# Remote "hunting" banned in LA.



## kraven

This article details it.



> LiveScience Staff
> 
> LiveScience.comFri Jul 7, 6:01 PM ET
> Louisiana has joined 21 other states in banning Internet hunting, the practice of using a mouse click to kill animals on a distant game farm.
> 
> The cyber-shooting idea was the brainchild of Texan John Lockwood, who started the web site Live-Shot.com.
> 
> The idea was this: Hunters sign up on the web site and pay some $1,500 or more. They schedule a session, then log on at their appointed time to watch a feeding station on the computer screen. The animal that was ordered—from wild hogs to antelope—is in the area, and when it approaches the food, the hunter moves on-screen crosshairs into place. A click of the mouse fires a rifle to kill the animal.
> 
> The armchair hunter's trophy animal would then be mounted and shipped for display.
> 
> Texas outlawed the practice last year.
> 
> Humane Society executive vice president Michael Markarian was pleased with the decision in Louisiana.
> 
> "Responsible hunters know there's no sport in shooting an animal remotely while lying in bed and wearing camouflage pajamas," Markarian said in a statement today.
> 
> Meanwhile, the game farm's web site now says hunters must come to the farm, where they "can now offer a unique hunting opportunity for disabled and handicapped hunters, as well as others, who may need the assistance of our system while hunting."
> 
> 
> Copyright © 2006 SPACE.com.
> Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.


 :sad: comments?


----------



## Tim4Trout

As I have seen it, most of the hunting community does not view shooting a captive wild animal via clicking a mouse button as hunting. 

In addition, it is also my belief that most disabled persons ( who this live hunt thing is sort of aimed at ) would prefer to actually be able to somehow get into the woods themselves to hunt vs hunting via a computer.

As a result there has been little or no push from the hunting community to stop legislation against "internet hunting".

*****

However sportsmen should ...

A) Be wary of such legislation containing provisions that may restrict conventional hunting practices. ( Alabama's legisation that became law does just that. )

and

B) Not allow the hsus to use the passage of any "internet hunting" ban as a claimed victory against conventional hunting, or possible fodder towards any other anti hunting legislation.


----------



## Free Range

Well, shouldn’t everyone be for more opportunity, wouldn’t this be a good thing if it helps children, women and elderly, etc, enjoy hunting sooner, more, and longer? What happen to the big tent, can’t we all just get along? Isn’t this a bit elitist, to say someone else’s way of hunting is wrong and should be banned? 

Come on Ace, help me out here, I can’t be a only one that can see the double standard here. 
:darkbeer:


----------



## doctariAFC

Free Range said:


> Well, shouldn’t everyone be for more opportunity, wouldn’t this be a good thing if it helps children, women and elderly, etc, enjoy hunting sooner, more, and longer? What happen to the big tent, can’t we all just get along? Isn’t this a bit elitist, to say someone else’s way of hunting is wrong and should be banned?
> 
> Come on Ace, help me out here, I can’t be a only one that can see the double standard here.
> :darkbeer:


Hunting requires one to be in the field with game, and internet hunting certainly does not qualify. Part of hunting is learning about habitat to become a better hunter, learning a bit of wildlife behavior to become a better hunter, and learning how to make proper observations concerning deer and the habitat to become a better hunter and steward of the wild. 

Internet hunting, point and click, accomplishes none of this.

Good law.


----------



## Free Range

> Hunting requires one to be in the field with game, and internet hunting certainly does not qualify. Part of hunting is learning about habitat to become a better hunter, learning a bit of wildlife behavior to become a better hunter, and learning how to make proper observations concerning deer and the habitat to become a better hunter and steward of the wild.


According to who?


----------



## PMantle

doctariAFC said:


> Hunting requires one to be in the field with game, and internet hunting certainly does not qualify. Part of hunting is learning about habitat to become a better hunter, learning a bit of wildlife behavior to become a better hunter, and learning how to make proper observations concerning deer and the habitat to become a better hunter and steward of the wild.
> 
> Internet hunting, point and click, accomplishes none of this.
> 
> Good law.


You favor exclusion. I am very surprised.


----------



## doctariAFC

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.


This organization was founded in 1887. By Teddy Roosevelt. I put great stock in Teddy Roosevelt.

I believe this point & click hunting may fall into point #5.

When we allow folks to relegate a big game animal to status of a Toy, or their purpose solely to entertain me while behind a computer screen, we have dishonored the hunted and the hunter, have we not?

Just some food for thought...


----------



## Free Range

So, who is the B&C club to tell me how I can or can’t hunt? Those that belong to the B&C can abide by their rules if they wish, but for them to impose their rules on the public is a travesty, I demand my right to use whatever weapon I want in any season I want to. Who is this B&C club that they think they can tell me what is fair chase? 

This is just to fun


----------



## doctariAFC

Free Range said:


> So, who is the B&C club to tell me how I can or can’t hunt? Those that belong to the B&C can abide by their rules if they wish, but for them to impose their rules on the public is a travesty, I demand my right to use whatever weapon I want in any season I want to. Who is this B&C club that they think they can tell me what is fair chase?
> 
> This is just to fun


Well, they don't directly tell you.....

But, since this organization was the primary group of sportsmen that helped to protect sport hunting through conservation laws being adopted (23 by 1900, the balance by 1903), I guess you have your answer.

Why would you want to point & click, turning an animal into a toy, anyhow? Just like why would anyone want to dart, revive, redart, revive and game animal simply for the sake of competition between hunters? Why would any hunter supporting turning an animal into a toy?

Please 'splain...


----------



## Engelsmung

*Classic La legislature*

This is typical of our legislature. The southern half of the state is still reeling from hurricane damage, and they pass this silly bs. There are 10,000 more important issues in this state than internet hunting, yet they waste time passing a feel good law banning something that never would have happened here...and everyone says hoorah. Meanwhile, our educational system lags, employment is still problematic in the hurricane damaged areas, and our college grads leave the state en masse. But hey, we banned internet hunting! Let's re-elect those morons.

Of course, go to the US Congress and watch them debate really important stuff like flag burning and queer matrimony, and you see the template for all politicians. The sad thing is that the publik really is concerned about these issues, so the pols grandstand on them, as opposed to working on social security, or the national debt. No wonder most folks are apathetic.


----------



## doctariAFC

Engelsmung said:


> This is typical of our legislature. The southern half of the state is still reeling from hurricane damage, and they pass this silly bs. There are 10,000 more important issues in this state than internet hunting, yet they waste time passing a feel good law banning something that never would have happened here...and everyone says hoorah. Meanwhile, our educational system lags, employment is still problematic in the hurricane damaged areas, and our college grads leave the state en masse. But hey, we banned internet hunting! Let's re-elect those morons.
> 
> Of course, go to the US Congress and watch them debate really important stuff like flag burning and queer matrimony, and you see the template for all politicians. The sad thing is that the publik really is concerned about these issues, so the pols grandstand on them, as opposed to working on social security, or the national debt. No wonder most folks are apathetic.


Well said..... Very well said.....


----------



## Free Range

> Why would you want to point & click, turning an animal into a toy, anyhow? Just like why would anyone want to dart, revive, redart, revive and game animal simply for the sake of competition between hunters? Why would any hunter supporting turning an animal into a toy?
> 
> Please 'splain...


My guess would be the same reasons some want an easier way into bow season? :darkbeer:


----------



## Jim C

Free Range said:


> My guess would be the same reasons some want an easier way into bow season? :darkbeer:


like compounds? the anti xbow crowd grasps any silly argument to substitute for their lack of a logical position


----------



## doctariAFC

Jim C said:


> like compounds? the anti xbow crowd grasps any silly argument to substitute for their lack of a logical position


hear hear!

Nice try, but it don't fly....


----------



## Free Range

I know, compounds have nothing to do with this, thanks for pointing that out Doc


----------



## PMantle

Engelsmung said:


> Of course, go to the US Congress and watch them debate really important stuff like flag burning and queer matrimony, and you see the template for all politicians. The sad thing is that the publik really is concerned about these issues, so the pols grandstand on them, as opposed to working on social security, or the national debt. No wonder most folks are apathetic.


Those guys can actually work on those all at the same time. There is no concept of one supplanting the other. The issues you mentioned may not be important to a pinko commie like yourself, but they are very important to many others. Reflecting your own apathy on others is really not constructive at all.


----------



## Engelsmung

*???*

I know you never worked in the legislature Ferd, but when they are debating a bill(eg. queer marriage amendment), they are not debating or formulating plans to deal with important issues, like social security, which will be bankrupt by the time you and I reach retirement age. There is also time spent in committees debating/amending bills and deciding whether to send them to the floor. That may not matter to to a big shot skyscraper insurance company lawyer(credit-chuck) like yourself, but to a broke-dick with 4 high maintenece women in the house, I'll need SS. Plus I get aggravated that I'm paying 7.5% of my income into a black hole of gubmint waste, while politicos pose on non-issues. 

Back to the original issue: was there somewhere in Louisiana that was setting up internet hunting? If not, why bother with this bs?

I hope this doesn't degenerate into a crossbow thread, now that the usual suspects are all involved.


----------



## Free Range

Hey their all intertwined, hunting is hunting, to sort of quote a few notable people I like to discuss things with here. You cannot separate one debate from the other. It is hypocritical to the 10th degree, to claim one group of hunters are elitist and selfish to want to control one type of hunting, then turn around and do the same thing when another type of hunting that doesn’t fit your ideals comes along. If you can’t see that then you are blinded by your own greed and your own double standard. There is only one group of hunters here that have been firm and consistent in their stance on what is hunting and how seasons should be divided, want to venture a guess as to who that may be???


----------



## PMantle

Engelsmung said:


> I know you never worked in the legislature Ferd, but when they are debating a bill(eg. queer marriage amendment), they are not debating or formulating plans to deal with important issues, like social security, which will be bankrupt by the time you and I reach retirement age. There is also time spent in committees debating/amending bills and deciding whether to send them to the floor.


That's assuming anyone there has the nads to actually do something to fix SS, like eliminate SSI or any other payment to those who did not contribute. If there was something that could pass and actually help, it would get it's time. In the meantime, do like me-pretend SS does not exist and plan accordingly. Maybe if you didn't have 7 boats you could forget about SS.


----------



## thesource

Free Range said:


> There is only one group of hunters here that have been firm and consistent in their stance on what is hunting and how seasons should be divided, want to venture a guess as to who that may be???



OOOOO! OOOOOO! I know! I KNOW! Call on MEEEEEEEE! 

Your logic is sound, Free Range, but you are correct .... those with an agenda will not see the forest for the trees. It is OK to defend bowhunting from everything except their pet project, and although the logic and reasoning is the exact same as that they use for one arguement, they denounce and viilify it for the next.

It doesn't make much sense to me either ...... they seem to confuse opinion with principle.


----------



## Free Range

Source, put your hand down, let someone else take a stab at this one, of course we will have to come back to you for the right answer, but let’s give them a chance first. :wink:


----------



## Tim4Trout

Free Range said:


> Well, shouldn’t everyone be for more opportunity, wouldn’t this be a good thing if it helps children, women and elderly, etc, enjoy hunting sooner, more, and longer? What happen to the big tent, can’t we all just get along? Isn’t this a bit elitist, to say someone else’s way of hunting is wrong and should be banned?
> 
> Come on Ace, help me out here, I can’t be a only one that can see the double standard here.
> :darkbeer:


The issue isn't simply about so called ethics and opportunity.

Aside from an animal being killed, there are simply too many discrepencies between "internet hunting" and conventional hunting to have "internet hunting" be considered by the hunting community as an acceptable form of hunting.

So called "internet hunting" takes away from the conventional challenges of hunting.

All forms of conventional deer hunting incur the challenge of the hunter possibility being seen, and/or heard, and/or scented and thus being detected by the deer. "Internet hunting" does not. 

In "internet hunting", there is no pre scouting or after shot follow up tracking by the person discharging the weapon.

In "internet hunting", the "shooter" does not have to incur the elements which could affect the situation. ( i.e. having to sit for hours in perhaps less than desirable conditions, say for example cold temperatures which could cause one's fingers to go numb )

With "internet hunting" one is looking through a camera lens which absolutely CAN NOT provide the same visual perspective as the naked eye.

In conventional hunting you are physically controlling the trigger of the firearm, and/or bow release aid, and/or string ( if a bow finger shooter ). In "internet hunting" the triggering mechanism is being operated remotely and incurs internet signal glitch vunerability. ( How many times have you incured a connection loss of some type when using the internet ? ) All it takes is one signal glitch anywhere in the thousands of miles between where the animal is and the "internet hunting" shooter is to greatly affect a shot.

"Internet hunting" was supposedly proposed as a way to supposedly allow disabled hunters and others who may be unable to go hunting ( service men stationed oversees ) the ability to shoot an animal from a remote location. Although to my knowledge most disabled persons would prefer to somehow be able to get into the woods. It has never been intended as a recruitment tool for potential new hunters. Regardless of whether or not it may involve a controversial issue ( bait hounds, high fence, etc. ), the recruitment of prospective new hunters should involve the person being exposed to the woods itself and not simply clicking a mouse button to kill an animal from a convenient remote location.

With "internet hunting" one can not experience the comraderie(sp) of being in a hunting camp that to me is as much a part of hunting as being in the woods.


----------



## Marvin

Free Range said:


> Source, put your hand down, let someone else take a stab at this one, of course we will have to come back to you for the right answer, but let’s give them a chance first. :wink:


OOOHHH OHHH TEACHER!!


----------



## thesource

Tim4Trout said:


> The issue isn't simply about so called ethics and opportunity.
> 
> Aside from an animal being killed, there are simply too many discrepencies between "internet hunting" and conventional hunting to have "internet hunting" be considered by the hunting community as an acceptable form of hunting.
> 
> So called "internet hunting" takes away from the conventional challenges of hunting.



Change "hunting" with "BOWhunting", replace "internet hunting" with other terms, and the parallels are obvious.

Thanks for proving FR's point.:darkbeer:


----------



## Marvin

Tim4Trout said:


> The issue isn't simply about so called ethics and opportunity.
> 
> Aside from an animal being killed, there are simply too many discrepencies between "internet hunting" and conventional hunting to have "internet hunting" be considered by the hunting community as an acceptable form of hunting.
> 
> So called "internet hunting" takes away from the conventional challenges of hunting.
> So what? who says you get to dictate what challenges one must encounter?
> All forms of conventional deer hunting incur the challenge of the hunter possibility being seen, and/or heard, and/or scented and thus being detected by the deer. "Internet hunting" does not.
> welcome scent lock and big trees
> In "internet hunting", there is no pre scouting or after shot follow up tracking by the person discharging the weapon.
> 
> What?? are you serious? Guides do preseason scouting and if you knock and animal dead there is no tracking either.
> 
> In "internet hunting", the "shooter" does not have to incur the elements which could affect the situation. ( i.e. having to sit for hours in perhaps less than desirable conditions, say for example cold temperatures which could cause one's fingers to go numb )
> 
> not a prerequisite to be a hunter.
> 
> With "internet hunting" one is looking through a camera lens which absolutely CAN NOT provide the same visual perspective as the naked eye.
> 
> A falacy once again. a one eyed man has not depth perception. you goona boot him too?
> 
> In conventional hunting you are physically controlling the trigger of the firearm, and/or bow release aid, and/or string ( if a bow finger shooter ). In "internet hunting" the triggering mechanism is being operated remotely and incurs internet signal glitch vunerability. ( How many times have you incured a connection loss of some type when using the internet ? )( none on high speed and could be easily required to perform this hunt All it takes is one signal glitch anywhere in the thousands of miles between where the animal is and the "internet hunting" shooter is to greatly affect a shot.
> 
> "Internet hunting" was supposedly proposed as a way to supposedly allow disabled hunters and others who may be unable to go hunting ( service men stationed oversees ) the ability to shoot an animal from a remote location. Although to my knowledge most disabled persons would prefer to somehow be able to get into the woods. It has never been intended as a recruitment tool for potential new hunters. Regardless of whether or not it may involve a controversial issue ( bait hounds, high fence, etc. ), the recruitment of prospective new hunters should involve the person being exposed to the woods itself and not simply clicking a mouse button to kill an animal from a convenient remote location.
> still not a prerquisite to be a considered a hunter. you need not have a time element act as a filter as some tell me.... are you against accuracy?
> 
> With "internet hunting" one can not experience the comraderie(sp) of being in a hunting camp that to me is as much a part of hunting as being in the woods.


i hunt alone a lot.


----------



## doctariAFC

thesource said:


> Change "hunting" with "BOWhunting", replace "internet hunting" with other terms, and the parallels are obvious.
> 
> Thanks for proving FR's point.:darkbeer:


Not at all. If I substitute "Internet Hunting" with the other term, well, you cannot harvest a deer with the "other term", sitting in your den, perhaps even reaching out into a different time zone, to point and click at a deer.

Nice try, doesn't fly.....

That one was WAY too easy to deflate, guys. If you are not in pursuit of game, you are not hunting. You are not in pursuit of game sitting in a chair, in your den, looking at a monitor, moving a ouse around. That is called playing a video game on-line, and hunting is not a video game.

I hope that clarifies the issue for you all...


----------



## Free Range

Pursuit of game???? Please expand on that for us. Is a person “in pursuit” sitting over bait? Hunting behind a high fence, no matter the acreage? Must one be moving to be “in pursuit” Or can you pursue game by sitting still, just as long as you are in the woods?

Our hunting has changed so much in the last 20 years it’s hard to tell where hunting left off and killing took over. Some say it’s only hunting if the game is free ranging, and taken under fair chase rules, all else is “not hunting” some say the heck with that, I want to hunt behind a fence, or over bait, all else is “not hunting” and those before me are elitist, some say I want to hunt in a small pin, over bait and the game be drugged, all else is “not hunting”, and those before me are elitist, some want to make a game out of it and pay big bucks to the “best” hunter, and all else is “not hunting” and all those before me are elitist. I ask this, where do you stand? And why is your stance morally more important then some others stance?


----------



## thesource

doctariAFC said:


> Not at all. If I substitute "Internet Hunting" with the other term, well, you cannot harvest a deer with the "other term", sitting in your den, perhaps even reaching out into a different time zone, to point and click at a deer.
> 
> Nice try, doesn't fly.....
> 
> That one was WAY too easy to deflate, guys. If you are not in pursuit of game, you are not hunting. You are not in pursuit of game sitting in a chair, in your den, looking at a monitor, moving a ouse around. That is called playing a video game on-line, and hunting is not a video game.
> 
> I hope that clarifies the issue for you all...



LOL - perhaps its easy to deflate because you are trying hard enough to actually determine the point. Here let me help with one....

_Aside from an animal being killed, there are simply too many discrepencies between "HIGH FENCE hunting" and conventional BOWhunting to have "HIGH FENCEhunting" be considered by the BOWhunting community as an acceptable form of BOWhunting.

So called "HIGH FENCE hunting" takes away from the conventional challenges of BOWhunting._


See, that was easy ... let's try another....
_
Aside from an animal being killed, there are simply too many discrepencies between "WHA Blunt and Drug hunting" and conventional BOWhunting to have "WHA Blunt and Drug hunting" be considered by the BOWhunting community as an acceptable form of BOWhunting.

So called "WHA Blunt and Drug hunting" takes away from the conventional challenges of BOWhunting._

Now, you MUST be getting the point by now. Your lame "in pursuit of game" arguement has been kicked to the curb, you can substitute other controversial terms in as well and perhaps you can see the parralels and hypocrisy that Free Range is referring to.


----------



## PMantle

doctariAFC said:


> Not at all. If I substitute "Internet Hunting" with the other term, well, you cannot harvest a deer with the "other term", sitting in your den, perhaps even reaching out into a different time zone, to point and click at a deer.
> 
> Nice try, doesn't fly.....
> 
> That one was WAY too easy to deflate, guys. If you are not in pursuit of game, you are not hunting. You are not in pursuit of game sitting in a chair, in your den, looking at a monitor, moving a ouse around. That is called playing a video game on-line, and hunting is not a video game.
> 
> I hope that clarifies the issue for you all...


Sorry, but you're wrong. If the mouse click directly causes the death of the critter, then one is in pursuit of game. You may not like it and it may not fit in your definition of fair chase, but it is the pursuit of game.


----------



## doctariAFC

PMantle said:


> Sorry, but you're wrong. If the mouse click directly causes the death of the critter, then one is in pursuit of game. You may not like it and it may not fit in your definition of fair chase, but it is the pursuit of game.


Wow, I didn't know you could pursue something when not even in the same state. This applies to hunting, not shopping.

So, are we now relegating deer to the status of toys, to shopped for instead of hunted?


----------



## Free Range

So, are we now relegating deer to the status of toys, to shopped for instead of hunted?

Just one more step, how is this any different, then someone paying 10,000 for a “trophy” on a game farm? Shopped for, and maybe, just maybe a little target practice. I know you know where I stand on this, it makes me sick, along with the WHA, canned hunts and the degradation of bow season. I draw my line way back there, some draw the line a little closer, but the problem is the double standard some are showing.


----------



## doctariAFC

Free Range said:


> So, are we now relegating deer to the status of toys, to shopped for instead of hunted?
> 
> Just one more step, how is this any different, then someone paying 10,000 for a “trophy” on a game farm? Shopped for, and maybe, just maybe a little target practice. I know you know where I stand on this, it makes me sick, along with the WHA, canned hunts and the degradation of bow season. I draw my line way back there, some draw the line a little closer, but the problem is the double standard some are showing.


I agree. I do not support canned hunts. If we could come up with a solid definition of a canned hunt, that would not be potentially expanded to include all lands with fences on them, cool deal.

I am with you 100%, but the problem comes in when these game farms fall under the jurisdiction of Agriculture. DNRs and DECs do not want to touch this one, and for some pretty good reasons. 

Canned "hunts," regardless of implement used are not hunting excursions. I agree 100%


----------



## thesource

doctariAFC said:


> I agree. I do not support canned hunts. If we could come up with a solid definition of a canned hunt, that would not be potentially expanded to include all lands with fences on them, cool deal.
> 
> I am with you 100%, but the problem comes in when these game farms fall under the jurisdiction of Agriculture. DNRs and DECs do not want to touch this one, and for some pretty good reasons.
> 
> Canned "hunts," regardless of implement used are not hunting excursions. I agree 100%


Here ......

I'll give you a definition.

Escape Proof enclosure = Canned Hunt.

Now ...... back to Free Range's assessment of the hypocrisy and double standards of the waffling ......


----------



## doctariAFC

thesource said:


> Here ......
> 
> I'll give you a definition.
> 
> Escape Proof enclosure = Canned Hunt.
> 
> Now ...... back to Free Range's assessment of the hypocrisy and double standards of the waffling ......


Hang on a minute, Source. Perhaps you weren't aware, but legislation was indeed introduced in the NYS Assembly to ban "canned hunts" in NYS. However, this legislation was crafted by a downstate liberal Democrat, and the way the law was crafted (banning hunting on "high" fenced areas) it basically would have eliminated hunting on any lands with a fence on it, including any old fences which effectively either marked property lines or was intended to keep livestock from free ranging all over the state.

We must be very careful what we wish for, and very diligent to review exactly what any proposed law banning "canned hunts" truly states. And let's also understand that simply because hunters put forth an outstanding, very clear proposal, the amendment process could kill it dead as a doornail.


----------



## Marvin

doctariAFC said:


> Hang on a minute, Source. Perhaps you weren't aware, but legislation was indeed introduced in the NYS Assembly to ban "canned hunts" in NYS. However, this legislation was crafted by a downstate liberal Democrat, and the way the law was crafted (banning hunting on "high" fenced areas) it basically would have eliminated hunting on any lands with a fence on it, including any old fences which effectively either marked property lines or was intended to keep livestock from free ranging all over the state.
> 
> We must be very careful what we wish for, and very diligent to review exactly what any proposed law banning "canned hunts" truly states. And let's also understand that simply because hunters put forth an outstanding, very clear proposal, the amendment process could kill it dead as a doornail.


Those dirty demorcrats...You gotta watch them like a hawk. Doc we gotta stop these canned hunts. Do they pay sales taxes on this stuff in NYS?


----------



## doctariAFC

Marvin said:


> Those dirty demorcrats...You gotta watch them like a hawk. Doc we gotta stop these canned hunts. Do they pay sales taxes on this stuff in NYS?


That I do not know. Big game canned hunts aren't all that prevalent in NYS, as the agriculture laws which govern these farms prohibit hunting for these animals. But, we as sportsmen wish to make certain the practice doesn't suddenly start. And the Dems glommed onto the proposal and basically attempted to halt hunting across most of the state through creative language. Ticks me off to no end!!

Also, some are certainly opposed to the pheasant hunts, which could be considered canned hunts. Pheasant famrs release the birds the day before the hunt, and although these birds can certainly fly off the property, some do not agree with the practice. Of course, on the other hand, NYS used to have incredible pheasant hunting, but now the habitat has changed so much the populations have tumbled to nearly nothing. Lots of birds get stocked by the Federations and NYSDEC, but the opportunities to hunt pheasant in NYS is limited at best.

Its a tough issue. Doesn't affect solely big game animals. But we do need to shut the canned hunts for big game animals (and maybe even the pheasants and quail) and exotics. Does no one any benefit, especially conservation efforts.

The farms do pay taxes (income) on their profits, but I do not believe a penny of that goes to the Conservation Fund. I could be wrong.


----------



## Marvin

doctariAFC said:


> That I do not know. Big game canned hunts aren't all that prevalent in NYS, as the agriculture laws which govern these farms prohibit hunting for these animals. But, we as sportsmen wish to make certain the practice doesn't suddenly start. And the Dems glommed onto the proposal and basically attempted to halt hunting across most of the state through creative language. Ticks me off to no end!!
> 
> Also, some are certainly opposed to the pheasant hunts, which could be considered canned hunts. Pheasant famrs release the birds the day before the hunt, and although these birds can certainly fly off the property, some do not agree with the practice. Of course, on the other hand, NYS used to have incredible pheasant hunting, but now the habitat has changed so much the populations have tumbled to nearly nothing. Lots of birds get stocked by the Federations and NYSDEC, but the opportunities to hunt pheasant in NYS is limited at best.
> 
> Its a tough issue. Doesn't affect solely big game animals. But we do need to shut the canned hunts for big game animals (and maybe even the pheasants and quail) and exotics. Does no one any benefit, especially conservation efforts.
> 
> The farms do pay taxes (income) on their profits, but I do not believe a penny of that goes to the Conservation Fund. I could be wrong.


there is no way it could if NYS has no say in its regulation. thats a problem. This is what I was getting at with the WHA thread. this can and will have sweeping chnages IF were on our toes. We must be careful and not go to far bite off too much as you are now well aware. Its great to have motivated people but you don't want so big a push that you get your head caught in a trap. This is where Kentucy is cool and they get the clubs together as a voice. Great building block I think for other states. I am leary of states going after these issues without DIRECT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT. I just learn Post haste that ohio has a conservation strategic plan. Comments on it were due july 3rd. Never heard a word about it till now.


----------



## Stanman421

If you get a kick out of the internet hunting thing, go to an arcade and play a game for a quarter, its a lot cheaper than paying $1,500 to do the same thing.

Why do people hunt? Do you just like to kill things? Most people hunt for the experience, and the food and trophies are just a (really good) plus.


----------



## Jim C

doctariAFC said:


> That I do not know. Big game canned hunts aren't all that prevalent in NYS, as the agriculture laws which govern these farms prohibit hunting for these animals. But, we as sportsmen wish to make certain the practice doesn't suddenly start. And the Dems glommed onto the proposal and basically attempted to halt hunting across most of the state through creative language. Ticks me off to no end!!
> 
> Also, some are certainly opposed to the pheasant hunts, which could be considered canned hunts. Pheasant famrs release the birds the day before the hunt, and although these birds can certainly fly off the property, some do not agree with the practice. Of course, on the other hand, NYS used to have incredible pheasant hunting, but now the habitat has changed so much the populations have tumbled to nearly nothing. Lots of birds get stocked by the Federations and NYSDEC, but the opportunities to hunt pheasant in NYS is limited at best.
> 
> Its a tough issue. Doesn't affect solely big game animals. But we do need to shut the canned hunts for big game animals (and maybe even the pheasants and quail) and exotics. Does no one any benefit, especially conservation efforts.
> 
> The farms do pay taxes (income) on their profits, but I do not believe a penny of that goes to the Conservation Fund. I could be wrong.


So you want to ban stocked quail preserves?


----------



## Tim4Trout

So called "internet hunting" takes away from the conventional challenges of hunting.



Marvin said:


> So what? who says you get to dictate what challenges one must encounter?


I am not attempting to personally dictate to others what specific challenges one must encounter. ( Stating for example that a bowhunter usually needs to get closer to his quarry than a rifle hunter is simply stating a fact of physics, and is not a dictation made by me. )

However even with the employment of controversial tactics which some hunters believe may take away from the challenge of hunting, there are still challenges incured by the conventional hunter using such tactics. ( The bow hunter using bait still has to incur the challenge of detection. )

Please tell me what challenges associated with conventional hunting, if any, that "internet hunting" also incurs. ( Aside from perhaps deciding whether or not to shoot. )

---------

All forms of conventional deer hunting incur the challenge of the hunter possibility being seen, and/or heard, and/or scented and thus being detected by the deer. "Internet hunting" does not. 



Marvin said:


> welcome scent lock and big trees


While it may reduce the possibility, no scent elimination system employed, including using scent lock, can guarantee that one's presence will not be detected by a deer's nose. 

While it may place you out of a deer's normal sight picture, locating one's self high in a tree is also no guarantee that one will not be detected either.

Are you going to tell us that no hunter using scent lock and sitting high in a treestand has ever been busted ?

----------------

In "internet hunting", there is no pre scouting or after shot follow up tracking by the person discharging the weapon.



Marvin said:


> What?? are you serious? Guides do preseason scouting and if you knock and animal dead there is no tracking either.


While a guide will indeed do the pre season scouting ( I've never personally employed one ), and an animal ( depending on the shot ) may indeed drop where shot, are you going to tell us that a hunter employing a guide just sits there twiddling his thumbs after discharging his weapon and does not participate at all in the tracking of an animal shot which flees the scene after being shot ?

May not vs Will not --- The primary difference between your guide reference and "internet hunting" is that when a guide is employed a hunter may not participate in certain aspects of the hunt, but when you have "internet hunting" the person behind the mouse button does not participate in those activities. 

-------

In "internet hunting", the "shooter" does not have to incur the elements which could affect the situation. ( i.e. having to sit for hours in perhaps less than desirable conditions, say for example cold temperatures which could cause one's fingers to go numb )



Marvin said:


> not a prerequisite to be a hunter.


While there is no law that states one "has" to hunt under certain conditions, unless one is perhaps seated in an enclosed climate controlled blind, when one enters the woods they will incur nature and it's changable elements ( heat, cold, wind, percipitation, etc., which will vary depending on season and location ) as a part of hunting. 

-------------

With "internet hunting" one is looking through a camera lens which absolutely CAN NOT provide the same visual perspective as the naked eye.



Marvin said:


> A falacy once again. a one eyed man has not depth perception. you goona boot him too?


The depth perception falacy is yours. If a one eyed man has not depth perception then how can I close one eye and still distinguish various distances between objects ?

Also a person limited to sight in one eye will likely have more acute sight in that single eye than one with sight in both eyes. 

The visual perception differences between a camera lens and the human eye are not limited to depth perception. Please show me a camera lens which incurs peripherial vision.

----- 



Marvin said:


> still not a prerquisite to be a considered a hunter. you need not have a time element act as a filter as some tell me.... are you against accuracy?


Not sure exactly what Marvin was referring to, but in making a guess I believe he may be referring to the time that it takes for a signal to travel from mouse button to connected device (gun). I am not talking about time here as electrical current travels at the speed of light minus the resistance of the electrical conductor. The issue I am referring to is that in between the mouse button and that firearm located perhaps a great distance away are numerous factors all of which could affect signal transmitted from mouse to firearm which could fail. 

-----------

To add --- 

Does the person operating the mouse button incur the ability to hear a deer crunching dry leaves as it walks, or hear a snort wheeze ?

Does the person operating the mouse button incur the risk of squirrel showing up and starting to chatter giving away his presence ?

Does the person operating the mouse button incur the risk of making an inadvertant move ( i.e instinctively swatting a bug ) that may be detected by game.

Does the person operating the mouse button who may start passing gas incur the risk of last nights now reeking reminints of beans spooking game ?

Does the person operating the mouse button incur the typical adreneline rush that a conventional hunter experienced when a rack buck appears at a distance and perhaps walks into close shooting range ?


----------



## wmgn0evf

Hunting ethics aside, no one has yet mentioned that the "internet hunter" is relying on equipment (guns, cameras, ammo, servos to aim and fire gun,etc.) that he knows nothing about. What if the camera for some reason is not dead on with the sighting of the rifle? Is he familiar with the ballistics of the firearm being used. Can he tell what the distance from the rifle to the animal is? Most hunters (firearm and archery) are familiar with the majority of those factors in their own equipment because they have used and practiced with them. I am not familiar with the setup for "internet hunting", but I would wager there is not much familiarization or practice taking place, of it's even possible. To me that is as much an important and enjoyable part of the sport as the hunt is.

The ethics side is different for each individual. I would like to think that all hunters I know or converse with are ethical, but, that's like wishing that all politicians were ethical. It isn't going to happen. Fortunately, as to the posts that I have read on this forum, I can't say that I have read any that I feel are unethical. Hats off to those of you that probably feel about hunting as I do. For those of you that like to stir the pot, to get people thinking and discussing ideas, that's good too! It keeps the brain active and we can all learn from one another.


----------



## Marvin

Tim4Trout said:


> So called "internet hunting" takes away from the conventional challenges of hunting.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not attempting to personally dictate to others what specific challenges one must encounter. ( Stating for example that a bowhunter usually needs to get closer to his quarry than a rifle hunter is simply stating a fact of physics, and is not a dictation made by me. )
> 
> However even with the employment of controversial tactics which some hunters believe may take away from the challenge of hunting, there are still challenges incured by the conventional hunter using such tactics. ( The bow hunter using bait still has to incur the challenge of detection. )
> 
> Please tell me what challenges associated with conventional hunting, if any, that "internet hunting" also incurs. ( Aside from perhaps deciding whether or not to shoot. )
> 
> Sure, The animal can smell the gun, which can contains oil. no different that if he is in the stand. The animal also does not have to come into range either. The mobility of the internet rifle may be severely limited as opposed to the guy in the stand.
> 
> ---------
> 
> All forms of conventional deer hunting incur the challenge of the hunter possibility being seen, and/or heard, and/or scented and thus being detected by the deer. "Internet hunting" does not.
> 
> 
> While it may reduce the possibility, no scent elimination system employed, including using scent lock, can guarantee that one's presence will not be detected by a deer's nose.
> 
> and you cannot guarantee that they will be "invisible" to a preys nose either. If I hunt into the wind there is a ZERO percent chance that the animal will smell my presence either.
> 
> While it may place you out of a deer's normal sight picture, locating one's self high in a tree is also no guarantee that one will not be detected either.
> 
> Are you going to tell us that no hunter using scent lock and sitting high in a treestand has ever been busted ?
> 
> Are you saying scent lok does not work?? its a stupid and leading question anyway
> ----------------
> 
> In "internet hunting", there is no pre scouting or after shot follow up tracking by the person discharging the weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> While a guide will indeed do the pre season scouting ( I've never personally employed one ), and an animal ( depending on the shot ) may indeed drop where shot, are you going to tell us that a hunter employing a guide just sits there twiddling his thumbs after discharging his weapon and does not participate at all in the tracking of an animal shot which flees the scene after being shot ?
> 
> He surely can if thats what he pays for. Are you actually telling me that it does not happen?
> 
> May not vs Will not --- The primary difference between your guide reference and "internet hunting" is that when a guide is employed a hunter may not participate in certain aspects of the hunt, but when you have "internet hunting" the person behind the mouse button does not participate in those activities.
> 
> Tim, be honest, your definition of being a participant in the hunt should not be prtrayed onto others. How about wheel chair bound people? you think their out in front in rough terrain tracking a wounded animal? NO the guides or his friends are.
> -------
> 
> In "internet hunting", the "shooter" does not have to incur the elements which could affect the situation. ( i.e. having to sit for hours in perhaps less than desirable conditions, say for example cold temperatures which could cause one's fingers to go numb )
> 
> Really now. I seems to me a quite popular hunting methid in the south involves big square heated hunting boxes with comfy chairs. They even have scent elimination in them. its like shooting out of a house in residential subdivision.
> 
> 
> 
> While there is no law that states one "has" to hunt under certain conditions, unless one is perhaps seated in an enclosed climate controlled blind, when one enters the woods they will incur nature and it's changable elements ( heat, cold, wind, percipitation, etc., which will vary depending on season and location ) as a part of hunting.
> see above not a prerequistie to be a hunter. They can be driven out to the blind in a truck, turn on a the feeder, sit in the lazy boy in the blind and shoot a deer. Sound familiar? ( thanks Texas for the above description)
> -------------
> 
> With "internet hunting" one is looking through a camera lens which absolutely CAN NOT provide the same visual perspective as the naked eye.
> So? to each their own right?
> 
> 
> 
> The depth perception falacy is yours. If a one eyed man has not depth perception then how can I close one eye and still distinguish various distances between objects ?
> 
> Also a person limited to sight in one eye will likely have more acute sight in that single eye than one with sight in both eyes.
> 
> The visual perception differences between a camera lens and the human eye are not limited to depth perception. Please show me a camera lens which incurs peripherial vision. I Can't ( I have heard of a 3 d eye being created so you can see these things but its not on the market yet) but you show me where peripherial vision is a requirement. its is an advantage but not a requirement for some skill test.
> 
> -----
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure exactly what Marvin was referring to, but in making a guess I believe he may be referring to the time that it takes for a signal to travel from mouse button to connected device (gun). I am not talking about time here as electrical current travels at the speed of light minus the resistance of the electrical conductor. The issue I am referring to is that in between the mouse button and that firearm located perhaps a great distance away are numerous factors all of which could affect signal transmitted from mouse to firearm which could fail.
> 
> You can miss to or flinch. nothing is a gaurantee
> -----------
> 
> To add ---
> 
> Does the person operating the mouse button incur the ability to hear a deer crunching dry leaves as it walks, or hear a snort wheeze ?
> 
> Yes they can, my dad cannot hear these things without his game ears on. whats the difference? Deaf people are out no too i guess
> 
> Does the person operating the mouse button incur the risk of squirrel showing up and starting to chatter giving away his presence ?
> 
> HUH? Are you serious? were down to squirrels now...not good Tim
> 
> Does the person operating the mouse button incur the risk of making an inadvertant move ( i.e instinctively swatting a bug ) that may be detected by game.
> 
> This is going down hill for you fast Tim. In the dead of winter there are no bugs. Box blinds negate this prerequisite anyway.
> 
> Does the person operating the mouse button who may start passing gas incur the risk of last nights now reeking reminints of beans spooking game ?
> 
> I do not like beans that well so I cannot comment
> 
> Does the person operating the mouse button incur the typical adreneline rush that a conventional hunter experienced when a rack buck appears at a distance and perhaps walks into close shooting range ?


 not sure what other people experience. Since this is not been able to get off the ground its really had to make that determination. 

Next?


----------



## doctariAFC

Jim C said:


> So you want to ban stocked quail preserves?


Good question, JimC, and my answer is no. But this is one of the dangers of pushing to cease "canned hunts" and the definition of a canned hunt, which is why I brought up the bird preserves. The stance many hunters take concerning their displeasure and opposition to canned hunts typically involves big game animals, but we seem to have forgotten the small game/ upland bird elements to this issue as well.

To shed a little light on these preserves (birds) in NYS, many of these pheasant farms are the source of birds stocked by the NYS DEC. These birds are sold to the State at basically cost (@ $20.00/ adult bird). In order to make a profit, many preserves rely upon offering hunting opportunities to make their money to continue operations, and further their state stocking programs.

So this is why I injected this facet of game preserves into the discussion. We sometimes become so myopic when it comes to deer that we miss the entirity of hunting. This means caution must be exercised before we start pushing for laws. As Marvin said, we must avoid pushing so hard we end up getting our heads caught in the trap.

Marvin also touched on the right way to move forward with this battle against the WHA. This is something that must be recognized, and that is the Federated Conservation Clubs are the correct vehicle to go through. Here in NYS, the issue of the WHA was brought to the Erie County Federation, and our delegates to the New York State Conservation Council brought the issue to the state body to determine whether an emergency resolution should be drafted and presented to the 53 County Federations in NYS for a vote. The decision of the NYSCC board was unanimous in that indeed an emergency resolution was needed, and I was tasked to write the draft, but had to be cognizent of the current bill sitting in the NYS Assembly EnCon Committee considering a ban on any and all tournaments, be they big buck contests, woodchuck round ups, coyote competitions and all fishing tournaments. We obviously oppose this nonsensical bill, but cannot make our stand against the WHA based on their concept of a "Professional Hunting Tournament Circuit."

Sticky wicket, but in the case of the WHA, the draft resolution addressed the issues our organizations are vehemently opposed to, without jeopardizing our firm stance concerning the proposed ban on all hunting and fishing competitions.

So, again, let's for the sake of discussion pretend we are members of an organized lobby group fighting to protect hunting rights and heritage. How would we craft a proposal to address the canned hunts without cutting off our own noses to spite our face? The majority (overwhemling, might I add) are opposed to the WHA, and do not wish to see this get off the ground. How do we address this, address canned hunts, yet not jeopardize the other elements mentioned above?

Looking for input and ideas. We can then debate the ideas.


----------



## Jim C

There are several such preserves in my area-I am a member at one (mostly for the world class clays course-Quail Ridge Sportsmen's Club which holds several major shoots). CherryBend in Wilimington Ohio has been around half a century and when we lost most of our wild quail in the bad winters of 77-78 it was about the only place where one could take their dogs to hunt. Those birds are free to leave the premises-unlike a fenced deer. You ban that sort of place next thing people will be whining about stocked pay lakes or trout clubs

to me there is no reason to ban any of that stuff as long as the place is raising and buying the game (fencing in the public's animals is a different matter). That sort of government control over private property is an evil far worse than offending the sensibilities of some hunters whose main objections are based on $$$ envy


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> That sort of government control over private property is an evil far worse than offending the sensibilities of some hunters whose main objections are based on $$$ envy


What is it with you? 

This is another issue that has nothing to do with greed and everything to do with right vs wrong.


Notice that *the exact same rhetoric *used to defend crossbows, high fence, or anything else you anti-government folks feel is OK because it is allowed can be used to defend obviously improper methods such as internet hunting and WHA.

The only proper stand is to be against ALL these things and defend fair chase hunting, and particularly bowhunting ALL the time....that means standing up to oppose any offending method or equipment, even if it is currently allowed, based on what is right, with principles of fair chase guiding. 

As Free Range has pointed out, and as Marvin continues to sarcastically illustrate, the hypocritical waffling of all you "any legal method" advocates on what is OK and not OK is obvious to any objective observer.

You should step back and evaluate what is best for bowhunting - defending anything that anyone claims to be bowhunting? Or defending the historical integrity of bowhunting?


----------



## PMantle

doctariAFC said:


> Wow, I didn't know you could pursue something when not even in the same state. This applies to hunting, not shopping.
> 
> So, are we now relegating deer to the status of toys, to shopped for instead of hunted?


Poor analogy, but I don't support this type of activity anyway. Just surprised that some members here are being so inconsistent due to pet issues.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> What is it with you?
> 
> This is another issue that has nothing to do with greed and everything to do with right vs wrong.
> 
> 
> Notice that *the exact same rhetoric *used to defend crossbows, high fence, or anything else you anti-government folks feel is OK because it is allowed can be used to defend obviously improper methods such as internet hunting and WHA.
> 
> The only proper stand is to be against ALL these things and defend fair chase hunting, and particularly bowhunting ALL the time....that means standing up to oppose any offending method or equipment, even if it is currently allowed, based on what is right, with principles of fair chase guiding.
> 
> As Free Range has pointed out, and as Marvin continues to sarcastically illustrate, the hypocritical waffling of all you "any legal method" advocates on what is OK and not OK is obvious to any objective observer.
> 
> You should step back and evaluate what is best for bowhunting - defending anything that anyone claims to be bowhunting? Or defending the historical integrity of bowhunting?


Stuff it source-your leghumpin is getting tiring. I am not defending high fence hunting. I am saying that if you and your elitist ilk ban stuff you don't like it leads to a slippery slope where anything people don't like-including hunting-is banned. Your cultlike devotion to your warped views of what is right is pathetic and I tire of your nonsense

We have already seen that your concept of Fair Chase is a restrictive bunch of BS based on greed, elitism, bigotry and psychobabble. I couldn't care what your standards are since they intefere with honest people enjoying recreational activities. IF SOMEONE wants to raise WOMBATS and hunt them in his own private game preserve I see NO REASON TO MAKE THAT ILLEGAL


----------



## doctariAFC

thesource said:


> What is it with you?
> 
> This is another issue that has nothing to do with greed and everything to do with right vs wrong.
> 
> 
> Notice that *the exact same rhetoric *used to defend crossbows, high fence, or anything else you anti-government folks feel is OK because it is allowed can be used to defend obviously improper methods such as internet hunting and WHA.
> 
> The only proper stand is to be against ALL these things and defend fair chase hunting, and particularly bowhunting ALL the time....that means standing up to oppose any offending method or equipment, even if it is currently allowed, based on what is right, with principles of fair chase guiding.
> 
> As Free Range has pointed out, and as Marvin continues to sarcastically illustrate, the hypocritical waffling of all you "any legal method" advocates on what is OK and not OK is obvious to any objective observer.
> 
> You should step back and evaluate what is best for bowhunting - defending anything that anyone claims to be bowhunting? Or defending the historical integrity of bowhunting?


This is a prime example of myopathy.


----------



## Jim C

doctariAFC said:


> This is a prime example of myopathy.


muscular disorders? there are other words for it that fit better but I don't feel like getting tossed from the Legislative forum. What we are dealing with is religious like fervor and serious self esteem issues that cause certain people to feel as if their self worth is threatened if others don't buy into their beliefs


----------



## doctariAFC

Jim C said:


> muscular disorders? there are other words for it that fit better but I don't feel like getting tossed from the Legislative forum. What we are dealing with is religious like fervor and serious self esteem issues that cause certain people to feel as if their self worth is threatened if others don't buy into their beliefs


That big muscle between the ears? :devil:

It also reinforces the "we are our own worst enemies" observation. We need to fight to protect hunting, not individual facets of hunting alone. When we simply focus on bowhunting, or deer hunting, we lose. Each facet of hunting certainly needs the attention and protection, but must be done in the context of furthering the sport of hunting, be it big game, small game, waterfowl, bow, firearm and black powder.

WHat negatively affects one piece, negatively affects the whole.

Now, back to the table, ideas on addressing canned hunts effectively? Or do we need some more education on the entirity of the issues, what affects proposed legislation could have on unintended consequences? What efforts are currently underway, which could creatively submarine the entirity of hunting? What are the needs so we can actually accomplish some sort of beneficial dialog on this very important issue?


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> Stuff it source-your leghumpin is getting tiring. I am not defending high fence hunting. I am saying that if you and your elitist ilk ban stuff you don't like it leads to a slippery slope where anything people don't like-including hunting-is banned. Your cultlike devotion to your warped views of what is right is pathetic and I tire of your nonsense. We have already seen that your concept of Fair Chase is a restrictive bunch of BS based on greed, elitism, bigotry and psychobabble.


I tire of your slander and your nonsense.



Jim C said:


> I couldn't care what your standards are since they intefere with honest people enjoying recreational activities.


THAT seems the slippery slope to me. "Recreational acivities" is a broadly defined category with ample opportunity for impropriety.

The fact is that our "recreational activity" of bowhunting is highly regulated, everywhere, and for good reason. Your ultralibertarian rabblerousing is inaccurate.

There are rules, and there should be rules. You must agree with that, or be proven an anarchist.


----------



## Free Range

Myopathy?? I looked this up, my-op-a-thy (noun) 
Any disease of the muscles or muscle tissue. 

Doc, you have to remember you are talking to bowhunters, most of us aren’t as literate as you. LOL

And Jim, your anything goes stand is sickening to say the least. It is exactly this kind of reasoning that has brought us, the WHA and internet hunting, and a host of other sicknesses to our sport. I understand the fear of banning everything and jumping to action to quickly, and the risk of writing a poor law, that ends up biting us in the back side. But to make a whole sale statement like, who cares what others do on their property, is short sighted and what has lead to the situation we are in today. 

And as for canned hunts v shooting preserves for birds, it’s pretty simple the birds do have a chance to escape, even if it’s slim, personally I don’t like them, but it’s not like the birds are in a pen and can’t get away.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> I tire of your slander and your nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> THAT seems the slippery slope to me. "Recreational acivities" is a broadly defined category with ample opportunity for impropriety.
> 
> The fact is that our "recreational activity" of bowhunting is highly regulated, everywhere, and for good reason. Your ultralibertarian rabblerousing is inaccurate.
> 
> There are rules, and there should be rules. You must agree with that, or be proven an anarchist.



laws based on what you think is right would lead to the creation of a fascist state. Your blather is again psychobabble and you neither have the credibility or standing to tell others that they ought to follow your warped sense of values. If you don't want to go to those game farms and shoot impalas, wombats, giant aardvarks, tapirs, sloths or whatever else they might choose to raise-then don't do it. You push for laws banning such places you are helping PETA ban stocked fishing ponds and quail preserves.


----------



## Jim C

Free Range said:


> Myopathy?? I looked this up, my-op-a-thy (noun)
> Any disease of the muscles or muscle tissue.
> 
> Doc, you have to remember you are talking to bowhunters, most of us aren’t as literate as you. LOL
> 
> And Jim, your anything goes stand is sickening to say the least. It is exactly this kind of reasoning that has brought us, the WHA and internet hunting, and a host of other sicknesses to our sport. I understand the fear of banning everything and jumping to action to quickly, and the risk of writing a poor law, that ends up biting us in the back side. But to make a whole sale statement like, who cares what others do on their property, is short sighted and what has lead to the situation we are in today.
> 
> And as for canned hunts v shooting preserves for birds, it’s pretty simple the birds do have a chance to escape, even if it’s slim, personally I don’t like them, but it’s not like the birds are in a pen and can’t get away.


I have no use for fascists. I know that there are people who want to ban all hunting. Internet "hunting" is not hunting. I have NO PROBLEM with it being LEGAL for someone to RAISE exotics and get paid by others to hunt them. I don't consider much of that "sporting" but I have no reason to have laws against it. you ban that you can use such laws to ban stocked fish ponds or "driven" bird shoots (which are popular in Englard for example). 

what is short sighted is egotists who think that they are the only pure hunters seeking to impose their psychological problems on others


----------



## doctariAFC

Free Range said:


> Myopathy?? I looked this up, my-op-a-thy (noun)
> Any disease of the muscles or muscle tissue.
> 
> Doc, you have to remember you are talking to bowhunters, most of us aren’t as literate as you. LOL
> 
> And Jim, your anything goes stand is sickening to say the least. It is exactly this kind of reasoning that has brought us, the WHA and internet hunting, and a host of other sicknesses to our sport. I understand the fear of banning everything and jumping to action to quickly, and the risk of writing a poor law, that ends up biting us in the back side. But to make a whole sale statement like, who cares what others do on their property, is short sighted and what has lead to the situation we are in today.
> 
> And as for canned hunts v shooting preserves for birds, it’s pretty simple the birds do have a chance to escape, even if it’s slim, personally I don’t like them, but it’s not like the birds are in a pen and can’t get away.


Yeah, I used that word for a reason. Muscle spasms caused by singularly focusing a la tunnel vision on one particular component, causing a loss of vision and realization of the entirity of the issue. Apologies for the cryptic use of words..... 

Now, the bird hunts and big game hunts are obviously very different, yet without cognitive consideration of these facts, the tendency demonstrated typically pits one hunter group against another come legislation time. This is not a good condition to contend with, and if we cannot clearly see the big picture, all the little pictures end up resembling a broken glass on the floor, instead of a kaleidescope blending together delivering something truly magnificent.

Until we can work together to further the future of hunting, and more importantly, the practices of conservation, we will continualy be subject to an inability to reach a consensus for the good of the whole, choosing to sacrifice the whole for the individual parts.

Then we have the realities of many States choosing to regulate game farms and preserves as agricultural entities, eliminating the Conservation Department's jurisdiction over a specific offered hunt, because of the "farm" designation. Perhaps this is something that needs to be addressed, and this is the way to do it? Those preserves or game farms which operate as true famrs, harvesting animals for meat for restaurants and scent production, but do not offer any kind of hunting, do indeed fall under agriculture regulations. However, if these game farms offer hunts for fee, their classification as a "farm" no longer applies in terms of regulating hunting, and all hunting on said property would then fall under the jurisdiction and regulations set forth by the DEC, DNR, F&G Dept, etc.?

Is this a good starting point?


----------



## Marvin

Jim C said:


> I have no use for fascists. I know that there are people who want to ban all hunting. Internet "hunting" is not hunting. I have NO PROBLEM with it being LEGAL for someone to RAISE exotics and get paid by others to hunt them. I don't consider much of that "sporting" but I have no reason to have laws against it. you ban that you can use such laws to ban stocked fish ponds or "driven" bird shoots (which are popular in Englard for example).
> 
> what is short sighted is egotists who think that they are the only pure hunters seeking to impose their psychological problems on others


Jim is there any way that you can see a legal way to seperate these shooting preserves from hunting. if we could just seperate them form the same meaning we might stand a chance as a hunting community and private land owner rights.


----------



## Jim C

Marvin said:


> Jim is there any way that you can see a legal way to seperate these shooting preserves from hunting. if we could just seperate them form the same meaning we might stand a chance as a hunting community and private land owner rights.


I really don't get hung up in the terms. You have to have a preserve license to go on one of these things in Indiana and its not a license that entitles you to hunt wild game (for example, at Quail ridge you can't shoot rabbit with a preserve license since they don't raise or stock rabbit). In England, hunting (which is now banned) was pursuing game with hounds-driven bird shoots are called "shooting".

If I go out in my stocked artificial (I paid a contractor to dig it) pond and fish I call it fishing-just the same as if I go to the local river and drown some worms. only difference is that I need a state fishing license for the latter.

Most of source's whining is based on how he thinks other people with perceive his status as a "hunter". He gets upset that someone might think he uses a crossbow if crossbow hunters are part of archery season hunters. Now he has his ego bruised if someone might think he hunted a deer in a fenced in piece of property.


----------



## Marvin

Jim C said:


> I really don't get hung up in the terms. You have to have a preserve license to go on one of these things in Indiana and its not a license that entitles you to hunt wild game (for example, at Quail ridge you can't shoot rabbit with a preserve license since they don't raise or stock rabbit). In England, hunting (which is now banned) was pursuing game with hounds-driven bird shoots are called "shooting".
> 
> If I go out in my stocked artificial (I paid a contractor to dig it) pond and fish I call it fishing-just the same as if I go to the local river and drown some worms. only difference is that I need a state fishing license for the latter.
> 
> Most of source's whining is based on how he thinks other people with perceive his status as a "hunter". He gets upset that someone might think he uses a crossbow if crossbow hunters are part of archery season hunters. Now he has his ego bruised if someone might think he hunted a deer in a fenced in piece of property.



The state gets the money from the preserve license right? that might be a start. I don't like fencing a piece of property and calling it hunting is my hang up. Shooting , okay with me. I have been to pheasnt preserves and thats about all I can call them. any time you can knock a pheasant dead with a 28 gauge and #6 shot is not hunting, shooting yes.... maybe a seperate license is needed for them and that way distinctions can be made between fenced and unfenced game?


----------



## Engelsmung

Jim C said:


> If I go out in my stocked artificial (I paid a contractor to dig it) pond and fish I call it fishing-just the same as if I go to the local river and drown some worms. only difference is that I need a state fishing license for the latter.


I suspect state fish & game laws apply to your private pond, just like they apply to private property. So you'd need a license at home too. Theoretically, any law could affect your right to do what you want with your property, but as long as that is not an unreasonable taking, you have to suck it up. Reasonable differences in opinion as to what should and should not be allowed can exist, and will not create a slippery slope leading to the total ban of hunting.


----------



## Free Range

> Then we have the realities of many States choosing to regulate game farms and preserves as agricultural entities, eliminating the Conservation Department's jurisdiction over a specific offered hunt, because of the "farm" designation. Perhaps this is something that needs to be addressed, and this is the way to do it? Those preserves or game farms which operate as true famrs, harvesting animals for meat for restaurants and scent production, but do not offer any kind of hunting, do indeed fall under agriculture regulations. However, if these game farms offer hunts for fee, their classification as a "farm" no longer applies in terms of regulating hunting, and all hunting on said property would then fall under the jurisdiction and regulations set forth by the DEC, DNR, F&G Dept, etc.?
> 
> Is this a good starting point?



Yes a good starting point, Farming is a completely different subject, and I have no problem with Jim raising wombats for slaughter or to harvest their urine to make some fancy perfume for lawyers. That has nothing to do with hunting or canned hunts. 

It does get confusing when you try to write laws for or against these things, like you said you must look at the whole picture and make sure it isn’t written in a way that will restrict another form of hunting. 

Although Source and I disagree on the high fence issue, it wouldn’t be hard to designate a size limit on the acreage that can be within a high fence. Say anything under 10000 acres, animals must be turned in to the enclosure a certain number of days before they can be “hunted” , can’t be tied, chained or other wise restricted from free movement within the property, can’t be drugged, just a few things that come to mind. 

It is a shame we even have to have this discussion, if not for the anything goes crowd that have no real clue what hunting is about, we wouldn’t have to define hunting, fair chase, or what a darn bow is, for that matter.


----------



## Jim C

Engelsmung said:


> I suspect state fish & game laws apply to your private pond, just like they apply to private property. So you'd need a license at home too. Theoretically, any law could affect your right to do what you want with your property, but as long as that is not an unreasonable taking, you have to suck it up. Reasonable differences in opinion as to what should and should not be allowed can exist, and will not create a slippery slope leading to the total ban of hunting.



nope, not in ohio. If you shoot a deer on your land, you still have to check it in but you don't need a state issued tag. Now as to ducks and other migratory game you might. I just know the deer rules.


----------



## Jim C

the biggest problem is people who want to restrict the activities of others for selfish reasons and then in order to camoflauge those selfish reasons start claiming that their hunting-fascism is based on some noble sounding goals like "fair chase". We have already seen Source's blather as to xbows etc so that's why I tend to reject this sort of argument


----------



## Marvin

Jim C said:


> nope, not in ohio. If you shoot a deer on your land, you still have to check it in but you don't need a state issued tag. Now as to ducks and other migratory game you might. I just know the deer rules.


migratory is federal. yes you have to have your stamps


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> Most of source's whining is based on how he thinks other people with perceive his status as a "hunter".


For once, you are almost close to being right.

I am concerned about how ALL of us are perceived as hunters.

I am concerned that ethically challenged scumbags will ruin it for the rest for us, that "hunters" who never learned the difference between what is right and what is wrong will pollute hunting with improper and unfair equipment and tactics to the point that noone can see the intrinsic value of hunting anymore.

While you "big tent" theorists worry and wring your hands and panic that anti-hunters are the biggest threat to hunting and that they will bring hunting down from the outside, I worry that eroding hunter ethics and integrity will bring hunting crashing down from the inside.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> For once, you are almost close to being right.
> 
> I am concerned about how ALL of us are perceived as hunters.
> 
> I am concerned that ethically challenged scumbags will ruin it for the rest for us, that "hunters" who never learned the difference between what is right and what is wrong will pollute hunting with improper and unfair equipment and tactics to the point that noone can see the intrinsic value of hunting anymore.
> 
> While you "big tent" theorists worry and wring your hands and panic that anti-hunters are the biggest threat to hunting and that they will bring hunting down from the outside, I worry that eroding hunter ethics and integrity will bring hunting crashing down from the inside.



no source, you have self esteem issues that go way beyond trying to protect the image of hunters. You have proven those mental issues by defaming and slandering crossbow archers by calling them "Cheaters" "lazy" and claiming their trophies don't count as much as animals taken with compound bows

You clearly have no problem with defaming thousands of legitimate fellow hunters merely to protect your own fragile self image

anti hunters want to ban all hunting. having people like you attack fellow hunters gives them a foothold as to where to start their assault


----------



## thesource

doctariAFC said:


> Until we can work together to further the future of hunting, and more importantly, the practices of conservation, we will continualy be subject to an inability to reach a consensus for the good of the whole, choosing to sacrifice the whole for the individual parts.


I challenge you to do some deeper soul searching as to what is actually good for the whole. Blindly defending each and every thing that anyone wants to call "hunting" isn't the answer.


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> no source, you have self esteem issues that go way beyond trying to protect the image of hunters. You have proven those mental issues by defaming and slandering crossbow archers by calling them "Cheaters" "lazy" and claiming their trophies don't count as much as animals taken with compound bows
> 
> You clearly have no problem with defaming thousands of legitimate fellow hunters merely to protect your own fragile self image
> 
> anti hunters want to ban all hunting. having people like you attack fellow hunters gives them a foothold as to where to start their assault


Jim - stop lawyering and get serious. Your quotes are taken totally out of context for the purposes of character assination and scoring imaginary points. Sad.

Besides .... here would be no need to call them anything if they stayed where they belonged.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> I challenge you to do some deeper soul searching as to what is actually good for the whole. Blindly defending each and every thing that anyone wants to call "hunting" isn't the answer.



he doesn't do that so you are lying. Your defamation of thousands of hunters who use a form of bow that threatens your manhood hurts hunting far worse than anything Doc has advocated. What you think is good for hunting is not based on an objective evaluation supported by facts-rather its generated by your own well established self esteem issues


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Jim - stop lawyering and get serious. Your quotes are taken totally out of context for the purposes of character assination and scoring imaginary points. Sad.
> 
> Besides .... here would be no need to call them anything if they stayed where they belonged.


so you are trying to backpedal from your scurrillous comments thrown at crossbow archers? what context did you call them "lazy" "cheaters" etc in?


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> he doesn't do that so you are lying. Your defamation of thousands of hunters who use a form of bow that threatens your manhood hurts hunting far worse than anything Doc has advocated. What you think is good for hunting is not based on an objective evaluation supported by facts-rather its generated by your own well established self esteem issues


No one was talking to you, butt-in-ski. 

When I want your opinion, I'll ask you for it.

Mind your manners.


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> so you are trying to backpedal from your scurrillous comments thrown at crossbow archers? what context did you call them "lazy" "cheaters" etc in?


Look it up the context yourself - wouldn't want to have to consider you lazy!!!!! 

I am not backpedaling from any comment, I believe most are accurate. I consider the vast majority of your replies to be scurrilous as well (and inaccurate, I might add), so tell me - you feel the need to backpedal from the "elitist, cultist, apartheid, bigot, selfish, greedy" bowhunter bashing comments?

What a joke.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> No one was talking to you, butt-in-ski.
> 
> When I want your opinion, I'll ask you for it.
> 
> Mind your manners.


LOL-that's funny coming from a guy whose almost total "contributions" on AT is whining about Xbows. I am not here to correct your false claims and remedy your illness, I merely use you as an example of what is wrong with some in bowhunting (or pretend to be bowhunters) and why such attitudes are bad for hunting and archery.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Look it up the context yourself - wouldn't want to have to consider you lazy!!!!!
> 
> I am not backpedaling from any comment, I believe most are accurate. I consider the vast majority of your replies to be scurrilous as well (and inaccurate, I might add), so tell me - you feel the need to backpedal from the "elitist, cultist, apartheid, bigot, selfish, greedy" bowhunter bashing comments?
> 
> What a joke.



No, I don't backpedal. all those terms I have used I still claim are accurate. they aren't bashing bowhunters in general, just elitist, cultist, bigoted, greedy and selfish ones. If the shoe fits-------

BTW I don't think when those are applied to you involve bashing a BOWHUNTER:wink:


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> No, I don't backpedal. all those terms I have used I still claim are accurate. they aren't bashing bowhunters in general, just elitist, cultist, bigoted, greedy and selfish ones.



Riiiiight. Just so we're clear, that would be anyone who dares to disagree with any of your radical and activist opinions, right?


----------



## doctariAFC

thesource said:


> I challenge you to do some deeper soul searching as to what is actually good for the whole. Blindly defending each and every thing that anyone wants to call "hunting" isn't the answer.


Source, I am not blindly supporting or opposing anything, as the content of my posts clearly show.

On the other hand, you are myopically fixated solely on bowhunting whitetail deer, with zero awareness of the balance of hunting sports and seasons on the whole.

We face a great many challenges, some of which I have clearly illustrated, and am seeking some input. JimC, Marvin and Free Range have stepped up, and you "challenge (me) to do some deeper soul searching as to what is actually good for the whole?"

Knee jerk reactions and focusing solely on bowhunting whitetail deer is in no means a platform to even remotely understand and account for the good of the whole. I do not know you extent of involvement in NYS concerning the legislative process, but you might wish to do some research, or regularly attend your County Federation meetings and take some notes. I can certainly invite you to an Erie County Federation meeting or two. Better still, go and visit the Erie County Federation Website and read the general meeting minutes.

Then, after you have received your precursory education, come on back and let's debate and discuss how to best accomplish prtections of hunting on the whole.


----------



## Engelsmung

Jim C said:


> nope, not in ohio. If you shoot a deer on your land, you still have to check it in but you don't need a state issued tag. Now as to ducks and other migratory game you might. I just know the deer rules.


Interesting. In Louisiana, game laws apply to public and private land, with certain limited legislative exceptions created for specific exotic game farms that have axis & fallow deer, plus a few private pheasant & duck hunting preserves that raise their own birds to shoot. 

Weapons used are strictly regulated(eg. no spears, guns .22 or smaller can be used for deer hunting; nothing larger than a 10 ga can be used to hunt, etc.). I hear that in some areas up north they can't use rifles to hunt. Every state has regulations that may or may not meet with your approval.

We go back to my atl-atl theory, which is that if a large, vocal group of hunters demanded the right to use spears w/atl-atls, they can get legislation passed. The rest of the public would have a right to voice their opinion thru their state rep as to whether that should happen. Same with crossbows. The BSBA is against crossbows, and they are the only real lobbying organization for bowhunters. Crossbow guys have been successful getting included in other states, and if there was enough push for it here, it would fly...but there isn't.

Anyhow, La banned internet hunting. Go pat your legislator on the back for working so hard this session. Good job, Punkinhead.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Riiiiight. Just so we're clear, that would be anyone who dares to disagree with any of your radical and activist opinions, right?



its interesting to watch how your mind works. a few months ago you latched on to "radical" as your buzz word. I pointed out that radical means a break with the past and given that crossbow advocates have copied what compound archers and advocates did thirty plus years ago, that is hardly "radical" and given that Ohio, Arkansas and some of the most populated areas of Canada have treated xbows the same as compounds for deer hunting, my suggestion that this paradigm spread is hardly radical

your position is tradional source. Greed has been around for ages and even the first few books of the Bible speak of envy


----------



## Jim C

Engelsmung said:


> Interesting. In Louisiana, game laws apply to public and private land, with certain limited legislative exceptions created for specific exotic game farms that have axis & fallow deer, plus a few private pheasant & duck hunting preserves that raise their own birds to shoot.
> 
> Weapons used are strictly regulated(eg. no spears, guns .22 or smaller can be used for deer hunting; nothing larger than a 10 ga can be used to hunt, etc.). I hear that in some areas up north they can't use rifles to hunt. Every state has regulations that may or may not meet with your approval.
> 
> We go back to my atl-atl theory, which is that if a large, vocal group of hunters demanded the right to use spears w/atl-atls, they can get legislation passed. The rest of the public would have a right to voice their opinion thru their state rep as to whether that should happen. Same with crossbows. The BSBA is against crossbows, and they are the only real lobbying organization for bowhunters. Crossbow guys have been successful getting included in other states, and if there was enough push for it here, it would fly...but there isn't.
> 
> Anyhow, La banned internet hunting. Go pat your legislator on the back for working so hard this session. Good job, Punkinhead.



it is true in ohio that you must follow the rules of hunting on your own property and there are bag limits. You can't use rifles, jacklights etc-you can't shoot more than a half hour before sunup or after sunset etc.


----------



## kraven

DoctariAFC:


> let's debate and discuss how to best accomplish protections of hunting on the whole.


Source:


> I am concerned that ethically challenged scumbags will ruin it for the rest for us, that "hunters" who never learned the difference between what is right and what is wrong will pollute hunting with improper and unfair equipment and tactics to the point that noone can see the intrinsic value of hunting anymore.
> 
> While you "big tent" theorists worry and wring your hands and panic that anti-hunters are the biggest threat to hunting and that they will bring hunting down from the outside, I worry that eroding hunter ethics and integrity will bring hunting crashing down from the inside.


 These are my worries also. 
ethics seem to be steered by excuses for a certain action, rather than ethics steering choices within the community. I find this unfortunate and I worry where it will lead us since we can't seem to stop fragmenting.


----------



## Free Range

> your position is tradional source. Greed has been around for ages and even the first few books of the Bible speak of envy


Like the envy of bow season you have, and the greed to take it over??? Very good Jim, I think you’re on to something.
:darkbeer:


----------



## Jim C

Free Range said:


> Like the envy of bow season you have, and the greed to take it over??? Very good Jim, I think you’re on to something.
> :darkbeer:



nice try but again a stupid comment. try to stay relevant rather than sinking into a source of nothingness


----------



## doctariAFC

kraven said:


> DoctariAFC:
> 
> Source:
> 
> These are my worries also.
> ethics seem to be steered by excuses for a certain action, rather than ethics steering choices within the community. I find this unfortunate and I worry where it will lead us since we can't seem to stop fragmenting.


Kraven, well observed. Perhaps the fragmentation really begins with how these sports are regulated, at each specific state level. DO NOT MISUNDERSTAND, the state level governance of hunting and angling is the RIGHT WAY TO GO! The last thing we wish to see is the Federal Government stepping in and dictating to each state what the game laws need to be.

However, a rift in ethics does begin at the State level, and how each State's hunting regulations differ on some very sensitive areas, such as baiting, using dogs, using electronic calls, etc., etc. These differences will be inherent with the system of government and separation of powers we have established through the Constitution. I personally am opposed to baiting. Michigan hunters have been allowed to bait for many moons, and the ethics of this practice in that State apply to hunters in that State. I neither support nor oppose this regulation, as I live in NYS, and, although I would fight bitterly any change in game laws that would allow baiting in NYS, the Michigan Hunters need to address (or not address) use of bait during deer season.

Ditto for running deer with dogs, or running bear with dogs. The dog issue is something of a wonderment, as I am certain those who got that passed in their respective states compared use of dogs in big game season as no different than using dogs to hunt rabbit, pheasant, quail and grouse?

Regardless, I find it pointless and unproductive for our cause Nationally to get wrapped up in some specific state-by-state hunting regulation differences that we, in other states, find disagreeable (at best).

In terms of the Anti's, this crowd is extremely dangerous. Not so much in their moonbat beliefs. They alone have no effectiveness and facts kill them every time. HOWEVER, we also have a group of folks in power who wish to assault the 2nd Amendment. The largest reason for our 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms remains as our right is directly due to hunters and hunting. And those who wish to disarm law-abining Americans understand this to be the case, and if hunting can be extremely limited or stopped altogether, the 2nd Amendment would be in serious jeopardy, indeed.

The Anti's, therefore, do enjoy a strange sort of alliance with the left wing, as each group's agenda serves the other's. Couple this very real condition with the fact that the ARA's are very well organized and UNITED in their fight to "protect animals" (yeah, right), while we sit here as a far more powerful group splintered and bickering over factionalized concerns, and we have what we have.

Ethics are extremely important to the sport. IMHO, the order of importance is the sports of hunting and fishing , conservation practices, health of the herds and flocks and fish, health of habitat to support healthy herds, flocks and fish, education as to the importance of the above mentioned elements. The personal ethical pissing contests fall well behind the above mentioned points. After all, if we place our personal ideas of what is ethical as more important than the above mentioned elements, our priorities have become warped and we risk losing the sports altogether. At that point those who got their priorities mixed up will learn that ethical arguments become pretty pointless when the heritage the ethics pertain to is lost, true or false?


----------



## Marvin

kraven said:


> DoctariAFC:
> 
> Source:
> 
> These are my worries also.
> ethics seem to be steered by excuses for a certain action, rather than ethics steering choices within the community. I find this unfortunate and I worry where it will lead us since we can't seem to stop fragmenting.


This is probably the biggest folly of our generations will have if it all comes to an end. There is clearly no ON VOICE that speaks for bowhunters. hunters on the other hand have a leg up and give us fragmented bowhunters support when we need. Can we find one voice? I do not think so. I believe our time has pasted due to regions of the country and how they chase deer. Passion has a lot to play into the equations too. Nobody is willing to set aside thier beliefs aside, should they? not sure yet.


----------



## Jim C

I wonder what truly motivates one set of hunters to whine about other forms of hunting

1) an honest belief that not only are some hunting methods (or trapping-lots of hunters I know put down trapping) "unsporting" but its so "unfair" it has to be banned

2) a throw grandma to the wolves attitude that these hunters will somehow curry favor with the anti hunters by sacrificing the forms of hunting they don't engage in (I saw this as counsel for a gun club-several trapshooters wanted to publicly support a city semi-auto ban hoping the city parasites (er politicians) would then leave their perazzi trap guns alone)

3) Greed-less people hunting means less people in "their" woods

4) self esteem issues-they pretend to be pure hunters and they don't want ignorant members of the public confusing their "ubersporting" activities with say a baiter, a dog hunter or a "lazy, cheating crossbow" hunter?

I think all are at play. I have seen direct proof of all

all suck equally IMHO


----------



## kraven

> At that point those who got their priorities mixed up will learn that ethical arguments become pretty pointless when the heritage the ethics pertain to is lost, true or false?


 I think this is likely one of the best statements I've seen so far on the subject. 



> This is probably the biggest folly of our generations will have if it all comes to an end. There is clearly no ON VOICE that speaks for bowhunters. hunters on the other hand have a leg up and give us fragmented bowhunters support when we need. Can we find one voice? I do not think so. I believe our time has pasted due to regions of the country and how they chase deer. Passion has a lot to play into the equations too. Nobody is willing to set aside thier beliefs aside, should they? not sure yet.


And, Marvin's unvarnished look at the present state of things. Bringing these two ideas together paints a bleak picture for Bowhunting and hunting in general. 

We each need one voice in our State level legislature with a national or international body to give a stabilizing presence, I'd say. Granted, each State or region will have its own cultural expressions for what hunting "is" and "is not" which results in different legislature. But, at some point, we have to stop bickering and start working on a plan. 
I share a lot of the same ethics that have been expressed toward baiting and dogs and other issues. And, what's more, I believe that the fence riding non-hunters have these same beliefs, as evinced by the LA decision to outlaw point and click hunting. Lay people voted that into law in more than one state, and it's a barometer of sorts that point to an underlying ethos in the average guy. 
Perhaps if we use this underlying ethos of right and wrong in the general public, are willing to give up a thing or two (like baiting, etc.) to assure a hunting future, we can adopt non-hunters to the cause of, at the very least, voting with us. 
That would be something.

sorry, didn't have time for a short coherent post.


----------



## thesource

kraven said:


> Perhaps if we use this underlying ethos of right and wrong in the general public, are willing to give up a thing or two (like baiting, etc.) to assure a hunting future, we can adopt non-hunters to the cause of, at the very least, voting with us.
> That would be something.



THAT is exactly the point. It is the non-hunter that will determine hunting's future....not the stupid ARF left and not the un-apologetic "big tent" right.

It is THESE people we need to ensure hunting's future. THEY do not share the ultra-libertarian view that any legal method is OK. THEY understand Fair Chase at a far deeper level than it appears that some here do. They know, in THEIR gut, what is right and what is wrong.

We had better understand THEIR perception of hunting, what THEY feel is proper and fair (fair chase), and we had better listen.

We depend on THEM for hunting's very existence...not the radical 5% on either fringe...the 90% in the middle.

The principle of Fair Chase is understood, if not articulated, by the vast majority of the citizens in this country. WE had better pay attention....


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> I wonder what truly motivates one set of hunters to whine about other forms of hunting
> 
> 1) an honest belief that not only are some hunting methods (or trapping-lots of hunters I know put down trapping) "unsporting" but its so "unfair" it has to be banned
> 
> all suck equally IMHO


So we can officially count you as one who thinks fair chase sucks ..... Nice.


----------



## thesource

doctariAFC said:


> The Anti's, therefore, do enjoy a strange sort of alliance with the left wing, as each group's agenda serves the other's. Couple this very real condition with the fact that the ARA's are very well organized and UNITED in their fight to "protect animals" (yeah, right), while we sit here as a far more powerful group splintered and bickering over factionalized concerns, and we have what we have.


The Anti's ARE the left wing....duh.

We must preserve the INTEGRITY of hunting as we are busy protecting hunting......it is totally in vain if we do not.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> So we can officially count you as one who thinks fair chase sucks ..... Nice.



count me as one who thinks your selfish and bigoted view of fair chase sucks. anyone who calls thousands of other fellow hunters "lazy" "cheaters" and claims their trophies aren't worth as much as other bowhunters' trophies" doesn't have a sense of values that I care to acknowledge as worthwhile


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> The Anti's ARE the left wing....duh.
> 
> We must preserve the INTEGRITY of hunting as we are busy protecting hunting......it is totally in vain if we do not.



you do not protect the integrity of hunting by insulting hunters merely because they use a type of bow that causes you ego problems source. The only people who bash xbows etc are other hunters. stuff that non-hunters (as opposed to ARC loonies) bash is stuff that all of us hunters may think about but the only people who bash xbows in archery season are poop and dung, the odious PBS etc


----------



## kraven

Source,
You said a mouthful.


> The principle of Fair Chase is understood, if not articulated, by the vast majority of the citizens in this country. WE had better pay attention....





> We must preserve the INTEGRITY of hunting as we are busy protecting hunting......it is totally in vain if we do not.


----------



## Marvin

kraven said:


> Source,
> You said a mouthful.


He usually does Kraven, But there has to be some middle or common ground that we must lay down our defenses of "difference"to come together before we are forced to. If it comes to a force issue, I think we lose because we will be starting off the 8-ball already. Hunting must stay honorable in the end of we are to stand a chance. Heck I'd let every crossbow in every state if we could get rid of fences and leasing. Maybe thats something to build with.


----------



## kraven

> We had better understand THEIR perception of hunting, what THEY feel is proper and fair (fair chase), and we had better listen.
> 
> We depend on THEM for hunting's very existence...


 Additionally, I would add that this exercise in gaining the public's collective support would not have to be one sided. Tapping into the general sentiment about ethics may provide an anchor point in the collective unconcious for the values in our ranks which have drifted dramatically over the last 50 or so years due to commercialization and technology. 
Maybe we should be looking for a give and take relationship instead of simply what we can get for ourselves in terms of support.
But, that's a whole other topic.


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> the only people who bash xbows in archery season are poop and dung, the odious PBS etc



WRONG.

At least in my experience, MOST people (hunter and non-hunter alike, the vast majority of whom do not belong to either P&Y or PBS) feel that xbows have no place in current bowseasons.

Your experience may be different - that does not diminish my experience.

In MY world - YOU are the odd man out.


----------



## thesource

kraven said:


> Additionally, I would add that this exercise in gaining the public's collective support would not have to be one sided. Tapping into the general sentiment about ethics may provide an anchor point in the collective unconcious for the values in our ranks which have drifted dramatically over the last 50 or so years due to commercialization and technology.
> Maybe we should be looking for a give and take relationship instead of simply what we can get for ourselves in terms of support.
> But, that's a whole other topic.


But it is a worthwhile topic.

Hunters should not be afraid to examine the state of the union, don't you agree?


----------



## Marvin

kraven said:


> Additionally, I would add that this exercise in gaining the public's collective support would not have to be one sided. Tapping into the general sentiment about ethics may provide an anchor point in the collective unconcious for the values in our ranks which have drifted dramatically over the last 50 or so years due to commercialization and technology.
> Maybe we should be looking for a give and take relationship instead of simply what we can get for ourselves in terms of support.
> But, that's a whole other topic.


The very essence of the Pope and Young is tradition and set in ways guidelines. it is very hard for any organization let alone the pope and young club to keep up with this madness, thus the loss of our collective power. I think it is easy to find faults with both sides for the divide. Achery has systematically grown exponentially( Participation and technology advancements) while the groups representing the bowhunter have declined or remainded relatively stagnent. Its hard to motivate people when everything is honky dory in their own little isolated world.


----------



## Jim C

Marvin said:


> He usually does Kraven, But there has to be some middle or common ground that we must lay down our defenses of "difference"to come together before we are forced to. If it comes to a force issue, I think we lose because we will be starting off the 8-ball already. Hunting must stay honorable in the end of we are to stand a chance. Heck I'd let every crossbow in every state if we could get rid of fences and leasing. Maybe thats something to build with.



like it or not leasing is a quintessential right of private property.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> WRONG.
> 
> At least in my experience, MOST people (hunter and non-hunter alike, the vast majority of whom do not belong to either P&Y or PBS) feel that xbows have no place in current bowseasons.
> 
> Your experience may be different - that does not diminish my experience.
> 
> In MY world - YOU are the odd man out.



your world-that's the problem.


----------



## Marvin

Jim C said:


> like it or not leasing is a quintessential right of private property.


Don't remind me I know but ther ehas to be a way the state DNR's can make money off of it because all they are doing is reducing the amount of hunters, which in turn reduces their budget


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> your world-that's the problem.


Welcome to MY world, Jim. Its called reality. You should escape Ohio and try it sometime.:mg:


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> like it or not leasing is a quintessential right of private property.


Guaranteed hunting on private property is not (since the states own the wildlife.)

If I were king, nuisance permits to private landowners would arrive with a requirement that public hunting be allowed on the premises.....period.

You want the problem taken care of? Let me take care of the problem ....


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Welcome to MY world, Jim. Its called reality. You should escape Ohio and try it sometime.:mg:



the reality of posting a couple thousand anti xbow rants on AT? keep your reality source-I couldn't handle the psycotherapy


----------



## thesource

The reality that your beloved xbows are an afterthought to the vast majority of America's bowhunters, the fact that they belong in their own season.

Your continuous impuning of my character will not change those facts ... join the mainstream.


----------



## wmgn0evf

Not really meaning to offend anyone, but, if I was an anti-hunter, anti-gunner, anti-bowhunter, or PETA-type, I would be laughing my ass off after reading some of the posts on this thread. Their tactic is divide and conquer, whether it be through equipment, type of hunt or whatever. They have tried this in the firearms area and now in the archery arena. We need to find a common ground and work out the small differences. Otherwise, if we don't stick together, we will surely hang together, or something like that.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> The reality that your beloved xbows are an afterthought to the vast majority of America's bowhunters, the fact that they belong in their own season.
> 
> Your continuous impuning of my character will not change those facts ... join the mainstream.



so you are claiming most bowhunters are selfish and greedy?

hey if you and your ilk want say post firearm part of the season that's fine with me


----------



## kraven

thesource said:


> But it is a worthwhile topic.
> 
> Hunters should not be afraid to examine the state of the union, don't you agree?


 I do agree. In fact, examining the state of the union is necessary to its continuation, in my estimation. 



Marvin said:


> Hunting must stay honorable in the end if we are to stand a chance.


 So, what do we do? Does a core group of hunters gather in alliance to represent our interests to the world in a hope of securing rights? When do we stop waiting for everyone to get on board and leave the station? 
Or is it a "no hunter left behind" position, where we continue to do nothing while arguing politics within?
Edited to add: last line sounds more absolute and harsh than I intended, but I trust you know what I mean.


----------



## kraven

wmgn0evf said:


> Not really meaning to offend anyone, but, if I was an anti-hunter, anti-gunner, anti-bowhunter, or PETA-type, I would be laughing my ass off after reading some of the posts on this thread. Their tactic is divide and conquer, whether it be through equipment, type of hunt or whatever. They have tried this in the firearms area and now in the archery arena. We need to find a common ground and work out the small differences. Otherwise, if we don't stick together, we will surely hang together, or something like that.


 "If we don't hang together, we shall surely hang seperately." B. Franklin

These chaps that are arguing are trying to find a common ground. 
If they find it, you'll be hard pressed to move them from it. And, that's what makes it worth scrapping for. Solidarity isn't all puppy dogs and ice cream cones. :cocktail:


----------



## Jim C

kraven said:


> I do agree. In fact, examining the state of the union is necessary to its continuation, in my estimation.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what do we do? Does a core group of hunters gather in alliance to represent our interests to the world in a hope of securing rights? When do we stop waiting for everyone to get on board and leave the station?
> Or is it a "no hunter left behind" position, where we continue to do nothing while arguing politics within?
> Edited to add: last line sounds more absolute and harsh than I intended, but I trust you know what I mean.



the big problem is that a few on this board have greed as a main motivation and they hide that behind false claims that their greed is really an attempt to save hunting.


----------



## the natural

*texas*

only someone from texas could come up with this:wink:


----------



## wmgn0evf

Thanks kraven for the help on the Franklin quote. I agree that finding a common ground isn't all "puppy dogs and ice cream cones," but, trying to find a common ground in a public forum is not always best served by scrapping with each other. 

To outsiders that may be reading the posts it can appear to be bickering and in-fighting that may ultimately lead the outsider to take an anti-whatever position about bowhunting or hunting in general. I was only trying to make the point that in a public forum, IMHO, we may better represent ourselves as hunters (firearms or bow) by expressing our ideas and positions in a more positive manner. The name calling and insinuations would be better done in private mail to one another.

I am not saying that I am not passionate about some of my thoughts and feelings on some of these issues as well, but I usually try to be more private on these if it starts to get "heated." I am relatively new on AT and am not fully aware of all the debates going on amongst the members nor their individual personalities, but I do enjoy reading a lot of the different posts. Thanks.


----------



## kraven

wmgn0evf said:


> Thanks kraven for the help on the Franklin quote. I agree that finding a common ground isn't all "puppy dogs and ice cream cones," but, trying to find a common ground in a public forum is not always best served by scrapping with each other.
> You're welcome. I agree.
> To outsiders that may be reading the posts it can appear to be bickering and in-fighting that may ultimately lead the outsider to take an anti-whatever position about bowhunting or hunting in general. I was only trying to make the point that in a public forum, IMHO, we may better represent ourselves as hunters (firearms or bow) by expressing our ideas and positions in a more positive manner. The name calling and insinuations would be better done in private mail to one another.
> I will agree with you sir. It is embarrasing for all of us. Some things should be kept on a PM level debate. Or even e-mail. Unfortunately, heat is as much a part of debate as words are. And, people seldom choose an ideal solution when it comes to emotional topics. Take crossbows, for example.
> Unifying hunters is like trying to herd cats.
> I am not saying that I am not passionate about some of my thoughts and feelings on some of these issues as well, but I usually try to be more private on these if it starts to get "heated." I am relatively new on AT and am not fully aware of all the debates going on amongst the members nor their individual personalities, but I do enjoy reading a lot of the different posts. Thanks.
> Cool. Welcome to AT. I think you have a very workable and concientious strategy there. I employ something of the sort myself, so it must be the right way to do things. :wink:


 Nice post, my man. :cocktail:


----------



## Free Range

> anyone who calls thousands of other fellow hunters "lazy" "cheaters" and claims their trophies aren't worth as much as other bowhunters' trophies" doesn't have a sense of values that I care to acknowledge as worthwhile


Or calls thousands, bigots, selfish, greedy, and on, and on, and on. You have a lot of room to talk there bud, funny how those that want everything, and think it’s all good, get so upset when they are called on it and can only resort to calling names, but when a little retaliation is thrown back at them, now that’s not fair. LOL Jim, I lose more respect for you each day.


----------



## Jim C

Free Range said:


> Or calls thousands, bigots, selfish, greedy, and on, and on, and on. You have a lot of room to talk there bud, funny how those that want everything, and think it’s all good, get so upset when they are called on it and can only resort to calling names, but when a little retaliation is thrown back at them, now that’s not fair. LOL Jim, I lose more respect for you each day.



I really don't care if a PBS supporter respects me given that group has been proven to be liars on the xbow issue. I only bash positions not all bowhunters. A bowhunter who is against crossbows is a fair target since he's either selfish, greedy or a hypocrite because those are the characteristics of the anti xbow cult. You obviously don't read very well FR and its funny how you HAVE NEVER distanced yourself from the hateful slander that Source spews. IN fact you too claimed that xbow archers are lazy etc so you are equally bad


----------



## PMantle

Jim C said:


> I only bash positions not all bowhunters. A bowhunter who is against crossbows is a fair target since he's either selfish, greedy or a hypocrite because those are the characteristics of the anti xbow cult.



Sorry, but you're just wrong, again. You get all pissy when hunters call a very tiny minority lazy, yet you have no problem calling the vast majority of bowhunters selfish, greedy or hypocritical. Maybe instead of lashing out, you might try reaching out. Who knows, nothing you've done in the past here has helped your cause. A change in tactics can't be worse.


----------



## Jim C

PMantle said:


> Sorry, but you're just wrong, again. You get all pissy when hunters call a very tiny minority lazy, yet you have no problem calling the vast majority of bowhunters selfish, greedy or hypocritical. Maybe instead of lashing out, you might try reaching out. Who knows, nothing you've done in the past here has helped your cause. A change in tactics can't be worse.



you are full of it as usual. I don't come here to convince the selfish and the greedy-I come here to demonstrate what truly motivates the anti crossbow jihadists so that others can see what really is going on. Two of the prominent bigots on this board called all xbow archers lazy. A very tiny minority is a lie and you know it. There are more xbow archers in Ohio bowhunting than there are bowhunters in several other states combined. You combine all the xbow archers in Ohio, Arkansas, Virginia, Canada, Georgia, Florida and the many states that allow xbows for certain restricted groups, and you hardly have a tiny minority

btw there are more xbow archers in SW Ohio then there are voting Members of Poop and Dung and the PBS combined and I bet there are more xbow hunters in Ohio than there are members in the entire anti xbow movement created by Poop and Young


----------



## PMantle

Jim C said:


> you are full of it as usual. I don't come here to convince the selfish and the greedy-I come here to demonstrate what truly motivates the anti crossbow jihadists so that others can see what really is going on. Two of the prominent bigots on this board called all xbow archers lazy. A very tiny minority is a lie and you know it. There are more xbow archers in Ohio bowhunting than there are bowhunters in several other states combined. You combine all the xbow archers in Ohio, Arkansas, Virginia, Canada, Georgia, Florida and the many states that allow xbows for certain restricted groups, and you hardly have a tiny minority
> 
> btw there are more xbow archers in SW Ohio then there are voting Members of Poop and Dung and the PBS combined and I bet there are more xbow hunters in Ohio than there are members in the entire anti xbow movement created by Poop and Young


The only poster that lies here regularly is you, Jim. You are also the most hateful, mean and anti-social hunter on the board. Even still, I thank God for people like you. You ensure that crossbows will be looked upon as something negative, as it should be. You are truly a friend of our side. Yay to Jim! :RockOn: :clap2: :cheer2: :nixon:


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> A bowhunter who is against crossbows is a fair target since he's either selfish, greedy or a hypocrite because those are the characteristics of the anti xbow cult.


And THERE it is for all to see. Anyone who simply disagrees with Jim's personal opinion in its entirety on crossbows is the enemy and worthy of villifying.:der: 

Reminds me of a song from the 80's:
Lunatic Fringe ...... we all know you're out there.....


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> IN fact you too claimed that xbow archers are lazy etc so you are equally bad



I have no idea why you fixate on someone calling you lazy. There are a heck of a lot worse things you could be called. Is this one hitting too close to home or something?


----------



## Jim C

PMantle said:


> The only poster that lies here regularly is you, Jim. You are also the most hateful, mean and anti-social hunter on the board. Even still, I thank God for people like you. You ensure that crossbows will be looked upon as something negative, as it should be. You are truly a friend of our side. Yay to Jim! :RockOn: :clap2: :cheer2: :nixon:



Ah Poor PM. Can't win so he resorts to this
Please PROVE ONE LIE I have said.

Your bigotry and selfishness is well documented-you just don't want anymore people hunting "your deer" and rather than admitting your selfishness you feel a need to belittle people who use a different kind of bow

pathetic


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> I have no idea why you fixate on someone calling you lazy. There are a heck of a lot worse things you could be called. Is this one hitting too close to home or something?



no source-I tire of your lies about other bowhunters and archers. Me-my efforts in archery are well known to many people who count on this board and I am not worried that someone who has no standing in archery and can't find another single AT member to vouch for his "contributions" to this sport claims I am lazy.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> And THERE it is for all to see. Anyone who simply disagrees with Jim's personal opinion in its entirety on crossbows is the enemy and worthy of villifying.:der:
> 
> Reminds me of a song from the 80's:
> Lunatic Fringe ...... we all know you're out there.....


I will not show you all the PM's I have received about you being mentally ill source but they are numerous. All one has to do is review your posts to see that you are fixated on this one issue and have almost nothing else to discuss on AT


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> I will not show you all the PM's I have received about you being mentally ill source but they are numerous. All one has to do is review your posts to see that you are fixated on this one issue and have almost nothing else to discuss on AT


LOL - the PM's that you and your handful of radical xbow lackeys send each other are hardly meaningful. I bet most of those are from a certain former member who has been banned 7 times because he keeps sneaking back in with a new name to try and continue to argue....now THAT is crazy.

Jim, it is highly likely that you have many, many times as many posts debating crossbows as I do......that makes you much more "mentally ill", using your logic.

LOL - I'll have to agree with your logic, for once.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> LOL - the PM's that you and your handful of radical xbow lackeys send each other are hardly meaningful. I bet most of those are from a certain former member who has been banned 7 times because he keeps sneaking back in with a new name to try and continue to argue....now THAT is crazy.
> 
> Jim, it is highly likely that you have many, many times as many posts debating crossbows as I do......that makes you much more "mentally ill", using your logic.
> 
> LOL - I'll have to agree with your logic, for once.



Its sad you can't see your obession. I post on lots of topics and you have almost no contributions other than whining about xbows. I have more posts on crossbows because I have 1) far more knowledge as to the subject and 2) because I have been here alot longer than you have

Your only reason for being here is to whine about xbows.
If Xbows were totally elminated from this forum I would still be here posting away. You wouldn't and we know that


----------



## Free Range

> A bowhunter who is against crossbows is a fair target since he's either selfish, greedy or a hypocrite because those are the characteristics of the anti xbow cult





> its funny how you HAVE NEVER distanced yourself from the hateful slander that Source spews. IN fact you too claimed that xbow archers are lazy etc so you are equally bad


Can a person actually write the two above statements in the same post and be taken seriously???? And again Jim, NO, the PBS have not been proven liars, because the “great” (see sarcasm) Jim says it’s so does not make it so. So keep on with business as usual with insult after insult, we all know where it comes from and it has little meaning. 



> I only bash positions not all bowhunters


So bowhunters that hold these positions,,, your not really bashing them, just what they say and think?? Are you sure you’re a grown up lawyer, because this makes sense only if it’s coming from a two year old. 



> Two of the prominent bigots on this board called all xbow archers lazy.


A lie, please post where “anybody” on this board said “ALL” xb users are lazy.


----------



## Jim C

Yes the PBS has been proven liars and for the slow learners I will repeat their lies

1) at 300 FPS a crossbow "Shoots at almost twice the speed as most compound bows. THat wasn't true in 1989 when that idiotic report was generated and it certainly wasn't true when that report was revised in 2000. 

2) the claim that novices with no shooting experience could shoot better groups with a hunting crossbow then professional compound archers using compounds, releases and sights is a clear lie

the PBS also slandered all xbow archers claiming they were "looking for the easy way"

I find it interesting after I lampooned the PBS lies they no longer have that (at least the last time I looked) idiotic commentary on their website. I guess too many people realized that the "almost twice the speed" was just too dishonest to stomach given the fact that olympic recurve bows shooting 350 grain arrows shoot 200+ FPS


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> the PBS also slandered all xbow archers claiming they were "looking for the easy way"


I think you are the one who informed me that it is not slander if its true....lol


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> I think you are the one who informed me that it is not slander if its true....lol



and it isn't so its slander. I would like to see the PBS cease to exist-its bad for bowhunting and its based on a lie to begin with. almost none of its members are professional bowhunters so they are adopting a title that is dishonest


----------



## doctariAFC

Jim C said:


> Yes the PBS has been proven liars and for the slow learners I will repeat their lies
> 
> 1) at 300 FPS a crossbow "Shoots at almost twice the speed as most compound bows. THat wasn't true in 1989 when that idiotic report was generated and it certainly wasn't true when that report was revised in 2000.
> 
> 2) the claim that novices with no shooting experience could shoot better groups with a hunting crossbow then professional compound archers using compounds, releases and sights is a clear lie
> 
> the PBS also slandered all xbow archers claiming they were "looking for the easy way"
> 
> I find it interesting after I lampooned the PBS lies they no longer have that (at least the last time I looked) idiotic commentary on their website. I guess too many people realized that the "almost twice the speed" was just too dishonest to stomach given the fact that olympic recurve bows shooting 350 grain arrows shoot 200+ FPS


That one will leave a mark :fish: :beat:


----------



## Jim C

doctariAFC said:


> That one will leave a mark :fish: :beat:


The PBS pulled the marlow report from its website (found under sponsors ate www.bowsite.com). rather they have this gaping stupidity

Access to the resource with a crossbow should be provided during the firearms or general season, where the crossbow truly belongs, given its firearms characteristics. 

It appears that these morons know as little about xbows as they do of firearms-again they should cease to exist-that sort of lie only hurts hunting in general


----------



## PMantle

Jim C said:


> Ah Poor PM. Can't win so he resorts to this
> Please PROVE ONE LIE I have said.
> 
> Your bigotry and selfishness is well documented-you just don't want anymore people hunting "your deer" and rather than admitting your selfishness you feel a need to belittle people who use a different kind of bow
> 
> pathetic


There are lies in this post Jim. I am neither selfish, nor a bigot. If I were, I would advocate limits to hunters. I do not do that. Additionally, I own no deer. I don't even have a right to hunt deer. One post-three lies.


----------



## Jim C

PMantle said:


> There are lies in this post Jim. I am neither selfish, nor a bigot. If I were, I would advocate limits to hunters. I do not do that. Additionally, I own no deer. I don't even have a right to hunt deer. One post-three lies.



you see, you clearly have no clue what a lie is. I believe you are selfish on this issue. I would be a liar if I believed that you weren't selfish but said you were

understand?


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> Access to the resource with a crossbow should be provided during the firearms or general season, where the crossbow truly belongs, given its firearms characteristics.
> 
> It appears that these morons know as little about xbows as they do of firearms-again they should cease to exist-that sort of lie only hurts hunting in general


Where's the lie here?

Even you must admit that crossbows have many gunlike characteristics.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Where's the lie here?
> 
> Even you must admit that crossbows have many gunlike characteristics.



no they don't other than having a stock and a trigger and the accurate comment would be that rifles have certain crossbow like characteristics given that crossbows predated any guns by thousands of years.


we base laws on performance not looks. certainly an airsoft gun has more characteristics of a firearm than say a crossbow. given your and PBS thinking, a Harley Davidson ought to be regulated like a Schwinn, not an automobile

on all characteristics that MATTER-accuracy, range, power, noise levels, rapidity of discharge, method of killing, ballistics, trajectory a crossbow and a compound bow are nearly identical. The PBS is a deceitful pack of liars who seeks to justify its arrogance and bigotry by falsely suggesting that looks ought to determine seasons not performance.


----------



## Marvin

Jim C said:


> no they don't other than having a stock and a trigger and the accurate comment would be that rifles have certain crossbow like characteristics given that crossbows predated any guns by thousands of years.
> 
> 
> we base laws on performance not looks. certainly an airsoft gun has more characteristics of a firearm than say a crossbow. given your and PBS thinking, a Harley Davidson ought to be regulated like a Schwinn, not an automobile
> 
> on all characteristics that MATTER-accuracy, range, power, noise levels, rapidity of discharge, method of killing, ballistics, trajectory a crossbow and a compound bow are nearly identical. The PBS is a deceitful pack of liars who seeks to justify its arrogance and bigotry by falsely suggesting that looks ought to determine seasons not performance.


 you forgot a cheekpiece and safety too. Both can also be loaded before firing. Just trying to clarify


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> no they don't other than having a stock and a trigger and the accurate comment would be that rifles have certain crossbow like characteristics given that crossbows predated any guns by thousands of years.


Stock, trigger, scope, safety....... locked and loaded ..... shooting skill set ..... they have physical and functional similarities that you simply cannot argue, and it would be ridiculous and incredulous for anyone to even suggest otherwise. Arguing that guns have crossbowlike qualities instead is purely semantics.

You have FAILED to demonstrate that they have lied here.



Jim C said:


> on all characteristics that MATTER-accuracy, range, power, noise levels, rapidity of discharge, method of killing, ballistics, trajectory a crossbow and a compound bow are nearly identical. The PBS is a deceitful pack of liars who seeks to justify its arrogance and bigotry by falsely suggesting that looks ought to determine seasons not performance.


No, YOU are not empowered to determine what matters for everyone. The rest of us are perfectly capable of forming our own opinions on what matters and what does not.

You have still not shown where PBS has even lied once in that statement. They may have formed a different OPINION than you, but that doesn't make it (or your opinion, as well) a lie.

You shouldn't slander the PBS - they have a lot more credibility when it comes to hunting than you do, and we all know how important that is to you.:wink:


----------



## Jim C

Marvin said:


> you forgot a cheekpiece and safety too. Both can also be loaded before firing. Just trying to clarify



a safety is not an essential function of a crossbow though it is required on hunting xbows in Ohio but it has nothing to do with performance or downrange ballistics anymore than a seatbelt has to do with a car's performance. My target xbows do not have safeties and I have seen more than a few competition shotguns that do not have safeties (or have had the safety locked so it cannot be engaged)

a cheekpiece has nothing to do with any of the categories that deal with the deliivery of the projectile


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Stock, trigger, scope, safety....... locked and loaded ..... shooting skill set ..... they have physical and functional similarities that you simply cannot argue, and it would be ridiculous and incredulous for anyone to even suggest otherwise. Arguing that guns have crossbowlike qualities instead is purely semantics.
> 
> You have FAILED to demonstrate that they have lied here.
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU are not empowered to determine what matters for everyone. The rest of are perfectly capable of forming our own opinions on what matters and what does not.
> 
> You have still not shown where PBS has even lied once in that statement. They may have formed a different OPINION than you, but that doesn't make it (or your opinion, as well) a lie.
> 
> You shouldn't slander the PBS - they have a lot more credibility when it comes to hunting than you do, and we all know how important that is to you.:wink:



I will tell people that the PBS are a pack of deceitful liars. Everyone active in this debate remembers the LIES they spewed based on the Marlow report. Why don't those turkeys sue me if I am slandering them? because truth is a defense and thousands of people can testify that they LIED. I merely have to post the results from Vegas to prove their lie about novices outshooting pro level compound archers. When it comes to crossbows, I have more credibility than all of the PBS combined because they are liars and I am not (I also hold more crossbow titles and have taken more game with an xbow than any of them will admit to in total)

I guess you are too stupid to understand source that saying 300 FPS is almost twice as fast as most compounds is a LIE

the firearm characteristics claim is a lie and its obviously dishonest-I like how you didn't touch the airsoft of motorcycle analogy because that proves how utterly pathetic PBS is


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> I guess you are too stupid to understand source that saying 300 FPS is almost twice as fast as most compounds is a LIE



Jim - Don't call me stupid again or I will report you for personal attacks.

We are not discussing the Marlowe report right now, we are discussing the following statement, which you have called a lie:

_Access to the resource with a crossbow should be provided during the firearms or general season, where the crossbow truly belongs, given its firearms characteristics. _

You simply cannot deny that crossbows and guns share similar (even identical, in some cases) physical and operational characteristics. 

Admit you were wrong - for the record.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Jim - Don't call me stupid again or I will report you for personal attacks.
> 
> We are not discussing the Marlowe report right now, we are discussing the following statement, which you have called a lie:
> 
> _Access to the resource with a crossbow should be provided during the firearms or general season, where the crossbow truly belongs, given its firearms characteristics. _
> 
> You simply cannot deny that crossbows and guns share similar (even identical, in some cases) physical and operational characteristics.
> 
> Admit you were wrong - for the record.


ah poor source-your fellow travelers have called me all sorts of names as have you. I deny your claims because when it comes to game seasons, a crossbow has NONE of the relevant characteristics of a firearm

try again and again its stupid to say so.

using your STUPID argument, a pellet gun ought to be regulated as a centerfire rifle and a full auto airsoft ought to require a Title II manufacturing license or a Class III tax stamp.

crossbows perform exactly like compounds
they don't kill by shock
they don't shoot supersonic projectiles launched by an explosion
they don't have trajectories that make 10 yard errors in judging distance irrelevant
they cannot be reloaded with almost no physical effort in seconds

try again Source, your attempts to create difference that don't matter at the bottom line is a pathetic attempt to justify your selfishness and explain your mental issues


----------



## thesource

That's better. You can call my arguements stupid, but....well, you know the rest. You still need some work on the personal attacks about mental issues...I suppose I could get you booted. I expect at least some semblance of class from you, what with your Ivy League education that you remind us so often about.



Jim C said:


> crossbows perform exactly like compounds


Look at that - 1 and DONE. Credibility destroyed. Any gradeschooler could shoot crossbow and compound and understand that they are not performing identically. 
(Hint ..... its because they require 2 absolutely different skill sets to shoot them.)


You cannot spin out of this one. You MUST admit there are shared gunlike characteristics between firearms and crossbows....that is, after all, what the statement said. It did not say it performed like a firearm, killed like a firearm, etc .... it said it had firearm characteristics, which it most certainly does, already described and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

PBS -1
JimC - 0

:darkbeer:


----------



## PMantle

Jim C said:


> you see, you clearly have no clue what a lie is. I believe you are selfish on this issue. I would be a liar if I believed that you weren't selfish but said you were
> 
> understand?


Even if you were right, which you are not, two out of three still makes you a liar.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> That's better. You can call my arguements stupid, but....well, you know the rest. You still need some work on the personal attacks about mental issues...I suppose I could get you booted. I expect at least some semblance of class from you, what with your Ivy League education that you remind us so often about.
> 
> 
> 
> Look at that - 1 and DONE. Credibility destroyed. Any gradeschooler could shoot crossbow and compound and understand that they are not performing identically.
> (Hint ..... its because they require 2 absolutely different skill sets to shoot them.)
> 
> 
> You cannot spin out of this one. You MUST admit there are shared gunlike characteristics between firearms and crossbows....that is, after all, what the statement said. It did not say it performed like a firearm, killed like a firearm, etc .... it said it had firearm characteristics, which it most certainly does, already described and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
> 
> PBS -1
> JimC - 0
> 
> :darkbeer:



lets see source

are crossbows more accurate than compounds are akin
do crossbows shoot farther than compounds or are similar
do crossbows shoot more rapidly?

sorry you lose again. compounds and crossbows have essentially the same accuracy, same range, same power and compounds can shoot repeat shots faster

skills to shoot them matter not at the receiving end

tell me where a crossbow is MORE EFFECTIVE and more "Deadly"

you cannot but I have to run
maybe in a few years y ou can come up with an answer. If someone is measuring a projectile from either bow-chances are you cannot say there is any statistical difference


----------



## Jim C

PMantle said:


> Even if you were right, which you are not, two out of three still makes you a liar.



I am right and I believe you are selfish


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> lets see source
> 
> are crossbows more accurate than compounds are akin
> do crossbows shoot farther than compounds or are similar
> do crossbows shoot more rapidly?
> 
> sorry you lose again. compounds and crossbows have essentially the same accuracy, same range, same power and compounds can shoot repeat shots faster



Even if all that is true (and as long as we use "similar" instead of the totally preposterous "identical") - how does that make PBS's statement a lie? 

This shows that crossbows have "bowlike" similarities as well as "gunlike" similarities. There is no denying that....

Just as there is no denying the "gunlike" characteristics.

Ante up, boy ..... admit they are there, and that PBS is right.


----------



## Free Range

> I will tell people that the PBS are a pack of deceitful liars. Everyone active in this debate remembers the LIES they spewed based on the Marlow report. Why don't those turkeys sue me if I am slandering them? because truth is a defense and thousands of people can testify that they LIED. I merely have to post the results from Vegas to prove their lie about novices outshooting pro level compound archers. When it comes to crossbows, I have more credibility than all of the PBS combined because they are liars and I am not (I also hold more crossbow titles and have taken more game with an xbow than any of them will admit to in total)
> 
> I guess you are too stupid to understand source that saying 300 FPS is almost twice as fast as most compounds is a LIE





> the firearm characteristics claim is a lie and its obviously dishonest-I like how you didn't touch the airsoft of motorcycle analogy because that proves how utterly pathetic PBS


So, tell us exactly what bows they were referring to when they said “most compounds”, and now you change their words to read Pro-level compound archers, really I didn’t think it said that at all, if you’re going to quote someone don’t “lie” about what they said. Now after you find out for us what xb and what “most” bows they were talking about, tell us who they used as the “top ranked” (I believe that is more accurate, but don’t have it in front of me) shooter, to shoot against the novices. Then tell us what his/her qualifications are/were, if any for being looked upon as top ranked. All we have is your nonsense as to what you believe to be a top ranked compound shooter, and as we found out on a poll here not everyone believes the same thing you do when it comes to “top ranked”. 

So having said all of that, really the only thing you can claim is they quoted a report, that you think is inaccurate. One you can’t or haven’t proved wrong just one that you vilify because it goes against your narrow minded way of thinking. And until you can show us what parameters Marlow used to do the study, and how Marlow or the PBS falsified the results, calling them a liar, is wrong and nothing more then a vengeful attack on bowhunters that dislike your attempts to force a weapon into archery season that doesn’t belong. 

And I thought the rules here were no personal attacks? I’m a member of the PBS, and I believe calling me a deceitful liar qualifies as an attack.


----------



## PMantle

Jim C said:


> I am right and I believe you are selfish


Fine, but that's only one of three.


----------



## thesource

Free Range said:


> And I thought the rules here were no personal attacks? I’m a member of the PBS, and I believe calling me a deceitful liar qualifies as an attack.


Here, here!

Good for you Free Range! I, for one, am glad to see you stand up against crossbow bullies and defend your principles.:darkbeer:


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Even if all that is true (and as long as we use "similar" instead of the totally preposterous "identical") - how does that make PBS's statement a lie?
> 
> This shows that crossbows have "bowlike" similarities as well as "gunlike" similarities. There is no denying that....
> 
> Just as there is no denying the "gunlike" characteristics.
> 
> Ante up, boy ..... admit they are there, and that PBS is right.



here is why its a lie.

THe PBS is a bunch of greedy SOB's. They want the weakminded to think that a crossbow ought to be stuck in the short firearms season because a crossbow can "compete" with firearms which is a complete lie

you know that, I know that and everyone who understands bows and firearms know that. Its also deceptive suggesting that to successfully harvest deer with a crossbow requires no more skill than using a firearm which-due to the huge range differences is again a lie


----------



## Jim C

Free Range said:


> So, tell us exactly what bows they were referring to when they said “most compounds”, and now you change their words to read Pro-level compound archers, really I didn’t think it said that at all, if you’re going to quote someone don’t “lie” about what they said. Now after you find out for us what xb and what “most” bows they were talking about, tell us who they used as the “top ranked” (I believe that is more accurate, but don’t have it in front of me) shooter, to shoot against the novices. Then tell us what his/her qualifications are/were, if any for being looked upon as top ranked. All we have is your nonsense as to what you believe to be a top ranked compound shooter, and as we found out on a poll here not everyone believes the same thing you do when it comes to “top ranked”.
> 
> So having said all of that, really the only thing you can claim is they quoted a report, that you think is inaccurate. One you can’t or haven’t proved wrong just one that you vilify because it goes against your narrow minded way of thinking. And until you can show us what parameters Marlow used to do the study, and how Marlow or the PBS falsified the results, calling them a liar, is wrong and nothing more then a vengeful attack on bowhunters that dislike your attempts to force a weapon into archery season that doesn’t belong.
> 
> And I thought the rules here were no personal attacks? I’m a member of the PBS, and I believe calling me a deceitful liar qualifies as an attack.


if you are part of a group that pushes lies than you are part of a group of liars. that is obvious. you brag about being a proud member of a group that has been proven to purvey lies so you obviously are proud of being associated with such a deceitful group. I don't recall you bragging about being part of that odious cult when you first joined here-you started that title after I pointed out the lies PBS spews. 

Marlow lied. There is no possible way someone could honestly claim that 300 FPS is almost twice as fast as most compound bows. Do you support that claim? why did the PBS remove the references and arguments based on the Marlow report from its website? here is the answer: they were getting thrashed on boards like this for the lies they spewed.

you can weasel all you want on the accuracy claims. anyone who reviews the VEGAS and NFAA Indoor results saw 250+ compound archers shoot higher scores than a THREE TIME world crossbow champion who was using a rig three times more expensive than any hunting rig with a far lighter trigger and more sophisticated sights than the hunting bows Marlow whined about

common sense-if a person who won 30+ nationals and three world titles since 1973 cannot outshoot scores of dozens and dozens compound archers then a NOVICE with no xbow experience isn't going to beat "Top competitive compound archers using releases and sights" no matter how you define "TOP COMPETITIVE". that you attempt to quibble about that shows how intellectually bankrupt your position is.


----------



## thesource

Shame on you Jim - that is your INTERPRETATION of their position. That is not what they actually said, which is what you must (and cannot) prove false to prove they are being untruthful.

They are not.

Your crossbow shares many similarities with a gun - plain and simple, no denying it. That's all the PBS is stating - what ALL of us alkready know.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Here, here!
> 
> Good for you Free Range! I, for one, am glad to see you stand up against crossbow bullies and defend your principles.:darkbeer:



let me know when you find some principles source


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Shame on you Jim - that is your INTERPRETATION of their position. That is not what they actually said, which is what you must (and cannot) prove false to prove they are being untruthful.
> 
> They are not.
> 
> Your crossbow shares many similarities with a gun - plain and simple, no denying it. That's all the PBS is stating - what ALL of us alkready know.



wrong source-willful blindness or intending to deceive is just as dishonest and we all know that the PBS is deceitful whether some of you are honest enough to admit it or not.


----------



## vermonster13

Wow I had to check to see what the thread name was again. LOL


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Shame on you Jim - that is your INTERPRETATION of their position. That is not what they actually said, which is what you must (and cannot) prove false to prove they are being untruthful.
> 
> They are not.
> 
> Your crossbow shares many similarities with a gun - plain and simple, no denying it. That's all the PBS is stating - what ALL of us alkready know.



none of the characteristics justify making a 50 yard max weapon compete against a 500 yard weapon when another 50 yard weapon doesn't have to.

we all know why you and your ilk push this. As I said, the sooner the PBS ceases to exist, the better-its a scourge on hunting since its a bastion of greed, lies and dishonesty when it comes to xbows and xbow hunters.


----------



## Jim C

vermonster13 said:


> Wow I had to check to see what the thread name was again. LOL



the xbow bashers think that supporting xbows means you should support the pathetic video game hunting nonsense.


----------



## Jim C

Free Range said:


> Well, shouldn’t everyone be for more opportunity, wouldn’t this be a good thing if it helps children, women and elderly, etc, enjoy hunting sooner, more, and longer? What happen to the big tent, can’t we all just get along? Isn’t this a bit elitist, to say someone else’s way of hunting is wrong and should be banned?
> 
> Come on Ace, help me out here, I can’t be a only one that can see the double standard here.
> :darkbeer:



this was the third post in this thread or so Vermonter and as you can see it was one of the xbow haters who derailed things


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> wrong source-willful blindness or intending to deceive is just as dishonest and we all know that the PBS is deceitful whether some of you are honest enough to admit it or not.


Shame on you again .... you have not stepped up and admitted what ALL of us already know....

Crossbows and guns share many common characteristics. 

By refusing to do so, you are sacrificing your beloved credibility....and I am getting a big, fat chuckle out of watching you squirm.:darkbeer: 

The PBS hasn't lied to us ... you have, Jim. You told us they lied but cannot back it up. It's all quite humorous, from my point of view. It must suck from your, looking like a donkey, and all ......


LOL:wink:


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> the xbow bashers think that supporting xbows means you should support the pathetic video game hunting nonsense.


Same rhetoric.

Same agenda?


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Shame on you again .... you have not stepped up and admitted what ALL of us already know....
> 
> Crossbows and guns share many common characteristics.
> 
> By refusing to do so, you are sacrificing your beloved credibility....and I am getting a big, fat chuckle out of watching you squirm.:darkbeer:
> 
> The PBS hasn't lied to us ... you have, Jim. You told us they lied but cannot back it up. It's all quite humorous, from my point of view. It must suck from your, looking like a donkey, and all ......
> 
> 
> LOL:wink:


another stupid argument source-I said in all areas that counts for the taking of game, crossbows do not share any essential characteristics with guns and I demonstrated that.

I am waiting for you to explain why a full auto airsoft gun shouldn't be treated like a class III firearm or why harley davidsons should be excluded from bicycle trails or say the tour de france since riding a motorcycle and a bicycle have lots in common and they look similar-a Harley looks alot more like my trek than my Lexus


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> another stupid argument source-I said in all areas that counts for the taking of game, crossbows do not share any essential characteristics with guns and I demonstrated that.


You've demonstrated nothing but the overabundance of hot air that forms your opinion, which is no better than the next poster's opinion. In other words, you've got SQUAT.

PBSstated that crossbows have gunlike characteristics, and all of us mainstreamers can clearly determine that they do indeed have gunlike characteristics.

Case closed.....PBS wins, JimC loses (again.)



Jim C said:


> I am waiting for you to explain why a full auto airsoft gun shouldn't be treated like a class III firearm or why harley davidsons should be excluded from bicycle trails or say the tour de france since riding a motorcycle and a bicycle have lots in common and they look similar-a Harley looks alot more like my trek than my Lexus


Please don't be daft. While you think you are clever, you are not. Anyone with a brain understands the inherent differences between motorcycles and bicycles.

I love it. Let's investigate the skill set required to ride a bike or ride a motorcycle. How about a bike, a motorcycle, and a tricycle? Any anologies we might draw between the skill set required to operate these devices? Any thoughts about how the need to pedal is absent from one but essential for the other two?

LOL. We can investigate this in detail if you desire Jim. But I can already tell that you stepped in it again.:wink:


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> You've demonstrated nothing but the overabundance of hot air that forms your opinion, which is no better than the next poster's opinion. In other words, you've got SQUAT.
> 
> PBSstated that crossbows have gunlike characteristics, and all of us mainstreamers can clearly determine that they do indeed have gunlike characteristics.
> 
> Case closed.....PBS wins, JimC loses (again.)
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't be daft. While you think you are clever, you are not. Anyone with a brain understands the inherent differences between motorcycles and bicycles.
> 
> I love it. Let's investigate the skill set required to ride a bike or ride a motorcycle. How about a bike, a motorcycle, and a tricycle? Any anologies we might draw between the skill set required to operate these devices? Any thoughts about how the need to pedal is absent from one but essential for the other two?
> 
> LOL. We can investigate this in detail if you desire Jim. But I can already tell that you stepped in it again.:wink:


thanks for falling into the trap

you lose


----------



## Free Range

> Marlow lied. There is no possible way someone could honestly claim that 300 FPS is almost twice as fast as most compound bows. Do you support that claim? why did the PBS remove the references and arguments based on the Marlow report from its website? here is the answer: they were getting thrashed on boards like this for the lies they spewed.


I don’t support or deny it, like I said I have no idea what their parameters were, did they use the most common hunting set up, compound bow sold during that time? I don’t know do you? (Please answer that question) Maybe the study was slanted some and they picked one of the most common hunting set up compounds that was around 150FPS, and did it say twice as fast or almost twice as fast? 



> I don't recall you bragging about being part of that odious cult when you first joined here-you started that title after I pointed out the lies PBS spews.


I’m a member of many clubs and associations, is there some requirement that I list them all? If you attack any others I belong to I will let you know about them too. 



> why did the PBS remove the references and arguments based on the Marlow report from its website?


Maybe it was just time to change what was on their website? Believe this or not Jim, but you are no more then a speck of dust when it comes to national organizations that are on the front lines of BOW hunting issues, and they could care less what you say on some forum. 



> you can weasel all you want on the accuracy claims. anyone who reviews the VEGAS and NFAA Indoor results saw 250+ compound archers shoot higher scores than a THREE TIME world crossbow champion who was using a rig three times more expensive than any hunting rig with a far lighter trigger and more sophisticated sights than the hunting bows Marlow whined about


Again I respectively ask you provide us with the name of the shooter/shooters they used as their top ranked compound shooter, then show us how they don’t qualify as being called top ranked. Otherwise it is only your opinion that the results they came up with are invalid.


----------



## Jim C

you continue to quibble. In 2000 there is no way that common hunting compound set ups were in the 150 FPS range. In 2000 the average hunting compounds (and we tested all of them at the shop where I was a staff pro) were in the 220 range with HEAVY aluminum arrows. with ACC or Gold tip style carbon arrows that were starting to be the rage it was up around 260-270 which is exactly what the common crossbows were shooting then

in 1989-when the study was first done 300 FPS was capable in maybe ONE crossbow. When they revised the study in 2000 there were a few that got that but the average compound had gotten much much faster

in 1989 the average compound was still above 200 FPS-my 1982 Laser Two shooting 2212 was over 200 FPS

your quibbling on the accuracy thing is pathetic-top ranked means top ranked

I never claim to be a top ranked compound shooter-58X and 1352 fita are my best scores but there is no way I could hand a horton to say my sister in law and she is going to outshoot me and my hoyt compound bow


----------



## thesource

Free Range said:


> Believe this or not Jim, but you are no more then a speck of dust when it comes to national organizations that are on the front lines of BOW hunting issues, and they could care less what you say on some forum.


 

You are right of course. I know that I could care less what he says on some forum.

LOL. Thanks for the giggle.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> You are right of course. I know that I could care less what he says on some forum.
> 
> LOL. Thanks for the giggle.



who do you think caused the PBS to remove its marlow lies from its website?

speaking of specks-so what is your purpose for being on AT for no other reason than to whine about xbows source?


----------



## Free Range

Jim, just answer the question, who did they use for the study, and what bow did they consider common? It’s not all that hard, if you can answer these questions and show where Marlow’s claims are false based on that I will admit defeat and disallow the Marlow study right here for all to see. 



> who do you think caused the PBS to remove its marlow lies from its website?


You????


----------



## Jim C

Free Range said:


> Jim, just answer the question, who did they use for the study, and what bow did they consider common? It’s not all that hard, if you can answer these questions and show where Marlow’s claims are false based on that I will admit defeat and disallow the Marlow study right here for all to see.
> 
> 
> 
> You????



wonder why they removed it after I started bashing them on this board and some of the magazines? maybe one day we will find out.

I hope to cause PBS to cease to exist one of these days-maybe when I retire and have enough time :wink: 

there is no doubt the PBS is dishonest. Your sophistry and blindness and not having the honesty to admit that claims that crossbows allow novices to outshoot top competitive compound archers etc is pathetic

PBS was trying to convince people that xbows are a huge advantage over compounds. you know it and I know it and the entire board knows it

you defend this crap because you are part of the cult which spreads the crap


----------



## Free Range

Answer the question Jim, or is it beyond your ability to answer a simple question?


----------



## Jim C

Free Range said:


> Answer the question Jim, or is it beyond your ability to answer a simple question?



you have neither the standing nor the credibility to demand anything of me

You have never answered a question directly on this

You have hidden behind semantics and you haven't the honesty to admit that the PBS-Marlow nonsense is dishonest and deceptive

I asked the PBS for the data-they refused to give it to me when I emailed them several years ago

the Marlow report is flawed in that it doesn't discuss who tested the bows
that alone would prevent it from having any use as "an expert opinion" in a court of law


----------



## Free Range

> the Marlow report is flawed in that it doesn't discuss who tested the bows
> that alone would prevent it from having any use as "an expert opinion" in a court of law


But it wasn’t in a court of law, in was information provided to the public. If it was intentionally flawed, and a clear misrepresentation, then why hasn’t any xb mfg taken them to court? It clearly has hurt them in that it is/was the basis for not allowing them in archery season for so many years? I will give you that the report “my be” exaggerating some, or it may have been slanted toward a wanted outcome. But I don’t think it was blatantly false, just as the KY survey, I believe it was slanted toward a wanted outcome, but was it illegal, no, and was it overtly slanted, I doubt it.


----------



## Free Range

Oh I don’t have to have standing to ask you to answer the question, either you can or you can’t. What is a stake here is your credibility, here, you call them liars, I give you a way to prove it that will once and for all prove even to me they lied, and you refuse, some might take that as an admission you are not telling the truth about them lying.


----------



## PMantle

Jim C said:


> you have neither the standing nor the credibility to demand anything of me



Oh that's rich. :rofl: 

Let's all establish rules of interrogation. Jim, you lack the honesty and sense of logic to ever ask me another question, so cease and desist!


----------



## thesource

Free Range said:


> I give you a way to prove it that will once and for all prove even to me they lied, and you refuse, some might take that as an admission you are not telling the truth about them lying.



LOL - I'm reading it that way. He's lying about them lying.

I would agree with your assessment, Free Range. Exageration? It would seem so. Lying? Only the paranoid radicals on the far left of archery could jump to that conclusion.

There has been much disinformation on both sides (crossbow bolts drop like bricks is a favorite of mine....hold a compound back all day is another,,,)


----------



## Jim C

Free Range said:


> But it wasn’t in a court of law, in was information provided to the public. If it was intentionally flawed, and a clear misrepresentation, then why hasn’t any xb mfg taken them to court? It clearly has hurt them in that it is/was the basis for not allowing them in archery season for so many years? I will give you that the report “my be” exaggerating some, or it may have been slanted toward a wanted outcome. But I don’t think it was blatantly false, just as the KY survey, I believe it was slanted toward a wanted outcome, but was it illegal, no, and was it overtly slanted, I doubt it.



its disinformation-and your attempts to quibble with Top competitive compound archers being outshot by novices with compounds is a joke and every competitive archer I know knows its a joke-that's your problem you probably have no real participation in archery-just bowhunting. That PBS removed those lies from their website is proof that the value of this prevarication was minimal and people were starting to call them the liars they are

THe 300 FPS bs is just as bad and its funny you try to defend that horse poop too


----------



## Jim C

PMantle said:


> Oh that's rich. :rofl:
> 
> Let's all establish rules of interrogation. Jim, you lack the honesty and sense of logic to ever ask me another question, so cease and desist!



ah a leghumpin post if I ever saw one. I won't ask you questions because there is nothing you could say that is of any possible use to me or anyone else when it comes to archery.


----------



## Jim C

Free Range said:


> Oh I don’t have to have standing to ask you to answer the question, either you can or you can’t. What is a stake here is your credibility, here, you call them liars, I give you a way to prove it that will once and for all prove even to me they lied, and you refuse, some might take that as an admission you are not telling the truth about them lying.



300 FPS being almost twice the speed of most compound bows circa 1989 or 2000 is a lie

pure and simple


----------



## Free Range

Challenge, 

I tell you what Jim, St. Louis is about half way between here and there, you show up with your hunting xb, I’ll show up with my hunting bow, you are a top competitive shooter, I have only shot a xb once and it was one of those toy looking pistol types, you shoot my bow I’ll shoot your xb, and we will see who has the better score? Sound fair?


----------



## PMantle

Jim C said:


> ah a leghumpin post if I ever saw one. I won't ask you questions because there is nothing you could say that is of any possible use to me or anyone else when it comes to archery.


Your loss. The ways I could help you are immeasurable. If only you would actually seek out help for your issues instead of parading them around like a prize.


----------



## PMantle

Free Range said:


> Challenge,
> 
> I tell you what Jim, St. Louis is about half way between here and there, you show up with your hunting xb, I’ll show up with my hunting bow, you are a top competitive shooter, I have only shot a xb once and it was one of those toy looking pistol types, you shoot my bow I’ll shoot your xb, and we will see who has the better score? Sound fair?


:yield: :rofl:


----------



## Jim C

Free Range said:


> Challenge,
> 
> I tell you what Jim, St. Louis is about half way between here and there, you show up with your hunting xb, I’ll show up with my hunting bow, you are a top competitive shooter, I have only shot a xb once and it was one of those toy looking pistol types, you shoot my bow I’ll shoot your xb, and we will see who has the better score? Sound fair?



why don't you come to NFAA indoor next year and make an ass out of yourself with your braying. You can go up to Carol Pelosi and spew your anti xbow nonsense and get some real schooling. Maybe you ought to email CHPRO on this forum and discuss the matter with him-he came over to the xbow range and shot my target bow. you think you are going to outshoot "top competitive" compound archers with my rig-go for it-you will be national crossbow champion


----------



## Jim C

PMantle said:


> Your loss. The ways I could help you are immeasurable. If only you would actually seek out help for your issues instead of parading them around like a prize.



why don't you tell me what you know about archery that I don't know

this ought to be fun. its bad enough that you and your ilk are arrogant-what's worse is you all have nothing to back it up


----------



## thesource

So let me explain what I see ...

I clearly see JimC backing down from FreeRange's challenge.

Incidentally, I have extended the same offer to Jim. He didn't want any of that, either.

C'mon Jim. You continuously bloviate that traditional equipment is the only true archery if crossbows don't count. Let's see how you do with FR's setup. Let's see how he does with your scoped stringgun. It would be educational for all of us.:darkbeer:


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> So let me explain what I see ...
> 
> I clearly see JimC backing down from FreeRange's challenge.
> 
> Incidentally, I have extended the same offer to Jim. He didn't want any of that, either.
> 
> C'mon Jim. You continuously bloviate that traditional equipment is the only true archery if crossbows don't count. Let's see how you do with FR's setup. Let's see how he does with your scoped stringgun. It would be educational for all of us.:darkbeer:



like I am going to drive 6 hours to waste my time with some nobody. You are lying again

unlike you and Free Range-there are plenty of people on AT who can vouch for my shooting 

why can't any of you guys explain how a novice with a crossbow is going to outshoot top competitive compound archers when 200+ compound archers beat a three time crossbow world champion at NFAA Indoor


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> So let me explain what I see ...
> 
> I clearly see JimC backing down from FreeRange's challenge.
> 
> Incidentally, I have extended the same offer to Jim. He didn't want any of that, either.
> 
> C'mon Jim. You continuously bloviate that traditional equipment is the only true archery if crossbows don't count. Let's see how you do with FR's setup. Let's see how he does with your scoped stringgun. It would be educational for all of us.:darkbeer:



backing down means I changed my mind; I have no intention of wasting 12 hours in a car to even give some credibility to a non-counter.

All he has to do is borrow a horton and go out and shoot 60X with it because that would beat some "top competitive compound archers"


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> backing down means I changed my mind; I have no intention of wasting 12 hours in a car to even give some credibility to a non-counter.
> 
> All he has to do is borrow a horton and go out and shoot 60X with it because that would beat some "top competitive compound archers"


Jim you constantly boast that you are a top archer.

Free Range would willingly admit he would be a novice crossbow shooter.

Do it - let's see how it all plays out. If you're right, and you defeat Free Range with his own bow.....that would seriously boost your arguement that Marlow is a lie.

If Free Range whomps you with your own crossbow ...... LOL, I can't imagine the fun that we'll have!:darkbeer: 

Oops, I mean .... that would lend credibility to the Marlow report, which I know you wouldn't like at all.

So take him up on his challenege and show him who's right, here....


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Jim you constantly boast that you are a top archer.
> 
> Free Range would willingly admit he would be a novice crossbow shooter.
> 
> Do it - let's see how it all plays out. If you're right, and you defeat Free Range with his own bow.....that would seriously boost your arguement that Marlow is a lie.
> 
> If Free Range whomps you with your own crossbow ...... LOL, I can't imagine the fun that we'll have!:darkbeer:
> 
> Oops, I mean .... that would lend credibility to the Marlow report, which I know you wouldn't like at all.
> 
> So take him up on his challenege and show him who's right, here....


I asked you to post the name of someone on AT who could vouch for you even bowhunting and you have failed to do that. Willie asked you to show pictures of your trophies-you failed to do that. You are in no position to whine about me not wanting to waste my time driving 6 hours when I have already proven beyond any RATIONAL doubt that the marlow report is a lie on this issue

I never claimed to be a top compound archer. I am a decent one -or at least I was when I actually shot one seriously. My best compound score (58X) is better than my best crossbow score. The marlow report said people who had never shot anything btw and since Free Range claims to be an experienced hunter-bow and gun he is outside of the marlow report

I ask you how a novice can beat top compound archers when experienced xbow shooters like Ron Silvasi (US #2), Mike Gough (US #6) and 3X World champion Carol Pelosi were beat by so many compound archers

lets see if you evasive whiners can actually answer that


----------



## thesource

Bull crap.

You go on and on ad nauseum about being a world class archer.

Step up or shut up.

Free Range has stated he shot a crossbow once, so he certainly qualifies as a novice. (By the way, he also stated he went inside and washed his hands....I find that quite amusing.)


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Bull crap.
> 
> You go on and on ad nauseum about being a world class archer.
> 
> Step up or shut up.
> 
> Free Range has stated he shot a crossbow once, so he certainly qualifies as a novice. (By the way, he also stated he went inside and washed his hands....I find that quite amusing.)



you are lying again and there are too many world class archers on this forum who know me and would call me on it if I made that claim . You don't have the balls to prove any of your claims or to even have one person vouch for you.

why don't you have the ability to even answer my simple question? if you claim novices with crossbows can beat TOP COMPETITIVE COMPOUND ARCHERS how is it that the best crossbow archer in US history was beaten by scores and scores of compound archers at NFAA louisville shooting the same target, same time limits and the same distance

come on coward-its an easy question (if you know anything about archery)


----------



## Jim C

Hmmm, I guess we know what question to use as SOURCEBEGONE :wink:


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> you are lying again and there are too many world class archers on this forum who know me and would call me on it if I made that claim . You don't have the balls to prove any of your claims or to even have one person vouch for you.
> 
> why don't you have the ability to even answer my simple question? if you claim novices with crossbows can beat TOP COMPETITIVE COMPOUND ARCHERS how is it that the best crossbow archer in US history was beaten by scores and scores of compound archers at NFAA louisville shooting the same target, same time limits and the same distance
> 
> come on coward-its an easy question (if you know anything about archery)


Understand this, Jim. You will not force or bully me into answering questions with your personal attacks. It is humorous that you call me a coward in the same breath that you shy away from Free Range's challenge.

I could care less about NFAA Louisville or anything that you spotties do. I understand that the highest levels of archery competition are not representative of the skills that the average bowhunter or crossbowhunter possess.

I understand your obsession with the Marlow Report and PBS - whatever. I have no need or desire to defend it. Do I think there are exaggerations in places? Yes. But I also think the points were valid to some extent .... Twice as fast? No. Typical hunting crossbow faster than the typical hunting bow? That is accurate. Novice crossbower beating world class compounder? No. Novice crossbower gaining a huge accuracy advantage over a novice (and even some very experienced) bowhunter? That is also correct.

If you would like to see complete misinformation, try ANY article that DJH has ever written, the vast majority of posts by Willie, or look in a mirror.

The old "a crossbow is 98% the same as a compound" line comes to mind.

If BOTH sides would be 100% above board, we could hammer out a clear understanding of the absolute differences between bow and crossbow. But it is obvious that the pro-crossbow strategy is to muddy the water as much as possible, pretend that a crossbow is the same to a compound.

As KYMustang says - Any 5 year old can tell the difference. Its amusing that grown men with an agenda can not.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Understand this, Jim. You will not force or bully me into answering questions with your personal attacks. It is humorous that you call me a coward in the same breath that you shy away from Free Range's challenge.
> 
> I could care less about NFAA Louisville or anything that you spotties do. I understand that the highest levels of archery competition are not representative of the skills that the average bowhunter or crossbowhunter possess.
> 
> I understand your obsession with the Marlow Report and PBS - whatever. I have no need or desire to defend it. Do I think there are exaggerations in places? Yes. But I also think the points were valid to some extent .... Twice as fast? No. Typical hunting crossbow faster than the typical hunting bow? That is accurate. Novice crossbower beating world class compounder? No. Novice crossbower gaining a huge accuracy advantage over a novice (and even some very experienced) bowhunter? That is also correct.
> 
> If you would like to see complete misinformation, try ANY article that DJH has ever written, the vast majority of posts by Willie, or look in a mirror.
> 
> The old "a crossbow is 98% the same as a compound" line comes to mind.
> 
> If BOTH sides would be 100% above board, we could hammer out a clear understanding of the absolute differences between bow and crossbow. But it is obvious that the pro-crossbow strategy is to muddy the water as much as possible, pretend that a crossbow is the same to a compound.
> 
> As KYMustang says - Any 5 year old can tell the difference. Its amusing that grown men with an agenda can not.



I am waiting for you to prove something I have said that is a lie. You have serious mental issues that cause you to worry what another person hunts with in bow season based on how it looks. You didn't have the stones to deal with the bike analogy which is completely accurate. Since you have no standing in archery and have no one who can verify you even bowhunt, its not surprising you are too ignorant to understand the mechanics of a compound shot, a barebow shot and a crossbow shot and why the compound and the crossbow are far more similar than a trad bow or even an olympc bow

KISIK LEE-US Head coach notes that compound archery is an AIMING discipline so is crossbow archery. RECURVE and barebow archery is not. 

Maybe one day you and a couple of your familiars will learn enough to understand what he is talking about-right now I doubt you could


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> I asked you to post the name of someone on AT who could vouch for you even bowhunting and you have failed to do that. Willie asked you to show pictures of your trophies-you failed to do that.


LOL

You are not my boss. I don't have to jump when you or your lackey say jump. The fact is that I am amused by your constant ranting and raving and demanding this and that - I left my AT profile blank for 6 months just because it irritated you so much.

Another truth is that I enjoy the relative anonymity that is provided. I have been threatened multiple times by crackpots on your side of this debate, and I have a family to consider. Their interests will trump your demands every time.

I don't need to prove ANYTHING, especially to you or Wil-LIE. Like any other opinion on this board (including yours), folks are free to take it or leave it.

Now stop acting like the corner bully and mind your manners.


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> KISIK LEE-US Head coach notes that compound archery is an AIMING discipline so is crossbow archery. RECURVE and barebow archery is not.


LOL -= an aiming discipline where the aimpoint is only visible once you perform traditional archery skills to get to full draw, and where your aim can be influenced by anchor point, non-uniform draw length, shaking muscles, bow or release hand torque, etc.

Too funny, when you consider that crossbows and guns are pure aiming disciplines, where those other little BOW ONLY details need not be trifled with.

Obviously, your comment "the compound and the crossbow are far more similar than a trad bow" is a sad and pitiful joke. Unlike you, however - I know its not ignorance on your part. It is willful misrepresentation to push your own sad little agenda.

NO SALE.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> LOL
> 
> You are not my boss. I don't have to jump when you or your lackey say jump. The fact is that I am amused by your constant ranting and raving and demanding this and that - I left my AT profile blank for 6 months just because it irritated you so much.


didn't irritate me-it proved what I said about you- visions of chickens come to mind when it comes to this matter



thesource said:


> Another truth is that I enjoy the relative anonymity that is provided. I have been threatened multiple times by crackpots on your side of this debate, and I have a family to consider. Their interests will trump your demands every time.


sure you have Source. I guess PETA doesn't like having people call their posters frauds:wink: 



thesource said:


> I don't need to prove ANYTHING, especially to you or Wil-LIE. Like any other opinion on this board (including yours), folks are free to take it or leave it.
> 
> Now stop acting like the corner bully and mind your manners.


you are the bully source-your mental issues cause you to belittle, slander and denigrate thousands upon thousands of other hunters just so you can feel better about yourself


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> LOL -= an aiming discipline where the aimpoint is only visible once you perform traditional archery skills to get to full draw, and where your aim can be influenced by anchor point, non-uniform draw length, shaking muscles, bow or release hand torque, etc.
> 
> Too funny, when you consider that crossbows and guns are pure aiming disciplines, where those other little BOW ONLY details need not be trifled with.
> 
> Obviously, your comment "the compound and the crossbow are far more similar than a trad bow" is a sad and pitiful joke. Unlike you, however - I know its not ignorance on your part. It is willful misrepresentation to push your own sad little agenda.
> 
> NO SALE.


soruce knows more that the world's top archery coach. OMG that is funny


----------



## Marvin

So is the shoot off canceled or what? I may go just to get some of those famous ribs out there. I could be an official scorer too.


----------



## Jim C

Marvin said:


> So is the shoot off canceled or what? I may go just to get some of those famous ribs out there. I could be an official scorer too.



it was never contemplated. Free Range is too dim to even understand the points I made. Note he never could answer how a novice is going to be a top compound archer when a three time world champion couldn't at Louisville

Carol Pelosi shoots a crossbow better than me and at least 250 guys at Louisville can shoot a compound better than me too


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> sure you have Source. I guess PETA doesn't like having people call their posters frauds:wink:


Your anti-hunter inference is insulting, and I should probably report you. 

I have been threatened numerous times - lawsuits, physical violence, even one guy (who you have "vouched for", shows how important that is) who said he would come to NY and burn down my house.

Nice. All because I simply expressed a contrary opinion.

Kinda puts being called "lazy" into its proper perspective, dontcha think?


----------



## thesource

Jim C said:


> soruce knows more that the world's top archery coach. OMG that is funny


More misrepresentation.

Did the world's top archery coach say that shooting a compound and shooting a crossbow were the same? Cause I didn't see where you quoted that.

But if he did - I guess there are a LOT of people who know more than him - even KYmustang's 5 year olds!


----------



## Marvin

thesource said:


> I have been threatened numerous times - lawsuits, physical violence, even one guy (who you have "vouched for", shows how important that is) who said he would come to NY and burn down my house.
> 
> 
> 
> QUOTE]
> is this a canadian memeber of the UCBK i wonder?


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> Your anti-hunter inference is insulting, and I should probably report you.
> 
> I have been threatened numerous times - lawsuits, physical violence, even one guy (who you have "vouched for", shows how important that is) who said he would come to NY and burn down my house.
> 
> Nice. All because I simply expressed a contrary opinion.
> 
> Kinda puts being called "lazy" into its proper perspective, dontcha think?



You are an anti hunter-you called thousands upon thousands of hunters "Lazy" "Cheaters" "wannabe bowhunters" and worse. I think you are LYING as to those threats. You really don't have enough importance to merit such nonsense.


----------



## thesource

It doesn't really matter what you think.

I am most definitely NOT an anti-hunter. I fully support crossbows, remember? In their own season.

In their own season, I think crossbows are great and I think crossbow hunters are all swell guys. A separate crossbow season would provide any positives that might actually occur with expansion AND would cause must less animosity, strife, and division. There is absolutely NO downside (except disappointment for greedy season usurpers who demand all of existing bowseason.)

Its win - win.

See - you need to stop lying about me being an antihunter - it makes you look like a dumb-dumb.:wink:


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> It doesn't really matter what you think.
> 
> I am most definitely NOT an anti-hunter. I fully support crossbows, remember? In their own season.
> 
> In their own season, I think crossbows are great and I think crossbow hunters are all swell guys. A separate crossbow season would provide ALL the positives that you claim AND would cause must less animosity, strife, and division. There is absolutely NO downside (except disappointment for greedy season usurpers who demand all of existing bowseason.)
> 
> Its win - win.
> 
> See - you need to stop lying about me being an antihunter - it makes you look like a dumb-dumb.:wink:


the devil is in the details-say in ohio where we hunt from early October til the end of january and every archery hunter gets 4 months

why don't you give me a suggestion on how are you going to divide it

will "longbow" archers in ohio like half the time (or less given that xbows have the most hunters?) as xbows grow in popularity will they have a claim for more hunting time?

give me a breakdown


----------



## cynic

thesource said:


> It doesn't really matter what you think.
> 
> I am most definitely NOT an anti-hunter. I fully support crossbows, remember? In their own season.
> 
> In their own season, I think crossbows are great and I think crossbow hunters are all swell guys. A separate crossbow season would provide ALL the positives that you claim AND would cause must less animosity, strife, and division. There is absolutely NO downside (except disappointment for greedy season usurpers who demand all of existing bowseason.)
> 
> Its win - win.
> 
> See - you need to stop lying about me being an antihunter - it makes you look like a dumb-dumb.:wink:


Okay then lets do it like this..Do away with the current archery season all together..Start all over new seasons everthing..Instead of archery season, We will have crossbow season and allow all other archery equipment? Since during most xbow seasons other archery tackle is allowed. Then everybody will be happy xbows get their own season and verticle bow hunters loose nothing except the name of the season..Sound good


----------



## thesource

No sense arguing about the details until you agree in principle.

Do you?

You've seen my proposals about fair division of seasons before - don't be coy. We all know you will wander down this path briefly and then start bellowing the same old tired stuff you always do.

Since I AM willing to provide a crossbow season, however, it proves all your ant-hunter, crossbow-hater, he slandered thousands blah, blah, blah ranting is bullcrap.

We'll see who is fair and reasonable here, Jim. I'm betting you don't last 10 posts....

Edited to add: I see Cynic couldn't even make it 1 post.....


----------



## cynic

I simply offered a solution, that could very well put an end to the division..

*Since I AM willing to provide a crossbow season, however, it proves all your ant-hunter, crossbow-hater, he slandered thousands blah, blah, blah ranting is bullcrap.*
You don't have the ability to make that offer, YOU can not carry out any compromise if it were to come to that..
What you propose is a continued division..based on any Idea of ease of use and looks..Remeber looks can be deceaving..


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> No sense arguing about the details until you agree in principle.
> 
> Do you?
> 
> You've seen my proposals about fair division of seasons before - don't be coy. We all know you will wander down this path briefly and then start bellowing the same old tired stuff you always do.
> 
> Since I AM willing to provide a crossbow season, however, it proves all your ant-hunter, crossbow-hater, he slandered thousands blah, blah, blah ranting is bullcrap.
> 
> We'll see who is fair and reasonable here, Jim. I'm betting you don't last 10 posts....
> 
> Edited to add: I see Cynic couldn't even make it 1 post.....


No source-there is no reason for archers to have less time

Cynic's solution is a great one


----------



## thesource

LOL - you couldn't make it a single post, either.

Whatever, boys - its very easy to see who is casuing division. 

Typical.


----------



## Jim C

thesource said:


> LOL - you couldn't make it a single post, either.
> 
> Whatever, boys - its very easy to see who is casuing division.
> 
> Typical.



How are you hurt by having lots of time to hunt rather than having less time to hunt

let me guess-you want to be able to hunt during xbow season but you don't want xbows to be able to hunt during "your season" which would be the prime archery hunting time while xbows would be shoved into late december or post gun post rut seasons

you are the one who has mental issues that cause you to be unable to have a long season because you somehow are "tainted" by having xbows around

now step up to the plate and tell us how you would divide the season


----------



## cynic

thesource said:


> LOL - you couldn't make it a single post, either.
> 
> Whatever, boys - its very easy to see who is casuing division.
> Typical.


I will agree with that..How are people trying to be included causing a division?
Wouldn't the ones wanting seperate seasons for personal reasons be the one dividing the ranks of archery hunters? And last but not least how did a thread about remote hunting turn into another xbow "debate" or something of that nature?


----------



## Marvin

cynic said:


> I will agree with that..How are people trying to be included causing a division?
> Wouldn't the ones wanting seperate seasons for personal reasons be the one dividing the ranks of archery hunters? And last but not least how did a thread about remote hunting turn into another xbow "debate" or something of that nature?


Trads the first 4 weeks then it all opens up. east of the mississippi rules.


----------



## Tim4Trout

Instead of separate seasons, how 'bout just one season as follows. 

Monday -- Rifles Only

Tuesday -- Shotguns Only

Wednesday -- Muzzleloaders Only

Thursday -- Crossbows Only

Friday -- Recurves Only 

Saturday -- Compounds Only

Sunday -- All Legal Weapons

Everyone would then get an opportunity to hunt early, during the rut, and track one through the snow ( where applicable )

Note -- Weapons and specific chosen days listed above for example purposes only.


----------



## Marvin

Tim4Trout said:


> Instead of separate seasons, how 'bout just one season as follows.
> 
> Monday -- Rifles Only
> 
> Tuesday -- Shotguns Only
> 
> Wednesday -- Muzzleloaders Only
> 
> Thursday -- Crossbows Only
> 
> Friday -- Recurves Only
> 
> Saturday -- Compounds Only
> 
> Sunday -- All Legal Weapons
> 
> Everyone would then get an opportunity to hunt early, during the rut, and track one through the snow ( where applicable )
> 
> Note -- Weapons and specific chosen days listed above for example purposes only.


You forgot longbows and not every state lets you hunt on sunday


----------



## Tim4Trout

Marvin said:


> You forgot longbows and not every state lets you hunt on sunday


I would probably include longbows with recurves and we would have to get Sunday laws changed. I would also include pistols somewhere,too.


----------



## Marvin

Tim4Trout said:


> I would probably include longbows with recurves and we would have to get Sunday laws changed. I would also include pistols somewhere,too.


lends credence to the old saying " there ain't enough days in the week"


----------



## cynic

Marvin said:


> Trads the first 4 weeks then it all opens up. east of the mississippi rules.


Is this traditional archery equipment as defined by whom? Would this also include traditional xbows or is this another way to exclude hunters from a particular season using archery tackle? I bet I know the answers to all these questions..


----------



## cynic

Tim4Trout said:


> Instead of separate seasons, how 'bout just one season as follows.
> 
> Monday -- Rifles Only
> 
> Tuesday -- Shotguns Only
> 
> Wednesday -- Muzzleloaders Only
> 
> Thursday -- Crossbows Only
> 
> Friday -- Recurves Only
> 
> Saturday -- Compounds Only
> 
> Sunday -- All Legal Weapons
> 
> Everyone would then get an opportunity to hunt early, during the rut, and track one through the snow ( where applicable )
> 
> Note -- Weapons and specific chosen days listed above for example purposes only.


And again I see that the compound guys want the best days that hunters having the most oppotunity to hunt on for themselves. You guys are relentless when it come to taking the best and getting the most..Since most seasons start on a Saturday of a specific month and end on a weekend along with the fact that many places do not allow hunting on Sunday..


----------



## Tim4Trout

cynic said:


> And again I see that the compound guys want the best days that hunters having the most oppotunity to hunt on for themselves. You guys are relentless when it come to taking the best and getting the most..Since most seasons start on a Saturday of a specific month and end on a weekend along with the fact that many places do not allow hunting on Sunday..


A rotating schedule could be made so each weapon's day changes each subsequent week. With a 14 week season, each weapon would have 2 Mondays, 2 Tuesdays, etc. 

Some may have a few more opportunity days, but heck that happens already.

It could also be divided into AM / PM ( Recurves AM / Longbows PM )

BTW I also propose setting aside 2 days September 31 and November 31 for big prize non lethal darting competitions.


----------



## cynic

Tim4Trout said:


> A rotating schedule could be made so each weapon's day changes each subsequent week. With a 14 week season, each weapon would have 2 Mondays, 2 Tuesdays, etc.
> 
> Some may have a few more opportunity days, but heck that happens already.
> 
> It could also be divided into AM / PM ( Recurves AM / Longbows PM )
> 
> BTW I also propose setting aside 2 days September 31 and November 31 for big prize non lethal darting competitions.


This also is not fair, as the season here is closed on both of those days seems that the only real way is that everybody that wants to hunt just go hunt..IF it is archery, use archery tackle. If during gun, use a gun..I know but what about ML, well If we are not going to break out individual types of archery then we have no need to break firearms either. The non lethal darting would be subject to cervid farm administrators and availabilty of veternarians and thus would be limiting hunters also..So lets leave the darting out..but if you really want to dart I think Farbman has a spot just for you...


----------



## Jim C

the only reason why source wants different seasons is because of his self image problem and doesn't want someone confusing him with a crossbow hunter.

its moronic to think that source and his ilk are going to do anything other than telling xbows they have to hunt WITH firearms or AFTER gun season.

trads brag about doing it the hard way-if they want a seperate season give them December then they can feel even more superior


----------



## Jim C

cynic said:


> This also is not fair, as the season here is closed on both of those days seems that the only real way is that everybody that wants to hunt just go hunt..IF it is archery, use archery tackle. If during gun, use a gun..I know but what about ML, well If we are not going to break out individual types of archery then we have no need to break firearms either. The non lethal darting would be subject to cervid farm administrators and availabilty of veternarians and thus would be limiting hunters also..So lets leave the darting out..but if you really want to dart I think Farbman has a spot just for you...



Ohio is fine-we let all archery hunt together and there is NO PROBLEMS.


----------



## Free Range

> like I am going to drive 6 hours to waste my time with some nobody. You are lying again
> 
> unlike you and Free Range-there are plenty of people on AT who can vouch for my shooting
> 
> why can't any of you guys explain how a novice with a crossbow is going to outshoot top competitive compound archers when 200+ compound archers beat a three time crossbow world champion at NFAA Indoor



Jimmy, we have heard you countless times tell us how good you are, and how many trophies and titles you hold, I think everyone here agrees you are, a top competitive shooter. Now I will take an oath and provide witnesses as to me being a novice when it comes to xb’s. Now I’m willing to drive,,,,did you say St.louis is only six hours from you, it’s more like 12 hours for me, so I’m not even asking you to drive half way. In fact you can bring any of the other people you want I will shoot against any of them, I use your hunting xb set up, you use my hunting bow set up. And me being a no body is exactly the point, a no body like me can and will beat you with your own equipment.


----------



## awshucks

I would like a ticket to this and an introduction to the local bookie


----------



## Jim C

Free Range said:


> Jimmy, we have heard you countless times tell us how good you are, and how many trophies and titles you hold, I think everyone here agrees you are, a top competitive shooter. Now I will take an oath and provide witnesses as to me being a novice when it comes to xb’s. Now I’m willing to drive,,,,did you say St.louis is only six hours from you, it’s more like 12 hours for me, so I’m not even asking you to drive half way. In fact you can bring any of the other people you want I will shoot against any of them, I use your hunting xb set up, you use my hunting bow set up. And me being a no body is exactly the point, a no body like me can and will beat you with your own equipment.



your leg humping gets tiring

I am going to waste 100 dollars in gas on you? what stupid nonsense. I have already asked you to deal with published scores from the NFAA tournament and you don't have the balls to even address that fact which proves my point that your cesspool known as the PBS has lied

I have an idea for you. You live in Colorado-correct? a couple of the crossbow guys will be shooting there. They love to edify people about crossbows. They will be there that first week in august. Why don't you show up and get some learning. You can walk over to the compound field and watch "top competitive" compound archers-watch the groups they shoot at 30Meters. (that will be on Wednesday and Friday)

go watch the crossbows-they shoot 45-55-65 meters. look at the groups from the top compound archers at 30M -remember your sainted PBS said that novices with crossbows shoot the same groups at 60 Yards (55 meters is about the same) that compounds shoot at 25 yards.

there won't be more than a few xbow archers since this tournament (being far away from all the serious xbow archers who reside from Illinois east) but you can see that these few are hardly novices. maybe they will let you try their bows-Mike Gough and I allowed Jeff Button and Aya LaBrie to do so at the NFAA.

then you can find Aya. She shoots both recurve and compound so she's busy but I am sure between rounds or after the competition is over for the day she will talk to you. She has a tournament xbow she recently acquired. Ask her what she things-she has been 1) a FITA world gold medalist in compound 2) a several time US recurve national champion in field and medalist at the US OPEN a fita international ranking recurve tournament.
Tell her you think you can pick up a crossbow and outshoot her and her hoyt compound bow.

I realize you want to make it about me and you Free Range rather than defend the pathetic lies of a group you boast of being a member in. If your goal is really about learning something or proving me wrong here is the perfect opportunity for you to obtain wisdom.

I note you want me to shoot your hunting set up-again you are changing the PBS "study". the compound archers used their own target rigs-not someone else's set up.

here is some information

http://www.usarchery.org/files/06_national_target_schedule.pdf

If you fail to do that, you really are not worthy of my time


----------



## Free Range

> I note you want me to shoot your hunting set up-again you are changing the PBS "study". the compound archers used their own target rigs-not someone else's set up.


Really, and how do you know this, I thought you didn’t have the study? 



> I have an idea for you. You live in Colorado-correct? a couple of the crossbow guys will be shooting there. They love to edify people about crossbows. They will be there that first week in august. Why don't you show up and get some learning. You can walk over to the compound field and watch "top competitive" compound archers-watch the groups they shoot at 30Meters. (that will be on Wednesday and Friday)


I see Jim, it’s ok, if you don’t want to do this. The thrust of my challenge was to show how the Marlow study “might” have been done, they might have taken a novice, and pitted them against a top ranked shooter, that was not necessarily the best shooter in the world but was still considered a top ranked shooter. 

And as for your question as to how the very best compound shooters can out shoot the very best xb shooters. I have no answer for that, target shooting is not my bag, I would suppose it has something to do with stability, which we all know has nothing to do with hunting. A ¼” miss in target shooting could cause a person to lose a match. But in hunting would have no affect on the out come. 

However I would like to go see these shooters you are talking about, where will they be shooting, if I’m not to busy out scouting (I’m a hunter as you know not a target shooter) I might just stop by and see if I can get anybody to give me the low down on a fellow named JimC.


----------



## Jim C

Free Range said:


> Really, and how do you know this, I thought you didn’t have the study?
> 
> 
> 
> I see Jim, it’s ok, if you don’t want to do this. The thrust of my challenge was to show how the Marlow study “might” have been done, they might have taken a novice, and pitted them against a top ranked shooter, that was not necessarily the best shooter in the world but was still considered a top ranked shooter.
> 
> And as for your question as to how the very best compound shooters can out shoot the very best xb shooters. I have no answer for that, target shooting is not my bag, I would suppose it has something to do with stability, which we all know has nothing to do with hunting. A ¼” miss in target shooting could cause a person to lose a match. But in hunting would have no affect on the out come.
> 
> However I would like to go see these shooters you are talking about, where will they be shooting, if I’m not to busy out scouting (I’m a hunter as you know not a target shooter) I might just stop by and see if I can get anybody to give me the low down on a fellow named JimC.



the two men shooting-Bill Croft and Stan Pennypacker know me since they come to the Ohio tournament for the last few years. Carol Pelosi is entered-she probably remembers me for Louisville-she's won more national titles than anyone in NAA history IIRC


----------



## progers

cynic said:


> I will agree with that..How are people trying to be included causing a division?
> Wouldn't the ones wanting seperate seasons for personal reasons be the one dividing the ranks of archery hunters? And last but not least how did a thread about remote hunting turn into another xbow "debate" or something of that nature?


Because it's about Louisiana I guess.

Oh, did you hear about the new bill being introduced by LA State Representatives? The support is growing. :darkbeer:


----------



## PMantle

progers said:


> Because it's about Louisiana I guess.
> 
> Oh, did you hear about the new bill being introduced by LA State Representatives? The support is growing. :darkbeer:


The 2006 session is over. Are you talking about April 2007?


----------

