Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Discuss articles and commentaries from our recent issues!
BigIron
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:25 pm

RE: Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Postby BigIron » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:13 pm

So lets do everyone a favor and either drop this subject or at least converse in a respectful manner here. This is EXACTLY the kind of stuff that anti-hunters love to expose.

 
I don't know.  Is it respectful to try and determine where I live and post it?  Implying that I'm committing libel.... when I'm just quoting you? 
 
Friend I'm not threatening you or being disrespectful in any way.  Wouldn't think of it.  I just stated your own words.  If that's disrespectful then....   

BigIron
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 12:25 pm

RE: Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Postby BigIron » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:19 pm

Yeah, I made a typo in my spelling, do you want me to point out the last seven you made? FYI, you weren't accuse of threats, juts printing lies, and that will catch up with you.

 
 
No, for clarification.  The threat was implied when you posted what you thought was where I live, and implied that you knew my ISP and somehow because of what you interpret as libel there could be "repercussions" for my actions. 
 
Jeez.  You must have different laws up in Illinois.  Cause down here if I quote you it ain't libel..[;)]

User avatar
El Conquistador
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:56 am
Location: Nebraska

RE: Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Postby El Conquistador » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:25 pm

ORIGINAL: nromn

Ok I guess I lied. I am not quite done with this thread.

And when did I say I don't support someones legal method of taking game? The only thing I mentioned I don't support is launching shots at a deer in order to mame them enough to be able to slow them down so they can take a fatal shot. I have seen too many deer running on 3 legs or asses have been blasted off and are swinging around behind them as they run that are not going to be tracked down by whoever shot them and are going to die slow painful deaths to ever support someone's decision to do that. To me, hunters do have the responsibility to take the cleanest shots possible to kill the animal as humanely as possible. An honest mistake resulting in an injured animal is one thing, throwing up a hope and a prayer is another.

And again, Ted flat out says that anyone who supports the law that you can't shoot a firearm in Ausin is braindead. That is namecalling. You don't like to be called braindead do you? I am not splitting hairs. He flat out says it. I laid out a scenario in my last post where I think that law can be logical and is not nonsense. I don't think someone should be able to open fire in the middle of a playground full of kids at a sprinting coyote that has your dog in its jaws. So hearing that viewpoint, Ted would call me braindead and stupid. He did so flat out in the article. That IS namecalling and IS NOT splitting hairs. Tap dance around it all you want, the bottom line is that its not tolerant of someone with a different opinion than him, which was my original point that you chose to take issue with.  

Calling people who adhere to certain opinions braindead is namecalling. Just because he doesn't poll people in Austin until he finds someone who agrees with the law and then names that person specifically in the article does not mean he is not name calling.

And please explain to me how I have bullied ANYONE in this thread. I have stated my opinion. If that is bullying, then you have done it 4x as much in this thread, so why don't you stop then?

I don't know where you come up with this stuff.  What does your disdain of Ted Nugent have to do with taking a running shot at a deer?  It's not even mentioned in his article.

And looking at Texas law, it is legal to discharge a firearm in Austin* if you are defending personal property.  SO apparently you're one of the only ones who thinks it's wrong to do so.

I guess I'm a name-caller because I called the Packers a bunch of ass-monkeys when they beat the Eagles yesterday.  I'm also a name caller because I call Liberals who want new gun legislation based on the attempted assassination of a Congresswoman in Arizona scumbags.  I'm a name caller when I refer to the IRS as a bunch of thieves.  Whatever.  You're not better'n me.

Again.  The article is right on.  It's amazing how some here get so uppity simply because of the Author.

We agree that hunters should take a shot that will kill the animal in the most humane way, but according to the groups you're pandering too, that is impossible.

* Unless there is some buried city code that I couldn't find

bdads
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 2:26 pm

RE: Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Postby bdads » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:13 pm

i really enjoyed teds article,,,,,  
 
Never has any word been more bastardized than the hyper politically correct fear mongering of "ethics" in our hunting lifestyle. You can't watch a hunting show, read a hunting publication or hunting article, or listen to a so called hunting industry leader without hearing ethics this and ethics that repeated ad nauseum as if we were the most unethical element of society and had some serious explaining to do.
((( yupp ))))

Nothing could be further from the truth. Nobody is questioning our ethics except the lunatic fringe within our ranks who are afraid of their own shadow or all out loonies who think venison is unethical. Ignore them.
(((( yupp )))

When was the last time you heard ethics mentioned in NASCAR? NFL? Hollywood? NHL? MLB? Golf? Banking? Boating? Grocery industry? Auto industry? None of them ever mention it because there is no need to mention it. They are not afraid of their own shadows and have leadership and sophisticated representatives who know that they are ethical, are looked upon as ethical, and have absolutely no reason to ever bother defending their ethics.
(((( yupp ))))

I for one have never killed a game animal out of season, in violation of any laws nor committed an unethical or disrespectful act while hunting in my life. I conduct myself with a conscientious demand to do the right thing, and have found throughout life, that often, the right and ethical thing is in total contrast with the letter of the law.
(((( i will take teds  word  for this-- havent seen it  personally ))))

Our world is so out of control with imbecilic, illogical, nonsensical rules, regulations and laws as to be laughable. America has more laws, regulations, rules and guidelines for every imaginable function and process than anywhere else in the world. I believe that most of these bureaucrat driven laws unto themselves, like the bureaucrats who forced them upon us, are in fact unethical.
((((( yuppp )))))

My governor shoots coyotes. What does yours do? I am certain it is illegal to discharge a firearm in the Austin, Texas city limits, but when a dangerous vermin confronts a jogger and his dog, the right thing to do is shoot the coyote dead. I'd love to hear the braindead, feeble argument against that. And then do a drug test on the arguer. Funny stupid.
 

I have broke numerous laws in my life, and I am damn proud I did so, and under thoughtful, demanding conditions, I will do so again, I assure you.
(((( strong  content-- but see the point below,,, )))

For example, witnessing a tragic shooting accident many years ago, I broke the speed limit laws while transporting the injured individual to the nearest hospital at a high rate of speed, substantially beyond the posted speed limit. Was that unethical? Of course not. Life and death emergencies supersede arbitrary laws. Unless of course you are a clueless, irresponsible sheep and don't know the difference. My responsible, ethical decision saved the man's life. I did good.
 

I have on more than one occasion discovered wounded deer smashed by vehicles alongside hiways and roadways across America. In many of these instances, the thrashing, tortured animal was in the process of flopping its way back onto the traffic congested right of way while the deliriously inept civilians stood around gawking and whimpering, clueless as to what to do.

In each instance, I assessed the situation, created a safe environment, whipped out my 10mm and killed the deer, much to the shock and disbelief of the onlookers. By all intelligent considerations, I did the right thing. The law abiding folks were complicit in the development of a potentially unsafe, life threatening scenario. There are sheep, wolves and sheepdogs. I am a sheepdog.
 
((((wasnt there but glad he did  ))))
 

Over my 62 years of maximizing my time beyond the pavement where the critters roam, I have seen it all. Often I have come upon fawns and other critters that were seriously injured or sick, and obviously suffering and helpless. Even though it was not open season on the animal, and I did not have an authorized tag for these suffering creatures, I nonetheless dispatched them in a responsible, humane way to end their unnecessary suffering. Against the law, but indisputably ethical. I would love to hear Plan B as perceived by some PC goon. To walk away and allow the animal to suffer would surely be unethical and heartless.--
 

I will tell you what's unethical; Sunday hunting bans in 11 states are unethical.

Wasting gobs of tax dollars every year in numerous states by killing bears all year with bait and hounds by government hunters while forbidding we the people to hunt bears in the spring or with bait and hounds is not only unethical and antiuAmerican, its insane.
(((( yuppp ))))

The bizarre practice of wasting more tax dollars hiring so called "sharpshooters" to slaughter deer and elk and other game in areas where we the people own the animals and ground they are found on but forbidden to hunt is berserk unethical.

A 77 year old law limiting migratory bird guns to three shells is unethical, illogical and nonsensical as it serves the single purpose of harassing hunters. There are baglimits based on scientific sustain yield harvest realities, not ammo consumption. 

In states like MI and IA where they have many times more doves than they do pheasants, it is legal to hunt pheasants but not legal to hunt the more abundant and prolific doves. That is unethical and stupid.

To sit back and allow the overpopulation of wolves to destroy big game populations across the west and still lie that they are endangered is unethical, irresponsible and a crime against nature. The soulless bureaucrats that support such engineered waste are corrupt and unethical, and must be replaced ASAP.

To prosecute a rancher for killing a livestock destroying grizzly bear in self defense is unethical.
  
The enforcement of such laws is unethical and those wildlife biologists who know better but do nothing to right these wrongs are unethical.

They are sheep. Maybe even wolves.

As great an organization as they are, the Texas Parks and Wildlife's hypocritical law that says deer within a private high fenced property still belong to the state, even though the land owners have receipts for purchase of said deer, and yet still are forbidden to release them from the enclosure is all unethical and impossible to explain in logical terms. By all logic and sanity, you cannot have it both ways. Considering basic private property rights and trespass laws, there is no way the state should have any say whatsoever in managing animals on enclosed private property once the landowner has purchased them. And if the deer belong to the state, then surely a landowner can set them free back onto state ground and not control them in an enclosure. Ya think. Pick one.

Is it unethical to have your bow out of its case in MI, WI, PA, OH, IN, NY, MN, and other states? A bowcase is an ethical consideration to anyone? Is it unethical to lean your rifle against the tire of your truck? Of course not, but soulless bureaucrats and robotic game cops and thought challenged fellow hunters will try to tell you otherwise. These absurd laws are seriously hurting hunting, halting recruitment and causing attrition in our essential conservation lifestyle. Inexcusable. That's unethical.

I could go on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. These bad laws and the bureaucrats that make them have got to go ASAP.

We must all do our very best to obey all laws and regulations to the best of our abilities. But the real battlecry in the corrupt, power abusing Obama America today should be upgrade, logic, reason, common sense and accountability. God forbid huh.

An honest review of gamelaws and regulations is long overdue, and until we eliminate all such absurdity from our law books, there is no way we can possibly accomplish the goal of retention and recruitment into our beloved hunting lifestyle. The land mine field of confusing, arbitrary, unreasonable and counterproductive laws that have nothing to do with wildlife management or safety must be gutted and cleaned out, and the outdoors community, if honestly committed to recruitment and conservation, should be leading the charge and demanding it.

We all know that lying is a sin. But when the Nazis ask if there are any Jewish children hiding in our basement, I pray we would all know exactly what the ethical response should be, even from bureaucrats.
 
 
so id say great article,,,, rock-on !!!!! thats my opinion--- so be it ,, aint gunna change it  !!!! to each his own we are still free in the usa !!!!!

nromn
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:39 am

RE: Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Postby nromn » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 pm

Ok your arguments are getting ridiculous and you are having problems following my points. So this really is my last post.

I simply mentioned the launching shots at a shooting deer because I asked you to show me where have I ever mentioned or hinted at not supporting someones legal method of killing deer. It was in response to this quote by you:

I will ask that you support anyone's legal methods of taking game.

Thats the only reason for bringing it up. You asked me to support it, and I stated that I fully support people taking game legally and have never said otherwise, except I don't support the above mentioned situation.

I am certain it is illegal to discharge a firearm in the Austin, Texas city limits, but when a dangerous vermin confronts a jogger and his dog, the right thing to do is shoot the coyote dead.

And looking at Texas law, it is legal to discharge a firearm in Austin* if you are defending personal property.

Ok, I am not an expert on Texas law, nor did I look up any laws. I was simply laying out a scenario based on how Ted presented the law to make his argument. I provided a scenario in which I would not call someone who agrees with that law brain-dead, whereas Ted says the argument is braindead and that person is stupid.

So if what you say is true about being able to discharge a firearm to protect personal property, then perhaps Ted should check his facts before he goes on his rants, because it makes him look ignorant. Because, as he laid it out, it would be illegal to shoot the coyote. But you are saying its not illegal. Regardless, thats not the point. The point is that I can accept that there are both sides of the story. Ted on the other hand, says someone has to be on drugs to support that law.

SO apparently you're one of the only ones who thinks it's wrong to do so.

Jeez, how dense are you? Show me where I said I believe its wrong to discharge a firearm to defend personnal property? If you are referring to the specific scenario I laid out where the coyote attacks my dog with children all around, then yes, I wouldn't discharge a firearm and I doubt I am "one of the only ones". Putting a childs life in danger to save a dog is wrong, whether its legal to do so or not.

I guess I'm a name-caller because I called the Packers a bunch of ass-monkeys when they beat the Eagles yesterday. I'm also a name caller because I call Liberals who want new gun legislation based on the attempted assassination of a Congresswoman in Arizona scumbags. I'm a name caller when I refer to the IRS as a bunch of thieves. Whatever. You're not better'n me.

Yes that is name-calling. But you and I both know there are different levels of name calling, so I don't know what point you're trying to prove. And again, try to follow, that wasn't even the original point. I don't care if that is Ted's opinion and wants to call people who don't agree with braindead or stupid or whatever. Its irrelevant.

My original point was: You ask every hunter to be tolerant of Ted and everything he has to say, yet by Ted's extreme name-calling, he is showing he is not tolerant of people with different OPINIONS than him. I called that ironic. You stated that my statement couldn't be further from the truth and I proved it wrong. Thats it. I don't have a problem with the name-calling because as you say, everyone does it to different degrees. I was simply using the name-calling as one piece of evidence to show he is not tolerant of people who don't share his opinion,which you stated couldn't be further from the truth. You said one thing, I proved it wrong, by looking no further than 1 paragraph from an article he wrote. Get it?

And please enlighten me, how am I pandering? Again, because I don't fall in line with everything Ted says and does? Because I don't respect him as a person? Because thats all Ive said in this post. So thats pandering? Please. If thats what you consider pandering then every hunter is guilty of pandering to the evil anti hunters (even you), because not every hunter supports what every other hunter says and does and every hunter does not respect every other hunter in their personal life.

And again, I ask you for a second time to show me where I have bullied anyone? But I didn't expect a response because you are making up stuff and using buzzwords to try to prove your point. And one more time Ill say if anything Ive said is considered bullying, then you are guilty of it many times over.

MikeinMO
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:30 am

RE: Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Postby MikeinMO » Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:00 pm

ORIGINAL: MikeinMO

More food for thought:

Let me state an ethical position:
-It is unethical for any person to kill any animal, for any reason except to relieve it from a state of acute suffering or pain.


Now how many of you would reply to that statement with the comment "Ethics Schmethics" ? I would.

That statement is a foundational belief for HSUS and PETA, and many others. That statement arouses instant emotional acceptance in just about any non-hunter, or non-farmer who considers himself or herself to be a kind, loving, caring person. It takes broad specialized knowledge, complex analytical skills and the ability to reject emotion in favor of logic to be able to accept any argument that attempts to dissect that simple and emotionally powerful premise.

That statement is a foundational belief for HSUS and PETA, and many others. That statement arouses instant emotional acceptance in just about any non-hunter, or non-farmer who considers himself or herself to be a kind, loving, caring person. It takes broad specialized knowledge, complex analytical skills and the ability to reject emotion in favor of logic to be able to accept any argument that attempts to dissect that simple and emotionally powerful premise.

See what a dangerous path we're on and why if we choose to fight on that battleground we've chosen the worst position possible from which to counter attack?

The anti-hunting movement ought to be seen in a larger context, It is part and parcel of an ongoing effort to dismantle and destroy the essential American culture. It's just one point of attack in a much larger battlefield. The essence of our culture is that we are sovereign individuals, who are free to invent, create, own property, use resources to build and make things which increase our personal wealth and wellbeing, and that however we decide to organize ourselves and govern ourselves ought to be "of, by and for" us.

The opposition believes that society and the "state" comprise the supreme entity, and that individuals are subordinate to it. They seek to eliminate the basic concepts of individual liberty, private property, self reliance, and self sufficiency and all things which perpetuate the ability of an individual to thrive without the support of the state. Hence they construct social welfare programs, social security systems, etc. and recruit more and more individuals into dependency upon the state. In this context you can see why allowing individuals to independently feed themselves, defend themselves, and generally establish their wellbeing outside of the cradle of the state is a threat. Religion and God are threats as well, because if there is an authority higher than the state, it weakens the state's claim to power and supremacy. So the opposition consistently attacks religion, private property rights, and individual liberties that enable self-sufficiency, one of which includes hunting and the use of weapons. Therefore, hunting should be defended as a fundamental element of American culture, and as an essential aspect of individual liberty rather than on any ethical basis. The opposition doesn't share our morality nor our ethics, so there's no basis for a meeting of the minds. It's a winner take all proposition. As American culture goes, so goes hunting


Curious that nobody wanted to argue with my ethical statement in this post:

-It is unethical for any person to kill any animal, for any reason except to relieve it from a state of acute suffering or pain.-

This is the ethics statement you need to learn to argue against, because it is the position of the two most powerful anti-hunting groups in the world. They're not going to cut you even half an inch of slack just because you claim you practice something you call "fair chase". They totally reject the idea of "fair chase". They will tell you that you don't need to kill ANY animals, because you can live just fine on vegetables, and that if you are chasing and killing animals FOR ANY REASON and BY ANY MEANS, you are in their view a criminal.

User avatar
El Conquistador
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:56 am
Location: Nebraska

RE: Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Postby El Conquistador » Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:13 pm

ORIGINAL: nromn

Ok your arguments are getting ridiculous and you are having problems following my points. So this really is my last post.

I simply mentioned the launching shots at a shooting deer because I asked you to show me where have I ever mentioned or hinted at not supporting someones legal method of killing deer. It was in response to this quote by you:

I will ask that you support anyone's legal methods of taking game.

Thats the only reason for bringing it up. You asked me to support it, and I stated that I fully support people taking game legally and have never said otherwise, except I don't support the above mentioned situation.

I am certain it is illegal to discharge a firearm in the Austin, Texas city limits, but when a dangerous vermin confronts a jogger and his dog, the right thing to do is shoot the coyote dead.

And looking at Texas law, it is legal to discharge a firearm in Austin* if you are defending personal property.

Ok, I am not an expert on Texas law, nor did I look up any laws. I was simply laying out a scenario based on how Ted presented the law to make his argument. I provided a scenario in which I would not call someone who agrees with that law brain-dead, whereas Ted says the argument is braindead and that person is stupid.

So if what you say is true about being able to discharge a firearm to protect personal property, then perhaps Ted should check his facts before he goes on his rants, because it makes him look ignorant. Because, as he laid it out, it would be illegal to shoot the coyote. But you are saying its not illegal. Regardless, thats not the point. The point is that I can accept that there are both sides of the story. Ted on the other hand, says someone has to be on drugs to support that law.

SO apparently you're one of the only ones who thinks it's wrong to do so.

Jeez, how dense are you? Show me where I said I believe its wrong to discharge a firearm to defend personnal property? If you are referring to the specific scenario I laid out where the coyote attacks my dog with children all around, then yes, I wouldn't discharge a firearm and I doubt I am "one of the only ones". Putting a childs life in danger to save a dog is wrong, whether its legal to do so or not.

I guess I'm a name-caller because I called the Packers a bunch of ass-monkeys when they beat the Eagles yesterday. I'm also a name caller because I call Liberals who want new gun legislation based on the attempted assassination of a Congresswoman in Arizona scumbags. I'm a name caller when I refer to the IRS as a bunch of thieves. Whatever. You're not better'n me.

Yes that is name-calling. But you and I both know there are different levels of name calling, so I don't know what point you're trying to prove. And again, try to follow, that wasn't even the original point. I don't care if that is Ted's opinion and wants to call people who don't agree with braindead or stupid or whatever. Its irrelevant.

My original point was: You ask every hunter to be tolerant of Ted and everything he has to say, yet by Ted's extreme name-calling, he is showing he is not tolerant of people with different OPINIONS than him. I called that ironic. You stated that my statement couldn't be further from the truth and I proved it wrong. Thats it. I don't have a problem with the name-calling because as you say, everyone does it to different degrees. I was simply using the name-calling as one piece of evidence to show he is not tolerant of people who don't share his opinion,which you stated couldn't be further from the truth. You said one thing, I proved it wrong, by looking no further than 1 paragraph from an article he wrote. Get it?

And please enlighten me, how am I pandering? Again, because I don't fall in line with everything Ted says and does? Because I don't respect him as a person? Because thats all Ive said in this post. So thats pandering? Please. If thats what you consider pandering then every hunter is guilty of pandering to the evil anti hunters (even you), because not every hunter supports what every other hunter says and does and every hunter does not respect every other hunter in their personal life.

And again, I ask you for a second time to show me where I have bullied anyone? But I didn't expect a response because you are making up stuff and using buzzwords to try to prove your point. And one more time Ill say if anything Ive said is considered bullying, then you are guilty of it many times over.

You are a riot.  You've come up with some crazy scenarios to make a whole gaggle of points that don't make any sense.

Why would you introduce a bunch of playing children into you adaptation of Ted's vision of what happened to the Governor of Texas on a jogging trail?  Why not add a couple of gaggles of Muslims praying or some parade of nuns or something really interesting.  Maybe even martians or a flock of Bald Eagles.

If I were at a park filled with children and a mangy coyote came rummaging around in the park, guess what I'd do.  I'd kill the coyote, not stand around and let it bite somebody's kid.  But that's just me.

"Ted's extreme name calling".  Are you serious?  Give me a break.  If you're offended then fine, but I think you're just busy looking for things to be offended over. 

What is it that you think you've proven wrong?  Ted's extreme name calling?  That might be your opinion, but it's just plain silly.  And then you state that you don't even care if he is a name-caller, yet that's what has your blood pressure going through the roof.  Why would you go through all the effort to prove me wrong if you don't even care?  Make up your mind, I'm beginning to think you don't like me very much.

User avatar
badtoys
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:13 pm

RE: Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Postby badtoys » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:19 pm

thanks guys i just cancelled my subscription because i'm tired off listening to this BS
WARNING: The lead contained in this bullet has been known to cause severe injury and even death. when travelling at over 2100 feet per second.Surgeon General's Warning: Getting smoked by one of these bullets may behazardous to your health.

Hunt4life
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:33 pm

RE: Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Postby Hunt4life » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:04 am

Ya know, way back on the first pages I indicated that Ted may have made an honest mistake in Cali. But it has been made clear that neither he or his hunting buddies used any bait in Cali. Ted hunted next to an apple orchard and waterhole. None of them brought any bait to the party. Not guilty, no laws broken... a BS "legal" system... A no-contest plea.

I know Ted Nugent to be an honest and honorable man. He is an asset to hunting, reaching many, many beyond the choir folks with a positive, fun pro-hunting/conservation message. Kids love him, loads of hunters do as well - I hear it constantly when working public outreach for the hunting community. He is not afraid to ask some tough questions and encourage thought and discussion about things like redundant, arbitrary and counterproductive laws on the books that need to be done away with for a number of reasons.

He's a good man, that Nuge. I appreciate all he does for us and I wont repay him by thinking the worst of a bad situation in California. I take him at his word - His word has been as good as gold for as long as I have known the man... 2 decades.

Kill your critters with purpose and humanely - That makes it right, OK, good and "ethical" - Now shut up and hunt [;)]

knutsonj002
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:38 am

RE: Ethics.. Schmethics Mockery

Postby knutsonj002 » Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:48 am

I for one totally agree with Ted, so what if he got charged for poaching. I would bet all of you have been Poaching and could have be arrested for it also if you really understood both your State and Federal hunting laws, because they are pretty much written that even if you think you harvested your last deer legally, guess what you probably didn’t. And that is the Issue these laws are written so misleading that unless you are a lawyer with full understanding of state and federal laws you are hunting illegally, even on your own property. Oh you also got to remember depending on your ethnicity there are different hunting laws also.[:'(]
Knutsonj

PreviousNext

Return to Deer & Deer Hunting Features

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests