# Who exactly "defines" Fair Chase?



## thesource

1. B&C fair chase rules over all of hunting.

2. P&Y fair chase rules over bowhunting.

3. Your personal fair chase rules (assuming more stringent than P&Y) over your bowhunting.


----------



## aceoky

What a "shock"! :wink:


----------



## awshucks

*fair chase*

Source: Good post and I believe very accurate no matter what we choose to hunt with.


----------



## Tim4Trout

aceoky said:


> What a "shock"! :wink:


I agree ...

What a "shock"! :wink:

If certain posters here choose to allow what is fair chase to be decided by others, then power to ya man.

Neither pope and young, boone and crockett, or any other org defines fair chase for me.

*I define fair chase for myself.*

The problems with defining fair chase though are as follows.


The term "fair chase" likely can not be defined with specifics, as each of us will have differing opinions.

For me ... 

When one says a method does not incur "fair chase", often they are speaking out because the method they are referring to has a potential for increasing the hunter's chances of success. 

Success in hunting is determined by a variety of factors, which may include, but are not limited to ... experiece, knowledge, size of area, number of game animals present, food and water sources, amount and type of cover, weapon used, supplimental equipment ( i.e. climbing stand, rangefinder ), etc., and of course luck.

When a hunter (A) chooses to employ a legal method which can increase his chances for success, there will likely be another hunter (B) who will not simply view the choice of hunter (A) as simply increasing (A)'s chances but rather view (A)'s choice as one which exceeds beyond that which hunter (B) feels is within his view of what fair chase should incur.

The problem is that while sometimes hunter (B)'s assesment may indeed be accurate, there are many occassions when such may not.

For example ...

Let's say that everything is exactly the same for both hunter (A) and hunter (B). Except for the amount and type of available cover. With both hunters hunting the same size area, with the same distribution of deer ...

Hunter (A) has 80% woodland consisting primarily of conifers 3/4 with occassional hardwoods 1/4.

Hunter (B) has 50% woodland consisting primarily of hardwoods 3/4 with occassional conifers 1/4.

Because hunter (B) hunts in a location where visibility may be greater let's say he has a starting advantage over hunter (A) as he is able to more easily spot game.

Thus for purposes of my example, let's say that due to differences in cover hunter (A) has a 10 percent chance of success while hunter (B) has a 20 percent chance of success.

Now let's assume the following.

1) Anything over a success rate of 30% exceeds fair chase.*

and

2) Allowing the use of bait will double one's chances for success.**

What do we end up with if both hunter's use bait ?

For hunter (A) his chances are now 20 percent.

For hunter (B) his chances are now 40 percent.

Thus for hunter (B) baiting exceeds the 30% fair chase threshold.

As a result hunter (B) opposes the use of bait.

The problem is that while using bait for hunter (B) exceeds the 30% threshold, for hunter (A) the use of bait is still within that threshold.

Unfortunately too many times hunter (B) will fail to consider that there may be differences in conditions affecting the chances of success between what he and hunter (A) have to start with.

* 30% is for example purposes only and should not reflect any actual threshold between what should and should not be considered as fair chase.

** Doubling one's chances for success by using bait is also for example purposes only and should not reflect how the use of bait will actually affect one's chances for success..


**************

Fair chase IS NOT violated by taking advantage of legal methods of taking deer.


----------



## aceoky

I agree and that is "my take" as well, and very well said, as was your "ethics" post imho!


----------



## thesource

Tim4Trout said:


> Fair chase IS NOT violated by taking advantage of legal methods of taking deer.


That is obviously not true. It is legal, in some states, to shoot drugged and penned deer.

No one, NO one, can defend this as fair chase hunting.

It may be legal, but its NOT fair chase. 

The problem with your point of view, that everyone can decide for themselves what is ethical and fair chase, is that the bad decisions that some people make reflect poorly on all of us that bowhunt. 

The value of the whole (bowhunting) is much, much more important than any one individual. I'm glad you follow all laws - every hunter should. In addition, they should be making ethical decisions while hunting so that the integrity of bowhunting is preserved.


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip

My sense of fair chase is about ethics between hunter and prey.

It has nothing to do with competition between hunters.

B&C and P&Y try to define fair chase. Some say they fall short
Some say they're too stringent. Some say that as long as you don't go over the bar you're okay. I say they both have very good things in there. But they are not the end all/be all. If that was the case, then P&Y shouldn't attempt to supersede B&C's definition of fair chase.

Some confuse, intentionally or not, fair chase with competition between hunters. I choose to acknowledge competition between hunters but try to be very clear when distinguishing fair competition from fair chase.

P&Y decided that the definition by B&C was not restrictive enough.
Why I don't know. Maybe someone can explain it to me? The only thing that makes any sense is that they felt that their members had to be told explicitly what they can and can't do, as opposed to leaving it up to the sensibilities of indivdual bowhunters.

P&Y feels compelled to be very prescriptive in defining exactly what bow, arrow, and broadhead are and are not. B&C did not choose to define guns.
That's fine for P&Y's club. But to presume that their version of ethics and 'fair chase', should have anything to do with influencing seasons in which one can hunt, and what they can hunt with, is overreaching. Ethics are universal.
Competition is not. P&Y would do itself a favor, and everyone else, if they clearly separated competition between hunters from ethical considerations when it comes to man and prey.

If its wrong to take a deer with something on day 15 then its wrong to take that deer down on day 1. 

P&Y starts with
"Simply defined, fair chase is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit of free-ranging wild game animals in a manner which does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the animal."

What's wrong with leaving it at that? 

They then go on to say 
"It does, however, extend beyond the hunt itself; it is an attitude and a way of life based in a deep-seated respect for wildlife, for the environment, and for other individuals who share the bounty of this vast continent's natural resources."

They just had to say "deep seated respect for.....other indivduals who share in the bounty". Therefore they should have deep seated respect for gun hunters. Crossbow hunters too. 

Their statement on deep seated respect could/should have gone unsaid.
That started them down the slippery slope of unspoken competition. There are many who want to suggest that competition doesn't exist. In reality it does. 

Fair chase says nothing about seasons. True?

What is interesting is that Pope and Young does not say that the crossbow is not fair chase. At least in the fair chase statement. 

It *only* says that it is not an eligible weapon for the purpose of registration of a trophy in the records program. If it decided that it wasn't fair chase it would amend its definition of fair chase to say as much. It would be item number 9 instead of a 'special note'.

Or do I assume too much and misconstrue their intent?

P&Y is a club. For them to think that they can/should/do define fair chase for *ALL* bowhunters is a over reaching. That is evident in item 8

"Any other condition considered by the Board of Directors as unacceptable."


----------



## thesource

If a hunter feels that some method or equipment gives him an improper or unfair advantage over his quarry, he should feel morally obligated to refrain from it. Period.

Noone should have to spell out fair chase, yet it appears we must. Even with it spelled out, people will cry and complain that this or that equipment or method shouldn't be against the rules of fair chase. Instead of trying to think about WHY that equipment might give an improper advantage, they focus on how their personal chances of success would be diminished.

I think its sad.


----------



## Tim4Trout

thesource said:


> That is obviously not true. It is legal, in some states, to shoot drugged and penned deer.
> 
> No one, NO one, can defend this as fair chase hunting.
> 
> It may be legal, but its NOT fair chase.
> 
> The problem with your point of view, that everyone can decide for themselves what is ethical and fair chase, is that the bad decisions that some people make reflect poorly on all of us that bowhunt.
> 
> The value of the whole (bowhunting) is much, much more important than any one individual. I'm glad you follow all laws - every hunter should. In addition, they should be making ethical decisions while hunting so that the integrity of bowhunting is preserved.


In terms of shooting drugged and penned deer, the problem isn't as much about fair chase IMO as it is that some have labeled the practice as hunting period. Subsequently however anti hunting factions have attempted to paint every enclosed facility where animals are hunted as equating to such.

Would I defend someone shooting a semi tame petting zoo animal placed in a 30 by 50 ft pen as fair chase hunting. NO ( Heck I wouldn't even call it hunting, let alone fair chase hunting )

I do however stand up against attacks on high fence enclosed hunting facilities, with a demarcation between such and a so called "small pen" being influenced by size, number of animals, amount and type of cover, etc.

*******

While there is always the potential for an individual to make a negative impacting so called "bad decision", allowing the individual to have the final say as it pertains to what is ethical and/or fair chase accounts for the various intangeables different hunters may incur while hunting. If hunting conditions were equal across the board, then a blanket set of rules such as those of p&y might suffice. However since conditions can vary greatly, establishing that a certain practice may not be considered as fair chase in one location should not necessarily be applicabe in another location.

*******

It is my belief that if you were to take several hunters who have never heard of pope and young, chances are they probably already follow ethical hunting practices that for the most part fall in line with most of what p&y and other such groups have established.

The issue isn't as much about p&y having an established set of rules pertaining to fair case as it is about those who believe that every hunter should be mandated to follow them.


----------



## thesource

Tim4Trout said:


> It is my belief that if you were to take several hunters who have never heard of pope and young, chances are they probably already follow ethical hunting practices that for the most part fall in line with most of what p&y and other such groups have established.
> 
> The issue isn't as much about p&y having an established set of rules pertaining to fair case as it is about those who believe that every hunter should be mandated to follow them.



Do you agree in the PHILOSOPHY of fair chase? The overiding PRINCIPLE of fair chase?

*Simply defined, fair chase is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit of free-ranging wild game animals in a manner which does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the animal. *

You would agree with that, wouldn't you?


----------



## Bellows1

State DNR's define fair chase. P&Y does not or should not have any input it to what a state decides is fair chase anymore the MLB should decide what Babe Ruth league players should be allowed in the hall of fame or NASCAR decides what tires are legal to run on the street.

B&C and P&Y are record keepers of who shoot what, when, where, and with what. They set standards of measurement, and rules of fair chase for their organization only. They are not the last word of anything other than themselves.


----------



## Bellows1

thesource said:


> Do you agree in the PHILOSOPHY of fair chase? The overiding PRINCIPLE of fair chase?
> 
> *Simply defined, fair chase is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit of free-ranging wild game animals in a manner which does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the animal. *
> 
> You would agree with that, wouldn't you?


Would not a rifle at 200 yards give you an unfair advantage over an animal?


----------



## thesource

This is why I think fair chase IS season dependent.

I suppose you could make a case that during the gun season with all of the increase in pressure, deer are more aware that they are being hunted and therefore range advantages are minimized.

It is apparently not an improperadvantage during gun season.


----------



## Bellows1

thesource said:


> This is why I think fair chase IS season dependent.
> 
> I suppose you could make a case that during the gun season with all of the increase in pressure, deer are more aware that they are being hunted and therefore range advantages are minimized.
> 
> It is apparently not an improperadvantage during gun season.


I see, so as long as they "know" we are hunting them fair chase is flexible? Anyone shooting an 80% letoff or crossbow hunting in the regular gun season does NOT have an improper or unfair advantage?


----------



## aceoky

Bellows1 said:


> State DNR's define fair chase. P&Y does not or should not have any input it to what a state decides is fair chase anymore the MLB should decide what Babe Ruth league players should be allowed in the hall of fame or NASCAR decides what tires are legal to run on the street.
> 
> B&C and P&Y are record keepers of who shoot what, when, where, and with what. They set standards of measurement, and rules of fair chase for their organization only. They are not the last word of anything other than themselves.


I agree 100% and would add , anything "above and beyond" those laws seems to me to be a personal choice, e.g. a longbow rather than a crossbow or compound for one example, bait or not, etc.etc.etc.


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip

*source*

*You said
If a hunter feels that some method or equipment gives him an improper or unfair advantage over his quarry, he should feel morally obligated to refrain from it. Period.*

Good enough for me.
Why can't we just leave it there?

*You said
Noone should have to spell out fair chase, yet it appears we must. *

Why must we? Why can't the laws suffice? Why can't the laws the govern what we do when hunting embody the concepts of fair chase? Don't they already to some degree? Is it that the degree isn't strong enough for you?

*You said
Even with it spelled out, people will cry and complain that this or that equipment or method shouldn't be against the rules of fair chase. * 

You agreed that we should strengthen some of the laws that govern high fence hunting and shooting over bait. You think that we should strengthen some 'laws.' Isn't it reasonable or logical to also believe that some other folks may see that some 'laws' need to be changed as well? What if they don't agree with your thoughts on what should be done? Suppose they want to go the other way. Does that make them less ethical? 

What if they are more restrictive and they lower the bar on you, and ask you to do some things that you happen to think are overly restrictive? What then? Does the person with the highest sense of 'fair chase' (man-prey) win?

How about we take it all the way to "don't take any animals because all contests are unfair with any equipment." Okay rocks...if you can take a deer with a rock, you're okay. Should we all start hunting with Rocks?

Sounds pretty ARA to me there Source. 

*You said
Instead of trying to think about WHY that equipment might give an improper advantage, they focus on how their personal chances of success would be diminished.*

Why do you need any equipment? What if someone wants to take your rocks away?


----------



## thesource

oldbhtrnewequip said:


> *You said
> If a hunter feels that some method or equipment gives him an improper or unfair advantage over his quarry, he should feel morally obligated to refrain from it. Period.*
> 
> Good enough for me.
> Why can't we just leave it there?
> 
> *You said
> Noone should have to spell out fair chase, yet it appears we must. *
> 
> Why must we? Why can't the laws suffice? Why can't the laws the govern what we do when hunting embody the concepts of fair chase? Don't they already to some degree? Is it that the degree isn't strong enough for you?
> 
> *You said
> Even with it spelled out, people will cry and complain that this or that equipment or method shouldn't be against the rules of fair chase. *
> 
> You agreed that we should strengthen some of the laws that govern high fence hunting and shooting over bait. You think that we should strengthen some 'laws.' Isn't it reasonable or logical to also believe that some other folks may see that some 'laws' need to be changed as well? What if they don't agree with your thoughts on what should be done? Suppose they want to go the other way. Does that make them less ethical?
> 
> What if they are more restrictive and they lower the bar on you, and ask you to do some things that you happen to think are overly restrictive? What then? Does the person with the highest sense of 'fair chase' (man-prey) win?
> 
> How about we take it all the way to "don't take any animals because all contests are unfair with any equipment." Okay rocks...if you can take a deer with a rock, you're okay. Should we all start hunting with Rocks?
> 
> Sounds pretty ARA to me there Source.
> 
> *You said
> Instead of trying to think about WHY that equipment might give an improper advantage, they focus on how their personal chances of success would be diminished.*
> 
> Why do you need any equipment? What if someone wants to take your rocks away?


This is when the discussion gets absurd. 

To say that someone wanting restrictions on technology in the name of fair chase is one step away from an antihunter is not only disingenuous, it is insulting and offensive.

I understand the Ted Nugent wannabe, super-righty don't need any restriction or any law mentality.

I don't agree with it. 

Hunting is worth saving. If you continue to allow the unethical to pollute hunting with more and more gadgets and methods to continually increase and finally GUARANTEE their advantage over a simple deer, it will not be hunting and it will not be worth saving.

It is fair chase. It is not a guarantee. It is not supposed to be as simple as falling of a log. You are not supposed to have deer in an escape proof pen, because then they are no longer free ranging. You are not supposed to radio the location and direction of that 6x6 elk to your buddy across the canyon so he can get into a position to cut that elk off, something he could not have done without your help and that electronic device.

Its called fair chase, and I feel it is essential if we want to keep hunting honorable and respected.


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip

*source*

*You said
This is why I think fair chase IS season dependent.*

Let's talk about P&Y. Where do they sugggest that their rules only apply to bowhunting? Please give me a url and a quote from any location. Thanks.

Do they suggest anywhere that their rules are a model for all hunters?
Should I assume that these rules don't apply to me if I'm not a bowhunter?

*You said
I suppose you could make a case that during the gun season with all of the increase in pressure, deer are more aware that they are being hunted and therefore range advantages are minimized.*

You can either make the case or you can't. You haven't made it to me. I've taken plenty of deer inside 20 yards and even inside of 10 yards with a shotgun, during firearms season. I'd venture to say that I've taken the vast majority of the deer I've taken with shotgun inside of 25 yards. Easily.

I have taken deer with my compound inside of 10 yards during gun season. I don't know how many times. This past year was probably about an 5-7 yard shot. 

*You said
It is apparently not an improperadvantage during gun season.*

If I can get that close to the deer in gun season, then how is it fair (man--->deer) based on your logic.

Your logic says that it would still be non fair chase (man---> deer) to take
deer down with shotguns based on my personal experience of being able to take them at much closer ranges, during shotgun season.

Please help me understand.
Please tell me who P&Y's rules 'should' apply to and when they should apply.


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip

*You said
To say that someone wanting restrictions on technology in the name of fair chase is one step away from an antihunter is not only disingenuous, it is insulting and offensive.*

That's not what I said. I said someone demanding that we reduce hunting equipment to rocks was pretty ARA. Would you not agree?

Please answer the questions in that post Source.


----------



## Tim4Trout

thesource said:


> Do you agree in the PHILOSOPHY of fair chase? The overiding PRINCIPLE of fair chase?
> 
> *Simply defined, fair chase is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit of free-ranging wild game animals in a manner which does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the animal. *
> 
> You would agree with that, wouldn't you?



I am going to play the role of devil's advocate here and say that I do not agree with the above definition of so called "fair chase".

Here is why.

1) First of all their inclusion of the phrase "free-ranging wild game animals" automatically attempts to disqualify any hunt occurring within a high fence enclosure from meeting fair chase standards. Even if such an enclosure is large enough and contains enough cover for the sought animal to elude the hunter just as it might if there were no confinement, there will be those who will judge any type of confinement to violate fair chase. 

2) While sans the "free-ranging wild game animals" part, the loose definition itself is not necessarily flawed, the problem however occurs when implimentation is attempted.

With the exception of the lawful part, ( which would be officially documented ), how does one set the demarcation between that which falls within "fair chase" and that which does not ? What constitutes an improper or unfair advantage, and does a specific perhaps questionable tactic violate fair chase equally under all circumstances ? ( see my other post where I use baiting as an example )

While there is that which definately falls both within and outside what most hunters would consider as fair chase, there are also many gray areas where the issue of fair chase being accepted or violated is debatable and this is where I believe 99% of the arguments occur. 

3) While certain practices ( i.e. bait, high fence, etc. ) often come under attack as it pertains to fair chase, if we take the so called simple definition which, if simplified even further, essencially says that fair chase occurs when the hunter doesn't have an unfair advantage, what happens if we go in a different direction and apply the definition to something which many hunters use ?

Many bowhunters use tree stands.

Why ?

Because they often increase our chances for success, essencially they provide us with an advantage.

They place us in a location where deer may not normally look for potential predators. They place us in a location where our scent may be dispersed differently than if we were hunting from the ground. Being elevated often allows us a greater field of view. Being elevated allows us to shoot over brush,etc.

Now here is the kicker.

What is the success ratio for bowhunters who use tree stands vs bowhunters who do not ?

More importantly though the question that should be asked might be ... Is the advantage tree stand hunter (A) has over non tree stand hunter (B) less than, equal to, or greater than hunter (X) who uses bait might have over hunter (Y) who does not use bait 

and if the advantage that (A) has over (B) is greater than the advantage (X) has over (Y), then why is baiting considered as a violation of fair chase, but using a tree stand is not ?

*****

With few exceptions, the deer will usually have the advantage. if a hunter's tactic changes the advantage to favor us, perhaps it should not be considered as fair chase. But we shouldn't allow fair chasse to be considered as being violated every time a chosen tactic simply increases our chances for success.


----------



## Jim C

People who do not participate in hunting shouldn't have any say in what fair chase is. I think its a red herring allowing certain people to avoid facts while trying to condemn another's way of hunting
It means nothing to me


----------



## thesource

oldbhtrnewequip said:


> *You said
> To say that someone wanting restrictions on technology in the name of fair chase is one step away from an antihunter is not only disingenuous, it is insulting and offensive.*
> 
> That's not what I said. I said someone demanding that we reduce hunting equipment to rocks was pretty ARA. Would you not agree?
> 
> Please answer the questions in that post Source.


That is not what you said.

You tried to produce a logical path that any restrictions leads to only rocks.

I won't play your stupid little game.

You want crossbows to be legalized in archery season so that you feel you are legitimate - tough.

There are hard lines drawn as to what is fair and proper, and to what is unfair and improper.

I consider anyone trying to blur those lies as an adversary to hunting's honor.


----------



## thesource

Tim4Trout said:


> I am going to play the role of devil's advocate here and say that I do not agree with the above definition of so called "fair chase".
> 
> Here is why.
> 
> 1) First of all their inclusion of the phrase "free-ranging wild game animals" automatically attempts to disqualify any hunt occurring within a high fence enclosure from meeting fair chase standards. Even if such an enclosure is large enough and contains enough cover for the sought animal to elude the hunter just as it might if there were no confinement, there will be those who will judge any type of confinement to violate fair chase.


Sorry - there is no defense for escape proof enclosures. One could keep people out with standard fence. High fence serves a single purpose - to keep animals in.

The difference is significant - and essentially fair chase.



Tim4Trout said:


> 2) While sans the "free-ranging wild game animals" part, the loose definition itself is not necessarily flawed, the problem however occurs when implimentation is attempted.
> 
> With the exception of the lawful part, ( which would be officially documented ), how does one set the demarcation between that which falls within "fair chase" and that which does not ? What constitutes an improper or unfair advantage, and does a specific perhaps questionable tactic violate fair chase equally under all circumstances ? ( see my other post where I use baiting as an example )
> 
> While there is that which definately falls both within and outside what most hunters would consider as fair chase, there are also many gray areas where the issue of fair chase being accepted or violated is debatable and this is where I believe 99% of the arguments occur.
> 
> 3) While certain practices ( i.e. bait, high fence, etc. ) often come under attack as it pertains to fair chase, if we take the so called simple definition which, if simplified even further, essencially says that fair chase occurs when the hunter doesn't have an unfair advantage, what happens if we go in a different direction and apply the definition to something which many hunters use ?
> 
> Many bowhunters use tree stands.
> 
> Why ?
> 
> Because they often increase our chances for success, essencially they provide us with an advantage.
> 
> They place us in a location where deer may not normally look for potential predators. They place us in a location where our scent may be dispersed differently than if we were hunting from the ground. Being elevated often allows us a greater field of view. Being elevated allows us to shoot over brush,etc.
> 
> Now here is the kicker.
> 
> What is the success ratio for bowhunters who use tree stands vs bowhunters who do not ?
> 
> More importantly though the question that should be asked might be ... Is the advantage tree stand hunter (A) has over non tree stand hunter (B) less than, equal to, or greater than hunter (X) who uses bait might have over hunter (Y) who does not use bait
> 
> and if the advantage that (A) has over (B) is greater than the advantage (X) has over (Y), then why is baiting considered as a violation of fair chase, but using a tree stand is not ?
> 
> *****
> 
> With few exceptions, the deer will usually have the advantage. if a hunter's tactic changes the advantage to favor us, perhaps it should not be considered as fair chase. But we shouldn't allow fair chasse to be considered as being violated every time a chosen tactic simply increases our chances for success.


Well, I've repeated it numerous times.

If YOU feel that treestands constitute an "unfair or improper advantage", then you should refrain from using them so you can hunt with a clear conscience.

I find the arguement of treestands very weak, personally. Although it provides some tactical advantage, you must have enough hunting savvy to put that treestand in the proper place.

I agree with your final statement - we shouldn't allow fair chase to be considered as being violated every time a chosen tactic simply increases our chances for success.

But where FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES occur, one should be very wary that fair chase violations also occur.


----------



## JAVI

Idefine fair chase for MEwithin the laws governing my hunting area. 

No one else has the RIGHT to tell me how I should hunt...


----------



## Jim C

JAVI said:


> Idefine fair chase for MEwithin the laws governing my hunting area.
> 
> No one else has the RIGHT to tell me how I should hunt...


and that my friends is the definitive statement of reality


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> and that my friends is the definitive statement of reality


And that, my friends, is the beginning of the end for bowhunting.

While the radical right fringe of hunting worries that any restriction is a concession to antihunting, we are losing the battle that matters.

We will lose the vast majority of the non-hunters that currently support hunting because they feel it is an honorable tradition.

When it all comes crashing down - remember that you heard it here, first.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> And that, my friends, is the beginning of the end for bowhunting.
> 
> While the radical right fringe of hunting worries that any restriction is a concession to antihunting, we are losing the battle that matters.
> 
> We will lose the vast majority of the non-hunters that currently support hunting because they feel it is an honorable tradition.
> 
> When it all comes crashing down - remember that you heard it here, first.



BS-the beginning of the end are self righteous holier than thou types who think if you don't bowhunt the way they do, its not bowhunting.

the vast majority of non bowhunters couldn't care less what sort of bow people use and the only people who are trying to change that are people like you source


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> BS-the beginning of the end are self righteous holier than thou types who think if you don't bowhunt the way they do, its not bowhunting.
> 
> the vast majority of non bowhunters couldn't care less what sort of bow people use and the only people who are trying to change that are people like you source


Jim - 

The big picture of "I do what I want" that we are currently discussing extends far beyond crossbows.

It is bad for bwohunting, and it is bad for all hunting.

Hunting should remain an honorable pasttime, or it will become past its time.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Jim -
> 
> The big picture of "I do what I want" that we are currently discussing extends far beyond crossbows.
> 
> It is bad for bwohunting, and it is bad for all hunting.
> 
> Hunting should remain an honorable pasttime, or it will become past its time.



You dishonor bowhunting by calling thousands of bowhunters "lazy" "cheaters" or making the assinine statement that those who use a crossbow rather than a wheelie are Not bowhunters.


----------



## aceoky

Jim C said:


> People who do not participate in hunting shouldn't have any say in what fair chase is. I think its a red herring allowing certain people to avoid facts while trying to condemn another's way of hunting
> It means nothing to me


Yep........Exactly !


----------



## willie

Javi said – 

I define fair chase for ME within the laws governing my hunting area. 

No one else has the RIGHT to tell me how I should hunt...





thesource said:


> And that, my friends, is the beginning of the end for bowhunting.
> 
> While the radical right fringe of hunting worries that any restriction is a concession to antihunting, we are losing the battle that matters.
> 
> We will lose the vast majority of the non-hunters that currently support hunting because they feel it is an honorable tradition.
> 
> When it all comes crashing down - remember that you heard it here, first.


HORSEPUCKY!!

Javi is 100% right on.

The regulations and laws governing us in our own individual states are in place due to what the hunters in that state gave input on to what is and what isn't "fair chase".

That is how the regulations were formed.

If javi or you or me or anyone else stays within those regulations then it is fair chase for that state.

Now, we CAN go above and beyond that with our own personal state of regulations and rules.

KY allows baiting for deer, but I don't bait there. It is not fair chase to me, but I would not tell someone else it is not fair chase for THEM.

Too DAM many people telling others that if they don't hunt in such and such a way they are not "fair chase".

If it is legal, then it can be fair chase for some. Don't like it? Get the regulations changed. That is how the regulations were put into place in the first place.

Too friggin bad if we don't live up to what YOU and the grand poo-bahs of archery want.

Of course what they want can change next time they get a little hard up for cash..


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip

thesource said:


> That is not what you said.
> 
> You tried to produce a logical path that any restrictions leads to only rocks.
> 
> I won't play your stupid little game.
> 
> You want crossbows to be legalized in archery season so that you feel you are legitimate - tough.
> 
> There are hard lines drawn as to what is fair and proper, and to what is unfair and improper.
> 
> I consider anyone trying to blur those lies as an adversary to hunting's honor.


I didn't try to do anything. I said what I wanted.

_Here is exactly what I said

"You agreed that we should strengthen some of the laws that govern high fence hunting and shooting over bait. You think that we should strengthen some 'laws.' Isn't it reasonable or logical to also believe that some other folks may see that some 'laws' need to be changed as well? What if they don't agree with your thoughts on what should be done? Suppose they want to go the other way. Does that make them less ethical? 

What if they are more restrictive and they lower the bar on you, and ask you to do some things that you happen to think are overly restrictive? What then? Does the person with the highest sense of 'fair chase' (man-prey) win?

How about we take it all the way to "don't take any animals because all contests are unfair with any equipment." Okay rocks...if you can take a deer with a rock, you're okay. Should we all start hunting with Rocks?

Sounds pretty ARA to me there Source."_

My point source is that everyone is going to site somewhere on a scale of say 1 to 100. 1 being ARA...nothing is allowable...and 100...use Nukes if you want to.

No game. Only logic. You just want everyone to use your logic. You want them to use the laws that are written and then the spirit of your ethical stance on fair chase since you can't define fair chase to the nth degree so that all understand. Your hard lines are opaque and hazy because, as you said..."why develop laws that can't be enforced."

Did I get that quote right?

Rocks are ARA. Nukes are over the top.
Pick your point on the scale Source. Everyone has to. 

Its not a stupid little game. Its to point out to you that other people have points of view that don't necessarily coincide with yours, and that they may very well be more or less restrictive. 

So if someone else is more restrictive..does that make you unethical?

You can go back to the post and answer the questions if you want source.


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip

thesource said:


> I consider anyone trying to blur those lies as an adversary to hunting's honor.


item 8 of Pope and Young's fair chase.

How much more blurry can it be than that?

hmmm...whatever we say but we're not going to tell you now...
We'll wait and tell you after the fact.


----------



## thesource

willie said:


> Too DAM many people telling others that if they don't hunt in such and such a way they are not "fair chase".
> 
> If it is legal, then it can be fair chase for some. Don't like it? Get the regulations changed. That is how the regulations were put into place in the first place.
> 
> Too friggin bad if we don't live up to what YOU and the grand poo-bahs of archery want.


LOL - too funny. Another one of the radical crossbow activists goes on yet another rant.

First - input from each state's hunters is not exactly how most regulations started in the first place. Actually, if you remember correctly, P&Y has historically had a lot of influence and sway in crafting state bowhunting regulations.

It is quite funny that you were so vocal in eliminating high fence hunting in IN, but now feel "Too DAM many people telling others that if they don't hunt in such and such a way they are not "fair chase".

Tell us Willlie - what were your motivations in banning canned hunts in IN?


----------



## thesource

oldbhtrnewequip said:


> item 8 of Pope and Young's fair chase.
> 
> How much more blurry can it be than that?
> 
> hmmm...whatever we say but we're not going to tell you now...
> We'll wait and tell you after the fact.


Obviously, that's not what it means.

It means they reserve the right to change and tighten up the rules of fair chase - a position you were advocating FOR a couple of posts ago.

As you have already pointed out, you never know what technological widget is just around the corner. They recognize that they may have to address additional equipment or methods in the future.

Are all crossbow hunters as paranoid as the ones on AT appear to be?


----------



## willie

"Shooting" deer in a 10 acre pen isn't hunting. That is why I opposed fenced "hunting" in Indiana

Nice attempt to try and change the subject.

You're back is against the wall because you think everyone should live up to the P & Y club's dictate of what is and what isn't "fairchase" and they don't even know.

They changed that definition more than once. the last time because they realized they were becoming irrelevent AND they wanted to milk a cash cow.

oldbhtrnewequip is pinning your ears back. Why? because you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. You've bought into the mantra of the P & Y and that is all you can do. Fairchase, within the confines of the state regulation, is a *personal decision*. One that should not be made by a record keeping organization.


----------



## willie

thesource said:


> Obviously, that's not what it means.
> 
> It means they reserve the right to change and tighten up the rules of fair chase - a position you were advocating FOR a couple of posts ago.
> 
> As you have already pointed out, you never know what technological widget is just around the corner. They recognize that they may have to address additional equipment or methods in the future.
> 
> Are all crossbow hunters as paranoid as the ones on AT appear to be?


Nah... what that means is that they can change the rules, just like they did on the 65+% let off, so they wont go down the tube and can get more money.


----------



## JAVI

Pope and Young is a CLUB not a legislative body… a fact that I’m happy about… 

As with any CLUB you can choose to belong or choose not to belong. 

I choose not to belong to P&Y the same way I choose not to belong to the KKK. I don’t agree with their club charter and mandate. Since I don't subcribe to the club charter, why then would I accept their rules of fair chase? My rules are simple OBEY the laws of the area I am currently hunting in.. If I find a particular area to have laws which I find restrictive, I simply don't spend my money there. Pretty simple but it works for me... If I find myself in an area with laws which are less restrictive than I place upon myself then I adhere to my personal creed. But I do not expect those around me to abide to any more than the law we find ourselves currently hunting under. 

And I seriously doubt that the large percentage of American bow hunters give a twits ass about P&Y.


----------



## thesource

willie said:


> "Shooting" deer in a 10 acre pen isn't hunting. That is why I opposed fenced "hunting" in Indiana
> 
> Nice attempt to try and change the subject.


Nope - same subject.

So what you are saying is that it is fine for you to define "hunting" or ethical hunting, yet it is wrong for others to do so, particularly if their opinion clashes with your own.

Humorous, if not exactly consistent.

When it comes to defining what should be legal, ethical, and fair chase - I believe that P&Y has a lot more standing and credibility than those who are already violating P&Y rules of fair chase.

It is not surprising that those on the wrong side of the rules claim said rules invalid. That doesn't make it so for the mainstream bowhunting community, who admires, complies with, and respects fair chase.


----------



## Bellows1

thesource said:


> Nope - same subject.
> 
> So what you are saying is that it is fine for you to define "hunting" or ethical hunting, yet it is wrong for others to do so, particularly if their opinion clashes with your own.
> 
> Humorous, if not exactly consistent.
> 
> When it comes to defining what should be legal, ethical, and fair chase - I believe that P&Y has a lot more standing and credibility than those who are already violating P&Y rules of fair chase.
> 
> It is not surprising that those on the wrong side of the rules claim said rules invalid. That doesn't make it so for the mainstream bowhunting community, who admires, complies with, and respects fair chase.


P&Y rules are exactly that, rules for P&Y club. They do not apply and are not mandated by any state. 

Laws in the state of NY do not apply in the state of VT. However when in NY I must follow their laws. The same is true with P&Y, if I want to get into their record book I must follow their rules. If I don't want to get into their RB, I am not obligated to do so. That doesn't make me other anyone else less ethical, we are following the rules and guidelines imposed by our states. You can go above and beyond these limits if you choose, but that is your decision. You can yell "BOO!!!" before you shoot if you want to give them a sporting chance, but don't try to mandate it on the rest of us. :wink:


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip

thesource said:


> Obviously, that's not what it means.
> 
> It means they reserve the right to change and tighten up the rules of fair chase - a position you were advocating FOR a couple of posts ago.
> 
> As you have already pointed out, you never know what technological widget is just around the corner. They recognize that they may have to address additional equipment or methods in the future.
> 
> Are all crossbow hunters as paranoid as the ones on AT appear to be?


I do advocate for changing rules and being dynamic and keeping everyone on the same page. P&Y does not. Otherwise they would be changing the rules.
As you and others say..only 2 changes have occurred. I question that.

Its not obvious to me what rule 8 means.
Its not obvious to anyone else either.

If this is what they meant:
"We reserve the right to change these rules of fair chase in the future"
then why don't they just say that? Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. One would think that they thought long and hard about what they wanted to say before committing these rules to paper. One would think that over all the years that they've been in place, that someone would clarify them for the purposes of defining bold vs. blurry lines.

and it is significantly different from:
"Any other condition considered by the Board of Directors as unacceptable."

Why would they feel compelled to tell someone ahead of time that their rules may change in the future? Why are they compelled to not change them?

This is all okay for a club. They can do whatever they want.

Both you and I know that this is a catch all phrase. If someone submits a record animal under questionable "conditions" then they reserve the right to not honor that animal. True? That is after the fact reaction. They don't chalk that one up to .... "hmmm...didn't think of that" and let that one get in and change the rules in the future.

No.."its not competition between hunters...we're only honoring the animal."

Yet if an animal was taken under dishonorable conditions, then what..it doesn't get honored...because of the dishonor the hunter brought on it. 
True? If it is, then that just doesn't make sense to me Source. Maybe you can help me understand that one.

The blurry lines of doublespeak is what I have problems understanding. 

In addition to these questions, go back and answer the other questions source...or just say you don't want to and that's okay...we'll leave it at that.

No paranoia here. At least I think anyway.
I think I know how to read and interpret what I'm reading. If I have questions regarding what I'm reading, because I don't understand, then why is that paranoia? Do I assume too much in a negative manner? If so what do I assume?


----------



## willie

What part of shooting deer in a 10 acre fence do you not understand?

This is *NOT* hunting in any shape or form.

Answer why the P & Y can all of a sudden change their definition of not a "hunting bow" and "not fair chase" to it is now a "hunting bow" and is now "fair chase"?

Maybe they could see the handwriting on the wall that they were becoming more and more irrelevent and they were not making much money on entries so all of a sudden that "vertical crossbow" that G. Fred Asbell talked about is now a "hunting bow" and "fair chase'.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in their change in stance on what is and what isn't "fair chase"?

You have yet to address this.


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip

*You said
When it comes to defining what should be legal, ethical, and fair chase - I believe that P&Y has a lot more standing and credibility than those who are already violating P&Y rules of fair chase.*

Who is violating P&Y rules of fair chase?


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip

willie said:


> What part of shooting deer in a 10 acre fence do you not understand?
> 
> This is *NOT* hunting in any shape or form.
> 
> Answer why the P & Y can all of a sudden change their definition of a "hunting bow" and "not fair chase" to it is now a "hunting bow" and is now "fair chase"?
> 
> Maybe they could see the handwriting on the wall that they were becoming more and more irrelevent and they were not making much money on entries so all of a sudden that "vertical crossbow" that G. Fred Asbell talked about is now a "hunting bow" and "fair chase'.
> 
> Do you not see the hypocrisy in their change in stance on what is and what isn't "fair chase"?
> 
> You have yet to address this.


Willie,

Say what you said again, in a different way. I'm not sure I understand what you're getting it.

Nonetheless...P&Y's definition of fair chase has nothing to do with the bow in bow season.

Or maybe I'm confused.....again.

At any rate here's my logic:

I consider the rules of fair chase to be the lead in paragraph and the subsequently numbered rules behind it.
The only thing relative to the bow is it can't have electronics on it.
That is Fair Chase rule 7. Why you say?

_Point one:_
The special note is not fair chase...it simply defines a bow for the purposes of record book entries. *It says "For the purpose of the Pope and Young Club's Records Program,"*

_Point two:_
It goes on to reference another location where a bow is defined. Section C item c reiterates "Electronic or battery-powered devices shall not be attached to a hunting bow." Since theres no sense in saying something twice, I've determined, yet again, that the definition of a bow only has to do with their record books and has nothing to do with fair chase during bow season. 

_Point three:_
No where in the rules of fair chase do they talk about seasons. At all.
If I take a deer during firearms season, while complying with the rules of fair chase AND using a bow as they have defined it, then I can honor "our" animal in the record book.

*Here's why I'm confused:*
Source has repeatedly said that crossbows aren't fair chase during bow season. I don't know if that is his own view or that of P&Y.

Any thoughts?


----------



## JAVI

Why bother discussing the rules of P&Y, they are only relevant if you choose to belong to the club. For those who choose not too associate with the club they are of no consequence at all… 

Well ok except for the minor irritant (sort of like a chigger) of a very small minority who are constantly trying to force everyone else to abide by their clubs rules. 


Kind’a like the KKK….


----------



## TXWhackMaster

thesource said:


> Sorry - there is no defense for escape proof enclosures. One could keep people out with standard fence. High fence serves a single purpose - to keep animals in.
> 
> 
> 
> God built escape proof enclosures. They are called oceans, rivers, lakes, canyons, etc. Is a 20 acre island "fair chase"? How about 12000 acre high fence? How about a 53,000 acre island off the coast of CA? We are all enclosed. What size enclosure satifies your personal definition of "fair chase" or "free range"? I know what level of challenge constitutes a "good hunt" to me. I don't need any help from Pope and Young. Can't you decide for yourself?
> 
> Gradually expanding the definition of "fair chase" and "free range" while eliminating hunting rights and access is the strategy of the "anti-hunting" movement. This is a calculated approach that becomes effective if the "ethical" hunter buys in with ego, elitism and naitivity.
Click to expand...


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip

JAVI said:


> Why bother discussing the rules of P&Y, ….


We're talking about fair chase, and who defines it.
P&Y would like to. 

They attempt to influence whomever they can to disallow crossbows into bow season. No where do they say crossbows are unethical. No where do they say that crossbows aren't fair chase. Nowhere do they say that crossbows should be disalllowed from bow season because of fair chase.
They do say that crossbows shouldn't be allowed in bow season. They just don't say why.

Source often quotes P&Y as THE quintessential organization as well.
He also says that he proposes more stringent rules than P&Y.

I've done a search on every page on the P&Y web site. 

Here is where they use the word season.

_http://www.pope-young.org/entryreq.asp
The Records Program maintained by the Club is open to anyone. A successful bowhunter does not need to be a member of the Club to honor an animal with a listing in the Records. Animals must be taken with a bow and arrow under the rules of Fair Chase during legal hunting seasons, as well as in accordance with the controlling hunting regulations._

(they could have just said fair chase if bows were part of it and crossbows weren't)

_http://www.pope-young.org/spotlight/Winter_2004.pdf
That symposium
was held in the aftermath of a season in which recreational hunters killed over 500 buffalo that left_
Yellowstone National Park.

_http://www.pope-young.org/spotlight.asp
Learning about mule deer and their habits is not
only fascinating, but can pay dividends come hunting
season._

_Other project phases include telemetry monitoring
of does to determine winter habitat use,
seasonal range use, migration status and timing,
and range fidelity._

_http://www.pope-young.org/spotlight/Fall_2003.pdf
Information on seasonal movements,
home range size, survival rates, and
cause-specific mortality rates also will help
to more effectively manage antelope populations.
In regard to seasonal movements,
does have been radio collared as part of the
research also._

_https://www.pope-young.org/measureinfo.asp
This year I received a call from a friend of a hunter who had harvested a bull elk during a prior archery season here in Arizona. _


_https://www.pope-young.org/clubnews.asp
As the result of the National Bowhunting Summit meetings, its was abundantly clear that the organized bowhunting community is strongly opposed to the growing trend by game agencies of permitting crossbows to be used in bow seasons.  A position statement on the crossbow issue was developed and was signed on to by 72 bowhunting organizations and bowhunting related businesses. The position taken is that "crossbows are not bows and therefore should not be permitted in bow seasons or in archery-only hunting areas."_

(if they thought that crossbows weren't fair chase in bow season, they could have said so.) 

_"We see dangers, too, in promoting the commercial profiteering of crossbows at the expense of our national resources, " Ballard said. "It's a slippery slope. No user group exists for crossbow hunting and yet the public trustees of our natural resources are being pandered to by crossbow manufacturers and the commerce of hunting to allow crossbow hunting in bow seasons when no public interest exists."_

(they could have said crossbows weren't fair chase during bow season here as well. They didn't.)

_The organizational representatives at the Bowhunting Summit were unanimous in their opposition to crossbows being allowed in bow seasons. The position taken is that crossbows are not bows and therefore they should not be allowed in bowhunting only seasons, except where the states already have exemptions for qualified physical disabilities._
_Another major issue that will be an agenda item is that of effectively combating the ever-increasing effort by a segment of the archery industry to put crossbows into bowhunting-only seasons. _


_Chad will take you to hunt undisturbed rams in the early season when the weather is favorable;_

_Museum hours for the winter season are: _

_A wide range of considerations are involved in decisions to change boundaries, such as (but not limited to) historical range, present population, outlook for future population, hunting seasons,_

(so that's it folks....nowhere else on the P&Y web site do they talk about seasons. 

It seems to me that Source 'acts' like a P&Y member. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't who knows. If not he should consider becoming one based on his beliefs. What's not right is that he appears to be representing that organization and thus putting words into the mouth of that organization that don't exist elsewhere. Maybe I'be misintrepreted. Come to think of it..I take that back.
He has said time and again that he can't speak for Pope and Young.

Nowhere does P&Y say that crossbows in bow season violates fair chase.
Clearly P&Y does not want crossbows in bow season. Its just not clear why...
other than the postion that they are not bows, by their definition, which has nothing to do with Fair chase.)


----------



## JAVI

That is my point… Why bother with P&Y or The Source (# 11 on my ignore list), neither can set the rules of fair chase for me or you unless we let them. And in my case that ain’t happening. So they are irrelevant except as a chigger bite. Fair Chase except as spelled out by the laws governing the areas you choose to hunt are strictly a personal thing and should be left as such. As I said earlier, if an area is too restrictive for my taste I show my disapproval by not spending my money there. And if the rules are not strict enough for my tastes I have the option to increase the difficulty to any degree I choose within the law. Anything else is to relinquish yet another freedom of choice. 

Why in the world would I want The Source or P&Y to dictate how I may hunt?

As far as crossbows in archery season… go ahead…. I could care less… I really don’t care who I share the woods with as long as they aren’t under my feet… I hunt in gun season with my bow and no one says I can’t, it’s perfectly legal in the areas I hunt.

In fact it wouldn’t hurt my feelings if they just said… ready set go…. To one big season… I just don’t give a hoot… it’s all hunting


----------



## aceoky

Well, at least so far, it looks like most of us are in agreement, that so long as the applicable laws are followed, any point after that is an individual choice, and up to the archery hunter(or any hunter, I suppose)......

But private clubs do not decide at any rate for most of us here, thanks to everyone who has responded thus far.


----------



## twogun

thesource said:


> And that, my friends, is the beginning of the end for bowhunting.
> 
> While the radical right fringe of hunting worries that any restriction is a concession to antihunting, we are losing the battle that matters.
> 
> *We will lose the vast majority of the non-hunters that currently support hunting because they feel it is an honorable tradition.*
> 
> When it all comes crashing down -remember that you heard it here, first.



And we will have people like *you* to thank, people who manipulate the meaning of "Fair Chase" to furhter their poitical agenda, people who bad mouth honest, decent, hard working, ethical, "Fair Chase" hunters as lazy incompetent cheaters, people who slander decades old hunting practices and seasons. 

The ARAs are working all the time to convince the non hunting public that all hunters and hunting are corrupt. People like you do some of their work for them, congratulations:thumbs_do .


----------



## aceoky

twogun said:


> And we will have people like *you* to thank, people who manipulate the meaning of "Fair Chase" to further their political agenda, people who bad mouth honest, decent, hard working, ethical, "Fair Chase" hunters as lazy incompetent cheaters, people who slander decades old hunting practices and seasons.
> 
> The ARAs are working all the time to convince the non hunting public that all hunters and hunting are corrupt. People like you do some of their work for them, congratulations:thumbs_do .


And the worst part is to hope to keep other good archery hunters out of the season so they can keep it for themselves!! 

Rather than a willingness to share a renewable resource with others they'd rather feud, divide and alienate other hunters at any and all cost to what they say they wish to protect! 

When what we are doing is in fact what every other archer has done to either get the season or become a part of it, they somehow try to "paint" us all as "bad for bowhuning" etc. the same was all said on the inclusion of the compound, and most would agree it was in fact good for bowhunting as the crossbow also has been proven in many states to be already, as more states find out the truth, and base decisions on facts and data not opinions and move toward inclusion, the fact is, we get even more data and facts to support our stance, they still have none, they use the "lazy", etc insults of other hunters to try to further their cause, and I trust most can see that is harming us all, and helping no one........at least on "our side"(hunters that would be btw)....


----------



## sean

if you have to ask what is and is not fair chase I dont know if a definition would be sufficient I guess its diferent for everyone if you are a healthy person in my opinion you have no buisness hunting in a cage if a person is disabled perhaps ..


----------



## awshucks

*fair chase and ethics*

Consider this scenario: You've been on your stand for well over an hour before daylight. You see a doe headed your way, followed by the biggest "book" buck you have ever seen. The buck pauses broadside at 12 or so yards to look over where a dog just barked 1/2 mile away. Perfect broadside shot. One little problem, it's still 5 maybe 6 minutes before legal shooting time in your area. Deep down you know that when he looks back at the doe that kept on truckin, he's gonna be a gone pecan. Would you take the shot or let him walk?

Same scenario as above, only you honestly didn't know it was still just a tad early, and you piled him up. Would you enter him in P&Y or B&C?

Does taking him early by that small amount put you on the same level as the jerk w/ .22 mag and a light?


----------



## twogun

www.huntfairchase.com


> LEGAL VERSUS ETHICAL
> *Hunting is an intensely personal experience fraught with personal choices. *Consider the contrast between what is legal and what is ethical. It is difficult to conceive of a situation in hunting where the commission of an illegal act could be considered ethical. But, the inverse is not only possible, but also common. In short, *legality describes the outside boundaries within which ethical choices are made.*
> 
> For example, some hunters take shots at deer in excess of 300 yards. They have rifles and ammunition capable of accuracy at such ranges. They practice at those ranges and are capable and confident of almost certain clean kills. Other hunters would never think of taking a shot at this distance. It's legal. There is nothing in the game regulations about maximum allowable distances yet many will not take that shot. Why? Some do not have experience with this type of shooting. Others feel the risk is too high for wounding and therefore the practice is unethical. Others might consider that shooting at such ranges, even with a high probability of success, is simply too great an advantage over the prey and would choose to stalk in closer.
> 
> The point is, there are many things in the hunting and habitat management world that are legal, yet can be considered by some to be unethical. Again,* it is left for each individual to set his or her own ethical standards.* Hopefully, all of our collective decisions will shine positively on hunting, management and its traditions.


----------



## aceoky

Thanks twogun, that was awesome and the point I attempted to try to make......


----------



## Tim4Trout

awshucks said:


> ...One little problem, it's still 5 maybe 6 minutes before legal shooting time in your area. ...
> 
> Would you take the shot or let him walk?
> 
> Same scenario as above, only you honestly didn't know it was still just a tad early, and you piled him up. Would you enter him in P&Y or B&C?


In the first part, you're dealing with legality and not ethics. He walks.

The second part is a toss up. Though I usually carry a watch with me to know when I would be legal.

I personally won't enter a deer in p&y.


----------



## sean

you would soil your self if you knew how many book animals were taken under questionable circumstances ...


----------



## thesource

TXWhackMaster said:


> thesource said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry - there is no defense for escape proof enclosures. One could keep people out with standard fence. High fence serves a single purpose - to keep animals in.
> 
> 
> 
> God built escape proof enclosures. They are called oceans, rivers, lakes, canyons, etc. Is a 20 acre island "fair chase"? How about 12000 acre high fence? How about a 53,000 acre island off the coast of CA? We are all enclosed. What size enclosure satifies your personal definition of "fair chase" or "free range"? I know what level of challenge constitutes a "good hunt" to me. I don't need any help from Pope and Young. Can't you decide for yourself?
> 
> Gradually expanding the definition of "fair chase" and "free range" while eliminating hunting rights and access is the strategy of the "anti-hunting" movement. This is a calculated approach that becomes effective if the "ethical" hunter buys in with ego, elitism and naitivity.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true high fence hnter.
> 
> Yea, I can see how a river is like an escape proof fence - not.
> 
> Deer can swim, you know. I have yet seen one climb a fence.
> 
> Keep justifying it yourself, but you won't change anyone's mind with THAT rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## thesource

awshucks said:


> Does taking him early by that small amount put you on the same level as the jerk w/ .22 mag and a light?


Yes - breaking the law is breaking the law. There is no gray area - you are either hunting legally or not.


----------



## thesource

twogun said:


> And we will have people like *you* to thank, people who manipulate the meaning of "Fair Chase" to furhter their poitical agenda, people who bad mouth honest, decent, hard working, ethical, "Fair Chase" hunters as lazy incompetent cheaters, people who slander decades old hunting practices and seasons.


All because some yahoo with a crossbow thinks he is a real bowhunter and demands into a season where he doesn't belong!


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> All because some yahoo with a crossbow thinks he is a real bowhunter and demands into a season where he doesn't belong!


a real bowhunter is someone who hunts well with any version of a bow he chooses. You are not in a position to tell anyone who is a real bowhunter or what season they belong in


----------



## willie

thesource said:


> All because some yahoo with a crossbow thinks he is a real bowhunter and demands into a season where he doesn't belong!


I was a *REAL* bowhunter when you were still crapping yellow..probably even before that.

I've bow killed critters with recurves, compounds (2, 4 and 6 wheels), recurve crossbow and compound crossbow.

We are still waiting on you to post anything about *REAL* hunting and not just anti-crossbow or your wife's recipes.


----------



## thesource

Yawn.

I used to play football, too. That doesn't make me a football player today, now does it?


----------



## willie

thesource said:


> Yawn.
> 
> I used to play football, too. That doesn't make me a football player today, now does it?


YAWN, back at you.

If you still played it would.

I still bowhunt.....do you?


----------



## thesource

Sorry, Willie. You do not bowhunt, you crossbow hunt.

I play touch football with my family - doesn't give me the right to declare myself a real football player anymore.

Times change, we grow older, we cannot do the things we enjoy doing anymore, part of our identity fades. It saddens us all.

Of course I still bowhunt - what a stupid question.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Sorry, Willie. You do not bowhunt, you crossbow hunt.
> 
> I play touch football with my family - doesn't give me the right to declare myself a real football player anymore.
> 
> Times change, we grow older, we cannot do the things we enjoy doing anymore, part of our identity fades. It saddens us all.
> 
> Of course I still bowhunt - what a stupid question.


so you say. Willie can prove it


----------



## thesource

LOL

How do you know that's not just Willie posing by deer and turkeys that his son shot for him?


----------



## JAVI

Jim C said:


> so you say. Willie can prove it


Jim C I think you nailed it... thesource is so negative about bow hunters that you have to think... maybe he don't hunt at all... probably a VEGAN:wink:


----------



## Jim C

JAVI said:


> Jim C I think you nailed it... thesource is so negative about bow hunters that you have to think... maybe he don't hunt at all... probably a VEGAN:wink:



LOL- NO cheeseburger in paradise?


----------



## Free Range

> By oldbhtr
> If that was the case, then P&Y shouldn't attempt to supersede B&C's definition of fair chase.


I don’t see P&Y as superseding B&C, it more like adding to. You are talking about two different activities, related by the act of killing an animal. They are both hunting but it ends there, to try and say the B&C rules (which by the way are for gun hunters, no matter how you want to look at it) should be all encompassing and are a good rule of thumb for bow hunters to follow, is, short sighted and to much of a anything goes stand for me. 



> If its wrong to take a deer with something on day 15 then its wrong to take that deer down on day 1.


You lost me here, does P&Y say it’s ok to use a gun on day 15????? 



> What's wrong with leaving it at that?


Oh I don’t know,,, maybe the fact that there are people that feel some need to shoot drugged penned and chained up animals. Or could it be that some people think it ok to shoot animals in state parks then try to proclaim themselves as great hunters. How about some people thinking that technology is the key to success?

Should fair chase and game laws be the same? Should there be a stricter set of rules a person should aspire to, then just the game laws? And why should there be game laws at all, above bag limits, what does a law like no jack lighting really do? Who does some politician think he is anyway? What right does he have to tell someone that works hard all day to support his family, that he can’t go out at night and hunt?


----------



## JAVI

*Excuse me…*

I guess I missed the part where it is ok to try and force P&Y rules of fair chase upon all bow hunters. But somehow it isn’t ok for other organizations such as the KKK and PETA to attempt to force their rules and beliefs on the general populace. 

Fair Chase is for the individual to decide for themselves within the laws of the area they choose to hunt… If someone wants to adhere to the rules of P&Y then that is their decision to make… not yours


----------



## aceoky

Free Range said:


> I don’t see P&Y as superseding B&C, it more like adding to. You are talking about two different activities, related by the act of killing an animal. They are both hunting but it ends there, to try and say the B&C rules (which by the way are for gun hunters, no matter how you want to look at it) should be all encompassing and are a good rule of thumb for bow hunters to follow, is, short sighted and to much of a anything goes stand for me.
> 
> 
> 
> You lost me here, does P&Y say it’s ok to use a gun on day 15?????
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I don’t know,,, maybe the fact that there are people that feel some need to shoot drugged penned and chained up animals. Or could it be that some people think it ok to shoot animals in state parks then try to proclaim themselves as great hunters. How about some people thinking that technology is the key to success?
> 
> Should fair chase and game laws be the same? Should there be a stricter set of rules a person should aspire to, then just the game laws? And why should there be game laws at all, above bag limits, what does a law like no jack lighting really do? Who does some politician think he is anyway? What right does he have to tell someone that works hard all day to support his family, that he can’t go out at night and hunt?


Gotta love it , now it's reduced to using a crossbow is akin to "jack lighting " deer at night......... 

It's so easy to see, there is NO good reason to include compounds and not crossbows, and "fair chase" certainly is not on your side........this constant insulting of hunters is not helping your case at all........never has, never will, think about it.......


----------



## thesource

aceoky said:


> Gotta love it , now it's reduced to using a crossbow is akin to "jack lighting " deer at night.........


Actually, in NY using a crossbow IS the same as jacklighting a deer. Both are illegal, both would be poaching.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Actually, in NY using a crossbow IS the same as jacklighting a deer. Both are illegal, both would be poaching.


a sad reflection on the mentality of the NY powers that be and a testament to how powerful lies and superstitions are when it comes to setting public policy


----------



## doctariAFC

Just to get this one straight, if we are talking about "Fair Chase", I would like to know how the crossbow is "unfair Chase". Fair chase is in regards to the hunt, not the harvest. If we wish to define fair chase and equate this as fiar harvest, then, strictly speaking, we should be hunting and harvesting with our bare hands.

Harvest is not sopken of under the Fair Chase principles, it is spoken of under Ethical Kill principles.

Apples and oranges. For instance, Fair Chase governs that you do not shoot at a swimming deer. Fair Chase also dictates you do not hunt from the back of a snowmoblie or ATV, nor do you engage in pushing deer on the back of said motorized vehicles.

However, none of this applies to implement chosen. This is covered under ethical harvest.

Next topic, please.


----------



## Free Range

> By Willie
> The regulations and laws governing us in our own individual states are in place due to what the hunters in that state gave input on to what is and what isn't "fair chase".


But Javi said I and ME, should he conform to what others, even in his state say is fair chase?


----------



## Free Range

> Gotta love it , now it's reduced to using a crossbow is akin to "jack lighting " deer at night.........


Gotta love Ace, everything is about the x-bow. Now where did I say x-bow? 



> this constant insulting of hunters is not helping your case at all........never has, never will, think about it.......


Please show me where in the quoted post I insulted any hunter.


----------



## aceoky

Free Range said:


> Please show me where in the quoted post I insulted any hunter.


*"And why should there be game laws at all, above bag limits, what does a law like no jack lighting really do? Who does some politician think he is anyway? What right does he have to tell someone that works hard all day to support his family, that he can’t go out at night and hunt?"*

Okay, you didn't exactly "say" crossbows, but it was implied because we all know how YOU compare "choice" to such things as gun hunting and now, "jacklighting deer at night"......so it was understood... and I still think that is what you meant? If you didn't I'll apologize.........so what exactly did you mean if not the crossbow that equates to you with "jacklighting deer at night?"

Right there! IF that's not an insult to call jacklighting "hunting," what in your opinion would be??


----------



## JAVI

*sorry you missed the entire quote...*



Free Range said:


> But Javi said I and ME, should he conform to what others, even in his state say is fair chase?


So I'll Quote it again for you....



JAVI said:


> I define fair chase for ME within the laws governing my hunting area.
> 
> No one else has the RIGHT to tell me how I should hunt...


----------



## thesource

doctariAFC said:


> Just to get this one straight, if we are talking about "Fair Chase", I would like to know how the crossbow is "unfair Chase". Fair chase is in regards to the hunt, not the harvest. If we wish to define fair chase and equate this as fiar harvest, then, strictly speaking, we should be hunting and harvesting with our bare hands.
> 
> Harvest is not sopken of under the Fair Chase principles, it is spoken of under Ethical Kill principles.
> 
> Apples and oranges. For instance, Fair Chase governs that you do not shoot at a swimming deer. Fair Chase also dictates you do not hunt from the back of a snowmoblie or ATV, nor do you engage in pushing deer on the back of said motorized vehicles.
> 
> However, none of this applies to implement chosen. This is covered under ethical harvest.
> 
> Next topic, please.


If you notice the thread title, this is actually about fair chase in general.

If you read through it all, you will find there are numerous folks who do not feel obligated to hunt by the accepted fair chase rules, including the ones you outlined above that should seem obvious to any hunter who dares to consider himself ethical.


----------



## doctariAFC

thesource said:


> If you notice the thread title, this is actually about fair chase in general.
> 
> If you read through it all, you will find there are numerous folks who do not feel obligated to hunt by the accepted fair chase rules, including the ones you outlined above that should seem obvious to any hunter who dares to consider himself ethical.


I did notice it. Fair Chase and Ethical Harvest are different, are they not?

And, yes, you are correct, some hunters choose to disobey these principles, and even the laws, which makes them poachers. This is a hunter issue, and an enforcement issue, when it comes to law-breaking "hunters". We certainly do not need another law or several, as we have ample laws to enforce as it is.

But, again, an implement falls under Ethical Harvest, IMHO.


----------



## JAVI

doctariAFC said:


> I did notice it. Fair Chase and Ethical Harvest are different, are they not?
> 
> And, yes, you are correct, some hunters choose to disobey these principles, and even the laws, which makes them poachers. This is a hunter issue, and an enforcement issue, when it comes to law-breaking "hunters". We certainly do not need another law or several, as we have ample laws to enforce as it is.
> 
> But, again, an implement falls under Ethical Harvest, IMHO.


Doc...

Ask him ACCEPTED by whom.... I certainly don't accept P&Y or B&C as the ruling authority of all hunting... The FEDERAL, STATE and LOCAL governments of the areas I hunt set the RULES (which I can add difficulty to if I wish) not some CLUB or GROUP.


----------



## Free Range

By Ace
Right there! IF that's not an insult to call jacklighting "hunting," what in your opinion would be??

Well Ace, in some states it is perfectly legal to “jack light” Coyotes and other animals at night. Is it an insult to them? Jack lighting is nothing more then using a light at night to illuminate something to shoot at. If jack lighting is an insult to you, then so be it, to those that do it I’m sure it’s not. 

And no I wasn’t even thinking about x-bows when I wrote the above. If you want to jump on everything I write please answer the question posed. Who are you or some smuck in the capital to tell someone they can’t hunt at night? 

If we are going to go down this silly road of what is and is not fair chase, and who is and is not allowed to tell “you” how to hunt, then we must go down it all the way. And since you brought them up, why is it ok to use a x-bow during archery season, but not ok to hunt at night? 




> By JAVI So I'll Quote it again for you....





> Originally Posted by JAVI
> I define fair chase for ME within the laws governing my hunting area.
> 
> No one else has the RIGHT to tell me how I should hunt...



JAVI, I can respect that, anyone that takes a stand that is logical and consistent, is ok with me. I may not agree with you, but I can respect your stance.


----------



## willie

thesource said:


> Sorry, Willie. You do not bowhunt, you crossbow hunt.
> 
> I play touch football with my family - doesn't give me the right to declare myself a real football player anymore.
> 
> Times change, we grow older, we cannot do the things we enjoy doing anymore, part of our identity fades. It saddens us all.
> 
> Of course I still bowhunt - what a stupid question.


Say what you will, I am still BOWHUNTING.

Tell us about your bowhunting.

We are still waiting for a REAL hunting post from you instead of the anti-crossbow/hunting rhetoric.


----------



## willie

thesource said:


> LOL
> 
> How do you know that's not just Willie posing by deer and turkeys that his son shot for him?


How do we know that it is not your wife's recipe for venison roast?  

You *ONLY* worthwhile post on here.


----------



## willie

thesource said:


> Actually, in NY using a crossbow IS the same as jacklighting a deer. Both are illegal, both would be poaching.


not true at all.

A quadriplegic can use one with a blow tube.

The ONLY way one can use one no matter what other physical limiations that one would have.

No telling how many bowhunters had to stop hunting because of your state's silly arse laws.


----------



## thesource

willie said:


> How do we know that it is not your wife's recipe for venison roast?
> 
> You *ONLY* worthwhile post on here.


Did you try it? It's good stuff.... I love cooking with wine. Sometimes I even add it to the recipe:wink:


----------



## aceoky

FR, this thread is about "fair chase", and it's presumed we'd be discusing big game not varmints.......so it doesn't matter , how many states can you jacklight deer in? Elk, bear, sheep, etc.etc.etc. so YES it's an insult to call those by breaking the law doing so, a "hunter" even if the politicians shouldn't have (in your view) made it illegal, it is, and thus can't be "fair chase", nor "ethical" at least to most.....

One minute you condemn "canned hunts" the next you are "for jacklighting"????? (I'm guessing I must have missed something here???)(at least I hope so)

I'm sorry and apologize for thinking you were reffering to crossbows, if you say you weren't that's "good enough" for me!


----------



## aceoky

JAVI said:


> Doc...
> 
> Ask him ACCEPTED by whom.... I certainly don't accept P&Y or B&C as the ruling authority of all hunting... The FEDERAL, STATE and LOCAL governments of the areas I hunt set the RULES (which I can add difficulty to if I wish) not some CLUB or GROUP.



And THAT is the intent of this thread! To find out who or what sets the rules for YOU(whomever YOU may be!)

I agree, they are not the "end all be all", for me and I suspect most archery hunters(or gun hunters either fwiw).....to some perhaps, that's not saying too much in the "real world"...........IF you choose to accept these fine.....just don't even hope that most of us are going to be expected to do the same.....


----------



## willie

thesource said:


> Did you try it? It's good stuff.... I love cooking with wine. Sometimes I even add it to the recipe:wink:


As I said.. that is the ONLY worthwhile post that you've made.

I never touch the stuff..

*AGAIN...*

Tell us about your bowhunting.

We are still waiting for a REAL hunting post from you instead of the anti-crossbow/hunting rhetoric.


----------



## thesource

aceoky said:


> ...........IF you choose to accept these fine.....just don't even hope that most of us are going to be expected to do the same.....


I do not expect slob hunters will follow the rules of fair chase.

Take that however you'd like.


----------



## thesource

willie said:


> I never touch the stuff..


Perhaps you should - wouldn't be so ornery....



willie said:


> *AGAIN...*
> Tell us about your bowhunting.
> We are still waiting for a REAL hunting post from you instead of the anti-crossbow/hunting rhetoric.


First - I want to go on record as saying that your inference that I am anti-hunting is both insulting and offensive.

Just because I do not want xbows in bowseason does not make me an antihunter, and I resent the implication. I am usually very restrained in notifying moderators about personal attacks, but I can think of no personal attack as offensive as calling a hunter an antihunter. Once again, your character (or lack of) has shown through.

Second - Anyone willing to look at the "Archery Stamp" thread will see you exposed for the liar that you are.

Timestamped 2:34 PM, thesource posts on NY archery stamps. Timestamped 2:58 PM, Willie posts about IN archery stamps - obviously following a post by me that had nothing to do with crossbows.

Timestamped 4:53 PM, Willie makes a jackass out of himself by claiming thesource has never posted anything other than crossbows except for a recipe (even though he had just followed a source post on archery stamps.)


Hee-Haw! Hee-Haw! Hee - Haw!

Nice job, Willie!:darkbeer:


----------



## aceoky

thesource said:


> I do not expect slob hunters will follow the rules of fair chase.
> 
> Take that however you'd like.



I said THOSE rules.........you "jump" on Willie, but you call me..(and every other hunter who does not accept P&Y as "gospel" on what they say)...... a "slob hunter"......your lack of character is really showing.........again!

Take that.......however


----------



## JAVI

Gosh... I think I've been called a name  just because I fail to adhere to someone elses sense of fair chase... Isn't a breach of the rules of AT????:wink: 

And all this time I thought I lived in the United States of America where we still had Freedom of Choice...


----------



## thesource

Read it again.

I said I do not expect slob hunters to follow fair chase....

I did not say those who do not espouse fair chase rules are slob hunters.

I believe more than a few here need some remedial reading comprehension training.


----------



## willie

thesource said:


> Perhaps you should - wouldn't be so ornery....
> 
> 
> 
> First - I want to go on record as saying that your inference that I am anti-hunting is both insulting and offensive.
> 
> Just because I do not want xbows in bowseason does not make me an antihunter, and I resent the implication. I am usually very restrained in notifying moderators about personal attacks, but I can think of no personal attack as offensive as calling a hunter an antihunter. Once again, your character (or lack of) has shown through.
> 
> Second - Anyone willing to look at the "Archery Stamp" thread will see you exposed for the liar that you are.
> 
> Timestamped 2:34 PM, thesource posts on NY archery stamps. Timestamped 2:58 PM, Willie posts about IN archery stamps - obviously following a post by me that had nothing to do with crossbows.
> 
> Timestamped 4:53 PM, Willie makes a jackass out of himself by claiming thesource has never posted anything other than crossbows except for a recipe (even though he had just followed a source post on archery stamps.)
> 
> 
> Hee-Haw! Hee-Haw! Hee - Haw!
> 
> Nice job, Willie!:darkbeer:


OK .. that makes TWO whole posts in how many years?

Now, tell us about your bowhunting...

Everyone else on here contributes to hunting and/or archery shooting threads. How about you?


----------



## thesource

willie said:


> OK .. that makes TWO whole posts in how many years?
> 
> Now, tell us about your bowhunting...
> 
> Everyone else on here contributes to hunting and/or archery shooting threads. How about you?


LOL.

Another lie...you are pinnochio himself, lately.:lie: :lie: :lie: 

You wouldnot have to go back a week to find more than that. But who cares?

Only you, Willie. You can't stand to have your crossbow propaganda countered by truth.

The truth is if your side didn't produce so many half truths and misrepresentations, I wouldn't have to post so much.

Just tell the truth instead of constantly spinning .... and tell your friends, too!:darkbeer:


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> LOL.
> 
> Another lie...you are pinnochio himself, lately.:lie: :lie: :lie:
> 
> You wouldnot have to go back a week to find more than that. But who cares?
> 
> Only you, Willie. You can't stand to have your crossbow propaganda countered by truth.
> 
> The truth is if your side didn't produce so many half truths and misrepresentations, I wouldn't have to post so much.
> 
> Just tell the truth instead of constantly spinning .... and tell your friends, too!:darkbeer:


I don't see you addressing willie's points source. You have yet to post any truth supporting your crossbow phobia. All we have is individual issues of a psychological nature. You have never ever posted a single argument that is based on a logical argument-rather you post sophistry such as claiming crossbows aren't bows or that crossbow archers are lazy: nonsense that has no persuasive merit to objective members of the public or game managers


----------



## fasst

Let's get this thread back on track fellas.....


----------



## TXWhackMaster

fasst said:


> Let's get this thread back on track fellas.....


Now that there's funny. I don't care who you are!


----------



## Tim4Trout

thesource said:


> Sorry, Willie. You do not bowhunt, you crossbow hunt.


I went fishing last night.

Oops wait a minute, accoring to thesource's logic I didn't go fishing

I went rubber worm fishing, then I went Johnson minnow fishing, then I went Rapala fishing, then I went Mepps spinner fishing, then I went ....


----------



## thesource

Here is a more correct analogy for you.

If you want to fish for trout, it must be in trout season.

If you want to fish in the fly-fishing only stretches of the trout stream, you must use a fly rod. By the way, only when you use a fly rod can you call yourself a flyfisherman - the worm dunkers aren't allowed in fly fishing only sections and don't call themselves flyfishermen.

I don't see the wormdunkers crying and whining that the fly only water be opened up to bait bishing. No, they know if they want to fish in that water they will need to learn to use a flyrod.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Here is a more correct analogy for you.
> 
> If you want to fish for trout, it must be in trout season.
> 
> If you want to fish in the fly-fishing only stretches of the trout stream, you must use a fly rod. By the way, only when you use a fly rod can you call yourself a flyfisherman - the worm dunkers aren't allowed in fly fishing only sections and don't call themselves flyfishermen.
> 
> I don't see the wormdunkers crying and whining that the fly only water be opened up to bait bishing. No, they know if they want to fish in that water they will need to learn to use a flyrod.



the problem with your analogy is that they let baitcasters into fly fishing season and you whine about guys with spinning rigs


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip

*Free range*

*You said
I don’t see P&Y as superseding B&C, it more like adding to. *

Why don't they say that they are adding to Boone and Crockett?
or do they? Maybe I missed it.

If they don't reference B&C, would you not agree that they are superseding it, as B&C rules applied to all hunters?

Some people feel compelled to make the rules out, for everyone else, more than they were meant to be.

How do you think P&Y feels about AZ and TX superseding it's rules?
Why would they feel compelled to not just use the P&Y rules?
Not stringent enough?

http://www.lonestarbowhunter.com/rules.html
http://www.azwildlife.org/RulesFairChase.pdf

*You said
You are talking about two different activities, related by the act of killing an animal.* 

No I'm not.

I talking about hunting. As I explained earlier, the only rule that has anything to do with bowhunting is rule #7 which says you can't use anything electronic on the bow or arrow. Otherwise someone from the outside could/would look at those rules and say that they apply to all types of hunting.

Do all of the other rules then get negated if they aren't bow specific, and we then just follow what B&C say? I'd suggest not. 

*You said
They are both hunting but it ends there,... *

We're talking about fair chase...right?

B&C doesn't distinguish between bow hunters and gun hunters.
http://www.huntfairchase.com/index.php/fuseaction/ethics.now

"The concept of "fair chase" is a noble one and something that is meant to be a unifying, governing force."

Clearly P&Y say it doesn't end there.

http://www.pope-young.org/fairchase.asp
It does, however, extend beyond the hunt itself; it is an attitude and a way of life based in a deep-seated respect for wildlife, for the environment, and for other individuals who share the bounty of this vast continent's natural resources.

*You said
...to try and say the B&C rules (which by the way are for gun hunters, no matter how you want to look at it) should be all encompassing and are a good rule of thumb for bow hunters to follow, is, short sighted and ... *

You can't have it both ways FR. Does P&Y add to or supersede B&C?

Let me repeat from fairchase
"The concept of "fair chase" is a noble one and something that is meant to be a unifying, governing force."

You said
"to much of a anything goes stand for me."

So why not just apply your own rules on top of B&C and be done with it?
Why does P&Y need to sit in the middle?

*You said
You lost me here, does P&Y say it’s ok to use a gun on day 15????? *

No they don't say that. 

An implement/method is either fair chase or non fair chase, ethical, or unethical , *man->deer*. Regardless of the season.

*You said
Oh I don’t know,,, maybe the fact that there are people that feel some need to shoot drugged penned and chained up animals.* 

So having explicitly defined rules of fair chase reels people like that back in?
How could anyone suggest that that is hunting? 

*You said
Or could it be that some people think it ok to shoot animals in state parks then try to proclaim themselves as great hunters. *

Any number of state parks have burgeoning deer populations. I can see where you don't call it hunting. I've been in parks where the deer are literally tame and pay no never mind to people walking around. 

Any suggestions you have on controlling the deer populations in places like that?

*You said
How about some people thinking that technology is the key to success?*

Care to hazard a guess as to the percentage of deer honored here with
high tech compounds vs. self/long/recurve bows? Hint...its in the 10% range.

http://www.pope-young.org/photosweek.asp

*You said
Should fair chase and game laws be the same? *

No. Fair chase is a concept. Laws are the rules that we're all supposed to comply with, that operate within that concept.

*Should there be a stricter set of rules a person should aspire to, then just the game laws? *

I assume you mean stricter set of rules of fair chase vs. laws imposed at the state level. Sure, if self imposed.

*You said
And why should there be game laws at all, above bag limits, what does a law like no jack lighting really do?* 

Its the implement to heavily fine and put people in jail to punish/curtail/prevent (point of view dependent) unacceptable behavior.

*
You said
Who does some politician think he is anyway? What right does he have to tell someone that works hard all day to support his family, that he can’t go out at night and hunt?*

That's a good question. Why don't we allow hunting at night?
Why don't we stop at sunset vs. 1/2 hour after sunset?

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=hunter's+moon&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8

468000 hits on google.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter's_moon


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> the problem with your analogy is that they let baitcasters into fly fishing season and you whine about guys with spinning rigs


Wrong again, Jim.

A more appropriate analogy is a 1 wt, a 6 wt, and a spinning rod.

Although fundamentally the same, and requiring the same casting techniques, the 1 wt is much more limiting and requires more finesse and skill to be effective than the 6 wt.

The spinning rod, of course, is fundamentally different than both the 1 and 6 wt, and requires an entirely different skill set to use.

Those using the 1 or 6 wt are both flyfisherman. The spin fisherman, obviously, is not.

Simple.


----------



## doctariAFC

thesource said:


> Wrong again, Jim.
> 
> A more appropriate analogy is a 1 wt, a 6 wt, and a spinning rod.
> 
> Although fundamentally the same, and requiring the same casting techniques, the 1 wt is much more limiting and requires more finesse and skill to be effective than the 6 wt.
> 
> The spinning rod, of course, is fundamentally different than both the 1 and 6 wt, and requires an entirely different skill set to use.
> 
> Those using the 1 or 6 wt are both flyfisherman. The spin fisherman, obviously, is not.
> 
> Simple.




Are you kidding me? 1 wt fly rod and 6 wt fly rod are made for specific conditions and size of fish in the waters you intend to fish. Both rods require the SAME skills. Its how you rig the terminal lines (leader and tippet) that makes the difference, matching to the presentation you intend to use. A 1 wt fly rod is best served with 4x - 6x tippet, no longer than 10 feet, and no more than 6 feet of 6x or smaller tippet. 1 wt rods typically will handle dry fly presentations fairly well, but they struggle when using nymphs and streamers. 1 wt is best for yearling stocked trout and panfish, like bluegill.
A 6 wt, on the other hand, is built for larger fish, like smallmouth bass, larger inland trout and even steelhead and big brown trout. Leader and tippet should be heavier, and depending on whether you intend to fish dries, emergers, nymphs or streamers, anglers would rig 2x - 4x (you can go lighter or heavier) tapered leader, with length varying from 7 foot to 12 foot (short for nymphs, long for dries), plus appropriate tippet, 3 - 8 feet, again, depending on presentation (short for nymphs, long for dries).

Further, the style of your fly line also makes for ease in use, depending on the type of cast you need to employ based on conditions of the surroundings your waters are located within. If you fish heavily vegged area, roll-casting is best bet, and the best fly line for this cast is double taper. If you traditional casting, rocket or weight forward taper is the best.

As is always the case, you paint a great picture with the 1 wt and 6 wt fly rod, but leave the old spinning rod as a generic peice of graphite. You have ultra light, with 4 lb or smaller test line. Light action with up to 8lb test. You also have noodle rods, etc. Each tackle combination is geared based on conditions and size of fish you are targeting. Just like hunting equipment, anglers should select the proper tackle for the conditions and targeted species in that water.

Now, JimC made a great point. Both share the same season and many of the same waters. Yes, NYS does have some sections of streams that are fly fishing only (Salmon River comes to mind), as well as artificial only, C&R sections of other streams (Wiscoy Creek, and next year sections of Chautauqua Creek and perhaps 18-Mile Creek) Again sections, although the 18-Mile Creek (Hamburg, NY) changes for next year, which "passed", may be reversed, as mounting political pressure from Jack Quinn III, in support of the Erie County Federation and Southtowns Walleye Assn, each taking an opposing position to this reg, and our weight of representation was seemingly overlooked. This is very similar to the way State Parks operate. Parks Dept governs hunting in the parks. ALlegany State Park, for example, located in Cattaraugus County, does not allow rifles, you cannot hunt anything on Sundays, in any season, and your shotgun during regular season must be plugged to allow only 3 total round in the gun. So, if we use the model presented here, we open crossbows in NYS throughout all hunting seasons, and let the State Parks say no way to the crossbow, which then puts each park in the same light as a trout stream with fly fishing only regs. 

Ok, cool.


----------



## thesource

doctariAFC said:


> Are you kidding me? 1 wt fly rod and 6 wt fly rod are made for specific conditions and size of fish in the waters you intend to fish. Both rods require the SAME skills.


Essentially they do, because they are fundamentally the same - my point, of course.

Yet a one weight requires more finesse and more skill, much as a trad bow vs a compound.

Your mocking post suggests otherwise, however I am supposing you have never landed a 3# brown or tried to throw a 50' cast into a headwind with a one weight. (mine is an Orvis, by the way - who makes your 1 wgt, Doc?)

No my analogy stands despite your spin. Nice try, though, delivered with all the grace and class I would expect from you.

Flyrods are fundamentally similar, some are tougher than others. Spinning rods are fundamentally different than flyrods - period.

The same is true with recurves and compounds (fundamentally similar) and crossbows (fundamentally different.)

Bowseason is flyfishing only - take your hardware chunkers elsewhere, thank you very much. You do not have the skill set required to be here.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Wrong again, Jim.
> 
> A more appropriate analogy is a 1 wt, a 6 wt, and a spinning rod.
> 
> Although fundamentally the same, and requiring the same casting techniques, the 1 wt is much more limiting and requires more finesse and skill to be effective than the 6 wt.
> 
> The spinning rod, of course, is fundamentally different than both the 1 and 6 wt, and requires an entirely different skill set to use.
> 
> Those using the 1 or 6 wt are both flyfisherman. The spin fisherman, obviously, is not.
> 
> Simple.


I didn't think you would understand but when compounds were allowed in its akin to bait rigs coming into fly rod only streams. Bait rods take a bit more time to learn to use than spinning rigs but are equally effective-often more so

the fact is I own a pond and can fish with what I want. You seem to think you should tell me what sort of rig I can use in my own private property


----------



## Free Range

> By Oldhntr
> No I'm not.
> 
> I talking about hunting. As I explained earlier, the only rule that has anything to do with bowhunting is rule #7 which says you can't use anything electronic on the bow or arrow. Otherwise someone from the outside could/would look at those rules and say that they apply to all types of hunting.
> 
> Do all of the other rules then get negated if they aren't bow specific, and we then just follow what B&C say? I'd suggest not.


I guess you are technically correct, but the P&Y club is a bow hunting organization. I guess it is an over site on their part to assume that anybody reading their fair chase rules would take it to apply to bowhunting only. 
My take on it is while bowhunting, it is not considered FC to hunt behind a high fence, while bowhunting, it is not considered FC to take animals while swimming. Personally I think a person must be dim witted, or purposely trying to confuse the issue to think the rules of fair chase, as set by the P&Y club, are not bowhunting specific. 



> B&C doesn't distinguish between bow hunters and gun hunters.


They also don’t distinguish between killed while hunting and killed by a train



> You can't have it both ways FR. Does P&Y add to or supersede B&C


My view, P&Y took what the B&C club already had in place, decided they were right in their (B&C) view of fair chase, then added what they considered to be appropriate to bowhunting. Thus adding to what they saw as a good standard. I guess a person could see it as superseding, but to me that means they said the B&C club is lacking in every way and needs to be replaced, and our rules are better then theirs. To me the B&C club is a hunting organization that cares less about weapon used or how a animal is killed, they are basically an organization to keep records of the largest animals, no matter how it was killed. Of course I could be wrong, and welcome being corrected, because I don’t hunt big game with a gun, I’m not all that familiar with the B&C club. 
On the other hand you have the P&Y club, they do care how a animal is killed. In fact the reason for their existence is/was to prove the bow a capable weapon to kill big game with, the record keeping of “trophies” is only a by product of proving to game depts. the ability of the bow. 



> So why not just apply your own rules on top of B&C and be done with it?
> Why does P&Y need to sit in the middle?


I guess it would have something to do with autonomy, if the P&Y club came out with their FC rules and said, “see B&C rules and add these”, that would be aligning with the B&C club, and take away from their purpose. The B&C club didn’t care about the bow, if they had they would have been out trying to expand the seasons for their use. There was a need for a separate organization, one dedicated just to bow hunting. And as for sitting in the middle, what middle, who is on the other side, you have B&C and P&Y, if they are in the middle who is the third org?


----------



## doctariAFC

thesource said:


> Essentially they do, because they are fundamentally the same - my point, of course.
> 
> Yet a one weight requires more finesse and more skill, much as a trad bow vs a compound.
> 
> Your mocking post suggests otherwise, however I am supposing you have never landed a 3# brown or tried to throw a 50' cast with a one weight (mine is an Orvis, by the way - who makes your 1 wgt, Doc?)
> 
> No my analogy stands despite your spin. Nice try, though, delivered with all the grace and class I would expect from you.
> 
> Flyrods are fundamentally similar, some are tougher than others. Spinning rods are fundamentally different than flyrods - period.
> 
> The same is true with recurves and compounds (fundamentally similar) and crossbows (fundamentally different.)
> 
> Bowseason is flyfishing only - take your hardware chunkers elsewhere, thank you very much. You do not have the skill set required to be here.


I don't use a 1 wgt. I have a 4 wgt, a 6/7 wgt and a 10 wgt for salmon. All are custom jobs made by a friend of mine who lives in the Orchard Park/ West Seneca area. All sport Scientific ANgler Reels, each has an extra spool. I like to change between tapers depending on where I am fishing. The 6/7 wgt extra spool is lines with sink tip wgt forward to work the Big Water for Smallmouth.

However, your analogy is flawed. Although fly rods and traditional tackle certainly differ in skill sets, each has its place depending on conditions and fish you are targeting. I don't know too many guys who would choose a fly rod to work over a dock line for bass. Similarly, I don't know anyone who would attempt to present a dry fly to rising brookies with an ultra light rod (although it can be done, using a clear float set about 6' above the fly, for casting weight.)

Nevertheless, the angling world just may be more attuned to reality than the hunting world. We do not have a fly fishing season, a bait casting season and a spinning season, plus the trolling season. Oh no, we have trout, bass, walleye and pike, etc. You can use any gear you wish to use, except for a small, very small portion of certain waters where you are either demanded to use artificial only or fly fishing only. And the only thing these restrictions accomplish is to limit anglers on the water, plain and simple.

So, to use this analogy, as you have done, underscores your agenda, does it not? Seems you are of the mind to limit the opportunities for hunters through whatever elitism you may wish to apply. I am suprised you're not pushing to ban compound bows. That would really vacate the woods..... This is selfishness through elimination of viable choices. We do not ever wish to see any firearm used to deer hunt during early archery. We have a firearms season. HOwever, the crossbow is not a firearm, and those who wish to choose this implement should be free to do so, just like we are free to choose a fly rod, baitcaster or spinning, or even spin-casting gear. Isolated areas are fly fishing, or artifical only. This is a decent way to go with archery. Allow the crossbow, but perhaps keep the state parks off-limits to them, like they handle the rifle. 

Although I still believe the best compromise is last 2 weeks of early archery, adding a week on the front end of early archery (perhaps even for primitive only?) and run crossbow use right through to extended season. That alows everyone to have their cake and eat it too, not to mention actually getting some older folks back into the archery game, allowing younger hunters and women a chance with an implement they may be more comfortable with, but at least we now have the choice hunters deserve.


----------



## Free Range

> And the only thing these restrictions accomplish is to limit anglers on the water, plain and simple.


HMMMM, now where have I heard something like this before??????



> Seems you are of the mind to limit the opportunities for hunters through whatever elitism you may wish to apply. I am suprised you're not pushing to ban compound bows


So we can count on you to start the push to do away with fly fishing only waters? After all it does limit opportunities and is on the elite side, wouldn’t you agree?


----------



## doctariAFC

Free Range said:


> HMMMM, now where have I heard something like this before??????
> 
> 
> 
> So we can count on you to start the push to do away with fly fishing only waters? After all it does limit opportunities and is on the elite side, wouldn’t you agree?


Yep. SPot on. Especially when some of the streams that have "fly fishing only" sections are stocked with trout, bought and paid for by taxpayer dollars.

If a biological reason exists to restrict streams or portions of streams I support it. But if its done to appease a certain group, despite being supplemented with taxpayer bought stocked fish, then I jump up and say you have a choice. Drop the restrictive regulations or cease stocking trout in that stretch of the stream. 

We have a current battle going on with catch & release, artificial only section of 18-Mile Creek, which passed, despite the opposition to this move in Erie County being close to 10,000 strong (Erie County Federation, primarily). We have zero naturally reproducing trout in 18-Mile Creek. ZERO. 100% of the fishery is put, grow and take. 100%. ANglers actually police themselves very well, and practice catch & release, to the tune of @ 87% of fish caught are released. And the fishery is spectacular! 

Now, we have a group wanting to restrict 1.6 miles of this stream, a stretch which provides the easiest access, by the way, to C&R, artificial only. This reduces the opportunity, and, considering 100% of the fish came by way of taxpayer stocked trout, seems elitist and unfair, which is why the Erie County Federation opposed the proposal, and is why Jack Quinn III, NYS Assemblyman, is ratcheting up political pressure on the DEC Commissioner and the fisheries biologists to rethink this change, as clearly the voice of 10,000 sportsmen were basically ignored in favor of 100 positive comments supporting the proposal.


----------



## aceoky

as clearly the voice of 10,000 sportsmen were basically ignored in favor of 100 positive comments supporting the proposal.


Doctari, I know how that feels, I've seen a very similar thing on another issue personally! :cocktail: 

When a vocal minoirty manages to FORCE their will upon the majority, who should have the same rights and say, something is "amiss", and needs to be addressed, imho

I also think that the resources belong to all hunters or fisherpersons, not only those select few who often claim them as thier own!


----------



## Free Range

Stocked or wild, shouldn’t make a difference, they all belong to the people. But consistency is a virtue, and I’m glad that you both are consistent in your approach to the natural resource. I’m glad your way of thinking isn’t prevalent, I like to get away from the crowds, although out here, it’s not that hard. But I have fished back east some, and I like the fly fishing only areas, not because it makes me feel better then bait fishermen, but because it gives a person room to move around, and at least a feeling of being on a wild river, alone, testing your skill against the instincts of nature.


----------



## Jim C

Free Range said:


> Stocked or wild, shouldn’t make a difference, they all belong to the people. But consistency is a virtue, and I’m glad that you both are consistent in your approach to the natural resource. I’m glad your way of thinking isn’t prevalent, I like to get away from the crowds, although out here, it’s not that hard. But I have fished back east some, and I like the fly fishing only areas, not because it makes me feel better then bait fishermen, but because it gives a person room to move around, and at least a feeling of being on a wild river, alone, testing your skill against the instincts of nature.



If everyone wants to fish or hunt how do you accommodate your need to have an area to yourself with the desires of other taxpaying citizens to fish or hunt? artificial "filters" designed to keep people out for no other reason than to cater to your attitudes or needs doesn't seem to make any sense.


----------



## willie

Jim C said:


> If everyone wants to fish or hunt how do you accommodate your need to have an area to yourself with the desires of other taxpaying citizens to fish or hunt? artificial "filters" designed to keep people out for no other reason than to cater to your attitudes or needs doesn't seem to make any sense.


In fact it sounds downright selfish to me....


----------



## Free Range

> If everyone wants to fish or hunt how do you accommodate your need to have an area to yourself with the desires of other taxpaying citizens to fish or hunt? artificial "filters" designed to keep people out for no other reason than to cater to your attitudes or needs doesn't seem to make any sense.


Well I can see your point, which leads to why have any seasons or restrictions at all? I mean other then bag limits and or cutting the season off after the herd management requirements are taken care of, why have restrictions at all? Why should a person with a gun, or bait caster not be allowed the same opportunity as someone with a bow or fly rod? Should we have open season/waters for all, or is their a good reason to have separate seasons and special equipment waters? 

I understand your thinking on this, but to be consistent you must take it all the way, one season, one fishing license. To do otherwise is placing restrictions, just as I wish to, but only at a different level. That is why I see the gun season as linked to this, to use your thinking there is no good reason to separate out gun hunters. I can see how a person could think that and make a case for it. I don’t agree.


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> If everyone wants to fish or hunt how do you accommodate your need to have an area to yourself with the desires of other taxpaying citizens to fish or hunt? artificial "filters" designed to keep people out for no other reason than to cater to your attitudes or needs doesn't seem to make any sense.



Of course, everyone is capable of bypassing those filters with a little extra effort, assuming they truly want to.

Why won't they put forth the effort? They must not want it bad enough.


----------



## willie

thesource said:


> Of course, everyone is capable of bypassing those filters with a little extra effort, assuming they truly want to.
> 
> Why won't they put forth the effort? They must not want it bad enough.


One could say the same thing for a compounder that doesn't want to "put forth the effort" to learn a "real bow".

Face it.. the compound openned thedoor to the crossbow. 

As long as the compound is included in "bow" season, then the crossbow should be too.


.


----------



## JAVI

Free Range said:


> Well I can see your point, which leads to why have any seasons or restrictions at all? I mean other then bag limits and or cutting the season off after the herd management requirements are taken care of, why have restrictions at all? Why should a person with a gun, or bait caster not be allowed the same opportunity as someone with a bow or fly rod? Should we have open season/waters for all, or is their a good reason to have separate seasons and special equipment waters?
> 
> I understand your thinking on this, but to be consistent you must take it all the way, one season, one fishing license. To do otherwise is placing restrictions, just as I wish to, but only at a different level. That is why I see the gun season as linked to this, to use your thinking there is no good reason to separate out gun hunters. I can see how a person could think that and make a case for it. I don’t agree.


I don't need a special season... Lump them all into one season... It's all hunting.... I hunt in gun season with my bow. My state allows this... Why doesn't yours????


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Of course, everyone is capable of bypassing those filters with a little extra effort, assuming they truly want to.
> 
> Why won't they put forth the effort? They must not want it bad enough.



maybe most people are hunters not archers. maybe they don't think your attitude matters to them. Search the legislative history behind archery season-your sweat equity nonsense has no mention in those documents


----------



## Free Range

JAVI
Again I respect your stand. I don’t agree but I respect it. In CO you can use a bow in rifle season but you must have a rifle tag to do so. However you cannot use a gun in bow season no matter what tag you have. I would suspect it is something like this in most states, but don’t know for sure. 

The one season, any weapon, is at least an honest stand. Bring them all on, bow, x-bow, rifle, shotgun and ML, spear, Atal-Atal, rock and knife, the more the merrier. Make everyone check in their deer and when the quota is reached shut it down. 

I don’t like that, and think it would kill bowhunting faster then anything, but it is consistent, and a much more honest position then those that want to include the x-bow in archery season but keep everything else out.


----------



## JAVI

Free Range said:


> JAVI
> Again I respect your stand. I don’t agree but I respect it. In CO you can use a bow in rifle season but you must have a rifle tag to do so. However you cannot use a gun in bow season no matter what tag you have. I would suspect it is something like this in most states, but don’t know for sure.
> 
> The one season, any weapon, is at least an honest stand. Bring them all on, bow, x-bow, rifle, shotgun and ML, spear, Atal-Atal, rock and knife, the more the merrier. Make everyone check in their deer and when the quota is reached shut it down.
> 
> I don’t like that, and think it would kill bowhunting faster then anything, but it is consistent, and a much more honest position then those that want to include the x-bow in archery season but keep everything else out.


We actually have no GUN season in TEXAS... it is The GENERAL SEASON... use what ya' brung. We have a BOW season that you must buy a special stamp to hunt in...


----------



## Jim C

Free Range said:


> JAVI
> Again I respect your stand. I don’t agree but I respect it. In CO you can use a bow in rifle season but you must have a rifle tag to do so. However you cannot use a gun in bow season no matter what tag you have. I would suspect it is something like this in most states, but don’t know for sure.
> 
> The one season, any weapon, is at least an honest stand. Bring them all on, bow, x-bow, rifle, shotgun and ML, spear, Atal-Atal, rock and knife, the more the merrier. Make everyone check in their deer and when the quota is reached shut it down.
> 
> I don’t like that, and think it would kill bowhunting faster then anything, but it is consistent, and a much more honest position then those that want to include the x-bow in archery season but keep everything else out.


how would crossbows-which are an archery weapon with the same range as a compound bow kill archery season while compound bows helped expand it? is it the two to three days additional training that makes the difference?


----------



## willie

Free Range said:


> .................I don’t like that, and think it would kill bowhunting faster then anything, but it is consistent, and a much more honest position then those that want to include the x-bow in archery season but keep everything else out.



Saying that archery season should remain archery seaosn for archery equipment is being dishonest??..


BTW - One can hunt with archery equipment in Indiana's firearm season only one must have an *archery tag.*

As of right now any hunter in Indiana can use a crossbow in the late archery season. The hunters using the crossbow must have an ... *archery tag*. 

Hmmm?


.


----------



## aceoky

Free Range said:


> I don’t like that, and think it would kill bowhunting faster then anything, but it is consistent, and a much more honest position then those that want to include the x-bow in archery season but keep everything else out.


That is so "out there" to not even be "funny", and it's funny how you compare the crossbow to guns, after being shown for so long how wrong you are........

It's not so hard to understand that another archery weapon during an open archery season is a valid request, and most would agree that guns are not and should not have that long of a season........HUGE difference....and no amount of your spin will change that, just as you've been unable to prove why the compound bow should be allowed and not the crossbow, when the data proves they are almost identical in harvest rates, success rates, ALL of the things that matter to those who's job it is to allow as much opportunity within the bounds of the resources.......

YOUR "any season" idea is so full of flaw.......well....

For one YOUR season would cause a very short season for most places and people that is NOT more opportunity, it's less, it is taking away from others.........inclusion of the crossbow is not those who wish to use them can and will, those who don't will use another bow........NO state has reduced any seasons due to the inclusion of the crossbow not One!

Anyone can look at the gun kill rates and soon realize how quickly that "any weapon season" of yours would end.......no suprise, because yet again, it's easy to see from where you and a few others are posting from........and it is not in any way "good for bowhunting" or any of us at all.......

Crossbow inclusion, just as compound inclusion has proven to be good for bowhunting.......you can't disprove that, and these "other ideas", of what in your opinion compare do not.......and would in fact be bad for bowhunting(as you admit), AND reduce opportunity (especially for those how can't hunt in a short season)


----------



## JAVI

In Texas the General season is as long as 3 months in some areas...:wink: And we still can't kill enough deer in some areas... they have to add extra seasons for that... But hey to hear some of ya' tell it us Texicans is all wrong in how we manage our game...


----------



## Free Range

> Crossbow inclusion, just as compound inclusion has proven to be good for bowhunting.......you can't disprove that, and these "other ideas", of what in your opinion compare do not.......and would in fact be bad for bowhunting(as you admit), AND reduce opportunity (especially for those how can't hunt in a short season)


First, how do you prove it has been good for bowhunting? So far you have only given opinion that it might have helped a few kids, women, and older people hunt during bow season. How has that been good for bow season, what is the over riding benefit to the season? Second who can’t hunt in a short season? How would someone hunting a mile away with a gun affect you, or a ½ mile or a ¼ mile or for that matter sitting in the next tree? 



> would agree that guns are not and should not have that long of a season........HUGE difference....


According to JAVI it doesn’t make any difference at all. From what he is posting they all have fun together, and according to him I’m wrong about it killing bow hunting, I guess they still have many bow hunters in TX. So I guess I have to change my position, lets all hunt together, lets stop this silly division and have one season like they do in TX. That is the only true stand for choice, that is the only honest stand of unity, why on earth would someone as concerned about unity and freedom of choice as you, Ace, want anything other then real freedom, and real choice?


----------



## JAVI

Free Range said:


> First, how do you prove it has been good for bowhunting? So far you have only given opinion that it might have helped a few kids, women, and older people hunt during bow season. How has that been good for bow season, what is the over riding benefit to the season? Second who can’t hunt in a short season? How would someone hunting a mile away with a gun affect you, or a ½ mile or a ¼ mile or for that matter sitting in the next tree?
> 
> 
> 
> According to JAVI it doesn’t make any difference at all. From what he is posting they all have fun together, and according to him I’m wrong about it killing bow hunting, I guess they still have many bow hunters in TX. So I guess I have to change my position, lets all hunt together, lets stop this silly division and have one season like they do in TX. That is the only true stand for choice, that is the only honest stand of unity, why on earth would someone as concerned about unity and freedom of choice as you, Ace, want anything other then real freedom, and real choice?


A general season might not work for all states, simply because of area. In Texas we have little public land, almost all hunting takes place on leased land which is usually managed in conjunction by the land owner and the state biologist to maximize herd carrying capacity... 

In places where a BIG farm is 60 acres, a general season might be a pipe dream... But that's something we don't have to deal with here. 

I don't even bother to hunt the Bow season... too damn hot in September...


----------



## aceoky

Because Free Range, every state is not Texas, and most states don't have that much land available to hunt for just one reason.........

Asking for inclusion of another archery weapon in archery season is not asking too much, it's exactly how the season got passed in the first place, and exaclty how the compound got included as well, most know that fact and can see, that there IS a difference in MOST states to having an archery season and an "any weapon season"......as to who can't hunt a short season, you figure that one, out, and while you're at it please show me how a short season adds the oppotunity, that a longer archery season does, this should be "fun"......


YOUR quote:

First, how do you prove it has been good for bowhunting? So far you have only given opinion that it might have helped a few kids, women, and older people hunt during bow season

Utter BS and you know it! WE've proven MORE archery hunters have joined in various states where inclusion has been allowed.......PROVEN......that is not opinion......it's a indisputable fact.....and IF that was all we had..........(it isn't and you know it)........that IS good for bowhunting.......and certainly better than the selfish attitude of those who don't want other archers in the woods during "thier season" and in "thier woods"......period

YOU even asked after being proven wrong on the NEW archery hunters and the increase in numbers

"Why is more archery hunters good for bowhunting", it's really kinda funny now you (after admitting it and posting "so why is that good"? ) don't want to admit that FACT..........

See that is the whole problem you have had all along, some day, I hope you will see and understand, while your side has no facts or data to support their stand we do have them......and they do prove it's good for bowhunting and hunting in general


----------



## aceoky

JAVI said:


> A general season might not work for all states, simply because of area. In Texas we have little public land, almost all hunting takes place on leased land which is usually managed in conjunction by the land owner and the state biologist to maximize herd carrying capacity...
> 
> In places where a BIG farm is 60 acres, a general season might be a pipe dream... But that's something we don't have to deal with here.
> 
> I don't even bother to hunt the Bow season... too damn hot in September...


.

Yeah, what he said (and faster than I did too) :darkbeer:


----------



## JAVI

That is why one set of rules whether to determine fair chase, equipment or length of season is a ridiculous concept. The idea of someone in NY telling someone in Texas how or when to hunt is plumb silly.... Just as it would be for me to tell someone in Colorado how or when to hunt. 

Sure there are basic ideas which would transcend the boundaries but only in general. Each state sets the rules according to proper game management and the wishes of the majority of the hunters (at least that’s hopefully how it works). 

If a particular person wishes to adhere to a more strict code of fair chase or use a more restrictive method than prescribed, that is their option and I would fight to protect that option for them. But I will also fight to protect my right of choice within the laws as set forth by my state.

See for the life of me I couldn't dream of making someone hunt with only a bow as I do, but I sure don't want someone else telling me it has to be a self bow. And that's what some of you are advocating...


----------



## doctariAFC

Free Range said:


> Stocked or wild, shouldn’t make a difference, they all belong to the people. But consistency is a virtue, and I’m glad that you both are consistent in your approach to the natural resource. I’m glad your way of thinking isn’t prevalent, I like to get away from the crowds, although out here, it’s not that hard. But I have fished back east some, and I like the fly fishing only areas, not because it makes me feel better then bait fishermen, but because it gives a person room to move around, and at least a feeling of being on a wild river, alone, testing your skill against the instincts of nature.


Really? Stocked or wild doesn't make a difference? Hmmmmm..... So I guess the debit out of the Conservation Fund for 300,000 steelhead yearlings, that every angler pays into through the purchase of a fishing license, coupled with every taxpayer paying a part of it through the general budget funing portion doesn't mean anything to you? Really? So what you are saying is that you are all for taxpayers coughing up hundreds of thousands of dollars to stock a stream only those with fly gear can fish? I am sure glad you do not set the rules. We could call you Ted Turner, for crying out loud.

Wild trout, on the other hand, are a very precious commodity, especially here in the Vampire State. One of the top streams in the State, the Wiscoy Creek, has a 1.5 mile stretch of artificial only, catch & release, year round to offer added protection to the very large wild breeders that inhabit that part of the stream. In have zero issues with that. However, in the same proposal as the 18-Mile Creek C&R proposal is the desire to open the entirity of this wild brown trout-producing stream to C&R, artificial only, replacing the current closed season, which is Oct 16-Mar 31. I opposed this move wholeheartedly, because I firmly believe these WILD trout demand the protection of a closed season. Guess what? The trout lost.

NOw, if you want that feeling of being in a secluded stream, change to a different fishing hole, or hike. We in NYS have literally miles of streams that receive little or no fishing pressure because some anglers are just too darned lazy to hike beyond the access point entry way. And that is the type of laziness that causes issues.


----------



## thesource

aceoky said:


> WE've proven MORE archery hunters have joined in various states where inclusion has been allowed.......PROVEN......that is not opinion......it's a indisputable fact.....and IF that was all we had..........(it isn't and you know it)........that IS good for bowhunting.......


That is your OPINION.

I, for one, do not believe that adding crossbow hunters as "archers" is good for bowhunting at all.

Adding new "archers" is only good for bowhunting if they have bowhunting's best interests at heart, if they will protect and preserve bowhunting.

I have seen NO evidence that crossbow proponents are considering what's best for bowhunting as they wage their "battles" against bowhunters. You have demonized bowhunters time and time again, slandered the leading institutions of bowhunting, mocked and ridiculed Bowhunting's Rules of Fair Chase ........

No thanks.

I would rather defend bowhunting with the few I can trust (bowhunters) than with the army I cannot.....


----------



## aceoky

thesource said:


> That is your OPINION.
> 
> I, for one, do not believe that adding crossbow hunters as "archers" is good for bowhunting at all.
> 
> Adding new "archers" is only good for bowhunting if they have bowhunting's best interests at heart, if they will protect and preserve bowhunting.
> 
> I have seen NO evidence that crossbow proponents are considering what's best for bowhunting as they wage their "battles" against bowhunters. You have demonized bowhunters time and time again, slandered the leading institutions of bowhunting, mocked and ridiculed Bowhunting's Rules of Fair Chase ........
> 
> No thanks.
> 
> I would rather defend bowhunting with the few I can trust (bowhunters) than with the army I cannot.....


And that is your opinion.......

FACT (even though you don't like it) many other archery hunters don't and won't adhere to P&Y's rules........period so that is a moot point at best........


The great thing IS...........YOU don't get to decide that for me, and not for very many people, and in the end just as the compound was included, we will be, whether you accept us, won't really matter to most anyway.......then

YOu state all of that, while YOU call other hunters, "lazy" , "slobs", (not to mention other things)........IF you have a point, I must have "missed it", WE are much better for bowhunting and hunting in general, than those who think an archery weapon choice "makes" one a certain thing, another choice makes another hunter "less".......anyone can see that:cocktail:


----------



## Jim C

perhaps the most moronic comment I have ever seen is to claim that xbow archers are waging a war against compound archers when in reality its a small vocal minority of selfish bowhunters who are waging a war against other bowhunters.


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> perhaps the most moronic comment I have ever seen is to claim that xbow archers are waging a war against compound archers when in reality its a small vocal minority of selfish bowhunters who are waging a war against other bowhunters.



Another laughable attempt to put the shoe on the other foot.

By the way, it is not just "compound archers" you are waging war against - it is ALL bowhunters.

Ask your buddy BigBird about small vocal miorities. He tried to push his crossbow agenda on Bowsite's NY forum a couple weeks ago and got slapped silly. It was funny, actually.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Another laughable attempt to put the shoe on the other foot.
> 
> By the way, it is not just "compound archers" you are waging war against - it is ALL bowhunters.
> 
> Ask your buddy BigBird about small vocal miorities. He tried to push his crossbow agenda on Bowsite's NY forum a couple weeks ago and got slapped silly. It was funny, actually.



Lame source-how are you being hurt by another taxpaying citizen using a crossbow? YOu have never come close to being able to answer that question

rather you engage in tail chasing nonsense such as claiming that xbows aren't bows and other such intellectually wanting nonsense. Are you saying that xbow archers are less likely to defend archery only seasons once they are part of it than say the true believers like you? or are you saying that merely allowing others a CHOICE of bowhunting gear somehow threatens purists (alleged-I don't believe you bowhunt)

bowsite is perhaps the most laughable archery forum going-that forum is full of the morons who believe the lies of the PBS and its owner-Pat LeFemine was happy to bash xbows til a few of us ripped his crap to shreds

your reliance on "fair chase" as an indictment of crossbow archers has already been totally destroyed. 

You tend to slander and defame an entire class of bowhunters

First you claimed xbow archers were "lazy"

then you claimed they were "cheaters"

then you stated their trophies were only 75% of the value of real bowhunter trophies

now you claim they are all less likely to fight for bowhunting than people using similar tools

this is disgraceful and a lie.


----------



## Free Range

> Really? Stocked or wild doesn't make a difference? Hmmmmm..... So I guess the debit out of the Conservation Fund for 300,000 steelhead yearlings, that every angler pays into through the purchase of a fishing license, coupled with every taxpayer paying a part of it through the general budget funing portion doesn't mean anything to you? Really? So what you are saying is that you are all for taxpayers coughing up hundreds of thousands of dollars to stock a stream only those with fly gear can fish? I am sure glad you do not set the rules. We could call you Ted Turner, for crying out loud.


Slow down Doc, that’s not what I’m saying at all. It shouldn’t make a difference if the are stocked or home grown, as to weather we have access to them or not. You made it seam as if the stocked fish should get some special consideration over native fish, or vis versa. I simply said what difference does it make? Would it be ok to limit access to native fish? It shouldn’t matter, access is access, no matter where the fish came from. 



> Wild trout, on the other hand, are a very precious commodity, especially here in the Vampire State. One of the top streams in the State, the Wiscoy Creek, has a 1.5 mile stretch of artificial only, catch & release, year round to offer added protection to the very large wild breeders that inhabit that part of the stream. In have zero issues with that.


Why? You can protect the fish without limiting it to artificial only. Why do you cry freedom for all, but say, “well except here”? If the goal is to protect, either limit it to no fishing or limit it some other way that allows everybody equal chance. 



> NYS have literally miles of streams that receive little or no fishing pressure because some anglers are just too darned lazy to hike beyond the access point entry way. And that is the type of laziness that causes issues


Why? Why should I have to walk any further then, someone else? I want seclusion, and you have to provide it to me without making me work any harder then the next person. After all why should a person that works hard supporting their family and doesn’t have the time required to hike have to play by the rules?


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> Are you saying that xbow archers are less likely to defend archery only seasons once they are part of it than say the true believers like you?


Yes - that is what I'm saying. Its obvious that crossbow advocates have no sense of bowhunting heritage or history. Its obvious that they do not respect the institutions of the sport.

It obvious from the crossbow advocates that I deal with here (and elsewhere) that there are some significant character issues....All of the procrossbow people I have dealt with stretch, twist, bend, and otherwise manipulate the truth....whether that be stating that "there is no difference between a compound and a crossbow" or "a crossbow bolt drops like a rock" or "shooting a crossbow is 98% like shooting a compound."

I, therfore, do not believe for a minute that these same people will defend bowhunting against MZ, for example.

What I see is people who want the easiest possible solution to their deer hunting incompetence. There are no guarantees that they will "hold the line" at crossbows - I believe the opposite is true. They will cut and run for a still easier method first chance they get.

No - again, I would rather take my chances with REAL bowhunters.


----------



## thesource

Free Range said:


> Why? Why should I have to walk any further then, someone else? I want seclusion, and you have to provide it to me without making me work any harder then the next person. After all why should a person that works hard supporting their family and doesn’t have the time required to hike have to play by the rules?


LOL - that's pretty funny, Free Range.

Puts it all in perspective.


----------



## doctariAFC

Free Range said:


> Slow down Doc, that’s not what I’m saying at all. It shouldn’t make a difference if the are stocked or home grown, as to weather we have access to them or not. You made it seam as if the stocked fish should get some special consideration over native fish, or vis versa. I simply said what difference does it make? Would it be ok to limit access to native fish? It shouldn’t matter, access is access, no matter where the fish came from.


It does make a difference when we are paying for the supplementation, or complete implementation of a fishery based on artificial means (stocking hatchery-raised fish). Many of the angling rules and regulations, such as creel and size limits, season dates, etc, come from biology and fishery conditions. To take this to the applicable proposals, 18-Mile Creek is the number 3 trout stream found on NYS Lake Erie roster. This fishery was artificially created (rainbow trout are NOT native to Lake Erie) through angler demand, and the affects have been sensational. Lake Erie Tribs are outperforming Lake Ontario tribs regarding steelhead hands down. But this is an artificial fishery, established through conservation funds, efforts of many clubs and orgs, the efforts of the DEC and the incredible angling practices of those fishing this stream, as well as the others (87% release rate - from NYS DEC 3-year extensive creel surveys, on site, with anglers). This says to the Erie County Federation that there is NO NEED to restrict any part of this stream to "protect the trout". They're stocked, with taxpayer and angler dollars, and anglers are policing themselves very well. The other component is that the area, 1.6 miles, on Main Branch 18-Mile Creek, is one of the easiest accessible areas on this stream, which large portions run through canyons, inaccessible to anglers, unless you want to hike a few miles (which I do all the time). 




Free Range said:


> Why? You can protect the fish without limiting it to artificial only. Why do you cry freedom for all, but say, “well except here”? If the goal is to protect, either limit it to no fishing or limit it some other way that allows everybody equal chance.


EVerybody already has an equal chance on the Wiscoy Creek. Considering the Wiscoy is one of THREE naturally producing trout streams in NYS (therefore making it a very precious commodity), the opportunity to fish this stream and protect it is there already. April 1 - Oct 15. Minimum keeper is 10", daily limit is 3. This differs from State regs, which are 5 per day, no minimum size, but only two fish can exceed 12" (to allow anglers a longer opportunity to catch a two-year old stocked trout). To open the currently closed season up toi C&R, artificial only, puts additional pressures on the fish, which we really do not need. Not on one of three wild producing streams, IMHO.




Free Range said:


> Why? Why should I have to walk any further then, someone else? I want seclusion, and you have to provide it to me without making me work any harder then the next person. After all why should a person that works hard supporting their family and doesn’t have the time required to hike have to play by the rules?


Tongue in cheek, right? You want something good, you gotta work for it. You know that to be true. Its like the debate over QDM in NYS right now. Sure, we have the veil of science wrapped around the proposals, but the real reasons for this push can be found in wanting trophy deer within yards of your car. We have plenty of trophy bucks in NYS. But they live in the most difficult places to access. And not just access. You can hike 4 miles in to get that deer, but the drag out will kill ya! Many of these places do not allow for ATV access. But, as you have said, an attitude prevails that we must "provide" the things like not walking for hours to get what you want, because of every reason out there. The opportunity to enjoy the outdoors, is all that is required. WHat you do with the experience is up to you. But let's not limit the opportunities, especially if we are maintaining a high-quality fishery at everyone's expense!


----------



## JAVI

Some of y’all would fit right in to the Golden haired Blue eyed bunch. 

Same mantra...


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> bowsite is perhaps the most laughable archery forum going-that forum is full of the morons who believe the lies of the PBS and its owner-Pat LeFemine was happy to bash xbows til a few of us ripped his crap to shreds



That's not the 4-1-1.

AT is the place for archery expertise.

Bowsite is the place for _hunting _expertise.

I like both of them.

Best thing Pat ever did was kick you and Willie off of Bowsite....troublemakers!


----------



## thesource

JAVI said:


> Some of y’all would fit right in to the Golden haired Blue eyed bunch.
> 
> Same mantra...



Some of y'all seem like you should be wearing red and calling each other comrade....

Same mantra....

LOL


----------



## PMantle

JAVI said:


> Some of y’all would fit right in to the Golden haired Blue eyed bunch.
> 
> Same mantra...


OK, I'm out of the loop. What bunch is that?


----------



## aceoky

thesource said:


> LOL - that's pretty funny, Free Range.
> 
> Puts it all in perspective.


Sounds "lazy" to me , I thought you were against "lazy", it would be so much easier to keep up with your "stuff" if you'd stick to the same position! :cocktail: :darkbeer: :tongue:


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Yes - that is what I'm saying. Its obvious that crossbow advocates have no sense of bowhunting heritage or history. Its obvious that they do not respect the institutions of the sport.
> 
> It obvious from the crossbow advocates that I deal with here (and elsewhere) that there are some significant character issues....All of the procrossbow people I have dealt with stretch, twist, bend, and otherwise manipulate the truth....whether that be stating that "there is no difference between a compound and a crossbow" or "a crossbow bolt drops like a rock" or "shooting a crossbow is 98% like shooting a compound."
> 
> I, therfore, do not believe for a minute that these same people will defend bowhunting against MZ, for example.
> 
> What I see is people who want the easiest possible solution to their deer hunting incompetence. There are no guarantees that they will "hold the line" at crossbows - I believe the opposite is true. They will cut and run for a still easier method first chance they get.
> 
> No - again, I would rather take my chances with REAL bowhunters.


blah blah blah. Lets discuss your archery credentials with mine and then people can decide if my position on the difference between the sum of bowhunting skills with a compound and a release vs a crossbow is more accurate than your claim. you are speculating, lying and making stuff up. I really don't care what you believe given that FACTS are not available to support your claims.


----------



## thesource

aceoky said:


> Sounds "lazy" to me , I thought you were against "lazy", it would be so much easier to keep up with your "stuff" if you'd stick to the same position! :cocktail: :darkbeer: :tongue:



Apparently you do not understand the subtlety of sarcasm....


----------



## doctariAFC

aceoky said:


> Sounds "lazy" to me , I thought you were against "lazy", it would be so much easier to keep up with your "stuff" if you'd stick to the same position! :cocktail: :darkbeer: :tongue:


I saw what he was trying to do, but it backfired. There's a difference between wanting to or not wanting to hike for miles and restricting an opportunity to participate. Its a very elementary way of trying to say the crossbow doesn't demand any work to get good at, while the vertical bow does, therefore the hunter is lazy, which is a crock, because every hunter still has to practice with their implement of choice, and every hunter stil has to go afield and hunt!

The opportunity being limited is the issue, not the amount of walking time.

Nice try, but a backfire it was.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> That's not the 4-1-1.
> 
> AT is the place for archery expertise.
> 
> Bowsite is the place for _hunting _expertise.
> 
> I like both of them.
> 
> Best thing Pat ever did was kick you and Willie off of Bowsite....troublemakers!


Of course he booted us off-we were tearing him a new one. Its hard to claim that novices with hunting crossbows can beat professional compound spot shooters when a three time world crossbow champion shooting a 3000 dollar bow with a sight that costs more than a top of the line excalibur lost to over 100 compound archers at NFAA indoors.

the bit about a 300 FPS crossbow shooting ALMOST TWICE AS FAST AS MOST COMPOUNDS (circa 2000) pretty much branded him the gaping liar as well

cowards like Pat and his ilk can't handle an open debate. Crossbow haters thrive on lies, disinformation and one sided stories. Look at this forum-you have yet to post a single fact based argument


----------



## thesource

doctariAFC said:


> I saw what he was trying to do, but it backfired.


Nope, not a backfire. Free Range hit the x-ring.


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> cowards like Pat and his ilk can't handle an open debate.


I find that to be very funny, yet super ironic at the same time.

You (and your lackeys) lobbied to get any and all opposition booted from the AT crossbow forum...and succeeded. You must be cowards that cannot handle an open debate....yes?

Aceoky and his "ilk" do not allow open debate on the UCBK website - cowards. yes?


----------



## aceoky

doctariAFC said:


> I saw what he was trying to do, but it backfired. There's a difference between wanting to or not wanting to hike for miles and restricting an opportunity to participate. Its a very elementary way of trying to say the crossbow doesn't demand any work to get good at, while the vertical bow does, therefore the hunter is lazy, which is a crock, because every hunter still has to practice with their implement of choice, and every hunter stil has to go afield and hunt!
> 
> The opportunity being limited is the issue, not the amount of walking time.
> 
> Nice try, but a backfire it was.


Yes it was NO doubt! 

That was my attempt at sarcasim......lol 

I just couldn't resist that one..........


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> I find that to be very funny, yet super ironic at the same time.
> 
> You (and your lackeys) lobbied to get any and all opposition booted from the AT crossbow forum...and succeeded. You must be cowards that cannot handle an open debate....yes?
> 
> Aceoky and his "ilk" do not allow open debate on the UCBK website - cowards. yes?



wrong again-I wish you would stay there and I wish I could tell people what I really know about you and your ilk. The more you blather, the more we are helped


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> wrong again-I wish you would stay there and I wish I could tell people what I really know about you and your ilk. The more you blather, the more we are helped



Certainly, with your Ivy League education, you understand the point I was making.

Crossbow advocates actively lobby to remove any and all opposition - by *your *definition, they are cowards.

Accurate?


----------



## aceoky

thesource said:


> I find that to be very funny, yet super ironic at the same time.
> 
> You (and your lackeys) lobbied to get any and all opposition booted from the AT crossbow forum...and succeeded. You must be cowards that cannot handle an open debate....yes?
> 
> *Aceoky and his "ilk" do not allow open debate on the UCBK website - cowards. yes?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Nope not cowards at all, the *membership asked for that* before it was even a reality fyi.......it's IS a private club site, thus, what the membership votes for will be done(as it well should be).......most (if not all of us) have beaten you guys so badly in so many places and forums by now, (they're called real facts ......getcha some)...it's not even funny........cowards NO.......BTW, I'm here aren't I??
> 
> DO I look "scared" to anyone?:tongue:
> 
> I have NO problem with an honest debate, especially when it doesn't get "personal" and "insults" are the norm.........
> 
> I see no good reason, just because our opinions differ, on an issue or two to bring it to that level, some having no facts or data must resort to that it seems, just to have something to post.........rather than getting out and finding something useful that benefits thier views......that may be "cowardly", but refusing to debate per the membership's vote is not.....:cocktail:


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Certainly, with your Ivy League education, you understand the point I was making.
> 
> Crossbow advocates actively lobby to remove any and all opposition - by *your *definition, they are cowards.
> 
> Accurate?



I can only speak for myself and bowsite was the first forum that 1) blatantly lied about xbow archers and 2) couldn't handle anyone who brought truth to bear against their lies

I like people reading your nonsense source-its obvious to objective people that you have no salient or cogent arguments on your side.


----------



## fasst

*Fair Chase thread???*

This is the last warning, keep it on topic and STOP the name calling. Sheesh


----------



## thesource

aceoky said:


> thesource said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find that to be very funny, yet super ironic at the same time.
> 
> You (and your lackeys) lobbied to get any and all opposition booted from the AT crossbow forum...and succeeded. You must be cowards that cannot handle an open debate....yes?
> 
> *Aceoky and his "ilk" do not allow open debate on the UCBK website - cowards. yes?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Nope not cowards at all, the *membership asked for that* before it was even a reality fyi.......it's IS a private club site, thus, what the membership votes for will be done(as it well should be).......most (if not all of us) have beaten you guys so badly in so many places and forums by now, (they're called real facts ......getcha some)...it's not even funny........cowards NO.......BTW, I'm here aren't I??
> 
> DO I look "scared" to anyone?:tongue:
> 
> I have NO problem with an honest debate, especially when it doesn't get "personal" and "insults" are the norm.........
> 
> I see no good reason, just because our opinions differ, on an issue or two to bring it to that level, some having no facts or data must resort to that it seems, just to have something to post.........rather than getting out and finding something useful that benefits thier views......that may be "cowardly", but refusing to debate per the membership's vote is not.....:cocktail:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> How do you defend your friend Duster's position?
Click to expand...


----------



## doctariAFC

thesource said:


> Nope, not a backfire. Free Range hit the x-ring.


It was a backfire. Now, if the issue was for or against hunting off the back of an ATV, well, that would have hit the x-ring. But, since it is about crossbows and the limiting of opportunity, it clearly missed the paper.


----------



## aceoky

Looks like most of us agree that NO private club or org defines fair chase for US.....a few agree to that for them, and we agree, that's "fine" so long as they don't wish to impose that view on the rest of us??? 

Thanks!


----------



## JAVI

aceoky said:


> Looks like most of us agree that NO private club or org defines fair chase for US.....a few agree to that for them, and we agree, that's "fine" so long as they don't wish to impose that view on the rest of us???
> 
> Thanks!


Sounds like the American way to me...:wink:


----------



## Free Range

> I saw what he was trying to do, but it backfired. There's a difference between wanting to or not wanting to hike for miles and restricting an opportunity to participate. Its a very elementary way of trying to say the crossbow doesn't demand any work to get good at, while the vertical bow does, therefore the hunter is lazy, which is a crock, because every hunter still has to practice with their implement of choice, and every hunter stil has to go afield and hunt!


Now wait one minute, please explain to me how that is any different then what Ace is always saying. How can he justify the inclusion of the x-bow, because some people just don’t have the time, and it not work for me, because I don’t have the time to walk any further then the creek bank? Either time constraints is a good excuse or it isn’t. 

Now back to FC, and how the fish relate to it. I thought you said having some areas as artificial only was a good thing? Forget about 18-mile creek, is that not what you said? I’m saying that no where should there be any restrictions, based on FC or equipment, if you want to use the freedom of choice claim to defend your stand on FC. If you want to claim freedom of choice and personal ethics then there cannot be any restrictions other then bag limits. Everything else is FC rules and restrictions on free choice. In other words if the bag limit is one, what should it matter if I use a net, spear or bazooka? One is one, and any other restriction, as I said is against freedom of choice.


----------



## Free Range

> It was a backfire. Now, if the issue was for or against hunting off the back of an ATV, well, that would have hit the x-ring. But, since it is about crossbows and the limiting of opportunity, it clearly missed the paper.


How do you separate the two? Honest question.


----------



## Free Range

> Originally Posted by aceoky
> Looks like most of us agree that NO private club or org defines fair chase for US.....a few agree to that for them, and we agree, that's "fine" so long as they don't wish to impose that view on the rest of us???
> 
> Thanks!



So, other then bag limits, where should we go for direction on the rest of the laws we must live by while hunting?


----------



## JAVI

Free Range said:


> So, other then bag limits, where should we go for direction on the rest of the laws we must live by while hunting?


I think most states define much more than simple bag limits. I know mine does and so does Colorado... unless it has changed since I lived there...


----------



## aceoky

Free Range said:


> How do you separate the two? Honest question.


The same way that IF a compound is "fair chase" the crossbow HAS to be.....same success rates, same range restrictions etc.etc.etc. .....no negative impact on the resources, if one is allowed so should the other (either way btw)....... a weapon choice has nothing to do with fair chase so long as they're on similar "playing fields",(guns are not btw) as are the crossbow and the compound, obviously the longbow and even recurve are in another class, but in every state that I'm aware of, one gets the chance to choose which of those they will use (and many use 'em all, as should be thier right).......

Adding oppotunity by allowing a similar weapon is obviously much different than taking opportunity away from some to "maybe give to it to others"......(per your example)

So inclusion of the crossbow ONLY adds opportunity for those who want it,(we established already that it IS "FC") no one is forcing it..... upon anyone, if they choose it fine, if they choose another bow, still fine and any of all of those mentioned bows are all fair chase , some are obviously much harder to be profeicient with, but they're all just as fair, so long as the user chooses which one they are going to use.........it may not be fair to "force" them to use any one of those though(as in your fishing example, making others do something your way, so you can have it easier)........NO bow does that period, including the crossbow....one still has to do the "hunting part" of getting close undetected..........that is an indisputable fact.....(more proof of "FC" btw)

IOW in your example oppoturnity is lost for by others for *your benefit*.......in these other examples MORE oppotunity is presented at a cost to no one.......all archery hunters have a choice......and not one is forced to do anything, contrary to your proposal, which obviously is different in at least that respect......:cocktail: 

I'm certian doctari can do a far better job than I just did, but that is the "gist" of it, as I understand it.....


----------



## thesource

aceoky said:


> The same way that IF a compound is "fair chase" the crossbow HAS to be.....same success rates, same range restrictions etc.etc.etc. .....no negative impact on the resources, if one is allowed so should the other (either way btw)....... a weapon choice has nothing to do with fair chase so long as they're on similar "playing fields",(guns are not btw) .....


Hold on.

First let me point out your errors (like always)

Bows and crossbows do not have "the same" success rates, VA shows crossbows have higher success rates.

Now, onward and upward.

If success rates are all that matter, consider OH, where MZ success rate is LOWER than crossbows.

By your logic, doesn't that indicate that they should include MZ in "archery"season?

You say "guns are not, btw", but the data from OH shows that some guns (MZ, in this instance ) are DISADVANTAGED based on your main criteria.

You are in a conundrum, my friend.....the things that you espouse as "fact" appear to be in conflict.

Spin hard, dude ..... this one is showing your true nature - HYPOCRITE.


----------



## willie

doctariAFC said:


> It was a backfire. Now, if the issue was for or against hunting off the back of an ATV, well, that would have hit the x-ring. But, since it is about crossbows and the limiting of opportunity, it clearly missed the paper.


*MAGGIE'S DRAWERS....*


.


----------



## aceoky

thesource said:


> Hold on.
> 
> First let me point out your errors (like always)
> 
> Bows and crossbows do not have "the same" success rates, VA shows crossbows have higher success rates.
> 
> Now, onward and upward.
> 
> If success rates are all that matter, consider OH, where MZ success rate is LOWER than crossbows.
> 
> By your logic, doesn't that indicate that they should include MZ in "archery"season?
> 
> You say "guns are not, btw", but the data from OH shows that some guns (MZ, in this instance ) are DISADVANTAGED based on your main criteria.
> 
> You are in a conundrum, my friend.....the things that you espouse as "fact" appear to be in conflict.
> 
> Spin hard, dude ..... this one is showing your true nature - HYPOCRITE.


Well, I'm "happy for you that you're so in love with yourself"..... 

Now one small detail, what is the length of the ML season in OH? Archery season in OH........

Apples to Chevy's ........spin that.......

Give ML the same season length, wanna bet which one kills the most??? ( I already know what we in Ky kill with two ml seasons one is quite long, when compared to our long archery season.... so I'm not guessing like you always are btw) :cocktail: 

There is NOT enough difference (4%) to matter, in Va ,and BTW I can also show where in many states the crossbow sucess rate is LOWER........want to do an average??? NOW want to say what the TOTAL archery % of the TOTAL kill was( I did mention the resources also)......gotta love how you "think" you get to pick out certain parts and choose what is "supposed to be" said in order to "try" to "twist" and "spin" the truth.....never works, but dang if you don't keep right on trying......


AS I said, if the compound IS "FC" so is the crossbow period....

Please prove otherwise.....btw because P&Y says one thing, that most archers do NOT follow isn't "proof", I know you don't like hearing the facts......but they're facts all the same!:darkbeer:


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip

*Free range*

*You said 
My take on it is while bowhunting, it is not considered FC to hunt behind a high fence, while bowhunting, it is not considered FC to take animals while swimming. Personally I think a person must be dim witted, or purposely trying to confuse the issue to think the rules of fair chase, as set by the P&Y club, are not bowhunting specific. *

My take on it, and the take by 99.999% of non-hunters would be that this two rules of bowhunting should/would apply to all types of hunters. To suggest that these two rules are bowhunting specific would suggest that it is aokydoke to do these while gun hunting.

Which states allow you to take swimming deer while gun hunting, yet restrict you from doing this while bow hunting? If your logic makes sense, then certainly some states would have incorporated that into law.

*You said
They also don’t distinguish between killed while hunting and killed by a train*

Now that is true. They honor the animal as it lived regardless of how it died.
P&Y only honors the animal if it died in a specific way. By hunting and by bow.
AND if the hunter did anything to dishonorable, then the animal can't be honored. Please help me make sense out of that.

You said
My view, P&Y took what the B&C club already had in place, decided they were right in their (B&C) view of fair chase, then added what they considered to be appropriate to bowhunting. 

That's why 6/8 rules are not bow specific?

*You said
Thus adding to what they saw as a good standard. *

No they did't add to a good standard. They created a separate standard.
As I said...you can't have it both ways. Please tell me where they used
any B&C rules of fair chase. Please show me where they reference B&C.
I don't see it. 

*You said
I guess a person could see it as superseding, but to me that means they said the B&C club is lacking in every way and needs to be replaced,* 

supersede
To take the place of; replace. 
To cause to be set aside, especially to displace as inferior or antiquated. 

No where in there does supersede suggest that something else was lacking in every way.

Show me where the B&C rules of fair chase haven't been completely replaced.

*You said
and our rules are better then theirs. *

Who knows. One can only assume. Where does P&Y talk about B&C rules?

*You said
To me the B&C club is a hunting organization that cares less about weapon used or how a animal is killed, they are basically an organization to keep records of the largest animals, no matter how it was killed. *

While that is true, it doesn't mean they are not about other things either.

Which organization is the first nationally recognized organization to come up with any definition of Fair Chase?

*You said
Of course I could be wrong, and welcome being corrected, because I don’t hunt big game with a gun, I’m not all that familiar with the B&C club. *

Are you familiar with their rules of fair chase?


*You said
On the other hand you have the P&Y club, they do care how a animal is killed. *

and who killed it. True? If so why?

*You said
In fact the reason for their existence is/was to prove the bow a capable weapon to kill big game with, *

As source would say asked and answered. Millions of times thoughout history.
What is the continued need to do this. Are you concerned that somehow historians will forget the primary uses of a bow?

You say THE reason for their existence. I would suggest that there are multiple reasons for their existence. True?

*You said
the record keeping of “trophies” is only a by product of proving to game depts. the ability of the bow. *

Did you say that with a straight face?

*You said
I guess it would have something to do with autonomy, if the P&Y club came out with their FC rules and said, “see B&C rules and add these”, that would be aligning with the B&C club, and take away from their purpose. *

So they did supersede the rules?

Alignment is a bad thing when defining fair chase, for all hunters? Do you believe that fair chase is completely different for bow hunters than it is for gun hunters? Can you think of any rules that should be the same?

P&Y could have taken the rules of B&C, acknowledged them, and added them.
They could have 'honored' the good rules that had come before them.
They chose not to.

But I could be wrong. Please explain how.

*You said
The B&C club didn’t care about the bow,* 

That's not true. That sounds like a child saying "You don't love me daddy. If you did you would do ..... for me."

*You said
if they had they would have been out trying to expand the seasons for their use. *

Do you mean their sole use? Do you mean to connect the dots and say that in order for them to care about the bow, that they have to do that to the exclusion of other weapons? Is this like marriage...choose...one or the other?

*You said
There was a need for a separate organization, one dedicated just to bow hunting.* 

Does P&Y have a charter...a mission statement?

*You said
And as for sitting in the middle, what middle, who is on the other side, you have B&C and P&Y, if they are in the middle who is the third org?*

The third entity is you. Its not an organization.

Some here say that there are 3 levels to the rules of fair chase
B&C First 
P&Y second
Individual third.
Each have a progressively more stringent set of standards.
Do you subscribe to that sequencing of ideals and standards?
Do you acknowledge B&C's rules?

If you subscribe to that, 3 levels, then why does P&Y need to be in the middle? Do bowhunters have to be told what to do? 

Some folks here (Javi for example) subscribe to the third level (their ideas of fair chase) only. Not to suggest that he/she isn't operating within the laws of course. I think Javi's position was to operate within the laws and their own sense of fair chase. If he/she didn't like the laws...then move on.

Javi's rules could be as stringent or even more stringent than anything B&C or P&Y have come up with.


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip

Free Range said:


> Well I can see your point, which leads to why have any seasons or restrictions at all?


Safety

Forget about crossbows for the moment.
What better reason exists for barring guns from bow season?
The question is...is it good enough?

In my book yes.

I have a difficult time explaining why we should have bow season through January while restricting gun hunters. I consider it the ultimate in hunting though. Have to get close...and they're still spooked due to late season muzzleloading.


----------



## thesource

aceoky said:


> Well, I'm "happy for you that you're so in love with yourself".....
> 
> Now one small detail, what is the length of the ML season in OH? Archery season in OH........
> 
> Apples to Chevy's ........spin that.......


No, dude. You cannot claim harvest rate as the important determinant, ignoring extrenuating circumstances when they apply to crossbows, and then expound the extrenuating circumstances when it suits your purpose to ignore the MZ harvest rate.

I agree that extrenuating circumstances are what causes MZ harvest rate to be lower - but it is what is. You shouldbe examining what might be influencing crossbow harvest rates, too, before you boldly proclaim there is NO differences between them and bows - but you don't, and that is dishonest.




aceoky said:


> There is NOT enough difference (4%) to matter, in Va ,and BTW I can also show where in many states the crossbow sucess rate is LOWER........


That's your OPINION - and I'll bet Free Range hammers you for making it since it is contrary to a FACT and you ride him so much about opinions. This should be fun to watch ....

You cannot show DATA to prove crossbow success rate is lower ANYWHERE - first because there is none - only VA keeps track of the data necessary to make an actual calculation - second because there is none.




aceoky said:


> NOW want to say what the TOTAL archery % of the TOTAL kill was( I did mention the resources also)......


We can do that, too, if you want. In OHIO, crossbows are responsible for a significantly higher % of the TOTAL kill.
In 2004 - 
Crossbows accounted for 17% of the total kill
Real Bows accounted for 11% of the total kill
Muzzleloaders accounted for 11% of the kill

So if % of total kill is what you say matters, crossbows are clearly in a different league, since the only weapon in OH with a higher % of total is the shotgun.

PS - more FACTS from the other side for you to argue against....remember, Free Range is watching LOL


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip

thesource said:


> Of course, everyone is capable of bypassing those filters with a little extra effort, assuming they truly want to.
> 
> Why won't they put forth the effort? They must not want it bad enough.


They're not bypassing your filters by your description. They are going straight through them.


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip

*You said
Its obvious that crossbow advocates have no sense of bowhunting heritage or history.[/QUOTE]*

not true.

I have a sense that self, long, and recurve bows have been around for 1000's of years. 
I have a sense that crossbows have been around for 100's of years.
I have a sense that compounds have been around for 10's of years.

I have a sense that crossbows have been historically attributed to evil devices, doing evil actions, used by evil characters. I have a sense that the centuires long negative connotations associated with crossbows continues in current lore.

Crossbows are considered cheating today by some.
Man-Man and Man-deer.
Long bows were considered 'cheating' by the French at one point.

Compounds were initially opposed and finally accepted into mainstream hunting. Today they make up mainstream bowhunting. ~90% of bowhunters today use compound bows.

I have a sense that bowhunting WAS primitive at one point in time, on a relative basis to how and what most of us hunt with today. I have a sense that bowhunting today, in practice, from a technology use standpoint is anything but primitive.

I have a sense of conflict over the past 30-40 years as technology has introduced change to once ancient practice.

I sense a conflicted organization when I see

"The Pope and Young Club remains committed to the philosophy that 
reasonable equipment limitations are inherent to bowhunting and 
necessary to protect the primitive status of bowhunting."
http://www.pope-young.org/clubnews.asp

and

photos of the week which typically (90% of the time) show someone
with a high tech piece of archery equipment.
http://www.pope-young.org/photosweek.asp

I have a sense of the history of confict between people and organizations considering hunting a sport between men and between man and nature.

But its obvious that we don't know jack.

Do go on.


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip

Jim C said:


> Its hard to claim that novices with hunting crossbows can beat professional compound spot shooters when a three time world crossbow champion shooting a 3000 dollar bow with a sight that costs more than a top of the line excalibur lost to over 100 compound archers at NFAA indoors.


I'm guessing this is in the history books...just piling away more information so I can maintain that sense of heritage and history.

Do you have a web site reference?

Thanks!!


----------



## Jim C

oldbhtrnewequip said:


> I'm guessing this is in the history books...just piling away more information so I can maintain that sense of heritage and history.
> 
> Do you have a web site reference?
> 
> Thanks!!



I will look but i read this stuff many years ago when I first got involved in dealing with archery apartheid bigots


----------



## willie

> *You said
> Its obvious that crossbow advocates have no sense of bowhunting heritage or history.*
> 
> not true.
> 
> I have a sense that self, long, and recurve bows have been around for 1000's of years.
> I have a sense that crossbows have been around for 100's of years.
> I have a sense that compounds have been around for 10's of years.
> 
> I have a sense that crossbows have been historically attributed to evil devices, doing evil actions, used by evil characters. I have a sense that the centuires long negative connotations associated with crossbows continues in current lore.
> 
> Crossbows are considered cheating today by some.
> Man-Man and Man-deer.
> Long bows were considered 'cheating' by the French at one point.
> 
> Compounds were initially opposed and finally accepted into mainstream hunting. Today they make up mainstream bowhunting. ~90% of bowhunters today use compound bows.
> 
> I have a sense that bowhunting WAS primitive at one point in time, on a relative basis to how and what most of us hunt with today. I have a sense that bowhunting today, in practice, from a technology use standpoint is anything but primitive.
> 
> I have a sense of conflict over the past 30-40 years as technology has introduced change to once ancient practice.
> 
> I sense a conflicted organization when I see
> 
> "The Pope and Young Club remains committed to the philosophy that
> reasonable equipment limitations are inherent to bowhunting and
> necessary to protect the primitive status of bowhunting."
> http://www.pope-young.org/clubnews.asp
> 
> and
> 
> photos of the week which typically (90% of the time) show someone
> with a high tech piece of archery equipment.
> http://www.pope-young.org/photosweek.asp
> 
> I have a sense of the history of confict between people and organizations considering hunting a sport between men and between man and nature.
> 
> But its obvious that we don't know jack.
> 
> Do go on.


*VERY WELL SAID!!!*
*
Thank you ever so much..*


----------



## PMantle

Jim C said:


> I will look but i read this stuff many years ago when I first got involved in dealing with archery apartheid bigots


I know what you mean. There is absolutely no reason why those bigots should oppose my use of my .243 in muzzle loader since I am no more effective with it than the muzzle guys are. It's insane!


----------



## willie

PMantle said:


> I know what you mean. There is absolutely no reason why those bigots should oppose my use of my .243 in muzzle loader since I am no more effective with it than the muzzle guys are. It's insane!


Two problems..

It is not a front stuffer..

*and *

it doens't meet minimum caliber restrictions..


----------



## Free Range

> by Ace
> a weapon choice has nothing to do with fair chase so long as they're on similar "playing fields",(guns are not btw)


Are you saying a gun is not fair chase? 



> By Oldhntr
> My take on it, and the take by 99.999% of non-hunters would be that this two rules of bowhunting should/would apply to all types of hunters. To suggest that these two rules are bowhunting specific would suggest that it is aokydoke to do these while gun hunting.


First, I think anybody that were to read the P&Y rules, would by nature of reading them know it’s a bow hunting organization. Well according to B&C is it ok to hunt behind a high fence? I don’t know maybe you do? 



> Which states allow you to take swimming deer while gun hunting, yet restrict you from doing this while bow hunting? If your logic makes sense, then certainly some states would have incorporated that into law.


When you “add” to something there will be over lapping information, 2+3=5 it overlaps on 1 and 2, then 3, 4 and five are new. To suggest that because 3,4,5 are new they could not possibly share 1 and 2 is silly at best. 



> Please tell me where they used
> any B&C rules of fair chase. Please show me where they reference B&C.
> I don't see it.


Quoted from the B&C
is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild,

Quoted from the P&Y
Simply defined, fair chase is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit of free-ranging wild

Now I could be wrong but that there looks like overlapping to me. Now if they copied that from the B&C or if FC is so fundimantal that it just naturally took on the same underpinning, I can’t say, you will have to ask Glean St.Charles. 



> Show me where the B&C rules of fair chase haven't been completely replaced.


See above. 



> Which organization is the first nationally recognized organization to come up with any definition of Fair Chase?


My guess is B&C, am I wrong? 



> Are you familiar with their rules of fair chase?


Yes, the P&Y rules, and now the B&C rules, which all I could find on their site was this.

FAIR CHASE STATEMENT
FAIR CHASE, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals. 
HUNTER ETHICS
Fundamental to all hunting is the concept of conservation of natural resources. Hunting in today's world involves the regulated harvest of individual animals in a manner that conserves, protects, and perpetuates the hunted population. The hunter engages in a one-to-one relationship with the quarry and his or her hunting should be guided by a hierarchy of ethics related to hunting, which includes the following tenets: 
1. Obey all applicable laws and regulations.
2. Respect the customs of the locale where the hunting occurs.
3. Exercise a personal code of behavior that reflects favorably on your abilities and sensibilities as a hunter.
4. Attain and maintain the skills necessary to make the kill as certain and quick as possible.
5. Behave in a way that will bring no dishonor to either the hunter, the hunted, or the environment.
6. Recognize that these tenets are intended to enhance the hunter's experience of the relationship between predator and prey, which is one of the most fundamental relationships of humans and their environment.
As source would say asked and answered. Millions of times thoughout history.
What is the continued need to do this. Are you concerned that somehow historians will forget the primary uses of a bow?



> You say THE reason for their existence. I would suggest that there are multiple reasons for their existence. True?


There was a need to show game depts. the ability of the bow, in fact most were very skeptical about it, and some still are. If you want a history lesson I suggest you do some research or ask J Westbrock, he his one of the most knowledgeable people out there on the history of archery in the USA. I run into people all the time that say stuff like, “can you really kill a deer with THAT”. 

Yes there may be other reasons, but the main reason was to prove to the game dept’s the bow was a viable weapon for hunting big game. In fact it is still being done, in other areas of the world. So yes despite the fact the bow has been around forever almost, there are still people that need to be reminded and shown the effectiveness of the bow. 



> Did you say that with a straight face?


Yes, it’s not hard when it’s the truth. 



> Alignment is a bad thing when defining fair chase, for all hunters? Do you believe that fair chase is completely different for bow hunters than it is for gun hunters? Can you think of any rules that should be the same?


Again, and I don’t know why you can’t understand this, but P&Y is for bowhunters, they could care less what a gun hunter hunts with or how. They saw a need to further define the rules of fair chase as it relates to hunting with a bow. 



> Do you mean their sole use? Do you mean to connect the dots and say that in order for them to care about the bow, that they have to do that to the exclusion of other weapons? Is this like marriage...choose...one or the other?


Yes. Their main concern would have to be for the majority of their members. Bow hunters were an even smaller group back then, MAYBE, the bowhunters thought they were not being represented as they needed to be, I don’t know, if you were around then maybe you could inform us. Maybe the bowhunters thought they needed a organization that worked for bow hunters alone. 
Why would B&C, a club made up mostly of gun hunters, want to work for a separate season? There is no incentive for them to do so. And in my marriage I do have to choose one or the other, it’s either be faithful to my wife or don’t get married, don’t know how it works in yours. 



> Does P&Y have a charter...a mission statement?


I would assume they do, why don’t you check on that for us. 



> Some folks here (Javi for example) subscribe to the third level (their ideas of fair chase) only. Not to suggest that he/she isn't operating within the laws of course. I think Javi's position was to operate within the laws and their own sense of fair chase. If he/she didn't like the laws...then move on.


Actually I see more then three, you have personal ethics, P&Y, B&C, the law, and those that don’t adhere to any of the above, and many combinations of the above. 



> Javi's rules could be as stringent or even more stringent than anything B&C or P&Y have come up with.


Or it could be less.


----------



## Jim C

PMantle said:


> I know what you mean. There is absolutely no reason why those bigots should oppose my use of my .243 in muzzle loader since I am no more effective with it than the muzzle guys are. It's insane!


this is the sort of stupid comment that proves the antis have no real argument. If muzzle loaders are as effective as centerfire rifles, one wonders why all modern militaries had abandoned muzzle loaders within a few years of the civil war.

I have never seen anyone win a big bore free rifle event with a MZL-I have seen it done with a 243.


----------



## PMantle

Jim C said:


> this is the sort of stupid comment that proves the antis have no real argument. If muzzle loaders are as effective as centerfire rifles, one wonders why all modern militaries had abandoned muzzle loaders within a few years of the civil war.
> 
> I have never seen anyone win a big bore free rifle event with a MZL-I have seen it done with a 243.



Stupid is using an analogy that does not fit. You do it daily. Who is talking military? Who is talking "Event"? Deer hunting is the topic. You can't win, so you attack people. It's that simple. Your arguments get shredded, so you change the subject. It happens in every thread no matter what the beginning topic is. You do more for our cause than any of us could. Keep highlighting the fallacies. You rule!


----------



## Jim C

PMantle said:


> Stupid is using an analogy that does not fit. You do it daily. Who is talking military? Who is talking "Event"? Deer hunting is the topic. You can't win, so you attack people. It's that simple. Your arguments get shredded, so you change the subject. It happens in every thread no matter what the beginning topic is. You do more for our cause than any of us could. Keep highlighting the fallacies. You rule!



I attack stupid arguments that are used by selfish people to exclude and belittle other hunters. Your only argument is greed but you cannot come out and admit that you want less people bowhunting so rather you hide behind a facade of worthiness based on the false belief that people less worthy than you should not be allowed into "your season". That is the entire argument

you pretend that one bow makes someone more dedicated to HUNTING and based on that, its permissible to exclude others. Its a pretext for selfishness and we all know it. What is funny is that you and others think that we actually don't understand what motivates you


----------



## Free Range

> By JAVI
> I think most states define much more than simple bag limits. I know mine does and so does Colorado... unless it has changed since I lived there...


Actually I content that anything other then bag limits are a form of fair chase rules. The game depts. main reason for being, as stated by many here, is to maintain a healthy herd. Other then bag limits what does any game law have to do with that? How does having more then so many hooks on a line affect the fish population? How does not being able to use a two way radio affect the health of the herd? How does hunting at night affect the health of the herd? It doesn’t, these are all fair chase rules made into law, i.e. someone telling you and me how we can or cannot hunt. 



> By Doc
> Tongue in cheek, right? You want something good, you gotta work for it.


Yes it was, sort of, I have always said a person should have to work for it. JimC says that is insane that there should not have to be a work requirement. Ace, says some people don’t have the time to do the work required, in justifying the inclusion, I say if you want to bow hunt you gotta work for it.


----------



## aceoky

Free Range said:


> Actually I content that anything other then bag limits are a form of fair chase rules. The game depts. main reason for being, as stated by many here, is to maintain a healthy herd. Other then bag limits what does any game law have to do with that? How does having more then so many hooks on a line affect the fish population? How does not being able to use a two way radio affect the health of the herd? How does hunting at night affect the health of the herd? It doesn’t, these are all fair chase rules made into law, i.e. someone telling you and me how we can or cannot hunt.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was, sort of, I have always said a person should have to work for it. JimC says that is insane that there should not have to be a work requirement. Ace, says some people don’t have the time to do the work required, in justifying the inclusion, *I say if you want to bow hunt you gotta work for it.*



Since anyone who has ever been in an archery shop a day or two before season starts, knows this is not true even of those hunting with compounds and recurves that statement has* no *merit!

Since the "work" was taken out by a large amount by the compound bow, again you have no cause for that stance....

Since the fact is, and it's proven here the real reason is, you want fewer not more archery hunters in the woods, it's easy to see why none of these makes sense or really matters because, fact is, it has nothing to do with "work" per se` it's all about exclusion, and having more for yourself.......

BTW what I said about "not having time" was for example the man (or woman) who works two jobs has a family to take care of doens't have the time required to practice enough to have the confindence needed to insure a quick humane kill, many of those will NOT archery hunt without the crossbow(and that's probably a good thing for archery as well).the crossbow allows those hard working people the opportunity to get out there and enjoy the early season, with archery that IS a good thing for all of us....for the record...........

YOU state we don't know they're "new" hunters......YOu can't prove they are not.......but I can and have proven there are more archery hunters where the crossbow is included, as legal.........you care where they "come from", I don't, as groups want to destroy what I love(archery season and hunting), more people is more power to fight them........period Anyone who doesn't see that fact is not looking at all....

Source , I"m not even going to bother with your "rant", IF you "think" you can convince anyone by comparing a very short ML season to inclusion of crossbows into the archery season based on what you said, dream on.......I don't think anyone will "fall for that", keep on trying, I know you will, even when it makes that little sense!:cocktail:


----------



## willie

Shooting a compound is like riding a bicycle. You might get a little rusty, but you don't forget how.

I haven't shot a compound in over 5 years *BUT* if I could miracously be able to now I'll bet within in an hours time I would be maintaining 4 inch groups at 20 yards.And I am a sloppy finger shooter.

A *LARGE* majority of bowhunters are hunters and use the bow as a means to go hunting ONLY.

Way too may "bowhunters" lay down their bow at the end of the deer season and don't pick it up again until a week or two before season.

Explain to me how they "work for it".

There are no "Practice Police" out there making sure that every vertical bow shooter "works for it".


----------



## thesource

aceoky said:


> Source , I"m not even going to bother with your "rant", IF you "think" you can convince anyone by comparing a very short ML season to inclusion of crossbows into the archery season based on what you said, dream on.......I don't think anyone will "fall for that", keep on trying, I know you will, even when it makes that little sense!:cocktail:


I think you've once again missed the point.

First you say that harvest rate is all that matters - I prove that in VA crossbows have a higher harvest rate and in OH MZ have a lower harvest rate.

Then you say its % of total - I show you crossbowers in OH take a higher % of total than any other weapon but the shotgun.

I keep burying every point you attempt with facts, yet you avoid them like a greased pig - every time I get my hands on you, you squeal and hide in another corner of the crossbow pigpen by changing the subject.


----------



## thesource

willie said:


> Explain to me how they "work for it".
> 
> There are no "Practice Police" out there making sure that every vertical bow shooter "works for it".


Your arguement is that compounders don't have to work hard to hunt in bowseason.

Explain WHY then, the folks you want to be crossbow hunters in these states where they are currently ILLEGAL (which is almost all of the states, btw) can't get off their butts and do what little work you suggest is required to shoot a bow and be in the bowseason that they covet so much.

Seems there are some flaws in your logic, Willie.


----------



## doctariAFC

Free Range said:


> Actually I content that anything other then bag limits are a form of fair chase rules. The game depts. main reason for being, as stated by many here, is to maintain a healthy herd. Other then bag limits what does any game law have to do with that? How does having more then so many hooks on a line affect the fish population? How does not being able to use a two way radio affect the health of the herd? How does hunting at night affect the health of the herd? It doesn’t, these are all fair chase rules made into law, i.e. someone telling you and me how we can or cannot hunt.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it was, sort of, I have always said a person should have to work for it. JimC says that is insane that there should not have to be a work requirement. Ace, says some people don’t have the time to do the work required, in justifying the inclusion, I say if you want to bow hunt you gotta work for it.


Look, in terms of Fair Chase, we have much speculation because Fair Chase rules are different from State to State. SOme believe baiting is not Fair Chase, while others do believe its Fair Chase. I think it would be a fair exercise to once again go back to the history of hunting seasons and determine the chain of events in context, understand the initial reasons for implementation of hunting seasons and basic fair chase ethics of hunting was for 1 - CONSERVATION of game species, and 2 - STOP the shooting of animals while riding on a train through the heart of the Buffalo herd migration routes. MOre rules became needed to bolsgter conservation, and some rules address safety, and other rules are in place to allow recreational opportunities with specialized implements.

Having to work for anything good is absolutely the case. But, in order for someone to say that a crossbow doesn't require work, you're kidding yourself. Every implement use for hunting purposes demands work to become proficient and confident in your marksmanship abilities, bar none. Does this then mean you are trying to define the amount of work someone has to put into their marksmanship skills? Does this mean I'm a "lazy hunter" because I do not shoot my bow year round? I start shooting a few times a week, taking between 12 to 20 shots per day (twice to 3 times a week) starting in August, sometimes later. Are you going to say that I am a "lazy bowhunter"? Of course not. Incidentally, I perform similar shooting practice with my firearms as well. As for a bow, I shoot an Oneida Eagle. As for firearms, I shoot an Ithaca M-37 12 ga., a CVA Hawken 54 cal Percussion ML, a Marlin 30-30 Win rifle, and a Browning 1886 replica single shot 45-70 rifle. Firearms shooting happens once per week, when time permits, until about a month before the season. Then its twice per week without fail. Does this make me lazy? Hell no. It makes me proficient.

But the work being done on the range is in no way the same as the work in the field. No matter what implement you choose, you have to hike. This relates back to the C&R artificial only/ fly fishing only scenarios. These initiatives do indeed restrict opportunity to anglers. These restrictions may be beneficial when sound biological facts support the necessity of this change. It also is warranted by choice when public funds are NOT being spent to maintain any fishery through aggressive stocking programs, or even supplemental stocking programs. If we, as anglers and tax payers, are footing the bill for artificially sustaining any fishery, we as taxpayers have the right to equal opportunity without undue restrictions meant to appease a select few. Since we have zero biological/ scientific evidence to support the change, we have no reason to justify the change which winds up restricting the opportunity. That is a :nono: on public areas.

And this also applies to the crossbow. If biological evidence suggests that the herd health cannot withstand an additional implement choice, you cannot make the change. However, if the evidence indicates that the herds can more than handle the change, and perhaps even warrants the change for more effective herd management, then the change should be implemented.

But to sit there and attempt to equate work on the range with actual work while hunting or fishing is absurd, and it is invaild, as this is apples and oranges.


----------



## Free Range

> Since the fact is, and it's proven here the real reason is, you want fewer not more archery hunters in the woods, it's easy to see why none of these makes sense or really matters because, fact is, it has nothing to do with "work" per se` it's all about exclusion, and having more for yourself.......


A lie, I have never said I wanted less archery hunters in the woods, and I demand an apology, I have let this lie go long enough, if you continue to lie about what I want without any quotes by me backing it up, then well we know what you are.



> BTW what I said about "not having time" was for example the man (or woman) who works two jobs has a family to take care of doens't have the time required to practice enough to have the confindence needed to insure a quick humane kill, many of those will NOT archery hunt without the crossbow(and that's probably a good thing for archery as well).the crossbow allows those hard working people the opportunity to get out there and enjoy the early season, with archery that IS a good thing for all of us....for the record...........


So why does it only apply to archery hunting? 



> more people is more power to fight them........period Anyone who doesn't see that fact is not looking at all....


More people or more archery hunters? You act as if bow hunters are alone and fighting for hunting rights in a vacuum. Do you, as a gun hunter, think you will vote against bow hunting if the time comes? Do you think gun hunters in general will? Do you think moving one hunter from gun hunting to gun hunting “and” bow hunting will give us a bigger voice against the anti hunter? 

I care where they come from because, not to is lying to yourself, if you want to play the number game and fool yourself into believing that moving 1000 hunters from one season to the next gives you 1000 more votes then go ahead. Thinking people know this is a lie, and that there is no added benefit to this way of thinking. 

Crossbow pigpen, :darkbeer:    now that there is funny I don’t care who you are.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Your arguement is that compounders don't have to work hard to hunt in bowseason.
> 
> Explain WHY then, the folks you want to be crossbow hunters in these states where they are currently ILLEGAL (which is almost all of the states, btw) can't get off their butts and do what little work you suggest is required to shoot a bow and be in the bowseason that they covet so much.
> 
> Seems there are some flaws in your logic, Willie.



This is another manifestation of the greed argument being camoflauged by the worthiness argument. It has no merit


----------



## willie

thesource said:


> Your arguement is that compounders don't have to work hard to hunt in bowseason.
> 
> Explain WHY then, the folks you want to be crossbow hunters in these states where they are currently ILLEGAL (which is almost all of the states, btw) can't get off their butts and do what little work you suggest is required to shoot a bow and be in the bowseason that they covet so much.
> 
> Seems there are some flaws in your logic, Willie.


Explain why compounders "cant get off their butts" and "work at it" to shoot a recurve.

I see very little difference in the desires of a compounder that wants to go deer hunting in archery season and a crossbower that wants to go hunting in archery season.

Most bowhunters just want to go hunting and see a bow (recurve, longbow, compound or crossbow ) as means to do that.Which one *they* choose should be THEIR choice, not yours or mine.

Ease of mastery has NOTHING to do with practicing to remain proficient or how much we will practice. 

You can not give me any data to support that compounders practices any more than crossbowers does to "earn a right to hunt in archery seoasn".

You guys are using the very same argumnets that we did way back in the early 70s to try and keep that what we then called an archery abomination - a compound out of "our deer season". We were wrong then and you are wrong now.

The handwriting is on the wall and a bunch of guys like you will not stop it.


----------



## doctariAFC

Jim C said:


> This is another manifestation of the greed argument being camoflauged by the worthiness argument. It has no merit


:amen:

1+1 does not equal 7. Its a valiant try, but in the end, is nothing but blather....


----------



## thesource

willie said:


> I see very little difference in the desires of a compounder that wants to go deer hunting in archery season and a crossbower that wants to go hunting in archery season.


Well, then allow me to explain it to you:

One of them has followed the rules, taken the initiative to acquire and learn to shoot the ONLY equipment allowed into the season, a bow.

The other one has not, cannot summon the motivation to do so, and instead pisses and moans that the rules be changed, that the equipment be made easier, that the illegal be made legal so that he can join in in spite of the fact he was apparently unwilling to make the small sacrifice required to do so.

That seems like a very big difference to me.


----------



## Free Range

> But to sit there and attempt to equate work on the range with actual work while hunting or fishing is absurd, and it is invaild, as this is apples and oranges.


Are you saying, that in order to participate, (buy a license and be allowed to go afield) there should be no work requirement? But to have a quality experience (find game, and solitude) we are going to require you to perform a certain level of work? And why the separation of the two? If I can kill a deer from my truck and hire someone to go out and dress it and load it up and take it to the locker for processing for me, who are you to tell me I can’t? 

There has been some discussion about proficiency testing, and in some places there is testing already in place. This would require a min amount of work on the range, wouldn’t you agree? I am against these test, not because they require work, but because of the slippery slope it may lead us down, how do you feel about them? 



> 1 - CONSERVATION of game species, and 2 - STOP the shooting of animals while riding on a train through the heart of the Buffalo herd migration routes. MOre rules became needed to bolsgter conservation, and some rules address safety, and other rules are in place to allow recreational opportunities with specialized implements.


But in reality you don’t “need” these rules now do you? You could accomplish the same thing with bag limits. Limit people to only one Buffalo, and they could still do it from the train, accomplishes the same thing, without requiring them to “work”. That is why I say anything other then bag limits is hog wash, IF, we are going to proclaim freedom of choice. 
You tell me I must use artificial lures only in some areas to “conserve” the native fish, I say, let me use bait but restrict me to one fish a year. Does the same thing without restricting my CHOICE of weapon. 

Now if we can agree that there are valid reasons to limit hunting methods, and that any rule about hunting method is indeed a fair chase rule, then we can argue the finer points of where the line is drawn.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Well, then allow me to explain it to you:
> 
> One of them has followed the rules, taken the initiative to acquire and learn to shoot the ONLY equipment allowed into the season, a bow.
> 
> The other one has not, cannot summon the motivation to do so, and instead pisses and moans that the rules be changed, that the equipment be made easier, that the illegal be made legal so that he can join in in spite of the fact he was apparently unwilling to make the small sacrifice required to do so.
> 
> That seems like a very big difference to me.


another idiotic misrepresentation

compound archers lobbied to get their gear included
crossbow archers do the same thing
compound archers lobbied for inclusion rather than practice with a recurve

once again its the worthiness blather trying to hide and cover the greed sickness


----------



## willie

thesource said:


> Well, then allow me to explain it to you:
> 
> One of them has followed the rules,..


"Rules" change every year. The "rules" were changed to allow compound bows into the archery seasons. Rules were changed (in some states) to allow a release aid instead of being released by fingers. A stroke of the pen can make illegal legal..



> ......... taken the initiative to acquire and learn to shoot the ONLY equipment allowed into the season, a bow.


Once only recurves and long bows were allowed, weren't they? I've told you a thousand times that the compound changed the playing field.

Of course now you are backpedaling away from earn it by practice as you can NOT show any data where one earns it more than another.

If all it takes is mastering a particular bow (compund) then all we should have to do is master the compound and THEN we can choose what ever archery hunting tool that we want to us.

SNIP of the rest..


----------



## Free Range

> compound archers lobbied to get their gear included
> crossbow archers do the same thing
> compound archers lobbied for inclusion rather than practice with a recurve


Actually someone with your knowledge of archery should know that at the time they became “accepted” there wasn’t that much difference. What do you think the average let off was back in the 70’s, what was the average speed?


----------



## thesource

willie said:


> A stroke of the pen can make illegal legal.


I guess you better address pmantles point again, then, shouldn't you? 

Haha - you're too easy. LOL


willie said:


> _Quote:
> Originally Posted by PMantle
> I know what you mean. There is absolutely no reason why those bigots should oppose my use of my .243 in muzzle loader since I am no more effective with it than the muzzle guys are. It's insane! _
> 
> 
> Two problems..
> 
> It is not a front stuffer..
> 
> *and *
> 
> it doens't meet minimum caliber restrictions.


----------



## Jim C

Free Range said:


> Actually someone with your knowledge of archery should know that at the time they became “accepted” there wasn’t that much difference. What do you think the average let off was back in the 70’s, what was the average speed?


just as right now where compounds and crossbows have essentially the same performances


----------



## JAVI

Free Range said:


> Actually I content that anything other then bag limits are a form of fair chase rules. The game depts. main reason for being, as stated by many here, is to maintain a healthy herd. Other then bag limits what does any game law have to do with that? How does having more then so many hooks on a line affect the fish population? How does not being able to use a two way radio affect the health of the herd? How does hunting at night affect the health of the herd? It doesn’t, these are all fair chase rules made into law, i.e. someone telling you and me how we can or cannot hunt.


Most of the current game laws (in my state at least) are there not to prohibit the hunter who is going to take the bag limit and stop hunting; but instead to add another deterrent to the unlawful hunter who will continue taking game after reaching their limit. The prohibition on night hunting is a prime example, it is the primary hunting time of the game poacher, so making it unlawful to hunt a species at night gives the LEO another tool. I could go on; but I think you get the jest of what I’m saying. 

In Texas not only is it legal to hunt in a high fenced ranch it is encouraged by the state game mangers as a viable management tool. Some of you don’t like the concept and want to stop any occurrence of it with a total disregard for the facts that in Texas it has not only proven to provide more opportunities (exotics) but has actually benefited the entire hunting scene. 

Texas makes it easy for most hunters, they set a basic level of legality in game laws then allows the hunter to add to the difficulty as he sees fit. Call it legislating fair chase or call it mustard it really doesn’t matter. The difference between the laws of the state of Texas and the mantra of the P&Y club is simple. One is a legal entity charged with the safe keeping of the game animals within the boundaries of the state, and the other is a club. As a citizen, I’m bound to obey the law. I’m not however bound by any affiliation to either the B&C or P&Y clubs. I could choose to embrace the tenets of one or both, but I am not legally bound to do so. 

I remember Colorado back in the early 70’s when it wasn’t legal to kill mule deer does, not the sporting thing to do (fair chase). Even though game management dictated that an overly heavy doe to buck ratio led to disease and die-off. We know how that ended up don’t we… By the way I helped get the muzzle loader season started up there…

Fair Chase within the laws of the land is a personal thing and should remain so. At no point should a person be castigated for abiding by the game laws. Instead of busying ourselves with trivialities such as which weapon to use within those laws, we should be fighting to protect our right of choice. We just celebrated Memorial Day; a day of remembering those fallen in battle to preserve that right. Yet many of you would seem hell bent on destroying that premise. Odd isn’t it… 

Those soldiers fought and died so that you and I could decide to hunt with a crossbow, longbow, recurve, compound, muzzle loader, hand gun, rifle, shotgun, stick, rock, knife or bare hands if we choose. The key words here are hunt and choice. I know that many of you will never accept high fence, or crossbows, any more than you will accept that P&Y isn’t the ruling authority on bow hunting but that’s ok. As long as you accept my right to disagree with P&Y and pursue the game of my choice with the weapon of my choice within the laws of the state in which I hunt. Anything else could well make the sacrifices of so many, seem meaningless…

As far as the argument on what season a crossbow belong in, I believe the Federal Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms made that ruling many years ago… A crossbow is not a firearm. Any person should be able to admit that it is a bow, not a long bow, compound or recurve but still a bow. The entire objection to it inclusion into the archery season can only be based on selfishness, and an unwillingness to share YOUR woods with another person unless they hunt as you see fit. I taught my children to share… not to be stingy.


----------



## aceoky

thesource said:


> I think you've once again missed the point.
> 
> First you say that harvest rate *is all that matters *- I prove that in VA crossbows have a higher harvest rate and in OH MZ have a lower harvest rate.
> 
> Then you say its % of total - I show you crossbowers in OH take a higher % of total than any other weapon but the shotgun.
> 
> I keep burying every point you attempt with facts, yet you avoid them like a greased pig - every time I get my hands on you, you squeal and hide in another corner of the crossbow pigpen by changing the subject.


I'll say this for you, when you "dream" you dream big! (guess you may as well, it costs the same) 

Facts used out of context don't "prove" squat.......to try compare a 2 day or 5,or7, or 10 , or 15 days even to a three MONTH season is again apples to chevy's comparison at best........wont' "fly" and we all know it.....

Again maybe the 4% larger success rates in VA by crossbows were because 4% FOUND their deer......:cocktail: maybe not one more was shot, just 4% MORE were found(that IS easier to do when you're more confident in your shot btw)........you can't prove that is not the case.......so much for that......but yet you discount that in MOST states that is not the case (and NO VA data is not any more "clear" than the rest, despite your spin and weaving and bobbing.......again NO sale)


I'd just love to see you post any quote where I said "X" ....."is all that matters".......there are several things that matter, and they very well can differ in various states and even within states(ever heard of urban zones) 

I know this, I have the facts and data available I have no reason to "reach" as you do......fwiw


----------



## thesource

You say this:



aceoky said:


> I know this, I have the facts and data available I have no reason to "reach"


but preface it with the single stupidest and most implausable excuse I have ever heard.



aceoky said:


> Again maybe the 4% larger success rates in VA by crossbows were because 4% FOUND their deer......:cocktail: maybe not one more was shot, just 4% MORE were found(that IS easier to do when you're more confident in your shot btw)........you can't prove that is not the case.......


Yea - maybe a spaceship came down and grabbed 4% of the Bowhunters' deer before they could drag them out of the woods because they were busy fighting off werewolves and .....LOL

Ridiculuous does not begin to cover it.


----------



## willie

thesource said:


> I guess you better address pmantles point again, then, shouldn't you?
> 
> Haha - you're too easy. LOL


Yes, you are confused...  

Your ignorance of fireams and muzzleloaders is almost as bad as your ignorance of archery and crossbows.

His .243 does not load from the muzzle therefore it can not be considered for muzzleloader season. Now that is pretty plain, isn't it?

Now he may petition the DNR to allow it, but they will only laugh at him


----------



## willie

*Well said JAVI...*



.


----------



## thesource

_"His .243 does not load from the muzzle therefore it can not be considered for muzzleloader season"_


NO crossbow functions via the definition of a bow in most states either (hand held and hand drawn), yet you want to consider it one.

Now you know why we're laughing at you!


----------



## aceoky

VERY well said Javi!


----------



## aceoky

thesource said:


> _"His .243 does not load from the muzzle therefore it can not be considered for muzzleloader season"_
> 
> 
> NO crossbow functions via the definition of a bow in most states either (*hand held* and hand drawn), yet you want to consider it one.
> 
> Now you know why we're laughing at you!


Good point source, since most crossbows are held with the archers FEET!! 

Wonder which apendage they're drawn with......teeth.....toes.......

ROFLMAO


----------



## willie

thesource said:


> _"His .243 does not load from the muzzle therefore it can not be considered for muzzleloader season"_
> 
> 
> NO crossbow functions via the definition of a bow in most states either (hand held and hand drawn), yet you want to consider it one.
> 
> Now you know why we're laughing at you!


Funny that most *archery* organizations and the US of A government side with me on the definition of a crossbow being archery..

The US of A government also sides with me on the muzzleloader too.

The one who laughs last, laughs loudest..


----------



## Free Range

> Most of the current game laws (in my state at least) are there not to prohibit the hunter who is going to take the bag limit and stop hunting; but instead to add another deterrent to the unlawful hunter who will continue taking game after reaching their limit.


It’s illegal to use a 40lb but not a 45 lb bow because it will lead to poaching? It’s illegal, to use a 201 lb x-bow in Ohio (I think) but not a 200 lb x-bow because it my lead to poaching? 
There only needs to be one law, if you take more then you are allowed, you go to jail, period, nothing else is required for herd management. 



> The prohibition on night hunting is a prime example, it is the primary hunting time of the game poacher,


Do they allow **** hunting in TX? Do they allow it at night? A poacher is going to poach no matter, to punish us because of a few that won’t follow the rules is a liberal way of thinking, and I reject it. As I have said, and I stand by it, any law other then bag limits is fair chase rules made into law, plain and simple. 

I agree you are not required to abide by P&Y or B&C, as long as it is within the law, you are more then welcome to do as you please, and I don’t recall saying otherwise. Unless I’m completely confused we are talking about who should set the basic FC rules, and should those rules be a standard that states look to as a model. Actually I forgot what we were discussing, but this is what I’m talking about. When it comes to the fair chase rules/laws, for bowhunting, how do we come up with them, or should there be any at all? Should FC as you and many claim be a personal thing with no outside interference? Or should there be some governing body setting the bare min, and if so how do we come up with these bare min? 

It’s a cool topic, and if Ace will get off the x-bow thing, maybe we can have a real discussion about it.


----------



## JAVI

Free Range said:


> It’s illegal to use a 40lb but not a 45 lb bow because it will lead to poaching? It’s illegal, to use a 201 lb x-bow in Ohio (I think) but not a 200 lb x-bow because it my lead to poaching?
> There only needs to be one law, if you take more then you are allowed, you go to jail, period, nothing else is required for herd management.
> 
> 
> 
> Do they allow **** hunting in TX? Do they allow it at night? A poacher is going to poach no matter, to punish us because of a few that won’t follow the rules is a liberal way of thinking, and I reject it. As I have said, and I stand by it, any law other then bag limits is fair chase rules made into law, plain and simple.
> 
> I agree you are not required to abide by P&Y or B&C, as long as it is within the law, you are more then welcome to do as you please, and I don’t recall saying otherwise. Unless I’m completely confused we are talking about who should set the basic FC rules, and should those rules be a standard that states look to as a model. Actually I forgot what we were discussing, but this is what I’m talking about. When it comes to the fair chase rules/laws, for bowhunting, how do we come up with them, or should there be any at all? Should FC as you and many claim be a personal thing with no outside interference? Or should there be some governing body setting the bare min, and if so how do we come up with these bare min?
> 
> It’s a cool topic, and if Ace will get off the x-bow thing, maybe we can have a real discussion about it.


I don’t disagree that many of the game laws can be considered fair chase laws. But I do also maintain that most of these same laws have a basis in management as well. For instance you bring up the draw weight of various bows, this was established to help prevent game loss due to wounding. And Yes to offer a tool against the hunter who would lose the game and then continue to hunt. 

Yes we allow **** hunting at night under strict rules. The prohibition of night hunting for game animals is to protect the herd from depredation by unlawful hunters. Call that fair chase or call it game management; it is what it is. Is not the concept of fair chase partly based on sound management practices? Or is the concept simply which weapon to use and whether or not a fence is fair?
You must decide some things for yourself, I’m willing to abide by the laws of the areas I hunt or I don’t hunt there; simple choice. Why do I need someone in NY telling me what is fair in Texas, any more than they need me telling them the same.


----------



## aceoky

Again VERY well said, JAVI

FR you really need some reading comprehension lessons, it wasn't *me* that said hand drawn and hand held nor who was speaking of that weapon during any of that, I made a comment yes......that doesn't however mean I'm "stuck" on it........sheeesh..... the reaching never ends!

Actually it was *me*(I) who started this thread and it's about WHO(or what) defines fair chase.....for YOU.......


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> _"His .243 does not load from the muzzle therefore it can not be considered for muzzleloader season"_
> 
> 
> NO crossbow functions via the definition of a bow in most states either (hand held and hand drawn), yet you want to consider it one.
> 
> Now you know why we're laughing at you!


actually they do-flexible limbs transfer energy through a string released mechanically to an arrow.

the range and rate of fire are statistically equivalent-indeed the compound has slight advantages in one and a clear advantage in the other

a 243 has tremendous advantages over muzzle loaders. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE advantage one can attribute to a muzzleloader (other than casting bullets for a MZ is easier). the rate of fire is a huge difference. The range differences are major. the performance in adverse conditions is very different.

I laugh at people who not only make stupid comparisons with guns but over the fact they really don't even understand guns


----------



## aceoky

thesource said:


> You say this:
> 
> 
> 
> but preface it with the single stupidest and most implausable excuse I have ever heard.
> 
> 
> 
> Yea - maybe a spaceship came down and grabbed 4% of the Bowhunters' deer before they could drag them out of the woods because they were busy fighting off werewolves and .....LOL
> 
> Ridiculuous does not begin to cover it.


Yeah, that's it  

OR just maybe, knowing the season passed when it did, they bought them early, practiced often and got to know them, very well, and had the confidence to make a quick and humane kill........

I know you don't like that possibilty since it disproves your "lazy " comments.......but it's not only very possible, but also likely......:cocktail: :darkbeer: 

People are MORE likely to practice with a weapon they enjoy shooting, when compared to one that is hard for them to draw and hold.......and hit well with....... them thar crossbows being "new" there, I'd say many did just that.......:tongue:


----------



## willie

Jim C said:


> I laugh at people who not only make stupid comparisons with guns but over the fact they really don't even understand guns


But he has a killer venison roast recipe...


----------



## aceoky

willie said:


> But he has a killer venison roast recipe...


One must wonder though, what he had to do to get someone to GIVE him the deer roast!:wink:


----------



## thesource

JAVI said:


> I don’t disagree that many of the game laws can be considered fair chase laws. But I do also maintain that most of these same laws have a basis in management as well. For instance you bring up the draw weight of various bows, this was established to help prevent game loss due to wounding. And Yes to offer a tool against the hunter who would lose the game and then continue to hunt.


Most laws have less to do with management than fair chase, as Free Range has said, or safety.

For example, sunrise to sunset laws have nothing to do with management.
Rules against lit sight pins have nothing to do with management.
Rules against road hunting or hunting from vehicles have nothing to do with management.

I have never seen a rule anywhere that prohibits continuing to hunt after wounding but losing game, so I do not agree that there are any tools to prevent it. That might make folks think about some of the less than judicious shots they take, though, wouldn't it?



JAVI said:


> You must decide some things for yourself, I’m willing to abide by the laws of the areas I hunt or I don’t hunt there; simple choice. Why do I need someone in NY telling me what is fair in Texas, any more than they need me telling them the same.


I respect your opinion, but I disagree. It is either fair chase to hunt behind an escape proof enclosure or it is not - it doesn't matter whether that escape proof enclosure is in NY or TX.

Remember - it is not what is "fair" it is "fair chase".


----------



## doctariAFC

Free Range said:


> Are you saying, that in order to participate, (buy a license and be allowed to go afield) there should be no work requirement? But to have a quality experience (find game, and solitude) we are going to require you to perform a certain level of work? And why the separation of the two? If I can kill a deer from my truck and hire someone to go out and dress it and load it up and take it to the locker for processing for me, who are you to tell me I can’t?
> 
> There has been some discussion about proficiency testing, and in some places there is testing already in place. This would require a min amount of work on the range, wouldn’t you agree? I am against these test, not because they require work, but because of the slippery slope it may lead us down, how do you feel about them?


Great questions. We have requirements for educational minimums and demonstrating this. We have no real "experience" qualifications, save for youth hunters. Hey, how do you get experience if you are prohinited from getting into the game because of lack of experience? That one doesn't fly. The tests, I am with you 100%. Slippery slope. However, I am not against mandatory training in firearms safety. We do receive some additional bow safety, already, but responsible firearms and shooting and hadling, etc., should be taught, to every man, woman and child in America. It is our 2nd Amendment Right, but we do not teach how to be responsible with that right? In fact, we teach young kids to reject the right? I'm with you there, but that isn't a hunting issue that's a 2nd Amendment education issue.



Free Range said:


> But in reality you don’t “need” these rules now do you? You could accomplish the same thing with bag limits. Limit people to only one Buffalo, and they could still do it from the train, accomplishes the same thing, without requiring them to “work”. That is why I say anything other then bag limits is hog wash, IF, we are going to proclaim freedom of choice.
> You tell me I must use artificial lures only in some areas to “conserve” the native fish, I say, let me use bait but restrict me to one fish a year. Does the same thing without restricting my CHOICE of weapon.
> 
> Now if we can agree that there are valid reasons to limit hunting methods, and that any rule about hunting method is indeed a fair chase rule, then we can argue the finer points of where the line is drawn.


Yes, we can always argue the finer points, and always will. We argued the finer points when bowhunting was being introduced. We argued the finer points when black powder rifles were allowed, and pistols, and sabot slugs, and punch cutters, and compound bows, and everything else. What's your point?

Besids, if we elimiated all those rules, where would the State get the money from if they eliminate fines? Them laws are a mighty effective revenue stream, don't ya know....


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> a 243 has tremendous advantages over muzzle loaders. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE advantage one can attribute to a muzzleloader (other than casting bullets for a MZ is easier). the rate of fire is a huge difference. The range differences are major. the performance in adverse conditions is very different.
> 
> I laugh at people who not only make stupid comparisons with guns but over the fact they really don't even understand guns


I laugh at your apparent total terminal ballistic ignorance.

I can give you an immediately obvious advantage for the typical MZ over a .243 - penetration.

The HUGE lead chunks heaved from the business end of a .50 MZ will blow through anything and everything short of a brick wall - it might even do that. The light .243 bullets are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to sectional density and terminal performance.


Anyway, back to bows. You do not have to hold, draw, anchor, aim, and release a crossbow like a bow and you know it. You look even more ridiculous than usual....(tough to do. )


----------



## thesource

aceoky said:


> People are MORE likely to practice with a weapon they enjoy shooting, when compared to one that is hard for them to draw and hold.......and hit well with....... them thar crossbows being "new" there, I'd say many did just that.......:tongue:


THAT can't be it. You and your side keep telling us that they are the same as crossbows. Hard to draw? Say it isn't so .... Hard to Hold? Impossible .... JimC says so. Hard to hit well with? Fantasy - Willie says anyone can have huntable groups in just hours....

You guys are a joke. Y'all get your story straight and get back to me....

In the meantime, let's talk VA crossbow harvest rate....

It COULD be, just guessing here, but MAYBE .....
Crossbows are advantaged and the statistics bear that out.

(Of course, maybe that's what you meant in the first place)


----------



## willie

aceoky said:


> One must wonder though, what he had to do to get someone to GIVE him the deer roast!:wink:


Probably the local Kroger store. He has a vivid imagination.


----------



## thesource

What's the matter, Willie?

Now your jealous because I use a real bow AND I can cook?

LOL - you need to put a little effort into these endeavors.


----------



## willie

thesource said:


> Most laws have less to do with management than fair chase, as Free Range has said, or safety.
> 
> For example, sunrise to sunset laws have nothing to do with management.
> Rules against lit sight pins have nothing to do with management.
> Rules against road hunting or hunting from vehicles have nothing to do with management.


Actually those are for the safety of others. We shouldn't be shooting in the dark or across or down a road.



> I respect your opinion, but I disagree. It is either fair chase to hunt behind an escape proof enclosure or it is not - it doesn't matter whether that escape proof enclosure is in NY or TX.
> 
> Remember - it is not what is "fair" it is "fair chase".


You've never seen a 10,000 acre Texas "pasture" have you?

Drop you in the middle of it and you'd say," Oh, Toto! I don't think we are in New York anymore." It might take you a day or two to even find the fence.


----------



## willie

thesource said:


> What's the matter, Willie?
> 
> Now your jealous because I use a real bow AND I can cook?
> 
> LOL - you need to put a little effort into these endeavors.


We have NO evidence of either.


----------



## thesource

willie said:


> Actually those are for the safety of others. We shouldn't be shooting in the dark or across or down a road.


Duh ...... that would be why I said:
_Quote:
Originally Posted by thesource
Most laws have less to do with management than fair chase, as Free Range has said, or *safety*._  



willie said:


> You've never seen a 10,000 acre Texas "pasture" have you?
> 
> Drop you in the middle of it and you'd say," Oh, Toto! I don't think we are in New York anymore." It might take you a day or two to even find the fence.


Yea - I've seen 'em. Spent some time in San Antonio, as a matter of fact. They are impressive, and a heck of a lot more terrain than the typical 50 acre woodlot we have here in rural NY.

Here's the thing....every year, you see or hear where the guy, not just on the next 40, but 21/2 miles up the hollow has killed a 10 pt that you know you saw just last Tuesday down by the river.

Free ranging is just that - free ranging. Anything else is an excuse.


----------



## willie

thesource said:


> Fantasy - Willie says anyone can have huntable groups in just hours....
> 
> You guys are a joke. Y'all get your story straight and get back to me....


From the archives of Archery Talk...

*first deer on first hunt *

my cousin (seth) came home with me after school yesterday.he said he wanted to go hunt with me..he had never been bow hunting or shot a bow until about 3:30 yeasterday afternoon.he shot my bow(pse typhoon) for about 30 min.s and could group hit arrows in about a 4inch group at 20 yards so i told him if a spike came out he could shoot at it.

well i have my ameristep blind in the edge of a 60 acre wheat field.every time i have been in that blind i see 15+ deer and 10+ within shooting distance.so we loaded up about 4 o clock and took the video camera and tripod and a extra seat(a five gallon bucket)for seth.we got to the blind about 5 and set up the camera and got everything ready.

then 3 does came out and ate rite in front of us(i put corn out before we got in the blind at about 15 yards)then 3 more showed up.well they ate for at least 20mins and then started lookin in the brush like something was fixin to come out.then they just meander off down the tree line.i look up and at about 25 yrds a spike is just walkin rite to us. i gave seth the bow as soon as he got the camera and tripod set out of the way. the spike walks rite to us and stands broad side at about 12yrds. seth draws the bow aims and whack he hits the spike it takes off like a striped ass ape and runs about 15yrds stops takes two staggerin steps sideways and falls over DEAD and never gave a twich.

well after about five mins he said our 30mins has to be up and then i explained the process of bleeding a deer out no matter how close he falls.(and i wanted to see the bigger buck that i had been trying to kill for about a week)well he shot the spike at about 6 20 less than 2 hours had he spend bow hunting and since it didnt get dark until about 7:15 or so we stayed in the stand about 30 mins after the spike the big buck comes into the field and passes at about 40 yards just a few yards out of range.we he runs does all over the field and then goes to the far side so we crawl out of the tent and film the find of the deer.

he shot it with a 100 grain 3 blade muzzy BH and a 5575 gold-tip arrow and about 60# he didnt get a pass through but he hit the deer rite in the white spot under the left leg the arrow came out about half way down his ribs and stuck out about 4 inchs or so when the deer had turn to run he broke my arrow smooth off and almost in half when we got the deer home and guted it i took the heart out and he had cut the bottom of the heart with 2 of the 3 blades opening up both of the bigger chambers of the heart..it was one heck of a shot......one of the best shots i have ever seen(and im not tryin to start the whole double lung VS heart shot debate)it was a good shot and even better recovery.we could see the spot where he had laid down in the weeds about 20 yrds for the blind. it was the greatest hunt i have ever taken anyone on and by far the quickest time from the first time to ever shoot a bow to the time you kill your first buck 

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=120896&highlight=first+and+deer


----------



## JAVI

willie said:


> Actually those are for the safety of others. We shouldn't be shooting in the dark or across or down a road.
> 
> 
> 
> You've never seen a 10,000 acre Texas "pasture" have you?
> 
> Drop you in the middle of it and you'd say," Oh, Toto! I don't think we are in New York anymore." It might take you a day or two to even find the fence.


Willie they will never get it… there is a difference in fencing one of their 1 acre woodlot and 10 sections of land under high fence… About 10 square miles difference….


----------



## JAVI

thesource said:


> Most laws have less to do with management than fair chase, as Free Range has said, or safety.
> 
> For example, sunrise to sunset laws have nothing to do with management.
> Rules against lit sight pins have nothing to do with management.
> Rules against road hunting or hunting from vehicles have nothing to do with management.
> 
> I have never seen a rule anywhere that prohibits continuing to hunt after wounding but losing game, so I do not agree that there are any tools to prevent it. That might make folks think about some of the less than judicious shots they take, though, wouldn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> I respect your opinion, but I disagree. It is either fair chase to hunt behind an escape proof enclosure or it is not - it doesn't matter whether that escape proof enclosure is in NY or TX.
> 
> Remember - it is not what is "fair" it is "fair chase".


I took you off of ignore for a moment to answer this… 

Yes we have a law on the books about not loosing game…

And I understand that in your opinion hunting in an enclosure isn’t fair chase and that’s fine by me.. It's your right of free choice. 

What you fail to acknowledge (I know you understand) is that in Texas it is considered fair chase by the State and the HUNTERS who participate. That is all that needs to be said about it…. The hunters who PARTICIPATE consider it to be fair CHASE… And the State which controls the hunting considers it FAIR CHASE. 

Why is it difficult for you to acknowledge the right of the STATE to determine the applicable laws for its management system? Why will you not acknowledge the right of the hunters who choose to participate in a lawful hunt, the right to make that choice?

There is no law forcing the Hunters to participate they are free to make the choice. Yet you would deny your fellow hunters the same rights they grant you. The right to choose what is FAIR for you within the law of the land you choose to hunt. 

WHY do you think this is FAIR?????


----------



## thesource

JAVI said:


> I took you off of ignore for a moment to answer this…


Yipeee....



JAVI said:


> Yes we have a law on the books about not loosing game…


I'm interested in the wording of this or these law(s.) If you get a chance, I would appreciate you sharing them with the rest of us. Thanks.



JAVI said:


> And I understand that in your opinion hunting in an enclosure isn’t fair chase and that’s fine by me.. It's your right of free choice.
> 
> What you fail to acknowledge (I know you understand) is that in Texas it is considered fair chase by the State and the HUNTERS who participate. That is all that needs to be said about it…. The hunters who PARTICIPATE consider it to be fair CHASE… And the State which controls the hunting considers it FAIR CHASE.
> 
> Why is it difficult for you to acknowledge the right of the STATE to determine the applicable laws for its management system? Why will you not acknowledge the right of the hunters who choose to participate in a lawful hunt, the right to make that choice?


You've got it all wrong. I acknowledge your right to hunt within the rules of the state....I acknowledge the right of your state to determine its laws....I acknowledge that the will of the state's sportsmen should rule the day (I am a huge advocate of this particular part, by the way)

Just because I disagree with a law, or a few laws, doesn't mean I am opposed to the system.



JAVI said:


> There is no law forcing the Hunters to participate they are free to make the choice. Yet you would deny your fellow hunters the same rights they grant you. The right to choose what is FAIR for you within the law of the land you choose to hunt.
> 
> WHY do you think this is FAIR?????


I think you overestimate the impact of the things I say here. I am not lobbying the TX state legislature to ban high fence in TX - I am stating my opinion on the internet that I feel it is not fair chase. As a result, you can bet that you won't find me hunting for an artificially enhanced TX P&Y whitetail behind a fence anytime soon.

If the things I say make people stop and think about the concept of fair chase, what's right and wrong, what's proper and improper....good.

If it doesn't - that's fine too.


----------



## JAVI

thesource said:


> Yipeee....


 Dont worry you'll be clicked again...




thesource said:


> I'm interested in the wording of this or these law(s.) If you get a chance, I would appreciate you sharing them with the rest of us. Thanks.


Waste of Game: A reasonable effort must be made to retrieve all wounded game birds and game animals and they must be killed immediately and become a part of the legal bag limit. It is a violation to fail to keep all edible portions of a game bird, game animal, or fish in an edible condition. For whitetail and mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and desert bighorn sheep, the violation is a Class A misdemeanor. 
Retrieval of Game: No person may pursue a wounded wildlife resource across a property line without the consent of landowner of the property where the wildlife resource has fled. Under the trespass provisions of the Penal Code, a person on a property without the permission of the landowner is subject to arrest. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/annual/general/penalties/





thesource said:


> You've got it all wrong. I acknowledge your right to hunt within the rules of the state....I acknowledge the right of your state to determine its laws....I acknowledge that the will of the state's sportsmen should rule the day (I am a huge advocate of this particular part, by the way)
> 
> Just because I disagree with a law, or a few laws, doesn't mean I am opposed to the system.


Then why are you so vehement in the condemnation of those who choose to hunt differently than you while abiding by the will and laws of the local in which they hunt?



thesource said:


> I think you overestimate the impact of the things I say here. I am not lobbying the TX state legislature to ban high fence in TX - I am stating my opinion on the internet that I feel it is not fair chase.


 Just my opinion, but I believe you go way past stating an opinion in opposition to those who do not blindly follow the same mantra as you prescribe. If I am mistaken in this opinion, please offer confirmation.



thesource said:


> As a result, you can bet that you won't find me hunting for an artificially enhanced TX P&Y whitetail behind a fence anytime soon.


 No one is attempting to enter these deer in P&Y. It is obvious that P&Y does not acknowledge them as suitable. But I see no lack of hunters signing up for the hunts... Most folks just don't give a hoot about P&Y... they have highbrowed themselves into irrelevancy. 




thesource said:


> If the things I say make people stop and think about the concept of fair chase, what's right and wrong, what's proper and improper....good.


If you really believe that you are correct, then you might rethink your technique... It mainly just enrages most folks. A few just like to argue with you and so keep you coming back. I just put you and a few others like you on ignore... The only reason I bothered was the folks who like to taunt you kept quoting you. And so I could see what you were saying...



thesource said:


> If it doesn't - that's fine too.


 I really doubt that or you wouldn't continue along the course...


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> I laugh at your apparent total terminal ballistic ignorance.
> 
> I can give you an immediately obvious advantage for the typical MZ over a .243 - penetration.
> 
> The HUGE lead chunks heaved from the business end of a .50 MZ will blow through anything and everything short of a brick wall - it might even do that. The light .243 bullets are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to sectional density and terminal performance.
> 
> 
> Anyway, back to bows. You do not have to hold, draw, anchor, aim, and release a crossbow like a bow and you know it. You look even more ridiculous than usual....(tough to do. )


Bs-the energy of a 243 with modern projectiles is substantially higher. The range is longer. I can hit you easily at 500M with a 243. I am not worried if you are trying to engage me at that range with a MZL Both weapons will kill any deer in NA easily. Your moronic attempts to claim an analogy with crossbows vs compound bows is beyond stupid and everyone else on this board knows this


----------



## Jim C

I am still waiting for Source to tell me why xbows and compounds should not be in the same season and why each group should have less hunting time

I have yet to see a valid answer based on logic in his 2000 posts

has anyone else?


----------



## the natural

*dont want to get it*

the source we will never get it cause we're not from texas. i dont care if the fence is as big as a state its not fair chase.if i as a human could not move my family to another state no matter what the reason its not much different from that deer that could not move to the next town.
i've shined for deer one night and seen a buck and two does and the next morning seen the same buck and two does(may have been different does)3 miles away directly north on the same road. then they say well the fence is three square miles around but thats just it around not three miles long. a fence is a fence and free is free, there is nothing to get. they say in fighting is going to ruin our sport i thenk greedy ranchers and farmers are.


----------



## JAVI

the natural said:


> the source we will never get it cause we're not from texas. i dont care if the fence is as big as a state its not fair chase.if i as a human could not move my family to another state no matter what the reason its not much different from that deer that could not move to the next town.
> i've shined for deer one night and seen a buck and two does and the next morning seen the same buck and two does(may have been different does)3 miles away directly north on the same road. then they say well the fence is three square miles around but thats just it around not three miles long. a fence is a fence and free is free, there is nothing to get. they say in fighting is going to ruin our sport i thenk greedy ranchers and farmers are.


That’s the point… you have made a choice as is your right, now allow those who choose otherwise the same courtesy. And the 3,000,000 hunters who bought licenses in Texas last year in order to hunt on those ranches obviously have done so. 

Greed or not, the ranch is still the property of the owner to do with as he pleases. The state encourages the fences for a multitude of reasons. You think that they shouldn’t exist because they keep the deer inside where you can’t get to them without paying… Greed and jealousy maybe…????? Dress it anyway you want; but tear down the fence and you tear down free choice for man after all it is HIS ranch. 

Bottom line this… you choose not to call it fair chase, we choose to call it fair chase… in the end we’re both correct. Because in the U.S.A. it is still our right to make that choice… Do you really want to give up that right…..


----------



## thesource

What about the fact that you are fencing in the State's deer and then not alloing the State's sportsmen access to hunt them?

That seems a tad unfair.


----------



## JAVI

thesource said:


> What about the fact that you are fencing in the State's deer and then not alloing the State's sportsmen access to hunt them?
> 
> That seems a tad unfair.


Welllll…. The state actually promotes the practice so they’re obviously fine with it. And even without the fence you couldn’t hunt them without paying… or you’d be poaching so gosh darn… the fence ain't really the issue is it...???:wink:


----------



## thesource

I don't presume to speak for TX or Texans - but I would be pissed if someone "trapped" the deer that belong to the state (and the state's sportsmen) for their own private hunting preserve.

Obviously, the fence IS the issue because the deer cannot wander off said landowner's property to more accessible locations - they are PENNED in.


----------



## JAVI

thesource said:


> I don't presume to speak for TX or Texans - but I would be pissed if someone "trapped" the deer that belong to the state (and the state's sportsmen) for their own private hunting preserve.
> 
> Obviously, the fence IS the issue because the deer cannot wander off said landowner's property to more accessible locations - they are PENNED in.


You still don't get it do ya'.... the next place is fenced also... and the next and the next... and even if they aren't we still can't kill enough of the deer in the general season in most places... so we have extra seasons... plumb into Feburary... But there is one constant... in Texas the land is private and you pay for the use there of... come on the land without permission and you go to jail or get shot...


----------



## thesource

Oh, I understand the realities of hunting in TX - that doesn't mean they are correct or proper.

The TX model of pay to play is not unique in our country - the great hunting in IL comes to mind. Interestingly, they do not require high fence in IL to produce their jaw-dropping bucks.


----------



## JAVI

thesource said:


> Oh, I understand the realities of hunting in TX - that doesn't mean they are correct or proper.
> 
> The TX model of pay to play is not unique in our country - the great hunting in IL comes to mind. Interestingly, they do not require high fence in IL to produce their jaw-dropping bucks.



Yep… Illinois does produce some great bucks and “IF” Texas had the crop structure and weather to grow that crop structure, we probably would have the fences either way.

And the majority of us are quite content with the structure the way it is… so why does it bother you so much…. 

We have an abundance of deer; more than at any other time in the history of Texas… we have more year-round hunting opportunities than ever before with the exotics. And the fences allow that to happen. Seems like a win-win situation for Texas hunters… 

I can go hunt a Black Buck or an Axis Buck this weekend by simply making a phone call and driving a 100 miles or less… How great is that…???

But this thread is about who should determine fair chase... and I still maintain that if the state laws say it is and the individual duing the chasing is satisfied that it is fair chase... then it is Fair Chase and no club should interfere...


----------



## thesource

JAVI said:


> I can go hunt a Black Buck or an Axis Buck this weekend by simply making a phone call and driving a 100 miles or less… How great is that…???...


That's pretty cool, no doubt about it.



JAVI said:


> But this thread is about who should determine fair chase... and I still maintain that if the state laws say it is and the individual duing the chasing is satisfied that it is fair chase... then it is Fair Chase and no club should interfere...


It seems obvious to me that a universally accepted code of fair chase would be a very good thing for bowhunting - all hunting.

As you have already indicated, WHO decides what the code looks like is clearly the problem....


----------



## JAVI

thesource said:


> That's pretty cool, no doubt about it.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems obvious to me that a universally accepted code of fair chase would be a very good thing for bowhunting - all hunting.
> 
> As you have already indicated, WHO decides what the code looks like is clearly the problem....


And it seems obvious to me that we already have that universally accepted code in place. Its called abiding by the laws of the state in which you find yourself hunting. Past that one is free to add whatever amount of difficulty one wishes. How much more practical can you get. For you to have to use a rock because I believe that to be the only fair way to hunt is ridiculous is it not? 

If you believe that P&Y’s mantra of fair chase is the best, then I see no one telling you that you should not adhere to it. But I do see some telling me it is the only “TRUE” way to have fair chase and "I" should be required to adhere to that mantra. Which of course is ridiculous, as I do not agree with it in totality. 

Free Choice for the individual within the law is the only “TRUE” fair chase…


----------



## PMantle

Jim C said:


> I attack stupid arguments that are used by selfish people to exclude and belittle other hunters. Your only argument is greed but you cannot come out and admit that you want less people bowhunting so rather you hide behind a facade of worthiness based on the false belief that people less worthy than you should not be allowed into "your season". That is the entire argument
> 
> you pretend that one bow makes someone more dedicated to HUNTING and based on that, its permissible to exclude others. Its a pretext for selfishness and we all know it. What is funny is that you and others think that we actually don't understand what motivates you


You can't exclude when there are no limits to bow tags. Until then, your argument fails.


----------



## willie

JAVI,

It all boils down to some folks have put themselves up on a pedestal and have become control freaks over others.

If we are now doing it their way, we are wrong.

BTW - Allowing crossbows in the archery season in Texas would have absolutely no effect on the deer hunting unless the landowners wanted it to.

Since an overwhelming majority of the land down there is private the landowner makes the decision what hunting wepaons are allowed on HIS/HER ground. The state would just be giving them another choice in weapons to choose from.

That is also true in a LOT of states.


----------



## 30-30

In terms of long range rifle shooting, I believe that as long as you can kill the animal quickly and cleanly, range doesn't matter.

In terms of high fenced ranches, I believe in large enclosures. Drives on a high fenced area (unless it is an absolutely enormous property) are not ethical.

As long as the animal is not aware of you, and you can make a clean shot, I believe that it is fair chase. 

Something may be leagal, but is it ethical?


----------



## JAVI

willie said:


> JAVI,
> 
> It all boils down to some folks have put themselves up on a pedestal and have become control freaks over others.
> 
> If we are now doing it their way, we are wrong.
> 
> BTW - Allowing crossbows in the archery season in Texas would have absolutely no effect on the deer hunting unless the landowners wanted it to.
> 
> Since an overwhelming majority of the land down there is private the landowner makes the decision what hunting wepaons are allowed on HIS/HER ground. The state would just be giving them another choice in weapons to choose from.
> 
> That is also true in a LOT of states.


Willie, 

You could use a crossbow in the General Season to your hearts content… Like you say as long as the landowner agrees.. I do agree that they should be included in the BOW season but I don’t hunt the BOW season anyway…. 

To dang hot… Something about hunting when it’s 105 in the shade and there ain’t any. 

I wait for the slightly cooler General season to begin in November…


----------



## thesource

willie said:


> JAVI,
> 
> It all boils down to some folks have put themselves up on a pedestal and have become control freaks over others.
> 
> If we are now doing it their way, we are wrong.
> .


Unethical birds of a feather flock together. 

Its always the guys who are already practicing the questionable method who squeal the loudest. There are large segments of the hunting society that believe fence hunting is wrong and that believe crossbows in bowseason is wrong.

That's a lot of pedestals.


----------



## JAVI

thesource said:


> Unethical birds of a feather flock together.
> 
> Its always the guys who are already practicing the questionable method who squeal the loudest. There are large segments of the hunting society that believe fence hunting is wrong and that believe crossbows in bowseason is wrong.
> 
> That's a lot of pedestals.


I knew it... you could not resist using the E word... It's funny that people who believe that only their way is the "TRUE" way and everyone else should conform, always resort to the "E" word... 

_CLICK_


----------



## willie

JAVI said:


> I knew it... you could not resist using the E word... It's funny that people who believe that only their way is the "TRUE" way and everyone else should conform, always resort to the "E" word...
> 
> _CLICK_


They seem to think they have a better view than us while they are sitting up their on their self made pedestal.


----------



## thesource

Lots and lots of pedestals, then, Willie.

Most bowhunters disagree with your points of view.


----------



## willie

thesource said:


> Lots and lots of pedestals, then, Willie.
> 
> Most bowhunters disagree with your points of view.


But a self made pedestal just the same.


----------



## PMantle

JAVI said:


> I knew it... you could not resist using the E word... It's funny that people who believe that only their way is the "TRUE" way and everyone else should conform, always resort to the "E" word...
> 
> _CLICK_





> JAVI
> Full 3-D Mode.... Join Date: Jun 2003
> Location: Waco, Texas
> Posts: 12,989
> 
> That is my point… Why bother with P&Y or The Source (# 11 on my ignore list), neither can set the rules of fair chase for me or you unless we let them. And in my case that ain’t happening. So they are irrelevant except as a chigger bite.



You must have given him a second chance? :wink:


----------



## the natural

JAVI said:


> That’s the point… you have made a choice as is your right, now allow those who choose otherwise the same courtesy. And the 3,000,000 hunters who bought licenses in Texas last year in order to hunt on those ranches obviously have done so.
> 
> Greed or not, the ranch is still the property of the owner to do with as he pleases. The state encourages the fences for a multitude of reasons. You think that they shouldn’t exist because they keep the deer inside where you can’t get to them without paying… *Greed and jealousy maybe…????? *Dress it anyway you want; but tear down the fence and you tear down free choice for man after all it is HIS ranch.
> 
> Bottom line this… you choose not to call it fair chase, we choose to call it fair chase… in the end we’re both correct. Because in the U.S.A. it is still our right to make that choice… Do you really want to give up that right…..


me jealous of a fenced raised deer dont think so.in the end no we are not both right is it fair to say would you want to meet your end in a fence whether youve only seen one side or not, not me. do i feel bad that so many texans or whoever go and pay try and pass it of as hunting hell yeah. its to bad that eveyone gets judged by other people in the group, not the majority but just some.


----------



## JAVI

the natural said:


> me jealous of a fenced raised deer dont think so.in the end no we are not both right is it fair to say would you want to meet your end in a fence whether youve only seen one side or not, not me. do i feel bad that so many texans or whoever go and pay try and pass it of as hunting hell yeah. its to bad that eveyone gets judged by other people in the group, not the majority but just some.


Oh boy… you failed to directly answer my question… Do you really want to give up the right of free choice?

But you did reveal one tidbit about yourself… you put an animal on the same plane with a human… Last time I check “WE” had dominion over the animals. That is unless you been reading a different story than I have… Possibly written by Newkirk???

As I said, we’re both correct… you for you and I for me… I speak for no other than myself and my immediate family… Although it seems a few of you believe yourselves to somehow be appointed to speak for the unwashed masses… 

Just a couple of questions for all you anti-this or that…. 

If the fence and the crossbow are such an abomination, and if as you say the masses are so adamantly against them; WHY are they actually proliferating? It would seem that the opposite would be true, if in fact the entire hunting community (with the exception of 4 of us on AT) is so stringently against them. 

Could it be that “FREE CHOICE” is really still alive in the U.S.A. and there are only a few of you that are against them for whatever reason, greed, jealously, righteous indignation, phobias of some sort, or even religious belief that animals are deities and have dominion over man… Who cares… As long as you don’t try to FORCE everyone else to follow your beliefs. That’s when you cross the line… 

Discussion is good, and I welcome it. That is until you start with the “E” word; that is a line that none of you will cross. My ethics are mine and not subject to interpretation by another. That will get you a CLICK in a NY second. 

Now this thread was and is about who should determine what is fair chase for an individual. Not what is fair chase and what is not. Do you have a comment on that. 

I will restate my position… I believe that within the laws of the land, any individual should have the right to determine what is fair chase and what is not for themselves. 

Some want the B&C and/or the P&Y clubs to set a standard for all to follow without room for personal interpretation. To me this is nothing more than a relinquishment of my right of free choice. Something I will not do. It isn’t that my sense of fair chase is that far from either, although there are exceptions. It is that I believe that each person should decide for themselves what or how they will hunt. The states mandate certain aspects such as seasons and bag limits for proper management. And certain rules for safety and as deterrents to poaching. And even laws intending to provide humane kills, but we as individuals in most cases are allowed to determine the level of difficulty under which we hunt. Is not that really what “FAIR CHASE” is all about?


----------



## thesource

JAVI said:


> If the fence and the crossbow are such an abomination, and if as you say the masses are so adamantly against them; WHY are they actually proliferating?


The answer is as obvious as it is simple - greed. High fences keep the deer in. where only you can hunt them. Crossbows ofer unfair advantages (during bowseason), making it more likely that you will get your all-important deer.

Plain and simple, GREED trumps fair chase for those who choose these options. They are saying "To hell with the rest of you (the bowhunting community), I'm gonna do what it takes to make sure I get mine!"


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip

Jim C said:


> I will look but i read this stuff many years ago when I first got involved in dealing with archery apartheid bigots


thanks Jim


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip

thesource said:


> It seems obvious to me that a universally accepted code of fair chase would be a very good thing for bowhunting - all hunting.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Then you'd suggest to P&Y that they get together with B&C and come up with one?


----------



## willie

thesource said:


> The answer is as obvious as it is simple - greed. High fences keep the deer in. where only you can hunt them. Crossbows ofer unfair advantages (during bowseason), making it more likely that you will get your all-important deer.
> 
> Plain and simple, GREED trumps fair chase for those who choose these options. They are saying "To hell with the rest of you (the bowhunting community), I'm gonna do what it takes to make sure I get mine!"


*GREED??*

My, aren't you the fine one to be talking about greed?

Did you not get the point that the high fence guy's neighbor also has a high fence and his neighbor and his neighbor, etc, etc...

As you know I campigned against high fence operations in Indiana. Why? because these guys wanted 40 acres as a minimum with several other non-fair chase demands.

If these places had a 1,000 acre minumum and met other certain conditions then I would not have campaigned against them. We tried to reach a compromise and it couldn't be done.

I can fence off 1,000 acres of Southern Indiana stripper pit ground and give you a week to kill a P & Y and you will come out empty handed. Is that not fair chase?

Yes, some fenced hunting can be fair chase - only not to your organization. Now that is fine that they denote it that way for their contest. If we want to enter an animal in their contest we need to play by their rules. If we don't we can establish OUR OWN ETHICAL rendition of fair chase - within the boundaries of the states regulations.



> Crossbows ofer unfair advantages (during bowseason),


"Unfair" to who? The deer? Hunters like yourself?

Who are we in competiton with that a crossbow should be called "unfair"?


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip

_I said
My take on it, and the take by 99.999% of non-hunters would be that this two rules of bowhunting should/would apply to all types of hunters. To suggest that these two rules are bowhunting specific would suggest that it is aokydoke to do these while gun hunting. _ 

*You said
First, I think anybody that were to read the P&Y rules, would by nature of reading them know it’s a bow hunting organization. Well according to B&C is it ok to hunt behind a high fence? I don’t know maybe you do? *

Here are P&Y's rules.

1. Helpless in a trap, deep snow or water, or on ice. 
2. From any power vehicle or power boat. 
3. By "jacklighting" or shining at night. 
4. By the use of any tranquilizers or poisons. 
5. While inside escape-proof fenced enclosures. 
6. By the use of any power vehicles or power boats for herding or driving animals, including use of aircraft to land alongside or to communicate with or direct a hunter on the ground. 
7. By the use of electronic devices for attracting, locating, or pursuing game or guiding the hunter to such game, or by the use of a bow or arrow to which any electronic device is attached. 
8. Any other condition considered by the Board of Directors as unacceptable. 

B&C rules of fair chase don't define hunting behind high fence.

_I said
Which states allow you to take swimming deer while gun hunting, yet restrict you from doing this while bow hunting? If your logic makes sense, then certainly some states would have incorporated that into law. _

*You said
When you “add” to something there will be over lapping information, 2+3=5 it overlaps on 1 and 2, then 3, 4 and five are new. To suggest that because 3,4,5 are new they could not possibly share 1 and 2 is silly at best. *

Again...where in the above rules do these get added to B&C?
Would it be obivious to your average Joe that these were obviously added to B&C?

*I said
Please tell me where they used
any B&C rules of fair chase. Please show me where they reference B&C.
I don't see it.* 


*You said
Quoted from the B&C
is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild,

Quoted from the P&Y
Simply defined, fair chase is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit of free-ranging wild

Now I could be wrong but that there looks like overlapping to me. Now if they copied that from the B&C or if FC is so fundimantal that it just naturally took on the same underpinning, I can’t say, you will have to ask Glean St.Charles.* 

Are you saying everything on this page
is a rule of fair chase?

http://www.pope-young.org/fairchase.asp

*You said
Quote:
Which organization is the first nationally recognized organization to come up with any definition of Fair Chase? 


My guess is B&C, am I wrong? *

I think you're right.

Quote:
Are you familiar with their rules of fair chase? 


Yes, the P&Y rules, and now the B&C rules, which all I could find on their site was this.

FAIR CHASE STATEMENT
FAIR CHASE, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals. 
HUNTER ETHICS
Fundamental to all hunting is the concept of conservation of natural resources. Hunting in today's world involves the regulated harvest of individual animals in a manner that conserves, protects, and perpetuates the hunted population. The hunter engages in a one-to-one relationship with the quarry and his or her hunting should be guided by a hierarchy of ethics related to hunting, which includes the following tenets: 
1. Obey all applicable laws and regulations.
2. Respect the customs of the locale where the hunting occurs.
3. Exercise a personal code of behavior that reflects favorably on your abilities and sensibilities as a hunter.
4. Attain and maintain the skills necessary to make the kill as certain and quick as possible.
5. Behave in a way that will bring no dishonor to either the hunter, the hunted, or the environment.
6. Recognize that these tenets are intended to enhance the hunter's experience of the relationship between predator and prey, which is one of the most fundamental relationships of humans and their environment.
As source would say asked and answered. Millions of times thoughout history.
What is the continued need to do this. Are you concerned that somehow historians will forget the primary uses of a bow?

that's right. 
I count 6 rules of fair chase by B&C.
I count 8 rules of Fair chase by P&Y.

_I said
You say THE reason for their existence. I would suggest that there are multiple reasons for their existence. True? _

I was referring to P&Y

*You said
There was a need to show game depts. the ability of the bow, in fact most were very skeptical about it, and some still are. If you want a history lesson I suggest you do some research or ask J Westbrock, he his one of the most knowledgeable people out there on the history of archery in the USA. I run into people all the time that say stuff like, “can you really kill a deer with THAT”. 

Yes there may be other reasons, but the main reason was to prove to the game dept’s the bow was a viable weapon for hunting big game. In fact it is still being done, in other areas of the world. So yes despite the fact the bow has been around forever almost, there are still people that need to be reminded and shown the effectiveness of the bow. *

Okay... that makes sense. There are multiple reasons. The least of which is to prove to game departments that deer can be taken with a bow. I'd suggest that anyone running a DNR/DEC who doesn't believe this should be run out of the job. Anyone who has any sense of ancient history has to do no more than look at some cave paintings to figure that one out. But I'll agree there are some folks who are perennial skeptics. 

*You said
the record keeping of “trophies” is only a by product of proving to game depts. the ability of the bow. *

_I said
Did you say that with a straight face?_

*You say
Yes, it’s not hard when it’s the truth. *

So you could say that the record keeping is 
x% to prove to the game departments that after 1000's of years of current
and ancient history that bows are still effective
y% to show the success of the hunter
z% to honor the animal.

If you had 100% to work with how would you split that up, and or what categories were missed? 


_I said
Alignment is a bad thing when defining fair chase, for all hunters? Do you believe that fair chase is completely different for bow hunters than it is for gun hunters? Can you think of any rules that should be the same? _

*You said
Again, and I don’t know why you can’t understand this, but P&Y is for bowhunters, they could care less what a gun hunter hunts with or how. They saw a need to further define the rules of fair chase as it relates to hunting with a bow. *

My question was do you believe that fair chase is completely different for bow hunters than it is for gun hunters? You didn't answer the question.

_I said
Do you mean their sole use? Do you mean to connect the dots and say that in order for them to care about the bow, that they have to do that to the exclusion of other weapons? Is this like marriage...choose...one or the other? _

*You said
Yes. Their main concern would have to be for the majority of their members. Bow hunters were an even smaller group back then, MAYBE, the bowhunters thought they were not being represented as they needed to be, I don’t know, if you were around then maybe you could inform us. Maybe the bowhunters thought they needed a organization that worked for bow hunters alone. 
Why would B&C, a club made up mostly of gun hunters, want to work for a separate season? There is no incentive for them to do so. And in my marriage I do have to choose one or the other, it’s either be faithful to my wife or don’t get married, don’t know how it works in yours. *

Their main concern would have been to ALL of their members. They were oriented to conservation, and the settings of the seasons were defined by conservation objectives, not how much time one weapon got vs. another. 

Bowhunters somehow felt that they were different and deserved a different season all to their lonesome. Why? Why do they today?

Speaking of marriage and fidelity.... what percentage of bow hunters also gun hunt? What percentage of them do you think use compounds?

_Quote:
Does P&Y have a charter...a mission statement? _

*You said
I would assume they do, why don’t you check on that for us.* 

http://www.pope-young.org/about_us.asp

You said
Actually I see more then three, you have personal ethics, P&Y, B&C, the law, ...

I think in reality, you can't enforce the concept of ethics. You can structure the laws to enforce the practice of ethics. That is the responsibility of the DNRs. P&Y can't supersede that, as much as they'd like to.

Hunt Fair Chase Poll Results

Do you believe that hunting ethics go well beyond whether an act is legal or illegal?

Yes 96% 
No 4% 

Total Responses: 6926


----------



## thesource

oldbhtrnewequip said:


> thesource said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems obvious to me that a universally accepted code of fair chase would be a very good thing for bowhunting - all hunting.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Then you'd suggest to P&Y that they get together with B&C and come up with one?
> 
> 
> 
> Pope and Young's Bowhunting rules of fair chase would obviously be a good atrating point, if that's what you are suggesting.
Click to expand...


----------



## thesource

willie said:


> *GREED??*
> My, aren't you the fine one to be talking about greed?"?


I understand that your radical crossbow activist mantra suggests that bowhunters are greedy for "keeping the woods to themselves." I don't buy it, because bowhunters are more than willing to welcome new bowhunters into the sport.

No the real greed is the coveting of bowseason by those who are not but pretend to be bowhunters - crossbowers.

It should be obvious to absolutely anyone that the motivating factor for high fence is solely greed.



willie said:


> As you know I campigned against high fence operations in Indiana. Why? because these guys wanted 40 acres as a minimum with several other non-fair chase demands.


Yes - I am perfectly aware of your totally hypocritical stance - n
"not in my backyard."

I am also aware that as a crossbow evangelist, you will try to find allies wherever you can, and that P&Y rulebreakers have a lot in common.





willie said:


> "Unfair" to who? The deer? Hunters like yourself?
> 
> Who are we in competiton with that a crossbow should be called "unfair"?


Perhaps Oldbhtr can give you the tutorial on hunting competition. He has spoken most elequently on the subject previously.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> I understand that your radical crossbow activist mantra suggests that bowhunters are greedy for "keeping the woods to themselves." I don't buy it, because bowhunters are more than willing to welcome new bowhunters into the sport.
> 
> No the real greed is the coveting of bowseason by those who are not but pretend to be bowhunters - crossbowers.
> 
> It should be obvious to absolutely anyone that the motivating factor for high fence is solely greed.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - I am perfectly aware of your totally hypocritical stance - n
> "not in my backyard."
> 
> I am also aware that as a crossbow evangelist, you will try to find allies wherever you can, and that P&Y rulebreakers have a lot in common.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Oldbhtr can give you the tutorial on hunting competition. He has spoken most elequently on the subject previously.



it was elequent but I reject it so it has no persuasiveness to me. we are still wanting you to explain how you are hurt what someone else uses in bow season


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> we are still wanting you to explain how you are hurt what someone else uses in bow season


That is irrelevant, as we have discussed perhaps a dozen times before.

Need me to explain to you again the relevant reason?

*Crossbows do not belong.*


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> That is irrelevant, as we have discussed perhaps a dozen times before.
> 
> Need me to explain to you again the relevant reason?
> 
> *Crossbows do not belong.*


you don't belong in bowseason source


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> you don't belong in bowseason source


That is childish, and hardly befitting of your Ivy League education.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> That is childish, and hardly befitting of your Ivy League education.



its true, you obviously know nothing of bowhunting based on your posts

btw you were caught lying-its now 15 anti 16 pro posters on the bowhunting thread

hardly the 5-1 against xbows you claimed


----------



## thesource

Yea, it was less than I thought...

But you are not telling the truth (AGAIN).

I counted 12 (now 13) pro and 17 opposed, with 9 ambivalent or no opinion.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Yea, it was less than I thought...
> 
> But you are not telling the truth (AGAIN).
> 
> I counted 12 (now 13) pro and 17 opposed, with 9 ambivalent or no opinion.


you are lying again but even if you are true you were caught lying when you said it was 4 or 5 to 1


----------



## thesource

I GUESSED it was 4:1 - you STATED it was 15-15. 

Guess who is the :lie: ?

LOL

And, of course, some of the guys for crossbows admitted they were advantaged but didn't care (probably private lands guys who can hang a big fat "NO CROSSBOWS" sign on the gate.)


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> I GUESSED it was 4:1 - you STATED it was 15-15.
> 
> Guess who is the :lie: ?
> 
> LOL
> 
> And, of course, some of the guys for crossbows admitted they were advantaged but didn't care (probably private lands guys who can hang a big fat "NO CROSSBOWS" sign on the gate.)


give it up source-you got caught lying.


----------



## thesource

Sigh....

No, Jim, you are the liar. Here's my quote from the other thread:



thesource said:


> The posts on this thread are *probably *running 4 or 5:1 against


Note the "probably" Jim - you are a lawyer, figure it out. 

For such a smart guy, you spend an awful lot of time claiming people are "lying" with huffy indignation when they simply express opinions - perhaps you should see someone about that?


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Sigh....
> 
> No, Jim, you are the liar. Here's my quote from the other thread:
> 
> 
> 
> Note the "probably" Jim - you are a lawyer, figure it out.
> 
> For such a smart guy, you spend an awful lot of time claiming people are "lying" with huffy indignation when they simply express opinions - perhaps you should see someone about that?


I always tell the truth Source. You do not and you often do what in the service academies is called "quibbling".

I can and often honestly say why xbows should be in bow season

you play all sorts of evasive games as to what motivates you


----------



## Bellows1

It seems we have lost focus.


----------

