THE ACCURATERELOADING.COM AMERICAN BIG GAME HUNTING FORUMS

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Hunting  Hop To Forums  American Big Game Hunting    This is critical to our future as hunting sportsmen...
Page 1 2 

Moderators: Canuck
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
This is critical to our future as hunting sportsmen...
 Login/Join
 
One of Us
posted
Get Out the Vote!

Hunters NEED To Remember To Vote! Now, more than ever, it is imperative that all sportsmen vote in the upcoming election on Tuesday, November 4, 2014. Our hunting heritage is under attack, and we need to protect it using our greatest tool at our disposal as U.S. Citizens, the ballot box...

We need to neurtralize OBAMA!
 
Posts: 3720 | Registered: 03 March 2005Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
No seconds. Are we this apathetic? If so, we're dead for certain. VOTE.
 
Posts: 3720 | Registered: 03 March 2005Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
VOTE Early !
 
Posts: 1991 | Location: Sinton, TX | Registered: 16 June 2013Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Crazyhorseconsulting
posted Hide Post
Blah, blah, blah.

It is changing attitudes toward hunting among the general public that is the problem.

We already tried to defeat/neutralize Obama TWICE, How did that work out for us?????????


Even the rocks don't last forever.



 
Posts: 31014 | Location: Olney, Texas | Registered: 27 March 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
We already tried to defeat/neutralize Obama TWICE, How did that work out for us?????????


It didn't work, because we did not try hard enough! I'm going to VOTE, and I hope you all do too.

Apathy and/or resignation will be the end of us. Yet, I understand how Obama would become depressing, but we've got to fight it. Teddy Roosevelt would not give up.

Remember these quotes..,

"Never give up, for that is just the place and time that the tide will turn." Harriet Beecher Stowe

"Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time." Thomas A. Edison

I'm going to VOTE! I hope you all do too.

Regards, AIU
 
Posts: 3720 | Registered: 03 March 2005Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
I have voted in almost all the elections for the past 40 years I don't plan to stay home this one.
 
Posts: 19313 | Location: wis | Registered: 21 April 2001Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
If you stay home, you really have no right to bitch !
 
Posts: 1991 | Location: Sinton, TX | Registered: 16 June 2013Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
It is changing attitudes toward hunting among the general public that is the problem.
I'd like to see the plan for that. Talking it up amongst your neighbors, offering them some of your wild game meat, taking them hunting, target shooting or fishing, showing them the farm, and other personal approaches are the best plan I've been able to come up with. If all of us did stuff like that, who knows.

As far as influencing them to vote, that's nearly impossible amongst non-hunters. How can you tell them, vote for X candidate because a vote for Z candidate and his party is a vote against gun ownership and the right to hunt? You have to kind of think before doing that. If they are already sympathetic to the cause, it's not necessary. Otherwise, how do you even approach it.

For the most part, I don't need to do that because IF someone IS your neighbor and friend in the first place and even if they've never been hunting, they probably vote about like you anyway. Most on my street do...they don't like Obo and his Demagogue Socialist Party any better than I do. And even when I have gently reminded "be sure to vote" the answer is generally "I've already early voted". So as a practical matter there's not a lot more you can do than that...if on the other hand they are what I call a "genetic liberal", well, you're wasting your time. Best plan there is, remind them to vote on X day, but name the day after the election.

Btw, one real problem we have is the attitude of so many of the young. The unfortunate fact is, many of them who want to be "in" and "hip", not only hate hunting and fishing, but they won't even eat meat at all.

And that's really grown as a peer popularity thing. The youngsters are under heavy pressure about it. My neighbor's daughter for instance came home from college and refused to eat the nice pot roast dinner fixed just for her that she had always loved before - he wound up talking or bribing her into eating it somehow. You can guess probably how most of those vote.
 
Posts: 2999 | Registered: 24 March 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Fury01
posted Hide Post
We got Obama the second time because 4 million GOP voters stayed home holding their nose about Romney.
Voting matters. Voting for the lessor of two evils sucks but not as much as allowing the greater of two evils.


"The liberty enjoyed by the people of these states of worshiping Almighty God agreeably to their conscience, is not only among the choicest of their blessings, but also of their rights."
~George Washington - 1789
 
Posts: 2135 | Location: Where God breathes life into the Amber Waves of Grain and owns the cattle on a thousand hills. | Registered: 20 August 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Crazyhorseconsulting
posted Hide Post
quote:
I have voted in almost all the elections for the past 40 years I don't plan to stay home this one.


I have voted in EVERY Presidential election since 1968 and have no plans on changing that.

I asked the following on this same basic subject that is taking place in the African Hunting discussion area, but for all commenting/responding to this topic, how many of you openly/honestly support ALL LEGAL hunting practices?


Even the rocks don't last forever.



 
Posts: 31014 | Location: Olney, Texas | Registered: 27 March 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fury01:
We got Obama the second time because 4 million GOP voters stayed home holding their nose about Romney.
Voting matters. Voting for the lessor of two evils sucks but not as much as allowing the greater of two evils.


tu2
 
Posts: 41762 | Location: Crosby and Barksdale, Texas | Registered: 18 September 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
You asked this:

quote:

I asked the following on this same basic subject that is taking place in the African Hunting discussion area, but for all commenting/responding to this topic, how many of you openly/honestly support ALL LEGAL hunting practices?


I feel that most in fact would/will, as long as that doesn't interfere with their "rights"....

Hunting deer with dogs is a fine example IMO. I support the tradition of hunting deer with hounds as long as the hounds don't affect my hunting....IE crossing fences and running deer across an area I am "blind" or still hunting.

I have a hard time supporting "high fence" hunting of native animals because it restricts the "free" movement of animals that belong to the citizens of the state. I don't object to the hunting behind the fence it's just the "taking possession" of the native game animals that I find offensive......

I also would hate to get "high fenced" in! That hinders the purpose of why I have propery, in my mind anyway....
 
Posts: 41762 | Location: Crosby and Barksdale, Texas | Registered: 18 September 2006Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
And JTEX outlines exactly what Randall is saying. And this is not a personal slam, so please don't take it that way. A lot of hunters will say "yes" to support AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT AFFECT ME. And that is usually the big split.

I personally don't care how you hunt, as long as it is not trespassing on my land. Hunt high fence, hunt with hounds, hell, hunt nekked, I don't care. I understand the point about hounds, but I got a few deer one year because the neighbor let his dogs out. It moved them. If it's legal, go for it.

Yes, I will vote. In Kansas we have two big elections. One for Senate where the "Independent" couldn't win the Democratic primary so he "saw the light" and now he will not say anything at all about what he would vote for. The other is the Governor. Man the Demo's hate a real conservative. They just keep harping on how he cut school funding. Damn right he did. He saw things like the football fields in every middle school in one district being totally tilled and re-sodded every two years. The thing is, unlike Texas, there is no sports in the middle schools in that district. Not football or soccer, or anything. So, yes, I will vote.


Larry

"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history, when everybody stands around reloading" -- Thomas Jefferson
 
Posts: 3942 | Location: Kansas USA | Registered: 04 February 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Crazyhorseconsulting
posted Hide Post
How many of you on here have noticed and/or participated in the discussions where hunters(?) openly commented on what they believed should be classified as hunting and who should have the right to call themselves a hunter?

Have none of you ever looked at or participated in any of those discussions?

As a group, we either ALL support EVERY hunter that conducts their activities within the strictures of legal methods of the area/state/region or country they are hunting in, or we ALL watch hunting taken away from us, bit by bit.

I seriously doubt those of us in the 45 or older crowd will see an end to hunting, but, and I am not the first person to ever say this, but the future of hunting from 2030 and on is really dark.


Even the rocks don't last forever.



 
Posts: 31014 | Location: Olney, Texas | Registered: 27 March 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

As a group, we either ALL support EVERY hunter that conducts their activities within the strictures of legal methods of the area/state/region or country they are hunting in, or we ALL watch hunting taken away from us, bit by bit.



You may believe that those are our choices. You may even be certain they are. But that doesn't make it true.

What is the best way to keep enough of the undecided voters in the various states from limiting or ending hunting before human population makes it a moot point?

That is the question in my opinion, that is not getting enough intellectual analysis. We only have one shot at this.

All or nothing slogans are not worthy of the potential loss.
 
Posts: 1939 | Registered: 16 January 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Crazyhorseconsulting
posted Hide Post
The "Fence Straddeler's" are in the same boat as hunters are.

The folks that have no trouble with other folks hunting are dwindling in numbers just like hunters.

Those folks grew up knowing or being related to someone or possibly several someone's that hunted and fished. They personally may have never "Got Into" the activity, but saw nothing wrong with others being involved.

Such is not the case anymore.

At no point have I said that hunters should not defend themselves and the activity they enjoy, nor have I said or believe that we should simply give up.

Point is however, we have to, as a United Group recognize our enemies, and that includes those within our ranks.

Any "Hunter" that would willingly support having a "Form" of hunting they do not approve of, even though it is legal, outlawed, is an enemy.

To me, that is cut and dried. It is no different than gun owners that would openly support a ban on private ownership of assault type firearms.

That type person is an enemy of the group because they are willing to see one form of hunting or one group/type of firearm banned, in hopes of hanging on to what they feel is proper or they like.

There are hunters, there are gun owners ready and willing to live with having those things taken away from them piecemeal as long as they can hang on to what they like.


Even the rocks don't last forever.



 
Posts: 31014 | Location: Olney, Texas | Registered: 27 March 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
And JTEX outlines exactly what Randall is saying. And this is not a personal slam, so please don't take it that way. A lot of hunters will say "yes" to support AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT AFFECT ME. And that is usually the big split.


No slam taken.

But when any persons right of anything infringes on the rights of another there is conflict and conflict must be resolved.

This does not "doom" hunting! I was playing the devils advocate to the OP and there are types of hunting that can actually infringe on the rights of others.

I am not a bow hunter, but I respect the right of those who are. That doesn't infringe on my rights.......and it gives felons something to do Wink. I just love that line, sorry.

I'm not a Bass fisherman but by damn in state waters you have the right to fish for them.
 
Posts: 41762 | Location: Crosby and Barksdale, Texas | Registered: 18 September 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Crazyhorseconsulting
posted Hide Post
quote:
and there are types of hunting that can actually infringe on the rights of others.


Name one and explain.


Even the rocks don't last forever.



 
Posts: 31014 | Location: Olney, Texas | Registered: 27 March 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Any "Hunter" that would willingly support having a "Form" of hunting they do not approve of, even though it is legal, outlawed, is an enemy.


So what you are saying is that we CANNOT, are not ALLOWED to, disagree with anything that is public law. Do I read that right?

You are so wrong it is pathetic. Just because it is law does not mean I have to agree with it. How do you think the public ever got deer hunting with dogs outlawed in Texas?
 
Posts: 4748 | Location: TX | Registered: 01 April 2005Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Crazyhorseconsulting
posted Hide Post
No, I am merely pointing out WHY hunters will never be able to present a United Front against those that want to take hunting from us.

How were YOU ever affected by ANYONE hunting deer with hounds?

My guess is NEVER!


Even the rocks don't last forever.



 
Posts: 31014 | Location: Olney, Texas | Registered: 27 March 2006Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of erict
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
quote:
and there are types of hunting that can actually infringe on the rights of others.


Name one and explain.


The coyote is considered a furbearer in NY and is managed with a hunting and trapping season. Hunting with dogs is a common and very effective method of hunting coyotes. This often involves a group of vehicles driving freshly snow covered roads in early morning until a track is cut. The radio-collared dogs are released on the track and the hunters set up along the roads awaiting the coyote to be chased across, where they are often shot.

The problem and "infringement" is that some of these houndsmen ignore posted signs and let their dogs loose on clearly posted property. A dog cannot be arrested for trespass, the dog owner cannot be arrested for trespass if they don't step foot on the land, and the dog is engaged in hunting so other laws about allowing dogs to run loose do not apply. So, technically, no laws are broken. Meanwhile, the property owner is forced to accept strange dogs running across his property, maybe while he's in his deer stand, maybe the dogs scare his sheep, maybe he's a trapper trying to catch those same coyotes, etc. If the owner shoots the dog and gets caught he can be charged with a felony. This is a type of hunting that can infringe on my rights. Easily fixed if the laws are changed, but infringement nevertheless.


.

"Listen more than you speak, and you will hear more stupid things than you say."
 
Posts: 705 | Location: near Albany, NY | Registered: 06 December 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Crazyhorseconsulting
posted Hide Post
That is not an infringement, that is a clear cut case of people ignoring/disobeying posted regulations.

I am asking for an example where one legal hunting method is an infringement on another legal hunting method!

Trespassing is trespassing is trespassing, end of story. The "Hunter" does not have permission, his dogs do not have permission.

What is there about that, that is hard to understand?

My question is, What constitutes an infringement if the method being used is LEGAL?

Trespassing is not LEGAL!

Am I infringing upon your rights if I am hunting the 50 acres I own and killing any legal deer I have the chance at, while you are practicing a management program on the 100 acres you own?

Do you own those deer? Do I own those deer? Does the fact you own twice the amount of land I do give you more rights?
 
Posts: 31014 | Location: Olney, Texas | Registered: 27 March 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
How about where the state says, at the urging of those interested in such things, you can't shoot anything except large racks. Thus making the whole state a de facto trophy rack management area.

And I'm not talking about anything with a wildlife biologic basis. Just bigger for its own sake.

Not all of us want that. We want to make our own decisions about such things especially on our own property.

That's an example of one hunting method or motivation infringing on another method. Is it not.

Btw, the hunting deer with dog thing is illegal in my state but legal in the surrounding states. The state also doesn't allow buckshot for deer, which I think is actually related to not using dogs. The two more or less went together. That's an infringement too (the reasons for the policy are too far back in antiquity for anyone today to remember - it could have been no telling what, although I think it was probably meant to help save the state's deer herd in an earlier time).
 
Posts: 2999 | Registered: 24 March 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Interestingly enough, most (if not all) of the states that forbade deer hunting with dogs, permits hunting coons and rabbits with dogs. So I guess a coon dog or a rabbit dog running across your property is okay?
stir


Aim for the exit hole
 
Posts: 4348 | Location: middle tenn | Registered: 09 December 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Crazyhorseconsulting
posted Hide Post
quote:
How about where the state says, at the urging of those interested in such things, you can't shoot anything except large racks. Thus making the whole state a de facto trophy rack management area.


That is somewhat the case here in Texas or parts of Texas. Some counties have a 13 inch, inside spread antler regulation. The two counties I work in are under those regs.

Legally a hunter can only shoot 1 branch antlered buck with a 13 inch or greater inside antler spread, and 1 spike buck, or two spike bucks and varying amounts of antlerless with a state wide limit of 5 deer.

For me and some other folks that have grown beyond the "Antler Mania", 5 does doesn't seem like an infringement.

In my opinion, and that is all it is, nothing more, an infringement would be if the larger land owners in an area got legislation/regulations enacted outlawing hunting on properties of 100 acres or less in size.

Another would be if all the gun hunters in a state got bow hunting stopped or vice versa.

The example about the size of hunting area has been seriously discussed here in Texas, along with where stands or feeders could be placed in relation to property boundaries. In fact it is something just short of a miracle that deer hunting on properties of 50 acres or less has not been outlawed here in Texas.


Even the rocks don't last forever.



 
Posts: 31014 | Location: Olney, Texas | Registered: 27 March 2006Reply With Quote
one of us
Picture of Fjold
posted Hide Post
I have missed voting in one primary election in the last 20 years because of an emergency business trip and when I got back I filed as a permanent absentee voter so I get my ballot mailed to me a month before the election.

Except for that one primary election I haven't missed voting since the 1980 presidential election when I was stationed on submarines and we weren't allowed to vote.

I'll always regret not being allowed to vote for Ronald Reagan that year.


Frank



"I don't know what there is about buffalo that frightens me so.....He looks like he hates you personally. He looks like you owe him money."
- Robert Ruark, Horn of the Hunter, 1953

NRA Life, SAF Life, CRPA Life, DRSS lite

 
Posts: 12501 | Location: Kentucky, USA | Registered: 30 December 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
The example about the size of hunting area has been seriously discussed here in Texas, along with where stands or feeders could be placed in relation to property boundaries. In fact it is something just short of a miracle that deer hunting on properties of 50 acres or less has not been outlawed here in Texas.
Well, I guess I'd be OK, just barely. I've got 53 acres.

They could never do that in TN, that is, outlawing deer hunting all together on "small plots". There are too many small farms and lands here, unlike Texas. We do it all the time without any safety issues, if that's what is involved.

Personally, I don't see how any scientific biologic argument could be made for that. So, if it was done and I was affected I'd sue over it based on the rule being "capricious, arbitrary" etc and therefore it being a denial of due process of law.

Anyway, so hunting in TX can be done over feeders I take it. You couldn't do that in TN. Illegal baiting. But here the reason would be herd management, so the rule against it here I think would be impossible to challenge. Meaning, it's not just an infringement for infringement's sake. This sort of thing has to be considered in any discussion about infringements.
 
Posts: 2999 | Registered: 24 March 2009Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
We take care of the running dog issue in two methods. The first is that it is a civil issue in Missouri and you are not supposed to shoot them, so we have been known to place meat well away from the boundaries of the land so we are not baiting them and when the dog comes in, we catch it, and take it to the local authorities as required. If one of my neighbors is having a bad day, he will catch the dog, put it in one of his barns, take the collar and hang it on the offending person's door with a note as to how to retrieve the dog within 24 hours or it will be taken to the pound as a stray.

In Kansas, we just shoot them.

As for infringement, I have experienced seeing it on the Kansas place I hunt. The property sits directly on the Kansas/Nebraska border. In Kansas it is legal to bait deer. In Nebraska, it is illegal to hunt within 200 yards of an area that had been baited for some time. One of the neighbors got mad at another and put his Kansas bait station on the border and it caused the Nebraska neighbor not to be allowed to hunt near it, even on his own property. The conservation officer could not help. He had to enforce the law, although he really didn't want to. He knew he would be turned in if he did not.


Larry

"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history, when everybody stands around reloading" -- Thomas Jefferson
 
Posts: 3942 | Location: Kansas USA | Registered: 04 February 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
No, I am merely pointing out WHY hunters will never be able to present a United Front against those that want to take hunting from us.

How were YOU ever affected by ANYONE hunting deer with hounds?

My guess is NEVER!


Your guess would be flat out wrong Ran'l......but that's okay.

I hunted East Texas for quite a few years on timber company leases. Lot's of hound issues!

One on lease the locals would drop off the hounds along the county road and have them run ACROSS our leased property, virtually running off all our deer. Had this happen several times.

Been sitting in a blind and heard dogs comming many times .

This method of hunting is now against the law in Texas has been for several years. Because it does/can infringe on the rights of other hunters.

Dogs don't understand property lines!

.
 
Posts: 41762 | Location: Crosby and Barksdale, Texas | Registered: 18 September 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Crazyhorseconsulting
posted Hide Post
Okay, I stand corrected.

And I understand that hounds, whether they are running deer in the daytime or coons or pigs anytime is going to negatively affect deer and that dogs are no respecters of property boundaries.

I agree that hounds being run for anything, especially in Texas do infringe upon other hunters, no argument there.

But, to get back to my examples, if rifle hunters supported proposed legislation to outlaw bow hunting, and it passed, how willing do you think those bow hunters would be to support gun hunters if similar legislation was proposed to outlaw gun hunting of deer?

They wouldn't.

Using deer hunting with hounds is somewhat lame, from my research, hunting deer with hounds, especially in the 20th. century, was a regional concept in the south and south eastern parts of America.

When I was on my Musk Ox hunt in 2000, two of the hunters in camp were from Virginia and North Carolina, and they thought hunting deer with dogs was the only proper method and felt that hunting deer from a stand watching a timed feeder was almost beneath contempt.


Even the rocks don't last forever.



 
Posts: 31014 | Location: Olney, Texas | Registered: 27 March 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
When I was on my Musk Ox hunt in 2000, two of the hunters in camp were from Virginia and North Carolina, and they thought hunting deer with dogs was the only proper method and felt that hunting deer from a stand watching a timed feeder was almost beneath contempt.
I don't know if everybody knows it, but hunting from stands actually IS how hunting deer with dogs is done. At least for most of those involved. Btw, it's known as a deer drive. And yes it is a Southern thing from way back and typically done in clubs and a hold over from long, long ago English traditions. It was the first deer hunting I ever did and it entailed a kind of excitement and camaraderie you don't get in the usual solo forms of deer hunting. The only thing I now don't like about the dog end of it, is when the local packs of wild dogs bred out of local farm dogs, get involved and run the deer on their own. They genuinely ARE a nuisance and actually can be dangerous. And they typically wind up getting shot.

But I sympathize with those guys on the timed feeder thing. I think a lot of hunters would say the same if they weren't used to it. However that does NOT mean they would ban it. It'd be a rare bird in the hunting world who'd go that far.

Actually, I've never in six or so decades of constant hunting ever met a hunter of any kind who wanted to outlaw any particular form of hunting. And hardly any who voiced any criticisms of any form of hunting. It's just not a subject typically discussed.
 
Posts: 2999 | Registered: 24 March 2009Reply With Quote
one of us
posted Hide Post
BTW, I voted today.


Larry

"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history, when everybody stands around reloading" -- Thomas Jefferson
 
Posts: 3942 | Location: Kansas USA | Registered: 04 February 2002Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Crazyhorseconsulting
posted Hide Post
quote:
Actually, I've never in six or so decades of constant hunting ever met a hunter of any kind who wanted to outlaw any particular form of hunting. And hardly any who voiced any criticisms of any form of hunting. It's just not a subject typically discussed.


Then you must not have been on this site very long or never paid a lot of attention.

There are members or past members that have openly stated that they would vote to see high fence hunting outlawed, along with hunting over timed feeders and the people that do such things have no right in calling themselves hunters.

That has actually been posted on this site.

That is why I maintain that HUNTERS, as a group will NEVER be able to present a United Front against those wanting to take hunting away from us.

We are ALL too opinionated and passionate about hunting and simply can not find any common ground.

Classic example from the African hunting section, Do YOU believe shooting from a vehicle, even though it is legal in many places, is wrong and should be banned?


Even the rocks don't last forever.



 
Posts: 31014 | Location: Olney, Texas | Registered: 27 March 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
quote:
Actually, I've never in six or so decades of constant hunting ever met a hunter of any kind who wanted to outlaw any particular form of hunting. And hardly any who voiced any criticisms of any form of hunting. It's just not a subject typically discussed.




There are members or past members that have openly stated that they would vote to see high fence hunting outlawed, along with hunting over timed feeders and the people that do such things have no right in calling themselves hunters.




Crazy,

It's crazy and irrational to argue that all hunters must support whatever others call hunting as long as it's legal.... And in your next breath argue that if they don't then they have no RIGHT to call themselves hunters...?
WTF, hunting is not a cult and you are not Jim Jones.

Paraphrasing one of your past mental meltdowns:

Who died and put you in charge of deciding who can and cannot say they are hunter? And who died and said you get to decide what anyone's RIGHTS are?

Fortunately you do not represent any group of hunters other than your twisted self, or hunting would likely be banned by next Tuesday.
 
Posts: 1939 | Registered: 16 January 2007Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Crazyhorseconsulting
posted Hide Post
First Navaluk, you might want to re-read this quote you posted:


quote:
There are members or past members[/B] that have openly stated that they would vote to see high fence hunting outlawed, along with hunting over timed feeders and the people that do such things have no right in calling themselves hunters.


If you will notice it was not ME saying anything about who should be able to /has the right to call themselves a HUNTER.

And you are wrong, we either support all LEGAL forms of hunting, or we contribute to the decline and eventual loss of hunting, that simple.

I do not have to participate in all forms of LEGAL hunting, and I may not even personally view it as something I would classify hunting, buit I will damn sure support the folks that do enjoy those methods.

As far as people calling themselves "Hunters" as long as what they are doing is LEGAL, I do not personally care if they want to call themselves the Dali Lama, that is their business.

Personally I view anyone going out into the field with gun/bow/spear/knife/butterfly net or snake tongs etc., attempting to bring "Game" to bag, whether to eat or have mounted or merely catalog as having been caught and then turned loose, as a "Hunter"

If any of us that call ourselves hunter start picking and choosing what is or is not really hunting even though it is a LEGAL method, we ARE part of the threat to the future hunting on the whole.

If any of us openly state that anyone that does not hunt the way we do is not a hunter or has no right to refer to themselves as a hunter, we ARE part of the threat to the future of hunting on the whole.


Even the rocks don't last forever.



 
Posts: 31014 | Location: Olney, Texas | Registered: 27 March 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
CHC, do me a favor. Re-read what I wrote. I said "never in six or so decades of constant hunting ever MET a hunter of any kind who wanted to outlaw any particular form of hunting...".

I clearly meant personally met.

I have never personally met anyone on the forum. At least I don't think so.

What goes on locally in somebody's world is NOT the same thing as what goes on here on this forum.

Btw, all here who want to ban high fences or hunting over feeders, let's have a show of hands. It'd probably be good to get that out on the table. Let's get to the bottom of this deal. An educated guess - there'll be no takers. So, let's find out.

Second btw - this whole subject probably all doesn't matter a twit anyway. You know why? The only real question is who's going to get to us first, the anti-gun movement or the radical vegan anti-hunters. The pattern appears set for it...and what one hunter says about another is like a single grain of sand compared to the size of what is out there and headed our way.
 
Posts: 2999 | Registered: 24 March 2009Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Crazyhorseconsulting
posted Hide Post
When your blood pressure goes back to normal, realize that you nor I have shared the same experiences or participated in all the exact same discussions on this site.

I have talked to people PERSONALLY that would like to see high fences outlawed. I have talked to people that believe supplemental feeding of deer during hunting seasons should be outlawed simply because shooting deer from under a feeder is NOT what they consider hunting.

I have read posts/responses on this forum from members openly stating that high fences/hunting over spin feeders/shooting from vehicles/hunting water holes are all unethical and should be made illegal and anyone doing such is not a hunter and should not consider themselves as such.

As a hunter, as a guide and as someone that participates on the various looney bins called forums I have observed that hunters, as a group can not and will not ever get along.

Just because YOU have never experienced something, that DOES NOT mean that other people haven't!


Even the rocks don't last forever.



 
Posts: 31014 | Location: Olney, Texas | Registered: 27 March 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Voting mattered and mattered a TON!! Obama and his buddies (Harry Reid among others) suffered a huge defeat, and our rights as hunters and shooters are safer today, at least for two more years. But, keep on voting and getting involved. We need a President who supports our postions.
 
Posts: 3720 | Registered: 03 March 2005Reply With Quote
One of Us
Picture of Crazyhorseconsulting
posted Hide Post
Yes, voting mattered, but in the overall scheme of things, hunting was not even on the radar in this election. While hunting is important to you and me, for the average American, unemployment/energy/health insurance/immigration, negate any thoughts concerning hunting.


Even the rocks don't last forever.



 
Posts: 31014 | Location: Olney, Texas | Registered: 27 March 2006Reply With Quote
One of Us
posted Hide Post
Conservative/traditional values vs. progressive/liberal values and their different approaches to life was the main issue of this election, and these two varied approaches have a HUGE impact on our hobbies of hunting and shooting.
 
Posts: 3720 | Registered: 03 March 2005Reply With Quote
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

Accuratereloading.com    The Accurate Reloading Forums    THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS  Hop To Forum Categories  Hunting  Hop To Forums  American Big Game Hunting    This is critical to our future as hunting sportsmen...

Copyright December 1997-2023 Accuratereloading.com


Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia