# Are we all hunters?



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

One of the fairly popular television hunting show hosts, continually admonishes his audience that no matter the venue ( fenced, open range, guided or freelance); "We are all hunters, and as such we must stick together". Despite my mixed feelings, I think the basic statement has some merit. Is there a "line" that must be crossed before you are no longer a "hunter"? What is it? Before answering, please consider that what we have here in ND, regarding hunting opportunities, is rare, if not nonexistant, in most of the rest of the country. Looking forward to your thoughts, Burl


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

Good question, how do we maintain our integrity and still fight off the "divide and conquer" attacks of the anit-hunters/anit-gun folks.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

You're right. The agenda of the anti-gun people is to ultimately get rid of all of the guns. Makes no difference how long it takes, and if they do it one at a time they still have that same agenda.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Kind of a controversial time for this one Burl.  With the session starting and fenced shooting being a hot item this will no doubt be one of those endless debaters. I've said it before, I am nervous about various forms of "hunting". Look at it from the non-hunting public who don't really understand. Comparing traditional hunting to commercial hunting of today, it really is 2 totally different pictures that can be painted to the public and I have a feeling which of those 2 which will be used against all hunting in the future. Now anyone can guess on the future and how it'll play out, but I don't think anyone will argue that sometime this century we could be up against the wall and will be ready for a defense. Foresight is the key.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Jim Posewitz:


> Tolerance of the lowest ethical standards, for the sake of unity, demeans us all.


Noted Helena author unveils book on the dangers of privatization, commercial hunting
By DARYL GADBOW of the Missoulian
Helena hunter and author Jim Posewitz tells the stories of the pioneers of America's public hunting and conservation legacy in his latest book, "Rifle in Hand: How Wild America Was Saved."
Photo courtesy of Jim Posewitz

"To think straight on recreational quality, an historical perspective is essential."

-With hunting season drawing near, every hunter, says Helena's Jim Posewitz, should be armed with one essential item - a knowledge of history.

Hunters should be aware, says Posewitz, that the abundance of wildlife we enjoy today in Montana wasn't always the case.

By the late 1800s and early 1900s, wildlife populations across the country had been decimated by market and subsistence hunting.

"We make the assumption," says Posewitz, "that it was always like this. But Montana was just like everywhere else. We went through some very dark times."

It took a couple of monumental decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the dedicated conservation efforts of a group of visionary hunters, to restore wildlife populations to their current abundant levels. The court decisions and the conservationists' achievements were based on two fundamental principles of American democracy, according to Posewitz: *that wildlife belongs to all the people, and all people should have the opportunity to hunt*.

That history is chronicled in a new book, "Rifle in Hand: How Wild America Was Saved," the third in a trilogy of hunting books by Posewitz.

After retiring in 1993 from a distinguished 32-year career as a biologist for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Posewitz has been an unwavering advocate of America's wildlife and hunting heritage. He created Orion: The Hunters' Institute to address the issues of ethics and the conservation heritage of hunters. As executive director of Orion, he travels extensively around the country spreading that message in state hunter education programs and seminars for hunting/conservation groups.

His first book, "Beyond Fair Chase: The Ethic and Tradition of Hunting," has become the bible for proper ethical conduct by hunters. It is used as a textbook by hunter education programs in Montana and many other states, and has sold more than 400,000 copies.

His second book, "Inherit the Hunt: A Journey into the Heart of Hunting," explores the history of North American hunting and wildlife heritage, its democratic roots, *and the increasing threats to that tradition by the privatization and commercialization of wildlife and hunting*.

In "Rifle in Hand," Posewitz tells the stories of Theodore Roosevelt, George Bird Grinnell, Ding Darling, Aldo Leopold, and other hunters who were instrumental in preserving wildlife and wild lands, and laying the foundation for public hunting.

He wrote the book, Posewitz says, "to tell the story of how we got to where we are, and how this wonderful abundance came about. It's called the North American model of wildlife conservation and it's unique. The courts defined a public-trust relationship with fish and wildlife, and sport hunters developed a philosophy and initiated programs that resurrected waterfowl, upland birds, and big game from the ashes of commercial exploitation and habitat desecration. Because of this combination, we enjoy wildlife abundance that is the envy of the world."

*Now, he says, the democratic principles of the North American wildlife model are once again threatened by strong forces of commercialization and privatization of wildlife. Those threats come through such practices as game farms, where people pay to "hunt" domestic animals; expensive fee hunting of public game fenced in on private land; and the proliferation of technological gadgets designed to make hunting easier and replace traditional hunting skills*.

*He likens the new threats to the market hunters who virtually exterminated the American bison in the late 1800s.*

"In a sense," Posewitz says, "*the buffalo hunters are back*. So it's important to spend a little time figuring out how we came to this point in the nation's history, because it was a system that worked better than any system on earth, where wildlife was assigned not to privilege and not to property, but to the people."

To a large extent, he adds, we've forgotten that heritage and take it for granted.

"The vulnerability of the North American model is that it's so poorly understood by the people who are the trustees, in other words the state," says Posewitz. *"The politicians, and fish and game managers, and fish and game commissioners are not like a regulator who can favor commercial interests.* In 30 years of working for a government agency, I never heard the words 'public trust.' "

When wildlife becomes a commodity, he says, it limits the opportunities for the public to hunt.

*"When you limit the number of people who can participate, it creates the new royalty of the hunt," *says Posewitz.

Through his travels talking about hunting ethics and conservation with Orion, Posewitz says, he's found that hunters around the country are already feeling the affects of the growing commercialization of wildlife.

"They have a hard time finding arguments for their side," he says. "People are starting to feel this loss of opportunity going on nationwide."

The stories in "Rifle in Hand" provide a basis for hunters to lay claim to the North American model of wildlife conservation "that they grew up with, but lacked knowledge of how it happened and who the heroes were," he adds.

The challenges to public hunting must be addressed with the same vigor shown by those hunters who came before us, Posewitz says.

"Challenges to hunting are real," he writes in "Rifle in Hand." "Honoring the principles of fair chase, maintaining the public trust in wildlife management, and protecting our vanishing wild places will be difficult. However, they must be our agenda ... . We cannot leave it to someone else. The question now is the same as it was in 1909. Are we capable of protecting the North American hunting heritage? Will we measure up to the expectation passed to us by history? The principles followed by Roosevelt, Darling, Leopold and thousands of others who saved wild North America are clearly visible. We must be as worthy."

The way Posewitz has chosen to address the challenges is through educating hunters with stories of those pioneers of public hunting.

Wherever he goes to conduct hunting seminars for Orion, says Posewitz, he makes it a point to tell people about hunter/conservation heroes in their own state's history.

"The stories are so rich, and there are so many of them," he says. "I never fail to find them."

You can find some of the best of them in "Rifle in Hand."

Reporter Daryl Gadbow can be reached at 523-5264 or at [email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So in answer to the question, "Are we all hunters?", I'd say no, some are just shooters and killers. :2cents:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> So in answer to the question, "Are we all hunters?", I'd say no, some are just shooters and killers.


 :beer:


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

> Now anyone can guess on the future and how it'll play out, but I don't think anyone will argue that sometime this century we could be up against the wall and will be ready for a defense. Foresight is the key.


Guns and Hunting are the reason I will always be a member of the NRA.

Now from alot of reading on this site I believe most here are NOT.

What is One of the best Tag Lines on this site "Hang together or Hang alone"


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Burly, this is a good idea to identify what hunters are. As zogman pointed out (by the way thanks for the complement zogman) we will either hang together (numbers are strength) or we will hang alone. That said it is vital that we define who we are, or perhaps an easier exercise, who we are not. As sportsmen we can not ignore fair chase. If shooting an animal in an enclosure is repugnant to us can you begin to imagine how distasteful it is to the average none hunting person. 
My conclusion is that yes we are all hunters, but people who shoot enclosed animals are not hunters, therefore we are not required to support them. Furthermore, they should be opposed by us because they call themselves hunters. This gives us a bad stigma. When a five year old boy says he is a cowboy, does that make him a cowboy? When high fence killers call themselves hunters does that make them hunters? I think not. We can hang together and at the same time oppose high fence "killing".
The NRA has been villainized by the left for a purpose. For the purpose of pushing sportsmen who don't understand the consequences off the proverbial fence. They have been very successful, because you will find sportsmen who foolishly think the NRA is bad. If you don't want to join them then give money to the Gun Owners Task Force, or some other pro firearms organization.


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

Rich city guys that come out once a decade and pay to shoot a trophy that they picked out of a pen is not a "hunter"!!! I will only be on his side if he chooses to learn how to really hunt!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Burl

Interesting question. According to Websters a hunter is defined as:



> 1 a : a person who hunts game
> 2 : one that searches for something


Hunt is defined:


> 1 a : to pursue for food or in sport


So it seems by the current definitions that we may all be hunters regardless of the methods we use. but is it really that simple? Not really. Lets look at the definition of sportsman/sportsmanship

Sportsman:


> 1 : a person who engages in sports (as hunting or fishing)
> 2 : a person who shows sportsmanship


Sportsmanship:


> conduct (as fairness, respect for one's opponent, and graciousness in winning or losing) becoming to one participating in a sport


So what we have is hunters, sportsman and sportsmanship in any combination of any or all definitions. Each person in the outdoor world knows what combination of the above definitions they fall under. That being said we are all hunters broken down to the basic premise.

There is no line to cross to make you a hunter or to not be a hunter.

The question is really are we sportsmen that exhibit sportsmanship in our pursuit of the game we are hunting. As I have said before on other threads the vast majority of people that hunt know deep down or have learned that at the moment of truth that releasing that ammunition whatever it may be was right or wrong per their own beliefs of hunters, hunting, sportsman and sportsmanship.



> "We are all hunters, and as such we must stick together".


This statement in a perfect world should hold true but, it is not a perfect world, we are not clones and that leads to differences because each person is an individual. A better statement IMO would be "We are all hunters, and as such we must stick together to preserve hunting for us and for future generations". In the end what it will all boil down to is what society will accept. That is where the future of hunters will hinge because the fact is; in ND and nationwide we hunters are only a small portion of the total population and within are diverse opinions and beliefs.

Bob


----------



## boondocks (Jan 27, 2006)

Burly1, you mind sharing with us who the hunting show host was? Just curious.

I refuse to be lumped into the same catagory as people that participate in canned hunts. If anything the people that are real hunters should be banning together to rid their sport of such trash. Trash being the people that shoot animals in a cage(no matter how big or small) and call themselves hunters. Its an insult to the people that really are.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Interesting question. According to Websters a hunter is defined as:
> 
> Quote:
> 1 a : a person who hunts game
> ...


Thanks for that quote Bob, but I interpret it different. Look at it again, it says to hunt or search. The true meaning is not connected to killing animals it means to search. However a person who searches then kills is what we all think of as a hunter. How much searching is involved in a high fence hunt? Even if it is a large pen little searching (hunting) is required. Therefore by definition these people are not hunters. I guess you could call them searchless (nonhunter) killers.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Bob,

I believe you have finally swerved into it here. As you can see according to Webster there are many activities that will qualify as hunting. However when you guys call yourselves "sportsman" I think you have found a definition that may bite you.

Be careful because this "image" you are so worried about protraying to the public is one that by definition discribes what you do as KILLING FOR SPORT. In other words for fun. Your are killing the publics resource for fun.

I think the general public can differentiate a hunting preserve where privately owned livestock are harvest by paying consumers. These are livestock, like any other, that are raised for a specific purpose, to be harvested by a paying consumer.

Monson, you can beat the Posewitz drum all you want but it won't change the fact that free chase hunting is killing the publics resource for fun. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it as much as you do. But beating up on hunting preserves will never change that fact or improve that image. It is what it is.

Many of Posewitz arguements defy logic. He is an idealogue with little reference to reality. Comparing game farms to the buffalo hunters is absurd. The market hunters were profiteering from the publics resource not from privately owned livestock. Fee hunting for public game on fenced private land is another issue. Proliferation of technology is another of his arguements, are you going to get rid of your range finders, scopes, electronic calls, high powered rifles and return to a long bow. Go ahead and get on his band wagon and you will loose even more hunters and even more political power.

Posewitz sounds like a purist conversationist but in reality is a socialist. I will not dispute the public ownership of wildlife. But in his ideal world land owners should give up their right to control access in favor of allowing the pubic to hunt at will. This will always be a major point of contention, as long as the publics wildlife range on private land.

The reason their is less and less access is because people realize there is value to it. As land is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, they also have more control and the value goes up. Pubic land will get hunted harder and harder and those with the resources will pay for thier access. I don't have the answer to this problem, but blaming game farms for this is just rediculous. We can actually offer MORE opportunity, taking some pressure off the public resource.

When wildlife becomes a commodity, he says, it limits the opportunities for the public to hunt.

"When you limit the number of people who can participate, it creates the new royalty of the hunt," says Posewitz.

Read these comments with an open mind. This is socialism at its best. Give up your rights for common good.

I have one other question. Will the proposed bill exempt the buffalo ranchers? If so how is it any more ethical to shoot a buffalo in a pasture than and elk in a preserve? Certainly buffalo can carry most of the same diseases as elk and deer. They certainly are decendants of native wildlife. There still are some wild herds left. Will it also exempt game farms that raise and shoot pheasants?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I have one other question. Will the proposed bill exempt the buffalo ranchers? If so how is it any more ethical to shoot a buffalo in a pasture than and elk in a preserve? Certainly buffalo can carry most of the same diseases as elk and deer. They certainly are decendants of native wildlife. There still are some wild herds left. Will it also exempt game farms that raise and shoot pheasants?


OK, I'm convinced get rid of them all.

This isn't worth arguing about anymore, these farms are at the end of the trail. If not this year then next year. It's just a matter of time until most game farms disappear.


----------



## Mose (Jan 2, 2007)

I have often wondered how hunting became a sport. It was not origonally a sport and a lot of people that I know still don't consider it one.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Mose said:


> I have often wondered how hunting became a sport. It was not origonally a sport and a lot of people that I know still don't consider it one.


Good point, it's much more important than a sport. It is part of the human development over eons, and has become as much a part of our behavior as nurturing youth. 
The anti crowd loves to call hunting a blood sport. Ending an animals live is not akin to making a touchdown, and don't find the terminology appealing myself. 
Many of the anti hunting crowed feel they are more sophisticated and more advanced. If you are Christian you believe that we as humans have been given dominion. In other words all things are here for our use. If you believe in evolution then you realize that it was animal protein that feeds the brain of predators and makes them more advanced than herbivores. It then follows, that to be vegetarian is to relegate your descendants back to swinging in the trees. All predators are more advanced that herbivores (vegetarians).


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Plainsman,

WAY to go, you just alienated another whole segment of producer agriculture in ND. Selling buffalo hunts is a major part of many if not most of these operations.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

4590, your the one that convinced me. You may have thought that your point justified your business, but what it did was put others in a bad light. Your brought into question the buffalo and pheasant farms.

I know what you intended. Your intention was to say, if these guys are ok then so am I. If your comparison is correct then they all need to go, because high fence operations definitely have to go. If it's all or nothing, like you related, then all must go.

It had only vaguely crossed my mind until you made your point.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Plainsman,

You said it, "hang together, or hang alone". On this site you have alienated many land owners, guides, livestock producers and I am guessing many hunter/sportsmen. Which way do you think you will hang. Hunters are already a minority, how many people do you think you can turn off and still get ANYTHING done.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> If it's all or nothing, like you related, then all must go.


Well, there it is................ that's what happens when you get on the slippery slope of my hunting is okay but yours is not. Guess all trophy hunting must also go. No more predator or varmint hunting. If you don't feed it to your family, you cannot shoot it. Is that where this is headed. Talk about "divided we fall"......... Like it or not some of you have become hunting's worst enemy.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This started as are we all hunters. I didn't make it anymore than that, you want to bring everyone else in the hopes of justifying yourself. I was just being sarcastic and said then all must go. If you want to have all or nothing (as far as game farms) then I choose nothing. If you want to stand on your own, then I will leave the other game farms alone.

Hanging together doesn't include high fence killing, they are not hunters. In reality I do separate them from other game farms. You're (4590) the one that didn't want to do that. It's like a cavity in your tooth, get rid of it before it rots the whole thing out.

Gohon, when I say all must go, I'm not talking about hunters, I am talking about game farms. But then, I wasn't serious about that anyway, I was just making 4590 understand (trying) that trying to align himself with other game farms would not lift him up, but drag them down.

4590, my intention was not to alienate hunters/sportsmen, but high fence killers are neither.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I've got a question for all of you. If every game farm in America shut down operation tonight at midnight.......... what would you as a hunter gain from that?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gohon

I'll answer from my point of view. First off if something is right, I don't have to gain. Some things are more important than personal gain. Second, I could care less about imported species like corn buzzards. 
Next I still stand by my tagline of hang together or hang alone. Together, doesn't include high fence killers or those who provide it. As you may have noticed 4590 attempted to separate those strongly against high fence hunts with those slightly against high fence hunts by laying all game farms on the line, I did not choose that path, but rather simply pointed out how this doesn't raise the integrity of high fence hunt operators, but rather blemishes others they attempt to compare themselves to. 
Personally I don't like to see native species referred to in the same context as common farm animals. One of the bad thins about game farm mallards (I am familiar with the strain called Frost Mallards) is that they have been bred in captivity so long that they have lost much of their nesting instincts. Birds I have raised in captivity drop their eggs scattered about on land and in standing water. These birds commonly escape, and crossed with wild strain adversely affect nesting success through lost behavior traits. Many problems with captive reared animals is yet to be understood.
Wildlife is not livestock in the sense of domestication over thousands or even hundreds of years. Wildlife agencies should never have permitted the beginning of captive wildlife rearing.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Plainsman, I disagree with you in part. If a person is motivated to speak out for or against something, then they do have something to gain. Whether it be the thought of more hunting land opening to the public, a personal moral issue, correcting a injustice or bad law or even just the right to say we won............. something is gained or there would be no debate. I'm not coming down on either side of the issue. I can see good and bad on both sides of the issue and I don't think in the end there will be any winners, just losers........ just curious that's all.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gohon,

I guess we have common ground then, because when you say people are motivated by what is in it for them you are right 95 percent of the time. 
When it comes to natural resources I am a conservationist, not a preservationist. In other words I see man using wildlife when the need arises, but the only need in the case of high fence hunts is profit. One man's profit at the loss to society is not justifiable. As with these people calling themselves hunters it is an attempt to associate themselves with true hunters and thus survive the public onslaught that will surely one day come. They hope to survive at our expense. The longer they can associate themselves with us the longer they survive, but that association will contribute to the endangerment of hunting altogether.
There are many areas where hunters need to police themselves. We all recognize that we must control the poachers among society. I do not consider poachers hunters, I do not consider those that run down animals and run over them with motorized vehicles hunters, and likewise I do not consider high fence killers hunters. Hunters seek game, there is little searching for an animal in an enclosure. No searching, you are not hunting.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Gohon and 4590, at the risk of offending, I need to ask a question. I have watched these threads off and on for some time, and most often the verbiage is akin to any other political discussion...lots of opinion with some scientific data sprinkled in for added flavor.

But Gohon's last post has really got me thinking. Based on the idea that someone has to have something to gain for there to be a debate, please explain to me the "good" side of the game farm issue since you said you can see good and bad on both sides.

I must be missing something because the only "good" I see that could come from that is the cash made by the owner/operator and the trophy on the wall of the shooter's house for him to brag about. I didn't mean for my last statement to sound so negative, but I really don't see anything good, as it pertains to ALL of us, with high fence operations.

So please explain to me what I'm missing.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Csquared, Chuck Smith spoke of some good things when he mentioned the handicapped and groups like the Make A Wish Foundation. You and I both know it is not possible for the handicapped in a wheel chair to get into a even mildly remote area to hunt unless you want to degrade them even further by carrying them in on your back, hold their pee bottle or dump their waste bag that you had to hook up after they were on a stand that they couldn't get up into anyway. I've read where a lot of these preserves have stands already built for just this sort of thing. The Make A Wish Foundation is of little use if they can't make the wish come true so what better way than to be able to guarantee success. Maybe it is the asthma stricken father you want to be on one last hunt with. Granted, most of these hunting preserves or canned hunts as they are called are use by the wealthy. And of course there is the cash the owner/operator makes and spends which admit it or not works for the benefit of the economy. I suppose there are many reasons people of wealth use them. Maybe it's time restrictions. Maybe it is just bragging rights on a trophy head and maybe they are just lazy as some say but they have one thing in common with everyone else and that is, they are participating in a activity that involves a firearm and they way I see it that is a area which is in far more danger than hunting. If we allow the anti gun fanatics to divide us and we lose the guns then hunting will be a moot point.

I don't even know what all of you are calling a canned hunt. Is it a high fenced 500 acre lot, a 1000 acres or what. I do know I had rather see people of wealth that choose to do so hunt in a high fenced 1000 acre section, than hunt in a prime 10,000 acre leased area that is now no longer available for me to hunt in. And that I think is just exactly what will happen. Those that have the money will continue to find a way to do their type of hunting and when the high fenced areas shut down they will turn to outfitters and pay high dollars because they can, and you will see more and more hunt-able land leased out because the dollars will be there to lease it. I have no intention of ever using one of these places because it is not my cup of tea, besides I couldn't afford it anyway. But, there are a lot of things we call hunting and sporting that I don't like. I don't like trophy hunting just for hide or head mounts. I don't like the modern muzzle loaders which I see as nothing more than a modern single shot rifle but with a special/extra season. I don't like using chase dogs on coyote hunts. I don't even like deer stands set up in a deer run which in my opinion is not that far removed from a fenced hunt. But these are simply my dislikes and a lot of other people don't see it that way. So for me to go campaign against these dislikes of mine would be nothing more than cutting off my nose in spit of my face. Like I said, there are no winners in this kind of debate&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. we all lose one way or the other. Maybe my question should have been what damage are the high fenced hunts really doing to you personally. For me personally I see no benefit or damage to myself. They simply exist for those that wish to use or can afford them.

Soooooo......... like Burly1, I also think that the term we are all hunters has merit.


----------



## Mose (Jan 2, 2007)

I am beginning to get tired of people saying that certain types of hunting are wrong just because they don't personally like to hunt that way. I will stand by the fact that if you shoot a deer inside a fence or out in the open range it is still just as dead either way. I personally don't participate in canned hunts and wouldn't even if I could afford it, but that doesn't mean I am going to talk bad about the people that do.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I believe it was 1936 or thereabout that we outlawed fully automatic weapons. This was in response to the old Thompson sub machine gun being used extensively by organized crime. We adjust as times, circumstances, and society require. This is such a situation. If you think that keeping these guys and sticking together makes us safe you have made a dangerous mistake. It is like having gangrene in a arm or leg. Remove it if you want to stay alive. The high fence hunts will only accelerate societies intolerance of hunting. We either remove the infection, or it will wipe us out. I do believe in standing together, but these people are not one of us. 
Gohon, a terminally ill young man in Minneapolis was denied a fair chase hunt by Make a Wish Foundation. Can you seriously think for a moment that they would go along with a high fence hunt. The fellow in Minneapolis never did make it. Most dieing people have more integrity than high fence hunting. Only the rich with an attitude of, if no one knows, I can still brag do it. 
Every state has hunting regulations. We can't use anything electronic on our bows in North Dakota, we can not use lights at night to hunt fox or coyote. To think this is simply complaining about another hunters technique is incorrect, they aren't hunters. 
As often as we hear the term livestock, these are not domestic animals we are talking about. Wildlife still remains property of the state, and these people operate under permits. They may buy breeding stock, and have young animals, but they retain them only at the discretion of the state and society. They knew it getting into this business, and any intelligent person should have known the risks. I think the high fence hunts are putting game farms more at risk than hunters actually. Like hunters other game farmers would be wise to disassociate themselves with high fence hunts so as to avoid societies negative view of them also. 
Mose, are you tired of , spotlighting, poaching, road hunting, would hand grenades be ok, or are you tired of people saying they don't like these things? Wildlife and hunting are important enough to take a stand on or they are not. Some people will make a positive difference, others will drag us down, yet others will stand with their hands in their pockets thinking what will be will be.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Plainsman,

Well said.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Plainsman, with all due respect I see your last post as nothing more than pure emotion at work with so many off the wall things thrown in that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. Spotlighting, poaching, and hand grenades? Now you are trying to make it sound like this type of hunting is as illegal as the illegal activities you mentioned. That is not the case now is it. Actually your comment about a terminally ill young man in Minneapolis being denied a fair chase hunt proves a point. The key words there is "fair chase". No one in their right mind would take a terminally ill person into a remote even non remote area. But they probable would take them into a place specially set up for such a event. Actually I was under the impression the organization was for young children.

Don't make the mistake of thinking I am for these kind of operations as I am not and I'm not trying to defend them but at the same time I won't defend you or anyone else that wants to call people that use them as non hunters. That is nothing more than your personal opinion. Do you think a person that crawls up a mountain side, shoots a ram, capes it out, bringing out only the head to be mounted on their wall for bragging rights is really a hunter? It's fair chase and it is legal but leaving the meat to rot just for a trophy on the wall. You'll get many different opinions on that but that is just what they are............. opinions on personal hunting ethics and neither one of us have the right to force our own hunting ethics upon others.

As I mentioned before I didn't decide to post in this thread to take a side but I do agree with the OP's 
statement that as hunters we should stick together having some merit. Obviously you don't agree with that so we each have different opinions. What else is new&#8230;&#8230;.. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Do you think a person that crawls up a mountain side, shoots a ram, capes it out, bringing out only the head to be mounted on their wall for bragging rights is really a hunter?


Yes, It would be wonton waste to leave the animal to rot, and that is illegal. Very serious violation in Alaska I might add. My friend came back from there, and they weighed his moose meat at the airport. Yes, the man who crawls the mountain must exert himself, but more importantly he must search for an animal not shoot it while it's head is in a feed bucket.


```
Spotlighting, poaching, and hand grenades?
```
That was hyperbole to make a point. I used those examples because I wanted to make sure it was radical enough that people would agree they don't like it.



> The key words there is "fair chase". No one in their right mind would take a terminally ill person into a remote even non remote area.


It was a coastal bear hunt from boat that he wanted. Other than the cancer that was going to take him he was physically fit for exertion, and wouldn't have to exert himself in a boat hunt. The Make a Wish Foundation would not consider a hunt of any kind for anyone.



> I'm not trying to defend them


You could have fooled me.


```
You'll get many different opinions on that but that is just what they are............. opinions on personal hunting ethics and neither one of us have the right to force our own hunting ethics upon others.
```
I often agree with you gohon, but your dear wrong this time. Do you have hunting regulations in your state, and how do you suppose those came about? If that was true we couldn't stop murder, rape, or any other crime. Of course we have the right to control hunting ethics, that is what responsible members of society do. What you are saying is that we have no right to make any laws. Individually we don't, but collectively as a member of society we can do about anything. We can even change the constitution if we feel like it.

There are many things that were once legal that are illegal now. We add to this list annually. What a current bill in North Dakota will do is add high fence hunts to the list of illegal activities.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> What you are saying is that we have no right to make any laws.


I never said any such thing and you know it. Pointing out a activity is legal is not saying you cannot change it. But trying to degrade those that participate in what you deem a bad activity is wrong and I think in your heart you know that.



> What a current bill in North Dakota will do is add high fence hunts to the list of illegal activities.


That's great, I wish your state luck. Would like to see my state adopt the same thing or something along those lines. Don't you think though, that it is possible to accomplish that goal without demeaning other hunters that are participating in something that you consider below your ethical standards? But, as I mentioned before the net result may very well be something else all together and you probable won't like it.

You are right, the Make A Wish Foundation no longer sponsors hunts but at one time they did. However the Hunt of a Lifetime Foundation has filled that gap. Point still stands.

Plainsman, could it be you're going through work withdrawal pains. 
:lol:


----------



## Mose (Jan 2, 2007)

Plainsman:
While I do not condone breaking the law in any way. I believe that there are a lot of laws that have been passed that the government had no right to pass. Now I am not wanting to argue, just wanting to give my opinion. Hunting is a God given right, and if people use the meat and/or hides then I believe they should be allowed to hunt however they prefer. Once again just my opinion but hunting is not a sport and shouldn't be made into one. It just confuses people and makes it easier to restrict.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

Our friend from the volunteer state believes that hunting is not a sport. On the surface, that statement might raise the hackles on a few of us who consider ourselves, as hunters, to be sportsmen. When however, you stop and consider the bastardization of what virtually all Americans consider to be sports; baseball, basketball, football and even nascar :lol: , perhaps we should see hunting in another category all together. Big money, in my view, has taken many of our so-called sports, to the level of prostitution.
I don't want to be included in that kind of a blanket indictment because I hunt animals and catch fish in fair chase environs. This is why I feel that hunters should be seperated from the self-styled sportsman, who shoots captive animals and considers himself to be hunting. 
I did not start this thread with the intention of creating a debate about future legislation concerning canned hunts, although that might well be relevant to the question. But rather, to give us a chance to consider which, if any, of the wildlife/hunting organizations should benefit from our hard-earned donations. We should consider carefully what certain organizations consider to be hunting, before writing that check, or typing in that number which would entitle us to membership. The lobbies funded by hunting organizations, most of which endorse ALL types of hunting, along with wealthy corporate interests, largely determine what hunting related legislation is passed, from the local to the national level. In truth, your vote at the polls has little to do with hunting law. What does make a difference, is the pressure that we can exert on our legislators, as their constituants, through phone calls, e-mails and public forums. 
If you feel strongly enough about an issue, act on it in the most effective way you are able. When we hang together, they notice. Burl


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gohon

No I'm certainly not suffering from work withdrawal. What is happening is now that I am retired I don't have to be apolitical about these things. Now I get to be free and feel like an American like everyone else on here.



> You'll get many different opinions on that but that is just what they are............. opinions on personal hunting ethics and neither one of us have the right to force our own hunting ethics upon others.





> What you are saying is that we have no right to make any laws.
> I never said any such thing and you know it.


Essentially you did say that. You said we had no right to force our opinions on others. The evolution of a new law begins with some ones poor opinion on another persons activity. They express that intolerance of the offensive activity and if enough people agree they force their opinion on the offensive party through a new law. That is what I am doing, and your are putting the breaks on. Not to worry though I'll keep pushing.



> You are right, the Make A Wish Foundation no longer sponsors hunts but at one time they did. However the Hunt of a Lifetime Foundation has filled that gap. Point still stands.


It would stand if people agree that a person could not participate in any other type of hunt. Deer, elk, bear, many things can be hunted short distances from the roads. They don't have to be so strenuous as to be more difficult than a canned hunt. They just are not guaranteed success. Is that what hunting is about guaranteed success?

Mose, I agree

Burly1 I like your distinction between hunters and sportsmen. The anti hunters always like to put us in a bad light by calling hunting the blood sport. The survival of our hunting heritage will depend on us acting wisely. Checking out organizations before jumping on the bandwagon and giving them money is a wise decision. Good post.


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

Gohon

So...say a guys hires a prostitute in Nevada, you won't judge him. Me neither. But then are you trying to say that all states have to have leagalized prostitution. WE CAN LEGISLATE ETHICS!!


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> neither one of us have the right to force our own hunting ethics upon others.





> You said we had no right to force our opinions on others.


Now you are changing quoted words to make your own point out of context. You agree with Mose who said pretty much the same as I ( "if people use the meat and/or hides then I believe they should be allowed to hunt however they prefer") but you don't agree with me. Even a joke about work had to be turned into a defensive statement. Seems to me you are so emotional on the subject, at least that is how it appears to me, that you want to argue and put the other person down more than exchange opinions. Never thought I would see that from you so with that in mind I'll simply back out of the thread. Hope I was wrong.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

rowdie said:


> Gohon
> 
> So...say a guys hires a prostitute in Nevada, you won't judge him. Me neither. But then are you trying to say that all states have to have leagalized prostitution. WE CAN LEGISLATE ETHICS!!


Even you can't be that stupid to have read that in what has been discussed.


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

WHAT?? How is this stupid? At one time prostitution was leagel...right....now it isn't....WHY???? Answer this question...

Now how is that different from this issue...explain using examples and facts...instead of personal attacks.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

The discussion between Plainsman and I is not about whether a state should or should not legally allow or disallow high fenced hunting though there was a slight drift in that direction a few times, and no one has said any state must allow high fenced hunting or that any state cannot ban them. To read that into the discussion is to mean you haven't read or understood anything. The discussion is about merits, if any at all on both sides of the issue. As for your prostitute in Nevada example, maybe you wouldn't but I would condemn the hiring of one. Lets stay on the subject at hand&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;

BTW, there was no personal attack. You weren't called stupid........... as a matter of fact I specifically said you were not that stupid. Now of course if you wish to dispute that, feel free..............


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

To the original question..


> Is there a "line" that must be crossed before you are no longer a "hunter"? What is it?


When I look back at how technology has changed in just my 38 years I'm simply amazed. I feel the same when I look at hunting equiptment today. It is hard NOT to get caught up in some of it at times. Your buddy next to you in the blind has the latest top of the line jacket, or gun. Maybe it's a sweet pair of binoculars, or some full body decoys that look so real you want to almost breast one out for lunch. I catch myself and stop to think if maybe my hunting experience will be better, or maybe more successful if I had more of those things to hunt with. Maybe not, I'm probably like most, have some of it but not all of it, and find that happy medium within a budget. Now when I look back at some old time hunting photo's of guys hunting say in the 1950's or 60's I think wow, how could a guy hunt wearing that and using that weapon? What does that old timer think when he looks back at photo's 50 years before that? Then ask yourself how far back do we have to go to be "old school"? Caveman years? Now to me, you're not really a traditional hunter unless you wear a skin for a coat and carry a spear if that is really what you want to be called am I right? Or did someone draw a line somewhere and decide that you could still be a traditional hunter if you shoot a recurve bow with homemade arrows, but yes you can wear goretex and drive to your hunting spot in that new truck and carry a cell phone, just in case? I don't have a problem with technology because it is what it is, a natural part of the human race and I mix some of it in with hunting to a degree. With it or without it the game I have hunted has at times either winded me, spotted me, heard me or just knew I was there and was FREE to bolt or flare to safety and "the game" was won at that point by the animal and maybe a lesson was learned by both hunter and animal. When animal is put into a cage, that is where I draw the line on not only whether I am considered a hunter in todays world but also with common respect towards the animal. May as well go fishing in an aquarium. It's just not right.


----------



## MossyMO (Feb 12, 2004)

Goldy's Pal
Very well said :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Sorry, Gohon, I understood the humor of work withdrawal, but I was serious about my answer. In my old line of work, a person had to stay our of many things. I should have acknowledged your humor, and I did enjoy it.

As far as agreeing with Mose, I seen the hunting is a God given right, and passed right over the part that mentioned if you use the hide and meat it's ok. I do disagree with that. I have been with law enforcement when poachers have been busted, and they used the meat. I have seen deer run down with a pickup and people shooting out of the vehicle, and they would have used the meat.

Every new law that is passed affects someone, and it happens nearly every day. Of course we can force our ethics on others. Having to wear seat belts I feel infringes upon my personal control even though I know it is best for me. The same goes with a motorcycle helmet. I use both, but I am an independent enough person that I don't like someone telling me I have to. Still, they did.

My stand on high fence hunts is partially emotional. If emotion didn't come into it anything would be ok and ethics would go out the door. I don't like any game farm when it comes to native species because of disease dangers and cross breading. But that's off subject.

Hunt = seak. No seaking, your not a hunter. High fence killers therefore are not hunters, and that is just the tip of the iceberg so to speak. I find the activity absolutely revolting. Not to mention that the public will see us guilty through association.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Gohon,

Lots of activity since I asked the question. Hopefully you'll see this.

First of all, thank you for the response. I understand a little better about where you're coming from now. It hasn't helped me to cross over to your side, since I believe the positive things you mentioned can (and actually are done around here) be done on private land with access to prime areas donated to the groups you mentioned, but your intentions are certainly admirable.

I have no intentions of debating this, especially since you and Plainsman already have it covered better than most could anyway. But I would like to make one more comment for you to ponder, and hopefully respond to.

You mentioned in your response to me that one of the reasons you somewhat support the high fence operations is to support the "hunter" for the sake of unity, fearing that without unity we will sooner lose the ability to hunt as a result of losing our firearm rights. I actually think it's the other way around. Let me explain.

I ABSOLUTELY agree that nothing is more important to us as hunters, shooters, sportsmen....whatever you want to call us, than our gun rights. That's why I firmly believe anyone who owns a gun, and wants to KEEP it, should be a NRA member, with no exceptions. But that's for another time.

As far as guns and hunting, I would submit hunting could, and WILL, continue long after private ownership of firearms is banned. One only has to briefly analyze the hunting club trend to see that the state could rather easily register firearms to licensed clubs, meaning a 2 million dollar duck club in the Mississsippi flyway with a club house would also have 20 shotguns locked inside. It is absolutely, totally unnecessary to take the shotgun home with you, and so doing could someday be a felony, but the state will still get the hunting revenue.

Perhaps duck hunting isn't a good example, but as private hunting ranches continue to increases in numbers, it isn't hard to see how the guns could be assigned to the ranch even though private ownership was no longer legal. You simply show up in the morning, check out a rifle, then check it back in at quitting time, or face prison time. Sounds harsh, but I don't think it's out of the question.

There's just too much money to be lost for our leaders to let hunting end. But my point is it can be done without privately owned firearms, and it scares the hell out of me just thinking about it.

So, support the issue for the sake of unity if you feel the need. But we somehow need to encourage all on here to put the gun issue ahead of everything else.

But that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.

Thanks again, C


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Csquared, I understand what you are saying. But again, I regardless of how it appears I am not supporting high fenced hunts. I really don't care about them one way or the other and I understand how that may bother some. It is just not my cup of tea but I understand how some may like that kind of hunt. I just don't see them as the evil some do and I'm not affected by them, at least I don't think so. I think what bothers me most is how we as hunters are publicly blooding each other up in a effort to put a end to something some may not like. Someone else said in another thread and subject that it wasn't the anti hunters they worried about but the other 90% of non hunters that didn't care one way or the other. They went on to say, and I don't remember the exact phrase but it was something to the effect that they did not want these non caring, non hunters to move to the dark side. I don't buy into the thought that these non hunters will see us policing ourselves and give us a nod of approval. Seems to me we are just shooting ourselves in the foot in a attempt to remove a sore spot when there surely has to be a better way.

Your description of how hunting could continue without gun ownership scares the hell out of me.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I think what bothers me most is how we as hunters are publicly blooding each other up in a effort to put a end to something some may not like.


This is evidently the genesis of our disagreement. I agree we hunters should not bloody ourselves, and following with the question of the original post, I do not see high fence killers as hunters. I also believe that they will taint the public opinion of us all if we don't cast the bad apple from the barrel. It isn't something that some dislike, it is something that a whole lot of hunters dislike. If they dislike it can you imagine how the general public would dislike it if even half were aware of it?

I agree whole heartedly with Csquared. All aspects of his post, including loss of firearms ownership before hunting, joining the NRA, etc.


----------



## gonehuntin' (Jul 27, 2006)

I'm with some of the others. I'm a hunter, and as such I resent being clumped with "shooters", those with no skill or ambition who find success behind a fence. To be an accomplished hunter requires time, dedication, skill, understanding, and study. If you don't know the habits of the animal or bird, can't make the shot, don't make the effort to get to those animals, then you can't truely say that you are a hunter. I for one am proud to be a hunter; no one that shoots animals behind a fence can say that. I don't think these people should be kept from hunting, just not called hunters.
I also think there is a place for game farms; those that raise birds. They're great places to train a dog and extend the dog's season. A necessary item in today's shortened seasons and bag limits. Ya ain't gonna make a great bird dawg without birds.


----------



## Lil Sand Bay (Feb 2, 2005)

Plainsman

I share your concern, unfortunately I am afraid that a good percentage of the general public (non hunters) already do view us that way, which makes us taking an ethical stand even more important.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Interesting how many who posted up say that while they wouldn't personaly condone the activity of canned shooting,..... they wouldn't do anything about it. Conviction without action isn't worth much.
Society expects standards of behavior in hunter ethics and has a right to do so. Canned shooting is one of those issues. I had this quote on a sticky note from somewhere:


> There are good people who hold this issue at arms length, because if they acknowledge it, then the moral imperative is inevitable.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

I have a question for all the anti hunting preserve people. You guys set yourselves up as taking the high "moral" ground on this issue and obviously have deep emotional conviction for your opinion. Some have compared it to prostiitution. In our society where much is based on situational ethics, what can you point to as your moral compass on this issue that makes it so cut and dried?


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

I have a question for all the anti hunting preserve people. You guys set yourselves up as taking the high "moral" ground on this issue and obviously have deep emotional conviction for your opinion. Some have compared it to prostiitution. In our society where much is based on situational ethics, what can you point to as your moral compass on this issue that makes it so cut and dried?


----------



## MossyMO (Feb 12, 2004)

4590
Are you a brother, cousin or the same person as 6315?

I may be naive, but I do not think you will get an answer out of many anti-hunters from here. In my opinion I do not think they would visit this site too often. But as usual, I always reserve the right to be wrong.....


----------



## gonehuntin' (Jul 27, 2006)

4590 said:


> In our society where much is based on situational ethics, what can you point to as your moral compass on this issue that makes it so cut and dried?


There is no skill, learning, patience, work, knowledge, or woodsmanship required to shoot a penned animal. You can call it shooting, just don't call it hunting. I can get as much enjoyment shooting animals at a slaughter yard, which is really what these are anyhow. uke:


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

4950

My moral compass....? Lets see, I was raised in a real area where hunting was a tradition. My, dad tought me how to clean, butcher and cook anything I shot. I've never taken a deer to a locker, I cut every steak, and strip of jerky myself. The moment of the kill is just one small part of my overall hunting expierence. I plan my time, clean my guns, sight them in, scout, spend hours in the field, and I try to learn a little every trip, just like my dad passed on to me. I live, work and hunt on an Indian reservation, and I've learned to repect the harmony of man and nature even more than my dad tauhgt me. Hunting and spending time in the outdoors is like a religous expiernence to me, its very spiritual, and brings me peace. All the work I do, making jerky, butchering, packaging, and caring for the harvest, reinforces the respect I have for the game.

So when I see the prostitution of wildlife, I get a sick feeling in the bottom of my stomach. When I hear of guys raising bucks to sell to high fenced operations, daring to call themselves hunters, and trying to group themselves in with real hunters, I believe the line has been crossed in my moral compass. If you can't see the crime against nature, and the insult and slap in the face to hunting with these practices.....then I guess we need to legislate these ethics and morals. Just like most states have done with gambling and prostitution.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Ethics questions? http://www.real-hunters.com/
Look at the Bellar operation above and you won't have wonder about hunting ethics.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

MossyMO, he said anti hunting preserve people......... not anti-hunters.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Much has been said here about morality and ethics concerning hunting. Dick you can quote Posewitz and Giest all you want but I choose to accept a higher authorithy. I know many of you hold strong opinions, and I respect that, and that is why I asked how you formed these opinions.

As for myself, when it comes to morality, I choose to go to what I consider the final authority on all moral issues - The Bible. Many of you might say this topic is not found in the Bible, and to a degree you might be right. My analysis begins in Gen. 1:28 where it says in regard to Adam and Eve: "God blessed them and said to them,'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Seems to indicate God has given man dominion over the animal kingdom. I think we would all agree to that.

However at this point God only gave them the seed bearing plants and fruits for food. So initially eating flesh of any animal was not allowed. So fair to say hunting was not an issue. It was not until after the flood that God gave Noah and his descendants the right to eat the flesh of animals. Gen. 9:3 says that now God gave them not only the plants for food but everything, which included the animals. Verse 2 is interesting in that it says at this point God put "fear and dread" of man in the animal kingdom. One would assume that prior to this the animals would have been considered tame. Of course if man was not a threat to them then there was no reason for them to need to be wary. I think its fair to say that hunting originated at this time in history. Since then man has managed both wild and domestic for his use. But God made no distiction as to how they should be harvested.

I see very little else in scripture that addresses the topic of morality or ethics concerning hunting. I certainly believe God expects us to be stewards of His creation, and that is what both livestock producers and wildlife managers try to do. But bottom line God gave man the command to "subdue the earth and rule over it". Most of the arguements concerning morality and ethics have concentrated on shooting an animal in an enclosure. I can find nothing in scripture to support this. Certainly God could have commanded that certain species must not be raised in captivity - but he did not.

On a side note there were twin brothers in Bible - Jacob and Esau. Jacob was a herdsman, and Esau was a hunter. Interestingly God loved Jacob and found displeasure with Esau. We are not told that this was because of their chosen vocation, but I do find it interesting.

Many things are addressed in scripture that God considers immoral. This has been the standard for thousands of years of human behavior. Today it seems many of these activities are embraced if not promoted by our society. Then again something that recieves little attention in scripture, as hunting, is ranted about as a huge moral issue. In Romans chapter 1 it talks about a progression of wickedness that begins with denial of the existance of God. It ends with God giving them over to a "depraved mind". That would be a situation where man cannot distinguish between right and wrong, accepting deviant behavior as good and calling acceptable behavior "immoral". Does that apply to this discussion? Well I guess we will each decide that for ourselves.

Rowdie, I will admit there are admirable principle held by native americans in regard to respect for creation. However they embraced many deviant behaviors as well that would not be considered harmonious. I am praying that you will realize the only way to the "happy hunting ground" is through faith in Jesus Christ.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Where does it say how high the fences are up at that "happy hunting ground"?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Doesn't really matter......... if that Baptist preacher up the street from me is right, few of us will see it anyway.


----------



## MossyMO (Feb 12, 2004)

But in the case he is wrong, what does the Babtist preacher down the other side of the street say? Not everyone will be right.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

45, commercializers support the authority that supports their position to sell public wildlife. I'm sure we'll see each other at the committee hearings. :beer:


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

I am opposed to fenced hunting (or whatever you wish to call it) and believe in the concept of fair chase. Shooting a fenced animal is not. 
By example, there is a very large buck I have seen every year for the past 6 years during deer season that lives right on the boundary of two deer units. If one assumes the boundary could either be a highway or a fence........ 
The interesting part of the buck's behavior (and I have seen it happen through binoculars in three different years), is when he is pressured in one unit, he runs across the highway into the other unit. If, however, if it was a fence, he could not escape. 
As an alternate example at the end of pheasant season this year, we took the dogs out, flushed some roosters and didn't shoot. We had enough birds in the freezer, just wanted to keep the dogs in shape and just watched them fly away and admired them. There are many times during the bird season where we didn't shoot at a bird within 20 yards because of a bad angle, sun angle, and did not want to shoot because we could not be sure that a clean kill could be achieved. This to me is also fair chase.


----------

