[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Hunters, A question. (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 6/6/2013 5:44:46 PM EDT
| I was watching a show about game wardens and they were out in the field looking for poachers and people filling other peoples tags. I understand the poaching part, but as for filling others tags, I don't understand why that is a big deal. It is a legal Elk tag, what does it matter in the grand scheme who shoots the Elk? |
|
Quoted: Some states have party hunting where you can share tags. A lot of states don't allow it because people would go buy a tag for the wife, kids, grandma, grandpa, and all of their friends then go fill them. My mom, sister and soon to be wife would all tag out without ever stepping foot in the field if it was legal. |
|
Quoted:
I was watching a show about game wardens and they were out in the field looking for poachers and people filling other peoples tags. I understand the poaching part, but as for filling others tags, I don't understand why that is a big deal. It is a legal Elk tag, what does it matter in the grand scheme who shoots the Elk? For bigger game animals, like elk and mule deer, etc, tags are allocated based on the understanding that only a certain percentage will fill their tags. When you allow people to 'party hunt' (i.e. fill each others' tags as opportunity arises) you skew the percentage of filled tags and potentially overharvest the critters in that area. |
|
Quoted:
I was watching a show about game wardens and they were out in the field looking for poachers and people filling other peoples tags. I understand the poaching part, but as for filling others tags, I don't understand why that is a big deal. It is a legal Elk tag, what does it matter in the grand scheme who shoots the Elk? Some states you can fill other's bonus tags for deer. |
|
Quoted: Some states have party hunting where you can share tags. A lot of states don't allow it because people would go buy a tag for the wife, kids, grandma, grandpa, and all of their friends then go fill them. So what? The tags were purchased "legally" so who cares if grandma kills it or not? The only thing would be the "limited" supply tags for special game. That I can understand.
|
|
A lot of time, money, and effort go into maintaining the populations. That is the idea behind the whole thing, anyway.
I am glad there is someone monitoring the health of the population. I really don't believe people WANT to decimate a species, but it would happen anyway without some sort of tracking. I see guys giving away meat (before it spoils) every year, so I don't think everyone ( I am sure there are exceptions) needs to fill every tag they have already. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's the King's Elk. LOL "You dare poach in my woods? Yes yes...I know we issued tags intending to manage the population, but you didn't buy more, and that other guy couldn't kill a slug with salt, but I'm taking your gun, truck, and hunting "privileges" for eternity. Be thankful I don't hang you from a cage outside the castle walls while peasants throw rocks at you until you die of thirst." 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was watching a show about game wardens and they were out in the field looking for poachers and people filling other peoples tags. I understand the poaching part, but as for filling others tags, I don't understand why that is a big deal. It is a legal Elk tag, what does it matter in the grand scheme who shoots the Elk? For bigger game animals, like elk and mule deer, etc, tags are allocated based on the understanding that only a certain percentage will fill their tags. When you allow people to 'party hunt' (i.e. fill each others' tags as opportunity arises) you skew the percentage of filled tags and potentially overharvest the critters in that area. This |
|
Quoted:
I was watching a show about game wardens and they were out in the field looking for poachers and people filling other peoples tags. I understand the poaching part, but as for filling others tags, I don't understand why that is a big deal. It is a legal Elk tag, what does it matter in the grand scheme who shoots the Elk? Game laws usually have nothing to do with keeping hunters safe or game management, they are about revenue. If you want to shit your pants look at what game wardens are allowed to do when it comes to searches, the 4th amendment goes out the fucking window when it comes to wardens in many states. |
|
Quoted:
Game laws usually have nothing to do with keeping hunters safe or game management,. I'll freely concede that state agencies like to see revenues, and some laws cater to that (blackpowder and archery seasons in eastern states, etc, etc) but as written, the part of your statement I quoted is colossally inaccurate. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Game laws usually have nothing to do with keeping hunters safe or game management,. I'll freely concede that state agencies like to see revenues, and some laws cater to that (blackpowder and archery seasons in eastern states, etc, etc) but as written, the part of your statement I quoted is colossally inaccurate. Lets see, plugged gun for water fowl, allowing shotgun slugs but not straight walled rifle cartridges, not allowing baiting, not allowing electronic calls, I could go. Yeah the things like game limits set by wildlife biologist are a given and the obvious safety laws but most game laws are arbitrary and are only about revenue. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
All you have to do is look at the Whitetail management in my state. It's bass-ackwards, and we're overrun. Control and revenue. Control and revenue. Had to type it twice it's so true. Wow. You sure convinced me. Calm yourself. Any good management practice that was focused on health and population would not so strictly limit the taking of does while promoting the shooting of anything with antlers. A solid management practice would be a heavy majority doe harvest, given the amount of deer we have per hunter. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Game laws usually have nothing to do with keeping hunters safe or game management,. I'll freely concede that state agencies like to see revenues, and some laws cater to that (blackpowder and archery seasons in eastern states, etc, etc) but as written, the part of your statement I quoted is colossally inaccurate. Lets see, plugged gun for water fowl, Whether I like the concept or not, those laws are absolutely based on solid research. Plug laws allow the hunter to have the potential to harvest a limit without it being easy or common - the very fact that you whine about it proves that it has affected your harvest before, which is the whole point..... allowing shotgun slugs but not straight walled rifle cartridges
Shotgun slugs are generally done at 200 yards, usually much less; some straightwalled cartridges are very effective far beyond 500 yards. , not allowing baiting,
Completely based on the desires of the stakeholders (i.e. citizens). Most hunters want baiting laws. Don't like it? Convince your neighbors that they're wrong. not allowing electronic calls,
See what I said about plugs. Same concept. I could go.
But you've already demonstrated that you don't have a clue, and your whining is based on the fact that you're upset that you don't get to shoot as much stuff as you think you ought to. How dare others want to conserve a shared resource!
It's this simple: does the state (meaning, the people of that state) have the right to manage shared resources such as fish and game that are not tied to any given parcel of land? If yes, then the vast, vast majority of the laws made by most states are great. |
| You can party hunt in MN but they have to be in the same general area you are in. So if you get on for the wife she has to come with and be geared to legally hunt. It's illegal to fill other peoples tags because it is unfair to other hunters and allows people to take more game than they should. |
|
Quoted:
A solid management practice would be a heavy majority doe harvest, given the amount of deer we have per hunter. While you may be right, you've made a blanket statement that makes a ton of assumptions. If they're trying to maintain a high population to maximize the number of people who get kill opportunities (not actual kills, not opportunities at older age-class deer, but a chance to see a legal deer), then they may be doing exactly what they need to. You're honestly not thinking this through - it *sounds* like what you're really angry about is that the state agency doesn't have the same management goals you'd like. The proper course of action there isn't ignorant whining on the internet; it's to get involved in pressuring the state to adopt different goals. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Game laws usually have nothing to do with keeping hunters safe or game management,. I'll freely concede that state agencies like to see revenues, and some laws cater to that (blackpowder and archery seasons in eastern states, etc, etc) but as written, the part of your statement I quoted is colossally inaccurate. Lets see, plugged gun for water fowl, Whether I like the concept or not, those laws are absolutely based on solid research. Plug laws allow the hunter to have the potential to harvest a limit without it being easy or common - the very fact that you whine about it proves that it has affected your harvest before, which is the whole point..... allowing shotgun slugs but not straight walled rifle cartridges
Shotgun slugs are generally done at 200 yards, usually much less; some straightwalled cartridges are very effective far beyond 500 yards. , not allowing baiting,
Completely based on the desires of the stakeholders (i.e. citizens). Most hunters want baiting laws. Don't like it? Convince your neighbors that they're wrong. not allowing electronic calls,
See what I said about plugs. Same concept. I could go.
But you've already demonstrated that you don't have a clue, and your whining is based on the fact that you're upset that you don't get to shoot as much stuff as you think you ought to. How dare others want to conserve a shared resource!
It's this simple: does the state (meaning, the people of that state) have the right to manage shared resources such as fish and game that are not tied to any given parcel of land? If yes, then the vast, vast majority of the laws made by most states are great. I shoot doubles, have for a very long time. Have you ever hunted? after 3 shots you are wasting your time, I call bullshit on "research", show me research where unplugged guns kill more animals than plugged. Erm you are clueless on shotgun and straight wall cartridge ballistics. So at least you admit to one arbitrary law. Again you have no clue what you are talking about, zero research indicates electronic calls are more effective. I find your statist views on game laws disturbing, ignorance must be bliss. |
|
Quoted:
I shoot doubles, have for a very long time. Which renders your whining about plugs even more pathetic. Have you ever hunted?
Thousands of times. after 3 shots you are wasting your time,
Not necessarily - of course, if you were right, then your whining about plugs just went into pathetic-ness overdrive. I call bullshit on "research", show me research where unplugged guns kill more animals than plugged.
Why? You wouldn't read it, you wouldn't believe it, I'd be wasting my time posting a link. And even worse, I'd have to dig up old college textbooks and find cites for the studies involved. Erm you are clueless on shotgun and straight wall cartridge ballistics.
One of us certainly is. So at least you admit to one arbitrary law.
Of course I do. My point wasn't that all game laws are sound; my point was that your original premise is outright stupid. Again you have no clue what you are talking about, zero research indicates electronic calls are more effective.
Unencumbered by reality, you press on..... I find your statist views on game laws disturbing, ignorance must be bliss.
Statist? Absolutely not. Like I said, this simple: does the state (meaning, the people of that state) have the right to manage shared resources such as fish and game that are not tied to any given parcel of land? If yes, then the vast, vast majority of the laws made by most states are great.
If 'no' then it doesn't matter whether the laws are sound or not; that becomes another issue altogether than the one we're discussing here, and our entire discussion is moot. If you reject the legitimacy of the state in managing wildlife, take that discussion up; you're out of your lane here. I've said this here before: I have a degree in wildlife management. I enjoyed college. I enjoyed some really cool part-time jobs doing stuff with critters (wild and captive). I got into grad school easily....But once I figured out that 1) most wildlife management jobs deal with people management, not wildlife management, and 2) most people are absolutely, totally, helplessly STUPID when it comes to wildlife management, I lost interest in the field as a career choice, and I went in a different direction. This thread might be a great object lesson in #2. People who have absolutely no clue whatsoever about harvest dynamics, landscape-level habitat issues, population dynamics, or the complexity involved in trying to manage a resource shared by hundreds of thousands of people who all have different desires for that resource, will belly up to the bar and spout off as if they had a clue, and all it does it make them look stupid and make the salary of a wildlife biologist look way too small for me. I'm through here. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Game laws usually have nothing to do with keeping hunters safe or game management,. I'll freely concede that state agencies like to see revenues, and some laws cater to that (blackpowder and archery seasons in eastern states, etc, etc) but as written, the part of your statement I quoted is colossally inaccurate. Lets see, plugged gun for water fowl, Whether I like the concept or not, those laws are absolutely based on solid research. Plug laws allow the hunter to have the potential to harvest a limit without it being easy or common - the very fact that you whine about it proves that it has affected your harvest before, which is the whole point..... allowing shotgun slugs but not straight walled rifle cartridges
Shotgun slugs are generally done at 200 yards, usually much less; some straightwalled cartridges are very effective far beyond 500 yards. , not allowing baiting,
Completely based on the desires of the stakeholders (i.e. citizens). Most hunters want baiting laws. Don't like it? Convince your neighbors that they're wrong. not allowing electronic calls,
See what I said about plugs. Same concept. I could go.
But you've already demonstrated that you don't have a clue, and your whining is based on the fact that you're upset that you don't get to shoot as much stuff as you think you ought to. How dare others want to conserve a shared resource!
It's this simple: does the state (meaning, the people of that state) have the right to manage shared resources such as fish and game that are not tied to any given parcel of land? If yes, then the vast, vast majority of the laws made by most states are great. I shoot doubles, have for a very long time. Have you ever hunted? after 3 shots you are wasting your time, I call bullshit on "research", show me research where unplugged guns kill more animals than plugged. Erm you are clueless on shotgun and straight wall cartridge ballistics. So at least you admit to one arbitrary law. Again you have no clue what you are talking about, zero research indicates electronic calls are more effective. I find your statist views on game laws disturbing, ignorance must be bliss. Not a hunter and not trying to start shit, but if they are not more effective, why do they sell a butt ton of them? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Game laws usually have nothing to do with keeping hunters safe or game management,. I'll freely concede that state agencies like to see revenues, and some laws cater to that (blackpowder and archery seasons in eastern states, etc, etc) but as written, the part of your statement I quoted is colossally inaccurate. Lets see, plugged gun for water fowl, Whether I like the concept or not, those laws are absolutely based on solid research. Plug laws allow the hunter to have the potential to harvest a limit without it being easy or common - the very fact that you whine about it proves that it has affected your harvest before, which is the whole point..... allowing shotgun slugs but not straight walled rifle cartridges
Shotgun slugs are generally done at 200 yards, usually much less; some straightwalled cartridges are very effective far beyond 500 yards. , not allowing baiting,
Completely based on the desires of the stakeholders (i.e. citizens). Most hunters want baiting laws. Don't like it? Convince your neighbors that they're wrong. not allowing electronic calls,
See what I said about plugs. Same concept. I could go.
But you've already demonstrated that you don't have a clue, and your whining is based on the fact that you're upset that you don't get to shoot as much stuff as you think you ought to. How dare others want to conserve a shared resource!
It's this simple: does the state (meaning, the people of that state) have the right to manage shared resources such as fish and game that are not tied to any given parcel of land? If yes, then the vast, vast majority of the laws made by most states are great. I shoot doubles, have for a very long time. Have you ever hunted? after 3 shots you are wasting your time, I call bullshit on "research", show me research where unplugged guns kill more animals than plugged. Erm you are clueless on shotgun and straight wall cartridge ballistics. So at least you admit to one arbitrary law. Again you have no clue what you are talking about, zero research indicates electronic calls are more effective. I find your statist views on game laws disturbing, ignorance must be bliss. Not a hunter and not trying to start shit, but if they are not more effective, why do they sell a butt ton of them? Because they are easy to use. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Game laws usually have nothing to do with keeping hunters safe or game management,. I'll freely concede that state agencies like to see revenues, and some laws cater to that (blackpowder and archery seasons in eastern states, etc, etc) but as written, the part of your statement I quoted is colossally inaccurate. Lets see, plugged gun for water fowl, Whether I like the concept or not, those laws are absolutely based on solid research. Plug laws allow the hunter to have the potential to harvest a limit without it being easy or common - the very fact that you whine about it proves that it has affected your harvest before, which is the whole point..... allowing shotgun slugs but not straight walled rifle cartridges
Shotgun slugs are generally done at 200 yards, usually much less; some straightwalled cartridges are very effective far beyond 500 yards. , not allowing baiting,
Completely based on the desires of the stakeholders (i.e. citizens). Most hunters want baiting laws. Don't like it? Convince your neighbors that they're wrong. not allowing electronic calls,
See what I said about plugs. Same concept. I could go.
But you've already demonstrated that you don't have a clue, and your whining is based on the fact that you're upset that you don't get to shoot as much stuff as you think you ought to. How dare others want to conserve a shared resource!
It's this simple: does the state (meaning, the people of that state) have the right to manage shared resources such as fish and game that are not tied to any given parcel of land? If yes, then the vast, vast majority of the laws made by most states are great. I shoot doubles, have for a very long time. Have you ever hunted? after 3 shots you are wasting your time, I call bullshit on "research", show me research where unplugged guns kill more animals than plugged. Erm you are clueless on shotgun and straight wall cartridge ballistics. So at least you admit to one arbitrary law. Again you have no clue what you are talking about, zero research indicates electronic calls are more effective. I find your statist views on game laws disturbing, ignorance must be bliss. Not a hunter and not trying to start shit, but if they are not more effective, why do they sell a butt ton of them? Same reason they sell a butt ton of scent lock clothing, people "think" they work better. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
A solid management practice would be a heavy majority doe harvest, given the amount of deer we have per hunter. While you may be right, you've made a blanket statement that makes a ton of assumptions. If they're trying to maintain a high population to maximize the number of people who get kill opportunities (not actual kills, not opportunities at older age-class deer, but a chance to see a legal deer), then they may be doing exactly what they need to. You're honestly not thinking this through - it *sounds* like what you're really angry about is that the state agency doesn't have the same management goals you'd like. The proper course of action there isn't ignorant whining on the internet; it's to get involved in pressuring the state to adopt different goals. lol...ok. We can't get Sunday open (those of us who care) but we're supposed to make VDGIF do a 180 on their management practices and admit they've been wrong since the dawn of time. I spend my lobby days with VCDL on gun rights. Maybe you should think twice about advising us in Virginia about our heavily overpopulated yet smallish whitetail. |
,peer review how does it work?
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Game laws usually have nothing to do with keeping hunters safe or game management,. I'll freely concede that state agencies like to see revenues, and some laws cater to that (blackpowder and archery seasons in eastern states, etc, etc) but as written, the part of your statement I quoted is colossally inaccurate. Lets see, plugged gun for water fowl, Whether I like the concept or not, those laws are absolutely based on solid research. Plug laws allow the hunter to have the potential to harvest a limit without it being easy or common - the very fact that you whine about it proves that it has affected your harvest before, which is the whole point..... allowing shotgun slugs but not straight walled rifle cartridges
Shotgun slugs are generally done at 200 yards, usually much less; some straightwalled cartridges are very effective far beyond 500 yards. , not allowing baiting,
Completely based on the desires of the stakeholders (i.e. citizens). Most hunters want baiting laws. Don't like it? Convince your neighbors that they're wrong. not allowing electronic calls,
See what I said about plugs. Same concept. I could go.
But you've already demonstrated that you don't have a clue, and your whining is based on the fact that you're upset that you don't get to shoot as much stuff as you think you ought to. How dare others want to conserve a shared resource!
It's this simple: does the state (meaning, the people of that state) have the right to manage shared resources such as fish and game that are not tied to any given parcel of land? If yes, then the vast, vast majority of the laws made by most states are great. I shoot doubles, have for a very long time. Have you ever hunted? after 3 shots you are wasting your time, I call bullshit on "research", show me research where unplugged guns kill more animals than plugged. Erm you are clueless on shotgun and straight wall cartridge ballistics. So at least you admit to one arbitrary law. Again you have no clue what you are talking about, zero research indicates electronic calls are more effective. I find your statist views on game laws disturbing, ignorance must be bliss. Not a hunter and not trying to start shit, but if they are not more effective, why do they sell a butt ton of them? Because they are easy to use. Yup. Too lazy or stupid to figure out how to do the calls themselves. Any hunter will tell you there is a big difference between "hunting" and "killing". Hunting is what you do 99.99% of the time, killing only happens when you pull the trigger. Most people are in it for the hunt, some are in it for the kill. Big difference. The laws and regulations are geared for the benefit of the hunters, not the killers. Hunting is a privilege, not a right. You are hunting the state's animals that just happen to be on your land. ZA |
|
Hunting is not a privilege in many states, it is a right like gun ownership. Many states have it in their constitutions. Montana is one of them. and the state does not own the animals, they are a public good and owned by everyone collectively. Licenses give you the right to harvest them and prevent "the tragedy of the commons."
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Game laws usually have nothing to do with keeping hunters safe or game management,. I'll freely concede that state agencies like to see revenues, and some laws cater to that (blackpowder and archery seasons in eastern states, etc, etc) but as written, the part of your statement I quoted is colossally inaccurate. Lets see, plugged gun for water fowl, Whether I like the concept or not, those laws are absolutely based on solid research. Plug laws allow the hunter to have the potential to harvest a limit without it being easy or common - the very fact that you whine about it proves that it has affected your harvest before, which is the whole point..... allowing shotgun slugs but not straight walled rifle cartridges
Shotgun slugs are generally done at 200 yards, usually much less; some straightwalled cartridges are very effective far beyond 500 yards. , not allowing baiting,
Completely based on the desires of the stakeholders (i.e. citizens). Most hunters want baiting laws. Don't like it? Convince your neighbors that they're wrong. not allowing electronic calls,
See what I said about plugs. Same concept. I could go.
But you've already demonstrated that you don't have a clue, and your whining is based on the fact that you're upset that you don't get to shoot as much stuff as you think you ought to. How dare others want to conserve a shared resource!
It's this simple: does the state (meaning, the people of that state) have the right to manage shared resources such as fish and game that are not tied to any given parcel of land? If yes, then the vast, vast majority of the laws made by most states are great. I shoot doubles, have for a very long time. Have you ever hunted? after 3 shots you are wasting your time, I call bullshit on "research", show me research where unplugged guns kill more animals than plugged. Erm you are clueless on shotgun and straight wall cartridge ballistics. So at least you admit to one arbitrary law. Again you have no clue what you are talking about, zero research indicates electronic calls are more effective. I find your statist views on game laws disturbing, ignorance must be bliss. Not a hunter and not trying to start shit, but if they are not more effective, why do they sell a butt ton of them? Because they are easy to use. Yup. Too lazy or stupid to figure out how to do the calls themselves. Any hunter will tell you there is a big difference between "hunting" and "killing". Hunting is what you do 99.99% of the time, killing only happens when you pull the trigger. Most people are in it for the hunt, some are in it for the kill. Big difference. The laws and regulations are geared for the hunters, not the killers. Hunting is a privilege, not a right. You are hunting the state's animals that just happen to be on your land. ZA |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A solid management practice would be a heavy majority doe harvest, given the amount of deer we have per hunter. While you may be right, you've made a blanket statement that makes a ton of assumptions. If they're trying to maintain a high population to maximize the number of people who get kill opportunities (not actual kills, not opportunities at older age-class deer, but a chance to see a legal deer), then they may be doing exactly what they need to. You're honestly not thinking this through - it *sounds* like what you're really angry about is that the state agency doesn't have the same management goals you'd like. The proper course of action there isn't ignorant whining on the internet; it's to get involved in pressuring the state to adopt different goals. lol...ok. We can't get Sunday open (those of us who care) but we're supposed to make VDGIF do a 180 on their management practices and admit they've been wrong since the dawn of time. That very thing has happened in many states in the last 20 years. it's happened in both the state I hunt in (TN) and the state I live in (MS). Your hurdle, though, is that you haven't yet figured out.....they're not wrong, they just maging for different objecttives than you want. There isn't much 'right' and 'wrong' in deer management until you have defined your objectives. I spend my lobby days with VCDL on gun rights.
Good for you. Maybe you should think twice about advising us in Virginia about our heavily overpopulated yet smallish whitetail.
See? Another example of why I gave up wildlife management. I haven't advised you on anything - I've just tried to explain some very simple, foundational concepts to you, and all I accomplished was making you mad. I wouldn't waste my time doing this for a state biologist's salary. No use spending any more time on it for free. G'night.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> Again you have no clue what you are talking about, zero research indicates electronic calls are more effective. I find your statist views on game laws disturbing, ignorance must be bliss. Not a hunter and not trying to start shit, but if they are not more effective, why do they sell a butt ton of them? Oh he's absolutely correct--in the strictest sense. That means there is zero research which indicates electronic calls are more effective. Of course there has been no research into this.
Anyone who has hunted, and used calls, will tell you a good electronic caller will produce more results than a mouth call--for most things, at most times. Plus they don't fill with spit and freeze up. 
It always amazes me how much I've learned about hunting from the non-hunters on this site. I've spent close to 50 years actually hunting, and I honestly didn't realize how very ignorant I am. I am remedying that frequently though by reading threads like this one, so thanks for posting it. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Game laws usually have nothing to do with keeping hunters safe or game management,. I'll freely concede that state agencies like to see revenues, and some laws cater to that (blackpowder and archery seasons in eastern states, etc, etc) but as written, the part of your statement I quoted is colossally inaccurate. Lets see, plugged gun for water fowl, Whether I like the concept or not, those laws are absolutely based on solid research. Plug laws allow the hunter to have the potential to harvest a limit without it being easy or common - the very fact that you whine about it proves that it has affected your harvest before, which is the whole point..... allowing shotgun slugs but not straight walled rifle cartridges
Shotgun slugs are generally done at 200 yards, usually much less; some straightwalled cartridges are very effective far beyond 500 yards. , not allowing baiting,
Completely based on the desires of the stakeholders (i.e. citizens). Most hunters want baiting laws. Don't like it? Convince your neighbors that they're wrong. not allowing electronic calls,
See what I said about plugs. Same concept. I could go.
But you've already demonstrated that you don't have a clue, and your whining is based on the fact that you're upset that you don't get to shoot as much stuff as you think you ought to. How dare others want to conserve a shared resource!
It's this simple: does the state (meaning, the people of that state) have the right to manage shared resources such as fish and game that are not tied to any given parcel of land? If yes, then the vast, vast majority of the laws made by most states are great. I shoot doubles, have for a very long time. Have you ever hunted? after 3 shots you are wasting your time, I call bullshit on "research", show me research where unplugged guns kill more animals than plugged. Erm you are clueless on shotgun and straight wall cartridge ballistics. So at least you admit to one arbitrary law. Again you have no clue what you are talking about, zero research indicates electronic calls are more effective. I find your statist views on game laws disturbing, ignorance must be bliss. Not a hunter and not trying to start shit, but if they are not more effective, why do they sell a butt ton of them? Because they are easy to use. Yup. Too lazy or stupid to figure out how to do the calls themselves. Any hunter will tell you there is a big difference between "hunting" and "killing". Hunting is what you do 99.99% of the time, killing only happens when you pull the trigger. Most people are in it for the hunt, some are in it for the kill. Big difference. The laws and regulations are geared for the benefit of the hunters, not the killers. Hunting is a privilege, not a right. You are hunting the state's animals that just happen to be on your land. ZA Applying ones ethics to hunting is very much subjective in many cases, somethings are absolute but one guys definition is not the same as another's. Give me your definition of hunting and I will find 10 guys who find your ways unethical. Then I will find ten more who think their method is unethical. |
|
Quoted: I was watching a show about game wardens and they were out in the field looking for poachers and people filling other peoples tags. I understand the poaching part, but as for filling others tags, I don't understand why that is a big deal. It is a legal Elk tag, what does it matter in the grand scheme who shoots the Elk? AK does allow proxy hunting for others on their tag. The old,disabled and so forth. But you cannot hunt for yourself at the same time or take any money in return. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<snip> Again you have no clue what you are talking about, zero research indicates electronic calls are more effective. I find your statist views on game laws disturbing, ignorance must be bliss. Not a hunter and not trying to start shit, but if they are not more effective, why do they sell a butt ton of them? Oh he's absolutely correct--in the strictest sense. That means there is zero research which indicates electronic calls are more effective. Of course there has been no research into this.
Anyone who has hunted, and used calls, will tell you a good electronic caller will produce more results than a mouth call--for most things, at most times. Plus they don't fill with spit and freeze up.
It always amazes me how much I've learned about hunting from the non-hunters on this site. I've spent close to 50 years actually hunting, and I honestly didn't realize how very ignorant I am. I am remedying that frequently though by reading threads like this one, so thanks for posting it. I disagree with that statement. I have had far greater success with my sceery raspy cottontail on coyotes than my $700 fox pro. Same with my cheap grunt tube and old rattling antlers vs. the same $700 fox pro. |
|
Quoted:
Game laws usually have nothing to do with keeping hunters safe or game management, they are about revenue. If you want to shit your pants look at what game wardens are allowed to do when it comes to searches, the 4th amendment goes out the fucking window when it comes to wardens in many states. QFT. I even had a game warden tell me that almost verbatim, off the record, of course. For deer, I think I can usually take 20, or so, a year legally with the tags I get. I do not often fill them all unless I start in bow season and finish in late Jan. These are tags from 2 states. |
| Javelina are a perfect example of why party hunting isn't good in some respects. Limited number of animals in a lot of areas. Get five guys in camp, they all go in different directions. Everybody runs in to a herd and kills five of them, one for each of their buddies, now you have 25 pigs and only five valid tags. It has happened and that's one reason that type of hunting isn't allowed here. |
|
Quoted:
Hunting is not a privilege in many states, it is a right like gun ownership. Many states have it in their constitutions. Montana is one of them. and the state does not own the animals, they are a public good and owned by everyone collectively. Licenses give you the right to harvest them and prevent "the tragedy of the commons." Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Game laws usually have nothing to do with keeping hunters safe or game management,. I'll freely concede that state agencies like to see revenues, and some laws cater to that (blackpowder and archery seasons in eastern states, etc, etc) but as written, the part of your statement I quoted is colossally inaccurate. Lets see, plugged gun for water fowl, Whether I like the concept or not, those laws are absolutely based on solid research. Plug laws allow the hunter to have the potential to harvest a limit without it being easy or common - the very fact that you whine about it proves that it has affected your harvest before, which is the whole point..... allowing shotgun slugs but not straight walled rifle cartridges
Shotgun slugs are generally done at 200 yards, usually much less; some straightwalled cartridges are very effective far beyond 500 yards. , not allowing baiting,
Completely based on the desires of the stakeholders (i.e. citizens). Most hunters want baiting laws. Don't like it? Convince your neighbors that they're wrong. not allowing electronic calls,
See what I said about plugs. Same concept. I could go.
But you've already demonstrated that you don't have a clue, and your whining is based on the fact that you're upset that you don't get to shoot as much stuff as you think you ought to. How dare others want to conserve a shared resource!
It's this simple: does the state (meaning, the people of that state) have the right to manage shared resources such as fish and game that are not tied to any given parcel of land? If yes, then the vast, vast majority of the laws made by most states are great. I shoot doubles, have for a very long time. Have you ever hunted? after 3 shots you are wasting your time, I call bullshit on "research", show me research where unplugged guns kill more animals than plugged. Erm you are clueless on shotgun and straight wall cartridge ballistics. So at least you admit to one arbitrary law. Again you have no clue what you are talking about, zero research indicates electronic calls are more effective. I find your statist views on game laws disturbing, ignorance must be bliss. Not a hunter and not trying to start shit, but if they are not more effective, why do they sell a butt ton of them? Because they are easy to use. Yup. Too lazy or stupid to figure out how to do the calls themselves. Any hunter will tell you there is a big difference between "hunting" and "killing". Hunting is what you do 99.99% of the time, killing only happens when you pull the trigger. Most people are in it for the hunt, some are in it for the kill. Big difference. The laws and regulations are geared for the hunters, not the killers. Hunting is a privilege, not a right. You are hunting the state's animals that just happen to be on your land. ZA That may be what you believe, but kill one of them without a tag or out of season, get caught, and you'll see your "right" revoked, and your ass will go to jail. It's not a right if you need a license to do it. Just saying... ZA |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
. That may be what you believe, but kill one of them without a tag or out of season, get caught, and you'll see your "right" revoked, and your ass will go to jail. It's not a right if you need a license to do it. Just saying... ZA You're both correct--but you are more correct. The states which have hunting as an enumerated right simply mean HUNTING is a right of the state's citizens, but it does not mean each individual has the right to hunt. IOW hunting can't be banned for everyone. |