I'm certain you would get arrested and probably serve time if you use my "harvesting" not "hunting" arguement, however if your goal is to make a political statement, such an arguement would help make your point. If a law exists and authorities choose to enforce it, you will get arrested, this does not imply anything about the constitutionality of the law. It is only by getting arrested and then challenging the law under which you got charge that you can get a judgement on constitutionality. Just because it is a law does not make it right. There were seperate-but-equal laws, but when taken to court they were overturned because "equal" did not mean equal. The state can call anything they want "hunting", but if it is does not fit into the definition of "hunting" it is not hunting. Obviously such a defense would require dedication and a good lawyer. I may be wrong, but it seems this definition goes to the heart of the issue. I expect people would not be as upset if the tribe was truly "hunting" the whales. Hunting implies a certain amount of risk, and a less than certain chance of success. Instead this operation is more like taking the pickup down to the stockyard and blowing away cows. I expect there would be some support in this group for a restoration of traditional survival techniques The operation serves no such purpose. The tribe does not need, let alone want, the meat. There is no historical basis for the similar "hunt". It is a government funded construct. If the tribe members where climbing into canoes, paddling out to look for whales, and throwing harpoons, I expect there would be a little more support for the project (as long as the paddles used were narrow enough). I wouldn't support it, but I may not argue against it. At 12:40 AM -0700 7/30/98, Geo. Bergeron wrote: >At 11:07 PM 7/29/98 -0400, you wrote: > >>One way around such a law is to contend that no "hunting" is occuring. It >>would better be catagorized as a harvest. Hunting implies some difficulty >>in finding or tracking the hunted animal, followed by stalking to approach >>close enough to use your weapon. Since the whales being killed are used to >>boats approaching and they are a resident herd whose whereabouts are well >>known, no hunting is involved in the same way "hunting" is not used in >>reference to the round up and slaughter of beef cattle. >> >>Just so long as you stay away when the are "hunting" there should be no >>problem getting in close during a "harvest". >>Nick >> > > Problematizing the term "hunting" is a low form of Sophist >rhetoric. This >is like arguing that there is no "pre-meditation" because the murderer >didn't have to think about what he/she was doing. > > "Hunting" is a statutory term, defined and regulated by law. >Statutorily >"the hunt" is underway the second the "hunting parties" leave their >residence with the intention of engaging in a lawful hunt. "Hunters" are >engaged in the hunt--for statutory purposes such as transporting >firearms--even while they're standing in line at the local Safeway waiting >to buy beer and jerky before heading to the boat. > > Here's an example: Oregon permits carry of concealed firearms "by >licensed >hunters and anglers while going to, engaged in, or returning from a hunting >or fishing expedition." (the statute verbatim) According to the staff >attorney for the Clackamas County Sheriff, the legal view is that ANY >person with a firearm and a hunting license is engaged in a hunt. . . short >of attending a PTA meeting. > > As I say again: I'm opposed to whaling. I'm very opposed to >whaling. But >you need to realize that you're dealing with Federal Indian Treaties and >that the "feds" don't mess around with Sophist arguments such as, "They >weren't actively seeking whales so they weren't 'hunting'." That argument >will get you tossed in jail fast. Also, you're likely to lose your boat. > > I agree with your views, but your legal strategy will get you arrested, >convicted, and sentenced. Trust me on this one. Getting caught up in the >legal system really sucks. Just offhand I'd estimate you'd be charged with >a misdemeanor, lose your boat, get sentenced to a week or two in jail, two >years supervised probation, and court costs and fines will run you about >$3,000. Legally you have no defense whatever. The state has the statutory >authority to grant indian tribes hunting permits for Bald Eagles and whales >if that's what it wants to do. > > Write your representatives and tell them how pissed off you are! I'll >endorse that action forever. > >______________________________ >George Bergeron, Secretary '99 >Oswego Heritage Council >http://www.europa.com/~heritage/ >*************************************************************************** >PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List >Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net >Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net >Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ >*************************************************************************** Nick Schade Guillemot Kayaks c/o Newfound Woodworks, 67 Danforth Brook Rd, Bristol, NH 03222 (603) 744-6872 Schade_at_guillemot-kayaks.com http://www.guillemot-kayaks.com/ >>>>"It's not just Art, It's a Craft!"<<<< *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************Received on Thu Jul 30 1998 - 13:45:54 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:29:58 PDT