Fishing & Hunting - Commentary

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.

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. A man must do whatever is necessary to feed, cloth, shelter,
and protect their family. But to call it fishing or hunting is a joke.
With all our modern camo, scents, callers, gps, etc., do we really need to
use dog packs to run down our prey.

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. 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.

--
Craig Baugher
Be Confident, Focused, but most of all Have FUN!

Craig, while I don't disagree with you I'm sure there's a much more
appropriate group on which to voice your objections to certain hunting
methods.

You should be out dynamiting bass anyway...

Warren


"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.

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. A man must do whatever is necessary to feed, cloth, shelter,
and protect their family. But to call it fishing or hunting is a joke.
With all our modern camo, scents, callers, gps, etc., do we really need to
use dog packs to run down our prey.

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. 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.

--
Craig Baugher
Be Confident, Focused, but most of all Have FUN!

"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

Steve wrote, "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."

Response: I say without a pack of dogs it would be more challenging and
rewarding. Wouldn't you agree?

Steve wrote, "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."

Response: I say again, without a pack of dogs it would be more challenging
and rewarding.

Craig Originally wrote: "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."

Steve's response, "So, hunting to eat is all right, but hunting for sport,
recreation,
challenge, trophy and memories is wrong?

Response: I would have to agree with that statement. I do think killing an
animal for sport, recreation, or just for the challenge, trophy, or memories
is wrong. If you are NOT going to eat the animal and use it's skin, than it
is just a waste of life. Now you can enjoy the sport, challenge, trophy,
and memories of the animal you killed for food.

Steve's wrote, "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."

Response: You're right, with all the social programs available today, an
individual wouldn't need to kill an animal out of season or by using an
unlawful means. So no I'm not advocating it, nor condoning it.

Craig originally wrote: "A man must do whatever is necessary to feed, cloth,
shelter,
and protect their family."

Steve's response: "Based on that theory, liquor store robbery is ok?"

Response: I think we addressed that above, but no, any unlawful activity is
wrong.

Craig Originally wrote, "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."

Steve's response: "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?"

Response: You're right again, a shotgun is a mighty fine general purpose
weapon, and no I don't think you're a nut. Now if you told me you had
barrels of ammo, gas masks, a 50-cal., etc., I might wonder. I do know an
individual like this and he scares the hell out of me!!! The man is set for
war.

--
Craig Baugher
Be Confident, Focused, but most of all Have FUN!

Steve wrote, "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."

Response: I say without a pack of dogs it would be more challenging and
rewarding. Wouldn't you agree?

***No I wouldn't agree. Tell me, do you find it more "challenging and
rewarding" to fish without a boat? Many people do bankfish daily, yet I
seem to remember a post by you recently complaining about your lack of a
boat.

Steve wrote, "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."

Response: I say again, without a pack of dogs it would be more challenging
and rewarding.

***About as rewarding as you'd find fishing without hooks. Sure, you can go
through the same motions, but without the hookup and fight of the fish,
would you find fishing as enjoyable? Exactly how much experience do you
have with the hunting sports?

Craig Originally wrote: "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."

Steve's response, "So, hunting to eat is all right, but hunting for sport,
recreation,
challenge, trophy and memories is wrong?

Response: I would have to agree with that statement. I do think killing
an
animal for sport, recreation, or just for the challenge, trophy, or
memories
is wrong. If you are NOT going to eat the animal and use it's skin, than
it
is just a waste of life. Now you can enjoy the sport, challenge, trophy,
and memories of the animal you killed for food.

***What about catch and release fishing? That is being done strictly for
personal gratification and fish die in the process.

Steve's wrote, "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."

Response: You're right, with all the social programs available today, an
individual wouldn't need to kill an animal out of season or by using an
unlawful means. So no I'm not advocating it, nor condoning it.

***Your original quote "If this individual was using one of these methods as
the sole means to feed
his family, I wouldn't have a problem it." To me, unless you don't really
mean what you type, your statement means that you do condone it, however
tacit that approval is.

Craig originally wrote: "A man must do whatever is necessary to feed,
cloth,
shelter,
and protect their family."

Steve's response: "Based on that theory, liquor store robbery is ok?"

Response: I think we addressed that above, but no, any unlawful activity
is
wrong.

***So then is unlawfully taking of fish and game, regardless of the reason.
Poaching of game animals involves breaking laws, just as robbing a liquor
store does. It's ok to break one law but not the other?

Craig, as I stated in my original reply, Sportsmen and women's lawful
outdoor activities are being attacked on all sides. Whether you agree with
a method of hunting or not, as long as it is legal in that region, there is
no reason to vilify the practice. There are some that think that bass are a
trash fish as as such, deserve no season or bag limit protection. I'm sure
you don't agree with that statement and would have your feathers ruffled if
someone said that to you. I don't hunt doves, at least not yet, but I'll
defend anyone's right to do so.

To the public, we as sportsmen need to present a united front to the anti's
and the uncommitted. To do otherwise is counter-productive to all
participating in the outdoors, whether you participate in the practice or
not.

Your personal opinion is just that, personal. To bring it to a public
forum, especially one grounded in an outdoor activity is a waste of
bandwidth.

To all others on the group, sorry, but I felt compelled to respond.
--
Steve @ OutdoorFrontiers
http://www.outdoorfrontiers.com
G & S Guide Service and Custom Rods
http://www.herefishyfishy.com

Steve wrote, "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."

Response: I say without a pack of dogs it would be more challenging and
rewarding. Wouldn't you agree?

Steve wrote, "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."

Response: I say again, without a pack of dogs it would be more challenging
and rewarding.

Craig Originally wrote: "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."

Steve's response, "So, hunting to eat is all right, but hunting for sport,
recreation,
challenge, trophy and memories is wrong?

Response: I would have to agree with that statement. I do think killing an
animal for sport, recreation, or just for the challenge, trophy, or memories
is wrong. If you are NOT going to eat the animal and use it's skin, than it
is just a waste of life. Now you can enjoy the sport, challenge, trophy,
and memories of the animal you killed for food.

Steve's wrote, "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."

Response: You're right, with all the social programs available today, an
individual wouldn't need to kill an animal out of season or by using an
unlawful means. So no I'm not advocating it, nor condoning it.

Craig originally wrote: "A man must do whatever is necessary to feed, cloth,
shelter,
and protect their family."

Steve's response: "Based on that theory, liquor store robbery is ok?"

Response: I think we addressed that above, but no, any unlawful activity is
wrong.

Craig Originally wrote, "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."

Steve's response: "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?"

Response: You're right again, a shotgun is a mighty fine general purpose
weapon, and no I don't think you're a nut. Now if you told me you had
barrels of ammo, gas masks, a 50-cal., etc., I might wonder. I do know an
individual like this and he scares the hell out of me!!! The man is set for
war.

--
Craig Baugher
Be Confident, Focused, but most of all Have FUN!

That's the exact reason I don't have Fishing dogs ;-)

"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.

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. A man must do whatever is necessary to feed, cloth, shelter,
and protect their family. But to call it fishing or hunting is a joke.
With all our modern camo, scents, callers, gps, etc., do we really need to
use dog packs to run down our prey.

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. 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.

--
Craig Baugher
Be Confident, Focused, but most of all Have FUN!

I could never get my fishing dogs to give the fish back. Once they got one
it was usually torn to shreds, made for lousy pictures, never mind the
overcrowding on the boat when I took the pack out ;-)
"TerryNC" wrote in message
...
That's the exact reason I don't have Fishing dogs ;-)

"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.

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. A man must do whatever is necessary to feed, cloth,
shelter,
and protect their family. But to call it fishing or hunting is a joke.
With all our modern camo, scents, callers, gps, etc., do we really need
to
use dog packs to run down our prey.

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. 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.

--
Craig Baugher
Be Confident, Focused, but most of all Have FUN!

Mine sink like a rock-weiler ;-)

"alwaysfishking" wrote in message
...


I could never get my fishing dogs to give the fish back. Once they got one
it was usually torn to shreds, made for lousy pictures, never mind the
overcrowding on the boat when I took the pack out ;-)
"TerryNC" wrote in message
...
That's the exact reason I don't have Fishing dogs ;-)

"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.

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. A man must do whatever is necessary to feed, cloth,
shelter,
and protect their family. But to call it fishing or hunting is a
joke.
With all our modern camo, scents, callers, gps, etc., do we really
need
to
use dog packs to run down our prey.

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. 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.

--
Craig Baugher
Be Confident, Focused, but most of all Have FUN!

I could never get my fishing dogs to give the fish back. Once they got one
it was usually torn to shreds, made for lousy pictures, never mind the
overcrowding on the boat when I took the pack out ;-)
"TerryNC" wrote in message
...
That's the exact reason I don't have Fishing dogs ;-)

"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.

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. A man must do whatever is necessary to feed, cloth,
shelter,
and protect their family. But to call it fishing or hunting is a joke.
With all our modern camo, scents, callers, gps, etc., do we really need
to
use dog packs to run down our prey.

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. 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.

--
Craig Baugher
Be Confident, Focused, but most of all Have FUN!