Are we bad people?

[Fatman]

After reading Moosie's running gun battle with 280 on that other board, I am starting to feel bad about booking a hunt at a game ranch. Those people really gave me a complex. I hope I will feel better about myself if I give it some time. one one thousand, two one thousand, three one thousand
Ok, I feel better now

 

[IndyJay]

Hell, I wouldn't feel bad at all... at least these goats have some kind of chance... not like the 4-H cow at the State Fair that was being groomed by her 14 year old human friend one day and walked up the plank at the slaughter house the next!

 

[danr55]

Fatman, where is this running battle going on??

 

[BlackLightning]

Your killin me Indy....LMAO
the only way Im gonna be able to Elk hunt now in mississippi is on a game ranch, but finally I might fill a Elk tag...LOL
BL

 

[Fatman]

It was in the Elk section at HuntInfo, Moosie was handling himself pretty well against superior numbers. It was under the Big Velvet ranch goes out of business heading. It looks like that topic is a little old, looks like back on Nov. 29., but funny as $hit anyway

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-06-2001 14:29: Message edited by: Fatman ]</font>

 

[Fatman]

The way I see it, if a person doesn't want to hunt on a game ranch they don't have to. If I want to, don't b!tch at me for it. I for one am looking forward to the hunt with more anticipation than I have looked forward to any hunt so far, I just wish it was this weekend.

 

[Moosie]

FATMAN !!! THANX for noticing... I usualy take the HEAT on stuff like that.. I actually am reading alot about CWD but Don't like 280 so will never stand for his "CAUSE".

Soetimes I get on a roll... THAT was one of my funnest posts over there.... Ahh ya should have chimed in more ...

 

[Fatman]

Moosie

You were doing great on your own, anyways , any help and they would have cried about piling on.

Dennis

 

[Kraven]

I dont think that we are bad people at all.The animals are in a fenced area but there is alot of acreage there,correct?
Give em hell over at huntinfo Moose

 

[Delw]

Who cares Kraven I am going to corner one up against the fence and let the arrows fly LOLOLOL..

as far as am I bad hmmmm I dont think so but i will let ya know after the hunt... Wow bet 280 would eat this up huh?
Delw

 

[danr55]

I went over and read the thread. Sounds like Mr. Moosie has sunk spur and is riding for home. Oscar, don't let him get his head.

 

[Muledeer4me]

I think your all bad ,real bad,I can believe your all going there to hunt ,the whole thing is BAD BAD BAD,---now if I could just figure a way to go ,I would change my mind about the reat of you BAD people.
I think the words im looking for are (bit me)
Do I have that right dan? LOL
If you bring back lots of pictures and I wont think so bad of you all.

 

[snite66]

I do not see how this could be considered a bad thing.
Where I hunt whitetails, they are pretty thick and usualy stay in an area less than 300 acres. This is because they have all they need there, food, water and cover. There are no fences but they still do not usualy leave this area. I will set stands on established travel routes and wait for them to come around. This ranch in Texas is considerably larger than this and he has blinds set along established teavel routes, so how could this be worse than the way I hunt?

Besides, I will admit if it weren't for this hunt I would probably never get to hunt this type of animal. I cannot afford to go on some of these outragously priced hunts that others do. These types of hunts allow guys like me the time and affordability to take an animal that we would otherwise just wish about.

Now I gotta find that economy ELK hunt I been lookin for .

 

[GilaMonster]

He11 NO we're not bad. We just like to shoot and we like to eat.
End of story!

 

[Tom]

I've had "discussions" with 280 over there. He won't tell people who he is for some reason which makes little sense to me. Montanna is pretty bad, the way they handled this issue. They did it wrong from the beginning as far as I can tell. That bill that put the ranches out of business passed like 51% to 49% with the city folks barely getting it over the 50%.

I basically think reasoning like the animals have to have a chance is anti-hunter in origin. Hunter's aim to kill them is basically hunting in origin as a contrast. What animal has a chance when a bullet comes out of a gun or an arrow comes out of a bow? If it wasn't 280 that said it a few months ago, he would likely agree that he would shoot an elk stuck out on a peninsula of an island, because its fair chase, but wouldn't shoot one in the middle of a high fence ranch, no matter how big the ranch was because that was not fair chase. Its screwed up thinking to come to conclusions like that in my opinion. We kill them and we eat them, face it, that's basic. There's not much fair about it. There's a lot about what Montana did that is bad, I think, in the way they ran those places, before putting these ranches out of business and then putting them out of business once they had them. It seems like they're arguing the good points are that this preserves wild elk and minimizes spread of CWD. Those are two good things, but in my opinion can both be done without putting those ranches out of business and ruining those families investments, two of the bad things about that law I143 passed in Montana last year.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-10-2001 14:17: Message edited by: Tom ]</font>

 

[BuzzH]

Careful Tom, you're realing stretching your knowledge of I-143.

Tom said, "That bill that put the ranches out of business passed like 51% to 49% with the city folks barely getting it over the 50%."

I believe it was closer to 52-48 split and you dont have a shread of evidence that "city folks" passed a thing in Montana. Beings how a vast majority of people in Montana live in a city I guess maybe your claim might be right. But I know what you're trying to imply, that a bunch of bunny huggers/city dwellers passed 143, it just isnt so.

Further, the game farms in existance before 143 passed, were not shut down, and you know this, but continue to push the envelope of the truth...trying to make it look like 143 took their elk and their land. Again it just isnt so, not one farm was "forced" out of business.

We've been over this issue many times and I wish you'd start being a little more truthful. You cant bull$hit me on this thing and you really shouldnt try to bull$hit anyone else either.

By the way, good luck to you and everyone else on the ram hunt in Texas, sounds like a good time.

 

[Point Creep]

I know that my hunting buddies, as well as me... all voted for I-143. Damn happy is passed here.

Only problem is it didn't do quite enough. It didn't hold the existing game farmers liable for expenses and damages caused, nor did it force them to hold some serious insureance. Those were the only two flaws of the bill in my opinion.

I personally don't care what happens in Texas with the exotic farms/game ranches/etc. If you want to do that more power to you. Sounds like fun, sort of. But tough titty in MT though, my "hunting" license fees shouldn't be used to clean up some ratsh1t elkfarmer's messes and that's why I voted for I-143. I actually gathered about 50 signatures for that bill. And I could give a rat's a$$ if Len Wallace goes broke, picks up his belongings, and moves to Texas.... Good riddance.

 

[Tom]

'you dont have a shread of evidence that "city folks" passed a thing in Montana.' The county by county plot of results for I143 again is the evidence, it was put up at huntinfo a while back.

It shows 1) counties for Gore, i.e. more democratic counties, tended to be for I143 and 2) counties over 50% for I143 were in the minority, hence big city counties. This was the data posted by your Montana government, I just plotted it, and a few big city counties are what had the small margin of votes to get I143 passed.

The bill didn't put the ranches out of business, just the hunting on the ranches, I streached it a little there. I agree with Greenhorn about it being bad that the hunter dollars were being used to fix the ranch problems. The ranches should have been required to collect dollars for some kind of liscence or pay taxes to the state or something, so they could be monitored and managed well. I heard recently, federal tax dollars are now being used for these Montana management problems. Its a big mess, bigger than me, if that's happening.

I hope you guys, Buzz and Greenhorn, had or are having a good season!

 

[280]

hey greenhorn, is that you? you use to post on the MT FWP board, right,,but you had a different name. glad to see you also voted for I143, but in a lot of guys eyes on this board it makes us PETA members, but then again I belong to PETA (People Eating Tastey Animals), Hows Ted`s elk herd this year?

 

[Point Creep]

Tom.. your stats don't mean much other than a unrelated coincidence. I don't believe any of my hunting buddies voted for Gore.. actually no way. But I believe all of them voted for I-143. Most of them grew up on ranches and now live in what you might consider a city in MT... whopping 35,000 population. I agree there were things wrong with I-143, but even so.. I'd vote for it every time if it came up again. But I wouldn't consider it my business what you folks do in Texas. Happy hunting.

280.. Nobody here is going to say I'm from PETA.. I doubt it anyway. I think everybody is sick of the game farm ranting and raving. Pretty soon they'll all be gone here in MT.. I figure leave it to the rest of the state to decide that for themselves, just like we did here.

Don't know how Ted's elk are doing, probably pretty good.. Give him a call. And save up your money, you'll probably need to if you go hunting there.