Animals that are the cause of emotional strife when hunted.

Probably because they taste good. I'm just guessing though, I've never tasted them, but I would assume that they are delicious.

I believe that a lot of objection comes from the corrupt way that animals are managed in many African countries. Political corruption takes center stage in trophy hunting and animal trafficking, and that is the reason I would avoid hunting these types of animals.
Venomous snakes could be easily relocated.
Rodents, yes.
Prairie dogs..no. I used to really enjoy hunting them and told myself that they were a pest animal that had no place in our pastures. Well I was wrong. They are very neccesary for a healthy prairie ecosystem, much more than the cattle I was supposedly protecting.

CoRoMo said:

Probably because they taste good. I'm just guessing though, I've never tasted them, but I would assume that they are delicious.

Click to expand...

I didn't phrase my question very well.

I meant why would a people/culture choose to not eat predators, but then make an exception for lynx? What is special about the lynx?

I figured that was what you were asking and that's how I answered it. I shouldn't speak for caribou though. I suppose they are too tender and sweet to exclude as well.

why would you eat lynx?

Click to expand...

My guess is that they taste good. Lynx are similar to bobcat, and bobcats taste pretty darn good.

I agree with the list, and would add cats. Myself, I get most flack for shooting coyotes and bobcats.

I've never heard the "extra body heat with eating red meat" argument. Red meat is higher in fat and cholesterol, I believe, than say chicken breast and my understanding is that was the main unhealthy "brand" red meat has received. Which is nonsense, moderate portions and adequate exercise are far more important to being healthy than red vs white vs fish. Red meat is an excellent source of protein and iron. Also, the only sound statistical evidence I'm aware of for omega-3 fatty acids (fish) was a study that looked at the "mediterranian diet" which is high in fish protein and low in fat. It is likely the benefit was from the entire diet and lifestyle, and not just omega-3 fatty acids. If you're gonna cut red meat on that basis, you should probably cut eggs, shrimp, and various other foods high(er) in cholesterol.

The take home message is to not over-eat (moderation) and to exercise if you want to be healthy. Too many potato chips and too much ice cream is bad for you too, moderation is the ticket.

My wife is a dietitian and we receive any number of scientific journals in our household every month - many of which have studies related to the linking of certain foods to certain disease states. At best, it is a hotly contested hypothesis that consuming red meat has a correlation (not a causal effect) to heart disease. Nor is it a "fact" that fish improves cardiovascular health.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Most people read something in a "study" and take it for fact, which is terribly misleading. Just like anything, there are good scientific studies and there is garbage in study form that has no more research design than an article in sports illustrated. Most people can't tell the difference. Correlation is marketed as causation by the media or food industry or somebody who stands to gain money from the so called "evidence." Such is the case for fish oil supplements. The mediterranian diet is associated with lower cardiac deaths per population, so now fish byproduct (fish oil capsules) are marketed as dietary supplements based on this study...see how that's a bit misleading?

The same goes for hunting. You hear on Oprah or Animal Planet that elephants and wolves are "endangered"...

^I havn't eaten an egg or a mollusk or a cephalopod or a crustacean in 5 years or more and I get up a 5AM every morning and run 3 miles.

cholesterol is not rocket science. you are what you eat. read the labels. simple as that. There is good cholesterol and bad cholesterol. If you deprive your body of dietary cholesterol, your body will produce its own cholesterol. But the catch is the cholesterol your body produces is remarkably higher in the "good" cholesterol than if you simply consumed cholesterol in your food.

there is a genetic component. Many people can eat all the fat, oil, and cholesterol they can possibly cram down their throat and their blood levels are not effected. I am not one of those lucky ones. Some recent research indicates its not our genes, but the type of gut bacteria inhabiting our intestine that determine how sensitive our blood levels are to our diet.

but fish is different. You can gorge yourself on oily fish(sardines and such) and even though it contains gads of fat and cholesterol, your blood cholesterol will go down. I don't think they have a good explanation as to why. They just know it works and it only works with oily fish. Tuna wont do it.

And no, exercise won't do it. It is not physically possible for a person over 40 to burn up as many calories/fats/etc as he can eat. your metabolism is too slow by then and your joints will no longer stand up to that much consistent strenuous activity. Been there, tried it.

you may convince yourself there's nothing wrong with your gluttonous lifestyle, but you're not convincing me.

but fish is different. You can gorge yourself on oily fish(sardines and such) and even though it contains gads of fat and cholesterol, your blood cholesterol will go down. I don't think they have a good explanation as to why. They just know it works and it only works with oily fish. Tuna wont do it.

Click to expand...

Boy I'd sure like to see the evidence of that!!!

And no, exercise won't do it. It is not physically possible for a person over 40 to burn up as many calories/fats/etc as he can eat. your metabolism is too slow by then and your joints will no longer stand up to that much consistent strenuous activity. Been there, tried it.

Click to expand...

Exercise won't do what, exactly? It is absolutely possible to to have a diet/exercise balance for persons over 40...

there is a genetic component. Many people can eat all the fat, oil, and cholesterol they can possibly cram down their throat and their blood levels are not effected. I am not one of those lucky ones. Some recent research indicates its not our genes, but the type of gut bacteria inhabiting our intestine that determine how sensitive our blood levels are to our diet.

Click to expand...

This is very true, some folks get away with atrocious diets, some don't. I'm not sure what to make of that gut bacteria statement...referring to cholesterol only or...?

you may convince yourself there's nothing wrong with your gluttonous lifestyle, but you're not convincing me.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should re-read my post. I'm the guy who says a moderate diet and exercise is beneficial for your overall health, not gluttony. I also stated that red meat is a good source of protein, which it is. Nowhere did I say gluttony is good for you.

I have to agree with Caribou about the dogs... In this area, it is common to shoot wild dogs on site, if they do not have a collar. A swift killing shot poses no problem.

The problem for me is when i take a shot and the shot was/is not a swift killer... One past shot broke the back(on a wild dog), but left full lung capcity, and that critter made more whinig, yelping, barking, noises than i care to remember.... I shot again and that took care of it.

another similair shot was on my third ever deer, a doe ( 20 + years ago now)... my scope had gotten knocked out of whack, and i shot 7 times at that deer with a .30-30, I know at least 1/2 bullet hit he deer, as I somehow managed to break bones in 2 legs(front and a back), gut-shoot, and hit a third hind quarter. I ran out of bullets, had to blood trail the deer a 1/4 mile, and finally finished off the doe with my knife. In the process i leaned my 30-30 against a tree, and almost lost the rifle.

The only thing worse that the two above, was when i must have gotten bad shots off... It was the cases where i shot and got clean hits on the animal, but never found the animal that caused me the most strife.

whether it was the archery doe, or the rifle 10 point is a close one, but i never found either of them.

"red meat" is not automatically higher in cholesterol - blanket assumptions like that are almost always wrong.

DOMESTIC BEEF is very high in cholesterol, sure, but compare it to the nutritional values of venison or bison - its a world of difference, though they are all "red meat".

COB: I agree with you final sentiment. There have been a few times when I have lost animals that I know for sure I hit well - massive blood at the site of the shot - but still lost the trail, and never recovered the animal. That is about the only time I truly feel bad.

I guess I've heard about every anti-hunting argument there is, these last sixty or so years. And watched a fair number of people get all huffy over certain animals moreso than others.

99% of it is emotion-based, and usually with terminal ignorance of the realities of "the outdoors". Misinformation about numbers, as H&H pointed out. And few people seem to understand "carrying capacity" as it applies to any habitat.

I don't know about lynx, but cougar is yummy tasty. Helps to not try eating the biggest, oldest tom cat in the territory, of course. As with most animals, young mature critters are best.

In the US, it seems to me that folks get most upset about wolves and grizzlies, first. Then, for some reason, feral animals, whether burro, horse, cat or dog. There is this blind spot in the brain, apparently, which cannot distinguish between in-the-wild ferals and in-the-corral livestock or in-the-house pets. And that includes a fair number in the THR membership, I've noticed.

RangeMagazine.com has a section of brief biographies called "Red Meat Survivors". Four or five, each issue. Poor old folks, they've been eating red meat all their lives. But they keep flopping over dead somewhere between 85 and 100. Lord knows how long they'd have lived if they'd shunned red meat.

Why eat Lynx?? 'Cause they taste great!! Think Chicken thighs....

They are the only "Cat" around,North American Arctic wize so maby its just the exception to the predator rule for Weasle/Dog familys (They smell strong, I dont think I could swallow 'em easily)

.........and theres three kinds of Bears, who we eat in different seasons, though they be Omnivoirs....~~LOL!!~~ ....till you move to the Ocean, where Polar Bears roam....Seals and Whales , who eat fish, are eaten day in and out and rendered for their food grade oil to dip frozen meat into......, with valuble skins as well and other products as well.

Anybody still get emotional when a Seal is clubbed or a Whale harpoond?? My whole family sure does ..........all that meat and blubber, blubber that renders into oil at room temp and cleans the veins, the good stuff.


We throw a little Party

I have always felt good when I kill something. I am a Hunter , and theres a season for everything. Sometimes we shoot, sometimes we dont It's all good

Personally, I love pork. And the claims about pig anatomy being close to human anatomy, I have to ask: So what? There are alot of animals that are similar in anatomy to a human, think back to basic biology class. I've never tasted 'human', but I sure love pork loin and ribs!!!!

In response to the OP, I don't suppose there's anything out there I WOULDN'T drop the hammer on... 2 or 4 legged. I suppose also the circumstances surrounding the implied shot would come into play, but I don't have a problem with killing any of the animals listed, or birds for that fact, but don't construe that as thinking I go out of my way to kill something every day. On the contrary, I don't. But if the opportunity presents itself, I'm the kind of guy they call to take care of the problem.

Horses!

It is a big controversy here in Nevada. Not the domestic ones, the wild ones.

I have never eaten horse meat, but I guess in other countries it is quite common. Even the Bizarre Foods guy has consumed it on several episodes. He claims it is as good, if not better then beef.

As far canine-type creatures go, I'm not sure if could kill any of them unless it was a self defense situation.

HGUNHNTR,

Interesting can you give me your source so I can read it for myself? It's been my personal experience that international trophy hunting tends to keep the most corrupt politicians at bay. The ones who are supporting supplying and benefiting from poaching.

Click to expand...

Hey there H&H, my sources are not written, but rather from friends that live in Africa. (Uganda, and Kenya) Like most profitable business in both of these countries, there is a huge amount of corruption, any business that turns a profit is a target for abuse. It may appear on the surface that certain outfitters (I won't name any) are totally legit, but a closer look reveals an agenda that takes advantage of locals, and the animals they are supposedly conserving. It really isn't that hard to imagine if you think about it objectively, without trying to justify your decision to support their business.

lizziedog1 wrote:

I have never eaten horse meat...

Click to expand...

I haven't either. My teenage daughter ate some last year in Switzerland, though she didn't know that's what it was when the meal was served. She said it was indeed, better than beef.


-Matt

Way back many a year ago I read that a Gringo would ride a horse until it foundered, and then walk away. A Mexican guy would get another day's ride out of the horse before it fell again and he walked away from it.

An Apache would get two more days of riding and then when the horse died, he'd eat it.

The Gringo and the Mexican went hungry. The Apache didn't. There's a message there, somewhere, about comparative smarts.

Horse meat...I don't understand why people are so afraid of it. Horses certainly look delicious, I can't wait to try some.

Mourning doves got a big reaction here about eight years ago when Minnesota started a season on them.

Horse meat...I don't understand why people are so afraid of it. Horses certainly look delicious, I can't wait to try some.

Click to expand...

I think I ate horse once. Can't be certain though, it was back in the early '80s, I was very small/young. This was back before it was wrong. I must have though, because I definitely remember my parents showing me some ground meat and telling me it was horse.

Funny, the folks always owned horses; Mom was a rodeo champ. Dad gets old retired horses nowadays since they are not for work, they are just pets. He gets them from the guys who load up on them and haul them down to Mexico for slaughter; now that it is wrong... here.

Around my household it's all good to shoot whatever i want ,, UNTIL i bring it home and string it up in the garage to skin-it (either for meat or fur) then my tweenage daughter will give me the "how would you like it" routine ... same with my wife,, i can shoot-it as long as it's not doing something "cute" (like a fox hunting in snow) She was watching a Predator-hunting show the other night with me and they had camera zoomed-in on juvenile male coyote "barking" from a ridge top and then BLAM ! They shoot it ! I hear an Awwww he was just so cute !! Then i remind her of all of the "cute" fawn-carcasses we found this spring while shed-hunting (5 total in less than 1-sq-mile) then i got the "yea, i suppose"

^To have coyotes in the ecosystem, you must expect them to consume food. When most deer hunters are confronted about hunting deer, the majority quote deer overpopulation. "they are becoming a nuisance animal", well...aren't the coyotes helping to reduce the "nuisance" as well? I am not agains coyote or deer hunting, I enjoy both, but be honest about your motivations.

Having lived in Switzerland for a year I made many trips to the Chevaline Boucherie (horse butcher). Yes it was good, better than beef but I don't much care for American beef anyway, or the effect feedlot beef has on the environment in which I like to hunt and fish.
Eating horse and hunting horses are two different things altogether though.