|
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 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 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 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 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 js2397 on Apr 12, 2007 11:36:41 GMT -5
Another example suppose you have a 10 acre corn field you mow it down and hunt you are legal. Take the same field harvest the corn bag it then take it back out the next week and spread it over the ground. That would be illegal.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 12, 2007 11:08:22 GMT -5
Suppose a combine spills a pile of corn maybe 50 or 100 pounds. What is the difference in huting beside that and hunting beside the same pile in a clover field?
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 12, 2007 10:27:16 GMT -5
I think those things are too unsafe for hunting use. I also think that hunting at night would negatively impact the deer numbers so I could not support them.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 12, 2007 9:06:24 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.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 12, 2007 9:35:12 GMT -5
Heck, a kid can go out and pick up a $79 MZ .... get some loose pyrodex powder and some cheap lead bullets/sabots and be off to the range shooting his light recoil, accurate and cheap to shoot gun for about 1/5 the cost of a PCR. Actually handi rifles run 160 to 200 so maybe 1/2 the price.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 12, 2007 8:52:42 GMT -5
I think the true spirit of the law is to use a gun that loads from the muzzle. Im sure others would think differently. I work with a couple of brothers .... they are both traditional archers and MZ guys. Im talking cast their own slugs, real black powder, iron sights .... buckskin possibles bags .... the whole 9 yards. I bet if you asked them about what was intended when the law was introduced you might find their answer different from yours. If you look at the weapons that were available when each season was added and said the intent was only for those weapons we would have to ban too many things. There would be no pellets, no sabots in shotguns or muzzleloaders, no carbon arrows, and no compound bows. The intent was to allow seasons for different equipment that feel into the same category. Archery for archery equipment, firearms for all firearms, and muzzleloader for all muzzle loading equipment.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 12, 2007 8:30:35 GMT -5
I think the true spirit of the law is to use a gun that loads from the muzzle.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 12, 2007 8:20:25 GMT -5
I would never be against any kind of hunting unless it was unsafe or if it did too much damage to the deer herd.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 12, 2007 7:47:27 GMT -5
I think there is a lot of ignorance out there from the hunting and nonhunting communities. There is no data to suggest one type of firearm is safer than another type. The only thing we have is our perceptions. The only thing that makes a gun unsafe is the person behind it. I would fully support the use of HPR’s in Indiana. I do think in order for that to happen we would have to dispel many myths first. A HPR may travel miles but only if shot at a 45º angle. At normal hunting angles they would not have much more range than what is already available. Since they are not legal now I will just go buy a .25-06 encore pistol and see if I feel unsafe.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 11, 2007 14:09:13 GMT -5
Woody: ok. Ill bite. Which would be considered more marginal .... a modern compound which draws 35lbs and flings a 200gr. carbon arrow tipped with a razor sharp broadhead at 240fps. Or a traditional longbow with a 55lb pull at 28" which flings a handmade ceder arrow tipped with a razor sharp ziwiki at a blistering 150fps? Would you argue that some traditional archery gear should be banned? I wouldnt .... in the hands of a competent archer either setup results in a dead deer. Here is the difference we are not saying take away someones opportunity to use their weapon of choice but to expand the available weapons to allow more hunters.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 11, 2007 13:13:44 GMT -5
It would be nice if we allowed them for everybody but let’s just focus on three main groups. If anyone can give an unselfish reason for seniors, women, and youths not to use crossbows I would like to hear it.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 11, 2007 12:46:05 GMT -5
I'm sorry I easily get distracted.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 11, 2007 12:35:22 GMT -5
For deer baiting is no different than hunting over a food source anyway. What is the difference between hunting over a bushell of apples under an apple tree or a bushell of apples under an oak tree? One is legal and one is not.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 11, 2007 11:05:01 GMT -5
I can guarantee if that business lost too many employees or too much business to stay open, they would change. That is really, what we are talking about. We as hunters are in the business of managing the deer herd for the state. If they lose too many free employees then what are the alternatives. They need to make changes now to help those who wouldn’t otherwise be out there.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 10, 2007 14:24:37 GMT -5
5) Allow women to use one also. I think youth, seniors, and women are an untapped market that we desperatly need to get involved more in hunting.
|
|