# "Bastardizing The Hunting Heritage"



## WirehairI-12 (Feb 26, 2008)

http://ushuntingtoday.com/news/archives/484#more-484

I agree that hunting in a high fenced area is not very ethical. But strongly disagree with him and his elitist hunting group "who believe they are the only ones on earth who understand what hunting and hunting heritage is and should be."


----------



## girlsfishtoo (Feb 5, 2008)

This is America, where we have the FREEDOM OF CHOICE! If you don't like something that someone else is doing, simply turn around and go about your own buisness (unless its something illegal, of course). Yea I don't agree with lettin an animal out of a cage and shooting it but, there are people out there that do. More power to them, as long as they dont tell me the way I live my life is wrong. :wink:


----------



## huntingbuddy (Sep 10, 2007)

I am on the fence with the fenced hunting(pun intended). On side I dont like the idea of hunting an animal in an enclosure the size of a football field. But on the other hand when the enclosure if the size of Rhode Island and you could never find the fence if you tried and the animals have never interacted with humans then it becomes more a real hunt. And what about the kid who has never been hunting. He maybe putting in for a draw on a wild animal, but who knows how long that will take to draw. But he goes to a "Quality" fenced operation and is able to take a decent sized animal, that acted just as wild as the tag he was putting in for.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

So, is fishing in a lake with no outlet, the same thing as hunting animals in an enclosure, only for fish? Hmmmmmm. :wink: :wink:  :roll: :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

While I am not keen on high fence 'hunts' I also am NOT keen on giving the government more control over our day to day lives. I prefer letting the market place dictating what is 'acceptable' and what isn't. If the demand for this type of 'hunting' wasn't there it would go away, that is the "American way' as far as I am concerned. Where do we draw the line on what is 'acceptable' and what isn't? Is it 'my' standards or another's? Who gets to decide? What's next, do we ban guided hunts, how about rifle hunts/bow hunts/muzzle loader hunts? Can we use 'modern' technology like range finders/binos/gps/google earth? If the bulk of folks condemn a certain type of hunting, perhaps those that 'hunt' a certain way will stop. Party hunting used to be the 'norm', now it isn't due to the change in how people view such an action/activity.

I don't like hunting over a pile of corn, heck I don't like hunting out of a blind/stand, but if others do so be it. Adding new laws/regulations only inhibits the 'freedom' to be hunters, IMHO.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

"The peril in some of the contemporary forms of commercial hunt9ing is not in that they seek compensation for landowner needs or for services provided. The peril is its own belief that it must exclude every rank and file hunter or aspiring hunter unable or unwilling to pay the toll."

"The professional market hunter who kills game for the hide or for the feathers or for the meat or to sell antlers and other trophies;...and the rich who are content to buy what they have not the skill to get by their own exertions--these are the men who are the real enemies of game."

"I should much regret to see grow up in this country a system of large private game preserves kept for the enjoyment of the very rich. One of the chief attractions of the life of the wilderness is its rugged and stalwart democracy. There every man stands for what he actually is and can show himself to be."

--Theodore Roosevelt

In my opinion, nothing is more un-American than high-fence game preserves or high-fence hunts.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> In my opinion, nothing is more un-American than high-fence game preserves or high-fence hunts.


In my opinion, nothing is more un-American than taking away private property rights.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> In my opinion, nothing is more un-American than taking away private property rights.


So, it would, then, be ok, in your opinion, for the land-owner next to you to do what he sees fit on his "private" property?

So, does that mean your "private" land-owner neighbor should be allowed to run a bordello/whorehouse next door? Or, should he be allowed to open up a strip club? Or, should he be allowed to build a casino and run a gaming business?

Come on, Pro, we both know that "private" land ownership has its limits...in my opinion the "bastardizing" of the hunting sport by "private" land owners is filtering on into public hunting. Take this sad example for an example:
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunt ... id=3378412

Personally, I am glad states like Montana are taking these kinds of measures:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9669C8B63


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I prefer to let the market place dictate what is 'acceptable' and what is not. EVERY TIME the government takes away private property rights, we as citizens are less 'free'. And, to compare a cat house that is ILLEGAL to a high fence operation which is LEGAL is absurd and inane. Do *you* really think the government should have say over EVERYTHING you do on *your* property? Or, is it just those who have different 'values' than *you*?


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I couldn't care less if you shot your steer at home in a 12'x12' corral. I also couldn't care less if you want to hunt whitetail on a 100 acres of 12' fence...really it probably isn't much of a hunt more like a "shoot" but who cares how you killed your dinner??? 

WY2UT, It is almost a guarantee anything you post is a complete 180 degrees of what I believe...You must be some left wing treehugger! Let me explain something to you, if someone opened a whorehouse next to Pro it would be illegal, Hunting preserves are not. Is that simple enough for you?


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

I guess it comes down to a question of if it should be legal or not. Unless it ever becomes illegal then I guess it is alright. I still don't like it or think it is ethical in most cases like the little caged shoots. That is not hunting. Now there are some hunts that are on 5000 plus acres and I don't have as big of a problem with that.

Now to one of your comments Pro. 


> Do you really think the government should have say over EVERYTHING you do on your property?


I don't want the government have the say over everything i do, but it is a reality that they will have some control. I don't see a problem with gambling or Casinos. So using this philosophy they shouldn't have a say on me building it on my property. I already know the response and it will be, it is illegal. I agree, but I don't think it should be, just like many think that fenced hunts should be illegal. It is just hard to define what they should and shouldn't have control over.

As far as wyoming2utah, I see your point to an extent, but it comes down to illegal and legal activities, like has been mentioned. I think there should definitely be standards and rules that need to be regulated to have one of these fenced facilities.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I prefer to let the market place dictate what is 'acceptable' and what is not. EVERY TIME the government takes away private property rights, we as citizens are less 'free'. And, to compare a cat house that is ILLEGAL to a high fence operation which is LEGAL is absurd and inane. Do *you* really think the government should have say over EVERYTHING you do on *your* property? Or, is it just those who have different 'values' than *you*?


You are right...running a cat house is illegal in Utah...even if it is on "private" property. In other words, the government has taken away some private property rights in order to protect all its citizens. Montana has made high-fence hunting farms illegal also...why? To better protect the rights of all its citizens. The comparison is legitimate...the probability for the spread of disease and corruption of values is just as likely with a high-fence game farm as it is a whorehouse.

I don't for one second believe the government should have a say over EVERYTHING done on my property nor have I said as much. Your hasty generalization is absurd. And, I am not sure what you mean by saying that the market place should dictate what is acceptable and what is not, but it also seems absurd to say that if there is a market for something that it should be legal. After all, isn't there currently a market for child pornography, bathroom voyeurism, prostitution, illegal drugs, and even poached antlers? Do you really believe the government should NOT have a say when people create, distribute, and sell child pornography or even poached antlers on their private property..."Or, is it just those who have different 'values' than *you*?"


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Let's look closer at the decision made in Montana:
The proponents of high fence shooting operations offer up two arguments to support fencing deer, elk and exotics inside escape proof enclosures, shooting the animals, and calling it hunting.

The first argument the high fence operators invoke: They make money.

The second argument: Property rights, or as one high fence operator said, "It's my property and I'll do with it as I dammed well please."

That right is asserted based on supposition and is not based on fact or law. Society decides what people do with their property. If in doubt, ask Michael Vick. Vick fought dogs that were his private property. Vick and his cronies fought those dogs on property that Vick owned. You may write to Mister Vick in care of the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. Perhaps Mr. Vick will take time out of his busy schedule to explain property rights to high fence operators in North Dakota.

The high fence operators and their supporters didn't cite constitutional, statutory or court opinions to back the absolute property right they claim because they can't. The funny thing is that the state may sanction what the canned shooting operators do, but the state would have to use a few bureaucratic and political hat tricks to do it. The most egregious trick would be to reclassify deer and elk from game animals to domestic livestock. They shoot livestock, not game animals.

Here are the facts on property rights the canned shooters claim backed by court decisions:

In 2000, Montana voters passed Initiative 143 mandating among other provisions, that the state shut down high fence shooting operations. The Montana high fence operators challenged Initiative 143 in state and federal court alleging that the law stripped them of their livelihood and their constitutional rights by stripping them of their property rights. The high fence operators lost on all counts. The court opinions filed in the case demolished the fraudulent property rights the Montana operators raise as a defense to what they did, phantom rights other state high fence operators continually cite.

U.S. District Court Judge Sam Haddon ruled that the high fence operators had no absolute or unfettered right to operate an alternative livestock ranch as they see fit.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Every free society has 'standards' that are set by the will of the people. I understand that, but to equate high fence hunting with prostitution, gambling, kiddie porn, drug use,etc is nonsensical and goes beyond absurd. My biggest concern with 'banning' high fence hunting is what is to stop the general public from banning ALL types of hunting? It is a slippery slope that I do NOT want to start down. I find it kind of ironic that some who show disdain for high fence hunts also worship Ted Neugent, who hunts high fence operations all the time. If we as 'sportsmen' participate in banning one form of hunting, who will 'save' us when they come after bow hunters? Then muzzy hunters, then rifle hunters. Be careful what you ask for, and remember some of the same people who think banning high fence hunting also support wolf introductions. Just keep letting folks like W2U chip away at your hunting options, and soon you'll be wondering where they went. Let socialist mindsets convince you it is "for your own good", and soon you will have NO private property........for your own good of course.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

+1 1/8

Very well stated!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

W2U, the two links you posted are full of liberal propaganda. The fact you suck all this GARBAGE in is scary.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Every free society has 'standards' that are set by the will of the people. I understand that, but to equate high fence hunting with *prostitution, gambling, kiddie porn, drug use,*etc is nonsensical and goes beyond absurd. My biggest concern with 'banning' high fence hunting is what is to stop the general public from banning ALL types of hunting? It is a slippery slope that I do NOT want to start down. I find it kind of ironic that some who show disdain for high fence hunts also worship Ted Neugent, who hunts high fence operations all the time. If we as 'sportsmen' participate in banning one form of hunting, who will 'save' us when they come after bow hunters? Then muzzy hunters, then rifle hunters. Be careful what you ask for, and remember some of the same people who think banning high fence hunting also support wolf introductions. Just keep letting folks like W2U chip away at your hunting options, and soon you'll be wondering where they went. Let socialist mindsets convince you it is "for your own good", and soon you will have NO private property........for your own good of course.


First of all I agree with most of what you said. I do think there does need to be some guidelines on them just like anything.

Second, how could you put gambling in with that list you have. :? That is apples and oranges there. Gambling is illegal in Utah, but is legal in several states, not even a very good example of illegal activities.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I understand that, but to equate high fence hunting with prostitution, gambling, kiddie porn, drug use,etc is nonsensical and goes beyond absurd.
> 
> My biggest concern with 'banning' high fence hunting is what is to stop the general public from banning ALL types of hunting? It is a slippery slope that I do NOT want to start down.
> 
> ...


1) That's funny...the RMEF believes, and so do I, that "canned hunts" play into the hand of anti-hunting advocates more than anything else. After all, what kind of propaganda do they use? How about the example I already used in this thread of the "wild" hog killed by the youngster? Pretty good fodder for the antis!

Also, I like what Jim Posewitz (the director of Orion, The Hunters' Institute and former employee of Montana's Fish and Wildlife for more than 30 years) said: "Elk hunting is a place to earn honor through effort. That gives elk their value. Hunting penned elk is not right. It's degrading to elk and degrading to hunting." Personally, I wish he would have extended his thoughts to all high-fenced hunting. And, the "degrading" nature of high-fenced farms is no less degrading to elk than prostitution and cat houses are degrading to women. Just like these things were once legal in Utah and now are illegal, the time for high-fenced hunting has come and gone and should be made illegal...much like Wyoming and Montana.

2) Are you talking about me? I do not worship nor do I even like Ted Nugent...

3) You are really comedic today...do you realize how much high-fence game farms have already eliminated hunting opportunity...think about tall the animals that have been killed because of CWD. What about the situation in Alberta that you were so up in arms about...wasn't that all about CWD? A disease brought to Alberta from a high-fenced farm?

Also, and FWIW, I have never openly supported wolf introductions in Utah. In fact, I am opposed to any wolf reintroductions in Utah. But, I also don't think that wolves are any reason to believe the sky is falling and that hunting is over as we know it. I openly support our WMP which I think is comprehensive and sufficient. But, this argument has NOTHING to do with wolves...why you brought this up is totally stupid.

4) Me chip away at hunting options...isn't it the guides/outfitters, trophy hunters, horn-porn crowders, and high-fence farmers who are turning hunting into a rich man's sport and slowly decreasing the amount of opportunity across the state?

Personally, I am into the idea that hunting should be a sport for all to enjoy and high-fenced farms have no place in it. I adhere to the words of Theodore Roosevelt when he said, "I much regret to see grow up in this country a system of large private game preserves kept for the enjoyment of the very rich."


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jahan said:


> Second, how could you put gambling in with that list you have. :? That is apples and oranges there. Gambling is illegal in Utah, but is legal in several states, not even a very good example of illegal activities.


I didn't bring gambling into the mix, that was my good buddy W2U. 8) Prositution is legal in some places as well. Drugs are legal in parts of Europe, so what is your point? :? :wink:

W2U, I am in a good mood today, so I am not going to get into a tennis match with you. Maybe later, after you post some more liberal links up. I quit RMEF years ago because of their constant catering to the 'animal' lover groups and enviro nutbags. Sounds like a perfect org for you to belong to! Good day.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > Second, how could you put gambling in with that list you have. :? That is apples and oranges there. Gambling is illegal in Utah, but is legal in several states, not even a very good example of illegal activities.
> ...


Yeah you make a good point. I guess I must confess I think I am the one who brought gambling into this.  So where is prositution legal? I might be moving. :shock: :wink:


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> ... nor do I even like Ted Nugent...


 :lol: Figures! I could have predicted that! _(O)_


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> ... nor do I even like Ted Nugent...


Now that is Un-American! :lol:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jahan said:


> Yeah you make a good point. I guess I must confess I think I am the one who brought gambling into this.  *So where is prositution legal*? I might be moving. :shock: :wink:


Nevada!

W2U, you say you don't like uncle ted, I am guessing neugent right? You seem more aligned with Ted Turner, nuff said! :shock:


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> W2U, the two links you posted are full of liberal propaganda. The fact you suck all this GARBAGE in is scary.


Are you kidding me, Pro...that is the best reply you can come up with? For hell's sake open your eyes to the world...Idaho is looking to ban canned hunts because of the problems they have had with high-fence farms, Wyoming and Montana already have bans, North Dakota is fighting this battle, Colorado already has made elk-farms illegal...wake up! These things are not good for hunters, hunting, or big game populations.

I suppose that all these states have just fallen victim to the left-wing liberal propaganda, though, right? Nevermind that the practice of "canned" hunting has been condemned by numerous national and local conservation, hunting organizations, including the Oregon Hunters Association, the Izaak Walton League, The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, The Mule Deer Foundation, the Pope & Young Club, the Orion the Hunter Institute, and the Boone & Crockett Club. Canned hunts have also been banned or restricted in twenty states and federal bills S.304 and H.R. 1688-The Sportsmanship in Hunting Act-have been introduced in the U.S. Senate and the House to prohibit the interstate commerce of exotic animals who are destined to be killed for trophies at canned hunting facilities.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

jahan said:


> I guess it comes down to a question of if it should be legal or not.


In my mind this is not only the question, but the reality. States are not only deciding it should be illegal, they are making it so. I hope Utah follows suit...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

jahan said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> > ... nor do I even like Ted Nugent...
> ...


It would be Un-American if we were talking about Steven Tyler and Joe Perry...the best lead singer/guitarist combo out there!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I'll type this slowly for you. I do NOT like 'canned' hunts. I just do NOT like the governement having so much control over day to day things and taking AWAY private property rights. This country is most definitely becoming more socialized by the day, which erodes our freedoms. You are, intentionally I believe, missing the point. What 'heritage' will we have for hunting when hunting is gone? Your advocation of banning certain types of hunts, along with your endorsement of wolf introductions makes YOU a threat to hunting. You have made it clear you would like to see 'trophy' hunting done away with, as well as outfitter/guides, add high fence hunts to your list, your preference to wolves 'managing' wildlife numbers over humans. What's next on your list, fishermen who catch and release? Your elitist attitude is old, and is NOT in the best interest of sportsmen. By nature, elitists/socialists, want to LIMIT all to their way of thinking. You fit that definition to a T.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

http://www.huntright.org/heritage/Aldri ... Model.aspx

Actually, I am fighting to protect our hunting heritage. I believe the very things you seem to condone are the things threatening this heritage. It seems I am not alone!

Dr. Valerius Geist...perhaps the leader in mule deer biology and management has said much on this very subject:
http://www.bcwf.bc.ca/documents/s=256/bcw1145413546908/


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> your preference to wolves 'managing' wildlife numbers over humans


Where do you come up with this BS? Never once have I ever said that wolves should manage wildlife instead of humans...you are very quick to make generalizations, but your thoughts are pure fallacy.

I believe, like Geist, that the conservation of large predators is important to ecosystems "Despite early and continuing sentiments against large predators". I believe that the large predators are "a functioning entity of ecosystem." I also believe that the should be "controlled, or protected or reintroduced, depending on circumstances. Also, predators are better off under hunting regulations, because the kill is very closely controlled, is under constant public scrutiny and persons are held accountable for each kill."


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Will somebody please hurry up and get this guy a tree to hug! You really need to read Uncle Ted's book "God, Guns, and Rock & Roll...of course it is probably over your head!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> http://www.huntright.org/heritage/AldrichConservationModel.aspx
> 
> Actually, I am fighting to protect our hunting heritage. I believe the very things you seem to condone are the things threatening this heritage. It seems I am not alone!
> 
> ...


You are proving my point for me. Your elitist attitude does NOT serve the hunting public, it merely serves YOU. You may not be alone, but there are millions of people who believe things that are wrong. Just because you believe something, doesn't make it any less wrong or narrow minded.

When you say, "I believe the very things you seem to condone are things threatening this heritage", what do you mean by 'heritage'? And what do I supposedly condone that 'threatens' this 'heritage'? This should be good. :?

Lets see, I condone the following:
1)Private property rights
2)Personal responsibilty
3)Minding your own business instead of LEGISLATING your values on others
4)Being good stewards over the things around us, such as animals, land, water, fellow man. But to use common sense and reasoning, not merely follow the words of DEAD people who lived in different circumstances.
5)Capitalism. I detest socialism/communism with every fiber of my being. 
6)Free markets, I prefer to let the market place decide what is/isn't acceptable behavior rather than laws enacted by do-gooders who think they know what is best for me and others

Is that the stuff you find threatening to your hunting 'heritage'? :roll:


----------



## huntingbuddy (Sep 10, 2007)

Wow I actually agree with pro on something. :|


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Lets see, I condone the following:
> 1)Private property rights
> 2)Personal responsibilty
> 3)Minding your own business instead of LEGISLATING your values on others
> ...


1) So, do you condone the use of private property for immoral activity? Such as high-fence hunting? Do you condone the use of private property to propagate and spread CWD?
2) "personal responsibility"? Now that's the laugher...you get miffed on global warming and brush aside talk about conserving natural ecosystems and you claim to believe in "personal responsibility"? What about your "personal responsibility" to be a steward of this great earth God gave us? Your own remarks have put you at odds with conservation...
3) So, you don't think that our government should institute laws and rules to regulate people? Are you kidding me? Aren't you the one that is trying oh so hard to get involved with game management? Why? Isn't it to regulate animals and the killing of those animals even on private property?
4) So, you don't think it is wise to learn from the mistakes of our past? You don't think the history of game management and policies is important for us to learn for the future? What about the opinions of well-respected biologists like Dr. Geist? Don't their current opinions on wildlife management mean anything to you? Doesn't a good steward mean protecting and conserving all animals? Not just those you wish to shoot?
5) You detest socialism? Aren't you LDS?
6) Free markets? What exactly are you talking about...again, doesn't the marketplace also show a market for things like child pornography, voyeurism, and even the illegal selling of poached antlers? I am sure glad some "do-gooder" was wise enough to legislate these things as illegal...
7) Yes, some of that stuff does threaten our heritage...especially the idiotic practice of bringing in non-native and exotic animals and their non-native and exotic diseases to "wild" game farms...especially these high-fenced farms and CWD. "One of the biggest threats to North America's model of wildlife conservation is efforts to commercialize wildlife. Those efforts take many forms, notably game ranching and fee hunting, according to Geist."

I believe in the North American Wildlife Conservation Model and the idea that:
1) Wildlife is a public resource
2) Markets for trade in wildlife should be eliminated and it should be illegal to buy and sell meat and parts of game and nongame...
3)Allocation of wildlife by law. "States allocate surplus wildlife by law, not by market pressures, land ownership or special privilege."
4) Wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate purpose. The law should prohibit the killing of wildlife for frivolous reasons.."The harvest of wild animals must serve a practical purpose if society is going to accept it."
5) Wildlife transcends boundaries and should therefore be considered a resource to be shared by states and countries.
6) Science is the proper tool for discharge of wildlife policy.
7) The democracy of hunting. Unlike the European model where only the rich are allowed to participate, the North American Model ensures anyone should have the right to hunt regardless of land ownership and privilege.

I also believe that the public ownership of wildlife is especially key in preserving our hunting heritage because:
1) public ownership prevents "the domestication of wildlife as well its genetic alteration to fit market whims. Domestication systematically diminishes the anti-predator adaptations of a species by making it more tractable and easier to control under conditions of captivity. Domestication has led to severely reduced brain-size . Domestication is done so as to serve specific markets and therefore leads to genetic alteration of a species to produce desirable products. Gigantic antlers in deer or horns in buffalo are examples as well as the restructuring of bison to assume the carcass confirmation of cattle is another. The latter is done to increase the carcass value as the carcass of domestic cattle compared to those of wild bison has a higher proportion of high-priced cuts. Selecting for antler size in deer selects for social incompetence. Domestication is thus the systematic genetic alteration of innate adaptations. Such altered stock can escape into the public domain and pollute public wildlife irreversibly."

2) public ownership of wildlife prevents the "transporting-the-zoo" effect where pathogens and parasites are transmitted into wild populations. "Each species carries its contingent of pathogens and parasites which, transferred to another species may mutate into strains dangerous to public health. Transferring wildlife into domestication increases the risk of pathogens escaping into human populations. Private ownership of wildlife generates a disease bride across which may pass diseases affecting livestock and human health on one hand and public health on another. Retaining wildlife in strict public trust prevents wildlife farming and the building of a disease bridge between wildlife, livestock and people. It is good public health policy."

3) public ownership of wildlife will allow for and ensures that native populations will continue.

4) public ownership of wildlife ensures that professionals are the ones in charge of wildlife management. These hired biologists/professionals are subject to "public scrutiny and concern. The public has a say in how wildlife is to be treated. When grizzly bears become private property, de jure - or de facto by virtue of being turned owner to owners of private or leased land, their fate is no longer the public's business. Once wildlife is made private it pits private wildlife against public wildlife, a battle in which public wildlife is the inevitable loser ."

You call me an "elitist"...I call it being a steward to this earth and one who wishes to conserve our way of life for future generations...


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> 1) So, do you condone the use of private property for immoral activity? Such as high-fence hunting? Do you condone the use of private property to propagate and spread CWD?
> 2) "personal responsibility"? Now that's the laugher...you get miffed on global warming and brush aside talk about conserving natural ecosystems and you claim to believe in "personal responsibility"? What about your "personal responsibility" to be a steward of this great earth God gave us? Your own remarks have put you at odds with conservation...
> 3) So, you don't think that our government should institute laws and rules to regulate people? Are you kidding me? Aren't you the one that is trying oh so hard to get involved with game management? Why? Isn't it to regulate animals and the killing of those animals even on private property?
> 4) So, you don't think it is wise to learn from the mistakes of our past? You don't think the history of game management and policies is important for us to learn for the future? What about the opinions of well-respected biologists like Dr. Geist? Don't their current opinions on wildlife management mean anything to you? Doesn't a good steward mean protecting and conserving all animals? Not just those you wish to shoot?
> ...


1)Don't be adsurd. As of right now, high fencing huntins is LEGAL in more states than not. I am assuming you want to 'outlaw' private fisheries since whirling disease comes from them. Should we do away with ALL cattle ranching since bison are at risk from them in the Yellowstone area? Should we do away with all domestic sheep because they have lead to the demise of thousands of big horn sheep?
2)I am "miffed" on global warming because folks liek you feel the need to MAKE me conform to your morals on the enviro. I am all for personal stewardship and taking better care of the earth, just not through some idiotic re-distribution of wealth plan from the UN! I am NOT at odds with conservation, just with EXTREME environmentalists who claim to be conservationists!
3)Things that are deemed negative to society is one thing, trying to ban something because a few elitists feel it tarnishes the hunting 'heritage' is a whole other ball game.
4)Of course it is wise to learn fromthe past, but we also have to adjust to the present. The issues that we face today are nowhere near the same as what Teddy Roosevelt faced. So, to take everything he said at face value is inane. Thomas Jefferson was, IMHO, the greatest American who ever lived, yet he owned slaves which in todays world is criminal. To apply our culture to him would make him a terrible human being, instead of someone who insured your right to be an elitist.
5)I was raised LDS, what the HELL does that have to do with America becoming more socialistic every day? :? 
6)There you go again, equating kiddie porn to high fence operations is IGNORANT. One deals with CHILDREN, the other with ANIMALS. Stop watching Bambi, then you may figure out animals are NOT on the same plane as humans!
7)I have made it very CLEAR that I do NOT support/favor high fence operations. In fact I would like to see them all go out of business, but not because of legislated silliness that takes freedoms away from ALL citizens. Like I said, I prefer in *THIS* situation for the free market to decide the fate of high fence operations.

I see you as more of an environmentalist who THINKS he is itellectually superior to us 'common' folk, and as such, you know what is 'best' for all of us.


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

I agree with Pro., so I'm not going to make any of my usual derogatory comments regarding anyone else in this thread.  I'll just leave it at that...


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

BERG said:


> I agree with Pro., so I'm not going to make any of my usual derogatory comments regarding anyone else in this thread.  I'll just leave it at that...


You big wussy! :mrgreen: :wink: :lol:


----------



## archery (Sep 7, 2007)

wyo2utah needs to switch to decaff. go pro !!


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

WOW Great post, just the kind I love. In the old days I would have been very quick to jump on the WYO2 bandwagon. I have mellowed a bit in my former extremist mindset to realize what the good book says is absolutely true. Moderation in all things is the key. Capitolism without moderation gets you Enron, $125.00 per barrel double digit increases in healthcare and the greed that has lead to the mortgage crisis that we are all going to end up paying for. While on the other hand government subsidies seem to be a scourge except when you speak of how well the members of the House and Senate seem to enjoy their socialized insurance plans that the tax payers are paying for. Or the 10% that the conservation groups ( some 501 c 3 some not, but that is a topic for another day) receive for their work in marketing permits.
Subsidies and Capitolism.. If you are going to shun one be prepared to be called on to the carpet for the other. Tell both sides of the story. I will never be a Ted Nugent fan because I personally belive that he is nothing more than a draft dodging coward, an adulterer with allegedly near underage girls and a loudmouth that does more to perpetuate the *******
animal killer gun nut freak than the image of a hunter that I would like others to see me as when I am wearing camo. 


Private property rights... I am all for them... Untill a public asset or property is put in jeopardy for personal gain. You can have private property rights right up till the time that you go in to your field in Wallsburg and shoot several head of elk and leave them to rot. Or complain to the state about depradation while not being able to sell your tresspass permits for what you as a private land owner thinks is enough money, while at the same time not allowing access to legal licensed hunters.

It is easy to follow the Rush Limbaugh neo con brainwashed B.S. Just as it is easy to want to automatically ban everything that isn't personally agreeable to your line of thought.

If no greed and proper moral practices were followed we would need no police, no government, no NO TRESSPASSING SIGNS, no poaching hotline, no taxes or anything that would follow this same train of thought. But untill we are all as a people sitting around a campfire singing cum by yah I guess laws and standards of conducts will be set for us by 
those that we choose to do so.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

Wiley W. for president!!


----------

