Montana man arrested for fishing, states that "natural law" supersedes US courts.

reply to post by Midyew


The man is from Manhattan Montana, not Manhattan New York.....

The rest of your post sounds good!

theHattersfolly
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Please clarify for me. So If someone has been been utilizing the land that they own for some years and you move in next door knowing full well what is going on you feel justified in taking someone to civil court?

No, and I probably did a poor job in trying to make that distinction in my other post with the different MSM examples.

If someone has had a garden or small farm for that matter, and it's been accepted for any length of time (say a year or more), then it's other people's problem if they move in, knowing it's like that.

It's a whole different matter though when I do own my home with a mortgage to go with it and then, perhaps a neighbor suddenly gets the idea to significantly change their property to the point it impacts others.

Heck, I've even seen some pretty good looking photo spreads of apartment gardens in NYC. It can be done without being obnoxious about it and that's how it ought to be. It's the sense of almost ugly entitlement that is becoming common to see for 'I want to do something, so it's your problem if you don't like it' (not to you, but in general), that I get real sensitive about on things like this.

Rights matter everything to some people...until it's someone else's rights they need to respect.

reply to post by Laykilla

P.S. A dude fishing to eat isn't going to empty the ocean. Scarcity is caused by the ones with the commercial licenses.

Some day, if you ever get into Missouri and down I-44 in particular, make a point of visiting Bass Pro Shops in Springfield. It's a tourist Mecca for the outdoorsman but that isn't why I bring it up here. They also have a museum there that isn't enormous but what they have is meaningful. Among the exhibits and what I'll NEVER forget to the day I die...are the photographs of the skulls and horns. Thousands and then 10's of thousands of them in ONE place at ONE time. They were Buffalo bones from the great Buffalo slaughters and the near wipe-out of a species.

That wasn't from commercial hunters, as no such thing existed back then. SINGLE MEN did much of that, and only a handful for some of the worst damage to an entire class life in North America.

The suggestion that "gee, it's just one guy', is precisely how we've seen animals hunted into extinction, both around the world AND right here in America from times past. Single men, when it NEVER STAYS just one guy, can do unbelievable long term damage to ecosystems that are in some balance before some idiot comes along to rape it for their personal dinner plate.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

That wasn't from commercial hunters, as no such thing existed back then. SINGLE MEN did much of that, and only a handful for some of the worst damage to an entire class life in North America.

This is inaccurate. The widespread slaughter of the buffalo was performed by hunters specifically engaging in the COMMERCIAL practice of gathering hides, and hides alone.

Not to mention the COMMERCIAL trapping of beaver, weasel, rabbit, otter, fox, etc. COMMERCIAL trapping and hunting has existed for a long, long time, and was brought to the Americas with the Spaniards, English, French, and Dutch.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Perhaps he should just eat the rich and leave the fish alone?

the owlbear
So...if I have a boat and a few harpoons, I can go kill all the humpback whales I want?
Man has to eat. If I got all those bastards I could preserve it and never never have to hunt or fish again!

Thanks God!

If you can reasonably justify and show that it takes all humpback whales to feed yourself.

Did this guy take all the fish from the river or lake that he was fishing?

Your argument is based on a ridiculous premise.

The part that is important in this is quite simple. It is this man versus a system.

The system can be clearly demonstrated to be responsible for an *enormous* amount of environmental destruction despite the "best intentions". Massive over fishing, pollution, etc.

This man can not be demonstrated to have caused any environmental destruction despite not having a "permit".

The system is claiming only IT has the natural right to fish when it wants, where it wants. Remember, if the system grants people permits... it is because the system is claiming to be the only one with the natural right to perform said action and you do so at the system's discretion. If the system decides the Mississippi must be drained of all life, it will be so.

By what right at ALL does the system stand upon to judge this man except by claiming "Survival of the Fittest"? None. It is pure "Might makes Right" and you can see it in the judge's behavior.

The system is actively engaged in the things it claims the rule he broke is supposed to prevent.

By all rational measure... this man stands on far firmer ground to judge the system than the system has to judge him.

All the other complexities assume the system has a natural right to exist in the first place... which it does not.

Wrabbit2000


No, you do NOT have the right to do whatever you like with your land when it adjoins others and your actions have direct material impact on those other people as well.

See someone gets it.

Freedom ends when it starts negatively affecting someone or the property in a phycial and negative way.

crazyewok
No, you do NOT have the right to do whatever you like with your land when it adjoins others and your actions have direct material impact on those other people as well.

crazyewok
See someone gets it.

Freedom ends when it starts negatively affecting someone or the property in a physical and negative way.

Where does the freedom of the state end?

Awsome guy. Good for him. The US constitution no longer applies in the US.

pstrron. Yes you have the right to fish and hunt but your on the kings land and the king must receive tribute for catching his fish.

If your ob goverment land that is THERE land so they are free to impose what rules they like. If you dont like it? You are free to buy your OWN land and make your own rules.

pstrron
There are rules and regulations in place to prevent over harvesting and size and catch limits to protect against taking pre-breeding stock.

Good

pstrron
and refusal to self regulate imposes a means in which to regulate those that otherwise would not regulate themselves.

Has to be done then or there wont beany fish or animals to hunt right?

This man in Montana may in fact be one that would self regulate but no one knows that so a license is imposed to assure compliance.

reply to post by BardingTheBard

Where does the freedom of the state end?

I'd say it's safe to say that line is somewhere in the rear view mirror.

Having said that, not all Government is equal or even very related to one another. Fish & Game / Conservation people are among the good guys, in my experience with them. Heck, it was a Fish & Game guy at the fair booth for their agency who told me some of the best places to go nuisance shooting/hunting feral hogs in SW Missouri. They're open season, shoot on sight designation for what it's worth. Very destructive critters.

The game guys generally, in my personal experience, spend their days and nights out in nature because they love nature first, not being a cop first. One follows the other, but nothing about civil service pay compensates that job.

Without them though, there would be little to no deer or other game left by now. It's bad enough when a county gets lower enforcement for some reason. The response doesn't take long in coming and is a reminder for why some things DO need regulation in the name of the people (us).

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Is what comes to mind when I say I'd sue them clear out of my neighborhood if they did that here. Convert their front yard into a sprawling garden?? Umm.. I bought my property with the understanding I was moving into a single family residential zone, not a farming area. You have to admit, given those examples, it CAN be taken too far with regard to those close by and with rights of their own to consider.

That seems awfully authoritarian.

The mob can forcefully remove "blemishes" from another's land? How is that not tyranny of the majority?

I was under the impression that all rights derive from property.

"but, grass is pretty and serves no purpose other than to look neat and keep my property value up."

It is odd that your property could fall in value because your neighbors decide to turn their entire lawn into a garden. I wonder who sets those arbitrary, market values?

Why is grass deemed more valuable than a full-lawn garden? What if the garden was pretty?

Of course, those stipulations are there to make sure that people who live in the city or suburbs tow the line. The Home Owner's Association is like a closet, nazi group.

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon


I was under the impression if you dont like the neigbour hood rules on were you live you are free to move?

LewsTherinThelamon
The mob can forcefully remove "blemishes" from another's land? How is that not tyranny of the majority?
Of course, those stipulations are there to make sure that people who live in the city or suburbs tow the line. The Home Owner's Association is like a closet, nazi group.

What you can and can't do with your property is governed by municipal standards...by-laws. If you don't like them, don't move there. If your scenario predates the by-law, it is grandfathered. Lotta huffing and puffing here on non-issues.

As to the original post, if the 'Mountain Man' was on public lands, then he is obliged to obey those laws. As much as he would like to, he is not living in a vacuum, and by the sounds of it, it wasn't his land. And let's face it, this guy was no naif. There was a lot of forethought to his posturing and...as always...actions have consequences.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Man, what is wrong with you? How is growing vegetables on someone else's property bringing down your property value.

You my friend, are exactly what is wrong with our country. Your property value possibly going down (you cant even prove this) over someone eating cheaper and healthier. What a stick in the mud you are. So selfish

Despite his verbal victory in the first video, Mr. Tertegte was still found guilty and put in jail.

7 pages and not one person has questioned the legitimacy of the video????

I think its fake and staged. I haven't researched it, but just watching the Video...

Cell phones ringing in the court???

Random people video taping????? In a court???

Some alleged wilderness man ranting about the Federal Reserve??

Its like no one here has ever been in a court. No way your gonna get away with shouting at a judge.
In most courts they will throw you out for wearing inappropriate clothes. You will be held in contempt if your cellphone goes off!!!! Randomly video taping? BULLFREAKINGCRAP.

SasquatchHunter
7 pages and not one person has questioned the legitimacy of the video????

I think its fake and staged. I haven't researched it, but just watching the Video...

Cell phones ringing in the court???

Random people video taping????? In a court???

Some alleged wilderness man ranting about the Federal Reserve??

Its like no one here has ever been in a court. No way your gonna get away with shouting at a judge.
In most courts they will throw you out for wearing inappropriate clothes. You will be held in contempt if your cellphone goes off!!!! Randomly video taping? BULLFREAKINGCRAP.

Oh you are a suspicious person . Your points rest on where and how high the court is, this was a small court and hearing, the video is legitimate and so was the eventual outcome of Mr. Tertegtes incarceration.

reply to post by Zcustosmorum


Help me out where does the video source from???

You will get held in contempt jailed and fined in freaking traffic court for having a cellphone ring!!! It doesn't get smaller than that.