http://www.awapro.com/home.php

Whose side are these people on?

Makes a person wonder.

I see the web page, but I'm not sure what you're referring to. Looks like typical commercial web site to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
I see the web page, but I'm not sure what you're referring to. Looks like typical commercial web site to me.

+1. I'm lost.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
I see the web page, but I'm not sure what you're referring to. Looks like typical commercial web site to me.

+2

There's nothing on that site that shows a "side" to anything.

From the stuff I saw listed, basically this group is promoting "hunting" where animals are not killed.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. To me, it appears that this group is attempting to find a means of placating the anti hunting movement, by offering a non-consumptive method of "hunting" that the anti's will not object to.

If a person does not see the potential negative effects this could have toward conventional hunting, then that is their prerogative.

For myself, I prefer to stay somewhat aware of potential threats to our hunting heritage, I just happen to view this as one of those threats.

CH, their photo gallery has lots of pics of dead deer, so I doubt they are trying to sneak an agenda by us. Of course, it may be a judgment about the future they've made and they are trying to position themselves to stay relevant in that future.

Meaning, I sense what you're concerned about.

I felt the same frankly when they introduced catch and release for fishing. Yes, catch and release.

I know the idea arose because of tournament bass fishing and I understand why.

But, then it caught on. It became the big thing where there's this unwritten, unspoken semi-rule of sorts that leaves the impression you don't keep ANYTHING. That's the FEELING it leaves behind, regardless the actual motives.

And it's practiced in places where the numbers of fish don't even require it (Gulf Coast bill fish, for one - you can't keep them, but farther off-shore, guess what foreign flagged factory long-line ships are doing).

What's so far made this impractical for hunting is, it's kind of hard to put a bandaid over a 30-06 hole in a deer so it can go on its way...

I read an article in a 1960's Popular Science magazine suggesting that hunters in the future might be using tranqualizer guns. The author described how he stalked a large mule deer, shot it with a tranq dart and took a very traditional looking trophy picture of himself with the deer. After a few minutes the deer woke up unharmed.

The main problem is that the drug dose must be carefully determined prior to making the shot. There is very little margin of error. Just a little bit too much of a tranqualizer dose and the animal dies.

There is (and always has been) the option of wildlife photography. Actually, it takes a lot more hunting skill to get a quality photograph of a game animal than it does to kill it.

I can't speak for anyone else but in order to have "hunted," I must have the possibility of killing, recovering and eating a game animal. If any of these are not possible, it really isn't "hunting" as far as I'm concerned.

It's important to realize that the "anti's" oppose human exploitation of animals in ANY form. Some of the most vocal opposition is to circuses and rodeos where animals seldom, if ever, suffer any harm. They say "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." All the same. So even non-lethal "hunting" would be verboten among the true believers.

Shack it is the Catch & Release concept in fishing that makes me leery of similar set ups in hunting, such as the darting of white rhinos in Africa.

Are people trying to find a manner of hoping to placate the anti-hunting element?

Catch & Release fishing is not acceptable to the anti-hunting/fishing crowd nor to PETA or HSUS.

The forces that want hunting/fishing, the Consumptive uses of animals/birds/fish stopped, also want farming and ranching and pet ownership stopped!

Our country and our world has changed, and the 50 and older crowd has not stayed current with just how radical those changes are or how powerful the forces pushing for those changes have become.

Yeah, who in the world would want to go fishing if you have to turn 'um loose.

Anyway, we, in our age group who've stayed knowledgeable, know what we're up against and exactly where all it's going.

The whole veganism thing is the spearhead of this particular part of the evolution of the country, and is so common now amongst youngsters, especially college kids, who not only hate hunting and fishing, but won't eat meat at all.

Be that as it may, at age 70ish the way I feel is, I won. I got to enjoy it all and have my collection of mounted birds, ducks, geese and deer. And long since completed the gun collection. And have now started selectively selling.

I've got the farmland and hunting acreage I always wanted. It's already set to be handed on to the kids. And I've got that sunflower dove field planted in time for the opening day and the food plots going for next season's deer.

But I'm no longer able to duck hunt or go off to other states for pheasants or even to the coast for blue water off-shore.

And I see what's coming, for hunting and for America generally, and it is really painful. BUT, younger more fit guys will have to keep the fight going. All I expect them to do is, hold fast, because the ones who've come before didn't give in either.

Shack as long as you can type you can fight Emails etc. can go along ways.

I figure that we need to fight until we die.

Giving in means a win for the other side.

It gets hard it is frustrating and not very fun.

How much nicer would it be to hunt fish and play with my guns,

Rather then worry about some A$$ holes trying to take every thing I hold dear away from me.

But I want my grand kids and great grand kids to be able to own guns and hunt.

But I still keep on fighting wrote my first letter opposing GCA68 and I am still fighting the anti freedom types.

I think the problem is, that those of us that do hunt and fish, and view our roll in the overall scheme of things, really do not understand the amount of pressure that the folks that are against the consumptive use of wildlife, have in the decision making process, or the role those that believe in Catch & Release ONLY fishing are playing.

Randall, this (the future of hunting) is obviously an important subject for you and I respect you for that. But, in all sincerity, it's really not our fight. Hunting, as we know it, is not going to be legislated out of existance during any of our lifetimes.

The future of hunting will be in the hands of future generations. They will have to set their own priorities and act accordingly. If hunting has a place in future society, it will be perserved. On the other hand, the generations to come may not hear the call of the wild and the hunting tradition may fade out and eventually die. It will be their choice - and if the hunting tradition dies - their loss.

To put it a bit more bluntly, a lot of kids these days don't care about hunting. They have other priorities and there's nothing we can do about that. To be honest, there's really nothing we SHOULD do about it. Let them make their own choices.

We cannot change the future. We (especially) can't change the future by feel-good actions like joining organizations, signing petitions and sending emails. The best we can do is to insure that future generations have the option to make their choice.

It's important to remember that trends do not necessarily project in a straight line. Things can change, in any direction, almost overnight. I have read many 19th century articles about hunting and the predictions for the future very grim. An 1884 article published in Harper's Weekly described an antelope hunt. At the end of the article the author advised that anyone interested in hunting antelope should "do so within the next few years or they will not be able to do it at all." It was predicted (in 1884) that America's big game animals "will soon be completely and totally extinct, except as curiousities in zoos." It certainly looked that way at the time but the conservation movement of the following generation changed things in a big way.

So, we just give up? And you are wrong, it can be and is being legislated out of existence IN OUR LIFETIMES, look at what has taken place in California/Colorado and now Maine.

If you feel it is easier to set back and not do anything is the best course then that is what you need to do, but I do see a real probability of losing hunting over the next 10 years.

About ten years ago, someone at the local gun shop (I know it was then because I know when they moved) asked me for an opinion. The guys there were talking this usual issue, and one asked which did I think would get us first, anti-gun or anti-hunting. The question pre-supposed the eventual outcome. This was before the Heller supreme court decision.

I said I thought both would converge at about the same time. But really I believe now the anti-gun is going to hit first. Because of the electoral demographics and what's likely to be the next president and what's going to be appointed to the supreme court.

In case everyone doesn't know it, the whole 2nd Amendment is just barely hanging there now by only ONE vote. And the 4 Dim-Libs on that court can't wait to reverse Heller. And when that happens, well, you'll see CA, NY, NJ, MA, RI, CT and maybe a couple others competing with each other to see who will be the first to move for complete overall confiscation.

Because of that, we are probably worrying needlessly about the future of hunting. Unless we're all going to switch to archery. That's just the way it is.

And here is what I'm talking about - http://www.city-data.com/forum...nce-restraining.html

Looks like it's goodbye guns time in CA. Democrats are already using that latest shooting to allow ANYBODY who doesn't like your having guns to apply for them to be taken away. So there's no need to worry any more about hunting in a state like that, or anywhere in the US if the Dems get the WH and Congress in 2016. This will be the law everywhere.

quote:

To put it a bit more bluntly, a lot of kids these days don't care about hunting. They have other priorities and there's nothing we can do about that. To be honest, there's really nothing we SHOULD do about it. Let them make their own choices

That is what the anti's and liberals want us to believe.

I get so tired of parents not guiding their children. One can have a huge influence in a child's life if you just take the time.

I would have no trouble limiting computer phone time etc.. and say we are going hunting.

For to many it is just easier not to get involved with their children then to be good parents.

Many times I heard its to cold, its to hot, its raining, I don't want to go.

Would you let them get by with these excuses for football, soccer practice.

Its all age based also taking a 5 year out might only last 10 minutes.

A 12 year old can hack a lot a teen ager can go all day.

The key is to get them out and going and make it fun.

Case in example I brought a great niece and nephew to deer camp. 8 and 10 at the time.

Non hunting parents they had a great time but I made it very fun for them.

Both went to hunters safety and went hunting when they got old enough 12 was the age sat the time.

The only trouble was is I can't get support from the parents.

They are more then willing to spend time and money on their dance, basket ball and school sports. But are not welling to or give support for their hunting.

The young are the future but we have to help push and take the time to get them involved.

Excellent post pdog!!! That's why I'm involved with the NWTF mentoring program for kids and adults to introduce them into the outdoors.