Anti-hunting gun owners


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

Leanwolf
April 3, 2007, 06:58 PM
I have seen before on some of these THR threads, and just today -- a thread here on "celebrity gunowners" -- that some of the members here who own a firearm(s), claim they are "anti-hunting."

Given their statements, I wonder if they also support, or endorse the efforts of the anti-hunting groups, who crusade to ban hunting here in the United States??

If it were put to a vote, would THR anti-hunters vote to ban hunting?

Just wondering, considering that the various anti-hunting organizations with which I'm familiar, also strongly endorse "gun control."

L.W.

If you enjoyed reading about "Anti-hunting gun owners" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Axman
April 3, 2007, 07:07 PM
I'm sure there is a difference between anti-hunting and anti-gun. I've known shooters who don't like hunting but don't support any anti-hunting .org's! Then there may be some shooters out there who just can't stand the idea behind hunting and would never harm an animal. I too am curious if there are anyone out there that is specifically anti-hunting to the point where they don't even like others who hunt.

Professor K
April 3, 2007, 07:07 PM
I'm anti "sport" hunting. Like just going and blasting prairie dogs or rabbits without eating them. I guess hunting for the skin/fur is OK, but I do prefer the whole "eat what you kill" thing. If you dont want to eat it, then dont kill it.

HuntCast
April 3, 2007, 07:08 PM
Well, if the whole "United We Stand" movement we have all been talking about is real, and not just hot air....... EVERY THR member should be pro hunting, even if they don't partake in the past time themselves.
And BTW......... anti-sport hunting is just like being anti-sport shooting, when it comes to defending hunting against the bad guys.

jerkface11
April 3, 2007, 07:11 PM
Professor K I'm anti "sport" hunting. Like just going and blasting prairie dogs or rabbits without eating them. I guess hunting for the skin/fur is OK, but I do prefer the whole "eat what you kill" thing. If you dont want to eat it, then dont kill it.

You mean we have to eat all those coyotes now? :barf:

Bazooka Joe71
April 3, 2007, 07:12 PM
OK, but I do prefer the whole "eat what you kill" thing

+1 for that...

Granted, I don't live on a farm where curtain animals are harmful to my profits, but I personally have never shot an animal I didn't eat.

Although I once beat an opossum to death w/ a baseball bat for trying to attack my buddy's cat:D

JesseL
April 3, 2007, 07:18 PM
Every time someone trots out the "United We Stand" rhetoric, you can bet they want you to come stand with them.

I'm a hunter and firearms enthusiast, but while I see the right to own individual arms as an inalienable and fundamental right that we all should support, I see more room for reasonable people to disagree about hunting.

There are lots of interest groups with a strong overlap with the RKBA movement, but it's silly to think all the gunnies come together and form a consensus on every other issue in the name of solidarity.

ReadyontheRight
April 3, 2007, 07:26 PM
If you dont want to eat it, then dont kill it.

What about mice and rats in your house? Bugs?

I agree with your statement if the animal is either edible or not a pest, but prairie dogs ruin fields for cattle and coyotes kill domestic animals.

Is it more ethical to kill them with poison or traps than to use them for target practice and a quick death?

noops
April 3, 2007, 07:28 PM
I'm not anti-hunting per se, but I only own firearms for defensive purposes and political beliefs. So while I'm not against it, I don't actively do anything to support it. The United We Stand stuff is over the top for me. I've never been hunting and don't really want to go. Again, not because I'm against it. It just doesn't interest me. I'd just rather ride my motorcycle on a windy scary road. As such, I don't expect everyone to be pro motorcycle. I just expect them to allow me the individual and personal liberty of my choices.

Noops

Geno
April 3, 2007, 07:31 PM
People who are anti-blast-the-varmints would feel different if they stood beside their $100,000 tractor with a broken axle...an axle that broke when the tractor dropped into a ground hog's hole. Too, they can destroy extraordinary amount of crops. That's money out of my family's pocket, and food out of their mouth. Given a choice of a week of my family being without a tractor, and a $10,000.00 bill for repairs, I'll shoot the ground hogs...even if I don't eat them.

Personally, I am not a trophy hunter...I am a meat hunter. But, I defend others' "right" to hunt what, when, how, for what rationale they so choose. We have too many anti-hunting gun owners, and to many anti AR rifle hunters in society.

If we don't close ranks, soon, we will be turning in the majority of our arms.

308win
April 3, 2007, 07:32 PM
A significant reason we have such successes as the repopulation of deer, turkeys, stable or growing waterfowl populations is the conservation efforts of hunters. I don't have any facts to back it up but I bet the percentage of hunters who belong to DU, ***, etc. is higher than the GreensPeace and PETA crowd. About the only thing I hunt anymore are groundhogs and coyotes but that doesn't give me a moral throne from which to condem sportsmen who harvest other game. As long as they are behaving in an ethical and 'sporting' manner I say giter done!

Axman
April 3, 2007, 07:35 PM
I don't expect everyone to be pro motorcycle. I just expect them to allow me the individual and personal liberty of my choices.

It is much like the helmet law debate. I know many motorcyclists who are against helmet laws but always say, "I won't ride with you if you don't wear a helmet yourself!"

Gromulin
April 3, 2007, 07:38 PM
My experience is that there are a lot more "Hunters" that would gladly throw the "Shooters" to the wolves, than vice-versa.

I don't hunt, but I'm not against it, nor do I do anything to support those that do oppose it.

I've ran into plenty of 'fudds that think the only reason to own a gun is to hunt and would (and have) supported those who would ban my semi-auto pistol or rifle. The sad thing is that they don't seem to uderstand that their "sniper" rifles are just as vulnerable once the anti's get traction.

Good luck with that 200 yard shot with iron sights on your muzzle-loader there, Elmer.:D

General Geoff
April 3, 2007, 07:40 PM
I think my post may have spurred this topic.


To put it in no uncertain terms, I have no interest in hunting. I don't hold anything against those who do hunt, but I don't endorse it either.

To each his own.

Titan6
April 3, 2007, 07:41 PM
Anti-hunter progun? That is a rare animal.

Sure, I hunt but I owned guns long before I started hunting.

Pest control? Great, mow down them cayou (and no I won't eat them)

Praire Dog Town Masakers? Nope I can think of better way to spend my time and ammo

Trophy hunting? Don't like it. IMHO it is a little childish....

Should any of it be banned? Well..... hunting an animal to extinction is idiotic in most cases. If proper game management were possible I would say no bans are needed but since it often not some hunting needs to be limited. I would like to have a planet to leave to my kids and all...

MassMark
April 3, 2007, 07:49 PM
I can only say that my ani-hunting stance is a personal choice. At 23, I simply made a choice not to intentionally kill anything anymore - this after hunting since I was 7. Other than ticks and mosquitos, I've held to it. Since then I gut-hooked a Bluefish while fishing once and cooked it on the grill that night - catch and release fishing is hard with Bluefish.... ;)

I just decided that unless I was starving, or in a survival situation, or lost my job and had to feed my family, that my connection with nature should be taken to a different plane. Now I hunt with my Nikon F5 and let the deer live another day. While hunting, I always felt connected with nature - it was one of the things I loved about it. Now when I'm in the woods, that connection seems to be more entrenched. Watching a bear meander accross a field, or a deer bounding through the sugar maples means more to me, now that I'm not killing them. Again - personal choice. I guess I just saw the life drain out of too many living things to want to see it happen through my actions. Sitting on Chief's Island in the Okavango Delta and watching a kudu being killed by lions felt somehow more intimate and satisfying to me than erasing that kudu with a rifle.

That being said, I'm also a landowner and in my grandfather's memory, let others use my land for hunting. I support hunting and it's traditions - to a sharp point. I draw my own personal line at sport hunting. By that I clairify - caged hunts, trophy hunts and exotic hunts. Sorry, shooting a lion chained to a tree in Waco Texas, or killing animals just for kicks, loses something in the translation for me....Hunters like that in my eyes are an abomination.

cbsbyte
April 3, 2007, 08:04 PM
I have never hunted in my life, and don't plan too. I personally don't have a issue with hunting for meat. And will support people do to so if that is the way they want to provide for their family. My issue is with sport hunting where one kills an animal for a trophy. It just saddens me that people enjoy kill these beatiful creatures for a trophy.

Kali Endgame
April 3, 2007, 08:16 PM
Never been hunting, but I go varmint shooting. The owner of the ranch I shoot on has two options, let people like me shoot the squirrels or poison them. Poison is a nasty way to die and an indiscriminate killer as well. The guy can't afford the poison and I do it for free.

Never felt the need to go hunting with a grocery store down the road.

GRB
April 3, 2007, 08:24 PM
I hunt, and I consider myself pro-hunting, and pro-guns. Yet, I usually only hunt for something I will eat (sure I'll take a trophy from a deer if I am lucky enough to get one, but I'll eat the venison too). That is how I prefer to hunt. Still though, I have nothing against trophy hunting or varmint hunting. As for trophy hunting, those guys usually pass up shots that I would think are the shot of a lifetime, to wait for something better. Sometimes they shoot nothing for a few seasons, because they are awaiting the monster buck or whatever. As to varmints, I have shot a few of them over the years for pest control. I see nothing wrong with it when others do it within legal limits set by the states. I see no reason to have to eat a porcupine, a rat, a prairie dog, a woodchuck, a coyote that someone shoots to rid their land of varmints. I am kind of against shooting animals just for the sake of killing something, and I have seen plenty of people, who are in my opinion jerks, who get quite excited by doing just that.

I see quite a distinction between a hunter and a killer. The thrill of a good hunt is not in the kill alone; in fact most of it is in the hard work coming to a good end, kill or no kill. The thrill of shooting sitting ducks, or the like, is usually in the act of the kill for the twisted person who does not believe in the fair hunt, and the ethics of a huntsman. Yes I am against that type of so called hunting, just as I am against poaching. In order for a hunt to be ethical, there should be some end in sight beyond just killing. In fact all of the animal, or as much as is reasonable, should be used after the kill. This does not mean you have to eat a porcupine. What is does mean is that if you bag a trophy buck for a trophy, you should make an effort to use the meat. Either eat it yourself, give it to a friend, give it to a homeless shelter (many such places take deer meat during the season).

There is quite the difference between hunting ethics and shooting or gun owning ethics; but each interest comes with an ethical way of doing things as opposed to an irresponsible way of doing them. As hunters, firearms enthusiasts, sportsman, we should try to remember this and we should try to support one another as much as possible because our interests are very closely at least indirectly. One thing we can all be certain of, is that the extremists see us as a group of one, and they would certainly like to divide us as Zumbo recently did. Divide and conquer is a very practical way of achieving an end to your enemies - and we as shooters, gun collectors, hunters, and the like are the enemies of the antigun and anti-hunting crowds. So even if you don't see yourself as ever being a hunter, you can support the right to hunt. Even if you hunt with bow and arrows, and never see yourself picking up a gun, you can support the right to keep and bear arms of all types. We rally need to support one another in this fight for our freedoms, because you see, that is what the antis are against, they are anti-freedom for anyone who would disagree with them when it comes right down to it.

All the best,
Glenn B

Larry Ashcraft
April 3, 2007, 08:28 PM
Trophy hunting is pretty much a myth made up by anti-hunters, and it seems to be working.

Here in Colorado, wasting game meat is a felony, and I'm sure many other states have the same laws. And ask H&Hhunter about "trophy hunting" in Africa. It doesn't exist. Protein is simply not wasted over there.

Sad to see the gun people so easily divided over a myth made up by anti-hunters. I thought we were smarter than that.

budney
April 3, 2007, 08:31 PM
I do prefer the whole "eat what you kill" thing.

Me too. I always tell people that's why I wouldn't shoot a human being. They taste horrible. :evil:

--Len.

p35
April 3, 2007, 08:31 PM
Well, the Buddha taught that harming another living being is extremely bad karma, so I don't. If you choose to, though, that's your choice- it's not my place to forbid you from doing so.

Geronimo45
April 3, 2007, 08:33 PM
Not anti-hunting per se. Don't do it, though - too much time and expense, not enough returns to suit me.
Do varmint shooting on occasions. Snakes and armadilloes - and birds on rare occassions. Snakes are snakes. Armadilloes are more industrious than the Army Corps of Engineers. Tear flowerbeds to shreds. Birds - the ones that try to do a hostile takeover of birdhouses they ain't meant for (sparrows, mostly).

Now, when it comes to killing bigger critters (with the exception of people) I think you ought to eat what you kill.

You want to hunt, go right ahead, and more power to you. All that I ask is that you'd follow the four rules (sure of target and beyond, primarily).

glockman19
April 3, 2007, 08:40 PM
I have guns and can't wait to go hunting for my first time. While I'm not interested in deer hunting even though I love venison, I had a family of deer living in my backyard for a time and just can't kill such a beautiful creature.

Now that that's said I could easily and am looking forward to hunting Wild boar. Love pork, and don't have any feelings toward a hairy tusky big pig. I'll shoot cyote, cougar, mountain lion even though I love cats and dogs and I won't eat any of them. I'd also like to bag a black & brown bear for the wall & a rug.:)

After that I'm done. unless I'm hungry...then all bets are off. man needs food and I'm not a vegan.:rolleyes:

I'm not into birds but would also like to hunt/shoot a turkey. Do you hunt chicken? or just catch them, break the neck and pluck the feathers?:confused:

wooderson
April 3, 2007, 08:41 PM
I don't have an ounce of respect for people who ENJOY killing of any kind. If you're out shooting prairie dogs because you have to in order to keep your farm going, shoot away. If you hunt to put meat on the table, good for you.

If, on the other hand, you go out with some buddies to shoot prairie dogs because you get off on it... I can't really say I'd choose to associate with you.

As to the 'myth of trophy-hunting' - whether meat is wasted or not, the reason many animals are killed is so that someone can hang a rack up on the wall. That's not a myth. (Which isn't even to get into my feelings on the 'hide-put out food-blast away' school of hunting.)

Should hunting, even the kinds I dislike, be outlawed? God no.

deltacharlie
April 3, 2007, 08:41 PM
I'm anti "sport" hunting. Like just going and blasting prairie dogs or rabbits without eating them. I guess hunting for the skin/fur is OK, but I do prefer the whole "eat what you kill" thing. If you dont want to eat it, then dont kill it.
I'm guessin' you've never had to end the suffering of a good friend (horse) that had broken its leg as a result of stepping into a groundhog's hole. Popping vermin to save a horse or cattle is an acceptable practice. Especially when protecting livestock that has a significant $$ value attached to them.

Maybe if you'd lain in a field for a couple of hours with a compound fracture you'd probably change your tune about "blasting prairie dogs".

*shakes head*
....city folk.

wooderson
April 3, 2007, 08:45 PM
There are legitimate reasons to control varmint, pest and wild pig populations, undoubtedly. But would you disagree that there's also a culture of fun-killing surrounding varmints and pigs (especially pigs - being penned and set on by dogs for show or slowly tortured by morons using 'too little' gun)?

tasco 74
April 3, 2007, 08:51 PM
i'm a gun owner and shooter that doesn't hunt...... there are reasons why it is so...... i do go with friends on occasion phesant hunting but i don't shoot myself... again there are reasons..... i have friends that go hunt deer and let me have some of the venison...... i have reloaded ammo for friends to hunt with and it has always worked very well thank you..... i don't believe in anything anti that puts any of our rights in jeopardy........... i do like that jefferson quote axman!!!!

mek42
April 3, 2007, 08:57 PM
I didn't grow up in a hunting family and have noticed that there are certain challenges involved with entering the hunting hobby as an adult. Still, my goal for this summer is to be able to shoot 6" groups at 100 yards offhand with my 10" T/C Contender in 44 mag using factory 240 grain hunting ammunition. If I can accomplish this goal I intend to go hunting with some friends next season for whitetail deer. I don't know if I personally will be willing to take the shot though.

While I am not sure that I want to be the killer of meat, I sure do like my prime rib (prime rib dinner banquet for winter bullseye league in two weeks!) so it would be hypocritical for me to care whether other people kill game animals. I also know that overpopulation leads to starvation and roadkill - proper bullet placement is a much cleaner way to go. I do get a bit irritated at the yahoos who show no respect for the animals though. The ones that take 10 rapid fire shots with only the first one (maybe) aimed. Or the ones who confuse the horse, cow and deer (with antlers only) categories of widlife.

hso
April 3, 2007, 09:08 PM
If you want to know just post a poll on the question. I expect you'll find an overwhelming number of THR members would not ban hunting.

deltacharlie
April 3, 2007, 09:09 PM
There are legitimate reasons to control varmint, pest and wild pig populations, undoubtedly. But would you disagree that there's also a culture of fun-killing surrounding varmints and pigs ... Then they're obviously not "hunting" then are they? So no need for me to get drawn into that quibbling.

Don't attempt obfuscate the "thrill kill" punk with a gun and no supervision as though he were a legitimate hunter, he's not. It's an apples and oranges comparison that only those who don't understand are incapable of comprehending the difference, or are too stubborn to try.

And by the way, I'm not a hunter.

TnRebel
April 3, 2007, 09:13 PM
I was taught in the early years {52} by my grandfather that you don't point your gun at anything your not going to eat, then in 65 in Vietnam it blew that all to hell , Them damn Charley's tasted like Chit .:what:

wooderson
April 3, 2007, 09:36 PM
Don't attempt obfuscate the "thrill kill" punk with a gun and no supervision as though he were a legitimate hunter, he's not.
Obfuscation is redefining a word to eliminate those forms you don't like.

These 'thrill kill punks' are hunting just as much as a prairie-dog fearing farmer or businessman with a deer rifle.

Mr White
April 3, 2007, 09:41 PM
I hunt.
I'm not concerned much with trophies. I hunt deer and turkey for the meat.

I hunt coyotes and groundhogs because I can and I enjoy doing so. I don't much care that some folks don't approve of hunting.

I don't get obnoxious about it and try not to be confrontational with people, but I'm not gonna apologize to anyone about my hunting or shooting.

F4GIB
April 3, 2007, 09:43 PM
If you don't support hunting, then you are a Zumbo too.

There is no room for intolerance in the gun community.

General Geoff
April 3, 2007, 09:51 PM
There is no room for intolerance in the gun community.


That is quite possibly the most contradictory sentence I've ever read. :scrutiny:

wooderson
April 3, 2007, 09:52 PM
If you don't support hunting, then you are a Zumbo too.
Perhaps, but Zumboing someone doesn't have much weight when they lack a gun-writing career to destroy.

General Geoff
April 3, 2007, 09:53 PM
Oh, and there's a big difference between intolerance, dislike, and indifference.

nwilliams
April 3, 2007, 10:05 PM
I don't think there are many on here that are anti-hunting, there may be a lot on here that don't hun however. I myself have never hunted or had an interest to. However I have nothing against doing it, just as long as you don't kill just for the sake of killing. If you eat what you kill than I see nothing wrong with that, from what I hear people have been doing it for a long time.:D

SoCalShooter
April 3, 2007, 10:08 PM
Well you can be anti-hunting and still be a gun owner. But just don't ruin it for the rest of us or you will eventually ruin it for all of us. Thats the way I look at it. I like to hunt, I like to shoot, I like to shoot at competitions. So I do pretty much all of it (gonna get into shotguns next :rolleyes: ) but if certain members of the gun community dont like one aspect of it they need to be MADE to realize that supporting only part of it is damaging to all of it.

Justin
April 3, 2007, 10:10 PM
If you want to know just post a poll on the question. I expect you'll find an overwhelming number of THR members would not ban hunting.

And the three jokers who would vote to ban hunting in a THR poll are just doing it to stir the pot.


FWIW, I've hunted prairie dogs, and would happily go again. After all, they're Mother Nature's own reactive targets.

I had no interest in hunting game animals until I had a taste of elk a few months ago. Since then, I've completed the required hunter safety course and submitted my check for an elk tag.

Yeah.

Elk meat tastes that good, and the idea of getting my meat from somewhere other than a little styrofoam container just seems like the sort of thing one should try, at least once.

As to the political side of it, I will happily speak up on behalf of the rights of hunters. Gun issues aside, without them, many of the open and natural spaces that I enjoy hiking through would not exist, and hunters do much to support wildlife conservation. Far more than any of the so-called "animal rights" crowd.

Be that as it may, we must stand together. The gun bigots have claimed that hunting rifles are for sniping. They've already tried to ban Olympic rimfire pistols as assault weapons in one state, and those who wish to defend themselves or compete in High Power and 3-Gun have been under relentless attack.

We absolutely must speak up for one another. Without solidarity, we're toast.

Soybomb
April 3, 2007, 10:12 PM
I'm not a hunter and not especially interested in hunting, but I'm not anti-hunting. Someone bring me some venison.

I am anti-hunter for those that only support the 2nd amendment as far as they need it.

SWModel19
April 3, 2007, 10:37 PM
Other than the rabbit hunting I used to do as a kid, I can't stand hunting. But that's only because I don't like getting up at 4AM, and I would have absolutely NO idea what to do to prepare the carcass to get it to a meat processor.

Politically, I am all in favor of the rest of you doing it.

I also favor it from the management standpoint. In college, I took a wildlife science class where the professor gave a great argument in favor of management hunting. It *almost* made me want to go. Of course, I found out a few semesters later that he was also the owner of one of the local gun shops, so he might not have been totally disinterested. But he did have a PhD in the subject, and clearly he had a love for animals.

Gaucho Gringo
April 3, 2007, 10:43 PM
Quote:

"There are legitimate reasons to control varmint, pest and wild pig populations, undoubtedly. But would you disagree that there's also a culture of fun-killing surrounding varmints and pigs (especially pigs - being penned and set on by dogs for show or slowly tortured by morons using 'too little' gun)?"
__________________


Wooderson, are you saying that people are killing domesticated pigs with dogs and torturing them? I would say the price a domesticated pig is worth at market would make this uneconomic but I have been wrong before. Never heard of anything like this but I have not been everywhere & seen everything and have been wrong before. If indeed it does happen with pigs I will agree it is wrong. Wild boars are are a different thing as they are one of the meanest animals in the world.

GaryL
April 3, 2007, 10:43 PM
I'm anti "sport" hunting. Like just going and blasting prairie dogs or rabbits without eating them. I used to feel the same way. But after being out west with a friend, and having strangers come up to me and ask if I would be so kind as to clear their property of the rodents, and seeing the damage they can do, and finding out that the plague is still alive and well in some rodent communities, I changed my thinking on the subject.

Poisoning is bad, that kills non targeted species. But if you want to maintain a healthy population of prairie dogs without it becoming a problem, then it works best to encourage sport shooting of them.

People who like to hunt and fish for food (like me) spend more time and money on supporting habitat than people who complain about hunting and fishing. We want to see healthy populations and good habitat.

wooderson
April 3, 2007, 10:44 PM
wild pig populations

entreus
April 3, 2007, 10:48 PM
I totally agree with the statement that hunters do more for the animals and areas they hunt than others do. While there are those that indiscriminately kill, I'd say that that is a small number of the actual hunters.

It only takes a few bad eggs to ruin it for everyone. What I mean is, as an example in my state, Washington, they have started closing down shooting areas. While it's not only the government, it has seemed to become more and more of a problem to find a good area to shoot in the last couple of years. That's from people dumping in the pits, etc. Most shooters I know take more trash away from a site than they make, but there are a few that don't.

Unfortunately people don't look for the good, it's not nearly as fun to listen to on the radio, news or to talk about.

Have an in-law that hunts, he spends many weekends helping count, track and care for the elk in state. Volunteers many hours to help ensure that future generations are able to hunt. I'm not a hunter, but I think it's a skill that we shouldn't forget. Who know what the future will bring.

Leedavisone
April 3, 2007, 10:59 PM
"There is no room for intolerance in the gun community."

I have to admit, I am new to The High Road. But, I am starting to doubt that "The High Road" is the correct name for such a diverse group of ... well, intolerant people. I have to admit I am surprised... really surprised. But, I don't hang out much with anyone, especially fringe types. I have learned in the past two months as a member of THR that it is the most insensitive bunch of intolerant people I have ever witnessed (along with a healthy dose of intelligent and thoughtful people).
I am VERY pro gun. I am a liberal. I have been a gun collector for 40 years. I used to hunt quail and dove here in New Mexico till I moved away and got married (women always seem to mess it up), but I don't now. I have never killed a 'varmint', but I am not about to preach to others on what they should and shouldn't kill... for sport or otherwise. Relax... no-one is going to "ban" hunting.
I have started several threads, and responded to many, and what has truly shocked me is the level of intolerance and vindictiveness that has been directed at me for expressing a thought. Today, I had a private message that was downright threatening, because I expressed the thought that Paypal is good for me and my business. I started a thread about the weapons that Pancho Villa and his Villistas carried during the revolution years, and I was flamed with a dozen hate messages. Whew! What an intolerant bunch!
I may drop THR from my 'favorites', as I have wanted to for several weeks now... but I have to admit, my sense of combativeness and desire to defend myself keeps me coming back.
Oh... back to the original thought... I am pro hunting, anti gun... no wait! I mean pro hunting and gun. or is it pro gun hunting and anti varmint? If I am anti varmint, does that mean shoot them? I am confused now, I shall go to bed.



"Go ahead, make my doggie day" Otis

FireArmFan
April 3, 2007, 11:05 PM
I've always liked guns since before I can remember, but hunting is what got me into shooting. I was hunting long before I would consider myself a "shooter." As a child I got a .22 learned to shoot. Then got a deer rifle and started to hunt. Through hunting I spawned my love for guns even more, and while I still hunt every year, shooting is a year round thing for me now. I would think that a number of people on here had a somewhat similar experience.

Titan6
April 3, 2007, 11:18 PM
I am pretty sure trophy hunting is not a myth. At least the people I know who do it are awfully real...

Does meat get wasted? All the time. Most people won't eat mountain lion. And they are not driving across four states to be a helpful neihbor either.

Is it wrong? I don't really make those kinds of judgements but I don't do it either so I guess I just care for it one way or another.

ReadyontheRight
April 3, 2007, 11:20 PM
Leedavisone -- I have not noticed your previous posts, and I am saddened by any personal attacks you've received through THR.

Some of the friction may be from statements like this:

... Relax... no-one is going to "ban" hunting. ...

We cannot "relax" because there are lots of very vocal and political people out there who actually DO want to ban hunting and shooting. And we are fighting them at the grass roots every day.

"Relax, no one wants to ban your precious hunting gun..." is usually the argument from someone who wants exactly that. They just cannot get it...yet.

Personal attacks and strong arguments are two very different things.

THR is all about supporting the latter and squelching the former. And the Moderators do a fine job of it.

waynedm
April 3, 2007, 11:26 PM
Now I hunt with my Nikon F5 and let the deer live another day.

That's the only type of hunting I respect. Not only do I respect it, I find it admirable.

I'm a shooter, I've never hunted in my life. I work at a place that has everything to do with hunting. I get asked quite often why I work there and it's simply because I'm a shooter.

Being that I'm not a hunter and work in this environment I've had a lot of discussion with people on the ideas of hunting; the whys and hows and all of that. I've had a lot of time to sit and think about the entire idea.

There's the argument that we have to or else the deer population will get out of hand. To that I say that if we didn't kill off wolves for all of those years that the deer population never would get out of hand. Nature balances itself out. We're the ones messing with things. We caused the problems in the first place and for some reason people think we're the answer to fix the imbalance. They say they kill the prairie dogs because they're out of control and wreck things. Well, if you didn't kill off all the coyotes there wouldn't be as many prairie dogs. I'm pretty undecided on the idea of 'varmint' hunting. I do hear a lot about coyotes attacking domestic animals, and in that case I say blast them.

I don't have a problem so much with people that hunt for food. Some do it for variety, for the sport or whatever, but in the end it still stems from the basic premise of food - survival.

The hunter I don't respect at all - actually hate - are the trophy hunters. I'm using the word hate here because I mean it. These are the guys that go to Africa on 'safari' and kill beautiful, and often times struggling species. What is the point of killing a lion? Do you feel you accomplished something out that? People that kill lions, zebras, hippos, elephants and all the other animals over there are the biggest cowards on Earth. In fact, the only reason I'd go to Africa with a rifle is to hunt hunters.

To every give there is an equal take here. Humans have this supreme being mentality about things, we have this God complex where we feel the need to be in control. We have the desire for power. Remember on Schindler's List where Schindler tells the story of the Emperor pardoning the worthless thief although the man deserved death? The Emperor had the man's life in his ass but he pardoned him - that's power.

I'm not saying I'll never hunt. People talk up the taste of grouse a lot and shotgunning sounds fun. Maybe some day.

As far as the whole we all need to stick together idea - I agree. How can I not be a hunter and support hunting? I only do as a means of protecting the Second and that's as far as I'll go. Will all shooters support hunters in the grand scheme? Not always, look what happened with Zumbo. Zumbo forgot about the divided we stand united we fall idea. I'm not going to bash your Mauser action sniper rifle, but I'm also not going to condone all of the actions you take with it - unless push comes to shove with the Left.

HuntCast
April 3, 2007, 11:38 PM
The hunter I don't respect at all - actually hate - are the trophy hunters. I'm using the word hate here because I mean it. These are the guys that go to Africa on 'safari' and kill beautiful, and often times struggling species. What is the point of killing a lion? Do you feel you accomplished something out that? People that kill lions, zebras, hippos, elephants and all the other animals over there are the biggest cowards on Earth. In fact, the only reason I'd go to Africa with a rifle is to hunt hunters.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the crux of the problem right there. Spoken like it was read right off the USHS or Peta website.
Just as ASSAULT RIFLE has been defined by the anti's, so has the term trophy hunting.
Why is an elephant more valuable to you than a deer, or a cow, or a chicken? Oh, and just so you know, if more people do not go to South Africa and KILL elephants soon, they will cease to exist there.
With the ban on Ivory trade (even from legally killed game) and mis-information of the kind you are stating, people have quit hunting them. Unfortunately, there are about 500 percent more elephants per square mile than the habitat can support.
They are literally eating themselves into annihilation in South Africa and a few other countries.
I don't know the first thing about AR's and AK's, so I defer to the members here who do. Maybe you should do the same with regards to hunting?

heypete
April 3, 2007, 11:39 PM
I own numerous firearms, both suitable for hunting and not, but I do not hunt.

I would like to hunt at some time in my life as I feel it would be nice to be responsible for acquiring my food using my own skill.

Remember that man has been hunting animals for food and sport since the beginning of our species, and that man has been keeping trophies of successful hunts for just as long.

That said, here's my personal opinions on the matter:
- No objection to hunting for food whatsoever.
- No objections on "trophy hunting", so long as the meat is not wasted. If one wants to go hunting for a head to mount on the wall, or some antlers to put over the mantle, who am I to say otherwise? Donate the meat to a soup kitchen or some such if one doesn't want the meat. I'd personally prefer synthetic antlers or something, but who I am to judge? I suppose there's something authentic about the real thing.
- No objections to varminting where necessary. Man is a predator, and I suspect there's some sort of visceral response in a person's brain in response to being a predator. I can see how people would enjoy varminting, even if they're not going to eat the meat because the vermin are so small, and I can't blame them. I suppose I'd much rather have people enjoying the action than loathing it and doing it as a necessary chore. I'd like to volunteer my time with my suppressed 10/22 to help de-varmint some ranches around here, but I'm not really sure how to approach the owners about it.
- I have major objections to hunting endangered species.
- I have major objections to poaching, particularly for a relatively small part of an animal's body (such as killing an elephant simply for the tusks). Poachers should be shot on sight. One of my former Marine buddies (he was in my National Guard unit after leaving the Corps) used to be a Marine sniper (saw his qualifications) and after leaving the Marines, became a game guide in Zimbabwe; with the permission of the game warden, he's shot 5 or so poachers.

In short: I have no problem with legitimate hunting, varminting, or other such actions. I have minor issues with simply going out to shoot stuff for the hell of it (such as using random birds for targets), but I don't wish to project my personal objections on the actions of others.

Really, I have very little problem with what other people do that doesn't affect me, so long as people support the right to keep and bear arms.

waynedm
April 3, 2007, 11:43 PM
I don't know the first thing about AR's and AK's, so I defer to the members here who do. Maybe you should do the same with regards to hunting?

Where did I say anything about ARs or AKs?

They are literally eating themselves into annihilation in South Africa and a few other countries.

Nature balances itself out. If there isn't enough food for them they will die, eventually the medium will be reached.

There you have it, folks! Written like a true power hungry, making up statistics and information, know it all about the natural order of things God wanna be.

Thain
April 3, 2007, 11:45 PM
I am not anti-hunting, but I have neve gone hunting. It just doesn't appeal to me... My wife's extended family are very avid hunters and keep promising to take her, and threatening to take me. :p

It's not that I feel the hamburger at the grocer is somehow more holy or righteous, just because osmeone else killed it. I just enjoy not having to clean it myself... I mean, I get a little "juice" on my hands man-handling a rib roast, and I go through half a bottle of hand soap. I don't like blood, and I can't abide "guts" :barf:

So, no fishing, no hunting, and no butchering my own turkey.

Its the sort of ignorant detachment from my food that Hunter-types (liek my wife) tend to scorn. But its not because I have an ethical or moral problem, I just find the whole idea of gutting a deer to be "icky"

That said, I would never support a ban on hunting (aside from things like season/weapon/specieis regulations), but then I'm firmly Anti Banning of Anything, cross the board.

chemist308
April 3, 2007, 11:47 PM
I never understood the whole anti-hunting thing unless coming from someone who is vegetarian for moral reasons--ie: PETA members. It's one thing for someone to say they are anti-hunting and eat an asparagus sandwich--yuck--it's another to say it when eating a burger...but then I usually eat what I shoot. But one way or the other we should band together and protect both as anti-gunners attack hunting as a backdoor to our guns.

But here's a thought. One hunter I know refuses to eat store bought meat because of how the animals are treated and the garbage they ingest.

MDHunter
April 3, 2007, 11:50 PM
There's the argument that we have to or else the deer population will get out of hand. To that I say that if we didn't kill off wolves for all of those years that the deer population never would get out of hand. Nature balances itself out. We're the ones messing with things. We caused the problems in the first place and for some reason people think we're the answer to fix the imbalance.

Not exactly Wayne.....nature left to its own devices through history has produced WILD swings in populations of different animal species....the whitetailed deer was nearly extinct in many areas in the early 1900s, a big part of the reason deer made a comeback was the efforts of hunters and conservationists. Wolves and coyotes running free don't produce a sustainable number of whatever species they're hunting; they'll kill everything they can, that's their instinct.

They say they kill the prairie dogs because they're out of control and wreck things. Well, if you didn't kill off all the coyotes there wouldn't be as many prairie dogs. I'm pretty undecided on the idea of 'varmint' hunting. I do hear a lot about coyotes attacking domestic animals, and in that case I say blast them.

Maybe not as many prairie dogs, but still enough to damage farms and spread disease. Again. mother nature does not manage animal populations in moderation.

The hunter I don't respect at all - actually hate - are the trophy hunters. I'm using the word hate here because I mean it. These are the guys that go to Africa on 'safari' and kill beautiful, and often times struggling species. What is the point of killing a lion? Do you feel you accomplished something out that? People that kill lions, zebras, hippos, elephants and all the other animals over there are the biggest cowards on Earth. In fact, the only reason I'd go to Africa with a rifle is to hunt hunters.

Hmmmm - not very much "High road" about this paragraph! Did you know that almost all of the animals killed on African safari hunts are used MORE fully than animals killed in the United States? The local tribes use everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, that can be used for the animal. As for a "point" - what is the point of flaming someone for doing something you don't seem to care for? Isn't that what we say about the anti-gun crowd? And before you go hunting hunters.....better be careful, those pretty animals aren't always as pretty up close.

As far as the whole we all need to stick together idea - I agree. How can I not be a hunter and support hunting? I only do as a means of protecting the Second and that's as far as I'll go.

Excuse me if I misunderstand - but when you talk about "hunting the hunters" that sure doesn't seem like "sticking together" to me.

Just my comments, maybe this came out differently than you meant it. I hope so, but either way, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Michael

HuntCast
April 3, 2007, 11:53 PM
Nature balances itself out. If there isn't enough food for them they will die, eventually the medium will be reached.


Really??? Name the natural predators of elephant that will even things out until the habitat can recover in about 30 years?? Look in the mirror........ you are it.
Again, your comment is right out of the animal rights playbook.

And I mentioned the AR's as a polite way of saying you haven't a clue what you are talking about, and thats OK....... as a non hunter you have no reason to. My only problem is when people pretend they DO know what they are talking about spout off.

MDHunter
April 3, 2007, 11:54 PM
For those "unsure" about coyote hunting - coyotes attacked adults in Connecticut, and a coyote tried to grab an infant off a porch in Iowa or Idaho, her older sister saved her by grabbing her away from the coyote (both threads are somewhere on this forum a few months back). Coyotes kill deer (when they can catch them), house pets, and spread disease. Just some more food for thought.

Michael

RCouch
April 3, 2007, 11:55 PM
Will state my personal case as others have. I'm not anti-hunting but don't hunt. Will and have killed pests that are troublesome and dangerous (Cayotes, Racoons, Possums, etc.). Support others hunting and believe it is needed to control some of our species like Deer. Think that a lot of people fall into my category due to personal situations and age limitations.
Believe that a many of the politicians that are preaching anti-gun gorp are doing so for political motives only and that it is eventually going to come back to bite them.

SteveS
April 4, 2007, 12:02 AM
There's the argument that we have to or else the deer population will get out of hand. To that I say that if we didn't kill off wolves for all of those years that the deer population never would get out of hand. Nature balances itself out. We're the ones messing with things. We caused the problems in the first place and for some reason people think we're the answer to fix the imbalance. They say they kill the prairie dogs because they're out of control and wreck things. Well, if you didn't kill off all the coyotes there wouldn't be as many prairie dogs. I'm pretty undecided on the idea of 'varmint' hunting. I do hear a lot about coyotes attacking domestic animals, and in that case I say blast them.


True, but I doubt that wolf reintroduction will be all that popular in more populated areas. Here in Michigan, it has been met with mixed feelings in the area (the UP) where they have a growing population. In lower Michigan, there are some areas where the deer population has gotten very high and caused problems ranging from crop damage to millions in damages in car-deer accidents. I am sure we have contributed to the problem, but we have to live here too.

I enjoy hunting for a lot of reasons, but I would be untruthful if I said I was just doing it for conservation. I know that I could more easily go to the grocery store and buy chicken, steaks, hamburger, etc. Most of the red meat I eat througout the year is wild game. I take pleasure in knowing that I took it myself and that it is hormone and antibiotic free. I still enjoy a good steak and chicken, and I am not trying to knock farmers and ranchers, but there is just something about doing it yourself.

In fact, the only reason I'd go to Africa with a rifle is to hunt hunters.

You would be a muderer. Maybe you should read up on African hunting.

Interesting facts on African hunting, just what PETA doesn't want to hear! (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=189864)

timsosvp
April 4, 2007, 12:08 AM
Hi everyone. I'm new here but feel I have something to say about this. I am an active participant in the firearms issues and am 100% pro second amendment; I am also a hunter. Guess what guys and gals... I don't own a gun. I had a bad turn of finances and needed to sacrifice them for my kids.

These, quite honestly, petty differences in opinion are what kills us at the ballot box and at the legislative venues. How many of you can actually state what the constitutions of your states includes regarding the right to keep and bear arms?

How many of you will stand with your hunting and or shooting bretheren despite their preferred method or game is not what YOU consider ethical? Rest assured they will come after you next. Perfect example MI Dove Hunting: one of the anti arguments was that the dove represents MI to the world; PA has both the Ruffed Grouse and Whitetail Deer as their respective State animals. What makes you think that the argument won't be honed to say that "it represents PA to the world."

My home State, PA, the birthplace of liberty, is under heavy anti gun fire with no less than 10 bills that ignore our State Constitution let alone the US Constitution. Educate yourselves at the State level and also know that the brother who doesn't do things like you would is also your strongest ally; till you forget about him in his time of need.

starboard
April 4, 2007, 12:10 AM
I just got done reading Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's "On Combat" - an interesting read btw - and therein is a mention or two of how hunting experience helps to reduce post-firefight stress (and propensity for PTSD).

Another thing I seem to recall mentioned is that hunting seems to forster the hunter mentality and awareness - sheepdog rather than sheep, in other words. This mindset is essential for surviving and performing in SHTF, and so, hunting seems to be an all around good thing insofar as a person's mental preparedness goes.

I would guess that the more up close and personal the hunt, the better the training. Bow hunting is probably right up there.

ReadyontheRight
April 4, 2007, 12:12 AM
I do not understand the "nature will figure it all out" argument.

When did Mankind stop being part of nature?

Smellvin
April 4, 2007, 12:13 AM
I think any living thing should be treated with respect. Any animal is capable of suffering just as much as you or me, so unless killing said creature is the only way I can survive I'm not going to be very inclined to do so. For me personally, "do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself" doesn't just apply to a small, select set.

Interesting things that you might not have thought about before:
-Someone who kills a dog or a horse -- especially for food -- is looked down upon, whereas someone who kills a bear or a deer (legally) has no such stigma attached to him. The difference is not that the first two are domesticated animals because eating cows carries no such taboo.

-The authority most people cite in allowing them to kill animals is because people are more intelligent or highly evolved. Why then, can't someone with a high genius-level IQ hunt someone with severe mental disabilities? Or, for that matter, if a highly advanced alien race suddenly appeared, would you be perfectly satisfied with them hunting us for sport? (I'm making the assumption that they would have all the food they needed).

People who are anti-blast-the-varmints would feel different if they stood beside their $100,000 tractor with a broken axle...an axle that broke when the tractor dropped into a ground hog's hole.
I doubt most people's first option would be shooting their dogs if they were digging dangerous holes; if a small child somehow accidentally broke the tractor most people probably wouldn't feel compelled to kill him, either. I've never had to deal with such a problem, so I have no idea if there is any reasonable, effective alternative such as repellents. Just something to think about.

Smellvin
April 4, 2007, 12:23 AM
Harry, the point I was making is that your argument is exactly the same one that was used by slave owners. No one here would argue that making theft, rape, or murder illegal is infringing on anyone's rights (at least I hope!). Freedom doesn't imply freedom to do whatever you wish to others. While I'm not saying that an aardvark should get voting rights or an elk should get citizenship, I'm just saying that treating them with a base level of respect would be nice.

I hope to see some good counter-points in the morning to give me something to think about. It's off to bed with me now!

MDHunter
April 4, 2007, 12:26 AM
another thing to remember:

Left to Mother Nature's discretion, some species overpopulate and starve to death - which takes anywhere from 1-3 weeks, during which the animal endures pain and suffering that we probably can't comprehend. Unless coyotes, wolves or other animals find and feed on the carcass, the animal is essentially wasted.

Animals that are shot by gun or bow most often die within seconds of being shot, and the emat is used by the hunter or donated to homeless shelters or food kitchens. Here in Maryland, it's estimated that Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry provided over 400,000 high-protein meals to people who really need protein in 2005; deer venison is healthy, high protein, and free of steroids or growth hormones.

And each of us kills many more organisms than we realize, just by existing. If you're opposed to killing deer or rabbits but don't hesitate to step on bugs or spiders, I'm not sure if anything I say will get through to you.

Michael

gezzer
April 4, 2007, 12:30 AM
There are many city kids on this post.

I KILL, most of my family’s food, Chickens I have raised, Rabbits I have raised, Hogs I have raised, Turkeys I have raised, Beef creatures I have raised. Most of my family’s meat does not enter our home wrapped in plastic.

I also hunt wild animals for the meat and enjoyment.

I also rip living organisms from my garden and eat them. They are no different than the live stock.

I also Kill, destroy, and eradicate any predators or varmints that endanger MY LIVE STOCK or garden.

Feel superior to me because you will not kill your own meat, but then shop at the supermarket? I cannot express my true feelings for you on this forum.

H&Hhunter
April 4, 2007, 12:31 AM
You know the thing that really bothers me about some of the posts in this thread is not so much the shear ignorance of what sport hunting/ trophy hunting/ meat hunting is but, the regurgitation of the anti hunting pop culture one liners that keep reoccurring in this thread.

The anti message is getting through loud and clear apparently.

lets try and clear a few thing up.

1. There are no non sport hunters in the USA today except in very RARE circumstances. That is a very simply fact because with extremely rare exception we all make the concious effort to hunt and we do so by choice because we enjoy it. There are almost no circumstances where it wouldn't be cheaper, easier and far simpler to just purchase out food from the store. Therefore we are hunting whether purely for food or not because we derive some pleasure from this age old activity of hunting. Remember from an evolutionary stand point we were predators/ scavengers long before we were farmers. It is our genetic code to hunt.

2. The "I despise trophy hunters" statement is probably the most misunderstood statement. It is a favorite of your various voracious anti-hunting/ anti-American/anti freedom groups out there today. It seems to be quite popular here too.

First off the term trophy hunter immediately brings the vision to the unwashed ignorant masses of a rich overweight banker who kills some poor doe eyed defenseless animal. Then has the head removed so he can hang it on his wall letting the carcass waste.

WHAT A BUNCH of unmitigated senseless BS. Trophy hunters as a group are the most disciplined, careful, and intensely conservation minded hunters in the world. They have to be or there wouldn't be any trophies left for them to hunt. They are intensely concerned about herd health, proper genetics, correct land management, license allocation, proper kill ratio, FAIR chase, ethics, land accessibility and preservation and most of all the sustainability of the precious resource of wildlife and wild country for endless generations to come.

Trophy hunters are the guys who pay the big out of state and out of country fees to make sure these things are available in the future. GET a clue guys WE trophy hunters pay a huge portion of the bill so that everybody else can enjoy the wildlife our fee's pay to keep around. With out us fighting for and financing the struggle to keep wild places wild and wildlife at sustainable levels you'd see a rapid dissipation of these place and these animals as they became of less value and your land all of a sudden looked more inviting as a strip mall than a winter feeding ground.

I've posted far to many factual instances of the good trophy hunters do to go in and regurgitate them here but I'll summarize a few facts:

One only needs to look at the dismal wildlife densities in Kenya where hunting was banned in 1978 and in particular the African Elephant as compared to ALL of the other countries which continued the practice of controlled regulated and heavily fee based sport hunting of Elephants and other game animals.

All of the countries who have continued using the very effective conservation tool of TROPHY hunting are simply overrun with game and in fact some are begging for more hunting quotas to pay for the removal of elephants as they are over populated. There are hundreds of thousands of elephants in Botswana, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mozambique and Namibia where hunting is allowed.

Kenya's Elephant population is down from roughly 160,00 when the hunting ban went into effect to less than 16,000 today. WHY? Because these animals have no intrinsic value to the average native who would just as soon poach one and make a few schillings on the ivory. In the countries that allow hunting the elephants are worth more as an asset to the natives in the form of employment fees paid to the local villages and legal meat than they are a set of illegal ivories.

The black buck of India, there are more Black buck living in the state of Texas on TROPHY hunting ranches than there are in the also non-hunting country of India. WHY? Well I think you already know why.

I have never killed a game animal in Africa where the meat wasn't fully utilized by the indigenous population. That is part of the deal over there.

I am a trophy hunter. I am always hunting for the biggest oldest critter I can find. That is wise herd management. I also always pack out any and all of the usable meat from said animal. There are many times that I come home empty handed because I don't find just the right critter. I still paid for the license. Heck I've made three trips 2 + miles back to a cape buffalo bull to pack out the meat with four guys so we could give the meat to a local village. I didn't eat it but they were sure as hell happy enough to have it. Does that make me evil? I've also shot a crop raiding non trophy elephant at the request of a local chief which I paid a Healthy license fee on. The carcass feed four villages in the area and the hide and bone was split four ways to those communal villages and my license fee also goes directly back in to the community. Was I an evil non compliant non bambyist for doing that? I'll tell you this as well. I was majorly jazzed, totally tuned in, and completely psyched when I closed to with in 40 yards of that elephant in heavy cover and killed her with a side brain shot from a .470NE double rifle. Cow elephant are without a doubt the most deadly animal on the planet to hunt on foot.

Was I completely excited when I stopped a bull buffalo charge at mere feet in the jesse of the Zambezi valley. You bet your sweet buns I was and you'd have been too. I am excited and alive and free and in my element every time I grab a rifle and head for the distant horizon. Whether to hunt cape buffalo or cow elk to deny that feeling is to deny a basic human condition I am not a spectator in nature I am a participant just like that lion in Botswana.

I couldn't give two poops what the elitist left has to say about it. If you cherish wildlife and if you cherish wild country the world over you should thank a hunter and not just a hunter but a trophy hunter WE PAY THE BILL FOR IT EACH AND EVERY DAY! So enjoy it's on me.:)

ReadyontheRight
April 4, 2007, 12:49 AM
:rolleyes: Smellvin -- So a rat is a dog is a child?

Is it more respectful to raise a cow in a pen and trudge it to the slaughterhouse than to hunt a free, wild animal? Or is it more respectful for a wild, free deer to be dragged down and eaten by wolves or to starve through overpopulation than to manage the herd and harvest a few with bullets every fall? Just like our ancestors have done for eons?

As far as the concept of shooting something just for the trophy, my various hunting camps and those with whom we associate self-regulate very nicely. Very few people in most of the world "need" to hunt for food anymore (THANK YOU FREE ENTERPRISE!), so many hunters will use their precious time out hunting to go for the most difficult target - like a wiley old buck.

However, anyone leaving good meat out on the field to rot would be ostracized...and probably dropped off deep in the woods naked amongst the wolves as a lesson to avoid our camp in the future.

I suspect it is the same the world over. It's always "those people" or "I heard about this guy who..."

Just like anything, the few bad hunter stories become fodder for those who have no interest in hunting and cannot even comprehend the interest in truly fending for oneself.

Are anyone's concepts of "trophy hunters" driven by your actual experience, or are they driven by something out of Hollywood?

Starboard -- You have captured a good part of the pro-hunting argument nicely. An America full of non-hunting sheep would be nice and peaceful to govern...until the next pack of wolves comes along.

TNDad
April 4, 2007, 12:55 AM
think any living thing should be treated with respect. Any animal is capable of suffering just as much as you or me, so unless killing said creature is the only way I can survive I'm not going to be very inclined to do so. For me personally, "do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself" doesn't just apply to a small, select set.


Here are a couple of points for you to ponder...

1. That is a selfish thing to say, hunting is not the only way for US to survive. It is the only way for the ANIMALS to survive. So by saying you will not accept your responsibility as the top predator in controling animal populations is just cruel. If we do not hunt them the animals that we love would be wiped out by disease and starvation.

2. There is not a single person on this planet that RESPECTS animals more then a hunter. That admiration and respect is one of the things that drives us to hunt them. Think about it, we love to hunt, it calls to us on a primal level, it is NATURE in all her glory, the completion of the cycle of life. AND it is a tradition that we, as hunters, want to share with our kids and grandkids. No hunter would ever endanger a species. Quite the contrary we take responsibility for ensureing the survival of these species.

3. Animals are a natural resource, PERIOD. They are pure lean protein, no fillers, no artificial flavors or colors. Best of all they are RENEWABLE, but only if properly managed. It is perfectly natural and right for humans to work for, stalk, and harvest our food. The unatural thing to do is going to the grocery store for you food.

4. Managing and harvesting game is not easy by any stretch of the imagination. It is hard work and takes dedication. It is also no different the planting seed, weeding, furtilizing, and harvesting wheat to make bread. Except the fact that there is no promise of success.

5. Make no mistake about it, if a deer could gain sustenance by eating you it would do so without hesitation or remorse.

ArfinGreebly
April 4, 2007, 12:55 AM
I haven't hunted in forty years.

I've taken various small game in my youth, nearly always for food, and always with small bore.

Then I "got civilized" and more than thirty years went by, including time in the military, time volunteering in humanitarian efforts overseas, time raising a family, and time pursuing a career.

During this time I was subjected to a pretty much nonstop stream of "softening" propaganda. I didn't realize it nor recognize the softening vector for years.

[Series of events leading me to a renewed active interested in guns and self defense.]

Now I'm not young and fit any more, and I finally understand why it is important to know how to hunt and how to prepare game. Somehow my exposure to this stuff was diverted to other stuff when I was still young, strong, and at the top of my physical game.

Now it's late. Not too late, but late nonetheless.

I have much time to make up, much to learn, and still many of my demons to overcome, and little time left to do it. I still have the opportunity -- if I work at it -- to pass these skills and a legacy in them to my children and grandchildren.

I've gotten over the guilt of not paying attention to the needs of life and expecting others to do the things that are, in fact, my duty.

I'm still a little afraid of how I'll handle myself on my first hunt -- once I find someone willing to train an old fart -- but afraid or not, I'll go through with it.

I'm getting better with pistol and rifle, but I still don't own a shotgun. I hear tell birds are easier with a shotgun.

Those of you who fear hunting or hate it: go in peace. I've walked in your shoes. Now I have to walk in my grandfather's.

Those of you who have kept hunting alive until I woke up: thank you all. I'm grateful and humbled.

Maybe the day will never come that I have to prove I can hunt in order to provide for my family. Nonetheless, I will prepare against that event.

I'm a recovering coward.

I will learn to hunt.

Hunt4life
April 4, 2007, 01:01 AM
I browsed the thread a thread a little and would like to make a point or three...

There are phrases used against hunters and hunting that are similar to the way "assault weapon" is used against gun owners.

"Trophy hunting" - Used by the anti-hunt crowd and the general, non-hunting public constantly as a "bad" thing.

The term most often conjures up images of a century ago when shooting game animals for their heads and horns only, leaving the meat to waste, was accepted and legal.

Not so today. The wonton waste of game meat is illegal in every state I know of. Hunting for a big one, a "trophy" is still done by some but... if they waste the meat they are by definition a criminal and treated as such.

"Sport hunting" - Same as above.

"Only eat what you kill" - You first. After I see you eat a nice pot of rat stew or mole soufflé :D From skunks to possums to coyotes they expand past their available habitat and become health and property nuisances. They need to be culled and controlled.

"Leave them alone, nature knows best" - We live in an all but pristine American landscape. The "wild" is a checkerboard of little ecosystems and these ecosystems need to be managed to maintain their overall health and biodiversity.

Population swings can be disastrous causing habitat destruction and in severe cases localized extinction of wildlife. Hunting is used as a management tool by professional wildlife managers to level out the population swings and maximizes the health of wild places.

Sure, we could just go to a non-management management policy and live with the consequences but people like seeing healthy, thriving wildlife populations and hunting provides that.

What's more, about 30,000,000 people hunt and they have every bit as much right to share in America's wildlife resources as non-hunters do; even if they are BBQing a little of it if they're lucky :)

"Hunting isn’t needed - So? Either is NASCAR lol

People don't need to grow a garden or pick berries either. We can get all we want at the local supermarket. But many enjoy the challenge, being outside, harvesting their own, spending the day, week, season doing those things (including hunting) with their families rather than sitting in front of the tube and then eating a nice factory farmed supper of prepackaged trash and chemical saturated dead cow.

There is no evil in killing your own dinner. None. And I believe it is intellectually dishonest to pretend it is.

No animal has ever been reduced to extinction by regulated sport hunting. Not ever.

No other segment of society gives more to wildlife conservation than sportsmen do.

Sportsmen provide more than 75% of the annual income of the 50 state conservation agencies.

Sportsmen contribute over $1.7 Billion every year for conservation programs benefiting all wildlife for all Americans to enjoy.

100's of hunter based conservation organizations donate 1000's and 1000’s of volunteer labor hours to conservation projects ever year.

Hunting is a fun, beneficial, family oriented activity and wildlife thrives today because of it, not in spite of it.

Thank you. I'll now entertain questions for the rest of the time I have left ;)

wooderson
April 4, 2007, 01:04 AM
"Fair chase" huh?

Is that why every sporting goods store in Texas sells a blind to sit in, a salt lick to entice the buck and a few automatic corn feeders to keep them in your area?


In response to:
Why is an elephant more valuable to you than a deer, or a cow, or a chicken? and the many variations of this ('it's illogical to be anti-hunting if you eat meat' and 'you only care about the pretty animals' and so on) - nonsense.

There's nothing illogical or bizarre about treating different groups of animals in different ways. Companion animals, work animals, pests, 'wild beasts' and so on. It's an integral part of human psychology and the product of hundreds of generations of co-socialization.

My hunting concern is not with the morality of animal treatment. That personal can only be applied to my actions. So I don't hunt.

I'm concerned with the state of mind of the killer. There was a video going around once where some nerdy kid videotaped his tarantula killing a mouse that had been used solely for the videotaping (as pet tarantulas generally eat crickets). I consider that morally objectionable behavior - not because I'm opposed to spiders eating or concerned about mice, but because I think there's something wrong in the head when you enjoy seeing a mouse die and derive pleasure from broadcasting the same.

wooderson
April 4, 2007, 01:08 AM
The black buck of India, there are more Black buck living in the state of Texas on TROPHY hunting ranches than there are in the also non-hunting country of India. WHY? Well I think you already know why.

This seems to ignore entirely the question of why animals are a valuable resource. In each of your arguments, hunters value them only as a tool for the continued propagation of hunting: that is part and parcel of the state of mind some here have objected to.

These black buck exist in Texas solely for sporting pleasure. What environmental, cultural/social or economic value is there to that existence apart from the trophy ranches' finances?

Prince Yamato
April 4, 2007, 01:13 AM
Oh...My...God... this is the thread I have been waiting for.

I've never hunted. Don't really want to hunt. If people like to hunt, fine, but in general I don't care much for hunting culture. I also don't see supporting hunting as instrumental in preserving 2A rights, as hunting is a sport, like (as I stated in a previous thread) skateboarding. I also don't care for skateboarding culture, but hell, if you want to skate, fine. I also loathe being treated as some form of inferior gun owner because I do not participate in hunting. Somehow, there's this opinion amongst some in the hunting crowd that I need to kill something to "prove" myself. Anyone ever browsed an AW with a Fudd beside you and hear this phrase, "that gun ain't good for hunting squat... 18inch barrel too short." I just replied, "Oh, if you think that's short, wait till you see it after it's SBSed to 14 inches". Ah the look on the poor Fudd's face. It looked something like this: :mad: Meanwhile, I made this face: :barf: as he browsed a 26 inch mossy oak pump-action. He just looked at me with his grin and said, "now this'll get you a deer". Whatever. Fudds.

ReadyontheRight
April 4, 2007, 01:13 AM
Interesting things that you might not have thought about before:
-Someone who kills a dog or a horse -- especially for food -- is looked down upon, whereas someone who kills a bear or a deer (legally) has no such stigma attached to him. The difference is not that the first two are domesticated animals because eating cows carries no such taboo.

-The authority most people cite in allowing them to kill animals is because people are more intelligent or highly evolved. Why then, can't someone with a high genius-level IQ hunt someone with severe mental disabilities? Or, for that matter, if a highly advanced alien race suddenly appeared, would you be perfectly satisfied with them hunting us for sport? (I'm making the assumption that they would have all the food they needed).

Smellvin -- Interestingly enough. I have thought about those things before.

-I really couldn't care less if someone eats a dog or a horse. Just don't eat MY dog or horse. And eating them seems like a waste of a fine animal, and just plain old not my personal cup of tea.
-A person with a low IQ is still a person. A: Not tasty to me B: Worthy of drawing and quartering any SOB who thinks he can hunt his own race. Next.
-Any highly advanced alien race hunting us for sport would receive a highly advanced butt-kicking. We're neither deer nor sheep my friend, but if we ever stop raising a generation of hunters in the USA, we won't have to wait for an alien race to hunt us for sport, other members of our race will be hunting us for invasion.

ReadyontheRight
April 4, 2007, 01:37 AM
I am excited and alive and free and in my element every time I grab a rifle and head for the distant horizon. Whether to hunt cape buffalo or cow elk to deny that feeling is to deny a basic human condition I am not a spectator in nature I am a participant just like that lion in Botswana.

H&HHunter -- Well said. You've been though more than most, but we all have to stop thinking we need to apologize for Man's nature.

Man's nature -- effective hunting through effective use of tools, culminating in weapons that allow us to live by our own means and defend our personal property -- which has given us the time and freedom to develop technology to even have such debates.

A truly hungry man with hungry children wouldn't have time for the lot of us. He'd be out poaching the wild geese on the local golf course, wishing he had a better shotgun.

We may have moved beyond that man, but he's still only a few paychecks or a few missed grocery truck deliverys away.

Nil
April 4, 2007, 01:52 AM
I've never hunted before since I never saw the point to it around here. My idea of fun doesn't involve sitting in a tree stand all day hoping a deer will walk by. But I also have always wanted to try a hunt out west for elk or some other large game. The one problem though, if I happened to see a magnificent specimen, I think I'd prefer it to remain alive and in the wild than mounted. I think the idea of the hunt appeals to me more than the actual taking of the animal.

Anyways, I have no issue with any sort of hunting.

Hunt4life
April 4, 2007, 01:56 AM
We're all meat eaters here, right?

jhunter
April 4, 2007, 02:16 AM
I am pro gun all the way, but I do not hunt. I just buy my food. I get no satisfaction from the sport. I shoot at our land, and at the range. Even hunting rifles.. If I were in need of food, and broke, I would take a deer or something. Yea yea, deer need to be managed.. OK, quit breeding them for hunts. I am not anti-hunting. I am not going to support it if asked, nor petition it. Has nothing to do with being a gun owner and pro gun. I can own all the guns I want, that does not mean I have to shoot animals. I have shot several deer and some big cats when I was young, and just never felt good afterward. All deer were for grandparents and cats were for a buddys who stuffed and sold them. I like targets now. I will still hang out with hunters and will not try to talk them out of doing it, but I choose not to do so. However, I will blow an intruders face off and not think twice about it. That is the main purpose of my guns and I hope it never happens. Targets are good for everything else I use them for.

Speaking of this, was the first firearm developed to hunt amimals or kill men?

illspirit
April 4, 2007, 02:17 AM
We're all meat eaters here, right?
Nope. I've been a vegetarian for over a decade. :uhoh:

That said, I came into this thread not expecting any animosity towards hunters. At least not as much as some people saying they'd rather hunt hunters. Wow.

I don't eat meat, but support others right to do so, and totally respect people who put their own food on the table. If I ever get rich, leave the city, and buy a farm or something, I'd let people hunt on my land. Hell, I'd probably take care of the varmints myself if they were stealing my precious veggies. Not quite sure how anybody sees a problem with that. It's pretty much self defense if you think about it.

only1asterisk
April 4, 2007, 02:23 AM
We're all meat eaters here, right?

I doubt it.

I also doubt I'd have ever picked up a gun if it were not for hunting. Hunters for the most part tend to strong supporters of RKBA and view firearms for the tools that they are. Pity our common enemy exploits our division so readily. For the purposes of defending the RKBA, I accept all the help I can find.

If you've never hunted, and seriously want to understand it, I'll help you find an appropriate teacher. If you prefer not to understand, that's fine too. Remember, when you choose to pontificate on subject where you are ignorant you sound as foolish as a Democratic senator claiming that a certain .50 caliber pistol can shoot down airliners.



David

ReadyontheRight
April 4, 2007, 02:30 AM
Daughter: "Dad, how do I know who's a real friend?"
Me: "A friend is someone who cares how your life turns out."

"Truth is a dangerous thing: once found, you must never turn your back on it." -- Arfin

"Look at it this way. If America frightens you, feel free to live somewhere else. There are plenty of other countries that don't suffer from excessive liberty. America is where the Liberty is. Liberty is not certified safe." -- Arfin

Arfin -- I have noticed and admired your quotes. Especially the "real friend" definition. It's the clearest definition I have ever heard.

And "...Liberty is not certified safe" is gold.

Your post above rings very true with me. I assumed a lot and then discovered that the liberty supporting our easy life is rotting. The bedrock liberty of our children and grandchildren is decaying.

Specific to this topic, a human being should, at some point in their life, experience what it means to hunt, kill, butcher, cook and eat an animal. Meat is life to human beings.

If anyone thinks killing is "beneath" them, then you have little connection to 99% of the human beings who came before you. You are standing in the shoulders of meat-eating giants who did whatever they had to do to feed their kids. And also provide you with electricity and the Bill of Rights.

-ROTR-

P.S. If a person truly chooses to avoid eating flesh...then that person should experience turning a (wildlife-supporting) forest into crop land, harrowing the earth, planting seed, fertilizing, watering, harvesting, processing and preparing 'protein without a face' in a manner sustainably palatable to your progeny.

You are still using a large footprint of the earth's resources to support your vegetarian existance. So don't presume to judge efficient meat-eaters.

Vegans and vegetarians who don't judge -- I salute you. You are more wholesome, and probably thinner, than I. (but your kids will still somehow discover hot dogs:evil: ).

Hunt4life
April 4, 2007, 02:33 AM
Nope. I've been a vegetarian for over a decade.

I have more respect for veg*ns than I do meat-eating anti-hunters. At least veg*ns try to live lives consistent with their ethics. The rest simply deny the truth of their actions.

For the rest...

We are meat eaters.
Killing for food and wildlife management is OK.
Hunting is highly regulated.
It's humane.
It's fun.
There's no moral high-ground at Ruth's Chris.
Read that one again.
Get the heck outta my head and into your butcher's for awhile.
Think.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
Face your food.
Face reality.
Embrace your BBQ.
Animals are food.
There is no guilt in an American hot-dog.
There is no guilt in deer tenderloin (Or synthesized growth hormones)
Independence Day ain't the same with tofu on the Weber.
Besides, its falls through the grill.
My baloney has a first name, it's B.A.M.B.I.
Let's go huntin, baby!
It'll cleanse yer soul :)

mrcpu
April 4, 2007, 02:45 AM
I'm not anti-hunting, grew up in a hunting family, but don't hunt now, as the supermarket is a heck of a lot easier, but comments like the following just crack me up...


Whether to hunt cape buffalo or cow elk to deny that feeling is to deny a basic human condition I am not a spectator in nature I am a participant just like that lion in Botswana.


I suppose if you participated in nature using nature and clubbed your kill, or had to actually snare it w/o technology, I could appreciate this. But grabbing a gun with a zillion dollar scope, and fancy ammo, and dropping some animal from a few hundred yards away that never stood a chance hardly seems like "participant". Sounds more like "I just like to kill stuff" to me...

Heck, if you even had to herd it off a cliff like the buffalo jumps, I could definitely see that as participating.

But when all is said and done, I"m not going to stand in your way of your version of "participating in nature"...

Nil
April 4, 2007, 03:00 AM
Here's a quick hunting question: if any of you are familiar with Wisconsin at all, is the deer hunting here pretty much limited to deer stands? That's all I seem to hear about and I've just assumed it's all like that. But I could see myself taking a deer if I was able to walk around the woods stalking an animal, but I fear sitting in a tree would bore me to death.

mek42
April 4, 2007, 03:04 AM
Some people here have expressed an active disrespect towards "trophy hunters" especially with regards to African safaris. It is my understanding that most modern safaris offer the opportunity to sample a variety of game fro dinner, even if you yourself did not take it. Presumably that game was taken by a different hunter on a different trip. It is also my understanding that barring whatever trophy is taken (and can be legally exported) the rest of the animal is considered to belong to the safari organization and is used to feed the safari crew, other hunters and very possibly the community.

Another consideration regarding African safaris is a geopolitical one. Many of these African nations derive a surprisingly large portion of their income from revenues generated by these safari activities. It is my understanding that poor, unstable nation states are a veritable breeding ground for terrorist organization recruitment efforts. If a modern trophy hunter provides enough wealth to a poor nation so that one of it's citizens is a little better off and rejects efforts to be recruited into such an organization, I say hurray for the hunter.

Lastly, I suspect that much of the current animosity toward what is called "trophy hunting" comes from the lessons that we have all learned about the real depredations and excesses wrought by the robber-barons of the 19th and early 20th centuries. This is probably a very important area for you hunters to act on. Start educating people that this is not condoned anymore. I wonder if it would be helpful to have a public service ad that starts of by showing some yahoo poacher doing everything wrong and ends with him getting arrested by the appropriate game warden officials stating that much of the game wardens' budgets come from the license fees of legitimate respectful hunters. Perhaps offering a scene of a hunter having an animal in his sights and not taking the shot - his hunting buddy could ask, "Why didn't you shoot?" and the reply could be, "Well, Bob, it looked like that animal was about 150 yards away and I've only been practicing at 100 yards. I didn't want to be disrespectful to the animal."

As I said before, I am not currently a hunter - I do not know if I have the willingness to take the game myself. However, this is a personal decision. I do not feel that any harm whatsoever is done by the hunters who are properly respectful of their game and make every effort to ensure a clean, quick kill. I hope that my thoughts might be helpful to those that do make efforts to preserve respectful hunting of game as a viable hobby activity for those that care to partake of it.

Doggieman
April 4, 2007, 03:09 AM
I personally don't like hunting because I just don't like killing things unless I have to. But I support others right to hunt if they so choose.

I'd have less of a problem shooting an intruder in my house than shooting a deer just minding its own business out in the forest. One wants to harm me, the other just wants to be left the hell alone, kind of like me.

:(

bogie
April 4, 2007, 03:10 AM
I'm not pro-hunting.

I'm not anti-hunting.

Deal with it.

If it goes bang, it's good.

IMHO, it's cheaper, overall, for me to buy my breakfast sausage at the nearest Diergberg's market.

Campers, things are NOT black and white. The folks who'd like to see the "gun culture" split over an issue like hunting would also like to see us go away. IMHO, if someone wants to go shoot Bambi's mama, that's fine with me, as long as I don't have to admire his/her cooking under duress... Unless, of course, they can actually do a decent BBQ...

I can party with Nugent. I can also party with the (very few and far between...) Vegan Shooter.

Deal with it.

ArfinGreebly
April 4, 2007, 03:12 AM
I can appreciate what you say, as well as the context in which you believe you are saying it.

The man you address is not the droids you're looking for.

Think, instead, more along the lines of standing in the path of a charging cape buffalo with a double rifle -- that means exactly two rounds available -- with no scope and no protection beyond the rifle.

Either the shots count or the buffalo wins.

That's a real participant.

The kind of guy I was never brave enough to be.

The kind of guy I'd like to learn from.

I'm sure there is, out there somewhere, a fellow deserving of your contempt.

H&Hhunter would not be that man.

Hunt4life
April 4, 2007, 03:15 AM
I suppose if you participated in nature using nature and clubbed your kill, or had to actually snare it w/o technology, I could appreciate this. But grabbing a gun with a zillion dollar scope, and fancy ammo, and dropping some animal from a few hundred yards away that never stood a chance hardly seems like "participant". Sounds more like "I just like to kill stuff" to me...

Couple things...

"It never had a chance" - It had lots of chances. And a WHOLE lot more than the Prime Rib Special at Joe's Denial Grill had ;)

Hunting can be made extremely "challenging" and some hunting is relatively easy. Some folks enjoy a challenging hunt, others just want some deer, elk, bear, turkey for the grill (I fall into both categories - After my grubstake is made I'm going make sure my season lasts as long as possible)

But when it comes to killing a food animal, making a challenging game out of it is not what makes it "right" or ethical. If it was, we'd have to put all the McDonalds drive-up speakers 30' up a greased poll.

From a pig in a poke to buck nekid chasin moose with a stick and string, it's all ethical, no matter if you call it "hunting" or "slaughterhouse butchering."

I kill stuff because I like to eat stuff. We like to hunt, we like the outdoors, we like being out there, observing, being part of the landscape and we like to shoot. And, we like to see the critter go down as the end of a successful hunt. It's a happy time. That crtitter's cycle is complete. That's not sad, that's the beauty of the natural world. We honor the animal, we pay homage to it, we celebrate its life, its death and the meals it will provide. That is something a cow never gets the benefit of.

markk
April 4, 2007, 07:02 AM
anti-hunting gun owners

:confused:
now i dislike antis as much as the next man
but the thought of gun owners hunting them is simply ridiculous

Dr. Dickie
April 4, 2007, 07:12 AM
I am like a lot of others here. I am not anti-hunting, but I do not hunt nor do I really care to.
I probably do many things you do not care to do. That's okay, kinda makes the world an interesting place don't your think? After all, what else would we argue, er I mean, talk about?
Just don't tell me how to live my life, and I will not tell you how to live yours. As long as you do not infringe on my pursuit of happiness, I will not rain on your parade. Please insert your own favorite platitude here.

22-rimfire
April 4, 2007, 09:11 AM
At first I expected this to be a pretty lame thread. Have not read every posting, but I get the idea. I would be willing to guess that prior to the Zumbo affair, there would have been postings that would be very anti-hunting. Since that time, the posts have moderated somewhat. The negative posts on ebr's have also moderated. This suggests people becoming more tolerant.

You still get some fudd postings and I continue to find the term derogatory just like a person who shoots an ebr doesn't like to be called a killer. Being called or labeled a trophy hunter was a positive term suggesting that you are very good at the craft of hunting and simply don't hunt for meat. Meat hunter was a negative term. The term shooter (reference the movie "The Shootist") also was a negative as it suggested someone who kills people not a person who shoots holes in paper targets.

Several comments mention the cost of hunting being too high for what they perceive you "get for you money". There lies the true power of hunters, spending discretionary income on the sport they love. Until handgun ownership for self defense and the AR-15 platform developed a following, people who punch paper for pleasure exclusively with guns were in a huge minority. They were limited to people who enjoyed shooting their pistols, revolvers, wildcat cartridges, custom rifles, and those that wanted to find the most accurate combination of components for their 1911, Remington Model 700 or Winchester Model 70. This has changed somewhat with with two rifle platforms; the AR-15 and the Ruger 10/22 and the maturing of the 1911 platform. It also helps to have disposable income and this more than anything is driving things like the ebr's and serious target shooting. The shooting sports is also becoming more common with handguns too whether the gun was purchased for self defense, hunting, to collect, or target practice.

I'm strongly pro-hunting and strongly pro-2A. I don't care if a person is a trophy hunter, a meat hunter, or hunts simply for pleasure. Don't waste the meat on game animals and do let the varmint carcasses lie around smelling up the countryside. I like people who conduct their shooting activities safely.

An early comment "Never been hunting, but I go varmint shooting." That is hunting. :)

PILMAN
April 4, 2007, 09:18 AM
My religion forbids it.

Other than that, i've never hunted before, I don't care what other people do but it's not for me.

Smellvin
April 4, 2007, 10:09 AM
The pro-hunting arguments I've heard so far are:
1. I can.
This is the worst argument, so I'm not even going to spend any time on it.

2. I want to, and it's a part of the natural order.
You are not in danger of going without meat or protein. We have plenty of farm animals that we've specifically raised for this purpose.

What's more, our technology has greatly outpaced evolution. No quarry has a chance against a decent marksman; they don't understand how a little moving blob on a hill a quarter of a mile away could possibly be dangerous. I do hold a begrudging admiration of people who hunt using more primitive techniques (such as atlatls). At least then, the quarry had a chance.

Maybe some day we'll have the rough equivalent of condoms for hunting (e.g. you can get the full psychological effect without having the bad effect). I would have no problem with simulations that allow people to sublimate their primal urges.

3. The animals would starve and die a horrible death if the herds weren't culled.
By this reasoning, in areas of famine such as Ethiopia, the kind thing to do would be to drop in hunters and reduce the locals so that they can find death faster and more humanely.

Most of us agree that a government that says, "I know what's best for you, so let me manage you" is to be resisted. The most personal and important individual right is the right to life. I think that making major, life-changing decisions for another living being is, at the very least, a little selfish. As such, this precept should be upheld as much as is possible.

4.Your reasoning is the ammunition the anti-gunners are using to make inroads to take our guns.
Hunting doesn't have anything to do with the Second Amendment. If they're arguing that, they fundamentally don't understand it... which I think is something we already know. :)

5. PETA crazies like animal rights... so anyone who thinks animals should be allotted certain rights are crazies, too.
This is the same ad hominem nonsense that anti's use against us along the lines of, "If you own a gun, you're obviously a fat, drunken redneck with undersized genitals who only wants to have the opportunity to shoot other people who break into your house." Based on what I've read and seen, PETA is a radical, crazy group of sad-sacks (that's about as high road as I can get with them -- sorry). They do not represent everyone who thinks killing something capable of suffering should be avoided.


The underlying goal of my posts were only to get people to consider how they would react if they were in situations where they were being stalked by an opponent against which they had almost no opportunity. There's a black line that most people draw between "people" and "animals" which I don't think is so well-defined and somewhat arbitrary. This mentality was used, in years past to justify xenophobia and racism; the idea that our certain in-group is inherently different and better than another, so it doesn't matter how we treat the other (outside) group who is just as capable of suffering as we are. I was trying to foster the idea that before doing something to another animal, we should consider how we would like to be on the receiving end. Empathy is good.

At the very least even if you still disagree, I hope some of you realized that being anti-hunting isn't necessarily illogical.

Titan6
April 4, 2007, 10:15 AM
'There has never been a managed game animal hunted to extinction...'

Maybe, maybe not. Modern game management techniques really were not developed until the middle of the last century. But hunting controls were developed early on in the 1900s. And still we eliminated the passenger pigeon, caspian tiger and tasmaninan wolf and many others and certainly we will more.

How about hunting an animal to extinction in a particular area such a griz in most of the lower 48 and bear in MD? And then opening the hunting back up when it reaches an arbitrary number that is still too small in some ops to support a healthy population? But hunters pressure the state and find a friendly biologist to sign off on it... What do we do when we are down to the last few hundred of a species and then a disease wipes them out? Or hunting a wild animal to the point where it actually becomes domesticated to ensure survival such as buffalo? What about reducing the numbers to the point where we have to issue no tags because there is almost nothing left?

Don't get me wrong... I have my own land; I hunt on it. Occasionally I go with someone else to their land or lease and go hunt with them. I hunt everything from rabbit to elk and lots in between. But every year when I go somewhere there is more encroachment on habitat. More McMansions on the 2 acre plot with the SUV and BMW in the driveway, another Wallyworld, another gas station, another road. In the end hunters will not make most species extinct but man certainly will if we don't do something about it. After we cut down the last shady oak tree to put up the Shady Oaks subdivision there will be no more hunting....

I lived in Northern Virginia in the 80s and watched first hand at what uncontrolled growth of a man made habitat can do to the world. When people are chasing dollars today they care little about repercussions 10 years down the road.

Trophy hunters do some heavy lifting to preserve the enviornment. They should, they have resources to trade for other resources. Joe tax payer does a lot more when all things are considered but not neccesarily in the name of hunting. I do find trophy hunting childish. But then I find most games like basketball childish also.

Titan6
April 4, 2007, 10:23 AM
Smelvin-

You are starting to irritate me. All of your posts equate wild animals to people in some way. Wild animals are not people they are just animals.

SteveS
April 4, 2007, 10:35 AM
You are not in danger of going without meat or protein. We have plenty of farm animals that we've specifically raised for this purpose.

What's more, our technology has greatly outpaced evolution. No quarry has a chance against a decent marksman; they don't understand how a little moving blob on a hill a quarter of a mile away could possibly be dangerous. I do hold a begrudging admiration of people who hunt using more primitive techniques (such as atlatls). At least then, the quarry had a chance.


So you have no problem with someone else killing a penned up animal that had little chance just to feed you, yet you begrudge someone that wants to do it themselves? You do realize that farm animals have to die to give you that protein?

Your comments on technology and evolution seem to indicate a great deal of ignorance as to what hunting really is. Have you ever hunted? In regards to the hunting I have done, it is not as easy as you describe. For one thing, I am not much of a danger to a deer a quarter mile away because I doubt I could consistently hit a target that far. Despite all our wonderful technology, the animals I have hunted have great senses and will avoid me if they can hear me, see me, or smell me.

This is the same ad hominem nonsense that anti's use against us along the lines of, "If you own a gun, you're obviously a fat, drunken redneck with undersized genitals who only wants to have the opportunity to shoot other people who break into your house."

As for ad hominem, you throw out a few with your equating of controlling the population af an animal with going in to famine regions and killing people. While I respect animals, I do not think they are the same as people, which you clearly do.

H&Hhunter
April 4, 2007, 10:46 AM
This seems to ignore entirely the question of why animals are a valuable resource. In each of your arguments, hunters value them only as a tool for the continued propagation of hunting: that is part and parcel of the state of mind some here have objected to.

Wooderson,

Well quite simply my value of the animal whether as a tool or not propagates the animal and preserves the land on which it lives and increases it's numbers and it's genetics. It is good for the animal it is good for the environment and it is good for everybody who wants wild animals to remain on this planet.

As far as the Black Buck. let me try and explain. In India the black buck is almost extinct due to poaching and land encroachment. This what happens when an animal has no intrinsic value to the local protein starved population, they are wiped out. So when you stop using hunting as a conservation tool the animals are not somehow magically and morally protected and no longer used for the whims of mankind. In fact quite the opposite occurs. They will be ruthlessly wiped out as has been demonstrated so many times.

India is now buying Black buck from Texas to try and repopulate them in several preserves. Is it really so hard to understand the importance of value being placed on wildlife and how effective hunting is as a management tool?

I guess I should put it this way. What do you think is a better situation for wildlife. A hunting ranch in Texas which derives it's funds from the effective management of game animals. Or that same ranch being turned into a strip mall?

I see it happening here on the front range of CO with startling rapidity. Massive tracts of wildlife habitat are bought every year and developed into high density housing. They are invariably named after the animals who were destroyed to make our developers dream come true. Names like Pronghorn Vistas and Wapiti estates. then without fail a bunch of glazed eyed city dwellers move in with their shiny new cars and their high and mighty environmental beliefs. Many are anti hunters and they are becoming a powerful force and are voting their unique brand of ethics and emotional Walt Disney wildlife management plans. And by doing so continue to wipe out wild animals at an alarming rate.

In America just like in Africa there would be very few wild animals left outside of National Parks if it wasn't for hunters. Your Anti hunting groups do NADDA, NOTHING, ZIPPO towards meaningful wild life conservation and land management and preservation.

Hunters are the ones who do the lions share of the work and pay the lions share of the bill.

Sniper X
April 4, 2007, 10:47 AM
I've seen a few responses where someone said something about not liking those who hunt what they don;t intend to eat. But there is a classification of "hunting" that falls into rodent/varment eradication that falls into that catagory. I have to, absolutely have to eradicate rabbits, and prarrie dogs, and a few Coyotes a year every year off of my 10 acres and my neibors 30 acres of land. I live in the mountains outside Albuquerque NM, and we have a problem with to many varments durring some times of the season and they need to be thinned out or they will die of starvation of not enough water.

I do also hunt deer and elk and feral pigs, but have mostly only hunted feral pigs for the last three years because of the mis management of game species here in NM.


I DO eat the meat of game animals I hunt, and of the feral piggies (YUMMM!).

Smellvin
April 4, 2007, 10:50 AM
In terms of relating to people, I'm just challenging the concrete block that most people cemented in their heads that killing humans is inherently wrong whereas killing non-humans is inherently right. If you apply a certain set of logic to the former, why does the latter become something completely different and alien?

Again, I'm not trying to make anyone angry or harass anyone. I'm just challenging assertions.

HuntCast
April 4, 2007, 10:51 AM
I've seen a few responses where someone said something about not liking those who hunt what they don;t intend to eat. But there is a classification of "hunting" that falls into rodent/varment eradication that falls into that catagory. I have to, absolutely have to eradicate rabbits, and prarrie dogs, and a few Coyotes a year every year off of my 10 acres and my neibors 30 acres of land. I live in the mountains outside Albuquerque NM, and we have a problem with to many varments durring some times of the season and they need to be thinned out or they will die of starvation of not enough water.

I do also hunt deer and elk and feral pigs, but have mostly only hunted feral pigs for the last three years because of the mis management of game species here in NM.


I DO eat the meat of game animals I hunt, and of the feral piggies (YUMMM!).

Sniper X,
There is nothing wrong with what you do. You are taking the place of the predators that no longer exist in the food chain where you live. Which, come to think of it, is not surprising. We are ALL predators, no matter how badly some want to pretend otherwise.

lance22
April 4, 2007, 10:51 AM
Settle down boys ;)

Hunting is moot to the 2A, so take it or leave it.

I've noticed that farmers aren't getting their proper credit for wiping out some of the speciies mentioned ... vegitarians always point to hunters as wiping out poor innocent animals but they forget that the wheat and corn fields for their $ 12.00 Fancy Bistro Veggie Meal wasn't cleared off by hunters ... and those old farmers poisoned plenty of eagles and what not.

The prarie dog thing is like the goose problem we have here in MN in urban areas ... millions of geese sh|++ing up every golf course, yard, and park in urban MN. I wish to God that some decent person would blow them all away ... it wouldn't be hunting, but it would be some well deserved eradications. Oh yeah, throw in these diseased city pigeons too.

So, cut the hunters some slack ... but at the end of the day the 2A still doesn't have anything to do with hunting.

HuntCast
April 4, 2007, 10:54 AM
n terms of relating to people, I'm just challenging the concrete block that most people cemented in their heads that killing humans is inherently wrong whereas killing non-humans is inherently right. If you apply a certain set of logic to the former, why does the latter become something completely different and alien?


Animals are food. If not for us, then for other animals.

If you can't see a difference between us and them, that says more about you than it does the rest of us.

K-Romulus
April 4, 2007, 10:55 AM
I only hunt with a bow . . .:)

only1asterisk
April 4, 2007, 10:56 AM
Smellvin,

You equate killing ground hogs to killing small children. You see no difference in reducing the numbers of a deer herd to allow them to live and murdering the starving survivors of a bloody civil war. Yet you see eating pen/cage raised animals as somehow ethically superior to killing wild animals for food?

You have presented no logic.

David

Smellvin
April 4, 2007, 10:58 AM
Animals are food. If not for us, then for other animals.
To me, it seems like that's the rough equivalent of saying that since your brownie will be eaten, I might as well eat it for myself. Or since everything dies, the circumstances don't matter.


You equate killing ground hogs to killing small children. You see no difference in reducing the numbers of a deer herd to allow them to live and murdering the starving survivors of a bloody civil war.
The ground hog was breaking machinery inadvertently as was the child. I was saying that the very first impulse was to kill the ground hog, but that wouldn't even be considered with the child.

The deer herd vs. starving, famished people is completely valid. Both are going to starve anyhow and, since we know best, we will reduce their numbers. I'm in effect asking as why the initial solution to both problems are so different.

Yet you see eating pen/cage raised animals as somehow ethically superior to killing wild animals for food?
I don't see eating caged animals or hunting as morally superior... I just think that since someone has already the killing for you, there's no particular need to do it yourself.

You have presented no logic.
Try just for a moment to put yourself in the shoes of the animal. If you genuinely try to see it through their eyes you'll see what I'm saying. You still might not agree with it, but you'll understand what I'm saying.

HuntCast
April 4, 2007, 10:58 AM
So, cut the hunters some slack ... but at the end of the day the 2A still doesn't have anything to do with hunting.

Since when do anti's of any stripe care about the what the 2A actually means?
If hunting is banned, do you think you have a snowballs chance in hell of keeping your handguns or AR's safe?
I have a buddy in Australia who would love to beg to differ with you.

Sorry to disagree here, but the THREAT against the 2A has EVERYTHING to do with hunting.

only1asterisk
April 4, 2007, 11:01 AM
We might as well be discussing abortion or religion.

David

H&Hhunter
April 4, 2007, 11:03 AM
Joe tax payer does a lot more when all things are considered but not neccesarily in the name of hunting.

Titan,

Thank you for very coherent and informative post. I would like to correct that last statement. I have some numbers here that I am quoting from the`NSSF.

these numbers are somewhat outdated but they are the most current that I have access to.

As of 1998,

Each day sportsmen contribute $3 million dollars to wild life conservation efforts that is more than 1.5 billion a year.

Hunters contribute about $30 Billion a year to the US economy and support roughly 1 million jobs annually.

Through private foundations such as DU and the RMEF hunters contribute an additional $300 million annually towards wildlife conservation.

For every tax payer dollar invested in wildlife conservation the sportsmen contributes $12 dollars.

H&Hhunter
April 4, 2007, 11:12 AM
AS far as hunting having nothing to do with 2A.

From a puritainical stand point that may be true HOWEVER, Hunters are a massive group of gun owners. Alienating them with names like Fudd and Bambi killer is not a wise thing to do. We should be embracing and educating non 2A hunters they are a huge demographic of people with like interests.

Come to think of it I can't think of a single person I hunt with who isn't pro 2A. Some of them need some education on what exactly that means, like Mr. Zumbo did but they are all pro 2A.

Why in the world would any of you want to belittle and alienate them?

It just doesn't make sense.

Sniper X
April 4, 2007, 11:17 AM
No offense, but You have stated points that sound like mantra talking points from PITA or other fringe animal rights organizations. I have seen these arguements many many times and they are allways very thin whe analized.

First, the point about "sopmeone else doing the killing for you" If you equate killing an animal to that of a human murder, than eating an egg makes you an accessory to murder....of a cute baby chicken.

Second point, if you think the managed killing of game species is murder, you should watch a documentary on what happened in Alaska when an animal rights group got a partial stop to killing Carabou and Reindeer for a season, there were litterally thousands dying on the sid eof the roads and in the outback of starvation. Even had them dying in towns and becomming a health hazzard to us bad ol humans.


There is a SCIENTIFIC reason for game management, and it has nothing to do with anythig but conservation of a species and humans love for animals. If you can;t see this then that is up to you what you beleive. It seems you too have been at least semi brainwashed by the PITA types. Who btw kill as many pet species as any two or three animal shelters, now there is a corrupt organization!

Please wathc this video and get back to us.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY

bowfin
April 4, 2007, 11:21 AM
Trophy hunting? Don't like it. IMHO it is a little childish....

Maybe it's because you don't understand what trophy hunting is. Do you know the real definition of a trophy hunter? I think not, so here it is:

"A trophy hunter isn't judged by which animal he shoots, he is judged by which animals he WON'T shoot."

Most trophy hunters will come home empty handed rather than shoot an animal that is not up to their standards. We have many deer hunters around our area who have a "It has to be bigger than the last one or I won't shoot" philosophy. Some haven't shot a buck in two years. If they want a deer to eat, they get an Antlerless Only tag, which in some areas are literally given away in a "Buy one, get one free" program to control the populations.

You also might be laboring under the false assumption that a deer taken as a trophy excludes it being eaten. I am sure some aren't, but I have never heard of that happening first or secondhand in my 30 years of hunting.

Now, given the above, the only reason you could now have against trophy hunting is that there might be some unwarranted ego involved, that it is wrong for someone to have to have a big set of antlers to be happy or satisfied. Well, if you are going to criticize trophy hunters for that, then you must also take a dim view on anyone who owns a Kimber or Les Baer 1911 instead of a Hi-Point, or owning any AR when their pride won't let them be happy with an SKS. Their is a little bit of pride and vanity that goes into most human endeavors, whether it is "trophy hunting" or upgrading a firearm that is already reliable and has acceptable accuracy.

I hope this helps clear up some misconceptions.

only1asterisk
April 4, 2007, 11:22 AM
Come to think of it I can't think of a single person I hunt with who isn't pro 2A.

I know a very few that were prepared to make some Zumbo type compromises until they were properly educated, but the overwhelming majority are solid in their support for the RKBA.

david

markk
April 4, 2007, 11:34 AM
many people who insist that hunting is somehow "cruel" simply fail to realize what the alternatives are for these animals

they seem to think that if it werent for that hunters bullet these animals would simply lie down on a sunny day in a flower filled pasture surrounded by all their animal friends and peacefully pass on

this is not reality
in nature there is no "peaceful" death
only violence at the "hands"(read claws and teeth) of other stronger animals
often being eaten whilst still alive

some people deny this truth just as they are in denial regarding their own inevitable death

a hunters bullet IS merciful

Glockman17366
April 4, 2007, 11:37 AM
I'm not a hunter... I will shoot pests (squirrels, gophers and such).

I think hunters (especially bow hunters) are some of the finest sportsmen (and women) in the world!
I just don't care for the taste of game meat (or most meat, but I do love a good steak on occasion) and I'm not going to kill a non-pest critter if I'm not going to eat it.

Just my humble opinion...

doubleg
April 4, 2007, 11:43 AM
I find it hard to believe that anyone who is in the gun culture could be anti carrying guns while exercising to get free food:confused: . Unless there one of the whimps who crys everytime they see a peice of roadkill on the side of the road.:rolleyes:

30 cal slob
April 4, 2007, 11:43 AM
i love animals. they taste GREAT.

:neener:


seriously....

i am first and foremost a shooter with self-defense on the mind.

while i hunt occasionally, it is typically with a bow.

lance22
April 4, 2007, 11:49 AM
Well ... I hadn't considered that the 2A is indirectly important to the 2A, that in practicality all firearms would be banned if hunting were illegal ... I don't recall the Founding Fathers connecting the two in their writings but yeah, I'll admit you are right that in modern America this is probably the case so point taken and I appreciate having this pointed out.

The whole Zumbo thing has stirred a great pot ... and it's no secret that in places like Wisconsin, it is the old hunters who are adamant about keeping the most anti-gun governor in the history of that state. It is more than ironic that many 'rod n gun' clubs in WI won't support right to carry, and even refuse to host IDPA / IPSC matches because it violates their "One shot every three minutes" rule or whatever slow-fire rules they invented a million years ago.

Obviously the two groups are very different, but only one group is in favor of gun bans; only one group thinks the Brady Campaign makes sense. Only one group is damaging the cause ... and I'm not allowed to recognize this? From all appearance, Field n Stream wouldn't have a problem with donating space to the AHSA so it's not much of a stretch to view these people as enemies of the 2A.

Now, I don't want to destroy this enemy, I want to convert him ... but for now reality is reality.

IllHunter
April 4, 2007, 11:50 AM
No quarry has a chance against a decent marksman; they don't understand how a little moving blob on a hill a quarter of a mile away could possibly be dangerous. I do hold a begrudging admiration of people who hunt using more primitive techniques (such as atlatls). At least then, the quarry had a chance.

I'd like to invite you to hunt with me, if you're not too lazy and willing to expende the effort, we'll go wher the snow is often deep during the deer season, north. We'll have to have the proper equipment and clothing or we may die. Our quarry will be wearing what nature provided which will render him or her practically invisible and they will wield senses more sensitive than you can imagine. I once heard it described as "you being oblivious to a two hundred pound deer hiding in you living room". If you wish we can use a camera but that would be lazy, leaving the work of harvesting our quarry out of the picture.
Let's say we use a scoped rifle, 270Win, enough to be effective, first shot if at all possible. I've accomplished that more often than not. That is my goal, on several levels, it pleases me. My ego likes the concept that I practiced enough to still my freezing numb hands to make a shot, that I can sublimate my "buck fever" to hold for the right sight picture and "right prey", to know what I might hit if I miss or go through the target. Then we can address the meat quality unspoiled by the huge adrenelin rush that a wounding shot elicits.
We will have to drag the harvest to the road (vehicle) could be miles. That would be after we've field dressed it. I wonder if you have the "stomach" for that? As a side note, I'll bet you $50 the gut pile won't be here in the morning. I'ts probably not hungry humans that claim it. When we get it home +- 500 miles, we can thaw it and butcher it, if again, you have the energy and stomach.
This is not tongue in cheek but a serious invitation to join me. I could use the help, you could use the lessons waiting there.

doubleg
April 4, 2007, 11:53 AM
Man do these anti hunters make hunting sound easy. Imaging trying to shoot a oversized dog with antlers from 100 yards away through thick brush and trees. It is EXTREMELY difficult, but deer jerkey is more than worth the effort. :neener:

bowfin
April 4, 2007, 11:54 AM
Try just for a moment to put yourself in the shoes of the animal.

I have never shot an animal with shoes on, and that really is a salient point to be made.

Animals don't put shoes on themselves because they aren't human. You are giving animals people like feelings and thoughts and ascribing to them the probability that they exist as furry people. This is called anthropomorphism.

IllHunter
April 4, 2007, 11:54 AM
Smellvin
You said..
No quarry has a chance against a decent marksman; they don't understand how a little moving blob on a hill a quarter of a mile away could possibly be dangerous. I do hold a begrudging admiration of people who hunt using more primitive techniques (such as atlatls). At least then, the quarry had a chance.

I'd like to invite you to hunt with me, if you're not too lazy and willing to expend the effort, we'll go where the snow is often deep during the deer season, north. We'll have to have the proper equipment and clothing or we may die.These will make us stand out prominently and will be orange. Our quarry will be wearing what nature provided which will render him or her practically invisible and they will wield senses more sensitive than you can imagine. I once heard the notion of escaping their attention as "you being oblivious to a two hundred pound deer hiding in your living room". If you wish we can use a camera but that would be lazy, leaving the work of harvesting our quarry out of the picture.
Let's say we use a scoped rifle, 270Win, enough to be effective, first shot if at all possible. I've accomplished that more often than not. That is my goal, on several levels, it pleases me. My ego likes the concept that I practiced enough to still my freezing numb hands to make a shot, that I can sublimate my "buck fever" to hold for the right sight picture and "right prey", to know what I might hit if I miss or go through the target. Then we can address the meat quality unspoiled by the huge adrenelin rush that a wounding shot elicits.
We will have to drag the harvest to the road (vehicle) could be miles. That would be after we've field dressed it. I wonder if you have the "stomach" for that? As a side note, if i'ts more than 30 degrees F the gut pile won't be here in the morning,and i'ts probably not hungry humans that claim it. When we get it home +- 500 miles, we can thaw it and butcher it, if again, you have the energy and stomach.
This is not tongue in cheek but a serious invitation to join me. I could use the help, you could use the lessons waiting there.

bowfin
April 4, 2007, 12:03 PM
Unless they're one of the whimps who crys everytime they see a peice of roadkill on the side of the road.

Well, that would be me. I see a dead doe, and I mourn that I didn't shoot it for sausage meat, because I would be a lot happier dropping it with my rifle than the guy is who dropped it with his Toyota. I see a dead coon, and lament that my hound didn't get to tree it, or my son didn't get to sell it to the fur buyer.:neener:

Titan6
April 4, 2007, 12:05 PM
H&H- The $30 Billion is kind of a made number as that is not any where near the "actual" amount spent. If I buy an ATV and use it for a week for hunting and four weeks for camping and fishing is that really a hunting expense? Look at the actual breakdown and you will see this to be true. And buying a foreign rifle or cheap Chinese boots and clothes does not really do much for the US economy in any case.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/econ.hunting.html

Anyway...

If you want to preface your arguement "for every tax dollar spent on wildlife preservation the hunter spends $12" fine I agree. But hunting is about a lot more than wildlife preservation. Consider the $11B budget of the DEPT of Interior and the amount of money that goes into all the other activities that directly and indirectly support hunting and you will soon see what I am saying, unless you don't want to see it.

Bowfin- Never once have I ever seen or heard of someone set a trophy record for the animal that he did not shoot. Don't see too many unshot animals in the hunting mags either, unless it is right before they are hooves up. Don't know what it is you are trying to say about trophy hunting being about not shooting animals. But what I am trying to say is that it is the game itself I don't like. The game of going out and trying to find the... biggest, most points, hardest to find, whatever:rolleyes: ... seems like a silly time waster to me and yet people get so hung up in it. By all means have at it, if you have the time resources and mind set, it is just not for me.

October
April 4, 2007, 12:07 PM
I see it happening here on the front range of CO with startling rapidity. Massive tracts of wildlife habitat are bought every year and developed into high density housing. They are invariably named after the animals who were destroyed to make our developers dream come true. Names like Pronghorn Vistas and Wapiti estates. then without fail a bunch of glazed eyed city dwellers move in with their shiny new cars and their high and mighty environmental beliefs. Many are anti hunters and they are becoming a powerful force and are voting their unique brand of ethics and emotional Walt Disney wildlife management plans. And by doing so continue to wipe out wild animals at an alarming rate.

In America just like in Africa there would be very few wild animals left outside of National Parks if it wasn't for hunters. Your Anti hunting groups do NADDA, NOTHING, ZIPPO towards meaningful wild life conservation and land management and preservation.
The great irony here is that the policy you as a hunter are advocating (herd management) is exactly what is needed to control the spread of the human population. :)

MDHunter
April 4, 2007, 12:20 PM
How about hunting an animal to extinction in a particular area such a griz in most of the lower 48 and bear in MD? And then opening the hunting back up when it reaches an arbitrary number that is still too small in some ops to support a healthy population? But hunters pressure the state and find a friendly biologist to sign off on it... What do we do when we are down to the last few hundred of a species and then a disease wipes them out? Or hunting a wild animal to the point where it actually becomes domesticated to ensure survival such as buffalo? What about reducing the numbers to the point where we have to issue no tags because there is almost nothing left?

Titan6,

Let me take exception to this part of your post - the black bear population in Western Maryland is rising and healthy, and limited hunts have been open the past two years to manage the population in that part of the state. The bears have returned to a point where some nuisance bears are becoming too comfortable around homes and areas where children play; that is one of the reasons the hunt has been opened on a limited basis, to manage the population and hopefully reduce the incidents of nuisance bears.

As for biologists listening to pressure from hunters to open the season - I think it had more to do with complaints from farmers and homesteaders who didn't feel their children were safe playing in the yard.

Michael

Titan6
April 4, 2007, 12:21 PM
I see it happening here on the front range of CO with startling rapidity. Massive tracts of wildlife habitat are bought every year and developed into high density housing. They are invariably named after the animals who were destroyed to make our developers dream come true. Names like Pronghorn Vistas and Wapiti estates. then without fail a bunch of glazed eyed city dwellers move in with their shiny new cars and their high and mighty environmental beliefs. Many are anti hunters and they are becoming a powerful force and are voting their unique brand of ethics and emotional Walt Disney wildlife management plans. And by doing so continue to wipe out wild animals at an alarming rate.

Exact same thing already happened on the East Coast as I pointed out earlier. Richmond, VA all the way to Boston, MA is now one big megalopolis. The deer are going crazy though. Anywhere they can live they now live and wipe out people's gardens to survive. In Virginia the bag limit West of Sky Line Drive is normally about three white tail. On the East side it is six or higher. But where the population is thickest you can not hunt cuz there are too many people. Makes me glad I live in Texas now.

MD Hunter: Could be on the bears... I have been away from the area for several years. That is the conflict as I recall last in 2002, so my info is dated. The point is that everyone has a position that they stake out for reasons to them. Just like on Global warming. You can point to whatever scientist or numbers you want to validate your point but we won't know for sure until the last one is hit by a car...

only1asterisk
April 4, 2007, 12:38 PM
Titan6,

The Dept of Interior is much more than US Fish and Wildlife. The BLM, USGS, Minerals Management Service, Office of Surface Mining, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, etc. have little or nothing to do with hunting.

Even US Fish and Wildlife is much more than hunting and sport fishing.

The portion of the Dept. of Interior's budget that is related to hunting is a tiny part of the whole.

David

Titan6
April 4, 2007, 12:43 PM
Huh? You can't hunt on BLM land or reservations??? Are you sure about this?

waynedm
April 4, 2007, 12:48 PM
Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry provided over 400,000 high-protein meals to people who really need protein in 2005

I do know about this and it's a good thing.

Are anyone's concepts of "trophy hunters" driven by your actual experience, or are they driven by something out of Hollywood?

What does Hollywood have to do with anything? Not everybody that is against your middle-aged, white male opinions originated their opinions from some Hollywood propaganda.

I keep hearing that the meat is better, no hormones or gobblins in the animals food so it's better for you the consumer. Unless you bike everywhere you go, never smoke or drink or eat [anything] bad for you ever, you're a hypocrite. That reasoning or excuse may work on you or make you feel better but it doesn't hold water to me.

Somebody mentioned that they know a hunter that refuses to eat store meat because of the way the animals are treated. I find that interesting and I think he does have a point there. I do believe it's more cruel for an animal to sit his entire life in a pen, then to be trucked who knows how many miles just to be slaughtered (many times while still alive). If humans were hunting fodder (which we are in some places!) and we had the choice of running about in the wild while being free or to be caged up like POWs waiting to be killed I'd take the being free. I'm also sure that many times hunters manage to kill more intantaneously than the slaughter houses do. It's more human in my book.


Smellvin i hate to say it, and again I'm not personally attacking you, but your arguments stink.

You tell people to wake up and smell the coffee, but you make statements like this one? Just because you say aren't attacking somebody just before you [do] doesn't mean you didn't do it. That's like walking up to somebody and saying you aren't going to attack them, then hitting them. You, sir, need to smell the coffee.

I'm concerned with the state of mind of the killer. There was a video going around once where some nerdy kid videotaped his tarantula killing a mouse that had been used solely for the videotaping (as pet tarantulas generally eat crickets). I consider that morally objectionable behavior - not because I'm opposed to spiders eating or concerned about mice, but because I think there's something wrong in the head when you enjoy seeing a mouse die and derive pleasure from broadcasting the same.

I couldn't agree more with this. It's common knowledge that serial killers enjoy killing animals and enjoy watching them suffer. I have a problem with watching animals suffer, I can't stand it and would gladly torture any human that does unethical things to animals. That goes for breeding and training cocks or pit bulls or whatever. I've been attacked on here for saying I'd hunt hunters. All of a sudden the hunters are the ones screaming murder! When the hunters in Wisconsin were gunned down like 'varmints' by Vang I applauded it, it's about time a hunter looked down the barrel of a gun. When I see human suffering it doesn't bother me in the least, but when I say this all of a sudden I'm the one that has a problem.

-A person with a low IQ is still a person. A: Not tasty to me B: Worthy of drawing and quartering any SOB who thinks he can hunt his own race. Next.

People with low IQs are generally the ones leaching off the system the most. They're the ones causing traffic accidents. They're the ones lessening the human race. They are the 'untermensche' or vermin. Yet this argument works fine for you for the hunt of non-humans?

Not tasty? If you think deer and goose and duck and all these other animals are tasty I wonder what you think [is] good? I haven't had one thing that was wild that I thought tasted good.

Drawing and quartering anybody who thinks he can hunt his own race. Hmm, what would you say to all of those who have fought in wars to protect your rights and freedoms? Should they be drawn and quartered? Quartering a human . . . sounds like you have interest in killing them yourself.

If a need for hunting comes for me in the form of economics I'll do it for survival. Right now it just doesn't make sense. Spend $1000 on a shotgun. Another hundred on ammo. Another thousand for clothing. Taking the time off work. Hunting is a huge investment and it's all so you can get a few pounds of meat that you could have got at the store for a lot less time and money?

Hunters aren't going to convince me of their ways just like I'm not going to convince hunters that I think they're in the wrong. THR members will not agree on everything. I bet we're only going to agree on the one subject of the Second and on firearms in general. Hunting is another subject, don't be offended that we don't all agree on it.

I try to choose my battles, that's why I generally don't talk to anybody about religion - it just can't end well. Imagine if somebody started a thread on THR about Islam versus non-Islam? I'm not surprised at all that we THR members are this split on the issue. We like guns and that's our only common ground, well, except for maybe our distaste for Hillary.

only1asterisk
April 4, 2007, 12:49 PM
While you might be able to hunt on land managed by the BLM or on some reservations, these Federal agencys have little or nothing to do with hunting.

That's like saying because I can hunt a state park, the state police budget should be counted as being used toward hunting.

David

Art Eatman
April 4, 2007, 12:58 PM
Well, chilluns, having done a fair amount of hunting over these last 60-some years of being big enough to be a hunter, I tend to have a few comments on the issue. :D

No game animal species is anywhere near being endangered by the actions of hunters in today's world. Nowhere. I hope it's obvious I'm not seeing poachers as the same thing as hunters.

The near-demise of the bison was due to deliberate U.S. government policy, to "...destroy the commissary of the Plains Indian," per the War Department. The demise of the passenger pigeon was due to the mix of market hunting for restaurants and cafes, and clearing forested habitat areas for farming.

Today's game laws are a direct result of hunters' efforts to ensure an ongoing huntable populations. The Dingell/Johnson excise tax on firearms was called for by hunters. Same for the Pittman/Robinson tax. That money is allocated to state wildlife agencies, pro-rated by the numbers of licenses sold. Non-shooters get a free ride.

A birder can get a thrill from seeing one of the few remaining members of an endangered species. A hunter has a much stronger vested interest in the health of a species, in that there must be a surplus or he cannot hunt. The hunters' fundings, then, benefit all those who cherish wildlife. Some may not realize it, but it's rather difficult to do things which benefit one species of wildlife without benefitting all others in that habitat.

Morality? Well, meat's meat. The only difference between the hunter and one who buys meat in a grocery or eats meat at a restaurant is that the hunter is a do-it-yourselfer. The same holds true for a gardener and his veggies, of course. Those who don't provide their own are merely hiring others to do their scut work for them.

Opinion: A deer is no more noble than a cow. A wild turkey is no more noble than a barnyard chicken.

Philosophically? Well, when I'm hunting, I feel connected to a few hundred (few thousand?) generations of forebears. Same when sitting around the fire at hunt camp. I'm proving myself to myself, that I'm not condemned to be some sort of hapless couch potato who relies on somebody else to provide for me. I'm also thinking about yummy-tasties. I'm a natural food freak, loving the taste of backstrap, or quail breast or javelina hams. Those aren't sold in my local A&Poo Feed Store.

Practical: I once offered a $1,000 challenge to a guy who said there's no big deal to killing a deer with a scoped rifle: I'd rig a camera on a rifle stock, with crosshairs on the focal plane. The deal is, find a really nice buck, and bring me a picture with the crosshairs in the right place for a clean kill. Ya got two frames of film available. Good picture? Get a $1,000. No picture? Pay me. All he had to do was come go hunt with me. No cost to him for the deal, food, travel, lease, whatever. Seems like it didn't look all that easy, after all. :)

I'll never put any bumrap on somebody who doesn't want to hunt. It's not my business. But I won't tolerate a bunch of mouth music from an anti-hunter. In the last half-century or so, I've yet to hear an argument that sounded anywhere near like something I'd expect hear from a mature adult.

Art

MrDig
April 4, 2007, 12:58 PM
This is again an issue where a person says I don't like what you do so it should be illegal. If you don't like hunting don't hunt, if you don't like fishing don't fish. If you don't like Gay sex don't have Gay Sex. If you don't like American Idol change the channel Better yet don'twatch TV. But don't illegalize every thing you disagree with. This thread seems to create a rift, this is a single issue site owning firearms and all aspects of firearms ownership. Sorry but I own firearms because I hunt with them. Home Defense and TEOTWAWKI are secondary to me. Point of fact if I didn't Hunt, RKBA issues would never have entered my consciousness.
Today I am adamantly Pro RKBA regardless of what legal use you may have for firearms.

Will Fennell
April 4, 2007, 01:31 PM
Art summed things up for me rather well.......I would like to add this...

Allot of want to seperate hunters and the RKBA. I'll be the very first to agree that the 2A has absolutley NOTHING to do with owning firearms for hunting, but with 99.99% of all hunters in the US being gun owners, whats not to love:rolleyes: Here is a body of US populace that number in the MILLIONS, that are pre-disposed to like firearms....some more than others, but here is a group that with some education can be "brought into the fold" so to speak regarding RKBA.

I guess it is just easier to sit back and complain than it is to go out and do something for the cause.

doubleg
April 4, 2007, 01:42 PM
If a need for hunting comes for me in the form of economics I'll do it for survival. Right now it just doesn't make sense. Spend $1000 on a shotgun. Another hundred on ammo. Another thousand for clothing. Taking the time off work. Hunting is a huge investment and it's all so you can get a few pounds of meat that you could have got at the store for a lot less time and money? WOAH 1000 dollars on a field gun :uhoh:. Most of my hunting guns would make the "elites" at the gun club laugh. But they work just as good a their custom italian shotgun and mine cost 100$ including tax. Hunting is a tradition, to follow the same thing your ancestors have done for thousands of years just feels natural. In fact its more human than picking up some bag of ground beef filled with preservatives and soy at the supermarket. ;)

jhunter
April 4, 2007, 01:43 PM
Hey Art, I visit Alpine often, I will take you up on that offer for a grand this next season.. Can it be one of my scoped rifles?

ptmmatssc
April 4, 2007, 02:05 PM
I've read most of the posts here and want to share a little info. The following was posted

You are not in danger of going without meat or protein. We have plenty of farm animals that we've specifically raised for this purpose.

What's more, our technology has greatly outpaced evolution. No quarry has a chance against a decent marksman; they don't understand how a little moving blob on a hill a quarter of a mile away could possibly be dangerous. I do hold a begrudging admiration of people who hunt using more primitive techniques (such as atlatls). At least then, the quarry had a chance.

And these are the stats for my state for deer season of 2006

Overall 29,918 deer were registered during 2006

It was estimated that over 172,000 hunters took to the woods to hunt deer in 2006.

That pretty much is a 1 in 5 chance at scoring a deer vs 100% chance that a cow/pig/chicken gets of being killed . To me personally , it's more ethical to hunt my meat than it is to raise it . I do both ( I don't buy my meat) only because we are limited to how many deer we take and there is no guarantee that I'll bag my limit , therefore I "freerange/grassfeed" a few pigs/chickens/cow .


3. The animals would starve and die a horrible death if the herds weren't culled.
By this reasoning, in areas of famine such as Ethiopia, the kind thing to do would be to drop in hunters and reduce the locals so that they can find death faster and more humanely.

The difference my friend is humans can do something about it , animals can't . Humans have cognitive skills , the animal kingdom does not .

Maine wildlife biologists estimate that for a region's deer population and habitat to remain healthy, there should be 15 deer per square mile of land. Currently, biologists estimate 100 deer per square mile in parts of York County. This high population compromises the overall health of the deer herd and of forest ecosystems. Deer overpopulation also could lead to increased human health and safety risks from Lyme disease and automobile/deer collisions.

I am a hunter (30 yrs) and still do not understand how raising an animal for slaughter is more ethical than hunting . What people seem to forget is that all "raised" animals came from wild animals at one time . So was is ethical to take them out of their natural environment and domesticate them just to make it easier to kill them for food?

Btw , yes I understand the 2nd isn't about hunting and that's why my "hunting
" arms are also my "defense " arms . Defense is first on the list for what they are used for , they just happen to be great for hunting.

bowfin
April 4, 2007, 02:17 PM
The game of going out and trying to find the... biggest, most points, hardest to find, whatever ... seems like a silly time waster to me and yet people get so hung up in it

Okay, now we are down to opinions, and opinions don't change in debates. You put trophy hunting in your list of silly time wasters, I don't. My list of silly time wasters includes watching television and debating on forums, such as we are all doing now. The difference being, you really have to improve a set of skills and put forth effort to trophy hunt successfully.

Have you ever competed in a sport or game, Titan6? Did you ever have a hobby such as drawing, gardening, restoring a car, or something where the outcome was determined by how much effort and preparation you put into it? Could someone have come along and say "I don't know why you put so much time into <FILL IN THE BLANK> when it is such a silly time waster? Same deal here.

Oh, and I don't trophy hunt. In fact, I haven't bought a permit for an antlered deer in the last four years. I really don't want to put forth the time and the effort it would take to shoot a wall hanging sized deer. I like to shoot lots of deer and butcher them up for food. Yep, I know, it is a silly time waster when the grocery stores are full of meat...;)

bowfin
April 4, 2007, 02:34 PM
I haven't had one thing that was wild that I thought tasted good.

LOL! :D I've never shot a 1911 and got a decent group. That must mean that they are worthless, given my experience, right?

Here might be your problem, look at Post #41:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=249273&page=2&highlight=venison

WhitetailFanatic
April 4, 2007, 02:36 PM
I will never appologize or feel bad about being at the top of the food chain. I hunt, I fish, I kill cockroaches and I step on bugs. :neener: :neener: :neener::neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener: :neener:

timsosvp
April 4, 2007, 02:41 PM
The anti orgs. launch a 2 pronged attack. The anti gunners come at a certain type of firearm (handgun, "Assault", "Sniper") and the anti hunters come at a certain method or animal. The agendas of both are enhanced when one wins.

If the anti hunters were to succeed in eliminating bird hunting, the anti gunners now have a reinforced argument that semi-auto shotguns serve no sporting purpose. Conversely if "long range sniper rifles" are successfully removed from the equation, the anti hunters have a reinforced argument that deer hunting is no longer valid and should be eliminated. By only thinking of ourselves and pulling back to defend what we consider ethical, morale and justifiable we, by default, slit our own throats. As long as these divisions can be exploited there is no true victory. If you don't hunt but own a gun, think about the bigger picture when an anti hunting measure is on the ballot or in the halls of government. Same with hunters that don't have a passion for ARs. If ARs are banned, hunters better realize that their sacred semi auto birding shotgun functions the same way and is next on the list.

HuntCast
April 4, 2007, 02:48 PM
The bottom line for me is this:
If you don't support ALL lawful uses of arms, the you DO NOT support the second amendment, and I have no use for you what so ever. In fact, I will make it my personal mission to see you defeated.

Hunt4life
April 4, 2007, 03:06 PM
Here's what I've learned in the past day...

2nd-A activists can be no different than Fudds. They talk out of ignorance, care more about their feelings than truth and are happy to stay that way.

God help us all.

BigO01
April 4, 2007, 03:08 PM
The bottom line for me is this:
If you don't support ALL lawful uses of arms, the you DO NOT support the second amendment, and I have no use for you what so ever. In fact, I will make it my personal mission to see you defeated.


Agreed but , The bottom line is ,

The antis want to take all guns PERIOD !

It doesn't matter if it is your 270 or 30-06 bolt action that you use for deer and elk hunting , your $1,000+ 22 rimfire target pistol , your 38/357 , 9mm , 45 or 380 that you keep for personal defense againts home invaders or that Fal and AR15 you keep for a SHTF they want them ALL every single one of them !

If you think otherwise you are a Fool !

Titan6
April 4, 2007, 03:12 PM
Bowfin I always said it was MHO on trophy hunting. I feel the same way about golf as well...

You really should buy the tags. I always geta full lic, although in Texas it is free for me. The money goes to support conservation efforts and if the tags don't get filled that is sometimes a good thing also. Several years when I was out of the country or whatever during hunting season I still bought the lic.

Huntcast? Are you sure you want to go that way? That would be a whole new thread and a much uglier one to boot.

bowfin
April 4, 2007, 03:29 PM
Titan6,

I hope that didn't sound like I don't buy a permit.:eek:

I buy Antlerless Only tags. They cost the same as a regular permit allowing one to shoot a buck, but they are "Season Choice" permit, meaning they can be used during the archery, muzzleloader, firearm, or late firearm season while using the corresponding appropriate weapon. In some areas, the Anterless Only permits have an extra bonus tag for another antlerless deer. Since I would rather shoot two does than one buck, I have been buying these permits.

Actually, I think I like cutting up the meat and turning it into good stuff to eat as much as I do the hunting, any more. It seems the hunt doesn't seem finished until the deer is on the plate.

I do agree that shooting a huge antlered buck can be more a matter of opportunity ($$$) or luck, so I don't necessarily buy into the "My deer is bigger, I guess I am the better hunter" theory. However, people like noted trophy bowhunter Chuck Adams keep shooting record animals for a reason, and that is because they hunt a lot harder than I do, and spend more of their time and their money than I would be willing to get the opportunities.

Titan6
April 4, 2007, 03:36 PM
This talk is starting to make me hungry...

How is the hunting up in central KS? I will be up that way this fall on my way to warmer climes...

mrcpu
April 4, 2007, 03:40 PM
I'd like to invite you to hunt with me, if you're not too lazy and willing to expend the effort, we'll go where the snow is often deep during the deer season, north. We'll have to have the proper equipment and clothing or we may die.These will make us stand out prominently and will be orange. Our quarry will be wearing what nature provided which will render him or her practically invisible and they will wield senses more sensitive than you can imagine. I once heard the notion of escaping their attention as "you being oblivious to a two hundred pound deer hiding in your living room". If you wish we can use a camera but that would be lazy, leaving the work of harvesting our quarry out of the picture.
Let's say we use a scoped rifle, 270Win, enough to be effective, first shot if at all possible. I've accomplished that more often than not. That is my goal, on several levels, it pleases me. My ego likes the concept that I practiced enough to still my freezing numb hands to make a shot, that I can sublimate my "buck fever" to hold for the right sight picture and "right prey", to know what I might hit if I miss or go through the target. Then we can address the meat quality unspoiled by the huge adrenelin rush that a wounding shot elicits.
We will have to drag the harvest to the road (vehicle) could be miles. That would be after we've field dressed it. I wonder if you have the "stomach" for that? As a side note, if i'ts more than 30 degrees F the gut pile won't be here in the morning,and i'ts probably not hungry humans that claim it. When we get it home +- 500 miles, we can thaw it and butcher it, if again, you have the energy and stomach.
This is not tongue in cheek but a serious invitation to join me. I could use the help, you could use the lessons waiting there.


Heh, now if you did this wearing the coats of the animals you'd nailed previously, with boots made out of the skins, and rode your horse that 500 miles to get there, living off the land on the way, riding probably bareback, then I suspect a lesson is in there somewhere.

Outside of that, it seems like something people just do because they like to. And nothing wrong with that either...

Ain't technology great?

SteveS
April 4, 2007, 03:41 PM
I have a problem with watching animals suffer, I can't stand it and would gladly torture any human that does unethical things to animals. That goes for breeding and training cocks or pit bulls or whatever. I've been attacked on here for saying I'd hunt hunters. All of a sudden the hunters are the ones screaming murder! When the hunters in Wisconsin were gunned down like 'varmints' by Vang I applauded it, it's about time a hunter looked down the barrel of a gun. When I see human suffering it doesn't bother me in the least, but when I say this all of a sudden I'm the one that has a problem.

So, you support torturing and murdering other people? I have a problem with this.

MinScout
April 4, 2007, 04:13 PM
"...but the man who does not like to see, hunt, photograph, or otherwise outwit birds or animals is hardly normal. He is supercivilized, and I for one do not know how to deal with him." -Aldo Leopold.

That pretty well reflects my attitude toward the non hunter. And if the anti-hunting yahoos have their way and somehow ban hunting, I will hunt anyway. I am a hunter.

RCouch
April 4, 2007, 04:25 PM
Wooderson:
If seeing a tarantula kill another species is offensive to you, then you must have a real problem with the National Geographic channel and Animal Planet. Insects and animals killing each other is what nature is about and man is just another piece of the order.

wooderson
April 4, 2007, 04:26 PM
If seeing a tarantula kill another species is offensive to you
Try reading what I wrote one more time.

bowfin
April 4, 2007, 04:27 PM
But I could see myself taking a deer if I was able to walk around the woods stalking an animal, but I fear sitting in a tree would bore me to death.

I don't hunt out of deer stands or blinds. I sit down against a tree or on a stump, or walk around. I guess I should say "stalk" or "still hunt" instead of walk around, but basically, I just walk. I get more than a few that way, although I am sure I would see more if I were up in a tree stand.

I don't care for blinds either, I like to hunt outside, but it's just a preference, like ice cream flavors. No value attached to doing it one way or not another.

Tigerclaw_x
April 4, 2007, 04:38 PM
To me. Sport hunting is getting your kicks from death. Pretty much in the same area as snuff style porn and sadism. A person gets kicks from death of living beings. I have NO problem if a guy grabs his 308, gets his license, takes down 1-2 deer and brings them home and eats them or sells the meat. I do have a problem if someone takes a rifle. Kills 20 deer, chops the head off the biggest one and dumps the rest of carcasses in the forest to rot.
My grandfather, who was a hunter, always told me that "If you ain't gonna eat it - don't kill it." He was also one of those guys who hunts with a single shot weapon. He had an izhevsk rifle/shotgun over under combination. He used to say "If you have only one shot, you will be very careful about aiming. if a hunter knows that he has many shots in reserve, he will be sloppy, trying to get off as many shots, aiming for entire herd, crippling and wounding animals instead of killing them." I agree with him wholeheartedly.
Since I was 13, I hunted with him, using a 16ga single barrel single shot Izhevsk shotgun, old one too, with external cocking trigger. Frankly, I do not need anything more powerful to hunt. Different choke attachments, or rifled slugs or 000 buckshot is enough for just about any game. From ducks to moose. (Grandfather took a moose with a single 16ga rifled slug hit).
Frankly, we do not have enough animals left as it is. With habitat shrinkage, pollition and encroachment of human habitats. Lets stop killing them. Plenty of the animals already went extinct because of us. Yes, the animals can be HARVESTED, but with restrain and control.

And yes, I am as PRO 2nd as it gets. It is just that I preffere to kill paper plates and square pieces of paper, rather then animals.
Yes, animals kill. They kill to survive and eat. They can't go to Dominics, Jewel, Whole Foods or Farmers Market to pick up their meat. You can. Animals also do not have opposable thumbs, you do.

Dan from MI
April 4, 2007, 04:41 PM
I'm a hunter (turkey, deer). I eat what I hunt. I support the privlege to hunt. I have no problems with people who don't hunt, but I have a major problem with those like the Humane Society who want to ban hunting.

I am also pro-Second Amendment as well as pro-hunting.

I'm of the mind that all of us here need to support the privlege to hunt for the same reason that hunters need to support pistol and ugly gun shooters. We all hang together, or we all hang separately.

.cheese.
April 4, 2007, 04:44 PM
I call BS on whoever said that you have to support ALL lawful uses of firearms.

I support self-defense. I support hunting to eat what you kill. I support taking care of problems with animals that are either destroying your property, livestock, crop, etc, as they're messing with your livelihood and if you messed with their livelihood they'd attack you just as quickly. I also support taking an animal if they present a significant safety problem to the community or your neighborhood.

I don't support just going into the woods and putting holes in animals that haven't done anything to you, your property, and that you don't intend to eat, then just keeping a part of them as a trophy or something. That's just unethical in my opinion.

Saying that just because it's legal, if you're pro 2A you have to support or, or else you're an anti, is about as BS as it comes.

There is a difference between legal and ethical. The classic example is the Holocaust (at least this is the example I've heard in multiple law classes when making the distinction). It was perfectly legal to exterminate the Jews (and others) in Germany under Nazi rule. It was not (in the opinion of I'd hope the majority if not all here) ethical.

The 2A has nothing to do with hunting. If we are going to make an argument against those who want to make it ONLY applicable to hunting, reminding them that this is not the original intent of the 2A, then to say that you don't support the 2A if you don't support hunting is even more ridiculous. :rolleyes:

Titan6
April 4, 2007, 04:56 PM
Why does it always have to go to Godwin? Here we are talking about hunting and guns and we are back to Godwin.... How did he know???

1911ShooterTJ
April 4, 2007, 04:59 PM
Just curious, but do any of you opposed to trophy hunting oppose it flat out?

Let's take for example deer hunting...

Some may give the venison to friends or family who enjoy it, and one of my friends in particular gives to Pennsylvania’s “Hunters Sharing the Harvest” program, which donates venison to local food banks and soup kitchens. According to the PA Game Commission, “Each year, HSH helps provide needy Pennsylvanians with 200,000 meals of quality, high-protein venison”. Is this so bad? I believe this is an ethical option for those who enjoy hunting for trophies. They are giving back to those who need the meat the most, and who can truly appreciate a good meal.

However, to kill for the trophy and then just ditch the carcass in the woods, I am opposed to.

P.S. – You can read more about PA’s HSH program here: http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=460&q=158644

Sig245
April 4, 2007, 05:05 PM
I have been a target shooter for over 45 years now. Never a big fan of hunting, that is my personal choice though. That being said I support your hunting rights 100%.

All gun owners must stick together and link arms to block the efforts of the anti-hunting and anti-gun rights groups.

Larry Ashcraft
April 4, 2007, 05:09 PM
I do have a problem if someone takes a rifle. Kills 20 deer, chops the head off the biggest one and dumps the rest of carcasses in the forest to rot.
I don't support just going into the woods and putting holes in animals that haven't done anything to you, your property, and that you don't intend to eat, then just keeping a part of them as a trophy or something. That's just unethical in my opinion.
However, to kill for the trophy and then just ditch the carcass in the woods, I am opposed to.
I'll reiterate:

Trophy hunting is a MYTH perpetuated by anti hunters to make us all look bad. Its against the law in probably every state (its a felony here).

It's simply so rare it might as well be non-existent. The few cases I've seen over the years here in Colorado, were also connected with poaching and were prosecuted severely. I mean the guy(s) lose their vehicles, guns, get huge fines AND go to jail.

I'm surprised so many of you have bought into that myth, and are perpetuating it here.

beaucoup ammo
April 4, 2007, 05:16 PM
I'm sort of a hybrid in this department, Leanwolf. I own several guns and shooting is about all I do these days. Not a bad way to go through life. However, I no longer hunt. That's just how things have evolved.

I hunted most of my 60+ years and loved every minute of it. In fact, I still enjoy heading to camp in late summer/early fall and help get things set up!

As with some other folks I just lost my taste for the blood sport as I got older. Would I ever join an effort to ban hunting? Not on your life! I champion hunting as vigorously now as 40 years ago. I appreciate a clean kill as much as the next guy.. just don't partake.

Titan6
April 4, 2007, 05:17 PM
Only because there is no consensus:

Do you mean this is a myth?
Trophy hunting magazine
http://www.monstermuleys.com/th/

Buy your own trophy hunt
http://www.africanhuntingsafaris.com/

The Trophy room at King's Outdoor World
http://www.kingsoutdoorworld.com/trophy_room.htm

- Or -

If we are talking about criminal acts that people commit while hunting that represent old style trophy hunts? Than they exist also. That is why we have park police and game wardens to arrest them and give them tickets. Happens all the time. May as well say there are no shootings in DC because of the gun ban.

Headless
April 4, 2007, 05:17 PM
Did someone post that he was happy and...applauded... when a man murdered SIX hunters in wisconsin last year in cold blood -- because he doesn't approve of hunting... for ethical reasons?! That guy killed SIX PEOPLE, and he shot four of eight of them in the back, one of whom was a female nurse who was engaged to be married and shot twice in the back and killed. Her FATHER WATCHED HER DIE because of that madman and has to live with surviving the attack. The concept that this could be conveyed as something that those people deserved for being hunters is dispicable.
I remove 2 lines of text venting on this topic due to their lack of highroadness

Perhaps next we can argue that and be glad that columbine happened 'cuz those whiny kids needed to get some of their own torment given back to them' -- by being shot repeatedly while defenseless. Jeez. For the record, I've never killed an animal in my life beyond a rattlesnake and have no real motivation to hunt as long as i can get my food from a grocery store...an i'm fairly ashamed that someone might compare me to you because you also don't hunt.

Mikee Loxxer
April 4, 2007, 05:20 PM
You can tell by reading comments from those who are critical of hunters have little to no experience with hunting and have some really bizarre perspectives concerning what motivates people to hunt. All this stuff about liking to see stuff die, shooting prairie dogs as some kind of bloodsport(instead of the pest control that it really is), ignorance of various regional ecosystems ( having too few animals to hunt), and ignorance of laws (references to selling wild game meat, killing large numbers of animals and leaving the carcasses behind) indicate to me that these folks are city dwellers with no perspective of what things are like outside of densely populated areas. A lot of ignorance and emotion, not unlike the Million Moms.

And for the record wild duck tastes a lot better than domestically raised duck.

Hunt4life
April 4, 2007, 05:22 PM
To me. Sport hunting is getting your kicks from death. Pretty much in the same area as snuff style porn and sadism. A person gets kicks from death of living beings. I have NO problem if a guy grabs his 308, gets his license, takes down 1-2 deer and brings them home and eats them or sells the meat. I do have a problem if someone takes a rifle. Kills 20 deer, chops the head off the biggest one and dumps the rest of carcasses in the forest to rot.

Listen closely...

You are perpetuating a lie. A myth. You are talking about something that is not applicable today due to the law:

Wasting deer meat in the fashion you describe is illegal in every state I know of and has been for generations. The instances of this type of thing today are rare, very rare and is a crime. A crime perpetrated by game thieves, criminal wastes of skin, not hunters. Hunters hate this type of person more than you do!

What you just said is exactly like the guy who says...

"To me people who want assault weapons and hand guns get their kicks from acting like tough guy Rambos and playing with machine guns. I don't mind hunters having guns for legitimate hunting purposes but these terrorists and their assault weapons need to go."

Hunt4life
April 4, 2007, 05:27 PM
You can tell by reading comments from those who are critical of hunters have little to no experience with hunting and have some really bizarre perspectives concerning what motivates people to hunt.

They are Bizzaro World incarnations of the old Zumbo.

pax
April 4, 2007, 05:29 PM
Folks,

Please stop with the name-calling, or the thread will be closed.

If you have done any name-calling, please edit your post and delete the insults. They do not belong on THR.

At least one person who has posted in this thread is already in danger of losing his THR membership. Don't let it be you.

pax

GEM
April 4, 2007, 05:48 PM
As a psychologist, there is good evidence that built into us are factors that make killing pleasurable. This from an evolutionary point of view promoted the risk taking needed for primate survival and weapons use - which led to the development of many of our capacities.

There are some forms of hunting that I don't regard as particular noteworthy. Canned hunts on semi-domesticated animals that are set up for the 'great' hunter to shoot - nah.

I have hunted and wouldn't ban it. Various forms have different aethestic values to me. However, hunting is irrelevant to the RKBA.

ArfinGreebly
April 4, 2007, 05:57 PM
However, hunting is irrelevant to the RKBA.

No.

Not irrelevant.

Not enumerated, but neither is it irrelevant.

Anything that makes a gun useful is relevant in expressing why gun ownership is a good idea.

Self defense is relevant.

Defense against tyranny is relevant.

Community defense and national defense are relevant.

Protection of livestock is relevant.

Procurement of provisions is relevant.

Even purely recreational use is relevant.

The aspect that triggered the Second Amendment was defense against tyranny, followed closely by community/national defense and personal defense.

That doesn't make the other uses and purposes irrelevant.

Just as (per the Ninth Amendment) the lack of enumeration of a right doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.

All legitimate uses of a gun are relevant.

Including the ones I overlooked.

bowfin
April 4, 2007, 06:00 PM
I do have a problem if someone takes a rifle. Kills 20 deer, chops the head off the biggest one and dumps the rest of carcasses in the forest to rot.

Uhmm, that is poaching, not sport hunting, and what you describe is a violation in every state. If you can't tell the difference between the sport hunting and poaching, I don't know how you can form valid opinions.

"If you have only one shot, you will be very careful about aiming. if a hunter knows that he has many shots in reserve, he will be sloppy, trying to get off as many shots, aiming for entire herd, crippling and wounding animals instead of killing them." I agree with him wholeheartedly.

Not true. The human always controls the gun and the ammunition, not the other way around.

If you really believe this, then you would lobby for only single shot firearms for self defense, since a single shot is enough for one mugger, rapist, or home intruder, but having access to more than one bullet will certainly make you a serial killer or force you to go on a shooting spree.

How can you hit your paper and steel targets, if you have more than one cartridge in your gun, which would make you fire as fast as you can without aiming?

wooderson
April 4, 2007, 06:00 PM
Wasting deer meat in the fashion you describe is illegal in every state I know of and has been for generations.

As noted, however, the existence of a law does not create reality, just as 'gun-free zones' don't become places of safety and virtue.

Nor do people follow this law out of the goodness of their hearts - if it was all about proper herd management, conservation, and eating what you kill, we would need neither the laws referenced nor enforcers of them, would we?

aerod1
April 4, 2007, 06:09 PM
First, I am a 2A supporter of our RKBA. I am also a hunter, shooter, and collector!
I also varmint hunt for sport. It is fun and I make no apology. Look up the definition of varmint. I also like to target shoot every week or so.
There are also hunters out there that don't care for shooting military style rifles and see no need for a person to own a military style rifle or a handgun.
If they want to feel this way that's OK with me. Just don't criticize me for doing either. There is room enough for all of us in the gun world.
I like guns......all guns!

.cheese.
April 4, 2007, 06:10 PM
Titan - Godwins Law just happens to be a coincidence.

I only mentioned the ethical/unethical Holocaust example in this case because it keeps popping up in law class textbooks (at least in my classes). Don't misunderstand me, I'm not intending to call anybody here a Nazi or anything like that. That's really what Godwins law is about. I just was citing it as the most referenced, and most identifiable distinction of legal vs ethical.

I actually hesitated to mention it because I even thought about how it could be construed as Godwins law, but I couldn't think of an easier example.

Tigerclaw_x
April 4, 2007, 06:14 PM
I do not hunt. I do not wish to hunt. I just like guns. High capacity, military style guns. What do I shoot from them? Paper targets. Hope I never have to shoot at anything else. I don't wish to kill anyone unless I have to. I do not want to kill a deer, neither do I want to kill a human. Not unless I have to.
To me, having a gun is like having a motorcycle - a recreational device.
Do I need my pistols and my shotgun to survive? Probably not. Do I need the AK that I got to survive? Not really. Do I enjoy shooting it? Yes.
Do you have the right to have any guns you want up to and including a cannon? Sure. If you can afford it - it is your money.
Same thing as with cars and motorcycles. Do you need a sports car? No, but it is fun. Do you need to have a HONDA 1800? Not really, but it is fun.
Same for guns. If you consider it nessessary to buy a consealable pistol - it is your business as long as you do not hurt others with it. You consider it nessessary to have a M2HB on your backyard or DShK on your boat? Your business, as long as you do not hurt anyone, and understand the responcibility.
I do not get my kicks from hunting. I get my meat from Whole Foods. I am happy with it. If you want to shoot a goose and eat it - that is fine and well, as long as you don't kill 20 of them. If you want to kill a goose only to make a stuffed dummy out of it and throw the meat out - thats when we begin to have differences.

JesseL
April 4, 2007, 06:18 PM
All legitimate uses of a gun are relevant.

Including the ones I overlooked.

I don't disagree with you, but just to play devil's advocate:

What if someone doesn't happen to feel that hunting is legitimate? I've known a few vegetarians that enjoyed shooting and thoroughly supported the RKBA. Doesn't that make relevance subjective?

.cheese.
April 4, 2007, 06:21 PM
1911ShooterTJ - you bring up an interesting point which I have actually thought about.

I only care that hunted animals don't go to waste. To kill without using the meat just seems useless and unethical.

So long as somebody eats it, and I don't care if that's extended family, the homeless (I think a hunting for the homeless program could be very interesting), or somebody else - it's fine with me.

obxned
April 4, 2007, 06:30 PM
'Eat what you kill' is a nice thought, but do you eat mice, rats and bugs?

.cheese.
April 4, 2007, 06:40 PM
eat what you kill - as it applies to hunting. Do you hunt rats, mice, and bugs?

Rats - I've had to kill them when they were in my attic because they were causing damage and they carry disease.

Mice - I don't kill. I use humane traps and release them away from my home.

Insects I don't make a point to kill unless I have to. If it's a flying insect, I try to get it to fly out (flies, bees, etc). Cockroaches cause disease if they get into your food - so yes, they have to go.

However, none of those do I go out of my way, setting aside a weekend, to kill?

Bad argument imo.

And if you are doing that and hunting them, I'd have to say you might want to take up a hobby if you're that bored. ;)

HuntCast
April 4, 2007, 06:42 PM
I don't support just going into the woods and putting holes in animals that haven't done anything to you, your property, and that you don't intend to eat, then just keeping a part of them as a trophy or something. That's just unethical in my opinion.

I said all LAWFUL uses of arms. Why is that hard to support??
What you mention is against the law, and not utilizing what you take is almost unheard of. People stop and pick up ROAD KILL venison. Not much antler hunting going on in the real world.

torpid
April 4, 2007, 06:43 PM
I've been attacked on here for saying I'd hunt hunters. All of a sudden the hunters are the ones screaming murder! When the hunters in Wisconsin were gunned down like 'varmints' by Vang I applauded it, it's about time a hunter looked down the barrel of a gun. When I see human suffering it doesn't bother me in the least, but when I say this all of a sudden I'm the one that has a problem.

Okay...

So if human suffering doesn't bother you in the least, then why is animal suffering any different? Why the glee at dead humans just because they previously killed animals themselves?

In your opinion, if humans are no better than animals (as humans are animals), then why not accept all animals as equal in the evolutionary chain, and not care about either one's suffering?

I mean, if you want to knock humanity off of it's human-created pedestal, that's your prerogative, but why not leave things equally on the same ground?

No need to build a human-created pedestal for animals.

The animals don't care what humans think, and don't care about being "championed". They do what animals do, and if you think of the human animal, so do we.

We didn't get to this point in our evolutionary history by not hunting.

TCB in TN
April 4, 2007, 06:46 PM
I couldn't agree more with this. It's common knowledge that serial killers enjoy killing animals and enjoy watching them suffer. I have a problem with watching animals suffer, I can't stand it and would gladly torture any human that does unethical things to animals. That goes for breeding and training cocks or pit bulls or whatever. I've been attacked on here for saying I'd hunt hunters. All of a sudden the hunters are the ones screaming murder! When the hunters in Wisconsin were gunned down like 'varmints' by Vang I applauded it, it's about time a hunter looked down the barrel of a gun. When I see human suffering it doesn't bother me in the least, but when I say this all of a sudden I'm the one that has a problem.

As this is the Highroad, I cannot even begin to describe what I felt when I read this. There is just to much wrong with this to even begin.
:fire:

I grew up hunting, and fishing, and even though I don't hunt these days, I still do varmit control, although many of those varmits are not "natural" one. Living in the country we get lots of dump offs. Lots of people drive out of town to "get rid" of the unwanted creatures they have. I guess since they figure since we have the "room" we will only to happy to take care of the crap they don't want. Those creatures end up on our farm, chasing our animals, eating our ducks, geese, chickens, goats etc. Ever seen a horse ran though a barb wire fence by a bunch of strays? How about goats after a bunch of dogs get in? Geese, chickens etc? Not pretty, but you get the idea. And don't even start with animal control. Good folks, spread way to thin, and by the time they get here, all that is there to see is what ever is left. Sorry about the rant, but it is a sore point here.

As for wild game, I have 2 points. 1st is that most of us eat meat, myself included. If you eat it from the store, from your own barn, or harvested legally from the woods, then I have NO problems with it. BTW I love horses, and dogs, but if you want to eat them along with what ever other animal you prefer, then it's fine with me too. 2nd. I have seen the results of over population, "a few years back there were deer dying in a wildlife area in FL that weas pathetic." Managed hunting is saving widelife. End of story.

My take on all of this is simply this, America is supposed to be a free country, if you want to do something then it should be fine as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights on another PERSON.

HuntCast
April 4, 2007, 06:53 PM
Huntcast? Are you sure you want to go that way? That would be a whole new thread and a much uglier one to boot.

I don't see why it would be ugly, here of all places. This is The High Road after all........ a bastion for the 2A absolutists of the world.

I'll say it again. If you do not support ALL lawful uses of arms, then you do not support the 2A, and in fact, you are working to undermine it's guarantee.
Let me emphasize the word LAWFUL again. Why would anyone here have a problem with agreeing to that?

BTW, The 2A says nothing about "fire"arms. Just arms. Archery and knives count in that statement too.

Titan6
April 4, 2007, 06:53 PM
LOL:

Mice - I don't kill. I use humane traps and release them away from my home.

I wonder what happens next? I bet they just go away....

However, none of those do I go out of my way, setting aside a weekend, to kill?

How about I just go out to my back porch and shoot thumper who is eating my peas and carrots? Is that morally okay if I don't eat him? Because you kind of need more than one rabbit to make a stew anyway.

Huntcast: Just to give you an idea of the size of the issue what about use that is legal in one state and not another?

HuntCast
April 4, 2007, 07:03 PM
Huntcast: Just to give you an idea of the size of the issue what about use that is legal in one state and not another?

I must be missing something. Lawful means lawful.
I don't understand why you ask that?

Hunt4life
April 4, 2007, 07:05 PM
As noted, however, the existence of a law does not create reality, just as 'gun-free zones' don't become places of safety and virtue.

Nor do people follow this law out of the goodness of their hearts - if it was all about proper herd management, conservation, and eating what you kill, we would need neither the laws referenced nor enforcers of them, would we?

True. But if that's an argument against hunting its an argument against gun ownership as well.

I mean, I could say if the 2nd-A was all about keeping arms for the defense of self and state we wouldn't need laws against murder.

But as a hunter, it is important to me that people know "shooting 10 deer just for their heads and horns and leaving the meat to waste" is:

1) an aberration
2) has been illegal for generations
3) Hunters passed those laws because they wanted the wasteful practice to end
4) stating it as if it is the norm does the image and future of hunting as much good as stating "assault weapons" and "saturday night specials" are used to mow down police officers and children in the streets.

Certainly you would stand to clarify the latter, right? So it should come as no surprise that I stand to clarify the former.

Simply, its unfair and dishonest to point toward an aberration and state it as if it's the norm.

KMBRTAC45
April 4, 2007, 07:07 PM
I agree with everything said here. I have been a hunter for 22 years, and have NEVER shot anything I did not eat. I have no tolerance for people who poach. I am a pro-gun, pro-hunting, pro-target shooting, pro-self defense, pro-trap & skeet(even though I don't do it),pro-mind your own business and I'll do the same.

Well, chilluns, having done a fair amount of hunting over these last 60-some years of being big enough to be a hunter, I tend to have a few comments on the issue.

No game animal species is anywhere near being endangered by the actions of hunters in today's world. Nowhere. I hope it's obvious I'm not seeing poachers as the same thing as hunters.

The near-demise of the bison was due to deliberate U.S. government policy, to "...destroy the commissary of the Plains Indian," per the War Department. The demise of the passenger pigeon was due to the mix of market hunting for restaurants and cafes, and clearing forested habitat areas for farming.

Today's game laws are a direct result of hunters' efforts to ensure an ongoing huntable populations. The Dingell/Johnson excise tax on firearms was called for by hunters. Same for the Pittman/Robinson tax. That money is allocated to state wildlife agencies, pro-rated by the numbers of licenses sold. Non-shooters get a free ride.

A birder can get a thrill from seeing one of the few remaining members of an endangered species. A hunter has a much stronger vested interest in the health of a species, in that there must be a surplus or he cannot hunt. The hunters' fundings, then, benefit all those who cherish wildlife. Some may not realize it, but it's rather difficult to do things which benefit one species of wildlife without benefitting all others in that habitat.

Morality? Well, meat's meat. The only difference between the hunter and one who buys meat in a grocery or eats meat at a restaurant is that the hunter is a do-it-yourselfer. The same holds true for a gardener and his veggies, of course. Those who don't provide their own are merely hiring others to do their scut work for them.

Opinion: A deer is no more noble than a cow. A wild turkey is no more noble than a barnyard chicken.

Philosophically? Well, when I'm hunting, I feel connected to a few hundred (few thousand?) generations of forebears. Same when sitting around the fire at hunt camp. I'm proving myself to myself, that I'm not condemned to be some sort of hapless couch potato who relies on somebody else to provide for me. I'm also thinking about yummy-tasties. I'm a natural food freak, loving the taste of backstrap, or quail breast or javelina hams. Those aren't sold in my local A&Poo Feed Store.

Practical: I once offered a $1,000 challenge to a guy who said there's no big deal to killing a deer with a scoped rifle: I'd rig a camera on a rifle stock, with crosshairs on the focal plane. The deal is, find a really nice buck, and bring me a picture with the crosshairs in the right place for a clean kill. Ya got two frames of film available. Good picture? Get a $1,000. No picture? Pay me. All he had to do was come go hunt with me. No cost to him for the deal, food, travel, lease, whatever. Seems like it didn't look all that easy, after all.

I'll never put any bumrap on somebody who doesn't want to hunt. It's not my business. But I won't tolerate a bunch of mouth music from an anti-hunter. In the last half-century or so, I've yet to hear an argument that sounded anywhere near like something I'd expect hear from a mature adult.

Art

Art Eatman
April 4, 2007, 07:15 PM
From Tigerclaw X:

"To me. Sport hunting is getting your kicks from death. Pretty much in the same area as snuff style porn and sadism. A person gets kicks from death of living beings."

That's merely an uniformed opinion; it in no way matches the attitude of the many hunters I have known.

"I do have a problem if someone takes a rifle. Kills 20 deer, chops the head off the biggest one and dumps the rest of carcasses in the forest to rot."

Who doesn't? That's at best called poaching. But that sort of behavior has nothing to do with the activities of millions of the hunters who are honorable and ethical about seasons and bag limits.

"if a hunter knows that he has many shots in reserve, he will be sloppy, trying to get off as many shots, aiming for entire herd, crippling and wounding animals instead of killing them." I agree with him wholeheartedly."

You and your grandfather are both mistaken. Not only have I hunted with numerous people over these last several decades, but I've moderated hunt forums here and at TFL since 1999. One thing that stands out is the pride that is taken in making one-shot kills.

"Frankly, we do not have enough animals left as it is."

Insofar as game animals, this is factually incorrect. Not only are game-animal populations generally expanding, in some areas they are becoming pests. This includes whitetail deer and geese.

"Plenty of the animals already went extinct because of us."

Again, this is not a problem for game animals in today's United States. It's not happening. It's certainly not happening because of hunters.

One may have reasons to not care to partake of some endeavor. That's all well and good. It is one's right. However, in order to try to persuade others to have the same view, make sure you know the facts.

Pleasure in the hunt? Well, of course! It's quite natural: You have the challenge of finding the animal you want. You then have the challenge of getting into position for a shot. You then--I hope--make a clean, accurate hit, killing the animal. Ideally, DRT. There is always pleasure when one accomplishes one's goal. If not, don't do it. Isn't that simple?

Hey, I don't exit a grocery store with a big case of the sours. I'm thinking about supper, and maybe dessert* afterwards. Puredee pleasure. The Big Outdoors ain't nothin' but a big grocery store. :D But grocery stores don't have campfires and friendly folks telling lies on each other's goofs on those hunts from long, long ago.

Art

* WalMart carries a chocolate icebox pie deal that is just plumb totally sinful. :D

Titan6
April 4, 2007, 07:19 PM
must be missing something. Lawful means lawful.
I don't understand why you ask that


Okay so where all hunting is illegal, say duck hunting along the Potomac on the DC side... You agree that is good? And since you are still not allowed to buy or carry a gun despite whatever the court said that is okay also? And since you are only allowed certain types of guns in say CA and NJ that is okay? And since CCW is not allowed in many states but is in others you have no problem with that? And militia training is illegal in some states and not in others....

Because to do or have these things is illegal. And I think that they should be legal everywhere.

So to go to the next logical step what if they were made illegal everywhere? Would you still support the activity even though it were illegal or would you dump and run?

Because if I buy a new 30 round magazine in California I go to jail this is an unlawful use... If the California or NYC or DC view of the world were imposed on us would you still limit yourself to what was lawful and what was not?

HuntCast
April 4, 2007, 07:58 PM
PETA managed to get Dove hunting banned here, even though it is legal in almost every state they exist. I have 40 of them a night on the power lines outside my house. Just because I think I should be allowed to hunt them during season, doesn't mean I wouldn't want anyone who shot them in Michigan arrested for poaching.
I won't break the law, or advocate anyone else do it, even if in an extreme case, it is an egregious infringement on rights.

I would certainly do everything I can to change it, however.

Barbara
April 4, 2007, 08:23 PM
I'm an omnivore. I eat meat. My ancestors ate meat, my children's children will most likely eat meat..Because I'm willing to eat an animal, I'm also willing to kill it.

If you eat meat at all, you're silly to complain about hunting.

Flesh is what you're eating.

That red stuff on the bottom of the styrofoam container you get at Piggly-Wiggly? That's blood. It flowed through the veins of an animal that was trapped in a pen and eventually taken in a crowded truck to a slaughterhouse where it was killed in the most efficient manner possible, hung, its skin pulled from its muscles and then its muscles sliced into roasts and steaks and burgers.

It's then wrapped in plastic wrap and you buy it and never think about the animal whose very existence was planned around your eating habits.

Hunters don't disillusion themselves about what they're doing. They're killing another creature to feed themselves. Kroger shoppers are pretending their ribeyes are the same as their Oreo cookies.

HuntCast
April 4, 2007, 08:34 PM
I'm an omnivore. I eat meat. My ancestors ate meat, my children's children will most likely eat meat..Because I'm willing to eat an animal, I'm also willing to kill it.

If you eat meat at all, you're silly to complain about hunting.

Flesh is what you're eating.

That red stuff on the bottom of the styrofoam container you get at Piggly-Wiggly? That's blood. It flowed through the veins of an animal that was trapped in a pen and eventually taken in a crowded truck to a slaughterhouse where it was killed in the most efficient manner possible, hung, its skin pulled from its muscles and then its muscles sliced into roasts and steaks and burgers.

It's then wrapped in plastic wrap and you buy it and never think about the animal whose very existence was planned around your eating habits.

Hunters don't disillusion themselves about what they're doing. They're killing another creature to feed themselves. Kroger shoppers are pretending their ribeyes are the same as their Oreo cookies.

I agree with all of that except the line where we are doing it to feed ourselves. While that is one reason, it isn't the only reason. You don't HAVE to eat something to make it ethical to hunt it. I used to feel this way...... till I realized it was a feeling, and not based on even the slightest bit of thought.
We in the U.S. don't eat coyotes. We don't eat crows, or bobcats, or a fox, but it is just as valid to hunt those things as it is a deer or elk or pheasant.

.cheese.
April 4, 2007, 08:59 PM
Titan - as for the mice, my guess is that they probably get eaten by something else when I release them. I just figure it's better to at least let the circle of life be the culprit than just killing it and tossing it in the trash (although I suppose some could make an argument that the circle of life takes place with the bacteria and such). It's just a personal thing.

As for your other question, I said in another post in this thread (my first I think), that that example is ok.

I mean, really given my standards even killing the mouse would be ok, but I just choose not to do it. Doesn't feel necessary. - but that's really a whole separate thread and not THR gun related.

Huntcast - I'm really not sure how much of the game that is legally taken is actually eaten. Like I clearly said, if it's eaten, I'm ok with it. I just get the impression that there is more trophy and pure sport hunting (in the sense of the sport of shooting the animal and that's it) going on than some want to admit. I could be wrong. Bottom line is that I'm no hunting expert as I'm just getting into it. However, I've overheard enough conversations in places like BassPro and even Walmart that got my blood boiling. Usually people who go out and just shoot animals for fun. I hold my tongue, but I really have wanted to give them a piece of my mind. THey're not talking about taking care of a varmint problem on their property, or hunting for food, or anything of the like. They're just talking about going out into a field or so and taking out pretty much whatever is around. I know it's illegal, but there are unfortunately some that would consider that hunting.

Hopefully not THR members.

HuntCast
April 4, 2007, 09:04 PM
Huntcast - I'm really not sure how much of the game that is legally taken is actually eaten. Like I clearly said, if it's eaten, I'm ok with it. I just get the impression that there is more trophy and sport hunting going on than some want to admit. I could be wrong. Bottom line is that I'm no hunting expert as I'm just getting into it. However, I've overheard enough conversations in places like BassPro and even Walmart that got my blood boiling. Usually people who go out and just shoot animals for fun. I hold my tongue, but I really have wanted to give them a piece of my mind. THey're not talking about taking care of a varmint problem on their property, or hunting for food, or anything of the like. They're just talking about going out into a field or so and taking out pretty much whatever is around. I know it's illegal, but there are unfortunately some that would consider that hunting.

There are idiots in every aspect of society, I'll grant you that, but I would say the number of people who actually go out in the woods and just shoot stuff that moves is roughly similar to people who go out in the city and shoot stuff that moves...... including cars and people.
Does it happen? Yes. Does it happen as much as the antis want you to believe it does? ;)

Barbara
April 4, 2007, 09:05 PM
I just figure it's better to at least let the circle of life be the culprit than just killing it and tossing it in the trash (although I suppose some could make an argument that the circle of life takes place with the bacteria and such).

I'm arguing that I'm part of that circle of life and its better for me to eat an animal than for it to rot on the edge of a swamp. :neener:

:)

ptmmatssc
April 4, 2007, 09:18 PM
poaching :

1. the illegal practice of trespassing on another's property to hunt or steal game without the landowner's permission.
2. any encroachment on another's property, rights, ideas, or the like.

to catch or kill (an animal) without permission on someone else's property, or to kill animals illegally to get (valuable parts of them)

At one time (in my state) you could hunt on your own property , take game , and not need a license to do it . Now , you MUST have a license to hunt your own property or it is considered poaching . I have known people that "poached" deer in order to feed their family . Is it wrong to sustain your family even if it means you are breaking the law? I am in no way endorsing poaching , but so far all the comments I have heard in this thread equate it with mass slaughter or trophy hunting . Would I personally poach? My answer is no , and I would hope that I could always provide for my family . It's to bad the days are gone that a man's home was his castle and he could do as he wished with and on his own land . But I digress.

ptmmatssc
April 4, 2007, 09:20 PM
Wow , 200 posts for this thread . Haven't seen so many since the last zombie thread lol . Can tell this is kind of a hot button issue with many people .

Titan6
April 4, 2007, 09:22 PM
At one time (in my state) you could hunt on your own property , take game , and not need a license to do it . Now , you MUST have a license to hunt your own property or it is considered poaching .

Sounds like it would be time to move in mind...

only1asterisk
April 4, 2007, 09:27 PM
Poaching has a variety of meanings and connotation according to context, and is widely used in the US to describe almost any illegal hunting activity without regard to how ethical the actual hunting was.

David

SShooterZ
April 4, 2007, 09:31 PM
I couldn't agree more with this. It's common knowledge that serial killers enjoy killing animals and enjoy watching them suffer. I have a problem with watching animals suffer, I can't stand it and would gladly torture any human that does unethical things to animals. That goes for breeding and training cocks or pit bulls or whatever. I've been attacked on here for saying I'd hunt hunters. All of a sudden the hunters are the ones screaming murder! When the hunters in Wisconsin were gunned down like 'varmints' by Vang I applauded it, it's about time a hunter looked down the barrel of a gun. When I see human suffering it doesn't bother me in the least, but when I say this all of a sudden I'm the one that has a problem.


Someone like you doesn't belong on this site. With that kind of attitude, you do gun owners NO good at all. Innocent people were killed that day, families were destroyed and many years of family tradition left in ruins and you applaud it? I think you are a worthless excuse for a human being and I hope never to meet you. May you be judged someday the way you have judged others. :mad:

Ned Flangers
April 4, 2007, 09:50 PM
Wow. Surely, someone is playing a joke. I'm thinking THR must have been invaded by PETA. Perhaps?
At any rate. Time for a rant.
Human civilization was founded upon our ancestors domination of the living creatures around it. We are responsible for the life and death of every living thing on this planet. And we have the means to exterminate every living thing here. Including us. Right Now.
We also can try to ensure the survival of species while human population expoldes to unprecedented proportions.
Difficult? Hell yeah.
Hunting, and yes, killing, provides a means to ensure that the population of a species is kept in check. For their benefit and ours.
Don't like it? Tough. That's the way it is.
If you want to commit genocide on yours and your own to make room for more animals, far be it from me to stop you.
But look at the statistics and facts and realize most species wouldn't be here if not for recent sportsman's intervention.
Intervention meaning hunting. And more importantly, revenue.

Let's try to keep what we have.

GEM
April 4, 2007, 10:14 PM
To return to an earlier point, I made - why is hunting irrelevant to the RKBA - because hunting could easily be accomplished today with bows and arrows and black powder guns. Might be a tad harder for the folks who like easy hunts but certainly doable.

Defense against governmental tyranny with bows and arrows and black powder - I think not as easily.

Hunting and sports usage of guns are side effects of the purpose of guns being weapons that are efficacious in preventing tyranny. You could easily hunt with the less efficacious weapons.

That was the point of the Zumbo uproar. That was the point of the pseudogun rights organizations that promoted only hunting with bolt action guns.

The use of guns as sports that might introduce folks to guns is just dandy. So might airsoft guns.

Larry Ashcraft
April 4, 2007, 10:14 PM
Someone like you doesn't belong on this site. With that kind of attitude, you do gun owners NO good at all. Innocent people were killed that day, families were destroyed and many years of family tradition left in ruins and you applaud it? I think you are a worthless excuse for a human being and I hope never to meet you. May you be judged someday the way you have judged others.
That issue has been dealt with, let's move on.
At one time (in my state) you could hunt on your own property , take game , and not need a license to do it . Now , you MUST have a license to hunt your own property or it is considered poaching .
And for good reason. If a property owner was allowed to shoot any animal he saw on his land, game laws would have no effect. Here in Colorado, the game animals belong to the state, regardless of where they are, and for good reason. I say that as the owner of 35 acres populated by deer, turkeys and numerous other game. The fact that I own the land doesn't give me any title to the game that chooses to roam on it.

.cheese.
April 4, 2007, 10:18 PM
Huntcast - that may very well be true.

The one thing that does remain though is that while I don't have a problem with legit hunting, I still don't see how it relates to the 2A? Historically, that wasn't the point of the 2A to my understanding.

gunsmith
April 4, 2007, 10:23 PM
Most animals are just to cute to shoot.
exceptions are made for coyote, jack rabbits and large antlered rats that most people call deer.
I believe in shooting suburban deer because they kill motorcyclist and attract Mountain Lion

MDHunter
April 4, 2007, 10:23 PM
or, so I don't offend anyone, maybe I better change that exclamation to GEE WHIZ... :neener:

Lotta good and bad comments, too much to respond to, so I'll just summarize a few thoughts I have:

1) Part of this argument is about freedom of choice. I hunt; I also respect your right not to hunt, AS LONG AS you respect my right to hunt. Start saying we don't need to hunt, and you've crossed a line my infringing on my freedom of choice, and we have a problem. So if you hunt, great! If you don't hunt, fine! Just stop short of trying to win people over to your side, and support that both are free and personal choices.

2) Sport hunting versus trophy hunting is a personal choice. If you hunt for meat, fine; if you hunt for sport, fine; if you hunt trophies, FINE ALSO. If all are within the law, exercise YOUR personal choice and do what you wish to do....just leave others free to make their own choice, and don't be too judgemental about it.

3) A note for the vegans who have posted - thanks for adding to the dialogue. Just an FYI - if you're choosing the vegan lifestyle because you prefer it or find it heathier for you, terrific! If you're doing out of opposition to eating meat or killing animals, please be aware....a University of Washington study (hope I got the university right, it's in the THR archives somewhere) found that the tilling favored in many veggie crops actually kills more voles, birds, and field mice than other methods of planting.....not a knock, just a soft point of thought.

And back to my Buddy Smellvin, who pages ago responded to a comment "I hunt because I can" by saying that it was so wrong he/she couldn't even comment - well, I'm not sure where you're missing this, but I believe the person was trying to summarize my freedom of choice comments above much more succintly than I have; ut i guess they made it so short, you missed their point entirely.

OK, how about we all smile, nod to our friends, and revel in the freedom of choice that we have, which many people in the world do not?

Michael

HuntCast
April 4, 2007, 10:41 PM
The one thing that does remain though is that while I don't have a problem with legit hunting, I still don't see how it relates to the 2A? Historically, that wasn't the point of the 2A to my understanding.

I know you don't, and I appreciate the way you stated it. Let me try to explain..... others here can probably do a much better job of it.

The antis of the world do not care what the 2A actually means. They never have, and probably never will. To them, it is an aberration that needs to be rectified. Logic and common sense will not work. Historical definitions will not work. They have an irrational belief that guns are bad, and no one, not even hunters, should have access to one. They want to protect the people from the evil gun owners.

Anti hunters think pretty much the same thing....... they are really the same people when you get right down to it. Instead of handguns, they will go after "hunting" guns as their first priority. They want to protect the animals from evil gun owners.

Regardless WHICH of the antis we are talking about, if hunting is banned, either one will come after the (in their opinion) non hunting guns even harder. After all, if you can't legally hunt, you must be planning on doing something nefarious with that rifle, right?

When hunting is gone, you have lost a major piece of the puzzle you need to stop them from their efforts at banning ALL of the guns. All the logic in the world will not sway them. Explaining the 2A to them will not sway them.

So, the bottom line is........ any threat to hunting assists the enemies of the 2A.

.cheese.
April 4, 2007, 11:52 PM
except if we embrace a relationship between the 2A and hunting, it fuels the fire for AWB's. Afterall, who needs an AR-15 to hunt? Right?

I understand your explanation, but the way I see it is that hunting and the 2A should be kept separate so that we don't start confusing the issue and playing into comments like Edwards recently made:

Wasn't it something like, "I support the 2A, people should be able to go hunting." (paraphrased and shortened I know)

ArfinGreebly
April 5, 2007, 12:24 AM
I haven't counted, but I've seen way more than enough assertions involving the word "need" in this thread, as in "you don't NEED to hunt."

I see we're trying to resurrect the Bill of Needs again.

I even watched as "any lawful purpose" was forcibly folded, spindled, and mutilated to show that "what's lawful in one place might be unlawful in another place so what happens if it's unlawful everywhere?"

Don't make me reach for my copy of Logical Fallacies again.

Oh, and another one I've seen here today: elevating personal preference to moral imperative.

Wow.
I don't like doing [foo], so nobody should be allowed to do [foo], and [foo] should be a crime.

My mommy and daddy (priest/professor/girlfriend) told me [foo] was bad, and they wouldn't lie to me, so I believe that [foo] is bad and anyone who does [foo] should be killed -- preferably shot in the back -- because they deserve it.

And tolerance is for wussies who can't handle exterminating people who don't think like I do.

And, of course, that old standby: HUMANITY IS THE PROBLEM.

Now, to be fair, I was once ignorant, too. In fact, I'll go farther: I was a stupid ass.

Fortunately, for me (and humanity), I found the antidote: the ability to read and comprehend and the willingness to learn and understand new things.

So, for all you closet cowards out there:
Hi, I'm Garry, and I'm a coward.
Hi, Garry!
I've been afraid for years of how personally killing a game animal would affect me.
One day at a time, man!
I'm gonna find me a grizzled old hunter who's willing to drag a rookie out into the field with him, and I'm gonna find out what I'm made of.
The rest of y'all: good luck with the soft life. I've had my fill of it.

Disclaimer: It is entirely possible that there are no closet cowards out there. I may be the only one here. It may also be that I'm the only person here who's ever been ignorant, stupid, or an ass. Those of you who are offended by thinking these remarks could possibly refer to you: I'm clearly not referring to you. Those of you who see something of yourself in these remarks, and who are not offended, and who would like to do something about it, please feel free to join me in ruining some old codger's hunting trip so you, too, can learn.

.cheese.
April 5, 2007, 12:30 AM
a lot of heat in this thread.

Not sure saying people are ignorant and cowards is the high road, but that's just my opinion.

---- and to add

If we're going to consider ourselves a united community and have discussions, we have to pretend like this is taking place in person.

I'm no moderator, but I strongly advise that people not say anyting in threads that they wouldn't feel comfortable saying to people face-to-face.

I'm not necessarily referring to anybody in particular.

TimboKhan
April 5, 2007, 12:35 AM
I am pro-gun and pro-hunting, but I suppose that I could reasonably see where a pro-gun person would be anti-hunting. In today's society, people on the whole are a lot more squeamish about killing than they were in the past. While I understand that hunting isn't just about the kill, it is obviously a big part of it. Watch that reality show Ted Nugent does sometime. Except for the token vegetarian, all of those people are meat eaters, and pretty much without exception killing a chicken to eat freaks them out, even though they are pretty hungry by the time that challenge rolls around. I don't personally have a problem with killing to eat, or even killing prarie dogs, but I can see where being against that would be ingrained into some people.

only1asterisk
April 5, 2007, 12:49 AM
It may also be that I'm the only person here who's ever been ignorant, stupid, or an ass.

I doubt that. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've done all three at the same.

David

markk
April 5, 2007, 12:59 AM
many people who insist that hunting is somehow "cruel" simply fail to realize what the alternatives are for these animals

they seem to think that if it werent for that hunters bullet these animals would simply lie down on a sunny day in a flower filled pasture surrounded by all their animal friends and peacefully pass on

this is not reality
in nature there is no "peaceful" death
only violence at the "hands"(read claws and teeth) of other stronger animals
often being eaten whilst still alive

some people deny this truth just as they are in denial regarding their own inevitable death

a hunters bullet IS merciful

XD Fan
April 5, 2007, 01:28 AM
Wow! What a thread!

I am shocked at some of the posts. Some of us need to read the guide lines for The High Road.

Arfin, great posts. I enjoyed them as always!

XD Fan
April 5, 2007, 01:32 AM
It seems to me that if you choose to equate humans and animals, it would have to be an argument to support hunting! If we are nothing more than the animals, then we are predators. Should lions or bears be castigated because the kill other animals? Should they be castigated because they hunt with "unfair" advantages over their prey? Obviously not.

By the way, I do not equate humans and animals.

TimboKhan
April 5, 2007, 02:46 PM
If we are nothing more than the animals, then we are predators

If you take away the current usage of the word predator as it relates to humans (rapist, molestor, stalker) and focus on what a predator really is, I am absolutely a predator. I will happily kill for food. Circumstance hasn't allowed me to do that in some time, but the preparation, the stalk and the kill are all thrilling to me.

Gun Wielding Maniac
April 5, 2007, 04:01 PM
Sorry if this has already been posted, but I only bothered to read through three pages of the this thread before being unable to contain myself any longer ;)

Amendment 9 Bill of Rights
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This is taken to mean that just because the people have a constitutionally enumerated right to keep and bear arms, doesn't mean that there is no "Right to Hunt". I constantly hear the latter implied whenever this topic comes up and it makes me gag.

The founders had an exclusive view of government; one of limited powers and scope. The government should no more have the power to ban hunting then they should to ban golf. Especially on one's own property.

Although banning golf might please some of you... no more old men walking around in funny pants ;)

Elza
April 5, 2007, 04:27 PM
I personally do not care to hunt. However I don’t have a problem with those that do. Provided that it is done in a sportsmanlike manner. Man has encroached on their habitats to the point of starving them. If the herds aren’t thinned they will die of disease, starvation, and the effects of in-breeding.

wooderson: (Which isn't even to get into my feelings on the 'hide-put out food-blast away' school of hunting.)
I fully agree with this statement. This is not hunting; it is slaughtering. I put it in the same category as “fishing” with a telephone magneto. Otherwise I have no problem with those that choose to hunt or supporting their rights to do so.

Art Eatman
April 5, 2007, 04:57 PM
Again: No game animal population in the U.S. is in any danger from other than residential developments in habitat areas, pollution, or vehicles.

Wild turkey and whitetail deer populations are greater than ever before known, from the efforts funded by hunters to establish huntable populations in areas where they originally were uncommon or had been over-hunted in the 19th century.

"Hunting" and "sport hunting" in today's U.S. means within the contraints of the game laws originated by hunters and administered by wildlife agencies. These constraints include seasons, bag limits and size limits. Millions of people have no difficulty operating within these constraints.

"Poaching", "game hog", "unethical" and "not fair chase" are not part of the deal. Wasting of meat is not part of the deal. I've no idea if it's many hundreds or a few thousand who fall into this arena of nastiness, but they're a very small number in comparison to honest hunters.

Art

308win
April 5, 2007, 06:34 PM
I've no idea if it's many hundreds or a few thousand who fall into this arena of nastiness, but they're a very small number in comparison to honest hunters.

Very true, unfortunately it is the small number of abusers who get the notoriety because writing about the multitude who obey the law, hunt ethically, assist with conservation and restoration, etc. doesn't generate the attention-grabbing headlines that sells newspapers and TV commercial time. Good news isn't profitable.

HuntCast
April 5, 2007, 07:55 PM
Quote:
wooderson: (Which isn't even to get into my feelings on the 'hide-put out food-blast away' school of hunting.)
I fully agree with this statement. This is not hunting; it is slaughtering. I put it in the same category as “fishing” with a telephone magneto. Otherwise I have no problem with those that choose to hunt or supporting their rights to do so.


Baiting game is no different than baiting fish. When it's allowed, it is a legal, ethical, and humane way of hunting. Deer hunters who hunt farms use acres and acres of bait.
You see?? You guys are unknowingly spouting the anti propaganda, even while you say you SUPPORT hunting!
Don't you see how easy it into fall into this? Are we going to let them sway us with the anti gun stuff this easily?

WildcatRegi
April 5, 2007, 08:25 PM
I always tell people when they ask why a hunter needs an 'assult' rifle that the second amendment is NOT the right to go hunting.

I don't hunt but I pity the poor animal that breaks into my house.

TCB in TN
April 5, 2007, 08:45 PM
I just have 1 question, for all of you who question this hunting practice or that. If legal, and if no person's rights are infringed, why does it matter what the practice is?

I mean seriously, are you for a free society or not?

Part of the problem with so many I see on here is that they are all about not having their rights infringed, but each of us need to remember (I include myself in this as well) that unless my or another PERSON's rights are infringed then I should not be in the least bit concerned about it.

Hunting Lodges, trophy farms, preditor hunting, even someone leaving meat lying there etc. may not suit you but tell me exactly who it does hurt? Who's rights are infringed? Remember I said rights infringed, not feelings hurt.

Stevie-Ray
April 5, 2007, 09:58 PM
I don't hunt and never really did, except for varminting. I don't like the taste of venison, so that's out. I do like buffalo, but I can't see myself on that sort of hunt, either. I did buy a particular Contender barrel with the notion of a bear hunt that never panned out. That said, I am a firm believer in hunting, for those that live and breathe it, and I love the aspect of spending days in the wild outdoors. As one here said though, I'd rather use my camera to capture the wildlife. But I certainly can't and don't begrudge hunters their favorite pastime. I don't even have anything against trophy hunting. Especially in Africa, where 20 years ago it was $10,000 for an elephant hunting license. There is no waste when it comes to trophy hunting in Africa; the semi-local tribes see to that. I had a friend that had been on several African safaris, though never any of the big 5, as he didn't want to pay the heavy fees. Even there, I would much rather hunt with my camera.

But I have been a shooter for amost 40 years, and I dearly wish I would get the same respect for my love of any type of guns from many hunters that feel their hunting rifles are the only guns that the Second Amendment protects.

I am pro-hunting. I just wish all hunters were pro-GUN.

.cheese.
April 5, 2007, 10:12 PM
WildcatRegi - that's my point.

If we start mixing things, we defeat our own legit argument. What some are basically advocating is that the following take place:

Us: "I think I'll go hunting this weekend. Maybe deer, maybe turkey, whatever season it is."

Antis: "What makes you think you have the right to go kill animals?"

Us: "You're questioning my rights? Have you heard of the 2A? Do you support the bill of rights? Obviously you don't I suppose."

Antis: "Ok, fine, you can go hunting, whatever. Why can't we ban AR's though, do you really need an AR to hunt?"

Us: "What are you? Dumb or something? The 2A has nothing to do with hunting. It has to do with us protecting ourselves. Why should we be limited as to what means we can use to protect ourselves. It's our right. The 2A!"

Antis: "But I thought you just said that the 2A protects hunting, and that it was part of your 2A right to go hunting?"

Us: "It is!"

Antis: *scratching their heads* "I don't get it. Are you sure you've made up your mind as to what the 2A actually is?"

HuntCast
April 5, 2007, 10:29 PM
You are assuming that the antis use logic and will appreciate a logical argument.
They are IRRATIONAL. By definition, they could care less about your 2A logic.
They think hunting and the 2A go together hand in hand. No amount of debating by you will change an antis mind.
Unfortunately, there are gullible politicians and judges who listen to them.
This is nothing new folks.......
It has happened in every country where guns or hunting have been banned.
Ban one, the other falls. It's that simple.

Barbara
April 5, 2007, 10:40 PM
I'd be careful seperating hunting from guns in general. While the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify hunting as a use of firearms, it doesn't preclude it, and several states do include hunting in their Constitutions.

In my experience, hunters are more open, in general, to the idea of gun rights and sport shooters are more open to the idea of hunting, than the general population.

.cheese.
April 5, 2007, 10:50 PM
Don't underestimate the antis. That's a losing strategy.

Barbara - I'm not sure we'd be separating it. To be honest I think legally it already is separated.

Maybe somebody has some kind of case law on the subject where we can read a judge's decision on the subject.

I'm talking federal 2A here. Some states for all I know may mention hunting in their state constitution.

HuntCast
April 5, 2007, 11:01 PM
I give up.

MartinS
April 5, 2007, 11:13 PM
Hunting and weapons are linked, if you don't know that you haven't been paying attention very well for the last 10,000 years. THEY see us as connected because we are, like it or not. Standing united doesn't mean you are always going to like the man whose shield shelters you, or the one you protect. We don't have to marry each other, we just have to be together for strength and we will need all we have and more.

JWarren
April 5, 2007, 11:56 PM
I can't believe that I've missed this thread. Moreover, I cannot fathom some of the things I've read in the last 10 pages.

This thread is like trying to nail Jello to a wall. Everyone keeps hammering, but not much is gained.

So, I suppose it would be uncharateristic of me not to join the fray....


I don't suppose I fit into any mold here. I am an unabased animal lover. Yet, I am also a hunter. I don't consider myself a sportsman, and I make NO effort to make my hunts more "challenging" nor will I in the future. I DO have a mount on my wall in my hunting camp of a deer I killed a number of years ago. I ate the animal and I see no reason for not mounting it since I already had the mount. That is the same for practically every hunter I know. I don't consider that trophy hunting or unethical.

In terms of the animals I hunt, I am a killer. I am a predator. It IS that simple. I take absolutely NO pleasure in killing any animal, nor to I feel that I should. If anything, I try to distance myself from ANY emotions while I hunt.

And I do this BECAUSE I am an animal lover. I am not embarassed or ashamed to say that I shed a tear after my last deer kill this past season-- and I have in other seasons.

I also HATE cleaning an animal. I inherited my grandfather's weak stomach when it comes to smells. Any time I clean a deer, I assure you that I will get sick at some point.

So why would I do something like hunting????


I hunt for a variety of reasons:

1. First, I am not a hypocrit. I DO eat meat. If someone is willing to eat meat, they should not have an issue in having to kill it. Anyone that condemns hunting but still eats meat IS a hypocrit-- and it IS that simple.

2. I eat what I kill. Very few can say that they ate more venison in the last 12 months than they did beef. Frankly, it is more healthy as venison is a leaner meat than beef. I don't worry about hormones or other questionable raising practices, and it IS more economical.

3. It is part of my heritage. The land I hunt on has been managed, hunted, and maintained by a Warren since 1789.

4. For over 30 years, our family has participated in Mississippi State A&M's Wildlife Management Program. We jump through a LOT of hoops by sending in samples and observations. We invest in the health of our herds. At the end, we are told how many animals of both male and female must be removed from the herd annually to provide for the best genetics and health. The deer in this area have benefited greatly from our efforts.


I do want to explain a couple things about the nature of hunting in my world:

I see a lot of criticism of using high power optics and rifles that asserts this practice isn't sporting. Who gives a crap??? As I said, I have no interest in making my hunt challenging. I DO have a STRONG interest in making sure my shot is clean, the kill is fast, and the animal doesn't suffer at ALL.

Those that make the argument of a more challenging hunt do not factor in the VERT REAL possiblity of making a poor shot that ensures an animal will die a suffering death or worse-- will have a life-long dibilating injury. I kill swiftly and painlessly. How does that make me less ethical? Frankly, I dont eat veal for the same reason that I stive for a clean kill. Unnessary suffering isn't part of my diet.


Every year, I determine how many animals I need in my freezer for the coming year. If I need one, I kill one. If I need three, I kill three. Once I hit that amount, I don't hunt again that season.

Finally, has anyone ever BEEN to a slaughter house to see how that beef in the supermarket is processed? Has anyone ever contemplated where that Big Mac comes from? People kill animals daily-- a LOT of them. Distancing yourself from the ugly part of it in no way diminishes your part in this process. As some others have said, I do respect vegitarians that may disagree with me. At least they can't be considered hypocritical.

To me, a deer living free, and living many years has a much better quality of life-- and a longer life-- than a cow that is penned, bludgeoned, and processed. To those that say hunting is inappropriate because there are FARM animals that are killed for that are probably the WORST kind of hypocrits. Now if you are saying it isn't your choice for this reason, but not against it, that is another story. Everyone has preferences.


John

computerguysd
April 6, 2007, 12:15 AM
I don't really hunt anymore, if I actually shoot to kill it's usually skunks around my acreage, since they're usually rabid and we've had them attack family members and pets. That said, I'm a strong proponent of hunters rights, despite the fact I've gotten really picky about who I'll let hunt on my property.

I've had way too many "slob hunters" show up the past few years, especially the one's "tracking a wounded deer" hours after closing or forcefully claiming to have permission to hunt my land without having any idea who I am or who owns the property surrounding mine. I've also had it with the idiots that simply hop out of their truck and start shooting 30.06 without having any idea that there are homes, children, livestock and a state highway less than a quarter of a mile from where they're shooting from & most of these fools are shooting toward the highway!

My land is posted no hunting, simply because I've gotten to the point that if I don't know you and you don't take the time to scout and know the area, you don't hunt.

The really strange thing about the "hunters" I've had to confront is that most of them never even pick up and fire their weapons except for the rounds they fire during hunting season... :banghead: They've probably never broken them down to clean them, either... These folks aren't exactly what I consider to be sportsmen. :cuss:

I don't mean to rant, but it seems like it's getting worse every year. Folks from out of the area driving around just itching to shoot guns they're not familiar with without a clue as to what's behind the "target" they're shooting at...:fire:

JWarren
April 6, 2007, 12:21 AM
computerguySD:

I think you and I have run into the same people. I could tell you a host of similar stories-- but you've already lived them.


John

computerguysd
April 6, 2007, 12:24 AM
Thank you, and you JWarren, may hunt my land anytime you're in the area :)

JWarren
April 6, 2007, 12:28 AM
Thanks computerguySD -- and you as well.

Although I'd have to say this:

I wouldn't be used to seeing those monster-big deer you guys have out there, and you'd think ours were pretty puny. :)

John

Sylvan-Forge
April 6, 2007, 12:50 AM
A most excellent thread indeed. Well posited arguments.

So compelling, I should be in bed asleep, but just gotta run my yap a bit now.
Bear with me and please forgive any rambling, errata, chaos, malpractice, etc.


The right to hunt is essentially the right to life. A natural right. Yep, it's in the constitution too.

We must all eat to live.

Maybe some ammunition for hunters to use to fend off the anti-hunters is in the form of "scientific data" (since common sense is dead to many; and/or common experience is unknown to many) that lack of protein, or better, lack of a proper combination of amino acids that allow the body to uptake a meaningful and beneficial balance of said protein, will result in malnurishment, injury, degraded mental and physical faculty and early demise. (Perhaps hunting rights groups already use this tack?)
When ones bowels are so impacted with highly toxic, putrifying and petrified fecal matter, quite possibly (I'm sure of it) due, in part, to the contaminants found in factory-like, unnaturally occuring, chemical laden fodder that passes for food as sold in the market today. FDA? Yeh, whatever. Supra-genetically enhanced uber-cows..no thanks. Same goes for veggies, so called fresh and natural..buyer beware.

There exists scientifically sound studies that indicate that some folks "need" protein in somewhat differing formats to fulfill their specific physiological requirements. To be healthy.
There's also some interesting stuff on blood-type based nutrition requirements that may prove fruitful..

As to the hunt itself ..
In my book (my lil opinion), there are good hunters, bad hunters and bloodthristy punks.

Thoughtful hunters will not hunt down a specie that is perceived to be endangered, regardless of permits and season. Just like none of us need a law to tell us what is or isn't a suitable arm for xyz. On the same token, a good hunter may well hunt to survive, while possibly breaking some law, yet still use his or her sense of responsibility to the land. A good hunter tries not to waste and will eat what is killed, provide the meat for the family hearth or charity and if able, possibly utilize parts like sinew and skins. A true stewart.

A bad hunter simply hunts beacuase they want to, without thought, with disregard to the ecology, and for no need than for the hunt itself. They are wasteful and boisterous.

Finally, the bloodthirsty punk. He or she kills simply for the sheer thrill of killing a living being. Often slaughtering numerous non-game animals without harvesting anything or mutilating the carcasses.

I don't hunt per se, but I do train a little bit in case the need should arise.
I like to stalk critters (when they'll let me) and put 'em in my sights and dry-fire on 'em. But let my tell ya, it is not easy, especially with a gut-full of McDees cheeseburgers :neener:


Not saying I'm perfect. As a kid, I was once, what I consider now to be a bad hunter.


I feel a strong hunter-ethos instilled in the youth and old alike, be they active in hunting or not, with respect for the land and its ecological balance, respect for the social contract and encouragement to support the second amendment as well as the rest of the BOR, will go a long way in making for a better world than the one we found ourselves in.

OK, enough of my disjointed .02$
Time to sleep.

JWarren
April 6, 2007, 12:54 AM
oo7,

That was an excellent analysis. Thank you.


John

computerguysd
April 6, 2007, 12:55 AM
John,

I used to live in Georgia, did my basic training at Ft Polk, and worked in Birmingham when I still had dark hair. I still laugh at what some folks "down there" consider farms :neener:

When we moved back up to SD, I woke up my buddy that had NEVER been north of Tennassee to show him a typical Dakota farm. I don't think he's been right since - lol

Seriously, I had a "bambi" standing next to my truck this morning when I went out to leave for work and a "family" of four took a left turn into a field as I was turning onto the highway.:evil:

JWarren
April 6, 2007, 01:10 AM
I still laugh at what some folks "down there" consider farms


hehe... I know what you mean. I hear stories of how there used to be much larger farms down here-- but none as large as the smallest midwest farm.

These days, most farms down here have turned into forestry projects. People have figured out that raising pine trees for cutting is a nice investment. One neighbor of mine lost 1.5 million in trees during Katrina. Wow.

These days, I have started planting Sawtooth Oaks on our land. We lost a LOT of hardwoods during Katrina-- and the deer population has suffered from the lack of acorns and such. I recently learned that these trees grow rather fast for oaks-- and produce acorns in 7 years. So, at this time, I have planted approximatly 50 on our land with an overall goal of breaking the 500 mark. That should make for a very healty forest and rather beautiful to be in.

John

ReadyontheRight
April 6, 2007, 01:50 AM
I don't mean to rant, but it seems like it's getting worse every year. Folks from out of the area driving around just itching to shoot guns they're not familiar with without a clue as to what's behind the "target" they're shooting at...

ComputerguySD -- I think you have nailed a frightening trend. The antis make it more and more difficult to teach gun safety, more and more difficult for a young boy or girl to shoot, more and more difficult to find a place to hunt or practice.

Then bam! A few buddies turn 21 and decide to go hunting. Even though they've never been introduced to the sport by a Dad or Uncle, they know what hunting is because they've seen Bambi.:rolleyes: You buy a gun, buy the right clothes, buy a license and go out and shoot something. Other than folks like you telling them "stop that!", who's to guide them?

Hunting tradition has skipped a generation or two. The deer camp, the duck blind, the pheasant hunting party. These used to be milestones in any young man's life, but now they are "events" to "experience". There's just too much else to do these days. But there is also a basic yearning to hunt.

There always has been and there always will be lost-cause, slob hunters. I just think, through my experience in the shooting community, that there is a somewhat new group of folks who just don't know what they are doing wrong. Anyone needs to be called out for their unsafe actions, but I hope any growing trend is due more to inexperience that true slobbishness.

THR serves a much-needed purpose to help educate these lost souls. And maybe connect them with folks who will help them learn.

only1asterisk
April 6, 2007, 02:40 AM
Hunting tradition has skipped a generation or two. The deer camp, the duck blind, the pheasant hunting party. These used to be milestones in any young man's life, but now they are "events" to "experience". There's just too much else to do these days. But there is also a basic yearning to hunt.

There always has been and there always will be lost-cause, slob hunters. I just think, through my experience in the shooting community, that there is a somewhat new group of folks who just don't know what they are doing wrong. Anyone needs to be called out for their unsafe actions, but I hope any growing trend is due more to inexperience that true slobbishness.

THR serves a much-needed purpose to help educate these lost souls. And maybe connect them with folks who will help them learn.

Exactly so.

The Shootist
April 6, 2007, 06:08 AM
Hello! Everyone My name is Mike
I just joined THR 4/5/07 around 11:00Pm and got so into this thread I had to comment.
There's been alot of bad thing said about "trophy Hunters"
or Safari hunts and everyone has their opimions but if you've never done it you could do what my Wife and I did.
She's a Professional Photographer and I've hunted for approx.37yrs and around a lot of the US so 4 yrs ago we decided to take a week long Safari hunt Limpopo Province(Zululand)(Too Cool) in South Africa, with just our camera's.My wife had been twice already, before we we're married with her Parents and convinced me it would be Fantastic!:D
I kept telling her I'd still be back the following year with my Rifles and she'd just smile.
Well we had such an amazing time and got some pictures of a lifetime that we wouldn't have gotten if I had only had my Rifles. I hate to dissapoint my hunting brothers but we've been back one time since then and all I wanted to carry was my Cannon 20D.
I know some of you Hunters would have definately taken your rifles the next time you went but to me It was such a Magical Place,Like stepping back in time and the Animals were so majestic and it almost seemed so unreal at times that I told my Wife that not just the Animals but the landscape and People were all so Amazingly beautiful that I couldn't have brought myself to kill anything even if I had a Rifle and anyway... there was plenty of Deer at home to shoot. I could had gotten the guide to get me a Rifle at anytime and the wife wouldn't have said a thing but honestly I didn't want to.

P.S
Next year it's the OutBack and I will have my Rifle!;)

qajaq59
April 6, 2007, 07:17 AM
When I was a kid I frequently heard, "Why not? It's a Free Country." But I notice I rarely ever hear that any more.

We used to have the ability to mind our own business and leave the other fellow alone. But I guess that's gone now as well.

SteveS
April 6, 2007, 08:26 AM
Maybe somebody has some kind of case law on the subject where we can read a judge's decision on the subject.

I don't believe she was talking about a specific legal strategy, but rather a broad campaign to promote a variety of uses for guns. Frankly, I don't know what would happen if a court took a hard-line, militia approach to the 2nd. Would that open the door to Congress narrowing the definition as to what a militia was? Be careful of what you asked for.

Rickstir
April 6, 2007, 08:56 AM
Eat what kill. I don't know about that. Just last night I shot a river otter in my lake. They migrate up the streams this time of year and this one made the mistake of knocking on my door. They kill fish just for the fun of it. In our area they are a real nuisance. The turtles can have this one.

Notch
April 6, 2007, 09:45 AM
I'm not a hunter, but I wouldnt try to ban hunting. It settles a primal rage that is inherant in homo sapiens. There is a primal need to kill. If offered meat, a day outdoors in the woods or marsh and a rifle to just plain shoot stumps or paper with, I believe most hunters would still need the kill to be satisfied. Aint nothing wrong with that, its just nature. It is a pitty that there are so many hunters out there that only shoot just before season starts. I have seen A LOT of craptastic marksmanship out there......

H&Hhunter
April 6, 2007, 11:28 AM
We used to have the ability to mind our own business and leave the other fellow alone. But I guess that's gone now as well.

qajaq59,

That pretty much sums up this whole thread. The leftist mind and activity control indoctrination is almost complete in this country as is evident by many of the posts here.

If you enjoyed reading about "Anti-hunting gun owners" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!