Dogs or Bow?

[UPER]

Man! where did that come from? SPECK stated his opinion, it's just that, his opinion. I think some folks are just reading a little to deep into it and are itching for an arguement. I sure did not see any jabs or put downs on hunting with dogs. Alright everyone take a deep breath!!

 

[Orso]

Everyones already taken about 5000 breaths as this really all went down over a week ago.

I think this thread is on a downward spiral towards the bottom of the page.

 

[UPER]

I hear you ORSO, I guess some folks don't think you should have opinions. And take things a little to personal.

 

[snoopdogg]

How 'bout those Raiders, huh? Man, that Kerry Collins/Tui quarterback thing; what's up with that?

 

[Whoadog]

You guys need to back up and read posts going way back. Speckmisser is far and away against using hounds for hog hunting and RIFLEMAN is opposite. True RIFLEMAN is now a hunting partner and I am one to stick up for people who have the same beliefs and I have and against anyone who bashes people with the proper hunting ethics. I have done both of several occasions and believe in both. Let's stick together and we all win.

Brian

 

[RIFLEMAN]

UPer,
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

I sure did not see any jabs or put downs on hunting with dogs.[/b]

Maybe it's the part where Speck said, "...if you hunt with dogs, it's the dogs who are doing the hunting. You're only there to finish the game." that I take exception to. Don't you think it is reasonable of me to offer a countering opinion?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

I guess some folks don't think you should have opinions. And take things a little to personal.[/b]

I am not sure this is directed to me or not, but to clarify, I think Speck has every right to his opinion, however wrong I think it is. His opinion of houndhunting is not new to me, and I do not take anything he or anyone else says personal. Speck is not a malicious, mean-spirited guy, and in nearly every discussion I have had with him, he presents his arguments logically and without emotion (though I am not sure why he did not maintain his usual even-keeled tone this time).

The issue I take with Speck in this case is the fact that he offered an opinion that he knew would warrant a response, but then seems bothered by the fact that a response came.

The issue I take with others (Orso, specifically) is that they did not hold Speck to the same standard that they held me to. I was asked why I couldn't just say I prefer houndhunting and leave it at that. Why was Speck not called upon to do the same?

I understand that friendships are formed on this forum, but I'd like things to be consistent and objective as much as possible. Not intending to speak for Whoadog, but that might have been the source of his "JHO Pro Staff" comment--Speck's popularity on JHO affecting how his buddies scrutinize his comments. Whoadog and I are friends, yet he can call a spade a spade. I am a stubborn sonofagun and I will continue to further my opinion against someone who will not change his opinion.

 

[Orso]

Rifleman, I would hope that I hold all to the same standard, myself included. If I intentionally or unintentionally play favorites I should be called on it.

However, Speck gave his opinion and perspective as he sees it. He stayed on topic. You on the other hand did not stay on topic, in fact you didn't even answer the question at hand until your 4th post.

I am not defending Speck's statement, I am merely saying he answered the question asked and I felt you skewed this thread in the wrong direction.

IMO - If I was out hunting with dogs I too would be hunting, not just the dogs. I would be an active participant (as long as I knew what the heck to do). My comments on previous posts was not to defend anyone but to point out that this thread was taken in the wrong direction.

And lastly, just so I am clear on what I was trying to say in a previous post (and after re-reading my post find it not clear or humorous as I had intended), what I meant by being "afraid" to hunt with you was supposed to come out comical in the sense that you are very articulate and probably could be a national debate champion and if we were hunting together you might try to whip me in to shape with your communication skills (yet another attempt of humor).

OK, I'm done... Love everyone... When am I going huntin' again???

 

[snoopdogg]

Okay, so, I know I'm "hijacking" the thread, but; what about the QB controversy in the Bay Area?!

Sorry guys, too heavy for the Big Dad. To me, it's pretty straightforward - a difference of opinion has occurred and many a response has been let loose on the point/counterpoint issue. Get back to your corners, Speck/Rifleman. Good...

In the immortal words of Rappin' Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"

So, who's got some good bear pictures to post?

 

[Orso]

Uhhhh Snoopdog, the pictures of the bear would need to go in the bear hunting forum... Hello, have we not learned anything as of yet? LOL.

 

[Speckmisser]

Josh, I'm gonna respond here only in short, and only because this keeps getting pulled back up. It's gone way past the intent of the thread, but I think boarhunter67 got the input he was looking for. The thread, hijacked as it has become, would otherwise be dead at this point, so I see no harm in rejoinder.

If you want to cut and paste my comments, then cut and paste the entire statement, and not just a slice that seems to support your argument. The original post is there for anyone to read.

I said, and STAND BY what I said... thatTO ME... IN MY OWN OPINIONhunting with dogs is the dogs doing the hunting and not the hunter (me). That's why I don't enjoy it. I think I was pretty danged clear that it was only my own opinion, and no reflection on anyone who does enjoy the hounds or on the practice itself.

The opinion was stated in response to a direct request for opinions, and in support of my statement that dog hunting is not for everybody. Some people don't find it enjoyable. Like it or not, that's a fact... not a condemnation of your choice of sport.

Did my earlier response to you seem to be "emotional"? Then it was only out of frustration with the fact that you and I have been over this ground so many times already, and I can't make it any more clear than I already have, that this is a PERSONAL PREFERENCE and not a point of debate. Thus, your response to me, in addition to being a hijack of the thread, was misdirected and pointless. That's what I object to, not your choice of hunting method or your opinion on the matter.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

Phil,
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Josh, I'm gonna respond here only in short, and only because this keeps getting pulled back up. It's gone way past the intent of the thread, but I think boarhunter67 got the input he was looking for. The thread, hijacked as it has become, would otherwise be dead at this point, so I see no harm in rejoinder.[/b]

I dunno, I just don't see this the way you and Orso do. Why is the deeper exploration of this issue somehow hijacking the thread? Isn't this point of discussion germaine to boarhunter67's decision as to which method to use? Shouldn't he learn more about his role on a guided bowhunt v. a guided doghunt? If, at the conclusion of our discussion, you or I have supported our arguments well and convinced him of the merits of our position, isn't it possible that he will use the discussion to help him decide which method is preferable to him?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

If you want to cut and paste my comments, then cut and paste the entire statement, and not just a slice that seems to support your argument.  I said, and STAND BY what I said... thatTO ME... IN MY OWN OPINIONhunting with dogs is the dogs doing the hunting and not the hunter (me). That's why I don't enjoy it. I think I was pretty danged clear that it was only my own opinion, and no reflection on anyone who does enjoy the hounds or on the practice itself.[/b]

Yes, it was and still is very evident that this was your opinion...that goes without saying and no one is questioning that it is your opinion. As such, it is absolutely pointless and unnecessary for me to quote you saying "In my opinion...", and omitting it is neither deceitful nor inapprorpiate of me. Excluding it does nothing to strengthen my position nor weaken yours.

We should all be able to discern a personal opinion from fact. You would not say, "In my opinion, ice is a solid." That is a fact that does not rely upon your assertion as an opinion.

If you were to say, "In my opinion, George W. Bush is a terrorist", the fact that it is your opinion does not mean that it could not or should not be challenged or questioned; just because you are exercising your right to offer a personal opinion does not somehow relieve you of the burden or expectation of defending your opinion from someone who does not share it. You are not obligated to respond, but you cannot expect immunity after offering it. Now, as I said before, I would not try to question your personal preference. If you would have just said, "I prefer bowhunting because I find it more rewarding", you would not have heard from me. But you offered a perspective of doghunting that I do not share, so I naturally questioned you on it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

The opinion was stated in response to a direct request for opinions, and in support of my statement that dog hunting is not for everybody. Some people don't find it enjoyable. Like it or not, that's a fact... not a condemnation of your choice of sport.[/b]

You should notice that my original and subsequent comments acknowledge and offer this very same idea. No method is for every person. Each method has its own unique qualities that appeal to some, but deter others. I did not challenge your preferred method, but merely your appraisal of the quality of the other method.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Did my earlier response to you seem to be "emotional"? Then it was only out of frustration with the fact that you and I have been over this ground so many times already, and I can't make it any more clear than I already have, that this is a PERSONAL PREFERENCE and not a point of debate.[/b]

Yes, inferring that my motives were because school is out or I am bored, and then calling me a troll afterwards, is an emotional response and certainly not typical of you. I certainly sensed your frustration and impatience, but after sparring with you for so long, I hold you to a higher standard than others. You said something that you anticipated would generate a response from me, so I don't think you should become frustrated or emotional when that response comes.

 

[boarhunter67]

Thanks guys. I think that about covers every possible aspect of my question and then some. If you need to say more, email me and I'll forward the info to a good anger management class I sometimes teach. LOL. Have a Merry Christmas and remember to be nice or you'll just get a lump of coal. LOL. :xmas-hat:

 

[Speckmisser]

Boarhunter (and anyone else who may be concerned), I know you're joking, but just to make sure everyone is clear, I can pretty much guarantee that there's no anger here or in Rifleman country. Short patience and curt words (particularly on my part), perhaps... but no anger.

I don't think either Josh or I have said anything we wouldn't say to one another around a campfire, and we'd probably continue to pass the bottle during and afterward without resorting to fisticuffs or gunfire.

Actually, had we been kicked back with our feet up on a stump, some contextual confusion would have likely been avoided. It's a risk you take any time you post a written response on a forum, and sometimes only a couple days away can reveal where the derailment took place.

Josh, I'm bowing out of this one with this...

I have read back a few times now, and now see where my initial post may have come across as a blanket condemnation... and where it seemed to beg rejoinder. I suppose I thought you and I have had this discussion enough times that you would know I don't generally condemn dog hunting or, for that matter, any legal method of hunting (with certain specific exceptions). From that stemmed my aggravation, so; for the undeserved harshness, I apologize.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

boarhunter,

I second what Phil said; there is absolutely no anger here.

After several discussions with Phil over the past few years, I have come to think that our "verbal sparring" is best illustrated by the cartoon with Wile E. Coyote and the Sheepdog. We "clock in" at beginning of a discussion for the day, go at each other with the best arguments we have, and then "clock out" at the end. Despite the outcome of the discussion, we are still able to greet each other civilly and leave what happened in the discussion behind.

You guys have never met me, so it is probably hard to gauge my intentions. Though it may seem that I thrive on instigating arguments or "killing threads like no other," I am really only interested in participating in lively debate and discussion. When it comes to topics that are near and dear to me (i.e. the sporting aspects of houndhunting), you can bet that I will raise issues with the arguments of others. It is nothing personal towards anyone, nor am I inclined to get angry or offended by the opinions of others. To me, it is all in good fun.

 

[RIFLEMAN]

Phil,
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

I have read back a few times now, and now see where my initial post may have come across as a blanket condemnation... and where it seemed to beg rejoinder. I suppose I thought you and I have had this discussion enough times that you would know I don't generally condemn dog hunting or, for that matter, any legal method of hunting (with certain specific exceptions). From that stemmed my aggravation, so; for the undeserved harshness, I apologize.[/b]

Dang, Phil, you can kill a thread like no other!