Hunter's public image.

[Washington Hunter]

Tom, yes I do. They ARE unethical, to me, and to most hunters in this country. Texas hunters might be the exception, because they have grown up with canned hunts and they think it's the norm. When you go "hunting" on a ranch with an 8-foot-high game-proof fence there is no doubt as to whether the animals are there. You don't have to go scouting before the season to learn the country. Hunting wild animals there is no guarantee they are going to be there. That is why we call it hunting. The subject here is "hunter's public image" and one of the worst things we can do to hurt that image, is to allow these fenced "hunts" to continue.

Do you deny that?

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Tom, yes I do. They ARE unethical, to me, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It really doesn't matter if you personally don't like the way some get their game. It really doesn't. Some in Washington State thought it was highly unethical to be hunting cats and bears with dogs, is it actually unethical. I wouldn't personally think so, but a lot of uneducated individuals did and voted it out, ( I should state uneducated as those that didn't understand the topics at hand they were voting for). They are even having a problem right now with the trapping issue in that state. I am very much glad I moved out of Washington and into an area that is not so overbearing on what they perceive as right or wrong no matter how misguided or unfounded they are.

 

[GRAYBEARD]

One very damaging image problem we have isn't our fault, but we should work to change it. When was the last time you saw a newspaper article or news report about some poacher. where the headline didn't read "Hunter Kills Elk out of season" or "Hunters Slaugter Cows In Pasture" or "Hunter Fires Shot Through Window"
These people almost always use automobiles in there crimes but the media would never say "Drivers Kill 15 Bear For Their Feet And Galbladders"

Even our local paper, which is not anti- hunting, continues to portray criminals as hunters. If we could change this one practice I think it would go a long way toward cleaning up our image.

 

[Nut]

Very good point Graybeard. I hate it also when a poacher is called a hunter.

 

[Elkhunter]

Excellent GRAYBEARD.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Great analagy Greybeard Thanks!!!

 

[BuzzH]

Elkchsr said, "It really doesn't matter if you personally don't like the way some get their game. It really doesn't. Some in Washington State thought it was highly unethical to be hunting cats and bears with dogs, is it actually unethical. I wouldn't personally think so, but a lot of uneducated individuals did and voted it out, ( I should state uneducated as those that didn't understand the topics at hand they were voting for)."

You really are a riot, and a huge hypocrit.

Your giving your OPINION on why bears and cats should be hunted with dogs. You're stating YOU'RE code of ethics on the subject. Yet, you bash someone for THEIR ethics and call them "UNEDUCATED" because their personal views arent in line with yours. That my friend, is as hypocritical as it gets. They have as much right to their set of ethics as the next person, so get over it.

Also, good thing we dont hold you accountable for spouting off on all the topics you dont know anything about. Is there any subject on this board that you arent an absolute authority on? I mean you reply to stuff just to post, not knowing a thing about it.

 

[Tom]

Washington Hunter, I was trying to get you to recognize the existence of other ethical codes, not trying to get you to repeat your ethical statements. I was trying to get you to say the NRA has or has not, done a lot for hunters and gun owners. I don't deny that you follow some ethics while hunting. I do deny your statement, that the high fence hunts continuing is one of the worst things for the future of hunting. There's only a few hunters here on this board that tell me that, no one else. It has been very good for the future of hunting here, it is not like you imagine it here, and just because you or some other hunters who have very little exposure to the good of it don't like it, doesn't mean we should get rid of it. I think it would be beneficial to learn something about it from those who have used it for years, who have gone through the good and the bad of it, and who have figured out how to make it work. There are landowners that have been using it here for years, there are wildlife biologists that have been using it for years, and there are state run pieces of property that have been using it for years. Those people have the experience to say what is good and bad about it. Its working very well here, despite only about 2% of the state being under high fence. Its working well in other states. Its working well in other countries. That doesn't mean it would work well in your state, it doesn't mean every wild animals should be in a fence, and it sure doesn't mean we should get rid of it, because you don't like it, it just means you should not hunt on one of them, if that is what you choose.

As soon as the voters ban one type of hunting led by the anti-hunters against all hunting, they will look for the next group to ban. Lion hunters in California, like 11-12 years ago, spring bear in Quebec, trapping in Colorado, game fenced elk shoots in Montana, bear baiting in Washington, the anti-s are against it all. I think that is what Elkshsr was getting at, the strategy of the anti-s is to divide and conquer, since they can't get all of hunting and all of the hunters at once. I don't think we should let any of it go, I think we should just manage it better, solve the issues one by one, educate the public one by one. Like, Idaho has some areas for baiting bears, some for using dogs, and some for spot and stalk. That is great, everybody has someplace to hunt bears, whatever their style. That's an example of the better management ideas being used, it seems to me.

Greybeard made a very good point. We shouldn't let the press call a poacher a hunter.

Buzz doesn't want to pay to hunt private land, so he can hunt the public land, it doesn't mean we should get rid of paying private landowners for access to their land and the animals there, not one bit. The private land owners need to be encouraged to take care of wildlife, and some other hunter, not Buzz, will choose to pay them, if that is what it takes.

Elkchsr made a good point too, he recognized that some hunting groups will hunt ways that other hunting groups would not. Buzz, you don't need to attack him personally, try and see his point. It seemed like he was saying there is more than one code of ethics to choose to follow and still be a real hunter. Individuals can hunt according to their own choice of ethics, as long as it is legal. They can even choose to hunt illegal but that has pretty severe consequences and we have a word to describe them then, poacher, not hunter.

There are high fence places in multiple states and multiple countries, recognize that too. They are successfully being used to manage wildlife well.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-01-2003 18:58: Message edited by: Tom ]</font>

 

[MEATHEAD]

Very well said

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Your giving your OPINION on why bears and cats should be hunted with dogs. You're stating YOU'RE code of ethics on the subject. Yet, you bash someone for THEIR ethics and call them "UNEDUCATED" because their personal views arent in line with yours. That my friend, is as hypocritical as it gets. They have as much right to their set of ethics as the next person, so get over it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Buzz.!!! Unlike you, I have no ax to grind
I talked to quite a number of people that thought that the ban on game farms was to stop penning "wild elk", not to stop CWD. All the signs I saw around here made no mention to the fact of what it was really all about. It only advertised what they new the general public wanted to hear. I have no idea where you think the way I posted had any thing to do with being a hypocrite. All I ever see from any thing you post is a sour bent attitude that is getting worse with age. Besides, if I didn't give my opinion here, you would ride rough shod on every one else, thinking for some odd reason that being like you are, that it will turn others views around. I have seen not new one person since I started on the board jump to your side, it couldn't be your over abrasive personality, maybe it's your charm, I guess I am to uneducated to understand...LMAO... Every thing you post any more is becoming a huge joke. I think the only one that doesn't see it is you, or maybe it's the rest of us that are stupid and you are the only smart one here...HAHAHAHAHA… Now that is funny!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Also, good thing we dont hold you accountable for spouting off on all the topics you dont know anything about. Is there any subject on this board that you arent an absolute authority on? I mean you reply to stuff just to post, not knowing a thing about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can hold me accountable if you can…
Unlike you, I try not to put up gibberish and nonsense. I also see that you never seem to attack me on things I bring to your attention, you just blow them off and go right on spouting and touting more goofy stuff to keep us all entertained. Well I will thank you for that. I will again, ask you almighty one, give me places to go look at these so called moonscapes and what not, don’t just give me a general idea of where to go, this is a very big state. Of special interest will be the publicly owned lands, when I get some time and am in the area, I will document what you say. That way we will know if you are just beating the same old worn out drum, or if what you say is credible. The ball is again in your court, if it is as bad as you say, you should be able to give me countless places in which to start. Other wise I suppose you will be back, attacking me or some one else on how stupid we are. Put your money where your mouth is, or all it is-is lip service, no different than we see on countless other boards on the net. Any one can say and be any thing they don't have to be or do. Besides, have you checked “YOUR” spelling and punctuation lately… LMAO!!!

Thanks Tom!

 

[Elkhunter]

Good post Tom.

You really are a riot, and a huge hypocrit.

You're stating YOU'RE code of ethics on the subject. Yet, you bash someone for THEIR ethics and call them "UNEDUCATED" because their personal views arent in line with yours. That my friend, is as hypocritical as it gets.
Perhaps the author of this should reread what he posted and practice what he is preaching.
They have as much right to their set of ethics as the next person, so get over it.
By golly he actually gets it.

 

[ELKCHSR]

HAHAHAHA!!!
That is a very good post..

 

[Tom]

Good point Elkhunter, Buzz said,

"They have as much right to their set of ethics as the next person, so get over it."

Maybe he'll read it and see that he gets it.

 

[Lostagain]

On another issue, the public's thinks that hunters buy a fistful of tags and go out blasting everything, just because they have a tag. The image is there is no hunters just blasters. The hunters go out and blast whatever they have a tag for, not really hunting anything but just opportunists.

As far as 143, the real fight was about WHO was to be in control of the game farms...F&G vs Ag dept. FW&P has real problems, because with a game farm permit the owners cannot charge for someone else to shoot their critters, but if the owners had a F&G "zoo and merganie" permit the owners can charge to have someone come remove their surplus animals. Don't make much sense.
The F&G was really put out because the game farms was able to bypass them on tags/customers etc without the F&G getting their cut of the money.

 

[Lostagain]

Oh yea, it's also really hard to downplay the FACT that everyone "knows" hunters decimated the over 100 MILLION bison. If it wasn't for the destructive hunters the world would have so much more.
Need some more examples why you hunters need to be together on issues and not bickering amongst yourselves.


Kinda related:::
http://www.uni-erfurt.de/nordamerika/erfurterbeit/umweltgeschichte.html#b

then click on 'aurthur' bison