# High Fence and Sporting Chance



## RogerK (Jan 21, 2004)

A major argument of the high fence mob is the access they provide for handicapped hunters. A sure kill. A sure animal. I heard them make that argument before the Senate Natural Resources Committee last session. It sounds reasonable, but isn't.

The argument demeans the handicapped by putting them in a category that tells them that without a tame animal to shoot or arrow, an animal fenced in without any chance of escape, they can't succeed.

I met the folks from Sporting Chance at the Bismarck Sports when one of them stopped by our table. I didn't know they existed. They arrange hunting and fishing and many other outdoor activities for the handicapped. And they don't charge a fortune. In fact, they don't charge anything.

The game they pursue is wild and free and Fair Chase and means something when brought to bag.

It means that they brought their game to bag by Fair Chase.

That makes them a hunter, not a short cut killer.

I hold the handicapped hunter to the same level of ethical Fair Chase that I hold the non-handicapped hunter. The high fence crowd isn't willing to do the same. They insist on demeaning the handicapped by telling them that they need an easy route in order to have hunted, and an even easier route to bag game.

Failure is a part of hunting as are skills and stealth and patience and equipment. Some of the best stalks I've had, the best memories of hunts, are hunts where the game outwitted me and I watched my quarry wave good-bye as the animal topped the nearest horizon or ducked into a gully. The high fence mob would deny failure to the handicapped. Another reason to support Fair Chase hunting.

Check out this site.

http://sporting-chance.com/


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Roger,

I have to strongly disagree with you. The high fence community is not demeaning them. They are giving them an opportunity.

Look at any "make a wish" type foundations that get requests from dying kids. The majority of those "hunts" are done on high fenced operations. Do you think a 14 year old kid could go hike in the mountains of Colorado for elk after having Kemo treatments with limited time left on earth.

How about a Father who just had a stroke and loved to hunt with his kids. But he is unable to climb the mountains or hillsides for deer or elk. He just wants to go on one more "HUNT" with his kids and grand kids before his time on earth is done.

How about the handicap that needs to use a laser on his gun or some other mechanical device that helps him steady, aim and fire his weapon.....most game laws don't allow these types of assistance devices. _Look into your state laws and then try to get these permits!_ I have in MN and you have so much red tape and have to jump through many hoops. Then do the same thing over again the next year.

How about the wheelchair hunter that can't get around. Yeah he can get a permit to shoot out of a vehicle but does that give him an effect kill shot? Can that vehicle get back to where the animals are? Does the vehicle deter the animals from getting into range?

How about the handicap child that the parents are hunters but don't know if it would work for there child. So they take them to a high fenced operation and then see that their child loves it. Then they try everything in there power to take him in the field with them. Then do the "Fair Chase" or with out the high fenced operations.

You see High Fenced operations give these people opportunities to experience a simulated "Hunt".

A little back ground on myself.....My brother has Cerebral Palsy. He went to a high fenced operation in 1997. He shot a Russian boar. We figured out he could reach in and pull the trigger while we held the gun. It worked. Now he goes deer hunting with us every year. He has shot 6 deer since then. With two bucks in the 130 class.

You see with out the High Fenced operation we would have never tried to take him before.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Roger,

I guess you should tell every handicapped, elderly, or in some other way hindered, HUNTER, that has taken advantage of high fence hunts in ND and where ever for that matter, that their experience was "demeaning". Everyone I know of was thrilled with the experience.

I have to tell you on this agruement you are absolutely clueless.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

A picture's worth a thousand words.   










Yeah 4590, just clueless......... :idiot: I see your web site is down (blueskyelkranch) and the ND Elk Growers Asc. too. Need help to get 'em back up?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dick, I didn't have any trouble finding either one. Maybe your computer has CWD.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> A major argument of the high fence mob is


This is what I was talking about earlier. Is it really necessary to start a conversation in this manner?



> That makes them a hunter, not a short cut killer


Or imitate James Carville slur tactics.



> I hold the handicapped hunter to the same level of ethical Fair Chase that I hold the non-handicapped hunter.


You can't be serious.



> Failure is a part of hunting as are skills and stealth and patience and equipment. Some of the best stalks I've had,


Try that siting in a wheel chair sometime. You'll get all the failure enjoyment your little heart desires. Simply unbelievable.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have watched a few shows on TV where guys in wheelchairs have shot animals. One guy must have been 80 years old and they pushed his wheelchair into a makeshift log blind. He shot a 6X6 at 200 yards across a canyon. He had a rest attached to the left arm of his wheelchair. They were using a guide on public land in Arizona.

A couple years ago my hunting partner pushed out a nice mule deer that he didn't see. He pushed it into a fellow from North Carolina that shot it. The guy was waving at us to come over and I just kept waving back. Later when we walked by we noticed the guy only had one arm and wanted help loading the deer on his 4X4. How he held up that 270 with one arm for an accurate shot I don't know.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Dick Monson said:


> A picture's worth a thousand words.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow. If THATS not a propoganda picture I dont know what is. :eyeroll:

You may as well post a picture of some "evil" fur farmer skinning a fox or mink while its still alive.......yes, PETA tried that one too.

Probably taken by a PETA member. Plus, it could have been taken anywhere. Maybe thats a fence around someones garden? Maybe thats a livestock fence? Oh wait, thats right, that deer IS LIVESTOCK!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

RogerK said:


> I hold the handicapped hunter to the same level of ethical Fair Chase that I hold the non-handicapped hunter.


Than you should be against guys getting vehicle permits during gun season. Right? If their to be held to the same standards as the rest of us, why let them hunt from their vehicle?


----------



## RogerK (Jan 21, 2004)

It's clear that the high fence proponents posting above want to take the handicapped on a make believe hunt of a imaginary "wild" animal in the imagined outdoors and call it a "hunting" experience.

I'm proposing that we treat the handicapped as dignified human beings, capable of discerning the difference between a real hunt, and a shame hunt and not shuffle them off on an experience that demeans hunting, eliminates Fair Chase, without which there can't be a hunt no matter how big the rack or how dead the animal.

Some people have physical limitations that we can allow for to keep our sport democratic. But the high fence proponents want to take away the mind of people with physical limitations and lull them into playing a game of pretend and then patting themselves on the back for being so good. With all the game we have in this state, a handicapped kid or adult can find a place to hunt, game to hunt, and the chance hunt Fair Chase and get a crack at failure.

It's the possibility of failure that makes hunting what it is, gives it a thrill, drives the passion in a true hunter. Imagine following a football team guaranteed to win every time because the League somehow stacks the game in favor of the designated team. It would take a pretty lame individual to get a charge out of a no-contest contest like that.

I picked football because I don't particularly like football, and I don't follow football. But this last year New England caught my attention and I followed them and actually made it a point to watch their games. It was the chance of failure that drove my interest. I wanted New England to win. But Manning made a few key plays, turned the game around and put New England away.

Hunting revolves around the same quick turns, the heart pounding moments that a high fence Deer R Us operation can't offer.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Roger,

Some of the comments you made above are demeaning the handicap.



> I'm _proposing_ that we treat the handicapped as dignified human beings, capable of discerning the difference between a real hunt, and a shame hunt and not shuffle them off on an experience that demeans hunting, eliminates Fair Chase, without which there can't be a hunt no matter how big the rack or how dead the animal.





> But the high fence proponents want to take away the mind of people with physical limitations and lull them into playing a game of pretend


Your statements above lead me to believe that you think the handicap don't know the difference. WOW. That is such small minded. They do know that these animals are in an enclosure. They know that these animals are not wild. They know that these animals were raise. They know this is not real or the way it is in the wild.

I don't know you, but please tell me this is not your way of thinking about the handicap. Please tell me these comments that you posted are not how you feel.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Chuck, I don't think Rogers comments demean the handicapped. That's a stretch, and real spin. Rogers problem is he thinks you are demeaning the handicapped. How can you turn that around? 
I would guess the handicapped do know the difference. I wonder if they are happy with these hunts, or if they are pretending to be happy because others have gone to so much trouble to help them.
There is two ways to look at that scenario. 
Chuck I know areas in Montana that you can sit in your pickup and have wild elk come by across the trail. We talked to a fellow who must have hit 400 pounds and he has shot five bull elk in the last ten years from the same spot. I think he was on disability so he had time to spend sitting. Take your brother on one of those. Sit up a blind with a heater in it and enjoy the mountains. Can he do that? Sure hope so. You can get a nice camper within five miles of the spot. I would guess there are a lot of places like that.
I also know a couple south of Enise, Montana that had bull elk eating their apples that were still hanging on the trees in their back yard opening day of season. I don't remember if it was archery or firearms.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman.....reread the second paragraph in his last post. The one I quoted. Read it again and again.

Here I will post it again......


> I'm proposing that we treat the handicapped as dignified human beings, capable of discerning the difference between a real hunt, and a shame hunt and not shuffle them off on an experience that demeans hunting, eliminates Fair Chase, without which there can't be a hunt no matter how big the rack or how dead the animal.


Lets break this down....



> I'm proposing that we treat the handicapped as dignified human beings


Are they not already dignified humans?



> capable of discerning the difference between a real hunt


Does he think that the handicap cant do this already?

Like I said I just hope he mis spoke.

Also Plainsman....My brother we take out into the woods with us now. He hunts from a ground blind we made.

But if he never went to the high fenced operation we would have never ever thought that this was possible. So the high fenced "Hunt" helped us.


----------



## RogerK (Jan 21, 2004)

Chuck Smith said:


> Roger,
> 
> They do know that these animals are in an enclosure. They know that these animals are not wild. They know that these animals were raise. They know this is not real or the way it is in the wild.


Exactly my point Chcuk Smith. Welcome to Fair Chase Hunting.

Why pretend when you can keep the handicapped outside the fence hunting real wild animals and not treating them like they are idiots that won't know the differecne between the real counterfit?

You are making my argument for me. Thanks for the help. If you want to repent, I'll arrange for you to sign the intitiative petition.


----------



## RogerK (Jan 21, 2004)

Forgot to add, the handicapped know the difference, it's the high fence operators that don't.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Why pretend when you can keep the handicapped outside the fence hunting real wild animals


Because they can't do it in a traditional manner. What is so difficult for you to grasp that fact. Tell you what, have someone strap your legs together so you can't move them, sit your butt down in a wheel chair and then let some one try to roll you through the thickets and across country on a regular hunt. You can't get up in a tree stand. You can't cross creeks or over fallen trees and if you think someone can carry you over these things then you living in la la land. Have you ever taken a handicapped person into the field before? This now has little to do with game farms in the contest of your statements. Even if they (game farms) did not exist you have made it clear the handicap deserve no special consideration.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

cwoparson, You must not be aware that NDGF has special considerations for disabled sportsmen, unlike some other states. Many hunters have these special permits that allow hunting from a vehicle or off road access to a particular location, and other assistance. I know a wheelchair bound hunter that hunts wild pheasants effectively from the box of a pickup over his GSP and has done so for years. He is also a sucessful fair chase deer hunter.

The ND organization, Twist of Fate, has done a great job of introducing and encouraging disabled sportsmen in a fair chase pursuit of wild game. The value of the experiance is inverse to the difficulty of obtaining it, unlike canned killing.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Dick either you misunderstand what I'm saying or I'm not making myself clear. I think most if not all states have special considerations for the handicap such as you mentioned. I agree with them and support those special laws but the way I'm reading RogerK's posts he seems to think the handicap should have to struggle along right beside you and I in the field with no special privileges. I completely disagree with that position. Fair chase, estate hunting, game farm or what ever, I support special consideration for the handicap no matter where or how they choose to hunt. Being handicapped doesn't make someone stupid. I'm sure they are very well aware of what the situation is as to the manner they choose to hunt.


----------



## Ande8183 (Sep 18, 2005)

Ever since I first heard about high fenced hunting I was strongly opposed to it, but I had never even thought about its benefits to the disabled. This type of hunting may benefit the disabled, but still should not be encouraged for all disabled people. Disabilities affect people in different ways and the severly disabled may not have many options to get outdoors and enjoy a hunt, in which case they should be allowed to hunt in an inclosure. Extremely strict regulations would have to be in place, and only be used for extreme cases or other severe limiting factors.

Some states, such as MN, offer hunts for the disabled that are offered before the regular gun season, but most importantly are still fair chase.

I am still strongly opposed to high fence hunting as it pertains to any able bodied hunter.


----------



## RogerK (Jan 21, 2004)

Chuck Smith and the rest, I never misspeak, especially on paper. I have the ability to express myself on paper, and to a lesser extent, in person. I write words and paste them into this thread and then read answers to and arguments against what I write and don't see a logical connection between what I wrote and what you argue I meant.

My fault? Am I not writing clearly enough? How did what I write come out so distorted in your mind?

This weekend I asked several people who don't read posts like this to log on to this site and read this thread. After they read the thread I asked them for their take. After they gave me their take, I asked them what they thought I meant. They actually got what I meant without distortion. If they got what I meant, then the people that count get it, and the rest distorted and attacked what I wrote which is sad, since they lied to themselves about what I wrote before that sat at a key board and lied to everybody reading these threads.

It's tempting to say ask the handicapped if they prefer a sure kill captive tame animal, or an ethical Fair Chase hunt with the chance of failure. Since I classify the handicapped as ordinary humans with differential limitations, I know, that being human, the vast majority are ethical hunters and will choose the ethical route, but being human, there will be unethical hunters in the ranks of the handicapped in same proportion as the general population.

I choose to look past the handicap and see the human; some who argue against my position look at the handicap and never see the human beyond that limitation. They define the handicapped by their handicap, and not by what the handicapped are capable of beyond their limitation.

Arguing about lugging a wheelchair up a mountain is a red hearing. The proposed law is for North Dakota. The last time I looked we suffered from a severe shortage of mountains. Those making that argument make the assumption that fencing an eighty, or a quarter, or a section, transforms the topography into terrain that's easier for the Handicapped to access. What?

To be perfectly clear, I support consideration for hunters that need special equipment in order to hunt, equipment prohibited to the rest of us, like crossbows.

I support driving off trail to get the handicapped hunter to a stand or blind and back.

I support accommodating the handicapped on access and special equipment that allows them to hunt.

I do not support throwing the ethics that make hunting, hunting, out with those accommodations.

I don't support treating the handicapped as second class citizens by telling them that they can't hunt like the rest of us and that they have to settle for a hand raised, hand fed animal akin to a family pet. I won't lie to them by telling them that it's just as good as a real hunt. It isn't, it can't be. Like somebody wrote above, they know the animal is tame, they know it isn't real, yet he insists that we pretend it is real. That's what I mean when I say that it demeans the handicapped.

Put them out in the wild, allow them the special equipment or transportation they need, and they can hunt with the best of us. To insist that they can't, is to focus on their inability rather than their ability, to judge them by their handicap and not by their ability and their value as a human being.

If that isn't clear, I don't know what will make it clear.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

RogerK said:


> Put them out in the wild,


But these facilities arent shooting wild animals! They are livestock, plain and simple. What is hard to understand about that. They may not be "domestic" but they are still livestock.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Roger, that was a nice post. Those that don't understand what you have just said have a handicap. They don't tell themselves the truth as you pointed out, they don't care, or they have a mental handicap that doesn't allow them to understand. The last is a perspective I had not thought about. The first two scenarios I don't have much respect for, but it's hard to be angry with people who don't have the capacity to understand. For them I will have to be more tolerant.

Keep up the good work Roger.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Roger.....

Better post than the earlier one. (The one I quoted)


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> To be perfectly clear, I support consideration for hunters that need special equipment in order to hunt, equipment prohibited to the rest of us, like crossbows.
> 
> I support driving off trail to get the handicapped hunter to a stand or blind and back.
> 
> I support accommodating the handicapped on access and special equipment that allows them to hunt.


But that is not what you originally said. What you said was "I hold the handicapped hunter to the same level of ethical Fair Chase that I hold the non-handicapped hunter. The high fence crowd isn't willing to do the same. They insist on demeaning the handicapped by telling them that they need an easy route in order to have hunted, and an even easier route to bag game." 
That's a far cry from your now allowing the handicapped special consideration for a easier route to hunt. But hell don't worry about it. I just found out I and others are handicapped because we don't tell ourselves the truth. :eyeroll: I guess all we have to do is say we agree with supporters and our handicap will disappear.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> Roger, that was a nice post. Those that don't understand what you have just said have a handicap. They don't tell themselves the truth as you pointed out, they don't care, or they have a mental handicap that doesn't allow them to understand. The last is a perspective I had not thought about. The first two scenarios I don't have much respect for, but it's hard to be angry with people who don't have the capacity to understand. For them I will have to be more tolerant.
> 
> Keep up the good work Roger.


Thanks for the libel Plainsman. Referring to those that disagree with you as "mental handicaps"?

I understood what he said both times, and he completely contradicted his first statement with that last one.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You should read it again, because I seen him saying the same thing both times.

Roger wrote:


> They insist on demeaning the handicapped by telling them that they need an easy route in order to have hunted, and an even easier route to bag game.


To me he is saying that it is demeaning to make the handicapped take an easy route. This means he is more respectful than those who would take them to a high fence shoot.

Roger wrote:


> The high fence mob would deny failure to the handicapped.


Failure is part of hunting. To give them a guaranteed and easy hunt is telling them they can't do it any other way. Maybe they should decide that.

Roger wrote:


> I'm proposing that we treat the handicapped as dignified human beings,


Somehow many of you twisted this into Roger is not being respectful. I would like to know how many other people can read this and be that far off. Here you are to draw the inference that taking them on a high fence shoot is disrespectful and not treating them with dignity. I fully agree with Roger. You may pat yourself on the back and think your being kind, but to think others are incapable is not kind, nor is it respectful. In the event you don't know it there is a difference between handicap and incapable.

I don't think you guys are mentally handicapped, I think your purposely misleading. Roger makes a good argument and you have a hidden agenda so you throw up a spin that would make a Washington politician jealous. I don't know what your motives are, but I will guarantee people reading this your motives are not to preserve the sport. Come on guys what's your connection?


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Plainsman the connection is some of us didn't avoid his comment "I hold the handicapped hunter to the same level of ethical Fair Chase that I hold the non-handicapped hunter". You chose to do so for your own reasons whatever they may be. He most certainly has contradicted himself in those two posts. You certainly have the right to ignore that little detail but it doesn't change the fact the lyrics to the song were changed. Just like you are now saying "I don't think you guys are mentally handicapped" when just in your previous post you said "they don't care, or they have a mental handicap that doesn't allow them to understand". I do care and I certainly don't have a mental handicap. Thats why I took him to task in the first place. I don't know why but you seem to think everyone has a connection or a hidden agenda just because they disagree with you. I don't understand that thinking.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I gave you *three *choices above, and I will admit none were good, but I was interested if you would choose the worst one. The reason for that would be spin and not sincere debate. Sorry to play that psychological game, but it tells me more about people more quickly than debating with them for another year. 
If you don't understand what I am saying, and I don't understand your motivation then we will just have to agree to disagree, because to carry this further would just exacerbate the problem.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

OK. Let's limit canned hunting to those who are physically or mentally disabled. Any disagreement with that?
Jim


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Thanx for posting up RogerK. If killing is only experience your looking for in hunting take up another hobby.

What a worthless shallow memory that would be.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

FWIW if I had a handicap friend it would be just as easy to push his wheelchair to a spot on a public or private hunting area with good potential as onto a high fence huntig area. High fence areas are not necessarily any easier access than other areas. Regardless of where he is hunting most likely a handicap hunter is likely going to need some help. Saying a high fence area is a handicap hunters only or best option is bull.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

> *They insist *on demeaning the handicapped by telling them that they need an easy route in order to have hunted, and an even easier route to bag game.


Who "insists"?

Its still up to the individual handicapped hunter to make up his/her own mind as to what "special considerations" they want to take advantage of. I have yet to hear anybody say they (handicapped persons) HAVE to use those considerations.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

This bill would have passed had it not been attatched with a provision that bans cervid farming in the state. Even the average armchair political pundit in the state saw that was a death blow to this.

Have a bill to ban high fence shooting by itself and I think it will have a much better go.

Personally, it's not that big of an issue to me. If anything it provides farmer's with some much needed cash. Is it possible that farmer's operating high fence shoots are less likely to lease their land out?

IMO the biggest issue to threatening hunting in the state is less quality land to hunt by the average hunter. I'm not sure if high fences really contribute to that.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Sen. Matherns bill, 2254, did not ban cervid farming.
http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/60-200 ... DP0500.pdf

It was a reasonable bill before its time. It would have banned canned shooting, tightened reporting requirements, raised the hight of the fence, and required a standard visable ear tag.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Dick, did that bill go to a vote? I thought the one with the cervid farming ban did, but you know a lot more about this than I do...


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The version above went to vote. There were at least 4 drafts, the first was the most comphrensive and would have basicly followed the Montana I-143 wording to grandfather existing game ranches, prevent sale and transfer of same, bannned canned kill, etc.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Roger, how much did a table cost you. Would you be interested in a table at the Jamestown Sport Show if I worked it with you?
I have just been sitting around waiting out the cold weather. This spring I will go door to door if need be.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

When you go door to door be honest with the people and let them know that this bill is supported by the Humane Society and Peta. Why don't you ask one of these groups to sponsor your table at the Jamestown Sportshow? They are into banning the killing of animals no matter how they were killed.

No I'm not a radical . I'm just a dumb cowboy.


----------



## RogerK (Jan 21, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> Roger, how much did a table cost you. Would you be interested in a table at the Jamestown Sport Show if I worked it with you?
> I have just been sitting around waiting out the cold weather. This spring I will go door to door if need be.


I didn't know there was a Jamestown show, and if I did, I forgot about it. Dates and times and I'll try my best to fit it in.

Bismarck was $275.00.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Roger, there are booths still available for the Sport Show. Look in your Pms I am sending you a message.

Edit: I think we are covered. I don't know if they have anyone to man the booth yet.


----------



## mrmcgee (Jan 21, 2008)

I work on a facility that is surrounded by 7 foot fence. We are allowed to hunt whitetail and turkey on there. I don't know what you guys consider "high fence" but the only deer a 7 foot fence keeps in is the old, week, or sick. I have seen MANY deer jump the 7 foot fence like it was nothing. IF the land is big enough it doesn't matter what size the fence you will still have a fair chase. No I do not consider putting a high fence around 10 acres a fair chase oppurtunity. It you put a high fence around 100 acres then you have a fair chase situation. If you consider 7 foot high fence then you have to understand that it does not keep ALL game restricted to that piece of land. I think most hunters want to share the sport with as many people as possible. There is nothing more thrilling then getting out in the woods, blending in, and having nature surround you and walk right by you. IF putting a fence around some land and letting disabled hunters get to experience that then who are we to take that away from them? Shooting fish in a barrel isn't my cup of tea but if that is the wish of some child dying of some disease that we can't pronounce then I say fire away litlle timmy!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Read page 20 and 21 of February 2008 Outdoor Life.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

i think if you could possibly verify who uses these "hunting enclosures" you would find very few disabled or terminally ill hunters involved. for the most part, that is simply a cover for charging fat cats a hefty fee to ride out in a jeep and shoot something with horns. just my opinion, as i am sure others have theirs as well.


----------



## RogerK (Jan 21, 2004)

All the rants against my stand on disabled hunting and the ethics of taking the disabled cheating, not hunting, didn't get what I meant, or chose to distort what I said. I break disabled into dis-abled and concentrate on the abled. Take a look at the videos below. Listen close to what Dustin Carter says approximately five minutes into the 9 minute clip which is the second clip.

> 



>

> 



>


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

hunter9494 said:


> i think if you could possibly verify who uses these "hunting enclosures" you would find very few disabled or terminally ill hunters involved. for the most part, that is simply a cover for charging fat cats a hefty fee to ride out in a jeep and shoot something with horns. just my opinion, as i am sure others have theirs as well.


And so what if some fat cat is willing to dish out several thousand to shoot somebodies PRIVATELY OWNED animal on their PRIVATELY OWNED land?


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Show me a handicapped person who can afford the fee to shoot an elk at one of these facilities.

There might be a few exceptions, but the majority of them are on a low fixed income.

No matter which side of this fence you are on, this is a pretty poor justification. Unless they are giving these shoots away or for an extremely low price, I doubt there are many handicapped people utilizing these services.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Here ya go Muzzy,


> http://www.northlandoutdoors.com/index_ ... perty_id=1


So Muzzy and Roger apparently you gentleman are fortunate not to be handicapped so you have no idea what its like. For some of us we had to learn to adapt we competed but it is something you guys know nothing about.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I see the poor kid nor his father could afford it. I wonder how the young man would have felt about a free range elk hunt high in the Rocky Mountains in one of our western states? Lets see the memory of a prairie hunt for elk in North Dakota, or the memory of clear mountain air with stars that look like they hang just above the trees? With clear streams running over rocks and full of trout. With the sound of elk, coyotes, and more as he sat around the campfire with his father. The smell of wood smoke and the wind in the pines. It would have been possible for him you know.


----------



## muzzy (Mar 21, 2002)

Did I state I had anything against the handicapped? I didn't even say what side of the debate I supported. For all you know, I might be on your side and am just telling you to get a better argument. I simply said that many handicapped people are on a fixed income and I doubt that very many of them could afford to purchase a hunt like this. They evidently couldn't either. The hunt was paid for by "hunt of a lifetime" not an elk rancher that gave away a hunt. I'm not saying they should either. Hunt of a Lifetime is a Great Organization, and I am not trying to take anything away from them. It is great someone is doing something for terminally ill children as I believe Make a Wish foundation does not do hunts any more.

I do take exception to you telling me I know nothing about what it is like to be handicapped. My dad man stepped on a land mine in Vietnam and lost his leg. While he is not in a wheelchair, he does have mobility issues. Some things he can't do, but if there is a way he does it, such as getting a shoot from the vehicle permit for deer hunting. This did effect me when I was a young kid learning hunt. When I needed to be accompanied by an adult (state law says you have to be with an adult until the age of 15) I could only go where he could go so I do realize how much it limits someone. I am hardly unsympathetic to the handicapped, and I do feel they need and deserve special accomodations. My dad would love to shoot an elk, but he can't handle the terrain. He has told me that he would never shoot an elk in a fence. He just realizes he will never shoot an elk and will pursue other things he is able to.

The only point I was making is that I don't believe that this argument is something to hang your hat on. It is still my opinion that the number of clients that are handicapped are an extremely small percentage. It is certainly not the only way a handicapped person can hunt.

I regret even chiming in on this discussion. A person can't even express an opinion without getting labeled as a degenerate. I get fed up with the crap on here and vow not to come back. Unfortunately every 6 months I contribute something but it never lasts.

Slander me all you want, I will not reply any more.

Out.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Plainsman, Last session HB 1402 was passed which grants deer and antelope licenses for terminally ill children. In its first draft the sponsors of this bill wanted to include an elk and moose license. The game and fish was against including elk and moose in this because they are once in a lifetime hunts among other things. It was a slippery slope for the game and fish and I agree with them. So Plainsman that scene of the boy hunting Elk in ND would only happen on a game farm.

Muzzy, Sorry to see you leave again, and I agree with you that this is not the only argument to hang your hat on. I am handicapped and have never in my life used that as an excuse for anything. The thing that got me is when you said handicapped people could not afford it. We have very many successful people that are handicapped. In fact we have one running for president John McCain.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Ummmm, who slandered you Muzzy?


----------

