[horsetrader]

Originally Posted by 858king

? Horsetrader?

I stated specifically that on private land, private individuals can do as they please, and that I would support regulation of shooting/management on public land and therefore "public" animals. Of course there are complexities, but the point is that if it's a publicly owned resource (which suckers are, however much it means) then it's a public responsibility.

It's like this: if someone decides he doesn't like the bench sitting at the local muni park and decides to light it on fire, he's a vandal. I think we would agree. If however he owns his bench, then he can burn as many as he likes and it will be expensive and wasteful, but that's about it.

And similarly, if a person decides to kill a publicly owned fish, even a sucker, for no reason other than simply killing it, then he is vandalising a public resource. To what end would the justification be? If bait, fine; food, fine; dogfood, probably; fertilizer for a personal garden, great (although verging on wasteful). If just to kill it for some sort of personal goal, then not so great.

And that is what the general public views hunting and fishing as: as vandalism of a public resource. In the eyes of law and logic, hunters only retain the privilege/right so long as they abide by rules designed for the good of the community (in theory anyways). If we (and by we I mean "we" and not "you") act with complete disregard for the resources granted to us, with disrespect for the lives of what we kill and the responsibility they represent, then we will find our rights removed until the only ones who CAN hunt and fish are those that own the land and animals outright, like in Europe.

I would hazard to guess that most people on this forum would be against private ownership of fish and wildlife resources. Why then would we pursue and aid attitudes that logically result in our hunting and fishing privileges being taken away?

Nice side stepping around the issue so this time i will ask straight out WHO owns the Gophers