Re: introducing a king snake population...
Posted: December 21st, 2011, 11:39 am
ditto
-Ian
-Ian
A Worldwide Community of Field Herpers
https://www.fieldherpforum.com/forum/
I think on some level you are attempting to compare apples to carbeurators here...i am doubtful the reptilian brain can quite register the dehabituation concept in the same manner a bear can, and I assure you the day a mountain lion wanders on my property it will be the last time it does so as i will be drinking my morning coffee from from a mug crafted from it's skull, I will not take a chance with that type of animal around my children, on the other hand if i found a rattler i likely would simply relocate it as i feel reasonable competent to do such a task, I will not involve F&W or animal control in such nonsense. I guess those that would be on the pro kill side of this arguement would consider it simply a pre-emptive strike and make the assumption they should have the right to manage their property and it's resources as they see fit, and i'm not sure i would necessarily disagree with that position, especially since in many locations there are no legal protection for nuicance snakes, or mammals for that instance. Personally i consider it my mission and I have good reason to terminate every single racoon that sets a paw on my property with extreme prejudice which i don't doubt there are some forum members as beast called them huggers that would take an issue with my idea of resource managment on my property for this. I am fortunate to live in a area where i don't have to face this dilemma concerning venomous snakes (at least that i've ever found on my property) as in all the years i've lived here i've turned up two snakes.....one of which was a black ratsnake in my quail pen with four lumps in it's belly and was too fat to escape the enclosure with it's prizes in it's belly. That snake got a free pass and a trip to a local park simply because i found the situation amusing but i assure you if this had become a common occurence (which for some people who keep fowl it is) i'd not have felt a bit of shame to start chopping heads off the local rat snake population to protect my personal interest, which in this case is domestic fowl. In other words i subscribe to the opinion human interest first.....local (especially non-endangered wildlife) second.psyon wrote:Question of curiosity. For people that live in areas with large predators such as Bears, Mountain Lions, or Wolves. Is it considered ok to just shoot any of those animals that wonder onto your property because you fear they will eat your kids?
Interesting parallel, i know i certainly support it, so i guess at least i'm consistent in your analogy especially it's recent incarnation in Indiana where it was significantly weakened in my opinion at least where LE is involved. Let me dissect your comment a little further I don't necessarily even think one needs to believe their loved ones are in danger to kill something I certainly don't feel my children are in danger from raccoons i just choose to manage my property in such a way to deter species populations from occurring that i consider detrimental to my plans for my property for instance......killing raccoons to protect birds, eliminating coyotes/woodchucks to protect hoofed livestock ect. I don't subscribe just because something is here i necessarily need to live and let live and deal with it, for instance if you like hatching a bunch of free range chickens/turkeys or watching squirrels play in your oak trees you may not want a healthy population of timber rattlers hanging about i think that decision needs to be left except in the most extreme critical examples to the property owners discretion.psyon wrote:squinn, but the attitude still appears to apply that "If I believe my loved ones are endanger, I can kill it". I hope people who believe that strongly support Castle Doctrine.
The problem there is that how you manage your property affects your neighbors property as well (depending on how big your property is). It is one reason why, at least in my state, you can fish in your own lake without a license, but you can not hunt. The wildlife is not limited to only your property, and has a larger effect on the populations of animals around you.about i think that decision needs to be left except in the most extreme critical examples to the property owners discretion.
I'm not sure i'm really following your point on the larger effect comment, sure my killing raccoons on my property effects other peoples property and the general ecosystem (I would argue in a positive way for both herps and humans since coons tend to predate various herp species) in the same way exterminating a rattlesnake population likely leads to an increase in the population of their target prey species, but well building a house 100 years ago in the first place did that....planting a garden did that, pulling up sumac trees and planting apple and persimmon trees sure as heck did that, every choice we make has a consequence, every time we choice one type of landscaping or build habitat to favor one type of animal another species likely will suffer, it is inevitable. Does that provision in your state about hunting extend to trapping and killing nuisance wildlife as well? In my state i do not need any permit to trap and kill common nuisance wildlife (including common mammalian species) but would need to buy a licence to harvest deer (unless i had F&W come out and agree they are doing significant property damage) In many places snakes fall under the legal definition of nuisance wildlife, for that matter in many states cruelty statues do not even cover cold blooded animals which is why Dbags can amuse us all by setting their houses on fire by trying to kill snakes with a lighter and flammable aerosol cans. In my humble opinion i disagree preventing landowners from hunting on their own property is due to the larger effect on the animal populations, mostly deer or as I like to call them antlered rodents around your property i would suggest it has more to do with raising revenue through selling deer tags ect. than true conservation. Based on the amount of people who actually bother to go into the woods and hunt now compared to when i was a kid I seriously doubt deer are in any danger of over harvesting in most areas of the country.psyon wrote:The problem there is that how you manage your property affects your neighbors property as well (depending on how big your property is). It is one reason why, at least in my state, you can fish in your own lake without a license, but you can not hunt. The wildlife is not limited to only your property, and has a larger effect on the populations of animals around you.about i think that decision needs to be left except in the most extreme critical examples to the property owners discretion.
Holy shite! These are some of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard. Dude (or dudette), have you ever considered co-existing with nature? I think you're living in the wrong environment, perhaps you should just move to the big city! I know mountain lion attacks HAVE occurred, but they are relatively rare, and certainly the exception to the rule. Just sounds to me like you're paranoid.squinn wrote: and I assure you the day a mountain lion wanders on my property it will be the last time it does so as i will be drinking my morning coffee from from a mug crafted from it's skull, I will not take a chance with that type of animal around my children
Personally i consider it my mission and I have good reason to terminate every single racoon that sets a paw on my property with extreme prejudice
I think you really need to take the birkenstocks off and take a reality check in answer to your question....No I have not considered even for a moment co-existing with the parts of nature on my property that i consider counterproductive to my land use goals of my property . Ignorant? I would consider your comment clearly ignorant from the perspective of the handful of people who have been killed/maimed by your little woodland friends, or by anyone who participates in keeping smaller farm stock. I personally consider it a wise choice that those who came before us eliminated a vast portion of the range of the apex predator (ML) in question in favor of human habititation and agriculture. I generally find those that rattle their sabers the loudest about reintroduction of apex predators especially those that potentially can kill humans rarely have any skin in the game themselves. Mostly the live in their little suburban homes and townhouses in the city. I assure you it is completely ignorant to believe you can keep livestock in an area with predators and not manage them somehow. For me my first line of defense is a large pyrenese that can mouth a basketball and has no love for any wild animal that threatens HER flock, and i assure you she believes those are her animals and deters a lot of predation, that being said even that step does not 100% eliminate, sooner or later a hungry predator is going to go for an easy meal and once it starts it will come back until it is killed or relocated. I did not move my family to an area zoned argricultural with the notion that i would not have to manage the local predator population if i wanted to protect my dinner on the hoof. By no means do i consider myself a rancher or a farmer but i certainly do have a vested interest in protecting my investment and I will protect my investment of both time and money.John Martin wrote:Holy shite! These are some of the most ignorant statements I've ever heard. Dude (or dudette), have you ever considered co-existing with nature? I think you're living in the wrong environment, perhaps you should just move to the big city! I know mountain lion attacks HAVE occurred, but they are relatively rare, and certainly the exception to the rule. Just sounds to me like you're paranoid.squinn wrote: and I assure you the day a mountain lion wanders on my property it will be the last time it does so as i will be drinking my morning coffee from from a mug crafted from it's skull, I will not take a chance with that type of animal around my children
Personally i consider it my mission and I have good reason to terminate every single racoon that sets a paw on my property with extreme prejudice
I never cease to be amazed at where some of these threads lead to. Please pass the popcorn!
edit: Hubbs, finally relented and had to play your Limbaugh video. You are one sick puppy... Even more so if you actually listen to that guy...
squinn wrote: I assure you the day a mountain lion wanders on my property it will be the last time it does so as i will be drinking my morning coffee from from a mug crafted from it's skull,
There are so many paranoid wack-a-doodle statements coming from you I don't know where to start. These are two of my favorites. Keep it up.squinn wrote:No I have not considered even for a moment co-existing with the parts of nature on my property that i consider counterproductive to my land use goals of my property
John Vanek wrote:For me, part of the benefit of living in rural areas is the presence of predators. My rational, logical brain knows the difference between perceived risk and actual risk,
The Johns hit the nail on the head.John Martin wrote:I never cease to be amazed at where some of these threads lead to. Please pass the popcorn!
Dell Despain wrote:[...
And this Badger was trying to dig into our house from our cistern to eat my kids. Luckily I killed it w/ old bessy (my shot gun), and I'm drinking coffee from it's skull, as I write this, while wearing my Birkenstocks.
-Dell
If you know you have a predator taking your livestock, that is one thing, but when you shoot first and ask questions later, you are making large assumptions about the animal itself. We have mountain lions that cross through Iowa from time to time. They aren't sticking around to mess with your or your family.squinn wrote:I assure you it is completely ignorant to believe you can keep livestock in an area with predators and not manage them somehow.
Dell Despain wrote: There are so many paranoid wack-a-doodle statements coming from you I don't know where to start. These are two of my favorites. Keep it up.
Mountain Lions are scary. Heres one I took a photo of trying to tap into our phone lines.
And this Badger was trying to dig into our house from our cistern to eat my kids. Luckily I killed it w/ old bessy (my shot gun), and I'm drinking coffee from it's skull, as I write this, while wearing my Birkenstocks.
-Dell
ummmmm sure when it's not edible and please do not misquote me i never once said i do it to protect my family, i do not live in an area that harbors apex predators raccoons are not an apex predator that would be rediculous, i do it to protect my livestock. who are you to tell me how i should manage MY LAND or anyone else's for that matter? I also like to harvest wild mushrooms god forbid i cut down a few trees and seed them with oyster mushroom spores (yes the non-hullucinagenic kind) and pick berries to make wine, both things i have deliberately introduced or increased the density on my land do you have a problem with that too?. My primary concern is protecting my land use interests and if a particular species are counter productive to furthering those land use goals they simply have to go, it has nothing to do with enjoyment although i suppose after the multitude of rabbits i've found dead in their pens from being chewed to death through 1/4" holes by racoons i do get a certain sense of vindication and sense of accomplishment when i eliminate one of the vermin from my property if it makes you feel better they rarely go to waste. If you can not the concept that livestock and predators do not mix i can't really elaborate much further on this, i don't particularly take kindly to finding animals i've raised chewed up and deceased but hey that's just me maybe i can get all the coons together hold hands and sing coombya with them and they will stop predating my rabbits and chickens.ThatFrogGuy wrote:squinn, do you get any enjoyment from nature other than killing it to "protect your family?"
I assure you psyon and I say this with respect and this is from decades of experience of keeping fowl and rabbits once I see signs of raccoons beginning to move through my yard it is a 100% certainty within two weeks they will begin predating on my chickens or rabbits, they simply cannot resist an easily contained meal of meat even if there is plenty of food available in the form of garbage cans, persimmon fruit or any of their "natural/unnatural" foods this is something i have found to be an absolute certainty and is enough reason for me pre-emptively strike to avoid what is a complete inevitability. On a plus note my land is quite rich in salamanders which i assume is helped by the lack of racoon and possums on my land (another example of choices that lead to my personal land use goals, i much prefer finding salamanders and newts to coons) In all my years of combating this the only thing i have found to be even a slight deterrant is the pyranese, the other non-lethal solutions like little red flickering lights they sell are completely useless, for that matter relocation is useless and i base this on what happened when my local coon club imported a bunch of tagged boars from several states away to increase the size and vitality of the local coon genetic pool, almost every one died crossing the road trying to make their way back to michigan. Land management isn't hygenic and pretty but choices often need to be made depending on what your goals are for a particular plot of land, whether it be monoculture agriculture, microfarming or a butterfly garden.psyon wrote:If you know you have a predator taking your livestock, that is one thing, but when you shoot first and ask questions later, you are making large assumptions about the animal itself. We have mountain lions that cross through Iowa from time to time. They aren't sticking around to mess with your or your family.squinn wrote:I assure you it is completely ignorant to believe you can keep livestock in an area with predators and not manage them somehow.
funny.........Bryan Hamilton wrote:I can just see sqinn out there chasing vermin. Reminds me of another dedicated pursuer of vermin:
Field herping isn't in this list, why are you here, to protect your land?squinn wrote:ummmmm sure when it's not edible and please do not misquote me i never once said i do it to protect my family, i do not live in an area that harbors apex predators raccoons are not an apex predator that would be rediculous, i do it to protect my livestock. who are you to tell me how i should manage MY LAND or anyone else's for that matter? I also like to harvest wild mushrooms god forbid i cut down a few trees and seed them with oyster mushroom spores (yes the non-hullucinagenic kind) and pick berries to make wine, both things i have deliberately introduced or increased the density on my land do you have a problem with that too?. My primary concern is protecting my land use interests and if a particular species are counter productive to furthering those land use goals they simply have to go, it has nothing to do with enjoyment although i suppose after the multitude of rabbits i've found dead in their pens from being chewed to death through 1/4" holes by racoons i do get a certain sense of vindication and sense of accomplishment when i eliminate one of the vermin from my property if it makes you feel better they rarely go to waste. If you can not the concept that livestock and predators do not mix i can't really elaborate much further on this, i don't particularly take kindly to finding animals i've raised chewed up and deceased but hey that's just me maybe i can get all the coons together hold hands and sing coombya with them and they will stop predating my rabbits and chickens.ThatFrogGuy wrote:squinn, do you get any enjoyment from nature other than killing it to "protect your family?"
Bryan Hamilton wrote:I can just see sqinn out there chasing vermin. Reminds me of another dedicated pursuer of vermin:
Well, we are in no way in any position to FORCE our ways upon you on how to manage your land, but as conservation minded people, that puts us in a position where we desire to educate land owners on how to better manage their land for the purpose of resource conservation.squinn wrote:who are you to tell me how i should manage MY LAND or anyone else's for that matter?
Predating? I didn't understand how big your problems are, sorry my bad. I don't know how you're going to stop those coons from predating your rabbits and chickens, but getting together to sing Kumbaya probably won't work.squinn wrote: i can get all the coons together hold hands and sing coombya with them and they will stop predating my rabbits and chickens.
Ok psyon since you (and a few others) are apparantly willing to have a serious intellectual discussion about this and not post passive agressive caddyshack videos simply to be a baboon i'll bite you have my full attention i will gladly listen to what you have to say about this with an open mind. How on earth do you propose i protect my interests (livestock), which i think we both agree with that i have a right to engage in agricultural pursuits on my land as well as have the right to change the character of my land to suit my desires (example planting groves of fruit trees, placing logs for mushroom cultivation (side effect being salamander habitat), I do not see any way i can effectively meet my goals in a cost effective manner for my land without managing the predators that prey on them. Beyond that those animals that are harvested do not go to waste, and i certainly feel one should have every right to harvest common species of both plant and animal on their property. I most certainly am not willing to spend $1,000s of dollars in enclosure uprades that may or may not work, beyond that it is extremely important to me for various reasons (one of them being tick management since i live in a known lyme disease area) that a portion of my flock particularly the guineas be free range. Now i've been doing this a long time and when you keep a flock there is a certain percent that is an acceptable loss, I assure you my losses in the past are well beyond acceptable. I live in damn near perfect coon habitat and planting a bunch of pawpaw and persimmon trees certainly hasn't helped that. Beyond the killing of the livestock i intend to harvest my trees not the racoons. I agree with your take that you should not be allowed to make certain changes if they negatively affect adjoining property, but this must be an extremely specific litmus test IMO for instance killing endangered species for the sake of killing them or your example of a dam that prevents fishing downstream are reasonable times i could see having some restrictions, but i don't think you are seriously making the arguement that killing common pest species raccoons and opposums even come close to fitting this criterea (especially since most rationale human beings would make the arguement both those species populations are artificially inflated due to man's intervention, also deer can probably be added to that list). This is not my opinion that I am not harming the local ecosystem this is in fact the opinion of my states Department of Natural resources since the only regulation on my trapping these two species are they suggest they be humanely euthanized.psyon wrote:Well, we are in no way in any position to FORCE our ways upon you on how to manage your land, but as conservation minded people, that puts us in a position where we desire to educate land owners on how to better manage their land for the purpose of resource conservation.squinn wrote:who are you to tell me how i should manage MY LAND or anyone else's for that matter?
You may not think your actions affect things outside your own property, and they may not for all we know, but if people were left to do absolutely anything they want on their own land, it can cause issues for other people. Don't get me wrong, I would be labeled as a libertarian for my political views, and I believe people should be able to do what they want with themselves and their property, as long as they do not infringe on the rights and liberties of the people around them. With that said, there are things you can do on your own property, that can strongly interfere with the rights and liberties of other people. If you were dumping toxic chemicals onto your property, you would contaminate not only your soil, but the surrounding soil as well. The pollutants would probably seep into the water table, and enter into other peoples wells. If a person was allowed to dam up a creek or river on their property, it could interfere with people who own property up stream who enjoy fishing. If you shot every single deer that wandered onto your property, you would effect the numbers for people who only hunt on their property for food. There are plenty of other things that you can do with your property that has an impact on the people around you.
John Vanek wrote:Squinn, no one is trying to tell you what to do, and despite some poster's rough style of speaking, we are really just hoping offer some alternative views on land management.
We also seem to be discussing different things: proactively trapping raccoons (which are subsidized and at artificially high levels) to protect chickens is much different than shooting a vagrant mountain lion. Also, if you see a rattlesnake on your property, I can almost guarantee there are many more in the general vicinity. So while I understand your want to protect your family, you would have to kill MANY rattlesnakes before ever eliminating that risk, time which might be better spent (from an efficiency standpoint) reducing rattlesnake habitat, such as via the aforementioned silt fences, lawn mowing, and removing debris piles.
No way. That IS actually me in the video... What a small world.squinn wrote:funny.........
Is this what you do in nature Bryan?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk2vR8w2sjc
wow that is a freaky coincidence which one are you lol?.......all right we've both had our fun now. I promise I will try to not show my baboon arse from here on out.Bryan Hamilton wrote:No way. That IS actually me in the video... What a small world.squinn wrote:funny.........
Is this what you do in nature Bryan?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk2vR8w2sjc
Me too. Good luck with the coons. We don't have any out here yet. I do have to deal with skunks and mice.squinn wrote:wow that is a freaky coincidence which one are you lol?.......all right we've both had our fun now. I promise I will try to not show my baboon arse from here on out.
Don't forget the opinion of people who make or influence the laws.squinn wrote:Thanks John but what matters at the end of the day is please respect the fact that it is my land you are all welcome to your opinion but at the end of the day the only person's opinion who really matters for my land is mine and the law.
The first step to stop any threat, is first to determine if a threat is present, and then to identify it. In the case of your livestock, you have already established that a threat is present, presumably by the loss of birds, and you have identified that the threat is from raccoons. The next step would be to analyze why the threat is there. Are they finding holes in your chicken houses, or simply taking advantage of the free range foul? Is there anything you can do within your means to deter or circumvent the threat? Can you patch holes, put up fencing, or anything else? In your case, you said you are not willing to spend $1000s on fencing, so you do not have a way to deter the threat, so you must move to the next step which is to eliminate it. In any case with livestock, I think killing a possible predator should only be an option AFTER it has been established that the predator is killing your animals. A random mountain lion walking through should not be shot on the hunch that it might take your chickens.squinn wrote:How on earth do you propose i protect my interests (livestock), which i think we both agree with that i have a right to engage in agricultural pursuits on my land as well as have the right to change the character of my land to suit my desires (example planting groves of fruit trees, placing logs for mushroom cultivation (side effect being salamander habitat), I do not see any way i can effectively meet my goals in a cost effective manner for my land without managing the predators that prey on them.
Oh man....yeah i'm 100% sure about the threat identification the methodology of the kill and typically catching the coon in a trap the next night is proof enough for me, coons have a very distinctive pattern of how they kill and eat a chicken, completely different from an owl, weasel or other predator (all my bird kills are nocturnal which is another piece of circumstantial evidence) i've lost more rabbits than i care to count who have been chewed to death through 1/4" hardware cloth, it is not a pretty sight. I tend to keep odd hours and am often up late a good flashlight can often reveal a pair or trio of coons in my backyard, very often it's seasonal as fall/winter is when this years young are kicked out of their nests and go on a search for territory normally they travel in threes, and i can almost guarantee over the course of three days i will catch three coons once the carnage starts more often than not they are not all that disturbed when they see me through the glass of my front door. Usually once i clean them out in spring i will not see them for the entire summer until the new ones move in search of territory I have found multiple chickens with their heads torn off through standard chicken wire the fencing is unbroken, smaller wire would not help as it would render the coop non-functional and causes feces to build up coons don't need much space to kill a bird, i wish it was a simple as running some more chicken wire and tidying up a few loose ends and the only time i felt the need to kill a coon is the once or twice a year i get a craving for seeing one in the crock pot with bbq sauce.psyon wrote:Don't forget the opinion of people who make or influence the laws.squinn wrote:Thanks John but what matters at the end of the day is please respect the fact that it is my land you are all welcome to your opinion but at the end of the day the only person's opinion who really matters for my land is mine and the law.
The first step to stop any threat, is first to determine if a threat is present, and then to identify it. In the case of your livestock, you have already established that a threat is present, presumably by the loss of birds, and you have identified that the threat is from raccoons. The next step would be to analyze why the threat is there. Are they finding holes in your chicken houses, or simply taking advantage of the free range foul? Is there anything you can do within your means to deter or circumvent the threat? Can you patch holes, put up fencing, or anything else? In your case, you said you are not willing to spend $1000s on fencing, so you do not have a way to deter the threat, so you must move to the next step which is to eliminate it. In any case with livestock, I think killing a possible predator should only be an option AFTER it has been established that the predator is killing your animals. A random mountain lion walking through should not be shot on the hunch that it might take your chickens.squinn wrote:How on earth do you propose i protect my interests (livestock), which i think we both agree with that i have a right to engage in agricultural pursuits on my land as well as have the right to change the character of my land to suit my desires (example planting groves of fruit trees, placing logs for mushroom cultivation (side effect being salamander habitat), I do not see any way i can effectively meet my goals in a cost effective manner for my land without managing the predators that prey on them.
.
You are still basing that on the fact that coons have already preyed on your animals. If you had never lost an animal to predation, I wouldn't see any reason to shoot every coon on site.squinn wrote:I understand your point about not killing a predator prior to it raiding your livestock and that philosophy would probably work well with coyotes, wolves and mountain lions, but i assure you any coon that takes up territory in my yard will become livestock killers, irregardless of alternate food options it is not a matter of if, it is when, there is no such thing as a coon that can co-exist with chickens in my experience, the same goes for foxes to my understanding but not my experience.
Mountain lions do eat raccoons. I'm sure they eat several hundred thousand chicken thieving coons for every family member taken.psyon wrote:You are still basing that on the fact that coons have already preyed on your animals. If you had never lost an animal to predation, I wouldn't see any reason to shoot every coon on site.squinn wrote:I understand your point about not killing a predator prior to it raiding your livestock and that philosophy would probably work well with coyotes, wolves and mountain lions, but i assure you any coon that takes up territory in my yard will become livestock killers, irregardless of alternate food options it is not a matter of if, it is when, there is no such thing as a coon that can co-exist with chickens in my experience, the same goes for foxes to my understanding but not my experience.
As someone else already mentioned, coons are a different situation than the rattlesnake, and are even different from other predators. Their numbers are inflated due to the lack of predators that eat them, and by the increased amount of food provided by people.
Coons eat Beaver??? not what I heard (Sorry... also couldn't resist, but I'm pretty sure I'm gonna regret that one... )psyon wrote:I'm sorry, just found this posted on another site, I could not resist posting it...
The coons are predating this woman!
I like how he tells people to "be mindful" and "keep his head pinned". This is a great instructional vid on how to get tagged.beast wrote:Well if I kill it I will eat it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQKkuYEQhPo
Now I'm no constitutional lawyer, just a country boy that likes to fish, hunt, farm and play with snakes but ok i'll do my best to defend the use of the word right..............seeing as several states have added agriculture and hunting as constitutional rights, (did i somehow misconstrue the definition of constitutional right?), so uh yeah i don't think referring to it (hunting and agriculture) as a right is exactly off base otherwise the words "constitutional right" would not be attached to it in a growing number of states.hellihooks wrote:Squinn,
I find it pretty amusing that you actually think the land, and everything on it, 'Belongs' to you. And when you die... your kids will own it? And their kids after... never mind... by then ecological catastrophes will have most likely rid the world of all but a few scattered people, who will go back to being a part of nature, not it's ruler...
BTW... you keep mentioning 'rights'... other than the obvious and unsophisticated ' the Law says so', could you elaborate on what you think a 'right' actually is? jim
If you are referring to the rather anarchistic view of 'rights' that transcends our system that gets into La-La land pseudo religious thinking, that is far from sophisticated. Sort of like fixing the world's problems around a communal bong I actually find that thinking sort of pompous at best and an obfuscation of of one's responsibility to actually contribute at worst. It's so fringe, and requires engaging in sooooo much hypocrisy to enjoy the fruits the system while claiming it is 'morally' bankrupt. You may not have a pragmatic choice in the matter, but on the other hand you do...it would just suck living that way. Besides, owning land is akin to territory in nature, our system protects the weak and civilizes the process. Certainly our system is transient and evolving, order reverting to disorder and all that but so is everything over time. But nature also provides us with the will to persevere and improve our condition. Curling up in a nihilist ball and declaring nothing matters in the end runs counter to natures greatest gift, the will to survive. Devising political systems and rule of law IS being one with nature.hellihooks wrote:Squinn,
I find it pretty amusing that you actually think the land, and everything on it, 'Belongs' to you. And when you die... your kids will own it? And their kids after... never mind... by then ecological catastrophes will have most likely rid the world of all but a few scattered people, who will go back to being a part of nature, not it's ruler...
BTW... you keep mentioning 'rights'... other than the obvious and unsophisticated ' the Law says so', could you elaborate on what you think a 'right' actually is? jim
you really want to argue semantics on this? i would think a constitutional right should be self explanatory, but if your asking what i think you are and want to take it further and get into what i consider birth right or as it is sometimes said inalienable rights i think i can define MY personal belief of what right SHOULD be but please do not twist this into something it is not or that this is what i was referring to as rights in my previous posts in a nutshell i feel.........psyon wrote:Squinn, it seems you explained what you feel your rights are, but not what a right is.
I think that is well said there are of course no guarantees in life but we have as a country chosen a basic framework of common values and agreed to live under a common constitution, choosing to disregard that is cultural suicide. As to the topic at hand 13 states, with more joining have seen fit add provisions to protect what i enjoy doing in the last couple decades to their constitutions and that gives me great hope my kids will have the option to choose to enjoy the same pursuits i do, my father and grandfather did.psyon wrote:Rights are a social construct, they are an agreement between people. Contrary to what is believed, there is no such thing as an inalienable right. We may believe that certain rights are inalienable, but they aren't. The right to live is often touted as an inalienable right, but society takes that right away from people by executing them. The people around you, the people who you think opinion's should not matter on how you manage your land, they are who grant you your rights. They are who agree to uphold your rights. If at any point in time, the overwhelming majority of people are fed up with your land management practices, they can take your right to be secure in your property away. They can do this by changing laws, or by forming a mob and running you out. Either way, your right is only as strong as the support it has from the people around you.
Wow, that is simply anarchy and show a TOTAL lack of awareness of the constitution.psyon wrote:Rights are a social construct, they are an agreement between people. Contrary to what is believed, there is no such thing as an inalienable right. We may believe that certain rights are inalienable, but they aren't. The right to live is often touted as an inalienable right, but society takes that right away from people by executing them. The people around you, the people who you think opinion's should not matter on how you manage your land, they are who grant you your rights. They are who agree to uphold your rights. If at any point in time, the overwhelming majority of people are fed up with your land management practices, they can take your right to be secure in your property away. They can do this by changing laws, or by forming a mob and running you out. Either way, your right is only as strong as the support it has from the people around you.