Big Horse wrote:Animals are property. Makes no difference whether that is property of an individual or of the state. “Wild” refers to their demeanor not their ownership. The states vested interest in owning animals is no different than that of individuals, how they can benefit from their “management”. Personally, I’ve never seen the government do much that couldn’t be done better by individuals.
One need look no further for proof than several species that are not native to this country, yet thrive in numbers here larger than those of their native land simply because private individuals have chosen to manage them for their worth. These species are found in the U.S. primarily on high fenced ranches. Unfortunately, the federal government has recently made a ruling putting an end to the legal hunting of three of these species that will undoubtedly reduce their existence in this country and likely harm their existence as a species. You can thank the Animal Rights wackos for that. And don’t think whitetails aren’t on their to do list.
What one does with their property is no business of mine. You want to raise a dog in a 4X8 kennel in your back yard, go ahead. You want to raise chickens in a 6X6 coup, have at it. You want to keep cattle in a 30X30 corral, be my guest. You want to raise deer in a 3 acre enclosure, no problem. You want to walk outside and kill any one of them on any given day, for whatever reason you may possess, that’s your right. It’s called the right to property and it’s a God given unalienable right, protected in this country by the United States Constitution.
I honestly believe the term “fair chase” is a nonexistent fallacy that was created by the enemies of hunting in an effort to cause division among the ranks of hunters. A divided house will fall. It appears they are achieving that goal. I see a lot of pictures of guys in here wearing camouflage and holding compound bows posing with their trophies. The clothing we wear, the weapons we use and a host of many other steps we take in our hunts all eliminate fairness by one degree or another. Whether the chase is “fair” or not is in the eye of the beholder, and every individual has to make his own judgment on what is right for him. I’m not telling anyone here they need to support high fence hunting or any other form of hunting. What I’m saying is that denigrating any of them accomplishes nothing positive. If high fence or whatever, is not your cup of tea, fine, don’t do it. But who are any of us to tell another their pursuit is not worthy? I say “don’t tread on me”.
I think a lot of what we are talking about here and what seems to be a matter of contention is a difference in perception of what is a “hunt”. Webster’s define it as “to pursue” or “to search”. Some seem to be of the mindset that if you are not in the 100% uninhibited “wilds” of the great outdoors, you aren’t”hunting”. I don’t think hunting is defined or limited to by what, where and how one does it. It’s simply the task that is the quest itself. Hunt elk in the Rockies, hunt frogs in a pond, hunt mushroom’s in a wood lot, hunt deer on a fenced farm, none of those things are of any consequence to me. I simply ask that others don’t subject their will on my pursuit of happiness.
pgchambers wrote: All of the laws you cite still do not restrict the animal
pgchambers wrote:Why does the fairness have to be 100%?
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 12 guests