Texas Hunting Forum

Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined

Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 04/29/16 07:20 PM

Interesting article---when anti's use a rift among hunters- Anti's end up defining fair chase... In the end bear population explodes and so do bear/people issues.. The Anti's are pecking away at us

"“Our efforts are focused on what we consider to be the worst abuses,” says HSUS Wildlife Protection Director Elise Traub in an Outside Online interview. “I think the public and even a lot of ethical hunters have these standards like fair-chase, where animals have a fair chance to get away from the hunter. That’s completely absent in hound hunting, and when the public learns about that, they’re disgusted by it.”

Allowing groups such as the HSUS to determine what is “fair chase” is dangerous."


http://www.gohunt.com/read/life/systematic-attacks-on-black-bear-hunting-in-california
Posted By: Texas Tatonkas

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 04/29/16 08:56 PM

popcorn
Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 04/30/16 01:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Texas Tatonkas
popcorn


It's Friday an no one wants to be that serious smile
Posted By: rtp

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 04/30/16 12:29 PM

HSUS is a horrible organization. What I really think about them wouldnt be allowed on this board.
Posted By: Eland Slayer

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 04/30/16 01:36 PM

Originally Posted By: rtp
HSUS is a horrible organization. What I really think about them wouldnt be allowed on this board.


Agreed
Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 04/30/16 05:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Eland Slayer
Originally Posted By: rtp
HSUS is a horrible organization. What I really think about them wouldnt be allowed on this board.


Agreed


And we seem to be playing right into their hands
Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 04/30/16 06:59 PM

Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
Originally Posted By: Eland Slayer
Originally Posted By: rtp
HSUS is a horrible organization. What I really think about them wouldnt be allowed on this board.


Agreed


And we seem to be playing right into their hands


HSUS sucks - on that all here will agree.

Curious though, are you saying there should be no definition of "fair chase" period?
Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 04/30/16 11:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
Originally Posted By: Eland Slayer
Originally Posted By: rtp
HSUS is a horrible organization. What I really think about them wouldnt be allowed on this board.


Agreed


And we seem to be playing right into their hands


HSUS sucks - on that all here will agree.

Curious though, are you saying there should be no definition of "fair chase" period?


I'm saying careful how you express your opinion, when you trash a legal method of hunting, you might as well be the HSUS.... They have banned baiting, dogs and ever seasons so far.

So yes I think the term fair chase is complete an utter BS. There is no true definition, can't be one, not when you are human and have the mind and Physical ability that makes you the ultimate predator. As soon as you define it you give ammo to anti's to chip away at every thing we do as hunters, especially when divide as seen in the article.
Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/01/16 04:00 AM

What bs .

What gives the antis their ammo is hunters NOT having any definitions, standards, or ethics. If we don't decide what they are as HUNTERS, that's what opens the door for others to decide them for us.

By saying fair chase is "complete and udder(sic) BS", you provide more ammo for antis than those willing to debate what constitutes fair chase ever will. Why? Because it fits right into any anti-hunting narrative that hunters are just out to satisfy some bloodlust by killing.
Posted By: ALM TXhunter

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/01/16 02:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
What bs .

What gives the antis their ammo is hunters NOT having any definitions, standards, or ethics. If we don't decide what they are as HUNTERS, that's what opens the door for others to decide them for us.

By saying fair chase is "complete and udder(sic) BS", you provide more ammo for antis than those willing to debate what constitutes fair chase ever will. Why? Because it fits right into any anti-hunting narrative that hunters are just out to satisfy some bloodlust by killing.



I
up to N.P.'s comment.

On a slightly different, probably off-topic, note: do anti's ever try to post on here? Now that could get interesting quick .... I am guessing that they are probably filtered out.
Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/01/16 02:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
What bs .

What gives the antis their ammo is hunters NOT having any definitions, standards, or ethics. If we don't decide what they are as HUNTERS, that's what opens the door for others to decide them for us.

By saying fair chase is "complete and udder(sic) BS", you provide more ammo for antis than those willing to debate what constitutes fair chase ever will. Why? Because it fits right into any anti-hunting narrative that hunters are just out to satisfy some bloodlust by killing.



Says a guy that uses a $$$ rifle and top end outfitters.....

Legal is legal, ethics are defined by the law. Again like I mentioned before forest to plate shuts up any anti, you can't tell the difference in a deer steak that was shot with a traditional wooden arrow vs 500 yards with a custom rifle. You can't tell the difference in a mule deer steak that wade lemon guided on the strip and one shot in west Texas from a high rack. You can't tell the difference In a whitetail steak that was killed under a feeder vs a trail in the Sabine River bottoms.

Like I said Fair chase is 100% BS!!! All it does is create riffs, feeders vs no feeders, feeders vs food plots, rifles vs archery, guide vs unguided, private vs public, hounds vs no hounds, shooting from boat vs non boat. List can go on and on.

Thoughts like yours is what will close hunting. Your way or the highway.


The article proves my point. When free chase is defined Anti's use it to close opportunity and seasons. Period


Something simple as Baiting and Hounds... Now gone because of anti using riffs amoung hunters. But like always YOU don't care because it's not how you hunt so no biggy..
Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/01/16 02:41 PM

Originally Posted By: ALM TXhunter
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
What bs .

What gives the antis their ammo is hunters NOT having any definitions, standards, or ethics. If we don't decide what they are as HUNTERS, that's what opens the door for others to decide them for us.

By saying fair chase is "complete and udder(sic) BS", you provide more ammo for antis than those willing to debate what constitutes fair chase ever will. Why? Because it fits right into any anti-hunting narrative that hunters are just out to satisfy some bloodlust by killing.



I
up to N.P.'s comment.

On a slightly different, probably off-topic, note: do anti's ever try to post on here? Now that could get interesting quick .... I am guessing that they are probably filtered out.



Think about that for a second.... So you can't use feeders in Iowa because that's not fair chase so should that make 40 states that use feeders non fair chase?

What about states like Iowa that don't allow center fire rifles? Rifles aren't fair chase apparently, so you ready to give up using your rifle?

This is what the article is telling you will happen
Posted By: Pitchfork Predator

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/01/16 03:43 PM

Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
What bs .

What gives the antis their ammo is hunters NOT having any definitions, standards, or ethics. If we don't decide what they are as HUNTERS, that's what opens the door for others to decide them for us.

By saying fair chase is "complete and udder(sic) BS", you provide more ammo for antis than those willing to debate what constitutes fair chase ever will. Why? Because it fits right into any anti-hunting narrative that hunters are just out to satisfy some bloodlust by killing.



Says a guy that uses a $$$ rifle and top end outfitters.....

Legal is legal, ethics are defined by the law. Again like I mentioned before forest to plate shuts up any anti, you can't tell the difference in a deer steak that was shot with a traditional wooden arrow vs 500 yards with a custom rifle. You can't tell the difference in a mule deer steak that wade lemon guided on the strip and one shot in west Texas from a high rack. You can't tell the difference In a whitetail steak that was killed under a feeder vs a trail in the Sabine River bottoms.

Like I said Fair chase is 100% BS!!! All it does is create riffs, feeders vs no feeders, feeders vs food plots, rifles vs archery, guide vs unguided, private vs public, hounds vs no hounds, shooting from boat vs non boat. List can go on and on.

Thoughts like yours is what will close hunting. Your way or the highway.


The article proves my point. When free chase is defined Anti's use it to close opportunity and seasons. Period


Something simple as Baiting and Hounds... Now gone because of anti using riffs amoung hunters. But like always YOU don't care because it's not how you hunt so no biggy..


I agree 100% Bobo.

Blood lust killing? Come on NP, these antis support it every time they eat chicken at a restaraunt. Fair chase, the chicken lives in the cage its whole life being Sh!t on from above until it's slaughtered for the table. It is OK to admit we enjoy killing our meat and not try to shy away from it. Our methods are far more ethical and fair chase then the methods they support every day when they sit down at the dinner table.
Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/01/16 08:11 PM

This thread makes zero sense. In your zeal to equate those who subscribe to and discuss fair chase with antis, you are willing to throw out fair chase as BS. If you don't understand how crazy that is and where that path leads, I can't help you.

The antis don't matter. The rest of the folks do. The non-hunters and hunters who don't think the notion of fair chase is BS do matter. Equate hunting with just killing, and you'll find the island you're on to be pretty small.

The real threat to hunting is not those who subscribe to fair chase and are willing to discuss what it should look like - it's those who have no standards at all.

Plus all the presumptions about how I feel about hounds, feeders, rifles in Iowa, etc. are just that - presumptions. Straw men. I never said anything against them. Just silly deflection.
Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/01/16 08:40 PM

Those are examples not your personal opinion. Starting to think you are commenting again with out reading the article.

I'll paraphase it for you..... HSUS used a very small minority of hunters opinion to push using dogs for bears was NOT FAIR CHASE, thus getting it outlawed.

Now do my examples make sense?


Only one fail proof agruement and it's not if we use feeders, high power rifles, blinds, high racks, etc... It's Forrest to plate.

No having to justify that.


When you define Fair Chase you have to justify it.
Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/01/16 08:50 PM

Being unwilling to justify something sends the signal (in this case wrong signal) to others there is no justification for it at all.
Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/01/16 09:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Being unwilling to justify something sends the signal (in this case wrong signal) to others there is no justification for it at all.


One justification Forrest to plate, taking responsibility for what you eat. Why justify using a rifle when you can use a bow. Why justify a feeder when you can hunt just a food plot, why hunt private when there is public,

Make it about the plate and method doesn't matter. You are THE apex predator. Nothing is fair chase when you can use a rifle and smoke an animal at 200plus yards or a compound bow at 40,50,60,70, 80yards. What's fair chase about driving around on a 100k LF acre private ranch hunting an elk herd that doesn't migrate, picking one out and walking 50 yards from the truck(or from the truck) and shooting a big bull 300yards away?

What's fair chase about calling yotes at night? There are states that you can't hunt yotes at night... So apparently that's not fair chase, same with deer hunting with a centerfire rifle. How are you going to justify that?






Posted By: Texas Tatonkas

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/01/16 10:57 PM

Because it's his way.....therefore the only way! roflmao
Posted By: colt45-90

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/01/16 11:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
What bs .

What gives the antis their ammo is hunters NOT having any definitions, standards, or ethics. If we don't decide what they are as HUNTERS, that's what opens the door for others to decide them for us.

By saying fair chase is "complete and udder(sic) BS", you provide more ammo for antis than those willing to debate what constitutes fair chase ever will. Why? Because it fits right into any anti-hunting narrative that hunters are just out to satisfy some bloodlust by killing.




+1
Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/01/16 11:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Texas Tatonkas
Because it's his way.....therefore the only way! roflmao


The law isn't enough apparently for him. It's ok the antis will just continue down their road of finding frac lines and exploting them, all while introducing predators and protecting them until their isn't a sustainable source of game for hunters thus ending hunting.
Posted By: SniperRAB

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/02/16 12:08 AM

Originally Posted By: Texas Tatonkas
Because it's his way.....therefore the only way! roflmao



rofl
Posted By: BOONER

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/02/16 01:19 AM

Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Being unwilling to justify something sends the signal (in this case wrong signal) to others there is no justification for it at all.


One justification Forrest to plate, taking responsibility for what you eat. Why justify using a rifle when you can use a bow. Why justify a feeder when you can hunt just a food plot, why hunt private when there is public,

Make it about the plate and method doesn't matter. You are THE apex predator. Nothing is fair chase when you can use a rifle and smoke an animal at 200plus yards or a compound bow at 40,50,60,70, 80yards. What's fair chase about driving around on a 100k LF acre private ranch hunting an elk herd that doesn't migrate, picking one out and walking 50 yards from the truck(or from the truck) and shooting a big bull 300yards away?

What's fair chase about calling yotes at night? There are states that you can't hunt yotes at night... So apparently that's not fair chase, same with deer hunting with a centerfire rifle. How are you going to justify that?








Not arguing one way or the other because y'all both have valid points, but one thing BoBo that you keep confusing is safety and fair chase. You keep giving examples of something being illegal in certain states but not in others and claiming it must not be fair chase but in reality it is all about safety and nothing to do with fair chase.
Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/02/16 01:36 AM

No. It's not saftey. Unless you are talking about wildlife saftey. Iowa's centerfire restrictions are for sustainability reasons not saftey. Same with limited gun seasons in Okla, Kansas etc it's about curving harvests numbers. Obviously centerfire rifles are much much more effective then archery, ML and shotguns. Same reason CO has so many OTC units and long season for Archery compared to rifle.


So yes weapon choice is about fair chase. It's a basis for tag allocation. Elk, sheep, mule deer, white tails even turkeys tags are all managed by weapon and the correlating success rates
Posted By: BOONER

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/02/16 01:55 AM

Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
No. It's not saftey. Unless you are talking about wildlife saftey. Iowa's centerfire restrictions are for sustainability reasons not saftey. Same with limited gun seasons in Okla, Kansas etc it's about curving harvests numbers. Obviously centerfire rifles are much much more effective then archery, ML and shotguns. Same reason CO has so many OTC units and long season for Archery compared to rifle.


So yes weapon choice is about fair chase. It's a basis for tag allocation. Elk, sheep, mule deer, white tails even turkeys tags are all managed by weapon and the correlating success rates


Thanks for the lesson BoBo. I knew seasons were limited and what have you but I always thought that shotguns were more safety related.
Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/02/16 02:09 AM

The bottom line is it's no newsflash that an anti-hunting group is against hunting. It's why they are known as an anti-hunting group.

It was just a stir post in a silly attempt to equate hunters who subscribe to a fair chase ethic with anti-hunters.

The usual participants have lined up as always and (surprise) they have once again informed us of their opinions that any notion of fair chase is BS.

So there's really nothing new to see here....
Posted By: TexFlip

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/02/16 03:06 AM

Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
ethics are defined by the law

My ethics are not defined by man made laws.
Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/02/16 03:30 AM

Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
The bottom line is it's no newsflash that an anti-hunting group is against hunting. It's why they are known as an anti-hunting group.

It was just a stir post in a silly attempt to equate hunters who subscribe to a fair chase ethic with anti-hunters.

The usual participants have lined up as always and (surprise) they have once again informed us of their opinions that any notion of fair chase is BS.

So there's really nothing new to see here....




Oh so the article is BS, and HSUS didn't quote hunters on fair chase when they outlawed hound hunting...

As always with you it's about YOUR way of hunting, the heck with everyone else.


And no it's not a troll post, it's only a troll post to you because you don't give 2 flips about anyone but your self.
Post was a... Wake up Guys... Anti's have it figured out, but then again you want that, you side with antis a lot, you have gone on official record saying you want all HF's gone and Breeders GONE, you want rifle range restrictions..etc... This post is way more then just HF's and breeders... It an over view of what they are already working on. In other words it's not about you. It's about how anti's are pecking away at us. Oh dogs and bears? No that's not me because I don't hunt bears. Oh ML season, an not me either I don't hunt Mountain Lions, what they are introducing more wolves into NM, oh I don't hunt NM. How they outlawed lead bullets, oh I don't use lead bullets just Cooper, oh they just did away with rifle season because predator numbers are up and the population can't handle rifling hunting since it's such high filled tag ratio, WAIT I don't bow hunt......


Out law mountain lions, restrict the most effective way to control bears, introduce non native wolves and protect them ....,,, you just lost your hunting rights to the anti's....It's cool beat your chest about ethics and fair chase that truly went away the day God gave humans a mind that allows for reason and thought process.
Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/02/16 03:32 AM

Originally Posted By: TexFlip
Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
ethics are defined by the law

My ethics are not defined by man made laws.



Cool let HSUS define what's ethical and fair chase for you like in the article....let me know how that works out for you..... After all fair chase is the only way to take game....lmao!!!
Posted By: fadetoblack64

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/02/16 11:43 AM

I wish we could chase liberals up a tree with hounds grin
Posted By: TexFlip

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/02/16 12:43 PM

Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
Originally Posted By: TexFlip
Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
ethics are defined by the law

My ethics are not defined by man made laws.



Cool let HSUS define what's ethical and fair chase for you like in the article....let me know how that works out for you..... After all fair chase is the only way to take game....lmao!!!

My comment wasn't just about hunting and I didn't read the article.
But on hunting; it's perfectly legal to gut shoot a hog and let him run off and suffer and die. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's ethical.
Posted By: SniperRAB

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/02/16 12:58 PM

Originally Posted By: TexFlip
Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
ethics are defined by the law

My ethics are not defined by man made laws.


So you turn a blind eye
Posted By: TexFlip

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/02/16 01:10 PM

Originally Posted By: SniperRAB
Originally Posted By: TexFlip
Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
ethics are defined by the law

My ethics are not defined by man made laws.


So you turn a blind eye

Only to 75mph signs.
Posted By: BOONER

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/03/16 11:51 PM

I gut shoot hogs and sleep just fine at night! I also poison mice, rats and bugs in and around my house and sleep just fine at night! Maybe I'm just a blood thirsty lunatic!!!

As for the original post.....BoBo forrest to plate is great but just because you eat something that you killed while "hunting" will not keep the antis at bay! Those folks are delusional arse clowns and it doesn't make 2 chits to them whether you and Nog agree on fair chase or not! If you shoot a huge pen raised breeder buck and then eat him.....that still doesn't make it fair chase! If you shoot a doe from 900 yards with a BB gun in a 114 mph crosswind.....they still wouldn't be happy.
Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 01:24 AM

Originally Posted By: BOONER
I gut shoot hogs and sleep just fine at night! I also poison mice, rats and bugs in and around my house and sleep just fine at night! Maybe I'm just a blood thirsty lunatic!!!

As for the original post.....BoBo forrest to plate is great but just because you eat something that you killed while "hunting" will not keep the antis at bay! Those folks are delusional arse clowns and it doesn't make 2 chits to them whether you and Nog agree on fair chase or not! If you shoot a huge pen raised breeder buck and then eat him.....that still doesn't make it fair chase! If you shoot a doe from 900 yards with a BB gun in a 114 mph crosswind.....they still wouldn't be happy.


It's not the anti's that take note to the Forrest to Plate it's the voting public that don't hunt but doesn't disagree or agree with it. Anti's aren't 5% of the population.

Forrest to plate is the most effective thing we have. An Organic, 100% natural, sustainable food source, that we take 100% responsibility in killing and conserving.

Millennial marketing gets this. They are pushing it all over soical media..... It's in products, video's, news articles etc. the beer gut redneck isn't our face near as it use to be. The Millennial hunt demographic is about health, fitness and responsible natural food... I'll give them credit it's effective.

Like I said look at what happens when hunters defines fair chase, hounds outlawed, then baiting, then seasons. FACT, it's already happened.

What's fair chase to a traditional guy vs compound archer, or cap and ball ML vs inline muzzle loader, open sight rifle vs scoped custom nosler rifle? We all have our version of how we decide to hunt, why would one to change those options? Why would you want to say one is more fair chase then the other.

Like I said defining fair chase is what will ruin and destroy our hunting. When you define it you fracture and alienate your hunting peers.


Think about it for a second I can mimic another elk and bring in him with range to kill him.... What's fair about calling in a rut crazed bull. Or whack a deer at 100plus yards. Or hunting a limited draw unit that has 100% success rate. What's fair about that? Think how hard it would be for your to fill your tags if you didn't limit yourself. Bet you could fill all 5 whitetail tags in under 48hrs. What's fair about that?
Posted By: A.B.

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 01:32 AM

Ridiculous
Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 01:00 PM

Let's just say that, in a discussion with a non-hunter attempting to persuade them in favor of hunting, you might not want to lead out with "Fair chase is BS!".
Posted By: Creekrunner

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 01:12 PM

Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
Why would you want to say one is more fair chase then the other. (?)


Simple human nature. "My way is the only way it should be done." It applies to every subject under the sun. There are very few truly open minded (about even a single subject) people walking this planet.
Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 01:33 PM

Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Let's just say that, in a discussion with a non-hunter attempting to persuade them in favor of hunting, you might not want to lead out with "Fair chase is BS!".


Not a difficult discussion. We invited a nuclear bomb, smart phones, etc. What can a deer invent?

How fair case was that hamburger they just ate? Again WE choose how we hunt. Do you want to try to justify a 1/2 MOA rifle whacking deer at 200yards vs a traditional Archer?

Show them a plate of food and ask them, if they know what chemicals and hormones are in it compared to yours.



Posted By: Western

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 01:48 PM

Wasn't it Teddy Roosevelt and in turn the B&C club that coined the term "Fair Chase"? then it would seem they "own" the definition. People can argue semantics, until the cows come home...

There is a legal term/precedent/ruling that I can't recall right now bang Thought of it yesterday while shredding, anyway, it is a governing thought to try and mainstream ethics and morals as a whole , since they are so diverse in people, thus we have game laws and restrictions to control each individuals range of ethics and morals to a "norm".

Harassing anything done legal inside the laws (hunting) IMO, is just an effort to control something you don't personally like.
Posted By: Sneaky

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 02:19 PM

Western nailed it. Fair chase is a term coined by a person or group. They got to define it, therefore, it's what they said it is. Now, whether fair chase should be forced on people is another topic.

The way I hunt may or may not be considered fair chase. For that, I get to coin my own term. I think I'll call it reasonable pursuit.
Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 02:36 PM

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 stir 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.
Posted By: mattyg06

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 03:38 PM

I have always thought the best argument for hunting was stewardship. I have always thought 'fair chase' was a joke of an argument for either side to address. There isn't a single animal in existence that practices 'fair chase'.
Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 03:46 PM

Originally Posted By: mattyg06
I have always thought the best argument for hunting was stewardship. I have always thought 'fair chase' was a joke of an argument for either side to address. There isn't a single animal in existence that practices 'fair chase'.


So, you good with night hunting, no bag limits, no seasons, roost killing, etc., etc., ....? The animals are - and that's fine for them.

But we are more than animals. We have technologies animals do not and cannot have. We have the ability to wipe out every wild animal from the face of the earth if we choose. We did so with many - until the concept of fair chase became the ethic of hunting.

The point: stewardship and fair chase are inextricably intertwined.
Posted By: Western

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 03:47 PM

Just remembered what I was thinking of yesterday and it probably wouldn't apply to hunting in any fashion, maybe as to why we have some game law restrictions, but even then, I'm not sure..Brain fart, sorry. Moral Turpitude was what I was thinking bang

I think Conservation and stewardship are the best arguments, in that, all people will enjoy the wildlife we as hunters and outdoorsmen pay to preserve, hunters and non hunters alike. It is hunters by a large margin, that pay for the wildlife programs and each states Wildlife divisions funding.
Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 03:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Western
Just remembered what I was thinking of yesterday and it probably wouldn't apply to hunting in any fashion, maybe as to why we have some game law restrictions, but even then, I'm not sure..Brain fart, sorry. Moral Turpitude was what I was thinking bang

I think Conservation and stewardship are the best arguments, in that, all people will enjoy the wildlife we as hunters and outdoorsmen pay to preserve, hunters and non hunters alike. It is hunters by a large margin, that pay for the wildlife programs and each states Wildlife divisions funding.



Yes. Stick with that and anyone with even the slightest opening in their mind will be persuaded.

I periodically give talks to local groups on that very subject (complete with history, statistics of public and private funding, the anti-hunting agenda and why it's nonsense, the whole nine yards). It's amazing how many non-hunters are persuaded and become champions of hunting after hearing the simple truth.

Posted By: mattyg06

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 04:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Originally Posted By: mattyg06
I have always thought the best argument for hunting was stewardship. I have always thought 'fair chase' was a joke of an argument for either side to address. There isn't a single animal in existence that practices 'fair chase'.


So, you good with night hunting, no bag limits, no seasons, roost shooting, etc., etc., ....?

We are more than animals. We have technologies animals do not and cannot have. We have the ability to wipe out every wild animal from the face of the earth if we choose. We did so with many - until the concept of fair chase became the ethic of hunting.

The point: stewardship and fair chase are inextricably intertwined.



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.
Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 04:16 PM

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.
Posted By: Western

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 04:26 PM

The reason for seasons, bag-limits and hunting methods, is for survival of the resource.

Prior to the coined term "Free chase" buffalo hunters decimated the herd,,,for tongues and robes, much of the meat was laid to waste. That was their ethics and morality of the time. Indians had few, if any firearms, had arrows and spears and in general used every piece of what they killed. Yet they where able to use the buffalo herds and they flourished. Natives where very well aware of stewardship long before it was a "term".

In the modern age of a grocery/ clothing store on every block, survival is a moot point. Even yet to this day, many reservations continue to have different games laws due to their "heritage".
Posted By: Pitchfork Predator

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 04:27 PM

Well stated mattg06.

What always emerges in the fair chase argument is really the ego of the person supporting it.

Example: The fair chase argument of bow hunting vs rifle hunting. The chances of a quick kill are much higher with a rifle than bow. Rifle hunting is going to have fewer deer get wounded and never found.

But if you live your life in a way that bow hunting is a important part of what defines you fair chase is the tool you will use to try to impress people with your hunting stories and get the woods all to your self when hunting. It does not benefit the wildlife you are KILLING. Many times it will make their death slower and more painful.
Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 04:32 PM

There is no real argument regarding the choice of bow or rifle in the broad "fair chase" debate. Certainly none that gained enough traction to inform the larger debate. Both have been broadly accepted tools for sport hunting since their advent.
Posted By: ALM TXhunter

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 04:38 PM

Originally Posted By: mattyg06
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Originally Posted By: mattyg06
I have always thought the best argument for hunting was stewardship. I have always thought 'fair chase' was a joke of an argument for either side to address. There isn't a single animal in existence that practices 'fair chase'.


So, you good with night hunting, no bag limits, no seasons, roost shooting, etc., etc., ....?

We are more than animals. We have technologies animals do not and cannot have. We have the ability to wipe out every wild animal from the face of the earth if we choose. We did so with many - until the concept of fair chase became the ethic of hunting.

The point: stewardship and fair chase are inextricably intertwined.



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.


Without regulations and conservation there would be far, far less animals (if any) to hunt. The American Indians are a good example - they basically 'hunted' buffalo until extinction. So calling them good stewards?????
Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 04:41 PM

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

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 04:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
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 stir 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.


I can't help that you can't read.

When there is a rift amoung hunters on fair chase(as seen by the article), the small group of anti's will use OUR division to persuade the non-hunters to vote for regulations that end hunting.

It's not mindless since we have laws and regulations. What's mindless is a hunter pushing his idelogy so hard that he would rather seen hunting ended. Now that's mindless

Fair chase is to broad of a word to define it, when you define it you cause riffs amoung hunters and those riffs will be used just like the article.

As far as stirring the pot... Apparently you are still commenting with out reading the article. Let's talk about trolling....
Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 04:57 PM

Again, just straw men...

I'll stick with supporting fair chase.
Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 05:03 PM

Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
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.


Wrong, fair chase principles truly don't exist, and they surely didn't bring game back. Limits and regulations do. Via your on idelogy blackpowder and horse back are more fair chase then truck and nosler rifles.

stewardship and conservation go hand in hand. Fair chase is ridiculous notion when you have tools especially modern tools and conveniences.

When you soley hunt public land with wooden bow and flint arrows come back to me and tell me your fair chase, you will atleast be closer to it.
Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 05:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Again, just straw men...

I'll stick with supporting fair chase.


Cool can't wait to see the pics of you and your long bow and no 4wheeler...atleast you will have a little better thought process
Posted By: mattyg06

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 05:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
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.



I don't think the examples I cited were offbeat... that are actually universally accepted in the world of science. I am pretty sure I can show you that the same biological pathways exist in us and a majority of our prey species. The oryx is going extinct in its native range but the species is saved due to non-fair chase stewardship principles. You are correct we are not the Indians of old, but I would argue if we didn't use 'fair chase' principles but instead based our hunting culture on their stewardship principles we would be better off.

I agree with you completely about market hunters... but it wasn't fair chase that saved them it was stewardship. You don't kill off all your animals just because you can(guns). You can have 'fair chase' and still drive species to extinction... but you can't have stewardship and do the same.
Posted By: ALM TXhunter

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 05:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
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.
Posted By: Western

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 05:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Actually, the Indians played no role in the near extinction of the American Bison. That one was squarely on the market hunters.


Yep, he needs to read up on the history, that is very well known
Posted By: Western

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 05:27 PM

Originally Posted By: ALM TXhunter
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
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.


Don't know where you get that from, market, tongue and robe hunters killed them by the tens of thousands. In fact the guvment at the time did it to starve the indians out. They burned of the prairies and that's what supported the huge herds of buffalo, antelope and a tons more species. What is the difference from a fire then, or a fire now? Both rejuvenate.
Posted By: Sneaky

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 05:29 PM

Originally Posted By: ALM TXhunter
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
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.


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.
Posted By: Western

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 05:33 PM

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
Posted By: ALM TXhunter

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 05:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Western
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.......
Posted By: Western

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 05:47 PM

Originally Posted By: ALM TXhunter
Originally Posted By: Western
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.
Posted By: ALM TXhunter

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 05:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Western
Originally Posted By: ALM TXhunter
Originally Posted By: Western
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.


Thanks for the clarification, I did take it as a slight. Looks like I need to dust off the history books! But I do like a good argument from time to time. Now that we have veered slightly off-course from OP, can somebody resolve the discussion......
Posted By: Western

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 06:00 PM

cheers
Posted By: mattyg06

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 06:05 PM

Just to clarify I posted the 'fair chase' definition by B&C. On their website they do attach a hunter's ethics paragraph to them, but here is just the fair chase statement: 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.

The first style of human hunting involved running the prey species to death. Ungulates have to pant to cool their bodies unlike humans. So we as a species literally just kept running after them until they had to slow down due to their physiological system. Not exactly fair chase since we have a natural 'improper' advantage over the entire class of animals due to physiology. We evolved to learn to run them off cliffs, due to are advantage of increased mental capacity... We evolved to use spears, then we invented atlatls to make spears more powerful... then progressed to bows....blackpowder... modern firearms. You could pick any spot on this timeline to say anything more modern is an 'improper' advantage.

Once you look at it from a historical and scientific perspective you will realize that 'fair chase' is a political definition to make the sport of hunting more palatable to the rest of the population. If everyone viewed hunting from the historical and scientific perspective stewardship is the only principle needed and 'fair chase' would fade from our collective minds.
Posted By: A.B.

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 06:58 PM

Pen hunting sucks, and I am the enemy of the hunter because I hold that opinion............... Right
Posted By: A.B.

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 06:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Sneaky
Originally Posted By: ALM TXhunter
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
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.


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.



That was my impression as well.
Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 07:00 PM

Originally Posted By: A.B.
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.
Posted By: Western

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 07:21 PM

Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
Originally Posted By: A.B.
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.


BOBO, surely no one say's "do what I say, not what I do" anymore?? so draconian grin
Posted By: JCB

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 07:40 PM

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!
Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 07:48 PM

Originally Posted By: JCB
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!


You're 100% right. But we have to be careful because how we express it because define fair chase didn't work for Bear hunting or Mountain lion hunting, nor the thousands of tags being lost because of it.
Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 08:32 PM

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".
Posted By: mattyg06

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 08:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
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".


Nogalus, I commend you for the fight. I think that is why using 'fair chase' is a loosing cause. You are 100% correct that the audience in using 'fair chase' is the anti's. This is exactly the reason I advocate a historic and scientific perspective. If you show anti's a video of a true 'fair chase' hunt with lions eating their prey alive or watching a baby animal suffocate in it's own blood following a 'fair chase' hunt by wolves then most of them can't watch it to the end. Have you ever noticed when they show this stuff on NatGeo or alike they never show the mortally wounded animal for long... Humans just have a hard time watching it. Then you simply show a quick clean kill with a rifle. Ask the Anti which they think is more humane... In my limited experience with talking about hunting with antis... I have yet to have a single anti choose to be eaten alive vs die at the hands of a rifle if they were given a choice.

That's my whole problem with the 'fair chase' concept... it's a loaded political term and has no root in history/science/logic.
Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 09:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
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.

Did you use a traditional bow and make your own arrows and broadheads, or go cap and ball muzzle loader route....or cheat and use a rifle or compound bow, deer blind, feeder? Would I be a better conservationist if I bought a 60k plus sheep or mule deer auction tag

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).

fair chase is an oxymoron, we established this already, thus why you use a rifle, atv, outfitter etc. the bloodlust and fun image(and your trophy pics)disappears with a plate full of excellent table fare.

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.

fair chase is not exemplified by game laws, game laws simply insure that our food source stays sustainable, except in the case of the article where fair chase was used to lesson hunters and hunting.

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.)

it's ok to ban for deer so it's ok to ban for bears and lions? Guess what higher bear and lion population means, less deer tags available..remember sustainable food.. Since your predators don't contribute to loss of tags, I'm sure the hunters surrounding yellow stone and those in states with protected predators should just put their heads back in the sand?

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.

there you go defining fair chase again by your own ideology. When you can tell me which dinner is HF and which is LM let me know. Fair chase goes way beyond HF, that's what you can't understand in this thread

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".

Thank you for the discussion, it furthers my statement about your ideology. Discussion was about labeling different hunting techniques as fair chase or not fair chase and the impact it has on game laws that reducing hunting and hunters. It obvious you are only concerned with your method, your input was noted .

Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 09:23 PM

Thanks for the encouragement.

We can just agree to disagree I guess on the issue. The vast majority of hunters and non-hunters I know consider "fair chase" a central ethic to their idea/support of hunting.

Sport hunting is a relatively new endeavor. References to the history of mankind as a predator can be helpful and instructive in many cases, but not dispositive. Simply put, we don't live in a natural world anymore - man's influence over it is for all practical purposes total and complete. Folks want that influence exercised responsibly.

You are correct, the "cruelty" issue is usually easily discussed and disposed of by reference to nature - which has no concept of "cruelty". Normal hunting is certainly no more "cruel" (and by and large much less "cruel") than nature.
Posted By: SniperRAB

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 09:34 PM

I would pay money to hear one of these ground breaking Speaches roflmao
Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 09:38 PM

Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
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.

Did you use a traditional bow and make your own arrows and broadheads, or go cap and ball muzzle loader route....or cheat and use a rifle or compound bow, deer blind, feeder? Would I be a better conservationist if I bought a 60k plus sheep or mule deer auction tag

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).

fair chase is an oxymoron, we established this already, thus why you use a rifle, atv, outfitter etc. the bloodlust and fun image(and your trophy pics)disappears with a plate full of excellent table fare.

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.

fair chase is not exemplified by game laws, game laws simply insure that our food source stays sustainable, except in the case of the article where fair chase was used to lesson hunters and hunting.

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.)

it's ok to ban for deer so it's ok to ban for bears and lions? Guess what higher bear and lion population means, less deer tags available..remember sustainable food.. Since your predators don't contribute to loss of tags, I'm sure the hunters surrounding yellow stone and those in states with protected predators should just put their heads back in the sand?

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.

there you go defining fair chase again by your own ideology. When you can tell me which dinner is HF and which is LM let me know. Fair chase goes way beyond HF, that's what you can't understand in this thread

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".

Thank you for the discussion, it furthers my statement about your ideology. Discussion was about labeling different hunting techniques as fair chase or not fair chase and the impact it has on game laws that reducing hunting and hunters. It obvious you are only concerned with your method, your input was noted .



There's simply too much misunderstanding and/or misdirection in all that for me to deal with. There's not one statement or implication in my post about my personal concerns or that my personal methods are the only acceptable methods. Quite the contrary, in fact.

You just don't care for me or my positions BOBO - and that's fine. You do not need to make stuff up for me just to knock it down though. That's a useless game.
Posted By: SniperRAB

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 09:39 PM

Originally Posted By: JCB
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!


Yes Sir...

What another man does as long as it's moral, ethical and legal is truly no ones buisness...

up
Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 09:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
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.

Did you use a traditional bow and make your own arrows and broadheads, or go cap and ball muzzle loader route....or cheat and use a rifle or compound bow, deer blind, feeder? Would I be a better conservationist if I bought a 60k plus sheep or mule deer auction tag

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).

fair chase is an oxymoron, we established this already, thus why you use a rifle, atv, outfitter etc. the bloodlust and fun image(and your trophy pics)disappears with a plate full of excellent table fare.

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.

fair chase is not exemplified by game laws, game laws simply insure that our food source stays sustainable, except in the case of the article where fair chase was used to lesson hunters and hunting.

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.)

it's ok to ban for deer so it's ok to ban for bears and lions? Guess what higher bear and lion population means, less deer tags available..remember sustainable food.. Since your predators don't contribute to loss of tags, I'm sure the hunters surrounding yellow stone and those in states with protected predators should just put their heads back in the sand?

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.

there you go defining fair chase again by your own ideology. When you can tell me which dinner is HF and which is LM let me know. Fair chase goes way beyond HF, that's what you can't understand in this thread

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".

Thank you for the discussion, it furthers my statement about your ideology. Discussion was about labeling different hunting techniques as fair chase or not fair chase and the impact it has on game laws that reducing hunting and hunters. It obvious you are only concerned with your method, your input was noted .



There's simply too much misunderstanding and/or misdirection in all that for me to deal with. There's not one statement or implication in my post about my personal concerns or that my personal methods are the only acceptable methods. Quite the contrary, in fact.

You just don't care for me or my positions BOBO - and that's fine. You do not need to make stuff up for me just to knock it down though. That's a useless game.



No misdirection, no making things up... Every single response deals with defining fairchase. You simply want it defined, I simply showed you can't with out alienating other law abiding hunters.
Posted By: Creekrunner

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 10:35 PM

Originally Posted By: SniperRAB
What another man does as long as it's moral, ethical and legal is truly no ones buisness... up


For once, a post from this young man that I agree with unequivocally, absolutely, and 100%! (Except, of course, for the missing punctuation and misspelling.) laugh bolt
Posted By: A.B.

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 10:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Creekrunner
Originally Posted By: SniperRAB
What another man does as long as it's moral, ethical and legal is truly no ones buisness... up


For once, a post from this young man that I agree with unequivocally, absolutely, and 100%! (Except, of course, for the missing punctuation and misspelling.) laugh bolt



Hell just froze over
Posted By: Creekrunner

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 10:41 PM

Originally Posted By: A.B.
Originally Posted By: Creekrunner
Originally Posted By: SniperRAB
What another man does as long as it's moral, ethical and legal is truly no ones buisness... up


For once, a post from this young man that I agree with unequivocally, absolutely, and 100%! (Except, of course, for the missing punctuation and misspelling.) laugh bolt



Hell just froze over
roflmao
Posted By: SniperRAB

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 10:54 PM

Britain stood alone against Hitler...
The rest of the World soon realized Hitler was a Idiot...
Posted By: TexFlip

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 11:17 PM

Originally Posted By: SniperRAB

What another man does as long as it's moral, ethical and legal is truly no ones buisness...

I feel the same way. Wether or not something is my particular cup of tea doesn't matter because how another man hunts affects me not. Everyone has the ability to hunt as they choose as long as it is legal. What is ethical and moral to one man may not be to another.
Posted By: Creekrunner

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 11:23 PM

Originally Posted By: SniperRAB
Britain stood alone against Hitler...
The rest of the World soon realized Hitler was a Idiot...


Deranged, sociopath, evil incarnate? Yes. Idiot? Not by a long shot. ("And...they're off!")
Posted By: Western

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 11:50 PM

All this talk about "as long as it's legal, I dont care what another hunter does", remember most here hunt private land in Texas, give Public land a try like many states have, then you can get the full taste of what others think about ethics and courtesy. I have met some great folks hunting public, but more than my fair share of AH too.
Posted By: Creekrunner

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/04/16 11:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Western
All this talk about "as long as it's legal, I dont care what another hunter does", remember most here hunt private land in Texas, give Public land a try like many states have, then you can get the full taste of what others think about ethics and courtesy. I have met some great folks hunting public, but more than my fair share of AH too.


2 years ago, with Sneaky's bunch - I will never get used to walking within 6' of another couple of hunters, asking how they're doing, and not even getting so much as a nod. Bizarre. And part of me wants to rip their heads off. But let's just forget about that last part.
Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 12:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Creekrunner
Originally Posted By: SniperRAB
What another man does as long as it's moral, ethical and legal is truly no ones buisness... up


For once, a post from this young man that I agree with unequivocally, absolutely, and 100%! (Except, of course, for the missing punctuation and misspelling.) laugh bolt


I agree with it too. 100%.

But it's just a general platitude that solves nothing. The antis are convinced everything they do is moral, ethical, and legal too. The devil is in the details of who will win the day.
Posted By: BOONER

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 01:26 AM

Originally Posted By: Western
Just remembered what I was thinking of yesterday and it probably wouldn't apply to hunting in any fashion, maybe as to why we have some game law restrictions, but even then, I'm not sure..Brain fart, sorry. Moral Turpitude was what I was thinking bang

I think Conservation and stewardship are the best arguments, in that, all people will enjoy the wildlife we as hunters and outdoorsmen pay to preserve, hunters and non hunters alike. It is hunters by a large margin, that pay for the wildlife programs and each states Wildlife divisions funding.



Amen, Western! Really not sure about most of the BS in this thread but your post hit the nail on the head!!!
Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 01:09 PM

Originally Posted By: SniperRAB
I would pay money to hear one of these ground breaking Speaches roflmao


Save your money. You wouldn't understand them anyway.
Posted By: SniperRAB

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 02:05 PM

Yea you are so above everyone and Superior...
Lets compare time in the field sometime...Not with a paid guide holding your hand saying...shoot that one or watching a hunting show. roflmao


Go back to your Fantasy World...

Name these speeches you talk of and to what organizations and when
Posted By: SniperRAB

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 02:10 PM

People in Texas are allowed to Harvest Game in any manner they see fit that is Moral, Ethical and within the Laws of TPWD...

I see no reason to belittle or degrade a Hunter on his Harvest because of Narrow Minded Views and Elitist Attitude.

When I see a Animal Harvested and proud Hunter...My first response is...Congratulations and I am Very Happy for you..

NOT Where did you take that and how and with what Caliber ...SMH
Posted By: kdkane1971

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 02:15 PM

Originally Posted By: SniperRAB
People in Texas are allowed to Harvest Game in any manner they see fit that is Moral, Ethical and within the Laws of TPWD...

I see no reason to belittle or degrade a Hunter on his Harvest because of Narrow Minded Views and Elitist Attitude.

When I see a Animal Harvested and proud Hunter...My first response is...Congratulations and I am Very Happy for you..

NOT Where did you take that and how and with what Caliber ...SMH


Amen, brother
Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 02:30 PM

Originally Posted By: SniperRAB
Yea you are so above everyone and Superior...
Lets compare time in the field sometime...Not with a paid guide holding your hand saying...shoot that one or watching a hunting show. roflmao


Go back to your Fantasy World...

Name these speeches you talk of and to what organizations and when


1)Throw a jab;
2)Get a response;
3)Get butthurt and make up chit to say.
4)Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

I just like to check about once a year to see if you are still Mr. Dish It Out But Can't Take It.

Accuse me of wanting to be "superior" when you have to make stuff up so you can throw your own junk on the table.

You don't know the first thing about my hunting background. The first thing. The only one living in a fantasy world is you. I had more "time in the field" in than you have today before you were born. And it wasn't riding around in a UTV with a beer in the cupholder .........

See you at least learned how to spell "speeches". Hey, that's a start.

Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 02:59 PM

And it's tanking......I really don't want to have to lock my own thread

back offtopic
Posted By: Western

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 03:22 PM

Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
And it's tanking......I really don't want to have to lock my own thread

back offtopic


TREX will do it, he will do anything for a candy bar and a coke peep

Or we can try a diversionary tactic, When the tide goes out, where does all that water go? grin
Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 03:35 PM

Originally Posted By: Western
Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
And it's tanking......I really don't want to have to lock my own thread

back offtopic


TREX will do it, he will do anything for a candy bar and a coke peep

Or we can try a diversionary tactic, When the tide goes out, where does all that water go? grin


Lake Ray Hubbard? confused2
Posted By: Western

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 03:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Originally Posted By: Western
Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
And it's tanking......I really don't want to have to lock my own thread

back offtopic


TREX will do it, he will do anything for a candy bar and a coke peep

Or we can try a diversionary tactic, When the tide goes out, where does all that water go? grin


Lake Ray Hubbard? confused2


Probably where all the trash comes from, but dont think it goes there, I am kinda lean'n towards the tide only goes out when BOBO turns on his irrigation roflmao
Posted By: SniperRAB

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 03:41 PM

I wouldn't know anything Dennis....I wasn't born till 1969 and never hunted
Posted By: txshntr

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 04:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Western
Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
And it's tanking......I really don't want to have to lock my own thread

back offtopic


TREX will do it, he will do anything for a candy bar and a coke peep

Or we can try a diversionary tactic, When the tide goes out, where does all that water go? grin


He would have already done it. Should be able to have a discussion without the bs mixed in.

IMO, it is a very valid discussion and argument to have. Obviously, people will disagree and that is fine but it is to be discussed, not argued. Name calling and attacks aren't needed.

"Fair chase" is an arbitrary idea based on what you believe it is to be. As has been said, firearm versus bow, ML vs crossbow, guided versus public land, HF versus LF, dogs versus feeders, and every other method comes into play. Discounting them as "already established" or already "accepted" isn't a valid argument simply because each one has been outlawed, restricted, or confined in various regions.

To have a discussion on "fair chase", it first has to be defined. Who's definition do we use? Your beliefs or mine?

HF/LF always comes up and becomes a circular argument. if you were going to define it, would you define it as all HF ranches, those under 600 acres, those under 10k acres, those under 100k? Is a HF on 3 sides still considered fair chase? How high can the fence be? 6ft? 7ft?

There will never be a definition that will appease everyone. Some people hate doggers. Some ranchers don't allow bow hunting. Some people don't agree with feeders. There will always be a separation in beliefs. I believe what Bobo is trying to get at is that just because you disagree with something, is it worth the battle to fight it and risk other means and methods that you happen to agree with.

On the other side of the coin, where do you draw the line in the sand in regards to legally? Typically, laws are based on the norms of society within the region. Hence the reason you have states that don't allow feeders or baiting. At what point does this line of thought cross over into pushing your beliefs on someone else and violating property and personal rights?
Posted By: Nogalus Prairie

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 04:22 PM

Originally Posted By: txshntr
Originally Posted By: Western
Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
And it's tanking......I really don't want to have to lock my own thread

back offtopic


TREX will do it, he will do anything for a candy bar and a coke peep

Or we can try a diversionary tactic, When the tide goes out, where does all that water go? grin


He would have already done it. Should be able to have a discussion without the bs mixed in.

IMO, it is a very valid discussion and argument to have. Obviously, people will disagree and that is fine but it is to be discussed, not argued. Name calling and attacks aren't needed.

"Fair chase" is an arbitrary idea based on what you believe it is to be. As has been said, firearm versus bow, ML vs crossbow, guided versus public land, HF versus LF, dogs versus feeders, and every other method comes into play. Discounting them as "already established" or already "accepted" isn't a valid argument simply because each one has been outlawed, restricted, or confined in various regions.

To have a discussion on "fair chase", it first has to be defined. Who's definition do we use? Your beliefs or mine?

HF/LF always comes up and becomes a circular argument. if you were going to define it, would you define it as all HF ranches, those under 600 acres, those under 10k acres, those under 100k? Is a HF on 3 sides still considered fair chase? How high can the fence be? 6ft? 7ft?

There will never be a definition that will appease everyone. Some people hate doggers. Some ranchers don't allow bow hunting. Some people don't agree with feeders. There will always be a separation in beliefs. I believe what Bobo is trying to get at is that just because you disagree with something, is it worth the battle to fight it and risk other means and methods that you happen to agree with.

On the other side of the coin, where do you draw the line in the sand in regards to legally? Typically, laws are based on the norms of society within the region. Hence the reason you have states that don't allow feeders or baiting. At what point does this line of thought cross over into pushing your beliefs on someone else and violating property and personal rights?



Good post thanks.

What got the thread going was the statement that "the term fair chase is complete and utter BS". A statement he has continued to stand by, your attempt to speak for him (or perhaps educate/save him) notwithstanding.

Debating the concept of fair chase is a healthy thing for all, but ignoring it/calling it BS is exactly the opposite.
Posted By: Western

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 04:22 PM

Originally Posted By: SniperRAB
I wouldn't know anything Dennis....I wasn't born till 1969 and never hunted

Me either sir, I was born in 62 and still haven't figured everything out.

I do know I like to hunt the way I hunt, within the laws I have to work with. What someone else enjoys, makes not one bit of difference to me unless it interferes with, or encroaches on me. Do I have my own opinions, heck yeah, but 9/10 I won't respond to a personal hunting thread if my POV doesn't side with that persons hunting style, I will let them have their joy doing what they like without me adding negativity to their hunt experience. If asked, I would give my honest opinion sure. I have friends that hunt all kinds of ways that I don't, but none of us are worse or better for it. If it is legal, who has authority to be the moral judge??
Posted By: Texas Tatonkas

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 04:25 PM

Here is the issue - NP feels threatened by others methods and definitions. Most others on here dont. What you do does not take away from what I do because I don't let it. But NP has said on this forum before the exact opposite - that how others hunt an animal takes away from how he hunts. That's an internal issue that I can't fix.

I have fun hunting all different ways. Drinking beer in a Polaris is one of them, shoot we can't do that here so I have a blast doing it in Texas. I hunt elk here with a bow, that is fun too (I call them in so it isn't always that fair for them). Helicopter hunting is a blast. Spotlighting at night is super fun, especially from a Polaris while drinking beer. Ibex hunting in the floridas was a blast (it's like a 99 percent success rate so not too fair for the ibex). I hunt over these magical machines called feeders, sure ain't fair for the deer. I snare coyotes, that didn't seem fair because they don't try and snare me. I shot an oryx in New Mexico that they imported from Africa years ago and we drove around all day covering 200 miles until we saw one and then we got out and chased them until I could shoot it with a high powered rifle. I am sure she didn't think it was fair. I drove around all day hunting antelope in New Mexico and the one I shot was 600 yards behind the house while we were taking a lunch break, that wasn't fair I could have slept in and not burned gas had I known he was there the whole time.
Posted By: SniperRAB

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 04:36 PM

And if that makes you Happy and is Legal, Ethical and Moral...

Good for you TT, as it should be Sir

Interesting in day to day life meeting individuals much like I did this past weekend and being around some pretty big hitters in this Hunting World of the Great State of Texas and when you casually bring up...Hey man do you ever get on the THF and try and promote it...They all have a pretty really common reaponse that rings loud and clear..
A lighting Rod is always mentioned...and at that point you find your self having to explain and justify like a Drunk Uncle at a Function..

Sad actually due to the core goal and outlook is the ultimately the same. up
Posted By: txshntr

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 04:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Western
Originally Posted By: SniperRAB
I wouldn't know anything Dennis....I wasn't born till 1969 and never hunted

Me either sir, I was born in 62 and still haven't figured everything out.

I do know I like to hunt the way I hunt, within the laws I have to work with. What someone else enjoys, makes not one bit of difference to me unless it interferes with, or encroaches on me. Do I have my own opinions, heck yeah, but 9/10 I won't respond to a personal hunting thread if my POV doesn't side with that persons hunting style, I will let them have their joy doing what they like without me adding negativity to their hunt experience. If asked, I would give my honest opinion sure. I have friends that hunt all kinds of ways that I don't, but none of us are worse or better for it. If it is legal, who has authority to be the moral judge??



Agreed, and I sure don't want addition laws to take away hunting rights and options simply because I don't agree with them.

In Texas, we have some of the most liberal hunting laws in the nation. From what I can tell, and from the article, the issues that have arisen from people pushing for more restrictions has only effected the hunters. Those states still have antis.
Posted By: BOBO the Clown

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 05:12 PM

Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie
Originally Posted By: txshntr
Originally Posted By: Western
Originally Posted By: BOBO the Clown
And it's tanking......I really don't want to have to lock my own thread

back offtopic


TREX will do it, he will do anything for a candy bar and a coke peep

Or we can try a diversionary tactic, When the tide goes out, where does all that water go? grin


He would have already done it. Should be able to have a discussion without the bs mixed in.

IMO, it is a very valid discussion and argument to have. Obviously, people will disagree and that is fine but it is to be discussed, not argued. Name calling and attacks aren't needed.

"Fair chase" is an arbitrary idea based on what you believe it is to be. As has been said, firearm versus bow, ML vs crossbow, guided versus public land, HF versus LF, dogs versus feeders, and every other method comes into play. Discounting them as "already established" or already "accepted" isn't a valid argument simply because each one has been outlawed, restricted, or confined in various regions.

To have a discussion on "fair chase", it first has to be defined. Who's definition do we use? Your beliefs or mine?

HF/LF always comes up and becomes a circular argument. if you were going to define it, would you define it as all HF ranches, those under 600 acres, those under 10k acres, those under 100k? Is a HF on 3 sides still considered fair chase? How high can the fence be? 6ft? 7ft?

There will never be a definition that will appease everyone. Some people hate doggers. Some ranchers don't allow bow hunting. Some people don't agree with feeders. There will always be a separation in beliefs. I believe what Bobo is trying to get at is that just because you disagree with something, is it worth the battle to fight it and risk other means and methods that you happen to agree with.

On the other side of the coin, where do you draw the line in the sand in regards to legally? Typically, laws are based on the norms of society within the region. Hence the reason you have states that don't allow feeders or baiting. At what point does this line of thought cross over into pushing your beliefs on someone else and violating property and personal rights?



Good post thanks.

What got the thread going was the statement that "the term fair chase is complete and utter BS". A statement he has continued to stand by, your attempt to speak for him (or perhaps educate/save him) notwithstanding.

Debating the concept of fair chase is a healthy thing for all, but ignoring it/calling it BS is exactly the opposite.


Lol.

You really just wrote that. Now your trolling...as always. You have yet to address the article this topic is based on. Why because all you do is troll rather then have a discussion. Your prejudiced idelogy can't let you see a bigger picture, proven again by inability to comment on this article.

Educate/save me?

Just because you can't grasp the hierarchy of animal kingdom and the ability of the human brain doesn't mean no one else can.

You accuse others and Me of demeaning your hunting, no one has ever demeaned your hunts. They and I hunt the same way as you, only difference is We have don't/have not put our methods above reproach and as a competition comparison to our hunting peers.

Again what weapon is fairchase? Asked you multiple times... You have yet to respond, just like asking your thoughts on the article....yet to respond.

Hunting is being limited through legislation using our own words... And you will let everyone else burn as long as it fulfills your bogarted quest.

Who's trolling NP... you






Posted By: txshntr

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 05:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Nogalus Prairie


What got the thread going was the statement that "the term fair chase is complete and utter BS". A statement he has continued to stand by, your attempt to speak for him (or perhaps educate/save him) notwithstanding.

Debating the concept of fair chase is a healthy thing for all, but ignoring it/calling it BS is exactly the opposite.


Your not debating the concept of fair chase, you are debating your belief of what is ethical/morally acceptable. IMO, the reason it is bs is because there is no definition of it. You tend to hung up on the HF/LF debate, as you have on this thread, but it is much larger than that. You have discounted weapon choice, but it is part of it. When discussing fair chase, almost all means and methods come into question.

And I wasn't educating/saving him from anything. From what I have read, few disagree with him. Just said basically the same thing he did...differently. I happen to agree with him that infighting over common practice items, can and will result in loss of rights beyond expected or warranted. Falls into the "what's next" category.

As I said above, I happen to enjoy the liberty of hunting in Texas and being able to choose whether I participate or not. I won't hunt certain ranches or certain ways but have no desire to take that right away.
Posted By: A.B.

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 05:26 PM

So if we all like college football, we must all like the same team?

Come on Bobo and NP, let me hear you say................. Gig'em
Posted By: Western

Re: Interesting article- sums up when you allow fair chase to be defined - 05/05/16 05:26 PM

Well snap, now I have to go back a read the OP's link again bang
© 2024 Texas Hunting Forum