Part of this comes under 'semantics'-- how we describe/understand wording.
Part of this has to do with how we were raised and what we consider "ethical".
Jerry, with all due respect, it's not semantics.
You said it should be outlawed, which has a very specific meaning. Either it's legal, or it's illegal, there are no gray areas.
Now I see that you've backed off of that and are saying it's not fair chase, and not what you consider to be "hunting."
I agree with both of those, 100%.
I just don't think it should be illegal. The only part of it that should be illegal IMO, is not keeping up the fences and not exercising enough care to make sure that no potentially-diseased (CWD) animals escape. Because that can affect a lot more than just the participants.
Smokey, I said "part of it" is/was/could be semantics NOT all.
In the context of the described OP, it borders on what I 'feel' is 'unethical'. Unethical will vary among people. And I don't feel "how that hunt- WAS DESCRIBED -" should be legal.
I'm used to 'legal' being applied, in the 4 States I've hunted, to FAIR CHASE. No I didn't "back off', just trying to be more specific (semantics).
Let me re state that: I'm used to legal = fair chase.
I totally agree w/your last paragraph. Maintenance and proper health care of whatever herd, flock, school the animal happens to be should be guarded.
ALSO, I've read a few pages past the OP now AND I may have been deceived (??), don't know yet and I'm not thru with that subject.
What's the old saying... "Fool me once, shame on you... Fool me twice, shame on ME.
Again Smokey, I'm only trying to be specific. I am afraid of what I WILL determine about the OP.
