A friend of mine wrote an article for the San Diego Union-Tribe similar to this years ago. He was against all of what you're saying as well as "remote killing" where you make it fair for disabled people to remotely point a gun via internet and make a kill.

It's all yours on that. I'm just wandering around.

Quote
Vince
It's all yours on that. I'm just wandering around.

Translation?

Quote
eeek
The Denver Post recently reported on the Elk Research Institute, an elk breeding facility on state-owned property in Hesperus, Colo. where customers pay big bucks to kill captive elk.

http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2009/12/captive-hunts.html

I'm not advocating that this practice should continue, but it is not as shameful as suggested.
How does one make a distinction between this practice and a guided hunt where the animals are driven into box canyons or confined geographic areas for a marginally competent hunter to dispatch? If the hunter causes head shots or wounding of animals that then escape final execution, isn't that more "cruel"?. At least the kills here are likely to be quick. If a person is against all hunting, fine. But it seems unlikely that this practice is more "cruel" than any other form of blood sport. The animals are likely healthier and stronger than many wild elk and to that extent have a more pleasant life before they are shot.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Some years ago one could shoot buffalo that were confined to a corral. You got to keep the head, hide and meat. Marksmanship wasn't a requirement as the shot distance usually ran about 20 feet.

---

Old Dude

Quote
mrcondron
Some years ago one could shoot buffalo that were confined to a corral. You got to keep the head, hide and meat. Marksmanship wasn't a requirement as the shot distance usually ran about 20 feet.

Even 20' might be a challenge for some of these so-called trophy hunters! How much you want to bet some of them missed?

There were back-up shooters.

---

Old Dude

This gets more and more ridiculous.

Try hitting a deer with your car. Had I known at the time that you can keep the deer if you want, I would've skinned it on the spot near Mono Lake. All I would've had to do is buy a hunting license. But it was almost midnight and I was still 125 miles from home. I hope Bigfoot dined well on it...

Quote
Vince
Try hitting a deer with your car.

I've been quite successful at avoiding that pleasure. Perhaps you should reevaluate your driving speed?

50 mph below Conway grade going north. I am not re-evaluating anything other than whether or not to repair the car or drive it as is (oh that deer I hit was in 2006 and I'm still driving the car LOL)

My insurance considers vehicle-animal accidents to be "no-fault", "not preventable" occurrences. Probably that is reasonable as worse accidents can occur in an effort to avoid the critters.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
Frank Furter
My insurance considers vehicle-animal accidents to be "no-fault", "not preventable" occurrences. Probably that is reasonable as worse accidents can occur in an effort to avoid the critters.

The bear I hit wasn't no-fault. It was the bears fault all the way.