Two days ago, the US Coast Guard published a federal proposal which the public now has 45 days to respond to before the government decides whether to turn it into a law or not. At this point, enough opposition will prevent this proposal from becoming a law. This proposed law includes sea kayakers, and is a precedent setting action that our community should address. The proposal will create a 1500-foot ‘exclusion zone’ around any Makah tribal whaling vessel in the act of chasing, hunting or killing a gray whale during their first annual whale hunt this October. The Makah whale hunt is scheduled to happen this autumn only 4-hours away from Seattle, WA. What this proposal will do is to make it impossible and illegal for anyone -- animal advocates, kayakers, media, boaters, etc. -- from seeing and effectively opposing the Makah gray whale hunt -- a hunt that might signal the return to coastal whaling world-wide. The federal government notice essentially states that the US Coast Guard and Justice Department -- at the taxpayer expense -- will help the Makah kill whales by protecting their whalers AND excluding anyone from protesting this hunt. It is paramount that EVERYONE who resides in the US comment against this proposal before September 8th, 1998. We are attaching a draft 'talking points' bulletin to use in the formation of your letter of opposition. Citizens must retain their constitutional rights to witness, document or protest such a hunt at their own risk. Please inform your regional network of activists, marine trade or recreational associations, commercial boating/fishing and marine commerce businesses, whale-watching or anyone you know that can respond to this notice. The entire text of this Federal Register notice can be found on the Sea Shepherd website _at_ www.seashpherd.org. Please visit this site and add any additional points to your letter. If you care about preventing a new era of whaling, please act today. Please cc. your local legislator and Project SeaWolf with your response. Michael Kundu, Director Project SeaWolf *************************************** DRAFT LETTER/TALKING POINTS Commander(m) Thirteenth Coast Guard District 915 Second Avenue Seattle, WA 98174 This letter is in response to Federal Register rulemaking notice #CGD98-023, published on July 22, 1998. I am opposed to the proposal to establish a Mobile Exclusion Zone around Makah whaling vessels. My objections are based on the additional taxpayer costs associated with the establishment, enforcement and execution of this proposed rule, as well as the constitutional infringements that such an exclusion zone will have on the rights of individual citizens to oppose and protest the Makah whale hunt. Similar exclusion zones are not in place in other areas where hunting occurs each year, or where large caliber rifles are used in hunting activities. Therefore I am opposed to the idea that a special law will be implemented to facilitate a special activity conducted by a single group of individuals involved in an exclusive hunting activity. I believe that regulations passed under these circumstance are unwarranted and inequitable. My objections to the draft notice include: Section 1: Background and Purpose The assertion by Departments of Justice and the Interior that “physical interference with the hunt is inconsistent with federal law,” has not been substantiated nor documented by any evidence presented in the 1855 Treaty text, nor in any other formal US regulation or law. Hereby the establishment of an exclusion zone can be construed as being an unconstitutional restriction on citizen’s rights. I am opposed to these restrictions placed on my constitutional rights. Section 2: Discussion of Proposed Rule a) Stray rifle fire and ricochets off the water will travel much further than 1500-feet. All regional commercial, recreational and shore-based travelers will be prone to danger from the use of high-caliber bullets in a hunt. A moving exclusionary zone will make it even more difficult and cost intensive for federal and emergency personal to implement reasonable safety procedures. I am opposed to the physical dangers, travel restrictions and additional expense that this activity will entail to myself and other US taxpayers. b) The broadcasting of a SECURITE announcement by Makah whaler 1-half hour prior to a hunt is inadequate notice for commercial and recreational travelers in the area. Many travelers rounding Cape Flattery will not have adequate time to change their course or route of travel. I feel that the federal government should not implement such an unpredictable and unreasonable demand on recreational travelers and others using the public Olympic Marine Sanctuary waters. Section 3: Regulatory Evaluation I feel that the public cost associated with the implementation and enforcement of this proposal for an exclusion zone does indeed make it a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and that it thereby does require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. I am opposed to this additional added, unanticipated expense borne by taxpayers and US citizens, and I request that a complete budget disclosure be presented tp the public for comment prior to any additional action. Section 4: Small Entities The prospective cost to small entities, non-profit groups and other eco-tourism related businesses and interests have not been quantifiably estimated nor considered by any government agency, so there is no direct evidence to support this section’s assertions. I am opposed to the potential taxpayer-borne costs that supervision and enforcement of this exclusion zone will entail, particularly since these expenses have not been presented to the public. Under the circumstances of the added cost of enforcing this new proposed rule, I request that a public hearing and budgetary forecast be prepared prior to any final implementation. Thank you for the opportunity to express my comments. Sincerely..... Michael Kundu Project SeaWolf/Arcturus Adventure Communications "The Source for Extreme Adventuresports Photojournalism" respond to ProjectSeaWolf_at_seanet.com *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Michael Kundu wrote: > Citizens must retain their constitutional rights to witness, document or > protest such a hunt at their own risk. Please inform your regional network > of activists, marine trade or recreational associations, commercial > boating/fishing and marine commerce businesses, whale-watching or anyone > you know that can respond to this notice. Uhhh, pardon me, but no one has the right to interfere with, or harass hunters during a legal hunt. Many states have laws making such behavior a criminal act, punishable by stiff fines and/or jail time. If the hunt is legal, and Joe Schmoe interferes with or harasses the hunters, then Joe Schmoe needs to be arrested and fined and have his vessel confiscated. Remember the old adage, your rights end where the tip of my nose begins. Whether the hunt is for squirrels, deer, or whales, the adage holds true. Richard Walker Houston, TX *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
At 03:39 PM 7/29/98 +0000, you wrote: >Michael Kundu wrote: >> Citizens must retain their constitutional rights to witness, document or >> protest such a hunt at their own risk. Please inform your regional network >> of activists, marine trade or recreational associations, commercial >> boating/fishing and marine commerce businesses, whale-watching or anyone >> you know that can respond to this notice. > >Uhhh, pardon me, but no one has the right to interfere with, or >harass hunters during a legal hunt. Many states have laws making >such behavior a criminal act, punishable by stiff fines and/or >jail time. If the hunt is legal, and Joe Schmoe interferes with >or harasses the hunters, then Joe Schmoe needs to be arrested >and fined and have his vessel confiscated. > Perhaps that is what "at their own risk" refers to. We all have the option, perhaps even the right, to violate the law at the risk of suffering the penalty. Besides, the words harass and interfere were not used. The Russian whaling fleet had boats with steam outlets that could be used to cover the deck with a steam cloud to prevent planes from checking their catch. It turns out that they took many more whales than anyone knew at the time. The point is that if someone can perform without a witness they are less likely to do the right thing. Both sides of this issue, like any other, have rights proscribed by existing law. Specialty laws that would apply to only one party or in such a specific case are, in IMHO, clearly political or driven by special interests. Bob Tellefson http://www.zooid.com/sbpaddle *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
> Both sides of this issue, like any other, have rights proscribed by > existing law. Specialty laws that would apply to only one party or in such > a specific case are, in IMHO, clearly political or driven by special > interests. All laws are clearly political. Law is the code of conduct created by the political action of the people, at least in a republic. In this case though, I think the reg is being put forward to avoid the dangerous pursuit and harrasment games that many of the more extreme anti-whaling folks are willing to engage in. Safe navigation is the Coast Guard's responsibility; and its hard to come up with a good reason for penetrating such exclusions zones. Just like the exclusion zones around marine mammals to prevent people from continuously harrassing the populations into extinction; they are quite legal, and quite enforceable. Are these zones political? Yep. Are they driven by special interests? Yep. Are they a good thing. Probably Yep [I'm no biologist]. Now maybe, just maybe folks will behave in a legal and ethical manner; instead of terrorizing people engaged in a legal activity that they don't happen to agree with. Just as pro-lifers have to allow women access to clinics, anti-whalers are going to have to abide by similar restrictions in their behavior in order that these folks can participate in their legal right to hunt a few whales. We all have to abide by the laws that we like *AND* the laws that we don't like. If we lose the political fight over which laws govern us; then thats just to bad. Loosing the fight doesn't give you the right to violate the law. Richard Walker Houston, TX *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
It was "against the law" for the founders of the United States to overthrow English rule, but that didn't stop them. For whatever reason sometimes laws are enacted that are controversial. Certain members of society may be extremely opposed, certain members may be extremely in favor. In the case of killing whales for sport, a handful of Makah Indians may be extremely in favor, but I think there are probably a huge number of people extremely opposed. Personally, I think the opposition should prevail. Put it to a vote of all the people in the world and I think the majority would vote in favor of the whales. If you are opposed to the killing of whales then you must follow your heart in the action that you take. I would never condone violence of any kind, but I count those who are willing to face arrest to bring the issue into the public eye among the brave. Keith Kaste R. Walker wrote: > Now maybe, just maybe folks will behave in a legal and > ethical manner; instead of terrorizing people engaged in > a legal activity that they don't happen to agree with. > Just as pro-lifers have to allow women access to clinics, > anti-whalers are going to have to abide by similar > restrictions in their behavior in order that these folks > can participate in their legal right to hunt a few whales. > > We all have to abide by the laws that we like *AND* the > laws that we don't like. If we lose the political fight > over which laws govern us; then thats just to bad. Loosing > the fight doesn't give you the right to violate the law. > > Richard Walker > Houston, TX > *************************************************************************** > PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List > Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net > Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net > Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ > *************************************************************************** *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
Richard obviously has some 'issues' with non-hunters. Nowhere in my alert does the term 'interfere' arise. On the contrary, it is illegal and unconstitutional for the state or federal government to impose an exclusion zone around hunters -- whether they're after squirrel, deer or whales. Sorry Richard, but anyway, I'll admit that I feel the rights of the many (non-hunters) should outweigh those of the few (hunters) who find killing a sport in the same capacity that sea kayaking is... (I'm sure we'll hear more from you -- NRA crap and all that) At 03:39 PM 7/29/98 +0000, you wrote: >Michael Kundu wrote: >> Citizens must retain their constitutional rights to witness, document or >> protest such a hunt at their own risk. Please inform your regional network >> of activists, marine trade or recreational associations, commercial >> boating/fishing and marine commerce businesses, whale-watching or anyone >> you know that can respond to this notice. > >Uhhh, pardon me, but no one has the right to interfere with, or >harass hunters during a legal hunt. Many states have laws making >such behavior a criminal act, punishable by stiff fines and/or >jail time. If the hunt is legal, and Joe Schmoe interferes with >or harasses the hunters, then Joe Schmoe needs to be arrested >and fined and have his vessel confiscated. > >Remember the old adage, your rights end where the tip of my >nose begins. Whether the hunt is for squirrels, deer, or >whales, the adage holds true. > > > >Richard Walker >Houston, TX >*************************************************************************** >PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List >Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net >Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net >Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ >*************************************************************************** > > *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
> Richard obviously has some 'issues' with non-hunters. If you want to do the personal attack thing, please send via direct email only. I'm sure most list members would prefer to not read a barrage of bad-guy/good-guy gunk. Thanks, Richard Walker Houston, TX *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
As far as the responce from the NRA goes-- I cant say a word-- I do however hunt -- and find the whole Idea of this whale hunt APPALLING!!!! I have noticed that no one has brought up the taboo subject of Humans hunting another SENTIENT species either-- I think that this would be no different than if a tribe had certain cannabalistic rights like the Tankawas did , to go ahead and let them start EATING PEOPLE- to get a feeling of Tribal unity and Tradition-- Also-- is this really about these issues-or is this about commercial Whaling-and the nations that support that getting a foothold again thru the use of the Makas?? I know I will probably come in for a buncha flack on this one-- but I had to put in my .02cents thanks for reading my RANT! Steve *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
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 At 9:35 AM -0700 7/28/98, Michael Kundu wrote: >Two days ago, the US Coast Guard published a federal proposal which the >public now has 45 days to respond to before the government decides whether >to turn it into a law or not. At this point, enough opposition will >prevent this proposal from becoming a law. > >This proposed law includes sea kayakers, and is a precedent setting action >that our community should address. The proposal will create a 1500-foot >ëexclusion zoneí around any Makah tribal whaling vessel in the act of >chasing, hunting or killing a gray whale during their first annual whale >hunt this October. The Makah whale hunt is scheduled to happen this autumn >only 4-hours away from Seattle, WA. > >What this proposal will do is to make it impossible and illegal for anyone >-- animal advocates, kayakers, media, boaters, etc. -- from seeing and >effectively opposing the Makah gray whale hunt -- a hunt that might signal >the return to coastal whaling world-wide. The federal government notice >essentially states that the US Coast Guard and Justice Department -- at the >taxpayer expense -- will help the Makah kill whales by protecting their >whalers AND excluding anyone from protesting this hunt. > >It is paramount that EVERYONE who resides in the US comment against this >proposal before September 8th, 1998. We are attaching a draft 'talking >points' bulletin to use in the formation of your letter of opposition. > >Citizens must retain their constitutional rights to witness, document or >protest such a hunt at their own risk. Please inform your regional network >of activists, marine trade or recreational associations, commercial >boating/fishing and marine commerce businesses, whale-watching or anyone >you know that can respond to this notice. > >The entire text of this Federal Register notice can be found on the Sea >Shepherd website _at_ www.seashpherd.org. Please visit this site and add any >additional points to your letter. > >If you care about preventing a new era of whaling, please act today. >Please cc. your local legislator and Project SeaWolf with your response. > >Michael Kundu, Director >Project SeaWolf >*************************************** >DRAFT LETTER/TALKING POINTS > >Commander(m) >Thirteenth Coast Guard District >915 Second Avenue >Seattle, WA 98174 > >This letter is in response to Federal Register rulemaking notice >#CGD98-023, published on July 22, 1998. > >I am opposed to the proposal to establish a Mobile Exclusion Zone around >Makah whaling vessels. My objections are based on the additional taxpayer >costs associated with the establishment, enforcement and execution of this >proposed rule, as well as the constitutional infringements that such an >exclusion zone will have on the rights of individual citizens to oppose and >protest the Makah whale hunt. > >Similar exclusion zones are not in place in other areas where hunting >occurs each year, or where large caliber rifles are used in hunting >activities. Therefore I am opposed to the idea that a special law will be >implemented to facilitate a special activity conducted by a single group of >individuals involved in an exclusive hunting activity. I believe that >regulations passed under these circumstance are unwarranted and inequitable. > >My objections to the draft notice include: > >Section 1: Background and Purpose >The assertion by Departments of Justice and the Interior that ìphysical >interference with the hunt is inconsistent with federal law,î has not been >substantiated nor documented by any evidence presented in the 1855 Treaty >text, nor in any other formal US regulation or law. Hereby the >establishment of an exclusion zone can be construed as being an >unconstitutional restriction on citizenís rights. I am opposed to these >restrictions placed on my constitutional rights. > >Section 2: Discussion of Proposed Rule >a) Stray rifle fire and ricochets off the water will travel much further >than 1500-feet. All regional commercial, recreational and shore-based >travelers will be prone to danger from the use of high-caliber bullets in a >hunt. A moving exclusionary zone will make it even more difficult and cost >intensive for federal and emergency personal to implement reasonable safety >procedures. I am opposed to the physical dangers, travel restrictions and >additional expense that this activity will entail to myself and other US >taxpayers. > >b) The broadcasting of a SECURITE announcement by Makah whaler 1-half hour >prior to a hunt is inadequate notice for commercial and recreational >travelers in the area. Many travelers rounding Cape Flattery will not have >adequate time to change their course or route of travel. I feel that the >federal government should not implement such an unpredictable and >unreasonable demand on recreational travelers and others using the public >Olympic Marine Sanctuary waters. > >Section 3: Regulatory Evaluation >I feel that the public cost associated with the implementation and >enforcement of this proposal for an exclusion zone does indeed make it a >significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, >and that it thereby does require an assessment of potential costs and >benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. I am opposed to this >additional added, unanticipated expense borne by taxpayers and US citizens, >and I request that a complete budget disclosure be presented tp the public >for comment prior to any additional action. > >Section 4: Small Entities >The prospective cost to small entities, non-profit groups and other >eco-tourism related businesses and interests have not been quantifiably >estimated nor considered by any government agency, so there is no direct >evidence to support this sectionís assertions. I am opposed to the >potential taxpayer-borne costs that supervision and enforcement of this >exclusion zone will entail, particularly since these expenses have not been >presented to the public. > >Under the circumstances of the added cost of enforcing this new proposed >rule, I request that a public hearing and budgetary forecast be prepared >prior to any final implementation. Thank you for the opportunity to >express my comments. > >Sincerely..... > > > > > > > >Michael Kundu >Project SeaWolf/Arcturus Adventure Communications >"The Source for Extreme Adventuresports Photojournalism" >respond to ProjectSeaWolf_at_seanet.com > >*************************************************************************** >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/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
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/ ***************************************************************************
At 04:45 PM 7/30/98 -0400, you wrote: >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. > I think you're getting confused about what "constitutional authority" is all about. This has nothing to do with Platonic ideals of "Truth" or "Justice." Simply stated, in Article X of the Bill of Rights, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Article IX of the Bill of Rights states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Specifically, the right of the State to control, regulate, restrict, permit, license, limit, and qualify the regulation of fish and game management is afforded the State through the regulatory authority of the Federal Government. The "Constitutional issue" here is: Does the Federal Government have the regulatory authority to grant State agencies the right to manage hunting and fishing through agencies such as the Washington State Dept. of Fish & Wildlife. It has, and it does. It has the authority, and the Federal Govt. authorized the State to approve the hunt. Does the State have the constitutional authority to limit harassment of the hunters engaged in a hunt? It has and it does. It's unlawful in Washington to harass ANY hunter engaged in a hunt. This includes chasing deer, flushing game birds, standing between the hunter and the game, or tracking a fishing vessel with the intent (overt or covert) to interfere with its lawful taking of game. A "Constitutional Issue" would be something on the order of state authority to regulate logging in a National Park when that park resides in the state in question. But enough of this. Have you noticed that the water is warm enough to swim in without a wet suit? ______________________________ 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/ ***************************************************************************
One problem with the hunting vs harvesting argument is that many state and federal agencies refer to hunting as "harvesting game." They do it to make it sound more appealing to the anti hunters (less unappealing?), but the precedence is already there. This is all I will contribute to a thread that is rapidly heading for my kill file. Let's get back to the paddling part, shall we? Mike -- Paddling along through fog so thick that only one's thoughts are visible, your reverie is abruptly shattered by the ancient cry of a great blue heron as she lifts uncertainly from the brilliant blue of a mussel-shell beach witnessed only by the brooding, wet spruce....your passage home seems as much back through time as it does through space. Mark H Hunt *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:32:51 PDT