Someone who has not a clue.

They really mustn't!

I would imagine any fence is a high fence to you..........

You right, my 3'0" butt can't handle a fence at all.

So its ok to call shooting farm raised (domestic) animals "fair chase hunting" so long as thy are not kept in a fence they cant get out of?

I never said that or anything like it. The bird analogy was sarcasm - birds aren't affect by fences.

So you never shot released birds?

No. But I don't have strong feelings about it much one way or the other. Just doesn't relate to a HF discussion.

Seems to relate to fair chase hunting to me which is the gripe with anti HF'ers.

Lol if you use a feeder then you can't preach about fair chase..

"FAIR CHASE, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals." Using food as a means to influence animals into shooting range seems like an "improper advantage;" only fair way to hunt is naked with a spear!

Actually, the ONLY fair chase is tooth fang and claw. A spear isn't fair! Your prey doesn't have a spear!!!

It takes an advanced degree of ignunt to use the term "fair chase" against HF when ALL hunters take unfair advantage over the animals.

iirc there is only one hunter on this forum who actually hunts fair chase. He is NP's hero.

People don't seem to understand that the human being is the most inadequately equipped animal on the face of this earth. We have only our brains to sustain us in a literal dog-eat-dog world.

An 8- or 10-ft fence only guarantees that animals don't leave. You still have to get after them and put a bullet/arrow in them (or bite it in the neck with, for fair chase purposes).

As a US Marine once said (paraphrased), "You shoot an AK at us, we shoot an Abrams at you. You shoot an RPG at us, we drop a 500-hundred pounder on you." Take the edge you have as an intellectually superior being and utilize it instead of debating who has the higher moral/ethical/BS ground. There is not much morality in the act of killing, no matter what it is being killed. Get over the fact that there are fences involved.

Have often thought about that. Without our brains and the tools we make and use we couldn't even inhabit the area we live today. It is amazing that a tiny bird, spider, mouse etc. can subsist on its own with nothing. Left in the middle of south texas naked without the knowledge to make shoes, clothes, shelter etc. humans would die in quick order.

Some would, others would not. In every animal is the will to live or the willingness to die. In first world mationas we have bred out the will to live for some, mainly due to convenience and technology. For some, the will to die would simply let them wither away and quit before trying anything. For some, the will to live still exists and there would be a fight, probably a long fight to survive. not saying it would go well for every human willing to survive, but there would be some in that group who would survive.

Now you take a third world national or even most second world nationals and put them in the same category, and they would probably thrive...

You have to remember humans survived (according to science) for many thousands of years by doing exactly what we are talking about, being a predator. So while on its face the statement highlighted above may ring true to some, the fact is the statement is inherently false because if it were true, humans would have never survived the initial years and we wouldn't exist today...

[quote=chital_shikari][quote=therancher][quote=chital_shikari]

People don't seem to understand that the human being is the most inadequately equipped animal on the face of this earth. We have only our brains to sustain us in a literal dog-eat-dog world.

Disagree, man has always been more than adequate as a whole!

Humans have the ability to walk, crawl, run, climb, swim excetra, the only thing we can not do naturally is fly! Man is fairly dexterous with his arms, legs and extremities, evenly proportioned from head to toe which adds to the versatility. Though we may not be superior at any one given attribute, we certainly compensate with our overall diversified capabilities.
Even as a cave man we did not become the apex animal on the planet by being inadequate, otherwise we would still be hiding in the caves

We made it to the top of the food chain bc we don't taste good. If we taste good people would be eaten by sharks daily not bitten but eaten same with all the big cats and canines.

Really

Taste has very little to do with survival, predators have their preference based off various considerations main one being ability to catch an edible prey. Sure a Great white would prefer a nice fatty seal, if he is hungry he will eat a human. Same with lions a nice big Zebra would be a preference, if hungry and available a human will do nicely. Many documented cases of Lions, tigers and Leopards eating humans, plenty of cases of them coming into villages specifically targeting humans and dragging them away to be eaten. There are cases of sharks and some alligators eating humans, not their preference but food is food!

I hear humans taste like Chicken anyways so why would it matter


Its all about opportunity, hunger and instincts not taste when it comes to natures predators and survival

My comment was complete sarcasm

Plenty of that in this thread (Sarcasm). I enjoy the legitimate debates, humor, good BS and the wacky mind sets

Last disc.I will participate in on this subject

Wanna bet?