Resignation PHASA President

[Royal27]

Never said you did not say anything to him but was talking about this thread and his post. Pretty much was against everything you said but no word about it. Like I said I get it I make myself a easy target and you have nothing better to do.

As a hunter and a conservationist I'm selective about my targets and don't shoot at them all.

I thought you of all people would be supportive of that.

 

[BRICKBURN]

.......................

4. At least some of those who were approached did not sign the document. Furthermore, they in turn sued PHASA in court. At the crux of the lawsuit was LANGUAGE ADDED to the 2015 resolution AFTER the resolution was voted on. This language is what was apparently being used to remove these PHASA members. It would seem the court agreed that the original resolution did not give the PHASA excom the power to remove the PHASA members as the plaintiffs won their court case.

Might this all have something to do with the PHASA president resigning?

Following a Constitutional process is key to any successful organization.
The Court found a mistake.
Now the organization needs to get it's house in order and VOTE on a resolution creating a policy for going forward.
I wish them well.

 

[BRICKBURN]

Free range..View attachment 186717

Must be, I don't see a fence.

That fella must have a huge pride of ladies working hard to keep him in that fine form.

 

[gizmo]

Like many others I am tired of this topic. All it does it start a pissing match. It's the same as ever one before it. The self entitled hollier than tho's are going to take the stance of moral superiority and the degenerative "shooters" like myself are evil bastards. I honestly am tired of it. Ya'll have a pissing match, I'm out. I am going to prefer stay out of it further and enjoy reading hunt reports and hunt offers.

 

[Red Leg]

So now I am not only trying to make myself feel good, but I am self entitled, holier than tho (it's spelt thou), and I am an evil bastard on top of that. Wow, thanks so much for the mature discourse. If that is your definition of evil, I'll wear that scarlet letter honorably. Just wondering what we call the fellows giving an animal some measure of trust in human contact, placing him in an enclosure completely different from the that trusted environment in which he was raised, and then selling someone the opportunity to blow a hole through him? Sainthood? I say again, I believe such practice is the antithesis of fair chase and hunting, and hurts our ability to defend our sport. I have no issue with hunting self-sustaining populations in enclosures where the animals' natural behavior is unrestricted. If you disagree with me - fine - I am not dismissive of you. I think you are wrong, and I think the practice is very detrimental to our sport. But, I am happy to debate it with you - civilly.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Black / White............and a crapload of Gray

@billc, the thing is that for me and I'm certain others, it seems that when someone says something you disagree with, your replies to those posts not only make it clear that you disagree but also that you've taken that poster's comment as a strong personal insult. This makes the issue not about the actual topic but an issue about you. This leaves the person whom you're offended by left to wonder why you're responding the way that you do.

What you continue to refer to as bashing is an example of this in my opinion. Note that I tend to fall on your side of the CBL hunting, but when someone expresses and opinion contrary to this it is now bashing. What you view as bashing, I see as someone expressing a legitimate concern. Legitimate being based on that person not only saying their for/against something, but also why and that why having some thought behind it. When you accuse a person of bashing what they see as legitimate concern, you make it personal and thus delegitimize their opinion on the matter.

My larger concern regarding CBL hunting is the overall concept of a human owning an animal. The anti's see that as nothing short of a human owning another human. It's lunacy from my point of view and the penultimate example of hypocrisy if that person isn't a full fledge vegan. So not subscribing to that particular lunacy, I then obviously support humans owning animals. Whether that be a dog, cat, hamster, cow, pig or............a lion. With ownership comes the right to do with your property as you see fit, it is after all your property. As soon as we decide to limit that or even what animals we can own, we start down a very slippery slope taking us in the direction of the lunatic anti that puts animals on the same level as humans. That's the black/white of it for me.

But there's a crap load of gray in this animal ownership issue which I cannot ignore. Put aside legal vs illegal thoughts for a moment. What is considered legal and illegal is based primarily on what we think is good/bad and right/wrong. So just think about what you consider right/wrong. As I said if I approve of humans owning animals and if I believe a person has a right to do with their property as they see fit, then do I approve of the dog owner beating a dog to within an inch of it's life for peeing on the carpet? Should I just not say anything when I notice the old cowboy who winters his herd of cattle down the road from my house not feeding the herd adequately during the long cold Idaho winters? (yeah, real life example) Does animal ownership not also come with responsibility legal or otherwise?

When it comes to CBL hunting, whether we are in support of it or not, we simply cannot ignore those operators who have by their own actions put it in a bad light. This is where black meets white and things get gray. I don't want to see the situation go to the extreme with CBL hunting made illegal. The only way I see to prevent this is by taking action to ensure that it is done in a way that gets rid of the bad practices that we all have seen. I believe it is also imperative that the contribution that CBL hunting can make to conservation be fully utilized.

I don't know how this can be accomplished without engaging those within our own community who are opposed to CBL hunting. I want to know if/what can be done to change @Red Leg's opinion on the issue. The only way I know to do this is to discuss it. I don't know how I can have a civil and productive conversation with RL if I'm not willing to disagree in a respectful manner. The fact of the matter is I respect RL's opinion even if I don't agree with it. If we're unwilling to engage those who differ within our own ranks, why would we expect to be successful in preventing the non-hunter from becoming an anti-hunter. And that is really where the battle lies, with the non-hunter.

What I am certain of is that I'm not going to win RL or others who share his opinion if my argument is simplistic, black/white, it's legal so you should shut up about it. You say discussing such issues causes division amongst hunters. I disagree, the division is already there. Telling others who disagree with your legal way of hunting they should be quiet about it is not going to bring about re-unification. If anything it only deepens the divide.

 

[BRICKBURN]

As someone who gets misquoted (that's the nice term) by Anti-hunters constantly, I am not planning on staying silent anytime soon, either to avoid that unfortunate abuse or to portray a hand holding session among hunters.

On the subject of being silenced.


https://www.africahunting.com/threads/the-plunge-toward-pc-politically-correct.35708/#post-335303

The farmers ........killing the lions. I think though they ought to keep those pictures off line. Antis need this to keep up their assualt on killing animals. ................

ps. George Berkeley, in his work, A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge (1710), paraphrased thus: "If a tree were to fall on an island where there were no human beings would there be any sound?"

"If you delete the picture, did the Lions not really die?"

https://www.africahunting.com/threa...ue-killing-marauding-lions.38719/#post-360401


Now, this is the real story (bucking for a job with the real news purveyors):

Princess and Pamela were much loved lionesses in Etosha National Park and will be missed by the thousands of tourists that took pictures of them almost daily with their families.

The dastardly Namibian farmer lured them from the park by having the audacity to actually farm cattle up wind of the park. Incredible!
Everyone knows, or should know, that the prevailing winds come from the west in northern Namibia. Putting live cattle up wind of these poor lions must have been intentional, the farmer just intended to lure these lions from their safe haven to kill them.

Further proof of his intentions are obvious when he has been found touring the countryside with his Bakkie filled with dead lions. (He is even smiling. He has no shame)

He is a "fame seeker" and is trying to gain more and notoriety than Walter Palmer.

Sadly, CNN, the Guardian and the Mirror don't seem to have the same dislike for this obviously prolific lion killer. This farmer admitted openly, that he systematically lures lions from a National park with live bait, contrary to Namibian hunting laws.

In summary:
This farmer is the new face of the future for Lions in Africa.



Just in case you do not know me very well, look up idiom: Tongue in Cheek for the parts that are a joke.

 

[Velo Dog]

So very well said. Not a single sentence I disagree with.

+1

 

[BRICKBURN]

Black / White............and a crapload of Gray

@billc, the thing is that for me and I'm certain others, it seems that when someone says something you disagree with, your replies to those posts not only make it clear that you disagree but also that you've taken that poster's comment as a strong personal insult. This makes the issue not about the actual topic but an issue about you. This leaves the person whom you're offended by left to wonder why you're responding the way that you do.
................

 

[billc]

I do not take it as only an attack on me but on all who have hunted the way I am defending also. If you read I say hunters not just me but some guys will think I am all about myself when I jump on to defend a way of hunting. I look past my likes or dislikes and support hunters. Not sure I can make it much clearer then that.

They attack a way of hunting and I fit in with the hunters so I speak my mind on it. If I don't like it I say so is all when it gets brought up. I don't remember seeing me start something about my dislikes or likes and saying if you don't like it your wrong. I just say don't bash on a way of hunting because I do not like it and help the other side. Now do I take it personal when someone try's to tell me the lioness my son hunted was not a hunt but just a shoot well that I do and then I will let them know it. I look at things big picture not just about me like more then a few do on here.

 

[BRICKBURN]

Instructions for the SAT's:
Reading Comprehension (also known as Critical Reading) questions test your ability to understand a passage and answer questions on the basis of what is stated and implied in the passage. You need to read the passage first so that you can identify the main idea of the passage and appreciate features such as the author's tone and attitude as well as the organization of the passage. Scroll back to the relevant point in the text as you do each question.


There is no shortcut to improving your critical reading ability. Practice does help - but if you are making too many errors on our mini tests, consult your teacher or just choose some good books and get down to some serious reading.

http://www.majortests.com/sat/reading-comprehension.php

 

[Hank2211]

Black / White............and a crapload of Gray

@billc, the thing is that for me and I'm certain others, it seems that when someone says something you disagree with, your replies to those posts not only make it clear that you disagree but also that you've taken that poster's comment as a strong personal insult. This makes the issue not about the actual topic but an issue about you. This leaves the person whom you're offended by left to wonder why you're responding the way that you do.

What you continue to refer to as bashing is an example of this in my opinion. Note that I tend to fall on your side of the CBL hunting, but when someone expresses and opinion contrary to this it is now bashing. What you view as bashing, I see as someone expressing a legitimate concern. Legitimate being based on that person not only saying their for/against something, but also why and that why having some thought behind it. When you accuse a person of bashing what they see as legitimate concern, you make it personal and thus delegitimize their opinion on the matter.

My larger concern regarding CBL hunting is the overall concept of a human owning an animal. The anti's see that as nothing short of a human owning another human. It's lunacy from my point of view and the penultimate example of hypocrisy if that person isn't a full fledge vegan. So not subscribing to that particular lunacy, I then obviously support humans owning animals. Whether that be a dog, cat, hamster, cow, pig or............a lion. With ownership comes the right to do with your property as you see fit, it is after all your property. As soon as we decide to limit that or even what animals we can own, we start down a very slippery slope taking us in the direction of the lunatic anti that puts animals on the same level as humans. That's the black/white of it for me.

But there's a crap load of gray in this animal ownership issue which I cannot ignore. Put aside legal vs illegal thoughts for a moment. What is considered legal and illegal is based primarily on what we think is good/bad and right/wrong. So just think about what you consider right/wrong. As I said if I approve of humans owning animals and if I believe a person has a right to do with their property as they see fit, then do I approve of the dog owner beating a dog to within an inch of it's life for peeing on the carpet? Should I just not say anything when I notice the old cowboy who winters his herd of cattle down the road from my house not feeding the herd adequately during the long cold Idaho winters? (yeah, real life example) Does animal ownership not also come with responsibility legal or otherwise?

When it comes to CBL hunting, whether we are in support of it or not, we simply cannot ignore those operators who have by their own actions put it in a bad light. This is where black meets white and things get gray. I don't want to see the situation go to the extreme with CBL hunting made illegal. The only way I see to prevent this is by taking action to ensure that it is done in a way that gets rid of the bad practices that we all have seen. I believe it is also imperative that the contribution that CBL hunting can make to conservation be fully utilized.

I don't know how this can be accomplished without engaging those within our own community who are opposed to CBL hunting. I want to know if/what can be done to change @Red Leg's opinion on the issue. The only way I know to do this is to discuss it. I don't know how I can have a civil and productive conversation with RL if I'm not willing to disagree in a respectful manner. The fact of the matter is I respect RL's opinion even if I don't agree with it. If we're unwilling to engage those who differ within our own ranks, why would we expect to be successful in preventing the non-hunter from becoming an anti-hunter. And that is really where the battle lies, with the non-hunter.

What I am certain of is that I'm not going to win RL or others who share his opinion if my argument is simplistic, black/white, it's legal so you should shut up about it. You say discussing such issues causes division amongst hunters. I disagree, the division is already there. Telling others who disagree with your legal way of hunting they should be quiet about it is not going to bring about re-unification. If anything it only deepens the divide.

Phil, I think we are actually on the same side of this, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I think many hunters come apart because we don't carefully define our terms and what we're talking about.

My first post on this thread mentioned captive bred anything hunting, and whether the fact that it was a lion makes a difference. I suspect many , if not most hunters, would say they don't see a distinction based solely on species involved. If we do focus on the species - and let's be clear, many people endow certain species with mythological importance - then once they've stopped lion hunting, we'll move on to the elephants next, and then heaven's knows, it will likely be baby seals. So can we agree that at least as far as we are concerned, hunters have to maintain the position (if only because it's entirely logical and sensible) that a species is a species, and that some animals, no matter how cute or otherwise impressive, don't have some special right to life that other animals don't?

So why the problem?

I suggest it's because we hunters conflate (I like that word) captive bred lion hunting with "canned hunting" or "put and take" hunting. I suspect most of us would say it's not really hunting for people to pick an animal out of lineup, and have that animal released in a small area, and then go and shoot it. This occurs with many more species than lions. My position on this is that I understand it, and if it's legal, I have no problem with you doing it, but I don't want to have any part of it, and if you ask me, I'll tell you it's akin to my pheasant club, where pen raised birds are released upon my request, and I go and find them. It can be fun, but it's not hunting. On the other hand, if the animal is caged, or drugged, or tied up, then that's not hunting or shooting - it's just plain illegal everywhere I know of.

Can we all agree that shooting caged or drugged animals, since it's illegal, is wrong and we are all uniformly opposed to it?

I think if we get those things out of the way - lions are special and canned lion hunts - what we're left with is legal hunts that some of us may choose to undertake, and others may not. If you've followed me this far, it's not a lot farther to suggest that even if you think this sort of hunting is unethical (and note I have done it), you should support the right of others to engage in it. Remember, where I come from, baiting any animal (except maybe a black bear in certain conditions) is illegal, so from that perspective, a tracking hunt is actually an improvement over sitting in a blind in front of a bait hung for the purpose of luring an unsuspecting cat to its death (which I have done as well)

We are, I think, all on the same side here.

 

[billc]

I have a few basic question for those who like to take the side against raised lions and fenced hunting in general.

1 Do you think if we give in on this way of hunting the anti's will just go away.

2 How much do we give in before we take a stand together. Is it give in on just lions or is plains game, raised deer,elk,hogs. Maybe even birds that we give in on. How much do we give in on?

3 when the anti's win or start really going hard after the stopping of hunting for elephant, so called wild lions and all the stuff so many like. Should us hunters who were thrown under the bus care then because it is what you like.

4 Do you really think the phasa ruling they did against raised lions help anything at all.

 

[Royal27]

@Royal27 come on man, how and I am going to refute the Constitution argument.

I have no problem arguing about this, just think we have beaten it to death and it is time to move on. The way I see it is if you have hunted or plan to hunt anything in an area that is high fence, no matter how big then you really can't be against CBL. If you only hunt free range then you can take that stand, and I applaud you.

My concern is that we all know free range is more expensive, if by only having free range does this become more of an elitist sport that leaves more of the population out of our sport.

The bold is where I truly have the difference of opinion. I don't think it's time to move on, regardless of which side of the fence you're on. I actually think it is our responsibility to continue these discussions for both the way of life we've chosen and the good of the animals in general.

I said earlier in this thread I have hunted high fence before and that I likely will again. I also think that some here would be surprised at what my position on CBL is. I don't think I've ever posted it here publicly, at least not directly and it has morphed a bit over time.

I saw where Phil states there are shades of gray and I totally agree with this. There is lots of gray, and that is what we need to continue to discuss, ad nauseum if need be.

I do believe your statement "The way I see it is if you have hunted or plan to hunt anything in an area that is high fence, no matter how big then you really can't be against CBL" shows the need for the shade of gray. I definitely believe you could support high fence hunting in an enclosure of X acres of an animal that was born and raised in the area (and even initially stocked) and not support the same animal breed being raised in a pen, then being hunted on the same number of acres when it was released this morning.

Again, I'm not suggesting which position I even agree with although I will say that I'm not totally at either end. I'm suggesting this gray area is the reason we need to constantly challenge each other and our positions.

Beating that dead horse just might allow some of the other horses to live on.

 

[Red Leg]

Instructions for the SAT's:
Reading Comprehension (also known as Critical Reading) questions test your ability to understand a passage and answer questions on the basis of what is stated and implied in the passage. You need to read the passage first so that you can identify the main idea of the passage and appreciate features such as the author's tone and attitude as well as the organization of the passage. Scroll back to the relevant point in the text as you do each question.


There is no shortcut to improving your critical reading ability. Practice does help - but if you are making too many errors on our mini tests, consult your teacher or just choose some good books and get down to some serious reading.

http://www.majortests.com/sat/reading-comprehension.php

Dear God. I am at German restaurant with ny bride drinking a cold lager and almost spit it across the table. Truly laughed out loud. Thanks.

 

[billc]

The bold is where I truly have the difference of opinion. I don't think it's time to move on, regardless of which side of the fence you're on. I actually think it is our responsibility to continue these discussions for both the way of life we've chosen and the good of the animals in general.

I said earlier in this thread I have hunted high fence before and that I likely will again. I also think that some here would be surprised at what my position on CBL is. I don't think I've ever posted it here publicly, at least not directly and it has morphed a bit over time.

I saw where Phil states there are shades of gray and I totally agree with this. There is lots of gray, and that is what we need to continue to discuss, ad nauseum if need be.

I do believe your statement "The way I see it is if you have hunted or plan to hunt anything in an area that is high fence, no matter how big then you really can't be against CBL" shows the need for the shade of gray. I definitely believe you could support high fence hunting in an enclosure of X acres of an animal that was born and raised in the area (and even initially stocked) and not support the same animal breed being raised in a pen, then being hunted on the same number of acres when it was released this morning.

Again, I'm not suggesting which position I even agree with although I will say that I'm not totally at either end. I'm suggesting this gray area is the reason we need to constantly challenge each other and our positions.

Beating that dead horse just might allow some of the other horses to live on.

Royal I agree with this but the sad part is we as hunters have been living in this gary area to long now. It is why we have been loosing the battle as of late I think. We are going in to many directs but settling on nothing. That is why I say we must stick together and get past the if I don't like it I will not support it. Hell you don't need to support everything but going against some things just kills us and the antis use it against us to.

Hell if the deal was done that the antis would say just give up raised lions and we will go away I would be all for it to save all other hunting. Lets face it though if everyone is honest with themselves they know they want all hunting stopped and they will just move on to the next animal to save.

 

[billc]

Instructions for the SAT's:
Reading Comprehension (also known as Critical Reading) questions test your ability to understand a passage and answer questions on the basis of what is stated and implied in the passage. You need to read the passage first so that you can identify the main idea of the passage and appreciate features such as the author's tone and attitude as well as the organization of the passage. Scroll back to the relevant point in the text as you do each question.


There is no shortcut to improving your critical reading ability. Practice does help - but if you are making too many errors on our mini tests, consult your teacher or just choose some good books and get down to some serious reading.

http://www.majortests.com/sat/reading-comprehension.php

Yeah I never have been a great student so glad common sense can get you through life to as books can only take you so far is what I have learned in my life. Each there own though I guess but being perfect was never my goal in life.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

View attachment 186723

Clearly I'm influenced by my AH mentor.....

 

[BRICKBURN]

Yeah I never have been a great student so glad common sense can get you through life to as books can only take you so far is what I have learned in my life. Each there own though I guess but being perfect was never my goal in life.

IT IS NOT PERSONAL!
You do not have to be perfect. Neither do I.
It is a suggestion, not a personal attack.
I

I am sitting here reading @Hank2211 last post and practicing my critical reading skills. I am not embarrassed to say it has me thinking hard and making my head hurt.

Is he nuts? What am I missing? Is the leap too far? Am I a little dull?

......... we're left with is legal hunts that some of us may choose to undertake, and others may not. If you've followed me this far, it's not a lot farther to suggest that even if you think this sort of hunting is unethical (and note I have done it), you should support the right of others to engage in it. ............

At no point is he taking it as a personal attack (even though he admits partaking), not attacking another person. The dastardly man has focused and proffered an argument.

It would be easy to dismiss, but the bugger is being too darned rational.

 

[Hank2211]

IT IS NOT PERSONAL!
You do not have to be perfect. Neither do I.
It is a suggestion, not a personal attack.
I

I am sitting here reading @Hank2211 last post and practicing my critical reading skills. I am not embarrassed to say it has me thinking hard and making my head hurt.

Is he nuts? What am I missing? Is the leap too far? Am I a little dull?



At no point is he taking it as a personal attack (even though he admits partaking), not attacking another person. The dastardly man has focused and proffered an argument.

It would be easy to dismiss, but the bugger is being too darned rational.

Mea culpa.