|
|
Post by bullwinkle on Feb 15, 2016 17:54:55 GMT -5
Mike Pence had his appointed director, Cam Clark, testify in support of SB109 which includes legalizing Canned Hunting and expending it's growth. All the effort made through the years working with past DNRs gone out the window as Clark who has been AWOL on this as well as funding and filling positions gets on his knees and says to Pence "Thank you sir may I have another whack."
There is no way D's can make this worse. Mike Pence's need to be the smartest man in the room, means he has surrounded himself with a bunch of idiots.
|
|
|
|
Post by hunterman on Feb 15, 2016 18:06:26 GMT -5
You are speaking for yourself not the majority of ethical sportsmen. If true sportsmen did not demand hunting preserves and make it the fastest growing segment in the hunting industry then you would be correct bUT the facts prove otherwise. This entire fight because of ONE misguided dnr director, the rest of the department of natural resources and division of law enforcement were in full agreement hunting preserves were legal and put it in writing.
You base your opinion on your views and the views of your little cirlce. The world of sportsmen is much bigger than a little click.
|
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Feb 15, 2016 18:27:53 GMT -5
You are speaking for yourself not the majority of ethical sportsmen. If true sportsmen did not demand hunting preserves and make it the fastest growing segment in the hunting industry then you would be correct bUT the facts prove otherwise. This entire fight because of ONE misguided dnr director, the rest of the department of natural resources and division of law enforcement were in full agreement hunting preserves were legal and put it in writing. You base your opinion on your views and the views of your little cirlce. The world of sportsmen is much bigger than a little click. Would you consider this forum a fair representation of sportsman throughout Indiana? I mean, there are no requirements to be a member, there is a make up of people that cover just about any profession position in the state, there's people that have hunted inside fences, there's people that hunt a couple days a season and there's people that hunt every chance they get. Yet the majority oppose shooting pens? How's that work out with your facts that you never back up? You are a troll and nothing more. |
|
|
|
Post by hunterman on Feb 15, 2016 18:38:27 GMT -5
Gs1. You are obsolete in the hunting world and have no idea what the hunting industry and hunting heritage is all about. You would do anything to kill a big buck for yourself even if it meant preventing a child from hunting. You can't force your views on others because a lot of us don't think they are ethical.
Here is the good news. The hunting preserves will not affect you in any way shape or form unless you are the type that sit up at night worrying about somebody killing a bigger deer than you.
|
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Feb 15, 2016 18:52:50 GMT -5
You are obsolete in the hunting world and have no idea what the hunting industry and hunting heritage is all about. "Hunting Industry". There should be no hunting industry whatsoever. Our pioneer ancestors certainly didn't hunt for any other reason than to eat. They didn't try to grow large-antlered bucks, nor did they spend money buying treestands, grunt tubes, or the latest camo pattern. The hunting industry has perverted hunting for the sake of a large bankroll. Our hunting heritage was not built on the hunting industry, nor canned hunting. |
|
|
|
Post by deadeer on Feb 15, 2016 18:54:08 GMT -5
Gs1. You are obsolete in the hunting world and have no idea what the hunting industry and hunting heritage is all about. You would do anything to kill a big buck for yourself even if it meant preventing a child from hunting. You can't force your views on others because a lot of us don't think they are ethical. Here is the good news. The hunting preserves will not affect you in any way shape or form unless you are the type that sit up at night worrying about somebody killing a bigger deer than you. Wow, you need to take a step back, take a deep breath, and jump ship man. |
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Feb 15, 2016 19:16:08 GMT -5
Gs1. You are obsolete in the hunting world and have no idea what the hunting industry and hunting heritage is all about. You would do anything to kill a big buck for yourself even if it meant preventing a child from hunting. You can't force your views on others because a lot of us don't think they are ethical. Here is the good news. The hunting preserves will not affect you in any way shape or form unless you are the type that sit up at night worrying about somebody killing a bigger deer than you. All I did was ask a question, but you've already got me figured out. I love the part about putting myself before kids. That's awesome. Troll on |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 15, 2016 19:57:36 GMT -5
This is getting way to personal. Stick to whatever "facts" or opinions that you might have but personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Understood?
|
|
|
|
Post by hunterman on Feb 15, 2016 20:16:28 GMT -5
Understood woody, my point is that anyone who claims to speak for the dnr or sportsmen better look at facts as you put it. The facts are the dnr,boah, sportsmen, game farm industry and a lot of senators and representatives voted in by the people are in agreement and ready to end this issue. You can opposes or support this but you can't deny those FACTS.
|
|
|
|
Post by hatchetjack on Feb 15, 2016 20:33:49 GMT -5
To be clear the Director had no choice but to support SB109. The bill sponsor rolled Mike Crider's SB195 returning authority over all wild animals in captivity EXCEPT cervids into this bill. The DNR had no choice but to support that part of the bill which is what Director Clark did. He barely spoke to the high fence part of the bill and danced around the issue like a good lawyer. Watch the debate on-line and arrive at your on conclusion but the DNR Director had to take the good with the bad. Further if the DNR supported high fence hunting I doubt they would give the authority to BOAH rather than keep it themselves. iga.in.gov/information/archives/2016/video/committee_natural_resources_1400/Cam Clark's testimony starts around 1:40 of the 2+ hour session. Jack |
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Feb 15, 2016 20:37:02 GMT -5
Understood woody, my point is that anyone who claims to speak for the dnr or sportsmen better look at facts as you put it. The facts are the dnr,boah, sportsmen, game farm industry and a lot of senators and representatives voted in by the people are in agreement and ready to end this issue. You can opposes or support this but you can't deny those FACTS. Actually the issue was ended. Then some people decided to cry to the liberal courts for their justice. As for any one of us not speaking for all ethical sportsman, you need to have that conversation again right into the mirror. Once again, you have spread your "facts" with absolutely nothing to back it up. They personal attacks, well anybody can say anything anonymously behind a computer screen. |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Feb 15, 2016 20:38:08 GMT -5
"Sportsmen" (as you put it ) is not all inclusive... By a long shot.
As GS1 said in here we are a pretty diverse group of deer hunters and I dare say the majority does not believe in fenced hunting, especially with the small acreage that this bill allows.
BTW - if you've followed any of GS1's posts you would have known that getting kids hunting is one of his top priorities .I feel you owe him an apology.
|
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Feb 15, 2016 20:51:25 GMT -5
Understood woody, my point is that anyone who claims to speak for the dnr or sportsmen better look at facts as you put it. The facts are the dnr,boah, sportsmen, game farm industry and a lot of senators and representatives voted in by the people are in agreement and ready to end this issue. You can opposes or support this but you can't deny those FACTS. Actually the issue was ended. Then some people decided to cry to the liberal courts for their justice. As for any one of us not speaking for all ethical sportsman, you need to have that conversation again right into the mirror. Once again, you have spread your "facts" with absolutely nothing to back it up. They personal attacks, well anybody can say anything anonymously behind a computer screen. Plenty of truth in this post.... Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by hunterman on Feb 15, 2016 21:01:53 GMT -5
Again you use the word majority and facts. There was a circuit court ruling, a appellate court ruling and a supreme court action. That's 3 for 3 and a majority for the game farm industry. The senate passed this with a "majority", we will see in the house. They have passed it with "majority" in past. For every poll found for or against they can be matched with an opposing poll, we all know we can get a poll to support our view depending on who aND how we ask a question. If The majority of sportsmen didnt support them then high fence preserves would not and could not exist. Just because you personally don't agree doesn't mean it's not fact and not supported by majority.
|
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Feb 15, 2016 21:23:23 GMT -5
Somebody not openly opposing something doesn't default them to supporting it.
Don't forget Obamacare succeeded through the courts as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by bullseye69 on Feb 16, 2016 0:38:06 GMT -5
What is sporting about shooting fish in a barrel?
Canned hunts are the stupidest thing since Obamacare.
|
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Feb 16, 2016 1:51:49 GMT -5
What is sporting about shooting fish in a barrel? Canned hunts are the stupidest thing since Obamacare. You ever try to do that? It's hard and you get all wet!!  I know that canned or high fenced hunts are not for everyone. The gunsmith that built my long range rifle likes them for one specific reason (he's out West). He typically can test gun and bullet combinations on live animals outside of a regular hunting season, on animals that may not be readily available locally. Now before everybody gets their panties in a bunch, he's typically testing at distances that people here think is crazy or impossible. Personally? My experience on high fenced hunts is limited to hog hunting in TN, where they are required to be fenced in. The place that I hunted, if you didn't see the gate and fence, once you were 100 yds. inside, you wouldn't know it was a high fenced operation. We still hunted from right after sunup until around noon and never saw a fence. I think it all depends on how many acres are fenced, and the habitat that is inside the fence. For instance, my buddy and I saw a hog that was HUGE, and this was after we each shot a hog by still hunting. We both told the head guide and he said we were full of it, there wasn't a hog that large on the property, and since they run dogs there too, they had to have seen it if it was there. That was in April. That fall a hunter shot a huge hog, and the shoulder mount was at the taxidermist the next Spring when we were there. From the wall to the snout was over 3' and the taxidermist said that the hog was longer than 8' when it was hung up to be skinned (yes, the back legs were stretched out). The head guide said they never had seen that hog before the hunter shot it, and it had to be the one that we described to him. He said we made a liar out of him and apologized for not believing us. With that said, it's my belief that if an area is large enough, and there is cover that limits visibility to a few hundred yards at the most, and if there were no feeders or food placed out to attract the deer to a certain area, there is no way that you can be assured of shooting a "X" class buck in a couple of days. Would I go on a high fenced hunt? Yes and no, it all depends on the area that is fenced in, and what species I am looking to shoot. If I had to put a figure on it, it would probably have to be at least a section or two. |
|
|
|
Post by esshup on Feb 16, 2016 2:05:35 GMT -5
I personally think high fenced areas that are managed and have feeders, herd is infused with superior genetics, etc.; those animals should not be allowed in the P&Y and B&C record books, and that the horns/antlers should be marked in a permanent fashion that they could never be entered, even 50 years down the road.
Would I consider it to be a "hunt"? Like I posted above, I think it all depends on how many acres are enclosed plus what the habitat is like inside.
Hunting and shooting sports in general have taken such a hard hit in the past 30 years, I don't think that we should be picking on one another - we get enough of that from non-hunters/shooters.
Food for thought here. Have any of the people that are so against high fenced hunting ever gone to a hunt club to shoot planted Pheasants, Quail or Chukar? What about going to any of the put-n-take hunts that the DNR sponsors in any of the states? What's your thoughts on those?
What's your thoughts on taking a kid out to a planted bird shoot that's sponsored by Pheasants Forever? I used to run my Springer in hunts like that in So. Ca. and the experience the kids had was like going on a big game safari. The smiles on their faces after they shot a bird was ear to ear.
While certain types of hunts (or shoots) may not be for everyone, I sure won't berate anyone for doing it, just don't try to enter any trophy in P&Y or B&C, or try to pass the animal off as a fair chase hunt.
|
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Feb 16, 2016 7:56:31 GMT -5
I think if you oppose high fence hunting you shouldn't fish for stocked fish
|
|
|
|
Post by tynimiller on Feb 16, 2016 9:35:19 GMT -5
Again you use the word majority and facts. There was a circuit court ruling, a appellate court ruling and a supreme court action. That's 3 for 3 and a majority for the game farm industry. The senate passed this with a "majority", we will see in the house. They have passed it with "majority" in past. For every poll found for or against they can be matched with an opposing poll, we all know we can get a poll to support our view depending on who aND how we ask a question. If The majority of sportsmen didn't support them then high fence preserves would not and could not exist. Just because you personally don't agree doesn't mean it's not fact and not supported by majority. I get the argument from those supporting it, but I hear the claim "majority of sportsman" a lot from them, and I struggle with it due to that word means vastly different things to so many different people. I know of guys that trespass that claim to be a sportsman. I know of guys that will shoot intentionally before or after sunrise if a big buck walks by that claim to be a sportsman. I know of guys that throw "apples" out during season that claim to be a sportsman. I know of guys that shine fields and have poached during this activity that claim to be a sportsman. I know of guys that will unload a tube or a magazine on a running deer across a corn field from 300 yards away that claim to be a sportsman. I know of guys that will steal stands or cameras that claim to be a sportsman. I know of guys that use HPRs now and claim they were a ML that claim to be a sportsman. I know of guys that check in 2 bucks illegally, filing the one under their "wife's tag" that claim to be sportsman. (I love the anonymous tip line the DNR has due to all of the above!)  All that said I think anyone should be careful sighting blanket statements. I heard a guy say one time (defending high fence) at a deer show there was a survey which proves most 'sportsman' are for high fenced operations.....they had two sign ups at a booth - #1 was to sign up if you believed high fenced operations should be illegal and #2 was to enter a chance to win a free hunt on one. SMH....seriously?!?! The logic behind the thought process in that defense is just astonishingly void of reasoning but whatever. In my personal opinion I do feel the brunt of hunters across our state would say they do not consider it hunting. I believe the split becomes more present when you discuss should they be allowed to legally operate or not as a business. Those two things are very different. |
|
