quote:

The problem is that people are sterilized from it.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I have done my best to demonstrate that the worst of Long Range Hunting is no less humane than natural life.

I will end with this:

Any group of hunters who are willing to throw another group of hunters under the bus to save themselves...had better be looking over their shoulders.

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

quote:

Any group of hunters who are willing to throw another group of hunters under the bus to save themselves...had better be looking over their shoulders.

quote:

If we really want to save hunting...we should launch a campaign to get hunters to stop using social media.

quote:

Originally posted by John Chalmers:
Quote:And it is more than just politicians. Prior to Cecil we had Delta Airlines in our corner when they stood up to the anti-hunters. After Cecil, general public sentiment turned and Delta folded.Quote:

This by MikeBurke speaks volumes after reams of print and misinformation.

While it may be legal,if a little self indulgent,to participate in LONG RANGE hunting, et al and then post it on social network The more we loose the tacit support of the non hunting majority the quicker we will become an isolated minority.

Millions of sensible people know that meat does not grow in supermarket freezers and we alienate them at our peril. Nothing at all to do with pacifying anti hunters.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
PS: As a very astute person stated on AR years ago...social media is the demise of hunting.

If we really want to save hunting...we should launch a campaign to get hunters to stop using social media.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
I for one am not for throwing anyone under the bus, but like with the lion issue, the extreme range hunting needs some help to not be a potential thorn in our collective side.

I would be satisfied if we passed some sort of rule that said something along the lines of given the extreme technical difficulty involved in long range shooting and the difficulty of follow up, if a hunter elects to shoot at an unwouded animal in excess of 600 yards, he will be assumed to have hit that animal and shall count that animal as bagged for purposes of limits and use of license.

If this is done, I strongly suspect that there will be fewer folks doing it, and those that do will be certain to do so within their own satisfaction that they are making a certain and ethical shot.

I agree the social media side of it is a problem, but also if we hide what we do we open ourselves up for criticism as well.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
PS: As a very astute person stated on AR years ago...social media is the demise of hunting.

If we really want to save hunting...we should launch a campaign to get hunters to stop using social media.

From the new issue of Camp Talk





Proper use of Social Media and right next to it Ethics and Conservation.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

The problem is that people are sterilized from it.

Therein lies the whole issue. We, modern humans as a group/species, Do Not have to kill to live. It is done for "Us", and we do not have to think/see/hear or for way too many folk, comprehend where that meat in the market came from.

Just an example, Lora has a good friend here in Olney that has two young boys, this lady has been getting with Lora to teach her boys the whole process of raising and processing their own animals. They live in town so all they can raise at this time is rabbits, but Lora has been to their house and taught the lady and her sons how to kill/butcher and process the ones that are ready to eat.

A month or so back they bought one of our ram lambs, then came out the day I castrated it, watched that process and when the animal gets to slaughter size, they are going to come over and watch me shoot it and then take out to the cabin, hang it and butcher it. The lady's sons are like 5 and 8/9 years old, but she is taking the time to teach these kids about life. Her husband is a lawyer, I have never met him so I do not know if he hunts or fishes.

It really is neat for Lora and I both to be part of the process, passing on what our role, Humans role in the overall scheme of things.

Talking about realities, reality is, our species especially Americans in so many ways have been sterilized from LIFE. Far too many have lost touch with reality on so many levels, hunting and our place in the chain of life is just one of those aspects.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I have done my best to demonstrate that the worst of Long Range Hunting is no less humane than natural life.

I will end with this:

Any group of hunters who are willing to throw another group of hunters under the bus to save themselves...had better be looking over their shoulders.

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Lane,

In essence I do not disagree with you. Let's go back a couple of years to the young lion shot in Zambia. Was it legal? Of course it was. Was it ethical? Depends on your opinion. Was it good for conservation? More than likely not. Look what has happened since then. Tanzania has changed its laws regarding hunting young lions. Zimbabwe has either changed its laws or at least has guidelines in place for shooting mature lion. Were those changes made because of the posts made on AR? Probably not, but some of the same people that made an issue of the lion worked to have laws changed.

Were the hunters willing to shoot young wild lions thrown under the bus?

Respectfully...no. That was about conservation of a species and best use practices. Everybody still had the same right to hunt lion. Age restrictions on lion is no different than antler restrictions on elk and deer throughout the US.

To a lesser degree we have seen changes with what is considered a good buffalo trophy. I believe that has come through discussions by hunters of what is good for conservation.

We each need to do what is ethical in our own opinion, but when things are so brazenly wrong they need to change. While at the time I did not agree with the methods, I applaud the guys that made the changes for hunting mature lions. I also applaud PHASA for attempting to do the right thing with the lions in SA.

Social media has not been our friend. YouTube kills us as does Facebook. Andrew Baldry does a good job getting a conservation/community point across, but he is one of the few.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:
Wonder what she told her husband when she got home.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I have done my best to demonstrate that the worst of Long Range Hunting is no less humane than natural life.

I will end with this:

Any group of hunters who are willing to throw another group of hunters under the bus to save themselves...had better be looking over their shoulders.

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Lane,

In essence I do not disagree with you. Let's go back a couple of years to the young lion shot in Zambia. Was it legal? Of course it was. Was it ethical? Depends on your opinion. Was it good for conservation? More than likely not. Look what has happened since then. Tanzania has changed its laws regarding hunting young lions. Zimbabwe has either changed its laws or at least has guidelines in place for shooting mature lion. Were those changes made because of the posts made on AR? Probably not, but some of the same people that made an issue of the lion worked to have laws changed.

Were the hunters willing to shoot young wild lions thrown under the bus?

Respectfully...no. That was about conservation of a species and best use practices. Everybody still had the same right to hunt lion. Age restrictions on lion is no different than antler restrictions on elk and deer throughout the US.

To a lesser degree we have seen changes with what is considered a good buffalo trophy. I believe that has come through discussions by hunters of what is good for conservation.

We each need to do what is ethical in our own opinion, but when things are so brazenly wrong they need to change. While at the time I did not agree with the methods, I applaud the guys that made the changes for hunting mature lions. I also applaud PHASA for attempting to do the right thing with the lions in SA.

Social media has not been our friend. YouTube kills us as does Facebook. Andrew Baldry does a good job getting a conservation/community point across, but he is one of the few.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
A little over 10 years ago was selling my house. I had security cameras in my gun/trophy room. The nicest comment was creepy, and the other 15 or so were mostly personal attacks.

Bottom line, the "average joe" doesn't get it, won't get it, and there is not enough time or money to sway public opinion so that they do get it.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
A little over 10 years ago was selling my house. I had security cameras in my gun/trophy room. The nicest comment was creepy, and the other 15 or so were mostly personal attacks.

Bottom line, the "average joe" doesn't get it, won't get it, and there is not enough time or money to sway public opinion so that they do get it.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus1:
I did to a surgeon. He was/is a big duck and deer hunter all his life. He said his wife was totally turned off by the African heads.

Obviously he did a crappy job converting his wife to our side.

There is a lesson in there...

I was told to take the heads down as well. I thought I live in the South in a big duck/deer hunting community surely folks will get it. Obviously not...

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I have done my best to demonstrate that the worst of Long Range Hunting is no less humane than natural life.

I will end with this:

Any group of hunters who are willing to throw another group of hunters under the bus to save themselves...had better be looking over their shoulders.

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Lane,

In essence I do not disagree with you. Let's go back a couple of years to the young lion shot in Zambia. Was it legal? Of course it was. Was it ethical? Depends on your opinion. Was it good for conservation? More than likely not. Look what has happened since then. Tanzania has changed its laws regarding hunting young lions. Zimbabwe has either changed its laws or at least has guidelines in place for shooting mature lion. Were those changes made because of the posts made on AR? Probably not, but some of the same people that made an issue of the lion worked to have laws changed.

Were the hunters willing to shoot young wild lions thrown under the bus?

Respectfully...no. That was about conservation of a species and best use practices. Everybody still had the same right to hunt lion. Age restrictions on lion is no different than antler restrictions on elk and deer throughout the US.

To a lesser degree we have seen changes with what is considered a good buffalo trophy. I believe that has come through discussions by hunters of what is good for conservation.

We each need to do what is ethical in our own opinion, but when things are so brazenly wrong they need to change. While at the time I did not agree with the methods, I applaud the guys that made the changes for hunting mature lions. I also applaud PHASA for attempting to do the right thing with the lions in SA.

Social media has not been our friend. YouTube kills us as does Facebook. Andrew Baldry does a good job getting a conservation/community point across, but he is one of the few.

And I agree with what you wrote in red. A lot of what we write about does concern conservation and even more so best use practices. There is no clear cut yardage to which everybody should be limited. By the same token people should not be out in the wild blasting away at animals far beyond the range of their skill set. Wounding animals because one wants to play super sniper is definitely not a best use practice. Just because we can does not always mean we should.

You guys did a good job on the lion issues btw, its a shame it turned out the way it has. Hopefully that changes for the better soon.

quote:

And, there is not a real strong humane argument out there when one looks at the whole picture...at least scientifically.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

And, there is not a real strong humane argument out there when one looks at the whole picture...at least scientifically.

Seriously? You have a number of long range target shooters on this thread who have said shots on game at these distances cannot be reliably depended on to be quick and efficient kill shots even with the best shooters. So now some are advocating that taking shots at distances with a high potential to wound or maim are okay because nature can be cruel. So animals that are wounded or maimed by poor long range shots should be thankful they have been spared a natural end. Talk about turning logic on its head. Now hunting is not about a quick and humane kill. Anything goes since nature can be cruel, including hunters taking actions that result in needless suffering. This is precisely why ethics are an essential part of the conversation.

quote:

Originally posted by Heym 450/400:
I feel like you fellas are talking past each other...

quote:

Originally posted by bcap:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

And, there is not a real strong humane argument out there when one looks at the whole picture...at least scientifically.

Seriously? You have a number of long range target shooters on this thread who have said shots on game at these distances cannot be reliably depended on to be quick and efficient kill shots even with the best shooters. So now some are advocating that taking shots at distances with a high potential to wound or maim are okay because nature can be cruel. So animals that are wounded or maimed by poor long range shots should be thankful they have been spared a natural end. Talk about turning logic on its head. Now hunting is not about a quick and humane kill. Anything goes since nature can be cruel, including hunters taking actions that result in needless suffering. This is precisely why ethics are an essential part of the conversation.

Yeah and we all know there is more animals wounded by just every day hunting from guys who cant shot a 100 yds or shit just happens sometimes to. With your great logic I guess we should stop hunting because ethics just make it wrong for some to like hunting. Silly me we should just use your ethics as they must be the right ones. I wish some would just take there ball and go home since they cant play with others who may want to do something they don't like.
I just hope as some worry about if there ethics are better then other we don't lose any more ground fighting with each other over all the bs.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

And, there is not a real strong humane argument out there when one looks at the whole picture...at least scientifically.

Seriously? You have a number of long range target shooters on this thread who have said shots on game at these distances cannot be reliably depended on to be quick and efficient kill shots even with the best shooters. So now some are advocating that taking shots at distances with a high potential to wound or maim are okay because nature can be cruel. So animals that are wounded or maimed by poor long range shots should be thankful they have been spared a natural end. Talk about turning logic on its head. Now hunting is not about a quick and humane kill. Anything goes since nature can be cruel, including hunters taking actions that result in needless suffering. This is precisely why ethics are an essential part of the conversation.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

And, there is not a real strong humane argument out there when one looks at the whole picture...at least scientifically.

Seriously? You have a number of long range target shooters on this thread who have said shots on game at these distances cannot be reliably depended on to be quick and efficient kill shots even with the best shooters. So now some are advocating that taking shots at distances with a high potential to wound or maim are okay because nature can be cruel. So animals that are wounded or maimed by poor long range shots should be thankful they have been spared a natural end. Talk about turning logic on its head. Now hunting is not about a quick and humane kill. Anything goes since nature can be cruel, including hunters taking actions that result in needless suffering. This is precisely why ethics are an essential part of the conversation.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

While as I said...it is not my cup of tea...nothing a hunter can do to an animal is less humane by our standards than 100% of natural occurring deaths...that is a fact.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

While as I said...it is not my cup of tea...nothing a hunter can do to an animal is less humane by our standards than 100% of natural occurring deaths...that is a fact.

So hunters should have carte blanche to use any method, tool or practice they choose to take animals . . . nothing is off limits because nothing is worse than nature . . . quick and humane kills be damned? The potential to wound or maim be damned?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

And, there is not a real strong humane argument out there when one looks at the whole picture...at least scientifically.

Seriously? You have a number of long range target shooters on this thread who have said shots on game at these distances cannot be reliably depended on to be quick and efficient kill shots even with the best shooters. So now some are advocating that taking shots at distances with a high potential to wound or maim are okay because nature can be cruel. So animals that are wounded or maimed by poor long range shots should be thankful they have been spared a natural end. Talk about turning logic on its head. Now hunting is not about a quick and humane kill. Anything goes since nature can be cruel, including hunters taking actions that result in needless suffering. This is precisely why ethics are an essential part of the conversation.

I am dead serious Mike.

"Nature can be cruel" is a false statement...nature IS cruel.

In nature...things don't snuggle into a bed of leaves and quietly expire. They always die violent or brutal or painful deaths.

The best a herbivore can hope for is a large cat to strangle them quickly. Wolves, coyotes, hyena, wild dog, dingo, etc etc usually begin eating the prey long before it is dead.

Carnivores die of starvation.

Herbivore males brutalize each other routinely leaving the other with broken limbs to be eaten by carnivores...after they weaken from not being able to travel to water or feed.

Male lion pride holders are savaged beyond belief when evicted from prides.

While as I said...it is not my cup of tea...nothing a hunter can do to an animal is less humane by our standards than 100% of natural occurring deaths...that is a fact.

Thus...if an animal is not hunted by man...it will always die an equal or usually a more violent death...even under the worst of circumstances in a hunting situation. The only possible exception...being ele.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

And, there is not a real strong humane argument out there when one looks at the whole picture...at least scientifically.

Seriously? You have a number of long range target shooters on this thread who have said shots on game at these distances cannot be reliably depended on to be quick and efficient kill shots even with the best shooters. So now some are advocating that taking shots at distances with a high potential to wound or maim are okay because nature can be cruel. So animals that are wounded or maimed by poor long range shots should be thankful they have been spared a natural end. Talk about turning logic on its head. Now hunting is not about a quick and humane kill. Anything goes since nature can be cruel, including hunters taking actions that result in needless suffering. This is precisely why ethics are an essential part of the conversation.

I am dead serious Mike.

"Nature can be cruel" is a false statement...nature IS cruel.

In nature...things don't snuggle into a bed of leaves and quietly expire. They always die violent or brutal or painful deaths.

The best a herbivore can hope for is a large cat to strangle them quickly. Wolves, coyotes, hyena, wild dog, dingo, etc etc usually begin eating the prey long before it is dead.

Carnivores die of starvation.

Herbivore males brutalize each other routinely leaving the other with broken limbs to be eaten by carnivores...after they weaken from not being able to travel to water or feed.

Male lion pride holders are savaged beyond belief when evicted from prides.

While as I said...it is not my cup of tea...nothing a hunter can do to an animal is less humane by our standards than 100% of natural occurring deaths...that is a fact.

Thus...if an animal is not hunted by man...it will always die an equal or usually a more violent death...even under the worst of circumstances in a hunting situation. The only possible exception...being ele.

Lane, Compassion is precisely what separates us from the animals.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Ahrenberg:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:

quote:

And, there is not a real strong humane argument out there when one looks at the whole picture...at least scientifically.

Seriously? You have a number of long range target shooters on this thread who have said shots on game at these distances cannot be reliably depended on to be quick and efficient kill shots even with the best shooters. So now some are advocating that taking shots at distances with a high potential to wound or maim are okay because nature can be cruel. So animals that are wounded or maimed by poor long range shots should be thankful they have been spared a natural end. Talk about turning logic on its head. Now hunting is not about a quick and humane kill. Anything goes since nature can be cruel, including hunters taking actions that result in needless suffering. This is precisely why ethics are an essential part of the conversation.

I am dead serious Mike.

"Nature can be cruel" is a false statement...nature IS cruel.

In nature...things don't snuggle into a bed of leaves and quietly expire. They always die violent or brutal or painful deaths.

The best a herbivore can hope for is a large cat to strangle them quickly. Wolves, coyotes, hyena, wild dog, dingo, etc etc usually begin eating the prey long before it is dead.

Carnivores die of starvation.

Herbivore males brutalize each other routinely leaving the other with broken limbs to be eaten by carnivores...after they weaken from not being able to travel to water or feed.

Male lion pride holders are savaged beyond belief when evicted from prides.

While as I said...it is not my cup of tea...nothing a hunter can do to an animal is less humane by our standards than 100% of natural occurring deaths...that is a fact.

Thus...if an animal is not hunted by man...it will always die an equal or usually a more violent death...even under the worst of circumstances in a hunting situation. The only possible exception...being ele.

Lane, Compassion is precisely what separates us from the animals.

Steve,
I make my living having compassion for animals. I spend 24/7/365 with them. Not a day has gone on in my life in almost 30 years that I did not put some effort into animal compassion.

I have published research on the subject and written textbook chapters on it.

But...I am also a realist. I live in the real and natural world. I know what life is like for wild animals and have spent my life studying them as well.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
That is not my question . . . my question is do you believe that no potential hunting practice, tool or approach should off limits despite its potential to wound or maim and result in an inhumane death . . .

quote:

However, I agree with Mike that you seem to be arguing that any death "less or equal" to a natural death would probably be ok.