RE: Politically correct bowhunters
 

Conjecture.

False Statement

A few facts. It has been said that there are 3 types of lies. Lies....Damn Lies....and statistics. It's also widely accepted that 92.764% of all statistics are made up on the spot. I usually like for my PERCENTAGES to equal 100% though.

Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story, now.....

That's beautiful......can I use it? AGAIN?????

Again.....beautifully said.

Don...I've said this all along. I applaud your passion.......but I agree with Fletch. And ....honestly.....would you feel the same if Iowans felt the same way about "bible deer"? Would it be so easy to write off not hunting deer? You're a 2nd amendment guy......would you like it if the anti's got assault rifles banned? Why not? Why do you so non-chalantly discount the lack of a dove season, then??? It's a good correlation.

RE: Politically correct bowhunters
 

IA has NEVER had a dove season. We have lost no hunting rights.

RE: Politically correct bowhunters
 

Explain how this statement has anything to do with this thread. IfI use the term "kill" instead of "harvest" and show a pic of a deer with blood on it, this will cause assault rifles to be banned? Is this your point you are trying to get across?Peta didn't block or stop dove hunting in IA. Read a few posts back, it is explained there. Your replies and way of reasoning are "interesting" to say the least.:eek:

RE: Politically correct bowhunters
 

I have never seen, in my 30 years of hunting in IA, that peta has hadany impact in my life. Fears that are planted in our hunters' heads from magazines, speakers at hunting events, and propaganda. One hunter says,"Beware, peta is going to get us. It is a chain reaction of fear. They have no clout with the lawmakers as they have nothing financially or beneficial to contribute to the economy. Pork consumption has not gone down due to a pie in a pork queens face or films showing pigs killed at a slaughter house. As stated by our state DNR on their website, "Hunting is the only viable way to keep animal populations in check."
Feel free to have your opinion though. It is a free country afterall, and good hunting to you.

RE: Politically correct bowhunters
 

HCH, your basic premise is that the amount of money spent by hunters and the money represented by farmers and insurance assures our future as hunters. What you are assuming is that the electorate will always make a reasoned, considered, and informed vote. History doesn't give me much hope of that. Look at the recent proposed changes to the Social Security system. It would have made it possible for individuals to invest their "contributions" into the stock market, using select approved plans, the market historically yields a significantly higher return than the government SS plan does. There are examples of whole municipalities that had opted out of the SS scam for a similar stock plan and their return was several times higher than their projected SS payment. Secondly the money contributed would have been yours, to pass on to your family if you died! If you die under the current plan, too bad. It made every economical sense in the world but EMOTION (aka FEAR) caused a huge portion of the populace to oppose the amendment.Do not underestimate the power of an emotional, uninformed electorate!! Today's politicians do not have the courage to stand against them to do what makes the most sense and is the correct path to take.

RE: Politically correct bowhunters
 

Did you call ME an idiot???

The fact that you don't have a dove season in IA should make you mad. That fact would be the equivalent of having assault rifles banned (in correlation to overall hunting seasons). Why does that not bother you??? It would be like someone in the NRA not giving a &#&$ if assault rifles got banned......"cause I only shoot pistols"......"don't affect ME". Can;t you see that EVERY time ANY hunting is shot down (pardon the pun) or stamped out that WE ALL LOSE???

Why are you so blatantly TRYING to piss the anti's off?

Answer this for me....

1. Are you less of a hunter for cleaning up your harvest photos?
2. Are you afraid people might think the deer you're holding is still alive?
3. Does it make you feel more like a man to show the blood.
4. Does it make you feel less of a man to clean up your KILL?
5. If I offered you a lucrative business contract with the stipulation that you had to remove the hunting decals from your truck before entering my property....would you accept? Why or why not?

People aren't asking you to make a donation to PETA, Don.....we're asking you to use common sense and TACT by not pixxing them off. If that's "selling out" or bowing to "the man" to you.....then you'll not be swayed. These are just subjects we have fundiscussing when we're dove hunting.

RE: Politically correct bowhunters
 

HCH, you stated that PETA has not had any impact on YOUR life. That'spretty short sighted and has little to do with this debate.The point is, they have had a negative impact on the lives of many fellow sportsmen here and abroad. And if you dont look beyond your nose you have become part of the problem. If you discount them and wait to get involved when your interests are at risk it may already be too late. Better look at the big picture. It's not just about you and your bloody deer pictures. The concept you need to grasp is that it goes far beyond that.

RE: Politically correct bowhunters
 

I would agree with this. I'm not commenting on the blood in the pics though.

RE: Politically correct bowhunters
 

One statement that is driving me crazy is "hunting in IA" or "that ain't IA"
Take a deep breath and open your eyes and realize that there is more to life than Iowa. Just because you have access to unlimited land does not mean the rest of us are so fortunate. I found this article and thought that it summed up some very good points.

start of quote

"Probably most important, bowhunters can make themselves at home near suburban areas. Since most deer killed by archers are taken at 10 to 30 yards, bowhunters can and do hunt in places where guns simply aren’t practical. The fringe timber surrounding a suburban reservoir can host a number of bowhunters in places where even a single rifle wouldn’t be advisable.
As a result of such compatibility, plus the surge in suburban deer populations, bowhunters are knocking on doors that once were considered inviolate to any means of taking other than binoculars or camera. The backlash from the anti-hunting groups has been heated, and should grow even more intense as urban swell invades even more wildlife habitat on the cusp of our burgeoning cities.
It probably didn’t soothe any anti-bowhunters’ hard feelings towards their adversaries when the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service recently signed an agreement with leaders from archery organizations, promising to increase hunting opportunities on federal refuges and lauding bowhunters’ support of conservation measures.
As it stands, bowhunters have access to 308 refuges, and under the agreement will also be allowed on others deemed compatible. The Fish & Wildlife Service also vowed to help earmark Pittman-Robertson funds derived from taxes on sporting goods for additional archery-related programs.
Bowhunters are capable of determining their own destiny if they continue to stay organized and work with political and trade association allies. Along the way, it will remain imperative that they demand and abide by the dictates of good science, good ethics and self-policing.
In the past, it has been the bowhunters themselves who have been quick to condemn equipment innovations that present an unfair advantage and violate the basic principles of archery. Nor have they hesitated to censure dilettantes who display a lack of skill necessary to ensure a humane, fair harvest.
However, this could change as additional opportunities for bowhunting open up and bowhunter ranks swell more rapidly than self-policing can scrutinize. If this happens, the anti-bowhunting factions will be watching. They don’t want bowhunters in parks and refuges … in fact, they don’t want them at all.
No matter how they spin it, the HSUS and the Fund for Animals will never stop working to condemn and curtail archery hunting. They believe it is biologically wrong and culturally obscene. With their numbers growing just as fast, or maybe faster, than newly recruited bowhunters, the conflict promises to be a well-financed donnybrook—a clash of wills with the outcome hinging not only on political favor, but also on whose public image eventually captures the hearts and minds of the public at large."


end of quote


so just think about the future opportunities and don't respond with "we ain't got no state parks in IOWA"

RE: Politically correct bowhunters
 

All states use hunting as the only viableand practical method to keepanimal populations in check and disease free. This method also brings a great revenue to the states. Opponenets of hunting have offered birth control as a method of controlling animal pops. This method is expensive and instead of bringing revenue to the states, it costs them money. You can talk emotions all you want. IMO the nonhunting public goes with their wallet and what the wildlife biologist at state level recommend. Hunting is not going to be banned, and this is my point of this thread.

I do not go out of my way to smear blood on an animal for a pic and this accusation is rediculous. Sometimes we as hunters, gut an animal and then go back to the truck for our camera. If some blood is showing, I am not going to be embarrassed of the pic or simply avoid taking the pic because there is blood on the animal.