Hey everyone,
I've been pondering over a rather thorny issue lately and I'd love to get some insights. What are your thoughts on unlicensed hunting?
What is the specific question you are trying to answer and the use of the information supplied?
Is this for personal knowledge, a class assignment or an article?
If for an article, who is the publisher?
Specifically, I'm curious about the ethical and legal ramifications.
Legal ramifications for hunting without the proper hunting license (poaching) are outlined in
Mass Statutes.
Ethical questions are quite open to discussion since the answer depends on the ethical question
Are you asking if the unlicensed taking of game is ethical if the game was injured or diseased? If so, that's an entirely different ethical question than taking a deer out of season with a rim fire rifle.
On the one hand, hunting can be essential for wildlife management, but without proper regulation,
it risks ecological imbalance and animal cruelty. Moreover, there's the matter of safety and fairness for other hunters who abide by the rules.
Define "proper regulation"
I would say that hunters are much more interested in the proper management of herds than the government. This is especially true of Mass hunting regulations regarding nighttime hunting which force the use of insufficient cartridges.
Do you think stricter penalties or more education would deter unlicensed hunting? How can we strike a balance between conservation and individual rights?
Looking forward to your perspectives!
Stricter penalties won't deter those that knowingly poach.
Education - Allowing the Hunter Safety course to be offered in schools would go a long way toward educating people on the necessity of hunting for ethical and human herd management AND help reduce firearms accidents.
As far as balancing conservation with individual rights, I believe you are conflating two very different areas
Wildlife is a public resource therefore well within the government's purview to effectively manage.
If your question of individual rights is geared towards firearms ownership then you need to review the
Heller opinion and the literature around it. The right to keep and bear arms is not a right tied to hunting or target practice but an all encompassing right to all lawful purposes a person would care to partake of while armed with those items within the definition of bearable arms called out in Heller
Justice Scalia said:
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.
Justice Scalia said:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
![[popcorn]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/043.gif "Popcorn [popcorn]")
![[thumbsup]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/044.gif "Thumbs Up [thumbsup]")
