RF

I agree it makes no sense, especially since I never said it nor alluded to it.


RF


I never avoided it I'm working. Later.

Here is your objection to hunting within a fence as opposed to hunting what you consider more free ranging animals.



Plainly enough, your objection hinges on the idea that the animal should be free to run and be chased, when running and being chased is irrelevant to the reality of the situation.

When that was explained, you answered:



Again, you are reiterating the imaginary idea that deer hunting involves some sort of running and chasing. So don't try to claim now you "never said nor alluded". You quite obviously did.

So you're opposed to it if it is fair chase and you are opposed to it if it isn't fair chase....regardless how fair chase is defined. That means whether an activity is considered as "real hunting" or not...whether an activity is ethical hunting or not...whether fair chase is defined in this way or that way or whatever...are all moot points. You just helpfully boiled the whole issue down to a question over the concept of killing animals for one's benefit. And are nominally opposed to one group of people who go out and kill animals for their own benefit.

Yet strangely enough, you aren't opposed to someone going out and killing animals if it is for YOUR benefit. In fact- far from opposing- you encourage and reward those killings.

You know my brain is fried jumping in and out of these threads and people bothering me at work. I feel like Mrs. Doubtfire when she was having dinner with the boss and had to keep quick changing. (did you see that movie?). I can't keep up anymore. I'm getting old. I'm tired. I will respond to these posts later.

You are playing mind games. You can't be serious.

RF

Grace

RF

Grace


RF

It's not irrelevant to the reality of the situation. The reality is the animal could have escaped, regardless it wasn't being run after. That's only one aspect of it. Shooting a deer through a window doesn't even qualify as hunting so quit bringing it up.

RF

Grace


RF

I never said nor alluded it DIDN'T involve running and chasing. You wrote: If you don't believe hunters run and chase something in the literal sense...
I do believe hunters run and chase something in the literal sense. Or should. But it's not the only criteria which encompasses "fair chase". There are other ethics involved, which I quoted from 2 sources.

Quite serious. Your argument literally included the idea of running and chasing, and now you want to deny even alluding to such a thing.

Whatever.

I'm going to helpfully bump the below question so you don't have to search through the back pages if you ever feel inclined to answer.

Okay, if my friend in Pike County for some reason decides to enclose his 180 acres or so in a fence tomorrow, how would the hunting NOT be equivalent to what it was before fencing? Understand that he doesn't usually hunt anywhere near his property boundaries because he doesn't want to tromp around on his neighbors' property retrieving a deer if he can help it.

I believe you're chasing your tail.

RF


No, it's not so cut and dry. "Real hunting" isn't shooting an animal from your trailer window, regardless your buddy and you think it is. Canned hunting is a fabricated scenario for wuss asses who want an easy and guaranteed trophy kill and it's not fair chase. Ethical or not? Where'd you come up with that one? Just threw it in there for flavor? Killing animals for one's benefit should be done ethically, humanely, fairly and with the least amount of suffering and stress both in hunting and the food industry.

Grace wrote:

Is it? Then you should be able to explain how so. My example above should make it easy for you.

You claim to be able to quantify such a thing?

Regardless what my buddy and I think it is, it's your assertion to support.

I really don't know why you're even asking this. If your buddy enclosed his property and shot a deer through the camper window, what would change? It still wouldn't be hunting. It is what it is. Except now he's got a fenced yard.

Okay, if my friend in Pike County for some reason decides to enclose his 180 acres or so in a fence tomorrow, how would the hunting NOT be equivalent to what it was before fencing? Understand that he doesn't usually hunt anywhere near his property boundaries because he doesn't want to tromp around on his neighbors' property retrieving a deer if he can help it.

Because it is a scenario where the only variable is the fence...and which you say is the crux of the matter.

Main Entry: 1hunt
Pronunciation: \ˈhənt\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English huntian; akin to Old English hentan to seize
Date: before 12th century
transitive verb
1 a : to pursue for food or in sport <hunt buffalo> b : to manage in the search for game <hunts a pack of dogs>
2 a : to pursue with intent to capture <hunted the escapees> b : to search out : seek
3 : to drive or chase especially by harrying <members…were hunted from their homes — J. T. Adams>
4 : to traverse in search of prey <hunts the woods>
intransitive verb

Doesn't support your assertion.

Yes it does. To my satisfaction and all AR lurkers. It's time you support yours.

I'm not sifting through all this. Where's the rest?

No. Why does it need to be quantified?

Absolutely not. I think we have a communication problem.

Are you even reading what I wrote or did our posts collide? IT IS NOT HUNTING! Start another thread in off topic.

Ok I found it:

The scenario you described wasn't fabricated/created with the benefit of fences for someone to pay a fee to get an almost guaranteed bag. Because the person wasn't chasing a deer on foot, is neither here nor there. I've not read of any state hunting bans deemed unethical to that effect (shooting from a window or trailer). The fence is the crux. You seem to be taking fair chase too literally. If an animal is free and happens to walk by a window of a trailer and someone shoots it, it's not really ethical in my book, but the deer was free to run, had the option to run and be chased and it lost cause someone was too fucking lazy to get off their duff and track/chase it.


Although I have stated more than once, twice, three times, what your bud did isn't hunting in my book (not sure anyone's book except Steve's), what he did wasn't ethical, but there was "fair chase" because the deer was free to run. Putting up the fence nulls and voids that aspect of it.

grace, nothing you are posting makes any sense at all. If I set up a blind in the woods and shoot through the screened window or if I shoot out the window of a trailer, how is it any different?

If the kill was made in the middle of the 180 acres whether there is a fence or not is completely irrelevant to the kill. You act as if the deer are herded to the corner and the hunter just pops one. You know absolutely nothing about what you are posting about.
I'd LOVE to hear your "ethical" deer kill scenario.

I'm quoting this one because it's easy to do so, but there's plenty up there along this vein. Grace, when faced with specific scenarios your objections seem to be terribly aesthetic.

Time and time again, presented with scenerios purposefully hypothetically presented with negligible practical differences, you take the bait every time and declare one less savory (as you would say -- ethical) than the other. But this a tired exercise that only reinforces the fact that you're only interested in hunting that fits into your own narrowly defined aesthetic view. (It's demonstratable here in FMB that your definition of ethical hunting is so narrow that the finest of hairs would scarce pass).

Therefore; I, too, would love to hear all about your ultimate ethical deer kill scenerio.





Fair Chase
adj. A buzzword. In certian popular usage, it describes a predator/prey scenario in which the predator has zero chance of success. In this usage, it is an oxymoron.

Grace's Ethical Deer Hunting Scenario:

Players: 1 hunter, Danny Jr., 52 years old, great, great, great, great grandchild of Daniel Boone.




1 15 yr old buck.




Danny Jr. has a wife, Sue, and 5 children. They live off the land in the Montana wilderness. The meat locker is empty in their flimsy cabin. Sue is patching the holes in the roof with a paste made from flour and spit, preparing for the long Montana winter ahead.

Danny Jr. has been tracking the buck for 3 days. Despite his faux fur parka Sue gave him last Christmas from Salvation Army, he's cold. Tired. Tired of hunting. Tired of living so far from the A&P. He's lately been fantasizing about getting in a CJ 5 Jeep, his dream car...he's thinking how easy it would be - heater blasting, listening to Rose of Cimaron, driving along the 2 mile scenic drive to the supermarket.

He sees snow on the horizon, says a prayer to the Gods of Food to please let this be a quick and humane kill. As much as he hates to do it, he must feed his family. Late afternoon of the 3rd day, close to home, he comes up over a rise and finds the buck a mere 10 yards away drinking from a stream. It was then he noticed the buck holding up his front leg.....it was then he saw the large cancerous mass protruding from the knee area. His heart sunk with pity. As the buck had his fill and ambled off, he stumbled, tripped and cracked his head on a boulder, stunning him momentarily. Danny sprung to action to prevent further suffering. Locked, loaded, aimed, fired! The shot hit the buck in the head, killing him before it even hit him. More than instantaneous. Pre-instantaneous! Danny, Sue and the 5 children would be fine this winter. The buck now is at Rainbow Bridge, frolicking with his ancestors and in fine health.

Danny still dreams of the CJ 5 and the A&P. One day his dream will come to fruition.

You know grace this too is getting lame. You tend to trivialize when asked a specific question. Rather than answering it, you make a ridiculous post to cover the fact that you have no answer. You play it off as making a joke but then continue to ignore the question. How about a scenario that fits TODAYS society?..OH BTW most hunters woulda killed the buck in your scenario but the cancerous tumor woulda precluded me from eating it I believe. SO now your dude has to kill another one.

Oh kiss my ass in Macy's window. I'm not on trial here. Go pound sand. Shove it up your bunghole. Eat shit. Go shit in your hat. Talk to the hand.

Seems I struck a nerve with a little truth application.

Just disappointed you didn't like my story.

and again

You're so mean.

I bought a canned hunt and was disappointed. It was just fuckin' bisquits in there, man. Just like the only other canned hunt I bought, which -- when opened -- was just evaporated milk. That was good fuckin' evaporated milk though. You could put it in coffee and that shit was like half and half.

Those biscuits sucked.

that buck is not 15 years old

Oh that must have been a typo. He was 5 years old.