IFish Fishing Forum banner
1 - 20 of 43 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
477 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was on an archery site and there was a post about being tired of standing up for hunters/methods that he didn't agree with. After reading one of three pages of replies I was getting steamed and decided to rant a bit. Afterwards I thought that it would make a good topic here. This is not about breaking laws and fishing with bait in fly only areas or using dogs after a ban, it is about supporting legal activities and keeping them legal.

My post.

I only read half of the replies and now I am going to go on my little rant about standing by our fellow outdoorsmen.

Do you think using hounds for bears is ethical? What if it was legal and "ethical" to those that do it? Who's ethics are right? If you think it is un-ethical would you vote to ban the practice? What about baiting?

What about traditional vs compound? Most of the trad guys would gladly turn their backs on any type of rule changes that favor modern bow shooters. And most archers are more than quick to put down rifle hunters. (Tons of threads on here about not wanting rifles in their states)

If you are an upland gamebird hunter you probably don't care much for trappers or leg hold traps. If even just the bird hunters would stand by the trappers we wouldn't have lost the ability to control predators in an effective way in many states. Not to mention part of our heritage that will not be introduced or carried on by our children.

What if you duck hunters lose your right to use your dogs? How will that affect your hunt? How will it affect your enjoyment of the outdoors? Now think about this. Many states have lost the right to use dogs to hunt bears and cougars... it may not be too long before we lose the right to use dogs for any type of hunting.

One of PETA's big targets right now is fishing. Do you think that the elite fly guys are going to help the lowly bait fishermen? Maybe, if they try to outright ban fishing, but if PETA takes small steps and bans live bait, you can bet that most fly fishermen won't vote or will vote to ban bait. It is these small steps that PETA takes that leads to everyone of us losing our hunting and fishing rights.

We, baiter/hound/rifle/archery/fish, are all bricks in the wall...every brick we lose, the weaker we get and the sooner we all fall.
This is not a local issue or even statewide. This is across the whole nation.
If the fishermen (outdoorsman) would stand by the hunter (outdoorsman) the "city folk" and PETA freaks would not stand a chance.
We need to stand by each other.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,928 Posts
Glad to see someone else here is on the band wagon.

Excellent post and well put. It is too bad that the majority of hunters and fisherman fail to see what the anti's are doing and basically just shrug their shoulders when you mention PETA or the HSUS.
By the time most of them wake up it will be too late.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,958 Posts
Good post.

It highlights quite well the tactics being used today by PETA and HSUS. It also hints as to why those tactics are so successful.

PETA and HSUS capitalize on hunters selfishness. Hunters, and this is a huge generalization, kind of like "changes" that take other people out of the woods and marsh. It provides "more oppotunity" for them. So bow hunters wouldn't necessarily mind if rifles were gone. That sort of thing.

So PETA and HSUS chip, chip, chip away at those very small divides. They get traction, then something is outlawed.

Granted, they use so many tactics, but I think this is a big one. If we could all just put down our own desires for a minute and see the bigger picture, that would be a start.

Geoff
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
40,978 Posts
Please do not link to other sites unless they are listed on the front page of Ifish. Such links may violate that site's policies.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,603 Posts
I was on an archery site and there was a post about being tired of standing up for hunters/methods that he didn't agree with. After reading one of three pages of replies I was getting steamed and decided to rant a bit. Afterwards I thought that it would make a good topic here. This is not about breaking laws and fishing with bait in fly only areas or using dogs after a ban, it is about supporting legal activities and keeping them legal.

My post.

I only read half of the replies and now I am going to go on my little rant about standing by our fellow outdoorsmen.

Do you think using hounds for bears is ethical? What if it was legal and "ethical" to those that do it? Who's ethics are right? If you think it is un-ethical would you vote to ban the practice? What about baiting?

What about traditional vs compound? Most of the trad guys would gladly turn their backs on any type of rule changes that favor modern bow shooters. And most archers are more than quick to put down rifle hunters. (Tons of threads on here about not wanting rifles in their states)

If you are an upland gamebird hunter you probably don't care much for trappers or leg hold traps. If even just the bird hunters would stand by the trappers we wouldn't have lost the ability to control predators in an effective way in many states. Not to mention part of our heritage that will not be introduced or carried on by our children.

What if you duck hunters lose your right to use your dogs? How will that affect your hunt? How will it affect your enjoyment of the outdoors? Now think about this. Many states have lost the right to use dogs to hunt bears and cougars... it may not be too long before we lose the right to use dogs for any type of hunting.

One of PETA's big targets right now is fishing. Do you think that the elite fly guys are going to help the lowly bait fishermen? Maybe, if they try to outright ban fishing, but if PETA takes small steps and bans live bait, you can bet that most fly fishermen won't vote or will vote to ban bait. It is these small steps that PETA takes that leads to everyone of us losing our hunting and fishing rights.

We, baiter/hound/rifle/archery/fish, are all bricks in the wall...every brick we lose, the weaker we get and the sooner we all fall.
This is not a local issue or even statewide. This is across the whole nation.
If the fishermen (outdoorsman) would stand by the hunter (outdoorsman) the "city folk" and PETA freaks would not stand a chance.
We need to stand by each other.
Myself, Limbhanger, Combination License, and a very few others realize that we need to support each aspect of sportsmen whether we participate agree/disagree with one another.

I take it to a another level and support all animal use, but we won't go there just yet.

Good post. I am glad to see someone else sharing the same sentiment and pulling their head out of the sand.

If every hunter belonged to USSA and recieved all of the legislative action of the HSUS and PETA, you wouldn't have to respond like that, but most guys go buy a tag and go hunting without paying attention to the special interest groups or legislation in their State.

There are few of us that are starting an action team to respond to articles published in local new papers, and we would welcome your contribution. You have a great handle on the reality of the situation. Contact Limbhanger or myself for further details.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
590 Posts
While your points made ring true with most of us here it should be said that some of the opinions on that other site were dealing with penned animals and other non-sporting "hunting" that didn't deserve being lumped in with hunting wild animals. This was the gist of the thread and how could anyone be blamed for holding back support for an act that belittles something that is held dear. It's not those who can't support 'these' types of "hunts" that weakens the image of hunting but instead it is these "hunts" that by their very nature that demean our sport. I love hunting with a good dog and I think PETA should satisfy themselves with deciding that they themselves don't hunt, not decide for others. If I come across as wrong for stating anything that doesn't seem in unity with the general consensus well I'm sorry. We really aren't that far apart other than what we define as hunting and fair chase. You take fair chase out of it and I'm not aboard.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,941 Posts
Thank you for speaking out! Sportsmen and women need to "wake up and smell the coffee" of today's changing times. America is no longer a place were it's safe to live and let live. At some point, the prevailing mentality changed from worrying about yourself (because the government does that for you) to worrying about anything that's perceived as unjust or unethical - even if there are no facts to back it up.

The REALLY bad part of the scenario is that the rules that govern our state agencies direct them to solicit public input and incorporate the public's opinion during the rule making process. That in itself isn't bad but if only one side of the story is heard, then only one side of the story is addressed - even if it's dead wrong. Sportsmen and women need to participate in that process if we are to keep what we've got because the Anti's WILL BE THERE speaking against us.

The HSUS, PETA, CASH and all the other quasi-terrorist organizations that are allowed to exist in the name of free speech clearly state that they want to ban trapping, waterfowl hunting, bow hunting, the use of dogs and more! Picking off the fringes is their established MO and when successful it creates new fringes for them to pick at on their way to banning all animal use - which is the animal rights extremist's "Gold Ring".

Oregon's bow hunters are perhaps in more peril than any other hunting discipline right now too. The HSUS and the Fund for Animals merged in 2004 to create a mega-organization with nearly 100 million dollars in assets to bankroll their agenda. Their stated goal? To ban bow hunting in America and they've been working to achieve that end ever since. The political climate here is friendly to their agenda so don't be surprised if we see a "Ballot Measure 18" style anti-bowhunting initiative soon in Oregon. When that happens all hunters will need to stand together to defend a key part of our sport or lose another big part of our heritage. If you think it can't happen here just talk to any Houndsman. Nevermind what species you hunt or what weapon you use - THEY WANT IT ALL!

I made a post last night that proved to be unnecessary but it sums up my feelings pretty well:

Re: Website for Timberland Closures
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beamerfish
May be a bunch of rifle hunters in that bunch.

I sure hope you're kidding Beamerfish!

In this day when hunting is being attacked on multiple fronts, we all need to stick together. I use a rifle, pistol or shotgun as my chosen weapons but I have nothing against archers and may try bow hunting someday. Many of my friends and acquaintances are bow hunters and I'll defend their hunting rights as vigorously as I do my own - just as I will with every other legal means of hunting game. Seriously, it's time that people that choose different methods of taking game start looking at what we have in common rather than picking out the things that make each method unique.

:cheers:

"CL"
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,928 Posts
While your points made ring true with most of us here it should be said that some of the opinions on that other site were dealing with penned animals and other non-sporting "hunting" that didn't deserve being lumped in with hunting wild animals. This was the gist of the thread and how could anyone be blamed for holding back support for an act that belittles something that is held dear. It's not those who can't support 'these' types of "hunts" that weakens the image of hunting but instead it is these "hunts" that by their very nature that demean our sport. I love hunting with a good dog and I think PETA should satisfy themselves with deciding that they themselves don't hunt, not decide for others. If I come across as wrong for stating anything that doesn't seem in unity with the general consensus well I'm sorry. We really aren't that far apart other than what we define as hunting and fair chase. You take fair chase out of it and I'm not aboard.
All we can ask of you is that you will participate with letter writing, or whatever else is necessary when they go after the "fair chase" type hunting you are willing to support. There are lots of opportunties there. Next year they will be trying to ban dove hunting in Rhode Island and most likey much more in other states. Quite possibly there will be an initiative to ban cougar hunting altogether here in Oregon. The groups are for real and they are not going away anytime soon.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,941 Posts
While your points made ring true with most of us here it should be said that some of the opinions on that other site were dealing with penned animals and other non-sporting "hunting" that didn't deserve being lumped in with hunting wild animals. This was the gist of the thread and how could anyone be blamed for holding back support for an act that belittles something that is held dear. It's not those who can't support 'these' types of "hunts" that weakens the image of hunting but instead it is these "hunts" that by their very nature that demean our sport. I love hunting with a good dog and I think PETA should satisfy themselves with deciding that they themselves don't hunt, not decide for others. If I come across as wrong for stating anything that doesn't seem in unity with the general consensus well I'm sorry. We really aren't that far apart other than what we define as hunting and fair chase. You take fair chase out of it and I'm not aboard.
Who's definition of fair chase Arlie? Your's, mine, the states or PETA's? Different viewpoints yield different thresholds for different users. The fair chase issue you're speaking about is being conducted somewhere where it's legal, right? So the citizen's of that state have determined that it's an appropriate and ethical means of taking game through their elected representatives, right? You don't participate in it but think it's wrong, right? So how is that any different than PETA or HSUS looking at all hunting and condemning us as killers?

See how easily they can exploit our differences?

"CL"
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,638 Posts
Arlie you hit it on the head for me as well. As long as I consider it fair chase I will support it as much as I can. No one is deciding for me that adding fence hunting as a protected class is a good thing. I think this is the most contentious thing we as sportsman have to decide on. I am not devided by rifle vs bow or muzzel loader bird hunter vs fishermen but I am in concrete when it comes to comparing fence hunting to fair chase. Any time the animal is enclosed and can't move around freely it is not hunting to me so don't bring that up it is not peta making that decesion it is mine alone.:twocents: :cheers:

While your points made ring true with most of us here it should be said that some of the opinions on that other site were dealing with penned animals and other non-sporting "hunting" that didn't deserve being lumped in with hunting wild animals. This was the gist of the thread and how could anyone be blamed for holding back support for an act that belittles something that is held dear. It's not those who can't support 'these' types of "hunts" that weakens the image of hunting but instead it is these "hunts" that by their very nature that demean our sport. I love hunting with a good dog and I think PETA should satisfy themselves with deciding that they themselves don't hunt, not decide for others. If I come across as wrong for stating anything that doesn't seem in unity with the general consensus well I'm sorry. We really aren't that far apart other than what we define as hunting and fair chase. You take fair chase out of it and I'm not aboard.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,941 Posts
Ehunter, I understand the feelings that you and Arlie share on the issue of fair chase. While I might have similar feelings I can't justify speaking about against legal animal use practices. I personally put ALL preserve hunting into the same category, no matter what species is enclosed. There is no difference between captive enclosed exotics, upland birds or deer and elk. Would you or somebody please explain how you rationalize taking a position against a certain type of legal animal use just because you don't like it? How is that different from the condescending folks at PETA or HSUS? Isn't it just a bit hypocritical?

"CL"
 

· Registered
Joined
·
590 Posts
If we don't effectively police our own someone else will do it for us. These practices that we are talking about become an Achilles heel for us. All PETA has to do is portray hunting in that way and then they have public support. Most people that I talk to, non-hunters I mean, have no problem with the way I hunt and have no trouble saying so. If they are an anti-hunter they don't say so because those around me think that the way I do it is pretty cool. My kid is going to school in Eugene (UO). He's into art and music and doing good in the architectural program, his senior year(proud dad). He and his friends want me to get an elk so bad that they can taste it (literally) because they know they will get a good share of it and would love it if they could help pack it out. Now if there was anywhere in the country that people would find something wrong with bowhunting that would be it. But they think it's cool and some want to try it too because they never were exposed to the real world, only the plastic city life. Now if I invited them out to watch me shoot an elk that was released from a pen into a field how do you think these smart but naive kids would react? If we do it right we don't have to defend something that is wrong. While this is just an example I think you get my point. We definitely need to defend hunting but we need to make sure it's hunting that we are defending.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,928 Posts
If we don't effectively police our own someone else will do it for us. These practices that we are talking about become an Achilles heel for us. All PETA has to do is portray hunting in that way and then they have public support. Most people that I talk to, non-hunters I mean, have no problem with the way I hunt and have no trouble saying so. If they are an anti-hunter they don't say so because those around me think that the way I do it is pretty cool. My kid is going to school in Eugene (UO). He's into art and music and doing good in the architectural program, his senior year(proud dad). He and his friends want me to get an elk so bad that they can taste it (literally) because they know they will get a good share of it and would love it if they could help pack it out. Now if there was anywhere in the country that people would find something wrong with bowhunting that would be it. But they think it's cool and some want to try it too because they never were exposed to the real world, only the plastic city life. Now if I invited them out to watch me shoot an elk that was released from a pen into a field how do you think these smart but naive kids would react? If we do it right we don't have to defend something that is wrong. While this is just an example I think you get my point. We definitely need to defend hunting but we need to make sure it's hunting that we are defending.
All of your points are well taken and I believe we do have to self police for image sake. One thing that people need to understand about PETA though is that they dont need anything negative to portray hunting poorly. They are known to stage photos and take honest fair chase hunting and twist it with gruesome pictures and inaccurate propaganda. They went for the heart with Michigans dove season and won. They dont care about this type of hunting or that type of hunting. They want to stop ALL hunting period. The antis dont care one way if it is high fence, low fence or no fence. We are not scoring points with the antis by distancing those who participate in these activities and they will continue to go after any type of hunting that will stick to the wall. When you hear people say that a picture or certain act "fuels the anti's fire" we are kidding ourselves. Their fire is fueled, they believe strongly in thier agenda and nothing we do will change that.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,638 Posts
Once again you said very well Arlie.

Arlie I have 2 kids graduate from U of O and a third starting in September...:shocked:

While your points made ring true with most of us here it should be said that some of the opinions on that other site were dealing with penned animals and other non-sporting "hunting" that didn't deserve being lumped in with hunting wild animals. This was the gist of the thread and how could anyone be blamed for holding back support for an act that belittles something that is held dear. It's not those who can't support 'these' types of "hunts" that weakens the image of hunting but instead it is these "hunts" that by their very nature that demean our sport. I love hunting with a good dog and I think PETA should satisfy themselves with deciding that they themselves don't hunt, not decide for others. If I come across as wrong for stating anything that doesn't seem in unity with the general consensus well I'm sorry. We really aren't that far apart other than what we define as hunting and fair chase. You take fair chase out of it and I'm not aboard.
If we don't effectively police our own someone else will do it for us. These practices that we are talking about become an Achilles heel for us. All PETA has to do is portray hunting in that way and then they have public support. Most people that I talk to, non-hunters I mean, have no problem with the way I hunt and have no trouble saying so. If they are an anti-hunter they don't say so because those around me think that the way I do it is pretty cool. My kid is going to school in Eugene (UO). He's into art and music and doing good in the architectural program, his senior year(proud dad). He and his friends want me to get an elk so bad that they can taste it (literally) because they know they will get a good share of it and would love it if they could help pack it out. Now if there was anywhere in the country that people would find something wrong with bowhunting that would be it. But they think it's cool and some want to try it too because they never were exposed to the real world, only the plastic city life. Now if I invited them out to watch me shoot an elk that was released from a pen into a field how do you think these smart but naive kids would react? If we do it right we don't have to defend something that is wrong. While this is just an example I think you get my point. We definitely need to defend hunting but we need to make sure it's hunting that we are defending.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
8,638 Posts
Once again you said very well Arlie.

Arlie I have 2 kids graduate from U of O and a third starting in September...:shocked: 2 of them don't hunt but they are always asking for meat and keep their fingers crossed until I get home:cheers:. All three have been out to help pack and camp.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
590 Posts
Wow Ehunter! You're like me and HAVE to hunt just to have some affordable meat. That school will break a man quick! lol. Good for you on getting 2 through already. One's enough for me, the other is a news videographer and editor for KEZI in Eugene. A quick 2 year degree and he's on his way. He's my late season deer partner. I'm not meaning to stir things up with all this, I've hunted my whole life and love the hunt for hunting's sake for many years now. To defend what seems to be a small man's misguided attempt at becoming more of a man through killing a captive animal just doesn't compute. Learning real hunting skill is a pleasure and not something you can buy. A unified voice can only be had if it is a universally acceptable point of view. Captive animals paid for and killed is not hunting. It is nothing I ever want to do unless it is simply butchering an animal that I bought for food. To call it a hunt is an admission of utter failure at being a so called "hunter".
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,168 Posts
Glad to see someone else here is on the band wagon.

Excellent post and well put. It is too bad that the majority of hunters and fisherman fail to see what the anti's are doing and basically just shrug their shoulders when you mention PETA or the HSUS.
By the time most of them wake up it will be too late.
I am wide awake...:bigshock::bigshock::bigshock:.AS per prev post ALL hunters and fisherpersons need to stand united.It is the little things that will have our sport crumbling down.Their cannot be any segrigation between hunters or fisherpersons.:twocents:

HAVE A GREAT and safe HUNTING AND FISHING SEASON.:cheers::wink:
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,941 Posts
If we don't effectively police our own someone else will do it for us. These practices that we are talking about become an Achilles heel for us. All PETA has to do is portray hunting in that way and then they have public support. Most people that I talk to, non-hunters I mean, have no problem with the way I hunt and have no trouble saying so. If they are an anti-hunter they don't say so because those around me think that the way I do it is pretty cool. My kid is going to school in Eugene (UO). He's into art and music and doing good in the architectural program, his senior year(proud dad). He and his friends want me to get an elk so bad that they can taste it (literally) because they know they will get a good share of it and would love it if they could help pack it out. Now if there was anywhere in the country that people would find something wrong with bowhunting that would be it. But they think it's cool and some want to try it too because they never were exposed to the real world, only the plastic city life. Now if I invited them out to watch me shoot an elk that was released from a pen into a field how do you think these smart but naive kids would react? If we do it right we don't have to defend something that is wrong. While this is just an example I think you get my point. We definitely need to defend hunting but we need to make sure it's hunting that we are defending.
Excellent display of justification Arlie!

Now, I hope you realize that the argument of "policing our own" can be applied to any aspect of hunting that someone deems "inappropriate", "cruel", "unnecessary", or "repulsive". Using your logic, anyone that identifies themselves a hunter can call for the elimination of any particular hunting or fishing activity that they personally find outside of their comfort zone. Don't like bow hunting, hound hunting or falconry? Just call it unethical and get on the bandwagon - Nevermind that it's LEGAL, it has to stop in the name of political correctness.

In a purely hypothetical scenario, lets say that I don't agree with bow hunters sticking an arrow through a critter and letting it run off to bleed out a possibly slow death. Then I gather up some photos of wounded deer and elk, some people that are willing to testify that it's cruel and the animal suffers too much, and a willing reporter or two to get the story out and voile! Bow hunting is an unethical and cruel practice just because somebody didn't like it. That's how it works - just look at the title to this thread!

For the record, I do not think that way - but lots of people do and it illustrates how you can be manipulated into siding with the Anti's and against people that are much like you. Remember, they pick at the fringe until it's gone. Then new fringe is exposed for the picking until eventually they'll get to the core group of rifle deer & elk hunters that make up the vast majority of hunters.

"CL"
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top