"Craig" wrote in message
news:_a5Rc.89059$8_6.69855@attbi_s04...
I love fishing and hunting. There is nothing better than being out in
nature, enjoying her beauty and partaking in one of my favorite
activities.
But. . . .

I believe a fisherman takes only what is legal or whatever he and his
family
will eat, whichever is the lesser of the two. I believe this also holds
true to hunters., and up to this point, I don't think anyone would
disagree
with me.

I just watched a program on hunting and became angry, as I do sometimes
when
I watch deep sea fishing programs. I hate to see hunters use dogs, when
the
dogs job is to run down the animal. I DON'T have a problem at all with a
using a single dog, such as a retriever, to point out, flush and retrieve
birds. But I do have a problem when a pack of dogs are used to run down,
surround, and trap an animal so that the so called hunter can walk up and
shoot it. Then listen to the guy tell me what a great hunt it was, when
their dogs did all the hunting. They are no more a hunter than a guy who
uses dynamite, to catch fish, is a fisherman.

***I have a problem with this viewpoint. YOU don't see the need to, so that
makes it wrong. I don't know what show you saw, and what was shown, but....

Have you EVER hunted with dogs? I have, and not just a single retriever or
pointer. I've hunted with packs of hounds and found it to be a highly
enjoyable, exciting and sporting form of hunting. Have you ever hunted
racoons after dark through woods, cornfields, swamps and marshes? I have.
Have you ever hunted wild hogs in the thick undergrowth of
Georgia/Florida/the Carolinas? I have. Have you ever hunted any western
mountain lions? While I haven't done that (yet), I see the need for packs
of hounds in order to do it. Have you ever hunted black bears in the dense
northern Wisconsin forests? I've been involved in those hunts too.

If it weren't for the dogs, few of these hunts would be possible. Due to
terrain, vegetation cover and the nature of the animal being hunted, without
dogs, success would be almost impossible. Many people enjoy racoon hunting,
but the nocturnal lifestyle necessitates the use of dogs, and let me tell
you, an angry racoon is something that is more than a single hound can
usually handle. Feral hogs or wild boars can be taken by spot & stalk or
stand/blind hunting, but the thick forest undergrowth that they lie up in
during the day means that you'd have to virtually kick them in the behinds
in order to find them, and speaking from first hand knowledge, even feral
hogs are not something to toy with. They're fast, mean, nasty and tasty
critters, but again, dogs make the hunts possible. People don't like the
idea of baiting for black bears, but again, the habitat that they prefer in
this part of the country eliminates the possibility of spot & stalk. So, if
baiting is "bad", how is a person to hunt black bears when seeing 50 yards
is a long distance? Big cats out west cover so much territory and are so
secretive that unless you have the same luck as a lottery winner, forget
hunting them unless you're willing to follow a pack of enthusiastic hounds.

If this individual was using one of these methods as the sole means to
feed
his family, I wouldn't have a problem it. That includes using dynamite
to
catch fish.

***So, hunting to eat is all right, but hunting for sport, recreation,
challenge, trophy and memories is wrong? You advocate game law violations
because the fish are going to be eaten? In these days of "social programs",
there's no reason what so ever for someone to violate game laws to feed a
family. If someone has the means to fish/hunt and to purchase fishing
tackle/hunting equipment, that means that they have some money and are
physically able to hold down a job.


A man must do whatever is necessary to feed, cloth, shelter,
and protect their family.

***Based on that theory, liquor store robbery is ok?

But to call it fishing or hunting is a joke.

***No, it's a different method of hunting than YOU are familiar and
comfortable with.

With all our modern camo, scents, callers, gps, etc., do we really need to
use dog packs to run down our prey.

***With all of the locators, gps units, superlines, better rods/reels,
underwater cameras, improved lure designs, improved boat designs, is fishing
sporting anymore? It still comes down to the individual. You know as well
as I do, all the high tech equipment in the world isn't going to make
someone a better hunter and/or angler. The hunter still has to have a basic
understanding of his prey, locate it, keep pace with the dogs and/or animal,
and make an accurate, humane killing shot. Just as an angler must
understand his chosen species being pursued, locate them and entice them to
bite/strike. Buying more gear doesn't automatically guarantee success,
anymore than turning a dog loose guarantees a sure kill of whatever species.

In many ways, and this is based on personal experience, hunters that own
packs of hounds are more dedicated to their sport than those that don't.
These people (in my experience) are better skilled outdoors, have a better
understanding of the animals that they pursue and spend far more time in
their chosen activity than the guy that goes out, sits in a treestand or
blind for a couple weeks each year and calls himself a hunter. These people
are making a year round investment in their hounds, feeding them, paying vet
bills, taking the time/expense of training them.


Yeah, I'm a moderate democrat - so I also believe a man only needs a
shotgun, a long rifle, a bow, a good knife, and maybe a semi-auto handgun
to
hunt with and for protection.

***Why so many weapons? Why not just limit it to a single shotgun? You can
hunt virtually everything on the North American continent from game birds,
to squirrels, to deer, bears and moose with a single shotgun, a selection of
choke tubes, some bird shot and slugs. Plus, a shotgun is a great personal
defense weapon.

Does this mean that because I have four different shotguns (and still want
two more), three different rifles (and have seen a myriad of different
rifles that I could find a use for), two bows, two pistols, a muzzleloader
and more knives than you can shake a stick at, I'm some kind of whacko and
I'm wrong in your eyes?


The weapons I have are for hunting, not for
taking on an invading army. We have the police and military for that.
But, hey, I think it would be cool to use tranquilizer tarts to hunt with
so
that you could shoot that big deer, get your photo taken with it and then
let it go. Catch & release hunting, because for me, it is the hunt that
is
the fun.

***There are far too many attacks being made on hunting, shooting, fishing
and other outdoor activities for us sportsmen and women to be divided. Just
because YOU choose not to participate in a particular activity DOES NOT make
it less sporting or wrong, it's just different. Remember, one does not hunt
in order to kill, one kills in order to have hunted.

Plus, I love venison roast, bear steaks, wild pork chops, and just about all
forms of wild game meat. You can't have that with a picture.

Soapbox mode off now!
--
Steve @ OutdoorFrontiers
http://www.outdoorfrontiers.com
G & S Guide Service and Custom Rods
http://www.herefishyfishy.com