7 replies [Last post]
Wed, 2010-12-22 22:32
Go and Vote
Thu, 2010-12-23 11:05#1
I voted yes in the poll. I
I voted yes in the poll. I do not like what that guy did, even though it was "legal".
The only thing about the proposed law would be the "roost" part of it. Taking a bear or other animal in it's den? No problem banning that.
Maybe it's different for me because we have to end out here prior to when most turkeys go to roost anyway, but I am not sure.
What do you all day hunters feel about taking birds off the roost? Has anyone done it?
Thu, 2010-12-23 14:20#2
I would not take a bird from
I would not take a bird from a roost or a animal from a den. When it comes to shooting them on the ground I try not too as far as geese goes. I try to get them just before they land but sometimes they are real close to landing. If I notice that they have landed I try to give them all the chances in the world by scariong them off the ground before I shoot. I think the den thing is pushing the limit on ethics along with a bird on roost or water.
Thu, 2010-12-23 16:52#3
Hard to say
I do not want any regulations set up that take more ways of hunting away from us. The more we give the more thay will take away. I have seen this since I was a young boy. My .02 !!
Sat, 2010-12-25 15:49#4
I Voted No
I'm with elkkill06 - there are already too many regulations concerning the taking of wild game - the government does not need more power to tell us how, with what, when and where.
Next, the question will be, "Is it ok to take a fish while it's spawning?"
Or even - "Should fishermen be able to take fish while they are on their way to spawning grounds?"
And there is no end to the possibilities of needless regulations.
And one of the problems is, all the burden rests on the sportsman, none on the state.
Here in Michigan, it is illegal to purchase more than X number of hunting licenses, doe permits, etc.
If a hunter attempts to purchase more than legal, the computer system is not programmed to prevent it, they will go ahead and sell a person as many licenses as they can afford to buy (money into the coffers).
But then if that violation is discovered (usually in the course of a routine stop or some other violation) they will check the computer, find out he has too many, and issue a fine (more money into the coffers).
Where is the common-sense approach which says, "You cannot purchase too many licenses, and our computer will block the sale if you try"?
Back to the original question: Killing an animal that is asleep is no different than killing an animal that is enjoying a meal in my opinion.
One way or another, you have interrupted some normal activity of an animal's life and ended it. Dead is dead.
That's the reality of hunting.
Sun, 2010-12-26 13:28#5
I am with jaybe on this one
I am with jaybe on this one ,we dont need more regs. The next one would be to stop KILLING when the rut is on because the deer or elk are preoccupied and not paying attention to their surroundings. Or a hunter cant use a gun that can shoot more than 50 yards because it is an unfair advantage not to get close to the animal. You know this could go on for ever if we give up one more right we loose. just my 2
Sun, 2010-12-26 15:03#6
Turkeys in the roost -
Turkeys in the roost - illegal to take them in the roost in Kansas.
Bear in den - it is not a question that should be answered by "ethics" but wildlife management. Does allowing the killing of bears in a den negatively affect the population of bears - if yes, then stop it, if no, then leave it alone.
For those that oppose killing a bear in the den then please answer me this question - how is killing a bear any different than killing it right outside the den, or killing it when it is treed? How is killing a denned bear any different than killing a bedded mountain goat? Yes, it is common practice to shoot a goat as it is bedded to anchor it so it doesn't fall.
Killing is killing....want to make it challenging then go ahead, but don't dictate to others how they should hunt as long as their actions do not negatively impact your ability to hunt, the health of the herd or causes animals to suffer unnecessarily.
Sun, 2010-12-26 22:22#7
If this happened 100 years
If this happened 100 years ago this would have been what legends are made of. I dont have a problem with what he did. I dont know if I would do it. Not sure I like the odds since I usually hunt alone and have three kids and a wife at home but I wouldnt hold it againt someome who did. Whats next should we not be alowed to hunt water holes, watch feeding areas? I think as long as the animal didnt suffer its a ethical kill and everthing else should be left up the hunter to decide not a bunch of forum post whore's that probably didnt log any hours in the feild this year but are thinking about scheduling a high fence hunt for next year......