Yes I am still a hunter, but when I shot the bison it was not hunting.

I never said that when someone partakes in a high fence shoot they can never be called a hunter.

And I thought the internet shooting of animals was some enterprising person who saw a market and tried to profit from it. His one and only client was a paralyzed man from Indiana by the way. You are correct that it is in no way, shape or form hunting. I never said it was. Some feel the same way about high fence and other methods of hunting and yet they are elitists for having those opinions, by your "logic" you could be considered an elitist for wanting to ban the internet form of taking animals. Just something to think about.

I can guarantee it does not matter to the antis, they want it all stopped. One little aspect the zealots may be overlooking, is that high fenced/private property "hunting" may be the ONLY "hunting" left if the anti's have their way. Getting hunting shut down on Public Land is a real threat.

Crazy

quote:

I can guarantee it does not matter to the antis, they want it all stopped. One little aspect the zealots may be overlooking, is that high fenced/private property "hunting" may be the ONLY "hunting" left if the anti's have their way. Getting hunting shut down on Public Land is a real threat.

It will be harder to stop Private Landowners from doing what they wish with what has the potential of becoming Privately owned livestock, but that is a whole different kettle of fish.

Nail hit on the head, let the privately owned operations who sell livestock to be shot defend themselves. These animals are livestock. The ag lobbie will defend them til the cows come home, or deer or elk etc as the case may be. By lumping these businesses in with hunting wild animals is what confuses the public and emboldens the anti's.

Slim, I am probably reading some folks wrong, which is no really big stretch of the imagination. But some of the statements that have been made leave the perception that once a person avails themselves of a high fenced property, they are no longer a hunter and have no right to refer to themselves a such. I just do not buy in to that line of belief or thought.

I am sure this will draw a fair samount of fire and I will be called a liar and know nothing, but on an audio tape made several years back by Ken Wilson, of Sportsmen On Film, of an interview he did with Peter Capstick, Capstick made the statement that hunting the High Fenced ranches in RSA and Namibia would possibly be the only thing that would save hunting in Africa.

The premise being that the animals on the ranches were Private Property not Public. Since African countries do not as a whole have a real great current history record of being stable or expending money on wildlife management, I tend to agree with PHC's assessment.

Now as soon as all the folks that know PHC to be an ignorant-drunken-fraud get thru with their histrionics, maybe the discussion can move along or die.

quote:

Just some thoughts on a rainy day

Good thoughts that I can and do agree with. Saeed pointed out one time that in the end we are all shooters. To me the difference lies in the amount of effort and energy required to reach the moment of taking the shot.

The only real difference, is that it does not bother me for a person to call themself a hunter or refer to what they are doing as hunting.

All a person, ANY DAMN PERSON ON THIS PLANET, with very,very,very few exceptions has to do is look in the mirror at their own face. Even though the antis do not want to think of it that way or in these terms but if you are a human being You Are A Hunter, just look where your eyes are at, onthe front of your face, just like every other mammal or bird that is a predator.

This whole 6 pages of tripe was generated solely over the concepts of the useage of the words Hunter and Hunting, and who should or should not be allowed to use them or view themselves or what they do as being either of the terms.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
...I do not care whether anyone takes me seriously or not. The intelligent people on this site seem to ignore me...

This is the greatest worst comeback I have ever seen!

What about I do not give a shit what you think do you not understand?

This is an open forum, I have never asked for agreement from anyone on anything I have posted.

My mind and my opinion is not going to change about the threat I feel anti hunters/the anti huntimng movement poses for the future of hunting n ot only in California but thre world.

Nor am I going to change my mind concerning the effect the elitist attitude some hunters have over what is or is not/should or should not be considered/cvlassified/referred to as hunting or who is eligible to refer to themself as a hunter.

Nor am I going to change my stance on my belief that the various game departments are trying to only manage game populations to produce "Trophy" animals or that the situation with the scimitar horn oryx was a knee jerk reaction, which in the long run after everything calms down will only have one negative effect and that is no one will ever get the chance to shoot another one at anywhere near the prices that were being charged during the panic, which translates to a negative impact on hunters.

Nor will I quit basing my opinions on what I think/feel or experience. Facts are facts and opinions are simply thoughts/ideas or beliefs that may or may not be completely accurate, but they are an individuals right to form and have.

Nor will I quit believing that the constant argueing over ethical vs. unethical vs. legalities in regards to hunting only provide another line of division among hunters.

If there is none of the above you cannot understsand too damn bad.