AndersonMcC,

The operative words in your statement are, "I" and "to me". Could you please define "fine condition"? Are we all in fine condition? If a man feels he has all the time in the world, is it wrong for him to be more lazy than you? What's your hurry?

Let me relay a story. While in England, I was once told by an "english sportsman", "You Americans are barbarians! An Englishman would never shoot a pheasant or partridge in the a$$." (are you familiar with the way the brits and most Europeans drive/hunt birds?) As he was ranting, I was reflecting on the beauty of hunting behind a well trained pointer/flusher. He continued, "with anything other than a fine side by side". I was thinking, "With anything other than a fine 20 guage autoloader." I thought, "what's sporting about driving birds past a stationed shooter who has a shell loader sittig next to him? Where's the interaction, the actual hunting? At the end of the day, this man goes home no worse from the wear bar a sore shoulder. Me, on the other hand, I'm flat tired from chasing birds and dogs. He goes home with a heap of birds, whereas I go home with luckily one."

With that being said, who accomplishes more? Or, are the accoplishments just different. I've seen enough of the world to know the answer is the latter.

Tools...objects and items used to accomplish a designed task. In most cases, tools tip the advantage in favor of the user. A treestand places you high above unsuspecting prey. A camera records the time and place of movement. A rifle outruns. A fence, river, moat, or island confines. Tools make the job "easier". How can you chastise one without chastising the others?

Humans are unique in that, through evolution, we can regulate our body temperatures. We literally have the ability to out distance animals (even horses) to bring about their demise.If you truly want to be "sporting" utilizing "fair chase" tactics, then track and out travel your prey to a point where it's exhausted. Use your canines and bury them deep into the beast's neck. You accomplish that feat and I will hand you my respect! Otherwise, hunt and let hunt. And please, do apply the degree of difficulty best suited for you!

For the record I do not have a problem with a disabled person hunting in a high fence operation. That is sometimes the only way for them to get to the outdoors. They are at a disadvantage already. So to make it clear I think that an operation like the one I mentioned would be great for them, so let's leave them out of the arguement.

Well for starters it's an endeavor who's outcome is by no means a certainty. And lets be honest, at "many" of these high fence places the outcome is virtually assured as long as your check clears. Is that true of all of them? No, but I don't think anybody is talking about some place that has truly wild game and only one fence around the outside perimeter of a 10,000 acre ranch. Trying to define when something ceases to be hunting is kind of like trying to write a specific description of pornography. Hard to pin down in words the exact point it crosses the line but I know it when I see it.

As for what makes a trophy animal, well in my mind it is something that is rare or unique. Allow me to contrast where I hunt with one of these high fence operations.

First the deer on our land are truly wild. Their genetics are not controlled and that being the case a buck born with the genetic potential to be a monster is a little rare to start with. Then since these deer are actually subjected to real world hunting pressures many may not make it to an age necessary to be a monster. And even if they do they will likely have had three or four scrapes with death. In fact to make it to the age of 5 here a buck will have had to become a pretty sly and elusive creature that is mostly, sometimes entirely, nocturnal. His senses and behavior patterns have been honed towards avoiding all human contact. Seeing and killing a buck that age here in daylight during hunting season is either a great bit of luck, a very nice feat of skill or a combination of the two. Either way, it's a rare event and something to cherish.

Now lets look at one of these game farms. First you start will some brood buck at a farm or with artificially inseminated does. Either way the random chance of genetics are removed from the equation. Then these bio engineered animals are fed by humans (many being totally dependent on humans) until they have a drastically reduced fear of people. Some lose their fear of humans altogether. Then there's the fence which keeps large numbers of mature bucks in much denser concentrations than they would "ever" remain in the wild. End result? You end up with a place in which huge bucks are common as dirt, dumb as a box or rocks, don't fear humans, and can't wander off the property. In short you have removed everything that made that animal a rare, coveted and difficult trophy to kill except the horns.

And there is why these places persist. The horns. Because people with more money than skill or patience that don't want to trust to luck or acquire the know how to kill a big buck under normal hunting circumstances can go to one of these places and just buy a big rack of horns. Cause all that matters to some is to be able to mount that big rack of horns on the wall and be able to truthfully say, "yep, I killed him". Which is of course technically true, they just won't be very forthcoming with the circumstances of the pet deer pen slaughter. Oops I mean hunt. LOL!


A doe killed in some of the places I hunt is more of an accomplishment than killing a big buck at one of these places. Now I know you are going to say that everyone isn't hunting for an accomplishment. Well then why mount the horns? Why go through the facade of shooting the tame deer. If you just like looking at big sets of horns then get on the internet and order a set of horns to hang on the wall. If it's meat you want Winn Dixie sells it way cheaper than paying one of these places 10,000 dollars for a 170 class buck. Oh make no mistake, the people who visit these places are just as obsessed with the accomplishment of killing big deer. They just want to cheat and can afford to do so.

Let me start by saying that I can come off a little more stern and nasty online than I actually am and I mean you no personal offense. But that said I just find the whole slippery slope argument on this issue to be ridiculous and a bit of a sham. It's a shield high fence supporters whip out to try and brow beat people into shutting up about such places because our complaining is going to "DESTROY HUNTING AS WE KNOW IT". Please lead me down this slippery slope. What am I going to do, get so mad at pen hunt farms that I join Greenpeace or start voting with PETA? Really? Seriously? I already said in my first post that I could no more see making this illegal than making it illegal to run a farm where you slaughter hogs or chickens. It's the same thing.

But you are right about one thing. Hunters are a minority. But thankfully the anti hunting wackos are an even smaller minority. The true fate of hunting is in the hands of a huge middle ground of people out there that don't hunt but are not anti hunting nuts either. And I can tell you for a fact that when they see footage of one of these pen hunt operations they don't like it. And to hear it called hunting damages their opinions of hunting. I am convinced that calling what goes on at these places hunting is a far greater threat to the future of our sport than any disagreement among hunters on an internet forum. That is why I am quick to point out to the nonhunters I encounter that these places "do not" represent what 99% of the hunters out here are doing.

objection...speculation.

Put a number on it...exactly how many acres provides a guarantee? What type of cover is present? Hilly or flat? What is the basis of your opinion? Again, pure spectulation!

I know it when I see it too, but I'm not trying to push my aeasthetic off onto someone else. If they feel it's more ethical to shoot a fish in a barrel, who am I to say otherwise? Remember the objectives! All too often we hear those within our ranks say, "I hit it too far back and I didn't recover it after a sleepless night." Does such a thing happen with high fence animals? If we're going to spectulate, then my specululation is no. The animal is rendered freezer meat-mission accomplished.That person did what others couldn't; why shouldn't they be proud? It's not my aesthetic, but I'm certainly not going to belittle them.

I knew my definition would be different than yours. My definition would not include either rare or unique. To me even a doe is a trophy. They are neither rare nor unique-there are a million of them! If I pull the trigger or send an arrow and the end result is a slain beast, I'm giddy as a toddler on Cristmas. I also have a gift (i.e. my trophy).

Who said anything about bucks? Are you imposing your aesthetic? What's a monster? Oh I see, a five year old deer is classified as a monster. Is that right? Does he require antlers? Would you shoot him if he was missing his head gear? Again, you are imposing your aesthetic.

Wild deer never jump in, and you'll never see a deer jump out...nope, such things never happen!Again, without actual facts, figures, and concrete evidence supporting this claim then this entire statement is spectulation and a sterotype.

Objection...Speculation!

Speculation...perhaps they want to sleep at night knowing they didn't wound an animal nor did that animal go unrecovered. It's not beyond the realm of possibilities. Maybe their aethetic is different than yours...

Read the section I wrote about tools. Despite what you think, these folks are still hunters. They just use a different set of tools than you do. Is a fisherman who uses barbless hooks better than a fisherman who doesn't...bait verses lures...flyrod verses casting rod...fish in a barrel verses fish in the ocean? Why are you so bound and determined to have others hunt your way? Where's the threat? Which do you think will disappear first 1) the livestock industry or 2) the public wildlife trust? Personally, I'm going to support both to keep the base as large as possible.

Did you miss the part where I said that I have no desire to see this illegal. In fact I have said it twice now. So please explain how I am forcing anyone to hunt as I do? Oh that's right you can't cause you just yanked that little snarky yet wrong remark right out of your @$$. If you want to go shoot glorified cows in a pen knock yourself out. But if you can't feel good about yourself unless I kiss your @$$ and stroke your ego while you do it then tough ####. I call it like I see it and it's slaughtering animals in a pen not hunting. And less you think I'm some isolated rogue espousing some weird opinion, I'd remind you that B&C and P&Y agree with me which is why you cannot enter an animal with them killed behind a high fence or on one of these game farms.

So anything you don't like or agree with you just erroneously rename speculation. Nice. Why don't you try sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling it with your eyes closed. That way you can never lose a debate. Well, at least not in your own mind.

Ok guys we are going after each other more than I think we should. It is great discussion but I want to interject. Right now there is a show on animal planet, "Captive Hunting Exposed". It is an undercover look at the world of canned hunts. Let me first say I watch animal planet sometimes. It is not an anti hunter network, they have many shows that follow conservation officers to catch illegal hunters and such. On the show they show the difference between fair chase and canned hunts. They even go to a sporting show and talk with hunters about canned hunting and how they are against it.

Well what I saw I know I am against. They would sit in a blind and the "guide" would heard these animals toward them. It was like they were pets being let to be slaughter. Elk, sheep, ibex, bison, you name it they hunted it. It was pathetic. They caught a guy killing a ram in a pen. Animals that were tranquilized. THIS WAS NOT HUNTING. They had a kangaroo for crying out loud. It was nothing short of hunting in a petting zoo. They could walk up and touch some of the animals. People that see this and think this is what hunters do. It makes us all look bad. Take a look at it and decide for yourself. This is an extreme canned hunting. No 10,000 acre fences. This is small, like 200 acres or less. I think this is something any sportman would be against.

Todd,

Nobody is forcing you to do anything!

I simply asked, WHY ARE YOU SO BOUND AND DETERMINED TO HAVE OTHERS HUNT YOUR WAY? You speak slightingly of those that do not do it your way at every turn. There's this for example

and this
and this
and this
and this
and this
and finally this
Hope that explains it. Frankly, you haven't clue what you're talking about, but you're super fast to point out what you deem to be inadequeacy.
Case and point. Thank God this is just your opinion, and thank God I and a million other hunters do not subscribe to either B&C or P&Y. You'll find my name all over SCI's record book though. I'm sure they allow fair chase "estate" hunts in their book!
No, actually "spectulation" is the process of creating a work with the hopes of selling it. It's a conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture. That's exactly what you've done, and I've simply pointed it out. I will gladly pay attention to any factual evidence you present-as soon as I finish fingering myself and yelling (brilliant).

Altlk4,

More than likely, I would be against it too. But then again, I'm against any portrayal of animals being kill and placed within the public's view. Let's face it, there's nothing pleasant about killing something-although it's a necessary part of wildlife management. I kill. When I do so it's between me, God, and my prey-nobody else. That's how I roll...

It's just one of those things. You either ar OK with it or you aren't. It is not for everyone that's for sure. But if that is what you want and it is legal than nothing wrong with it. It is not my job to determine what is hunting or who are hunters. I've seen a lot of hunters who would not think about hunting anything but free range that I wouldn't step foot in a woods with. Just because someone hunts nothing but free range doesn't automatically make them a hunter and the same goes with high fence hunting. JMHO.

I respect that humble opinion SJAdventures.

Call it "Canned Shooting" and they can do it all they want! Call it "Hunting" and I'll object every time because it's not whether it's someone who is disabled or in perfect shape. I'm with Todd 100% on this whole thread!!!

Topgun,

Call what "canned shooting"? Do you, like Todd, know it when you see it? Is it the act of the so called "free range hunter" that steps from his truck to blasts a deer 300-1000 yards away? Perhaps it's the free range coastal hunter who spots a bear while motoring a boat a half mile offshore, kills the motor and drifts inland two hundred yards down wind? I personally watched canned shooters kill free ranging caribou from the road (while in the back of their truck) as these incredible creatures migrated onto the Trans-Tiaga highway. Is it the rifleman perked in a treestand over the most suculant one acre food plot for miles in any direction? The bait hunter? Pick any worse case extreme you want...if it's not your aesthetic, then more than likely you'll call it canned shooting. Is it wrong if it's legal? No, at least not to the person involved. Their motives may be completely different than yours. Do you have to participate in these types of activities? No, you hunt your way and you let others hunt their way. That's the neat thing about being American. We have choices.

Why do you keep coming back with more and more BS scenarios that are nothing like we are talking about? If it's to increase your post count, you're doing a good job of it, but it appears that no matter what anyone posts on this thread you are going to object to it because it differs with yours. Then you have the nerve to say: "you hunt your way and you let others hunt their way"! The scenarios you keep presenting are not within a small confined space where the animal has "NO" possibility of escape. All the others you mention are free ranging animals and, although some may be easier to hunt than others, they are still able to go wherever and whenever they choose, unlike "shooting" an animal in an escape-proof pen for a fee, which is what what we are talking about in this thread. Thus, it appears you just want to argue for arguments sake, rather than keeping the thread to it's original intent and focus. I've said all I will say and you can come up with some other goofy argument to justify this canned shooting, but it ain't gonna fly around here!!! IMHO these canned shoots are very detrimental to the future of legitimate hunting when those on the fence are shown videos of the slaughter and told that is what hunting is when they don't know any better. Those are the folks we need to worry about and not the small percentage of antis that are against everything!

I don't disagree with most of what has been written. I am not trying to call someone a hunter or not a hunter at this point. I am just now wanting to point out how bad this looks. I have regressed from the stance at this point that all these hunts are as bad as the other. None of them are for me, however this extreme canned hunting was no more than killing. They bought most of these animals at an auction and brought it to a pen to be released to be killed. It is not sporting and it is not even close to fair. If you want to go hunt in this way then I can't stop you, do as you please. Just don't expect me to hold you in the same regards as other sportsman.

I also agree with the fact that points about road hunters and such are being lumped in with canned hunting. These are similar but different arguments all together. If we want to talk about how people have advantages that are unfair in fair chase situations we need to start a new thread.

No where in all those quotes did you locate anywhere that I said people should be forced to stop doing this or that it should be made illegal. In fact I have 3 times now stated the exact opposite. So one last time, how am I trying to force anyone to hunt as I do?

You know what it seems like here. You seem like a major league pen hunter who's ego is being hurt by people who have a negative opinion of these places. But you can't admit that so you keep hurling this ridiculous and unfounded accusation that I am trying to force you to hunt like me. Like I said before, if you want to shoot tame animals inside a pen and get gouged for 1000's of dollars doing it then knock yourself out. Despite your rants to the contrary nobody is trying to stop you. I and many, many others just don't consider it hunting. I'm sorry if that pisses you off and you don't feel good about shooting penned animals without the approval of people on the internet. But it's not my job to prop up your ego and make you feel like you have actually accomplished something. My family owns quite a lot of cattle. I could go shoot a cow everyday. But I wouldn't call it hunting or consider it much of an accomplishment however.

I could track down some ex NFL player who's now down on his luck and buy one of his game Jerseys. Would that mean I played in the NFL? Hey what if he happened to be on a championship team and I bought his super bowl ring? Would that mean I was a super bowl champion? LOL! In the mind of a pen hunter I guess it would.

In our area (West Texas) I am seeing more new high fences to keep deer out of cropland area's. Depending on the terrain, high fence hunting can be challenging, even with feeders. If a rancher feeds his sheep or cattle, the deer will come in and share. Same with exotics. Most landowners try and improve the native white tail population after the fences go up.

Whether or not you think hunting these places is ethical, most try and provide a fun and "real hunting" experience.

highlonesome---No problem with what you are talking about when it's large acreage like is common down in Texas. The high fence place I used to hunt next to down in the brush country east of Freer was 30,000 acres and sure wasn't "canned" shooting like we are talking about on this thread.

I stated back in an earlier post that I don't think anyone here is talking about some huge ranch with one fence around the outside perimeter. Iamyourhuckleberry knows the kind of places we are talking about. He's just being intentionally obtuse.

Todd,

Dude, you are the one that said "forced", not me. I simply stated you are bound and determined to have others hunt only in the way you do via your belittlements and spectulative inferences. If you would like for me to point them out again,I will.

Spectulation...again, you haven't a clue.

I know exactly who I am, and I do not need to admit anything. I'm a person who isn't afraid to let others hunt the way they want; hunting is not a competition for me. I'm not worried about whether or not somebody else is "cheating", or if their buck is bigger than mine. I seriously doubt you could say the same.

I know for a fact I will never hunt like you, at least my motives won't be the same...and I doubt I'll lose any sleep over it. I pretty much accept people for who they are and for what they legally do.

Again, you used a poor choice of words. If you would have said, I and many, many others just don't consider it sporting, I would have agreed. By definition, it is still hunting.

You haven't pissed me off. I'm actually intrigued
by the notion and individual thought processes involving “hunting” as a competition. I'd love to sit down with you someday and gather information for a book. I'll split the royalities with you. And please, do not worry about my ego, you have enough on your competitive plate.

By definition, if you actively pursue a cow to kill it for food or sport, then it is hunting (if you desire to just kill it, it might be called a poor business decision.Then again, it might not). I certainly wouldn't call it sporting though. Nor would I care one way or another if you endeavored to do such a thing. It's your life...live it as you legally desire.

No

No

Speculation...

Seriously Todd?

Topgun,

Really? Connect the dots.

Would you like to try that sentence again? I'm unclear as to what you are trying to say.

I'll extrapolate the best I can:

I'm not too worried about my post count, but thank you for the kind words.

It does matter what anyone posts on this thread. When the post is thoroughly convincing and well thought out, I congratulate the poster with a "I respect your opinion". Please do re-visit the post I made to SJAdventures. By the way, Terasec, your post was awesome as well.

And let me tell you, that took a lot of nerve!

NO, no they are not per se. You are partially right! The scenarios I presented were, to me, situations involving "canned shooting", or at least "unsportman like conduct" as described. They are/were tactics I would never employ as a hunter (again, connect the dots). On the other side of the coin, I am not going lay waste to the hunters who uses these tactic. Who am I to question? I do not wear their shoes....and there are way too many variables to consider.

I can effectively teach any person off the street to proficiently shoot a rifle in a matter of hours. In the first scenario I presented, a proficient shooter would leave zero room for a deer to escape. Where's the hunting aspect? If it's not hunting, then it's merely shooting. If the animal has no possiblity to escape (proficient shooter), then it's canned shooting.

I truly hope you make the leap.

Actually Topgun, the original poster made no reference to "an escape proof pen". He mentioned a high fenced operation that he believed was a section in size (that's 640 acres, by the way). He also asked for our opinions on the matter, which I gladly gave. Some of us said live and let live, some of us asked for more information and others belittled based upon aesthetic differences. I asked individuals to draw the line-make definitions. I was given a single subjective response, 'I know it when I see it' and a whole heap of speculation. As far as as intent and focus, I haven't veered. I am still giving my opinion...on high fence hunters

Who died and left you in charge?

Personally, I think the same could be said for the "outside the fence" supposed "fair chase hunters". I think it would be to all our best interest if we keep the videos (all videos showing the demise of animals) out of the public's eye. I also think it would be wise to drop the competitiveness of hunting maintained by so many. But hey, that's just me...Mr. Intentionally Obtuse.

So is 30,000 where you draw the line? A little heads up, they still won't be able to escape...nor will they be able to come and go where they please. Just saying...

And just for you Todd,

Complete spectulation!

I think Huck is trying to get additional definition of what some of you guys are discussing. 30,000 acres, some claim as "sure not canned hunting." Other guys seem to think that, regardless of size, it's a "pen." I think we can all agree that if the landowner ties a 200" buck to a tree and then opens it up to high bidders, that is different than 30,000 acres inside a high fence. The problem is, where do we draw lines, and should we draw lines, at points in between? What factors should be considered? Just acres? Terrain and available cover? Hunting style?

Here in Texas, the vast majority of deer hunting is done from box blinds stationed within a hundred yards or so of a feeder that operates on a solar powered battery and timer. That being the case, does it really change significantly if there is a high fence? Regardless, the "hunting" style is to sit and wait and hope that a "shooter buck" wanders into your field of view.

It seems that some here are speculating about what it's like behind a high fence. That's really all you can do if you have never done it. Speculate. So, you end up believing that it's a 100% guarantee. That the owners import genetics. That they hand feed the deer, and basically serve them up to the clients on a silver platter. That's not how it is in all cases, and I doubt that's the way it is in the vast majority of cases.

I've hunted both sides of the fence. As I said earlier, my first "deer hunt" was on a high fenced place in Central Texas that was part of a TPWD study prior to implementing antler restrictions in the contiguous 13 counties. I showed up on Friday afternoon, and we went for a drive around the ranch, roughly 500 acres of heavily wooded area, in the middle of what is known as the "Post Oak Savannah", with a few scattered food plots. We saw two deer, flags up, fleeing our Ford pickup truck. Next morning, we were in a blind, set up at the corner of a food plot (no timed feeders), and we waited. The deer eventually did what deer do. They left their bedding areas, came through the food plot, ate a little, and headed off toward a creek. The owner has been managing his place for the better part of 20 years, and has since taken a couple of 160-170 class deer off of it. No imported genetics. Age and food plots. And those deer act exactly like wild deer. They are not tame...

Since then, I've been hunting at a no-fence ranch in the Texas Hill Country. Essentially, the same scenario. Get in the blind early, sit and wait for deer to start wandering through the area. Hope that a big one comes through looking for food, or chasing a doe. Blinds and feeders is pretty much the only way to hunt on the 1500 acre ranch, with roughly 10-15 hunters every weekend... Too crowded for spot and stalk hunting. I suppose there are some who say that's not hunting either.

Nonetheless, it's hunting to me, and to most in Texas... And, I don't think that folks ought to be at each others' throats about it, suggesting that "my way of legal hunting is real hunting, and your way of legal hunting is really nothing more than going out and shooting a cow." To me, that reeks of being a pompous azz. What gives you the right to define hunting for anyone other than yourself?

To me, it's about getting out a 4 A.M., and seeing the stars, undiminished by the lights of the city. Listening to the birds as the sun breaks over the horizon. Watching the deer interact with each other. Does stomping, snorting, rearing on their hind legs and sparring each other. Young bucks, rapping their antlers together, practicing for fights over breeding rights. Getting your son into the woods to do something other than World of Warcraft. Shaking with anticipation after his shot at his first buck.

I suppose everyone is welcome to have their own opinion, but, if you haven't done it, it's nothing but speculation. You're relying on negative characterizations presented solely of the worst case scenario, presented by PETA, and/ or HSUS, the worst of the worst anti-hunting organizations. You're imagining what it's like, without any basis in reality. And, you are playing right into the anti's divide and conquer tactics... The pro-fence and anti-fence guys really ought to be allied, because to HSUS, it doesn't make ANY difference whether you're hunting 10 acres, 10,000 acres or a Million acres, with or without a fence. They want to stop it ALL. Anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves...

Todd says he's just being intentionally obtuse!!! I like it and he is now back with a lot more BS addressed to both of us that I'm not going to touch, LOL!!! This is one of those guys that will get the last word in any way he can and then will figure he won the debate or whatever you want to call it when people get tired of responding!

Now that's what I'm talking about. Nicely rationalized ipscshooter! Good on you lad!

For some reason I wouldn't expect anything less. Missed that jump, eh Top?

i saw on tv the other day, Smithsonian i think, a canned hunt investigation...
now i know we have em here in texas, but we also have fenced hunts that are over 250 thousand acres, and its a lil more fair chase as compared to this investigation...
the investigation concluded that they are basically people raised deer, that are tranquilized so they are slower to run..they had animals that didnt even flinch from gunfire 20 yards from them.. a guide would go grab the ram and drag it out in front of the investigators (im para-phrasing) so they could shoot it. i aint down with this at all....although i havnt ventured there, the 250,000 acres is still a hike and the animals can/do run from you in there..its 1/2 the size of rhode island per say, not 50 fenced acres...alot different in my opinion, but it is fenced, and its only 3 or 4 hundred sq acres, not really that much, like real open range hunting.
but to each his own...i aint judging anyone....ok maybe i am, but im keepin it to myself.

"Hunting" Definition - the act of a person or animal that hunts.

I searched many dictionaries before posting this. Anything more than this definition is merely your personal conditioning, and opinion.

Throughout the world there are many different means of harvesting game. There are many reasons that people have chosen to hunt the way they do for the harvesting of their game. Does this make one wrong over another? No. If the hunter in Africa is legally sitting in a special seat outside the jeep as they speed along, trying to get a shot at game, does this make it wrong? No. If a person can legally put out feed, plots, or licks, and hunt over them, does this make it wrong? No. If I physically carry a handicapped person to a blind and place them in a chair, does this make it wrong for them to hunt? No. But if you think about it, they are a canned hunter. They do it because it is legal and it fits their situation. many people think that crossbow hunting shouldn't be allowed. In many states it is only legal for handicapped, and it gives them more time out in the woods doing what they love. I could go on for pages and pages, I am sure, Covering all the different means of hunting that one person over the next may like or dislike. To what avail? If it is legal, then it is an allowed means of hunting.

There are many things that may seem unethical to many of us that love to hunt. But the truth is, that if it is a legal means to hunt in that area, then it is considered hunting. Because your personal conditioning and opinion leads you to think that a particular way of hunting is unethical, does not make it any less of a way of hunting.

Well I was choosing between intentionally obtuse or completely oblivious. I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

But where is it written that I have to consider it hunting? The freedom to form your own opinion is really one of the only true freedoms you have. Think I'll hang on to mine.

If I or anybody else in this thread were advocating making this illegal then some of the counter points would be valid. But we aren't. So they are not.

And yank whatever Websters dictionary description of hunting out you want (it was probably written by a geeky bookworm that never hunted anyway). Furthermore there are numerous meanings to the word. I can hunt for a lost pen but I would hope we all understand that we are focusing on a specific use of the word here. I'd be willing to bet you, if asked, the vast majority of hunters in this country would not consider shooting a domesticated animal in a pen, hunting as the word applies to such endeavors.

To me the people who visit these places want a guaranteed outcome. And if you read the ads for them thats what most of them promise. And hell, I even understand the motivation of the people who run the places to try and make it a slam dunk easy kill. After all people who shell out thousands of dollars and go home empty handed often go home pissed and they typically don't come back. So it behooves the people who own these places to make sure horns go home in the back of every truck. But in real hunting there are no guaranteed outcomes. That's why they call it hunting. If the outcome were assured they would call it killing. Go down to the slaughter house and ask them what they are doing with the cows down there. See if anyone uses the word "hunting".

When you eliminate the posibility of failure, when you remove all the elements of chance, then how can you call it hunting with a straight face?

I once put a deer that had been hit by a car out of it's misery. It was busted all to hell and lying in the ditch unable to move but still alive. I took a pistol and shot it in the head. Was that a hunting trip? I guess by the rule espoused here that we can't say that "ANYTHING" involving a weapon and an animal isn't hunting I will have to henceforth refer to that event as a successful stalk hunt.

Lord have mercy.

You are certainly welcome to have the opinion that you don't want to do it. But, under the Tenth Amendment, each State has the right to define "hunting" within its borders. If what I do is legal hunting within my State as defined by the state wildlife agency, then, you are required to consider it "hunting" and it is inappropriate for you to rant for pages about something you've never experienced and that you know about only via assumptions, speculation and biased information filtered by anti hunting groups.

To paraphrase your thought... Where is it written that you have the right to tell someone else that they are "not hunting"? You are telling them that they have no freedom to form their own opinion... "Obtuse" seems to be a two way street here...

The Bill of Rights I believe. About half way through amendment Number 1. Of course it's their right not to listen to what I'm saying if they so choose.

Anyone care to discuss elitism?

Nice work Deerdust.

Yes indeed, Lord have mercy!

Todd, I see you can read, but when will you learn to comprehend what you are reading? As I stated, this is your personal opinion and conditioning.

I never said anyone was talking about making it illegal, but I am sure some would. I simply stated that per State Laws it has been deemed a legal means of hunting for those that choose to do so.

And I am sure that the Geeky Bookworms don't create meanings to the words to suit their liking. If they have, we seem to have adapted to their meanings. The definition I gave is the correct application to our discussion.

Again, personal conditioning and opinion.

Why would they? They have always been referred to as Butchers

Because the people as a consensus can't ever seem to come together to agree on anything, is why we have appointed Congressman and Senators to create the laws that govern our way of living. Your freedom gives you the right to try to vote in who you think will do the best job. Whether or not you agree with the laws they instill is >>--> Guess what: LOL Your personal conditioning and opinion.

I am not downloading the laws of your state to find out for sure, but I know that in most states, what you did is illegal, without 1st getting permission from your states area Conservation Officer to dispatch the animal. Which, if caught doing so is generally subject to prosecution for poaching.

I agree with you 100% on this.

[QUOTE=ipscshooter;3818393] If what I do is legal hunting within my State as defined by the state wildlife agency, then, you are required to consider it "hunting" and it is inappropriate for you to rant for pages about something you've never experienced and that you know about only via assumptions, speculation and biased information filtered by anti hunting groups.

First off my experience is from a guy who I know on a semi personal level who owns such a place. We spoke at length and he told me about his operation. I told him at first that it was not hunting. In prior post I have stated that I have backed off somewhat of my 100% against stance. It is not for me and others may do as they please, just don't look for my appoval. I have tried to stear this ship in the right directions and we have went on many tangents I doubt I can find my way home. Which I am actually thankful for. It has been a great discussion that has bordered on heated but has still been informative. This is what a forum is about. If all parties agreed on everything it would not be worth the read.

I will disagree that without going on a canned hunt you can only make assumptions and speculation is not true. If that it is true then I must be speculating about the holocaust as well because I was not there. Because if you ask the Nazi's they will have a different story than the Allies. So who do I believe the Nazi's or the Allies, PETA or the american sportsman. I don't need to watch the propoganda to know what I think about it. I pointed out the show as a reference to what we were speaking about. It was interesting. Do I take everything they say at face value, no. They have an adgenda also. Both sides stretch the truth. It is up to each person to wade through the BS and decide what to believe.

Not illegal where I did it but I will tell you straight up that before I waited 2 hours for a cop to show up in the rural area I live (if he showed up at all) I'd put the animal out of it's misery legal or not. Just being honest. If that has any bearing on your opinion of me then so be it. I did not and would never remove the carcass from where it lay.

Well according to this crowd since you were never a Nazi and did not participate in the actual extermination of Jews anything negative you say about Hitler, the Nazi's or the holocaust is rank speculation on your part and therefore utterly meaningless. Just as you must have shot a tame animal in a pen to have an opinion on that subject as well. Because as we all know the human mind cannot fathom anything that the body attached to it hasn't actually done. LOL!

That clear it up for ya?

Todd,

Some things are black and white, others are not. The Nazis broke laws (would you like me to enumerate them for you?), trials were held, and violators were hung. You cannot possibly be so ill-informed to make such a comparison ( I refrained from saying what I really thought...giving you the benefit of doubt).

Moving on...

Animal husbandry has been around for thousands of years. It has been a major part of human evolution even in the most remote part of our planet. The Nenets of Russia, for example, have tended reindeer for thousands of years. And get this, they used fences to harvest them. Icelanders brought reindeer to their island for meat, fur, and economic gain. You can say the reindeer is the icelandic cow. They hunt them! They also allow others to hunt them! Is hunting a reindeer there any different than hunting_______( fill in the blank). Where can they go, it's an island for goodness sake? New Zealand...an island with once domesticated animals is hunted daily. In Europe, the concept of a "public trust" is completely foreign (animals are owned by the estate on which they are killed). The concept of "ownership" creates a tremendious amount of grey area (has ever since men began congregating). It is that grey area, individual rights protected by law, under discussion at present. What I find perplexing is how seemingly a well educated person, like you, can in one breath defend individual freedoms and in another express opinion to abrogate them. If I were to call it as I see it, I'd scream " Todd you Hypocrite!"

Now please do continue to exercise your first amendment right-even on the internet (see Reno vs.ACLU). Not unlike your right to hunt, many of us will honor your right to spew excrement.

One additional thought, could you provide us with the exact statute(s) which gives you the right to kill one of the people's injured deer. That would be great-thanks!

I defend the right to do this but reserve the right to consider it something less than hunting. If you can't grasp that simple concept which is in no way at odds with itself then I'm sorry for you. It's pretty simple. A good analogy would be that I support the right of free speech even for groups like the American Nazi Party while at the same time despising what it is that they have to say.

A doe in the ditch of a private road across our land hit by a vehicle. It was during deer season and it was daylight. Please if you will provide the statute I violated by shooting her under these circumstances? Not that I would give a #### if you could.

Because

I stand by my earlier claim unabashedly. Where our land is located and with what it would entail to contact the authorities (no cell service, very few homes nearby where a phone could be reached) and the likelihood (slim to none) that a county law officer would be dispatched to this area from Monroeville (well over an hour away) for nothing more than a suffering deer, I'd have put her out of her misery if she had been beside the only paved road in the area at midnight on the 4th of July. It's the merciful thing to do.

Quote:

---

I defend the right to do this but reserve the right to consider it something less than hunting. If you can't grasp that simple concept which is in no way at odds with itself then I'm sorry for you. It's pretty simple. A good analogy would be that I support the right of free speech even for groups like the American Nazi Party while at the same time despising what it is that they have to say.

---

If for some reason you became king with absolute power, would you honor and yet despise? I surmise, probably not. The only thing you're missing from your arrogant kingdom is absolute power. Thus, it's easy for me to say, "LORD HAVE MERCY" when encountering people like you.

Another good analogy would be to consider African Americans less than "human" on the basis they are "different". Thank God a lot of good folks saw where that path was leading and abolished it.

Quote:

---

I stand by my earlier claim unabashedly. Where our land is located and with what it would entail to contact the authorities (no cell service, very few homes nearby where a phone could be reached) and the likelihood (slim to none) that a county law officer would be dispatched to this area from Monroeville (well over an hour away) for nothing more than a suffering deer, I'd have put her out of her misery if she had been beside the only paved road in the area at midnight on the 4th of July. It's the merciful thing to do.

---

I am not going to argue the mercy of it. I would have done the same thing given the authority. I would never assume, however, I had the authority-even if my situation placed me ten thousand miles from Timbuktu! I'm not that arrogant. Had I killed the doe (mercifully) without authority, I would have immediately, or a soon as possible, notified the pertinent agency. Moreover, I would have accepted the consequences of my action. Did you do any of that? Did you have enough character to do the right thing, completely? Again, I surmise the answer is No. You grabbed absolute power for the moment and ran with it.

Thanks for some great insight Todd.

Todd, I don't condemn you for your doeful mercy. Most ethical people would do the same. I was merely pointing out the potential legalities. Quite possibly, a Conservation Officer would have given verbal permission to dispatch the animal, if convinced that the probability of survival was slim. And that it would only lay and suffer until the final outcome.

I, myself shot a legal(4pts on one side) Missouri buck last year. One of the guides had hit it and told me about it at breakfast. We went to check its condition and found it to have 3 broken legs. It could only try and flop away from us. It was a pitiful sight, so I dispatched it. I could probably have gotten a tag for it from our DNR, but still had my Gun Buck tag anyway. The meat wasn't damaged, only broken legs. He made some excellent jerky, burger, and tenderloin steaks.

At this point I 'm pretty sure that no one outside of your own brain has any inkling of what in the hell you are talking about as it has no basis in reality any more. I'm convinced that you must be either a 12 year old on here trolling or an adult in desperate need of upping his daily dose of Haldol. Because given the fact that I have not at any point advocated banning these pen operations the above statement from you makes about as much sense as eating broth with a fork.

What law would I have to self report myself for? I shot a doe in the daytime with a legal weapon on private land during season. All else discussed along those lines were of the hypothetical nature and have not occurred yet. Do you possess any reading comprehension skills whatsoever?

But this is ridiculous to discuss anyway. You don't really care about my opinions, actions, or the legal issues concerning putting a suffering animal out of it's misery. This is just you once again trying to deflect the discussion off topic because you are getting your @$$ handed to you.

No that isn't a good analogy at all. In fact it makes no sense. But that's not shocking coming from someone that has to be the worst debater I have ever encountered. You make the most ridiculous analogies; you ignore points you can't defend; you constantly yet feebly and pathetically attempt to attribute words or thoughts to others that they have never remotely expressed and when all else fails you just stick your fingers in your ears and start screaming "Speculation" over and over again. I therefore find it useless to continue conversing with you. I'd be better off trying to explain to my dog how the ceiling fan works.

It brings to mind the old quote by George Bernard Shaw. "Never wrestle with a pig, it gets you dirty and the pig likes it."

Deerdust, I perfectly realize the tricky nature in disregarding the absolute strict letter of the law. Believe me I am no outlaw. But the laws on the books were passed and exist to stop people from hunting from the public roads, at night or out of season. They were not passed because the citizenry were up in arms about deer struck by cars being put out of their misery. Right or wrong I am a firm believer in the concept of situational ethics. For example I would not refrain from swimming out to and saving a drowning child in a park pond because a sign in front of me said "NO SWIMMING". Laws are great. Without them society would collapse into chaos. But believe it or not you can take anything, even adherence to the law, to a ridiculous extreme under certain, thankfully rare, circumstances.