I have a broader definition of “market” than ‘Hoo. To me everything is a market, a market of ideas, thoughts, actions etc.

Although I agree with ‘Hoo as to the lack of “pure”, “ideal”, or genuinely “free” markets in practice, I see this as no different than any other ideal vs. applied concept.

Begging the question for some, we must seek the ideal. Yet, striving toward is the best we will ever get. IMO, the “freer” the market…..the better.

Finding a place to hunt is a market. Such places are limited (supply) and desired (demand). The government should be involved only to the extent of collateral issues; the safe handling of firearms, property rights, in some legitimate cases protection of endangered species.

Safe handling of firearms does indeed include discharging of weapons in densely populated areas and/or where bullets, etc., will cross property lines.

Barring these (when) legitimate concerns, hunting on private property should always be legal. Hunting on public lands should be legal within concern for other legitimate public use.

I am not, BTW, defending this necessarily, just saying I understand it.

Hunters are the only users of public lands who are charged for the privilege. (I know some national parks have fees) Hikers, bikers, ATV riders, horse riders and others also use and deface the national forests but only the hunters have to pay fees for the privilege to hunt. That is grossly unfair IMO.

1) The distribution of these licenses is a market. Free or not doesn’t concern me. The citizens of Utah need to ask themselves if they’re happy with licenses being distributed this way. I imagine many of them are not. There are other ways to do it, by lottery for example.

2) I wonder if the people of Utah, when voting for Republicans and other conservatives and those wedded to the idea that markets are the answer and government is the problem ever imagined this turn of events. Now that they’re on the receiving end of market driven reforms, I wonder if they’d make the same choice again.

With regards to your statement “Hunting and Fishing does not need a “market”. If private companies were allowed to license hunters (like they run our prisons)–for profit, things would be worse, not better IMO.”….I agree, and it is precisely what I said in two previous posts (which you no doubt read). I've never advocated private companies issuing licenses (or running prisons…good analogy, by the way), I've said that there IS no market, because game (and fish) are public property. You shouldn't (and don't, morally) need a license to hunt, any more than you need one to breathe. There is no market, and the government seizing that licensing prerogative doesn’t change that fact.

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/hunting/regulations/licenses.asp#what-license

I disagree that “no one has the right to tell anyone else what to do”, that is anarchy.

There is no “remove the government from the equation”, Over 200 years of history are written in stone.

Hunting and Fishing does not need a “market”. If private companies were allowed to license hunters (like they run our prisons)–for profit, things would be worse, not better IMO.

The government has and should have “authority to license a sporting activity” and marriage (among others) because both are good for society as a whole and need regulating and accountability.

You may want to sever all ties but it is not going to happen. Thankfully.