logo
 

Go Back   HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-18-2007, 07:48 PM   #1
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location:
Posts: 16
Default Vick & Hunting

This was written by Frank Deford for the DPR comparing dog fighting to hunting behind a fence. What do you think? I will defend any type of hunting as long as it is legall!!!!!!!! If one type of hunting is outlawed the rest will follow in time!!!!!!!




Morning Edition, August 8, 2007 ยท There has been some muted protest that Michael Vick has been suspended too precipitously by the National Football League and unfairly stripped of his rich endorsements, before the indictments against him for dogfighting and dog-killing could be settled in court.
However, given the heinous charges against Vick, it is difficult to imagine any public company "” yours, for example? "” that would blithely keep such an employee till the government had gotten round to working things out with him.
The presumption of innocence may be one of the most hallowed tenets of our justice system. But let's face it, in an informed society "” most especially where details are well publicized "” citizens of good will will arrive at their own conclusions. Sometimes, of course, these assumptions will run wild. In sport, we have no further to look than the notorious Duke lacrosse case. But, then, as the presumption of innocence is a final safeguard, the presumption of shame is a precipitate reality that public figures must take into account when they choose to misbehave.
And Vick's infamy has at least put the spotlight on the loathsome business of dog-fighting. Who knew that the Humane Society estimates that there are as many as 40,000 Americans who fight dogs? And there are, too, other animal torture amusements in this country that, lacking a celebrity to spotlight them, actually remain legal in many states.
For example, are you familiar with something called "canned hunting?" This is fun for that greatest of oxymorons "” sportsmen. These are hunters who go to what are called, yes, "shooting preserves." There, animals are conveniently penned in for paying customers with a "no-kill, no-pay" guarantee, so they can be "sure shot" at close range. Fish in a barrel. Many of the technically wild animals are actually semi-tame, used to humans who feed them. They see a truck approaching, they think it's the feed wagon, they come closer, and the paying sportsman blasts away.
Only about half our states have any restrictions against canned hunting. There are about 1,000 shooting preserves in the U.S. "” 500 alone in the great state of Texas.
Or, if you're a sportsman too busy to actually leave your comfortable home to kill a defenseless animal, Internet hunting is just for you. It's easy. You go online and are connected to a shooting preserve that may be hundreds of miles away, where you see your prey before you. You zero in on the target on your computer screen and touch a button that activates a gun that blows away the unsuspecting, docile animal. The trophy head will be shipped to you, you brave, big-game hunter, for display on your wall.
Sixteen states have no strictures against Internet hunting. One of them is the great state of Georgia, where so many citizens have been upset that the accused dog-slaughterer Vick plays for their Atlanta Falcons.
I'm personally revulsed by Michael Vick, but the sad fact is that, in the animal-cruelty business, he shares company with a lot of other distinguished American sportsmen
280IM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2007, 10:29 PM   #2
 
BigTiny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 3,145
Default RE: Vick & Hunting

I don't like high fence hunting, but last time I checked this was a free country, so if someone wants to spend their money doing it, fine. It's just not for me. I will say the animal beng shot in a high fence dies a more dignified death than anything in the supermarket.
BigTiny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2007, 05:25 AM   #3
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location:
Posts: 16
Default RE: Vick & Hunting

I am no fan of high fence hunting but a lot of my fellow hunters and shooters are. Like you say it is a free country. A bill backed by North Dakota hunters to outlaw the shooting of animals behind a fencebecause they say it is not ethical, is now being placed on a petion in order to get it on the ballot for the public to vote on.

This will open the door for anti-hunters,animal rights poeple,and PETA to get a foot in the door to help stop all hunting.


280IM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2007, 06:59 AM   #4
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Obama made me join the NRA for 5 years !
Posts: 2,181
Default RE: Vick & Hunting

fenced animals are owned, dogs are owned

fenced animals are property, dogs are property

fenced animals can be shot and killed in the name of "sport" - can you say the same thing about killing dogs ?

be very afraid of the precedence being set here and the relation it has to canned hunting and hunting itsself, because before you know it? hunting will be labeled cruel, inhumane and it will be banned
Big Duane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2007, 07:10 AM   #5
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location:
Posts: 16
Default RE: Vick & Hunting

YOU GOT IT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
280IM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2007, 07:26 AM   #6
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 2,602
Default RE: Vick & Hunting

First of all, I don't want shooting animals on a "reserve" to be referred to as hunting. It isn't hunting. It's shooting. I realize there are varying degrees of difficulty depending on the size of the enclosure and the type of animal hunted, but at the end of the day, they still guarantee that you're going to leave with a kill, and that's hardly hunting.

On the other hand, I don't have a problem with fenced "hunts" if that's what someone wants to do. If someone wants to pay $1,500 to shoot a boar that I can shoot free-roaming in Tennessee for free, fine. I just don't want to see the shooter refer to it as hunting or show me the head mounted on his wall and brag about it. I do have a problem with someone paying to shoot something they don't intend to use for meat just so they can have a trophy on their wall, but I have the same problem with hunters out in the wild. The bottom line is that as long as we purchase our beef and poultry wrapped in cellophane and injected with chemicals at the supermarket, it's a little hypocritical of us to argue that shooting fenced wildlife is inhumane.

All that said, to make the argument that canned hunts and dog fighting are comparable is asinine, in my opinion. Few of those who argue against canned hunting have a problem with the way cows and pigs are rounded up and sent to market and butchered. But who among us would argue that it would be humane to let two whitetail deer fight to the death while we stand around and bet on the winner? Or that it would be humane to electrocute the deer that didn't "perform" well? The author of that piece is making a silly comparison.
__________________
We must be the change we wish to see in the world -- Ghandi
http://www.rightminded.net
BenGarrett is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Not about Michael Vick... ipscshooter Politics 6 08-30-2007 04:32 PM
Vick and PETA!! MILLERTIME10 Politics 3 07-24-2007 07:36 AM

 

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:56 PM.