Zip It or Voice It?

[TheKnack]

There are many different ways that many of us hunt.
We all have our opinions on the right or wrong way to do it and how it makes the sport of hunting look to the general public.

Some say band together to insure our future to hunt.
Others point out how other hunters methods cause an immediate danger of losing our rights because of the way they make the majority of hunters look.
So do we voice our opinions or are we supposed to zip our mouths and hope for the best?

Many huge differences have been voiced on who supports foodplots, baiting, chute planes, vouchers, ATV's and shed antler gathering to name a few.
Some say there are more important things to worry about.

My question is, if we do not voice our opinions then what do you think will happen to our ability to hunt in the future?

Best,
Jerry

 

[old_man_of_the_hills]

It is a fact that as outdoorsman, we are our own worst enemies when it comes to fighting the antis because we will eat ourselves if given the chance. For example, I'd just as soon never see another motorized vehicle off of a road, snowmobiles included, however I realize that such a law would be a victory for the antis and weaken our cause greatly. The antis do a pretty good job at conquering and dividing us, and I think that if we are ultimately to survive, a few aspects of what we do will have to be abolished in order to save the sport. I think the best thing we can do is to police our own ranks and make decisions before they're made for us.

---------------------------------------
This is my post

I've just pissed in my pants.......and nobody can do anything about it.

 

[fatrooster]

America stands for freedom of speech. fatrooster.

 

[Califelkslayer]

To each his own, as long as its legal. And if it ain't, in this great country, you can get laws changed. We each have a set of morals and values but even if the activity is against your principles, if its legal we shouldn't criticize it.

I personally dislike ATV's but thats because I'm a horse man. I'm sure there are backpackers that resent me riding my horse into an area then starting a hunt fresh while they are already tuckered out. Doesn't make the ATVer wrong, the backpacker wrong or me wrong.

 

[kingfish]

Keep it legal when hunting and turn in ANYONE not doing the same. I have said it many times on this site. If we (hunters)don't police our own sport we will lose it!!!!!

 

[BuzzH]

Voice it...every chance you get.

I also grow tired of other hunters saying, "if its legal...lets all stick together".

That statement is total crap.

I'll give you an example of why I flat refuse to "stick together as long its legal". I could make a list a mile long on similar things I've witnessed in 27 years of hunting.

A couple seasons ago I was antelope hunting in Wyoming with a good friend. Perfect day...lots of antelope very few other hunters. We were sorting through numerous bucks.

Pretty soon, from our vantage point we see a small buck and a doe walking across a big flat. Also, at the same time here comes a truck driving slowly toward the buck and doe. When they get about 500 yards from the two antelope the passenger hops out and promptly takes the 500 yard shot hitting the doe squarely in the guts. The two antelope start moving toward a fence, with the "hunter" blazing away at the doe. He empties his rifle and we can see him reloading. The doe is just standing, with guts beside it, near the fence. The "hunter" empties his rifle again. Then he comes up with a brilliant idea...get closer. He reloads, walks from the truck to about 250 yards from the doe...still standing there with its guts hanging out. The guy empties his rifle...AGAIN. I see him searching through all his pockets looking for more ammo...nope fresh out. Now he walks back to the truck and grabs another handful of ammo. By this time the doe is bedded down. He walks up to about 100 yards and shoots the doe again. The doe gets up, stumbles through the fence, hanging its intestines on the wire. The brain child, now has the upper hand...that doe isnt going anywhere with the guts hung up in the fence. He walks up to about 3 feet from the struggling doe and shoots the doe in the head. He looks the situation over and then raises his arms...pumping his fist in the air in victory. His buddy back at the truck sees the celebration dance and heads over for a few snapshots of the big "hunt".

There is nothing legally wrong with that "hunt"...but what if a non-hunter were to view such a display? How, and more importantly WHY, would you as an ethical hunter try to defend that a$$clown?

As a hunter, I found this guys lack of ethics pretty appalling. I also refuse to "stick together" with idiotic and unethical behavior like that. Before I defend a guy like that, I'd quit hunting and join PETA...and thats a fact.

I would like to think incidents like these are isolated, but they are far from isolated.

 

[stickerpt]

Buzz
The episode you related paints an ugly picture. No one wants
to see that scenario. People who say "stick together and support all legal methods of hunting" are not talking about
inept hunters taking potshots at animals. They are talking about
hunting deer with hounds, baiting bear, hunting on a preserve,
using a rifle. You name it. Do you get the picture? Some hunters
do not approve of other hunter's legal hunting means and would vote against it if given the opportunity. That is the divide and conquer scenario that we wish to avoid.
Happy hunting! However you wish to do it. As long as it is legal!

 

[TFinalshot]

"if its legal we shouldn't criticize it"

Wow, I would hate to see where this nation would be if we took that approach. . . it once was legal to kill everything, there were no limits, and look where that got us, ESA and the listing once great populations of wild animals. Imagine if we had not challenged commercial hunting. . .

Maybe calielk wants to clarify his meaning for us. . .

I would say that while there is some rift in our community, the limits of our resource base, and the ever growing and changing demand should be enough reason to always consider our actions and the impacts, both intended and unintended on our hunting rights/privileges. . . Therefore, it always will be important to discuss with everyone our demands. . .

 

[REDDOG]

Buzz, sadly that type of b.s is all too common with pronghorn hunting, maybe not the fence involvment but, as you know, and any one else that spends time hunting them, the assclown incidents are far from isolated!

 

[stickerpt]

Tony I am sure Calielk is referring to other hunter's legal hunting methods. For instance are there any legal hunting methods that you personally would criticize or make illegal?

 

[CAelknuts]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-15-07 AT 10:06AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Feb-15-07 AT 10:00?AM (MST)

I agree with Tfinal on this, and that doesn't happen all that often.

Over on another forum, the one about bears, lions, predators and such, there was a thread started that questioned whether you could kill a coyote with a pellet gun. The guy got some responses directed to his question, pro and con both; and then some guy jumps on there and say that his cousin once shot a deer in "the throat" with a pellet gun and it dropped in its' tracks, so try that. Well, that ranks right up there as one of the most unethical, outright stupid and totally irresponsible things I've ever heard of that involved guns and wildlife, not to mention illegal in every state, so I jumped on the guy and told him that I thought his cousin was an idiot for shooting a deer in the throat with a pellet gun and that he and his cousin both give hunters a bad name. A few days later, another member sees my comments and takes offense that I had a problem with this lack of ethics and referred to the guy as an idiot, so he jumps all over me and expands the discussion to criticize me since I'm from California.

I find that thought process in some of our members, and hunters in general, troubling. You don't have to like what some of us say when we see things that 99% of the members probably find troubling even if they don't say it, but when you disagree with someone who posts, keep it on point. If you don't like the fact that I think anyone who shoots a deer in the throat with a pellet gun is an idiot, say so (which he didn't say), and I or the majority of other members on here will respond to you in a responsible manner. When you attack people because of where they live or for other reasons unrelated to the thread, you demean the whole discussion and represent yourself as someone who isn't capable of rational thought.

I still think anyone who'd use a pellet gun to shoot a deer in the throat is actually below the level of an idiot, and decided that maybe the guy who attacked me was the poacher being referred to and that's why he was so upset at my characterizaion of the outlaw, I'll never know and don't care to find out. I simply wish he'd display enough intelligence to disagree with my views and explain why, or argue that the guy is more intelligent than an idiot, that maybe he's only a dummy, as opposed to a total moron!

 

[Dmanmastertracker]

Very good post and question. Legal doesn't always mean ethical, as some have already demonstrated. Yes, the hunting community needs to debate these issues regularly, some call it "policing". That's healthy, that keeps us honest with ourselves, anything unregulated to some degree has no definition and leads to abuse of the resource. I don't think there are many people that don't have any concept of the difference between "legally and ethical" verses what is legal, but not ethical, but there will always be a few bad eggs. USFS and State Agencies simply can't regulate stupidity, it's impossible and often they don't have the manpower to even enforce the basic laws. That's why it's essential for hunters to work together to preserve the integrity of the sport. Too often hunting is an "every man for himself" type of mentality where the only concern is getting that animal and everything else is secondary. It's perfectly legal to think that way, but, say for example you set out scents, feed and hide in a blind for deer like you often see on TV. Legal in a lot of State's, but necessary to get a deer? I've never needed any of those things and I've harvested blackies, muleys and whities in the roughest terrain. I do know for fact that there are some "legal" aspects of hunting such as this, regularly televised that create a poor image of the sport and many others feel the same. Strictly by definition "hunting" is the "pursuit of game". So, blind hunting would more accurately be called "shooting", not "hunting", as there is no pursuit involved -unless you call arriving by truck pursuit.

 

[CAelknuts]

I see that censorship is alive and well. The post I made that was deleted off of this thread makes three of them today.

Too bad, because they were about ethics and policing our ranks.