|
Post by mbogo on Aug 18, 2005 6:25:23 GMT -5
As one who attended a couple of meetings and listened to them tell thier stories I feel no sorrow for them at all. If anyone really thinks Bellars was the only one to behave in such a manner they are living in a dream world. I realize it is getting to be an old story but, until he was convicted we had lots of deer farmers come on here telling how he would be aquited and sell out his hunts for this year. At the Sugar Ridge meeting one deer farmer said if he knew of such activities he would turn them in. B.S. We as hunters will turn in a poacher but there is no way these guys would turn on one of their own. Know the lying SOBs are claiming most of the emails came from PETA and HSUS members. Again B.S. I do know a few non hunters emailed their feelings. Being non hunters does not make them ARFs. They know a wrong when they see it. I feel like this group has tainted the word "Sportmen" just as another group stole the word Gay. At my age I don't care if anyone likes it or not. Speaking of poachers and ARFs, how is it any different to say that all high fenced operations were like Bellar's than it is for ARFs to say that all hunters behave as the few slobs and poachers do? There is no evidence to support either of these suppositions, just opinion. Should all hunting be banned because a few people masqerading as hunters as slobs? This is an incredibly effective tactic. First, it plays on the tendency of everyone to blindly follow their preconceived notions rather than making the effort to discover the truth. Secondlly, it forces you to choose between supporting practices you do not participate in and may not agree with or damaging those you do participate in and do agree with. Of course we all band together when someone makes an attack like this on all of mainstream hunting, but at what point do we put a stop to the steady erosion of hunting ocurring one attack, one issue at a time? And when we reach that point will there be anything left to defend?
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Aug 18, 2005 9:35:57 GMT -5
Is it not enough for you that a large majority , 85% in every survey that I've ever seen , despise those abattoirs and want them shut down ? They serve no one but themselves and a small number of feed dealers , and considering the risk that they pose to the wild herd alone I'd say that we've been very blessed with this opportunity to eradicate them .
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Aug 18, 2005 11:16:19 GMT -5
Need I go through a long list of examples of things incorrectly thought to be true by a majority? Wouldn't it be simpler to either present the factual evidence I asked for or to just admit to making assumptions based on emotion?
Disregarding the over-hyped threat of CWD for a moment, how do you figure any threat, imaginary or otherwise, to the deer herd has been eliminated? According to what I have read of the ruling, cervids can still be raised and even slaughtered and sold for meat here. These "threats" are only eliminated if the animals are no longer present according to popular theory.
The only thing that has changed for the animals is that instead of facing the possibility of being shot eventually, they now face gauranteed slaughter. I fail to see the improvement in ethical standing of this situation.
|
|
|
Post by raporter1 on Aug 18, 2005 11:40:38 GMT -5
Mbogo, We obviously will never agree on this issue. If you want to talk emotion though how about people who use disabled or dying kids to further their activities. Yep I do not deny I am emotional but I would never stoop that low. If they were just doing it for the kids we would never have heard about it.
|
|
|
Post by jkd on Aug 18, 2005 12:22:45 GMT -5
Mbogo, Regarding whether other ops are run like Bellar's... Where do you think he learned about drugging deer, shooting in small enclosures, using push lines to herd deer to the shooter, etc...? His manager (I forget his name) that he hired from down south knew these methods from prior experience at another farm. Perhaps not all shooting preserves are run like that, but I'll bet money a majority of the no-kill-no-pay site sure are, or they wouldn't offer a guaranteed kill. Remember too that Bellar's was held up as the model operation in Indiana, so if that was true, what model did he follow? KD
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Aug 18, 2005 12:36:30 GMT -5
Mbogo, We obviously will never agree on this issue. If you want to talk emotion though how about people who use disabled or dying kids to further their activities. Yep I do not deny I am emotional but I would never stoop that low. If they were just doing it for the kids we would never have heard about it. On that point I somewhat agree. I never harbored any thought of changing anyone's mind.
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Aug 18, 2005 17:56:34 GMT -5
I agree with you Mbogo. A blanket ruling to close down all those operations was unnecessary, and did more harm than good.
I have no interest in hunting one of those operations, however I don't care if anyone else does. If that turns your crank, have at it. So long as they keep the killing out of sight and don't spread disease, what does it hurt ? A deer farm is a much more desirable / cleaner / environmentally friendlier neighbor than any livestock confinement operation which nobody seems to care about.
Also, deer hunt farms bring in outside money to communities in a multitude of ways. With manufacturing declining rapidly in this state, we need every tourism dollar we can get.
Just because something is "distasteful" is no reason to shut it down. Many folks don't care for; taverns, the lottery, casinos, go go joints, and many other things, however they are allowed to remain open. If you don't like one of those activities, you simply don't participate. Sounds like the American way to me.
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Aug 18, 2005 19:12:41 GMT -5
Just because something is "distasteful" is no reason to shut it down. . So I should be able to fence MY PROPERTY and open a BROTHEL right? Let the health dept. in to check on diseases and give 40-50% OF THE REVENUE TO THE STATE? Ill be generating all kinds of jobs in state and out.......... My property, my right! Right? Distasteful? Yep, but I'm not forcin anyone to take part or even watch it so why can't I have one? As a kid I was taught a little something about hunter ethics. I have two boys now and I am trying to pass those same values on to them. Ethics matter and if for no other reason I do not and will not support high fence shooting zoos in Indiana.
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Aug 18, 2005 19:55:47 GMT -5
Eliminate high fence hunting all together, and you'll be eliminating much of the hunting in Africa, huge hunting ranches in Texas, Missouri, Michigan, etc. Should these all be closed too ?
I think the officers and a few other do gooders involved in the Bellar case just got tired of his "I'll do whatever the heck I want" attitude and went on a personal witch hunt to put him and any of his supporters out of business. They got it done, but I'm not too sure the rationale for doing so had any scientific thought behind it.
Also, I don't agree that most of the public is against operations like that. I live a few miles from Bellars place, and you never heard too many locals complaining about it. Heck, most of the public didn't even know it existed. Not until the officers went in undercover, paid money to hunt, took those films, etc. did most of the public know what was going on.
Film the conditions in a confined feed hog operation; animals up to their belly in waste, drugged and dying animals, sick animals, animals thrown in a heap out back, shooting an animal in the pen and hanging him from a loader bucket to bleed out, etc. and show that stuff on the six oclock news, and you'll soon have a bunch of folks agaist that too.
Ever been on a put & take pheasant hunt the state puts on ? Those are the dumbest birds immaginable, pen raised & just released, so some alleged hunter can go kick one in the butt to make it fly and come home with pheasant dinner. How is this practice any more ethical or sporting ?
Again ... I don't want to hunt one of those places. I simply think an across the board shut down was uncalled for.
|
|
|
Post by 911 on Aug 18, 2005 20:23:05 GMT -5
Those of you who say you would never hunt behind a fence but dont beleive they should be shut down are full of crap. Mbogo you say it did more harm than good Care to explain that ? Also these places do not bring in tourism dollars at all, maybe a gas station and that is about it. These guys come in stay at the lodge at the preserve and eat meals prepared at the preserve and then they go home. After they paid the owner twenty thousand dollars to corner the deer for them. My Family owns alot of land and i guarantee you if we fenced it in i could kill any deer on the property in just a couple of hours.
|
|
|
Post by RiverJim on Aug 18, 2005 20:29:54 GMT -5
Unless the fenced area has 5 square miles (with no other gates or pens) it should be shut down. Fair chase is on our side but not in a pen!
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Aug 20, 2005 8:51:18 GMT -5
911 Said - these places do not bring in tourism dollars at all, maybe a gas station and that is about it. These guys come in stay at the lodge at the preserve and eat meals prepared at the preserve and then they go home. After they paid the owner twenty thousand dollars to corner the deer for them. Duh !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Aren't they giving their twenty grand to a resident ? I'd call that a pretty serious input of tourism dollars into the community.
|
|
|
Post by 911 on Aug 20, 2005 15:53:29 GMT -5
Exactly 20 grand to One Resident no one else.
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Aug 20, 2005 16:08:44 GMT -5
::)Double Duh !!!!!! You must have missed school the day they taught barnyard economics 101. Doesn't that resident pay local taxes, utilities, buy gas, groceries, eat out, sock it away in the local bank, pay a few employees, etc, etc., etc A good bit of that twenty grand most definitely winds up spent in the community, and in turn provides employment and income for others. Your rationale would suggest that someone from out of state going to a Colts game is only putting their tourism dollars in Don Irsay's pocket.
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Aug 20, 2005 16:26:00 GMT -5
AGAIn I'll ask, why can'tI open up a Brothel then? TONS of revenue to the local economy and the state as well...
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Aug 20, 2005 17:03:02 GMT -5
Go for it gundude ..... but be advised, it is illegal. Comparing deer ranching to a cat house is a stretch, don't you think ?
Let me ask this ..... The pic n shoots are now closed, however if somebody wants to raise deer to sell venison, that's legal ... correct ? If that venison farmer herds his deer into a little pen, them smacks them in the head with a club to kill them before butchering, is that a more appropriate, tasteful practice ? I believe that would be perfectly legal, wouldn't it ? I know farmers handle other livestock that way regularlly.
|
|
|
Post by 911 on Aug 20, 2005 17:18:10 GMT -5
We will never agree in this one Steiny speaking of duhhhh Who is Don Irsay?
|
|
|
Post by gundude on Aug 20, 2005 19:34:38 GMT -5
Go for it gundude ..... but be advised, it is illegal. Comparing deer ranching to a cat house is a stretch, don't you think ? Let me ask this ..... The pic n shoots are now closed, however if somebody wants to raise deer to sell venison, that's legal ... correct ? If that venison farmer herds his deer into a little pen, them smacks them in the head with a club to kill them before butchering, is that a more appropriate, tasteful practice ? I believe that would be perfectly legal, wouldn't it ? I know farmers handle other livestock that way regularlly. I AGREE but the farmers that do that don't call it "hunting"..... Thus it isn't a bad reflection on the rest of us that take a higher road..... NOW why in the heck should my brothel be illegal if I am paying the state. Keeping disease in check, NOBODY sees it, and I own the property........ I think you were the one one that said " just because someone finds it in bad taste shouldn't make it illegal." The facts are that ETHICS do matter and we aren't trying to sway over members of PETA! We are trying to educate the folks on the fence (no pun intended) that really dint know anything about hunting....... NOW which image do you thing PETA is gonna use to convince these folks about the ethics of hunting? I can guarantee you that they are gonna LUMP ALL OF US in the same basket and they will use BELAR and others like him to represent the MAJORITY of hunters in this country.. STEINY, from other posts I can see we have a lot in common. The love of big game hunting and the true appreciation for a fine well crafted firearm. That is hard to find these days as most really don't have a clue about that sort of thing. I can tell you do. So with that in mind I will just say that I have my opinion and you have yours. I am sure I probably wont sway your opinion here but I would ask that you think about it for a bit..... Lets just leave it at that.............. HUNT ON!
|
|
|
Post by jackc99 on Aug 20, 2005 21:08:08 GMT -5
Just to clarify - the deer FARMERS must handle their animals in a humane manner and that specifically requires them to be slaughtered at a licensed facility in an approved manner. Not sure of the Senate bill number as AccessIndiana is currently down.
The pic-n-shoots are not closed ...YET. They are open until the end of the 2006 legislature or unless that legislature changes the law.
Also, the Colts are owned by Jim Irsay.
HatchetJack
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Aug 21, 2005 7:10:45 GMT -5
The deer farmers have repeatedly stated at CACCC and other meetings that they can't survive just selling meat , hides , and wee-wee , which is a crock of sheit since many other such farms do so every day . What they can't survive without is satiation of their intense greed .
The only thing that has changed is that they can't make the kind of dollar that they were really after and will continue to pursue through their pocket Legislators . As long as they can export deer for other shooting zoos the real risk they pose is still a concern .
|
|