Uncle Ted in Austin

[SwampRabbit]

I am all for the CHOICE to hunt as you please. The fact that our government thinks it needs to regulate these matters is dang near laughable.

So are there lobbies to remove game laws all together or at least remove deer as a game animal?

[popup_menace]

The matters I was speaking of refer to this thread, swamprabbit. Do not try and put words into my mouth please, and I will return the favor. But since you brought it up, no I do not believe ther are any lobbies in place to completely deregulate hunting, and doing so would most likely cause a horrific decline of wildlife populations. If individuals would completely respect all game animals and be stewards of their respective herds, we would need absolutely no laws to regulate hunting, but this isn't the case. Sensible laws that allow for the populations of targeted wildlife to flourish are helpful, but telling someone how long they have to wait before a deer that they may have released for hunting may be shot is an egregious attempt to regulate for the sake of pushing ones own ethics upon another person. This is where the hunting community needs to unite and say that as long as the actions of one hunter do not negatively effect a population, there is no reason to quarrel over what people believe to be ethical. We are at a pivotal moment right now, and if we cannot unite to stand against the anti-hunters, we are allowing them to win.

[VorTexan]

The matters I was speaking of refer to this thread, swamprabbit. Do not try and put words into my mouth please, and I will return the favor. But since you brought it up, no I do not believe ther are any lobbies in place to completely deregulate hunting, and doing so would most likely cause a horrific decline of wildlife populations. If individuals would completely respect all game animals and be stewards of their respective herds, we would need absolutely no laws to regulate hunting, but this isn't the case. Sensible laws that allow for the populations of targeted wildlife to flourish are helpful, but telling someone how long they have to wait before a deer that they may have released for hunting may be shot is an egregious attempt to regulate for the sake of pushing ones own ethics upon another person. This is where the hunting community needs to unite and say that as long as the actions of one hunter do not negatively effect a population, there is no reason to quarrel over what people believe to be ethical. We are at a pivotal moment right now, and if we cannot unite to stand against the anti-hunters, we are allowing them to win.

Ok, so what is significant about the 10 days as one asked other than "time to allow animal's body to be cleared of toxins etc. etc.".

Again, any ranchers care to respond as to if an "raised" animal is wild enough (in your opinion) to HUNT not just shoot after a period of 10 days, 3, days, 30 minutes, or does any length of time make a hill of beans difference and it's about a profit?

Again, not knocking ranches or breeding operations (love them) but why is this guy pushing for 60 days vs. 10?

[Grayson]

That is why breeding and high fences are such a touchy subject. There are those who think a game enclosure privatizes a public resource.

Personally, it really doesn't matter to me how it goes, but I do see how others are very concerned about it.

Well they do sell them.

[Bodey]

If a deer is raised in confinement, with never a concern for where its water and feed come from and never any reason to be fearful of coyote, cat, or dog, then what are the odds of it making it in the wild for 60 days. Maybe we better get them killed as soon as possible, before nature gets them.

I suspect most of the deer we're talking about are not really being released into the "wild", rather just being turned out into a bigger pen that might have trees and brush, but still has all of the deer's necessities readily available at nearby feed trough and water trough.

I'm sure there are exceptions to any scenario which might be presented.

[JW]

I think it's sad it's even gotten down to this point IMO.


We have more important things to address in the wild outdoors than to spend time and tax payers money on the legislation of private ownership issues with farm animals. Once you start injecting, bottle feeding using "whatever" improvement methodologies to bring an animal into a genetically superior role (horns, flesh, fur, fin or feather), it then becomes an Agricultural management initiative. At that point, it’s just like any other agricultural product and associated “accepted market management” practices. It’s best that the AG market and its buyers, do business as they deem business needs to be done to be profitable, without having our tax payer dollars involved with how they run their business.

I make this statement because…….business is money and money is business. This should not have any bearing on the world of the wild harvest rules set in place for (horns, flesh, fur, fin or feather) for critters that are available to all under public land opportunities. Shellfish, finfish, free to roam harvestable game animals that are either commercial or non-commercial resources…..these are the topics our tax payer monies need to engage. The engagement should be centric with the preservation and management of these habitat worlds, paramount in efforts to maintain and improve the land\water and air of these resources for future generations.

In layman’s terms…we shouldn’t be involving our public legal system with a very small sector of livestock management….a sector where horns are the only deliverable for the few who choose to “get their horns” using hyper controlled man made management practices.

Bingo!!!!!

[dbaio1]

Like it or not the politicians are the ones that pass all the laws and regulations for hunting. I guess that was my point. Personally I agree with AtTheWall on this issue.

Agreed. Just not a fan of politicians I guess. I too agree with ATW's post. That is my biggest gripe with politicians, they just waste tax payer money.

[SwampRabbit]

The matters I was speaking of refer to this thread, swamprabbit. Do not try and put words into my mouth please, and I will return the favor. But since you brought it up, no I do not believe ther are any lobbies in place to completely deregulate hunting, and doing so would most likely cause a horrific decline of wildlife populations. If individuals would completely respect all game animals and be stewards of their respective herds, we would need absolutely no laws to regulate hunting, but this isn't the case. Sensible laws that allow for the populations of targeted wildlife to flourish are helpful, but telling someone how long they have to wait before a deer that they may have released for hunting may be shot is an egregious attempt to regulate for the sake of pushing ones own ethics upon another person. This is where the hunting community needs to unite and say that as long as the actions of one hunter do not negatively effect a population, there is no reason to quarrel over what people believe to be ethical. We are at a pivotal moment right now, and if we cannot unite to stand against the anti-hunters, we are allowing them to win.

Sorry, the intent of my question was to solicit an answer. It was not to meant to put a label on you or associate you with a particular group. I do not know you, so me asking rhetorical questions would be rude and pointless in my book.

In hindsight, I should not have quoted you. It was those words however that did make me wonder if there were folks who believed none of the laws were sensible (I was not intending to imply you did.)

I will say most laws are designed to enforce ethics on folks and even the current ones exist to impose a belief that greed, selfishness, and lack of regard for human life(safety) have no place in our society of hunting.

[BigL]

Doesn't impact me either way so I don't care how the law is written.

What I do care about is why the government feels its their job to tell me what is ethical/fair chase. How about less government in our lives and let us make decisions for ourselves!

[JW]

And so we witness the destruction of our heritage from implosion.

Hey fella's. the Anti's are pretty much united for the most part. We're not. I say lets change that. I used to be against HF. Now as long as you hunt, ur good with me.

Oh, screw the politicians.

[bk_tradguy88]

Sorry to those it offends, but I agree that extending the time from 10 days to 60 days is a good thing.

I agree that the time should be extended as well, but I'm sure not sorry about my opinion. Pen raised deer are pets, and should not be released and hunted. This commercializing factor thrown in the game is absolutely unethical. Have people forgotten what FAIR CHASE was?

"Ok Fred, what we're gonna do is we're gonna breed this buck then push all the protein at him we can. We're gonna give him time to mature, and become a real beauty, then we're just gonna let him go. But about a week and a half later, we're going out there to kill that sucker, then we'll mount him and show off our trophy."

It saddens me that hunting has come to this. It's absolutely Repulsive. Is this really the message we want to semd to the generations being raised now? Fighting poaching is bad enough. I'm all for hunting rights, but let's get real, if there is a question as to why that you should have to wait more than 10
Days to hunt a pet, then it's time to examine your point of view oh "hunting". Forget lengthening the amount of time that people should have to wait to hunt a pet, we need to be looking for a way to put a stop to it. Put the effort for ut into helping with public access, growing the actual WILD instead of destroying it, and turning hunting back to every mans pleasure instead of the ceo hobby we're moving towards.

No go ahead, flame me for putting my honest opinion out there. And claim me to be a member of whatever group you wanna call me. I can't even tell you what 90% of these groups you speak of are. I'm simply a country boy who was raised hunting, fishing, camping, and overall enjoying the outdoors. Like a lot of you on here. And if I was gonna bet on it I'd say your dads spent just as much time mentoring you on respecting the outdoors and doing what's right. I screen these things through a view of ethics, and that's the way I see it. Love me or hate me, i stand for what I feel is right. And dang sure don't need Ted Nugent speaking for me.
B

[Atfulldraw]

I'm on the high fence on this subject......


As a libertarian, I want the idiots in government to stay out of it.

Then I see the folks that show up to speak, and I'm not sure which poison to pick.

[JustinJ]

OK I'm a little confused. After first reading the news article posted it sounded like they were regulating pen raised deer. I was under the impression that pen raised deer are treated as livestock, or at least an exotic. If the deer is pen raised and legally bought doesn't that make the deer the possession of the purchaser, like any other livestock? If so, why is there any law regarding when you can or can not kill it? If I legally buy a cow I can kill it whenever I please right? Maybe I'm wrong here.

Secondly, if you capture wild deer to breed, aren't you in essence trapping deer? Which is illegal?

Lastly, what constitutes captivity? Do people actually breed deer and then release them into a low fenced area? THat seems like a huuuuuuugggggeee gamble to me. Aren't most of these bred deer released into a high fence enclosure, and as such, still "in captivity?"

Sorry I don't really understand the specifics of these breeders and ranches.

[JustinJ]

Reading up on breeder laws here if anyone is interested.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PW/htm/PW.43.htm#43.351

[JW]

Reading up on breeder laws here if anyone is interested.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u....43.htm#43.351

Man my eyes are crossed after reading that.