When hunting isn't hunting.

The NRA didn't get into the gun rights business until the onset of legislative efforts for the GCA of 1968.

It is still a shooting organization; think "Whittington". It is still, as it began some 130-ish years ago, a hunting organization, shown by "The American Hunter" magazine--and the hunts at Whittington.

Whether guns, the uses of guns or the laws pertaining to guns and their uses, the NRA is there.

Art
 
Guess I'm late chiming in on this. Sad to say that Texas is no shining star of liberty anymore. First mistake the lege made was to accept the disingenious argument that remote shooting was "hunting", which it clearly is not under the already existing state laws. Their second major mistake was thinking that passing a law against remote shooting would stop it, which it won't. What it will do is it will raise the market price of a remote shoot. It will also create a vested interest in the law enforcement community to see that the law is enforced selectively enough not to put their jobs in jeopardy. See applicable US Controlled Substances laws for an informative example of how this is all going to work. Now that the lege has declared remote shooting illegal and created a criminal offense for buying and selling remote shooting, they've created a highly profitable, untaxed black market and even more justification for law enforcement burden on all citizens. Given the ease with which one can purchase an anonymous, offshore internet commerce website and the proven ability of remote targeting over the internet, it is inevitable that if there is a market for it, it will be implemented and domestic law enforcement will be powerless to stop it. So, thanks to Internet porn and the US military for showing the way.
 
Whether you feel they support hunters or not, the NRA does not speak for all hunters, they certainly don't speak for this hunter. The article as posted makes it seem as though all hunters agree with the animal rights nut jobs on this subject. If anything these types of issues split the argument three ways.
1. You have the animals are better than people nuts who want to ban all killing of animals.
2. You have the hunter who says his way of killing os ok, but is willing to allow some other form of killing to be banned.
3. Last you have the people who feel the ban of any type of killing\hunting is a threat to the way they kill\hunt and are against any laws that ban a particular type of hunting\killing.

I use hunt\kill because the people in the first group do not seperate the two.

They have lumped us all together and suggested all hunters want these laws. They probably used the NRA support to argue for these laws and in my eyes the NRA did me and everyone else a big disservice in supporting this.
 
dustoff way to go man, we need more people like you in the government. True libertarians think like you and me. Rights are rights regardless if your such a lowlife to use them or not, we as INDIVIDUALS are to one responsible for our own action not the government. if we keep letting this country denigrated soon we will be subject to the laws of the likes of Europe where you are only allowed to do things that gain the government more power/money and are thought more of as a herd of sheeple
 
I reckon there's no organization of whatever sort that 100% represents all members of the group. NRA, Boy Scouts, Sierra Club or Libertarian Party. What's important is whether or not an organization supports MOST of what's important to you. The NRA supports the right to hunt insofar as all ethical methods.

Art
 
What's important is whether or not an organization supports MOST of what's important to you. The NRA supports the right to hunt insofar as all ethical methods.
Thats great until someone decides your method of hunting isn't ethical. I generally support the NRA but they should have kept out of this one.
 
When Hunting isn't Hunting.

If your not carrying a weapon, in the woods, keeping a sharp eye out for game, and enjoying being there, then it ain't hunting. PERIOD.....:D
 
Re-reading through the thread: Dustoff said, "

Art, I would think that most of the "citified ignorant folks" who do not hunt do not care about hunting."

Sorry, but that is very seriously mistaken. I have met multitudes of non-hunters who are highly opinionated against hunting. I have read way too many letters to editors, of people fulminating against the evils of shooting poor innocent Bambi.

They bitch, squall and scream at legislators--and vote. And you'd be amazed at the proposed legislative bills that (fortunately) die in sub-committee or committee.

So when something that the vast majority of all hunters regards as unethical pops up, the real world has it that if you don't want all manner of efforts at curtailment of ALL hunting, you'd better get high behind and put a stop to it. The NRA merely joined in with that vast majority.

We went through the same thing a few years back on the "canned hunt" thing, where guys would take elderly lions or tigers and the "hunter" would should the stove-up beast at twenty feet. The anti-hunter uproar was quite large, believe me. "That's what all hunters do!" was part of it.

You can holler, "Woulda/coulda/shoulda!" 'til the cows come home, and get into all that philosophical stuff, but all that and two dollars will get you a beer at happy hour.

But if anyone thinks that using the law against computerized hunting is wrong, I guess that bag limits, seasons, shooting hours and other such regulatory efforts are also wrong?

Art
 
I have to thank Art, I just read through all these posts and I'm about to go get some asprin! Of course I think it's unethical to shoot an animal 1,000 miles away, on top ot that who's doing the shooting? Should they legaly be allowed to have a gun? Do they know how to make a clean kill? Are they going to just shoot the animal in the rump to get some pleasure of watching it suffer?

Wild animals belong to the state and as such you need to pay the state a fee for hunting, trapping, etc... People who own animals should be free to do with those animals as they see fit.

I'm sorry I see that as way off. One you don't pay the state to kill the animal. I feel deep down that way, but they say the money is to help set limits, pay for conservation exc. not that you're paying like you would at the butcher shop. Hunter's did setup conservation and wildlife areas so overhunting did not occur, that's what your money goes to...

why should it be illegal any more than shooting a doe from your car in the back pasture should be illegal (also a "non-hunting" activity as you described it)? Just wondering.
In my state(NY) this is illegal. I don't see as big of a deal with this as computer hunting but obviously it's comparable. Shooting from a vehicle was seen as not sportsman like. I have to agree too, driving around untill you see a doe and then shooting out the window can't be seen as sportsman like can it?


I think you can't take the person out of the equation. You have to have a rational person holding that gun. Unrational people are not suppose to be able to obtain firearms, lisences exc. you have to pass a sportsmans class to prove you know a thing of two about long guns and the proper way to take an animal.
This debate is a matter of opinion, upbringing, and morals, it can go on indefinetly...
 
But if anyone thinks that using the law against computerized hunting is wrong, I guess that bag limits, seasons, shooting hours and other such regulatory efforts are also wrong?
Sorry Art but these regulatory effort you talk about only effect public hunting. Hunting on a game farm\ranch is private property and so in many places these regulations do not apply. I say that if the regulations apply to private fenced properties in an area these laws are also wrong.
So when something that the vast majority of all hunters regards as unethical pops up...The NRA merely joined in with that vast majority.
Now you are taking it upon yourself to talk for other hunters. The majority of hunters that I have talked to in my area feel the same as I do. Although they feel that this activity is not something they want to do, they also don't want some moron in the government telling them what to do with their private property. By looking back at this forum we can see that everyone has an opinion on the subject and you cannot simply say that our view is the majority. Do you have some proof that "the vast majority" of hunters want these laws.
Quote:
Wild animals belong to the state and as such you need to pay the state a fee for hunting, trapping, etc... People who own animals should be free to do with those animals as they see fit.

I'm sorry I see that as way off. One you don't pay the state to kill the animal. I feel deep down that way, but they say the money is to help set limits, pay for conservation exc. not that you're paying like you would at the butcher shop. Hunter's did setup conservation and wildlife areas so overhunting did not occur, that's what your money goes to...
I never said you pay to kill the animal. Reread the post. I said you pay the state a fee for hunting, trapping, ect... Killing an animal and taking it home is a part of a sucesfull hunt but not part of every hunt or even every season.
Should they legaly be allowed to have a gun?
They never have the gun in their possesion so this point makes no sense.
You have to have a rational person holding that gun. Unrational people are not suppose to be able to obtain firearms, lisences exc. you have to pass a sportsmans class to prove you know a thing of two about long guns and the proper way to take an animal.
The person never holds the gun as they are controlling it form their home computer on a closed ranch. Most hunting ranches that are fenced off and hold a private herd are not required to ensure their guests have a hunting license. If the ranch is open and the animals are public then this is different. Also not everyone has to pass a sportsmans class. I never took such a class (I recieved a waver because my first hunting season followed millitary service). Some states don't require a sportsmens\hunters safety course.
When Hunting isn't Hunting.

If your not carrying a weapon, in the woods, keeping a sharp eye out for game, and enjoying being there, then it ain't hunting. PERIOD.....
Great definition only I can think of plenty of times when I was hunting and not in the woods (I was in a field), not enjoying myself (to cold and uncomfortable), and since I was uncomfortable I was not kepping a sharp eye out for game. Guess I wasn't hunting on those hunting trips.

As I asked before, what is gained with these laws? What have you gained by giving up more of your freedoms? Laws that limit a persons right to do as they wish with their property while not harming others only help to set us up for the loss of additional freedoms.
 
The state lays claim to ownership of wild animals in part because it has the power to do so, and nobody en masse has ever argued. I'd bet that this claim to ownership came about during the early days of hunters' efforts to control hunting so we wouldn't run out of deer, turkeys, ducks and geese, etc. Remember that back some hundred years ago, game populations were really and truly tanked.

It would be difficult for the F&W folks to set limits/seasons/methods in the absence of this claimed ownership.

And the system works--and works very well. No game animal but the bighorn sheep is threatened, much less endangered. None are harmed by hunting; as we should all know, the only threats are from problems with habitat.

Overall, "the system" has brought about steadily increasing game-animal populations. Even, in some areas, to the level of Pest.

Art
 
I'd bet that this claim to ownership came about during the early days of hunters' efforts to control hunting so we wouldn't run out of deer, turkeys, ducks and geese, etc. Remember that back some hundred years ago, game populations were really and truly tanked.

Pretty much. The Victorian age nearly wiped out all the wild animals in the US and they had to perform conservation and limitations. This saw a massive crackdown especially on the likes of puntguns, and slayings of whole herds primarly for the industrial market for animal parts. Mass slaughter fell out of fashion after the Buffalo nearly came extinct. If we removed the limits we have the same collapse in the animal population and there be no hunting left.
 
teach

For those that would stop this way of "hunting",Would you agree with removing the Predator Drone from the US arsenal? Other countries may think it is an unethical way to wage war.

The best thing that could be done,is not to oppose or support.But,teach others what hunting is really about.Take a kid hunting and pass on what you know.

Just my $.02 worth
Ohwoody
 
Back
Top