# "Canned Hunt" Ban



## bountyhunter (Jul 6, 2005)

*Lawmaker Seeks To Ban 'Canned Hunts' For Wild Animals*

*25 Wildlife Ranches Could Be Forced Out Of Business*

POSTED: 12:56 pm MST January 19, 2008

UPDATED: 1:54 pm MST January 19, 2008

http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed...hedenverchannel.com/news/15094089/detail.htmlhttp://del.icio.us/post?title=Lawma...hedenverchannel.com/news/15094089/detail.htmlhttp://digg.com/submit?phase=2&titl...hedenverchannel.com/news/15094089/detail.htmlhttp://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?...For Wild Animals&src=sc&pos=top&from_posted=1http://reddit.com/submit?url=http:/... Seeks To Ban 'Canned Hunts' For Wild Animalshttp://www.thedenverchannel.com/rss/javascript:popUp('/print/15094089/detail.html','width=460,height=400,scrollbars');javascript:popUp("http://cf.thedenv...5094089/detail.html","width=450,height=250");

*DENVER** -- *To Rep. Debbie Stafford, hunting wildlife while they are penned in is unfair and unsporting and she wants it banned.

For some of the ranchers who raise wildlife livestock, it's the only way in a struggling economy to feed their herds of elk and other trophy animals. 

"She makes out like we hunt in little pens and they are shot at point-blank range and that's not the case," said Mike Crackel, owner of a 700-acre wildlife ranch near Craig. 

Crackel said hunters are willing to pay up to $12,000 to hunt his trophy elk and they have to work for it, chasing the animals down canyons and over mountains. Last year, only 11 were killed out of a herd of 70. 

By state law, the ranch is fenced in and inspected annually by the Department of Agriculture and regulated by the Division of Wildlife. 

He said if the law passes, it could force 25 wildlife ranches out of business. However, state wildlife officials said there are only two big game parks and six wildlife producer parks that would be affected. Crackel said other ranches have deer, yak, goats, sheep and buffalo for hunting. 

Stafford said so-called "canned hunts" are unfair and inhumane. 

"I'm very much a supporter of hunting. I support hunting with a fair chase for the animal," she said. 

Her bill (House Bill 1096) would prohibit a person from offering another person the opportunity to hunt, wound, or take any mammal that is intentionally confined, tied, staked, caged, or otherwise restrained from engaging in normal movement. 

It would allow exceptions for slaughtering a mammal for meat, leather, or fur production or humanely euthanizing a mammal for health, safety, or scientific purposes. 

Violators would be subject to a fine of up to $25,000 and loss of their hunting privileges. 

Ivan James, vice chairman of legislation for the Colorado Bowhunters Association, said he supports legislation that would limit canned hunts. 

"We believe in a fair chase. In some cases, hunters pay $20,000 to hunt drugged animals. We think that's very unsporting. It's a very bad image for hunters," he said.


----------



## SSMike (Aug 15, 2005)

Colorado is tough on hunting laws... You won't see any corn feeders there either...


----------



## Hooked Up (May 23, 2004)

> We think that's very unsporting. It's a very bad image for hunters


 This may be so but we had best think long and hard about what is "really" happening here. We had better read every last word in these kind of bills before deciding if we support it or not. The "antis" are slick and very very patient. First they'll go after these guys..............next time it may well be you. H/U


----------



## activescrape (Jan 8, 2006)

To me it smells of the same mentality of wanting to take our automatic weapons(they always use ak-47's and uzis as examples), but it is just the first step to getting your auto shotgun or deer rifle. This would lead to eventually outlawing all high fence operations.

Bottom line, whether you hunt with an uzi or hate high fences does not matter. If you are a hunter and outdoorsman, these people that write and support these types of legislation are your enemies.

Another thing to be wary of. There is a big push to "save" wilderness for all future generations by making it illegal to drive in it. No 4 wheelers etal. Guess who is behind that? Animal rights activists, of course. They figure if they make it so hard on anyone to hunt it they can save an elk. A ban on roads can be made to include the horse and mule trails up to camps that "destroy" God's creation.


----------



## catch 5 (Apr 10, 2006)

I'm all for them doing away with canned hunts, if that is truely what the motive is here. It's an embarasment to the hunting community.


----------



## bountyhunter (Jul 6, 2005)

Hooked Up said:


> This may be so but we had best think long and hard about what is "really" happening here. We had better read every last word in these kind of bills before deciding if we support it or not. The "antis" are slick and very very patient. First they'll go after these guys..............next time it may well be you. H/U


You might just be right.............:frown:

Most true blue hunters don't like "Canned Hunts" but if the antis are attacking these type of hunts just to get a foothold on banning all hunting then we need to fight this as well, even if we don't agree with this form of hunting. Just my thoughts.


----------



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

Ban canned hunts everywhere , it is an embarrassment . The most important thing to me on the issue......it would end the careers of Keith and Allan Warren overnite. Also the 777 in Hondo , Y.O. Ranch and about 10000 others in Texas would have to get out the books and look up fair chase .


----------



## Charles Helm (Oct 22, 2004)

So long as it is legal for someone to go out back and slaughter a steer, I have no problem in their doing the same with an elk, axis, or whatever. As already pointed out, it is a slippery slope once you start making things illegal.

I do not want to hunt elk on 700 acres, but I do not want to put all the folks on larger acreages out of business who have been responsible for the preservation of species like blackbuck and scimitar horned oryx that were disappearing in the homelands.


----------



## Jtaylor (Apr 14, 2005)

I don't believe in canned hunts either. However, if you are hunting a 5000 acre ranch, that is high fenced, and you are hunting well away from the border fence, then my opinion is that it is fair chase.


What I don't like is when someone, like Troy Gentry of Montgomery and Gentry, who shot a black bear in some small fenced area, less than 5 acres I believe, then trys to pass it off as a fair chase hunt. It makes me sick to think that people like that can portray themselves as hunters. Then the real truth comes out and I think it makes us all look bad.

We are taking the life of an animal. We should at LEAST do it respecfully... and ethically.

But thats only my opinion.


----------



## catch 5 (Apr 10, 2006)

There should be a min. acreage requirement in order to have a high fence. That would do away with the canned hunts on small tracts where the animal has no chance. 

Heck they could make all high fences illeagal and I would be fine with that, but thats another argument. 

The other side of me is in agreement with some of the other comments that this is only the beggining of the end...... and that we shouldnt let the anti's have any ground to dig thier feet into. But, is it the anti's who are behind this or just some lawmaker?

This is going to be a long thread.


----------



## Jtaylor (Apr 14, 2005)

They had to outlaw internet hunting. People actually paid money to do that. I can't even imagine it.


----------



## Charles Helm (Oct 22, 2004)

catch 5 said:


> There should be a min. acreage requirement in order to have a high fence. That would do away with the canned hunts on small tracts where the animal has no chance.


It is a very tricky subject, as the terrain and cover make a big difference.

I see high fences in south Texas in very small pastures used just to keep deer off young pecan trees -- no one really has a problem with those, and they are not selling hunts, but when you get the legislature involved you never know where you will end up.


----------



## catch 5 (Apr 10, 2006)

Charles Helm said:


> It is a very tricky subject, as the terrain and cover make a big difference.
> 
> I see high fences in south Texas in very small pastures used just to keep deer off young pecan trees -- no one really has a problem with those, and they are not selling hunts, but when you get the legislature involved you never know where you will end up.


Very true. 500 acres in west Texas is nothing compared to 500 acres in the woods. The requirement would have to be based on the type of terrian involved.


----------



## deadeye68 (Jan 19, 2007)

Looked up Debbie Stafford and she just switched from rep. to dem. saying she did not abandon the rep. party but the rep. party abandoned her. One of her stances is animal rights. There may be an agenda hear that is more than canned hunts.H/U and Bountyhunter I'm with you on this. I'm afraid that this bill that is being presented is only the beginning of the new anti movement to sway sportsmen or create a division between hunters. Kinda like the Black Rifle syndrome.


----------



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

What more of a foothold do the "anti's" need than having a video of some " Gold Medal exotic " getting wacked in a 100 acre or less pasture by some guy or girl dressed up like there on some kind of half *** safari . Better worry more about getting rid of these bs hunts than the boogyman or women that's trying to take your SKS away . If you think it's allright to hunt that way or don't care if it's done or not the end for hunting will be sooner than you think .


----------



## catch 5 (Apr 10, 2006)

deadeye68 said:


> Looked up Debbie Stafford and she just switched from rep. to dem. QUOTE]
> 
> Oh, well enough said right there. Vote against this proposed bill !!!


----------



## Hooked Up (May 23, 2004)

To be perfectly "clear", I "personally" HATE canned hunts BUT I truly believe that it would be better for us as individual hunters to simply not participate in them if we want them to go away. Hit them in the pocketbook but for Pete's sake please DO NOT involve the all knowing powers that be at the state or federal level. Try to envision the mess they could and would make out of this. I really like the old saying; "If it is to be, it is up to ME". H/U


----------



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

Hooked Up said:


> To be perfectly "clear", I "personally" HATE canned hunts BUT I truly believe that it would be better for us as individual hunters to simply not participate in them if we want them to go away. Hit them in the pocketbook but for Pete's sake please DO NOT involve the all knowing powers that be at the state or federal level. Try to envision the mess they could and would make out of this. I really like the old saying; "If it is to be, it is up to ME". H/U


Agreed


----------



## bountyhunter (Jul 6, 2005)

I again have to totally agree with H/U on this one. I also personally hate canned hunts and think it is a disgrace to any of us that work and hunt hard each year. You shouldn't be able to just buy yourself a trophy.

However like H/U pointed out if the government gets involved anymore, then we are screwed and they will make a mess of this just like they have made a mess of almost everything they have been invloved in over the last 50 years.

There has to be a movement by Hunters to get rid of these canned hunts. Quit watching those TV hunting shows or buying products of folks you know are using these type of hunts to make a dollar. I know there are other ways to hit them in the ole pocketbook, but they just don't come to me right now.


----------



## Lezz Go (Jun 27, 2006)

So let me get this straight. Some here would ban hunting on the 40,000 acre YO because it's high fenced and he considers it a canned hunt? Did I read that right?


----------



## activescrape (Jan 8, 2006)

Pinfish said:


> What more of a foothold do the "anti's" need than having a video of some " Gold Medal exotic " getting wacked in a 100 acre or less pasture by some guy or girl dressed up like there on some kind of half *** safari . Better worry more about getting rid of these bs hunts than the boogyman or women that's trying to take your SKS away . If you think it's allright to hunt that way or don't care if it's done or not the end for hunting will be sooner than you think .


I hear what you are saying but we have to pick our poison. I STRONGLY question the motive of the writers of any of this type of legislation. They say they are against the brutal killing of animals who can't get away. Is that it really??? Maybe, just maybe, they are against all killing. Are we really ready to let them to put it into law and find out the real deal after it's too late? I'm not. If they don't want to kill an animal, I'm fine with that. It HAS to be a two way street. They should be fine if I want to. Their solution??? Make it against the law. I am telling you that once they get that, they will want more.

These people are hypocrites. Google, PETA kills animals, and see what you find. They are haters, liars and hypocrites. I believe they are far more interested in controlling people than animals. I do not intend to be controlled by some bleeding heart misguided tree hugger. They fuel their ranks by showing "gross" pictures to teenage girls who go on to a liberal college and wind up on the board of some existential save the planet org. Then they want to limit my God given right to hunt. I call BS. We can not give them an inch because that is not what they want. They will take that inch and immediately go for the next one.

Finally, the extreme example of canned hunting makes me sick at my stomach too. I'm just not willing to gamble my legacy on some shrill lunatics call to unarm and save the poor animals for political and monetary gain. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. 
They do not have mine or the animals best interest at heart. If hunting and hunters are so bad someone tell me then why there are more deer and turkeys now that ever before. Seems to me we are doing an exemplary job of policing ourselves. Why in the world do we need an animal rights activist to do it for us? Who do you suppose funded the restocking of elk in the great plains??? PETA, don't make me laugh. There are elk now in Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas and who knows where else. Who do you suppose has done more for ducks, Ducks Unlimited, or the Audobon society??? Where do you thing the money for fish hatcheries comes from, fishermen or The Nature Conservancy??? 
Get real people, line up with those who share your common interests and oppose those who will use trickery to defeat you.


----------



## State_Vet (Oct 10, 2006)

If you don't support a particular method or style of hunting don't participate in it. To support outright banning it is what is going to hurt *all types of hunting in the end*! It's the old crack in the dam theory. They get us fighting amogst ourselves, divide and conquer.


----------



## Jtaylor (Apr 14, 2005)

I agree with Vet. We have to have standards and scruples for ourselves and not participate in something if we don't believe in it... whether or not its legal is irrelevant.


----------



## Encinal (Jan 18, 2008)

So let me get this straight. If you help support a ban on "canned hunting" behind a fence, you think the anti-hunters are then going to turn around and then support your "fair chase" hunting?

People that "canned" hunt support legislation and give money to HUNTING causes.

Why back away from them? It makes you an Anti-hunter.... who just happens to hunt some other way...

Is the animal any less dead the way you do it?

It's a stupid argument. Hunting is about a personal achievement and enjoyment. If you don't like doing it that way FINE. Because someone else does, it doesn't make them wrong.


----------



## Jtaylor (Apr 14, 2005)

Encinal said:


> It's a stupid argument. Hunting is about a personal achievement and enjoyment. If you don't like doing it that way FINE. Because someone else does, it doesn't make them wrong.


I disagree. I think some hunting IS WRONG. Some canned hunts happen on very small acreage where the animal has absolutely NO chance. None. Zilch. And then they are shot and filmed for hunting shows. The shooter ( I refuse to call them a hunter) uses this to lift himself up... try to make himself look like he has actually done something.

Now... how could that be right?


----------



## jerry109999 (Oct 14, 2005)

*canned hunts*

Last year here in Texas HB2328 was proposed by Austin Rep Beverly Worrley. This law would have addressed the inhumane treatment of Companion Animals. Sounds good on the surface but looking at the supporters of it we found that the HSU and Peta were very vocal about it. Looking deeper we found that it changed the definition of companion animal to include horses etc.. this meaning that you no longer had livestock but companion animals. It also had some slick language about canned hunts and other stuff. It would have also made it illegal to shoot competition pigeons, quail that were not wild, dog trainers from training with live birds and was very far reaching on how to put down your own pets. Beverly Worrley made the statement that if they could get this on the books that they could then come back and strenghten the language at a later date.

With the help of the Sportsmens Alliance, Texas Trophy Hunters, some helpful lawyers and others this HB was watered down to address ONLY gross cruelty.

Make no mistake the animal rights activist in the US do not have a time table on their agenda but rather are looking to end what they see as barbaric treatment of animals and to strip you and others like you of your right to decide what is best for you and yours.

Anybody that thinks this is a good bill is not looking down the road to see the ramifications and the ultimate goals of the Anti Sportsmen.

The people that promote canned hunts, although you may not agree, own those animals and who has the right to tell them that how to kill that animal? I would venture to guess that these small enclosed hunts that brings so much attention to the forefront are a very small percentage of guided hunts and will soon go the way of the DoDo bird by their own accord. If you don't agree with their way to hunt don't give them your money and if enough people vote with their Dollars these outfits will go out of business.

Bottom Line: These animals are PERSONAL property and Me, You or the government should not dictate to them our personal agendas to make ourselves feel better. If you are managing a herd of anything on 50,000 acres or 150 acres it is not up to the government or the animal rights activist to dictate to you how to do that job.

Best regards.


----------



## Lezz Go (Jun 27, 2006)

Well said Jerry, green for you.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

"in a strugling economy, the poor landowners are forced to sell elk hunts for 12,000 dollars".... bless their freaking hearts.

As far as I'm concerned... ban away, if you're hutning an elk in a 40 acre high fence, it should be outlawed. that's not hunting in any book.... 

NOW bring on the comments about "what about 5,000,000 acres, or ,3000.... you guys know what is BS and what isn't.... it's about common sense. Hunting in a couple hundred acres, high fenced is ****, and everyone knows it. I realize the people behind this are anti hunting, and they're not stopping here... but good lord, you guys know this is wrong, you're using a straw man's arguments trying to justify people shooting (insert animal) in a pen.

DO they need a state tag to shoot a deer out of those pens? if colorado can dictate when an elk can be shot in high fence, they can dictate elk tags per landowner, then why not dictate what's an acceptable amount of acreage to legally hunt?


----------



## bountyhunter (Jul 6, 2005)

jerry109999 said:


> The people that promote canned hunts, although you may not agree, own those animals and who has the right to tell them that how to kill that animal? I would venture to guess that these small enclosed hunts that brings so much attention to the forefront are a very small percentage of guided hunts and will soon go the way of the DoDo bird by their own accord. If you don't agree with their way to hunt don't give them your money and if enough people vote with their Dollars these outfits will go out of business.


Sorry, but they really don't own the animal if they are native to Texas. If they are native to Texas, no matter how they were raised, they are a state resource.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

While we are at it, lets ban hunting over corn feeders, because, that is certainly not fair chase.
Also, we need to ban fishing in lakes smaller than 1000 acres, since, the poor fish cannot get away.
No more shooting those wild hogs you have trapped. Not fair chase.
No more use of snares, or, leg traps. Sorry, that just not fair chase.

What have I missed? There are lots of things that may follow...


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

Lezz Go said:


> So let me get this straight. Some here would ban hunting on the 40,000 acre YO because it's high fenced and he considers it a canned hunt? Did I read that right?


I don't think anyone would consider 40,000 acres "canned".

Like I said, you know what a canned hunt is. It seems like in this day of "my lawyer can beat your lawyer up", people are afraid to use some freaking common sense.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

letting the anti's get their foot in the door with any kind of legislation is bad mojo.
peta and the humane society are behind this for sure...just like they are trying here in TX.


----------



## Hooked Up (May 23, 2004)

bountyhunter said:


> Sorry, but they really don't own the animal if they are native to Texas. If they are native to Texas, no matter how they were raised, they are a state resource.


 I dunno Bro. Remember the Redfish Farm? The broodstock in the main building had to be kept alive and "well documented" as per TPWD regulations. These fish could not be sold or destroyed. Many of us right here on this board enjoyed hundreds (if not thousands) of their offspring though. Times have changed and so have some of the laws and regulations. Somebody posted earlier about the "divide and conquer" approach to destroying your opponent or his platform. That poster was right on the money. If we turn this into a "high fence / low fence argument (AGAIN!) we continue to inch our way closer to defeat. I believe we can summarize the original topic by proactively addressing the "supply and demand" aspect of the debate. If we aren't paying "they" can't stay in business. I stated earlier that I didn't like canned hunts but I'll not judge another for trying it. Hunting "ethics" simply are not black and white. I have mine and while I may not agree with another man's ethics, I don't have to and won't beat him over the head with mine. I believe that most of us "developed" our current belief systems about hunting ethics over a long period of time and not overnight. I for one, am still learning and hopefully "growing". H/U


----------



## jerry109999 (Oct 14, 2005)

Bounty, you are correct and I should have been more clear. I was speaking mainly of exotics and non-native animals.
Keith, everybody has thier own definitions of what canned hunting is and I can assure you that 40,000 acres under high fence would fit that discription if you asked PETA. The people pushing this agenda are not looking to define canned hunting but to STOP ALL Hunting and if they could classify 40,000 acres canned they would. You can find no definition of acceptable hunting on ANY Animal rights activists websites.


----------



## John Galt (Aug 6, 2006)

CoastalOutfitters said:


> letting the anti's get their foot in the door with any kind of legislation is bad mojo.
> peta and the humane society are behind this for sure...just like they are trying here in TX.


I agree...the NRA's "Just Say No" policy has worked pretty well in this country (esp. compared to every other industrialized democracy in the world).

I guarantee, if this passes, there will be attempts to raise the number of acres that constitutes a "pen" until people on this board are whining about how "only the rich guys can afford hunting anymore."

We all have our preferences in hunting, but we need to keep it in the family when the antis are trying to outlaw us. I guarantee that the average voter does not understand or care about the differences among types of hunting that the "That Ain't REAL Hunting" snobs take such pride in.

Note: I'm not calling abyone on this thread a snob, but I've read so many "That Ain't REAL Hunting" criticisms on other threads about baiting, pass-shooting, use of scuba tanks in spearfishing, minimum antler size/age, choice of firearms/bows, etc to know there are as many snobs here as your average Dallas Junior League cotillion.


----------



## activescrape (Jan 8, 2006)

John Galt said:


> I agree...the NRA's "Just Say No" policy has worked pretty well in this country (esp. compared to every other industrialized democracy in the world).
> 
> I guarantee, if this passes, there will be attempts to raise the number of acres that constitutes a "pen" until people on this board are whining about how "only the rich guys can afford hunting anymore."
> 
> ...


The NRA comparison is an excellent one. I can remember when the slogan, "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" came out. It infuriates anti gun ownership people when the NRA won't budge on the issue of fully automatic weapons. It's because they can't even get their foot in the door. They want their foot in the door. Who thinks they want their foor in the door just because they want a foot in there???? I think they want their foot in the door so they can then push their whole body through the door. And if they have it their way, you will be unarmed when they get there.
Same with this canned hunt thing. Who thinks that if they get their current definition of canned hunts successfully banned, they won't decide to expand on their definition asap? foot/whole body


----------



## Encinal (Jan 18, 2008)

Jtaylor said:


> I disagree. I think some hunting IS WRONG. Some canned hunts happen on very small acreage where the animal has absolutely NO chance. None. Zilch. And then they are shot and filmed for hunting shows. The shooter ( I refuse to call them a hunter) uses this to lift himself up... try to make himself look like he has actually done something.
> 
> Now... how could that be right?


You eat beef that is shot in the head with a .22 in a squeeze chute.

5 acres sounds like the king ranch to that cow.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

if you are going to raise a bunch of wild animals in a controlled pen that they cannot escape from, then common sense says you should be responsible for their feed and care just as we are for our pets, but that is not to say that they should be more seperate or more controlled, they should fall under basic livestock laws.

it is hard to prove partial neglect with livestock, the number of head per acre varies all over the state, throw odd weather in and it's tougher yet.

there is nothing to keep you from selling a hunt to shoot a steer in your pasture right now, or a horse for that matter, it's not PC


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

Encinal said:


> You eat beef that is shot in the head with a .22 in a squeeze chute.
> 
> 5 acres sounds like the king ranch to that cow.


yeah, but I don't see the local butcher dressing in camo, spraying down with scent killer, and telling the misses he's going "hunting"

That's why it's different.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

what is coming to be defined here is what amt of land is going to qualify as a hunting area. no matter how high the fence........

if you own 10 acres against a national forest and your yard is "fenced" no matter how high...........it may be illegal to hunt.........so now what?


----------



## Encinal (Jan 18, 2008)

Why?

Animal is just as dead either way... you think it matters to the animal how it dies?

Here's the thing.

You know that the way you hunt is different than someone who hunts in a 5 acre pen.

He knows it too.

Anti's dont see any difference.

The rest of the population doesnt care.

So you are going to gang up with your enemy to bury a quasi friend in hopes that people who don't care anyway are going to look at what you do in a different light?

Anti's arent going to change their mind. They are coming after you next.

The rest of the population isn't going to care any more or less.

As long as an animal is killed humanely to the best of the person's ability, I really don't care how it's done.

I have my own personal tastes and preferences that I abide by, but I'm not going to sit here and tell someone else who humanely kills an animal he is doing something wrong.

He gets a kick out of it, good for him.


----------



## daddyeaux (Nov 18, 2007)

OMG!!! Does this mean they might outlaw the canned duck hunts too! What will Winnie do for an economy??


----------



## State_Vet (Oct 10, 2006)

The "anti-hunters" enjoy nothing more than watching us tear ourselves apart, they also know the quickest way to get us to do it is to use "ethical" or "fair chase" and off we go taking sides. Now its "canned hunt" or "high fence" they use to get us to back into our respected corners and face off in a us versus them contest, guess what "us" is "them"!

Let's say they ban "canned hunts" on high fenced property 10 acres or less, everyone agrees that it is bad and doesn't raise a fuss about it cause it "unethical" or "not fair chase" to them. The next year they decide to amend the law to cover high fenced property that is 100 acres or less, the year after that its 1,000 acres, then 5,000 acres, then no firearms for hunting within an enclosure period, etc. That's the way it happens, they get you used to an idea then they build on it, for example taxes and the cost of gas


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

Kyle, you sound like the type I would be proud to hunt with, but I'm not convinced our politicians have *common sense*.



Kyle 1974 said:


> NOW bring on the comments about "what about 5,000,000 acres, or ,3000.... you guys know what is BS and what isn't.... *it's about common sense.* Hunting in a couple hundred acres, high fenced is ****, and everyone knows it. I realize the people behind this are anti hunting, and they're not stopping here... but good lord, you guys know this is wrong, you're using a straw man's arguments trying to justify people shooting (insert animal) in a pen.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

This part needs clarification:Her bill (House Bill 1096) would prohibit a person from offering another person the opportunity to hunt, wound, or take any mammal that is intentionally confined, tied, staked, caged, or otherwise restrained from engaging in normal movement. 
Intentionally confined is not defined here, which to me is a problem.


----------



## Lezz Go (Jun 27, 2006)

Kyle

Have you ever seen any of these type folks that you describe? I have hunted axis on a 900 acre place that's high fenced and the land is left pretty much as it was. Is that a canned hunt in your mind?

Please give us your definition of fair chase hunting.


----------



## bountyhunter (Jul 6, 2005)

Ok folks lets all remember we are all hunters and on the same side.

Lets all try to agree that if it is currently a legal means of hunting we don't want to let the antis stepping in a banning it and we dang sure don't want to support anything at any of these antis support.

If we don't agree with a method or means of hunting, we are not being forced to use that method or means. If it is legal then we should also not be against any of our fellow hunters using it, even if it is not of our choice.

Lets not let the ANTIs divide us because that is what they are doing, the evidence is right here in this thread. Once divided we are a more easy prey for the next ANTI Attack.


----------



## locolobo (Dec 2, 2005)

*canned?*

define canned .Please. A bill was introduced in one of the western states a few years ago had no definition of "fence" If I remember straight, it never got to vote but we need to watch out. Be careful what we wish for. Vague definitions and wording in a bill will open it to maby different interpretations. under a vague law, my lease and many others in the state of Texas would be eliminated. We have 4' fences that serve to separate the hunting areas and keep the cattle separate fom the huntimg areas.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

Lezz Go said:


> Kyle
> 
> Have you ever seen any of these type folks that you describe? I have hunted axis on a 900 acre place that's high fenced and the land is left pretty much as it was. Is that a canned hunt in your mind?
> 
> Please give us your definition of fair chase hunting.


It doesn't matter dude... because as soon as I state a specific acreage, there will be one wise *** to talk about his buddies place that is ironically the same acreage, within an 8 foot fence that is COMPLETEY fair chase. Then I'd have to hear the story about the huge buck they saw while doing a helicopter survey on said high fenced property, which was never seen at one of the protein feeders....., and although he showed up on a game camera, he was never spotted from a blind......and I'm not really looking to get into that.

Like I said twice, you know what a B.S. canned hunt is.

By the way, how long did it take to get your axis on that hunt?


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

CoastalOutfitters said:


> what is coming to be defined here is what amt of land is going to qualify as a hunting area. no matter how high the fence........
> 
> if you own 10 acres against a national forest and your yard is "fenced" no matter how high...........it may be illegal to hunt.........so now what?


I honestly don't think that will happen, because a normal lifestock fence doens't impede the movement of deer (or whatever else you're hunting). I think any person that hunts has seen deer jump a 4' fence many, many times. How many times have you seen a deer jump an 8' fence? They're called "deer proof fences" for a reason.

As far as "fair chase" I think the best definition is you have to consider what the natural area for an animal will be in a certain environment. is it 1000 acres? 640 acres? It's different based on where you're at. I would imagine that even though most of you guys won't say it here, a deer in almost any part of the state will travel outside a few hundred acres. (except that big deer that lived on 4 acres it's entire life you cousin's, neighbors' father's roomate's ex-wife's stepson shot last year)

I saw a buck on my trail camera that was shot almost two miles away as the crow flies.... that tends to make me believe that hunting high fence within a square mile is impeding the natural movement of animals, an in my opinion, if I were hunting high fence, I would readily acknowledge I'm not hunting fair chase.


----------



## PortATrout (Aug 15, 2005)

I think impedeing a deer's movement (containing in a certan area) is completely different subject than fair chase. If I am impedeing their movement to contain deer within my property it still can be fair chase depending on size and conditions on that particular property. Deer are a lot smarter than most people give them credit for. According to some folks here we need to get us a spear and start hunting like cavemen. High powered rifle with scope, high racks, elevated deer blinds, corn; all of these to some, would not be considered fair chase. A high fence will stop the majority of deer from leaving but it won't stop them all. Seen it happen on more than one occasion. As long as you can go home at the end of your hunt and feel good about what you did then I say let's all go hunting and enjoy our sport.


----------



## activescrape (Jan 8, 2006)

Kyle 1974 said:


> It doesn't matter dude... because as soon as I state a specific acreage, there will be one wise *** to talk about his buddies place that is ironically the same acreage, within an 8 foot fence that is COMPLETEY fair chase. Then I'd have to hear the story about the huge buck they saw while doing a helicopter survey on said high fenced property, which was never seen at one of the protein feeders....., and although he showed up on a game camera, he was never spotted from a blind......and I'm not really looking to get into that.
> 
> Like I said twice, you know what a B.S. canned hunt is.
> 
> By the way, how long did it take to get your axis on that hunt?


Kyle, you are right, in a perfect, common sensical and idealistic world. Canned hunts, in the way we are all think of them, are bs. 
Here's the problem though. We can not patronize canned hunts, and with any good luck they will eventually go away. At the very least their numbers will be very small. I think this is the case already. I saw one on e-bay and the guy did not one bid. 
On the other hand. Ignoring, or not encouraging animal activists will never make them go away. They demand attention. They are like the disobediant child that is going to get attention one way or the other.
At least be honest and admit that if we give in on the canned hunt thing it will merely whet their appetite for the next bite.
Very few politicians are truly animal rights activists. They pander to them though, for the votes. They are sellouts, for the vote. The vote that gives them power and money, and that is what they really care about. 
I do not intend to let them abuse my rights. I regularly e-mail and fax local, state and federal representatives on a broad range of issues I feel strongly about. You know what I have learned by doing that. A few people can make a big difference. It is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. The vast majority of voters in this country never let their reps. hear their voice. That is how things that just make you shake your head get enacted into law. Action speaks louder than words everyone.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

Kyle 1974 said:


> "in a strugling economy, the poor landowners are forced to sell elk hunts for 12,000 dollars".... bless their freaking hearts.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned... ban away, if you're hutning an elk in a 40 acre high fence, it should be outlawed. that's not hunting in any book....
> 
> ...


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

Kyle 1974 said:


> I honestly don't think that will happen, because a normal lifestock fence doens't impede the movement of deer (or whatever else you're hunting). I think any person that hunts has seen deer jump a 4' fence many, many times. How many times have you seen a deer jump an 8' fence? They're called "deer proof fences" for a reason.
> 
> As far as "fair chase" I think the best definition is you have to consider what the natural area for an animal will be in a certain environment. is it 1000 acres? 640 acres? It's different based on where you're at. I would imagine that even though most of you guys won't say it here, a deer in almost any part of the state will travel outside a few hundred acres. (except that big deer that lived on 4 acres it's entire life you cousin's, neighbors' father's roomate's ex-wife's stepson shot last year)
> 
> I saw a buck on my trail camera that was shot almost two miles away as the crow flies.... that tends to make me believe that hunting high fence within a square mile is impeding the natural movement of animals, an in my opinion, if I were hunting high fence, I would readily acknowledge I'm not hunting fair chase.


your missing my point, which is .....if you only own a small acreage, no matter what is beside it and it is fenced, no matter how tall, by definition it is a separation or lets say you high fence a property, shoot off all the native animals introduce new ones that you paid for and raised, should they be yours to do with as you please????


----------



## catch 5 (Apr 10, 2006)

State_Vet said:


> Let's say they ban "canned hunts" on high fenced property 10 acres or less, everyone agrees that it is bad and doesn't raise a fuss about it cause it "unethical" or "not fair chase" to them. The next year they decide to amend the law to cover high fenced property that is 100 acres or less, the year after that its 1,000 acres, then 5,000 acres, then no firearms for hunting within an enclosure period, etc. That's the way it happens, they get you used to an idea then they build on it, for example taxes and the cost of gas


Hey now were going in the right direction. All that would be fine with me because I bowhunt free range animals.  J/K


----------



## Lezz Go (Jun 27, 2006)

Coastal

Don't confuse him with facts as his mind is made up. Hunting is "bs" unless he says its not. 

Kyle

Dude, It took me about the same time to shoot the axis as it does you to shoot a whitetail under a corn feeder on your low fence place.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

CoastalOutfitters said:


> your missing my point, which is .....if you only own a small acreage, no matter what is beside it and it is fenced, no matter how tall, by definition it is a separation or lets say you high fence a property, shoot off all the native animals introduce new ones that you paid for and raised, should they be yours to do with as you please????


How can you raise native animals on a place they're free to come in and out of? are you they YOURS? I tend to believe native animals are the state's resource, and personally, I have a big problem with landowner's making an un regulated living off the state's resource... but that's just me. No one is forcing, or even asking people to put up feeders.

as far as raising animals that you buy on a high fence place... I jsut get all dreamy, because it reminds me of the stories my granpa used to tell me.... you know the ones... about how hunting is suppsoed to be.

penned up animals being electronically jerked off for semen to breed with does from michigan and pumped full of protien feed. God, I love nature!


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

Lezz Go said:


> Coastal
> 
> Don't confuse him with facts as his mind is made up. Hunting is "bs" unless he says its not.
> 
> ...


hey dude, I didn't shoot a deer off my low fenced place all year. But I'm still sure you had a fun time, chasing penned up axis deer. LOL

All in all, great reasons trying to justify shooting deer out of a pen. I'm all done here though with this one.

Hey lezz, thanks for the reddie, even after I gave you a green for the debate. Maybe someday when can meet face to face and you can reitterate the insults you left on my inbox.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

Man, this is going nowhere. Some of you "experts" think any hunting behind a high fence is unethical, then, some have different size standards. High fences are here to stay, and they are there so the population can be managed and not to make hunting easier. 

I can tell you, if you think hunting game behind a 500 acre high fence enclosure in heavy brush is any different than hunting game in an open pasture, you have not done it. Deer don't need thousands of acres to hide.


----------



## catch 5 (Apr 10, 2006)

Kyle 1974 said:


> penned up animals being electronically jerked off for semen to breed with does from michigan and pumped full of protien feed. God, I love nature!


Haaaaaa !!!!! I cant give you any more green, but that one deserves some. LOL !!! Yall are cracking me up.


----------



## State_Vet (Oct 10, 2006)

Kyle 1974 said:


> I honestly don't think that will happen,


Famous last words..........

Reminds me of this quote by General John Sedgwick "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance."


----------



## JD761 (Jun 7, 2006)

*Enough already...*


----------



## PortATrout (Aug 15, 2005)

[ 
I can tell you, if you think hunting game behind a 500 acre high fence enclosure in heavy brush is any different than hunting game in an open pasture, you have not done it. Deer don't need thousands of acres to hide.[/QUOTE]

1000% Agree with htis statement. Anybody doesn't believe it I can prove it to you.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

JD761 said:


>


OK... one more.

here's a photo that says it all! note the nervousness of the deer, with his direction aimed directly at the photographer, clearly, this free ranging buck (don't be fooled by the fence in the background... it's just to keep the armadillos out) is ready for action with his new ear ring fasion which screams "I'm a huge, naturally occuring, free ranging buck.". LMAO... OK... now I'm done.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

_How can you raise native animals on a place they're free to come in and out of? are you they YOURS? I tend to believe native animals are the state's resource_...........they belong to the state, just ask em

ok, one more time. you buy 10 acres that backs up to BLM land and you have your place fenced off with a low rail fence and a blind at the back.....an elk crosses the fence and you shoot it wearing your loincloth with your stick bow. do you potentially want to be cited for hunting free ranging animals from a small parcel of land ??? you owned the land before the law was made , should you be grandfathered in????

or

you buy 10-5000 acres high fence it , kill off everything that moves and reintroduce non-native whitetails and start a breeding program, should those deer as well as the future offspring be treated as yours? and if so, it is treated as any other livestock operation , you kill them however you see fit, i don't care if you don't like it or is it un-ethical, if they are truly yours then more power to you if someone wants to pay you to shoot em. what's the diff between raising them or pheasants and shooting them on a pen bird hunt ???

i'm not for high fences or canned hunts, but telling someone how to run their operation, as long as the animals are taken care of, is not my business or the state's as long as no laws are broken.


----------



## Lezz Go (Jun 27, 2006)

Looks like a pic of a stud or brood buck to me. Nice crop job.


----------



## State_Vet (Oct 10, 2006)

Kyle 1974 said:


> OK... one more.
> 
> here's a photo that says it all! note the nervousness of the deer, with his direction aimed directly at the photographer, clearly, this free ranging buck (don't be fooled by the fence in the background... it's just to keep the armadillos out) is ready for action with his new ear ring fasion which screams "I'm a huge, naturally occuring, free ranging buck.". LMAO... OK... now I'm done.


How do we know which side of the fence that deer is on?:biggrin:


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

State_Vet said:


> How do we know which side of the fence that deer is on?:biggrin:


LMAO.... good one. I'm sure it was on the free range side.


----------



## Mike1010 (Jun 5, 2006)

I recently bought 500 acres in Duval county, and they are in the process of completing the high fence and I don't see a thing wrong with it. The pastures around me shoot anything that walks, so if I have any hopes of managing a whitetail ranch a high fence is the only way. So what a lot of people are saying is I should either A.) find a way to afford 10000 free range acres so I can manage it with as little influence from my neighbors as possible. Or I should B.) Leave my low fence and shoot yearling 8 pointers like my neighbors. or C.) Just not buy a ranch. There is a lot of grey area in this topic


----------



## jerry109999 (Oct 14, 2005)

Kyle,
I am very glad you are teaching you kids responsible hunting ethics and will instill a great desire to appreciate the outdoor adventures, but would you please stay the HE77 out of my Ranching Operations.

Each time you post about commmon sense and the State or Federal Government I spew coke out of my nose onto the keyboard laughing. 

You have yet to address what is a canned hunt. You give examples of what you believe to be canned hunts but you fail to define it. If you as a hunter won't say what a canned hunt is how do you expect the numbnuts running Colorado to do it. You say nobody and common sense in many of you replies but without a definition of a canned you get the famous $600.00 toilet seat we all know about and you get sex or no sex in the white house.

Each person has the right to define for himself what he feels is right and it is not up to you or me, for that matter, to tell him/her how to do it. In this game/sport we play death is the inevatable outcome for the hunted. We may not kill each and every time we hunt but to hunt is to KILL and please don't try to make me feel better about it by saying that x amount of property is needed for me to do that. With todays toys and my skill there is no animal that is safe if I choose for it to die how that animal dies does not matter much so long as I can look at myself in the mirror.

Again I commend you for teaching your kids what you feel is the correct way to hunt and we need each outdoorsman to introduce more kids to that way of thinking.

Best regards


----------



## tail-chaser (May 5, 2007)

I don't do a whole lot of hunting, in fact I have only shoot 2 dear in my life and I go duck and dove hunting about 10 times a year. I mainly stick to the water and fish.

I think the whole point of this thread has pointed out that people are different. Thats the best part of america (the melting pot). Different ideas, morales, religion, ethics, culter ect. ect. And that is ok because it is freedom, we all have opinions and thats great too, because we have freedom of speech. 

I have never even heard of a canned hunt until I read some threads on this website, maybe I don't get out enough. My first thought is "That just seems to take the fun and the whole point hunting out of it." I personally don't have a strong opinion either way becasue I am really ignorant about it. I can acctually see some pros and cons. But then again, who am I. I'm not the one who fork out a few million to buy a several thousand acre ranch (or what ever the case is), and I am not the one who is wanting to attract big spenders and sell hunts. It is there right as a red blooded american to do what they want with their land. 

I guess what I am trying to say is, it doesn't matter what the issue is. Some people agree some don't and thats great. This thread this not about the actual topic anymore its about the principle of controlling goverments. Its really about stoping our over powered goverment thats trying to control and regulate what we do as americans more and more everyday. I don't care what the topic is, if it is to defend the right for muslim to practice there religion, or to defend the right for someone to hunt, the goverment needs butt out and know when to stop. Thats just my .02 cents.

P.S. Its seems like a canned hunts on the hunting board is kinda like bringing up shoreline burners on the general fishing board...........LOL


----------



## State_Vet (Oct 10, 2006)

*"Canned Hunt":tongue: *Let's all be friends


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

jerry109999 said:


> Kyle,
> I am very glad you are teaching you kids responsible hunting ethics and will instill a great desire to appreciate the outdoor adventures, but would you please stay the HE77 out of my Ranching Operations.
> 
> Each time you post about commmon sense and the State or Federal Government I spew coke out of my nose onto the keyboard laughing.
> ...


I think I've thrown out a few examples... I mentioned shooting an elk in a couple hundred acres, shooting a deer in 40 acres. I also mentioned I didn't want to get into specifics because if I did, then someone would bring up that whatever said acreage and say how fair chase UN canned it was...Sorry if you didn't catch those. I will post my memoirs later that go into tremendous detail about my definition of a canned hunt......also, I'm assuming you're running a high fence ranching operation, so I have no problem staying out, you would probably try to sell me as a package hunt!!!!!

LOL


----------



## bountyhunter (Jul 6, 2005)

Kyle 1974 said:


> I think I've thrown out a few examples... I mentioned shooting an elk in a couple hundred acres, shooting a deer in 40 acres. I also mentioned I didn't want to get into specifics because if I did, then someone would bring up that whatever said acreage and say how fair chase UN canned it was...Sorry if you didn't catch those. I will post my memoirs later that go into tremendous detail about my definition of a canned hunt......also, I'm assuming you're running a high fence ranching operation, so I have no problem staying out, you would probably try to sell me as a package hunt!!!!!
> 
> LOL


Hey........I only got 39 acres.........but it backs up to the National Forest and there are no fences:wink: Believe me it is fair chase, in fact it is so fair chase that I only saw 4 deer all season, including bow and muzzleloader.


----------



## JLC72 (Nov 7, 2006)

Man, I think I'm finally gonna get to use the ignore feature.. LOL


----------



## Hooked Up (May 23, 2004)

Lezz Go said:


> So let me get this straight. Some here would ban hunting on the 40,000 acre YO because it's high fenced and he considers it a canned hunt? Did I read that right?


 I'm sure that "somebody" will take exception to that but it won't be me. I enjoyed the YO. I also wan't to enjoy the open range in Wyoming someday. I think the definition(s) of words and terms like "canned hunt" is what's going to get us into trouble here. Everybody is going to have a slightly different interpretation of the definition(s) of these terms. It's not for me to decide who's right and who's wrong. When I hear the term "canned hunt" I envision those operations with "caged" quail hidden in brush that are somehow released "flushed" as the paid hunter walks by. I've hunted on a 500 acre high fence operation before and watched some younguns take their first deer there. That 500 acres "looked" like the whole world to those kids and the meat fed my family well. Was it my dream hunt in Wyoming? No. Apples and Oranges. H/U


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

*Her bill (House Bill 1096) would prohibit a person from offering another person the opportunity to hunt, wound, or take any mammal that is intentionally confined, tied, staked, caged, or otherwise restrained from engaging in normal movement.* 

I have no problem with the tied, staked, caged part............

but what is confined or restrained and who decides?? 5 or 5000 acres , a fence is a fence it confines and restrains , no matter how tall it is..


----------



## Charles Helm (Oct 22, 2004)

CoastalOutfitters said:


> *Her bill (House Bill 1096) would prohibit a person from offering another person the opportunity to hunt, wound, or take any mammal that is intentionally confined, tied, staked, caged, or otherwise restrained from engaging in normal movement.*
> 
> I have no problem with the tied, staked, caged part............
> 
> but what is confined or restrained and who decides?? 5 or 5000 acres , a fence is a fence it confines and restrains , no matter how tall it is..


I don't know, but if they adopted that language here I would not invite someone over to help you shoot some hogs in your trap (or help you run your traps)!

[Disclaimer: I did not read the entire bill, maybe they have included exceptions, but...]


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

Charles your correct, 

I was thinking about Colo.


----------



## Encinal (Jan 18, 2008)

The whole point is that they are trying to write into law what someone's PERSONAL ethics should be about hunting.

They are PERSONAL.

I know everyone likes to think that a deer running around in a national forrest is different than a chicken in Tyson's chicken barns, but it's really not.

It is meat running around.

Someone who shoots an animal backpacking in 7 days in the national forrest has one HECK of a lot more in common with someone who shoots an axis on a 150 acre ranch than the majority of people who just go buy a Tyson chicken.

They have even more in common than someone who doesnt eat meat period.

Animals don't have rights period. No animal is different than another, period.

If you think it is ok to occasionally buy meat at a store, you are a hypocrit if you want someone to be thrown under a bus for selling a "canned" elk hunt.

He put more effort into it than you did when you bought your meat.


----------



## jerry109999 (Oct 14, 2005)

Kyles Quote
"I think I've thrown out a few examples... I mentioned shooting an elk in a couple hundred acres, shooting a deer in 40 acres. I also mentioned I didn't want to get into specifics because if I did, then someone would bring up that whatever said acreage and say how fair chase UN canned it was...Sorry if you didn't catch those. I will post my memoirs later that go into tremendous detail about my definition of a canned hunt......also, I'm assuming you're running a high fence ranching operation, so I have no problem staying out, you would probably try to sell me as a package hunt!!!!!"

Kyle, kyle, kyle:
Down here on Earth we have to deal in facts, especially when your talking about the government. I caught your examples listed and I ask again, how do you define a canned hunt? Giving examples does nothing. I think we all as hunters can agree that small enclosed pens are not considered hunting. So what? Why do you care how that animal dies so long as it is dispatched quickly. Once that animal is in that encloser it is no longer a wild animal but a ranch product.

Your point of view and arguments make it sound like you and others like you should have the ability to decide for the masses what is right and fair. The problem with the closed mindedness you are showing is that you are being seen as being better than everbody else because your standards are higher than the common man. Guess what, their not. I could go into the fact that nobody here has tried to dictate to you how to hunt but you are trying to dictate and impose you ideals on us but I will save that for another time, maybe after you post your memoirs. Like I said I am glad you are teaching you kids the way you like to hunt and I hope you also teach them that not everbody has to do it the same way.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

OK guys, you have convinced me. There is no such thing as a canned hunt because it's up to each individual to decide what's right for them.

On a completley seperate issue, I have a good source for some hunting up in alaska. Apparently, there's a well reknowned guiding service up there that offers some outstanding baby seal clubbing hunts. It's perfectly legal, and the clubs they use usually kill the animal in short order. Also, for those that might get short winded in the cold weather, they offer "limited access" seal hunts. Not sure what this means, but they guarantee up to 25 clubbing oppurtunities per day! PM me for more information!

For the last time... you guys are using a poor argument. you KNOW what a BS canned hunt is, and you cannot seperate your own high fence hunting (didn't I say the YO was not canned?) from BS canned hunting. I can't help you with that if you can't see the diference. This is obviously going no where, so we should just leave it alone, because you think you're right, and I think I'm right. This discussion has turned exactly into what I said it would.... different people bringing up their experience hunting some other place. Instead of focusing on the issue (canned hunts) it's turned into "well, MY high fence hunt isn't canned!!" Just for the record, outside of screwing with some people, I never stated all high fence hunting was canned. 

For the life of me, I can't understand why true sportsmen would condone canned hunting.

Jerry, also... apparently, we can't all agree with your statement that hunting in small pens in canned, that's exactly what my point is.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

it's gonna be ok, really.....


----------



## Leemo (Nov 16, 2006)

Well I've been waiting a while to respond to this and I just don't know what to say except, to each his own, I hunt with a rem. 7 mg., sit in a tower blind, my feeder runs 24/7 filled with corn and golden nuggets, I have a trail cam set up, a swivel office chair, a high powered set up binocs., and did I mentioned I corn the senderos' everytime before I "hunt", I guess I'm really giving the deer a fair chase, oh, I forgot, I also carry a thermos full of coffee with me and my cell phone in case something happens, maybe I should be looking for more arrowheads, looks like I'm gonna need em' when "us" hunters are through bashing each other over what's right and what's wrong, in the meantime I'll enjoy my God given right as a Free American to hunt as I please...


----------



## PortATrout (Aug 15, 2005)

I think everyone that has responded to this post would not condone a true "canned hunt." To me a canned hunt is going to a place where a known animal is confined in a small area not giving them the opportunity to escape. That small confined area seems to be where everyone starts to disagree. For some it may be 50 acres and others it may be 50,000 acres. Each person has to make their own decision on where their comfort level is and not be influenced by what other folks think. If it is legal and you can sleep with yourself at the end of the day that is all that matters. I just enjoy being out there with friends and family and having the opportunity that a lot of other folks never get the chance to partake in. It is not about the kill, it is about the overall hunting experience. Seems like some of us may have forgotten why we do this.


----------



## catch 5 (Apr 10, 2006)

I kinda dont know what to say either. Bottom line is that some people do it old school (me) and take pride in hunting like our grandfathers did and try to keep it as fair as possible and preserve the beauty of hunting free ranging animals. And there are others that hunt behind a fence.................. and we will never get the two groups to agree with one another. 

What was this thread about again?  Oh yeah, some proposed bill about "canned hunting", which doesnt involve either of the above mentioned groups. 

If you are pro canned hunts, and I mean a true "canned" hunt in a pen, then you should be ashamed of yourself. But, as stated before in this thread, there may be more motive to this bill than meets the eye....

I promise Im not reading or replying to this rediculous thread anymore. LOL


----------



## JDS (Jul 14, 2004)

Below is another bill that was recently introduced. 5, 5,000, for, against, if you value your hunting rights, contact your represenative and let them know how you feel about these bills being just the tip of the iceberg, if nothing else. (I know the bill below concerns exotics, so don't get hung up on that. It also concerns high fences).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *Exotic Wildlife Association Legislative Alert!
*​​~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  Anti exotic animals bill introduced in DC! 



The "Sportsmanship in Hunting Act of 2007," or the 2007 canned hunt bill, has been "finally" filed!



Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) has introduced HR 3829 to forbid the transfer, transportation, or possession of a confined exotic animal, for the purposes of allowing the killing or injuring of that animal for entertainment or for the collection of a trophy. Violators would be fined, or imprisoned up to one year, or both. "Confined exotic animal" does not include animals that roam in an area greater than 1,000 acres and that can avoid hunters.



Co-sponsor of the bill is Ed Whitfield of Kentucky (R).



The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee



The Judiciary Committee contact information is:



2138 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Ph. 202-225-3951



For a list of Representatives serving on the Committee, please visit:



http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMember.aspx?id=7



To find your Congressman, please visit:

http://www.house.gov/writerep/





Although there is a good chance that the bill will not move until after the presidential election, please take note of it and call your Congressman and/or the Judiciary  Committee embers to oppose it.



For other important federal bills, please check our website www.exoticwildlifeassociation.com. Thank You.


----------



## no bait (Jan 19, 2007)

This Is What It Boils Down To $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.


----------



## activescrape (Jan 8, 2006)

JDS said:


> Below is another bill that was recently introduced. 5, 5,000, for, against, if you value your hunting rights, contact your represenative and let them know how you feel about these bills being just the tip of the iceberg, if nothing else. (I know the bill below concerns exotics, so don't get hung up on that. It also concerns high fences).
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *Exotic Wildlife Association Legislative Alert!*
> 
> ...


Perfect example of the action speaks louder than words principle. I'm contacting them.


----------



## PortATrout (Aug 15, 2005)

FAIR CHASE STATEMENT
FAIR CHASE, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild, native North American big game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper advantage over such animals.

HUNTER ETHICS*
*Fundamental to all hunting is the concept of conservation of natural resources. Hunting in today's world involves the regulated harvest of individual animals in a manner that conserves, protects, and perpetuates the hunted population. The hunter engages in a one-to-one relationship with the quarry and his or her hunting should be guided by a hierarchy of ethics related to hunting, which includes the following tenets: ​​1. Obey all applicable laws and regulations.​2. Respect the customs of the locale where the hunting occurs.​3. Exercise a personal code of behavior that reflects favorably on your abilities and sensibilities as a hunter.​4. Attain and maintain the skills necessary to make the kill as certain and quick as possible.​5. Behave in a way that will bring no dishonor to either the hunter, the hunted, or the environment.​6. Recognize that these tenets are intended to enhance the hunter's experience of the relationship between predator and prey, which is one of the most fundamental relationships of humans and their environment.​This is from the Boone and Crockett site. I know it talks about free ranging for their purposes, but if it is lawful pursuit and it doesn't give you an unfair advantage this should be a good rule of thumb.


----------

