# Plainsman do you want to join?



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Fargo, ND (WDAY TV) - A North Dakota hunting rights group is rallying against a proposed ban on preserve and game hunting. During a stop in Fargo today, the "Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights" group says hunters should be allowed to hunt as they wish, especially since its being done on private land.

They're asking people to vote against the ban if it makes it on the November ballot. The measure would ban "high-fence" game farms, where hunters pay a fee to hunt. Supporters of the measure say the hunt is unethical and would keep diseases, like chronic wasting, in check. Two similar attempts to ban game and preserve hunting have failed the last two legislative sessions.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

So how does this......A North Dakota hunting rights group......equal this........Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights group.??????

Of course the latter want the former to be the same. :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

PLus I have really paid close attention to hunting bills in our legislature and I don't remember any bill 4 years ago to ban "Canned Hunting."The last session.....yes......2 sessions ago.....nope.

Of course newspeople don't always make sure they are right before they print something. :gag:


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

g/o said:


> Fargo, ND (WDAY TV) - the "Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights" group says hunters should be allowed to hunt as they wish, especially since its being done on private land.[/quote
> 
> See... They still want to call in HUNTING!! :eyeroll:


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

For all you "hunters" out there I have an offer to come for a once in a life time hunt. We have 36 dairy cows all lined up and ready to go. Just pick out the one out want in the barn and we can start the hunt. You don't need any camoflage because they are tied up and cannot move much. We can even butcher if for you. All for the small price of $1800.

This is where hunting is going if we don't rid of the penned in hunts.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Group opposes hunting proposal 
By DAVE KOLPACK Associated Press Writer 
The Associated Press - Wednesday, April 23, 2008

FARGO, N.D.

Game preserve owners are campaigning against a proposed North Dakota ballot measure that would eliminate so-called high-fence hunting, saying a ban would violate their property rights.

"The bottom line is that preserve hunting is not for everyone," said Wayne Laaveg, who owns an elk farm near Edinburg. "But citizens should have the right to choose where they want to hunt."

Supporters of the initiative say it's unethical to shoot a fenced-in animal.

Roger Kaseman, chairman of the Fair Chase Initiative, said the property rights argument was shot down when Montana voters passed a similar initiative in 2000.

"We're doing exactly what Montana did," said Kaseman, of Linton.

Sen. Tim Mathern, D-Fargo, sponsored a bill in the last session that would have banned high-fence hunting. That measure was defeated 44-3. Kaseman attributed the loss to a powerful lobby that included the state's congressional delegation and the North Dakota Farm Bureau.

"We just ran into a political buzz saw," Kaseman said.

North Dakota has more than 100 game and elk preserves, but only about a dozen offer hunting for a fee. About 80 percent of those hunters are from out of state, said Shawn Schafer, of Turtle Lake, a spokesman for Citizens to Preserve North Dakota Property Rights.

"This has tremendous economic impact for the state of North Dakota," Schafer said of the proposed ballot measure.

Countered Kaseman: "There's some economic development that just isn't right."

Schafer said most supporters of the ballot measure are people who want to keep nonresident hunters out of the state, or people who are against hunting. "I think the majority (of hunters) support us," he said.

Kaseman said his group has about 5,000 certified and notarized signatures. They need signatures from at least 12,844 North Dakota voters to put the measure on the ballot.

"Shawn needs to get out there and go face-to-face with the people who have signed our petitions. Sportsmen are signing in droves," Kaseman said. "I'm a hardcore hunter."

Schafer said supporters of the ban might get enough signatures, but his group is not waiting to find out.

"We don't want to wait until that point to get to our campaign," he said. "The word we're trying to get out is, 'Vote no.'"


----------



## honkerslayr (Dec 14, 2006)

Now this whole proposal to ban high fence hunting has some good points. Now what really makes me angry is that they call these canned hunts "hunting" which it entirely is not! It's just a matter of time before these penned animals become infected with some type of disease and it spreads to our animals that we hunt thus killing them off, for example CWD and tuburculosis. But what the real problem is that it's done on private land and they are free to do what they want, which I agree entirely because it represents democracy, but when it endangers other things like neighboring wildlife, that is when it crosses the line. It's a big issue that has valid points on each side to an extent but the ban side has more important valid points that make sense. And not to mention it gives us actual hunters a bad rep, which is just fuel for the anti-hunting groups and animal right activists and will eventuall lead to the demise of our sport, which just isn't right.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

> Now what really makes me angry is that they call these canned hunts "hunting" which it entirely is not! It's just a matter of time before these penned animals become infected with some type of disease and it spreads to our animals that we hunt thus killing them off, for example CWD and tuburculosis. But what the real problem is that it's done on private land and they are free to do what they want, which I agree entirely because it represents democracy, but when it endangers other things like neighboring wildlife, that is when it crosses the line.


So eliminating canned hunts will eliminate these animals which will eliminate the disease? The farmer will still have these animals in his possession, the disease does and still exists in the wild. WHAT HAVE YOU ACCOMPLISHED.

So if disease is the issue, then eliminate the possession of these animals altogether. But no, instead, take away the "high fence" hunting, take away a good source of income, make the ranchers/farmers spend a whole lot of money now in court battling this, all in the hopes that they just go away, rather than having to compensate them in any way.

So rather than it being a TAKINGS by getting rid of the game farm and taking their animals, just make it a PARTIAL TAKINGS so you do not have to compensate them. CLEVER. That is what they did in Montana.

"Neither 'property' nor the value of property is a physical thing. Property is a of set of defined OPTIONS...It is that set of OPTIONS which has economic value...It is the OPTIONS, and not the physical things, which are the 'property'--economically as well as legally...But because the public tends to think of property as tangible, physical things, this opens the way politically for government confiscation of property by forcibly taking away OPTIONS while leaving the PHYSICAL OBJECTS UNTOUCHED." Thomas Sowell


----------



## honkerslayr (Dec 14, 2006)

LT said:


> > Now what really makes me angry is that they call these canned hunts "hunting" which it entirely is not! It's just a matter of time before these penned animals become infected with some type of disease and it spreads to our animals that we hunt thus killing them off, for example CWD and tuburculosis. But what the real problem is that it's done on private land and they are free to do what they want, which I agree entirely because it represents democracy, but when it endangers other things like neighboring wildlife, that is when it crosses the line.
> 
> 
> So eliminating canned hunts will eliminate these animals which will eliminate the disease? The farmer will still have these animals in his possession, the disease does and still exists in the wild. WHAT HAVE YOU ACCOMPLISHED.
> ...


First fo all I never said it would eliminate the threat of disease. But don't 
you think it would certainly help. These people who own these canned hunts bring in animals that could be from wherever and who knows what kinds of stuff they have been exposed to. And why put the animals we actually hunt in danger of disease, would you like them to contract the disease and end up like parts of wisconsin with CWD or parts of northeastern minnesota with turburculosos?? And also i never once said that if these hunts are eliminated that it would stop disease threats but it certainly would help out a ton. Also if they did ban high fence hunting i doubt the farmer would keep the animals around just for the hell of it when it makes no sense that statement is ridiculous.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

North Dakota Also Facing Anti-Elk Farming/Hunting Groups 
Posted by Tom Remington on January 15, 2007

Since last summer, much of my focus on elk farming and elk hunting on ranches has been focused in Idaho. The debate there seriously began back last August after some elk escaped from Rex Rammell's Chief Joseph ranch. With unfounded fear of disease and gene contamination, then Governor Jim Risch ordered any and all escaped elk killed. Some in Idaho have taken this opportunity to begin an anti-rights march to put an end to elk farming and hunting on elk ranches.

This campaign is not relegated only to Idaho. Oregon has taken up the debate as well as North Dakota. Ken Wagenman, past president of North Dakota Elk Growers Association, submitted an article in the In-Forum News (free subscription) that helps to dismiss some of the lies being told about the elk industry.

Unfortunately in this debate, as with many debates, myths are perpetuated in order to embellish stories. Using tactics like instilling fear in the masses has always proven to be quite effective. It is time consuming and costly that individuals have to counter inaccurate claims and quell fears in order to protect their businesses.

I would encourage all readers to visit the site and read his entire article. Wagenman addresses three areas in which those wanting to ban elk farming and elk hunting on ranches, speak of regularly - disease, genetics and ethics. First, disease.

*Disease has been and always will be of great concern to livestock producers and wildlife managers. It is no secret that occasionally disease shows up in both sectors of the animal world. Some would like you to believe game farms are teeming with disease and are a grave threat to wildlife. Here is the truth.

North Dakota has had domesticated elk for more than 40 years. Today we have yet to diagnose our first case of chronic wasting disease after testing literally thousands of these elk over the last eight years. The elk ranchers also adhere to a strict system of testing for tuberculosis and brucellosis, which has rewarded them with a clean bill of health.

We will never eliminate disease, especially in the wild. But cooperation between North Dakota Board of Animal Health and North Dakota Game and Fish has served us well in keeping our landscape disease-free. Farmed elk do not pose any greater threat of disease than do other forms of domestic livestock, especially since they share many of the same diseases. *

Genetics is another topic used to instill fear in the people. Many are led to believe that domestic elk are bred with other related species like red deer in order to grow bigger antlers for the sole purpose of trophy hunting. Once again Wagenman sets the record straight.

The genetics inside the fence are the same, if not better, than those outside the fence.

Again, the truth is elk producers certainly select their breeding herd from the heartiest, largest, best-producing genetics available to them. This has resulted in the production of bulls that really wow the hunting public. This is not "genetic engineering" but simply selective breeding that demonstrates the true potential of these majestic beasts. In contrast to that, you have a wild herd that has also been genetically modified. Only in this case, the result is the opposite. For many years trophy hunters have been allowed to harvest the largest bulls from the herd, allowing the lesser bulls to do the bulk of the breeding. The net result of this is a wild herd that doesn't have the genetic potential to produce what we see coming out of domestic herds. This has also contributed to the demand for trophy bulls on game preserves.

Regulations adopted by states can dictate the genetic purity of any and all elk allowed to be brought into the state from outside for the purpose of elk farming.

Lastly, Wagenman addresses hunting ethics and the hunting ranch issue. A more difficult task to do because ethics is a perceived notion that comes from an individual's background and beliefs, most of which began at a very young age. Wagenman points out much of the double standards and hypocrisy that is evident in this issue.

Hunter ethics is the other great debate. The definition of these terms is widely varied. Many hunters will use every legal means available to them to increase their odds of success. This may include technology, firearms, clothing, and even dogs and baiting. Others would argue in favor of more traditional methods, such as a long bow, to increase the challenge of the hunt.

I often hear the excuse that preserve hunting may turn the nonhunting public against all hunters. My response is the perception of the nonhunting public of hunters has nothing to do with preserve hunting. Certainly free-chase hunters are responsible to the public as to how they harvest the public's resource. However, the animals in a hunting preserve are no more the public's resource than are my house, my car or any other livestock.

I would argue that we certainly harvest our animals in a timely and humane fashion, often much more so than what goes on with free-chase hunting. We do not allow animals to be wounded and suffer for days or weeks on end.

While Wagenman addresses the issue of ethics when it comes to hunting ranches, he also touches on the property rights issue. An individual has every right to believe that hunting on an elk ranch is unethical. They also have the choice to not go there to hunt but does this individual's belief give them the right to take away another's rights? While those opposed to elk farming and hunting on ranches make every attempt to persuade the public that elk farming posses a public hazard, they have yet to provide any real truth to their argument to prove their case.

Ethics is a sticky road but it should be pointed out that it is also very personal and should be left up to the individual. Again, how is hunting within the confines of a ranch a public safety issue? If you don't want to call it hunting, then don't call it that. Call it whatever you will. It is also your choice to not go there to hunt as it is the choice of others who may choose to do so. After all, it's not like everyone can get an elk license each season to hunt elk. Hunters sometimes wait for years for an opportunity. Some choose not to wait.

For those who worry about the bad name that hunters will get because of ranch hunting, I think that considering the very small number who choose to hunt that way, it will have little if any affect. There is far more poaching, baiting, driving, drinking alcohol, trespassing and a host of other issues that are giving hunting and hunters more of a bad name than your so-called "high-fence" hunting.

To set the record straight for those who don't know. I have never hunted on a ranch and at this point in my life have no intentions whatsoever to do so. It is nothing that interests me but I have no idea what my future holds. It is my choice not to go to a ranch and hunt. In my own mind, hunting on some ranches may not be hunting in its purist form but I believe it is a rights issue - a property rights issue that is harming no one.

Are there abuses? You bet and they need to be addressed. I think the industry needs minimum standards that address humane treatment of elk and I would not be opposed to the setting of a minimum acreage per elk hunted standard for hunting ranches but am in no way a proponent of taking away the rights of hard working people who want to farm elk and/or offer some of them to be taken by hunting or shooting, if you will.

Wagenman asks at the end of his article what I have asked myself several times. If we are to stop the farming of elk, then we must also stop the farming of deer, bison, pheasant, quail, fish and all other species that hunters and fishermen seek. There is no difference. All species of wildlife run a risk of carrying and spreading disease and wildlife departments in every state have practiced genetic engineering in order to make a better, bigger, fish with more fight making it more fun to catch. Why is this any different than raising an elk?

As hunters we should closely examine the precedents that we seek to establish. What you think might be a great idea today will come back and haunt you in the coming years. For the purists who seek to practice the sport in a way that more closely pits man against beast, I admire your patience, skill and determination. For the person who elects to take an elk within the fences of a game ranch, I respect your choice knowing that it has no ill effect on me or my family or the general public at large.

Tom Remington


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

blhunter3 said:


> This is where hunting is going if we don't rid of the penned in hunts.


Only if everybody partakes of it. I support their right to operate, even though id never myself use one.


----------



## Southwest Fisher (May 14, 2004)

An ex(then current)-girlfriend's father took me to a game farm for pheasants a few years back. I truly had no idea what we were doing that morning, but when I saw the penned birds I started to get queesy. It got worse once the owner of the "business" released them into the tree row 200m in front of us. The whole experience was sickening, compounded by the potential father-in-law questioning my marksmanship skills as an Infantryman because I sure couldn't shoot too well (he didn't pick up that I was disgusted and just refused to really aim at anything, preferring a long miss, that way it looked like I was trying to him and I felt better for not being a...***** or whatever you call someone who shoots tame animals for "sport."). Since then I've decided that I will never support these pathetic operations or the jacka***s that frequent them, the father being the case in point. He wouldn't even accept my invitations to the farm back in South Heart for real pheasant hunting, I truly think that he was afraid of being unable to hit a real wild bird.

The point to this story is, I am not yet sure if these operations do have a legal right to exist. Moral - no, not at all. Not for a sportsman. But legal is a different question. However, I do believe that I have the legal and moral right to call anyone whom takes an animal in a game ranch a pu**y.


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

IF they get rid of high fence hunting baiting should be next to go. How anyone can put out a pile of corn and sit buy that and call that hunting is beyond me.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> IF they get rid of high fence hunting baiting should be next to go. How anyone can put out a pile of corn and sit buy that and call that hunting is beyond me.


Sounds good to me, and after that lets get rid of those tree stands. After all deer don't climb trees and we all know they never look up. Whats fair about that? Next those arrows have to go. I mean what kind of ethical hunter would feel good about shooting a deer only to let it go off somewhere and slowly drown in its own blood. Only other creature I know of that pulls a stunt like that is a rattle snake. Next we have to get rid of...


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Wow.....you haven't been watching The Discovery Channel,Animal Planet, or National Geographic.

Almost all predators let their victims die a slow death.Lions,Crocs,Wolves etc. :roll: It takes a long time to suffocate,drown,or be eaten alive.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Almost all predators let their victims die a slow death.Lions,Crocs,Wolves etc. It takes a long time to suffocate,drown,or be eaten alive.


Wow.... so now you feel justified by comparing yourself and your actions to a predator in the wild. :eyeroll: Have a big news flash for you, those crocs, lions, and wolves would gladly use our guns if they were available to them. :eyeroll: Besides those predators don't gave a hoot about ethics, thats one of your crying towel excuses you are seemingly so concerned about and use as an excuse to shove your ideas onto others.

Now lets step back from your world of fantasy land into the real world I live in. The point was, what will be next to be banned? One leads to another as anyone with with common sense knows. I'll tell you what is a real "wow" here, and that is someone that not only wants to control how others hunt, ban a certain type of hunting, but is at the same time pushing for a guy to be president of this country that has made it know he will remove your right to own guns and will take them away from you if given a chance. Now that is a real "wow". Other words would certainly fit the bill but just wow will do for now. Wow... :koolaid:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I have a new flash for you.......Evidently you can't comprehend your own posts.....this is what you said...."Only other creature I know of that pulls a stunt like that is a rattle snake.

Aren't lions,wolves,crocs,and HUMANS creatures??????Well maybe you aren't a creature like the rest of us. k:

My point is all animals that are taken down by a predator suffer,some longer than others.We are a predator.So how are other predators different?The prey animals don't know the difference and suffer just as much and are just as dead as those taken by a bowhunter.So maybe you are the one that should get out of the fantasy world.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

:lol: usaully the pheasants I shoot at die a slow death laughing at my shooting....


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Well maybe you aren't a creature like the rest of us.


Since your rest of us is very few I can only thank God for that. oke:

Ken, animals in the wild haven't a choice how they must hunt to survive. We are not only not predators that must kill to survive or hunt to survive but have a choice when we do hunt for recreation or sport. My point and KurtR's point as you well know is if this stupid petition succeeds, what is next and who will push it. All you are proving with your comments is those of you that think you are morale superior to the rest of us always have a excuse for what you are willing to accept while the rest of us have no excuse.

Now if you can think of something other than a snake (venom) or human (arrow) that injects something into another animal then waits in the shade while that animal crawls off to die then let me know. I could care less if someone uses a tree stand, hunts with a bow, takes 1,000 yard shots or uses the services of a game farm. But all of them are now in more danger of being eliminated because of actions such as this petition you are so excited about. You can make up your next excuse now.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

This is not about choice of how they die.....You are against bowhunting because it prolongs death.Kile I said other predators could care less about that.Dead is dead for a deer shot by a bowhunter or one taken by a wolf or mt. lion that doesn't die in an instant.The deer is still dead.

If we didn't kill to survive we would all be vegetarians.Are you a vegetarian?If not then you kill to survive.Another mistatement by you. :roll:

Oh,and I don't bowhunt.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

You know Ken if you would just once take the time to read before jumping in with both feet, well at least I wouldn't have to be redundant by constantly having to point things out to you over and over. What is it about "I could care less if someone uses a tree stand, *hunts with a bow*, takes 1,000 yard shots or uses the services of a game farm" that went over your head? No Ken I'm not a vegetarian and I do hunt so of course I do kill. But I have a choice don't I. The predator doesn't though do they? To use that as a excuse to cover up your own acceptance of a particular type of hunting while condemning someone else's is simply dishonest. The difference is I don't go around telling others how they should hunt, you do. You and your group are the ones that keep talking about ethics, ethical and fair. That is until it infringes on what you or your friends like to do and then it's redraw the rules to fit your choice only.

But you keep right on making the excuses and burying your head in the sand. Your time of awakening is a lot shorter than you think and this petition will make it even shorter. Unfortunately those of us that already know better will be forced to suffer along with you.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> To use that as a excuse to cover up your own acceptance of a particular type of hunting while condemning someone else's is simply dishonest. The difference is I don't go around telling others how they should hunt, you do. You and your group are the ones that keep talking about ethics, ethical and fair. That is until it infringes on what you or your friends like to do and then it's redraw the rules to fit your choice only.
> 
> But you keep right on making the excuses and burying your head in the sand. Your time of awakening is a lot shorter than you think and this petition will make it even shorter. Unfortunately those of us that already know better will be forced to suffer along with you.


Sport hunting has a long history of establish ethics called the "rules of fair chase" high fence hunting is not alllowed nor are trophy animals taken in high fence outfits allowed in any accepted organizations like Boone and Crockett. Your position that anything goes and that its just something Ken doesn't like is incorrect..... its all hunters, its all game departments, that don't like it. They dont like it because they have a sense of fairness and realize that the public most of whom are non hunters also have a sense of fairness and nothing is fair chase in a high fence outfit. Its simply not hunting in the traditional spirit of the sport hunter history.

And tradition is a big part of hunting and society because its based on whats good for both.

Hunters have decided to limit themselves to sporting methods and the very basis of that limitation is that the animals are free to escape.

Using bows and tree stand does not prevent a deer from escaping, fair chase is preserved and that is the basis for sport hunting.

ANd I do alot of bow hunting and deer definitely do look up by the way.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Using bows and tree stand does not prevent a deer from escaping, fair chase is preserved and that is the basis for sport hunting.


Again, it is simply amazing how some want to twist things into something that wasn't said. In the first place Bob I have nothing against bow hunting or tree stands. I even made that point clear not once but twice if you bothered to read. But there are those that do and they will use those excuses to come after those types of hunting. Their goal is to stop all hunting period. If you want to read around the point being made just for arguments sake then go right ahead but in the end you and I have everything to lose while the anti hunters have everything to gain. I also in no way said everything goes so stop putting words in peoples mouth. If some of you don't wake up and smell the coffee, ban together instead of splitting hunters apart, it won't be long until there won't be any coffee to smell.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> If some of you don't wake up and smell the coffee, ban together instead of splitting hunters apart, it won't be long until there won't be any coffee to smell.


I agree hunters need to stick together, but disagree strongly that people that hunt in high fence enclosures are hunters.

They are slobs buying "trophies", and damaging the hunters image the "coffee" you profess to have concern for.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> They are slobs buying "trophies", and damaging the hunters image the


So the likes of Jeff Cooper, Jack O'Conner, and Elmer Keith were all slob trophy hunters that damaged hunters image? Interesting..


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> They are slobs buying "trophies", and damaging the hunters image the "coffee" you profess to have concern for.


So my twin brother who is handicaped is a slob hunter since he used one of these establishments.... uke: :eyeroll:


----------



## Southwest Fisher (May 14, 2004)

IF there was one specific game farm locatred somewhere in the center of the state that availed itself only to people with physical limitations, then people probably wouldn't be getting so worked up over it. The fact remains that anybody who is "able" need nit be using a fence to slaughter animals because _*hunting*_ as we know it will only remain an acceptable tradition if their is SOME skill involved. If not then we are just killing for the sake of killing. The government, in the form of DNR/GNF type-agencies and state regulations, has always regulated what steps will be in place to ensure that there is some semblance of sport to our hunting and fishing pasttimes, be it making spotlighting for deer illegal or MN only allowing one pole per fisherman. The agency members solicite opinion and advice from the sportsmen(and women) themselves - just like Doug does - and pass this on to the people that make the rules. We have a right to complein about the date of the pheasant opener if we feel that the date decided by the governor is not in the best interests of the animal/hunter relationship (sound familiar) and we complain to try and change things for the better. Just like now we realize and accept that using a fence is not akin to *"hunting"* and we are trying to make things better for the animal/hunter relationship. If any yahoo with no practice can kill any animal legally whenever he desires then how long will the animals last? About as long as they'll last if we fence them all up so those same unskilled yahoos can herd em into a corner and blast away.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Chuck Smith said:


> > They are slobs buying "trophies", and damaging the hunters image the "coffee" you profess to have concern for.
> 
> 
> So my twin brother who is handicaped is a slob hunter since he used one of these establishments.... uke: :eyeroll:


Unfortunately the cold hard fact is that your brothers misfortune doesn't make it right to hunt enclosed animals, or compromise the idea of fair chase.

Down here a handicapped person can get free hunts on some of the best deer leases in the state just for the asking and he will also be guided for free and people will put him in the best stands. If you doubt this go on the Georgia outdoors web site, describe your brothers condition and situation and ask or do a search its come up before read the threads. We even build them special rigs to allow them to shoot off ATVs.

So don't lecture me about handicapped people there are ways to help them that dont require tarnishing the image of hunters

I have no doubt that the people of North Dakota would do the same, this discussion isn't about handicapped people.

Heres a couple examples of how they should be helped

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=1 ... ped+hunter

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=146702&page=2

[/url]


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

bob,

I know of how to help. In my state, MN, it is so hard to get the permits needed for the specialized equipment. They getting a laser sight that is needed for his aiming. Almost impossible. Then you have to renew it every year. Go through the same hoops even though it is a life handicap.

Try walking in another mans shoes for one day before you throw stones. Calling them slob hunters is very poor use of words and judgement.

Like I have stated to people time and time again. Take your daily routine and try it in a wheel chair with limited mobility of your arms. See how easy it is. Have you every watched the show 30 days.....they just did one where they took a pro athlete and put him in a wheel chair for 30 days. see how he got a long.

Again I don't think these places are hunting but to call the people who use them slobs is wrong. You don't know their situation. I also hate it when people want to take oppurtunities away. Like I have mentioned in many posts on this subject. We go my brother into hunting because of a conversation with a high fenced owner. He cut us a deal and we worked with him, a gun smith and got things figured out. My brother had sucess and now he hunts with us "fair chase" like everyone likes to call it. (different tangent on "fair chase" if you want to know my opinion pm me.)

If you read my take on the MN accident where the guy shot his kid. This puts a bigger black eye on hunting than any legit high fenced operation.

SW.....your post is good. But one thing is that these animals are not a wild herd. They are captive. Purchased to be slaughtered, killed, breed for antler growth, etc. They are just like cattle and hogs.

I think fenced operations need tight restrictions and laws. So escape and disease won't occur. But to abolish them is wrong.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Chuck,


> Try walking in another mans shoes for one day before you throw stones. Calling them slob hunters is very poor use of words and judgement.


No where in any of Bobs posts has he called (specifically) your brother a slob hunter. He was refering to those who are ABLE and WILLING bodies. *Your brother situation is different than you and I!*

I have to agree with Bob 100%.

Like I have said before, I don't know of any farmer that would say "NO" to you! You don't NEED these types of KILLING farms to have a QUALITY HUNTING OPPORTUNITY! Isn't that what it's all about? QUALITY OPPORTUNITY for your brother? Or is it about the KILL?



> If you read my take on the MN accident where the guy shot his kid. This puts a bigger black eye on hunting than any legit high fenced operation.


I agree 100%.....


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Maverick and everyone else....

Have you not read in all my posts. I talk about our first experience was at a high fenced operation. Then that enlightened us on ways we could make it work with my brother. You see with out that first experience the rest would not have been possible.

You see in this wanting to abolish high fenced operations iit will be taking a chance away for someone. It will be taking away an opportunity for someone. Some one out there could be in the same situation my family was in 15 years ago. Now I would never ever want to deny someone a chance to have success and fall in love with the outdoors.

And yes success is killing. Look at the post on the different stages of hunting/hunters. Killing is important at one stage in a hunters career! If you say you never had it ......take another look. everyone has been in that stage even if it is short lived. Even my brother has been.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> No where in any of Bobs posts has he called (specifically) your brother a slob hunter.


Actually he did just that. He specifically said "but disagree strongly that people that hunt in high fence enclosures are hunters. They are slobs buying "trophies", and damaging the hunters" People means everyone period. The handicapped using these facilities are only one group they benefit. Game ranches are not about just the handicapped. I'd still like a answer about Keith, O'Conner and Cooper. They used these facilities often as do a lot of other people due to time restrictions, not getting enough time from their jobs to scout and set up blinds and a host of other reasons. Any of you want to step up to the plate and accuse these guys of being slob hunters?

Seems there are two things in play here. Because you have the time but not the resources, and because you aren't restrained by a disability you don't really give a rats butt about others. It's really easy to set around and say it is easy for the disabled, yourself knowing nothing about what it is really like. Maybe it would be equal and fair if everyone had to go get special permits to hunt or to prove you need to actually hunt in a certain manner or with a particular item.

Actually I'd like to see some of you so called hunters hunt the way I do. No tree stands, no atv's, no sent blockers, no bait, and not even camouflage clothing, just blue jeans, regular shirt and a hunter safety orange vest. It's just simply easing through the woods, watching, moving a little, standing stone still and meeting the game on it's own ground. It's called still hunting. It once was the only way to hunt. But a lot of people don't want to hunt that way so who am I to tell them they must. I don't have that right to tell people how to hunt and neither do any of you.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

HOLY SH!T, How long is this bickering going to go on? There are way too many threads for this topic. Neither side is going to get any where with the other. The way we hunt isn't fair. We are sneaky, we use animals basic instincts (breeding, feeding,ect) against them. It really isn't that different if you shoot your animal in a pen or from a treestand or from 500yds with a rifle. The animal never had a chance. I have heard the same run around since I started on this site. It is all about ethics, no, I mean disease, no, I mean genetic engineering, no I meant ethics, and on and on. I am a hunter, a sportsman, but most of all a clear thinking person. I don't use game farms, but I would be a lesser person if I told you not to. I have written this before, but I think it should be said again. If you want your next hunt to be fair, walk up to the animal, introduce yourself, then try to kill it with your bare hands. That is the only way I can see it being "fair".


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

cwoparson...

One of your own Quotes....


> Again, it is simply amazing how some want to twist things into something that wasn't said.


Amazing....Isn't it........ :roll:


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> If you want your next hunt to be fair, walk up to the animal, introduce yourself, then try to kill it with your bare hands. That is the only way I can see it being "fair".


Nope, that's not fair either. They probable don't speak English and would misunderstand your intentions.



> Amazing....Isn't it........


Sure is. But at least now you know what he did say. :lol:


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> Nope, that's not fair either. They probable don't speak English and would misunderstand your intentions.


Damn, my bad, I will try to think of another way to go about it!!


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Sure is. But at least now you know what he did say.


Actually I do know what he was saying and who he did call a slob hunter and it wasn't his brother........Think about it cwoparson! Whose choice was it to use a kill farm? I would guess it was Chuck and his family!
So "NO" he really wasn't calling his brother a slob hunter!
:roll:


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

stirring the pot again?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Wait.....so he is calling me and my family slob hunters because we want to give my brother an experience that we have had.... :eyeroll: uke:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Chuck I would like to apologize to your brother, if he reads this my comment was definitely not aimed at him, able bodied people only, and I would never say something like that to anyone thats crippled.

I still think these high fence outfits are a scourge on hunting.

And while I'm not whining about it I understand more than most people what its like to be handicapped I usaully hunt 6-8 weeks a year in the last two years I've hunted only one week mostly due to a car accident a year ago october. I have had two surgeries to repair my right leg in the last year and now have a permanent limp in my left leg. I also ended up with a damaged spine that will plague me forever, many sleepless nights since.

I used to be able to run three miles in 18 minutes and did so every morning, right now I am working up to walking one mile since my last surgery 12 weeks ago.

I've been working hard to get back as much as possible and was in rehab feeling sorry for myself when I saw a kid that had much worse problems come in, I was embarrassed to realize I should be thankful for what I still had. One thing for sure when you see a kid in a condition like that its really heartbreaking, and I would never intentionally hurt ones feelings.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Bob,

Thanks. I know your comment was not aimed at handicapped but just been having a bad day.

But like I have mentioned is i would never want to take an opportunity away from people that were in our same situation. You see these place can help people realize the potential to enjoy the outdoors. If help spring board my brothers outdoors experiences.

Because when most people look at this issue they think of the people who go shoot a 400 class bull and put it in there home and lie about it. They say they shot it in montana or where ever. You know what.... WHO CARES. These same people will lie about the hunt if they did it on there own.

As long as these operations that care of the animals (disease free), kill them humanly and quickly, don't drug the animal, dont tie down the animal, and are regulated. I have no problem with them. Because to each is there own. Just like people chose to use bow while others will use rifle.

I do wish these places would have a min amount of acreage that is needed. No 5 acre kill pen and what not. Make it 1000 acres. And many are.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Its not hunters that are affected so much as the perception of hunters by the nonhunting public and the loss of their goodwill that will result.

Again there is no way I mean handicapped people, no one would begrudge them whatever help they needed, and if someone did the hell with them....

On another note its a real shame that Minn gives you grief about havng to jump thru hoops to get your brother his special rules about sights or whatever he needs to hunt, down here if anyone gave a kid like that a hard time about hunting he would wish he hadn't.

Some people just don't have any common sense.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

YOu wouldn't belive some of the bs we have had to go through. This spring we took him on a special hunt for turkeys. It was a state park type of hunt for handicap people. Anyway. We sent them his permit to shoot from a vehicle. They said they needed more evidence that he was handicaped. They said he needed a doctors note. So then that entailed a visit to a doctor. Then we sent them that......again they needed more proof. Now this is to get a license to hunt. What we finally did was have the local game warden send a letter to the state telling them our situation and accompanied with all the other stuff we already sent. It finally went through.

With the sights we finally switched how we hunt with him since we had to jump through all the hoops as well. To let you know we had a game warden when we first started know the situation and said he would turned a blind eye. We did not want to put him in that situation so we changed.

Now we shoulder the gun and he reaches in to pull the trigger.

Like I have stated if people knew or have gone through what we have they might not be so haste in there decision. Also others might have given up an just use the high fenced operations.

I have more examples but I think you get the point.

I wish all well. I have to go catch a plane.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Its not hunters that are affected so much as the perception of hunters by the nonhunting public and the loss of their goodwill that will result.


Bob have you looked at the article or have you followed what happened in MN this spring about the guy who shot his own son.

Now every article that is written says this guy was hunting. He was not. He did not have a valid MN spring turkey permit. He was poaching. But the press says he was hunting when this accident happened.

Then add on top of it he had been drinking and using drugs.

Now this damages or gives the non hunting public a poor view on hunting and hunters. The non hunting public is going by what the press said. this guy in no way shape of form was hunting. He was committing a crime by poaching and then the accident happened.

Also like I have said before is take the word "hunting" away from the advertising. Then it is clear cut. When someone talks about a high fence operation as "hunting" ..... you can say no it is not.

See this simple restriction will take away lots of ammo from the anti's.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Bob have you looked at the article or have you followed what happened in MN this spring about the guy who shot his own son.


I'm confused. What has this to do with high fence operations? Are you suggesting that very bad things negate lesser things? If this were true, then murder would negate armed robbery. I don't see any connection what so ever.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

Chuck I am going to repost my post then some of yours.......

I wrote.....


> No where in any of Bobs posts has he called (specifically) your brother a slob hunter. He was refering to those who are ABLE and WILLING bodies. Your brother situation is different than you and I!


Bob wrote.......



> Chuck I would like to apologize to your brother, if he reads this my comment was definitely not aimed at him, able bodied people only, and I would never say something like that to anyone thats crippled.


you wrote.....


> Wait.....so he is calling me and my family slob hunters because we want to give my brother an experience that we have had....


and then answer Bob with........


> Bob,
> 
> Thanks. I know your comment was not aimed at handicapped but just been having a bad day.


I think you know what I was saying.....If not.......Here is another direct quote from this thread. 


> Again, it is simply amazing how some want to twist things into something that wasn't said.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Tell you what Maverick, lets put the quotes in the proper sequence as they occurred and not out of sequence as you posted them. I'm even going to add the one you conveniently left out. I won't even add the one quote you left out that started the conversation where *all* people that hunt these places were called slob hunters..

*Chuck wrote:
So my twin brother who is handicaped is a slob hunter since he used one of these establishments....

Bob wrote: (added by poster..me)
Unfortunately the cold hard fact is that your brothers misfortune doesn't make it right to hunt enclosed animals, or compromise the idea of fair chase.
So don't lecture me about handicapped people there are ways to help them that dont require tarnishing the image of hunters

I wrote.....
Quote:
No where in any of Bobs posts has he called (specifically) your brother a slob hunter. He was refering to those who are ABLE and WILLING bodies. Your brother situation is different than you and I!

you wrote.....
Quote:
Wait.....so he is calling me and my family slob hunters because we want to give my brother an experience that we have had....

Bob wrote.......

Quote:
Chuck I would like to apologize to your brother, if he reads this my comment was definitely not aimed at him, able bodied people only, and I would never say something like that to anyone thats crippled.

and then answer Bob with........
Quote:
Bob,
Thanks. I know your comment was not aimed at handicapped but just been having a bad day.

Then Maverick ends the out of sequence quotes with..
I think you know what I was saying.....If not.......Here is another direct quote from this thread.
Quote:
Again, it is simply amazing how some want to twist things into something that wasn't said.*

Nice try Maverick. Don't know for sure what your end goal was but you just confirmed that it is simply amazing how some people twist things into something that wasn't said. I guess the question now is why are you insisting on pushing something that pretty much was settled yesterday. If it bothers you so much because you were wrong or if you think for some strange reason you wern't wrong then at least keep things in context.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

around and round we go......where we will stop.....

So what the Hell is your point CWOPARSON?

Mine is pretty simple.........

The fact is that I do KNOW what he was saying and you are trying to speak for him while his own words say otherwise! :eyeroll: 
Bob wasn't *directly* calling his brother a slob hunter. He wasn't...can't you read.........


> Chuck I would like to apologize to your brother, if he reads this my comment was definitely not aimed at him, able bodied people only, and I would never say something like that to anyone thats crippled.


.......then Chuck posted.....


> Bob,
> 
> Thanks. I know your comment was not aimed at handicapped but just been having a bad day.


My point proven.....



> Don't know for sure what your end goal was but you just confirmed that it is simply amazing how some people twist things into something that wasn't said


Funny you say that because YOU are the one SPINNING things. I could read what Bob's INTENT was. *YOU* COULDN'T and *YOU* started SPINNING !! *Plain ans simple*! The real question is what you just asked.....


> Don't know for sure what your end goal was


What's yours....... :withstupid:


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> The fact is that I do KNOW what he was saying and you are trying to speak for him while his own words say otherwise!


You don't know anything and that is not the fact. Bobs words speak for themselves. You just want to spin them in a different light and your doing a piss poor job of it. Give it up, you're not even close to being that good.



> Bob wasn't directly calling his brother a slob hunter. He wasn't...can't you read.........


Bob called everyone a slob hunter. Something you refuse to admit. If anyone is having a problem comprehending it is you. Apparently he thought better of the use of that term and then apologized. I think Bob simply got caught up in the crap a lot of others have spewed on this forum and spoke without thinking. Maybe I'm wrong but thats what I think happened. Spin it anyway you want as you usual do but the words are archived for all to see. Again, nice try but you fool no one but yourself.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> You don't know anything and that is not the fact


I am laughing my *** off right now! I cannot believe the ignorance behind that post!


> You just want to spin them in a different light and your doing a piss poor job of it


Who is doing the spinning.....

Bob said..........


> They are slobs buying "trophies", and damaging the hunters image the "coffee" you profess to have concern for.





> Bob called everyone a slob hunter


He didn't even use the word "everyone"! You made it up or assumed the word "everyone"!

Anyone who is NOT narrow minded could read between the lines and see he was talking about


> able bodied people only


!
NOT HANDICAP PEOPLE! If you can't see that then I cannot cure stupid! Hell Chuck even admitted to it! What else has to be said? Spin all you want but you are the doing the.....


> piss poor job of it.





> Give it up, you're not even close to being that good.


That good at what? Again what the hell are you talking about?



> Bob called everyone a slob hunter


...Well No he didn't and I cannot believe you cannot read that!
Here it is again if your eyes are not working.......


> my comment was definitely not aimed at him, able bodied people only


PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE show me where he DIRECTLY said his brother is a slob hunter..PLEASE!!!!! He didn't and you and I both know it



> If anyone is having a problem comprehending it is you


Wrong again.......It's YOU who is completely LOST!



> I think Bob simply got caught up in the crap a lot of others have spewed on this forum and spoke without thinking


Not till some body starting spinning his words!



> Maybe I'm wrong but thats what I think happened.


Well atleast you are starting to admit it!



> Spin it anyway you want as you usual do but the words are archived for all to see.


 With Bob's own words I will tell you again you are spinning things...Here they are AGAIN if your eyes are not working.....


> my comment was definitely not aimed at him, able bodied people only





> Again, nice try but you fool no one but yourself


Please tell me who I am trying to fool? :eyeroll: 
You are the one who cannnot read!

Again I ask you

What is your intent here. Your question was simpley answered. You never answered mine.

What is your intent here?

Actually CWOparson...If you want to continue this conversation please PM me! We really don't need to keep this going on. I am done with this childish arguement! Chuck I am sorry that your brothers name and all this "he said/she said" has been drug on this long!


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE show me where he DIRECTLY said his brother is a slob hunter..PLEASE


"but disagree strongly that people that hunt in high fence enclosures are hunters. They are slobs buying "trophies", and damaging the hunters image"

There it is. Can you see it now? See the word "*people*"? You understand what *people* means? That means *everyone* no matter how you want to spin it. Not only did he say *PEOPLE* who hunt a high fence enclosure is not a hunter but he said they are slobs. Well, Chucks brother as far as I know is a person and that comes under the heading of people and he hunted in a high fence enclosure. Even a blind person can interpret that properly. He only later said he didn't means Chucks brother as a apology when he realized what he said. Unlike you, Bob realized what he said. Ever occur to you no apology is needed if something out of line is not said? No of course not. I don't think Bob meant for it to come out that way but that is the way it is written and that is what it means.

Same old crap from you Maverick. If one just drops it you think in your feeble mind you have won something and start chasing someone in every thread. We've see it to many times from you. If one comes back each time you get upset and cry because you want the last word. It's a never ending circle jerk every time you get in a thread with you little rants.



> What is your intent here?


I had no intent here and never would have even responded except for your feeble and childish little add on to your posts at the end to suck me into a rant with you. Well you accomplished that sonny and no I won't take it to PMs. You attack me in public I will respond in public. You want to continue smart mouthing in PMs then you know how to activate them. Until then, put up or shut up.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> your feeble mind





> you get upset and cry





> every time you get in a thread with you little rants.





> your feeble and childish little add on to your posts





> no I won't take it to PMs. You attack me in public I will respond in public.


Maverick is right about the PM's. Take it there because I don't want to see it here.


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

All you have done is prove my point!!

Thank you!

You are the one who is spinning from one word! PEOPLE in *YOUR WORDS *in meaning EVERYONE! Again *YOUR WORDS*.....
Bob's words....(whose we are arguing about are or are we arguing about *YOUR* interpretation of the word)).....


> able bodied people only


....

I can't belive you can't see yourself spinning like a top! *YOU *are adding the word EVERYONE to the word PEOPLE. Bob wasn't! It's that simple! How hard is that to see. :roll:



> If one just drops it you think in your feeble mind you have won something and start chasing someone in every thread. We've see it to many times from you. If one comes back each time you get upset and cry because you want the last word. It's a never ending circle jerk every time you get in a thread with you little rants.


Same old from you as well......
AS soon as logic is over you go to personal attacks so you can feel better about yourself when you walk away from the computer.

Really how hard is it for you to read Bob's OWN words and comprehend them! Here they are for you one more time........


> my comment was definitely not aimed at him, able bodied people only


Wait.....

wait......read it agin.........If you can't believe a man's word then....well this is pointless :withstupid:

CWO...The attacks started from you....Right here.....


> You just want to spin them in a different light and your doing a piss poor job of it.


CWO....check your PM's....you got mail!


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> ignorance behind that post!





> narrow minded





> I cannot cure stupid!





> if your eyes are not working.....


No problem Plainsman, even if you are being a little selective. But, as I said if attacked in public, I respond in public. As you can see he is not going to stop. He must have the last word one way or the other despite what you say.
Taking it to PMs was just his way of getting the last word. He has no intention of doing what he himself said. But we know that don't we.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Whenever 'A' attempts by law to impose his moral standards upon 'B', 'A' is most likely a scoundrel. -H.L. Menken


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Sorry to have to chime in on this, but since being impartial is a pretty important part of my every day life, I figured I would give my impartial thoughts on what bob did say.

He used the pronoun "they". "They" refers to "people who hunt in high fence enclosures" which he wrote in the sentence directly prior to using the word "they". This is easily understood by almost any one with a minor level of reading and comprehension.

"People who hunt in high fence enclosures" refers to any one who is a person attempting to harvest an animal within said enclosure. With no limiting factors such as "able bodied people", "rich people", "tall people", and so on, the only logical conclusion is ANY and ALL people who hunt in high fence enclosures.

Bob obviously did not want to include ANY and ALL people in his use of "they" as shown by his post apologizing to Chuck's brother. I think Bob definately did right by the apology, and let us know he said one thing, but really meant another.

I hope this is satisfactory to every one. (not like I really give a crap)
What was written was written, and it seems any person who is not a mind reader or has insight into Bob's thoughts would understand that what was written included ANY and ALL people who hunt in high fence enclosures.

Can you two please let it drop now? If you have any more questions on it, why don't you just ask Bob?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Quote:
> ignorance behind that post!
> 
> Quote:
> ...


Not so much selective as not willing to put the time in to find all of them. Your right


> cannot cure stupid


isn't good either. If your eyes are not working isn't that bad. I picked on yours because your phrase


> your feeble and childish little add on to your posts


 pushed it over the edge for me. To tell the truth it has been borderline for me for a while. We all have triggers, and feeble and childish tripped mine.

Personal problems with each other detracts from the real debate. Much like when someone talks about a guy getting shot in Minnesota, or why are you not working on baiting. Neither of these subjects have anything to do with the high fence measure. If people don't like baiting they should do something about it not whine to others to do their work.

laite319, good analysis and a good opportunity for everyone to back off.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I am back....I was gone for a few days for a wedding.....anyway

Maverick did use mine and bob's quotes. But the order was not correct. But the words were written.

Plainsman....my example of the shooting accident in MN has to do what I think gives hunters a black eye. Because everyone says high fence operations are BLACK EYES on the hunting community. So I used this as an example of what I think gives a black eye. A much bigger black eye.

You see that accident was not a hunting accident but the media is saying it is. So any non hunting public will think this guy was hunting turkeys, high, drunk, and then shot at movement and killed his kid.

But the facts are he did not have a licenses so he was not hunting but poaching. The media never uses the word poacher or poaching through the articles. They used words hunting and hunter.

I hope everyone sees my point on that.

Also a side bar.....I have gotten pm's from people talking about my brother and inviting us on hunts. Thank you to all for the invites. even though on this topic we don't see eye to eye. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman....my example of the shooting accident in MN has to do what I think gives hunters a black eye.


I knew what your intent was, but my question is what does that have to do with high fence operations? Poaching, over limit, sky busting, roost busting, shoot from the road, no plugs in shotguns, there are many things that give hunters a black eye, but what does that have to do with high fence shooting?
I often hear "what about baiting" and I can't help but think if you want something done about baiting get of your whinny behind and do something about it. What, am I your momma and have to do everything for you? That's not in response to you Chuck, it's in response to people asking questions that have no bearing on high fence shooting. 
My point is one activity that gives a black eye to hunters does not negate another activity that gives a black eye to hunters. There is no link other than the black eye to hunters. All of these activities must be judged on their own as to their acceptability.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

You get part of my point. It is the media confusing the issue by using the wrong _words_.

You see this guy was not _hunting_ or a _hunter_ but they are using those words.

Understand it is the words being used. If they called him a *poacher* or he was *poaching* I would have not problem with the article. But they called him a _hunter_. See the words used by the media are wrong.

Like I have mentioned before have a ban on the use certain words and advertising for high fenced operations.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I'm not satisfied with calling it something else. That would be little different than calling killing a pet putting them to sleep. There are segments of our society that think old people are of little use. Never will they advocate killing us, but they may some day want to euthanize us. It is unsporting no matter what you call it. If it looks like poop, smells like poop, I'm not tasting it.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> My point is one activity that gives a black eye to hunters does not negate another activity that gives a black eye to hunters.


I think where you have go astray is you believe high fence operations give hunters a black eye. There are others who do not think that is true. It's the old beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To say just because I or you think something is right or wrong, doesn't make either one true. Simply just a matter of opinion from two different view points.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

cwoparson said:


> > My point is one activity that gives a black eye to hunters does not negate another activity that gives a black eye to hunters.
> 
> 
> I think where you have go astray is you believe high fence operations give hunters a black eye. There are others who do not think that is true. It's the old beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To say just because I or you think something is right or wrong, doesn't make either one true. Simply just a matter of opinion from two different view points.


Oh, I agree with that. I just want a vote so we see who the public agrees with. I am offended that these operations even exist, and because of that I am willing to push to eradicate them. I don't look at it as a landowner right, it's more like removing a cancer. It may be their land, but it's my sport, and I will fight to keep it healthy. 
I know full well that I endanger their income, but they endanger what keeps me looking forward to life. Either way one of us encroaches on the wishes of the other. I will fight for mine, they can fight for theirs, and the public will decide. Hunters were hunting before exploiters were locking animals in pens for profit from healthy pseudo-sportsmen, therefore I think my wish has precedence.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

how can it be the *publics* sport if it is the land owners *private* animals that are being killed?

Co....I don't think that good operations give anything a black eye. But everyone against the high fence say it does.


----------



## CoyoteBlitz (Apr 11, 2007)

What makes a canned hunt a canned hunt?, or penned/fenced or what ever you want to call it. Sorry if i have read past it or something.


----------

