cheygriz
member
And put a lot of deer and elk in the freezer.
More ethical/fair chase still hunting or stand?
- Thread starter CRB357
- Start date
- Status
And put a lot of deer and elk in the freezer.
MCgunner
Member
Yes, Keith Warren. He seems like a good guy. He had a spot about feeding/baiting deer like that, too. Essentially said if you don't like it don't do it. If it's legal, there's nothing wrong with it. He has a hunting ranch near Pearsall, Texas and offers reasonable pig hunts. But, I have pigs here for free. I've considered it, but never went over there.
Choctaw
Member
Good job.
SgtScrounge
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2012
- Messages
- 22
I don't favor hunting over bait unless it is for pigs or coyotes. If it is legal where you hunt though, live it up.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,080
The cutting off the hand was regularly practiced in medieval England, and not just for poaching. It was a common practice for any type of thievery by peasants from those in authority. In the case of a deer, game was considered property of the King, Lord or landowner and it was considered theft to poach any of them. Most of the time, because of the known dire consequences of being caught, those thefts/poaching were done out of desperation cause the poacher and his family were slowly starving to death. Remember, there were no types of welfare for those without back then. In many cases, it was considered more ethical to cut off a hand since Medieval officials lacked the resources or money to build suitable jails and people often died from illness before their trial. Ethics have changed both in most scenarios. Folks rarely starve to death in modern societies because of today's ethics and welfare. In today's society we do not use barbaric methods and torture as a means of punishment. In many countries, laws about theft haven't really changed over the centuries, but due to morals and ethics, the punishments have. Some still do practice hand amputations, Saudi-Arabia regularly carries out hand amputations, as does Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Sudan and Islamic regions of Nigeria. Again, different beliefs as to what is or is not ethical. Some countries put folks convicted of DWI to death. Like with hunting, one needs to know the rules and the consequences of breaking those rules before they consider their ethics about breaking those laws.
Poaching a deer still carries consequences. Around here it's a fine of $1800, a loss of the weapon and any vehicle used to transport the poached animal, along with a three year suspension of all hunting and fishing privileges. Not a cutting off of the hand, but not a slap on the wrist either. Unlike back ion medieval times, most deer poached nowadays are outta greed for a huge rack, just the thrill of killing something, or in a vain attempt to prove to peers that one is a successful hunter.
No I don't know you, but I know folks in general. I know when folks make two statements about a warden in a post and then want to argue that the warden is incorrect in both, there isn't much respect there. I also know that what one writes in a post and how others interpret that post, can completely different. Probably the same as the statements made by the warden. How he meant them and how others interpret them, could and may be, two different thoughts. I read the warden's statements as asking us, as hunters, to always attempt to portray hunting in a positive way and to not do anything when hunting, to diminish that positive image. The privilege of hunting as presented by the warden is much different than the hunting by the "privileged" back in Medieval times. We as licensed hunters do not have any privilege as to exercising any right deciding when something is legal or not. Ethics yes, legal....no.
mustanger98
Member
It's been so long since I got into an argument on the internet I forgot how easy it is to run into one.
Well, I'd say we're in agreement on this in the modern context... you, me, and the local warden. Like he commented to me once, all the poachers are doing is taking the game away from the rest of us. Neither of us have any sympathy for that behavior. And the penalty for deer poaching is much the same in my area as in yours.
Well, you've admitted you don't know me. On your supposition of lack of respect for a warden, I'll have you know I consider the man a neighbor. I recall saying up-thread that illegal/unethical hunting and vandalism does not make for good neighbors. I said it was the wardens who made a couple of comments as a matter of context. These same wardens, who's comments led me to think there had been some debate concerning rights vs privelige, talked about states like Indiana where deer were over-hunted and three generations didn't have deer season. This is why I say a failure to manage the herd, hunting land (public or private), and relations with the public will result in loss of resources... any debate then being a moot point. I'll have to look back at my post to remember my exact wording, but I'm not thinking they're so much incorrect as they are not addressing the rest of a train of thought.
As for the underlined part, I believe you've mis-read the part you bold-printed when you quoted mine. I didn't say we decide what the law is. To re-word it, with the license, we have the privelige of exercising the right in a legally prescribed manner, with ethical considerations. Still disagree?
Well, I'd say we're in agreement on this in the modern context... you, me, and the local warden. Like he commented to me once, all the poachers are doing is taking the game away from the rest of us. Neither of us have any sympathy for that behavior. And the penalty for deer poaching is much the same in my area as in yours.
Well, you've admitted you don't know me. On your supposition of lack of respect for a warden, I'll have you know I consider the man a neighbor. I recall saying up-thread that illegal/unethical hunting and vandalism does not make for good neighbors. I said it was the wardens who made a couple of comments as a matter of context. These same wardens, who's comments led me to think there had been some debate concerning rights vs privelige, talked about states like Indiana where deer were over-hunted and three generations didn't have deer season. This is why I say a failure to manage the herd, hunting land (public or private), and relations with the public will result in loss of resources... any debate then being a moot point. I'll have to look back at my post to remember my exact wording, but I'm not thinking they're so much incorrect as they are not addressing the rest of a train of thought.
As for the underlined part, I believe you've mis-read the part you bold-printed when you quoted mine. I didn't say we decide what the law is. To re-word it, with the license, we have the privelige of exercising the right in a legally prescribed manner, with ethical considerations. Still disagree?
Jeb Stuart
member
I refuse to go Quail hunting with Dick Cheney. Not to mention a game reserve with caged birds to be released for sport of killing.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Caged birds released to shoot is not my deal, but it's hard to get excited about edible claybirds.
Probably a lot cheaper than driving from central Texas to the Dakotas, what with gas, motels, meals and non-resident hunting license.
Probably a lot cheaper than driving from central Texas to the Dakotas, what with gas, motels, meals and non-resident hunting license.
- Status
