Then Sir, you really do not care if hunting is outlawed. Many Thanks for your input, because that is probably the attitude of many folks on this site.

If it is not done the way you think it should be than to Hell with it, let the anti's win.

Many Thanks for your honest opinion. If it ain't done according to your idea of what hunting is or is not it needs to be stopped.

Great job, since you seem to speak for quite a few individuals on this site, then why don't all of you STFU about non-hunters/antis attacking hunters.

Folks, it is either ALL or Nothing in this situation, you either support HUNTING in all its forms or you are part of the problem.

quote:

Folks, it is either ALL or Nothing in this situation, you either support HUNTING in all its forms or you are part of the problem.

That's the crux.

Shooting penned animals IS NOT HUNTING. It is not even a FORM of hunting as you state.

If you want to shoot a penned animal, do so.

Don't brag about it
Don't brag about how big it is
Don't say how hard the hunt was

The quarry?

No escape possible
Raised to be shot
Luck which is an element of every real hunt completely removed

Don't call the worthless activity a "hunt". Doing so necessarily includes all of us who really HUNT.

It's called "free range" just like the guys who go after them!

quote:

Then Sir, you really do not care if hunting is outlawed. Many Thanks for your input, because that is probably the attitude of many folks on this site.

If it is not done the way you think it should be than to Hell with it, let the anti's win.

Many Thanks for your honest opinion. If it ain't done according to your idea of what hunting is or is not it needs to be stopped.

Great job, since you seem to speak for quite a few individuals on this site, then why don't all of you STFU about non-hunters/antis attacking hunters.

Folks, it is either ALL or Nothing in this situation, you either support HUNTING in all its forms or you are part of the problem.

Blah, blah, blah! So if it's legal to go beat baby deer with clubs then we should be supporting them because it could be considered hunting? Sometimes standing up for one's rights means calling out things that while legal are not the right thing to do. Like I've said in the past I don't care if you want to kill an animal behind a fence, but don't call it hunting and don't look to us hunters to defend it.

No you have shown your colors, if it is something you do not consider hunting, you can not put your elitism/idealism aside, so when hunting ios outlawed, which is going to happen and you whine about the loss of it, you only have yourself to blame.

Do you support the NRA's stance on gun ownership?

IMO, the concept of HUNTING is simply the art of pursuit. The game must have the opportunity to escape, fair and square...nothing to sway the odds in one way or another.

Hunting takes on the form of pursuit...be it a woman, a sale or wild game. It is about the HUNT - defeating the objective through sheer will or wits.

KILLING is simply a culmination of the game. Specifically, the DECISION by the hunter that the game ends with death. Does NOT killing state that the pursuit was not a hunt? I think not...

Is there no less glory than pursuing a creature, big or small, to the ends of the earth...tracking it to its final location and meeting it on its terms? Both require thought...determination...the specific defeat of another.

The HUNT proves the superior being, be it through patience, wit, will or technology. Death PROVES nothing - The HUNT still existed. Death is irrelevant. The HUNT is in the mind of the beholder.

Is the hunt any less significant in the desert regions of Africa (*or So. Cal.) or in the forests in pursuit of Bongo (*or the Whitetail)? Is there a difference between the prarie dog at 300 yards or the @#$%^&* gopher in the back yard of an Anaheim (re: Disneyland) home?

That #$%^&* gopher is still alive...he beat me...ME, in full camo, pellet gun sighted at 4 yards in a perfectly stable garage...@#$%^&* gopher. The GREATEST game I've ever pursued...defeated.

The HUNT is forever.

The Kill? A moment...a brief moment in time...immortalized in the mind of only one.

Every state in the union has the right to set it's own hunting laws and regulations. They have done this now for many generations and we now have different state and local hunting practices and cultures that have developed. Now here where I live in MN it is illegal to bait for deer. If you drive 25 miles east from my house you are in WI where everyone except reelman1 baits for deer Now if you follow a perfectly legal and normal hunting practice all of your life in WI and then come across the river to MN you are no longer hunting you are poaching! Same goes for us here where it is legal to "party hunt" (shoot someone else's deer in your hunting party for them to tag) Now if I tried to do that in most states I would not be hunting I would be poaching! The problem goes on and on. One state you can hunt in a fenced enclosure another one you can't. So in some states it is hunting and in others it is not. How can you ask a guy to support something as hunting that he has been told his whole life is wrong and illegal?

Maybe joining together with farmers and ranchers is a better way to combat groups like peta. It seems to me if it was in the constitution that we had the right to eat meat then it would be less of an issues how we got it.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
No you have shown your colors, if it is something you do not consider hunting, you can not put your elitism/idealism aside, so when hunting ios outlawed, which is going to happen and you whine about the loss of it, you only have yourself to blame.....

.

Elitism? Idealism?

Look at what hunting WAS and the perversion of what it has become in shooting a farm-raised exotic or common game animal in an enclosure!

Like I say, if ALL "hunting" degenerates to this, I'm done!!

Ya know why?

IT's NOT HUNTING.

Furthermore I won't stand for it to be called "hunting"! To do so would be to allow myself to be included in a group of people I don't consider to BE hunters!

A parallel would be a housewife microwaving a frozen dinner and claiming to be a chef!

I find this to be a very interesting topic. I just finished reading 'Meditations on Hunting" and "A Hunter's Heart". Both books give one a lot to think about. I have my own opinions on what I consider hunting and fair chase but I am tolerant and respectful of what others consider hunting and fair chase. Anti-hunters are as closed minded and intolerant as some of the posters here.

I would like to know what do some of our "morale high ground" hunters consider hunting and fair chase? Is it hunting if we put any bait out that is not natural and indigenous to the area? Is it hunting to drive around with a vehicle full of spotters in the unfenced wilderness until someone spots your fair chase animal? Is it hunting when the challenge is so high that a handicapped person or a geriatric obese person is consistently harvesting trophies? What about hunting with a platoon of spotters, trackers, flushers, pushers, carry my stuff guys, PH, etc.? Most all approved and/or legal hunting methods are illegal somewhere in the world.

If the great hunters of yesterday (many of which are unethical poachers under today's real or imagined standards) could see where we are today, what would they say? Would they call us a bunch of spoiled, tecno-dependent fakes and accuse us all of not being hunters, or would they jump right end and continue to hunt in their preferred method, embrace technology, and support all hunters.

Back to the original question, what do YOU call hunting? I know I can never meet some of your standards and I question whether or not some of you can meet your own standards. At the end of the day, I will still respect your opinion and support you in our battle against our enemies. I trust that you will do the same for others.

Folks, think what you want to, call it whatever you want to. To the anti's it does NOT MATTER what anyone that hunts thinks, Period.

RCamulia, I don't think setting up 800 or 1000 yard away from an animal is hunting! But it is what you like to do and if you want to call it hunting that is fine, it is legal and therefore even though I don't agree with it, I will defend it along with other forms of hunting.

I don't like the idea of shooting a genetically mutated white tailed freak in a 30' x 30' pen and calling it hunting, but dammit to hell if it is legal and someone wants to call it hunting, I will defend that also.

The problem that evidently no one cares about, is that the anti's want all of it stopped. Instead of banding together and presenting a united front to save hunting first, and then on a state by state basis, work on getting the laws changed so that unpopular or questionable hunting practice can be phased out, some or many people would just as soon see all hunting stopped over their elitist/idealist concepts.

Crazy, you keep bringing up differnt styles of hunting saying that some might not think that it is hunting yet I havent' seen anyone on here say that hunting over bait, shooting from a long distance, chasing with hounds, etc. isn't hunting. We may not prefer these styles of hunting but we aren't saying that they aren't hunting. But to do any of them inside a fence pretty mcuh takes away that they are hunting.

Just because someone calls it hunting does not make it hunting and does not mean that we need to support it to be called sportsmen. What happens at many of these places makes me sick to my stomach and in no way do I want to be compared to them or for the antis to think that I am one of them. I beleive that they have a right to do what they are doing and would support it to the point that I don't think it should be outlawed but there are a lot of thing that don't relate to hunting that I don't think should be outlawed but it's not the responsablity of hunters to fight for them. I think abortion should be illegal but don't think that it's up to hunters to fight for it.

quote:

RCamulia, I don't think setting up 800 or 1000 yard away from an animal is hunting! But it is what you like to do and if you want to call it hunting that is fine, it is legal and therefore even though I don't agree with it, I will defend it along with other forms of hunting.

I have never done so in my life.

The long range shots I made were long because the distance could not be closed.

I shoot long range steel targets as practice and fun. I have all of my hunting rifles dialed in to be able to take an animal at long range if necessary, but never have I gone out specifically to do so like the long range hunting shows portray.

quote:

I don't like the idea of shooting a genetically mutated white tailed freak in a 30' x 30' pen and calling it hunting, but dammit to hell if it is legal and someone wants to call it hunting, I will defend that also.

I think that the activity is strange. Calling it "hunting" is odd. I guess it has to do with what is the norm for each of us.

It's an interesting subject and gets the wheels turning!

How about pen raised birds (pheasants, chuckars, quail)?

Reelman, you just do not get it. The anti's do not care what you me or anyone else considers hunting to be, and they are not differentiating between elitist/purists or average everyday people. That intend on getting it all stopped. They are not focusing on high fenced hunting/shooting or whether someone misuses the term B&C to express the size of buck deer. They are out to get it all stop[ped, not just selected segments and they are not going to make any allowances because someone like you and others like you have a very narrow minded view bsed on an elitist attitude. You would rather see all hunting ended than climb down of your moral/ethical high road.

Well let me explain something to you and think about it before you comment. I started hunting elk in Colorado in 1992. That was the year, Colorado voted on the proposition to outlaw hunting bears over a bait or with hounds, the only real methods for managing the population. Hunters/Outdoors People/D.O.W. Biologists, asked even begged for thecitizens of the state to leave the management of bears in the hands of the professionals.

Well, guess what, the bleeding hearts crowd mobilized the folks in the intermountain ski towns like Aspen and Breckinridge, and the folks in the Front Range, Denver/Colorado Springs et al, and when it was all over, the use of baits or hounds was outlawed. That could happen to you where you live.

If hunters as a group cannot put aside petty differences over such things as the use of the term B&C buck, or over what is or should be considered hunting we will all lose.


RCamulia, regardless of whether you have ever purposely set up to take long range shots at animals or not, does not matter, you were the one that spearheaded getting the long range forum started and while you may not try it on game, some of the folks that [participate in that area, do and are quick to post pictures and talk about it, guilt by association. Just like anyone going out and killing by whatever means animals that for the most part are not normally considered livetock by the majority of humans.

If I saw any of this was getting people to think and open up with some kind of dialog that would be fine. All I am seeing is people that have an elitists attitiude and are so unwilling to bend just enough to make a fight of it against the anti's, I would have some hope, but I don't see that happening.

I see the end of sport hunting in the future and I see "hunters", as the ones that will bring that end about, simply because they do not have the ability to comprehend that the anti hunting forces have a well organized, well defined agenda and they are not differentiating between one form of hunting or another or what hunters believe is real hunting and some form of unethical atrocity, the anti's do not care about what hunters think is ethical or unethical.

quote:

How about pen raised birds (pheasants, chuckars, quail)?

Did not mean to skip your question. planted birds have been being "hunted" in the British Isles for quite a long time as have driven grouse and pheasant "hunts".

How about the royal hunting parks that the Chinese Emporers maintained and similar such parks maintained by European nobility and even the Soviet Union had specila reserves for party officials to take advantage of.

Each and every one of us can find something wrong with nearly every form of "hunting" that there is, world wide. What is accomplished by doing such? If a person does not like or should I say think they will not like something or some way of doing something, Do Not Do It, but don't chastise those that don't have a problem taking part in the manner someone finds questionable.

All I am trying to get across is that as a group, hunters and fishermen need to develope open minds and quit being so elitist/purist/idealistic in our individual intepretations as to what should or should not be called hunting.

Due to declining habitat, increasing human population, decreasing numbers of hunters, increaaing age of hunters, all on a world wide scope, it maybe or already is too late to keep hunting alive.



Hunting and fishing both definitely will be dead if we do not start putting aside our differences and start working on getting the message to the 80% of the voting public that has no firmly set opinion about hunting or fishing.

quote:

RCamulia, regardless of whether you have ever purposely set up to take long range shots at animals or not, does not matter, you were the one that spearheaded getting the long range forum started and while you may not try it on game, some of the folks that [participate in that area, do and are quick to post pictures and talk about it, guilt by association. Just like anyone going out and killing by whatever means animals that for the most part are not normally considered livetock by the majority of humans.

You may have misunderstood me. I don't have anything against making such a shot. I'm capable of doing so. Those who are successful and post pictures I don't consider to be "guilty" of anything. It takes skill to be able to kill at long range. The work to develop the skill is unknown to 99% of hunters.

quote:

Hunting and fishing both definitely will be dead if we do not start putting aside our differences and start working on getting the message to the 80% of the voting public that has no firmly set opinion about hunting or fishing.

If the people of which you speak were shown the picture of exotics and NA big game with clearly visible enclosures and described what they were seeing as "hunting", I think you would find 100% of them would be against it.

quote:

I think you would find 100% of them would be against it.

But you don't know that for sure do you? No you don't. Just like the anti's use pictures and videos to garner emotional responses, hunters will have to use pictures and videos depicting high fence operations in a more astetically acceptable manner.

Sans the blood and gore, without the High Fives and pats on the back, we need to show the public, that we are adults enjoying a tradition that has been passed down to us thru the centuries, and that even though we do gain enjoyment and fulfillment out of the act of hunting we have respect for nature and the animals we hunt.

On the subject of high fenced hunting, people need to keep in mind is that not all high fence operations are the same. Also until a person has experienced a high fence hunt first hand their opinion has no actual basis in fact.

And before you say it RCamulia, I have killed a pronghorn at over 600 yards, a feat that I accomplished, but have never had the desire to try and repeat, so I do have experience taking a long range shot and a successful one at that, but just do not wish to do so again, unless I have too.

Until the states themselves step in and develope workable regulations govening that segement of the hunting industry, there will continue to be high quality operations and no quality operations.

As for your explanation about your abilities to make long range shots, that was not what I was getting. To me, setting up purposely to take a 7, 8 or even 1K yard shot on a game animal is no different than setting in a blind watching a timed feeder at 100 yards. Neither are hunting in the purest definition of the word, merely shooting under different circumstances.

In my simplistic world however, both are a form of hunting. Both have their place, both have their followers, both if the shooters do their thing result in a wild animal being killed, and I believe both need to be defended.

Just as hunting bear by spot and talk, over a bait or with hounds, all need to be defended.

I do not know anymore about Mr. Beaham than that he is a member of this site, just like the rest of us. But he did point out something that is part of the big picture, and I am sure that at least a couple of folks are going to chime in on this one, but hunting, in the United States at least is a Prnveledge and Not A Right. The Second Ammendment gives us the Right To Keep And Bear Arms. No where are we, as individuals giventhe Right to hunt. If you think that is wrong, go try doing it without a state issued license and get back to us on how well that works out for you.

If we had the Right to hunt, there would not be seasons and we could go anywhere we damn well pleased and hunt anything we damn well pleased and No One could stop us. That is another of those, "Try It And Get Back To Us On How It Worked Out For You".

Hunting is a heritage and we are the Stewards of that heritage that should be passed along to those that come after us. It will be a real atrocity if our generation allows the Anti hunting forces to take that heritage away from us, simply because some of us are so closed minded/idealistic/elitist/literal in how the word hunt should be used.

Crazy, I do get it. You think that as hunters we should stand up for any form of whatever anybody calls hunting. I disagree with this and it is not because of an elietest attitude but from believing that sometimes just because it's legal does not mean that it's the right thing to do and when things are unethical, even if legal, hunters are not obligated to defend it.

I understand what you are saying about the CO bear season. I bet that a lot of pro hunting and pro gun groups donate money to fight it. How many ranching and/or deer and elk farming groups donated money towards it?

quote:

I understand what you are saying about the CO bear season. I bet that a lot of pro hunting and pro gun groups donate money to fight it. How many ranching and/or deer and elk farming groups donated money towards it?

Probably a lot of folks from those group donated to that fight, since having hunted Colorado a few time and having met farmers and ranchers from there, they did not want to see the two best method for helping control the bear population become illegal. See, contrary to some of your and I do say again elitist beliefs, farmers and ranchers, it doe not matter if they are raising herefords or elk, they are still ranchers, really don't want a lot of bears running around the country side.

This major load of that people start throwing around about ethics is one of the most tireome and lame topics going. Ethics are individual concepts and cannot and should not be legislated.

Hunters as a group should have as their main goal/only goal, keping hunting alive. If or after that is accomplished, then and only then if there are form of hunting someone does not like or support work on getting the laws changed.

One thing I can gruarantee folks, because Texas is a strong Land Owners Rights state, getting the laws changed concerning high fence hunting operations changed ranks right up there beside getting Everest moved 10 feet to the left with a shovel.

Reelman, not asure what your hangup is about ranchers, regardless of what they raise, and farmers, but in the west, most or the majority of those folks are hunters and fishermen themselves and they are strong supporters of proper game management techniques.

Gentlemen, please read this thread, very relevant I think.

http://forums.accuratereloadin...3811043/m/7691016361

Crazy, You make it sound like I'm against high fence shooting which I'm not. I would not want to partake in them but I'm fine with them being around. You are trying to make this into something it is not.

Thanks for mentioning that discussion Ann. Anyone/Everyone that hunts/fishes/traps/ranches/farms/owns a pet/or likes to eat meat, needs to understand the animal rights people want ALL human interaction/use of animals in ANY MANNER, Stopped, PERIOD, No Exceptions.

I'd also like to bring up the heavily responded to post that was made on the African forum about a video where a man shot an ostrich with his bow from a bakkie. The cock bird was not restrained, in fact it kept on for the vehicle.

If any of you have EVER been around an ostrich you will know how aggressive and dangerous this animal can be. Yet over and over again people raged on and on that the 'hunt' was unfair, immoral, canned, not hunting, etc, etc.....

quote:

Crazy, You make it sound like I'm against high fence shooting which I'm not. I would not want to partake in them but I'm fine with them being around. You are trying to make this into something it is not.

Reelman, Please take one moment and explain to me this right here:

quote:

You are trying to make this into something it is not.

Just exactly WHAT I am trying to do here, or what is it you think I am trying to do??

Are you claiming that the various Animal Rights groups are NOT trying to get hunting stopped????? Or are you saying that Hunters as a group are NOT facing a real threat of getting our priveledge to hunt taken away from us, world wide?????????? Are both of these statements lies?????????

Reelman, the problem is and you can't see it for your own idealistic/elitist/prejudicial mind set about hunting. Just becuase YOU do not consider something as a form of hunting, does not mean that it isn't. If it is legal and the individuals that are doing it have no problems, then if they want to consider what they are doing as hunting that is their priveledge. It is fine iof you do not want to consider it hunting, but Dude, there are people out there that feel your hunting bear over a bait, Is Not Hunting.

It is your choice man, would you want other hunters to support allowing hunting bear over bait in your state or would you want people to set back and say, "That Isn't Hunting In My Book So I Don't Care If It Is Stopped".

I know I would want all the support I could get, even if fundementally the folks supporting the issue did not feel that what they were supporting was something they completely believed in. It is called looking at the bigger picture, and doing what is beneficial for everyone, not just the elitists/idealists.

I think the reason wolves were introduced back into the west was to eventually end hunting as we know it. They have really taken a toll on the elk in Idaho, I can tell you that. We must all stick together or else. JMO

I was looking around at other forums on here and I found one about hunting elephants near water holes and the big proponent of all hunters sticking together on this thread said that it was not real hunting to hunt an elephant close to a water hole??? So hunting a tame animal in a pen is hunting a wild animal that is close to water is not real hunting?

Reelman, I never stated anywhere that shooting an animal in a pen is real hunting. But as I said, many people feel that shooting a bear over a bait is not real hunting either, What Is Your Point?????

Answer one damn question without your idealistic BS, Do You Want To See All Hunting Outlawed Or Are You Willing To Compromise And Then Work On Changing The Things That We do Not Agree On????????

Really simple concept, not a Mensa candidate issue.

Which is more important to you? Seeing hunting continue or seeing it stopped because you do not agree with the way the word hunt is used.

Don, when I hunted black bear out of Elk City Idaho last September, the only big game I saw apart from th bear I shot were white tail deer. The outfitter and his wife stated trhat the wolves had wiped out the elk and moose in that area.

Of course I want to see hunting continued, even the styles that I don't want to partake in. I don't really care how someone kills, or has killed, their lifestock and if one way get's outlawed it will not affect me in the least. I would support their choice on how to kill their lifestock but it's not my fight, or the fight of hunters. It's the fight for farmers and ranchers.

quote:

if one way get's outlawed it will not affect me in the least.

Right there is where you completely miss the boat, and you are unable to see it.

Really sad. You simply cannot grasp the concept that the anti's are not going thru and picking and choosing what types or forms of hunting they are going to oppose, they oppose ALL forms of hunting.

You and whatever you consider hunting are not going to be exempt, it will affect you the same as it will affect the rest of us.

If the following offends you, then so be it, but so far in two discussions your biggest gripe is over the useage of a word or term.

With this one it has to do with what you feel should be considered hunting and what should not.

In the other it deals with your opposition to the use of the Boone&Crockett scoring system to quantify the size of antlers from a game animal.

I am really beginning to wonder about your actual intentions.

Are you really a hunter that has concerns about losing you priveledge to hunt along with everyone else, or does your intentions/agenda lie in another direction?

Great arguing point, you believe differently than me so you backhandedly accuse me of being an anti-hunter?

I realize that the anti's don't care whether I think it's hunting or not and that they want all killing stopped, I get that! But that doesn't mean that sportsmen need to blindly agree with every form of killing that goes on in the world. Sometimes it's those very sportsmen who need to do a little policing of the sport instead of just agreeing with everything.

IN a previous post you asked if I belonged to and supported the NRA. YEs I do belong, a life member in fact, and yes I support pretty much everything that they stand for. But that doesn't mean that I would support them if they argued for mentally ill people to be able to own a machine gun. It would still be gun ownership but it would be wrong.

See reelman right here is one of my points. The NRA is not going to support mentally ill people owning firearms, that is a totally ludicrous statement.

quote:

I realize that the anti's don't care whether I think it's hunting or not and that they want all killing stopped, I get that! But that doesn't mean that sportsmen need to blindly agree with every form of killing that goes on in the world. Sometimes it's those very sportsmen who need to do a little policing of the sport instead of just agreeing with everything.

Sportsmen do police their ranks, that is where the basis for all our modern game laws came from, sportsmen joined together and worked at getting practices such as spot-lighting deer, and year round hunting of game stopped. But tht type of system needs to remain in the realm of the people that partake in the "Sport(?)" not uniformed, emotional idiots A.K.A. anti-hunters/animal rights activists.

See I do not support the NRA, because I think there are some firearms that the average person should not have access too. Has the NRA done a good job over the years, yes it has. I just don't see things the way they do.

As I have stated many times over the time I have been on AR, I do not ask for people to agree with me, but I hope they will think in a realistic manner during a discussion.

Do I think you might be an anti-hunter just trying to stir the pot, it is a possibility. Your whole arguement about the use of the B&C scoring system is total nonsense. At no point has anyone stated that using the system to score a buck meant that the animal was eligible for entry into the B&C records program, everyone, but you realizes that it is a commonly used and accepted method to determine the size of a set of antlers.

I asked, would you want fellow hunters to support your priveledge of hunting bears over bait or would you prefer that they turn their backs and say, "That Ain't Hunting In My Book So It Can Be Stopped For All I Care".

The whole B&C thing is because the person is misrepresenting his animals and he, and you, know it. Yes I realize that many people use B&C as way of scoring animals but someone who is in the business of selling deer knows full well that by using B&C in association with fenced animals is being dishonest. He knows what SCI is and could have, and should have, used SCI instead of B&C.

I never said that bear hunting over bait should be stopped or that it could be stopped for all I care so please stop putting words in my mouth. I said that I wouldn't affect me if a certain way of someone killing their lifestock was outlawed.

I'm guessing that you have some vested interest in high fence hunting since you seem to want to get sportsmen to support something that doesn't affect them. You try to make us feel like we are turning our backs on other sportsmen which we are not doing.

I have no interest in high fenced hunting whatsoever.

I have hunted on some high fence places and they ran the gamut from really good to really sickening. For the most part however, high fenced hunting is not my thing, but I damn sure ain't gonna be some sort of pious idealist and tell anyone that wants to call it hunting that it isn't.

As for your continueing hissy fit about the use of term _____ Class B&C Buck, is not misrepresenting a damn thing. If it stated that the buck could be entered into the awards program of the Boone&Crockett Club, that would be a misrepresentation, actually an outright lie, but it does not say that.

Reelman you are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else. You or anyone else setting themself up as the judge of what is and is not ethical, to me is stepping into an area that has no real cut and dried boundaries, because ethics, like opinions are personal to each individual.

If people cannot put aside their differences and support legal hunting practices, then hunting will be lossed to our future generations. It is that simple. As someone else stated earlier, legal hunting methods vary from state to state, region to region, country to country.

To brand a form of hunting as unethical or as not really hunting, without ever trying it or having first hand knowledge of it, simply because it does not fit in with an indivduals personal concept of what hunting is, makes them just as bad as the anti-hunting element.

Just because a person has a lack of real knowledge about something or the "knowledge(???)" they have is based on flawed or erroneous information, does not mean that thing is illegal or unethical.

Now you bring up ethics? This discusion had nothing to do with ethics, mearly technical terms of what is hunting. You say that people need to support all forms of legal hunting yet you started this thread asking what was hunting. So in other words if we don't agree with you what is and what isn't hunting we are wrong. Why did you even ask the question if you put down anyone who doesn't hold the same view as you do? Just to put them down and to try to make them feel bad for not supporting killing of tame animals?

So by your own definition you are just as bad as an anti-hunter since you don't think hunting elephants near a water hole is real hunting. And I don't have to partake in something to know if it's wrong or not for me. I don't have to rape someone to know that it's wrong. God gave us a brain so that each of us don't have to all exreiance and try things to know if they are rigth or wrong.

As to the B&C thing. So if a guy advertises a rifle hunt saying that could shoot a buck that scores 180" P&Y you would not have a problem with that either? It's the same scoring system but since they are shot with a rifle they can not be considered P&Y just like a tame animal shot behind a fence can not be considered B&C. The guy used B&C because B&C holds more status than SCI

quote:

So by your own definition you are just as bad as an anti-hunter since you don't think hunting elephants near a water hole is real hunting.

Funny, I joined AR in 2006. I just did a search, and evidently either I do not know how to use the search feature or you flat assed lied.

So, if you are not lieing, post a link or quote to the discussion I am supposed to have said that on.

Let's see who pulled the ethics card first:

quote:

Crazy, I do get it. You think that as hunters we should stand up for any form of whatever anybody calls hunting. I disagree with this and it is not because of an elietest attitude but from believing that sometimes just because it's legal does not mean that it's the right thing to do and when things are unethical, even if legal, hunters are not obligated to defend it.

I belioeve if you will look back thru this discussion, you were the first person to throw in the ethics card...

http://forums.accuratereloadin...1411043/m/1091084361

9th post down!

quote:

So in other words if we don't agree with you what is and what isn't hunting we are wrong. Why did you even ask the question if you put down anyone who doesn't hold the same view as you do? Just to put them down and to try to make them feel bad for not supporting killing of tame animals?

+1

Dressing up in camo, loading your firearm and shooting a farm raised animal in an enclosure from which it cannot escape is not hunting.

It's not in my definition of hunting and never will be.

quote:

9th post down!

That entire thread has nothing to do with hunting elephants at water holes.

quote:

In Hwange national park, Zim. There are now hunts being offered. Granted this is ok'd by parks because it is their ration animal quota that has always been shot

This has to do evidently, with a goverment agency or official working out a deal with someone to allow people to go into a national park and shoot animals.

I have said all the way thru this discussion, that you don't get it and you don't.

I have been saying that while the high fence places are not my cup of tea, if someone wants to avail themselves of the operations services and say that it is hunting that is fine with me. Your state governs such places thru the states Dept. of Agriculture. Here in Texas it falls under the jurisdictipon of TP&W, and it is considered hunting.

The thread and post you are mentioning deals with nothing more than legalized poaching. In reality, to be a successful poacher you either have to have a lot of dumb luck or be a really good hunter.

quote:

Dressing up in camo, loading your firearm and shooting a farm raised animal in an enclosure from which it cannot escape is not hunting.

It's not in my definition of hunting and never will be.

It is not my definition of hunting either, but I will be damned if I stand by and let ANY legal form of hunting be banned simply because I do not agree with it. I do not think that someone setting up at 800 or 900 yard or more away from an animal and taking a shot at it is hunting either, but it is legal and the people that enjoy it deserve to be defended also.

As for this:

quote:

So in other words if we don't agree with you what is and what isn't hunting we are wrong.

I do not care for nor am I asking for anyone to agree with me. I am asking for people to honetly define what hunting means to them, and to think about what losing hunting will mean to them. I haven't said that anyone was wrong, I have said that I don't agree with them

Evidently, some folks have a more narrow definition of what is and is not hunting than others.

Reelman, I made a mistake! Take a look at this right here: MN Hunter, I don't see anyone judging someone elses legal pursuits. We may not consider them hunting but that doesn't mean that we consider them unethical or anything. This was your nthird post in this discussion, and you threw out the ethics card.

Bottom line either hunters reach some kind of truce/arrangement, whatever and join forces to put up ome kind of defense against the propaganda being spread by the anti-hunting forces or we roll over and watch hunting die. At least we can hunt until that happens and we will have our memories of what it was like.

Hopefully those that follow us won't hold our inability to hold on to what is probably the oldest and most basic life function that helped us evolve into the planets dominant species.