# The Face of Hunters



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

What do you think the face of hunters looks like during modern day? Good, bad, okay. My question is how respectful are hunters to their *right*, and how many make an entire group look good or bad?


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

All the hunters that I personally know are very respectfull of all laws and regulations. They have a proper hunters etiquette in the field with regards to other hunters and the game they are pursuing.
Many years ago I was bunny hunting with some _friends of some friends. It was a mistake. The treatment of the harvested bunnies was not good. I learned to only go with those that had good character.
I don't understand the few slob hunters that leave messy camps, empty six packs, litter strewn all around. It really detracts from the outdoor experience, and unfortunately can give a black eye to the entire hunting/fishing population. But it is probably the same for whatever group of individuals you're talking about, whether its hunters, tree huggers, politicians, religion, I feel most people are out to be good and do good, its always just a few that can tarnish the name of the rest.
This last July I was at a family reunion at the Willow Campground on the Cub River near Preston ID. Such a pretty little spot and a picture perfect stream running through the campground. Too bad there was so much litter along the stream, especially plasctic bags of assorted sizes and paper plates etc. I bet I counted, along the section of stream I fished, 15 dead trout (mostly bows - 5-8 inches). They were probably discarded or released improperly because of their size. 
I could go on and on - but like I say - I think most do a great job in promoting sport hunting/fishing - it is just the few that should get some sense._


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> What do you think the face of hunters looks like during modern day? Good, bad, okay. My question is how respectful are hunters to their privlage, and how many make an entire group look good or bad?


I don't feel that it is a privilege. It's a RIGHT in my eyes, that we earn by being born into the top of the food chain. I don't even hunt, but I'll be damned if my fellow man is called a criminal for doing so. :!:

I can understand that some people tend to soil the appearance of their peers by exemplifying themselves in a way that makes the majority of society frown upon the actions of the rest.

Ignorant people were ignorant before they ever hunted. The same trend goes for intelligent, responsible folks. The ignorant and irresponsible will always get more attention and "ruin" it for the rest of us.

(Sorry for the edit, but I had more after reading my post.)


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

LOAH said:


> #1DEER 1-I said:
> 
> 
> > What do you think the face of hunters looks like during modern day? Good, bad, okay. My question is how respectful are hunters to their privlage, and how many make an entire group look good or bad?
> ...


I couldn't have said it better.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

I guess I should have put it was a right, because it is a right, a right that should not be able to be taken away under any circumstances to those who respect that right. Hunting is a great sport and should always be there, it shouldn't and shouldn't be able to be taken away from anyone anywhere. Now back on track in my eyes there are very few hunters who spoil the name of what hunters really are. I can't remember how long ago the test was taken but they did a test on what landowners, non-hunters(city people), and game wardens thought about hunters and how they respected their right to hunt. The test concluded that the non-hunters or city people if you will that had never hunted or been around hunting and just plain didn't know what they were talking about only 3 out of 10 people said hunters respect their right to hunt. But then the tests with the people who were around hunting and new what they were talking about resulted as 9 out of 10 landowners said hunters respect their right to hunt while 10 out of 10 game wardens said hunters respect their right to hunt. The tests basically speak for themselves.


----------



## lehi (Sep 13, 2007)

Id say the "media" tries to make us look pretty bad.


----------



## JAT83 (Sep 9, 2007)

The media makes everything look bad :!:


----------



## grousehunter (Sep 11, 2007)

The Media is bad :!: , I think most people are starting to realize that.


----------



## Wdycle (Sep 11, 2007)

grousehunter said:


> The Media is bad :!: , I think most people are starting to realize that.


 I agree!


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

I'm not so sure that most people are starting to realize that. I think that most of the population relies on television to get their news and really don't put much thought into the possibility that there's more going on "out there" than the nightly news is willing to divulge. 

I also think that a lot of those people blindly believe most of what they are told by the glowing mind control box.

In closing, I believe that's what's really wrong with this country. Sorry if you don't think that there's anything wrong with this country...Please disregard this and go back to your televison sets.

I'm really not trying to start any jive. That's just my opinion and apparently, not a very popular one in today's world.

The media doesn't help the face of hunters or anybody who would consider themself an outdoorsman(woman). That's a given. The corporations behind the media don't have much of a grasp of what the real world is anyway...All they know is money, money, money, and ratings, ratings, ratings.

I guess I'm not backing myself up too well, but I really shouldn't need to. There's my spare change on that matter.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 12, 2007)

LOAH said:


> I don't feel that it is a privilege. It's a RIGHT in my eyes, that we earn by being born into the top of the food chain. I don't even hunt, but I'll be damned if my fellow man is called a criminal for doing so. :!:


A right is something you can practice without permission. Go shoot a deer in april and tell the C.O. it is your 'right' and see what he says. You don't need a permit to practice your religon, speak your mind, own a gun, or hang out with your buddies. Those are true rights. Hunting falls firmly in the 'privelage' category.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Understood. License technically means "privilege". That's why I said "In my eyes".

I feel it is a right (whether modern society's legalities parallel this or not) because it has always been a part of survival for any species to hunt. Even herbivores have to locate their nutrient sources, they just don't run away.

So yes, I feel that being a predator on this planet grants me the right to hunt. In today's world, however, we're required to jump through hoops and cut our way through red tape in order to do that which has driven our civilization from the start.

You're right. By law, it is merely a privilege that must be payed for and is no longer an Earth given right and duty. With all the beef ranchers and butcher blocks abroad, we no longer need to hunt for survival and the native species are being pushed off of their land to make room for cows that produce more meat per square inch than they do. 

Oh, well. That's advancement, I suppose. I won't complain...It's much easier to go to the store and buy a chuck roast than to hunt down the equivalent of meat. Not to mention that it's already prepared for cooking, essentially.

I understand completely. In fact, I figured someone would bring up the literal specifics of what I said.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

So if I am living in lets say Iran, I have no right to be a mormon because if I went and told the locals about it, I might get killed? Then when the government does ban guns, and yes they are working on it, even old "W" is, then it is no longer a right? :?


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 12, 2007)

I think I follow you... No, you don't in fact have the same rights in another country as you do here. If mormonism is a hanging offense in Iran then it is not your 'right' to be (or at least practice) your religion. Our rights are garunteed us by our US Constitution and nothing else. If you are in a country that does not have free speech, you will not be able to speak your mind without reprcussion. As far as the gun thing, if our government bans guns, it will be in direct violation of the higest law in the land. Then we will all have a personal decision to make-- turn our weapons over to an illegal government or resist an illegal gonernment.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

ScottyP said:


> I think I follow you... No, you don't in fact have the same rights in another country as you do here. If mormonism is a hanging offense in Iran then it is not your 'right' to be (or at least practice) your religion. Our rights are garunteed us by our US Constitution and nothing else. If you are in a country that does not have free speech, you will not be able to speak your mind without reprcussion. As far as the gun thing, if our government bans guns, it will be in direct violation of the higest law in the land. Then we will all have a personal decision to make-- turn our weapons over to an illegal government or resist an illegal gonernment.


So what you are saying is that there really is no inalienable rights? The founding fathers were wrong on that? Is everything then just moral relativism? If we are taken over by a foreign force do we not have rights?
Oh yeah, the gun thing will not even be close to being the first thing that is direct violation to the constitution. That same constitiution that was founded on a belief in inalienable god-given rights not relative rights. If there are no higher inalienable rights than isn't everything just a priviledge?


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 12, 2007)

Nibble Nuts said:


> So what you are saying is that there really is no inalienable rights? The founding fathers were wrong on that? Is everything then just moral relativism? If we are taken over by a foreign force do we not have rights?


Nope. Simply saying that the US Constitution does not protect your rights outside of the US. What is a right worth if it is not protected? Our rights are protected by the collective people that make up this land. If you are not in this land and don't have that collectivity, your rights have little value. I would wager that if we were occupied by a foreign government, our rights would no longer exist as they do now.


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

ScottyP said:


> Nibble Nuts said:
> 
> 
> > So what you are saying is that there really is no inalienable rights? The founding fathers were wrong on that? Is everything then just moral relativism? If we are taken over by a foreign force do we not have rights?
> ...


 No it does not protect your rights out of the US, but that doesn't mean that those rights are non-existent. It means that they are being withheld from those people through tyranny. We are being occupied by a foreign government. Sure they came from the US and we voted them into office, but that does not mean that they are not actively destroying the original constitution. Right now there are some things going on that will affect our lifestyles if we do not stand up for them. There is the assualt weapons ban H.R. 1022 that is on the books pending approval. It will permanently ban owning firearms. There is the clean water act H.R. 1022 which is threatening to turn over all of US waters to the federal government. That can impact us fisherman severly. There is the Law of the Sea treaty which was recently signed by our government that turns over our ports and oceans to U.N. control. Its effects will basically impose a tax on the world. There are many more pending legislations taking place because those of us who are collectively supposed to ensure that we can utilize our rights without being punished by law are allowing it. We are calling our rights priviledges and not standing up to be heard. Hunting and fishing are rights. They should be reasonably governed by the states, not the feds. It is our right as a state to employ conservation officers to utilze our funds that we all have the right to give them to manage our wildlife and waters to protect our state and its citizens rights to hunt, and fish, and run the businesses that these activities can create. To have our own local stewardship over our resources. This is not a priviledge, it is a right. You need a permit to ensure that you are contributing your share of the duties this right entails. When we call it a priviledge and do not stand for our rights, the federal and local governments will exploit this. 
I do respect that you acknowledge that rights need to be collectively ensured by our people to actually be able to freely exercise our rights without retribution. Hunting is not far removed from owning firearms and when they start to encroach on one, mark my words, they will trample on the other. We all need to recognize our rights as rights not priviledges. Recognizing them as rights is not an excuse to abuse our resources and I think that is where some peoples fear is generated so they call it a priviledge. That is giving way and letting the bad apples destroy the whole bunch. Remember your rights end where others begin, that is where poachers and slobs who destroy the landscape need to be fined and in some cases loose their right because they are not capable of respecting where the other fishers and hunters rights begin.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

LOAH said:


> I don't feel that it is a privilege. It's a RIGHT in my eyes, that we earn by being born into the top of the food chain. I don't even hunt, but I'll be damned if my fellow man is called a criminal for doing so. :!:


Just for the sake of discussion, I am curious...In my hunter education course (about 20 years ago, yet I remember it clearly to this day), the instructors actually had a very long speech/monologue about why hunting was a privilege and not a right---take it as you want. Additionally, a felon loses their ability (right or privilege??, right I reckon) to posess a deadly weapon (according to an attorney source of mine can not even archery hunt), correct and therefore loses the privilege or right to hunt??? What is the answer?


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Sorry. Guess I haven't been paying attention to this thread. 

I never took a hunter's safety class :shock: , so I didn't get that spiel. If I were to go out and hunt, I'd take the class.

Legally, it's a privilege. I already recognize that and am obliged to unless I want to pay the consequences. As a human, it's my right and duty to provide food to myself and my family. Like I stated earlier, times have changed and so has the situation of the prey. Legislation has taken place and now there are laws regarding the taking of game. If these are not followed, then penalties incur and they may even call it a felony, in which case the *right* to keep and bear arms is no longer recognized by the government.

Now the only problem is: What makes a felon and who is in charge of what said definition entails? I know, let's make everyone felons and then nobody can own guns, right? Oh yeah, plenty of folks seem to already be working on that.

...And you can't hunt very well (or legally) without a deadly weapon, right? So if I'm a felon, I can get in trouble for holding a rock? I could kill someone with a rock. Does that make it a deadly weapon? What about a shoelace? I could go on.

Sorry, I think I'm stuck in a bitter mood tonight. I didn't want to leave your question hanging, though. Maybe I gave you my answer, maybe not.


----------

