17 February 2005
Hunting as Libertarian Issue: Foxhunting & Open Fields
Britain is better as a country of few laws (US would be too!)
The Chief has been following this issue for some time in the UK press (mostly the Telegraph online). For those not familiar with it, the UK has railroaded a ban on fox-hunting that is effective this month. (You know, the English bit with horses, packs of foxhounds, riding boots, those outfits with the red coats, etc.)
There seem to be two main drivers behind this. Firstly, the hunting is viewed by the urban proletariat as being an activity reserved for "toffs" - upper class gentry types, etc., so opposing it is striking a blow in the socialists' continual class warfare...whatever! The other impetus comes from the animal rights whackos (who got started in UK before PETA ever was dreamed of here).
The final upshot here is that this activity, which harms no people, and which generates a not inconsiderable quantity of economic activity, is being banned because some people are upset at what other people are doing.
If this is to be the standard, there is no reason why many other activities should be exempt from this sort of process, also. While the US supposedly has Constitutional limits on the role of the state, this has lately proven to be noted more in it's breach than in it's observance due to the free-wheeling nature of current judicial interpretation. Historically, governments have tended to try to constantly increase their power. "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, to begin to exercise unrightous dominion" (Joseph Smith, 1st President of LDS Church).
The same sort of process is occurring right now in the current South Dakota legislative session regarding the so-called Open Fields issue. The idea that game belongs to the state, and that therefore it, in the person of the Conservation Officers, has an over-riding interest that trumps private property rights. Since the "people of the state" own the game, then the officers of the state should have the right to go anywhere, anytime to check up on the critters.
On the other side, there is (was, apparently) some presumption that property owners had some rights by virtue of their ownership. Privacy, and limitation of access by tresspassers, etc. have been a part of the basic fabric of the country.
By failing to restrict to Open Fields access by CO's to cases of probable cause (which is no more than what is required for traffic and other law enforcement), the SD legislature is moving us closer to the UK model. In reality, as the current regs. stand, the CO's can in effect come strolling through your back yard (if you happen to live in the country) just to see what you may or may not be up to. (Big brother is watching you.)
DISCLOSURE NOTICE: The Chief lives on a small farm which has been in the (wife's) family for about a hundred years or so now, and also has been known to avidly pursue the acquisition of fresh venison in the appropriate season, and with observance of the relevant laws, etc. As a hunter, there is nothing but respect for the legitimate job that the CO's perform, and no intent to circumvent the game laws and regulations. On the other hand, it DOES generate some level of resentment to have no expectation to privacy, just because one lives out on the land.
Another interesting thing to the Chief is that the UK interventionists, and now the SD Game Fish, and Parks Dept. are curiously enough allied in maintaining what were the prerogatives of a feudal society, where the game, woods, etc. belong to exclusive use at the pleasure and permission of the king, duke, earl, baron, or whoever (now apparently including Republocratic Legislooters?). Viewed in this light, the supposedly anti-aristo EngSocs are re-assserting the same type of unbridled power that they claim to despise in their history, and the SD legislature apparently agrees.
The Chief has been following this issue for some time in the UK press (mostly the Telegraph online). For those not familiar with it, the UK has railroaded a ban on fox-hunting that is effective this month. (You know, the English bit with horses, packs of foxhounds, riding boots, those outfits with the red coats, etc.)
There seem to be two main drivers behind this. Firstly, the hunting is viewed by the urban proletariat as being an activity reserved for "toffs" - upper class gentry types, etc., so opposing it is striking a blow in the socialists' continual class warfare...whatever! The other impetus comes from the animal rights whackos (who got started in UK before PETA ever was dreamed of here).
The final upshot here is that this activity, which harms no people, and which generates a not inconsiderable quantity of economic activity, is being banned because some people are upset at what other people are doing.
If this is to be the standard, there is no reason why many other activities should be exempt from this sort of process, also. While the US supposedly has Constitutional limits on the role of the state, this has lately proven to be noted more in it's breach than in it's observance due to the free-wheeling nature of current judicial interpretation. Historically, governments have tended to try to constantly increase their power. "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, to begin to exercise unrightous dominion" (Joseph Smith, 1st President of LDS Church).
The same sort of process is occurring right now in the current South Dakota legislative session regarding the so-called Open Fields issue. The idea that game belongs to the state, and that therefore it, in the person of the Conservation Officers, has an over-riding interest that trumps private property rights. Since the "people of the state" own the game, then the officers of the state should have the right to go anywhere, anytime to check up on the critters.
On the other side, there is (was, apparently) some presumption that property owners had some rights by virtue of their ownership. Privacy, and limitation of access by tresspassers, etc. have been a part of the basic fabric of the country.
By failing to restrict to Open Fields access by CO's to cases of probable cause (which is no more than what is required for traffic and other law enforcement), the SD legislature is moving us closer to the UK model. In reality, as the current regs. stand, the CO's can in effect come strolling through your back yard (if you happen to live in the country) just to see what you may or may not be up to. (Big brother is watching you.)
DISCLOSURE NOTICE: The Chief lives on a small farm which has been in the (wife's) family for about a hundred years or so now, and also has been known to avidly pursue the acquisition of fresh venison in the appropriate season, and with observance of the relevant laws, etc. As a hunter, there is nothing but respect for the legitimate job that the CO's perform, and no intent to circumvent the game laws and regulations. On the other hand, it DOES generate some level of resentment to have no expectation to privacy, just because one lives out on the land.
Another interesting thing to the Chief is that the UK interventionists, and now the SD Game Fish, and Parks Dept. are curiously enough allied in maintaining what were the prerogatives of a feudal society, where the game, woods, etc. belong to exclusive use at the pleasure and permission of the king, duke, earl, baron, or whoever (now apparently including Republocratic Legislooters?). Viewed in this light, the supposedly anti-aristo EngSocs are re-assserting the same type of unbridled power that they claim to despise in their history, and the SD legislature apparently agrees.
