Free: Contests & Raffles.
That's why I hunt with a bow. I dont see amy of the above.
Glock, I wasn't here then and don't know about what transpired before that rule was enacted.
I'm not an elitist and I support any way that you hunt as long as your ethics are intact.
Unlike modern or even ML, You can't just pick up your bow on opening day and kill an elk. As a result, archery has a higher percentage of dedicated hunters.
But, the undedicated and slouches tend more to stick to modern because they're lazy and it's easier. And, I'm also not saying modern hunters are lazy. I'm saying that if you ARE lazy, you're probably not going to pick archery as your tag of choice. It doesn't make us better or more worthy or make me elitist for saying so. It's just a fact of the sport.
You sound like you're ready to pick a fight with other hunters. I suggest that if you're really concerned for our dwindling elk opportunities that you pick anti-hunters to fight with instead. There are plenty of them out there. It's a target-rich environment. .
The more you reduce opportunity in terms of time and space ; the more bad behaviour develops. Look at any hunt. Look at any fishery in this state and you will see the reality of packing more rats into a smaller cage....and yet we have lost over 40% of our hunters over the past 20yrs but the woods are more crowded and sportsmanship is a lost concept. The more people are temped to cut corners ; the more people who are bad to begin with get even worse.
Dave, you took all of my comments out of context and I suspect you know it. I'm surprised.
Quote from: pianoman9701 on November 02, 2011, 10:08:27 AMGlock, I wasn't here then and don't know about what transpired before that rule was enacted. Therein lies the problem with a lot of people on this forum. Those of us who are from around here know how much management has deteriorated and how much opportunity has been eroded over the years, and we're tired of it...and we are trying to educate you newcomers that what many of you think is good anagement now, compared to where you came from, is delusional. So because I'm not over 50 years old I must be delusional and a fool right. How could I possibly know what good managment is My opinions obviously don't matter do they. Unless it goes along with what you say. QuoteI'm not an elitist and I support any way that you hunt as long as your ethics are intact. Don't start talkking about "ethics." One man's "ethics" are another man's elitism. I've had people actually challenge me for carrying a rifle with a round in the chamber (apparently they saw on Saturday television somewhere that the star of some show waited until he saw a big bull roaming around..as found buy a guide on a private ranch...is the ethical way to hunt) out in the field. Horse apples. Elitists can go choke on the word "ethics" because it's a verbal weapon they use on others who don't share their particular principles. Let's talk about RESPONSIBILITY instead. Yes lets not talk about ethics God forbid people get a lesson on ethics. "One man's ethics are another man's elitism" Sounds about as elitist as it gets. What would you like to talk about Responsibility about? There is a reason I refuse to allow anyone in my family to hunt modern elk. Its not because I'm an elitist its just not safe IMHO. I also don't want to subject them to the lack of ethics I see during that time. Not saying everyone is unethical or irresponsible but there's enough of it that i don't want to expose my son to that. QuoteUnlike modern or even ML, You can't just pick up your bow on opening day and kill an elk. As a result, archery has a higher percentage of dedicated hunters. That's elitist rhetoric. Modern rifle, blackpowder and handgun hunters (I've done all three) are just as devoted to their choice, but they shouldn't have to be LIMITED to that choice because it destroys their opportunity to try something different. I don't hunt with a bow and never have because it simply doesn't interest me. Shooters enjoy the feel of a good rifle, the time spent at the loading bench, the ability to place a precision shot at distance (which is not being a lazy slob, but being a careful marksman). I've killed deer with rifles and handguns. That interests me. This is kind of naive don't you think? I've hunted with a rifle, then switched to muzzle loader, and now I hunt with a bow. And unless you have hunted with a bow how are you gonna say whether or not it takes more skill and effort to be successfull. Well I've done all three so let me say this. In order to be LETHAL with a bow I must practise and tune my bow for at least 2 months. To do the same with a rifle it takes me maybe a day. But its usually still on from last year. And you can't even compare the skill level it takes and the amount of effort it takes to get within lethal bow range compared to lethal rifle range. Quote But, the undedicated and slouches tend more to stick to modern because they're lazy and it's easier. And, I'm also not saying modern hunters are lazy. I'm saying that if you ARE lazy, you're probably not going to pick archery as your tag of choice. It doesn't make us better or more worthy or make me elitist for saying so. It's just a fact of the sport.Self-contradictory. Rifle hunters choose modern because they're lazy and it's easier, but you're not saying modern hunters are lazy. Well, which is it? You voted for it before you voted against it?You know exactly what he meant. Rifle hunting IS EASIER!!! Nothing wrong with that and thats not what he was saying. It is a FACT that for the most part the since archery is far more time consuming than modern to be successfull, the people who are strapped for time or are lazy are not going to pick the harder method. They WILL pick the easier one. Again nothing wrong with that. If you want to do well than this is good decision making IMHO. Nothing elitist about it. Its the truth. QuoteYou sound like you're ready to pick a fight with other hunters. I suggest that if you're really concerned for our dwindling elk opportunities that you pick anti-hunters to fight with instead. There are plenty of them out there. It's a target-rich environment. .Some hunters deserve to have a fight poked at them, because they have gone along to get along for way too long. They walk around with their heads either in the clouds or up their rectums, thinking what they have now is just fine because it cuts down on competition and allows them a more "wilderness experience." What about success? What about meat in the cooler? What about the next generation of hunters who deserve a lot more than being told by some twerp in Olympia or on television that disappointment is fine so long as they get to see an elk or deer prancing over the far ridge. People do not pay for disappointment. People will not pay to take their kids along when they know the odds of success are dismal; they'll see the kids stay home and play video games where at least they get to win once in a while.But this whole argument takes us back to what I've said for years. Resource Allocation, which limits us to a weapon choice, perpetuates divisiveness among hunters, and that's deliberate. While we fight amongst ourselves, the department can do whatever it damn well pleases, whether it means cutting back seasons and opportunities; putting emphasis on wolves and "watchable" wildlife instead of putting fish in the lakes and rivers and expanding herd populations to boost success rates among the people who pay the bills.I agree 100% with what you said above. I don't disagree at all. Very well said DAVE. I'm not pissed its just you took Pianoman's words out of context and to me you sounded very elitist. Maybe it came off different than you intended. As for someone taking an elk from me that I shot.... Good luck with that.
Have a nice argument you guys.
Quote from: pianoman9701 on November 02, 2011, 10:59:24 AMDave, you took all of my comments out of context and I suspect you know it. I'm surprised. Now its my turn to take his comments out of context.Quote from: Dave Workman on November 02, 2011, 10:56:30 AMQuote from: pianoman9701 on November 02, 2011, 10:08:27 AMGlock, I wasn't here then and don't know about what transpired before that rule was enacted. Therein lies the problem with a lot of people on this forum. Those of us who are from around here know how much management has deteriorated and how much opportunity has been eroded over the years, and we're tired of it...and we are trying to educate you newcomers that what many of you think is good anagement now, compared to where you came from, is delusional. So because I'm not over 50 years old I must be delusional and a fool right. How could I possibly know what good managment is My opinions obviously don't matter do they. Unless it goes along with what you say. Not being over 50 is your good fortune. You will catch up. We weren't talking about your age, but the experience of some people with Washington management and hunting opportunity. It is nowhere near as good as it was 25 years ago. It's rather shabby, actually. That doesn't make you a fool. Your opinions matter as much as anyone else's here. It's just that some of us have been here to watch this deterioration for decades and understand that it wasn't necessary. Indeed, some of it is kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy. QuoteI'm not an elitist and I support any way that you hunt as long as your ethics are intact. Don't start talkking about "ethics." One man's "ethics" are another man's elitism. I've had people actually challenge me for carrying a rifle with a round in the chamber (apparently they saw on Saturday television somewhere that the star of some show waited until he saw a big bull roaming around..as found buy a guide on a private ranch...is the ethical way to hunt) out in the field. Horse apples. Elitists can go choke on the word "ethics" because it's a verbal weapon they use on others who don't share their particular principles. Let's talk about RESPONSIBILITY instead. Yes lets not talk about ethics God forbid people get a lesson on ethics. "One man's ethics are another man's elitism" Sounds about as elitist as it gets. What would you like to talk about Responsibility about? There is a reason I refuse to allow anyone in my family to hunt modern elk. Its not because I'm an elitist its just not safe IMHO. I also don't want to subject them to the lack of ethics I see during that time. Not saying everyone is unethical or irresponsible but there's enough of it that i don't want to expose my son to that.I've been hunting elk with a rifle or muzzleloader for many years. I don't know that it's any more or less safe out there. You evidently see a lack of ethics. I contend that's rather subjective. What are we talking about. Game theft? Losing wounded game? Taking unsafe shots? claiming the high ground when there isn't any? Properly observing that one person's ethics are another person's elitism may sting a bit, but it is true. QuoteUnlike modern or even ML, You can't just pick up your bow on opening day and kill an elk. As a result, archery has a higher percentage of dedicated hunters. That's elitist rhetoric. Modern rifle, blackpowder and handgun hunters (I've done all three) are just as devoted to their choice, but they shouldn't have to be LIMITED to that choice because it destroys their opportunity to try something different. I don't hunt with a bow and never have because it simply doesn't interest me. Shooters enjoy the feel of a good rifle, the time spent at the loading bench, the ability to place a precision shot at distance (which is not being a lazy slob, but being a careful marksman). I've killed deer with rifles and handguns. That interests me. This is kind of naive don't you think? I've hunted with a rifle, then switched to muzzle loader, and now I hunt with a bow. And unless you have hunted with a bow how are you gonna say whether or not it takes more skill and effort to be successfull. Well I've done all three so let me say this. In order to be LETHAL with a bow I must practise and tune my bow for at least 2 months. To do the same with a rifle it takes me maybe a day. But its usually still on from last year. And you can't even compare the skill level it takes and the amount of effort it takes to get within lethal bow range compared to lethal rifle range. Unless you have driven a Mercedes, you haven't driven an automobile. That it? You seem to presume I've never shot a bow or considered hunting with one. I've shot a fair number of bows. Compounds, recurves and even a couple of long bows. Bowhunting, as I said, doesn't interest me. I don't own an AR-15 because the platform doesn't interest me, either. Some people would call me a "Fudd" but I don't give a rat's ass if they own a house full of ARs or bows. More power to them. And you, too. You can have my share of the available bows. Quote But, the undedicated and slouches tend more to stick to modern because they're lazy and it's easier. And, I'm also not saying modern hunters are lazy. I'm saying that if you ARE lazy, you're probably not going to pick archery as your tag of choice. It doesn't make us better or more worthy or make me elitist for saying so. It's just a fact of the sport.Self-contradictory. Rifle hunters choose modern because they're lazy and it's easier, but you're not saying modern hunters are lazy. Well, which is it? You voted for it before you voted against it?You know exactly what he meant. Rifle hunting IS EASIER!!! Nothing wrong with that and thats not what he was saying. It is a FACT that for the most part the since archery is far more time consuming than modern to be successfull, the people who are strapped for time or are lazy are not going to pick the harder method. They WILL pick the easier one. Again nothing wrong with that. If you want to do well than this is good decision making IMHO. Nothing elitist about it. Its the truth. Rifle hunting may seem easier to slobs; the same type of person who leaves an elk and or deer running around with an arrow in its rump or gut. I've actually run across people who were road hunting with bows. Don't try to sell me on the greater devotion to the sport on the part of the bowhunter, because that dog just doesn't hunt. Each group, as he noted, has its boneheads. QuoteYou sound like you're ready to pick a fight with other hunters. I suggest that if you're really concerned for our dwindling elk opportunities that you pick anti-hunters to fight with instead. There are plenty of them out there. It's a target-rich environment. .Some hunters deserve to have a fight poked at them, because they have gone along to get along for way too long. They walk around with their heads either in the clouds or up their rectums, thinking what they have now is just fine because it cuts down on competition and allows them a more "wilderness experience." What about success? What about meat in the cooler? What about the next generation of hunters who deserve a lot more than being told by some twerp in Olympia or on television that disappointment is fine so long as they get to see an elk or deer prancing over the far ridge. People do not pay for disappointment. People will not pay to take their kids along when they know the odds of success are dismal; they'll see the kids stay home and play video games where at least they get to win once in a while.But this whole argument takes us back to what I've said for years. Resource Allocation, which limits us to a weapon choice, perpetuates divisiveness among hunters, and that's deliberate. While we fight amongst ourselves, the department can do whatever it damn well pleases, whether it means cutting back seasons and opportunities; putting emphasis on wolves and "watchable" wildlife instead of putting fish in the lakes and rivers and expanding herd populations to boost success rates among the people who pay the bills.I agree 100% with what you said above. I don't disagree at all. Very well said DAVE. I'm not pissed its just you took Pianoman's words out of context and to me you sounded very elitist. Maybe it came off different than you intended. I'm not an elitist, I'm a realist. And I don't believe I took his words out of context at all. As for someone taking an elk from me that I shot.... Good luck with that.
Quote from: pianoman9701 on November 02, 2011, 10:08:27 AMGlock, I wasn't here then and don't know about what transpired before that rule was enacted. Therein lies the problem with a lot of people on this forum. Those of us who are from around here know how much management has deteriorated and how much opportunity has been eroded over the years, and we're tired of it...and we are trying to educate you newcomers that what many of you think is good anagement now, compared to where you came from, is delusional. So because I'm not over 50 years old I must be delusional and a fool right. How could I possibly know what good managment is My opinions obviously don't matter do they. Unless it goes along with what you say. Not being over 50 is your good fortune. You will catch up. We weren't talking about your age, but the experience of some people with Washington management and hunting opportunity. It is nowhere near as good as it was 25 years ago. It's rather shabby, actually. That doesn't make you a fool. Your opinions matter as much as anyone else's here. It's just that some of us have been here to watch this deterioration for decades and understand that it wasn't necessary. Indeed, some of it is kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy. QuoteI'm not an elitist and I support any way that you hunt as long as your ethics are intact. Don't start talkking about "ethics." One man's "ethics" are another man's elitism. I've had people actually challenge me for carrying a rifle with a round in the chamber (apparently they saw on Saturday television somewhere that the star of some show waited until he saw a big bull roaming around..as found buy a guide on a private ranch...is the ethical way to hunt) out in the field. Horse apples. Elitists can go choke on the word "ethics" because it's a verbal weapon they use on others who don't share their particular principles. Let's talk about RESPONSIBILITY instead. Yes lets not talk about ethics God forbid people get a lesson on ethics. "One man's ethics are another man's elitism" Sounds about as elitist as it gets. What would you like to talk about Responsibility about? There is a reason I refuse to allow anyone in my family to hunt modern elk. Its not because I'm an elitist its just not safe IMHO. I also don't want to subject them to the lack of ethics I see during that time. Not saying everyone is unethical or irresponsible but there's enough of it that i don't want to expose my son to that.I've been hunting elk with a rifle or muzzleloader for many years. I don't know that it's any more or less safe out there. You evidently see a lack of ethics. I contend that's rather subjective. What are we talking about. Game theft? Losing wounded game? Taking unsafe shots? claiming the high ground when there isn't any? Properly observing that one person's ethics are another person's elitism may sting a bit, but it is true. QuoteUnlike modern or even ML, You can't just pick up your bow on opening day and kill an elk. As a result, archery has a higher percentage of dedicated hunters. That's elitist rhetoric. Modern rifle, blackpowder and handgun hunters (I've done all three) are just as devoted to their choice, but they shouldn't have to be LIMITED to that choice because it destroys their opportunity to try something different. I don't hunt with a bow and never have because it simply doesn't interest me. Shooters enjoy the feel of a good rifle, the time spent at the loading bench, the ability to place a precision shot at distance (which is not being a lazy slob, but being a careful marksman). I've killed deer with rifles and handguns. That interests me. This is kind of naive don't you think? I've hunted with a rifle, then switched to muzzle loader, and now I hunt with a bow. And unless you have hunted with a bow how are you gonna say whether or not it takes more skill and effort to be successfull. Well I've done all three so let me say this. In order to be LETHAL with a bow I must practise and tune my bow for at least 2 months. To do the same with a rifle it takes me maybe a day. But its usually still on from last year. And you can't even compare the skill level it takes and the amount of effort it takes to get within lethal bow range compared to lethal rifle range. Unless you have driven a Mercedes, you haven't driven an automobile. That it? You seem to presume I've never shot a bow or considered hunting with one. I've shot a fair number of bows. Compounds, recurves and even a couple of long bows. Bowhunting, as I said, doesn't interest me. I don't own an AR-15 because the platform doesn't interest me, either. Some people would call me a "Fudd" but I don't give a rat's ass if they own a house full of ARs or bows. More power to them. And you, too. You can have my share of the available bows. Quote But, the undedicated and slouches tend more to stick to modern because they're lazy and it's easier. And, I'm also not saying modern hunters are lazy. I'm saying that if you ARE lazy, you're probably not going to pick archery as your tag of choice. It doesn't make us better or more worthy or make me elitist for saying so. It's just a fact of the sport.Self-contradictory. Rifle hunters choose modern because they're lazy and it's easier, but you're not saying modern hunters are lazy. Well, which is it? You voted for it before you voted against it?You know exactly what he meant. Rifle hunting IS EASIER!!! Nothing wrong with that and thats not what he was saying. It is a FACT that for the most part the since archery is far more time consuming than modern to be successfull, the people who are strapped for time or are lazy are not going to pick the harder method. They WILL pick the easier one. Again nothing wrong with that. If you want to do well than this is good decision making IMHO. Nothing elitist about it. Its the truth. Rifle hunting may seem easier to slobs; the same type of person who leaves an elk and or deer running around with an arrow in its rump or gut. I've actually run across people who were road hunting with bows. Don't try to sell me on the greater devotion to the sport on the part of the bowhunter, because that dog just doesn't hunt. Each group, as he noted, has its boneheads. QuoteYou sound like you're ready to pick a fight with other hunters. I suggest that if you're really concerned for our dwindling elk opportunities that you pick anti-hunters to fight with instead. There are plenty of them out there. It's a target-rich environment. .Some hunters deserve to have a fight poked at them, because they have gone along to get along for way too long. They walk around with their heads either in the clouds or up their rectums, thinking what they have now is just fine because it cuts down on competition and allows them a more "wilderness experience." What about success? What about meat in the cooler? What about the next generation of hunters who deserve a lot more than being told by some twerp in Olympia or on television that disappointment is fine so long as they get to see an elk or deer prancing over the far ridge. People do not pay for disappointment. People will not pay to take their kids along when they know the odds of success are dismal; they'll see the kids stay home and play video games where at least they get to win once in a while.But this whole argument takes us back to what I've said for years. Resource Allocation, which limits us to a weapon choice, perpetuates divisiveness among hunters, and that's deliberate. While we fight amongst ourselves, the department can do whatever it damn well pleases, whether it means cutting back seasons and opportunities; putting emphasis on wolves and "watchable" wildlife instead of putting fish in the lakes and rivers and expanding herd populations to boost success rates among the people who pay the bills.I agree 100% with what you said above. I don't disagree at all. Very well said DAVE. I'm not pissed its just you took Pianoman's words out of context and to me you sounded very elitist. Maybe it came off different than you intended. I'm not an elitist, I'm a realist. And I don't believe I took his words out of context at all. As for someone taking an elk from me that I shot.... Good luck with that.