Post by: Bearhunter on January 05, 2010, 10:55:10 AM
Post by: Bearhunter on January 05, 2010, 10:55:47 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 05, 2010, 11:08:22 AM
So do any of the Pollyanna's still want to make friends with these people?
Post by: Ray on January 05, 2010, 11:11:06 AM
If that's called making friends then you must not use the English language.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 05, 2010, 11:13:37 AM
Post by: Ray on January 05, 2010, 11:14:04 AM
Post by: robb92 on January 05, 2010, 11:14:35 AM
It doesn't matter what happens they are always going to have plenty of stuff to make there little movies with.
So true so true!!!!
Post by: Ray on January 05, 2010, 11:15:29 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 05, 2010, 11:15:58 AM
Post by: Ray on January 05, 2010, 11:16:29 AM
Post by: rasbo on January 05, 2010, 11:18:22 AM
Post by: Ray on January 05, 2010, 11:20:46 AM
Legal only equates to justified. It doesn't mean sound judgement was used all around.
Post by: Bearhunter on January 05, 2010, 11:24:19 AM
Post by: Ray on January 05, 2010, 11:27:48 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 05, 2010, 11:30:21 AM
Just because I choose not to hunt that way doesn't mean that its wrong.
traps
damage hunts
baiting
hounds
lots of people enjoy all of them and some dont. to each his own.
Post by: Ray on January 05, 2010, 11:32:04 AM
Post by: Axle on January 05, 2010, 11:35:26 AM
There are some really screwed up anti hunters out there. I would also bet that those who were against the harvest eat meat on a daily basis.
I have known people who, if this was Indians doing this, they would say - 'oh look at that, the Indians are hunting to feed their families'.
Post by: Broken Arrow on January 05, 2010, 11:36:30 AM
Post by: rasbo on January 05, 2010, 11:37:13 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 05, 2010, 11:38:07 AM
Quote
Should we not avoid these events if we can see they are about to happen?
People can choose to watch or not to watch. its up to them. There is a legitimate reason for these type of hunts. If you dont like them just drive on by.
Post by: COUG on January 05, 2010, 11:39:13 AM
Imagine the call the head of the game dept. got after that one.
This is not what we needed.
COUG
Post by: Ray on January 05, 2010, 11:40:29 AM
Post by: Ray on January 05, 2010, 11:41:15 AM
QuoteShould we not avoid these events if we can see they are about to happen?
People can choose to watch or not to watch. its up to them. There is a legitimate reason for these type of hunts. If you dont like them just drive on by.
They are really not choosing to watch when it is brought into their living room on the news channel unannounced.
Nobody has questioned legality. You keep referring to that.
Post by: Bearhunter on January 05, 2010, 11:42:11 AM
Post by: Hillbilly270 on January 05, 2010, 11:45:21 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 05, 2010, 11:47:09 AM
Is killing with arrows in public ethical?
There probably isn't an answer to this problem that wont piss someone off...
Post by: the1rod on January 05, 2010, 11:53:02 AM
Post by: COUG on January 05, 2010, 12:13:59 PM
Expand the current hunting regulations for the unit until the numbers start to decline. If this doesn't work round then up and euthanize. Give the meat to the needy.
Post by: hunt4 on January 05, 2010, 01:46:47 PM
The only thing i see questionable about this hunt, is why is it archery? if it is a damage control hunt, and they jsut want to get them out of there why not use rifles?
Because east to west you could almost shoot a rifle from one end of the unit to the other ;)...almost. and i am sure you could shoot a rifle over the unit the other direction north to south
and there are plenty of houses
Post by: Shootmoore on January 05, 2010, 02:00:46 PM
The only thing i see questionable about this hunt, is why is it archery? if it is a damage control hunt, and they jsut want to get them out of there why not use rifles?
Because east to west you could almost shoot a rifle from one end of the unit to the other ;)...almost. and i am sure you could shoot a rifle over the unit the other direction north to south
and there are plenty of houses
Pretty much this. Most of the properties are the 5 to 10 acre variety. 0 field of safe fire in any direction. Even muzzys in the past were a little to long ranged in my opinion.
I'm hoping that they come up with something next year, weather its a limited draw or they start thinking outside the box. something like the quality goose hunt writ large or something to this affect. The herd needs to be thinned but I don't want hunters to loose the op to hunt it. (maybe West side tag holders could toss there name in before the season for dated hunts or something)
Shootmoore
Post by: h2ofowlr on January 05, 2010, 02:20:39 PM
Post by: haus on January 05, 2010, 02:39:47 PM
Well it was just a matter of time before the Anti's put some crappy video together so all there Earth Muffin Granola crunchers could join in on a tear for the Soulless animals that were sacrificed for mere pleasure and trophy bragging rights. What a crock of *censored*, these people are so brain washed its like they all were born and raised in a compound were there mothers all screwed there God sent leader. What is this world turning into, its were frightening... Save the ELK'SCrappy video? It doesn't take much effort to make a propaganda video when someone else does it for you. I dunno why they even edited and chopped, it was adequate in raw form. Just pick a section, hit play and be treated to several minutes of damn near pets being shot, did any of those elk have names? :dunno: :chuckle: I'm sure the shooters had some alfalfa in their free hand, I'm impressed that they hid it from the camera!!!!
I wish I could ask those "hunters" na just tell them. :violent1: Aside from the ethics and laws reasonings; What ya did takes a special kind of stupid, a special kind of ignorance. If you couldn't equate that your fish in a barrel demonstration in full view along a well used public highway would have consequences for the rest of us, then Darwinism has failed. :chuckle:
I mean I'll admit I've done some dumb **** in my day legal or not legal, the law is not founded on a principle such as respectful judgement, but at least those things were in a manner that would only hurt me and not others, directly or indirectly. Well maybe someone was wondering where their backyard pet buck went....... :chuckle:
Post by: bigbeamhunter on January 05, 2010, 03:51:36 PM
Post by: Skillet on January 05, 2010, 03:58:16 PM
No matter how many times or different ways you say the same thing, it doesn't change the fact that our hunting privileges (NOT rights) are for us to protect, and we ignore the negative impressions made upon the voting public by public displays like this at our own peril. We have historically enjoyed their support, but with the bad press circulating around this, we should not take it for granted. The attitude of "It is legal, so if anybody doesn't like what I am doing, tough" being displayed here by the few is not productive and runs contrary to the impression we need to support that hunters in general are a thinking, aware and ethical group of people. It may not be legal for long.
Post by: bearpaw on January 05, 2010, 04:17:30 PM
While I don't agree with the guys shooting those elk while a crowd watched, here is the first thing that popped into my mind when I started watching the elk being shot at again that were wounded:
If those bowhunters were wolves, the crowd would have been cheering them on, but since it was human bowhunters they are hated by the same people who would be cheering on the wolves.
It's not that those antis are so concerned about an animal suffering, they really could care less about deer and elk, that is just a smoke screen to accomplish there goal of keeping people from hunting. They hate society and people...... :dunno:
Like i said, throw a pack of wolves in the field and they woiuld be cheering while the elk were eaten alive.... :twocents:
That my friends is the sad truth.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 05, 2010, 04:19:00 PM
I think that anytime they can misrepresent a situation they will. Ignoring the damage control aspect of this hunt by the media and anti's is not surprising. Its much easier to vilify than explain the legitimate reasons for the hunt.
Post by: high country on January 05, 2010, 04:20:21 PM
Fact is - if the compound archers could have reserved judgement not to shoot the animals when there was a crowd brewing on the highway there might not be a silly video.
If that's called making friends then you must not use the English language.
or if WDFW had enforced the law.....there would not have been a crowd.
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON ANNOTATED
TITLE 77. GAME AND GAME FISH
CHAPTER 77.16. PROHIBITED ACTS AND PENALTIES
77.16.340. Obstructing the taking of fish or wildlife--Penalty--Defenses
(1) A person commits the crime of obstructing the taking of fish or wildlife if the person:
(a) Harasses, drives, or disturbs fish or wildlife with the intent of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking thereof; or
(b) Harasses, interferes with, or intimidates an individual engaged in the lawful taking of fish or wildlife or lawful predator control.
(2) Violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor under RCW 77.21.010.
(3) It is a defense to any prosecution under subsection (1) of this section, if the person charged:
(a) Interferes with any person engaged in hunting outside legally established hunting seasons;
(b) Is preventing or attempting to prevent the injury or killing of a protected wildlife species, as defined by this title;
(c) Is preventing or attempting to prevent unauthorized trespass on private property; or
(d) Is defending oneself or another person from bodily harm or property damage by a person attempting to prevent hunting in a legally established hunting season.
Enacted by Laws 1988, ch. 265, § 1, eff. July 1, 1988.
Post by: bearpaw on January 05, 2010, 04:20:42 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 05, 2010, 04:23:04 PM
Quote
Harasses, interferes with, or intimidates an individual engaged in the lawful taking of fish or wildlife or lawful predator control
Id say the individuals involved in this have been harassed wouldnt you?
Post by: Axle on January 05, 2010, 04:48:53 PM
Since they have never had a hungry day in their lives, it is emotional feelings to them.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 05, 2010, 04:50:13 PM
Post by: Skillet on January 05, 2010, 05:01:50 PM
It's not that those antis are so concerned about an animal suffering, they really could care less about deer and elk, that is just a smoke screen to accomplish there goal of keeping people from hunting.
Agree 100% with the above. I've made the point before, and I'll do it again. Wasting time and effort worrying about what the anti's think is just that - a waste. Not going to change their minds, so don't try. Spend the time and effort properly representing ourselves as a group to the people who VOTE. That's who the anti's made this video for. Not us. They know we are as entrenched in our positions as they are in theirs. They are just being as effective as possible with the video some on this board don't see anything wrong with. By going about it in trying to appeal to the people who were indifferent to hunting before, but may be swayed by this type of propaganda, they will find support for their cause. And those that won't see the forest for the trees because they are too proud, or too tired of feeling persecuted and judged by the anti's today, will be the first to complain that the public are idiots for taking away their "right to hunt". And they will probably still need to be reminded that they didn't lose a right, but failed to properly protect a privilege...
Defending what happened there is not helping we as hunters, it's helping the anti's. The average voter did not get a feeling of "I am indifferent to hunting, but I will support the tradition" when watching King 5 that night. Lose the average voter's support, and it's over. Having a hard time believing that some of you can't see that.
Post by: Ray on January 05, 2010, 05:03:17 PM
Fact is - if the compound archers could have reserved judgement not to shoot the animals when there was a crowd brewing on the highway there might not be a silly video.
If that's called making friends then you must not use the English language.
or if WDFW had enforced the law.....there would not have been a crowd.
REVISED CODE OF WASHINGTON ANNOTATED
TITLE 77. GAME AND GAME FISH
CHAPTER 77.16. PROHIBITED ACTS AND PENALTIES
77.16.340. Obstructing the taking of fish or wildlife--Penalty--Defenses
(1) A person commits the crime of obstructing the taking of fish or wildlife if the person:
(a) Harasses, drives, or disturbs fish or wildlife with the intent of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking thereof; or
(b) Harasses, interferes with, or intimidates an individual engaged in the lawful taking of fish or wildlife or lawful predator control.
(2) Violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor under RCW 77.21.010.
(3) It is a defense to any prosecution under subsection (1) of this section, if the person charged:
(a) Interferes with any person engaged in hunting outside legally established hunting seasons;
(b) Is preventing or attempting to prevent the injury or killing of a protected wildlife species, as defined by this title;
(c) Is preventing or attempting to prevent unauthorized trespass on private property; or
(d) Is defending oneself or another person from bodily harm or property damage by a person attempting to prevent hunting in a legally established hunting season.
Enacted by Laws 1988, ch. 265, § 1, eff. July 1, 1988.
I'd call that craphouse attorney work. It wouldn't fly in a courtroom. No offense.
Post by: Ray on January 05, 2010, 05:04:16 PM
QuoteHarasses, interferes with, or intimidates an individual engaged in the lawful taking of fish or wildlife or lawful predator control
Id say the individuals involved in this have been harassed wouldnt you?
How is that? They got their photo taken? Is that against the law?
Post by: Ray on January 05, 2010, 05:05:07 PM
The members on this forum are more concerned about pain and suffering of deer and elk than the antis really are.... :twocents:
That's beyond ridiculous. It is not based on anything factual.
Post by: Skillet on January 05, 2010, 05:11:43 PM
Bear in mind folks, if the onlookers were a hungry crowd, it would have a totally different twist.
Since they have never had a hungry day in their lives, it is emotional feelings to them.
They were hungry - for the show. Same reason people rubberneck at accident sites. With today's technology of phones with cameras and video capability, now everybody gets to see it. And that video by the anti's shows that even the most unaware and simple-minded that walk the earth can provide the commentary.
You are right about it being emotional for them - they "get meat from the store - where it's made". Trouble is, we can't cancel their vote because they are emotional about it. Ever tried telling your wives what they were saying didn't count because they were "just being emotional?" How'd that work out for ya? :chuckle:
Post by: Jerome on January 05, 2010, 05:12:41 PM
Post by: Ray on January 05, 2010, 05:13:53 PM
Quote
Having a hard time believing that some of you can't see that.
Some people here have
1) made claims that objectors are apologists for the actions
2) suggested that the objectors are questioning legality of the actions
3) suggested that the objectors are more sympathetic to the animals than anti hunters are.
4) suggested without any basis that the hunters were harassed (a little more debatable but nothing backing it up).
Anything else people need to misrepresent? How about sticking to what was stated instead of making stuff up?
Post by: Skillet on January 05, 2010, 05:15:43 PM
The members on this forum are more concerned about pain and suffering of deer and elk than the antis really are.... :twocents:
That's beyond ridiculous. It is not based on anything factual.
I think bearpaw is saying they don't care a bit about animal pain and suffering, but more about advancing their agenda. We try to ensure shot placement, proper equipment, etc., to ensure the quickest kill possile. Correct me if I'm wrong, bearpaw?
*edited for spelling
Post by: Ray on January 05, 2010, 05:18:18 PM
Post by: whacker1 on January 05, 2010, 05:30:14 PM
Quote
I just watched the anti video, and I have seen the news footage before.
While I don't agree with the guys shooting those elk while a crowd watched, here is the first thing that popped into my mind when I started watching the elk being shot at again that were wounded:
If those bowhunters were wolves, the crowd would have been cheering them on, but since it was human bowhunters they are hated by the same people who would be cheering on the wolves.
It's not that those antis are so concerned about an animal suffering, they really could care less about deer and elk, that is just a smoke screen to accomplish there goal of keeping people from hunting. They hate society and people......
Like i said, throw a pack of wolves in the field and they woiuld be cheering while the elk were eaten alive....
That my friends is the sad truth
If you can get the footage of an animal going down at the jaws of a wolf, I would be happy to submit it to the same news station to see if they are willing to do a story or not? My guess is that they would not show it, but the only way to see if they would air the footage. I would be sure to send this youtube link with it to see if they would show the wild kingdom at work.
Post by: NWHydroprint on January 05, 2010, 05:33:05 PM
But lets not forget that everyone hunting was not breaking the law but everybody park on the side of the road did break the law in more than 1 way like parking on the side of a hiway all bystanders should either been told to move immediately or ticketed this would have lesson the impact to both hunters and the elk trying to escape the way they came in. The do gooders caused more problems by breaking the law.
NWH
Post by: AKBowman on January 05, 2010, 05:33:18 PM
TERRIBLE ethics displayed by these idiots. If anyone reads this and was a part of that you should hang your hunting boots up and move the hell out of WA
Post by: mkcj on January 05, 2010, 05:38:29 PM
Post by: Aneoakleaf on January 05, 2010, 05:45:03 PM
Like James has said this has been going on for years and there has been nothing changed except for taking away the muzzle loader season. What does fish and wildlife expect when they have a unit that is in some parts a mile wide and the two boundary markers are highways. Shut it down for good and give out more nooksack tags.This is the kind of vidio work that got bear baiting and hound hunting shut down . The skagit hunt wasn't grafic enough so they threw in some other grafic sceens , probibly their own doing. :dunno:
The vidio even made me sick, because of the thought of how horiabe it looks and sounds with all the lies in it. :(
Post by: Wea300mag on January 05, 2010, 06:21:16 PM
Post by: Oneshot1Kill on January 05, 2010, 06:44:32 PM
Post by: funkster on January 05, 2010, 06:50:41 PM
As far as the video goes that is just ignorant anti's that don't know that bow hunting is one of the oldest ways of hunting game. They also don't understand without hunting the animal population would explode spreading diseases like wild fire wiping out entire species.
Post by: bigbeamhunter on January 05, 2010, 07:35:06 PM
Post by: funkster on January 05, 2010, 11:00:10 PM
I don't agree with what went on but how are you supposed to thin a problem herd in 10-50 acre tracks and not have someone see it? Again if the WDFW talked about needed funds to transplant the elk instead of cower,maybe a bad situation could have turned out positive in the long run.
Post by: Alan K on January 05, 2010, 11:44:34 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 06, 2010, 12:36:39 AM
The members on this forum are more concerned about pain and suffering of deer and elk than the antis really are.... :twocents:
That's beyond ridiculous. It is not based on anything factual.
I think bearpaw is saying they don't care a bit about animal pain and suffering, but more about advancing their agenda. We try to ensure shot placement, proper equipment, etc., to ensure the quickest kill possile. Correct me if I'm wrong, bearpaw?
*edited for spelling
Skillet you read my thoughts exactly right.... :tup:
Sometimes I post comments that are hard to understand, my apologies. I think many hunters are more concerned about not making an animal suffer any more than absolutely necessary. The antis use that for theiir argument to stop hunting, but if they really cared about animal suuffering, they would want to at least manage predators appropriately. Predators inflict much more pain when hunting than human hunters.
Post by: billythekidrock on January 06, 2010, 06:00:25 AM
The game department could have stepped in and called it a safety hazard? The fact of the matter is there was plenty of time to fiqure out what to do. The Elk were there from Daylight 7:30ish until after 12:00 noon.
I agree. This would have been an appropriate action on behalf of the DFW. Another would have been to ask those that pulled over on the hiway to move on or get a citation.
Post by: billythekidrock on January 06, 2010, 06:02:37 AM
I just watched the anti video, and I have seen the news footage before.
While I don't agree with the guys shooting those elk while a crowd watched, here is the first thing that popped into my mind when I started watching the elk being shot at again that were wounded:
If those bowhunters were wolves, the crowd would have been cheering them on, but since it was human bowhunters they are hated by the same people who would be cheering on the wolves.
It's not that those antis are so concerned about an animal suffering, they really could care less about deer and elk, that is just a smoke screen to accomplish there goal of keeping people from hunting. They hate society and people...... :dunno:
Like i said, throw a pack of wolves in the field and they woiuld be cheering while the elk were eaten alive.... :twocents:
That my friends is the sad truth.
Absolutely!
Post by: Axle on January 06, 2010, 08:19:09 AM
One way to do this is to cause a commotion and run them or scare them into the hills. Remember on the video, the guy said they tried to scare them off without hunting them (he used other words).
If this commotion got them out of there, then it would be considered a success. I have my doubts that they will want to stay up in the hills with all the other predators.
Archery is a good way to accomplish this. It has been used in orchards on the east side many times for deer. It keeps the kills down but runs off the animals (normally).
If you just 'drop' a few of them with a gun and haul them off, the others will just stand and watch.
(just a thought)
Post by: high country on January 06, 2010, 08:35:02 AM
One goal of the game department is to get the elk out of the private farmers fields and back into the mountains.
One way to do this is to cause a commotion and run them or scare them into the hills. Remember on the video, the guy said they tried to scare them off without hunting them (he used other words).
If this commotion got them out of there, then it would be considered a success. I have my doubts that they will want to stay up in the hills with all the other predators.
Archery is a good way to accomplish this. It has been used in orchards on the east side many times for deer. It keeps the kills down but runs off the animals (normally).
If you just 'drop' a few of them with a gun and haul them off, the others will just stand and watch.
(just a thought)
the dept uses master hunters for this pretty often. what they want is the hunters to slip in unnoticed, kill the animals or haze them off and slip out unnoticed. typically it goes off w/o a hitch. this was a bit different, these guys were guys like you and I that just burned their points on this chance and while the opportunity to take an elk was present the opportunity to do so unnoticed was not. master hunters would have likely faced the board on this one, but a guy burning his points is a different story.
the dept really dropped the ball. I just hate to see these guy grilled for taking elk in an open season on a legal tag. I agree that the fences make it look like fish in a barrel, but I have seen elk shove over fences, jump fences and trample fences MANY times. in my exp a fence does not mean squat to an elk, let alone a herd
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 06, 2010, 08:36:56 AM
Post by: high country on January 06, 2010, 08:42:50 AM
Post by: Shootmoore on January 06, 2010, 09:00:13 AM
Shootmoore
Post by: Holg3107 on January 06, 2010, 09:08:09 AM
Post by: Little Dave on January 06, 2010, 10:32:50 AM
After the sad new age music part, change to bright and happy smurf music and show the wolves attacking, then show them hit by trucks carrying tofu products, starving animals, yearlings frozen to death, drowning, animals falling to their death, disfiguring diseases... then end with a pretty rainbow.
Post by: Skillet on January 06, 2010, 10:44:47 AM
The film doesn't seem to be particularly effective if it was ment to change anbody's prior opinion. These films usually forget to compare and contrast the favored way of the animal dying. Maybe I can help:
After the sad new age music part, change to bright and happy smurf music and show the wolves attacking, then show them hit by trucks carrying tofu products, starving animals, yearlings frozen to death, drowning, animals falling to their death, disfiguring diseases... then end with a pretty rainbow.
:chuckle: I'll be first in line to donate to the production costs of that one!
Post by: 7mm short mag on January 06, 2010, 11:35:32 AM
Post by: haus on January 06, 2010, 02:03:28 PM
The film doesn't seem to be particularly effective if it was ment to change anbody's prior opinion. These films usually forget to compare and contrast the favored way of the animal dying. Maybe I can help:hey thats doable, minus getting footage of the tofu truck death mobile
After the sad new age music part, change to bright and happy smurf music and show the wolves attacking, then show them hit by trucks carrying tofu products, starving animals, yearlings frozen to death, drowning, animals falling to their death, disfiguring diseases... then end with a pretty rainbow.
Post by: Jerome on January 06, 2010, 02:57:18 PM
Yep its an over the counter hunt not a draw. From my understanding they tried to do a Master Hunter on this one but only 3 put in for it. I have thought about going through the Master Hunter program but I just don't have the time to complete it.They had a muzzle loader draw for 15 permits this year. Instead of master hunters getting the tags i would like to see the land owners get the tags.
Shootmoore
Post by: CP on January 06, 2010, 03:07:29 PM
Post by: Mike_D on January 06, 2010, 05:26:15 PM
definition of hunts
legality vs. ethics
hunters vs. lazy slobs
etc., etc.,
As far as I'm concerned there is no single point to assign blame here... Blame should go across the board.
****WDFW for not preventing a gawking circus... (remember he's essentially a peace officer with the appropriate authority)
**** The land owner for not maintaining control
**** the hunters/harvesters for not having brains...
I don't mean to be too sarcastic above , but if WDFW/land owner/harvester had worked together, this wouldn't have looked half as bad....
For example,
landowner managing the number of hunters at one time.... say allowing maybe two hunters at a time out to harvest, then two more, etc. etc.
The WDFW to maintain order, check tags, keep the traffic moving etc....him standing around as far as I'm concerned is not what I'm paying him for...
The hunters to provide a little discretion and efficiency...
I think the problem is trying to assign blame in only one direction when if they had talked and worked together, it might have looked a little bit better, but for the antis- the results would have been only slightly better, and you'd still be seeing the videos. However, WDFW/landowner would at least have been able to say that they worked closely together, to get the job done as quickly as possible and meet the states/landowners goals.
course, this is only my two cents worth....
Post by: danceswitharrows on January 06, 2010, 06:00:12 PM
Post by: danceswitharrows on January 06, 2010, 06:10:12 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on January 06, 2010, 06:21:09 PM
Post by: danceswitharrows on January 06, 2010, 09:04:00 PM
Post by: hirshey on January 06, 2010, 10:09:57 PM
It is a PRIVILEGE to hunt anymore... its a privilege to be allowed an over-the-counter hunting liscence... its a privilege to be drawn for special permits. It is in our hands as hunters to ensure those privileges continue in the future, and whether we like it or not these kinds of things can have an effect on our hunting seasons/areas.
As much as I hate to admit it, discreetness around those who do not understand or do not care to understand is part of the ethics game anymore. If they don't like it, it doesn't mean they'll turn the other cheek.
QuoteShould we not avoid these events if we can see they are about to happen?
People can choose to watch or not to watch. its up to them. There is a legitimate reason for these type of hunts. If you dont like them just drive on by.
Post by: hirshey on January 06, 2010, 10:13:52 PM
Post by: Hillbilly270 on January 07, 2010, 09:31:17 PM
Post by: washelkhntr on January 07, 2010, 11:14:55 PM
Post by: Ray on January 07, 2010, 11:23:46 PM
Post by: washelkhntr on January 07, 2010, 11:25:31 PM
Post by: mountainman1 on January 07, 2010, 11:42:57 PM
Post by: rawhide on January 10, 2010, 09:53:39 PM
Post by: haus on January 11, 2010, 11:06:02 AM
This type of killing is just part of life when you live out in the country, the difference was the wrong people had to see it.
O'rly. The flinging arrows willy nilly at a bunch of elk your chasing around in a pasture? Can't say I've seen that. Saw it during muzzy season once just down the way from our place, was many years ago. Don't really get the point, it looked like killin' livestock for fun to me, it sure as hell didn't look like huntin'.
Post by: 180-GRAIN on January 13, 2010, 07:15:17 PM
Post by: DOESLICKER on January 14, 2010, 06:05:37 PM
Post by: hornhunter on January 16, 2010, 12:36:39 AM
Post by: fishwhackin on February 18, 2010, 02:08:14 AM