tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post971074919303231530..comments2024-03-13T10:11:14.165-04:00Comments on Fair Chase Hunting: What is Hunting - a philosophical viewEric C. Nusehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08415209205400590485noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-59878435131607179012019-02-13T01:44:05.964-05:002019-02-13T01:44:05.964-05:00Today topic is greats and i always follow this web...Today topic is greats and i always follow this website to find update idea, thanks Smith Ronhttps://reviewtent.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-60576082780396949302019-02-05T08:15:47.111-05:002019-02-05T08:15:47.111-05:00I just want to say thanks for your wonderful post,...<br />I just want to say thanks for your wonderful post, it is contain a lot of knowledge and information that i needed right now. Now i need to my bolg, you can play game fun, action here : <br /><br /> <a href="http://woodworkers.over-blog.com/" rel="nofollow">visit our website</a><br />lizahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10284452029777141787noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-84338904480407356752010-02-15T19:38:21.175-05:002010-02-15T19:38:21.175-05:00I agree modeling is very powerful in changing beha...I agree modeling is very powerful in changing behavior. A good example on a broad scale is the work Orion board member Randy Newberg is doing with his "On Your Own" TV hunting show. All episodes are on public land and unguided. they seem to be resonating with the viewers (as opposed to the high fence over bait hunts usually featured). At SHOT the word was more of the featured hunters are going to do some wild hunts. Now that would be progress!Eric C. Nusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08415209205400590485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-24763425341851844382010-02-14T13:50:04.146-05:002010-02-14T13:50:04.146-05:00The harm is exactly what we already see: HSUS camp...The harm is exactly what we already see: HSUS campaigns…which too often t in the minds of the public are often just simplified as immoral “hunting and hunters”. In some places, hunters are considered as moral low life, only a few rungs up the ladder from Hells Angels! We, as hunters, need to defend the real principles and tenets of genuine hunting against this public erosion of what we do. <br /><br />For evil to triumph, all we need is good men / woman to do nothing. (Can’t recall who said that).<br /><br />Of course there is much more harm than just the public perception of what we do, and I could write a treatise on the impact of genetic pollution of wild herds, but who is listening? As hunters, you’d think we’ d be right on the forefront of these issues – protecting the herds and the hunting experience we value so highly… but yet it’s quite the opposite. Why is that?<br /><br />I’m not proposing anything be “outlawed” – why laws? Why not simply moral pressure! We apply moral codes of conduct in almost every human sphere… all I’m suggesting is that hunters should be prepared to be more honest and genuine about seeing these moral codes apply to our sport/art/past time. Our hunting clubs and organizations should be at front of this debate… but instead they have slowly let our moral mandate fade away, where now it’s almost common place to see advertised fence hunts and hunters using technology that far surpasses the spirit of hunting. <br /><br />Where do we start? Maybe Mahatma Gandhi had the right idea: ‘be the change you want in the world.’<br /><br />I’ll leave it at that.<br /><br />-ShaunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-82901726832999489442010-02-12T07:24:42.967-05:002010-02-12T07:24:42.967-05:00Shaun - I agree with you and Karasote. The questio...Shaun - I agree with you and Karasote. The question is does this captive shooting do harm to what we love to do, eg hunt wild animals in wild places, or is it simply very offensive to us? If it is doing harm, what exactly is the harm? Can it be measured?<br />I think we can find real harm in issues other than fair chase, like disease, blocking free movement of wild animals, even genetic polution. As far as the image of hunting, captive hunts hurt, as do most of the TV hunting shows. But is that enough to outlaw them?<br />One of the joys of American democracy is we put up with a lot of people doing things we don't like. Which is a good thing, because I suspect if it wasn't that way trappers would be only doing damage trapping and all furbeares would be viewed as trash.<br />I'm thinking if we could come up with a good definition of fair chase and hunting, we could go after the captive hunt owners for violating the fairness in advertizing laws and force them to stop using those words for what they do within thier fences. This could also apply to the TV shows that film captive animal shoots. They can still operate, but can't continue to confuse the public (and some hunters) with what they are doing. <br />Another positive move would be for SCI to get rid of thier Estate big game trophy records. It only serves to give credability to high fence shooting.Eric C. Nusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08415209205400590485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-61119266243016423682010-02-10T21:30:32.487-05:002010-02-10T21:30:32.487-05:00"Wildlife is not livestock. The problem comes..."Wildlife is not livestock. The problem comes when people are supposedly hunting these animals. That's the problem right there." According to Kerasote, captive hunts are turning hunting "into this caged, paid affair and it bears no resemblance to what hunting is, was, and could be. Like so many things in our world, people want to buy the product (the trophy) rather than experience the process (meeting the animal on its own terrain)."<br /><br />Do you people have a problem with that statement? <br /><br />-Shaun (that was me above too, I forgot to sign off)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-28945613029749911802010-02-10T15:52:57.224-05:002010-02-10T15:52:57.224-05:00Why doesn't the something poll well in the fir...Why doesn't the something poll well in the first place?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-19412825509367491022010-02-09T17:38:37.739-05:002010-02-09T17:38:37.739-05:00Well, Shaun, you're using the term incorrectly...Well, Shaun, you're using the term incorrectly - that's not what it means. It's a reference to doing the easy things first. In the context of this discussion, it means the HSUS finds something that doesn't poll well and attacks it as immoral.Holly Heyserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03134909592916671876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-992800465152579182010-02-09T16:57:49.617-05:002010-02-09T16:57:49.617-05:00NorCal Cazadora,
I love the phrase "low hang...NorCal Cazadora,<br /><br />I love the phrase "low hanging fruit" as a description for morally questionable practices. That’s why I keep using it!<br /><br />Why would you want to take HSUS word on anything? You’re a hunter, you know hunting – you decide and debate it amongst other hunters. Make a moral rule – draw a line in the sand. Question yourself and others…establish standards. <br /><br />…and I think the honest hunter will find no place for a fence as a hunting aid, night vision, helicopters with guns, spotlights etc. It’s only when we keep defending the indefensible that we lose moral credibility with the public.<br /><br />Eg. Shooting a dove for practice (waste) sucks and undervalues the life of our quarry – use clay birds! <br /><br />Shooting a dove for the dinner table is fine: it’s a natural extension of nature and is actual hunting (if the dove is a wild thing – otherwise it’s harvesting, not hunting.) <br /><br />How is that morally difficult? <br /><br />-ShaunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-35485266336977287222010-02-08T12:18:08.558-05:002010-02-08T12:18:08.558-05:00well, I don't know about slam dunk, but it was...well, I don't know about slam dunk, but it was a serious topic of conversation on our hunting blog this year whether the NYS health advisory on mercury in ducks would prevent one of our members from <a href="http://grousers.blogspot.com/2009/12/lets-do-risk-averse-math-shall-we.html" rel="nofollow">harvesting his usual 100+ ducks per season</a>. We hunt out of a permanent blind generally, and one year the blind total for all hunters, all dogs, etc. was something like 187 ducks. That's a lot of ducks. <br /><br />In contrast, I don't expect to shoot 187 grouse total in this or any other lifetime.Jim Tantillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12520467623399679472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-59410775348975743372010-02-07T23:35:43.327-05:002010-02-07T23:35:43.327-05:00Jim, can I come hunt ducks there with you? I'd...Jim, can I come hunt ducks there with you? I'd love to hunt someplace where it's so slam-dunk I can get seven out of ten shots. I can't even fathom that. We don't see feet-down ducks a lot where I hunt - you know, public land, crowded conditions etc.<br /><br />Shaun, the "low hanging fruit" you've repeatedly disdained includes DOVE HUNTING. Shall we get rid of that low-hanging fruit to cleanse our ranks of the odiferous stigma of killing defenseless little songbirds of peace (classic HSUS imagery)? Maybe HSUS is right and we really do just use them for target practice because a dove couldn't possibly have enough meat to make them worth killing. I must be the only one who eats them, I guess. Yeah, I'm gonna take HSUS's word for it, just like I'm going to believe every piece of imagery about high-fence hunting that HSUS puts out.Holly Heyserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03134909592916671876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-57661556177005064252010-02-07T22:15:31.086-05:002010-02-07T22:15:31.086-05:00Jim, Well said! (as usual) How is the book coming?...Jim, Well said! (as usual) How is the book coming???Eric C. Nusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08415209205400590485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-73580731930601490472010-02-07T19:34:49.072-05:002010-02-07T19:34:49.072-05:00"To go your (tongue in cheek) direction the c..."To go your (tongue in cheek) direction the critters should be herded up a chute, one selected and dinged between the eyes like we do cattle..."<br /><br />that's not fair. You're conflating my arguments about "fair chase" standards with my arguments about legal standards. I am not in any way suggesting we should mandate shooting penned animals like cattle to ensure clean kills.<br /><br />Look. My favorite kind of hunting is grouse hunting. Arguably the hardest type of wing shooting in terms of "success" or kills. In NY state, surveys show grouse hunters hit something like 1 of every 10 shots.<br /><br />In contrast, pheasant hunting has a higher probability of killing--let's say its 5 shots out of every 10 shots. <br /><br />And duck hunting probably higher yet--let's say 7 shots out of 10 shots. <br /><br />This is one reason I dislike duck hunting and pheasant hunting WHEN COMPARED TO grouse hunting. They seem easier. When ducks come to your decoys, you're putting virtually no effort into it all. They just come in, and you just kill them. <br /><br />Just because I prefer the difficulty of grouse hunting, however, to the relative ease of duck and pheasant shooting, DOES NOT MEAN I think duck and pheasant shooting should be made illegal because I think they are less strenuous in terms of effort, challenge, skill, or fair chase. I have a clear aesthetic preference for the difficulty of the grouse hunt in comparison to duck or goose shooting. <br /><br />Goose shooting is even lamer: you lie on your back in the snow and let a bunch of molded and painted plastic do your "hard work" for you. But just because goose hunting presents less of a challenge than grouse hunting is no reason whatsoever for grouse hunters to start seeking the abolition of goose hunting. <br /><br />Different strokes for different folks. I prefer to sluice my deer from an elevated stand at 100 yards; I don't care about big racks; and I hunt apple trees that I know deer frequent. <br /><br />Other deer hunters stalk; or use dogs; or use a bow and arrow; and care about antlers.<br /><br />Other hunters are willing to pay more than I am for big racks. I'm a cheapskate, and they are idiots. But there shouldn't be a law against being an idiot.<br /><br />At least that's Mill's argument in "On Liberty," where he defends the right of people to be eccentric, idiotic, and aesthetically misguided.Jim Tantillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12520467623399679472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-25200058866609513582010-02-07T18:31:03.473-05:002010-02-07T18:31:03.473-05:00"In your view I gather, this was a mistake an..."In your view I gather, this was a mistake and would be in all such cases."<br /><br />Not at all. If the reg was put into place for safety reasons, then fine: be honest about it and say that it was for safety reasons. If it was for "fair chase" reasons, then be honest about that too. <br /><br />My guess is that it was for safety reasons first and foremost. I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with that. <br /><br /> And my guess is also that the fair chase issue was also present somewhere in the background. That's fine. I accept that that's the way the world is. But I do not think the fair chase reason is a SUFFICIENT cause for enacting a regulation of this sort.<br /><br />In New York state, we have many shotgun-only zones for deer hunting. Presumably this is for safety. But it may have been the case that some fair chase purist in the past said to himself, "Geez, high-powered centerfire rifles are just too damn efficient and don't give the deer a fair chance at 200 or 300 or 400 yards. We should make the rifle illegal and limit our hunt to a 100 or 125 yard weapon. Hence we need a shotgun only rule for fair chase."<br /><br />I wouldn't buy the fair chase argument here. I WOULD buy the safety argument here. <br /><br />Coincidentally, some counties (such as the one I live in) that were previously shotgun-only are now allowing rifles again. Guess what??? Clean, quick kill, baby. I was able to sluice two deer this season with a .243 that both dropped dead at 100 yards. For the last ten years I've had to take that shot with a shotgun slug--same distance, same deer stand--and had to track the deer varying distances each year. <br /><br />From a fair chase, clean quick kill perspective, Nosler Partitions out of a high power gun are better than shotgun sabots. Your mileage may vary.Jim Tantillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12520467623399679472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-13891402845245854932010-02-07T18:16:35.476-05:002010-02-07T18:16:35.476-05:00Once again, I agree ...
"I'm grappling w...Once again, I agree ...<br /><br />"I'm grappling with the thought that hunters are the best group to set broad and non-binding codes of conduct with a binding/legal floor of conduct that may take away some folks preferred techniques but that hurt is offset by doing good for the majority, including future hunters. If we dodge this by defending or just standing mute, others will act and probably do more harm. "<br /><br />Technology will soon force us all to debate and define 'hunting' - lets make sure that hunters are at the forefront of this debate as the moral guardians of what it means to 'hunt'. <br /><br />We only become a part of the problem when we try to defend the indefensible... where human greed and pride get in the way...because fences and night vision and helicopter gunships are only used to help ensure success, and prop up human aspirations. They have no place in the wholesome hunting experience, however we wish to define it in words. That's why we have people working against hunters in these areas - which we call "low hanging fruit". Remove the fruit, tidy up the house and help keep hunting alive and real and the anti hunters will have very little moral currency. <br /><br />-ShaunAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-57178652696463737262010-02-07T16:53:16.401-05:002010-02-07T16:53:16.401-05:00I don't consider road hunting a moral issue. I...I don't consider road hunting a moral issue. I think it is (or was when it was legal) a preference question. I only use it as a real life example of where a legal line was drawn by the public and hunters. In your view I gather, this was a mistake and would be in all such cases. I understand your arguments, but feel it is wishful/Utopian thinking that the world will work this way. <br />I'm grappling with the thought that hunters are the best group to set broad and non-binding codes of conduct with a binding/legal floor of conduct that may take away some folks preferred techniques but that hurt is offset by doing good for the majority, including future hunters. If we dodge this by defending or just standing mute, others will act and probably do more harm. <br />Is there a way to walk this line without consorting with the enemy, nor being a part of the problem?Eric C. Nusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08415209205400590485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-90170709378068004152010-02-07T16:38:01.524-05:002010-02-07T16:38:01.524-05:00No question the harder you make the hunt the more ...No question the harder you make the hunt the more it can impact clean kill. Which means the hunter has to hone their shooting skills as much as the hunting skills, leading to more restraint, greater challenge and more satisfaction with the kill. All making for a better story. It also reinforces the position we should not force, thru laws or coercion, to attempt to take game with equipment that they don;t have the skill to use or the skill to get close enough that they could admin a clean kill. Use of a stick bow for example.<br />To go you're (tongue in cheek) direction the critters should be herded up a chute, one selected and dinged between the eyes like we do cattle...Eric C. Nusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08415209205400590485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-22863438121785735722010-02-07T15:27:43.723-05:002010-02-07T15:27:43.723-05:00I might add that such window/vehicle rests contrib...I might add that such window/vehicle rests contribute (as any rest does) to the stability and quality of aiming that every good hunter strives for in achieving the clean one-shot kill. So if a window rest from the cab of a pickup guarantees a heart shot instead of a gut shot deer, then I think I'd prefer the window shot, ethically speaking.<br /><br />Come to think of it, I think we ought to entirely outlaw deer drives as a technique that unnecessarily takes chances with the prey because people are taking too many shaky offhand shots at running animals. Yeah, that's it: let's abolish deer drives. That would be the sporting thing to do, and it would clean up the image of hunters as all being slobs who relish the Texas heart shot and just take pleasure in wounding animals so that they can have fun blood trailing them for hours on end. Yeah, that's the ticket.Jim Tantillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12520467623399679472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-25213824792514752272010-02-07T15:21:00.082-05:002010-02-07T15:21:00.082-05:00honestly Eric, I don't see anything inherently...honestly Eric, I don't see anything inherently immoral or unethical or unfair about shooting from a vehicle. Plenty of jurisdictions allow hunting from window rests for varmint hunting or from the roof or truck bed for African safaris for the matter: see e.g., <a href="http://www.shootright.co.uk/html/rifle_rest.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.shootright.co.uk/html/rifle_rest.html</a>. So I'm not clear on how this is a "bottom line" issue, unless you're willing to push it in all jurisdictions and in all cases--including for disabled hunters. But to me there is nothing inherently evil or immoral about it. The fact that Vermont chose to institute this regulation tells me more about Vermont than about the morality of the technique.Jim Tantillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12520467623399679472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-57332652664165645522010-02-07T14:04:01.911-05:002010-02-07T14:04:01.911-05:00An example of a bottom line being set here in VT:
...An example of a bottom line being set here in VT:<br />Pre 1965 you could drive around with a loaded rifle and shoot from the window at game. <br />A law was passed with the support of other drivers and hunters on a safety and fair chase argument that made it illegal to have a loaded long gun in a MV and you couldn't shoot from the vehicle or on the traveled part of a public road.<br />Around 1990 it was changed again, saying you had to be 10 feet of the edge of the traveled portion of any public road before shooting at game. The motivation for this was fair chase and public relations with non-hunters. There were no safety stats to back the change. The driver for this change were hunters concerned about their image and support for hunting.<br />With the use of the decoy deer this regulation is enforceable and has changed hunter behavior (to the better in my mind)<br />there is an exception for folks with mobility issues to shoot from the vehicle but they must be 10ft off the road.<br />Where hunters wrong in getting this law changed? Didn't they impose their preference for hunting technique (on foot) on those that preferred to road hunt? Should we hunters have waited until the majority of citizens said enough, we will change the law to stop what looks like us to (fill in the reason)?Eric C. Nusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08415209205400590485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-88777069373692804132010-02-05T17:17:03.912-05:002010-02-05T17:17:03.912-05:00I like the tax idea! Let's see 10% of 5 grand ...I like the tax idea! Let's see 10% of 5 grand is...<br />"I don't see consistent arguments anywhere." Hits the nub of what I seem to be seeking. Holmes called it simplicity on the other side of complexity.Eric C. Nusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08415209205400590485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-62731127624033682372010-02-05T13:10:25.294-05:002010-02-05T13:10:25.294-05:00"I suspect we could take the NRA tactic and f..."I suspect we could take the NRA tactic and fight all attempts to legislate fair chase issues (your position?)"<br /><br />I don't think I'm an absolutist on the issue the way the NRA is; on the other hand, I don't think I've had anyone ever give me an example of a fair chase behavior that needed to be criminalized via the penal code.<br /><br />I'd still welcome some examples from you.<br /><br />But let's take high fence: there's a myriad of issues there, not all of which are consistent.<br /><br />If it's literally high fence that bothers us, why not seek minimum enclosure sizes rather than the abolition of high fence.<br /><br />If it's uber-breeding of big-racked whitetails, then why do we care about that or make it out to be an issue fundamentally about hunting? we breed animals all the time, what makes wildlife so special?<br /><br />If it's the fact that some guys will shoot genetically-bred uber-whitetails, then why do we care about that? why not simply tax the $5,000 or $10,000 shooting fee the way we tax a box of ammunition and simply live with fact that some people's egos are tied up in big racks.<br /><br />If it's the privatization of wildlife and/or hunting that we care about, then why aren't we all fired up about the fact that the state controls the hunt through hunting licenses, which Louis Warren has labeled as a "bill of sale" where the hunt itself is sold rather than the animal?<br /><br />I don't see consistent arguments anywhere. And while I don't make a fetish of consistency (Emerson's "hobgoblin of little minds"), I sure wouldn't mind seeing at least a little bit of it from time to time.Jim Tantillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12520467623399679472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-62935685139958139782010-02-05T11:37:27.451-05:002010-02-05T11:37:27.451-05:00Jim,
I suspect we are going to agree to dis...Jim, <br />I suspect we are going to agree to disagree that there is a bottom line or legal line that hunters should identify as it relates to fair chase. From a practical political point of view it seems to me we hunters will do a better job of this than most law makers, who have and will continue to draw the line for us. I suspect we could take the NRA tactic and fight all attempts to legislate fair chase issues (your position?); or take my position of a more nuanced hunter led defining of the legal bottom line. I do agree that fighting many of the offensive methods is better left to education, and as in the case with high fence with disease, fragmentation, privatization and commercialization of public resources arguments. But where I disagree is that there is no case where fair chase practice becomes so watered down that for all practical purposes it becomes non-existent. Can you have hunting when the rules which make it a sport become so individualized and situational that there is no standard? It seems to me it is like saying to a golfer, it is ok to pick up the ball and put it in the cup if you haven't taken the time to practice or get proper equipment. And by the way we will even keep a record book for you folks (like the SCI estate records).<br /> <br /><br />Sheyenne Whitetails was established in 2004 for the sole purpose of producing huge typical whitetail deer.<br /><br />The doe herd consists of 200+ genetics. Our AI program consists of Canyon, AGN, Thundercloud, and Top Draw.<br /><br />We have 60 huge northern whitetail deer in a 20 acre natural environment. The abundant trees and rolling hills provide the deer with protection from the elements.<br /><br />We plan on AI'ing 10 does in the fall of 2009.Eric C. Nusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08415209205400590485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-43939639787477471722010-02-04T13:14:13.132-05:002010-02-04T13:14:13.132-05:00fair enough. It would be great if you could list ...fair enough. It would be great if you could list some examples of the "most egregious actions" done under the name of hunting so that I understand what you mean by that phrase.<br />jtJim Tantillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12520467623399679472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8400018814519499369.post-68906218207455629062010-02-04T10:09:46.383-05:002010-02-04T10:09:46.383-05:00I did a google search for "Fair Chase Hunting...I did a google search for "Fair Chase Hunting" last night. It is amazing how many high fence operations use that term in their titles and bylines. They must realize fair chase sells, even though in most cases they don't live up to it, except for folks with all the excuses Shaun outlines above.<br />I was just reading Plato's Republic with my daughter. In the section she wanted help with, Socrates is exploring the virtues of various arts (professions) He argues that to be named for example a physician, the practitioner must work for the good of thier patients. If they don't they are not a physician. My point is I think we (hunters, hunting groups, government agencies) need to refuse to refer to people who shoot animals in non-hunting situations as hunters or engaged in hunting. What if we adapted a name for these folks, such as shooters or as Shaun suggests "Organic Harvestes", or poachers (if they are breaking the law) and that is the only way we collectively refer to them. <br />Perhaps a suit against the 100% garenteed kill operations as a violation of the fairness in advertizing law would be a good start. <br />Jim T - I've come to the conclusion that these most agregious actions done under the name of hunting are doing harm. But where to draw the line??? The topic of our next Think Tank? As I said above - the line will be drawn...Eric C. Nusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08415209205400590485noreply@blogger.com