|
Post by midwesthunter on Apr 12, 2007 11:54:53 GMT -5
the difrence between a combine spilling 50-100 pounds in one spot, and someone puting a couple hundred pounds in the same spot every week is a big diffrence. it would be diffent if you had to spread it out say 1 ton to every 100 square yards. not in a big pile. but i guess some don't relise that hunting is suppost to be a challenge. not to say your going to get a deer by hunting over a bait pile. they have feeders that only open during the day, so they can't eat it at night. just like i think its wrong some of the ways they hunt in africa. lets put in a well in the ground where theres no water for miles and sit 20 yards from it and see if anything comes in? Hmmmm.
|
|
|
Post by midwesthunter on Apr 12, 2007 11:56:32 GMT -5
what swims faster and better a bear or deer? ? a deer isn't going to swim a couple miles to get off a 15000 acre island to get away from a hunter just like it won't jump a 10' fence.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 12, 2007 11:56:45 GMT -5
I'm not trying to be silly. I am trying to take some logic that I have seen expressed to the next logical step. Sorry if that ruffles feathers, but if the same is done to my line of thinking I see no "play nice" warnings. The examples I have used are backed by the same logic that some people use to argue against laws that are in place. I am not being silly. I am exposing silly thought. The I want argument is not a good one as this can be applied to all kinds of crazy methods and weapons. When deciding whether a method or weapon should be legal the only considerations that should be taken into account are whether it is safe and if it will in some way hurt the number or health of the herd. Use of explosives and booby traps are definitely dangerous as there is no way to ensure only the target is “destroyed.” This would lead to an insurmountable loss to human life as well as non-target game animals and the intended deer. Hunting at night would hurt the population greatly as deer are easily killed using a spotlight and gun. I would never support any action regardless of how many people wanted it if it were in some way harmful to people or the deer population. I somehow fail to see why a discussion such as adding crossbows, rifles, or even baiting always ends with someone wanting to hunt with a bazooka but I am sure your logic makes sense to you.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Apr 12, 2007 12:08:57 GMT -5
In reality, the "I want" or "I dont want" argument is all there really is in most cases discussed on this site.
Just because someone agrees with your opinion, your "want", does not make that opinion any more noble than any one else's.
When you get enough "wants" or "dont wants" you get laws and rules.
When you get enough "wants" and "dont wants" by whatever number of the right people you also get laws and rules.
The only reason we have these types of discussions is because of the fact that they are very polarizing. Some "want" and some "dont want".
We dont have discussions about things everyone "wants" or everyone "doesnt want".
When was the last time deer hunting in April was brought up in a serious manner?
When was the last time hunting for deer with hatchets was brought up?
What about outlawing shotguns for deer season?
When we all agree there is little to discuss ........
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 12, 2007 12:14:35 GMT -5
In my opinion, hunting laws should only be based on science and not the wants of any number of hunters. A law could be suggested based on wants but should only be argued on facts.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Apr 12, 2007 12:19:41 GMT -5
IMO, the problem with that would be the facts are very vague.
The state of Indiana needs to keep the deerherd at somewhere between "X and Y" number of deer ..... I think we could argue that successfully as a fact.
After that .... what are the facts? Most things after that come down to opinion.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 12, 2007 12:45:38 GMT -5
There are numerous studies that have been done on the safety of various weapons and have shown hunting to be one of the safest outdoor activities regardless of weapon. There is no data to suggest any firearm(shotgun, rifle, or muzzleloader) to be any less safe than another.
There is also study that show bait does not attaract deer from one area to another but instead causes the deer in a baited area to maintain a smaller home range. Which may help someone kill a deer that is already on their property but it won't cause them to move from your property to someone elses.
Crossbows vs bows there are numerous states that have data to show no adverse effects while maitaining or increasing hunter numbers.
|
|
|
Post by midwesthunter on Apr 12, 2007 12:55:26 GMT -5
i think crossbows should be legal during firearm season. its more closely compared to a afirearm than a bow. you can accuratly shoot it a little farther than a bow. by the normal hunter. requires the same amount of movement to shoot it as does a firearm. with a bow you have to draw it hold it back and wait for a shot.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Apr 12, 2007 12:56:40 GMT -5
High fence operations......Opposed. I don't care for the idea of going to a Pic-n-Shoot and "getting it over with" in a day like it was a trip to the dentist. But that's not a good reason for it to be legislated against, it's just the reason why I wouldn't go to one and play like I was hunting.
The reason they should be illegal is the spread of disease, particularly CWD. The "smoking gun" evidence that points to a specific deer that "escapes" from the enclosure and spreads the disease might be almost impossible to gather, but there's evidence aplenty of the disease being found for the first time ever in areas where deer have been imported to the area recently for the game farms or shooting pens. If we applied the same evidentiary standards that are applied to dangers from medicines or smoking, they would have all been shut down long ago.
Nothing spreads a disease better than loading the carriers up in trucks and transporting them around the country.
And nothing encourages the owner of an animal that may be diseased to sell it or help it "escape" more than knowing that his entire investment and operation will be shut down if the illness becomes known to the authorities or the public.
Baiting......There again, I'd personally rather hunt than just go shoot one over the bait pile. And again, that's my reason for not baiting and isn't a reason to ban it.
I'm actually not in favor of baiting being illegal. I think if we're going to have laws, they should be enforcable, so that they are indeed laws for everyone and not just nuisances that the law-abiding will follow and the scofflaws will ignore. Is there anyone reading this who has not come across a salt block placed where it obviously wasn't for the benefit of anyone's cattle or for the purpose of drawing game to the corner of the backyard for the viewing enjoyment of the family? Or who hasn't seen the mineral blocks that look just like a rock? Or who hasn't seen the hole in ground where the salt was and the deer have eaten the dirt six inches deep where it leached into the soil?
Baiting IS here, and has been from back when Ike was in the White House, at least. The law against it is almost completely unenforcable, and is therefore only a restriction on those who voluntarily obey it. I suspect the majority of those folks would, like myself, prefer to hunt rather than just shoot, and wouldn't use it anyway.
I doubt that I'll go picket the Statehouse to change the law, but I really wouldn't care if baiting was made legal. It already is for all those with the NASCAR mentality when it comes to the rules ----"it ain't cheatin' if they don't catch ya".
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Apr 12, 2007 13:09:58 GMT -5
js2397:
was your most recent post a continuation to our conversation?
Are you saying these studies should be treated as facts?
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Apr 12, 2007 13:25:35 GMT -5
While I do not approve of High Fence in Indiana as it is now, I will say that comparing it to high fence in Texas is incorrect. A small high fence in Texas is maybe 5-6000 acres. Which in itself is several miles. The King ranch is maybe 100+ miles. The ones here are are cut up into what 5-10 acre sections. While many of us hunt woodlots of 5-10 acres the deer are not confined and will not continuously cross the same areas several times in a few hours. They pass thru the wood lots and are gone unless something causes them to return. Lets just call it freedom of movement. People pay big dollars to kill in one of these inclosure's. Not for me. My personal brand of ethics (what I feel is right or wrong) says that this is not hunting. Texas and much larger areas and only exterior fencing? I am not going to go there but will not say that it should be done away with there.
Baiting? In Indiana it is illegal. In Texas and I think Michigan it is legal. While not positive about Michigan I will state why I included it. One of my friends sons was stationed at an air force base up around there, might even have been Minnesota. Anyway he hunted on someones land there and they baited and said it was legal. Now pouring out 40 lbs of corn or deer attractant is not going to cause deer to come to an area by droves in my opinion. It may make the pause and those that use that area for their home area will visit more often. Baiting should be up to the state and each persons conscience. I feel that when you put out doe scent (doe in heat) you are doing a form of baiting. My opinion. Now then stating that baiting is one thing and will not draw deer (again my opinion) I do think that the placement of feeders (mechanical or trough) is totally wrong and should not be allowed. I believe that those that set up many of the Indiana regulations on baiting believed that baiting and continual feeding are the same.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 12, 2007 13:27:12 GMT -5
I am saying they are scientific studies that have been done in these areas. I am under the impression the conclusions are valid. So I would use them as facts in a debate. If you have any studies that indicate otherwise I would be glad to hear them. I am not set in my way of thinking but I do try to base it on theinformation available as opposed to my gut reaction.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 12, 2007 13:29:22 GMT -5
I would oppose baiting for turkeys as all the information I have seen suggest it will draw them to a certain spot at the same time daily. This would definitily have an adverse effect on their population. If I were in a state where it was legal I would have no problem doing it though.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Apr 12, 2007 17:18:24 GMT -5
Why do some people even hunt? If you need your deer handed to you , whether in a high fence, or over a bait pile, buy beef! You are more interested in killing than hunting! Now, if you are are disabled, or a kid, then it doesn't bother me as much, but still, you have to learn how to, and take the time to actually HUNT!
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Apr 12, 2007 17:36:40 GMT -5
IMO, the problem with that would be the facts are very vague. The state of Indiana needs to keep the deerherd at somewhere between "X and Y" number of deer ..... I think we could argue that successfully as a fact. After that .... what are the facts? Most things after that come down to opinion. Good grief-By definition, facts are not vague, or they couldn`t be factual-what the heck do you think you`re saying, or are you trying to say? This is one of the most pointless threads I`ve ever seen here.
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Apr 12, 2007 17:38:26 GMT -5
Since there has been several hot discussions I thought I would start another. High Fence Hunting We live in a country that has a free enterprise system of economics. I do not think the government has the authority to make this illegal. I would say the alcohol, tobacco, and porn industries do things that are much more unethical than the owners of the high fence operations are doing. Baiting There is no difference between hunting over a bushel of apples under an apple tree or under an oak tree and no difference between hunting over 50 pounds of corn in a clover field or in a cut cornfield. High fence: Who cares what anyone does on their OWN property, and why? Why is there always someone wanting to shove their nose up the south end of their neighbor? Just like PCR, Crossbows, smokeless muzzle loaders. . . .if you don't like them, don't use them. I could care less if yuppy Biff spends $1,500 and shoots a deer tied to a post to hang in his summer cottage. I like to hunt, and what Biff does has no effect on the quality of my time in the woods. Baiting: Ditto. OBR is artificially manipulating the age structure of the deer herd to increase the odds of scoring a bigger buck, and planting food plots and various other tricks are doing the same thing. But upping the odds by baiting with apples or such is 'wrong'. . . .? Hardly.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Apr 12, 2007 17:51:25 GMT -5
I am trying to say exactly what I did say. There really are no "facts" to discuss. What data that could be considered fact is vague at best. Example: It is a fact that the IDNR would like to regulate the deer herd between Xnumber and xnumber. Without being able to say a specific number (which would be impossible) the number itself is vague.
And .... I didnt start this thread so I cannot take credit.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Apr 12, 2007 18:01:30 GMT -5
I am not making this up ......
There was a scientific study on the effects of cow flatulation on the ozone. Their conclusion was that to lesson the environmental impact because of the emitted gasses each cow should be fitted with a flatulent containment bag.
PETA conducted a scientific survey to study 30 years worth of other scientific surveys on cancer causing agents in laboratory mice. Their conclusion was that the other studies were inconclusive in what they found.
Facts are facts ..... everything else is everything else. Trust your gut, it is usually right.
|
|
|
Post by larryhagmansliver on Apr 12, 2007 21:07:09 GMT -5
I have an idea for high fence hunting. How about one along the Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California borders. We could even like guard it and stuff to make sure nothing gets in or out.
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Apr 12, 2007 21:15:11 GMT -5
I have an idea for high fence hunting. How about one along the Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California borders. We could even like guard it and stuff to make sure nothing gets in or out. Seconded!
|
|