Jump to content

SilentButDeadly

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    984

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by SilentButDeadly

  2. Posted · Report reply

    1st place: Best Story

     

    1st place: Toughest Hunt

     

    1st place: Field Photos

     

    1st place: Big buck (not from Mexico)

     

    Andy, how come when we go out all you find are dinks? Maybe because we were not 3 miles up $#it Creek like you n Jake, next time I'll take you back to my really bad spot...

     

    Jake, congratulations, and sorry you're gonna have a tough rest-of-your-life trying to top that buck!!!

  4. Posted · Report reply

    AZantlerhead - I totally recognize the effect of another helping me bag a biggin (shoot i don't even think I could come through in a pinch if someone gave me a push-start - again, another topic) I actually said in my first post that I PREFER to hunt with ~3 people.

     

    IMO scoring systems are fine, but idolatry of big scores are dis-ingenuous and lead to a pornography of the sport. I've never entered an animal I've taken, probably never will.

     

    My point is, why not castrate (at least calibrate the current system) of bragging rights for all those big $$$ hunters by instituting a 'group hunt' rule? If they care about the game, like they say ,who cares if they enter their 'trophy' - what makes them different from guys who pay high-fencers to shoot world records off sandario feeding canisters?

     

    Would it damage the current G$F business model? Sure!

     

    Would it be bad for AZ game management ($$'s wise)? Probably -- less $ means less for land, game, rangers, etc, but at least we are managing trophy game for everyone, and sitting those un-skilled, over hyped, ego trippers on the fence. Why not recognize the guys (mostly guides) who put in the hours, and are devoted, to keeping our state the top game producer in North America?

     

    Would it be significant for game management in our state? Doubt it, even if you took the $100k-1m contributions for 'Governor's tags' out of the ~$78m G&F budget - which come-on - if you had the income to burn, who cares about score, and whether you can put it in a book? You are going to pay to go try and get a biggun!

     

    Let us decide, even as just an online community, who is ,and isn't a 'great hunter', we've already been doing it privately - we know that the guy (Denny Austad, bless him for his contribution to Utah G$F) who killed the 'Spider bull' bought it.

     

    It isn't our destiny (most of us) as hunters to be wealthy trophy hunters (the majority of gov' tag holders), but it is within our community the right to decide who is and isn't a 'great hunter'.

     

    T

  5. Posted · Report reply

    Seeing the latest Mossback photos (no disrespect - they are badasses), made me realize that we need to adopt a new scoring system, at least for the online community... Respect for the game/hunt is a big part of what people talk about, and the debate between DIY and Guided is unending. Therefore, I suggest I new scoring system.

     

    Use B&C or SCI, whatever, but real 'trophy' status, 'bragging rights' comes down on the number of people, especially in that 'trophy photo', who helped in the hunt.

     

    Take the # inches in that buck/bull/ram and divide it by the number of people in the photo. Let's be generous and say the number (n) of people is part of the total: score / n-1 = 'real' score

     

    If you are DIY, then you get total inch score,

     

    If you have 1 guide you get total inch score,

     

    But after that it is a fraction of total score - cuz lets be serious, more eyes = more opportunity, less effort (meals, preparation, scouting, etc) not to mention the $$$ (that number is probably exponential by the # inches, but that's another post)

     

    I'll let the peanut gallery come up with a new name for the scoring system, but in my opinion, it is totally fair - if you've got 3-4 guys helping you, and you kill a 100 inch buck, it is proportionate to you shooting a 50 inch buck by yourself.

     

    T

     

    PS IMO - 3 people is the perfect # for hunting, again, another post.

     

     

  13. Posted · Report reply

    I agree that there should be background checks on anyone who applies for federal employment.

     

    I'm not arguing that the recent terror attacks were not the most significant in history. Although, if you factor in what the KKK did in the south since the Civil War, the numbers are likely flipped toward domestic.

     

    It is totally crazy to say that it was 'necessary' to intern the Japanese, regardless of the treatment that the US showed them vs what the Japanese or Germans showed us...

     

    If we profile people based on their religion, or scape-goat ethnic groups for societal problems, than we really are like Nazi Germany, and who is to say that it won't be the Southern Baptists, or Atheists in camps a hundred years from now??

     

  14. Posted · Report reply

    Dang dude,

     

    I think that you are coming from the heart, but what you suggest is inherently more dangerous and ultimately what the real terrorists (Al Qaeda et al.), have intended from the beginning.

     

    A point to concede right away:

     

    Any terrorist act (foreign or domestic) is reprehensible, and should be condemned directly, with the individuals responsible punished accordingly.

     

    However,

     

    Profiling a group because of their background is a bad idea - look at what the US did to natural born US citizens of Japanese decent after Pearl Harbor - Are you suggesting that we should round up all the Muslims and put them in concentration camps because they 'might' represent a risk to our national security? I argue that cuts through the heart of our democracy, and destroys what the United States really represents and what we were founded upon: freedom of speech, and the freedom to practice any religion you desire.

     

    A quick look on Wikipedia will show that 75% of the terrorist attacks on US soil have been done by US citizens, and they were from the far left to the far right and everything in-between.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terr...e_United_States

     

     

    I would argue that the gunman at Ft. Hood is less a symptom of the Military's infiltration by 'terrorists', and more likely the result a crazy lonely outsider whose symptoms of depression were either ignored or left unrecognized because of a systematic failure.

     

    Any US soldier, and especially those facing redeployment should be examined and treated for any symptoms of mental instability (such as PTSD, or otherwise); the status quo is not functioning.

     

×