# Thank You Petition Sponsors and Circulators



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Just got the offical word tonight that the signature count did not qualify. A heartfelt thank you from the committee to the folks who worked on this issue. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Dick, have you ever heard the old cliché that every cloud has a silver lining? When HSUS got our measure on their web page it would have hurt us in the election. Even though they were really not part of it the opposition tried to make it look that way. We seen that on this site, and some sucked it in. This can be done the right way another time, if it doesn't happen nationally first.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Come on now Plainsman, from the words of Dick Monson

[/quote] the Fair Chase measure is a slam dunk.


> Maybe you're out of touch with the people of ND? What was the vote in the legislature last year? Oh thats right they were bought off :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Just keep crowing g/o it makes people want to work harder next time. Nothing like a wise remark to fire up the opposition. Actually I always appreciated those type of remarks, I just wouldn't admit it while things were still unsettled. The good thing is there is always another election, and people will remember the attitudes from this go around. Also, we have learned some things, so this was good training. It's not the end, it's only the beginning.  I found your comment helpful in sustaining my goal. I think secretly it must be what you want too. Why else would you try keep it alive? Will you help circulate petitions next election? 

Having just escaped the jaws by around 100 signatures I'll bet the high fence operators would like to lie low. You know out of sight out of mind? All they need right now is someone spouting off. I see on another thread LT is helping our cause. Many thanks.   

Next time, in the short future, there will be no HSUS to complain about. Heck I'm happy. This is only a small stumbling block, and perhaps will work out for the best.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman,

I'll bet you are dying to know who LT is.


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

DG said:


> Plainsman,
> 
> I'll bet you are dying to know who LT is.


I find it interesting how all of the "high fence operation supporters" seem to all hide behind screen names while most (if not all) petition supporters and sponsors are not afraid to let their identities be known.

Interesting to say the least.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Another great post from G/O.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DG said:


> Plainsman,
> 
> I'll bet you are dying to know who LT is.


That would be kind of childish wouldn't it? I don't know how some people think.
Actually the opposite is true. I know some high fence operators, and I wish I didn't. Knowing them makes it harder to do the right thing. When you know someone you sympathise with them no matter what they do if you like them. I don't want to know any more high fence operators. It's the only reason some people support high fence operations. It isn't sporting, and it degrades hunting so why else would anyone support it? 
It's very easy for me to find out who people are, but I don't do it because I respect privacy. I look at those who violate peoples wishes of privacy as social misfits.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Even though I did not agree with it.

I commend everyone who was apart of it. They participated in the system that makes the US what it is. This measure might make people get more involved in politics and the law making decisions.

I think this bill would have passed if it was tweaked a little. But I have voiced that before.

Again good job on trying to get something passed you are passionate about even though I did not agree with it. Cheers. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ya, Chuck, the democratic system is still the best in the world isn't it? I share every ones fear of HSUS and PETA. We have to do everything we can to short stop these people. They don't care about wildlife like they say they do, or they have no concept of how hunting fits into modern wildlife management. We can't have grizzlies or cougars in proximity of large populations of people so we have to take their place. We are as much a part of the balance of nature as any other predator, but some people just don't understand that. We have as much right to eat venison as a bear, a wolf, or any other predator. The deer don't like wolves eating them either, but it happens.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

dblkluk said:


> DG said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman,
> ...


Precisely.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

R y a n said:


> dblkluk said:
> 
> 
> > DG said:
> ...


It is so interesting being on this side of the 'fence' (sorry but had to use that one here) as a MOD.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

DG said:


> Plainsman,
> 
> I'll bet you are dying to know who LT is.


DG,

You have no idea...

Also, this is remarkably close to being childish.

Thanks to all that tried and yes, I have to agree, it is wonderful to see the democratic way of doing things in action....sometimes. What is truly great to see is people taking up a cause, almost any cause, to see a united front for something to wit they are passionate about.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

R y a n said:


> dblkluk said:
> 
> 
> > DG said:
> ...


Ryan, Post your name, this I gotta see.

Painsman, You post your name also, another I gotta see.

Ken W, Thank You I thought it was good also. Glad you appreciate it.
talk about a bunch of sore loosers :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Painsman, You post your name also, another I gotta see.


I put my name on the list of sponsors, but I never put my name out on the Internet for the world to see. Do you remember our conversation when someone outed you? I didn't like that. The only reason for that is they hope that of all the people on here one is nuts enough to vandalize your property or something. No one ever does that for honorable reasons. 
Look in your PM box.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Plainsman, So then why is it you guys feel the high fence supporters should be posting our names here?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Like I said look in your PM box. Don't worry, it's friendly.


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

Go back and read it again g/o, Plainsman had nothing to do with, it I did.

Its easy to not be accountable for ones actions when hiding behind a username.

Erik Myre aka dblkluk :wink:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> I find it interesting how all of the "high fence operation supporters" seem to all hide behind screen names while most (if not all) petition supporters and sponsors are not afraid to let their identities be known.


I know Plainsman and who he is, and I respect his decision for not posting his name. But he is not posting his name and I'll guarantee you Ryan will never post his name. So why is it high fence supporters are suppose to?

Actually this was aimed at Ryan, he is the one who seconded your motion


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Dick was simply thanking people who put an effort into the measure. There is no need for debate in this thread. It is not intended as a debate thread. It got off on the wrong foot with the gloating. Wrong direction. Lets move on.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

g/o said:


> > I find it interesting how all of the "high fence operation supporters" seem to all hide behind screen names while most (if not all) petition supporters and sponsors are not afraid to let their identities be known.
> 
> 
> I know Plainsman and who he is, and I respect his decision for not posting his name. But he is not posting his name and I'll guarantee you Ryan will never post his name. So why is it high fence supporters are suppose to?
> ...


G/O

I don't post my name for a variety of reasons, and I believe I have told you that several times in the past. It is just like Plainsman stated.

There are probably 10 guys on here who know my name. Those folks are people I've vetted in various ways over the years. I'm not afraid of letting someone know exactly who I am, provided they respect my wishes for internet anonymity. I keep my name off internet boards for both personal and professional reasons. If I trust that someone that I disclose my name to will keep it off the boards, and I can trust that they are of high ethical and moral character, chances are they have my name if the topic has come up in the course of casual conversation via PM.

As I was not a ND resident, and thus not a sponsor of the measure, my name was not needed in the course of this or any other high fence thread.

It is that simple.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

Rest assured the new measure will be dressed to look somehow different. I predict the core will still be a simple imposition of someones ethical values on others. The best defense against these infringements on your freedoms is to never give up and continue to argue your case calmly and passionately.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

No one wants to know my name?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

MSG Rude said:


> No one wants to know my name?


We all know you are Chinese. Your first name is Msg


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

No R Y A N I think its more Japanese


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

blhunter3 said:


> No R Y A N I think its more Japanese


That's a .10 of a point deduction right there...

I'm just sayin'


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Your right, it is Rice.

Sorry, I'll stop this now. We have high-jacked this thred.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

That isn't hunting.. I wonder who and why anyone would bring that crap to a hunting site? Sure you are all a bunch of sporty's but still Chris considers this a hunting web site. It really should be the unsportsmanlike sports web site for all you sportsman.

I wonder if there is a true hunting web site that has only to do with killing for food. Anyone know of one?


----------



## Maverick (Mar 4, 2002)

> Your right, it is Rice.


That was funny right there.....


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

g/o said:


> Ken W, Thank You I thought it was good also. Glad you appreciate it.talk about a bunch of sore loosers :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


I didn't win or lose.I really didn't care about this one way or the other.As I said.....another G/O post not worth much other than to gloat. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

I would guess we have seen the last of most of the High Fence shooters here.After all what they offer isn't really hunting. :eyeroll:


----------



## Turner (Oct 7, 2005)

I too, am glad to see the democratic system work. That is one of the things that makes this nation great. 
When this petition gets brought up again and circulated I would like to see more hard facts on why these operations need to be banned other than the reason "I don't like it" or "it's not ethical". The group that calls themselves ND Hunters for Fair Chase did no more than what our media does right now to sway the public to think what is right and wrong. They played on emotion and tried to tug on people's heart strings. One tactic I heard at the Fargo Dome, was telling people that most of these operations drug, tie up, and shoot animals in cages the whole time standing there holding a picture of a doe behind a fence. You may not be able to keep the Humane Society and their people away from supporting what you want to do but you sure can pick the correct people to represent you publicly and the facts they tell people to obtain signatures.

I know Plainsman, you are not retreating, you are merely pulling back to fight another day.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Turner......if they would not have went to ban them only to pose more strict regulations (advertising, bigger kill pens, # of animals per acre, more health testing, no drugging, etc.) I think it would have been on the ballot and then won come november. Because the good operators could get behind this measure to eradicate the poor operations doing these things. IMO.


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

buckseye said:


> I wonder if there is a true hunting web site that has only to do with killing for food. Anyone know of one?


Yeah, except it ended in the 1800's... wait al gore didn't invent the internet and global warming yet. Seriously, who has to hunt for food these days when you can get a cheeseburger at DQ for $.49.


----------



## 4590 (Jun 27, 2004)

Certainly glad the petition is dead. However it is still a travesty that a handful of melcontents can cost producers of a legitimate, state encouraged business, so much money just to dispell their rhetoric. This is not the way a representative form of government is supposee to work. I certainly agree we all need to vote and make this an issue if you wish. But laws still need to go through the legislative process.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> But laws still need to go through the legislative process.


I am sure power hungry politicians would agree with that, but it is incorrect. Politicians are not our masters, they are our servants, but to often their ego's get that mixed up.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman

The same can be said about federal employees.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DG said:


> Plainsman
> 
> The same can be said about federal employees.


Well finally we agree on something, and very strongly too. I have always felt that those in wildlife owed a little more to hunters who pay an 11% excise tax, than the average American.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

4590 said:


> Certainly glad the petition is dead. However it is still a travesty that a handful of melcontents can cost producers of a legitimate, state encouraged business, so much money just to dispell their rhetoric. This is not the way a representative form of government is supposee to work. I certainly agree we all need to vote and make this an issue if you wish. But laws still need to go through the legislative process.


Over 12,000 people disagree with you.Pure democracy at work.Rhetoric is always one sided.Just depends on which side you are on.

I'm sure this isn't going away.Be prepared to spend some more of that money in the future.I would guess the side that tried to pass this spent some if their money also.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Over 12,000 people disagree with you.Pure democracy at work.Rhetoric is always one sided.Just depends on which side you are on.


And again you are wrong Ken, just because 12,000 people signed that petition does not mean that is how they would vote. Many of us sign these things because we respect your right to bring it to a vote. I found it funny that they could only get 12,000. Two things happened here, either a total lack of organization, or people really didn't buy it.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Seriously, who has to hunt for food these days when you can get a cheeseburger at DQ for $.49


USAlx50...If I have to explain respect to you well I give up, your right about everything man no one hunts for food. 

Personally I eat what I kill, I don't kill to give away or brag. I kill to preserve the species, I believe the American Indian to date has been the greatest conservationists this land has seen. Some of us work hard to make and keep guns and hunting a good thing while others turn it into a competition with humans instead of nature.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

g/o said:


> > Over 12,000 people disagree with you.Pure democracy at work.Rhetoric is always one sided.Just depends on which side you are on.
> 
> 
> And again you are wrong Ken, just because 12,000 people signed that petition does not mean that is how they would vote. Many of us sign these things because we respect your right to bring it to a vote. I found it funny that they could only get 12,000. Two things happened here, either a total lack of organization, or people really didn't buy it.


Maybe, but then perhaps some of the petition circulators were guilty of the same thing as I, not staying on top of collecting signatures.

I hit mine hard when I first got it, but the demands of work, home and a new grandchild got in the way and I turned mine in without filling it up. Next time I will be more diligent.

And R Y A N does post his name, it's Ryan. :lol:

I generally don't put my name in a public internet forum, but I really have nothing to hide.

Want to talk, stop at the LEC in Jamestown some evening, I'll buy you a cup of coffee and we might even have a dougnut laying around. :wink:

huntin1 / Rob Opp


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Want to talk, stop at the LEC in Jamestown some evening, I'll buy you a cup of coffee and we might even have a dougnut laying around.


You must be referring to BP, every time I stop it's full of local Leo's feasting on Krispy Kreams :lol:


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

The fact that the petition was not qualified is not uncommon event and is really not much of a barometer to it's success. Many petitions suffer this fate due to the fact that they are often organized by people who have never done it before. Often those core people are made aware of all the requirements but that information is not made clear to other volunteers. Usually just a lapse in communication. When petitions are distributed to volunteers they really should contain a cover letter detailing proceedures. This is rarely done. Now that they know what they are doing the same mistakes will not be made next time. FWIW a petition with barely enough signatures is not good enough. You need enough overage to compensate for disqualifications that will always be found. I'd shoot for a goal of 10-15% over what is required just to be safe.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

dakotashooter2......so true.

Maybe by the next time around,G/O will have convinced me to sign and even circulate one of them.


----------



## USAlx50 (Nov 30, 2004)

buckseye said:


> > Seriously, who has to hunt for food these days when you can get a cheeseburger at DQ for $.49
> 
> 
> USAlx50...If I have to explain respect to you well I give up, your right about everything man no one hunts for food.
> ...


Where did I say I dont enjoy eating wild game? I eat everything I kill with the exception of coyotes or deer that I donated to become jerky for soldiers overseas. I'm just saying, people dont buy a gun, license, camo, decoys, deer stands and the million other things that go along with hunting because they are going hungry and it is a cheap meal. Just not a logical or economical way of sustaining life.

Im sure there are some Jerimiah Johnsons left out there somewhere, but they sure aren't hackin it out on an internet hunting forum..


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Forum editorial: 'Canned hunting' debate is just getting started *

Published Thursday, August 14, 2008
The failure of a hunting measure to get on the November North Dakota ballot was more about a failure of organization than interest in the issue. The measure sought to ban

so-called "high-fence hunting," also known as "canned hunting" in the state. Some critics of the hunting-for-fee practice liken it to shooting fish in a barrel.

But whatever one's feelings about shooting or hunting game in fenced tracts of land, the emotions swirling around the issue guarantee it will be back, either in the 2009 Legislature or on a ballot in 2010. The opposing sides have traded charges and countercharges about everything from the definition of high-fence hunting to the alleged involvement of animal rights groups. Attempts at compromise failed, with each side accusing the other of not wanting to compromise.

Nonetheless, the debate is legitimate. Those who favor "fair chase" hunting contend high-fence hunting violates North Dakota's hunting ethic and traditions. Operators of enclosed tract operations insist it's a matter of property rights, and they contend tracts are large enough so animals can escape hunters.

The debate will go on and likely heat up.

Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper's Editorial Board.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper's Editorial Board.


None of them have ever visited to a high fence operation. I would never take what the forum says to seriously


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> None of them have ever visited to a high fence operation. I would never take what the forum says to seriously


Oh, I don't know, I wouldn't have to have Obama bin Laden start hacking my head off to know I wouldn't like it.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

OK a question... is it hunting if you don't need to buy a hunting license?

Whats the difference if it's a pen full of hogs and you buy one, kill it and eat it?

You all got childish names attached to stuff you don't like so it's confusing to me and probably lots of other folks.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I can see keeping pen raised critters out of the record books, other than that it is no different than a feedlot.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

buckseye said:


> OK a question...
> 
> Whats the difference if it's a pen full of hogs and you buy one, kill it and eat it?


We'll keep it simple: if you buy the hog and kill it for the enjoyment of killing it, then we call you a psychopath. I haven't met many folks who have enjoyed the killing aspect of butchering an animal. It is a necessity if you are going to eat, but enjoying killing the animal, not in a sane person's world.

Now consider hunting. We hunt for enjoyment.

I am truly amazed (perhaps I should be frightened) by folks who fail to appreciate the difference between butchering and hunting. Hunting is joyful. Butchering lacks all that makes hunting joyful. Obtaining the same joy from butchering something and hunting something makes someone abnormal. Sorry, but I'm not sure about folks who fail to appreciate the difference. Failing to appreiciate the difference will be the end of hunting.

M.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

If you kill something in a pen or on a mountain top it has to be butchered right.

You lost me bad...

I was comparing tame deer in a fence to tame (domestic hogs) in a fence, what are you talking about MRN? My point is that is not hunting and shouldn't be called hunting, or canned hunts, or high fence hunts. It's just plain not hunting to kill fenced animals. It is killing and butchering.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

Your faux sematic argument is inane.

You suppose that butcher (verb) is the same as "dressing", whereas the term is more towards "slaughter" and could include the "dressing". "Slaughter" is more indelicate and has conotations of violence, so I (and my father, and likely his father) prefer "butcher". Regardless, the original intent is clear.

Try the word "slaughter" in place of "butcher". If you still have trouble, assistance may be in order - socio-emotional or reading comprehension, or both.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

MRN said:


> buckseye said:
> 
> 
> > OK a question...
> ...


I think you are playing word games. Why do yo kill the animal you hunt? If you have reached the point of being able to make the kill then your "desire to hunt" should be satisfied. Once you have reached the point of pulling the trigger a free range hunt becomes ethically identical to a penned hunt, no matter the size of the pen. In fact, a penned hunt becomes more ethical since your likelihood of making a clean kill on the animal is much higher.


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

MRN said:


> Your faux sematic argument is inane.
> 
> You suppose that butcher (verb) is the same as "dressing", whereas the term is more towards "slaughter" and could include the "dressing". "Slaughter" is more indelicate and has conotations of violence, so I (and my father, and likely his father) prefer "butcher". Regardless, the original intent is clear.
> 
> Try the word "slaughter" in place of "butcher". If you still have trouble, assistance may be in order - socio-emotional or reading comprehension, or both.


I can see people rushing to your side with that post!! WOW!!!
:roll: :roll:


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

One other thing MRN:
Can you get any of that socio-emotional assistance in 12 pack bottles?
It's Friday and I'm ready for some!! :beer:


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

walker said:


> MRN said:
> 
> 
> > buckseye said:
> ...


Please read Jose Ortega y Gasset (e.g., "One does not hunt in order to kill; on the contrary, one kills in order to have hunted.").

Please read Eric Fromm (e.g., motivation from the enjoyment of skill).

Please read Aldo Leopold (e.g., value in exercise of ethical restraints called 'sportsmanship'.)

Then, perhaps, you might understand what everyone else does about hunting.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

woodpecker said:


> I can see people rushing to your side with that post!! WOW!!!
> :roll: :roll:


So you find enjoyment in killing animals in the absence of the hunting experience? WOW!!! Good luck with that!! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

MRN said:


> Then, perhaps, you might understand what everyone else does about hunting.


I don't rely on others to do my thinking. My mind works just fine. My understanding of the full picture is very clear.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

MRN said:


> So you find enjoyment in killing animals in the absence of the hunting experience?


Why must you kill to obtain the hunting experience?


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

MRN said:


> So you find enjoyment in killing animals in the absence of the hunting experience? WOW!!! Good luck with that!! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


Nice Try!!! :lol:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

woodpecker said:


> One other thing MRN:
> Can you get any of that socio-emotional assistance in 12 pack bottles?
> It's Friday and I'm ready for some!! :beer:


Now thats funny!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Hell, I really enjoyed blowing the guts out of prairie dogs this summer, and that wasn't much "hunting". It was a shooting gallery. Does that mean I need help? Please give me some book selections to help me with my problem!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have about eight of them you can use if you would like. I would suggest starting with Nosler Reloading Guide Fifth Edition. 

Were they free roaming prairie dogs.


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

Plainsman wrote:



> Were they free roaming prairie dogs.


Great question. :wink:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> Were they free roaming prairie dogs.


 :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

This thread is proof positive that anyone who would seek out the services of a psychiatrist SHOULD have their head examined!


----------



## Daren99 (Jul 6, 2006)

MRN said:


> Your faux sematic argument is inane.
> 
> If I have to go get a dictionary again to read the posts on here I'm going to have to find a site for ignorant people. :lol:


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

I have about eight of them you can use if you would like. I would suggest starting with Nosler Reloading Guide Fifth Edition.

Plainsman, I have the more current and updated 6th edition from Nosler, along with the 7th from Hornady, and the 4th from Barnes. Excellent reading, but I am afraid it only made my disease worse. I think the only help I can find will be when my Sierra manual arrives.

I have also found that reading Midway, Cabela's, and Natchez catalogs, along with gun reviews and reloading websites helps to enhance my socio-emotional disorder.

Were they free roaming prairie dogs.

Absolutely!!!! Although some were behind a fence and some were in front of a fence, and a few were even below the fence. (it was not a high fence)  A good number of them got away. Hopefully with more practice and some more reading material I will not allow that to happen next year.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your on the righ track laite319.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

laite319 said:


> Hell, I really enjoyed blowing the guts out of prairie dogs this summer, and that wasn't much "hunting". It was a shooting gallery. Does that mean I need help? Please give me some book selections to help me with my problem!!!!!!


Did you really fine joy in "blowing the guts out of prairie dogs" or in the practice and exercise of the skill and patience to deliver a bullet to a precise location from a long distance to achive a quick and painless death (e.g, read Fromm) while perhaps serving the broader goal of reducing or eradicating the a animals from a problem location?

If it's the former (for DG's benefit that means the first of the two options outlined above), then there ain't ain't any book that can help you. Sorry, and stay the hell away from any kids.

M.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

laite319,

I think that there is a "shooter" computer program or two out there that will satisfy your thirst for blood.

Jim


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

MRN

I took your advice and tried reading Gasset Fromm and Leopold. These writers could turn most office lizards and hunter wannabees into naturalists, conservationists, preservationists and purists such as yourself. I don't believe normal people go hunting so they can don face camo, pound on their chests, pee on some trees and bark at the moon. We are all out there in the fall. Everybody knows what the number one is reason is.

Permit me to borrow a quote from the movie Catch Me If You Can. "Doctor do you concur."


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> Did you really fine joy in "blowing the guts out of prairie dogs" or in the practice and exercise of the skill and patience to deliver a bullet to a precise location from a long distance to achive a quick and painless death (e.g, read Fromm) while perhaps serving the broader goal of reducing or eradicating the a animals from a problem location?
> 
> If it's the former (for DG's benefit that means the first of the two options outlined above), then there ain't ain't any book that can help you. Sorry, and stay the hell away from any kids.


MRN, I would have to say more of the second part than the first, but seeing the pink spray, and watching olympic like flips and twists was definately better than just seeing them fall over.

I had absolutely no concern for reducing or eradicating the animals from a problem location. It was an much more enjoyable rifle range.(paper just doesn't react very well)

My 12 year old nephew was with and scored his very first kill with a center fire rifle(.204) on his first shot at 273 yards.(verified with my Leupold rangefinder) He really enjoyed blowing the guts out of them too!!!

*Edited by Plainsman. We have always deleted these photos so we don't give ammo to the anti-hunters. It is not edited because of the thread it is in, and most often these occur in the rabbit, prairie dog hunting, or air rifle forms.*


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

laite319,

You really brought your posts to a new LOW LEVEL.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

MRN said:


> Did you really fine joy in "blowing the guts out of prairie dogs" or in the practice and exercise of the skill and patience to deliver a bullet to a precise location from a long distance to achive a quick and painless death (e.g, read Fromm) while perhaps serving the broader goal of reducing or eradicating the a animals from a problem location?


Your stylized depiction of hunting is ridiculous. Obviously if a "quick and painless" death were the goal we would only allow penned animals to be shot. If controlling problem animals were the goal we would use more efficient means. If marksmanship were the goal we would exercise the pursuit under controlled conditions.

We as hunters don't need to justify psychologically to anyone, anywhere, anytime why we enjoy hunting. Our motivations are not some goofy "noble hunter" image. Why we hunt is much more basic then that. We hunt, fish and crave the outdoors because we as a species have done it for 10s of thousands of years. The truth is we can't, none of us can, really describe why we get the adrenaline rush we do when we hunt, fish or climb a peak. It is just part of us, the whole shebang, planning, stalking and killing the animal.


----------



## walker (Sep 27, 2007)

Ref said:


> laite319,
> You really brought your posts to a new LOW LEVEL.


Why? Does this mean the next target on the "Fair Chase" agenda is varmint hunting?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> I have about eight of them you can use if you would like. I would suggest starting with Nosler Reloading Guide Fifth Edition.
> 
> Were they free roaming prairie dogs.


The smiley faces were so everyone knew I was taking a humorous approach to this. I am sure it will come up again and give us much to debate about, but for now it is truly beating a dead horse. I'm not angry with anyone, but I am going to lock the thread. I am sure both sides will be pleased with that decision.


----------

