Just an observation about hunting and fishing licenses...

[East_TN_Patriot]

I recently forced myself to take the hunter's safety course, and I received my first fishing rod today for Christmas.  In looking at info on fishing licenses, something struck me that seems counter-intuitive.  As gun owners, we believe in our right to possess and bear arms for the purposes of self-defense and providing for our families should we choose to hunt for food.  Efforts to regulate gun ownership result in a justifiable outcry from most gun owners, but I see no real outcry at the notion that we must take special training and pay for licensing to use our firearms for sporting purposes (or our unregulated fishing rods for taking fish).  

Has anyone else put any thought to the irony of people being generally supportive of hunter safety classes and licensing requirements, but is resistant to any efforts to require gun owners to have training and a permit to own firearms?  Isn't the issue the same either way?  Again, not advocating for such a policy, but it strikes me as interesting that people refuse to consider training and licensing requirements for owning a gun, but have no problem with training and licensing requirements when it comes to actually using them for hunting.  I totally understand the reasoning behind hunting licenses and training, but the same safety arguments could be made for requiring training and licensing for gun ownership.  Also, as I understand the rules, you essentially give up many of your rights when engaging in hunting and fishing so that Fish and Game officers can inspect your firearm, your boat, and any game you have harvested.  Again, I understand the reasoning for this, but it seems to go against the arguments against having the same requirements for gun ownership.

Sorry if I am rambling, but I am thinking out loud as I type.  Just curious what people's thoughts are on the topic.   :)  

Edited December 25, 2015 by East_TN_Patriot

[gregintenn]

Gun ownership in an enumerated constitutional right. Hunting and fishing is not. I'm not sure why one would need to pass a hunter safety course in order to legally fish, however. I always thought a hunting license and a fishing license should be two different animals.

[bersaguy]

Gun ownership in an enumerated constitutional right. Hunting and fishing is not. I'm not sure why one would need to pass a hunter safety course in order to legally fish, however. I always thought a hunting license and a fishing license should be two different animals.

I also have always thought that you should be able to purchase a Hunting License or a Fishing license separately but in Tennessee as long as I can remember it has always been a combo license. In most states you can purchase one or the other but not here. I know many people that fish and do not hunt and vice- a-versa..............jmho

[2.ooohhh]

No licence required to hunt on your own farm IIRC. I haven't hunted there in years but I don't believe I ever had to have a licence because I only hunted there and we owned the property. You only need the licence/safety training to hunt on others/public land.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Gun ownership in an enumerated constitutional right. Hunting and fishing is not. I'm not sure why one would need to pass a hunter safety course in order to legally fish, however. I always thought a hunting license and a fishing license should be two different animals.

Sure, I get that, but isn't hunting a defacto aspect of "bearing arms" just as defense of life and property?  Also, by being required to license our hunting activity, aren't we essentially part of a database that tracks gun owners?  I guess your real point is that one can own a firearm without the intention of using it for anything other than self defense.

I also have never heard of a hunting and fishing license being combined.

[East_TN_Patriot]

No licence required to hunt on your own farm IIRC. I haven't hunted there in years but I don't believe I ever had to have a licence because I only hunted there and we owned the property. You only need the licence/safety training to hunt on others/public land.

Ahhhh, yes.  That's a good point.  So using that approach, that could be part of the legal logic that supports carry permits for bearing arms in public places beyond the boundaries of your property.

Edited December 25, 2015 by East_TN_Patriot

[RED333]

Life, Liberty and the per suite of Happiness.

Now where have I seen this? :squint:

When I did hunt and fish I was going because I was gona be happy.

So why do I need a piece of paper saying I can?

Because of money, plan and simple.

Edited December 25, 2015 by RED333

[bersaguy]

Sure, I get that, but isn't hunting a defacto aspect of "bearing arms" just as defense of life and property?  Also, by being required to license our hunting activity, aren't we essentially part of a database that tracks gun owners?  I guess your real point is that one can own a firearm without the intention of using it for anything other than self defense.

I also have never heard of a hunting and fishing license being combined.

I have a lifetime hunting and fishing license combo in my billfold right now. I have bought one every year till I retired and got my lifetime for 10 bucks. It was always a combo license which didn't bother me because at the time I was doing both. But with that said many of my friends that don't do both always complained about it.

[10-Ring]

The reason out It is a combo license is because by selling it as a combo every single person that buys a license is considered both a fisherman and a hunter, this gets the state more federal money to regulate and support hunting and fishing.  Going through both hcp class and hunter safety I'm not a big fan of the hcp class as I consider it to be more or less useless.  Hunter safety is packed full of information not only about safety but hunting laws and ethics as well.  After having a few bad experiences on public land I can't imagine how bad things might be if hunger safety were not required.  Although I'm not certain that some of the people I've come across out there took hunter safety or are even aware that there are laws governing the harvest of game.

[gregintenn]

The hunter safety program should be mandatory in public school if our government were serious about gun safety.

 

This would be much more useful than 12 years of diagramming sentences.

Edited December 25, 2015 by gregintenn

[peejman]

There are fishing only licenses available....

https://www.tn.gov/twra/article/resident-fishing-license-j1

Not as all encompassing as the combo, but they're a lot cheaper. I'd assumed the combo was just a revenue generator for twra.

As for the irony of requiring a license. I agree that it's not a right, and it's also a way to fund the management activities.

[runco]

The hunter safety program should be mandatory in public school if our government were serious about gun safety.

 

This would be much more useful than 12 years of diagramming sentences.

It was a requirement for me in the 8th grade in Sevier county.  However, that was in 1982.  What is ironic, to be in the 8th grade back then, you had to be born in 1968 or gifted.  I believe the law states that if you were born in 1969 or later, you have to have the safety course.  I don't qualify, but yet had to take the course.  I recall it was 2 hours a day, for 4 days, and on the 5th day, we got a field trip to the Douglas Dam range to shoot 22s and sporting clays.  Could you imagine the outcry today if it was mandatory in the school system and kids had to shoot real guns, like the ones that throw the lead down............maybe little 22 lead and some pellets. 

[nightrunner]

It's money and nothing else.

They could stretch it and maybe investigate people who held a hunting license if they completely banned guns but it's not 100%. Muzzleloaders and air rifles arent "firearms". Same with bows. Edited December 26, 2015 by nightrunner

[bud]

 .

Edited January 6, 2016 by bud

[56FordGuy]

I remember taking the hunter safety course as soon as I could after I turned 10, which I think was the minimum age. Likewise, I took the first HCP course I could get into after turning 21. Even growing up around firearms, I learned way more in the hunter safety course than I did the HCP class.

I struggle with the whole idea of a license to take game. The government doesn't own the deer or fish anymore than I do, so why do I have to pay them in order to provide food for my family? Sure I can hunt for free on my own land, but I still don't like the idea of the gov requiring licenses. I get it, hunting public land, game management, etc but it bothers me nonetheless.

[nightrunner]

I struggle with the whole idea of a license to take game. The government doesn't own the deer or fish anymore than I do, so why do I have to pay them in order to provide food for my family? Sure I can hunt for free on my own land, but I still don't like the idea of the gov requiring licenses. I get it, hunting public land, game management, etc but it bothers me nonetheless.

In all reality, I think it has to do with having to regulate stupid people. If people were smart and actually cared about what they were doing and how it affects others and the future generations, there wouldn't be a need for it. Think about the buffalo hunting. That is how deer would be without regulations. I hate it as much as anyone else.

[gregintenn]

   My sister wanted to get my brother-in-law, who knows nothing about guns, a handgun permit course for Christmas.
I strongly suggested she buy him the hunters safety course and have him attend that first, in spite of the fact that he is not interested in hunting.
Hunters Safety Course teaches how to safely handle and use a firearm by instructors who are serious about safety.
Many handgun permit courses are all about the paycheck for the facility/instructor.
The TWRA guys, at least in my experience, truly give a hoot.

I'm sorta an anti-government interference guy, but I appreciate the wildlife management the TWRA delivers in exchange for the funds the mandatory hunt/fish licensing supports.

The hunter safety course is free of charge!

 

A more apt name for it would be firearm safety course, as it actually has very little to do with hunting.

I remember taking the hunter safety course as soon as I could after I turned 10, which I think was the minimum age. Likewise, I took the first HCP course I could get into after turning 21. Even growing up around firearms, I learned way more in the hunter safety course than I did the HCP class.

I struggle with the whole idea of a license to take game. The government doesn't own the deer or fish anymore than I do, so why do I have to pay them in order to provide food for my family? Sure I can hunt for free on my own land, but I still don't like the idea of the gov requiring licenses. I get it, hunting public land, game management, etc but it bothers me nonetheless.

I understand where you're coming from Blake, but here, if it weren't for the efforts of the TWRA, we wouldn't have anything to hunt.

 

When I was a kid, someone seeing a deer was rare enough it often got a mention in the local newspaper, and turkeys were non existent here. People had simply killed them out. Without regulation, this would no doubt happen again.

Edited December 26, 2015 by gregintenn

[bud]

.

Edited January 6, 2016 by bud

[Howler]

Sure it's about safety AND money. But think where our wildlife would be if that money wasn't being pulled in. The wardens can't catch all the bad guys but they do catch a bunch. If the money wasn't there to pay them there would be less to protect the wildlife. I complained when the lic fees went up because of the way I hunt. I don't kill enough deer to offset the cost of the license. Not that I can't but I don't want to. I like to take just enough to get us through the year and leave the rest in the woods.

I had to take the safety course because of the year I was born. At the age of ten I started hunting and by the age of nineteen I had to take the hunters safety course. Couldn't believe I was being forced to take it. But you know what, I did learn a few things. It covered more than just the aspect of hunting, it covered first aid, survival, and other topics I never considered useful. On top of that, some of the people that took the course with me really needed it.

[felinesNfreedom]

I have no problem paying for the license. It's pays for fish I catch and eat that are stocked in lakes and rivers. It also covers paying for wardens and other programs to control populations of animals on land and under the water.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gregintenn]

I have no problem paying for the license. It's pays for fish I catch and eat that are stocked in lakes and rivers. It also covers paying for wardens and other programs to control populations of animals on land and under the water.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hunt and fish, so it isn't a thing for me. I'm probably ahead of where I'd be if they separated the two. I just think it sucks for people who only do one or the other.

[felinesNfreedom]

I hunt and fish, so it isn't a thing for me. I'm probably ahead of where I'd be if they separated the two. I just think it sucks for people who only do one or the other.

They have a county fishing license if that's all you want to do. I usually buy the sportsman's license. I'm getting my two year old his lifetime this year. 

[gregintenn]

They have a county fishing license if that's all you want to do. I usually buy the sportsman's license. I'm getting my two year old his lifetime this year. 

My home county is devoid of navigable water.