Yes, I am good with night hunting, no bag limits, no seasons, roost shooting... etc. IF we have some kind of evidence that these practices don't compromise the stewardship aspect of hunting. If the animal populations, ecological habit, etc are better off due to those practices that I am totally good with whatever way you choose to hunt.

We aren't more than animals... we just have a much larger intellectual capacity and opposable thumbs. Other than that all of our basic emotional, physiologic systems are exactly the same and built from the same pieces as every other animal on the planet. I don't care for a fair fight when I hunt, I look for the quickest kill for the animal I am harvesting. I would prefer to be head shot with a single bullet than eaten alive by a pride of Lions.

Look at the various native american tribes who herded buffalo to jump of cliffs and slaughtered 100s at a time. Was that fair chase... of course not? But in the greater context of stewardship they were far more respectful and efficient hunters than I think what is currently practiced today.

You could have 'fair chase' and still not be a steward of the land which in my opinion is worse than 'canned' hunting if the canned hunt operator shows he has a net positive impact on the flora and fauna. Think of the Oryx population in Texas... 'canned' hunting that actually provides for the greater good.

Debating is not harassing. It's how laws are made, or changed, or voted down - as the case may be. We don't live in a state of stasis.

This entire thread has made little sense to me. OP is about an anti-hunting group being against hunting, and to be fearful of them taking over the debate. Later, it is pointed out by the OP that anti-hunters are only about 5% of the population.

But then posturing that the best argument for hunting is that a fair chase ethic is BS. The same fair chase ethic that was a building block of the growth and acceptance of sport hunting into what it is today. (See Roosevelt, Grinnell, Leupold, Mahoney, etc., etc., etc....).

It is just a post with no direction.

"Anything goes as long as it's eaten" is a silly argument. Hunting is more than just an outdoor meat locker/packing house. Much more. Maybe some don't understand that these days.

The best arguments in defense hunting are:

1)Conservation; and
2)Fair Chase.

Period. Utilization of meat is a good ethic/support argument. We should all utilize the meat of the game animals we shoot that are edible. But even that argument leaves out predator hunting, pest control hunting, and most dangerous game hunting.

The "fair chase is BS" argument is a BS argument. "Anything goes" is not open-minded, it's just mindless.

You are simply attempting to cite offbeat and inapplicable examples that go against broad general principles that make up the rule. We are not animals and we are not the Indians of old. The only thing that saved many species from extinction from the market gunners' emerging technologies was the broad push for and adoption of fair chase principles. Period. It's the fact.

Certainly there is more to stewardship than just fair chase - and there is more to fair chase than just stewardship. I never said differently. Yet, the fact remains that the concepts of fair chase and stewardship are inextricably intertwined. That will not and cannot change.

Again, just straw men...

I'll stick with supporting fair chase.

You are simply attempting to cite offbeat and inapplicable examples that go against broad general principles that make up the rule. We are not animals and we are not the Indians of old. The only thing that saved many species from extinction from the market gunners' emerging technologies was the broad push for and adoption of fair chase principles. Period. It's the fact.

Certainly there is more to stewardship than just fair chase - and there is more to fair chase than just stewardship. I never said differently. Yet, the fact remains that the concepts of fair chase and stewardship are inextricably intertwined. That will not and cannot change.

Actually, the Indians played no role in the near extinction of the American Bison. That one was squarely on the market hunters.

Actually, the Indians played no role in the near extinction of the American Bison. That one was squarely on the market hunters.

Squarely on the market hunters? Slaughtering hundreds at a time by driving off a cliff certainly didn't help, and there methods of burning the prairies was questionable. They weren't prescribed burns of today. American Indians are often cited as being the great "environmentalists" by environment happy folks, but in reality they weren't.

Squarely on the market hunters? Slaughtering hundreds at a time by driving off a cliff certainly didn't help, and there methods of burning the prairies was questionable. They weren't prescribed burns of today. American Indians are often cited as being the great "environmentalists" by environment happy folks, but in reality they weren't.

Here is a little history that needs read. And a pretty reputable source, taught usually in American History before 8th grade. At least in Private schools.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/where-the-buffalo-no-longer-roamed-3067904/?no-ist

Thanks I will take a look at it. Guess I need to read up on it. But your comment about 8th grade wasn't necessary.......

My comment about 8th grade was true in my case, I did say in private school in my case at least. Some schools now hardly even teach history. I dont think I meant it as a slight, maybe more as a surprise on my part, since it is so well documented. If it felt as a slight, I apologize, but considering the statements you made, seemed a bit ludicrous and I wasn't sure if you where for real, trolling, or just wasn't aware of history.

I don't know much about it, but they seemed to have plenty of them until the market hunters came along. Things went south pretty quick, at that point.

Pen hunting sucks, and I am the enemy of the hunter because I hold that opinion............... Right

No, absolutely not. Only when you claim your method is above all.

I don't let the antis influence what I say or do at all. Just because I disagree with what another hunter does or doesn't do, it does not automatically put me on the same team as the antis. "The sit down and shut up" mentality aint the answer for sure!

Let me just say this: I have been out there "on the ground" with both my time and my $$ fighting for the rights of hunters - since probably before the OP got out of diapers. Talking, educating, discussing, debating and writing checks.

Anti-hunters are what? Anti-hunters. They are against hunting because of some stupid Disneyesque idea that hunting is cruel, inhumane, and depletes the resource of wild animals. They are stupid.

The real audience hunters need to reach is non-hunters. When you talk to them, overwhelmingly they are concerned about 2 issues:

1)The health of the resource (animal populations and hunters' impacts on same); and
2)The concept of "fair chase" (the ethic of hunters as actually hunting animals rather than just killing them to satisfy some bloodlust or for "fun" - they verbalize this in a number of ways but that's the gist).

The conservation history of hunters and the continued stewardship of the resource with hunters being by far the greatest conservationists by every metric is a very powerful testimony on hunters' behalf.
The ethic of "fair chase" exemplified by game laws and the individual practice of ethics is right behind it as a powerful testimony. Game laws are just the start of ethics. For example, if every hunter killed their limits every time out, the resource would still undergo significant depletion in many cases. There are many more examples.

There are some issues to be overcome with many forms of dog hunting, but they are usually overcome with a frank discussion/education of the tradition of dog hunting and the careful limits. (But some types of dog hunting have been banned over time - even with hunter acclimation - such as most dog hunting is not allowed for deer.)

The one current issue the vast, vast, majority of non-hunters remain adamantly repulsed by is ...... well, I'll let y'all fill in that blank.

Argue, cuss, discuss, whatever. I'm out there - I know what the issues of concern are. It does no good to put your heads in the sand about them and "sit down and shut up".