Sorry, forgot to post the link to the discussion.

http://www.linkedin.com/groupA...sc&ut=2_RNwO9NCusBg1



This is from another site, and the person making this statement is Ron Spomer, who's articles appear in various publicationss across the country.

Please notice how broad a brush he uses, and he supposedly supports hunting. With attitudes such as this, hlow do hunters expect to prersent a united front against the anti's.

quote:

I agree we need to maintain hunter numbers and even increase them, but are you saying if a guy opts to smoke, drink, do drugs, drop out of high school and can't afford to buy a hunting license we should let him hunt anyway? And we must all agree that any form of hunting -- behind a fence, tied to a tree, shot from a helicopter -- must be advocated and supported by all hunters before we can organize in defense of ethical hunting? Personally, I'm not willing to accept every form of hunting as ethical, let alone advocate for it. We've long had codes of conduct in hunting. Are you willing to permit waterfowling with .270 Wins? By dumping corn in shallow ponds? I fear you're painting with too broad a brush here. Don't we need some standards?

Without the whole context, this statement alone means nothing.

While I may think that Spomer is a bid of a bozo, I do not think he is out of line with HIS OPINION on this subject.

Do you believe that "Standards"/ethics should over ride/replace written laws/rules/regulations, nation wide/world wide?

Why should a person's choice of how or where to hunt, as long as it is LEGAL, concern anyone else or cause anyone else to find fault with it?

Which is more important, saving hunting for everyone that does it in legally prerscribed ways, or just for those that believe in an unwritten code of personal ethics that may not be or is not shared by everyone?

most of our hunting rules and laws are written to enforce both acceptable standards and ethics. Without which there are will always be folks who see no problem in using spot lights, wire snares, set guns, helicopters, and poison bait. Supporting hunting "by any means" will put both the game and hunting in peril.

As for Spomer, I have known and hunted with him for many years and while he may sometimes comes across as "bid of a bozo" sic - he is in fact a very ethical and dedicated hunter.

We have also over regulated hunting.

Especially in areas where game populations are high. In areas where game populations are high reduced regulations to take advantage of the high populations.

40 years ago we had a very small booklet for all game regs. Now we have large booklets for each animal.

We started out with no regs now I belive we are over regulated. Time to head back towards the middle.

quote:

most of our hunting rules and laws are written to enforce both acceptable standards and ethics. Without which there are will always be folks who see no problem in using spot lights, wire snares, set guns, helicopters, and poison bait. Supporting hunting "by any means" will put both the game and hunting in peril.

The point you missed or I left out not sure which, is not supporting hunting "By ANY Means", it is Supporting Legal Means/Methods of Hunting.

There is a huge differnce if the means or methods have been determined as Legal, no one should have a problem.

I am sure that Mr. Spomer is a highly thought of individual, Jim Zumbo was also. Hunting inside High Fenced areas has been deemed legal in many locations around the world.

Alienating people that have no problem hunting such places, sort of ranks right up there with the claims Zumbo made about Assault-type firearms.

Using a helicopter to hunt pigs and night vision equipment has been legalized in Texas. while neither appeal to me, they do to a lot of people. In the long run, which is more important having hunters participating in legal activities as allies or alienating them because even though what they are doing is legal, it does not fit in with a particular individuals sense of "Ethics"?

Ethical standards are above legal standards. It's a higher level of rules of conduct, beyond the defense of "it's legal".

He is saying that not all legal hunting meets his ethical standards. He is also saying that this state of affairs is damaging our chance of maintaining any hunting.

Some people get upset when others state their belief that high fence hunting or baiting is unethical. That's just the way it is.

We can do better than simply meet whatever system set up by the Feds and states. Honestly, have you seen how many idiotic indefensible laws have been passed?

As we have seen in several threads, "ethics" can mean a lot of different things to different people. That we must have a consensus before we can present a solid front to the world is somewhat of a pipe drea.
But support of any legal method of hunting really isn't too much to ask. In a lot of the post regarding different methods of hunting, it's pretty obvious that the dissentor isn't familar with the methods being discussed nor is he aware of the challenges presented. But that doesn't keep him from condeming the method since it is different from his own.
I'm sure many are aghast at the idea of using airplanes and night vision to kill hogs in TX. In Ok, they've been using airplanes to kill coyotes for years. It's legal. If you want to go to the trouble and expense of chartering an airplane, have at it. You'll find in short order, that it ain't nothing like shooting fish in a barrel. And, in truth, it isn't really hunting as much as it is animal control.
If it's legal, I think we should support it. Or at least stand mute.
Does this mean we must accept into our ranks every sloven, law-breaking poacher out there? I don't think so.

The problem is that just because we can legally kill things with a gun - does that alone qualify it as hunting?
I am licensed by the state of Alaska to shoot wolves from my airplane - it is useful means of reducing a population of animals - but I don't consider it hunting.
As hunters, if we don't show that we know the difference, how can we expect non-hunters to ?

quote:

Does this mean we must accept into our ranks every sloven, law-breaking poacher out there? I don't think so.

No, it does not, but I really do not believe anyone is promoting that either.

This in my opinion, is the best statement I have seen:

quote:

If it's legal, I think we should support it. Or at least stand mute.

If the activity is considered legal we need to do just what the statement above says. By making a comment and basically takling sides, simply because something does not mesh with their personal ethics, all they do is show support for the anti's, because the anti's do not differentiate between one form of hunting or another that want it all stopped.

Openly admitting on the InterNet that a certain activity is not what the person making the statement considers as "Real" hunting only gives the anti's a rallying point.

In the end the results will be the same, hunting will be taken away from us and we will lay all the blame on the Fourth Estate and Anti-Hunters and refuse to admit that our own personal beliefs concerning hunting and how it should be done, kept us from uniting and at least trying to make a difference.

quote:

As hunters, if we don't show that we know the difference, how can we expect non-hunters to

Non-hunters can be talked to and reasoned with.

Just because a perlon does not hunt, that does not make them an anti-hunter or even mean they have anything against people that do hunt.

Anti's are not going to listen anyway, their minds are made up and they are going to keep fighting for their goal, the end to ALL hunting.

quote:

Some people get upset when others state their belief that high fence hunting or baiting is unethical. That's just the way it is.

You and a few others equate a person with being "Upset" merely because they do not share YOUR ethics and are willing to express that.

I really want to see what all these so-called pronouncements of Higher Road ethics amount too when the Anti's obtain their goal.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:


This in my opinion, is the best statement I have seen:

quote:

If it's legal, I think we should support it. Or at least stand mute.

The problem I see with this is that while shooting penned old zoo animals - and I don't simply mean behind high wire - may be legal in places, if we as hunters don't voice our concern and let it be known that we don't consider that hunting , then we will all be painted with the same brush by the anti's .

And if we are conducting a culling operation, whether it is on wolves in Alaska or hogs in Texas, we need to let the antis know that what we are doing is legal - but it is not what we consider fair chase hunting.

quote:

then we will all be painted with the same brush by the anti's .

Not sure what it is that you cannot grasp, but we are painted by the same brush by the anti's no matter what we think or how we feel about hunting, they want it ALL stopped and they are not going to compromise in any way/shape/form or fashion.

Canned hunts, real honest to goodness canned hunts are illegal in most states to the best of my knowledge.

Problem is some folks consider any animal shot in a fenced area of ANY size as being a "Canned Hunt", that is just not true.

I am not defending "canned hunts", the anti's do not CARE whether a hunt is canned or not, ALL hunting is what they are working to stop and they are not going to make any distinctions as to whether it is hundreds of thousands of acres of Public Land in Alaska or 640 acres in Texas, high or low or no fence.

You, me, God can present facts and figures use flash cards, whatever, the Anti's deal with the strictly emotional. There are no verifiable fact about the message they spew forth, only pure/raw emotional images, no science involved.

the picture we are presenting them and the way they are painting us, is that as a group we cannot and do not unite when faced with a common enemy, we Find Or Create Lines Of Division , plain and simple and that is what is killing hunting.

You are correct that the far ends of the spectrum see everything in black and white.
Last spring when the AK F&G was hunting the wolves that killed and ate the school teacher from Chignik Ak, they were also culling some wolves that had been hanging around another close by village and eating sled dogs.
Even the state of AK ended up having to shoot from a fixed wing aircraft , while a helicopter picked up the carcasses, because shooting from a helicopter was not sporting.
That is the problem in a nut-shell They take our ethics and turn them on us - while failing to make the connection that killing and hunting are not the same thing.

Too many folks in our country and around the world have just grown up with no real ties to the land or nature. They developed their ideas about nature and humans role in it from watching Disney and Marty Stouffer and stuff on PBS that portrays humans as the problem.

They believe in letting nature achieve its own balance, not realizing that nature never has been balanced.

If things were the way they should be, people living 1000's of mile away in some concrete jungle would have no voice in game management anywhere, except maybe their home state.

But, our goverments do not see things that way, and some group always wants to try and control another group.

"Too many folks in our country and around the world have just grown up with no real ties to the land or nature. They developed their ideas about nature and humans role in it from watching Disney and Marty Stouffer and stuff on PBS that portrays humans as the problem.

They believe in letting nature achieve its own balance, not realizing that nature never has been balanced.

If things were the way they should be, people living 1000's of mile away in some concrete jungle would have no voice in game management anywhere, except maybe their home state.

But, our goverments do not see things that way, and some group always wants to try and control another group."

CHC---That, as I'm sure you realize, is true regardless of whether we're talking hunting, health care, or a jillion other things.It's just human nature at it's worst and that will never change IMO. I understand somewhat where you're coming from, but I can't in good conscience sit back and stay mute on things regarding hunting that I don't think are ethical even if they are legal. Incidentally, I believe you are incorrect in regards to your statement on "canned hunts" being illegal in most areas. The big problem even using that term is that many people call a place a "canned hunt" just because it has a high fence, no matter how many acres are encompassed, what the cover entails, or what animals are behind that fence. There are way too many variables and that causes a lot of the rucus when you start discussing game proof fencing. I do agree that the antis shouldn't even be considered in the equation because many of them are alarmed if an ant is stepped on. Nothing will change teir mind, so drop them from the discussion IMO. It's the majority of the population who aren't hunters or antis and as of right now are "on the fence" as to which way they would vote if hunting were put on the ballot. That's why I feel that we should not stand mute on things we feel are not ethical before there is a vote to tell us what the majority think. I can tell you we would lose if it came to that because of the way hunting is portrayed to, and believed by, most who don't know any better in those cities that are thousands of miles away from the action. Finally, I wish the hunting community would get together and call all this aerial gunning/culling of hogs and wolves what it really is, rather than having any nonhunters who hear or read about it think that's it's any type of hunting when it isn't.

Just because something is legal it doesn't make it ethical.

You can be unethical while not breaking a law and you can be ethical and have broken a law.

I will never use a "if it's legal it's ethical" argument for anything. Just look at the clowns that make the laws

All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

I will not "stand mute". Standing mute means I am supporting unethical behavior. That is intolerable.

quote:

Originally posted by drummondlindsey:
Just because something is legal it doesn't make it ethical.

You can be unethical while not breaking a law and you can be ethical and have broken a law.

I will never use a "if it's legal it's ethical" argument for anything. Just look at the clowns that make the laws

Yep, agree, It's true with "group" ethics but especially true when it comes to an INDIVIDUAL'S ethics.

quote:

Just because something is legal it doesn't make it ethical.

While I agree with that, the anti's do not give an FRA whether what we are doing is legal lor ethical, they want huntinmg stopped.

It is the voting, non-hunting public that needs to be educated that what we are doing is LEGAL.

They do not give a damn about our ethics, simply because ethics vary from region to region. throw in situational ethics, something which EVERY hunter I have ever met has to deal with at some point, and legalities become the deciding factor for the majority of hunters.

quote:

It is the voting, non-hunting public that needs to be educated that what we are doing is LEGAL.

I have to disagree with you on that CHC. I think it's just the opposite. Isn't it logical for those nonhunting voters to know that what we are doing is legal or we wouldn't be doing it? I think the last word in your sentence should be ethical. If they can be convinced by the looney antis that hunting in any form is not ethical, even though they know it's legal at the present time, they may vote to make it illegal if it comes to a vote, but they will base their decision on ethics. I hope that came across as I intended it! That's why some of the crapolla going on now like with "canned hunts" being considered by many hunters "as none of our business as long as it's legal" needs to change and why I can't stay mute on the subject when it comes up. The nonhunting public as well as ALL hunters, IMHO, need to be educated that shooting an animal in a small enclosure is not what any of us consider hunting and is not the norm, but rather a fraction of one percent of what actually goes on when killing an animal.

quote:

It is the voting, non-hunting public that needs to be educated that what we are doing is LEGAL.

Quite true. That's why the antis begin with practices that are legal but might border on being unethical (unsportsman like?)-- at least in their eyes. So if the antis can convince the non-hunters that one or more aspects of hunting is unethical, they will have gained something to hang their hats on.

So with no internal policing from hunters themselves of certain questionable "ethics" that are indeed legal, the antis will use them to start moving the non-hunters to their side of the line.

And yes, I already know the antis view ALL hunting as unethical and want it all abolished. Thus no need to preach that well-known fact. Then again, it's makes no sense to help them to that end.

Spoomer, who has been a friend of mine for about 38 years or so, had it right.

You have to remember he(Spoomer)has a warped sense of humor,kinda like a lot of folks do.
Some get it some don't.

Each and everyone of us has our own view of the situation, and that is what will ultimately kill our sport.

We cannot put our differences aside long enough to form any sort of united front, it is that simple.

Each of us view hunting from what it means to us, and expect everyone else to feel the same way. That is not going to happen.

quote:

Originally posted by drummondlindsey:
Just because something is legal it doesn't make it ethical.

While I tend to agree with the philosophy of this statement, when I look closely at it, I get confused.
Please cite an instance where a type of hunting would be legal but not ethical. And might as well give me an example of a ethical hunting act that would be illegal. (Please don't use shooting a car hit deer as an example)

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:

quote:

Originally posted by drummondlindsey:
Just because something is legal it doesn't make it ethical.

While I tend to agree with the philosophy of this statement, when I look closely at it, I get confused.
Please cite an instance where a type of hunting would be legal but not ethical. And might as well give me an example of a ethical hunting act that would be illegal. (Please don't use shooting a car hit deer as an example)

I think the post is intending to indicate that ethics are a personal view and can't be
Egislated. In some places it is legal to shoot turkeys from their roost, I find this completely unethical, but it is legal and I have seen people who participate in this practice defend it as ethical.

Regardless of what chicken little says on these forums every week, hunting is not going to die because people have different views of what is ethical.

quote:

Regardless of what chicken little says on these forums every week, hunting is not going to die because people have different views of what is ethical.

Refer to it as Chicken Little or however you want. Two points of fact remain, 1,the anti's have a common goal that they are gaining ground with, and 2, hunters cannot form a united force because of personal attitudes about hunting and because many simply refuse to believe that the anti's are gaining power and having an affect.

Many of these disbelievers are the same ones that did not believe Obama would wion in 2008. Tell us how well that worked out for you. Just because your not seeing it where you live does not mean it isn't happening or that it won't affect you in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
While I tend to agree with the philosophy of this statement, when I look closely at it, I get confused.
Please cite an instance where a type of hunting would be legal but not ethical. And might as well give me an example of a ethical hunting act that would be illegal. (Please don't use shooting a car hit deer as an example)

I know of people that have shot "trophy size" animals in very small enclosures in TX and in Canada and proudly show the pictures and talk about the "hunt". Completely unethical in my opinion but legal.

If you were to put a mortally wounded deer down and not tag it you technically have broken a law but it was the ethical thing to do.

I find abortion, gay marriage and prostitution unethical but all are legal in all or parts of the US.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Regardless of what chicken little says on these forums every week, hunting is not going to die because people have different views of what is ethical.

Refer to it as Chicken Little or however you want. Two points of fact remain, 1,the anti's have a common goal that they are gaining ground with, and 2, hunters cannot form a united force because of personal attitudes about hunting and because many simply refuse to believe that the anti's are gaining power and having an affect.

Many of these disbelievers are the same ones that did not believe Obama would wion in 2008. Tell us how well that worked out for you. Just because your not seeing it where you live does not mean it isn't happening or that it won't affect you in the future.

By your reasoning you support gay marriage, abortion and prostitution.

quote:

By your reasoning you support gay marriage, abortion and prostitution.

Gay marriage, no I do not support that, plain and simple.

Abortion, I can see it being a neccessary evil and in cases of rape/incest a perfectly reasonable option.

Prostitution, legalize it, tax it, and it would cut crime number substantially, just like legalizing marijuwanna would.

What does any of that have to do with hunting or the anti-hunting movement.......NOTHING, nothing at all.

Don't like the discussion or the realities of what is being pointed out, derail the discussion.

Don't want to discuss the subject, don't want to think about the subject, don't want to admit that there is a problem and a growing problem at that, just find a way to change the subject.

That is sort of like getting drunk, one does not have to face realities, until they sober up and notice that all that they accomplished was getting a headache, but the problem is still there and just as real.

Ah yes the weekly lets see what kind of shit we can stir up thread.

Hey, someone has to do it.

Never seen a problem of anykind go away just because someone tried to ignore it or act like it does not exist.

I am sure that there are folks out in California that wished now that they would have paid more attention to what was happening.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
What does any of that have to do with hunting or the anti-hunting movement.......NOTHING, nothing at all.

Don't like the discussion or the realities of what is being pointed out, derail the discussion.

Don't want to discuss the subject, don't want to think about the subject, don't want to admit that there is a problem and a growing problem at that, just find a way to change the subject.

I merely posted more instances of things that were legal that most feel are unethical. You were the genius that supports the "If it's legal, I think we should support it. Or at least stand mute." argument

News flash Crazy, I'm not good at standing mute. If we cannot police ourselves as sportsman we risk having other do it for us yet you tell everybody here that we should just STFU if we see things that we don't agree with. I'm glad you weren't Paul Revere, you would have tiptoed through the streets whispering "the British are coming"

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
most of our hunting rules and laws are written to enforce both acceptable standards and ethics. Without which there are will always be folks who see no problem in using spot lights, wire snares, set guns, helicopters, and poison bait. Supporting hunting "by any means" will put both the game and hunting in peril.

As for Spomer, I have known and hunted with him for many years and while he may sometimes comes across as "bid of a bozo" sic - he is in fact a very ethical and dedicated hunter.

Plus his a very funny guy!

quote:

Originally posted by drummondlindsey:

News flash Crazy, I'm not good at standing mute. If we cannot police ourselves as sportsman we risk having other do it for us yet you tell everybody here that we should just STFU if we see things that we don't agree with. [/QUOTE]

Two points: If "MOST" of the folks felt an action was unethical, it wouldn't be legal.
Secondly, how in the f**k can we police outselves when we can't even agree on what is ethical??

Your example of someone killing a pen raised trophy animal isn't about hunting, it's about killing and lying. I'm not a record book kinda guy (most of my shit is too small anyway)but I think the various trophy books have taken steps to define what is fair chase and what is pen raised.
And, although I asked not to use a car hit deer as an example, you did anyway. The harvesting of road kill animals vary from state to state. The arguments for and against relate to waste of food on the one hand and the possible abuse by poachers on the other. There is logic on both sides.
As far as standing mute, if you don't like something, work to have it changed. Don't just scream and abuse the folks that are doing what is legal. Take you message to the public. If enough of them see the logic and ethics of what you're selling, the laws will be changed. If you've just got to make noise, make it in the right place.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
I am sure that there are folks out in California that wished now that they would have paid more attention to what was happening.

Once again Californian hunters knew what has been going on for a long time and could not stop it because of the voting numbers we have here.

Personally its hard to listen to a guy about “hunters sticking together” when you bring up California so much and make the comments you make.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:

And, although I asked not to use a car hit deer as an example, you did anyway. The harvesting of road kill animals vary from state to state. The arguments for and against relate to waste of food on the one hand and the possible abuse by poachers on the other. There is logic on both sides.
As far as standing mute, if you don't like something, work to have it changed. Don't just scream and abuse the folks that are doing what is legal. Take you message to the public. If enough of them see the logic and ethics of what you're selling, the laws will be changed. If you've just got to make noise, make it in the right place.

WTF are you talking about?!? I didn't mention road kill at all. Road kill wasn't even on my mind when I gave you an example. I have come across mortally wounded animals a number of times that were not wounded by a vehicle. I am sorry that you could not wrap your mind around the fact that animals are mortally wounded by ways other than vehicles. The specific case I was remembering when I gave you that example was when a childhood friend of mine put down a deer that had its jaw blown off by another hunter. Somebody saw him put it down and then walk away continuing his hunt and didn't realize that it had been previously wounded. The game warden was called and my friend was cited. It was the ethical thing to do but in the eyes of the game warden it was illegal

Since that was too difficult for you allow me to give you another example. In many states the use of radios to guide hunters to game is illegal. It's illegal because a lot of people feel that it is unethical. Some states allow the use of radios but it causes quite a stir. Boone and Crockett and Pope and Young will not allow animals killed when radios were used because they feel it is unethical.

Dummondlindsey, I'll type this real slow so's you can understand it.
Take you loud, sarcastic, abusive mouth and the head it's attached to and stick it up your ass. Can you wrap your head around that?
You wonder why sportsmen can't present a common front? Everytime someone starts a decent, calm discussion, there's someone like you that believes "my way or the highway" and if I get sarcastic enough, loud enough, it'll prove I'm right.
Go ahead and make your loud, abusive rebuttal but I've got nothing else to say to you.