Conference vmsnet::hunting$note:hunting

    C'mon Kevin. You know every hunter's like that.
    
    The Doctah

    I saw it also! I hate when they show things like that on National
    T.V.! To most who don't participate in hunting, not even Anti's,
    thats the first and final impression they have of hunting!
    
    I tell ya that was sick! Who the hell would pay big bucks to empty
    a gun into a pile of game with 20 other guys at the same moment?
    What satifaction/pleasure, sense of achievement did they derive from it?

    Those broadcasts, and those type of "hunters" are the ultimate example
    of how it isn't done! 
    
    I tend to doubt it, but I hope most of the viewers were changing the 
    channels,or going to the frig, so that they never got to see that mess!
    What a disgrace/shame!

    I read about this in the newspaper and the thing that hurts is it
    really happened!! What is real is that we all of us are going to
    get hurt by it one way or another!
    
    PS/ I also dought that the media told it like it really was without
        putting aflot of meat in the soup to stair it up!

    My local newspaper went on to say something like: (The honest law abiding
    sportsmen are outraged by this incident.). I was very surprised at
    seeing this in a Mass paper. 

    Rich

    Its terrible but its true.  I felt the same way the other day when
    the papers printed an article on the use of decoys by wardens to
    catch "illegal hunters".  Well didn't this tick me right off.  Where
    do they (media) get the idea that poachers are hunters.  The two
    words don't fit in the same sentence let alone in the context of
    what the article was about.  A most satisfying hunt occured a
    couple of years back when the FRA and I caught a poacher in Vermont
    and we turned him in.  Funny thing, is that if the creep lied and
    showed some sign of remorse or told us it was a mistake and he thought
    he saw horns we would have let him go ............... however he
    was lucky to keep is teeth after telling us to go F__K ourselves.
    Well he's the one that screwed himself and it makes me feel great
    every time I think about it. 
    
    poacher::hunter, rapist::lover, terrorist::passionate, etc.... need
    I go on?
    
    Dave

    
    RE .0
        	" UNDER COVER FEDS POSED AS CUSTOMERS AND FILMED THE
    		  BAITING OF A FLOCK OF SNOW GEESE "
    
    	I can't help but wonder why the feds would film this slaughter
    	and then release the film to be shown on national television.
    	The net result is a very poor perception of hunters by the
    	general public. Seems like this kind of broadcasting can be
    	very beneficial to the antis !!!!!!!!!  Why do you suppose such
    	a report got on national television while earthquakes and train
    	crashes and .....are happening all over the world ?
    
    	pat.
    
    	

         That tape of those lowlifes blasting into that flock of
         sitting birds was the most sickening and revolting thing I've
         ever seen. 

         As to the report, it may have created thousands of antis, but
         it was fair. Jennings even said that most hunters stick
         within the limit. What really surprised me was that the feds
         supplied the network with this video tape.

         What didn't surprise me was that the culprits were wealthy.
         I've always suspected that among the well-to-do hunters there
         is a higher percentage of slobs--guys with no ethics who
         think they can pay for the right to shoot as many birds as
         they want any way they can.
               
         What they fail to realize is that there are three ways that
         we enjoy hunting; there's the anticipation, the hunt, and the
         memory. The memory is the most important. For an awfully long
         time it can either warm you or haunt you. I don't know how
         these guys can live with their hunting memories.

         Doug                                     

    re. 6
    
    
    Its not that the feds released it, the news media has excess to 
    information such as this and its open to the public and guess what?
    It sells papers! Now if I were the NRA, I would recommened that
    those involved and if proven guilty get the book thrown at them.
    This would tell the general public that we as NRA members feel 
    that these individuals should be punished severly by braking the
    law as they did and by contributing with giving the reast of us
    a bad name!!!
    

    re:  < Note 312.7 by BOMBE::BONIN >

�         What they fail to realize is that there are three ways that
�         we enjoy hunting; there's the anticipation, the hunt, and the
�         memory. The memory is the most important. For an awfully long
�         time it can either warm you or haunt you. I don't know how
�         these guys can live with their hunting memories.

    Well said.

    
    re .8
    
    I would believe that this film was, and is, evidence.  I don't believe
    that the media had "public" access to this film, the Fed's probably
    turned it over to get the message out that they are getting tough
    on these commercial poaching operations.  The Fed's have been taking
    an awful lot of heat since the story on Louisiana some time ago.
    
    Kevin

    I saw the film and was sick.  I have to admit that ABC was very
    objective in their reporting.  Although there wasn't much need for
    them to slant that...........
    
    I hope that this, the Louisianna publicity, and others will ultimately
    help the waterfowl populations.  Maybe it will take this "shock
    treatement" at a time of drastically low duck numbers to wake up
    much of the waterfowlers out there that this sh*t has got to stop
    completely NOW, or it will be too late.  There is too much marsh
    out there for the feds to patrol alone.  The general waterfowlers
    are going to have to do it.
    
    Mark,
    

    Re. 10
    
    Kevin,
    
    Indeed the media has excess to information such as this and at one
    time or another they will get such information, its part of there
    constutional right!. Take a look at the court records within your 
    daily newspaper!, and depending on the story and how hot it would
    be to the general public would depend on how sever the topic is.
    The media has alot of power, its called free speech and they have

    
    If I were the Feds, I wouldn't feel so proud, as they were as guilty
    as the jerks shooting the geese. Why the hell did they just sit
    by and not only watch the slaughter, but film it, before they got
    off of their aXX and made the arrests. Why couldn't they have made
    a move as soon as these jerks were over the limit rather than wait
    till.....how many geese were killed ???????
    Sorry folks, but I just can't understand the logic here !
    pat.
    

    It's possible that the severity of the slaughter (and the filming
    of it as evidence) could enhance the chances of these clowns being
    convicted and cause the judge to issue the full sentence, with no
    leeway.
    
    Without the graphic film as evidence, and the publicity surrounding
    the broadcast, the judge may be more lenient to the accused (and
    hopefully, convicted).  This could result in more poaching in the
    long run, especially if they are back on the street with just a
    slap on the hand.
    
    As a result of the publicity, these guys will likely do time.  Judging
    from the social and professional status of the poachers, this would
    hurt much more than any fine.
    
    Mark.
    
    

    Well folks, lets not deny that slob's exist all over. This past
    season every week-end out I seen slob hunters. Their ranks are 
    growing because its a "me" society we're living in.
    
    My wife monitors the blubird trail at Highridge WM in Gardner.
    September she seen hunters out hunting crow's, which was perfectly
    legal. What she found was dead grackles and rosebreasted grossbeaks.
    
    She went out last friday with Brad Blodgett the State's ornithologist
    to tag the bluebird houses. Four bird houses were blown apart by
    deer slugs. Yeah, they know that the majority of hunters are good,
    but they're seeing the ranks of the slob's growing eery year. This
    year the enviormental enforcements department budget got cut so
    bad that there is going to be a problem in catching and prosecuting
    the slob's. So the ranks will grow even more. 
    
    The thing we can do as hunters is put peer pressure on the slob's.
    If you see a slob, get your buddies and yourself to get on his case. 
    Get his hunters license number if you can and report it. Even if
    the enforcement agency can't do anything other than write a letter
    to the slob, it still makes him know that he's being watched.
    Most of all, lets vote Dukakis out of office next election.
    
    Jim

    Disgusting, inhumane, and greedy. I say let them know them what
    it's like to be on the other side of the fence.  STONE 'EM!

    
    re .13
    
    I really don't think the Fed's were as "guilty" as the jerks  for
    shooting the geese.  How could they predict how many geese were
    going to be shot?  What the "jerks" did was illegal, they baited
    the geese, then shot way over their limits.  Shooting geese on the
    water is not illegal...however some may feel it's unethical.  How
    could they have moved after the "jerks" got over their limits? 
    These fools were just blasting away at a flock of white
    feathers...emptying their guns.  Besides the Fed's were certainly
    out numbered at that point, noone knows what may have happened unless
    you were there to feel the adrenalin of the situation.  Anyone who
    hunts like the "jerks" in this film certainly doesn't have respect
    for very much.  I do understand the logic, filming such a disgusting
    crime may have an effect on the sentencing of these idiots, and
    more waterfowl may be save as a result.
    
    Kevin
    

This incident reminds me of another film sequence broadcast during a show
called "Guns of Autumn".  This was broadcast during the late 70s I think by 
CBS (Communist Broadcasting System!! :-).

The Feds were correct in letting the incident take its natural direction.
They obtained the evidence and hopefully the participants will serve long
jail times.  The negative effect was of course the anti-hunting propoganda
provided by the use of the film on the TV.  Why didn't the NRA call a press
conference and categoricly condemn this act?  Its not enough to say you
abhore this incident WHEN YOU ARE ASKED ABOUT IT.  

I have been a member of the NRA for many years, I have very seldom if ever
heard them say that sportsmen should help police the ranks.  We need to be
more assertive in declaring what true hunting is.  We need to have the
organizations to which we belong start pushing the idea that all sportsmen
should report the slobs instead of turning the other way.  This kind of
attitude (that of being intolerant of slob hunters) should be fostered in
the home, at the hunting club, in hunter education courses, in the
activities of the NRA (slob hunters are also those who shoot road signs
when not hunting, etc.), in conservation magazines, in short in any place &
at any time that someone is willing to listen.  

Let's start being a little pro-active about these things instead of
reactive. 

Rich

Reprinted without permission from the Burlington Free Press (editorial/column
page, 12/28/88), the column was written by James Kilpatrick.

-------------

Some guides sell slaughter as sport

Washington - On a cool day in January 1988, professional guides associated 
with a shooting resort near Sabine Pass, Texas, arranged a goose hunt.  Their 
$600-a-day clients were three good ole' boys named Standish, Kuncir and
Patterson.  Unknown to the guides, the three were special agents of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.  They had a bloody good time.

On Jan. 22, firing three separate volleys, the group killed 204 geese.  The
next day they went to a different site.  This time, in two volleys, the group
shot 176 geese.  Says the government, laconically, "This was in excess of the 
daily bag limit."

The charges are contained in the government's own volley of indictments and
criminal informations against roughly 200 individuals and guide services.
The accusations, made public Dec. 13, climaxed a three-year undercover operation
in Texas.  If convicted, the defendants face fines ranging up to $250,000 and
imprisonment up to five years.  Twenty-seven of the defendants will go to
court on felony charges.

True sportsmen and conservationists will hail the investigation with warm 
applause.  The government must prove its case, of course, but the very act
of filing charges should have a strong deterrent effect against hunters and
guides who scoff at laws protecting migratory birds.

Under the law, ducks and geese may be taken only in season and only subject
to daily limits; but the defendants in these cases are charged with ignoring
the end of season and flouting the daily limits.  The law says that in certain
areas, only steel shot may be used - geese tend to swallow lead shot and die
of poisoning - but some of these defendants used lead shot anyhow.  The law
lays down strict rules on tagging; the law requires hunters to make an effort
to retrieve crippled birds; the law forbids "rallying" or "stirring up" birds
at rest; the law prohibits electronic callers; the law bans baiting; the law
restricts the sale of ducks and geese.  The government charges all these laws
were violated wholesale in Texas.

A common theme runs through the indictments - a theme of utter contempt for the
law.  One professional guide is charged with encouraging his clients to ignore
bag limits.  "Just keep shooting," he instructed them.  Another guide boasted
that he had purchased a ton of wheat as bait.  Other guides used airboats to
herd flocks of ducks toward waiting guns.  In one instance, so many dead ducks
piled up that guides used the names of their own children on official tags.  
Time after time, excess ducks were simply thrown away.

Most revolting, if true, are charges that some professionals - the very persons
who should be role models of sportmanship - were not content with killing ducks
and geese.  They casually shot herons, golden plovers, belted kingfishers, 
killdeer and red-tailed hawks.  All these are on the protected list.  How could
anyone, just for the fun of it, kill an ibis?  One guide unwittingly told 
Special Agent Nando Mauldin, "Wherever I think we're going to slaughter the
birds, that's where we'll go."

Except for a few species, geese are in no danger of going the way of the 
passenger pigeon.  Their population seems to be holding steady.  It is a 
different story with ducks.  The breeding population of the northern ponytail in
1988 is the second lowest on record, 54 percent below the average for 1955 - 
87.  The blue winged teal has declined 25 percent below average.  In 1958 a
wildlife census found a breeding population of nearly 13 million mallards, that
number has dropped by half.

To be sure, these declines may be attributed only in small part to the lawless
conduct of pseudo-sportmen.  Most of the problem stems from drought in breeding
grounds.  Some of it probably owing to highly toxic pesticides and herbicides.
Even so, the bang-bang boys who shoot for simple "slaughter" cannot be condoned,
and their cynical guides ought to be run out of business.

None of this is to condemn hunting as such.  It is the oldest of all sports; it
brings millions of Americans a little closer to nature; it teaches the proper
use of firearms; and for countless families, hunting provides an important 
source of food.

Nothing is wrong with lawful hunting.  The other kind?  The kind described in
these indictments?  Nothing whatever is right about it.