There are much bigger names than Jimmy than have been filmed in these situations! Jimmy is just the first one caught!

Reckon he's got a diver hooking fish on his line underwater?

I bet he fishes a lot of private ponds!

quote:

Originally posted by ROSCOE:
I bet he fishes a lot of private ponds!

sneaks into Cabelas and BassPro after hours...you mean those kind of private ponds? I thought they were called aquariums...you know, like ponds with high glass fences.

Oh Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy, what a F---up

Sprig

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
I have a nice 4 X 4 whitetail, a better 5 X 5 whitetail, a 15" pronghorn, a 5 X 5 mulie, a Kudu, Gemsbok, Springbok, and a Duiker all on the wall or on a pedistal.

These are not there to impress others.....they're there because I like them and they part of my own hunting experiences.

Frankly it means nothing to me how others got theirs....only how I got mine.

The above is worth reading again.

quote:

Originally posted by tarbe:

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
I have a nice 4 X 4 whitetail, a better 5 X 5 whitetail, a 15" pronghorn, a 5 X 5 mulie, a Kudu, Gemsbok, Springbok, and a Duiker all on the wall or on a pedistal.

These are not there to impress others.....they're there because I like them and they part of my own hunting experiences.

Frankly it means nothing to me how others got theirs....only how I got mine.

The above is worth reading again.

Isn't that just another way of saying, "to each his own?"

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
I have a nice 4 X 4 whitetail, a better 5 X 5 whitetail, a 15" pronghorn, a 5 X 5 mulie, a Kudu, Gemsbok, Springbok, and a Duiker all on the wall or on a pedistal.

These are not there to impress others.....they're there because I like them and they part of my own hunting experiences.

Frankly it means nothing to me how others got theirs....only how I got mine.

I do not disagree with your comments, but ethics are a large part of hunting. Without ethics, we are not hunters.

Canned hunts or any hunter after baited animals violates the ethics of hunters (not of shooters). I do not agree with using bait for deer or any other animal. I have hunted out of deer stands and over feeders. Not anymore. It is not right.

As an ethical hunter, you nor I can ignore abuse of our sport. "To each his own" is a cop out and a way to accept something that is not right. "To each his own" allows us as individuals to decide the ethics and morality of our actions when society has the benefit of time and experience to better direct those ethics. "To each his own" is like letting a 6 year old decide how much candy is ok versus no ok or whether or not to go to school.

We, as the hunting public, need to act to clean up this mistake and blight on our sport.

Amen Dogcat!!!

dogcat,

Thanks for your post...you have caused me to rethink my position.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
I have a nice 4 X 4 whitetail, a better 5 X 5 whitetail, a 15" pronghorn, a 5 X 5 mulie, a Kudu, Gemsbok, Springbok, and a Duiker all on the wall or on a pedistal.

These are not there to impress others.....they're there because I like them and they part of my own hunting experiences.

Frankly it means nothing to me how others got theirs....only how I got mine.

I do not disagree with your comments, but ethics are a large part of hunting. Without ethics, we are not hunters.

Canned hunts or any hunter after baited animals violates the ethics of hunters (not of shooters). I do not agree with using bait for deer or any other animal. I have hunted out of deer stands and over feeders. Not anymore. It is not right.

As an ethical hunter, you nor I can ignore abuse of our sport. "To each his own" is a cop out and a way to accept something that is not right. "To each his own" allows us as individuals to decide the ethics and morality of our actions when society has the benefit of time and experience to better direct those ethics. "To each his own" is like letting a 6 year old decide how much candy is ok versus no ok or whether or not to go to school.

We, as the hunting public, need to act to clean up this mistake and blight on our sport.

One thing that is missing is the right to chose. It is some peoples choice to hunt, shoot as they see fit as long as it is legal. What is ethics of hunting to you may differ what is ethical to me. Who are you to decide what others should and should not do? I hunt over bait, I also hunt where there is no bait. I also hunt close to farm land that is a natural bait site. I have hunted in fenced in inclosure, 1500 to 2000 acres, but never in a pin and never would, but if that is what someone wants to do and it is legal, who am I to chastise them? Legal and ethics will never go hand in hand.

ETHICS, very important to have and follow your own ethics but remember PETA. E stands for ethical. Certainly not my ethics, but somebody's

folks may have the right to choose..but they have no right to harm the sport by their choices.

quote:

Originally posted by ACRecurve:
folks may have the right to choose..but they have no right to harm the sport by their choices.

So many other things hurt our sport more. Poaching, shooting road signs, trespassing, Killing of Endangered species, night hunting and hunter attacking other hunters in open forum's.

Redhawk1,

So just a little harm is OK? I agree there are many harmful things occurring..this one is one of the more publicized. I have counterattacked other hunters in public forums and have regretted it and apologized each time....maybe I'll learn. I do not think stating a position or disagreeing with someone else's position, however, is an attack. Want to see attacks? That's what the Political forum thrives on!

Haaaa haaaa haaaa

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
It's my understanding "Brokeback Mountain Outfitters" has a fine high fence operation in Wyoming...

Oh yeah....

Well I only throw rocks at deer only after allerting them I'm here. I'm more ethical than you........give me a fucking break.

Ethics are like opinions and assholes.....everyone has one and they're better kept to oneself and not aired out in public.

Last time I checked there are many good people out there defending our freedoms, including the freedom to choose how we hunt, whether it is "ethical" or not.

Freedom also allows us to either prop oneself up on a soapbox and preach ethics, or mind your own business and shut the fuck up.

There are more important things to worry about than if SOMEONE ELSES big elk/deer/groundhog was shot behind a fence. Who cares.

FMC,
The reason I have a problem with a lot of these high fence/canned hunters is that all of us area being lumped in with them by the non-hunting and anti-hunting crowds. Think about it, the way SOMEONE ELSE gets their trophy can and does affect the way you are perceived as a hunter, whether or not you are associated with that person. It may not be a true or accurate perception, but then again, what stereotype ever is? I would say "to each his own" if someone's behavior had no impact on our ability to continue hunting. However, if someone's behavior is going to put hunting in jeopary because it reflects poorly on all of us, then I'm damn sure going to have something to say about it. In doing so, I will be minding my own business, because in this case my business is insuring that we can continue to hunt and fish in this great country of ours. As always, a relatively small (but seemingly growing) group has the potential to screw things up for everyone else.

FMC,

Freedom carries with it the responsibility to respect others. Do you believe you have the right to choose to harm another person or a group of people? Choosing an activity that will reflect poorly on an entire group of people is not freedom...it is choosing to put yourself ahead of others regardless of the consequences. Freedom is one of the most misunderstood concepts in our country today. Rights derived from freedom always are accompanied by responsibility. Have a good one.

Ethics, religion and politics should be kept to oneself, and not imposed on others, whether you agree or disagree with someone else, and regardless of the consequences of someone elses actions. Those are HIS problems, not yours....Adolf, Stalin, etc.......my point.

Responsibility goes hand in hand with freedom...it isn't optional. I will actively work against anyone who harms the sport of hunting...which the things that are the topic of this thread do. I will not allow irresponsible individuals who answer to no one but themselves to cause me to lose the privelege of hunting. They do not have that right! We're gonna hafta agree to disagree! BTW, are you not trying to impose your set of ethics on everyone else? Cheers.

quote:

Originally posted by ACRecurve:
Responsibility goes hand in hand with freedom...it isn't optional. I will actively work against anyone who harms the sport of hunting...which the things that are the topic of this thread do. I will not allow irresponsible individuals who answer to no one but themselves to cause me to lose the privelege of hunting. They do not have that right! We're gonna hafta agree to disagree! BTW, are you not trying to impose your set of ethics on everyone else? Cheers.

Agreed. Jimmy Houston knows better, all of us know better than to shoot animals that are drugged or penned or confined. The purpose of hunting, in these modern days, is for sport. We do not hunt to eat. It is far cheaper to go to Safeway to buy food than to shoot it.

Anyway, without ethics or rules or a sense of fair play, it is not a sport, but a senseless slaughter that degrades the person as well as the animal.

Sports without rules are like professional wrestling or roller derby - a joke, cheap entertainment, cheap thrills. There is no purpose and no ultimate "good" served.

Several posters have said to keep religion, politics and ethics private and not discuss in a public forum. What? These are public issues that impact all of us. These very topics should be discussed at length to arrive at a logical, sound basis for doing what we do.

Recently in our town, there was a horrific crime - when the accused was asked "why did you do it", the answer was "I don't know". If you do not know why you do something (hunt, worship, vote) then you likely are not up to the responsibility to "do it" or participate.

Ethics and a moral basis for those ethics are important and worthy of discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by LongCarbine:
FMC,
The reason I have a problem with a lot of these high fence/canned hunters is that all of us area being lumped in with them by the non-hunting and anti-hunting crowds. Think about it, the way SOMEONE ELSE gets their trophy can and does affect the way you are perceived as a hunter, whether or not you are associated with that person. It may not be a true or accurate perception, but then again, what stereotype ever is? I would say "to each his own" if someone's behavior had no impact on our ability to continue hunting. However, if someone's behavior is going to put hunting in jeopary because it reflects poorly on all of us, then I'm damn sure going to have something to say about it. In doing so, I will be minding my own business, because in this case my business is insuring that we can continue to hunt and fish in this great country of ours. As always, a relatively small (but seemingly growing) group has the potential to screw things up for everyone else.

The non-hunting and anti-hunting crowds don't like hunting period. When canned hunting and high fenced hunting is gone, the next step for the non-hunting and anti-hunting crowds is any form of hunting. Do you understand that concept. Everyone that hunts, be it canned, high fence or free ranging need to stick together. You may not agree with it, but support it. It is a very simple concept.

On the flip side, ranch owners who make money will SPEND money to support ALL types of hunting by membership in different organizations.

I guess we'll agree to disagree. My whole point is though that one man's ethical dilema may be another mans daily routine- who's right/wrong: BOTH!!!!!!!!

Hunting behind highfence.....

This is a proverbial can of worms that tend to divide us......the brotherhood of outdoorsman that enjoy the sports of hunting and fishing....regardless of weapons, methods, tatics, etc.

This kind of talk simply divides us all as hunters. We get enough grief and backlash from the anti's. No need to divide ourselves and aid in their efforts.

Nobody says you must hunt from a stand or blind, use a feeder, scents, camo, grunt calls, rattle antlers, hunt a high, low, or no fenced place, use a scoped rifle, muzzle loader, bow, spear or rock. Choose whatever legal method floats your boat.

Stalk naked through the mesquite and prickly pear and use your bare hands if that's how you want to hunt. I won't belittle anyone for their chosen legal methods. We should all give each other the same courtesy.

We will ALL never agree on the definition of a trophy, fair chase vs. high fence and many more issues that cause us to get emotionally involved and take sides.....but, we must agree to disagree on some of these issues.

Redhawk1,
I understand perfectly well that the anti's will always be after us, it's in their name, so that makes sense. However, there's a lot of people out there who are non-hunters for whatever reason, but not necessarily against hunting. I've known a lot of people over the years who don't believe hunting is for them, but have no problem with me doing it. These are the people we need to keep on our side, and that's why it's important for us to not look like a bunch of unethical slobs who only care about killing shit. It only takes the actions of a few people to turn a non-hunter into someone that's actively trying to ban the sport. There's enough of those types out there as it is, we don't need to create more through our own actions.

Red Hawk 1:

I don't think that it is quite accurate to lump the "non hunting" people in with the "anti-hunting" people. As a boy I often hunted with permission on lands of people who didn't hunt at all. One of the biggest PR mistakes that has been made by organizations like the NRA is to assume: "If you're not with me, you're against me" - and to treat people who really are neutral on the subject of guns and or hunting as if they were enemies. It's like a warring nation deciding to fire on a neutral because the neutral doesn't join the fight! We take on a whole new group of opponents by treating people who don't give a damn one way or another as if they are blood enemies. I don't play golf and could care less about golf. If the PGA came after me as being an enemy of golf and despicable for not caring about golf - I would get interested damn fast on the subject of golf! - Guess what side I would come down on?

Hunters who grew up with a certain frame of mind that just simply seeped into them will never reconcile themselves to fences or to preserves. There are hunters and there are "trigger pullers". I can no more ally myself with the trigger pullers than I can decide tomorrow morning that I love my female senator from NY whose name I don't mention in polite company!

quote:

Originally posted by gerry375:
Red Hawk 1:

I don't think that it is quite accurate to lump the "non hunting" people in with the "anti-hunting" people. As a boy I often hunted with permission on lands of people who didn't hunt at all. One of the biggest PR mistakes that has been made by organizations like the NRA is to assume: "If you're not with me, you're against me" - and to treat people who really are neutral on the subject of guns and or hunting as if they were enemies. It's like a warring nation deciding to fire on a neutral because the neutral doesn't join the fight! We take on a whole new group of opponents by treating people who don't give a damn one way or another as if they are blood enemies. I don't play golf and could care less about golf. If the PGA came after me as being an enemy of golf and despicable for not caring about golf - I would get interested damn fast on the subject of golf! - Guess what side I would come down on?

Hunters who grew up with a certain frame of mind that just simply seeped into them will never reconcile themselves to fences or to preserves. There are hunters and there are "trigger pullers". I can no more ally myself with the trigger pullers than I can decide tomorrow morning that I love my female senator from NY whose name I don't mention in polite company!

You are correct in not lumping the "non hunting" people in with the "anti-hunting" people. But what people need to realize is, that the non-hunter can be swayed to go the way of the anti-hunter very quickly if the hunting community can't even stick together.

quote:

You are correct in not lumping the "non hunting" people in with the "anti-hunting" people. But what people need to realize is, that the non-hunter can be swayed to go the way of the anti-hunter very quickly if the hunting community can't even stick together.

And they can also be swayed to go the way of the anti-hunter if we don't step up and police our own. I think the arguement of "If we don't all stand together no matter what..." to be the purest form of BS. The foundation of modern conservation was built on the willingness of sportsman to place limits on ourselves for the betterment of all. A case like the one involving Jimmy Houston holds an added level of disgust for me because he has chosen to profit by making himself a public face of hunters. In making that choice in my mind he needs to be held to the fire by the rest of us for his actions. As far as I'm concerned he sold us out. I see no justification to defend him.

Jeff

Skibum is darn right...Jimmy is off the list.

As a hunter, who only hunts wild, free ranging animals, I do not want to be lumped in with those who engage in hunting behind a high fence (no matter how freaking big it is, I have heard this argument a thousand times and still think it is BS) or those who are "canned" killers. I don't want folks who are not hunters, considering these types of kills as "hunting", or thinking all so called "hunters" consider this as sport....because it is not.


MG

quote:

Originally posted by Madgoat:
Skibum is darn right...Jimmy is off the list.

As a hunter, who only hunts wild, free ranging animals, I do not want to be lumped in with those who engage in hunting behind a high fence (no matter how freaking big it is, I have heard this argument a thousand times and still think it is BS) or those who are "canned" killers. I don't want folks who are not hunters, considering these types of kills as "hunting", or thinking all so called "hunters" consider this as sport....because it is not.


MG

I second that!

IV

FOsteology, well written and well said and I agree. And from a fellow Texian.

Idaho Vandal:

If you will allow me, I also want to join with you in seconding the remarks of Mad Goat ( and of Skibum). It will be people like you and they who will preserve hunting for their children - because there are still a lot of sane people who recognize the difference between KILLING an animal and HUNTING it. I'm glad to have seen that there are posters here who are hunters. I'm retired from hunting nowadays and in my neck of the woods I only seem to encounter gun control fanatics who also want all hunting ended because it's "cruel" to animals. Of course, did I mention that we have some very expensive restaurants in NY City that are serving -guess what? - steak, roast beef, pork chops and even chicken? Now who could eat a harmless, inoffensive little chicken? And I bet that chicken never had a chance!

I'm an old man. I hope you guys win the argument. Unfortunately, it looks to me like Eastern states want to elect politicians who want all guns banned - and who think that PETA is some kind of "animal rights" organization that deserves to be heard. With California joining them, it's up to the West and South to preserve our heritage.

Howdy,

I am originally from Wyoming, I have been in the Navy for 12 years and hunted all over the world. I grew up hunting elk, mule deer, and pronghorn antelope in the open range areas. High fences aren't something that exhist in Wyoming.


I hunted in Namibia on a big ranch that was close to 25,000 acres and it was high fenced on some parts. Wasn't really an issue, but I didn't know it was high fenced until I got there. The game didn't act tame or super wild. They were no different than the open areas we hunted later on in the safari. You would see the fence early in the morning and usually not until the way out in the eveing.

In Spain I used to hunt Wildboar and red deer on a place north of Seville that was close to 5000 hectares and it was high fenced on 3 sides, to keep game from getting onto a big highway. Didn't really matter as it was pretty shot out anyway. Wasn't really an issue.

I have not hunted in Texas or on a high fence before. Would I do it? I would. For a few reasons, my time is execptionally limited. I spend a lot of time travelling every year and I often miss entire years hunting.

I don't want to spend 10 days and pay $3500-10,000 (or nothing in Alaska, as I am an Alaska resident due to me moving to Alaska before I re-joined the Navy) to hunt one animal that may or may not be there.

I probably wouldn't hunt elk, mule deer, or pronghorn antelope under high fence. I would hunt exotics, wild boar, and bison under high fence if it was a big place like 8000 acres and up.

Those of you itching to call your congressmen to stop all high fence hunting please don't. You will cause pro-hunting outfits like Safari Club and the NRA to waste money on Senators and Congressmen worrying about hunter against hunter drama. When the real enemy is the Antis.

I don't like bowhunting at all, but I know that the bowhunters are an allie, and not an enemy no matter how I feel about stickhunters.

Never let your own ego get in the way of our sport!

Just happened to catch the end of Jimmy's show last night. He was hunting elk in Utah. On this hunt there were no fences but he was hunting on a private ranch. A nice bull elk was shot out of a shooting house situated on the edge of a hay field. This was not a canned hunt but in my opinion, not fair chaise. Thoughts on this? My feeling is that fences are not the evil of a fair hunt, there is a lot more to consider. What is the difference in hunting on a 10 acre Texas pen vs free range private ranch hay field where elk come to feed every night?

Roscoe:

To answer your question - no difference whatever. "Ranch" is (to me) only another name for shooting animals in a cage. If the animal is not truly free and running free and living by his wits in his own world with no limitations on him whatsoever -then I don't think it's hunting. Just my thoughts.

quote:

Originally posted by gerry375:
I'm an old man. I hope you guys win the argument. Unfortunately, it looks to me like Eastern states want to elect politicians who want all guns banned - and who think that PETA is some kind of "animal rights" organization that deserves to be heard. With California joining them, it's up to the West and South to preserve our heritage.

It is not all the people in the East that vote for them anti-gun ass holes. There is only so much a small group of hunters can do in a anti-gun area. Don't count out the eastern & northern hunters and gun people in the fight for our rights. Nothing like trying to devide up the hunters into different groups. It is a united cause for our gun right and hunting rights. Some times people need to pull there heads out of there asses before they type.

Redhawk1,
You're asking some of us to support something that goes against our morals and ethics for the good of the sport. My response to you is the reason I am against these things is for the good of the sport. People who need to pen up an animal or tranquilize it before shooting it aren't hunters at all. They have no respect for their quarry and only give a damn about its B&C score. What they're doing doesn't have any any elements of the hunt except the kill. It's unfortunate that all of us are lumped in with these self-proclaimed "hunters," who are actually nothing but trigger-pullers.

Check this out...Jimmy is taking abuse over this on his own web forum.

Jimmy's Page

quote:

Originally posted by LongCarbine:
Redhawk1,
You're asking some of us to support something that goes against our morals and ethics for the good of the sport. My response to you is the reason I am against these things is for the good of the sport. People who need to pen up an animal or tranquilize it before shooting it aren't hunters at all. They have no respect for their quarry and only give a damn about its B&C score. What they're doing doesn't have any any elements of the hunt except the kill. It's unfortunate that all of us are lumped in with these self-proclaimed "hunters," who are actually nothing but trigger-pullers.

I don't agree with penned up animals or tranquilize it before shooting it. I never said it supported it. I support high fence hunting in large ranches, such as Brady Ranch in Florida. It is a 2000 acre ranch. So pick your fight with someone else.