Washington Hunter, I was trying to get you to recognize the existence of other ethical codes, not trying to get you to repeat your ethical statements. I was trying to get you to say the NRA has or has not, done a lot for hunters and gun owners. I don't deny that you follow some ethics while hunting. I do deny your statement, that the high fence hunts continuing is one of the worst things for the future of hunting. There's only a few hunters here on this board that tell me that, no one else. It has been very good for the future of hunting here, it is not like you imagine it here, and just because you or some other hunters who have very little exposure to the good of it don't like it, doesn't mean we should get rid of it. I think it would be beneficial to learn something about it from those who have used it for years, who have gone through the good and the bad of it, and who have figured out how to make it work. There are landowners that have been using it here for years, there are wildlife biologists that have been using it for years, and there are state run pieces of property that have been using it for years. Those people have the experience to say what is good and bad about it. Its working very well here, despite only about 2% of the state being under high fence. Its working well in other states. Its working well in other countries. That doesn't mean it would work well in your state, it doesn't mean every wild animals should be in a fence, and it sure doesn't mean we should get rid of it, because you don't like it, it just means you should not hunt on one of them, if that is what you choose.
As soon as the voters ban one type of hunting led by the anti-hunters against all hunting, they will look for the next group to ban. Lion hunters in California, like 11-12 years ago, spring bear in Quebec, trapping in Colorado, game fenced elk shoots in Montana, bear baiting in Washington, the anti-s are against it all. I think that is what Elkshsr was getting at, the strategy of the anti-s is to divide and conquer, since they can't get all of hunting and all of the hunters at once. I don't think we should let any of it go, I think we should just manage it better, solve the issues one by one, educate the public one by one. Like, Idaho has some areas for baiting bears, some for using dogs, and some for spot and stalk. That is great, everybody has someplace to hunt bears, whatever their style. That's an example of the better management ideas being used, it seems to me.
Greybeard made a very good point. We shouldn't let the press call a poacher a hunter.
Buzz doesn't want to pay to hunt private land, so he can hunt the public land, it doesn't mean we should get rid of paying private landowners for access to their land and the animals there, not one bit. The private land owners need to be encouraged to take care of wildlife, and some other hunter, not Buzz, will choose to pay them, if that is what it takes.
Elkchsr made a good point too, he recognized that some hunting groups will hunt ways that other hunting groups would not. Buzz, you don't need to attack him personally, try and see his point. It seemed like he was saying there is more than one code of ethics to choose to follow and still be a real hunter. Individuals can hunt according to their own choice of ethics, as long as it is legal. They can even choose to hunt illegal but that has pretty severe consequences and we have a word to describe them then, poacher, not hunter.
There are high fence places in multiple states and multiple countries, recognize that too. They are successfully being used to manage wildlife well.
<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-01-2003 18:58: Message edited by: Tom ]</font>
