# Think before you post



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

This isn't about any one individual post or person. Honestly it's more about what I'm seeing on Facebook. I've been on a bit of a tear lately about accuracy as it comes to hunting this is due to the incredible number of posts I'm seeing on wounded deer and poorly hit deer. 

Social media is going to be the end of hunting as we know it. The general public doesn't need to know you missed or wounded a deer and yes they are absolutely reading these posts. 

They don't need to see grip and grin images with lots of blood. Figure out off 100 folks 5 are hunters, 10 are anti and 85 are neutral - crap posts are turning those 85 the other way. 

PETA are amateur anti hunters compared to the infrastructure and plan that the human society (HSUS) has in place. 

HSUS is going at it like this trapping > hound hunting > bow hunting > general hunting and they are succeeding. They've shut down hounds and trapping in Ca. and they used our own dumb ass social media images and videos to do it. 

They are actively going after bear baiting and hounding in Maine and spending millions to do it. Some of you are thinking "well I don't care for trapping or hounds - so what" trapping and hounds are just the low hanging fruit the end goal is all hunting. 

Don't make it easy - think before you post.


----------



## SoDak Dog (May 30, 2015)

Well said!


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Matt,

You are fighting a losing battle. This is the age of social media. You want folks to look two steps ahead and consider the consequence of their posts. Too many folks looking for likes, followers, and views, to consider the consequences. Maybe some will take my comment as a challenge.

And you are right. Speaking as a non hunter, the images and stories absolutely do not help. I don't think you can kill hunting in the US, but you can certainly change the landscape.


----------



## steve morley (Dec 24, 2005)

Someone should take the Anti hunters about 10 days walk from any civilization with just a Bow/arrows and basic survival kit, see what happens.

I don't Bowhunt but wouldn't hesitate in such a survival situation.


----------



## DaveWood (Aug 28, 2015)

steve morley said:


> Someone should take the Anti hunters about _10 days walk from any civilization_ with just a Bow/arrows and basic survival kit, see what happens.
> 
> I don't Bowhunt but wouldn't hesitate in such a survival situation.


Not many places like that left in the world, Antarctica?


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

I don't post on any of the social media apps. Way too many idiots on there 

Mac


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Facebook is the devil .....not dead animal pics


----------



## Captainkirk (Sep 18, 2014)

I agree social media is a big problem. I don't do any of that FB garbage, etc. But I do post hunting info/pix on hunting fora. Nothing can stop a mole from infiltrating a bowhunting or archery forum such as this and lifting your posts and/or pictures, so I agree...keep your posts in good taste, photos too. And if you wound an animal, do your best to correct the situation, but don't brag about it.
Unfortunately, some of the wounding going on is by younger FB oriented crowd, most who are newbies to bowhunting and don't see the potential damage their posts could make. A lot of them are proud that they bowhunted and got a shot off. And yes, HSUS as well as PETA to some degree, are well-funded and very determined to bring our sport to an end.
Most activists fail to make the connection between hunting and eating and paint bowhunting as 'cruel and evil' treatment of animals.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

yes its certainly doesn't help our cause, but we live in the age of social media, some rookies need help tracking, and social media helps with that....hunting in the US will never go away, the states and goverment and insurance agencies get way too much money from hunters to stop it


----------



## Sanford (Jan 26, 2009)

Matt, I fully agree with what you are saying. I looked at the Humane Society webpage and see their initiatives are pretty sound in most areas. So, like other organizations, that may just be the bait. But, on some issues they can definitely gain good ground in attracting sympathy in that they have just cause. The bear baiting you mention is probably not the one they are against, or publicly. They are talking more like cock-fighting sport, like old days of bull-baiting. Same for penned foxes and such. These stupid practices are doing a ton of harm to those sporting with animals in a responsible way.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

I agree - I often wonder if the current Trophy Hunting bologna is just as detrimental. Nearly every animal in those pics also has a score attached. Makes the argument about hunting for meat kind of thin......drives me nuts and I am a hunter.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

United we stand ...... Divided we fall 

Good taste should prevail but we all need to support legal hunting and regretfully lost and wounded game is a big part of it


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

centershot said:


> I agree - I often wonder if the current Trophy Hunting bologna is just as detrimental. Nearly every animal in those pics also has a score attached. Makes the argument about hunting for meat kind of thin......drives me nuts and I am a hunter.


its apart of the sport, although im not a trophy hunter i do hunt hard for big mature bucks in my area and pass on small bucks to let them grow since im the only one that hunts every weekend in my area...and people do eat those deer with big racks.....trophy hunting is helping the sport to be honest to help small/young deer grow instead of shooting everything that walks.....and also if you kill 2-3 deer thats plenty of meat to last for months, if not a full year, and i hunt for venison because its the healthiest/leanest meat you can possibly eat....


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

JParanee said:


> United we stand ...... Divided we fall
> 
> Good taste should prevail but we all need to support legal hunting and regretfully lost and wounded game is a big part of it


yeah it amazes me the hate hunters have for each other, its such a moral high ground sport...the purists hate the guys who use foot plots, the food plot guys hate the corn pile guys, the corn pile guys hate hunters who use dogs to chase deer, compound guys hate crossbow guys, trophy hunters hate the guys who shoot everything that walks, some people are so jealous of people who kill big deer and proclaim it ''farm raised deer'' without doing any research on the actual story of the deer or anything of that matter....its sad, hunters need to stick together and help each other out more instead being on this unhealthy moral high ground


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

I'm Strickly a Trophy Hunter  

To many that's a bad thing 

I'm okay with that I judge what no one does in the hunting field as long as it is fair chase and legally done


----------



## fallhunt (Aug 2, 2013)

I do not post on social media. It does not matter. 

I would not make even the slightest modifications in order to placate non-hunters, anti-hunters, or animal rightist. 

I don’t care about their perceptions, sensibilities, or approval – PERIOD!


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> yeah it amazes me the hate hunters have for each other, its such a moral high ground sport...the purists hate the guys who use foot plots, the food plot guys hate the corn pile guys, the corn pile guys hate hunters who use dogs to chase deer, compound guys hate crossbow guys, trophy hunters hate the guys who shoot everything that walks, some people are so jealous of people who kill big deer and proclaim it ''farm raised deer'' without doing any research on the actual story of the deer or anything of that matter....its sad, hunters need to stick together and help each other out more instead being on this unhealthy moral high ground


Yes Ghosty 

We all have opinions on what we think is the right way 

But we need to respect everyone's opinion

In my hunting group we have everything from single strings to crossbows and no one cares or places a higher regard on any tool


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

fallhunt said:


> I do not post on social media. It does not matter.
> 
> I would not make even the slightest modifications in order to placate non-hunters, anti-hunters, or animal rightist.
> 
> I don’t care about their perceptions, sensibilities, or approval – PERIOD!



I agree


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

JParanee said:


> Yes Ghosty
> 
> We all have opinions on what we think is the right way
> 
> ...


yep, not everyone is wired the same way...with hunting like you said, wounded deer is apart of the game, even if you hit the deer in the sweet spot, sometimes those deer have such amazing will's to live that they will live, hunting is tough, bowhunting is even harder, that's why i love it, ive wounded a deer before, it sucked will never forget about wounding that doe, because it made me practice more, and your'e supposed to feel bad about it...it makes you a better person and hunter


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

JParanee said:


> I'm Strickly a Trophy Hunter
> 
> To many that's a bad thing
> 
> I'm okay with that I judge what no one does in the hunting field as long as it is fair chase and legally done


I love trophy hunters, they leave all of the 3-4 year olds for me! Honestly, I think everyone likes to find a big old buck or bull. But they are very rare on public lands here in Idaho. You can go years and not see a true trophy in a general hunt area. Trophy animals can be bought though - landowner tags have been selling for $10-15K for a bull tag in prime areas. Money has kind of tainted the whole trophy thing a bit around here.

I think Mr. Pope summed it up pretty well nearly a hundred years ago. See my tag line below.


----------



## centershot (Sep 13, 2002)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> yep, not everyone is wired the same way...with hunting like you said, wounded deer is apart of the game, even if you hit the deer in the sweet spot, sometimes those deer have such amazing will's to live that they will live, hunting is tough, bowhunting is even harder, that's why i love it, ive wounded a deer before, it sucked will never forget about wounding that doe, because it made me practice more, and your'e supposed to feel bad about it...it makes you a better person and hunter


I wounded one also - has made me a better hunter(and tracker) and changed my attitude. Now, unless it is a slam dunk, I say the deer won that round. I feel much better about not taking a marginal shot than making a poor one. Things still can and do happen even with the best of setups but by doing everything we can do to make the shot the best we can possibly make would go a long ways to shrinking the OP's original concern.


----------



## Easykeeper (Jan 2, 2003)

I see no point in hiding the realities of hunting. 

I also see no point in posting gratuitous pictures of bloody carcasses, blood trails, wound close-ups, and the whole "dirt nap, whack 'em and stack 'em, smackdown" mentality. 

I think we should be proud of what we do, take responsibility if we screw up, and honor the sensibilities of the vast majority of the population that is ambivalent about hunting. I don't even think about people who are anti-hunting, they aren't going to be influenced by anything I can say or do, only by others that share their opinion. 

Most people aren't turned off by a nice photo of a hunter with his or her game, but some of the photos I've seen really turn me off, and I've been a hunter all my life.


----------



## Beendare (Jan 31, 2006)

*Think before you post*...we could say that about a lot of things---like Voting too!

Good point Matt.

Best site out there to see what is going on;Humanewatch.org, link

http://www.humanewatch.org/


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

I AM A CATCH AND RELEASE BIG GAME HUNTER.







I hunt the back forty.







That should make ever one happy. LOL.
Dan


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Confusion is always the best tactics. 
Dan


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

If some one tells me that they disagree with hunting. I will show them what a starving deer looks like? Then ask them now why is hunting bad? I shot a lead Cow Elk and when the game and fish inspected. Warden Pulled a tooth, he said I did this animal a favor. She would not have lived thru the winter?
Dan


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

DDSHOOTER said:


> If some one tells me that they disagree with hunting. I will show them what a starving deer looks like? Then ask them now why is hunting bad?
> Dan


yeah mother nature is cruel, if not by a hunter, they die by starvation, predators, disease, a vehicle, dehydration and they suffer greatly if they die by any of those ways, if i was a deer i would want someone to put an arrow in me and grill me up lol...


----------



## crazyhoyt (May 30, 2011)

Matt_Potter said:


> This isn't about any one individual post or person. Honestly it's more about what I'm seeing on Facebook. I've been on a bit of a tear lately about accuracy as it comes to hunting this is due to the incredible number of posts I'm seeing on wounded deer and poorly hit deer.
> 
> Social media is going to be the end of hunting as we know it. The general public doesn't need to know you missed or wounded a deer and yes they are absolutely reading these posts.
> 
> ...


Well said, I agree 100%.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Yep, that's kind of how I feel. I did them a favor and made it quick. Wish, I can go that way too.
Dan


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

centershot said:


> I love trophy hunters, they leave all of the 3-4 year olds for me! Honestly, I think everyone likes to find a big old buck or bull. But they are very rare on public lands here in Idaho. You can go years and not see a true trophy in a general hunt area. Trophy animals can be bought though - landowner tags have been selling for $10-15K for a bull tag in prime areas. Money has kind of tainted the whole trophy thing a bit around here.
> 
> I think Mr. Pope summed it up pretty well nearly a hundred years ago. See my tag line below.


 Center 

I would be the first person to agree 

You can only hunt for the best animal in your area 

Hunting is many things to many different people and all choices should be respected


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

I grew up on a large commercial dairy and have hunted my whole life. I am about as pragmatic about life and death as anyone you will ever meet. I've got no issue with people I know knowing I hunt but I feel no need to rub the whole worlds nose in it or to rationalize to anti-hunters why I do it.

I was also taught by my father and grandfather that there is barn talk and house talk. Barn talk was amongst people of a like mind who "get it". House talk was cleaned up for general consumption. Once it's on the web it's there for ever and you have no control over who sees it our how it is presented. 

People are missing the distinction and putting up stuff that's not meet to leave the group of people that "get it". 

California lost its hound hunting because of one video that some moron posted of his dogs killing a bobcat on the ground. It happens but you sure as **** don't need to put it on the web, for all of San Francisco to see. 

The general public doesn't need to know how my hounds are trained. The general public doesn't need to see close ups of deer getting shot. The general public doesn't need see videos of morons hi fiving after they "smoked" or "laid a beat down" on that buck. The general public sure has heck doesn't need to see dogs being put on hogs in fenced enclosures or cats being shot out of trees.

People are loosing the respect for the animals in their quest for the most likes or the shares or what ever.

This attitude of "screw them - they need to sack up" isn't going to work. At this point our Fish and Game commissions aren't populated by hunters and fishermen - they are neutral at best.

Read this http://www.outdoornewsservice.com/#...g-organization/c18sh/5647cfca0cf21009be875f72


----------



## fallhunt (Aug 2, 2013)

I do not seek to appease non-hunters, anti-hunters, or animal rightist.

I do not seek to appease archers, bowhunters, or gun hunters.

So far, I am still a free man.

I will post whatever I like, whenever I like, wherever I like, and however I like. 

I will have zero concerns about the perceptions, sensibilities, or approval of others.

My only concern will be whether it makes me happy and whether I like it.

Anyone who doesn’t like what I do or the way I do it can try to stop me. I certainly will never voluntarily stop due to some sense of “political correctness” or social responsibility.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

fallhunt said:


> I do not seek to appease non-hunters, anti-hunters, or animal rightist.
> 
> I do not seek to appease archers, bowhunters, or gun hunters.
> 
> ...


This attitude will be the end of hunting as we know it.

I'm sure there were a ton of hound hunters just like you in California before the ban - they got stopped and nobody thought it would happen.


Matt


----------



## Cwilder (Jun 4, 2006)

Hunting is a multi billion dollar industry. It's going to take a lot more than some hunting photos posted on the Internet to shut it down.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Cwilder said:


> Hunting is a multi billion dollar industry. It's going to take a lot more than some hunting photos posted on the Internet to shut it down.


http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/ne...hunting-bears-hounds-leads-record-low-harvest

Hound hunting was a multi Million dollar industry in Ca before it ended.

Matt


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

Matt_Potter said:


> http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/ne...hunting-bears-hounds-leads-record-low-harvest
> 
> Hound hunting was a multi Million dollar industry in Ca before it ended.
> 
> Matt


So was spring bear hunting in Ontario.


----------



## bwhntr4168 (Mar 15, 2005)

Bb


Matt_Potter said:


> This isn't about any one individual post or person. Honestly it's more about what I'm seeing on Facebook. I've been on a bit of a tear lately about accuracy as it comes to hunting this is due to the incredible number of posts I'm seeing on wounded deer and poorly hit deer.
> 
> Social media is going to be the end of hunting as we know it. The general public doesn't need to know you missed or wounded a deer and yes they are absolutely reading these posts.
> 
> ...


Very Well Said!


----------



## sprinke (Jul 9, 2015)

Matt_Potter said:


> Figure out off 100 folks 5 are hunters, 10 are anti and 85 are neutral - crap posts are turning those 85 the other way.


I'm one of the 85 neutral people, and if you'd like to hear my opinion, here it is.

I'm a "city slicker" I guess ... never hunted in my life, don't know anyone who does hunt, don't care to try hunting either.

BUT! I totally respect hunters' desires and rights to harvest game animals within the legal boundaries of the law, without undue cruelty to the animal if possible. I understand that the loss of natural predators has resulted in an overpopulation of deer and that hunting is currently part of the process to maintain an ecological balance, and that many people depend upon their kills to provide food for their families. That's all well and good, and I accept these things consciously.

However, it wasn't until I joined ArcheryTalk that I started seeing "trophy" pics and kill threads. And frankly, I was shocked. Maybe to hunters it's normal, but to someone who's never seen it before, it's a bit scary, disgusting, and morbid to see happy-looking people posing next to dead animals covered in blood.

Now, I'm not going to rush out and join PETA (LOL) or try to crusade against hunting or anything. Y'all can keep doing what you're doing as far as I'm concerned. But the OP is correct ... those types of pics put real, visceral images in front of people's eyeballs who may have never seen anything like it before. And their reactions are going to vary.


----------



## Cwilder (Jun 4, 2006)

Matt_Potter said:


> http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/ne...hunting-bears-hounds-leads-record-low-harvest
> 
> Hound hunting was a multi Million dollar industry in Ca before it ended.
> 
> Matt


That's the people of CA fault for letting liberals ruin the state


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Cwilder said:


> That's the people of CA fault for letting liberals ruin the state


Have you taken a look at who our commander and chief is??? He was voted in twice by the same folks that will decide if we get to hunt. 

Think about it.


----------



## Beendare (Jan 31, 2006)

Cwilder said:


> That's the people of CA fault for letting liberals ruin the state


a guy from Maryland is calling out us Californians? Better watch your back CW....you aren't exactly living in conservative paradise there....those liberal neighbors of yours will turn on you in a heartbeat

BTW, at least we have world class weather...........of course you can look forward to your decent weather...........in another 5 1/2 months!!!!


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

Can't let anti-hunters take away your right to post a concern about a bad shot on social media, I think some of you are reaching quite a bit of you think hunting will be banned, it won't


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

People being uneducated about hunting and dividing hunters will be the death of hunting 

Yes I agree the if it's brown its down mentality and all the hupla of your Saturday hunting shows is a turn off to some and yes I do not watch hunting shows on tv and I'm a hunter so you know it's bad but that's not the conversation here 

What we are talking about is using social media to post things about dead animals and lost animals 

I do not use Facebook so I can not speak of it but its audience is very broad and reaches a lot of people...non hunters being part of it 

So I can understand the concern and the point of the OP when he asks people to ponder the results of gory trophy shots and lost deer 

But when you are posting on a archery forum which caters to a certain percentage of hunters I feel that it is more than acceptable to post tasteful hunting photos if there is such a thing to some  and more importantly to be able to discuss lost animals 

Regretfully lost animals is as much a part of hunting as recovered animals 

Finding lost animals is an important topic 

I think more important than most hunting related items discussed here 

People that say they have never lost an animal and that have been at this for any length of time are liars 

I have done more hunting than most and yes as I get older my views are changing so maybe the OP's words have more weight than any of us are giving credit for but I still think the more we hide a huge part of hunting the worse it looks when it is spoke of 

A younger generation that is getting into hunting needs to know what happens after the shot .......sometimes it's a different outcome than was expected 

Anyone can post a positive outcome in any situation ..... It is a lot harder to post a negative 

A few years ago I posted of a lost big buck I had been hunting and how traumatic it was to me. Maybe I'm getting soft in my old age but that deer for some reason shook me to the pillars of my hunting core and still has me questioning my life as a Hunter 

I feel discussing such things on a archery forum that caters to a certain amount of hunters is as least as important as discussing any other topic 

Should we just keep reading gap vs instinctive threads and tuning threads ?  

What we are doing on the traditional forum is not the big concern.....go over into the general bow hunting forum and see what's going on 

There is a lot more traffic there and they are posting about anything and everything that has to do with hunting 

I have educated more people on hunting than I would say most 

I know when and where to speak of it and believe me most when engaged in a sincere non arrogant argumentative manor will have a open mind to hunting when done ethically and with respect 

So I do see the OP's point but I do maintain my point that to not discuss a certain very important aspect of hunting on a forum that caters to a certain amount of hunters is not the way to go 

Regretfully it's a large part of it 

I can tell you all after being involved in hunting and living an outdoor life style my whole life my views on my own personal thoughts on hunting have changed and every year that passes it changes more 

Only thing I do know is that I will continue to support hunting and all hunters and hope that the day will never come when we can't speak of it in public


----------



## jakeemt (Oct 25, 2012)

JParanee said:


> United we stand ...... Divided we fall
> 
> Good taste should prevail but we all need to support legal hunting and regretfully lost and wounded game is a big part of it


Jparnee-I generally agree with your view in this thread (though I have no qualms with fb either). However, I must say I don't fully agree with this stance. While I know everyone's views are different I would also argue that united we fall as much as we stand. Things like high fence canned hunts are pretty much universally reviled among hunters and non hunters alike. What's more it's very nature is the opposite of true sportsmanship. As an extreme example if hunting deer at night with a spotlight became legal I would feel obligated to oppose such a practice and I think it would degrade the public opinion of hunters much more than any face book post. I think it is important that we hold each other to a higher standard and scrutinize behavior in the light of sportsman like conduct. (though admittedly that can get a little subjective, but still)


----------



## J. Wesbrock (Dec 17, 2003)

sprinke said:


> I'm one of the 85 neutral people, and if you'd like to hear my opinion, here it is.
> 
> I'm a "city slicker" I guess ... never hunted in my life, don't know anyone who does hunt, don't care to try hunting either.
> 
> ...


Thank you.


----------



## sjt85 (Sep 2, 2014)

sprinke said:


> I understand that the loss of natural predators has resulted in an overpopulation of deer and that hunting is currently part of the process to maintain an ecological balance


Here comes a likely unpopular opinion here...

I agree with a lot of what sprinke said, however taking the largest, healthiest and strongest of the species does not help the species, it harms it. I think a lot of hunters are delusional in this respect because they think they are doing wildlife a favor, and they all sit around here and reinforce that to each other. A quote to think about:

“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized.”
-Thoreau


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

fallhunt said:


> I do not seek to appease non-hunters, anti-hunters, or animal rightist.
> 
> I do not seek to appease archers, bowhunters, or gun hunters.
> 
> ...


With respect, maybe it isn't social responsibility, maybe it's just being respectful of others .

I do have concerns about perceptions, sensibilities and approval of others . I don't use foul language on front of children nor watch pornography in public.
... I also don't show hunting photo's in a setting that may upset people ... Not because I am worried about offending people but because I am not a selfish prick.

My concern is about what makes me happy too, but also what will ensure the future of hunting, the wild places and animals that live there are available for future generations of outdoorsman, hunters or not.

The idea of that makes me happy.

The idea of anyone acting purely in self interest as above will sound the death knoll of hunting. 

It will simply be voted out of existence by a public that has never been shown the outdoors and how hunting benefits conservation practices. They will have been shown a miasma of high fiving camo clad hunting chaps who have "smoked" 'em ...

And we will queue up to buy golf clubs.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

jakeemt said:


> Jparnee-I generally agree with your view in this thread (though I have no qualms with fb either). However, I must say I don't fully agree with this stance. While I know everyone's views are different I would also argue that united we fall as much as we stand. Things like high fence canned hunts are pretty much universally reviled among hunters and non hunters alike. What's more it's very nature is the opposite of true sportsmanship. As an extreme example if hunting deer at night with a spotlight became legal I would feel obligated to oppose such a practice and I think it would degrade the public opinion of hunters much more than any face book post. I think it is important that we hold each other to a higher standard and scrutinize behavior in the light of sportsman like conduct. (though admittedly that can get a little subjective, but still)


Jake I can respect that 

Eben thou I abhor high fence hunting and will not partake of it ponder this ...... Is a guy that goes to a high fence deer ranch and shoots a deer .....takes the carcass and goes home ..... Eats the deer and mounts the head that much different than the guy that buys a live steer takes it home and butchers it ? 

Sure it's not our bag but our we to judge others choices ? 

Now I know the problem than becomes is it okay to shoot a high fence deer and than why not a high fence lion ? 

Many would say one is okay and one is not .....is that really fair they are both creatures and deserve respect so you can see where the the grey line comes in 

I have had opportunities to kill free range lion and leopard and I have passed it up so can you imagine my distaste for someone that shoots a fenced in hand raised lion 

When Matt first posted this I was of the mind set that we should not have to hide our hunting but now I can understand and respect his thoughts and what he was truly trying to say 

We have to attack the situation with proper consideration not reckless abandon 

All in all a very thought provoking thread


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

benofthehood said:


> With respect, maybe it isn't social responsibility, maybe it's just being respectful of others .
> 
> I do have concerns about perceptions, sensibilities and approval of others . I don't use foul language on front of children nor watch pornography in public.
> ... I also don't show hunting photo's in a setting that may upset people ... Not because I am worried about offending people but because I am not a selfish prick.
> ...


I thought golf was a dying sport


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

JParanee said:


> People being uneducated about hunting and dividing hunters will be the death of hunting
> 
> Yes I agree the if it's brown its down mentality and all the hupla of your Saturday hunting shows is a turn off to some and yes I do not watch hunting shows on tv and I'm a hunter so you know it's bad but that's not the conversation here
> 
> ...


JP 

Of course I've hit and not recovered animals but I guess for me the disconnect is how I was raised. When I was a kid and it happened I'd go get my dad or grandad and they'd go back walk me through the shot and find the deer. As an adult if I can't find it by myself or with my lab I might ask one of my hunting buddies to come help. 

Personally one of these general forums is the last place I would ever look for help in this area. I mean seriously how many times have you figured out a little ways down the road that the guy that was posting like he was Chuck Adams has never hunted. What am I going to gain from that post that I couldn't get by pming you or Jason or any of the other experienced hunters on these boards?

I never posted that we shouldn't post this stuff. I said we should think about it. The post that set me off was a thread on a trad page asking guys to post "how many deer have you wounded??" There is no need to run our dirty underwear up a flag pole for the world to see. We as a group need to be smarter than that. 

As a hound Hunter that runs lions I've got a better view than most on the anti Hunter thing. They are real they are out there and they are NUTS let's not make it easy for them. 

HUSUS has a long term plan and millions of dollars. They might not get bear hunting in Maine this year or next but they will keep dumping money at it until they do. Then they will move on to the next state with a anti hunting battle they think they can win. 

I respect you and your views - I'm just saying we need to think hard about it each and every time we post.


----------



## fallhunt (Aug 2, 2013)

benofthehood said:


> With respect, maybe it isn't social responsibility, maybe it's just being respectful of others .
> 
> I do have concerns about perceptions, sensibilities and approval of others . I don't use foul language on front of children nor watch pornography in public.
> ... I also don't show hunting photo's in a setting that may upset people ... Not because I am worried about offending people but because I am not a selfish prick.
> ...


I have seen courtesy change such that people steal their turn at four-way stops. People believe that using a turn signal as a courtesy to not surprise them when you switch lanes as their heads-up opportunity to block your ability to switch lanes. I could go on and on.

Yet while there has been a total degradation of normal courtesies, I see people wringing their hands and intensely worrying about whether they used a racial group’s current preferred term for themselves.

I was taught that “Tolerance” in a free country meant that you would be willing to fight to the death in order to protect someone’s right of free speech despite hating the content of their speech. They had the freedom to express themselves regardless of how offensive you found their words. Now “Tolerance” means that a tolerant person will never say anything or display anything (e.g., flag) another citizen might not like.

At this moment I am still a free man with freedom of speech. I do not have that many years left, but I intend to make a point of being “politically INcorrect” until my death. I will say and post anything I like if for no other reason than to prove to myself that I still can.

This post engenders a desire to shoot a deer through the nose and post the photographs on Facebook just to prove I can. I will not allow the progressive liberal bleeding heart pukes (i.e., Democrats) to control or muzzle me.

I am sure the U.S. is doomed to eventually become like Canada or the countries of Europe


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

fallhunt said:


> I have seen courtesy change such that people steal their turn at four-way stops. People believe that using a turn signal as a courtesy to not surprise them when you switch lanes as their heads-up opportunity to block your ability to switch lanes. I could go on and on.
> 
> Yet while there has been a total degradation of normal courtesies, I see people wringing their hands and intensely worrying about whether they used a racial group’s current preferred term for themselves.
> 
> ...


If that's your attitude then you are part of the problem. Here is an example that might get through your thick head. On a dog training board I post on a guy was posting videos of training his coyote hounds by putting them on coyotes in leg hold traps. 3-4 hounds per yote, and the yote was still held by a staked down leg hold trap. He filmed this to the obvious bloody conclusion and posted it on the net for the world to see.

When I pointed out via PM that posting those videos on the web was a very bad idea. He told me to F--- off what he was doing was legal and it was legal for him to post the videos. The moderator pulled the vids but, I guaranty you they got down loaded and will come back to bit us in the ass. The speed at which information and images travels is a game changer and we as hunters need to adapt or die.

No it's not going to affect me in my life time but, I want my great great grand kids to be able to know the joy of sitting on a ridge listening to a good hound work a track - or the bone jarring adrenaline rush when you realize that yes that bull is going to come in. Guys like you put that in serious question. My guess is that in my life time here in Montana (and we tend to be a fairly conservative lot) I will loose trapping and possibly hound hunting.

Think before you post.


----------



## UtahIdahoHunter (Mar 27, 2008)

We cannot continue to see hunting as a "sport". That will be the end of it. It is a "Way of Life".


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Matt your not a dying bread. Your just need to be a little more specialized. To do Research on Predators hunting dogs are a must.
Dan


----------



## fallhunt (Aug 2, 2013)

Matt_Potter said:


> If that's your attitude then you are part of the problem. Here is an example that might get through your thick head. On a dog training board I post on a guy was posting videos of training his coyote hounds by putting them on coyotes in leg hold traps. 3-4 hounds per yote, and the yote was still held by a staked down leg hold trap. He filmed this to the obvious bloody conclusion and posted it on the net for the world to see.
> 
> When I pointed out via PM that posting those videos on the web was a very bad idea. He told me to F--- off what he was doing was legal and it was legal for him to post the videos. The moderator pulled the vids but, I guaranty you they got down loaded and will come back to bit us in the ass. The speed at which information and images travels is a game changer and we as hunters need to adapt or die.
> 
> ...


The post proposes surrendering and succumbing to the emotional sensitivities of socialists thereby assisting to create their idea of a utopian culture with a detached unrealistic denial of our place in nature and our nutritional requirements.

I prefer to resist rather than coddle their needs to hide from and deny reality.

If the post proposed a method to somehow unite in a powerful synchronized attack to defeat those isolated from reality rather than placating their childish lunacy, then I might consider coming onboard.


----------



## fallhunt (Aug 2, 2013)

Matt_Potter said:


> If that's your attitude then you are part of the problem. Here is an example that might get through your thick head. On a dog training board I post on a guy was posting videos of training his coyote hounds by putting them on coyotes in leg hold traps. 3-4 hounds per yote, and the yote was still held by a staked down leg hold trap. He filmed this to the obvious bloody conclusion and posted it on the net for the world to see.
> 
> When I pointed out via PM that posting those videos on the web was a very bad idea. He told me to F--- off what he was doing was legal and it was legal for him to post the videos. The moderator pulled the vids but, I guaranty you they got down loaded and will come back to bit us in the ass. The speed at which information and images travels is a game changer and we as hunters need to adapt or die.
> 
> ...


The post proposes surrendering and succumbing to the emotional sensitivities of socialists thereby assisting to create their idea of a utopian culture with a detached unrealistic denial of our place in nature and our nutritional requirements.

I prefer to resist rather than coddle their needs to hide from and deny reality.

If the post proposed a method to somehow unite in a powerful synchronized attack to defeat those isolated from reality rather than placating their childish lunacy, then I might consider coming onboard.


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

fallhunt said:


> The post proposes surrendering and succumbing to the emotional sensitivities of socialists thereby assisting to create their idea of a utopian culture with a detached unrealistic denial of our place in nature and our nutritional requirements.
> 
> I prefer to resist rather than coddle their needs to hide from and deny reality.
> 
> If the post proposed a method to somehow unite in a powerful synchronized attack to defeat those isolated from reality rather than placating their childish lunacy, then I might consider coming onboard.


You should look at it as a resource that you now have but may not in the future.
Dan


----------



## fallhunt (Aug 2, 2013)

DDSHOOTER said:


> You should look at it as a resource that you now have but may not in the future.
> Dan


So the solution is to stand fearfully in front of the troops pointing out the undefeatable enemy’s overwhelmingly powerful followed by pleading for everyone to give up and surrender now before it is too late? That’s the spirit! Let’s give them what they want before they can take it from us.

Alternatively, perhaps it is time to finally start resisting. Is it time to think about trying to take our country back?


----------



## sjt85 (Sep 2, 2014)

fallhunt said:


> The post proposes surrendering and succumbing to the emotional sensitivities of socialists thereby assisting to create their idea of a utopian culture with a detached unrealistic denial of our place in nature and our nutritional requirements.
> 
> 
> .


1. What does any of this have to do with socialism? 

2. What are our nutritional requirements?


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

fallhunt said:


> So the solution is to stand fearfully in front of the troops pointing out the undefeatable enemy’s overwhelmingly powerful followed by pleading for everyone to give up and surrender now before it is too late? That’s the spirit! Let’s give them what they want before they can take it from us.
> 
> Alternatively, perhaps it is time to finally start resisting. Is it time to think about trying to take our country back?


I am not even talking about someone taking it from you. If the resource is not there to take in the first place, IT'S GONE. There are good reasoning why we have wildlife management groups. Well unless your belief is that they are against you too? Take a look at the Florida Panther, Polar Bears and so on. At one point AZ almost lost our trophy Kaibab Mule Deer herd. 
Dan


----------



## fallhunt (Aug 2, 2013)

sjt85 said:


> 1. What does any of this have to do with socialism?
> 
> 2. What are our nutritional requirements?


Socialist is just the worst possible insulting label I could imagine calling someone as a means to indicate disrespect.

In order to live we must continually kill other living things. It is not somehow superior to kill living things such as plants, insects, or microbes. Products from living things such as milk, cheese, etc. are not currently a sustainable option. If Star Trek replicators become a reality, then things might change.

Killing living things is normal and necessary for everyone regardless of whether an individual hunts or likes to be reminded of this reality in photos.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

Keep your eye on the goal. The goal is to win, in other words, to attain your desired objective. And don't forget, you are trying to win with regard to this issue. Matt has identified a risk and proposed what, in essence, is part of a win strategy. This is an example of strategic thinking as opposed to emotional thinking. A good deal of the objection to Matt's win strategy is emotional arguments and rants, accusing the ills on liberals, PC, your right to say anything you want, and other such arguments that have nothing to do with winning. In fact, these emotional arguments sound a lot like the description of the emotional arguments of the folks that you are trying to beat, i.e. PETA, HSUS. If you want to keep what you've got, you better start thinking strategically. I am sure that the folks that you are up against love to see the emotional rants as opposed to good strategic planning, and you can bet that they have a good strategic plan. Matt's is making a suggestion. It should be discussed in an intelligent manner to see how it fits into an overall win strategy, if at all. It should be the starting point for an intelligent dialog, not the trigger point for a diatribe.


----------



## jakeemt (Oct 25, 2012)

fallhunt said:


> At this moment I am still a free man with freedom of speech. I do not have that many years left, but I intend to make a point of being “politically INcorrect” until my death. I will say and post anything I like if for no other reason than to prove to myself that I still can.
> 
> 
> I am sure the U.S. is doomed to eventually become like Canada or the countries of Europe


I agree. You sir have inspired me. I am always afraid people will not tolerate it when I show off my home made pornography but, I am gonna post it whenever and wherever I like. To hell with political correctness and decency. Reproduction is normal and natural and I am tired of these socialist democrat turds trying to hide my genitals and sex life!


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Better read. Been there. They need us.
http://depts.alverno.edu/nsmt/youngcc/research/kaibab/story2.html
Dan


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

jakeemt said:


> I agree. You sir have inspired me. I am always afraid people will not tolerate it when I show off my home made pornography but, I am gonna post it whenever and wherever I like. To hell with political correctness and decency. Reproduction is normal and natural and I am tired of these socialist democrat turds trying to hide my genitals and sex life!


OK this one made my day - just blew coffee out my nose LMAO

Matt


----------



## fallhunt (Aug 2, 2013)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> Keep your eye on the goal. The goal is to win, in other words, to attain your desired objective. And don't forget, you are trying to win with regard to this issue. Matt has identified a risk and proposed what, in essence, is part of a win strategy. This is an example of strategic thinking as opposed to emotional thinking. A good deal of the objection to Matt's win strategy is emotional arguments and rants, accusing the ills on liberals, PC, your right to say anything you want, and other such arguments that have nothing to do with winning. In fact, these emotional arguments sound a lot like the description of the emotional arguments of the folks that you are trying to beat, i.e. PETA, HSUS. If you want to keep what you've got, you better start thinking strategically. I am sure that the folks that you are up against love to see the emotional rants as opposed to good strategic planning, and you can bet that they have a good strategic plan. Matt's is making a suggestion. It should be discussed in an intelligent manner to see how it fits into an overall win strategy, if at all. It should be the starting point for an intelligent dialog, not the trigger point for a diatribe.


You made many good points plus an accurate characterization of my emotional outburst. I think you made a fair comparison of my emotional position being equivalent to the opposing emotional positions. I might also be an asset to those I dislike.

However, I do not recognize the strategy. 

I should voluntarily refrain from doing some things I enjoy because my fun might offend those who do not share my enthusiasm for the things I enjoy. If I am careful not to offend them by voluntarily not doing some things I enjoy (the excluded things being chosen by them of course), then they might not take away my ability to enjoy other remaining things.

Sounds like a win for them and a defeat for me. 

Plus it inevitably escalates. My experience has been that attempts to be reasonable and compromise only lead to irrecoverably lost ground. Eventually one finds that what is meant by cooperation with “sensible restrictions” evolves into total bans. 

I think it is better to fight tooth and nail to keep doing everything we want to do. If someone needs to change, then let them be the ones who change.

Your thoughts are good ones, but you are communicating with a lost cause. Only death will change me. I am a give me freedom or death kind of guy.


----------



## fallhunt (Aug 2, 2013)

jakeemt said:


> I agree. You sir have inspired me. I am always afraid people will not tolerate it when I show off my home made pornography but, I am gonna post it whenever and wherever I like. To hell with political correctness and decency. Reproduction is normal and natural and I am tired of these socialist democrat turds trying to hide my genitals and sex life!


Thanks!!!!

At least you are with me!

Glad I could help. Look forward to seeing the porno.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

fallhunt said:


> You made many good points plus an accurate characterization of my emotional outburst. I think you made a fair comparison of my emotional position being equivalent to the opposing emotional positions. I might also be an asset to those I dislike.
> 
> However, I do not recognize the strategy.
> 
> ...


You shouldn't concern yourself with the anti hunters you should concern yourself greatly with the majority of the folks out there that are neutral on the subject. You aren't going to change anti's by getting in their faces but you sure will change some of those neutral folks to anti's while you are proving your point to the anti's.

Matt


----------



## grantmac (May 31, 2007)

Quite frankly the only reason we have hunting today is because our parents had class. Their photos were kept in albums and brought out when like minded people visited, not posted on the front lawn. Looking through my grandfathers pictures I see a lot of photos of sunrises and friends around a campfire with a few deer on the ground.

Hunting shows/personalities and social media will finish public land hunting in the US in my lifetime.

-Grant


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

fallhunt said:


> You made many good points plus an accurate characterization of my emotional outburst. I think you made a fair comparison of my emotional position being equivalent to the opposing emotional positions. I might also be an asset to those I dislike.
> 
> However, I do not recognize the strategy.
> 
> ...


These comments are directed toward the entire discussion and not you, but they follow well from your post because of your closing statement. Internet discussions often end up with folks of opposing positions talking at each other rather than truly discussing the issues. This issue is important enough to warrant carefully discussion.

So we start with the following:

Clear statement of risk. What do we want. What are we at risk of losing.

Win strategy. What do we need to do to achieve the objective summarized above; get what we want, not lose what is at risk. Win strategies can be at the individual, club, organizational, national levels. It could be your personal win strategy.

What do I gain if my win strategy succeeds?

What do I lose by implementing the win strategy?

These two questions have "I" in them because you will will personally win or lose something that is important to you.

What is the risk of doing nothing?

You can run Matt's suggestion through this process. Do the gains outweigh the cost? Matt has pointed out a real issue, but maybe his solution is not the right one once you look at the cost and potential benefit. So what other solutions are available, and what is the potential risk of doing nothing?

I think that there has been a lot of discussion regarding what will be lost, and what might be gained, but not much with regard to alternative ways to address the issue. 

The fact that death will not change you, does not mean that you cannot help analyze the problem and bring your viewpoint to possible solutions. All viewpoints are important since change requires a broad mandate. You can identify the cost to you, what you would have to give up. You can also identify alternative solutions to the problem.


----------



## fallhunt (Aug 2, 2013)

Matt_Potter said:


> You shouldn't concern yourself with the anti hunters you should concern yourself greatly with the majority of the folks out there that are neutral on the subject. You aren't going to change anti's by getting in their faces but you sure will change some of those neutral folks to anti's while you are proving your point to the anti's.
> 
> Matt


OUCH!!!

Well I guess I will quit. I pretty much stand all alone with my opinions.

Other than jakeemt, I have gotten zero support and zero encouragement.

You do not think jakeemt was being sarcastic do you? 

It would sure be a shame if jakeemt did not follow through with that interesting porno plus I would be completely back to zero support and zero encouragement.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

fallhunt said:


> OUCH!!!
> 
> Well I guess I will quit. I pretty much stand all alone with my opinions.
> 
> ...


The real question is do you think Jake was being sarcastic?

Matt


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

fallhunt said:


> OUCH!!!
> 
> Well I guess I will quit. I pretty much stand all alone with my opinions.
> 
> ...


im all for showing your kills on facebook/social media groups...its america, i do not care or give a rats ass what anti-hunters think about my kills, or if they care seeing my deer covered in blood with its tongue sticking out.....


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

anti-hunters need to be exposed to the truths about hunting/conservation/ and when hunting is banned in certain areas....

they need to see dead animals killed by hunters, they need to see dead animals killed by starvation/natural causes, they need to see populations suffering from over population....they need to see gut shots to be exposed to the true facts of life and about hunting....our society is filled with sissies, its time to rise up and educate the stupid


----------



## GrayTech (Jan 29, 2013)

MAC 11700 said:


> I don't post on any of the social media apps. Way too many idiots on there
> 
> Mac


Heads up... AT ... is also social media...
You may be right about the idiots though, judging by some of the posts I've seen.


----------



## MAC 11700 (Feb 22, 2011)

GrayTech said:


> Heads up... AT ... is also social media...
> You may be right about the idiots though, judging by some of the posts I've seen.


ArcheryTalk is nothing like Facebook or Twitter nor has as PC a outlook on life as either. 

While it may by some to be similar, and some may hold similar values this site is dedicated to Archery and all that is entailed with it. Mob mentality rules supreme on those sites but not here. 

Mac


----------



## OZBear (Sep 25, 2015)

OK,
Well I am not a Hunter - well I am as I do Fish!
I am of the 85% but some of the comments on this thread are starting to make me fall on the anti side of the fence.
I get the hunting part but I don't get the killing and not eating it part. Or do you guys eat Bear and squirrels?
Anyway Matt is making a lot of sense and those that want to shove it down the throats of everyone are really part of the problem.
Some of the images some are posting are not helping your cause and will most definitely be used against you, You are providing the ammunition. 
And if you don't think bow hunting will be banned in the foreseeable future you may be a little naive.


----------



## Captainkirk (Sep 18, 2014)

Lots of people eat bear and squirrel.
I don't kill things to leave them rot in the woods.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

OZBear said:


> OK,
> Well I am not a Hunter - well I am as I do Fish!
> I am of the 85% but some of the comments on this thread are starting to make me fall on the anti side of the fence.
> I get the hunting part but I don't get the killing and not eating it part. Or do you guys eat Bear and squirrels?
> ...


all the people i know who have hunted bear, eat it...ive ate bear and it tastes great if cooked right, i kill squirrels because they are overpopulating my yard, if you don't like hunting don't click or watch hunting videos, but some people like to share their stuff with their fellow friends, peers and family.....anti-hunters jump to conclusions, thats not the hunters fault, thats the ignorant anti-hunters fault


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

fallhunt said:


> *I should voluntarily refrain from doing some things I enjoy because my fun might offend those who do not share my enthusiasm for the things I enjoy*. If I am careful not to offend them by voluntarily not doing some things I enjoy (the excluded things being chosen by them of course), then they might not take away my ability to enjoy other remaining things.
> 
> Sounds like a win for them and a defeat for me.
> 
> ...


No one is telling you to stop doing anything , some of us , who enjoy exactly the same things as you are suggesting that there is a time and a place for some things - that is all

So when recreational hunting gets voted out of existence , or regulated beyond any reasonable access to the working man , you'll b able to beat your chest aloud and scream " well i still posted my stuff on facebook ... only death will stop me !!!" 

well great for you.

Perhaps to be honest the very root cause of the problem,

It ain't anti's - its the slice and dice, whack and stack mentality that pervades TV and social media that will drive Average Joe America who doesn't hunt to dismiss us as self indulgent wankers.

Sorry , but attitudes like yours will destroy years of hard fought funding, wildlife management and sportmens rights quicker than you'd believe and so fast that the anti hunting crowd will treat you to vegan burgers for the rest of your life.

hope they are tasty .


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

benofthehood said:


> No one is telling you to stop doing anything , some of us , who enjoy exactly the same things as you are suggesting that there is a time and a place for some things - that is all
> 
> So when recreational hunting gets voted out of existence , or regulated beyond any reasonable access to the working man , you'll b able to beat your chest aloud and scream " well i still posted my stuff on facebook ... only death will stop me !!!"
> 
> ...


no poachers, and hunters arguing among themselves is the death of hunting..not anti's, some of you need to get off the tin-foil, there is no way in hell hunting in the USA is going anywhere in a very very very long time...


----------



## OZBear (Sep 25, 2015)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> all the people i know who have hunted bear, eat it...ive ate bear and it tastes great if cooked right, i kill squirrels because they are overpopulating my yard, if you don't like hunting don't click or watch hunting videos, but some people like to share their stuff with their fellow friends, peers and family.....anti-hunters jump to conclusions, thats not the hunters fault, thats the ignorant anti-hunters fault


Cool - I never knew you ate Bear. I guess it's the same as few know that in Australia we eat Kangaroo, Emu, Wallaby, and crocodile - All of which are delicious by the way 

As for jumping to conclusions - Photos of a hunter with a machiavellian grin on his face holding a dead animal covered in blood with it's tongue lolling out of it's mouth - Let me think what conclusion would the majority of people (not just "ignorant" anti hunters) draw from that? This is the Point I think Matt is trying to make


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

OZBear said:


> Cool - I never knew you ate Bear. I guess it's the same as few know that in Australia we eat Kangaroo, Emu, Wallaby, and crocodile - All of which are delicious by the way
> 
> As for jumping to conclusions - Photos of a hunter with a machiavellian grin on his face holding a dead animal covered in blood with it's tongue lolling out of it's mouth - Let me think what conclusion would the majority of people (not just "ignorant" anti hunters) draw from that? This is the Point I think Matt is trying to make


let them jump to conclusions, im not concerned about what anti's are thinking when i hunt, and when i recover that animal, im so happy and blessed that taking a photo with the kill just captures the joy of the moment, and i don't give a rats ass if the anti-s are offended if they happen to run across my kill on MY FB PAGE.....i take good pics by the way, sometimes it has blood, sometimes it doesn't...if you're offended then im sorry, go get some counseling (not directing this to you, just antis in general)


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

I work my ass off all year on the farm I hunt, I'm dedicated to my craft, it takes so much to harvest big game with a bow and it's such an awesome feeling that we should never be concerned about what the antis think about our photo with a dead deer in it


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

*Again*, I don't think this has much to do with Anti's at all ...
It has to do with undecided Joe Public.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> let them jump to conclusions, im not concerned about what anti's are thinking when i hunt, and when i recover that animal, im so happy and blessed that taking a photo with the kill just captures the joy of the moment, and i don't give a rats ass if the anti-s are offended if they happen to run across my kill on MY FB PAGE.....i take good pics by the way, sometimes it has blood, sometimes it doesn't...if you're offended then im sorry, go get some counseling (not directing this to you, just antis in general)


The degree that you don't get it is just stunning. It's not about the anti hunters - they are a lost cause. It's about the majority of the VOTING public that is on the fence. The acts of a vocal few will ruin it for the rest of us - proving their damn point. The houndsmen in CA didn't think it would happen there. Nevada is talking about banning the use of all dogs including bird dogs. If you think it can't happen in your back yard your wrong.

We are a small minority so rather than standing in the corner flipping the world the bird why don't we take some steps to win over the undecided guys in the middle. The anti's are very organised and are spending millions doing exactly that. Nothing will probably happen in my life time but, as I said before I want my kids to enjoy the same things I hold dear.

Matt


----------



## OZBear (Sep 25, 2015)

^^^^^ Exactly!


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

Well I'm done with this thread, the high horse Bs is stunning and quite frankly you're apart of the problem as well, ignorance is bliss


----------



## Captainkirk (Sep 18, 2014)

Guys...
Nobody is suggesting we roll over and let the anti's have their way with hunting. What was suggested was that instead of arguing among ourselves, we band together and strategize on how to convert the NON-hunting public to acceptance (not necessarily hunting...that will never happen) because those are the people who VOTE. And they outnumber both hunter and anti.
A non-hunter with the proper mindset will not hunt, but will accept and support those who do. And the only way to win that vote and swing the tide is to cooly and calmly turn the tide in our favor.


----------



## jakeemt (Oct 25, 2012)

Fallhunt-lol yep kidding sorry your gonna have to wait. I actually agree with you to a point. Same with ghost goblin. However, the in your face of what your are saying I don't really grasp. I prefer a civilized discourse over saying "screw you". Overall the point I really wanted to convey but, haven't really been able to bring fully into words on both this thread and the one over on TT is what I think Jparnee has been trying to say as well. I don't think the posting of bloody kill pics is really going to cause people to be against hunting. On the other hand really what will cause it is that the reaction of much of the non hunting public to the reality of where their food comes from. Some folks like OZ bear may feel that a dead deer with a bloody nose is graphic and "disturbing" but, really why? That's really the problem. Would that poster be disturbed if they saw a picture of a cow with a bolt through it's head? Or perhaps the aftermath of a penned pig electrocution? How about a massive line of struggle poultry having their heads removed by an automated machine. The fact is death is always nasty especially death by violence. That the general public is so far removed from the reality of such an important aspect of their life is frankly a real and serious threat to hunting rights and "hiding" picture and images of it will never help that. So I agree that we should not feel the need to hide images of the hunt and frankly we never really have (for those who say "our parents never did yada yada yada" baloney just pick up any old sporting goods magazine and you will see plenty of kill pics, you can also pretty much go as far back a photography really. Guys like Teddy Roosevelt for example. 

P.S.-OZbear I do eat squirrel, ducks, geese, rabbit, deer, and bullfrogs on a regular basis. However, I also kill raccoons and coyotes for their fur if I want it for a project and I kill starlings because they are invasive.


----------



## Captainkirk (Sep 18, 2014)

jakeemt said:


> Would that poster be disturbed if they saw a picture of a cow with a bolt through it's head? Or perhaps the aftermath of a penned pig electrocution? How about a massive line of struggle poultry having their heads removed by an automated machine. The fact is death is always nasty especially death by violence.


Yep, but that's part of the problem. The public DOESN'T see it and probably never will. They think meat comes from the supermarket.
I fully see where Fall and Ghost are coming from, but the facts are the 'New publik' has been raised and shielded from the realities of butchering their own meat...regrettably so. Flipping them off and yelling "Liberty or Death" will just convince them of what the anti's are saying behind our backs...that we are a bunch of blood-crazed Neanderthals who are all mentally ill.
Win the non's and we will win the war. Lose them, and hunting as we know it will be gone, sooner if not later.


----------



## Matt H (Aug 23, 2014)

if you take pictures of it after it's cooked people won't mind so much.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

LOL - just showed my boys how to bone out a back strap and butter fly it. Figured we'd cook some in bacon grease with a little garlic and salt and pepper. One thing lead to another and we ate the whole damn back strap. 

I've got the answer - just feed the neutral folks some of this and they'll be running deer down with their SUVs to get more.


----------



## OZBear (Sep 25, 2015)

jakeemt said:


> Fallhunt-lol yep kidding sorry your gonna have to wait. I actually agree with you to a point. Same with ghost goblin. However, the in your face of what your are saying I don't really grasp. I prefer a civilized discourse over saying "screw you". Overall the point I really wanted to convey but, haven't really been able to bring fully into words on both this thread and the one over on TT is what I think Jparnee has been trying to say as well. I don't think the posting of bloody kill pics is really going to cause people to be against hunting. On the other hand really what will cause it is that the reaction of much of the non hunting public to the reality of where their food comes from. Some folks like OZ bear may feel that a dead deer with a bloody nose is graphic and "disturbing" but, really why? That's really the problem. Would that poster be disturbed if they saw a picture of a cow with a bolt through it's head? Or perhaps the aftermath of a penned pig electrocution? How about a massive line of struggle poultry having their heads removed by an automated machine. The fact is death is always nasty especially death by violence. That the general public is so far removed from the reality of such an important aspect of their life is frankly a real and serious threat to hunting rights and "hiding" picture and images of it will never help that. So I agree that we should not feel the need to hide images of the hunt and frankly we never really have (for those who say "our parents never did yada yada yada" baloney just pick up any old sporting goods magazine and you will see plenty of kill pics, you can also pretty much go as far back a photography really. Guys like Teddy Roosevelt for example.
> 
> P.S.-OZbear I do eat squirrel, ducks, geese, rabbit, deer, and bullfrogs on a regular basis. However, I also kill raccoons and coyotes for their fur if I want it for a project and I kill starlings because they are invasive.


I don't think many people are under any illusions where their meat comes from but at the same time they don't want to be confronted by images from the abattoirs that's how many vegetarians are made - same as converting a fence sitter to an anti!
I grew up eating chicken and rabbits which we bred in our backyard, even helped my old man kill them. and have done a lot of work in abattoirs and chicken processors and the way some of those animals are treated before they die is not fit for public viewing and mostly not legal.
And you guys posting images of Venison is really unfair! Do you know how hard it is to get in Australia?
Luckily I am visiting New Zealand early next year and they have an abundance :tongue:


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

Oz, 
It ain't that hard to get here ... well sometimes it ain't ... for me ... most of the time it is ... lol 
Let me know and I'll send you some from over here in Vic


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

Hank D Thoreau said:


> Matt,
> 
> You are fighting a losing battle. This is the age of social media. You want folks to look two steps ahead and consider the consequence of their posts. Too many folks looking for likes, followers, and views, to consider the consequences. Maybe some will take my comment as a challenge.
> 
> And you are right. Speaking as a non hunter, the images and stories absolutely do not help. I don't think you can kill hunting in the US, but you can certainly change the landscape.


You're right, it's all about social media now and posting what's commonly accepted. If the hunters are the bad guys, someone who normally wouldn't care and say "hunting is fine" will jump on the Anti bandwagon because he/she doesn't want to be disliked. When you combine that with absolute ignorance and being a voter, it doesn't help our situation.



steve morley said:


> Someone should take the Anti hunters about 10 days walk from any civilization with just a Bow/arrows and basic survival kit, see what happens.
> 
> I don't Bowhunt but wouldn't hesitate in such a survival situation.


Not reality. The anti's would likely just eat leaves, berries, twigs etc. And if they didn't, they'd just wait for you to come get them then sue you.



fallhunt said:


> I do not seek to appease non-hunters, anti-hunters, or animal rightist.
> 
> I do not seek to appease archers, bowhunters, or gun hunters.
> 
> ...


The sign of a true adolescent mind...what causes us to lose our privlidges



sprinke said:


> I'm one of the 85 neutral people, and if you'd like to hear my opinion, here it is.
> 
> I'm a "city slicker" I guess ... never hunted in my life, don't know anyone who does hunt, don't care to try hunting either.
> 
> ...


one of the few that get it.

There is nothing wrong with being proud of your hunt but when you shove it in the face of others that you know are out to get your "rights", you're only adding fuel/ammunition to their cause.

If it's not "in your face" then it's generally a non-issue. Sometimes it's best to simply keep quiet, lay low and not let others know what we do.




Cwilder said:


> That's the people of CA fault for letting liberals ruin the state


That's what happens with "anti power". All it takes is a few with a little power to get many who normally wouldn't care to join some cause...soccer moms need something to do during the day.


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

jakeemt said:


> I agree. You sir have inspired me. I am always afraid people will not tolerate it when I show off my home made pornography but, I am gonna post it whenever and wherever I like. To hell with political correctness and decency. Reproduction is normal and natural and I am tired of these socialist democrat turds trying to hide my genitals and sex life!



Good point and perfect example of plain old horse sense. What was it that a former president said,just not prudent , or something to that effect?


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

grantmac said:


> Quite frankly the only reason we have hunting today is because our parents had class. Their photos were kept in albums and brought out when like minded people visited, not posted on the front lawn. Looking through my grandfathers pictures I see a lot of photos of sunrises and friends around a campfire with a few deer on the ground.
> 
> Hunting shows/personalities and social media will finish public land hunting in the US in my lifetime.
> 
> -Grant



Great post Grant. It seems that the majority of people have lost the ability to recognize the difference between their right to do certain things and the good judgment to keep some things private. 
Those who don't believe they can lose hunting rights might want to think about all the changes that have taken place in the past hundred years.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's the best idea to do so.


----------



## olddogrib (Apr 4, 2014)

This is an interesting thread that seems to ignore the most basic symptom of a pervasive problem. I've never been on Facebook, never will be....couldn't find it with a GPS. I just never have considered the world might benefit from knowing everything about my existence. I'm a bit too young to call myself part of the "greatest generation", but at least being one of it's progeny, with a little luck I'll have dodged eventually being labelled as "the most self-absorbed"!


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

I've been avoiding this thread because I know how contentious the subject can be. 

However, there are a couple things that I think are important to put out there. 

First, this notion that we can survive as a society (forget about hunting) with the attitude that "I'm going to do whatever I want, say whatever I want, post whatever I want, etc., etc., etc., just because I have *"the right"* to is severely misguided. It will be the end of a lot of the things we value, the least of which is hunting with a bow and arrow.

Second, Matt (and others) are exactly right in that the future of hunting rests in the hands of the non-hunters. Not the *anti-hunters*, but the *non-hunters*. The more our actions alienate *that* segment of the population, the more we will eventually lose. Like it or not, that is a fact. 

Most importantly in my opinion, and the reason I decided to weigh in on this thread was to let people know that it's not just gruesome kill photos and stories of wounded, non recovered animals that are the problem. It goes well beyond that. The non-hunters (at least the thinking ones) actually realize that these are a natural part of hunting. Not everything happens the way we want it to, regardless of how careful and conscientious we are. At the end of the day we are trying to take the life of a wild animal who's only desire is to prevent it from happening. That is a recipe for ugly things happening sometimes. 

The non hunting public is just as repulsed, *if not more so*, by the movement over the last couple decades of what they perceive to be *"trophy hunting."* The notion that only certain size animals are *worthy* of killing, and the entire focus of the hunt being that of shooting a *"quality"* specimen. That's all many seem to talk about, both on social media and hunting shows and videos. For many, it has become the sole focus of the hunt for many. It gets harder and harder to convince *anyone* that the real reason we hunt is for "nutrition," and the ethical management and well being of the resource, when all we focus on is the size of an animals headgear, and whether his is considered a *"shooter"* or not. This will bring about the end of hunting long before pictures of a bloody deer ever will. 

The non-hunting public isn't stupid folks. They hear what we *say*, but more importantly they watch what we *do*. How can we try to convince anyone that the reason we hunt is for the *benefit* of the resource, all the while trying to pass laws, limit and ridicule other hunters, and take part in actions that do nothing but *manipulate* the resource for our own egos. The non hunting public isn't offended by killing animals, they are offended by killing animals for what they *perceive* to be no other reason than to brag about the size of their racks. If we truly meant what we say about doing this for the right reasons, the size of an animals antlers might very well be important to us as individual hunters, but would be irrelevant to the greater end of ethically managing a resource. 

Make no mistake about what I'm saying. There is *nothing* wrong with a person chasing trophy class animals if that's what excites them. I don't know of a hunter that doesn't want to take a big animal. I know I do. However, each hunter tries to make their personal hunting experience what they want it to be. That's why most here choose to hunt with traditional archery equipment. There is nothing wrong with challenging ourselves in any way we see fit, as long as it is legal, and doesn't prevent another hunter from doing what they want to do. If and when the non-hunters come to the conclusion that this is more about hunter desires than what is best for the resource, it's over. 

Hunting will not be destroyed from the outside folks, it will be destroyed from the inside, and it won't be because of unsightly pictures posted on the internet. It will be as a result of hunters willing to offer up other hunters, other hunter's methods, and other hunter's harvest choices as sacrificial lambs in an attempt to make their personal experience better. I maintain that 99% of all the problems we as hunters experience, from land access, hunter squabbles, to border squabbles, to disease, can *all* be traced directly back to the seemingly insatiable desire to attract, grow, protect, and manipulate antlers and the animals that grow them.

The real enemy is not the anti-hunters or even the non-hunters, the real enemy is us. The sooner we realize it the better off we will be and the longer our pastime will last.

KPC


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

wow, the high horse mentality is stunning, and quite frankly i find it mentally weak, i will keep posting my kills with a smile, if you can't handle it, grow a pair...welcome to the new america, the butthurt/offended mentality is pathetic


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

GEREP,

You have just added a valuable contribution to the discussion. Whether what you said is right or wrong, it is thoughtful and articulate and that is what a good discussion is all about.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

GEREP said:


> I've been avoiding this thread because I know how contentious the subject can be.
> 
> However, there are a couple things that I think are important to put out there.
> 
> ...


Truly great post - spot on. 

Matt


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

OZBear said:


> I don't think many people are under any illusions where their meat comes from but at the same time they don't want to be confronted by images from the abattoirs that's how many vegetarians are made - same as converting a fence sitter to an anti!
> I grew up eating chicken and rabbits which we bred in our backyard, even helped my old man kill them. and have done a lot of work in abattoirs and chicken processors and the way some of those animals are treated before they die is not fit for public viewing and mostly not legal.
> And you guys posting images of Venison is really unfair! Do you know how hard it is to get in Australia?
> Luckily I am visiting New Zealand early next year and they have an abundance :tongue:


Look up the history of Red Deer in New Zealand. Now there's a eye opener. LOL. We humans will never learn. Just like a herd of cattle. One day we run here the next we run there. Not once looking back. LOL. 
Dan


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

GEREP said:


> I've been avoiding this thread because I know how contentious the subject can be.
> 
> However, there are a couple things that I think are important to put out there.
> 
> ...


You nail it. I couldn't said it better. 
Thanks Kev!
Dan


----------



## sjt85 (Sep 2, 2014)

GEREP said:


> How can we try to convince anyone that the reason we hunt is for the *benefit* of the resource,


The benefit of the resource would be to let nature work on it's own - survival of the fittest. Evolutionary theory and natural selection dictate the *strong* survive and the weak die off - the opposite of trophy hunting. 

Let's speak clearly - the reason people hunt is blood lust, the same reason wars are waged and violence is committed among our own species.



GEREP said:


> Make no mistake about what I'm saying. There is *nothing* wrong with a person chasing trophy class animals if that's what excites them.


Of course there is. Just because it is legal doesn't make it right - slavery was legal for decades, it wasn't right then and it isn't now. And as Thoreau stated, the eating of animals will go the way of slavery. And conquering, burning and pillaging. And beating each other with clubs. 

Humans were able to eat meat to survive, when there wasn't agriculture. When there wasn't widespread distribution of food and goods. That's great, but it's not the future. Not only will it be deemed unethical as humankind evolves further, but it is unsustainable to living on this planet. 

As the strongest species on the planet, we have an obligation to protect those who are weaker. That is evolution, that is the future. I'm reminded of a quote from Pulp Fiction: 

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness"

The wild animals are indeed the weak, and we should use our power as the #1 species to protect rather than exploit.



GEREP said:


> Hunting will not be destroyed from the outside folks, it will be destroyed from the inside


The sooner, the better.



GEREP said:


> The real enemy is not the anti-hunters or even the non-hunters, the real enemy is us.


That is correct. As the real enemy was not those who were anti slavery, or those who were not slave owners: the real enemy was the slave owner.



I realize my opinions will be wildly unpopular here, but this is not a strictly bowhunting site (otherwise I would likely not post it).


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

Gerep,

Thanks for the post, it was well thought out, well spoken. Unfortunately, the only ones that get it are those that don't need to read such a detailed posting...falling on def ears- a comment shortly after your posting shows this.

When I see the "I'm do what ever I want" attitude, the "everyone can just grow a par" comments, how many that think like that have been divorced/lost a good GF or lost a job/not get that certain job as a result of nothing more than their attitude.


----------



## Captainkirk (Sep 18, 2014)

Gerep, great post, well thought-out. Thanks for adding intelligent reasoning to the thought process


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

sjt85 said:


> The benefit of the resource would be to let nature work on it's own - survival of the fittest. Evolutionary theory and natural selection dictate the *strong* survive and the weak die off - the opposite of trophy hunting.
> 
> Let's speak clearly - the reason people hunt is blood lust, the same reason wars are waged and violence is committed among our own species.
> 
> ...


You raise some very interesting points. I too believe that over the course of human evolution we will see hunting outlawed or voted out of existance. It won't be in my life time or possibly in my kids life times but it will happen. The disconnect between the folks that eat and the folks that produce the food is just getting to be too great. All you have to look at to see this is the disconnect between southern California and Northern Ca or eastern Washington/Oregon and western Washington/Oregon. Or for that matter the centeral US vs east and west coast.

The rural parts of these states are being dictated to by the larger urban populations. Take a vote on the subject of wolves in Seattle vs Eastern Washington and you will see two radically different answers. Changes are coming it's just a question of how fast and can we slow them down.

Matt


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> wow, the high horse mentality is stunning, and quite frankly i find it mentally weak, i will keep posting my kills with a smile, if you can't handle it, grow a pair...welcome to the new america, the butthurt/offended mentality is pathetic


Pretty sure you inferred that I am a butthead and that I am mentally weak.

Fair enough.

I ask this in all seriousness , how old are you and how long / successfully have you been hunting ?

I am also betting you have never had to fight tooth and nail on a public land access/hunting issue either ...


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

benofthehood said:


> Pretty sure you inferred that I am a butthead and that I am mentally weak.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> ...


28 years old, been pretty successful in hunting, in fact









I killed this big boy last weekend, and yes I hunted 6 years before I hunted on private land, all know all too well about public land issues, I'm blessed now I have private land on my own..I may sound crazy too some of you but I truly believe what I'm spitting out, hunters need to stick together...the high horse crap is hilarious, and lay off the tin foil


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

benofthehood said:


> Pretty sure you inferred that I am a butthead and that I am mentally weak.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> ...


And I wasn't talking to you









I killed this piggy last month 
And I'm not done yet  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> And I wasn't talking to you
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Take this image as an example. Lord knows I have no issue with hunting with hounds or using them to recover game. I also know that pigs are an invasive incredibly destructive species in your neck of the woods and need to be killed any way you can. I'd love to sit down over a beer and talk about the hunt and the dogs. Hog hunting over a good catch dog is on my bucket list.

But, and this is a huge but - to the uneducated non-hunter out there (notice I didn't say anti-hunter) you just ran down a small lactating female hog with a hound and murdered her and probably her babies. That's the image she will have every time someone talks to her about hog hunting in Texas - true or not. You will never get a chance to explain to her the context of the image she will just have the image and her self made back story burned into her head

I'm about as un-PC as anyone you ever want to meet in person. I could truly give a crap that you killed that pig or how you killed it. I grew up on a large dairy farm in the North East when the deer population was booming and I got paid to fill crop damage tickets. On any given night I killed more deer than you will in your life time. It's not about who needs to sack up or who needs to grow a pair or who is wearing tin foil - it's about censuring what we put out there for general consumption.

And yes this site is very much general consumption.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

Matt_Potter said:


> Take this image as an example. Lord knows I have no issue with hunting with hounds or using them to recover game. I also know that pigs are an invasive incredibly destructive species in your neck of the woods and need to be killed any way you can. I'd love to sit down over a beer and talk about the hunt and the dogs. Hog hunting over a good catch dog is on my bucket list.
> 
> But, and this is a huge but - to the uneducated non-hunter out there (notice I didn't say anti-hunter) you just ran down a small lactating female hog with a hound and murdered her and probably her babies. That's the image she will have every time someone talks to her about hog hunting in Texas - true or not. You will never get a chance to explain to her the context of the image she will just have the image and her self made back story burned into her head
> 
> I'm about as un-PC as anyone you ever want to meet in person. I could truly give a crap that you killed that pig or how you killed it. I grew up on a large dairy farm in the North East when the deer population was booming and I got paid to fill crop damage tickets. On any given night I killed more deer than you will in your life time. It's not about who needs to sack up or who needs to grow a pair or who is wearing tin foil - it's about censuring what we put out there for general consumption.


I understand what you're saying Matt, I understand, I generally agree with everything you post on this website, but in this case everyone has their own opinions and in my opinion I know what im talking about, and could give a rats ass about an anti-hunter and what conclusions they might draw from MY photo of MY kill..it blows my mind how everyone is jumping to conclusions on how hunting is going to end...case closed, it's truly sad 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FORESTGUMP (May 14, 2008)

sjt85 said:


> The benefit of the resource would be to let nature work on it's own - survival of the fittest. Evolutionary theory and natural selection dictate the *strong* survive and the weak die off - the opposite of trophy hunting.
> 
> Let's speak clearly - the reason people hunt is blood lust, the same reason wars are waged and violence is committed among our own species.
> 
> ...




True, it's not strictly a bow hunting site but I think most of the forum posters are hunters. It's all good and for the most part we all get along by accepting that everyone is different and therefore sometimes have conflicting opinions. 
Now, for my opinion. I personally think that you're totally misinformed in many ways. When I read the post I immediately looked to see where you are from because sometimes that affects a persons views about hunting. Surprise, surprise. North Carolina has lots of hunters and one of the best I have ever known was from there. I knew him in Colorado and he was an expert woodsman and ethical hunter. 
I have been hunting all of my life and it's never been about 'blood lust'. I'm pretty sure that I've never known anyone who just wanted to kill something so they go into the woods and find a helpless animal to shoot. That very assumption on your part offends me. If you have never been hunting I can possibly understand your position. I would suggest that you try it even with a camera in place of a gun or bow. For me hunting is really about the pleasant time spent in the woods observing nature. There's no feeling like the first few minutes from daybreak as the woods come alive. All the sights and sounds have a way of restoring your spirit. I would be happy even if I never saw a deer, it makes you happy just to be alive. I will admit that the anticipation of seeing deer makes the experience better but, not necessary at all. If you've not had that experience you should definitely give it a try. You might find yourself going back for more on a regular basis. 
Ok, about war and violence among our own species. As a career military man I feel that right to an opinion on the subject. Surely you must know that wars are fought for reasons other than the overwhelming urge to kill people. If you have never been there then just talk to some combat veterans. All will tell you that they fight in service of their country and protection of their fellow man against evil perpetrators, whomever they may be.
Surely you also understand that many violent crimes are committed out of anger as opposed to a need to kill or injure someone. Even when it seems that the person had no motive for the crime of violence, there is usually an underlying reason that justifies the action in their mind. Not simple 'blood lust'.
Obviously there are quite a few folks in the cities and suburbs who are clueless about where their meat comes from. Get out in the rural areas and that changes. I will point out that there are many, many people in this country who live the great country life and hunt at least occasionally. They don't do it because of 'blood lust', they do it because they enjoy the outdoors and some tasty and nutritious meat for the table. Many of us provide some tasty food for the animals on our property all year long. We spend our money to do so. Hunting is not about 'blood lust'.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> I understand what you're saying Matt, I understand, I generally agree with everything you post on this website, but in this case everyone has their own opinions and in my opinion I know what im talking about, and could give a rats ass about an anti-hunter and what conclusions they might draw from MY photo of MY kill..it blows my mind how everyone is jumping to conclusions on how hunting is going to end...case closed, it's truly sad
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


For me it has been watching the rural west getting steamrolled politically but, the urban centers. If what is happening out here is allowed to continue happening there really isn't much of a chance we won't see radical change. Do some research on the introduction of the grey wolf into the west or how the wolf population is being managed in Michigan in Wisconsin. It will be an eye opener for you.

Or research the closing of forest service roads all over the west. Political decisions being made in Washington DC which has huge implications to the western states.

Matt


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> I understand what you're saying Matt, I understand, I generally agree with everything you post on this website, but in this case everyone has their own opinions and in my opinion I know what im talking about, and could give a rats ass about an anti-hunter and what conclusions they might draw from MY photo of MY kill..it blows my mind how everyone is jumping to conclusions on how hunting is going to end...case closed, it's truly sad
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ghost, maybe these non, anti need to see what these wild hogs will do to them in there own backyards. Hunting will never die. I am with you there. History has proven this.
Dan


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Matt_Potter said:


> For me it has been watching the rural west getting steamrolled politically but, the urban centers. If what is happening out here is allowed to continue happening there really isn't much of a chance we won't see radical change. Do some research on the introduction of the grey wolf into the west or how the wolf population is being managed in Michigan in Wisconsin. It will be an eye opener for you.
> 
> Or research the closing of forest service roads all over the west. Political decisions being made in Washington DC which has huge implications to the western states.
> 
> Matt


Your Right for now. Yes, over the history there has been some bad political decisions. Read my post #64 short cut. It took hunters to get things back on track after 60,000 deer die of starvation. How does the Mich/Wis management Moose transplant looking right now?
Dan


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

sjt85 said:


> The benefit of the resource would be to let nature work on it's own - survival of the fittest. Evolutionary theory and natural selection dictate the *strong* survive and the weak die off - the opposite of trophy hunting.
> 
> Let's speak clearly - the reason people hunt is blood lust, the same reason wars are waged and violence is committed among our own species.
> 
> As the strongest species on the planet, we have an obligation to protect those who are weaker. That is evolution, that is the future. I'm reminded of a quote from Pulp Fiction:



I strongly disagree It's not a blood lust. And no, there is no evolutionary based obligation to protect weaker animals and even if there were it would in fact be contrary to evolution which holds as its directive survival of the fittest, not weakest. That's the mindset of PETA and others who would stop on a freeway to rescue a cat putting everyone else at risk for an accident. A person is more important than any animal. Even animals hold to that by protecting their own against any other. Hunting is more of a challenge and urge ingrained in our natural being. An urge to eat. It's expressed in the chase and ultimately the killing of game. War has nothing to do with wanting to kill. It's some politician wanting to expand their authority or take assets belonging to someone else and the military is a means to that end. The people in the military do NOT want to engage in battle. Don't assume, go ask one. 

What turns people off from hunting is when they only see the cruelty without a resultant benefit. Killing for the sake of killing alone makes any person cringe. Show the meat in the skillet and no one would complain. Just as we eventually learn babies don't come from a stork we also need taught that in order for us to live something else must die. That simple concept is missing and the real cause of a lot of the uproar over hunting. We're being inundated with messages that animals are somehow our equal through their humanization in media. Rabbits don't talk. Chicken McNuggets are not grown in some sterile perfectly ethical farm. When anything dies it's not concerned whether it's being killed ethically or if there is any moment of silence at its passing. We need to get real but at the same time demonstrate the benefits.


----------



## olddogrib (Apr 4, 2014)

Oh Lord, it just occurred to me that I have underwear older than the participants in this argument!


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

sjt85 said:


> The benefit of the resource would be to let nature work on it's own - survival of the fittest. Evolutionary theory and natural selection dictate the *strong* survive and the weak die off - the opposite of trophy hunting.
> 
> Let's speak clearly - the reason people hunt is blood lust, the same reason wars are waged and violence is committed among our own species.


I disagree. First of all, left to it's own devices, nature will work on it's own but it's not nearly as pretty, or dare I say humane, or even effective. Massive population swings caused by disease, and habitat destruction are nature's way of taking care of things. The fact of the matter is we (humans) are here, and we are the dominant predator. Like it or not, it is by our choice that any wild animal survives on this planet, therefore it is our responsibility, both ecologically and ethically to manage them in such a way that their populations are sustainable both in regard to themselves and the habitat in which they (and we) live. 

As to the *"bloodlust"* theory, I couldn't disagree more. I know very few hunters that actually enjoy the killing. I know I certainly don't. It is a necessary part of the management process, but by no means the most enjoyable, or the reason most people partake. *"Bloodlust"* suggests an uncontrollable desire to kill. For some hunters, that might well be the case but for the vast majority, not even close. 



sjt85 said:


> As the strongest species on the planet, we have an obligation to protect those who are weaker. That is evolution, that is the future.
> 
> The wild animals are indeed the weak, and we should use our power as the #1 species to protect rather than exploit.


Interestingly enough, this literally flies in the face of everything else you said prior. *AS* the strongest (read most intelligent) species on the planet, we *DO* have an obligation to protect those who are weaker (less intelligent). In the case of wildlife, managing it for it's own health as well as the health of the habitat it inhabits is indeed our responsibility. Wild animals know nothing of sustainability. They will eat the last seed and reproduce to the point where they all starve to death. It is up to us, to manage them for long term sustainability, unless we want them all to become extinct, and hunters are the most effective and humane tool by which that management is accomplished. 



sjt85 said:


> I realize my opinions will be wildly unpopular here, but this is not a strictly bowhunting site (otherwise I would likely not post it).


Unpopular? Probably. Unwanted or unwelcome? No, at least not in my opinion. Unlike some, I'm not one that seeks to squelch opposing views. The more the merrier, but if you choose to post it, you better be willing to support it. 

KPC


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> I understand what you're saying Matt, I understand, I generally agree with everything you post on this website, but in this case everyone has their own opinions and in my opinion I know what im talking about, and could give a rats ass about an anti-hunter and what conclusions they might draw from MY photo of MY kill..it blows my mind how everyone is jumping to conclusions on how hunting is going to end...case closed, it's truly sad
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


" Case closed "and "I know what I am talking about" are surely great solace to Houndsmen who lost their seasons and elk hunters who are begging for wolf seasons to be introduced.

The arrogance of that post is staggering.

And again , you are referring to anti's ... When everyone else is talking about Non hunting, non decided Joe Public.


----------



## stanmc55 (Sep 29, 2010)

Matt_Potter said:


> This isn't about any one individual post or person. Honestly it's more about what I'm seeing on Facebook. I've been on a bit of a tear lately about accuracy as it comes to hunting this is due to the incredible number of posts I'm seeing on wounded deer and poorly hit deer.
> 
> Social media is going to be the end of hunting as we know it. The general public doesn't need to know you missed or wounded a deer and yes they are absolutely reading these posts.
> 
> ...


I dont ordinarily post on AT, but the weight of what this OP is saying made me. 

I couldnt agree more with the original lines he wrote. It is up to us to save hunting, so please watch what you say and how you say it. I am an old guy, I have been hunting for 5 decades. I really hope my grandchildren and their grandchildren get to enjoy hunting in the same way that I did.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> And I wasn't talking to you


I love hunting pigs . They are a destructive pest and taste good.
And I hope to be able to hunt them for years to come with whatever method I choose.
I find personally that sharing recipes and meat , along with tasteful pics of the hunt is a great way to get other people interested and even hunting.

It's about what we share and how , not what we do. No one here is questioning what we do , perhaps instead suggesting the are ways and means of sharing the information.

If people can't see that then it's pretty much a lost conversation.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

benofthehood said:


> " Case closed "and "I know what I am talking about" are surely great solace to Houndsmen who lost their seasons and elk hunters who are begging for wolf seasons to be introduced.
> 
> The arrogance of that post is staggering.
> 
> And again , you are referring to anti's ... When everyone else is talking about Non hunting, non decided Joe Public.


i speak truths, believe it or not, on youtube, ive seen so many hunting videos, and on those hunting video's there is always those anti-hunters posting ''how about you be put in a cage with a tiger and see how that feels!'' or ''yall are murderers!''...you will see those comments in about 80% of hunting videos on youtube, and with those comments a discussion between the anti and hunter begins, it usually starts with alot of curse words, but ive seen thousands of cases where the anti would apologize to the hunter, because a hunter would come in and make valid points to him and the anti would end up saying ''wow, didn't think about that, i might have to try it someday'''
the anti's need to see death, they need to see blood, they need to see the real thing, they need to be educated, not shelled, that makes matters worse, the public needs to be normalized in seeing the circle of life, thats why our society is the way it is right now because they have been shelled from these types of issues their whole life...they need to be exposed first, sure, some will never change there mind, but ive seen so many cases where they changed there mind because of actually seeing the process into hunting and conservation


----------



## fallhunt (Aug 2, 2013)

I suppose that I view the concept of placating any subgroup within the herd due to any reasoning (social responsibility, decency, civility, politeness, tolerance, etc.) as choosing the greater good of the many over the needs of the one (rugged individualism).

In my rather lone opinion, I feel the greatest threat facing the U.S. is not global warming, it is not rising health care costs, it is not the homeless problem, it is not poverty, it is not racism, it is not disparity among economic classes, it is not Russia, it is not China, and it is not even the ISIS, etc.

The greatest threat to the U.S. is Socialism!

I do not like to get along, cooperate, or be a team player. It seems un-American to me. Individual freedoms, God given rights, freedom of speech, gun ownership, and the right to pursue one’s individual concept of happiness are everything.

Some say that common sense and practical feasibilities always require some reasonable limits to individual freedoms. I don’t accept this.

I do not want to continue down the road of the U.S. becoming more like Canada, European countries, or abiding by the U.N.

I am extremely jealous of every individual freedom regardless of how trivial. I do not post pictures in any social media. I have no intention of ever doing so. But I will scream bloody murder to anyone who suggests that I voluntarily restrict what I do in order to please others.

As with anti-hunters, I have a closed mind. There is no chance in hell of swaying my opinion or behavior. If it is for the good of group over the individual, then I am against it.


----------



## Hank D Thoreau (Dec 9, 2008)

fallhunt,

While I don't agree with you, I appreciate your honesty and introspection.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

fallhunt said:


> I suppose that I view the concept of placating any subgroup within the herd due to any reasoning (social responsibility, decency, civility, politeness, tolerance, etc.) as choosing the greater good of the many over the needs of the one (rugged individualism).
> 
> In my rather lone opinion, I feel the greatest threat facing the U.S. is not global warming, it is not rising health care costs, it is not the homeless problem, it is not poverty, it is not racism, it is not disparity among economic classes, it is not Russia, it is not China, and it is not even the ISIS, etc.
> 
> ...


*
*

I see what you are saying and in many ways I concur with the sentiment but taken to its literal extreme it just doesn't work .

Masturbating in public is all good then ?


----------



## sjt85 (Sep 2, 2014)

FORESTGUMP said:


> When I read the post I immediately looked to see where you are from because sometimes that affects a persons views about hunting. Surprise, surprise. North Carolina has lots of hunters and one of the best I have ever known was from there. I knew him in Colorado and he was an expert woodsman and ethical hunter.
> I have been hunting all of my life and it's never been about 'blood lust'. I'm pretty sure that I've never known anyone who just wanted to kill something so they go into the woods and find a helpless animal to shoot. That very assumption on your part offends me. I would suggest that you try it even with a camera in place of a gun or bow. For me hunting is really about the pleasant time spent in the woods observing nature.
> 
> Ok, about war and violence among our own species. As a career military man I feel that right to an opinion on the subject. Surely you must know that wars are fought for reasons other than the overwhelming urge to kill people. If you have never been there then just talk to some combat veterans. All will tell you that they fight in service of their country and protection of their fellow man against evil perpetrators, whomever they may be.


First and foremost, thank you for your service. I was not implying that individual soldiers enjoy war, and I respect and understand why many choose to defend our country and that we would not be able to enjoy the freedoms that we do without those who have risked everything for us. I do think it absolutely awful that our people are sent overseas, doing what they think is best and honorable and noble, and many never make it home. 

As to your other points, I often go stumping in the woods behind the house. I agree that nature is everything that you said and more, however when I come across a squirrel or deer or turtle etc, I don't feel the need to have a shot at it. We both meet and go our separate ways. 

Next, you may be on to something with the location thing. Though I now live in North Carolina, I spent the first 18 years of my life just a few miles from Chicago. People around there did not hunt often, however I did have the chance in my early teens to go pheasant hunting with my uncle and grandfather. Looking back, there wasn't much fairness to shake and disorient a bird, put it in a field, and send dogs out. Talk about having the odds stacked against the bird...



ranchoarcher said:


> no, there is no evolutionary based obligation to protect weaker animals... A person is more important than any animal. Even animals hold to that by protecting their own against any other. Hunting is more of a challenge and urge ingrained in our natural being.
> 
> What turns people off from hunting is when they only see the cruelty without a resultant benefit. Killing for the sake of killing alone makes any person cringe.


We protect the weak in our own species now. It wasn't always that way - what changed? We progressed as a society, as a species we became more civilized (read: kind and compassionate). Nobody is saying an animal is more important. I'm rather saying that both are important. You are absolutely right on the second point - I think everyone here must have seen the story of Cecil the lion and the dentist recently in the news. There was outrage at levels I have not seen before over something like this. Airlines have begun to refuse shipping trophy hunts. This will continue to progress in the future.



GEREP said:


> I disagree. First of all, left to it's own devices, nature will work on it's own but it's not nearly as pretty, or dare I say humane, or even effective. Massive population swings caused by disease, and habitat destruction are nature's way of taking care of things. The fact of the matter is we (humans) are here, and we are the dominant predator. Like it or not, it is by our choice that any wild animal survives on this planet, therefore it is our responsibility, both ecologically and ethically to manage them in such a way that their populations are sustainable both in regard to themselves and the habitat in which they (and we) live.
> 
> Unpopular? Probably. Unwanted or unwelcome? No, at least not in my opinion. Unlike some, I'm not one that seeks to squelch opposing views. The more the merrier, but if you choose to post it, you better be willing to support it.
> 
> KPC


I can see how you feel you are doing the best thing for the species a whole. I don't have to agree with you (and I don't), but I can understand and respect where you are coming from. I must say that I am a bit taken aback by the responses here. I expected more "get off my lawn" type comments, but was met with (mostly) thoughtful and respectful posts, and I thank you for that. I think it's fair to say that neither of us are going to change each others minds, but I do appreciate the discussion and hearing opposing views and opinions in a respectful manner.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> i speak truths, believe it or not, on youtube, ive seen so many hunting videos, and on those hunting video's there is always those anti-hunters posting ''how about you be put in a cage with a tiger and see how that feels!'' or ''yall are murderers!''...you will see those comments in about 80% of hunting videos on youtube, and with those comments a discussion between the anti and hunter begins, it usually starts with alot of curse words, but ive seen thousands of cases where the anti would apologize to the hunter, because a hunter would come in and make valid points to him and the anti would end up saying ''wow, didn't think about that, i might have to try it someday'''
> the anti's need to see death, they need to see blood, they need to see the real thing, they need to be educated, not shelled, that makes matters worse, the public needs to be normalized in seeing the circle of life, thats why our society is the way it is right now because they have been shelled from these types of issues their whole life...they need to be exposed first, sure, some will never change there mind, but ive seen so many cases where they changed there mind because of actually seeing the process into hunting and conservation


This discussion isn't about anti hunters and never was. You aren't going to change them anymore than they are going to change you. 

Is about not alienating the vast majority of folks that fall in the middle - they are the ones that will vote hunting out if it comes to that. 

Anti hunters aren't even worth engaging in conversation - I get two or three death threats a week (they hate cat hunters) and just delete them.


----------



## Guest_6624 (Nov 5, 2015)

Or better yet, just avoid posting pictures of your kills all together. Do you think the anti-hunting groups are going to leave hunters alone if they see everyone's shooting clean kills? No! They can't use your pictures if you posted them.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

Guest_6624 said:


> Or better yet, just avoid posting pictures of your kills all together. Do you think the anti-hunting groups are going to leave hunters alone if they see everyone's shooting clean kills? No! They can't use your pictures if you posted them.












Not gonna happen, I encourage all hunters to post your kills, your blood trails, your trophy ambitions, your smile with the kill 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

I'm On here to see bows and critters not the pleasant conversations


----------



## fallhunt (Aug 2, 2013)

benofthehood said:


> *Masturbating in public is all good then *?


You don’t do this! ???

You can imagine an absolutely “Perfect” pyramid in your mind’s eye while never having seen one.

I would have no worthwhile guiding principles or lofty aspirations should I adopt them solely based on my exceedingly limited ability to make things work.

I have an extremely insignificant gnat-like lifespan. Few care that I exist now. No one will care that I existed one hundred years from now. I prefer not to live my gnat-like existence striving to be a good little compliant ant working for the good of a complex social structure.


----------



## Hoyt (Jul 22, 2003)

Hunting has been going on for at least 2 million years. I just don't see it ending any time soon.


----------



## benofthehood (May 18, 2011)

fallhunt said:


> You don’t do this! ???
> 
> .


Not anymore ...
Dang social engineers and their do gooding......


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

Hoyt said:


> Hunting has been going on for at least 2 million years. I just don't see it ending any time soon.


Mic drop.....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

fallhunt said:


> The greatest threat to the U.S. is Socialism!


I disagree. The greatest threat to the U.S. is apathy and self absorption. 

It is an apathetic and self absorbed population that allows (encourages) things like socialism to take hold and individual rights to fade (or be taken) away.

KPC


----------



## DDSHOOTER (Aug 22, 2005)

Hoyt said:


> Hunting has been going on for at least 2 million years. I just don't see it ending any time soon.


That's correct. People say new beginning. But, in the end it's nothing new. Same been there, did that. Non-people crack open history ebooks and report back. Give good reasoning why. Posting picture is not the problem, education is. 
Dan


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

Hoyt said:


> Hunting has been going on for at least 2 million years. I just don't see it ending any time soon.


then you should get glasses. Our hunting rights have been turned into hunting privileges are continuously being eroded and much of it is due to the "in your face" attitude so many have. True, there are many other reasons for it but the "I'm going to do what 'I' want" mentality isn't going to help.

One day, in our lifetime, public hunting land will be gone and possibly in our lifetime hunting here will turn to what it has in other countries where only the rich will be able to hunt.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

Fury90flier said:


> then you should get glasses. Our hunting rights have been turned into hunting privileges are continuously being eroded and much of it is due to the "in your face" attitude so many have. True, there are many other reasons for it but the "I'm going to do what 'I' want" mentality isn't going to help.
> 
> One day, in our lifetime, public hunting land will be gone and possibly in our lifetime hunting here will turn to what it has in other countries where only the rich will be able to hunt.


no it wont, chill out people....our country may seem crazy, yes there is always those on the fence about hunting, yes the anti's cannot be changed, some hunting methods will be banned but they always come back, just look at history, it repeats itself....but the approval of hunting in america is pretty high actually, more and more people are digging the harvesting your own meat deal and cutting back on store meat and fast food, as i stated from the beginning i think hunting will even get bigger especially with the archery world that has exploded in the last 10 years, its only going to get bigger and bigger....were fine


----------



## Hoyt (Jul 22, 2003)

Fury90flier said:


> then you should get glasses. Our hunting rights have been turned into hunting privileges are continuously being eroded and much of it is due to the "in your face" attitude so many have. True, there are many other reasons for it but the "I'm going to do what 'I' want" mentality isn't going to help.
> 
> One day, in our lifetime, public hunting land will be gone and possibly in our lifetime hunting here will turn to what it has in other countries where only the rich will be able to hunt.


You're right about the glasses...can't say the same about anything else.

I hunt the same as I have for about 60yrs..only, I get to kill more game if I choose. Although it helps to have lots of money far as prime areas go..kinda like everything else.

Giving the impression we are doing something wrong is a sign of weakness and will only be detrimental in the long run. It's the only reason the anti's have enough backbone to stand against the law of the land..eat or be eaten.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

Hoyt said:


> You're right about the glasses...can't say the same about anything else.
> 
> I hunt the same as I have for about 60yrs..only, I get to kill more game if I choose. Although it helps to have lots of money far as prime areas go..kinda like everything else.
> 
> Giving the impression we are doing something wrong is a sign of weakness and will only be detrimental in the long run. It's the only reason the anti's have enough backbone to stand against the law of the land..eat or be eaten.


exactly, preach on brother


----------



## Captainkirk (Sep 18, 2014)

ghostgoblin22 said:


> no it wont, chill out people....our country may seem crazy, yes there is always those on the fence about hunting, yes the anti's cannot be changed, some hunting methods will be banned but they always come back, just look at history, it repeats itself....but the approval of hunting in america is pretty high actually, more and more people are digging the harvesting your own meat deal and cutting back on store meat and fast food, as i stated from the beginning i think hunting will even get bigger especially with the archery world that has exploded in the last 10 years, its only going to get bigger and bigger....were fine


Goblin, perhaps your view is different than others...I notice you are from Texas. Texas is, well...a whole other country. And God Bless!
Here in the midwest unless you get in your car and drive, drive, drive...then pay the out of state fees, or know someone with private land (fewer and further between these days!) you are stuck playing the public hunting land game, where you do what they say, when they say and how they say or you don't do it at all.I don't like the game either, but it's play by their rules of don't play at all. The days of grabbing your bow and heading out 'for the woods' are done around here. It's all private property (individual or corporate owned) and the 'wide open spaces' around here are legends of the past.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

your hunting description is the same here in Texas...not too much public land by comparison to other states, pay out the backside for a lease, own your own property or know someone.

Oh, and if you want to do anything here, it's drive, drive, drive.


----------



## jelmore (Sep 24, 2013)

Mr. Potter, you're going about this all wrong. Just tell them they "have" to post all of there kill pics and videos and they"ll never post another one. If hunters carried themselves like Fred Bear hunting would probably have a bright future.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

jelmore said:


> Mr. Potter, you're going about this all wrong. Just tell them they "have" to post all of there kill pics and videos and they"ll never post another one. If hunters carried themselves like Fred Bear hunting would probably have a bright future.


or make it so that they have to post their name, living/mailing address and place of business.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Fury90flier said:


> or make it so that they have to post their name, living/mailing address and place of business.


What does that mean ?


----------



## rembrandt (Jan 17, 2004)

I always post before I think and then I EDIT.......but on this post I did some heavy profound thinking.......so I don't have to edit.......not do I ahve to go bcak and redoo my speliling........


----------



## Hoyt (Jul 22, 2003)

Captainkirk said:


> Goblin, perhaps your view is different than others...I notice you are from Texas. Texas is, well...a whole other country. And God Bless!
> Here in the midwest unless you get in your car and drive, drive, drive...then pay the out of state fees, or know someone with private land (fewer and further between these days!) you are stuck playing the public hunting land game, where you do what they say, when they say and how they say or you don't do it at all.I don't like the game either, but it's play by their rules of don't play at all. The days of grabbing your bow and heading out 'for the woods' are done around here. It's all private property (individual or corporate owned) and the 'wide open spaces' around here are legends of the past.


I live in Illinois also..the very Southern end. I can walk out my door and start hunting. If I feel frisky I could walk for over 60 miles and still be in Shawnee National Forest when I hit the Mississippi River. The only rules I have hunting this public land is to obey the law and no four wheelers..which is a joke from what I hear. I don't see them because they can't get back where I go, but people tell me they are all over Shawnee. Anyway my point is there's public land you can hunt with less rules than most leases, there's good bucks on, you can get away from everyone else and if located right you can walk from your house.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Fury90flier said:


> Our hunting rights have been turned into hunting privileges are continuously being eroded....


I'm not aware that there ever has been any *"hunting rights."* The US constitution doesn't guarantee such rights. It has only been recently, within the last twenty years or so, that a number of states (17 I think) have added the right to hunt in their state constitutions. They are however, still subject to the whims of the legislative process.

Hunting will continue to be a privilege, and if you think it can't go away, based on public sentiment, you are sadly mistaken.

KPC


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Matt_Potter said:


> I get two or three death threats a week (they hate cat hunters).....


Okay...now I'm jealous! :laugh:


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

JParanee said:


> What does that mean ?


it means that most people hide behind the keyboard and wouldn't post many of the pics they do if your information was given to the public. Even the "I'm going to do what I want" crowd would be a bit more reserved in their postings.



GEREP said:


> I'm not aware that there ever has been any *"hunting rights."* The US constitution doesn't guarantee such rights. It has only been recently, within the last twenty years or so, that a number of states (17 I think) have added the right to hunt in their state constitutions. They are however, still subject to the whims of the legislative process.
> 
> Hunting will continue to be a privilege, and if you think it can't go away, based on public sentiment, you are sadly mistaken.
> 
> KPC


when the country was founded it wasn't needed to be written into the constitution as hunting was the only way to provide food for the family. The reason states are writing the laws into place is this recognition as times have changed.


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

GEREP said:


> I'm not aware that there ever has been any *"hunting rights."* The US constitution doesn't guarantee such rights. It has only been recently, within the last twenty years or so, that a number of states (17 I think) have added the right to hunt in their state constitutions. They are however, still subject to the whims of the legislative process.
> 
> Hunting will continue to be a privilege, and if you think it can't go away, based on public sentiment, you are sadly mistaken.
> 
> KPC


 That's not exactly true, technically speaking. The right to LIFE is the anchor for hunting being a right. Granted, it's not word for word in the constitution but the declaration of independence is supported by the 9th amendment as something very fundamental, in my opinion. If a person refuses or is unable to participate in the act of going to a grocery store they can't be denied their right to forage for food by other means. Our rights are being converted to privileges that government wants us to grovel, beg, and pay for. We have the right to keep and bear arms but try walking down the street with a pistol in your pocket and the police, who took an oath to protect and defend the constitution do all they can to subvert our rights at every opportunity. That oath is nothing but a placating recital. The public is being brainwashed into voluntary servitude and accepting that anything contrary to government convenience must be abolished or paid for.


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

Our hunting and access rights/privileges can change with the stroke of a pen. 

Plum creek timber was recently purchased by whyerhauser timber in Oregon - Plum creek controls 770,000 acres in western Montana. This land has always been open to the public. Under Whyerhauser control this access could very well be lost.

http://news.mt.gov/Home/ArtMID/2446...Montana-Jobs-Continue-Legacy-of-Public-Access


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Fury90flier said:


> it means that most people hide behind the keyboard and wouldn't post many of the pics they do if your information was given to the public. Even the "I'm going to do what I want" crowd would be a bit more reserved in their postings.


yeah...I wasn't going to jump into this one as I'd have to dive to get there but?...since the waters getting kind of murky?....Alley OOP! :laugh:

so?...I guess a lot of folks aren't aware of the fact that for less than a 2L bottle of coke you can get all sorts of info on just about anyone by purchasing a single report or?...if ya wanna drop anywhere from $19.95 too $49.95 you can retain the people search services of applications such as...Checkmate...Intelius...PeopleSearch...BeenVerified...USSEARCH and a whole host of dozens of others for an entire year or if ya really got a burn on?....have one of your geeky friends I.D. and ping their I.P. to "Loose The Kraken!" LOL!

Making the phrase..."Hiding behind a keyboard"...much akin to an Ostrich sticking it's head in the sand! LOL!

Don't believe me?...as ISIS how their war with anonymous is going! LOL!



Fury90flier said:


> when the country was founded it wasn't needed to be written into the constitution as hunting was the only way to provide food for the family. The reason states are writing the laws into place is this recognition as times have changed.


Then again?...when the country was founded?...we didn't have....Pink Slime...Genetically Altered Foods...or thousands of new chemical additives approved by the FDA for use in our foods as we fed our well diagnosed, over medicated children chickens pumped up on steroids for dinner now did we? LOL!

But leave it to the bored and small minded folks who can't see the woods through the tree's to pick on..."Hunting"...yet they sure do...and why?...cause it gives those without purpose..."purpose". LOL!

Now stop ragging on hunting and eat your slime dog kids!...it's what's for lunch! :laugh:


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

JINKSTER said:


> yeah...I wasn't going to jump into this one as I'd have to dive to get there but?...since the waters getting kind of murky?....Alley OOP! :laugh:
> 
> so?...I guess a lot of folks aren't aware of the fact that for less than a 2L bottle of coke you can get all sorts of info on just about anyone by purchasing a single report or?...if ya wanna drop anywhere from $19.95 too $49.95 you can retain the people search services of applications such as...Checkmate...Intelius...PeopleSearch...BeenVerified...USSEARCH and a whole host of dozens of others for an entire year or if ya really got a burn on?....have one of your geeky friends I.D. and ping their I.P. to "Loose The Kraken!" LOL!
> 
> ...


This is why you will NEVER see a pic of me with a dead wolf or cat.


----------



## Hoyt (Jul 22, 2003)

I spent nights with a lady for about 6 yrs or more who was and is a card toting PETA member...not to mention a full blown cat freak. Main reason I only spent the nights with her..crazy, but, point is I know first hand how these people are and what extremes they will go.

Didn't change my actions one bit I just didn't ask her to go with me. Just like I wouldn't invite an anti or non hunter to join a hunting forum nor give either any thought when I post something in a hunting forum. I post what I think other hunters would like to read and see..end of story.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Fury90flier said:


> ...when the country was founded it wasn't needed to be written into the constitution as hunting was the only way to provide food for the family. The reason states are writing the laws into place is this recognition as times have changed.





ranchoarcher said:


> That's not exactly true, technically speaking. The right to LIFE is the anchor for hunting being a right. Granted, it's not word for word in the constitution but the declaration of independence is supported by the 9th amendment as something very fundamental, in my opinion. If a person refuses or is unable to participate in the act of going to a grocery store they can't be denied their right to forage for food by other means. Our rights are being converted to privileges that government wants us to grovel, beg, and pay for. We have the right to keep and bear arms but try walking down the street with a pistol in your pocket and the police, who took an oath to protect and defend the constitution do all they can to subvert our rights at every opportunity. That oath is nothing but a placating recital. The public is being brainwashed into voluntary servitude and accepting that anything contrary to government convenience must be abolished or paid for.


You are welcome to interpret things *not* in the constitution any way you wish, or why they were never listed, but the fact is quite simple. We have no constitutional rights that are not specifically listed in the constitution. The right to "LIFE" (an unalienable right) does not mean the right to take from others whatever you feel you need to keep you alive. I have no more "right" to take steaks from the grocery store than I do to take them from the forest. If anyone thinks they do, be my guest...and see how that works out for you. 

https://www.docsoffreedom.org/readings/equal-and-inalienable-rights


KPC


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

To say one right can't be used to infringe another has merit. What doesn't is government stepping in demanding to be paid in order to exercise a right. Beyond that, it's inalienable and doesn't need listed like those given. Its obvious that a person needs to eat so to make it a right that needs recorded opens the door to even more suppression.


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

JINKSTER said:


> yeah...I wasn't going to jump into this one as I'd have to dive to get there but?...since the waters getting kind of murky?....Alley OOP! :laugh:
> 
> so?...I guess a lot of folks aren't aware of the fact that for less than a 2L bottle of coke you can get all sorts of info on just about anyone by purchasing a single report or?...if ya wanna drop anywhere from $19.95 too $49.95 you can retain the people search services of applications such as...Checkmate...Intelius...PeopleSearch...BeenVerified...USSEARCH and a whole host of dozens of others for an entire year or if ya really got a burn on?....have one of your geeky friends I.D. and ping their I.P. to "Loose The Kraken!" LOL!
> 
> ...


Not ragging at all...just pointing out that if we want to keep our rights/privileges (what ever one chooses to call them), then as a group, we need to be smarter about what we post. We were all adolescents/child minded at one time...then many of us grew up and realized how stupid we were....some just never make it to that stage.

Take the topic of "head shots" and how it gets flamed here. You don't see many of those threads...why. People still make those shots, they're just not going to come here or any other public thread and brag about it.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Fury90flier said:


> it means that most people hide behind the keyboard and wouldn't post many of the pics they do if your information was given to the public. Even the "I'm going to do what I want" crowd would be a bit more reserved in their postings.
> 
> 
> 
> when the country was founded it wasn't needed to be written into the constitution as hunting was the only way to provide food for the family. The reason states are writing the laws into place is this recognition as times have changed.


I see your point but ......I don't understand that 

I use my real name 

If you goggle my name you find all types of info on my work and yes a ton of dead animal pics and fishing pics 

It's who I am am 

I have only had one time in my life that a client and it was actually his daughter commented about my life style 

She said I couldn't possible by giving my work enough attention that it looked like I was always hunting and fishing 

Her father told her to mind her own affairs  

Actually I'm rather good at reading people and I know when and what to say when in certain company I will temper it but I am a who I am


----------



## Fury90flier (Jun 27, 2012)

You understand it completely.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

I added I see your point


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

JParanee said:


> She said I couldn't possible by giving my work enough attention that it looked like I was always hunting and fishing


I would say, it is important to give your work enough attention, whatever that is to do your job well. That is pretty well understood, or maybe it isn't by many, but...

If your job does indeed require so much attention that you can't be hunting and fishing, or doing something you love, spending time with your family, whatever, you're either unfortunate or a fool. 

I've been both, and well...

There is no job that pays you enough to give up life in exchange for the fantasy of one to come... eventually. 

Sooner or later, you're dead and broke no matter what.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

benofthehood said:


> [/I][/B]
> 
> 
> Masturbating in public is all good then ?


I guess that depends on whether it's a work of art, or "modeling."


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

JParanee said:


> I see your point but ......I don't understand that
> 
> I use my real name
> 
> ...


JP my business includes a very active on-line aspect to it. The pro wolf crowd and anti-lion hunting crowd are truly crazy as shown by the Cecil craziness. A denial of service attack or a ton of bad reviews (both of which I've seen happen to friends) would effect both me and my business partner. 

I'm not going to change who I am or what I do but, I'm sure no going to put my lively hood at risk.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

Fury90flier said:


> Not ragging at all...just pointing out that if we want to keep our rights/privileges (what ever one chooses to call them), then as a group, we need to be smarter about what we post. We were all adolescents/child minded at one time...then many of us grew up and realized how stupid we were....some just never make it to that stage.
> 
> Take the topic of "head shots" and how it gets flamed here. You don't see many of those threads...why. People still make those shots, they're just not going to come here or any other public thread and brag about it.


I think we're both pretty much on the same page F9f...I parsed your quoted post to elaborate my thoughts and opines for all and yes...

Very true about the alter ego stuff on the net VS how folks act and speak on a face too face basis...pretty much like the difference between talking pooh to someone long distance over the phone or within arms length face too face...and they always seem a lot calmer, far more respectful and...<uhem>..."understanding"...

in instances of the latter.


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

ranchoarcher said:


> To say one right can't be used to infringe another has merit. What doesn't is government stepping in demanding to be paid in order to exercise a right. Beyond that, it's inalienable and doesn't need listed like those given. Its obvious that a person needs to eat so to make it a right that needs recorded opens the door to even more suppression.


The government isn't demanding to be paid to exercise a *"right."* They are demanding to be paid to exercise a *privilege.* 

Taking your theory to it's logical conclusion, apparently everything I do in order to feed myself and my family and otherwise keep them alive, should be an inalienable right. The list of inalienable rights would be quite long. 

Transportation would be a "right." 

Housing would be a "right."

Food would be a "right."

Clothing would be a "right."

Heat would be a "right."

My daughters iPhone (in her opinion) would be a "right."

And the list would go on and on.

Furthermore, even the states that have added the *"right to hunt"* to their state constitutions, do so in a rather limited way. Most states add wording like....

The people of XYZ state have the *"right to hunt"* *as the preferred method of managing game species.*

In other words, the *"right to hunt"* is only applicable to it's role in *managing game*, and is totally dependent on the *need* to manage game, what is considered a game species, and whether or not the population of a particular game species needs to be reduced.

It is not an *individual* right but the right of the *state* to use hunting as the *preferred method* to manage game. On an individual basis, it is still a privilege, and can very easily be limited or even taken away.

That, in my opinion, was Matt's whole point. This has nothing whatsoever to do with appeasing anti-hunters. 

If and when the majority of the *non-hunters,* which make up 80+% of the voting population ever get turned off to hunting, the gig is up. It will be taken away at the ballot box, just as it already has in a number of cases all over the country. 

KPC


----------



## Matt_Potter (Apr 13, 2010)

GEREP said:


> The government isn't demanding to be paid to exercise a *"right."* They are demanding to be paid to exercise a *privilege.*
> 
> Taking your theory to it's logical conclusion, apparently everything I do in order to feed myself and my family and otherwise keep them alive, should be an inalienable right. The list of inalienable rights would be quite long.
> 
> ...


Yep ^^^^^^^

I'll also add it's much easier for that 80% of neutral voters to remain neutral when not confronted with the bloody reality of hunting. I don't care what they think i just want to retain our hunting privileges.


----------



## JINKSTER (Mar 19, 2011)

GEREP said:


> The government isn't demanding to be paid to exercise a *"right."* They are demanding to be paid to exercise a *privilege.*
> 
> Taking your theory to it's logical conclusion, apparently everything I do in order to feed myself and my family and otherwise keep them alive, should be an inalienable right. The list of inalienable rights would be quite long.
> 
> ...


All do respect?...and while I know that The Lord instructs us to abide by the laws of the land?...it chaps my butt like petting a sleeping gator in the wrong direction to call hunting "A Privilege" because in my mind?...

It was "A RIGHT" of ours until the government decided they wanted to bless their friends and families with solid jobs and great benefits by creating an entirely new branch of government taking control of it all and effectively turning "Our Right To Hunt & Fish" into...."A Privilege They Could Charge For"...under the guise of..."Wildlife Management"...and how nice cause...."They're Doing it for the Animals"...what a great sales pitch that was and in hindsight?...to me?...they were....

"The Birth of P.E.T.A. for Their Time"

Unfortunately?...I see such today as "A Necessary Evil"...cause if they weren't there?...(along with the licensed hunters paying hefty fees)...poachers and profiteers would have wiped out this nations wildlife long ago...however?.....in an ideal world?...(as non-realistic as that may be)....is still sands my butt that my God Given Right to Hunt & Fish has been transformed into a bought and paid for "privilege?" 

That said?...I think I'm just a kid that grew up watching too many Daniel Boone and Davey Crockett shows as a man born a century too late and as whack as he may be?....is why this guy shined brightly as my modern day hero if but for a moment...until I researched him. LOL!


----------



## GEREP (May 6, 2003)

Matt_Potter said:


> I'll also add it's much easier for that 80% of neutral voters to remain neutral when not confronted with the bloody reality of hunting. I don't care what they think i just want to retain our hunting privileges.


What this all boils down to is maturity and common sense. In this day and age, too many people think just because the have the *right* to do something, they should, and there won't or shouldn't be any consequences for doing it.

Yes, we all have the right to post any bloody kill shot we want, or any pathetic gut shot story, but we do so at our own peril. 

I have the constitutional right to call my wife the "C" word but I can *ASSURE* you that it is not in my long term best interest to do so. It *WILL* result in the loss of both rights and privileges...and deservedly so. Only a fool would think, or expect otherwise.

All this reminds me of something that happened to me almost 40 years ago when my Father was teaching me to drive. I pulled up to a four-way stop and was just starting to turn right when the approaching car turned left in front of me, out of turn of course. I had to slam on the breaks to avoid hitting him, all the while complaining that [_B]"HEY, I HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY!!"[/B]_ 

My Dad calmly turned to me and said _*"You're right Kevin, you DID have the right of way. Would you like us to put that on your tomb stone?"*_

It was then that I learned that just because I have the right to so something, it doesn't always mean I should.

KPC


----------



## ranchoarcher (Sep 26, 2013)

GEREP said:


> The government isn't demanding to be paid to exercise a *"right."* They are demanding to be paid to exercise a *privilege.*
> 
> Taking your theory to it's logical conclusion, apparently everything I do in order to feed myself and my family and otherwise keep them alive, should be an inalienable right. The list of inalienable rights would be quite long.
> 
> ...


 Your wife could state she has a right to your money to give to your daughter so she can buy a phone. Therefor your daughter is correct. :O

Taking a detour here. The other items are if taken in the right context. You obviously can't walk into Saks and walk out with furs or tap into the municipal electric or gas line. But you should be able to get the things mentioned from nature. You can gather wood for a fire. You can grow cotton and harvest animal furs. The dividing line is the source. If directly from nature yes. If commercial exchange is involved then other people's property rights come into play. Transportation is a right. You can walk from your home to any state you wish. I question whether that's even possible anymore given the over regulation of roads. Granted, not many want to live like it's 1800 but the right to do so should stand.

The government is requiring a complicit public who doesn't question its authority to pay for what is a right. Can you hunt without paying the government? No. Another example is the nonsense over concealed carry. An invented term (like wildlife management) to dissociate it from our right to keep and BEAR arms so a fee can be charged and to expand their authority and infringe on that right. The constitution is our concealed carry permit. Our right to life is our inalienable right to hunt. Lets not sugar coat things or hide reality but at the same time we need to be responsible. If you hunt, do something productive with what you get. Post the steaks in the pan along with the bow & deer pic.

The 80% just need to be made 100% aware of where things come from. From the chicken nugget to the shoes on their feet it's mostly from animals and understanding the simple fact that there is going to be some blood shed to have those things is long overdue.


----------



## MIKEY CUSTOM-G (Oct 5, 2002)

stanmc55 said:


> I dont ordinarily post on AT, but the weight of what this OP is saying made me.
> 
> I couldnt agree more with the original lines he wrote. It is up to us to save hunting, so please watch what you say and how you say it. I am an old guy, I have been hunting for 5 decades. I really hope my grandchildren and their grandchildren get to enjoy hunting in the same way that I did.




Well one would assume a complete gentleman such as yourself would be an ambassador to hunting and archery in the community. Always helping, encouraging and instructing others in order to preserve this great tradition we all love.

We all have a responsibility to archers helping archers and to leave that mentality as our donation to the sport. It's guys such as yourself who dictate future archers mind sets to extend friendly hands to others hoping they in turn do the same.

So great job of 5 decades of being a shining example of a true sportsman and friend of hunting to all.


Sent from my iPhone


----------



## webster2 (Nov 24, 2013)

Lol. Most people are non-hunters or 'trophy hunters' these days, it's easier to be that way. Some just like to kill and look cool in dead animal pics...no bloodying of hands, field dressing or butchering the meat for them, absolutely not (eeeewww...how positively ghastly!). Isn't it funny how some folks, from the comfort of their restaurant seats and lap tops, will pass judgement on those who actually ARE self-sufficient hunters and providers...without ever actually having the slightest clue what that entails? Taking pictures of stuff with blood in it...oh my what a perfectly horrible horrible message to put on our favorite smartphone gossip pages or cute puppy TV shows. 

And lets not forget the 'we, the painfully tasteful viewing public who don't contribute anything useful but love to judge others' crowd. You know, the ones where the concept of acceptable anything begins and ends at their local shooting club. They know what's right and wrong because they read about it on twitter. Horribly disgusting things... like dressing out critters or following blood trails. How _dare_ the rest us interfere with their enjoyment of eating meat shaped like a foam package...meat provided by others who did all the dirty work so they can stuff their faces whilst saying pass the BBQ sauce. 

I sure can respect people's opinions, no problem there. It's just that I respect some ALOT more than I do others.


----------



## PaperHtr (Feb 28, 2016)

fallhunt said:


> I do not seek to appease non-hunters, anti-hunters, or animal rightist.
> 
> I do not seek to appease archers, bowhunters, or gun hunters.
> 
> ...


This is definitely the wrong attitude. I get that our society is way too politically correct, but no one ever taught you "run silent, run deep." 

If you can't see something you can't ban something. By posting gratuitous blood shots and idiotic acts of savagery on game or other animals you are doing nothing more than painting a target on you and your sport.

Just look at all the attention tannerite got after some high speed security guard packed a few pounds of it in a lawn mower and touched it off at 20 yards.


----------

