hillbillyhunter1

I'd rather argue with you, It's a lot easier--just kidding

You don't have to post links to "little golden books of zoology" to make a good point about endangeredspecies being resurrected through generational cycles on some preserve. I don't care if animals live behind a high fence. I don't think they should be hunted behind a high fence.

Sorry, but tolerance is one word I usally can't tolerate. It's just one of those Politically correct watchwords usually spewed forth by liberal talking heads in order tosupport some kind of agendaand an attemptto stiflevalid opposition.

same here.

That's what I keep telling my wife.I should get out more...and hunt that is. three evenings a week is not enough

good luck and good hunting

Sylvan

The truth is that we humans exploit animals for our own self interests. We always have and likely always will. From the animals raised for the slaughter houses to the high fence canned hunts, trappers, fishermen and yes to the guy on public land stalking a deer with a long bow, we all kill as a result of our own personal desire to do so and/or to satisfy our self interests. Though the methods and the motivations may be different, some apparently have need to feel that their's is quite honorable while others are ethically and maybe even morally wrong. Maybe some deep seated guilt needs to be aswaged there. I don't know but it seems pretty hypocritical to me for a guy, who pays others to kill for him, chowing down a McDonalds burger or some Kentucky fried to be getting up on his moral high horse and condeming someone who killed an animal on a canned hunt. IMO, killing an animal is only unethical if it is done with disregard for the potential suffering one might inflict on the animal but that's another thread.
[/align]
[/align]So is high fence hunting really hunting? Why even ask the question? It's winds up just being an argument parsing the definition of "hunt" and like I've pointed out before, one can even make the argument that waiting in a treestand is arguably not hunting so why go there? Is long range rifle hunting more or less ethical than an atlatl? If the definition of hunting hinges on the amount of advantage the hunter has than I guess the only true hunters wear only a loin cloth and kill with a rock. If you don't do the high fence thing and don't plan to do it and it's a legal endeavor then why not just live and let live? It seems to me that the only reason for this discussion is to have a convenient whipping boy for those that want to look down their nose. Well I for one won't play that game.
[/align]
[/align]You guys that hunt high fence, I hope you enjoy every minute of it! I hope you derive as much satisfication and joy that I do on my little piece of land in upstate NY. Good hunting!
[/align]

hillbillyhunter1

Yeah right!!! You must know many different people out west than I do. The ones I know want to shoot or at least be able to hunt the wolves, not build a fence, and rightfully so. BTW, that is the Canadian Wolf that has been introduced (or in SOME cases, may have migrated) to our western states, not the indigenous western gray. Go down and ask the guys in the BIG GAME FORUM what the solution to the "wolf problem" is. No one will say "build a fence".

JeremiahJohnson

Hillbilly - You're almost there dude! Here's the rub - if no one hunts behind high fences, then the whole operation has a HUGE capital flow problem. Without hunting, there's no funding, therefore no high fence, therefore the animals go away. Do you think do-gooders like PETA and the Humane Society are going to save species? No way - it's always hunting dollars that work. Hunters have the power to say which species stay and which species go because when it really comes down to it hunters are the ones that really care by putting their dollars where their mouths and "feelings" are.

I can't tell you how many species in Africa have been saved due to hunting.

Capitalism WORKS!

That's how our state DNR's function - indigenous animals are hunted, people pay for the privilege and the species is continued and managed. Ever hear of Pittman-Robertson?

When a species is in trouble of becoming extinct, how do we save it? Put the remaining species survivors in zoos? Wrong - never worked and never will. Decide to hunt and eat them and pay for the privilege - BINGO! That works.

It's worked in Africa. It's worked in New Zealand. It's worked (and is working) right here in the good old U.S.A. We get to hunt exotics and the exotics get to remain on the planet. It's what they call in "the biz" a "win-win".

Now, to the not-endangered species. I don't hunt indigenous species behind fence either because there's no need for me to pay extra money for bigger trophies - I don't care about that sort of thing. However, if I owned enough land and could afford to put a fence around it to keep poachers and trespassers off and protect my food plots, you better believe I'd do it. Would I hunt it? If there was enough to make it challenging you better believe I would.

JeremiahJohnson

Who's idea was it to reintroduce (wrong word, as you pointed out the canadian wolf never roamed the parts of the rockies they now roam), or let's say introduce, wolves in Yellowstone and now a significant of the northwest? Hunters? Ranchers? Residents of the states into which they were introduced? NO. That bright idea came from lefties and urbanites in Washington, DC.

I agree with everyone that lives there (I know more than a few) - manage the wolves by hunting and trapping them. The best solution was to leave them out, but now that they're there they must be managed. Problem. The states and DC can't get together on how to do that. Big surprise. So what do westerners do in the meantime? SSS or suffer - mostly both. Fences are an expensive solution, but it's something (if you could afford it) a land owner can do now. SSS is illegal. Gridlock continues. The wolf situation in the west is tragic - I really feel for my western brothers and have done what I can do. I've written representatives and made sure my lawmakers know I'm not a happy constituent on that issue - FIX IT!

Sylvan - I like your style man. If I'm ever up state we'll have a beverage. BTW I've tried to operate an atlatl - WAY too hard.

iamyourhuckleberry

One last thing Hillbilly,

"Innocense" only exists in a world free of evil and corruption. I'm pretty sure Outdoorlover speakswith "inexperience"

hillbillyhunter1

Well there's the catch isn't it?? What once was legal--like pen-hunting in Iowa may no longer be, because of outcry fromorganizations of hunters like the IBA. The proposition of changing the law makes this argument valid, imo, and I think the proposition itselfhas much validity. It's one thing if you shoot the cow you bought in your barn, It's another if you fence in wild animals, that are owned by ALL of us, that can not escape, for your own bottom line. I agree that there is a broad spectrum of perception between individuals on what is right and wrong and, of course, you can't make everything right that is wrong. But you can pick and choose the fights in which you as an individual are willing to participate, and I think that this is a fight worth fighting.

hillbillyhunter1

I understand that hunters in general are great conservationists and that that point is lost on many non-hunting idiots but again In most cases (THE Non-AFRican Game--now for the 4th time), I can see no connection and do not believe there is one between canned hunting (again, For North American Big game) and conservation

Again, and now for the 5th time--I'm not talking about Africa or African game

Would you pay the rest of us for the publicly owned animals that are now behind your fence???

how much is enough??

hillbillyhunter1

Wrong,
innocense exists in every person at their beginning and is only incrementally taken awy by a corrupt world and I think it's obvious that outdoorslover still has some of his--thankfully.

BTW, Well done to you Outdoorslover for your rightful perceptions.

iamyourhuckleberry

“Wrong,
innocense exists in every person at their beginning and is only incrementally taken awy by a corrupt world and I think it's obvious that outdoorslover still has some of his—thankfully”
Wrong again,
At fifteen, he surly knows evil and corruption exists. I won’t deny he’s trying to resurrect his innocence, but by doing so, he turns a blind eye to reality. That’s inexperience! I wish we could live in an ideal world void of all things wrong.