Nick March Turkey Calls/ Unique Sound.

[Lunatic]

1 hour ago, BowhunterNJ said:

He was given every opportunity to acknowledge his line of advocation was flat WRONG.  YES he was 100% advocating neck and artery shots over and over and trying to provide supporting links/documentation/images (which actually DID NOT support his position if you spent the time reviewing them).  It was clear either he was wrong (which he refused to admit) or outright trolling/gaslighting (which he refused to admit).  Instead he continued to advocate neck and artery shots with bowhunting equipment as an intentionally targeted vital/fatal shot.  His behavior in this instance was not unique, as he has consistently distracted from topic direction and faced previous warnings for such behavior.  Further, his overall behavior, and specifically in this instance, his position and repeated advocation of neck and artery shots presented in such an adamant/convincing way does not serve in the best interests of the site.  At some point, as a site, we have to determine what value a given member offers to the site and its members.  It's a shame he didn't post more helpful and/or experience sharing content as opposed to disruptive and harmful content (YES it is quite harmful if other bowhunters take his gaslighting efforts seriously and attempt such shots in the field).  It's not about "freedom of speech" as much as it is trying to put an end to disruptive posting that offers no positive benefit for the site.  This site is privately owned, no one has "rights" here to post whatever they want under the protections of the Constitution (whether explicitly or implied).  Ultimately we want a positive/constructive site that everyone benefits from in some way.  When a member isn't offering content that provides that (i.e. a spammer, a troll, etc), then why would you want to keep them on the site?  Note to date, VERY few "established" members (i.e. not spammers) have been banned, so you really have to go out of your way to do things that raise that flag.

You basically banned him for having an opinion on shot deemed unethical. This is the way of our society these days so I’m not very surprised. I know it’s a private site, freedom of speech, democracy and our constitution has no place here - believe me I get it.  
Again good factual argument does the job. That’s my opinion and I see you have your own. 

[JHbowhunter]

13 minutes ago, Lunatic said:

You basically banned him for having an opinion on shot deemed unethical. This is the way of our society these days so I’m not very surprised. I know it’s a private site, freedom of speech, democracy and our constitution has no place here - believe me I get it.  
Again good factual argument does the job. That’s my opinion and I see you have your own. 

You can't be serious.  We were trying to go fact for fact with the guy then he was posting links that he stated advocating aiming for femoral or corotid arteries, and the links stated exact opposite and were against his stupid argument.  So "good factual argument was pointless with the guy".   Move on. 

[vdep217]

25 minutes ago, Lunatic said:

You basically banned him for having an opinion on shot deemed unethical. This is the way of our society these days so I’m not very surprised. I know it’s a private site, freedom of speech, democracy and our constitution has no place here - believe me I get it.  
Again good factual argument does the job. That’s my opinion and I see you have your own. 

I think the issue is he wouldn't admit that it's not a shot to take with archery equipment painting us all in a bad light and possibly having a new archer taking that shot resulting in a wounded deer.  Remember others including antis read this forum and they will use that against us.  Even though we are all nor advocating for those shots it would be an antis perception and perception tends to become reality.

So here is a question do you want someone that calls them selves a hunter advocating those shots representing you?  I know I do not .

There are too many things that can and do go wrong with good shot angles broadside quartering away etc even with seasoned hunters we do not need someone pushing shots that up the percentage of somthing going wrong.

Edited September 3, 2021 by vdep217

[Lunatic]

Just now, JHbowhunter said:

You can't be serious.  We were trying to go fact for fact with the guy then he was posting links that he stated advocating aiming for femoral or corotid arteries, and the links stated exact opposite and were against his stupid argument.  So "good factual argument was pointless with the guy".   Move on. 

You really worry about convincing Nick or is it about convincing a newbie, something stated here as a reason for banning him.  You did your job, you showed he was wrong, people are not stupid and will believe a logical, based on facts argument. When you silence him it makes an appearance as if he was winning the argument. 
think about it this way. Thanks to Nick you had a chance to explain in detail to anyone who didn’t know it yet, ( who the hell would not?), why he was wrong. A message of “why not” is much more powerful and effective than just “don’t”. 

[BowhunterNJ]

20 minutes ago, Lunatic said:

You basically banned him for having an opinion on shot deemed unethical. This is the way of our society these days so I’m not very surprised. I know it’s a private site, freedom of speech, democracy and our constitution has no place here - believe me I get it.  
Again good factual argument does the job. That’s my opinion and I see you have your own. 

I'm going to add here what I sent in a PM to another member who contacted me with a similar position:

Nick doesn't state his opinion in a manner that elicits opinion.  He was stating his "opinion" as if it were fact and tried to manipulate actual cited facts/images (that didn't support his "opinion") as if they supported his "opinion".  That "opinion" purported repeatedly as fact by him was detrimental to the site, especially when he incessantly continues to try and drive his "opinion" as if it were indeed fact and make others believe they are wrong (when they are certainly not).  There is a line between having a true opinion and being open to debate, learning, and correction and then there is Nick who wants to take his position (as wrong as it may be) and stand adamantly by it regardless of its impact to anyone else.  In this specific case, that impact could cascade to other hunters who take his "opinion" as fact (just as Nick intends) and execute upon it.  This site in no way supports that and of course will take action to put an end to it for the benefit of its members/visitors/readers.  Make no mistake about it, it wasn't merely because I didn't like his "opinion" (and undoubtedly I did not), it goes far beyond "me" and I'm looking at the much bigger picture of the entire site and all of its members/visitors/readers and what I want the site to represent (i.e. it isn't Nick's "opinion").

In a nutshell, you're defending an opinion that advocates shooting at animals with a high chance of wounding them.  Is that what you'd expect a hunting site to "support" simply to protect an "opinion" (that isn't presented as an opinion at all)?  It's like someone coming on here advocating beating, torturing and murdering someone as a point of fact.  So you just dismiss that and say "ah it's just their opinion, let everyone derive from it on their own".  Don't worry if anyone who is more impressionable than you may think "Wow, that guy really presented his position pretty strongly, maybe he's right.  If some guy bullies me, maybe I should kidnap and torture him" (i.e. this is what gaslighting does to people).  Where do you draw the line as to where it's unacceptable and against the interest of the site and it's members/visitors/readers?  There's a line and it's somewhere between annoying, abrasive, irrelevant, irresponsible and outright dangerous.  It's particularly egregious when the person is unrelenting despite calls for the opposite.  Generally in the world of the internet, that person is labeled "toxic" to the environment, as is the case with such an "opinion" that advocates action that subsequently leads to wounding animals we hunt and causes them to suffer rather than ensuring a quick and clean kill that they deserve.  If you want to call that "my" opinion and the "reason" I banned him, so be it.  I call it a staple of a hunting community and his "opinion" wasn't desired to be part of it.

[Lunatic]

3 minutes ago, vdep217 said:

I think the issue is he wouldn't admit that it's not a shot to take with archery equipment painting us all in a bad light and possibly having a new archer taking that shot resulting in a wounded deer.  Remember others including antis read this forum and they will use that against us.  Even though we are all nor advocating for those shots it would be an antis perception and perception tends to become reality.

So here is a question do you want someone that calls them selves a hunter advocating those shots representing you?  I know I do not 

No one represents you or me. A guy shooting turkey from a roost does not represent me and this is something I consider unethical. Should we ban him as well? I don’t think so. 
I have a major issue with silencing almost anyone. There is really no need for it and yet it’s so prevalent today.  

[Haskell_Hunter]

I want to point out that Fred Flintstone's sole purpose of posting this was to create drama.  I called him out on this earlier, and here he is again proving my point.  He rarely posts anything of value, only things to stir this pot.  He's doing his best to get banned so he can carry that drama to other sites and shit-talk this one.

THIS is why he is on my ignore list.  He's one troll that doesn't need to be fed.  Don't buy into his clickbait and feed his need for drama.  He's gets off on this shit.

[BowhunterNJ]

6 minutes ago, Lunatic said:

You really worry about convincing Nick or is it about convincing a newbie, something stated here as a reason for banning him.  You did your job, you showed he was wrong, people are not stupid and will believe a logical, based on facts argument. When you silence him it makes an appearance as if he was winning the argument. 
think about it this way. Thanks to Nick you had a chance to explain in detail to anyone who didn’t know it yet, ( who the hell would not?), why he was wrong. A message of “why not” is much more powerful and effective than just “don’t”. 

Your perception (being completely opposite of mine) shows exactly why leaving the content would be a bad move.  People don't all think like you do, they don't look at his position as illogical, he is presenting them as "facts".  And people don't read everything, we see it all day in media where headlines are the talking point, not what's actually in the article.  Likewise with anyone who comes across a post of his looking for "what's the most vital/lethal shot to take on a deer" and come across his nonsense claiming a neck/artery shot is and leave with that impression as "fact" in their mind and execute upon it in the field.  This whole situation has nothing to do about winning an argument, it has to do with the core principles of hunters and the fact that this website represents them.

[JHbowhunter]

@Fred Flintstone please tell us more about your turkey call and what sets it apart from the rest?  Lets get back on topic please. 

Will you be deer hunting this fall or just turkey? 

Any waterfowl or small game this season?

[BowhunterNJ]

1 hour ago, Fred Flintstone said:

That is exactly right. A Tribute to a Man who,I just found out was Banned. Pure + Simple.

 It morphed into something  else and,my good Thread was basically  Crapped on. 

So you disagree with my post about this post being more about drawing attention to nickmarch than turkey hunting, yet you state "That is exactly right.  A Tribute to a Man who"...

What part are you disagreeing with?  You're literally saying it is a tribute to him, yet disagreeing with me stating precisely that...

[Bojaffa]

Wait. I’m confused. Can we shoot deer in the neck? I can’t keep up. 

[vdep217]

1 minute ago, Lunatic said:

No one represents you or me. A guy shooting turkey from a roost does not represent me and this is something I consider unethical. Should we ban him as well? I don’t think so. 
I have a major issue with silencing almost anyone. There is really no need for it and yet it’s so prevalent today.  

The problem is we as hunters weather we like it or not do represent other hunters in the eyes of the non hunting public and more so in the eyes of the antis  

Remember we are not trying to change the opinion of the antis we  know thats a futile battle.  What we are trying to do is bring those on the fence to our side and 1 person doing somthing illegal ( wich we are not talking about here) or somthing unethical that could cause one of those fence sitters to go to the anti side.  Ie taking an unethical ham shot trying to hit the femoral artery resulting in a deer running around with an arrow hanging out of its leg.

I taught hunter Ed back when it was a three day course and back than I would absolutely agree that no one would believe those shots were the right way.  Now with the course being mostly online with no one on one instruction and alot of people getting into hunting with no mentor I have a hard time agreeing with that now. And do believe someone would take that advise as being good and take that shot.

[Fred Flintstone]

I am moving on. The Quotes are getting Negative  and,I don't  have to respond .

 It "was" a Good Positive Thread too.

[Hunter115522]

I guess it makes sense that you're saying he was a great turkey hunter, especially since he always insisted baiting them with corn was legal 

 

[Haskell_Hunter]