Just the other day I read where in Utah, a person must take a “free” online “Antler-Gathering Ethics Course.” Think about this for a moment before you laugh at it or, more than likely, laugh at me.
To the totalitarian leaders in state government, carrying out the wishes of the fascist regimes in Washington, the plebs are incapable of doing anything without government say so and control over it. This is ALWAYS followed by the issuance of a tax in order that the fascists can collect their filthy money in order to continue their filthy ways. Unfortunately, but very few see it nor are they interested in Truth, most hunters and outdoor sportsmen, smile while being accosted and pillaged hiding behind the stupid excuse that what government is telling them to do, “is for the good of the Motherland.” If that doesn’t seem to make sense to you, then simply state such laws and restrictions are reasonable.
Most hunters, but not all, if you are capable of understanding, speak that they support the right of a person to keep and bear arms. However, the overwhelming majority will cower and say that “reasonable” restrictions to this right are “good for the Motherland,” failing miserably to understand that in so doing a right is turned into a privilege. A privilege is easily taken away. We fall into our grave and evidently love it.
We don’t even understand the word reasonable. The use of the word reasonable is value-weighted. In other words, it is defined by whoever has enough authority to levy “reasonable” based upon their own perceptions of what the term should mean. In this world of progressive leftism, rooted firmly in immorality and decadent lifestyles, what does reasonable mean today? What will it mean tomorrow? If you can’t see this point, you are a victim of your own progressivism and don’t know it. I’m sorry!
In Utah is a clear example of such. Government has decided that before you can take a walk in the woods to find some antlers that fall off animals, such as deer, elk, and moose, they must tell you how to do it. My guess is the overwhelming majority will think this is a good thing and will protect these animals in the late winter when most sheds drop.
Half of these that support an “ethics course” to shed hunt often openly state that gun control laws only affect the law-abiding citizen. I suppose that to these masters of illusionary ignorance, a law-abiding citizen is one that is smart enough to know what is illegal and respectful enough to abide by those laws. Therefore, all law-abiding gun owners are those that_________________. (I’ll let you kid yourself and fill in the blank.) While you’re at it, fill in this blank. All ________________ who took the mandatory ethics course are law-abiding slaves.
Always bear in mind that you, being a law-abiding citizen (wink-wink), don’t know how to “ethically” pick up shed antlers and you need someone to tell you how. If you agree with this then you must be one who also needs government to tell you how to “ethically” own a gun and how to “ethically” use it. The same must hold true for fishing, archery, boating, hiking, biking, walking, talking, sleeping, eating, and the proper and ethical way to use an outhouse.
Most understand that disturbing an animal that is stressed by the harshness of winter does the animal no good. If it is really that detrimental to the health of the animals, then wouldn’t it make sense to outlaw shed hunting? Probably, but that doesn’t fit well into the narrative of the totalitarians and the fascists who demand that we do everything they want us to.
Don’t deny it! You will shake your head at me and ask yourself what drugs I’m on because I don’t care at all for government and everything they do and stand for. While at present, a “free” online course on the ethics of antler shed hunting sounds so…so…so…, well, how do I put it? Leftist progressive? Grounded in environmentalism? Totalitarian? Fascist? What? Oh, you say it’s a great idea? And will it still be a great idea when for anyone who gives a tinker’s damn, learns nothing has changed by forcing the proletariats to comply with the government and then will come the tax? I predict the majority will be eager to pay “each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
If this is the growing trend, and it certainly appears that everyone is “all aboard” this freight train to hell, line up and let’s make it the same for everybody. No need to pick on just shed hunters…is there?
Before anyone can “hike,” – any good totalitarian, leftist, idealogue can clearly define what is a “hike” – they must complete a course on the ethics of walking while not disturbing flora and fauna; carry in and carry out; how walking the same path causes erosion; how to properly go to the bathroom while in the woods (yes, there is something unethical about taking a dump on somebody’s private land and leaving a giant stack of toilet paper.) But let’s not disturb the animals…never the animals. Kill humans, leave the honorable animals alone.
This list and more can apply to any outdoor activity. Forcing the law-abiding (wink -wink) citizen-serfs to pass a test written by government totalitarian/fascists, will change nothing. But if they have their plans down pat, they can collect a tax and get their law enforcement heroes to arrest and fine anyone caught not following the manifesto. Be careful when one of those heroes approaches you, your hiking stick might just look like a weapon.
Okay! Go ahead and laugh now!
But, by all means…
Has “High-Tech Hunting” Killed the Event?
*Editor’s Note* – I have stated before that, BY CHOICE, I prefer deer hunting in the fashion I grew up with, save one exception. I grew up with a gun (sometimes), open sights, and most times with one or two bullets – it was all we could afford. I learned the forest and to recognize deer signs and stalking methods. The one exception is that today I employ a scope for two reasons: 1). With antler restrictions, it aids in determining how large a set of antlers are, and 2). My eyesight isn’t what it used to be.
While the author of the article that I’ve linked to below doesn’t come right out and ask that these “modern” and “high-tech” instruments and equipment be banned, he has little good to say about them. And that’s just fine. I don’t either, but I don’t begrudge someone who does CHOOSE to use them……UNLESS….
The main question that might be needed asking here is, due to the onset of all this “high-tech” equipment, has the number of deer harvested increased because of it? And to go along with that, has it stolen “opportunity” away from other hunters?
I can’t link you to any data that shows one way or the other. I can tell you that game managers, who set the dates and duration of deer hunting seasons, do so based upon estimations of the total number of deer they want harvested for management purposes. If the high-tech equipment is causing more deer to be taken in shorter periods of time, then, unless your state has a problem with a large, rapidly expanding deer herd, the season will be shortened in order to limit the number of deer harvested.
In discussing the pros and cons of “high-tech” we could spend days attempting to decide what is good or bad for the sport, the economy, recruitment of new hunters (are younger “techie” kids more easily attracted to hunting because of the technology?) public safety, etc.
But, then the writer gets into a bit of ethics and that’s when things get kind of gray. Ethics, sometimes defined as what you do when nobody is looking, is more than that. Aside from staying within the bounds of the law, what a hunter does or does not do, is really a personal choice….isn’t it? And who am I, or who are you, to tell someone how they ought to hunt?
As I said, I like to hunt the “old fashioned” way and I will spend time telling others about how I enjoy it and why. If I touch something in them, they might find the interest as well. On the flip side, how does that same person feel if I tried to get a law passed condemning their choice of hunting equipment and methods, all within the law, of hunting? As I have already stated, that unless they are cutting into my hunting opportunities, how they really doesn’t have much bearing on me and how I hunt.
Here’s an example that I can show you that I’m positive the author did not think about when he wrote it. It is what I have quoted from the article just below. The author approves of TU, DU, PF, IWL and MDHA and their promotion of habitat conservation and “art and ethics of hunting.”
That is the author’s choice, and he should have that choice. I respect that choice. Personally, I find much of what these groups stand for contrary to my way of thinking, but that’s my choice and should remain that way.
Just as this writer believes that these groups’ “ethics” are to his liking, he should continue to have that choice, just as much as the hunter has his/her choice of how to hunt, within the laws that govern it.
Source: How high-tech has killed real hunting – StarTribune.com