Pretty much sums up my take on it. Not my thing, but it doesn't bother me if others want to do it. Animal rights groups have a plan. They start with smaller battles that give them a better chance of winning. In situations like this, they know they will have some hunters on their side. Kind of like the dove hunting debacle in Michigan. I still can't believe how many "hunters" voted against dove hunting. They played right into the animal rights peoples' hands.
You are very right !!!! In the past these groups have been shot down taking on hunting itself for the most part. Now they are working a different angle and it does seem to be working. They will pick away at little things that are controversail ( canned hunts, Kennels/puppy mills, trapping, mountain lion hunting, dove hunts and ect... ) and hunters are blindly helping their cause in some cases which in the long run... is to end hunting. These groups have one agenda and will throw you under the bus to get their way. Be careful what you wish for... or should I say vote for. It will bite you in the arse down the road if you side with this enemy. Tim
I hunt over bait a few times a year precisely to take the "sport" out of it. 95% of my hunts are 1/2 of a mile back or farther with quite a few being a mile+ back. For instance, last year I killed one deer a little over a mile back. After field dressing, I left the deer and hiked back to the van to drop off my tree stand and climbing sticks and grab the cart. Walked back to the deer, loaded him up and walked back to the van. That was close to a 5 mile adventure. Great "sport" but makes for a long, tiring day when you still have to skin and butcher the deer after you get home. That was just one of the deer I killed for "sport". There were more. So, sometimes it's nice to just walk about 50 yards behind my house, wait by the feeder for about an hour, shoot the deer, field dress it, drag to the logging road and load onto the vehicle and drive it back to the house. Back on topic - Nice post, Justin.
If baiting is legal then who are you to tell anyone how they should hunt. It's a personal decision. If it's legal, it's legal.
Sometimes there is a difference between what is legal as opposed to what is moral/ethical. Just saying. Now as I stated before, I don't personally think that baiting should be illegal. I just think it takes some of the sport out of hunting and is something I wouldn't enjoy very much.
Well, I guess that depends on who's ethics and morals you operate under. Your morals/ethics are not necessarily someone else's. Some folks think 80 yard shots on deer are ethical, others not so much. The point is, if it is legal then the moral/ethical part is just a matter of opinion and one person's opinion is not necessarily better.
So if everyone's morals/ethics are just a matter of opinion, then how do we determine what is legal? What is our foundation? I don't really expect an answer for this question, just food for thought.
Our legal foundation is the Constitution of the United States. It applies equally to all US citizens. A person's moral and ethical foundation apply to that person. Laws and ethics are two different things. Some may find a law unethical while others don't but the law applies to everyone regardless of their ethical leanings. That is why you may hear of a law being unconstitutional but not unethical.
Who do those founding fathers think they were and what gave them the right to impose their opinions as the foundation for our law? Where is that darn sarcasm button? So do you think that our laws should be ethical and moral? what happens when the majority think a law is unethical?
Laws change all the time. New ones get added, old ones get removed and some just get changed. When the majority or even a single person think a law is wrong, or unethical, they challenge it in the courts. If the courts agree, then it is up to your state/federal legislators(representatives, the majority voted for them to represent) to write a new law or modify the old one. That's why it is no longer against the law to have sex outside of marriage although some still find it unethical. Do a little research and reading it will really help you understand these things. I think our laws should be based on the Constitution not someone's ethics or morals.
Wow, condesending much????? I wasn't asking the questions because I am uneducated, but merely because I wanted to hear you opinion. By the way, the Constitution WAS based on someones morals and ethics. That was pretty much the point I was trying to make. So the question then becomes, what was their foundation?
Which morals and ethics was the Constitution based on? http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm
The morals and ethics of the ones who wrote it. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_wrote_the_US_Constitution It was their morals and ethics that set such a great foundation for this country. So like I asked before, I wonder what the foundation was for thier morals and ethics?
LOL, right and those morals and ethics were what? Which morals, which ethics is the Constitution based on?
Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer As for listing all of their morals and ethics... come on really. I think you can understand the point that they were in fact people, and people have morals and ethics that guide them. Or is your stance that they didn't actually think about what they were writing down?
Stunt .. Bruce is trying to show you that ethics ... morality are subjective ... legality is black and white .... I don't see where he was condescending??
