Wayne Stollings wrote:
thing is wayne.....you tried to draw lines of trophy hunting being that of poachers.
No, that is your Strawman attempt, but I did not try to draw any such conclusion. There are poachers who are only after the trophy which makes them trophy hunters in addition to poachers and there are legal hunters who are only after the trophy as well.no strawman wayne. it is the type of thing that i describe that makes you seem to be "at odds" with reality. you dont clarify statements but rather just insist that your way of interpretation is just the way it is. in fact it is the main crux of the issue. lol...now you are crying strawman..."and thats just the way it is"...lmao
you also tried to draw a line linking "rarity" and "deviations of the norm together" as a horible mischaracterization.
No, you are just misinformed on the use of subsets. The fact is "deviations from the norm" would be a large set with "rarity" being a smaller subset of that large set. Just as trout are a subset of the larger set of fish. i did not state, insinuate or mischaracterize jack shit about groups. in fact i clarified after i realized there was a misinterpretation by you (and you seemed to be the only one) who didnt seem to know my intent with the rarity. that response from you was kinda pathetic wayne...try again, but next time try a different angle thats more challenging to see through.
not all poachers are trophy hunters.
not all trophy hunters are poachers by any stretch.
I do not know about 'any' stretch, but not all trophy hunters are poachers that is true. how many trophy hunters do you personally know?
why would you doubt "any stretch"? in fact the statement is...."not all trophy hunters are poachers" i added "by any stretch"...as to make no mistakes about it. then you agree that its true that not all trophy hunters are poachers...but take issue with your own agreement by not accepting "by any stretch". wayne thats just clumsy and painfully obvious that you are just looking to object to something but aren't sure what to argue.
but you attempted to draw that line by ommision.
Huh? What omission? Because I did not state each listing I "must" somehow be attempting to draw that line.
I also did not state they were not aliens from the planet Ork, so I must have also tried to draw that line as well. That is the weakest line of illogical thought I have seen in quite some time.no, but rather, you go to show that there may be instances of trophy hunting in its worst form (by the opinions you consider so common), but offer only those examples that would be looked at as ilegal in some form to attempt to characterize trophy hunters as law breakers to put an even more negative spin on it.
i stated my meaning of rarity being a "deviation" from the norm. http://www.fws.gov/hunting/huntstat.html13 million people 16 years and older enjoyed hunting in the U.S. Those 13 million hunters spent 228 days afield, took 200 million hunting trips and spent $20.6 billion pursuing their passion.
11.0 million people hunted big game such as deer or elk
5.4 million hunted small game such as rabbits or squirrels
3.0 million hunted migratory birds such as doves or waterfowl
1.0 million hunted other animals such as woodchucks and raccoons
So using your definition of "rarity" it is rare for anyone to hunt rabbits and squirrels, migratory birds, or any other animal other than big game? I believe anyone else might question whether those actions might be less rare than you think
..... they might be even more rare than i think too. but you know what your intent was with that. another clumsy attempt above to consider what i meant by rarity by giving an example with a deviation of some static # of "over 50%".......seriously wayne...your comparison is ridiculous. and when you attempt to assign a number assuming that i meant "a given #" is just flawed logic.
but even here you portray rare as being a polar bear in south africa.
well your shining example of what you consider rare and what my obvious meaning in the use of it was well as dishonest as you try to state "the trinity" is.
My example was such that there could be no misinterpretation of my post as is becoming so common by those very same members of the trinity. When you deal with those who try so hard to misrepresent even after being corrected one must make very clear examples. I still note no comment by you on this level of dishonesty, it seems odd for one so critical of the possible effects of dishonesty on this forum. you cry dishonesty after you dishonestly try to portray my intent then try to support your mischaracterization with ficticious scenarios and ficticious figures trying to tie my intent to your linear thinking. yep..im sticking with clumsy on this one too wayne.
as well, you are taking a poaching instance and trying to attach it to watson's bs. watson stated "trophy hunters" you went on to say the definition of trophy hunter is common and went on to state that poachers that you figured were trophy hunters left dead deer by your "lab"..or wherever it was.
No, I never said anything about poachers. I stated they could have been legally checked before being dumped, but you were adamant they had to have been poachers. You may want to read back over the posts before you answer. This is also the reason I asked Donnie for clarification on whether the record for the trophy would be sufficient to cause someone to have the animal checked by the DNR first. He avoided the answer like the plague because it conflicted with your prior contention."could have been" and "were"....are two vastly differnt things "wayne the scientist". in fact you acknowledged you made no attempt to research any of this...and real research could have been done by examining any area where a tag would be or could have been attatched. in fact....you seem to suggest that these deer were actually shot legally, when in reality...had they been checked in....it would be even more risky for those who would do something illegal. thats why i think my assumption of "poached" is probably even more informed and thought out than your speculation of legaly shot by trophy hunters even though you were there. hell i'll say it again.....you didnt even look deeply enough into it to try to assess what actually happened. i at least put thought behind my assumption.
you know better (or do you) to realize that watson was referring to trophy hunters in whatever way as a generalization making no distinctions between the xyz guy on the outdoor channel hunting a freak racked buck (which im pretty certain would get consumed based only on the fact that it was filmed for the masses and who'd be dumb enough to put together a large production if they were poaching) and poachers in your neighborhood.
You still are calling it a poaching incident with nothing to prove your case other than your wish to believe there was a poaching incident. no, but i offer support for my line of reasoning. its you who reject poaching just because you think it is a key somehow to this arguement. is poaching merely hunting without a tag wayne? some areas consider poaching huntin on land you aren't permitted to hunt, hunting with methods that deviate from law.....and just doing things illegally. hey look....just about everywhere in the us where hunting is licensed.....dumping carcasses and tossing consumable hunted matter...is illegal.
if you want me to give you a number in what i meant as rarity..id give you my thoughts on what i'd figure i consider rare....but you never asked, even when it was apparent that our meanings didnt mesh. and of course i would have stated that that number would be my guess based on my experience(s). which you really dont quantify anything any more effectively...yet you call what is made into law some form of scientific proof????!.
I never stated I did, but you have misrepresented my posts with the same lie as did RF. I suppose that is why you have not made a comment on the dishonesty, since you are doing it as well.you neglect the fact that when asked...i clarified "rarity"....you that hung up on it? or is it your crutch that i didnt clarify it before i realized that you would be the only person needing clarification. i am certainly not the only person who views your instance of a pile of deer as relatively rare. or a dumped piece of machinery for that matter.
like i said.....you seem to align yourself with a poster just to take sides against another poster. im not speaking of rf or donnie.....im speaking of me...because i happened to have agreed with them on this issue you lumped me in to some sort of "trinity".
No, I have nothing against you or your posts, except when they are less than truthful. The fact is that when one is involved in a contention there seems to be posts by the other two in support regardless of the level of truth or lack thereof in those posts. you have yet to show any dishonesty in my portrayal of anything other than your twist of what you believe my intent has been.
tell me about your hunting, poaching, experience(s) beyond putting holes in a snake with your pistol wayne. and all you can refer to is hunting laws in an effort to cry "scientific proof".
My experiences are no more representative of the average than are yours without some level of correlation. You do not seem to understand that simple mathematical fact and that is fine since you are not a mathematician or scientist. The hunting laws are more representative of the national experience
rather than the rather limited personal experience you seem to wish to base the comparison on.so is it pretty common for people to screw sheep?....i mean there are laws regarding that in many states...so it must be a pretty common problem....
but seriously...if something is so common....one would think it is acceptable and society wouldnt want it illegal because it would infringe upon too many peoples belief in doing it. aren't these laws you tote put there to keep the few from performing what the masses consider bad?