KIDD642

boy.it is just not as easy to hide a deer as is is to "hide" a duck or goose or a fish. Not everyone has a pick up. I feel this may be a an exercise in futility. I feel Hunters should make an effort to clean up the kill not as to make it look like a murder scene but a dead deer is a dead deer. JMHO.[8D]

manuman

You are exactly right--I have a saying that goes like this--The tolerant tolerate everything nad anything --except those that disagree with them.Like you said, make a stand on something and see how they respond.

NY Bowhunter

hunt?

Never agreed to make it law. I do however agree that hunters should adopt the practice for the better of the sport JMO.

I don't think it indicates that at all. If we thought it was wrong and disgusting we wouldn't be out there harvesting deer, gutting them, and eating them.
?

ok you explain the purpose of parading a dead deer around town to them. I for one don't have the answer to that.

OH good lord give me break. I love when there is a hint of change presented and people go off the wall like it's going to lead to the end of hunting forever. Nobody is proposing shutting down the doors to Bass Pro and Dicks or having to sneak in and out of the woods only at dark as to not be seen by anyone. Let's not get carried away.


Where I get confused is the thought process. I can kind of understand somebody that has an SUV, small jeep, or a car and needing to transport the animal. I still think it should be covered up though. But, what I don't grasp is the person that is loading a deer on whatever they are driving and consciencely thinks to himself I'm going to leave it wide open for everyone to see. I'm sorry I just don't understand that thinking.

Yivin

Whew...it took along time to go thru all these responses...Well i'm lucky, i do have a truck. no tailgate just one of them catchall fence things. I know that over the years with the time in the woods, money for all the things I buy, and the hunting license that I have bought. Yup...fer me to drag my deer up in the truck and get a little blood on it is ok with me. Yes I will ride to my house about 30-45 mins from the hunting camp with the deer not covered up. I don't ride around town but if I wanted to I guess I could, butI go to my house to show my family. But along the way if someone wants me to stop n look. It fine with me. I work hard all year to get deermeat that my family enjoys.
We already have to many laws that aren't enforcedthat not only deal with hunting but alot of other issues. I believe that need the legislation body needs to worry about more important issues besides a dead deer. I understand everyone has there veiws andit would be a shame if a law like this is put before our powerful law givers and right removers.
To each his own I guess. o yeah good luck to everyone this yr....keep the argument going...I'll be hunting...

manuman

I don't have 2 separate definitions Mustad--I made a further point of clarifying the same issue. If you think that the definition of tolerance is the same today as it was 15 years ago, then you aren't paying attention.The end result , or logical conclusion to the new tolerance is that there aren't any standards--everyones personal views are the standard--which is an oxymoron. A standard is a guage for ones personal opinion, to determine if it is true or false. If the standard becomes that all views are equal, you don't have any room left for right or wrong, true or false.
I understand the 'audience' very well, and have been addressing this issue for quite sometime.The concept of hunting WAS understood 25 years ago and has been lost with the shift in our value system. You or I didn't need to worry about what others thought about a displayed deer 23 years ago when I started hunting--and I lived in Atlanata at that time. It was common practice to see a buck draped over the hood ofa Jeep or the trunk of a car, and the only negative connotation it had was that it wasn't wise to allow the heat of the engine to 'cook' the deer enroute.THe publics views have and are still changing constantly. The advent of the extreme animal rights activists have been born out of a confused and displaced view about the comparison of the life of an animal in comparison to a human being. Most that are involved don't see any significant difference in the 2. That is why they are upset. They see little difference in taking the life of an animal and taking the life of a person. Some extermists see no difference. I had an emplyee like this once. He got infuriated when hunting was mentioned for this very reason. I find that very troubling--especially when the life of an unborn child is treated like they are no more than a lump of skin to be cut away.Poll the average person who is opposed to hunting, and ask them ,at the same time their views on abortion, and it all of a sudden becomes an issue of rights. The hunter has no right, but the woman has a right to end her pregnancy, if she so chooses. Just a little hypocritical and schizophrenic.
If you honestly believe this is a new issue that is just now in the process of becoming exposed, then you must be personally becoming aware now, because this is not something that has taken place in the last 2 years or less, but has been gradually changing for sometime now.The shifting was and is first in the value systems, trickling down and influencing people's behavior. You act a certain way because you first think or believe a certain way.People are becoming more upset as time goes by, due to the changing shift in values, and it is working its way out into the public arena each year. When did it become a crime to wear a certain religious symbol or to mention God's name in a public setting or to have the audacity to speak up concerning deviant behavior? Was that yesterday, or the day before, or before that? No, it has been a gradual eroding process--over the course of many years, and it is beginning to snowball. The answer is not in candy coating or compromise. It is in making a stand and being able to communicate this stand effectively, along with the allowance of those that don't agree.
FYI--my displaying my recent deer was, as I said, something I had not done in recent history, being sensitive to the fact that there are those that could be offended. I honestly expected a great deal more flack than just one 20 year old girl becoming upset, and was surprised at the positive reactions.I may or may not do it again, but I don't have any qualms with those that do, and have no reservations in doing it again.It needs to be presented for what it is--hunting is not something to be ashamed of or an issue that needs to be skirted around. When someone reacts, we should be able to graciously , yet with conviction communicate and defend our heritage--without going about it in a milk toast manner, apologizing for someone else's misperceptions.

manuman

Unfortunately, that is just what the antis want. they aren't looking for us to just become more socially acceptible, they want us stopped completely.I know it sounds far fetched and 'out there', but, who would have thought that this topic would even become an issue 20-25 years ago?

Tex2MD

One of my standard replys to people who are somewhat against hunting is, "Do you eat meat". If they say yes then I ask how is it any different. Just because you won't do the killing yourself doesn't make your way any more right. Besides deer get to live a free life doing what deer do up until the time they are killed. Cows live in often times bad to terrible conditions having hormones, steroids, anti-biotics etc injected into them and then when it is time to kill them they are lead into a place to have their heads cut off.

With that said do you think it would last very long having one of these places right in the middle of downtown suburbia. Even more people would be out fighting for animal rights just because out of sight out of mind.

Mine is not one of right or wrong but one of "I want to stay out of sight and out of mind"
I don't want people having any excuse to stop me from hunting.
I don't like government, I don't want them involved in most of my affairs and this is one more thing that people who think they should be forcing their views on others needs to stay out of.

Rebel Hog

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion' (Article 18), 'of opinion and expression' (Article 19), and that education 'should promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups' (Article 26),

HuntinGUS

Your opinion. Please elaborate on what your definition is of "for the better of the sport"

Based on your argument, the reason to cover up our kill is to not offend anyone who is a non-hunter. As Hunters.........no we don't think it is disgusting or offensive.........obvisously, however our behavior would indicate otherwise and IMO be viewed as shamful/wrong. I am talking more specifically about wraping it in a tarp or bag. It seems childish to me.

I really don't think an explination is necessary. I am comfortable with the nuts and bolts of hunting........even the dirty work. It is a mucha part of the hunt as the Kill. It is the harvest part of the hunt IMO. "Parading" is one thing, but taking you deer home or to the butcher is different. The problem is, it is impossible at times to tell the difference between parading and simply transporting.

Just exagerated examples of how IMO a lot of people worry too much about others feelings......I think your efforts to "keep our image clean" could be better placed than covering up a huge part of what is deer hunting.

Point being..........where would it stop if non-hunters continue to get offended by other things? Where sir do you make a stand?

mustad

This is beautiful. So if there are no standards, there is no need for allowance. If there is no allowance, there is no tolerance. Outstanding. Better yet, let's define tolerance as allowance of behavior that deviates from one's own viewpoints. Meaning, I will tolerate the fact that you have 2 separate definitions of tolerance. How do you extend this to a more macro level?


Right.

As I said, this issue is no more than two generations old. Define a generation as what, say 30 years? What I'm saying is this issue is no more than 60 years old. It is not something that has been defined and we have an opportunity to define it. In another post you say something about the anti's want us stopped. My point is "screw the anti's"; they are not our audience. Our audience is the majority of people who have yet to make a decision on their perception of hunting. This is where we win or lose the battle. I think we both agree on this. Where we disagree is how to execute.

Your approach is very two dimensional (you show the deer, you get a reaction); similar to the approach you originally described about gays. I'm here, deal with it. This could be successful, but I don't think it will be. As you say, make a stand and see what happens. My experience is this more often results in failure unless you know exactly how people are going to react to your action. Are you that confident in your opinion of the majority?

My approach is not so direct. I would prefer approaching the values of hunting from another perspective. Explain to people that it was one of the founding principles upon which our country was founded. There is scientific evidence that supports hunting as a means of controlling and preserving the wildlife population. I won't go on as I'm sure you know more of these than I do. I favor this approach because it is based more on facts than on an emotional reaction of seeing a dead deer.

I'm not so sure the concept of a change in approach is such a bad thing. At the turn of the century when Roosevelt initially identified the fact that the wildlife resources were becoming depleted, he knew something had to be done.

"Above all else, we should realize that the effort toward this end is essentially a democratic movement. It is... in our power... to preserve large tracts of wilderness... and to preserve game... for ... all lovers of nature, and to give reasonable opportunities for the exercise of the skill of the hunter, whether he is or is not a man of means."

Look at Roosevelt, L.W. Wendt, Ray Lowe, B.L. Price, M.A. Malone, Emil Knoepke, Glen Smith, Kenneth McDonald. These are all men that identified that there was a need to change the current course of events to prevent the activity of hunting from becoming extinct. Why is it so difficult to believe that just about a century later, we find ourselves in a similar situation where change is needed to protect what we love.

Cheers,