A civil discussion on hunting, please.

[motaco]

wow. you really dug yourself in deep.

yes people do shoot animals in the prime of their lives. If you've ever seen starving deer (you haven't because we hunt them) you'd understand. Look into new zealand they pay people to hunt because of the problems with deer. Overpopulation is a real problem for animals. If they over eat their food supply they starve to death. its nature. and why there are hunting limits and regulations. A much better stateside example is the damage hogs are doing to practically every state; or the dwindling moose and elk populations because of new wolf hunting restrictions. Most places it is illegal to shoot animals such as bears with cubs or many places femal bears period, it varies by the animal but these are not haphazard redneck laws. they have meanings.


we're not talking about your grandmother. animals don't die in their sleep. like I said before a "natural death" for animals is being torn apart by coyotes or starving. welcome to life. thats the problem with non hunters is their version of what is "natural" is skewered by the pampered life we lead. Spending time hunting slows down that process and is why we enjoy it. Nature is not nice, its a cruel bitch.

of course we should not all be shot. I'm talking about in nature you keep acting like animals die these peaceful deaths. they don't. gunshots are alot more peaceful than what they experience "naturally"

you did mention walki talkies you called them mistakenly xm radio to talk back and forth to one another.

"if your a good marksman you won't miss. if your a good woodsman you won't get lost, etc." give me a break. Have you never seen all the monuments to indiand and inuit that get lost and starve to death? they live in the woods their entire lives and it can happen to anyone. Of all the ignorant things you've said this takes the cake.

for someone so adamant about hunting ethics and misplaced shots I find it highly ironic you encourage people that do hunt to do so without scopes and highly primitive weapons such as a KNIFE! whacko.

and you should explain music to someone so that he understand its not crazy drum beats. Its a well devised art form that takes years and alot of talent. You don't have to tell him all about it but you can explain its not what they think.

Like some people think rap is just noise and bullshit but when read they lyrics of someone like Mos Def and are told the music flows with the lyrics, the lyrics rythm don't determine the music like other forms they might get a better understanding.

and despite you saying you don't push your opinons on others you and I are the most outspoken people in this thread so why don't you just own up to it with me that we both push our opionons on other people to try to better educate them.

 

[Feyd]

You just contradicted yourself



You just did it again



I agree. I bet the only reason people feel justified in controlling their environment and attempting population control over another species is that no one has done it to them. Yet.

I think that is why DeNiro had a change of heart at the end of Deer Hunter

Excuse me? No I haven't. Either you interpreted my post wrong or I did a bad job getting my point across.

What I meant was no animal is simply born with the right to live. It has to fight for that right. Larger predators that completely dominate it at least kill the animal so it can eat, not because it is trying to impress his buddies or win a trophy. (And please don't bring up some abstract example of a Liger bringing down large African plains animals to get a "trophy" wife, thats not even anywhere near relevant).
To sum up my points, if you kill an animal that can't fight back, it is ok if you eat the animal or you need to kill it.

 

[genkisan]

well I just have a problem with people that eat meat and bitch about hunters. like its so much nicer to keep animals in a 4x4 pen its entire life, never have sex or any kinda life, and come kill them when you feel

Bingo.

Eating parts of a dead animal and not being able to face/deal with the death of same is a very schizophrenic mindset, and totally fooked up.

If you can't kill the animal yerself, skin, gut and butcher it and accept what eating a dead thing means, you shouldn't be doing it.


I have WAY more respect for those who hunt their meat than those who think it grows on styrofoam trays and could never watch their steak die, bleed out and be cut up with a chainsaw.

At least the hunter knows what eating meat means.....killing.

 

[Boxy Brown]

gunshots are alot more peaceful

but don't some people still go bow hunting?

 

[Aestivus]

Hi Dogboy, the reason I neg'd you is because your first post didn't make one single intelligent point or really any point at all, that is not discussing it is ranting.

Clarence - The same thing with clarence's second post. You are a very cute troll no doubt, but I think I will let you die of starvation from here on out.

Anyways, Dogboy now that you have posted something with some thought behind it I will reply. My rebut's are in the quote.

Let me be quite clear about my stance on this. I have no issue with hunting. All creatures do it and i'm all cool with that. My issue is with the following points.


All quoted from the start post.

1) I am interested in your viewpoints and oppinions but I am not interested in starting some huge flame war where no one learns anything but some new swear words.

1A) Are you, why did you neg me and then post that i speak drivel for disagreeing? I digress, dont answer this it's moot.

Aes- Too late.

2) this includes using appropriate caliber and a mastery of my firearms so that my shots go exactly where I want them.

2A) I am trained in distance shooting and manage a 92.8% average. This means 7.2% of my shots go off. Whats your average and how many animals do you wing instead of killing outright? Can you boast a 100% average? Still an ethical hunter?

Aes- What does this even mean? What is "distance shooting" 100 yards 300, 600, 1000? You average 92.8%... Amazing, but again what does this mean? Are you shooting popup sillouhettes at varying ranges or a target with a "bullseye" and you miss the 10 ring 7% of the time, what size targets are you shooting at? To answer your question I consistantly shoot Sub-MOA groups with my coyote gun at ranges 300 yards and under. I have only killed outright a dozen coyote's and have completely missed one, I have taken shots at 13 coyotes. I have only killed one pig, a broadside shot that went through both shoulder, by the time I humped it over to the pig it was completely dead exactly where it was before I started walking. As for dove and quail, well shotguns can be unpredictable and I really have lost count of how many birds I have killed but I would say I end up pulling the head off of about 30%. Yes I am still an ethical hunter because I did everything within my power to minimize the animals suffering.

3) Furthermore, in PA for instance the states Whitetail Deer population has exploded, so much so that they pose a threat to motorists, much more so than they do say in California. The deer are even being pushed out of their natural habitat and into the suburbs to look for food. Now I will concede that part of this problem is absolutely due to habitat destruction and human encroachment. Sadly that habitat is lost forever so the deer population has to be brought down to proper density.

3A) So the jist of this is that deer cause danger to motorists and must be killed off. What about Jaywalkers? why is the habitat lost forever, because you wont ever give it up?

Aes- Jaywalkers can be fined and learn a lesson but the risk that deer pose to motorists is just one of the problems having a vastly overdense herd causes. I will concede that the much bigger issue here is an imbalance in the "ecology web" of the local environment. To answer the part about habitat, well I suppose a big interest group like say Ducks Unlimited or The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation might be interested in buying up a whole bunch of privately owned land and converting it back to proper habitat while also bearing the burden of keeping it properly maintained or maybe even Greenpeace might do something like that. I dont know.


4) The irony is that many species might not survive at all were it not for hunters trying to kill them. The nations 12.5 million hunters have become essential partners in wildlife management."

4A) How did nature cope before the invention of gunpowder?

Aes- Well I suppose it coped in the way you might learn in a biology class.

5) The bottom line - even if you disagree with hunting on a moral ground, one of the best things you can do to help your local wildlife is to buy a hunting license!!

5A) Explain the logic behind killing things to maintain a fair equlibrium. Is nature not fit for the job?

Aes I am not quite sure what this has to do with point number 5 but ok I suppose I can break this down for you. Hunting isn't just about killing things. It is about learning to respect, love, and cherish the land. Hunters along duck migration paths for instance have done absolutely amazing work restoring VITAL wetland habitat and are able to kill a small percentage of the birds that use this land because every year a stable population will produce an ammount of animals known to biologists as surplus, this surplus ammount is usually much greater than the total take by hunters. And in order to make sure that my last statement is true hunters spend lots of money so that they can have the yearly take monitored by experts



Aes 5a cont. The logic behind killing things to maintain a fair equilibrium is not that nature is not fit for the job, although someties natures solution really is not ideal. The example given by another poster of deer eating themselves to starvation and therfore reaking havoc on local water systems(resulting in the decline of species that rely on those watersystems to be the way they were before the deer population exploded) because of insufficient lets just go with filtration even though it is not the proper word(you understand the concept I am sure).


6) I do not believe that animals have a right to life

6A) What species are you? Do you not qualify as an animal? Are humans in their own category now? Still an ethical hunter?

Aes I can pass the straws you dont have to strain yourself grasping like that.

Now, i'm not taking the piss and i'm not here to flame you but if you want a discussion on something which you already state people have strong views on then you have to be able to come here ready for that discussion and armed with facts with which to back up your claims. I welcome debate on this as it's important to me, i grew up in the country, so please feel free to retort in any way but be sure to back up your views with fact, not offhand quotes from unreliable sources.

Ok you wanted sources? That is kind of why I linked to an 8 page National Geographic article on the issue, since that must not have satiated your desire I will dig more. Even though I really have not made a single point that is considered controversial to anyone but anti-hunters... but at the moment I am dead tired and it is nap time.

Anyway I appreciate that sort of reply dogboy K+


Oh wait, I do have one question. Why would you prefer nature kill the surplus animals over hunters? I am genuinely curios here.

 

[Clarence]

So you do want to argue. thought the title of your thread was a bit too much to ask for. Civil...indeed. I have put some of my personal civil thoughts up but you aint interested in discussing them. seems like you are quite touchy and twitchy bout ya huntin so i will bid ya fair well and hope you find someone better to discuss ya stuff with. Peace Take it easy Cletus.

 

[Aestivus]

So you do want to argue. thought the title of your thread was a bit too much to ask for. Civil...indeed. I have put some of my personal civil thoughts up but you aint interested in discussing them. seems like you are quite touchy and twitchy bout ya huntin so i will bid ya fair well and hope you find someone better to discuss ya stuff with. Peace

Tell ya what Clarence I thought I was tired and then I hit the refresh button.

I only negd ya for that stupid veggie post and had you well pegged for mentally handicapped and basically stopped reading anything you had to say after that, until I got to your "ergo" post which also screamed mentally challenged. Selective eyesight I guess.

I did go back over everything you have said in this thread though and you certainly do have some civil thoughts that deserve discussion.

"I believe that hunting is fine if you are going to use the animal in all ways possible."
Personally I think that is more than a little bit overboard. Pigs(dont use the skin) are completely non native animals to California and are not good for the local ecosystem or the landscape(erosion) so they should be hunted in order to control the population, I do eat the meat(tasty) but I have zero interest in wild pigskin and my question for you is simple. Why should I use this part of a non native animal?

Coyotes on the other hand are a huge part of the normal Californian eosystem, however, their population is staggering. I'll give you an example on why this is a problem and why ranchers are so damn happy to have me use their land. I was over by a famous Hunting Ranch in California where coyotes were recieving little to no pressure from the hunters (they come for pigs, deer, and pronghorn) and I got to talking to one of the ranch hands who is an ex DFG(department of fish and game) agent who told me that out of a herd 240 strong only 3 pronghorn had made it past their first year due almost exclusively to Coyotes... well guess what they are stepping up the pressure big time to get those numbers down. Coyote shouldnt even be eating pronghorn! Granted they are complete creatures of opportunity so I am sure a wounded or hurt calf would be dinner in no time, but a calf pronghorn is damn near as big as the coyotes out here! and a juvenile is definitely bigger than a Coyote, probably 2 times the size of these tiny Californian coyotes. and an adult is an easy 4 times and they stick together.

Anyway back to using the animal, I am not eating a coyote. I harvest the skin skull and teeth and I don't see anything wrong with that at all.

Dove and quail - The feathers carry all kinds of nasty shit I really dont want to have to deal with and the only sizable meat on a dove is the breast. Quail are actually worth cooking 'whole'.

"If the animal is on it's way to being extinct then should be left alone." Thats kind of how I feel about Californias low Pronghorn population.

"What makes us so special? Just coz we can hide behind cowardly weapons, does that make us superior?" Yes. Very.

"But you have to ask your self why these deer are over populated anywya. I would put my money on human intervention in the first place."

Just because we created the problem does not mean we should not control it.

 

[marx2k]

wow. you really dug yourself in deep.

yes people do shoot animals in the prime of their lives. If you've ever seen starving deer (you haven't because we hunt them) you'd understand. Look into new zealand they pay people to hunt because of the problems with deer. Overpopulation is a real problem for animals. If they over eat their food supply they starve to death. its nature.

As I said before, they do the same thing in the state I live in as well. However, in real nature, you would have natural predators that would keep the deer from eating through their habitat. Overpopulation is a real problem when factors like humans have wiped out their balancing variables. In this case, it would be any natural predator of deer.

[...]we're not talking about your grandmother. animals don't die in their sleep. like I said before a "natural death" for animals is being torn apart by coyotes or starving. welcome to life. thats the problem with non hunters is their version of what is "natural" is skewered by the pampered life we lead. Spending time hunting slows down that process and is why we enjoy it. Nature is not nice, its a cruel bitch.

Except we were talking about my grandmother there for a moment. So are you telling me that one of the main reasons hunters hunt is to save the animal a cruel death?

of course we should not all be shot. I'm talking about in nature you keep acting like animals die these peaceful deaths. they don't. gunshots are alot more peaceful than what they experience "naturally"

Humans also all don't die peacefully, so why shouldn't we all be shot?

you did mention walki talkies you called them mistakenly xm radio to talk back and forth to one another.

XM radio is a satellite based audio subscription service. It is not a two way system and exists mainly for entertainment.

"if your a good marksman you won't miss. if your a good woodsman you won't get lost, etc." give me a break. Have you never seen all the monuments to indiand and inuit that get lost and starve to death? they live in the woods their entire lives and it can happen to anyone. Of all the ignorant things you've said this takes the cake.

Hunters got along fine before GPS locators. Not sure why it's not a necessity. But this goes beyond the scope of this thread.

for someone so adamant about hunting ethics and misplaced shots I find it highly ironic you encourage people that do hunt to do so without scopes and highly primitive weapons such as a KNIFE! whacko.

Name calling doesn't really get your point across. I'm not encouraging anyone to do anything. As I said in my last post, I don't push my opinion on others. That's rude. What I am saying is that if you consider yourself a good hunter, you should be able to get equally satisfactory results from a rifle with a scope as well as a knife. I can detonate a nuclear warhead in a forest and take out a multitude of species without any pain on their part. That doesn't make me a good hunter.,

and you should explain music to someone so that he understand its not crazy drum beats. Its a well devised art form that takes years and alot of talent. You don't have to tell him all about it but you can explain its not what they think.

I don't feel I should have to explain art to people. Some people get it, some don't.

and despite you saying you don't push your opinons on others you and I are the most outspoken people in this thread so why don't you just own up to it with me that we both push our opionons on other people to try to better educate them.

I'm just expressing my opinions I would hate for others to model any aspect of their lives after me. Though I do try to keep people informed on certain things (like growing marijuana), I can only do that when I consider myself an expert in the field. But in a case like this, I would just prefer to voice an opinion with no sort of push for anyone to adapt it. I think if you've led a hunter's lifestyle, you're better set to actually educate people on hunting, which I am in no way am trying to do

 

[marx2k]

Personally I think that is more than a little bit overboard. Pigs(dont use the skin) are completely non native animals to California and are not good for the local ecosystem or the landscape(erosion) so they should be hunted in order to control the population, I do eat the meat(tasty) but I have zero interest in wild pigskin and my question for you is simple. Why should I use this part of a non native animal?

Do you just leave it laying around to rot? Is there no one locally that can buy it? Say, a taxidermist or something?

"What makes us so special? Just coz we can hide behind cowardly weapons, does that make us superior?" Yes. Very.

I disagree. Faced with a grizzly and you with no weapon.. you wouldn't feel very superior. A weapon is not YOU. It's a tool. If you have a knife and I have a gun and I shoot you, that doesn't make me superior.

"But you have to ask your self why these deer are over populated anywya. I would put my money on human intervention in the first place."

Just because we created the problem does not mean we should not control it.

I agree. However, are hunting clubs and SIGs actually trying to mandate any sort of change in regulation as far as human population expansion? What about reintroduction of natural predators into a habitat?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

But you have to ask your self why these deer are over populated anywya. I would put my money on human intervention in the first place. Everyone is entitled to thier own opinion, of course, but we are the ones that have put the spanner in the works by unbalancing the natural ways of all varities of animals. Close to where i live they have an annual cull of deer. This is also to stop bad genetic traits carrying on in the deer population. But all the deer are used for thier meat and thier skins. They are not merely hunted for fun. So why is it ok for human beings to destroy millions of square miles of habitat by building cities and clearing land of trees but it is not all right for an herd of deer to destroy, in comparison, a small area of habitat. Who made us the superiors?


(i noticed that you have hunted me as well. You have shot me with neg karma, while it is completely clear by my number of posts that i cannot defend myself.LOL)

It's not that they're not allowed to destroy a small area of habitat, it's that it is not in their best interest to be allowed to destroy it... Deer will overpopulate to the point of mass starvations during harsher winters, managing them prevents such tragedies... Needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few and all...

 

[Guest]

I'm all for hunting and fishing, with limits of course. Humans have destroyed many animals such as wolves which keep populations of deer and other creatures in check, so something has to be done to maintain the balance.

However, I highly disagree with the killing of animals purely for sport. One thing that really bothers me is the decision to kill wolves that have escaped from Yellowstone. They should do everything possible to relocate the wolves. I recently watched a program about a man who is using recorded wolf howls to keep them from entering his property and it works extremely well. We destroyed their population once already, after all the effort to bring them back, why start killing them again?

 

[Crazy Composer]

After a regular, natural life, a deer walks out into a field and in a blink of an eye... is dead.

or...

After a life of confinement, hypodermic needles, cattle prodding, fecal dust, low-grade feed, overcrowding and probably despair, the cow walks down a narrow corridor and has a metal rod uncerimoniously plunged through his brain. (welcome to McDonald's, can I take you order?)

Humans are hunters. Humans who don't hunt, simply don't know they're hunters. Most humans who DO hunt are very concerned about not causing any undue pain during the kill. They want their animal to go down without ever knowing what happened. If you don't think hunters are generally good people, you either don't know any, or the ones you DO know aren't kind people to start with.

 

[killa-bud]

i think we tend to forget we are our selfs animals,and animals eat each other

 

[Aestivus]

I'm all for hunting and fishing, with limits of course. Humans have destroyed many animals such as wolves which keep populations of deer and other creatures in check, so something has to be done to maintain the balance.

However, I highly disagree with the killing of animals purely for sport. One thing that really bothers me is the decision to kill wolves that have escaped from Yellowstone. They should do everything possible to relocate the wolves. I recently watched a program about a man who is using recorded wolf howls to keep them from entering his property and it works extremely well. We destroyed their population once already, after all the effort to bring them back, why start killing them again?

This is actually a very interesting point. From TIME:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1670093,00.html

"The 66 wolves brought to Yellowstone and the Central Idaho wilderness in 1995 and 1996 have grown to about 1,300. At the request of the state legislatures in Wyoming and Idaho — lobbied heavily by organized shooting-sports interests — the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USF&WS) is about to remove the Yellowstone-area wolf from the federal Endangered Species list and allow the states to manage them. Known as the 10(j) rule, a special exemption to the Endangered Species Act allows government agencies extra leeway in controlling "experimental populations" like the gray wolf; in short, the government is allowed to kill them. Both Wyoming and Idaho expect USF&WS to lift wolf protection early next year. Then it will be open season for many eager shooters, including Idaho's governor, C.L. "Butch" Otter, who told a rally of petitioning sportsmen in Boise earlier this year, "I'm prepared to bid for that first ticket to shoot a wolf myself." Idaho's official stance is to allow the killing of all wolves over and above the statutory minimum number of breeding pairs: 100 of the approximately 673 wolves in the state.

Until they're delisted, federal and state wildlife officers can go after wolves only when they kill livestock. A few besieged ranchers in wolf habitat are also given shoot-on-sight authority to protect their flocks and herds. In Montana, more than 50 wolves have been killed so far this year, often from government helicopters and airplanes.

The debate over delisting is a noisy one. Wildlife advocates are fighting state shooting and trapping plans: in Wyoming courts, they have opposed the state petition to delist and locally manage wolves outside national parks, saying there's no science to support delisting. Stripping wolves of their protected status now, before their numbers are high enough, advocates say, would threaten the species' genetic diversity. Federal biologists also dismiss claims that wolves, left uncontrolled, will decimate a state's elk and deer populations. There are close to 300,000 elk in the Northern Rockies, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) — well above state objectives in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana — and only 1,300 wolves. If you're seeing fewer elk, it's because they're warier these days and harder to hunt.

Meanwhile, ranchers, daunted by the threat of wolves preying on their livestock, are hoping for better protection. To affected ranchers, wolves present a very real menace to their economic and psychic survival, despite the fact that the wildlife advocacy group Defenders of Wildlife reimburses ranchers for all proven wolf kills of lambs and calves. (Reimbursement will end if the wolf is officially taken off the Endangered Species list.) And, finally, there is the large faction of sportsmen who can't wait to begin shooting wolves in Wyoming and Idaho. There, the wolves, once delisted, will sink to the lowly status of varmints and predators — like coyotes, skunks and gophers — which hunters may shoot for sport."

I bolded the bias, and it's a bias because the "lowly" animals listed have rather large population and are "Varmints" whereas according to this article the maximum take on the wolf population in the first year will be 100 as I read it. Meaning that if 1000 hunters want to hunt wolf, 1 out of 10 will get the chance.

Although the article brings up a good point. What effect will this have on the genetic diversity of a small population, if it can be proven that this take will have a negative impact on the species or rather if it is not proven otherwise. Then I am not in favor or taking it off the ESL.

 

[waydee]

I spend a lot of time in rural Scotland and grew up here so hunting isn't something im not very used to, I don't have issue with it as long as it responsible and the animals that are shot are actually used for food, fur etc.

I study conservation at uni and wouldn't do it myself but I realise the necessity of it and the leisure aspect, my dad shoots pheasant and grouse. I dont have a problem with that, he eats what he shoots. I'm a big fan of venison too, theres no better meat than wild deer.


I do take issue with sport hunting, fox hunting etc. I get quite angry when I see a lot of hunting videos online where people are shouting and cheering etc at taking down an animal - like I said I realise the leisure aspect of it but I think a lot of people go about it the wrong way... and its especially sickening when the animal is to die for no reason at all. Sure, we live in a world of prepackaged meat in grocery stores but when you've got a fine larder of wild game theres nothing wrong with making use of it as long as its regulated properly and done responsibly.

I was veggie for a while, prepackaged meat still grosses me out a little - especially chickens, it all tastes so bland and tortured too give me a wild duck or pheasant any day.

 

[Guest]

I find it hard to believe that just killing wolves is the right answer. I remember reading somewhere that every time a LEO helicopter takes off, it costs about $12,000 I think? Price of gas, pilot, etc. Now I'm not up to date on the cost of sheep and other livestock, and I'm pretty sure that it isn't too easy to find wolves and hunt them from a helicopter unless they're tagged, so would it be more cost effective to just pay the farmer for his dead livestock? I don't know, probably.

The part about the elk being harder to find is a big part of the benefits of having wolves. The plant life in Yellowstone has drastically increased since the reintroduction of wolves because the elk and other large prey animals can no longer stand around eating all day without worry, not to mention the sickly and old ones are being eaten. The increased amount of foliage has led to an increased number of beavers(I stumbled onto a beaver in a state park last weekend by the way ) along with other animals. Sure, when they reach an uncontrollable population hunting them may be necessary, but 1,000 isn't very many as far as I'm concerned...

 

[Stoner4Life]

I love hunting for the actual sport it is & for the meat I bring home.
When I say sport I DO NOT mean killing for the 'sport' of it, I mean that it is an activity that requires a certain amount of skill & cunning. It is also exercise in most cases, I don't like to sit & so I walk or 'still hunt' during deer season. I can assure you that 20 times as many deer have snuck away from me w/o my even knowing they were there than the 25 or so I've shot over the 35 yrs I've been hunting. All but 3 of those deer were clean, fast, one shot kills. I use every bit of the deer, that's fit for human comsumption (I make a wicked heart & liver soup) & donate the hides to the 'Hides for Habitat' cause, which of course helps tp ensure a healthy deer population. These days MN allows 5 deer per hunter where I live as the herd needs to be thinned, too many years of not enough snow have allowed the deer to multiply to quickly. Wolves can't hunt deer w/o the snow on which they are faster. Now there are too many deer for the available foliage. MANY deer will suffer if we have a huge snowfall (no easy foraging) this yr or next, or next yet again. So the hunters must thin the herd. BTW, I take no more than 2 deer if/whenever possible as that's about all I'll consume in a yr.
Part of the sport I love are the spaniels I have for bird hunting, a lot of fun working behind them and a brisk walk through the woods and trails for me. Again many more grouse have gotten up & away before I can even aim the gun, I TAKE NO CMEMORY SHOTS at birds I can't get good a shot at. The only substantial meat to be taken from a grouse is the breast which of course I enjoy. I don't usually take any more than 20 birds in the Sept. thru Dec. season, that is considered 'light' hunting as the woods around my home are full of bird. Pheasant hide 'very tightly' (meaniong they don't flush until you're upon them) in cover & so when they get up they're usually fairly close to me, I almost NEVER miss a pheasant, great eating.
I do not hunt canadian honkers (geese). They mate for life & it's a VERY easy shot (cheap shot imo) at it's mate when it comes looking for the one already shot down, that's refered to as the 'come around' shot. Soft headed or soft hearted I cannot pull the trigger on an animal that chooses a mate for life. Some ducks mate the same way & so I hunt no ducks either.
Fishing, I catch & release ALL trophy sized fish & I catch a lot of them. Walleye are my favorite, perch, crappie & other panfish fill the freezer for me. I release most of the walleye. Me & my girlfriend were sunning, fishing on the pontoon one day when I caught a 'Pumkinseed Sunfish' that would've set the state record without question. It was gorgeous, blue, orange, green and gold, the colors jumped out at us, I marveled for a moment and put it back in the water. Just so you know it's about doing the right thing that fish would've put my name in the MN record book something that's somewhat coveted in sport fishing. Someone else caught it two years later & recorded it for the record.

OK....... I've opened myself up to critique of course & I can make the standard arguments of the flipside opinions too. If you eat meat yet hate hunting/hunters then you allow someone else to do the killing FOR you. Slightly hypocritical imo.
If you're a vegetarian then don't be so quick to slap yourself on the back yet!
How do you know plants have no feelings? They repair themselves when injured to ensure their lives and the future of it's species. PLUS! it's rooted down and never even had a chance to run, real sporting of you.

PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals

We were meant to eat meat. I know several vegans & many vegetarians. One vegan friend of mine graduated high in my class in '74 (makes us 50/51 now) and she doesn't look a day over 70 yrs old. The other vegans I know look like SHYT too while all the vegetarians seem to have a balanced diet with some animal products mixed in of course. Now, before you say "Hey! I know a vegan & he/she looks fine." I'm going to go out on a limb with this guess of mine. I'll bet they've just started down that road, give them the 30+ yrs that my one friend Becky has been doing it & I'll bet they look as haggard (honestly, I love her as my friend yet she looks like fvcking shyt) as she does if they even live that long.

I think I've said my piece here.......

 

[marx2k]

If you eat meat yet hate hunting/hunters then you allow someone else to do the killing FOR you. Slightly hypocritical imo.

That's like saying it's hypocritical to hate working on your car but enjoying driving. Eh? If you had to do everything by yourself that you have done for you now, you'd hate it as well.

If you're a vegetarian then don't be so quick to slap yourself on the back yet!
How do you know plants have no feelings? They repair themselves when injured to ensure their lives and the future of it's species. PLUS! it's rooted down and never even had a chance to run, real sporting of you.

Until broccoli screams when I kill it, I'm not going to worry about it. Stupid argument.

PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals

Ok... ?

We were meant to eat meat.

We're also meant to squat down and shit into a hole and wipe our asses with leaves. Thanks to modern technology, most of us have a choice in the matter.

I know several vegans & many vegetarians. One vegan friend of mine graduated high in my class in '74 (makes us 50/51 now) and she doesn't look a day over 70 yrs old. The other vegans I know look like SHYT too while all the vegetarians seem to have a balanced diet with some animal products mixed in of course. Now, before you say "Hey! I know a vegan & he/she looks fine." I'm going to go out on a limb with this guess of mine. I'll bet they've just started down that road, give them the 30+ yrs that my one friend Becky has been doing it & I'll bet they look as haggard (honestly, I love her as my friend yet she looks like fvcking shyt) as she does if they even live that long.

That's a constant stereotype brought up by those who are arguing against vegetarianism. People come in all shapes, colors, physical conditions. While I know tons of people (myself included) who do and did just fine with a meat free diet, other people may look like shit regardless. You can also point out people who eat meat and also look awful and say it's because they eat meat, yet the correlation isn't solid. It's a flawed argument. Vegetarians/vegans need to take special care to get certain proteins into their diet that are missing out due to lack of meat, but it's not life threatening and can be quite healthy.

Though I'm sure I'll look a lot better later on in life without the triple bypass that comes with a lifetime of eating meat.

I think I've said my piece here.......

Yep. You totally could've done it without the boldface, though.

 

[Boxy Brown]

How do you know plants have no feelings? They repair themselves when injured to ensure their lives and the future of it's species.

Trees Don't Feel Pain... But they Do React To their Surroundings

When you "wound" a tree, it does not feel pain. An injured or sick tree is not suffering in the sense that we would suffer. You can not hurt a tree, if by "hurting it" you mean "causing it pain". Unlike most of the animals, plants do not have a central nervous system, and therefore cannot sense their surroundings in the same way that animals can.

However, trees can be harmed or injured; when the tree's outer layer of living tissue, which is just under the corky bark, is damaged, it is considered an injury. A typical injury that trees suffer occurs when something crashes into the bark, such as another falling tree (in the forest), or an automobile (in the city); either way, the tree's protective bark is not strong enough to prevent injury, and the living tissue underneath is crushed, cut, or physically damaged in some other fashion. Often the bark is completely removed when the injury is inflicted, exposing the living wood of the tree. Lots of organisms feed on trees, which is one reason trees have bark in the first place: To protect them! A healthy tree will actually react to such an injury in order to prevent the tissue from becoming infected by bacteria or fungi, and to prevent insects and other animals from exploiting the breach in the tree's defenses. The reaction is extremely slow, so you can't see it, but it is certainly happening.

Depending on the season and the type of tree, a tree will respond to an injury by forming "wound wood", which gradually grows over the injury and covers it. Eventually the wound wood seals off the injury and the bark is once again complete, only this time a "scar" is visible. Sometimes the process is complete within a year, but if the wound is large, it can take years or even decades for a wound to close. Tissue that is damaged in a plant cannot be repaired in the same way that tissue can heal in animals; instead, the plant allows the injured area to die, and it builds "walls" around it to prevent decay from spreading into uninjured tissue.

 

[DogBoy]

Oh wait, I do have one question. Why would you prefer nature kill the surplus animals over hunters? I am genuinely curios here.

I'll skip the points as i accept your opinion, may not agree but hey, thats not the point is it?

I will however happily offer my opinion on the question above.

Yes i would prefer nature to do the killing in the majority of cases. I appreciate the need to hunt for food and i'm all cool with that. Hungry?, then kill for food. It is nature, it's the way the world works. I dont care if the deer is ripped apart by wolves as stated before or dies of old age or whatever the modus mort may be.

My issue is that both sides seem to be wrong. From the hunters point of view you feel it is your right to control and manage populations that nature has managed for years. Yeah she may allow deer to boom but you'll also notice she allows them to crash too. Your argument is based on the fact that somehow it is mans role on the planet to control and manipulate it to the way man thinks it should be, the conservators want to control it to the way they think it should be. Noone has considered that nature doesn't take sides, she doesn't care about opinions or right and wrong. She set things up to work a certain way, the way that balances all the things properly so that life continues it's circle. Boom and bust. Man is overpopulated but noone wants to do anything about it, they simply want to destroy anything that gets in their way. Why do you have more right than the deer to that land? Why cant we live together without the need to exercise our bullying over other species. If you cant drive without hitting them, drive slower, dont like them eating your lawn, fence it. Dont like the disease, shoot only the sickly ones. It all comes down to you not having the right to control another species.

My first post mentions man shooting man, lets think about that for a sec. I suggested nothing unfair at all using your logic. The problem with my suggestion is that the target is man isn't it. People dont mind feeling big and powerful because they kill a deer and manage to forget that the deer didn't even know it was being hunted from afar ( see post about deer being confused when shot with arrows ). How brave would you all be if the target was man, he fits all the criteria about disease, habitat, overpopulation and more. Do you not like the fact that man can fight back, whats the beef there?

Now if i may, a question back to you..........

You quote National Geographic and the US Gov as good sources of info on hunting. Natuional geographic is a media outlet and the US Gov is, well, US Gov. We all know you cant trust the media and you cant trust the government, they are in it for the money as you state when you talk about the costs etc. Bear in mind i say nothing that is not accepted as concensus here in many other threads. So the question.

I state you cite unreliable sources and that your hunting ethic is based on greed, selfishness and a self supremacy notion. Can you prove me wrong? I dont sit with the hunters or the anti hunters so i'm curious to see how you will reply.