The Quality Deer Management Association, QDMA, has come out with a position that hunters should oppose deer breeding legislation, under the premise that it does nothing positive for deer hunting as they view deer hunting.
Quick quote from that article:
Link to that article.
http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/qdma...n-states-to-oppose-deer-breeding-legislation/
Keith Warren, an unapologetic penned deer operator and host of a TV show, has come forward and compares QDMA with HSUS. Here is a link to Warren's article denouncing the position of QDMA.
http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/opin...tm_content=Outdoor+News+for+February+29,+2012
In part of his long article, Warren goes to the most common reply whenever the topic comes up. - circle the wagons. Circling the wagons does not let us have the discussion and sort out what the hunting community wants as it relates to this topic.
We had a similar discussion on this forum last month. Everyone pretty much made it clear what they thought. I learned something from that past discussion and glad we had the debate.
I think most of us feel that Warren is correct when he asserts that people should do what they want. If QDMA and their members don't like it and see it as a threat, then they should do as they want. If Warren and his deer breeder associations like it, then they should continue to promote it.
So long as it is legal, knock yourself out. Just don't expect everyone to agree and to take your position on the idea.
To expect that we should all agree on everything, hold hands, and sing Kumbaya, is a fairy tale. Hunters, farmers, livestock breeders, and penned shooting operators, will at times disagree. Just a fact of life.
When there is disagreement on this topic, the penned shooting and deer breeder industry often uses what they see as the big stick - compare their critics to PETA or HSUS. Just as Warren has done in his article, that side of the argument most often will frame the discussion such that anyone who doesn't agree with them is an anti-hunter.
Those working to preserve hunting as it has occurred historically in this country are pro-hunter. The folks at QDMA, who I only know via their members and publications, are pro-hunter and pro-hunting. To state otherwise is crap. Warren knows its crap, yet he is willing to say it in that context.
Why is he willing to say it? Who knows.
Is it because he is sponsored by, and involved in, the deer breeding industry? Make your own conclusions, but that is probably a logical opinion many outsiders may form.
Strange how Jim Zumbo can be fired for making a small blog post, rhetorically asking a question about hunting and black guns for purposes of starting discussions, yet in his effort to provoke discussion Warren can imply that hunters who don’t participate in penned shooting to be anti-hunters. Where is the outcry in the hunting community when Warren does something like this?
Warren is an intelligent guy, no doubt. But he is talking out of the wrong end when he makes these kind of comparisons to anyone who doesn't follow his way of thinking. To imply that QDMA and its members are anti-hunter is laughable and erodes any credibility Warren could have brought to the discussion.
I am glad to see QDMA speak up on this topic. My pleasure is not based on what they state for their arguments, as I am not expert in those facts. I am glad that they see an issue that is greatly affecting their members and they are willing to step forward in a climate where it is always dangerous public relations to do so.
They should speak up and not be shamed to the quiet corners as Warren is trying to do by comparing them to HSUS. Warren is not the first to do it and won't be the last of his friends to do it. If Warren was doing that for purposes of drama, he missed the mark. He didn't even hit the edge of the target.
All Warren did was demonstrate a growing tendency to defame a critic rather than debate the topic. He hoped to provide immediate reaction by aligning his opponent with a common adversary. In my case, the reaction was immediate. And it was completely negative.
If we cannot have heated debates about hunting and the image we want for our activity, without one side making outrageous assertions and comparisons, we are in trouble. Such harsh and dramatic implications as Warren has provided often come from those worried how facts will may them in an open and in depth debate.
If Warren expects any credible support in the hunting world, he might want to rethink his tact. He has lost any credibility from me, as it relates to having sensible discussion about this heated topic. If he cannot have the debate in a manner of facts, and must resort to implying the many good folks at QDMA are anti-hunters, then he has already lost the debate.
Hunting, as defined in the historical sense, does not need penned shooting to prosper, but penned shooting sure needs hunting. At least that is what I gather from the extreme tactics Warren and others will employ to keep their parasitc attachment to this thing honorable we call hunting.
Quick quote from that article:
Link to that article.
http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/qdma...n-states-to-oppose-deer-breeding-legislation/
Keith Warren, an unapologetic penned deer operator and host of a TV show, has come forward and compares QDMA with HSUS. Here is a link to Warren's article denouncing the position of QDMA.
http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/opin...tm_content=Outdoor+News+for+February+29,+2012
In part of his long article, Warren goes to the most common reply whenever the topic comes up. - circle the wagons. Circling the wagons does not let us have the discussion and sort out what the hunting community wants as it relates to this topic.
We had a similar discussion on this forum last month. Everyone pretty much made it clear what they thought. I learned something from that past discussion and glad we had the debate.
I think most of us feel that Warren is correct when he asserts that people should do what they want. If QDMA and their members don't like it and see it as a threat, then they should do as they want. If Warren and his deer breeder associations like it, then they should continue to promote it.
So long as it is legal, knock yourself out. Just don't expect everyone to agree and to take your position on the idea.
To expect that we should all agree on everything, hold hands, and sing Kumbaya, is a fairy tale. Hunters, farmers, livestock breeders, and penned shooting operators, will at times disagree. Just a fact of life.
When there is disagreement on this topic, the penned shooting and deer breeder industry often uses what they see as the big stick - compare their critics to PETA or HSUS. Just as Warren has done in his article, that side of the argument most often will frame the discussion such that anyone who doesn't agree with them is an anti-hunter.
Those working to preserve hunting as it has occurred historically in this country are pro-hunter. The folks at QDMA, who I only know via their members and publications, are pro-hunter and pro-hunting. To state otherwise is crap. Warren knows its crap, yet he is willing to say it in that context.
Why is he willing to say it? Who knows.
Is it because he is sponsored by, and involved in, the deer breeding industry? Make your own conclusions, but that is probably a logical opinion many outsiders may form.
Strange how Jim Zumbo can be fired for making a small blog post, rhetorically asking a question about hunting and black guns for purposes of starting discussions, yet in his effort to provoke discussion Warren can imply that hunters who don’t participate in penned shooting to be anti-hunters. Where is the outcry in the hunting community when Warren does something like this?
Warren is an intelligent guy, no doubt. But he is talking out of the wrong end when he makes these kind of comparisons to anyone who doesn't follow his way of thinking. To imply that QDMA and its members are anti-hunter is laughable and erodes any credibility Warren could have brought to the discussion.
I am glad to see QDMA speak up on this topic. My pleasure is not based on what they state for their arguments, as I am not expert in those facts. I am glad that they see an issue that is greatly affecting their members and they are willing to step forward in a climate where it is always dangerous public relations to do so.
They should speak up and not be shamed to the quiet corners as Warren is trying to do by comparing them to HSUS. Warren is not the first to do it and won't be the last of his friends to do it. If Warren was doing that for purposes of drama, he missed the mark. He didn't even hit the edge of the target.
All Warren did was demonstrate a growing tendency to defame a critic rather than debate the topic. He hoped to provide immediate reaction by aligning his opponent with a common adversary. In my case, the reaction was immediate. And it was completely negative.
If we cannot have heated debates about hunting and the image we want for our activity, without one side making outrageous assertions and comparisons, we are in trouble. Such harsh and dramatic implications as Warren has provided often come from those worried how facts will may them in an open and in depth debate.
If Warren expects any credible support in the hunting world, he might want to rethink his tact. He has lost any credibility from me, as it relates to having sensible discussion about this heated topic. If he cannot have the debate in a manner of facts, and must resort to implying the many good folks at QDMA are anti-hunters, then he has already lost the debate.
Hunting, as defined in the historical sense, does not need penned shooting to prosper, but penned shooting sure needs hunting. At least that is what I gather from the extreme tactics Warren and others will employ to keep their parasitc attachment to this thing honorable we call hunting.
