# Boone and Crockett Condems Canned Shooting



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

http://www.boone-crockett.org/huntingEt ... tingEthics

CANNED SHOOT STATEMENT
The Boone and Crockett Club's Board of Directors and its membership have unanimously adopted and approved a position statement on "Canned Shoots" because of the growing concern among hunters and the increased public interest in the practice of "canned hunts."

BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB POSITION STATEMENT
ETHICAL HUNTING VERSUS UNETHICAL SHOOTING AND OTHER PRACTICES

The Boone and Crockett Club has been a highly respected conservation leader and proponent of ethical Fair Chase hunting of North American big game since 1887.

Ethical Fair Chase Hunting
The Boone and Crockett Club, in its Fair Chase statement, advocates any hunting that is "the ethical, sportsmanlike and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the game animals."

*Unethical "Canned" Shooting (Improperly referred to as "canned" hunting.)
The Boone and Crockett Club condemns the pursuit and killing of any big game animal kept in or released from captivity to be killed in an artificial or bogus "hunting" situation where the game lacks the equivalent chance to escape afforded free-ranging animals, virtually assuring the shooter a certain or unrealistically favorable chance of a kill.*

Genetic Manipulation of Game Animals
The Boone and Crockett Club condemns artificial and unnatural enhancement of a big game species' genetic characteristics. Unacceptable practices for genetic enhancement include, but are not limited to, artificial insemination, controlled or unnatural breeding programs, cloning, and translocation of breeding stock for canned shooting purposes.

Public Perception
The Boone and Crockett Club is greatly concerned that the non-hunting public may confuse ethical, fair chase hunting with canned shoots, genetic manipulations and other related practices, which the Club condemns.

If you have any questions, please contact:
Jayar Daily , Media Liaison
Boone and Crockett Club Headquarters

Prepared for and Adopted by the Board of Directors - June 4, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Dick,

They may condem it, but I don't see an endorsement from them for what you are trying to do here in North Dakota. When they condem it, are they asking other hunters to condem it as well by not patronizing these facilities or are they asking hunters to rise up against these facilities like you are doing in this state to take their businesses. I wonder if this is why RMEF pulled their endorsement.

I wonder what they would think of a group accepting money from a PETA member and using HSUS to achieve their agenda. I wonder if they believe it is ethical to take away somone's business without any form of compensation, especially using these groups to achieve that.

This is a current article regarding HSUS from the Fair Chase Fall 2010 issue.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_i ... &ref=share

They will be having a part two for this article in their winter 2010 issue.

Part Two of this column will appear in the Winter 2010 issue of Fair Chase. It continues to examine in-depth the deceit and hypocrisy of HSUS, PETA and other radical and militant animal rights organizations, and their attacks on hunting and fishing, zoos and circuses, factory farming, medical and biological research, dog breeders, corporate retailers and manufactures, and their insidious youth education programs promoting veganism, animal rights, animal liberation, and a petless, meatless society. The frightening criminal underbelly of the animal rightists eco-terrorism and veganarchism campaigns are moreover explored, as is the legal system's involvement both in the United States and abroad. The end game and utopian world of animal rightists is a daunting and serious societal threat both to sportsmen and the very way we live and function.


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

Boone & Crockett and The Fair Chase group have it RIGHT :beer:

True, ethical hunters condemm shooting an animal in an enclosure.

VOTE YES ON MEASURE 2


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

B&C are the ones who have created high fence hunting. With out them and the scoring and judging of deer and so forth people would not get a boner for big antlers. So if they really want to do some thing they should throw out all scoring systems and record books. Just becase they condem it does not mean they are the real problem with hunting. look at texas that so many hate if it was not for the scoring of deer would people have bought all the land and just locked it up for hunting so the regular guy has no chance? I dont think so. So in the end maybe a measure needs to be brought up that no scoring is allowed on wild game to take the big horns out of the eqation and people stop paying to hunt. B&C started us on the having to have a certain inch to have a big animal and not just about the hunt and experience being out doors. Kind of ironic how it spins a big circle.


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

KurtR,

Wow...that's really a stretch to say the B & C are the cause of the high fence operations. I think that you,re losing credibility there.

From what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong  ), B & C doesn't accept antler scores from an animal shot inside a pen.


----------



## Fallguy (Jan 23, 2004)

KurtR said:


> B&C are the ones who have created high fence hunting. With out them and the scoring and judging of deer and so forth people would not get a boner for big antlers.


I disagree with that idea.

Look at deer themselves. Larger antlers are a sign of dominance and strength. Sexual selection within the species for mating. We are also animals. I believe even if you didn't have a scoring system our brains are wired to appreciate the majesty of a mature, strong animal.

I am sure even the early humans marveled at the antler and horn size on the animals that they used to chase down on foot while persistence hunting.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Wether anyone wants to admit it the creation of a "scoring system" was indeed the beginnings of creating much of what some find to be the ills of hunting. Once a scoring and record keeping system was developed competiton came into the picture of hunting, it became less about the experience and more about the "results". How many people will poach a 100 inch whitetail buck to put on their wall, how many people will pay for a guide to get them a 100 inch whitetail, how many people would pay a HF guy for a 100 inch whitetail. Like it or not the very group these supporters of FC champion have contributed to these things with their scoring and record keeping system.


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

GST,

I STRONGLY disagree with your last post. Just because B&C started scoring animals doesn't mean that it's their fault that HF operators can blame them for their operations being where they are. I applaud B&C for standing up and taking a stand against the HF operations. It shows that B&C has some character for not wanting the pen-raised, man-manipulated gene pool of animals shot in a pen to be compared to a fair chase hunt.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ref, I never said it is B&C "fault" that these HF operations exist. But you can not deny the drive to shoot an animal that "scores" a certain amount based on the B&C system is a large part of why some people go to them. There have been those that have posted means by which these operations receive payment for their animals, by enlarge it is broken down by B&C scoring. So if there was no Boone and Crocket scoring system, what would the basis for payment be? If there was no Boone and Crocket club that recognized and gave awards and acolades for animals with so many inches of horn why would it be so important to shoot a white tail that "scores" enough to make "the book"?

The sponsors of this measure claim it is all about the experience and use the Boone and Crocket club and guidelines as their bible, yet Boone and Crocket has no scoring system to measure the experience, just the antlers. Why do you suppose B&C has not developed a scoring system to measure the "experience"???? It is because the "experience" is a truly individual determination that can not be defined as constant as a set number of inches of horn. So perhaps ultimately it was the Boone and Crocket Club themselves that set this emphisis on the scoring of the horns of these animals rather than the experience it takes to get them in motion themselves.


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

GST,

I see where you are coming from, but when the HF operations started up, B&C recognized the wrong direction that the HF operations were going and immediately distanced themselves from these operations. I applaud them for that decision.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ref, that is fine, I believe that B&C not accepting these animals into their records is fine as well,these guide lines are all volantary people can choose wether to follow them or not. They are not law. But can you see the possible negative consequences when hunters start to define by legislation what one has to take from the experience to call something hunting? Particularily when the nonhunting public isthe forum they use to pass this legislation?


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

gst,

I'm not a sponsor. I just happen to agree with the position that the Fair Chase sponsors have taken.

I have read these posts over and over. I, along with I assume most other people, are going to be glad when Tuesday is over.

Your side has hammered the issue of HSUS being in the middle of this issue. Don't go back and quote from the thousands of old posts over the past couple of months, because I'm tired of re-hashing them again. I do believe from the bottom of my heart that the Fair Chase sponsors want nothing to do with HSUS. You continue to say the the FC group is using HSUS to help pass the measure. Is HSUS a part of this issue? Yes, they are. Did the sponsors of the measure intentionally get them into this issue? No, I don't believe that they did.

I don't believe that the Fair Chase sponsors are responsible for HSUS being in ND. I believe that HSUS was here long before this measure got started.

Can't wait for Tuesday, so one way or the other, some of this will be put behind us. 

VOTE YES ON MEASURE #2


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

One question, set aside your personal ideologies regarding HF, do you honestly believe that something a vast majority of the nonhunting public never even knew existed is more of a "threat" to hunting than HSUS and their agenda?

The problem is long after Tuesday is past, the division this group of "hunters" have caused with this measure among the hunting community will remain, and that has done far more damage to the ability to "protect" the hunting heritage than HFH ever will.


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

GST,

I don't agree with your second statement.I believe that the High Fence operations are a bigger black eye.I also believe in "policing" our own before someone else does it for us. That is what this measure is doing.

VOTE YES ON MESURE #2


----------



## Archimedes (Sep 17, 2010)

Aren't the hunters divided about everything? What makes this different? Resident/NR, baiting, buck licenses, wetlands, you name it. This too shall pass no matter what happens Tuesday. There are no deep divisons here, just opinions like always....


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

As I understand most of the Elk and Deer that are raised in captivity are feed special food to grow large antlers.

Kind of like a baseball/football player on steroids :eyeroll:

So why would an organiztion to keep track of trophys approve of that??? :bop:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

archimedes, If this passes, you will find out just how deep these divisions are. Involving HSUS with hunting tends to do that :eyeroll:

Ref if you truly beleive in "policing our own" can we expect to see an initiated measure to have shooting proficiency tests prior to getting a llicense? The Federal govt says you have to prior to hunting in the park. Perhaps a ban on all shots over 100 yards or shots at running game. Perhaps one should have topass a trackingtgest prior to getting a license. If you truly are going to "police ourselves". Unless you think HFH is the only thing that needed to be "policed" Oh hey what about the buffalo being shot inside a fence and it being advertised as hunting, better "police" that next go around. :roll:

zogman, better start an initiated measure to ban all the "special food" products avalible to put out for wild deer to "grow large antlers as well, oh wait that will probably be covered in Kasemans anti baiting initiative. :wink:


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

GST,

I do believe in policing ourselves before someone else does. I believe that the penned shooting is a MUCH BIGGER issue. I'm not worried about the ones that you listed.

VOTE YES ON MEASURE #2.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

See thats the problem, can you really tell me that HSUS will not use the very things I listed in their agenda to end hunting? . Why do you suppose the Park required a proficiency test. Bad PR to have wounded elk running around I guess. But yet you are not concerned with other issues HSUS may use to further their agenda. That tells me this measure is not about protecting hunting, but rather accomplishing a personal agenda and the talk of "policing ourselves" is simply lip service to justify supporting this one measure.

That's why leaving the "penned shooting" of buffalo behind a fence when it is advertised as hunting out of their measure makes the claims by the sponsors of this measure they are protecting hunting from fenced "hunting" ring hollow. Lip service.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

GST, At the risk of being a smart a$$. Do you subscibe to the group??? "I can grow bigger deer that you can"

And it is Okay for athelets to take Steriods???

Two very simple questions :eyeroll:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

No and NO


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

GST,

Not lip service, just my opinion about high fence, man-manipulated gene pool animals.

VOTE YES ON MEASURE #2


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

I made a comment on another thread and agree sportsman should police themselves.

Anyone hunting on a canned, high fence hunt should be prohibited from entering animals into record books.

*I would go extreme like Pete Rose and baseball. Anyone found participating in a canned hunt for a North American game animal is permanently banned from entering any animal into the books and their existing entries stripped away.*

This would do more to curb the industry than Measure #2 which just moves the wallet hunters to another state.


----------

