WHA Question
07-12-2006, 10:14 PM
#31
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lake County, Il
Posts: 2,205
RE: WHA Question
No Sir I don't like it. I believe Peta has come out against this game as well. What I see happening is that you will be able to go to this ranch(enclosure) dart a gigantic whitetai buck, have yor picture taken with itand next week some other "hunter" will get the same privelege, for a fee of course. Heck you'll probably ba able to get a reproduction mount as well. These guys will have a renewable resource on these ranches. This will not bring real hunters to the sport,and they won't shut down hunting because we're the only ones keeping the game populations in check through normal predator/prey relationship. This televised competition will be nothing more than an infommercial for their business. personally I find it distasteful but if these guys get it televised they will make a lot of money. They're not in it for the good of hunting only for themselves. I hope they fail miserably. Thank you for listening.
07-12-2006, 10:42 PM
#32
Join Date: May 2006
Location:
Posts: 22
RE: WHA Question
ORIGINAL: Rob/PA Bowyer
Now your making assumptions that deer can take a dart at 300 fps. No arrow blunt, dart or bird point will not wound a deer out of such a bow...thus the reason it is illegal to blunt deer.
AND, if you make one more name call be it me as a moron or any other member on this site, your debates will no longer be welcome. If you can't make your point without it, don't bother.
ORIGINAL: bowsmacker
You are making assumptions without knowing the arrowsystem the WHA will be using. They may not be shooting the same arrow speed as you. They may be using a blunt on the end of the dart.Both of thesewould determine the kinetic energy at impact. Deer are tough critters and take worse beatings in the wild all the time.
That wasan assumption you made and we are all getting tired of hearing assumptions.
Lets hear facts.
You are making assumptions without knowing the arrowsystem the WHA will be using. They may not be shooting the same arrow speed as you. They may be using a blunt on the end of the dart.Both of thesewould determine the kinetic energy at impact. Deer are tough critters and take worse beatings in the wild all the time.
That wasan assumption you made and we are all getting tired of hearing assumptions.
Lets hear facts.
AND, if you make one more name call be it me as a moron or any other member on this site, your debates will no longer be welcome. If you can't make your point without it, don't bother.
What other name calling...I remember saying moron but I thought I said it over at ArcheryTalk this afternoon. Refresh my memory or send me a PM
Also, Post # was inappropriate if we are going to nit pick...this is exactly why i call names out when a good guy starts a post and gets attacked with people telling him something like "if you cant understand then you should just join the slobs and let the door kick you in the a$$ on the way out" That wasnt cool man. That guy just wanted to talk about the issue and he got pushed away and I know thats not what this forum is for.
I will play nice for now on as long as everybody else does
07-12-2006, 10:50 PM
#33
Join Date: May 2006
Location:
Posts: 22
RE: WHA Question
ORIGINAL: bowsmacker
Nope you made another assumption. I never said 300 fps and i know for a fact a deer cant be shot with even a blunt at that speed. Im sure the arrow flight speed will be less than the 300 you ASSUMED.
What other name calling...I remember saying moron but I thought I said it over at ArcheryTalk this afternoon. Refresh my memory or send me a PM
Also, Post #6 was inappropriate if we are going to nit pick...this is exactly why i call names out when a good guy starts a post and gets attacked with people telling him something like "if you cant understand then you should just join the slobs and let the door kick you in the a$$ on the way out" That wasnt cool man. That guy just wanted to talk about the issue and he got pushed away and I know thats not what this forum is for.
I will play nice for now on as long as everybody else does
ORIGINAL: Rob/PA Bowyer
Now your making assumptions that deer can take a dart at 300 fps. No arrow blunt, dart or bird point will not wound a deer out of such a bow...thus the reason it is illegal to blunt deer.
AND, if you make one more name call be it me as a moron or any other member on this site, your debates will no longer be welcome. If you can't make your point without it, don't bother.
ORIGINAL: bowsmacker
You are making assumptions without knowing the arrowsystem the WHA will be using. They may not be shooting the same arrow speed as you. They may be using a blunt on the end of the dart.Both of thesewould determine the kinetic energy at impact. Deer are tough critters and take worse beatings in the wild all the time.
That wasan assumption you made and we are all getting tired of hearing assumptions.
Lets hear facts.
You are making assumptions without knowing the arrowsystem the WHA will be using. They may not be shooting the same arrow speed as you. They may be using a blunt on the end of the dart.Both of thesewould determine the kinetic energy at impact. Deer are tough critters and take worse beatings in the wild all the time.
That wasan assumption you made and we are all getting tired of hearing assumptions.
Lets hear facts.
AND, if you make one more name call be it me as a moron or any other member on this site, your debates will no longer be welcome. If you can't make your point without it, don't bother.
What other name calling...I remember saying moron but I thought I said it over at ArcheryTalk this afternoon. Refresh my memory or send me a PM
Also, Post #6 was inappropriate if we are going to nit pick...this is exactly why i call names out when a good guy starts a post and gets attacked with people telling him something like "if you cant understand then you should just join the slobs and let the door kick you in the a$$ on the way out" That wasnt cool man. That guy just wanted to talk about the issue and he got pushed away and I know thats not what this forum is for.
I will play nice for now on as long as everybody else does
07-12-2006, 11:07 PM
#34
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 56
RE: WHA Question
I see two kinds of hunters. There are the traditional hunters for who hunting is a culture, a way of life or even an expression of spirituality. For these hunters, everything about hunting is a personal relationship and deeply meaningful.
Over the past 15 years or so, a new kind of hunter has emerged. This new hunter is a recreationist and is a boon to the "industry". But the recreationist hunter, if denied the annual traditions of the hunt, would be just as happy playing golf or tennis or water skiing.
Recreationist hunters have no problem with the WHA just because it's all aboutentertainment and a fast buck. Traditional hunters are deeply offended exactly because it's all about entertainment and a fast buck.A personal relationship is being turned into somethingpornographic.
The WHA has no respect. As I see it, it's the difference between love and prostitution.
Over the past 15 years or so, a new kind of hunter has emerged. This new hunter is a recreationist and is a boon to the "industry". But the recreationist hunter, if denied the annual traditions of the hunt, would be just as happy playing golf or tennis or water skiing.
Recreationist hunters have no problem with the WHA just because it's all aboutentertainment and a fast buck. Traditional hunters are deeply offended exactly because it's all about entertainment and a fast buck.A personal relationship is being turned into somethingpornographic.
The WHA has no respect. As I see it, it's the difference between love and prostitution.
07-13-2006, 06:50 AM
#36
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: .. NH USA
Posts: 970
RE: WHA Question
ORIGINAL: Windwalker7
No plant. Just don't see it that way. Every year there are fewer and fewer hunters. We hunters are not accepted on TV or in the media.
With all the issues of gun control and animal rights, I do feel that hunting is on a downhill slide and someday will be abolished.
People from the big cities don't accept hunting like people from the country. With all the urban sprawl, we lose hunting ground everyday.
I guess I feel that something like this will at least get people to look at hunting and maybe understand more than they did before. JMO
I look at what the BASS tournaments did for fishing. I think it got more people involved in fishing than there were before.
I will admit that I do see some of your points. Yes, it may make the public more against hunting. I can see things going that way too.
Here's my point. For the last few years I've been thinking of quiting hunting. I've taken too many deer, to the point that I actually feel quite guilty for taking its life.
When I was younger, I hunted all the time and killed lots of game. I hunted 2 states with gun and bow and averaged 6-7 deer a year for 17 years. I guess the killing part of it got me. I use to like the killing part but now I have much regret.
I like being in the woods and experiencing the sights, sounds and smells. I love everthing about hunting leading up to the shot. But when I walk up to that dead deer, I wish I never shot it.
I just looked at this WHA as something that interested me.
I don't expect you guys to understand.
I can see that you guys are worried in the future of hunting and I guess that maybe this WHA might not be a good thing. You make some valid points.
No plant. Just don't see it that way. Every year there are fewer and fewer hunters. We hunters are not accepted on TV or in the media.
With all the issues of gun control and animal rights, I do feel that hunting is on a downhill slide and someday will be abolished.
People from the big cities don't accept hunting like people from the country. With all the urban sprawl, we lose hunting ground everyday.
I guess I feel that something like this will at least get people to look at hunting and maybe understand more than they did before. JMO
I look at what the BASS tournaments did for fishing. I think it got more people involved in fishing than there were before.
I will admit that I do see some of your points. Yes, it may make the public more against hunting. I can see things going that way too.
Here's my point. For the last few years I've been thinking of quiting hunting. I've taken too many deer, to the point that I actually feel quite guilty for taking its life.
When I was younger, I hunted all the time and killed lots of game. I hunted 2 states with gun and bow and averaged 6-7 deer a year for 17 years. I guess the killing part of it got me. I use to like the killing part but now I have much regret.
I like being in the woods and experiencing the sights, sounds and smells. I love everthing about hunting leading up to the shot. But when I walk up to that dead deer, I wish I never shot it.
I just looked at this WHA as something that interested me.
I don't expect you guys to understand.
I can see that you guys are worried in the future of hunting and I guess that maybe this WHA might not be a good thing. You make some valid points.
BASS turned fishing into a glorified three ring circus, and that is NOT how I or any of my true hunting bretheren wants to see our heritage publicized as. Nor did it increase fishing numbers of regular Joes--- but instead simply thenumbers of yahoos looking forfame and glory and money and going 100MPH up and down lakes looking for a hotspot.If we were to turn the WHA proposal into reality and it wasaccepted,anti hunters would soon see blunting as a non-lethalalternative and thus would turn their full fury on real hunting and true hunters--they would soonfeel there is no need to ever "Kill" anything ever again, and hunting as we know it would all butbe destroyed. If Farbman and Co think for one second that this farce is going to help hunting in an way other than possibly filling their pockets, they are sorely mistaken. I also cannot believe with the overwhelming response against the WHA that this guy and his cronies would continue on without regard for hunting and it's participants, IF they actually cared anything about the sport itself to begin with.
Ifanyone wishes to be aconvertbunny hugger, then go be one as that is your individualchoice. But as someone who used to hunt and harvest game as depicted in the quote above, I would think that one could remember why theyhunted, stillunderstand the true essence of it, andwhy others want to continue on without someone trying their darndest to screw it up! Hunting is hunting. Period.It is a lifestyle, heritage, and tradition that has been passed down thousands of years, from generation to generation. We cannot everbe so selfish to think thatWE have any right to mess with that in any way, shape, or form, just because we are feeling a little remorse or think that we may be able to capitalize and make money from it, "if we change this around".... That is plain blasphemy..I think every hunter "has a moment" of respectwith his harvest, sure,but that is alsoa natural part of hunting as well.
To sum up,as plain as I can--
"For those of you who understand, no explanation is necessary."
"For those of you who do NOT understand, no explanation is possible. "
That's it.
07-13-2006, 08:32 AM
#37
Join Date: May 2006
Location:
Posts: 22
RE: WHA Question
ORIGINAL: Pinwheel 12
Sigh...where to begin...OK, first, there are less lands to hunt every year due to development, and more cities and people with "alternative lifestyles".So yes, there are less hunters---simple mathematics used here will clearly verify that, it's a no brainer that there would be less numbers.
Development is not the reason why we are losing hunters. Ask the NRA, this is what they published:
"According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service`s National Survey of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, on average, just one out of every four children from a hunting household actively participates in hunting.
One way to assess the health of hunting in America is to use the same models biologists use to gauge the health of wildlife populations.
For a wildlife population to be stable, every individual of a species lost to disease, predation or old age must be replaced by another of that species, in a 1-to-1 ratio, through a process known as "recruitment."
If you look at the recruitment rates of American hunters, you see we already may be endangered. Since most hunters are introduced to the sport as youngsters, and since few adults take up hunting if they weren`t exposed to it in their youth, common sense suggests that having a stable population of hunters requires that the percentage of youth hunters should match the percentage of adult hunters. But it doesn`t. Not even close.
Indeed, nationally, if you compare the percentage of the population between the ages of six and 16 that hunts, with the percentage of the population over age 16 that hunts, instead of getting the 1-to-1 ratio needed to maintain current levels, you get just 0.69-to-1.
Stated simply, we may be about 31 percent below keeping our heads above water.
Putting Logic into the Laws "Fifty years ago, most kids started hunting at an early age as a form of family recreation and to help put food on the table," said Dawson Hobbs, NRA-ILA manager of hunting policy. "Today, with 160 satellite tv channels, video games and everything else, young people have never had so many activities competing for their attention. If we don`t involve them early on, we`ll lose them to those other activities."
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=171
But guess what?Overall numbersmake no difference to the truehunters themselves who enjoy the lifestyle and heritage called hunting
Speak for yourself. That is a selfish statement. It does matter. The numbers dont lie (again same NRA article):
"Each year, American hunters spend more than $700 million on hunting licenses, permits, tags and stamps. Without these monies, who would fund the state and federal conservation programs that keep wildlife populations healthy and in balance?
On top of that $700 million, American hunters spend another $20 billion on hunting equipment, transportation, lodging and the like--more than Americans spend on coffee.
How many American jobs would be lost without that $20 billion boost to our economy?
Yet, compared to the long-term consequences for freedom, those costs could be trivial. Since most hunters are introduced to the sport by their parents, one generation is all it would take to cut off hunting at its knees.
--it ONLY makes a difference to those who are looking to make money from the sport, that is one of the veryfirst arguements they usein fact. My entirefamily, and many other hunting families all across the countryare firmly rooted into this lifestyle that is called hunting, and the traditions are being passed as we speak to future generations. The future of hunting is VERY intact with those who live it and whodo not everwish to smear the heritage itself, and/or morph it into something it is not.
Its NOT intact. Again the numbers dont lie. If you dont believe me go argue with the NRA and NSSF amongst others.
BASS turned fishing into a glorified three ring circus, and that is NOT how I or any of my true hunting bretheren wants to see our heritage publicized as. Nor did it increase fishing numbers of regular Joes
Do you seriously think that Bass fishing (more specifically BASS)hasnt increased or assisted in the stabilization of fishing licenses or recruitment??? If you believe this you are way out of touch with the youth of today. Go down South and share your rhetoric and see what kind of response you get...People love BASS and thats why they are all over TV today. It hasnt RUINED fishing either.
Sigh...where to begin...OK, first, there are less lands to hunt every year due to development, and more cities and people with "alternative lifestyles".So yes, there are less hunters---simple mathematics used here will clearly verify that, it's a no brainer that there would be less numbers.
Development is not the reason why we are losing hunters. Ask the NRA, this is what they published:
"According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service`s National Survey of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, on average, just one out of every four children from a hunting household actively participates in hunting.
One way to assess the health of hunting in America is to use the same models biologists use to gauge the health of wildlife populations.
For a wildlife population to be stable, every individual of a species lost to disease, predation or old age must be replaced by another of that species, in a 1-to-1 ratio, through a process known as "recruitment."
If you look at the recruitment rates of American hunters, you see we already may be endangered. Since most hunters are introduced to the sport as youngsters, and since few adults take up hunting if they weren`t exposed to it in their youth, common sense suggests that having a stable population of hunters requires that the percentage of youth hunters should match the percentage of adult hunters. But it doesn`t. Not even close.
Indeed, nationally, if you compare the percentage of the population between the ages of six and 16 that hunts, with the percentage of the population over age 16 that hunts, instead of getting the 1-to-1 ratio needed to maintain current levels, you get just 0.69-to-1.
Stated simply, we may be about 31 percent below keeping our heads above water.
Putting Logic into the Laws "Fifty years ago, most kids started hunting at an early age as a form of family recreation and to help put food on the table," said Dawson Hobbs, NRA-ILA manager of hunting policy. "Today, with 160 satellite tv channels, video games and everything else, young people have never had so many activities competing for their attention. If we don`t involve them early on, we`ll lose them to those other activities."
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=171
But guess what?Overall numbersmake no difference to the truehunters themselves who enjoy the lifestyle and heritage called hunting
Speak for yourself. That is a selfish statement. It does matter. The numbers dont lie (again same NRA article):
"Each year, American hunters spend more than $700 million on hunting licenses, permits, tags and stamps. Without these monies, who would fund the state and federal conservation programs that keep wildlife populations healthy and in balance?
On top of that $700 million, American hunters spend another $20 billion on hunting equipment, transportation, lodging and the like--more than Americans spend on coffee.
How many American jobs would be lost without that $20 billion boost to our economy?
Yet, compared to the long-term consequences for freedom, those costs could be trivial. Since most hunters are introduced to the sport by their parents, one generation is all it would take to cut off hunting at its knees.
--it ONLY makes a difference to those who are looking to make money from the sport, that is one of the veryfirst arguements they usein fact. My entirefamily, and many other hunting families all across the countryare firmly rooted into this lifestyle that is called hunting, and the traditions are being passed as we speak to future generations. The future of hunting is VERY intact with those who live it and whodo not everwish to smear the heritage itself, and/or morph it into something it is not.
Its NOT intact. Again the numbers dont lie. If you dont believe me go argue with the NRA and NSSF amongst others.
BASS turned fishing into a glorified three ring circus, and that is NOT how I or any of my true hunting bretheren wants to see our heritage publicized as. Nor did it increase fishing numbers of regular Joes
Do you seriously think that Bass fishing (more specifically BASS)hasnt increased or assisted in the stabilization of fishing licenses or recruitment??? If you believe this you are way out of touch with the youth of today. Go down South and share your rhetoric and see what kind of response you get...People love BASS and thats why they are all over TV today. It hasnt RUINED fishing either.
Pinwheel, I gotta get off the computer for the day so if you dump a glorified response on me I wont get to it until tonight. Have a good one.
07-13-2006, 09:17 AM
#38
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: .. NH USA
Posts: 970
RE: WHA Question
Bowsmacker--
The only reason youth of today are not being taught true and ethical mannerisms is because their parents do not take the time to teach them like they used to, they would rather turn them loose onto the video games and other crap that is passed off as "educational entertainment". We have no-one to blame but ourselves on that one I'm sorry to say-- but two wrongs don't make a right, and continuing to add to the garbage will only serve to do us all more harm than good. I think if anything, this whole WHA thinghas slapped everyone awaketo the fact that things are way out of line..I have never seen such an overwhelming majority against anything in all of my days---even when compounds first came onto the scene---The NRA numbers may indeed be correct at present, but turning ourhunting heritageinto a freakshow will not help to change this into a positive thing, either.No way.
I do not think calling me selfish will help your position any,because I am certainly not a selfish individual--ask those who know me or my affiliated companies.If you want to speak of selfish, look hard at those who you are defending--again, they've made no bones aboutheavilythumbing their noses at the vast majority of true hunters who overwhelmingly agree (80+% average on all polls)that this is a VERY BAD idea on every level--- without regard,while they continue to try and burn our sport into the ground for money, glory, and fame. So please don't speak to me about selfish.[:'(]
Hunting is under attack from many angles, this is true. But again, numbers are relevant to the overall amount of habitat and animal populations that we hunt, and those are also being reduced. To say that we need X amount of hunters to sustain hunting itself is ludicrous, because I know I and my family and other familes who are ingrained in the tradition and lifestyle will enjoy it to the fullest for many generations to come,whether there are 5,000,000 or 500 enjoying it with us. We can only do so much while being attacked from so many angles--- and being attacked from within our own ranks andturning our heritage into a circus is not going to help it any, I guarantee that.
Bass fishing is supposed to be a relaxing sport to be enjoyed by families too, not some big flashy commercialized billboard with $40,000 boats and 1500 sponsors blazoned on shirts and guys running 5 million miles an hour on TV trying to catch the largest bass, or fill the livewell. That is not what fishing (or hunting!) is about.
If you don't get it, I guessyou never will, and that is sad. nice to see the majority still does however.
The only reason youth of today are not being taught true and ethical mannerisms is because their parents do not take the time to teach them like they used to, they would rather turn them loose onto the video games and other crap that is passed off as "educational entertainment". We have no-one to blame but ourselves on that one I'm sorry to say-- but two wrongs don't make a right, and continuing to add to the garbage will only serve to do us all more harm than good. I think if anything, this whole WHA thinghas slapped everyone awaketo the fact that things are way out of line..I have never seen such an overwhelming majority against anything in all of my days---even when compounds first came onto the scene---The NRA numbers may indeed be correct at present, but turning ourhunting heritageinto a freakshow will not help to change this into a positive thing, either.No way.
I do not think calling me selfish will help your position any,because I am certainly not a selfish individual--ask those who know me or my affiliated companies.If you want to speak of selfish, look hard at those who you are defending--again, they've made no bones aboutheavilythumbing their noses at the vast majority of true hunters who overwhelmingly agree (80+% average on all polls)that this is a VERY BAD idea on every level--- without regard,while they continue to try and burn our sport into the ground for money, glory, and fame. So please don't speak to me about selfish.[:'(]
Hunting is under attack from many angles, this is true. But again, numbers are relevant to the overall amount of habitat and animal populations that we hunt, and those are also being reduced. To say that we need X amount of hunters to sustain hunting itself is ludicrous, because I know I and my family and other familes who are ingrained in the tradition and lifestyle will enjoy it to the fullest for many generations to come,whether there are 5,000,000 or 500 enjoying it with us. We can only do so much while being attacked from so many angles--- and being attacked from within our own ranks andturning our heritage into a circus is not going to help it any, I guarantee that.
Bass fishing is supposed to be a relaxing sport to be enjoyed by families too, not some big flashy commercialized billboard with $40,000 boats and 1500 sponsors blazoned on shirts and guys running 5 million miles an hour on TV trying to catch the largest bass, or fill the livewell. That is not what fishing (or hunting!) is about.
If you don't get it, I guessyou never will, and that is sad. nice to see the majority still does however.
07-13-2006, 09:17 AM
#39
Join Date: May 2006
Location:
Posts: 22
RE: WHA Question
ORIGINAL: kevin1
The reasons are numerous , but a big one is this:
In hunting there is no catch and release unless you're on a photo safari .
The chances of these animals being injured or even killed just so a bunch of chest thumpers can pocket a check is not only totally unethical to most hunters , but also violates the very core of the Fair Chase principle . It reduces a noble tradition to a common spectacle and uneccessarily risks the safety of the animal . Nearly all of us would beat the sheit out of a slob who wounded game and just let them go instead of tracking it down and ending it's suffering , these yahoos would cause suffering multiple times to the same animal on national television just for a check and the amusement of a few sadistically minded couch potatoes .
Windwalker7 , if you can't understand that then you might just as well join those slobs and sign up for the circus too . Don't let the door hit you in the ass if you do though .
The reasons are numerous , but a big one is this:
In hunting there is no catch and release unless you're on a photo safari .
The chances of these animals being injured or even killed just so a bunch of chest thumpers can pocket a check is not only totally unethical to most hunters , but also violates the very core of the Fair Chase principle . It reduces a noble tradition to a common spectacle and uneccessarily risks the safety of the animal . Nearly all of us would beat the sheit out of a slob who wounded game and just let them go instead of tracking it down and ending it's suffering , these yahoos would cause suffering multiple times to the same animal on national television just for a check and the amusement of a few sadistically minded couch potatoes .
Windwalker7 , if you can't understand that then you might just as well join those slobs and sign up for the circus too . Don't let the door hit you in the ass if you do though .
Who is moderating what around here?
07-13-2006, 09:37 AM
#40
Join Date: May 2006
Location:
Posts: 22
RE: WHA Question
ORIGINAL: Pinwheel 12
Bowsmacker--
The only reason youth of today are not being taught true and ethical mannerisms is because their parents do not take the time to teach them like they used to, they would rather turn them loose onto the video games and other crap that is passed off as "educational entertainment". We have no-one to blame but ourselves on that one I'm sorry to say-- but two wrongs don't make a right, and continuing to add to the garbage will only serve to do us all more harm than good.
Do you think that will ever change? The Leave it to Beaver lifestyle is over man, and kids are in the generation of technology that doesnt go away. Everything has to learn to addapt to change. Everything. It doesnt matter who we blame for where we are today or why kids need to be entertained. Its true for most. Sure you may have raised your youngins differently but you are a minority, yet I will applaud you for that. I would say that divorce rates go hand in hand with the declining number of youth participants. Wouldnt you agree on that? Guess what? We arent going to go change or reverse the trend in divorces either...You have to adapt to change.
I think if anything, this whole WHA thinghas slapped everyone awaketo the fact that things are way out of line..I have never seen such an overwhelming majority against anything in all of my days---even when compounds first came onto the scene---The NRA numbers may indeed be correct at present, but turning ourhunting heritageinto a freakshow will not help to change this into a positive thing, either.No way.
Calling it a freakshow without ever seeing it is an assumption and your fear loaded opinion.
I do not think calling me selfish will help your position any either,because I am certainbly not a selfish individual--ask those who know me or my affiliated companies.If you want to speak of selfish, look hard at those who you are defending--again, they've made no bones aboutheavilythumbing their noses at the vast majority of true hunters who overwhelmingly agree (80+% average on all polls)that this is a VERY BAD idea on every level--- without regard,while they continue to try and burn our sport into the ground for money, glory, and fame. So please don't speak to me about selfish.[:'(]
OK, maybe you arent selfish. I dont know you so I wont pass judgment; however you made a very selfish statement. I wanted to clear that the number of hunting participants is important and NOT everyone believes that isnt important like you stated. People that dont want the sport to grow are being selfish. People that dont care if the sport declines in participants are being selfish.
Hunting is under attack from many angles, this is true. But again, numbers are relevant to the overall amount of habitat and animal populations that we hunt, and those are also being reduced. To say that we need X amount of hunters to sustain hunting itself is ludicrous, because I know I and my family and other familes who are ingrained in the tradition and lifestyle will enjoy it to the fullest for many generations to come,whether there are 5,000,000 or 500 enjoying it with us (So you dont care if anyone else enjoys those traditions just as long as nothing changes for your familiy?). We can only do so much while being attacked from so many angles--- being attacked from within our own ranks andturning our heritage into a circus is not going to help it any, I guarantee that. (Again calling anything a circus at this point --other than these chat rooms - is an assumption at this point.)
Bass fishing is supposed to be a relaxing sport to be enjoyed by families too, not some big flashy commercialized billboard with $40,000 boats and 1500 sponsors blazoned on shirts and guys running 5 million miles an hour on TV trying to catch the largest bass, or fill the livewell. That is not what fishing (or hunting!) is about.
That doesnt stop me from relaxing when I am fishing. I dont know one person that goes out fishing like BASS tournaments for recreation. Just because those guys have tournaments and make money and increase awareness doesnt mean people go out and try to race each other to the fishing hole - well except me and my brother once in a while, but thats a foot race in waders and its funny as hell)
If you don't get it, I guessyou never will, and that is sad. nice to see the majority still does however.
Bowsmacker--
The only reason youth of today are not being taught true and ethical mannerisms is because their parents do not take the time to teach them like they used to, they would rather turn them loose onto the video games and other crap that is passed off as "educational entertainment". We have no-one to blame but ourselves on that one I'm sorry to say-- but two wrongs don't make a right, and continuing to add to the garbage will only serve to do us all more harm than good.
Do you think that will ever change? The Leave it to Beaver lifestyle is over man, and kids are in the generation of technology that doesnt go away. Everything has to learn to addapt to change. Everything. It doesnt matter who we blame for where we are today or why kids need to be entertained. Its true for most. Sure you may have raised your youngins differently but you are a minority, yet I will applaud you for that. I would say that divorce rates go hand in hand with the declining number of youth participants. Wouldnt you agree on that? Guess what? We arent going to go change or reverse the trend in divorces either...You have to adapt to change.
I think if anything, this whole WHA thinghas slapped everyone awaketo the fact that things are way out of line..I have never seen such an overwhelming majority against anything in all of my days---even when compounds first came onto the scene---The NRA numbers may indeed be correct at present, but turning ourhunting heritageinto a freakshow will not help to change this into a positive thing, either.No way.
Calling it a freakshow without ever seeing it is an assumption and your fear loaded opinion.
I do not think calling me selfish will help your position any either,because I am certainbly not a selfish individual--ask those who know me or my affiliated companies.If you want to speak of selfish, look hard at those who you are defending--again, they've made no bones aboutheavilythumbing their noses at the vast majority of true hunters who overwhelmingly agree (80+% average on all polls)that this is a VERY BAD idea on every level--- without regard,while they continue to try and burn our sport into the ground for money, glory, and fame. So please don't speak to me about selfish.[:'(]
OK, maybe you arent selfish. I dont know you so I wont pass judgment; however you made a very selfish statement. I wanted to clear that the number of hunting participants is important and NOT everyone believes that isnt important like you stated. People that dont want the sport to grow are being selfish. People that dont care if the sport declines in participants are being selfish.
Hunting is under attack from many angles, this is true. But again, numbers are relevant to the overall amount of habitat and animal populations that we hunt, and those are also being reduced. To say that we need X amount of hunters to sustain hunting itself is ludicrous, because I know I and my family and other familes who are ingrained in the tradition and lifestyle will enjoy it to the fullest for many generations to come,whether there are 5,000,000 or 500 enjoying it with us (So you dont care if anyone else enjoys those traditions just as long as nothing changes for your familiy?). We can only do so much while being attacked from so many angles--- being attacked from within our own ranks andturning our heritage into a circus is not going to help it any, I guarantee that. (Again calling anything a circus at this point --other than these chat rooms - is an assumption at this point.)
Bass fishing is supposed to be a relaxing sport to be enjoyed by families too, not some big flashy commercialized billboard with $40,000 boats and 1500 sponsors blazoned on shirts and guys running 5 million miles an hour on TV trying to catch the largest bass, or fill the livewell. That is not what fishing (or hunting!) is about.
That doesnt stop me from relaxing when I am fishing. I dont know one person that goes out fishing like BASS tournaments for recreation. Just because those guys have tournaments and make money and increase awareness doesnt mean people go out and try to race each other to the fishing hole - well except me and my brother once in a while, but thats a foot race in waders and its funny as hell)
If you don't get it, I guessyou never will, and that is sad. nice to see the majority still does however.