My ethics are not defined by man made laws.

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.

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!!!

I wish we could chase liberals up a tree with hounds

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.

So you turn a blind eye

Only to 75mph signs.

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?

Ridiculous

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!".

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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

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

It is just a post with no direction.

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

The best arguments in defense hunting are:

1)Conservation; and
2)Fair Chase.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.