Re: The ANTI-hunting post.

77
JinxRemoving wrote:I have never been hunting (other than fishing, and holy crap do I love fish :) ) but assuming you are eating your kill, culling overpopulated heards (a single shot seems more humane than starvation) and performing some benefit for humans at a sustainable cost for the wildlife, then good on ya.

The issue comes when playing cowboys-and-buffalo-- possibly one of the most embarrassing and disgusting chapters in our nation's history of wildlife stewardship.

I'll be travelling through the south in a few weeks, and i have to say-- I'd love to take down some nutria while in Louisiana... apparently there is some $$ in that for pest control, as well as lovely, non-anally-electrocuted fur.

I have to say that vegans, in general, piss me off. It is such a first world problem, to struggle with not eating animal products so you can feel morally superior about your choices. To me, it is like abstaining from sex to keep yourself pure-- yes, you can do it, but to what end? Our mortal coils were meant to experience the depth and breadth of the short lives we are granted, be it a flank steak or lovemaking, and to artificially deny yourself any of it is a luxury that those closer to the edge of survival simply don't have.

I would rather indulge in both, but knowing the consequences of my actions and behaving in a responsible, mature, and aware manner, rather than a blanket asceticism that robs the soul.
For some reason i feel like making love to a flank steak. Gee, thanks.
"Endeavor to persevere."

Re: The ANTI-hunting post.

78
goosekiller wrote:
JinxRemoving wrote:I have never been hunting (other than fishing, and holy crap do I love fish :) ) but assuming you are eating your kill, culling overpopulated heards (a single shot seems more humane than starvation) and performing some benefit for humans at a sustainable cost for the wildlife, then good on ya.

The issue comes when playing cowboys-and-buffalo-- possibly one of the most embarrassing and disgusting chapters in our nation's history of wildlife stewardship.

I'll be travelling through the south in a few weeks, and i have to say-- I'd love to take down some nutria while in Louisiana... apparently there is some $$ in that for pest control, as well as lovely, non-anally-electrocuted fur.

I have to say that vegans, in general, piss me off. It is such a first world problem, to struggle with not eating animal products so you can feel morally superior about your choices. To me, it is like abstaining from sex to keep yourself pure-- yes, you can do it, but to what end? Our mortal coils were meant to experience the depth and breadth of the short lives we are granted, be it a flank steak or lovemaking, and to artificially deny yourself any of it is a luxury that those closer to the edge of survival simply don't have.

I would rather indulge in both, but knowing the consequences of my actions and behaving in a responsible, mature, and aware manner, rather than a blanket asceticism that robs the soul.
For some reason i feel like making love to a flank steak. Gee, thanks.
With the right marinade, it can be a pretty sexy cut...
"Smell the hot rain on the street; it could be love, it could be alcohol."

Re: The ANTI-hunting post.

79
JinxRemoving wrote:
goosekiller wrote:
JinxRemoving wrote:I have never been hunting (other than fishing, and holy crap do I love fish :) ) but assuming you are eating your kill, culling overpopulated heards (a single shot seems more humane than starvation) and performing some benefit for humans at a sustainable cost for the wildlife, then good on ya.

The issue comes when playing cowboys-and-buffalo-- possibly one of the most embarrassing and disgusting chapters in our nation's history of wildlife stewardship.

I'll be travelling through the south in a few weeks, and i have to say-- I'd love to take down some nutria while in Louisiana... apparently there is some $$ in that for pest control, as well as lovely, non-anally-electrocuted fur.

I have to say that vegans, in general, piss me off. It is such a first world problem, to struggle with not eating animal products so you can feel morally superior about your choices. To me, it is like abstaining from sex to keep yourself pure-- yes, you can do it, but to what end? Our mortal coils were meant to experience the depth and breadth of the short lives we are granted, be it a flank steak or lovemaking, and to artificially deny yourself any of it is a luxury that those closer to the edge of survival simply don't have.

I would rather indulge in both, but knowing the consequences of my actions and behaving in a responsible, mature, and aware manner, rather than a blanket asceticism that robs the soul.
For some reason i feel like making love to a flank steak. Gee, thanks.
With the right marinade, it can be a pretty sexy cut...
Goya makes a nice one. I bet you could eat a boot soul marinated in that stuff.
"Endeavor to persevere."

Re: The ANTI-hunting post.

80
I hunt,I eat what I shoot and only shoot what I intend to eat,except chipmunks ,red squirrels or wood chucks in or near my barn.
it's a simple way to think about it also,I also agree with the post about factory farms,my wife works at one though and I guess I can say they are 1/2 way decent,they fire lots of people for animal mis-treatment but for me I like to eat what I raise myself,veggies and meat.
Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.
Henry David Thoreau

Words that soak into your ears are whispered...not yelled.

Re: The ANTI-hunting post.

81
If you kill it then it must be eaten. That's my point of view. Now i have no problem donating the meat to the local food bank or something like that but do cut the trophies of and leave the rest in the field....Oh i certainly agree with the point of view that big game hunting has helped saved a lot of species but certain ones need to be left alone.

Re: The ANTI-hunting post.

84
larrymod wrote:
goosekiller wrote:
larrymod wrote:edible species that are not native here and are becoming a nuisance (wild turkey or feral pig).
Wild turkeys are native.
My understanding is they are not native west of the Rockies. They were introduced in California specifically for hunting, then naturalized here.
The turkeys that were introduced to CA are not native to CA. But there is a species of turkey that was native to CA that is extinct.

This map shows the pre-Columbian range of Wild Turkey (cross-hatched range colored in darkest blue) and the sites of various fossils from the late Pleistocene. The cross-hatched range is the range of Wild Turkey at the time of Columbus, i.e., 1492. The map also shows the location of various fossil turkeys. Many Meleagris gallopavo (our Wild Turkey) are within the pre-Columbian range. Another set of fossils are centered in and around the La Brea tar pits of Los Angeles Co., California; these are M. californica, our "California Turkey." The entire known range of all fossils of California Turkey are encompassed within the yellow range.

The California Turkey M. californica "undoubtedly evolved from populations that became isolated in California [in the Miocene] .. The high degree of similarity between M. californica and M. gallopavo suggests either that these two species were subject to fairly similar selective forces after populations of their common ancestors became isolated, or that the ancestor of M. californica became isolated in California only after reaching the M. gallopavo grade... The quite arid conditions in western Arizona and southeastern California that prevail today could easily have provided a barrier to gene flow between the turkeys of southwestern California and southeastern Arizona" [Steadman 1980].

It is thus apparent that, at a minimum, California once hosted the ancestor to today's Wild Turkey. This is very different than any of the other introduced birds in the state which evolved long distances away. Equally interesting, it appears that California Turkey was an isolated population in southwestern California around today's Los Angeles. It was intermediate in size between the small M. crassipes [known from Kansas & Arizona] and M. gallopavo. Its entire known range did not extent north of today's Santa Barbara Co. nor south of Orange Co. (the Orange Co. fossil is a probable i.d. only).

http://creagrus.home.montereybay.com/turkey-in-CA.html
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Wolverines!
"The problem with internet quotes is it is very hard to determine their authenticity." --Abraham Lincoln

Re: The ANTI-hunting post.

86
I have to add one more point. Hunters could preserve a lot more wildlife if PETA wan't such a PITA. All I have seen PETA preserve is attorneys. Hunters could preserve thousands more acres if they didn't have to fight PITA, errmm I mean PETA. Only the federal government has preserved more land than ducks unlimited. DU is just one organization that seeks to preserve wildlife. There are many other hunting organizations that seek to preserve nature, not to mention all the individual trust funds.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Wolverines!
"The problem with internet quotes is it is very hard to determine their authenticity." --Abraham Lincoln

Re: The ANTI-hunting post.

87
OldCrow wrote: It is thus apparent that, at a minimum, California once hosted the ancestor to today's Wild Turkey. This is very different than any of the other introduced birds in the state which evolved long distances away. Equally interesting, it appears that California Turkey was an isolated population in southwestern California around today's Los Angeles. It was intermediate in size between the small M. crassipes [known from Kansas & Arizona] and M. gallopavo. Its entire known range did not extent north of today's Santa Barbara Co. nor south of Orange Co. (the Orange Co. fossil is a probable i.d. only).
Extinct turkey tastes gamey. :laugh:
"To initiate a war of aggression...is the supreme international crime" - Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson, 1946

Re: The ANTI-hunting post.

88
Animal rights are important to me, but I have nothing against hunting for food. In terms of hypocrisy, some of the worst are those in the anti-hunting crowd who support the cruelty of factory farming by buying a ham sandwich from a local deli, or a chicken sandwich from a fast food restaurant, or an omelet from a local diner. The inconvenient truth is that it's plainly unethical to fund the animal factory farm industry after understanding the scale and severity of the suffering (and environmental damage) they cause.

I do my best to be a pescetarian or find "humanely raised" meat most of the time, but don't condemn those who don't. I donate to many animal charities but PETA and ALF are not among them. They are to animal rights what Ted Nugent is to gun rights.

If anything, I just have an aesthetic distaste for the hunting culture. I just can't find beauty in a grinning human holding up the bleeding head of a non-human animal as a memento.

Re: The ANTI-hunting post.

89
I hunt for the same reason these people hunt. Just like them I smile when its all over. People who don't hunt have no idea what it is to be human, this is not meant to be a slam on non hunters but its true. It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist, a real god would have made all living things vegetarian.

"Hillary Clinton is the finest, bravest, kindest, the most wonderful person I've ever known in my whole life" Raymond Shaw

Re: The ANTI-hunting post.

91
(I just don't want to leave Panthia's inane spammery as the last word in a thread.)

Funny thing, I'm a city boy and as a result, I regarded hunting with distaste until I started volunteering at a wolf sanctuary (Wolf Haven in Tenino, WA) back in 2005. Working with apex predators really changes your perspective on the morality (for want of a better word) of killing other species for food; you just can't get around the fact that most organisms are food to some other organism.

But even though I've taken up hunting since, there are still a few caveats. First, I only condone taking trophies insofar as its incidental to acquiring food; in other words, venison first, antlers second. Second, where the needs of human hunters and animal predators collide, I side with the animals: wolves, cougars and bear need the deer and elk more than we do, so they should get first crack at them.
Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He'd been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands To Reason, and was now a post-graduate student of the University of What Some Bloke In The Pub Told Me. -- Terry Pratchett, Jingo

Re: The ANTI-hunting post.

92
mahkagari wrote:
Hynes57 wrote:Now i have no problem donating the meat to the local food bank or something like that but do cut the trophies of and leave the rest in the field....
Anyone have first or second hand experience with this actually happening? TMK, at least in CO, leaving consumable parts will bump your charges up to a felony and you can kiss ever getting a license again goodbye. In AK, you MUST pack out the meat BEFORE packing out your trophy. If a grizz makes off with your trophy while you're packing out your meat, it's your tough luck.

Everyone deplores the hunter who will take his trophy and leave the rest to rot, but how often does that occur? Taking a trophy is difficult enough as it is. How many have the discipline to get something prizeworthy but lack ethics enough to leave the meat behind?

For me, I'm a carnivore and a tightwad and if you think I'm gonna leave roastable haunches in the field yer out of yer tree. Even if it's from a tough old bull, giving the sausage away to feed friends and family while bragging about how hardwon it was is half the experience.

Curious as I always hear the statement condemning people wasting meat, but no one's ever given me an example. More often, I hear complaints of the DOW confiscating meat of moose mistaken for elk or cows mistaken for bulls. Sure, whether it was an honest mistake or not, they still broke the law, but the complaint is in losing their meat, not their trophy.

The closest example was someone telling me of coming upon a rotted carcass while hiking that someone had "obviously just taken the head and hide". When I quizzed him if it really was "left to rot" or if the rot was actually a gut pile and leftovers from someone boning out their kill, he couldn't say.
Actually I have, here in Colorado had first hand experience with people doing it on/around our property. This was a couple of decades ago, but there were some people looking for coyotes that would kill the deer, take the prize (if it was a buck) and throw the remains into a barrel to attract coyotes. Pretty fucked up and against the law, but it does happen.
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
- Maya Angelou

Image

Re: The ANTI-hunting post.

93
Coyotes and deer both are reaching pest levels in this area of NC. We have 35 deer to the square mile in many counties. Its not uncommon to see double digit sized herds of deer in my fields. What is crazy is deer taken with a permit to control the population of deer in the area make it illegal to take the deer for food. The deer must be left laying where it was shot. In turn, this draws coyotes into my fields. As long as the coyotes remain wild I don't bother them. But after a while the coyotes are unafraid of humans. When the coyotes don't run from a farm vehicle I do start shooting them.

Re: The ANTI-hunting post.

94
Hunting is necessary. I belong to the Ridges Sanctuary in Door County. It preserves a micro ecology with rare native plants. Every year they have to explain to irate tourist from Chicago that hunting is necessary to maintain the ecological balance. This is just one example. Hunting is part of conservation, One of the problem is that we have become so urbanized we (as a nation) are ignorant of how nature works.
Hell, if we only looked at our pets. I own two cats --------oooops sorry correction, I have two feline associates. They are obligate carnivores and perfect killing machines (ask the spirit of mice that tried to enter our house). Animals (including humans) need to eat other animals. In a healthy environment there is a balance. When predators are eliminated,hunting is needed.
Also some people need to hunt for food and some types of hunting support economies and sustained environments.

I have run into more than a few urban people who get their idea of nature from the movie "Bambi".

PETA is a movement divorced from reality. I have helped in animal rescues and detest cruelty. It is more human for a deer to die from a bullet than starvation. How active is PETA in feeding deer? How are they going to protect the environment from overgrazing? How are they going to reduce car deer collisions without culling the population? Maybe they could put condoms on rutting buck? ( ;) that could cull the PETA population)
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Ben Franklin
Beto in wisconsin

Re: The ANTI-hunting post.

95
mahkagari wrote:Bumping this as there seems to be more people checking in to tell you evil hunters what horrible beings you are for not waiting until you are on the brink of starvation before hunting and actually having the audacity to ENJOY putting your skills to practical use. People need to know this thread exists just to centralize all the reasons you are despicable.
Wow.

Re: The ANTI-hunting post.

96
Wow indeed. I believe that post was directed at me.

I got a warning for "concern trolling" even though my post doesn't really fit any definition of concern trolling as I understand it.

What I did was express a strongly held opinion. I don't kill animals. I think it's morally wrong to kill any animal that you're not going to eat or that isn't threatening immediate harm (of course the Zimmerman rule applies, where if you do something stupid and get an animal angry, you probably deserve the harm).

Perhaps my post would have been a better fit in this thread. But aren't the pro-hunters concern trolling in this thread?
Sigs are bad for you.

Re: The ANTI-hunting post.

97
nhaP wrote:Wow indeed. I believe that post was directed at me.

I got a warning for "concern trolling" even though my post doesn't really fit any definition of concern trolling as I understand it.

What I did was express a strongly held opinion. I don't kill animals. I think it's morally wrong to kill any animal that you're not going to eat or that isn't threatening immediate harm (of course the Zimmerman rule applies, where if you do something stupid and get an animal angry, you probably deserve the harm).

Perhaps my post would have been a better fit in this thread. But aren't the pro-hunters concern trolling in this thread?
Personally, I don't hunt, fish yes. I fall into the "if you kill it you eat it" group....slight over simplification maybe, but I have a belief all animals have a right to life. Therefore, for me the compelling reason is the need to survive and in that state the taking of a life is acceptable. I also believe we are the apex predator on this planet. I usually avoid this section since I really don't have anything to add, and I don't intend to criticise anyone who is a hunter nor do I want to evaluate their reasons. We all live with ourselves and our actions are our own. I may not be very welcoming if an intro smacks or hints at a disregard for the life of animals, but that's my business. By not welcoming, I mean I won't say anything. Peace brothers, I'll not participate on this section further, not because I feel anything negative, but I have nothing further to say.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: The ANTI-hunting post.

98
nhaP wrote:Wow indeed. I believe that post was directed at me.

I got a warning for "concern trolling" even though my post doesn't really fit any definition of concern trolling as I understand it.

What I did was express a strongly held opinion. I don't kill animals. I think it's morally wrong to kill any animal that you're not going to eat or that isn't threatening immediate harm (of course the Zimmerman rule applies, where if you do something stupid and get an animal angry, you probably deserve the harm).

Perhaps my post would have been a better fit in this thread. But aren't the pro-hunters concern trolling in this thread?
That may have been a slightly over the top interpretation of the rules.

However, the right way to respond is probably "ask admins".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

Re: The ANTI-hunting post.

99
Killing for sport I am against. Killing for food or population control, be it predator or herbavore ahould be embraced. Feed someone who needs it and take care of a major overpopulation issue absolutely makes sense. To me anyway.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
- Maya Angelou

Image

Re: The ANTI-hunting post.

100
I won't kill something that I don't eat. Period. So a lot of game is off my personal list, but... if its killed and goes to feed someone, and/or helps the herd to keep from starvation I have no iaaues with it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
- Maya Angelou

Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests