Fair Chase vs High Fence Hunting Debate?
12-28-2012, 11:42 AM
#42
Spike
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Rochester, New York
Posts: 55
There are idiots everywhere. No one asked you to sit around the campfire and sing Kumbaya. Just asked that you do your thing and let others do theirs.
12-28-2012, 11:54 AM
#43
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 9,557
You all can hunt anyway you want, but that doesn't stop me from having an opinion about it. I don't tell hunters what to do, or to do it my way. I'm not that foolish.
12-28-2012, 03:23 PM
#44
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Erie, Colorado
Posts: 1,530
Topgun,
If your question is somehow directed towards me, then of course I have heard of the antis. . I have fought plenty of battles, pertaining to wildlife conservation and hunting, both nationally and internationally for more years than I care to remember. I have been pretty much “anti –anti”, if there is such an expression. I am not some know nothing on this issue, thank you very much.
With that said, let’s delve into your comments…
First off, I find darn near everything you have stated to be disingenuous. You are simply regurgitating talking points which have been rehashed for at least a hundred years. We had “small game farms” then and we still have them today. Nothing has changed. The fact is, people have been cultivating animals for thousands of years. Most folk, even city folk, are savvy to this worldly practice. I doubt there will ever be enough of a majority to outright ban “animal husbandry”. It’s good simply outweighs the bad…
Moving on, you are entirely right about the animal rights groups. Yes, they do want to abolish all hunting, but you know well it doesn’t stop there. They are adamant about stopping anything that involves the harming or killing of animals, period. If you were to give this deeper consideration, you would come to the same conclusion as me. That is, there isn’t a thing you or I (any of us) can do to change their idealism. As a matter of fact, it’s not even worth the effort to try.
The animal rights groups are no different than any other bête noire. They look for any weak link as they implement a “divide and conquer” strategy. There are those among us who serve the antis everything they want on a silver platter. They are usually the “tiny thinkers” who believe theirs is the only way to do a “real” hunt. Too many of us know differently, and we tend to keep what we do quiet.
If it's speculation you want, then how often do we hear, “I shot it, but I couldn’t find it”? Well, one could certainly argue, even the city people, that such a waste of a naturally resource could be eliminated if we were to ALL fish in barrels. It’s something to think about. Maybe the majority should vote that direction, eh?
We might be better served if we live and let live....
If your question is somehow directed towards me, then of course I have heard of the antis. . I have fought plenty of battles, pertaining to wildlife conservation and hunting, both nationally and internationally for more years than I care to remember. I have been pretty much “anti –anti”, if there is such an expression. I am not some know nothing on this issue, thank you very much.
With that said, let’s delve into your comments…
First off, I find darn near everything you have stated to be disingenuous. You are simply regurgitating talking points which have been rehashed for at least a hundred years. We had “small game farms” then and we still have them today. Nothing has changed. The fact is, people have been cultivating animals for thousands of years. Most folk, even city folk, are savvy to this worldly practice. I doubt there will ever be enough of a majority to outright ban “animal husbandry”. It’s good simply outweighs the bad…
Moving on, you are entirely right about the animal rights groups. Yes, they do want to abolish all hunting, but you know well it doesn’t stop there. They are adamant about stopping anything that involves the harming or killing of animals, period. If you were to give this deeper consideration, you would come to the same conclusion as me. That is, there isn’t a thing you or I (any of us) can do to change their idealism. As a matter of fact, it’s not even worth the effort to try.
The animal rights groups are no different than any other bête noire. They look for any weak link as they implement a “divide and conquer” strategy. There are those among us who serve the antis everything they want on a silver platter. They are usually the “tiny thinkers” who believe theirs is the only way to do a “real” hunt. Too many of us know differently, and we tend to keep what we do quiet.
If it's speculation you want, then how often do we hear, “I shot it, but I couldn’t find it”? Well, one could certainly argue, even the city people, that such a waste of a naturally resource could be eliminated if we were to ALL fish in barrels. It’s something to think about. Maybe the majority should vote that direction, eh?
We might be better served if we live and let live....
Last edited by iamyourhuckleberry; 12-28-2012 at 04:51 PM.
12-28-2012, 04:46 PM
#46
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Erie, Colorado
Posts: 1,530
Skinnnner,
On fenced military installations, it's called wildlife management. Hunting on base has nothing to do with livestock. Men wait years for the privilege to hunt in such controlled environments. I think Crane is like 108 square miles...others are much smaller.
I hunted "free range" musk oxen on Victoria Island. I knew going into the hunt that the success rate was 100 percent. The challenge wasn't in the hunt but rather getting to the artic. Should I assume I harvested livestock since these prehistoric looking beasts couldn't go anywhere?
I haven't received a single PM with regard to my wager. If it were merely the harvest of livestock, you would think all the "real hunters" would be jumping on the wagon to prove their theory. My experience tells me "real hunters" are all talk and no action.
On fenced military installations, it's called wildlife management. Hunting on base has nothing to do with livestock. Men wait years for the privilege to hunt in such controlled environments. I think Crane is like 108 square miles...others are much smaller.
I hunted "free range" musk oxen on Victoria Island. I knew going into the hunt that the success rate was 100 percent. The challenge wasn't in the hunt but rather getting to the artic. Should I assume I harvested livestock since these prehistoric looking beasts couldn't go anywhere?
I haven't received a single PM with regard to my wager. If it were merely the harvest of livestock, you would think all the "real hunters" would be jumping on the wagon to prove their theory. My experience tells me "real hunters" are all talk and no action.
12-28-2012, 05:11 PM
#47
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Allegan, MI
Posts: 8,019
Just call the canned, small enclosures what they are and that's it's killing or shooting, not hunting, and you will have no problem with me. Hunting is where the animal has a legitimate chance at survival when hunted and not where it was raised and fed in troughs where it became habituated to humans and then sold to someone who wants a 100% chance of taking an animal home when the dinner bell rings
"My experience tells me "real hunters" are all talk and no action."
That is about the dumbest thing I've read on this site in quite a while, other than the youngster that came on several days ago asking if he should violate the law and telling us he was already violating another one!!!
__________________
"My experience tells me "real hunters" are all talk and no action."
That is about the dumbest thing I've read on this site in quite a while, other than the youngster that came on several days ago asking if he should violate the law and telling us he was already violating another one!!!
__________________
Last edited by Topgun 3006; 12-28-2012 at 05:14 PM.
12-28-2012, 05:20 PM
#48
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 9,557
Skinnnner,
On fenced military installations, it's called wildlife management. Hunting on base has nothing to do with livestock. Men wait years for the privilege to hunt in such controlled environments. I think Crane is like 108 square miles...others are much smaller.
I hunted "free range" musk oxen on Victoria Island. I knew going into the hunt that the success rate was 100 percent. The challenge wasn't in the hunt but rather getting to the artic. Should I assume I harvested livestock since these prehistoric looking beasts couldn't go anywhere?
I haven't received a single PM with regard to my wager. If it were merely the harvest of livestock, you would think all the "real hunters" would be jumping on the wagon to prove their theory. My experience tells me "real hunters" are all talk and no action.
On fenced military installations, it's called wildlife management. Hunting on base has nothing to do with livestock. Men wait years for the privilege to hunt in such controlled environments. I think Crane is like 108 square miles...others are much smaller.
I hunted "free range" musk oxen on Victoria Island. I knew going into the hunt that the success rate was 100 percent. The challenge wasn't in the hunt but rather getting to the artic. Should I assume I harvested livestock since these prehistoric looking beasts couldn't go anywhere?
I haven't received a single PM with regard to my wager. If it were merely the harvest of livestock, you would think all the "real hunters" would be jumping on the wagon to prove their theory. My experience tells me "real hunters" are all talk and no action.
12-28-2012, 05:55 PM
#50
Typical Buck
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Where animals get eaten
Posts: 671
I dont understand canned hunts,whats the point?most of these hunts cost alot so you cant say its for the meat and if you shoot a huge racked animal,once ppl find out it was taken in a fence they lose intreast fast,personaly i see no trophy value in a fenced animal.