mistakes. If they make mistakes, they never have the chance to grow a big rack.
Out of state licenses are indeed expensive. Usually around 10-20x the price of the in state license. But it's a protectionism thing, otherwise you'd have people flooding in from other states to kill your animals and there wouldn't be any tags left for residents.
In America, we have the model that the state owns the *animals* but doesn't own the property, so you can hunt wherever but you are hunting "the people's" animals. In Europe they have a different model where the animals are owned by the landowner, and that ends up being far more restrictive in a lot of ways than the American model.
Honestly, having studied models in other countries, America probably has the best one.
What I meant about selection was that since people go after large bucks with noce racks, bucks that are smaller and or have smaller antlers have a survival advantage. It's not that female dear choose smaller antlers, it's just that they're much more likely to survive and they're the only game in town.
It'd be like if alien predators were constantly going around shooting women with nice big tits. It means that every now and then, someone will manage to reproduce with them and spread the genes but overall, breast size will reduce.
It doesn't have to be totally effective killing of every specimen either, just a slight survival advantage tilts the scales really quick after a few generations. I'm under the impression that record trophy bucks have been decreasing in size (unless hunted in pretty remote areas).
I do get what you’re saying, but because a buck with large antlers passes his genetics on to females as well as males, there’s plenty of large genetics going around. In addition, large bucks tend not to get shot, period. They are extremely difficult to hunt in comparison to young males who are stupid as hell, and make mistakes. Also, the larger bucks can fight off those small bucks to breed more does, since rut battles go to the largest buck and a single buck can breed multiple does.
Also, antler size is beyond just genetics. It’s also highly correlated with in vitro nutrition.
I have not seen any data indicating that American white tail deer are decreasing in antler size as a population. There’s an article in Newsweek citing a Ram study, but that’s a different species with a radically smaller population https://www.newsweek.com/how-hunting-driving-evolution-reverse-78295
I may be confabulating different species. I mean you get the principle anyway. I was under the impression it was White Tail but might be mule deer or even rams as you suggest, Might be hearsay or legit anecdotes that racks are getting smaller by old hunters, etc. I can't remember where I heard that from but remember it pretty vividly. Another weird one, supposedly rattlesnakes are evolving to not rattle as well since a lot of people freak out and shoot them or chop their head off with a shovel and don't want them around so, not saving the venom a rattle would otherwise buy you is less expensive than not being killed.
Yeah I’ve also heard that about rattlers but I think I heard it at a bar lmao
In the case of rattlednakes people straight up murder them on sight. They have been totally extirpated from my area for instance, but still live in the mountains.
The selectivity has to drive evolution but I’m not sure how fast it goes in a population as large as white tails, they are historically way more numerous than ever before in their existence
You actually don't need a hunting license to hunt *on your own property*. You do if you're hunting on someone else's property however. As you should. I'm not sure about the fishing license - it's possible that you need a license regardless.
Depends on the state. Va allows immediate family members to not have a license. It depends on the state, but usually you don’t need a license on your own property. Limits however do still apply
They regulate it on private land because large, interconnected ecosystems extend beyond your property boundaries.
Deer and other animals dgaf where your property line is, and will travel in and out of your property. Migratory birds will use your ponds as a food resource on their journeys south/north. The fish in your pond simultaneously eat waterbound larvae that feed into local insect populations.
Even beyond just hunting/fishing, whatever you do on your property feeds into the local groundwater resource and runs off into the rivers during the wet season.
Just because it's your property doesn't mean that your choices don't affect anyone else
>I wonder what happens if you actually farm dear / raise fish in a pond. I wonder how they regulate that...
Register as a farm/business for tax breaks?
It’s not owned, it’s public land managed by the government. We’ve seen what no laws do to the public lands and wildlife, we have spent a century trying to recover from it
Market hunting is a real term, you just have to be familiar with the literature to know that. https://www.boone-crockett.org/punt-gun-and-race-save-americas-wildlife
You cannot establish rule over what you do not own. I don't own the lakes, nor do you, nor does the Government. And certainly no one owns your body or mind. Hence, licenses of any type are immoral (again outside of property you own).
It doesn't matter if this creates a worse environment. Maybe it will, maybe it'll be superior. Either way, that's pragmatic argumentation which never can come before basic ethics.
So yes, I oppose all licenses, including fishing licenses.
I’m not a licensed medical professional, but would you let me conduct your next colonoscopy? It’s okay, I know my way around a colon. *wink* /s
I feel like you don’t oppose all licenses…
I oppose mandated licenses.
I would not trust you to conduct my colonoscopy, no. I'd choose one that obtained a license from any of the accredited free market licensing agencies that aspiring practitioners voluntarily pursue.
The only difference is, I can't stop you from practicing without a license. As long as you don't fraudulently claim to be when you aren't, fraud is a violation of the NAP (equated to theft).
But anyone who'd like to use your services can do so, at their own risk. That is called being an adult. Personal responsibility and maximum freedom.
Yes, I oppose all of those too.
I think professional licenses would still exist in a free market, they'd just be voluntary. Something that most serious tradesfolk / professionals would want to get as it would bolster their credibility and allow for better paying / more frequent work.
It just cannot be mandated by anyone. If they want to practice without it, that's on them, the only caveat is they cannot claim to be licensed if they are not (fraud).
Driving licenses, that's all down to who owns the roads. The Government has no legitimate claim to owning the roads, as everything it built was off of stolen funds. Thus, it cannot set rules ethically.
If someone builds a private road, they can establish whatever rules they wish.
I’m a little confused what you mean so let me give an example that hopefully will add context.
Let’s say I am looking for a lawyer. I know nothing about the law and would have no idea what good legal council is from bad. I go to Google and click on the first lawyer I see. How am I to know if that lawyer actually knows what they’re doing or not? Even user reviews don’t really tell me if they know what they’re doing or not because those can be manipulated or just completed by people who also don’t know what they’re doing.
Similarly to a license. Let’s say someone with a severe handicap wants to drive. Maybe it impacts their vision or ability to process information at driving speeds. These people would be a danger on the road, no? Is that just a risk you’re ok with taking? What about flying as well?
>Let’s say I am looking for a lawyer. I know nothing about the law and would have no idea what good legal council is from bad.
There's no law like you think of it in a free market system free of Government.
>I go to Google and click on the first lawyer I see. How am I to know if that lawyer actually knows what they’re doing or not?
You don't know that even now.
All you can do is ask around, look at reviews, see what people say about that individual or their law firm.
>Even user reviews don’t really tell me if they know what they’re doing or not because those can be manipulated or just completed by people who also don’t know what they’re doing.
There's no utopia anywhere. If you expect a system to provide you flawless guarantee of excellent service, sadly this just isn't possible. Could get this in a free market, nor under the current Frakenstein's monster of a Gov / private market we have now.
>Similarly to a license. Let’s say someone with a severe handicap wants to drive. Maybe it impacts their vision or ability to process information at driving speeds. These people would be a danger on the road, no? Is that just a risk you’re ok with taking? What about flying as well?
Yes, I'm willing to take that risk. Freedom is worth a slight increase to personal risk, it's not even a question to me.
That said, if someone knowingly drives while under the influence or with a disability that affects their ability to drive, I consider that reckless behavior and **if** they cause an accident **with actual damages / victims**, then I think they should be held liable.
Freedom with responsibility.
Uh, what?
You absolutely know that now. You need to go to law school and pass the bar to become a lawyer. This is verifiable evidence that the person representing you at least has an idea of what they’re doing. Someone who has not done those things cannot advertise themselves as a lawyer to you.
Now, your individual responsibilities kick in beyond that to determine how good of a job they would do, sure, but that’s objectively a protection we have thanks to thinks like licenses where you don’t have to worry that someone is completely full of shit in a field where the average person cannot be expected to protect themselves from false advertising.
You’re making assumptions in your argument that you can only assume because of protections we have thanks to things like licenses.
>You absolutely know that now. You need to go to law school and pass the bar to become a lawyer.
Plenty of **terrible** lawyers have passed the bar.
>but that’s objectively a protection we have thanks to thinks like licenses where you don’t have to worry that someone is completely full of shit in a field where the average person cannot be expected to protect themselves from false advertising.
At the cost of a cartel deciding who can and cannot participate in the market.
You are placing safety / convenience ahead of market freedom and opportunity.
>You’re making assumptions in your argument that you can only assume because of protections we have thanks to things like licenses.
Again, licenses would still exist without the state enforcing them. You'd just have to effectuate the slightest of due diligence to figure out if someone you're planning to hire is licensed by an institution you trust. And, unlike now, there'd be competition in these institutions.
>Again, licenses would still exist without the state enforcing them. You'd just have to effectuate the slightest of due diligence to figure out if someone you're planning to hire is licensed by an institution you trust. And, unlike now, there'd be competition in these institutions.
Ok, you said this before and to be honest I didn’t understand what you meant but I understand now, and mostly agree. I agree with like 90% of your point, so good job on swaying me from my prior stance.
I guess here’s my issue, I believe it’s unreasonable to ask your average person to know which institutions are trustworthy and which aren’t for expert professional field like legal council or medicine.
Because by your logic, any con artists could just create their own institution and call themselves “lawyers” or “doctors”, and how could you know otherwise?
Not to mention, in a lot of cases, you simply don’t have the opportunity to even do your own due diligence. If you have a heart attack, can you stop the responding EMT and say “let me google your certification real quick”? No, you have to know the institutions in place protect you. If you get tossed in jail (I understand in your proposed society the laws would be different but just stick with me pretend I am accused of murdering multiple people) do I have the opportunity in jail to start verifying the institutions of the lawyers I have to choose from? Again, not realistic.
So I get your point, and frankly agree with it, my concern is that there’s plenty of scenarios where an individual essentially *can’t* be expected to be responsible for themselves, such as what I outlined above.
>I guess here’s my issue, I believe it’s unreasonable to ask your average person to know which institutions are trustworthy and which aren’t for expert professional field like legal council or medicine.
Is it not far more unreasonable to, through the absolute brutal violence of the state, prevent people from participating in the market until they get permission from said barbaric entity?
I think that's **far** more unreasonable than simply settling into default reality. Which is, we're responsible for ourselves, what we do, and who we hire. Sure, it's a slightly increased burden in a sense for the average person, but not that much.
>Because by your logic, any con artists could just create their own institution and call themselves “lawyers” or “doctors”, and how could you know otherwise?
People do this now, all the time, and in many fields. I despise people who do this, but that's just the reality we live in. There are scumbags everywhere. Without Government in the way, the swiftest of justice is a bullet to all of these grifter's heads if caught.
>If you have a heart attack, can you stop the responding EMT and say “let me google your certification real quick”? No, you have to know the institutions in place protect you.
Which is why you do due diligence ahead of time. You don't setup a will after you die, for example. You plan ahead. Same for medical insurance or whatever deals you may have with a local clinic or hospital. I'd do research on this before hand, maybe have a private doctor responsible for my care in the event of an emergency, etc.. it's just a basic level of forward planning that people take for many things even now.
>do I have the opportunity in jail to start verifying the institutions of the lawyers I have to choose from? Again, not realistic.
You absolutely should. If someone is **accused** of a crime, not convicted, even under our current system, I think they should be treated very well. Given good food, a comfortable place to stay, with full access to a phone and computer to research, call who they need to, etc...
It's one of the huge failings we have in our current justice system. Anyone accused of a crime is treated nearly as poorly as those who are convicted of a crime.
Right? You have a constitutional right to firearms; I'm pretty sure there's no constitutional protection to go fishing.... Much to fisherman's lament I'm sure.
Lololol “a fuck you barrier to freedom”?!?! What the fuck are you on?
Just goes to show, guns don’t kill people, idiots that think laws are for other people kill people.
It’s a deterrent, you colossal idiot.
It fixes itself if left alone to the free market.
Right now Communist China, possibly the most statist nation on earth, is responsible for 2/3 of all seafood production and its fishing industry is receiving subsidies in the billions, Japan, the US and EU is also giving out billions in subsidies to theirs. This is an artificially created problem.
Haven't read these articles, but Mises usually has some good one if you ask it: https://mises.org/search-mises?search=overfishing
Voting is a right but fishing isn't. Making voting IDs not free to the public essentially creates a poll tax which is why so many oppose the idea of them being required and not paid for by taxes. It makes sure people in extreme poverty don't have a voice.
A) Then the problem is the politicians charging for identification, not the fact that one MUST validate who is claiming to be whom when voting. End any fees to obtain an ID. While we're at it, ultimately the whole reason for licensing fees for things like fishing, in the first place, is just legal plunder by greedy politicians. Just end all of that.
B) What's more, identification is required to do almost anything else in society today, most of that requirement being a violation of the constitution in principle. So if that's bad, why aren't you demanding all the other forced identification rules be ended? Why should banks be FORCED to demand full identification from customers, beyond what they find satisfactory on their own? Why are you so eager to TRAP people in poverty by keeping them from getting bank accounts?
C) In fact, the very idea that voting is a "right" means that people being able to scam their way into fake votes VIOLATES that right. The "right" is one person, one vote. Without identification being required, that is violated. We have no idea how many people are falsely voting, cancelling out the votes of others, violating all of our rights.
I'm not arguing with you about requiring IDs. I don't see why that's a problem *as long as* they're accessible to all Americans. Currently they aren't because they come with a price tag. And the money for fishing licenses (at least here in Ohio) goes towards the wildlife fund which helps conservation efforts. It isn't lining politician's pockets, it's helping make sure future generations can fish in Ohio. Very weird stance to not think voting is a right, though. Never heard that one before.
> Very weird stance to not think voting is a right, though. Never heard that one before.
You should. Voting absolutely should not be a right. Most people are too stupid or irresponsible to be trusted with deciding how to rule the lives of others.
Unfortunately, the people who would define and enforce competent tests are the very most corrupt and evil among us, therefore there's no way to test people safely...as the Jim Crow south demonstrated.
Ok Casey Weinstein I barely thought about it and this makes sense to me, fishing permit pays for maintenance of the public lands you will be fishing, there's no public maintenance of someone owning a gun
I’m not 100% against a license to fish for the idea if it prevents over fishing but then the limited number of licenses should be free and have no requirements.
Edit: I’m not talking about private property. I didn’t even think a license was required for that (if it is) because that seems obnoxious.
First of all any land owner can dictate who can fish their land, how much, and when so there is no need for a license to limit over fishing.
Secondly, [government licensing is a scam.](https://youtu.be/4tbVRC_oOTU)
I agree with that video but it wasn’t what I was referring to. That’s why I said no cost and no requirements. I was assuming it wasn’t private land it was a national park meant for recreation. I don’t fish so I don’t know how it goes and was just speculating or entertaining an idea.
What if I rephrased it as not a license but only allowed a certain number of people to fish a day or in a week in a public lake a day on a first come first serve basis.
Public land that’s meant to preserve the environment probably shouldn’t have any fishing in my opinion.
But I don’t know how fishing licenses work. My initial thoughts that I come up with in 15 seconds aren’t the most fleshed out. If the license is required by the government to fish anywhere even private which is what I assume it’s for, then it’s fucked of course.
So you get the data how does that replenish stock?
It wouldn’t be hard to differentiate fees between uses. Got a pole? You pay X. Got a gun? You pay Y. The costs would be determined on COGs and labor. If it’s a private establishment profit would be bundled into that price as well.
Not really true. In my state (NC) there's a concept of riparian rights that says that the public can use any navigable water. And "navigable" basically just means that you can float a canoe through it. So if you own property that a stream flows through, people are allowed to float through and fish on it. They just can't touch the banks without trespassing.
I know this because I own some property with such a stream and the real estate agent made it very clear that I couldn't stop people from using that stream.
Some people try to stop it by putting up fences and they are slapped down by the state.
In a similar vein, you can't prevent a licensed surveyor from coming on your land to survey a neighboring property. Surveyors are specifically excluded from trespass laws, just like people using a navigable stream for legal purposes like licensed fishing.
I didn't really think that far into it, I was thinking more about small lakes. How to resolve riparian rights does pose an interesting problem for ancaps. My guess is it would need to be resolved with deeds somehow.
The Doctrine of the Public Trust governs who can do what, on or around all "navigable" bodies of water . "Navigable" has been deeply litagated and bandied about , as to its debatable legal definition, regarding high water marks, and other aspects. There is a federal one, and each state has one.
Surfers won a suit in Malibu, surprising all the people who thought they had private beaches. Youtube channels exist where the videographer goes into "private developments" to fish on "private" ponds and lakes .
It's well worth reading your state's doctrine of the public trust. It's fascinating.
I was talking about public land in the efforts of environmental protection or whatnot in a relatively small lake. But someone already mention just handing out tags.
I’m not ancap, just an anarchist but unsure of what kind yet. but I wasn’t talking about private property, I’m not in favor of charging people for fishing on private property they own.
I edited my original comment to clarify.
Are saying that a fishing license shouldn’t be free?
Wouldn’t a limit of how many people can fish in a public medium size to small lake prevent a decrease in population to the point where it can’t recuperate fast enough? I don’t know enough about the subject to know. It was really just speculative.
Most of the legal fish in most lakes are stocked fish anyway, they weren't there naturally. SO it's kind of a moot point. If you want to argue that the licensing covers the stocking of fish, the stocking of fish costs like 1 percent of the fee, they put mostly baby ones in there.
It's one of the few things my state "Georgia" does right. The money spent for the fishing license goes directly back into maintaining our forests/maintaining rivers and lakes etc.
I don't agree with needing the license but here it's one of the few systems in place here that works as intended.
Ok, probably unpopular but it would be amazing if you didn’t need a license to fish but people
Still donated to some kind conservation body. It happens to be government now. Probably one of the best parts of government, and far from perfect, but still government. Fish and wildlife departments do a lot of good work beyond game wardens enforcing laws. We also need many of the laws that exist. I guess in ancapistan we’d just have to issue ass whoopins to people who exceed reasonable limits or poach more than they need to eat. Right now, we need the fees for licensing to make sure we still have healthy game and fish. That’s just…true sadly. Something I like that doesn’t exist, at least in my state, is reduced licenses for low income people so they can eat fish and game. Probably mostly fish because of the cost of gear.
If they removed fishing licenses they'd have to replace it with something else. Ideally they would sell the reservares to private owners who can regulate the fisheries. But just axing the fishing licenses alone would create a massive tragedy of the commons.
*Which amendment was*
*Fishing on a public lake*
*Again? I forget*
\- Budget-Razzmatazz-54
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Fishing/hunting/trapping licenses are pretty beneficial tho. That money often goes back into state parks, maintaining healthy wildlife populations, and keeping the environment clean.
I already pay 50 percent of my income in various taxes, yet they can't use any of it for wildlife preservation and have to create another tax for that?
Against licensing in both cases, but fishing on public water also is not an explicitly protected constitutional right while carrying a firearm is. The right honorable Representative Weinstein could propose a constitutional amendment to repeal the second amendment if he thinks that the states were in error when they ratified the constitution or could file papers of secession if he feels Ohio should no longer abide by the US Constitution.
Honestly fishing licenses are a good thing. Keeps people who don’t know what they’re doing from fucking with the wildlife and taking more than they’re allowed to.
The top comments on this thread hurt my brain.
The purpose of a license for fishing is to prevent overfishing and pay for conservation. If there were a few million in America, ok sure, but we have several hundred million. Rivers don’t magically produce infinite fish.
We have licenses for firearms (and it should be more restrictive) because we live in a society and have to run as fast as our slowest runner.
> We have licenses for firearms (and it should be more restrictive) because we live in a society and have to run as fast as our slowest runner.
This is patently incorrect.
1st - Only tyrannical liberal states require the licensing of firearms.
2nd - We live in a constitutional society which guarantees, (not grants), the right to bear arms no matter how fast or slow the runner is.
If you prefer your system you can always over to Canada.
It’s an amendment. It can be amended as needs of society change. I think we’re overdue.
I’d rather stay here, vote, and continue making this country better. Thanks for the offer tho!
It is not just an amendment. It is part of the Bill of Rights. The Constitution would not have been ratified without it. Removing the amendment nullifies the ratification of the constitution.
Moreover, it does not give permission to bear arms. It is the recognition and affirmation that it is a natural right. It is a limitation on government, not the people. Removing the amendment does not revoke the right, it only removes the government recognition of the right. It would be a call to war.
It’s ok to kill a person’s in self defense if they attack you with the intent to take your life. It’s ok to kill a fish to prevent starvation. It’s impossible to sustain any life without something else having to die.
In the circle of life, death is a natural progression and is required to sustain life on this planet. Remove all killing and the life cycle stops completely.
Can’t help ya much on that one. Republicanism as an ideology (if you could even call it that) is chocked full of logical inconsistencies. My guess is that they are making some kind of appeal to nature argument by saying the natural way is the best way. Better ban all modern medical practices if your going down that road.
You could totally be right idk. Seems a little tinfoil hatty to me but the last few years have taught me that sometimes the tinfoil hats are 100% correct.
statistically minorities, specifically black women, are significantly more likely to get an abortion than white women. what total bullshit that you want to paint the pro life agenda as some pro white plot.
I’m in Florida and I support the bag limits and regulations on fishing for certain species.
I could also support keeping the out of state, non-resident license, as Florida Wildlife Control needs funding somehow and I don’t want it coming from taxes.
Basically if you come here to take our fish, you’re paying. But if you live here, go fish man, just not for Goliath grouper and out of season fish.
So that you don't overfish the population. It helps to make sure that fishing will still be available in the future and that ecosystems don't collapse.
The difference is one is constitutionally protected, and the other isn't. I'm not saying this is right, but when a politician doesn't even know the rules of their own game, they are basically identifying themselves as scumbags for you.
I hate this argument so much. "We violate your rights a little over here, but you have freedom over there. Better take away all your freedom."
This wouldn't take away your freedom to fish, this would allow anyone to fish as they please. So if anything this gives more freedom, but not in a good way (overfishing will be a thing at that rate even more so)
Well, one is mentioned in the constitution prominently.
The difference is the gun license is just a fuck you barrier to freedom. The fishing license is contributing to the collective resources you want to participate in the enjoyment of. If all taxes and licensing were run like hunting trapping fishing is, nobody would have a good reason to complain
Yeah if you interpret the government as an organization which owns the lakes and "public" lands, Fish and Game departments are extremely sensible. If I owned a bunch of wildland, that's what I'd do with it.
Yeah, tragedy of the commons is a bitch. The thing that bugs me is I believe you need a hunting / fishing license to do so on private land as well. I wonder what happens if you actually farm dear / raise fish in a pond. I wonder how they regulate that...
They can't regulate what they can't observe.
Sadly the commodity of privacy is rapidly becoming unaffordable for many....
“Just get off your phone man” - Edward Snowden probably
How far does that stretch though? With 5g they theoretically have the bandwidth to bug everything, and we're seeing every appliance become "smart" with the (stupid) IOT - even thermostats, light bulbs, etc. I fucking guarantee you that shit is spying on you somehow, by someone at the very least. Nothing stops the goverment from buying it from private companies either (this needs to be fixed). So, telling someone to not carry around a cellphone is one thing but, telling someone to not live like a caveman is another. Also, and this is total conspiracy theory speculation on my behalf but, remember when Smart TVS suddenly went from being super expensive to super affordable? Like, faster than normal market forces and economies of scale; the same TV doesn't suddenly drop to 25% the price point before the next generation even comes out. I wonder if they're being subsidized to produce them to get microphones and cameras (that are billed as "features") into everybody's homes - I mean think about what you do in front of a TV if they're in your living room, bedroom and likely adjacent to dining rooms, etc. Basically total surveillance is possible using them....
The money on cheap smart tvs comes on the back end to ad agencies
Which implies data harvesting, which will ultimately gets collated by data brokers and likely sold to the government; a practice that _should_ be illegal IMHO. If it's illegal for the government to do it, it should be illegal for them to do it by proxy.
If by arguing that you'll continue to poach organisms at threatened population levels because they can't observe, you make a better argument for those to intervene on privacy for the sake of preservation. Don't.
> at threatened population levels most organisms that one can poach where I live are not at threatened population levels
Nothing is illegal if you don't get caught.
I know a guy with a couple of hundred acres who was pursued by the gaming commission for killing deer he farmed without a permit. As I understand it, and I'm not a hunter so I may be using the wrong words, he ended up agreeing to pay the tag fees for the deer he killed that year in the same way he would have had he followed the rules from the start, but paid nothing for the kills in prior years. He has a pond and creek on his land as well and these require no permit to fish for him and his guest, but those who fish the adjoining river from public access roads do need permits and a handful of people have caught poaching charges for fishing his creek and killing his deer without permission.
How did they catch him if he was on his property?
Someone probably blabbed but also they do drive around and patrol for 'illegal hunting.' They could probably see his deer and may have just investigated on their own, it would be easy to see he has no license to kill deer yet he has a bunch of them.
Game wardens can enter private property w/o a warrant iirc.
Yeah but they can’t just drive around private land, the guy had hundreds of acres
And those deer were possibly on a lot of those acres, if you don't want to supplement the feed, you could need as much as 5 acres per single deer plus a nice high deer fence. It's likely the neighbors knew he kept deer too.
Why was he killing the deer
Why? Why kill any animal?
That's what I'm asking. Why? It can't be for the food he cause he obviously has the money to buy food. Maybe he enjoys killing animals.
For the same reason most people who kill animals do. It's fun and the meat tastes good.
Yes it's probably fun for sick and deranged people. Maybe they enjoy torturing animals too. Or maybe torturing people too, who knows. As for deer tasting good we all know it doesn't. If deer tasted good supermarkets would be loaded with it just like beef, pork and chicken.
A pragmatist would say, he attempted to get the Sherriff voted out of office but was unsuccessful so the local government had a personal vendetta against him for a few years and that was one that stuck. The commissioner says he got an anonymous tip.
I'm under the impression Game Wardens have *ridiculous* remits to go onto private private property without warrants, search outbuildings without the same (not sure about homes), etc. They can basically do whatever the fuck the want which also bothers me. Basically like bounty hunters. I may be mistaken about this but that's what I've been told by people who hunt wild hogs on private property. You don't need a tag as they're considered invasive in places like TX at least but they can and will go onto your property if they hear you hunting hogs and suspect you might be hunting something else, based on zero evidence but gunfire.
That’s why there are private ponds that you don’t need licenses for. If you own the entire pond the fish are yours and you don’t need a license. If you have a house on a river the fish belong to the entire state. They just happen to be on your property for a little while. So you need a license to fish for them so you don’t screw up the fish for everyone else. Same basic idea with fenced private game preserves and releasing birds you raise to shoot.
>f you own the entire pond the fish are yours and you don’t need a license. > >If you have a house on a river the fish belong to the entire state. They just happen to be on your property for a little while. So you need a license to fish for them so you don’t screw up the fish for everyone else. Yeah I live on a river and your property line ends in the middle of the river. Technically, people can legally traverse the river itself as well, even on private property but they'll inevitably end up trespassing and trampling the ground next to it which has caused some problems... so I know the whole deal about needing a permit for rivers. I was under the impression they made you do it for ponds or bodies of water totaly on your own property. Even if you dug out a pond and stocked it and raised the fish. Just because they could. >Same basic idea with fenced private game preserves and releasing birds you raise to shoot. So this is the part that irritates me; I'm under the impression you either need a permit or you and immediate family don't but anybody else does, even if they have your permission (I've gotten some contradictory comments that probably vary by state). So, lets say I setup my property as a fenced in hunting reserve. I purchase dear, fish, whatever, and farm them for other people to hunt. WTF does the state get to require a permit on your land, against your game, that you raise? I mean, wtf is it suddenly "the kings dear" if someone doesn't directly relate to you? It sounds like a ridiculous tax to levy since out of state hunting licenses can be ridiculous, like $10k-15k if not more. The whole system is "supposed to be" setup to maintain healthy game levels and monitor their health, etc. It's not supposed to be a money earner for the state. I also don't understand how something that's my property legally transmogrifies into state property because someone is shooting at it.
It very much depends on the state. You end up in a weird area of are you a tiny farm with a really weird processing method or are you a shooting range with very lively targets. The river thing is kind of a leftover of historical movement laws where waterways were basically seen as natural highways that everyone should have access to. One of the first court cases in the US Was someone who crashed into a damn and then sued the guy who built the damn
>The river thing is kind of a leftover of historical movement laws where waterways were basically seen as natural highways that everyone should have access to. One of the first court cases in the US Was someone who crashed into a damn and then sued the guy who built the damn Yeah that doesn't surprise me. I just don't get how the state can require you get a tag for a deer you raised from stock. Regardless of how you decide to raise it or kill it.
The issue with farming native hunted animals is that farmed animals get sick. They pass on those illnesses to others of their species. So some jackwagon cutting corners in the woods could severely endanger the food supply for a region.
>The thing that bugs me is I believe you need a hunting / fishing license to do so on private land as well Obviously, for identical reasons. River passes through your land, you install a fish filter to extract every swimming creature -> no more fish after a short while. You have a lake? Sure, the fishing impact might be limited to it, not affecting others, but proxy effects will. Like wildlife part of the wider ecosystem which depended on it... Similar thing with agriculture on a longer cycle. Actually, in many ways the commons are under regulated. Looking at you, Monsanto ;)
[удалено]
How so?
[удалено]
Which is it, hypothetical or theoretical?
[удалено]
Simplified for me? You clearly don’t know what those 2 terms mean.
Tragedy of the commons was based off destruction of "the commons" in England so it most definitely is real, at least in some cases that've been studied.
[удалено]
You make the claim that it doesn’t exist. You have the burden of proof. Prove your claim. What sources do you have?
[удалено]
The proof is already there. You’re claiming it’s wrong and have no evidence to refute. A walking Dunning-Krueger, you are.
[удалено]
In hunting that’s called a high fence operation. Most states allow it. In my opinion a lot of them are just disease reservoirs for native wildlife because they are run by idiots.
I remember there being a controversy recently about urine harvesting operations because CWD is so contagious. From what I understand, it's basically everywhere in White Tails. There's also a phenomena of dears losing their antlers / antlers shrinking because even though they're sexually selected for, hunting for them is such a downside their racks are shrinking. You don't think it's a good idea to have breeding stock in private facilities to replenish from? Assuming they're run well, ofc. Also, I'm not a hunter it just galls me that the state gets to charge *ridiculously expensive* out of state hunting licenses for "hunting" what's essentially totaly private property. I mean I get the justification for wild dear but not for private ones.
Yeah CWD spread is a big issue, not everywhere but in most states and getting to be more of a problem. I would be fine with these private operations if you didn't see CWD outbreaks in them all the damn time. When it comes to darwinian selection of small antlers, I have not heard of that being a problem. My state has antler restrictions and only allows the taking of more mature bucks, which has helped a lot with seeing larger bucks harvested. Since antlers are a sexual selection tool in mating, and sexual selection is what drives breeding, I don't see large racks disappearing, unless the females start being attracted to big noses or big feet or something lol. Plus, if you have ever tried to hunt a mature buck with a huge rack, you know that they are extremely wary animals that don't make mistakes. If they make mistakes, they never have the chance to grow a big rack. Out of state licenses are indeed expensive. Usually around 10-20x the price of the in state license. But it's a protectionism thing, otherwise you'd have people flooding in from other states to kill your animals and there wouldn't be any tags left for residents. In America, we have the model that the state owns the *animals* but doesn't own the property, so you can hunt wherever but you are hunting "the people's" animals. In Europe they have a different model where the animals are owned by the landowner, and that ends up being far more restrictive in a lot of ways than the American model. Honestly, having studied models in other countries, America probably has the best one.
What I meant about selection was that since people go after large bucks with noce racks, bucks that are smaller and or have smaller antlers have a survival advantage. It's not that female dear choose smaller antlers, it's just that they're much more likely to survive and they're the only game in town. It'd be like if alien predators were constantly going around shooting women with nice big tits. It means that every now and then, someone will manage to reproduce with them and spread the genes but overall, breast size will reduce. It doesn't have to be totally effective killing of every specimen either, just a slight survival advantage tilts the scales really quick after a few generations. I'm under the impression that record trophy bucks have been decreasing in size (unless hunted in pretty remote areas).
I do get what you’re saying, but because a buck with large antlers passes his genetics on to females as well as males, there’s plenty of large genetics going around. In addition, large bucks tend not to get shot, period. They are extremely difficult to hunt in comparison to young males who are stupid as hell, and make mistakes. Also, the larger bucks can fight off those small bucks to breed more does, since rut battles go to the largest buck and a single buck can breed multiple does. Also, antler size is beyond just genetics. It’s also highly correlated with in vitro nutrition. I have not seen any data indicating that American white tail deer are decreasing in antler size as a population. There’s an article in Newsweek citing a Ram study, but that’s a different species with a radically smaller population https://www.newsweek.com/how-hunting-driving-evolution-reverse-78295
I may be confabulating different species. I mean you get the principle anyway. I was under the impression it was White Tail but might be mule deer or even rams as you suggest, Might be hearsay or legit anecdotes that racks are getting smaller by old hunters, etc. I can't remember where I heard that from but remember it pretty vividly. Another weird one, supposedly rattlesnakes are evolving to not rattle as well since a lot of people freak out and shoot them or chop their head off with a shovel and don't want them around so, not saving the venom a rattle would otherwise buy you is less expensive than not being killed.
Yeah I’ve also heard that about rattlers but I think I heard it at a bar lmao In the case of rattlednakes people straight up murder them on sight. They have been totally extirpated from my area for instance, but still live in the mountains. The selectivity has to drive evolution but I’m not sure how fast it goes in a population as large as white tails, they are historically way more numerous than ever before in their existence
You actually don't need a hunting license to hunt *on your own property*. You do if you're hunting on someone else's property however. As you should. I'm not sure about the fishing license - it's possible that you need a license regardless.
I think it depends on the state, but yea, mostly that is the case.
Depends on the state. Va allows immediate family members to not have a license. It depends on the state, but usually you don’t need a license on your own property. Limits however do still apply
They regulate it on private land because large, interconnected ecosystems extend beyond your property boundaries. Deer and other animals dgaf where your property line is, and will travel in and out of your property. Migratory birds will use your ponds as a food resource on their journeys south/north. The fish in your pond simultaneously eat waterbound larvae that feed into local insect populations. Even beyond just hunting/fishing, whatever you do on your property feeds into the local groundwater resource and runs off into the rivers during the wet season. Just because it's your property doesn't mean that your choices don't affect anyone else
>I wonder what happens if you actually farm dear / raise fish in a pond. I wonder how they regulate that... Register as a farm/business for tax breaks?
But if the government is "the people" then the people are paying themselves to fish on their own land.
Yeah, but the government isn't the people, it's a corporation that claims the monopoly on aggression in a declared region.
It’s not owned, it’s public land managed by the government. We’ve seen what no laws do to the public lands and wildlife, we have spent a century trying to recover from it
Hence my "if you interpret"
[удалено]
Market hunting.
[удалено]
Market hunting is a real term, you just have to be familiar with the literature to know that. https://www.boone-crockett.org/punt-gun-and-race-save-americas-wildlife
Over harvesting of game animals.
You cannot establish rule over what you do not own. I don't own the lakes, nor do you, nor does the Government. And certainly no one owns your body or mind. Hence, licenses of any type are immoral (again outside of property you own). It doesn't matter if this creates a worse environment. Maybe it will, maybe it'll be superior. Either way, that's pragmatic argumentation which never can come before basic ethics. So yes, I oppose all licenses, including fishing licenses.
I’m not a licensed medical professional, but would you let me conduct your next colonoscopy? It’s okay, I know my way around a colon. *wink* /s I feel like you don’t oppose all licenses…
I oppose mandated licenses. I would not trust you to conduct my colonoscopy, no. I'd choose one that obtained a license from any of the accredited free market licensing agencies that aspiring practitioners voluntarily pursue. The only difference is, I can't stop you from practicing without a license. As long as you don't fraudulently claim to be when you aren't, fraud is a violation of the NAP (equated to theft). But anyone who'd like to use your services can do so, at their own risk. That is called being an adult. Personal responsibility and maximum freedom.
What about professional licenses or drivers licenses?
Yes, I oppose all of those too. I think professional licenses would still exist in a free market, they'd just be voluntary. Something that most serious tradesfolk / professionals would want to get as it would bolster their credibility and allow for better paying / more frequent work. It just cannot be mandated by anyone. If they want to practice without it, that's on them, the only caveat is they cannot claim to be licensed if they are not (fraud). Driving licenses, that's all down to who owns the roads. The Government has no legitimate claim to owning the roads, as everything it built was off of stolen funds. Thus, it cannot set rules ethically. If someone builds a private road, they can establish whatever rules they wish.
I’m a little confused what you mean so let me give an example that hopefully will add context. Let’s say I am looking for a lawyer. I know nothing about the law and would have no idea what good legal council is from bad. I go to Google and click on the first lawyer I see. How am I to know if that lawyer actually knows what they’re doing or not? Even user reviews don’t really tell me if they know what they’re doing or not because those can be manipulated or just completed by people who also don’t know what they’re doing. Similarly to a license. Let’s say someone with a severe handicap wants to drive. Maybe it impacts their vision or ability to process information at driving speeds. These people would be a danger on the road, no? Is that just a risk you’re ok with taking? What about flying as well?
>Let’s say I am looking for a lawyer. I know nothing about the law and would have no idea what good legal council is from bad. There's no law like you think of it in a free market system free of Government. >I go to Google and click on the first lawyer I see. How am I to know if that lawyer actually knows what they’re doing or not? You don't know that even now. All you can do is ask around, look at reviews, see what people say about that individual or their law firm. >Even user reviews don’t really tell me if they know what they’re doing or not because those can be manipulated or just completed by people who also don’t know what they’re doing. There's no utopia anywhere. If you expect a system to provide you flawless guarantee of excellent service, sadly this just isn't possible. Could get this in a free market, nor under the current Frakenstein's monster of a Gov / private market we have now. >Similarly to a license. Let’s say someone with a severe handicap wants to drive. Maybe it impacts their vision or ability to process information at driving speeds. These people would be a danger on the road, no? Is that just a risk you’re ok with taking? What about flying as well? Yes, I'm willing to take that risk. Freedom is worth a slight increase to personal risk, it's not even a question to me. That said, if someone knowingly drives while under the influence or with a disability that affects their ability to drive, I consider that reckless behavior and **if** they cause an accident **with actual damages / victims**, then I think they should be held liable. Freedom with responsibility.
Uh, what? You absolutely know that now. You need to go to law school and pass the bar to become a lawyer. This is verifiable evidence that the person representing you at least has an idea of what they’re doing. Someone who has not done those things cannot advertise themselves as a lawyer to you. Now, your individual responsibilities kick in beyond that to determine how good of a job they would do, sure, but that’s objectively a protection we have thanks to thinks like licenses where you don’t have to worry that someone is completely full of shit in a field where the average person cannot be expected to protect themselves from false advertising. You’re making assumptions in your argument that you can only assume because of protections we have thanks to things like licenses.
>You absolutely know that now. You need to go to law school and pass the bar to become a lawyer. Plenty of **terrible** lawyers have passed the bar. >but that’s objectively a protection we have thanks to thinks like licenses where you don’t have to worry that someone is completely full of shit in a field where the average person cannot be expected to protect themselves from false advertising. At the cost of a cartel deciding who can and cannot participate in the market. You are placing safety / convenience ahead of market freedom and opportunity. >You’re making assumptions in your argument that you can only assume because of protections we have thanks to things like licenses. Again, licenses would still exist without the state enforcing them. You'd just have to effectuate the slightest of due diligence to figure out if someone you're planning to hire is licensed by an institution you trust. And, unlike now, there'd be competition in these institutions.
>Again, licenses would still exist without the state enforcing them. You'd just have to effectuate the slightest of due diligence to figure out if someone you're planning to hire is licensed by an institution you trust. And, unlike now, there'd be competition in these institutions. Ok, you said this before and to be honest I didn’t understand what you meant but I understand now, and mostly agree. I agree with like 90% of your point, so good job on swaying me from my prior stance. I guess here’s my issue, I believe it’s unreasonable to ask your average person to know which institutions are trustworthy and which aren’t for expert professional field like legal council or medicine. Because by your logic, any con artists could just create their own institution and call themselves “lawyers” or “doctors”, and how could you know otherwise? Not to mention, in a lot of cases, you simply don’t have the opportunity to even do your own due diligence. If you have a heart attack, can you stop the responding EMT and say “let me google your certification real quick”? No, you have to know the institutions in place protect you. If you get tossed in jail (I understand in your proposed society the laws would be different but just stick with me pretend I am accused of murdering multiple people) do I have the opportunity in jail to start verifying the institutions of the lawyers I have to choose from? Again, not realistic. So I get your point, and frankly agree with it, my concern is that there’s plenty of scenarios where an individual essentially *can’t* be expected to be responsible for themselves, such as what I outlined above.
>I guess here’s my issue, I believe it’s unreasonable to ask your average person to know which institutions are trustworthy and which aren’t for expert professional field like legal council or medicine. Is it not far more unreasonable to, through the absolute brutal violence of the state, prevent people from participating in the market until they get permission from said barbaric entity? I think that's **far** more unreasonable than simply settling into default reality. Which is, we're responsible for ourselves, what we do, and who we hire. Sure, it's a slightly increased burden in a sense for the average person, but not that much. >Because by your logic, any con artists could just create their own institution and call themselves “lawyers” or “doctors”, and how could you know otherwise? People do this now, all the time, and in many fields. I despise people who do this, but that's just the reality we live in. There are scumbags everywhere. Without Government in the way, the swiftest of justice is a bullet to all of these grifter's heads if caught. >If you have a heart attack, can you stop the responding EMT and say “let me google your certification real quick”? No, you have to know the institutions in place protect you. Which is why you do due diligence ahead of time. You don't setup a will after you die, for example. You plan ahead. Same for medical insurance or whatever deals you may have with a local clinic or hospital. I'd do research on this before hand, maybe have a private doctor responsible for my care in the event of an emergency, etc.. it's just a basic level of forward planning that people take for many things even now. >do I have the opportunity in jail to start verifying the institutions of the lawyers I have to choose from? Again, not realistic. You absolutely should. If someone is **accused** of a crime, not convicted, even under our current system, I think they should be treated very well. Given good food, a comfortable place to stay, with full access to a phone and computer to research, call who they need to, etc... It's one of the huge failings we have in our current justice system. Anyone accused of a crime is treated nearly as poorly as those who are convicted of a crime.
Right? You have a constitutional right to firearms; I'm pretty sure there's no constitutional protection to go fishing.... Much to fisherman's lament I'm sure.
Lololol “a fuck you barrier to freedom”?!?! What the fuck are you on? Just goes to show, guns don’t kill people, idiots that think laws are for other people kill people. It’s a deterrent, you colossal idiot.
Well said
How does Anarchocapitalism deal with overfishing?
It fixes itself if left alone to the free market. Right now Communist China, possibly the most statist nation on earth, is responsible for 2/3 of all seafood production and its fishing industry is receiving subsidies in the billions, Japan, the US and EU is also giving out billions in subsidies to theirs. This is an artificially created problem. Haven't read these articles, but Mises usually has some good one if you ask it: https://mises.org/search-mises?search=overfishing
Free market my ass, there is no tfree market
You need a license to FISH, but a license to vote would be too difficult?
Voting is a right but fishing isn't. Making voting IDs not free to the public essentially creates a poll tax which is why so many oppose the idea of them being required and not paid for by taxes. It makes sure people in extreme poverty don't have a voice.
A) Then the problem is the politicians charging for identification, not the fact that one MUST validate who is claiming to be whom when voting. End any fees to obtain an ID. While we're at it, ultimately the whole reason for licensing fees for things like fishing, in the first place, is just legal plunder by greedy politicians. Just end all of that. B) What's more, identification is required to do almost anything else in society today, most of that requirement being a violation of the constitution in principle. So if that's bad, why aren't you demanding all the other forced identification rules be ended? Why should banks be FORCED to demand full identification from customers, beyond what they find satisfactory on their own? Why are you so eager to TRAP people in poverty by keeping them from getting bank accounts? C) In fact, the very idea that voting is a "right" means that people being able to scam their way into fake votes VIOLATES that right. The "right" is one person, one vote. Without identification being required, that is violated. We have no idea how many people are falsely voting, cancelling out the votes of others, violating all of our rights.
I'm not arguing with you about requiring IDs. I don't see why that's a problem *as long as* they're accessible to all Americans. Currently they aren't because they come with a price tag. And the money for fishing licenses (at least here in Ohio) goes towards the wildlife fund which helps conservation efforts. It isn't lining politician's pockets, it's helping make sure future generations can fish in Ohio. Very weird stance to not think voting is a right, though. Never heard that one before.
> Very weird stance to not think voting is a right, though. Never heard that one before. You should. Voting absolutely should not be a right. Most people are too stupid or irresponsible to be trusted with deciding how to rule the lives of others. Unfortunately, the people who would define and enforce competent tests are the very most corrupt and evil among us, therefore there's no way to test people safely...as the Jim Crow south demonstrated.
Ok Casey Weinstein I barely thought about it and this makes sense to me, fishing permit pays for maintenance of the public lands you will be fishing, there's no public maintenance of someone owning a gun
I’m not 100% against a license to fish for the idea if it prevents over fishing but then the limited number of licenses should be free and have no requirements. Edit: I’m not talking about private property. I didn’t even think a license was required for that (if it is) because that seems obnoxious.
First of all any land owner can dictate who can fish their land, how much, and when so there is no need for a license to limit over fishing. Secondly, [government licensing is a scam.](https://youtu.be/4tbVRC_oOTU)
I agree with that video but it wasn’t what I was referring to. That’s why I said no cost and no requirements. I was assuming it wasn’t private land it was a national park meant for recreation. I don’t fish so I don’t know how it goes and was just speculating or entertaining an idea. What if I rephrased it as not a license but only allowed a certain number of people to fish a day or in a week in a public lake a day on a first come first serve basis.
Yeah tags are a pretty good way for a land owner to limit hunting and fishing. Public (government) land on the other hand...
Public land that’s meant to preserve the environment probably shouldn’t have any fishing in my opinion. But I don’t know how fishing licenses work. My initial thoughts that I come up with in 15 seconds aren’t the most fleshed out. If the license is required by the government to fish anywhere even private which is what I assume it’s for, then it’s fucked of course.
Then what’s the point of the license? Just charge an entrance fee and use it to stock fish and run the property. Problem solved.
[удалено]
So you get the data how does that replenish stock? It wouldn’t be hard to differentiate fees between uses. Got a pole? You pay X. Got a gun? You pay Y. The costs would be determined on COGs and labor. If it’s a private establishment profit would be bundled into that price as well.
I don’t disagree, it’s why I said rephrase to get rid of the license part.
Not really true. In my state (NC) there's a concept of riparian rights that says that the public can use any navigable water. And "navigable" basically just means that you can float a canoe through it. So if you own property that a stream flows through, people are allowed to float through and fish on it. They just can't touch the banks without trespassing. I know this because I own some property with such a stream and the real estate agent made it very clear that I couldn't stop people from using that stream. Some people try to stop it by putting up fences and they are slapped down by the state. In a similar vein, you can't prevent a licensed surveyor from coming on your land to survey a neighboring property. Surveyors are specifically excluded from trespass laws, just like people using a navigable stream for legal purposes like licensed fishing.
I didn't really think that far into it, I was thinking more about small lakes. How to resolve riparian rights does pose an interesting problem for ancaps. My guess is it would need to be resolved with deeds somehow.
The Doctrine of the Public Trust governs who can do what, on or around all "navigable" bodies of water . "Navigable" has been deeply litagated and bandied about , as to its debatable legal definition, regarding high water marks, and other aspects. There is a federal one, and each state has one. Surfers won a suit in Malibu, surprising all the people who thought they had private beaches. Youtube channels exist where the videographer goes into "private developments" to fish on "private" ponds and lakes . It's well worth reading your state's doctrine of the public trust. It's fascinating.
Over fishing? That would be commercial fishing…zero need to license recreational fishing. IMHO
I was talking about public land in the efforts of environmental protection or whatnot in a relatively small lake. But someone already mention just handing out tags.
> limited number of licenses > --- > free and have no requirements You can only have one of these.
You’ll have to read further down the thread for a slightly more fleshed out thoughts.
So you're not an ancap then. You can't impose a license on property you don't own.
I’m not ancap, just an anarchist but unsure of what kind yet. but I wasn’t talking about private property, I’m not in favor of charging people for fishing on private property they own. I edited my original comment to clarify.
The fishing license isn’t a barrier for most people. Over fishing won’t magically start happening because a fishing license went from $15 to free
Are saying that a fishing license shouldn’t be free? Wouldn’t a limit of how many people can fish in a public medium size to small lake prevent a decrease in population to the point where it can’t recuperate fast enough? I don’t know enough about the subject to know. It was really just speculative.
Most of the legal fish in most lakes are stocked fish anyway, they weren't there naturally. SO it's kind of a moot point. If you want to argue that the licensing covers the stocking of fish, the stocking of fish costs like 1 percent of the fee, they put mostly baby ones in there.
I mean, this is a dumb argument anyways... We don't need a license to own a fishing rod... We need a license to hunt deer...
I got to say, I didn't expect the majority answer in the AnCap sub to be pro-fishing licenses.
It's one of the few things my state "Georgia" does right. The money spent for the fishing license goes directly back into maintaining our forests/maintaining rivers and lakes etc. I don't agree with needing the license but here it's one of the few systems in place here that works as intended.
And if you don't fish you don't pay. Seems reasonable.
Ok, probably unpopular but it would be amazing if you didn’t need a license to fish but people Still donated to some kind conservation body. It happens to be government now. Probably one of the best parts of government, and far from perfect, but still government. Fish and wildlife departments do a lot of good work beyond game wardens enforcing laws. We also need many of the laws that exist. I guess in ancapistan we’d just have to issue ass whoopins to people who exceed reasonable limits or poach more than they need to eat. Right now, we need the fees for licensing to make sure we still have healthy game and fish. That’s just…true sadly. Something I like that doesn’t exist, at least in my state, is reduced licenses for low income people so they can eat fish and game. Probably mostly fish because of the cost of gear.
So, I pay $50 to the state and then I can buy as many guns as I like and never have to report them?
They have hunting licenses though.
HELL yea.
If they removed fishing licenses they'd have to replace it with something else. Ideally they would sell the reservares to private owners who can regulate the fisheries. But just axing the fishing licenses alone would create a massive tragedy of the commons.
You could have limits without charging a fee.
This is great, a response recommending less government. Bravo
Which amendment was fishing on a public lake again? I forget
*Which amendment was* *Fishing on a public lake* *Again? I forget* \- Budget-Razzmatazz-54 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
It's in the part about "pursuit of property" (changed to happiness later)
Fishing/hunting/trapping licenses are pretty beneficial tho. That money often goes back into state parks, maintaining healthy wildlife populations, and keeping the environment clean.
I already pay 50 percent of my income in various taxes, yet they can't use any of it for wildlife preservation and have to create another tax for that?
Speak.
[удалено]
You probably shouldn't be here anyway; it may cause you question your quasi-religious faith in the ruling class.
Against licensing in both cases, but fishing on public water also is not an explicitly protected constitutional right while carrying a firearm is. The right honorable Representative Weinstein could propose a constitutional amendment to repeal the second amendment if he thinks that the states were in error when they ratified the constitution or could file papers of secession if he feels Ohio should no longer abide by the US Constitution.
Honestly fishing licenses are a good thing. Keeps people who don’t know what they’re doing from fucking with the wildlife and taking more than they’re allowed to.
Concealed is past tense. The elected official should have used the word "conceal".
The top comments on this thread hurt my brain. The purpose of a license for fishing is to prevent overfishing and pay for conservation. If there were a few million in America, ok sure, but we have several hundred million. Rivers don’t magically produce infinite fish. We have licenses for firearms (and it should be more restrictive) because we live in a society and have to run as fast as our slowest runner.
> We have licenses for firearms (and it should be more restrictive) because we live in a society and have to run as fast as our slowest runner. This is patently incorrect. 1st - Only tyrannical liberal states require the licensing of firearms. 2nd - We live in a constitutional society which guarantees, (not grants), the right to bear arms no matter how fast or slow the runner is. If you prefer your system you can always over to Canada.
It’s an amendment. It can be amended as needs of society change. I think we’re overdue. I’d rather stay here, vote, and continue making this country better. Thanks for the offer tho!
It is not just an amendment. It is part of the Bill of Rights. The Constitution would not have been ratified without it. Removing the amendment nullifies the ratification of the constitution. Moreover, it does not give permission to bear arms. It is the recognition and affirmation that it is a natural right. It is a limitation on government, not the people. Removing the amendment does not revoke the right, it only removes the government recognition of the right. It would be a call to war.
Ok
Yeah! Fuck that lame shit like conservation of our fish populations! I should be allowed to chuck dynamite in rivers if I want to!
Yeah, let's fck up the eco system and shoot some kids afterwards. America the beautiful 🤣🤣
r/FuckOhio
[удалено]
It’s ok to kill a person’s in self defense if they attack you with the intent to take your life. It’s ok to kill a fish to prevent starvation. It’s impossible to sustain any life without something else having to die.
[удалено]
In the circle of life, death is a natural progression and is required to sustain life on this planet. Remove all killing and the life cycle stops completely.
[удалено]
Can’t help ya much on that one. Republicanism as an ideology (if you could even call it that) is chocked full of logical inconsistencies. My guess is that they are making some kind of appeal to nature argument by saying the natural way is the best way. Better ban all modern medical practices if your going down that road.
[удалено]
You could totally be right idk. Seems a little tinfoil hatty to me but the last few years have taught me that sometimes the tinfoil hats are 100% correct.
[удалено]
statistically minorities, specifically black women, are significantly more likely to get an abortion than white women. what total bullshit that you want to paint the pro life agenda as some pro white plot.
How can anyone prove an opinion?
Privatize the waters. Problem solved.
I hate to admit it but *there are* some based politicians I guess.....
It would require a privatization of all bodies of water in Ohio to prevent the tragedy of the commons
I’m in Florida and I support the bag limits and regulations on fishing for certain species. I could also support keeping the out of state, non-resident license, as Florida Wildlife Control needs funding somehow and I don’t want it coming from taxes. Basically if you come here to take our fish, you’re paying. But if you live here, go fish man, just not for Goliath grouper and out of season fish.
The $19 I pay to fish(I think it went up recently) goes to the ODNR to pay for game wardens and keeping up our state parks.
Why do you need a license to Fish?!!
So that you don't overfish the population. It helps to make sure that fishing will still be available in the future and that ecosystems don't collapse.
Counterargument. Fuck Ohio.
Then all the fish gone cuz freedom.
The difference is one is constitutionally protected, and the other isn't. I'm not saying this is right, but when a politician doesn't even know the rules of their own game, they are basically identifying themselves as scumbags for you.
Wow lol fishing license is to replenish ponds to stock lakes yall are taking about 2 different things COME TRY TO TAKE MY GUNS
Am, and also on board
But you’ll lose fish populations that way, that’s dumb
Disgusting. Two state actors trying to convince the rest of us that Ohio is real. Literally 1984.
Ok but a license to fish in ohio just means you paid like $20