I ducked out of this thread a while back, but I'll give it another try.
Howhill1, I think you are on the right track but I do differ on a couple of technical points. If a right is "inalienable" it cannot be taken away, ever. It is stamped on our soul by our Creator. So the right to self-preservation can only be infringed upon, never taken. In other words, human beings in China have the same right, but it is infringed upon by the communists. Unfortunately (and I know I'll get bashed for this), I do not really see hunting, at least in modern America, as an inalienable right.
Make no mistake, I am very pro-2nd Amendment and pro-hunting. But when we begin to invoke the name of God, we have to be very careful not to use it loosely.
JPH, you are spot on in your analysis. Hunting to the general public is not a Right in the same context as the Bill of Rights, Neither is it a Right in the basic context of the word. Eat Deer is right, it is a privledge.
States that have amended their Constitutions to reflect a Right to hunt and fish are on the correct track, but even then, the fact that SCOTUS, in the analysis, mentions hunting specifically gives it some credence and teeth that never existed with the 2nd Amendment before. For the sport it bodes well in the fight against the antis, but it is still just a privledge.