Anti hunters/ Animal rights actvists please respond

Well, I do not hunt. Used to, when I was a kid. Birds, squirrels, and other small game. I don't hunt anymore because I don't need to and I learned that when I was young. I don't enjoy killing animals. I don't knock anyone that wants to hunt though. Whatever floats your boat. I DO, however, frown upon purely game hunting. I see no value or contribution in doing this. Go ahead and give me your "well if we don't kill 'em they'll starve to death" rap if that makes you sleep better. Doesn't convince me. The animal world was taking care of itself long before we were here and it does not need us to help out any.

GT

TarpleyG, I don't take issue with your loss of interest in hunting, but I definitely disagree with "Go ahead and give me your "well if we don't kill 'em they'll starve to death" rap...Doesn't convince me."

Staying strictly with the whitetail deer, do you understand the meaning of "carrying capacity" of habitat? That is, there is a limit to the number of animals which will remain healthy, within the availibility of the food supply? Land--an ecosystem--will only support a certain number of animals per acre (or in terms of acres per animal). Deer, rabbits, goats, cows, horses, whatever...

Absent predation, any/all herbivores' numbers will expand beyond the carrying capacity of the land. You'll note that in many areas there are such large populations of deer that we get the cutsie-poo stories of deer in the flowerbeds, and the conflicts between those who would reduce the numbers vs. those who "just love to watch Beautiful Bambi".

Given the shortage of cougars, bears and wolves, homo sap is the only available predator to control the herds' numbers. In this matter, then, the motivations of today's predators have no importance.

Art

Art, thats the response we need on this thread!

First of all, I do not hunt, nor do I plan to all that much. If I ever do it with my friends and find an interest in it, I suppose I would pursue that interest. Anyway, once again humanity has messed up the circle of life or whatever and the hunters are here to fix what natural predators, which there aren't enough of, cannot.

Kill if there are too many, don't if there isn't. very simple concept.

I do not want hunting eliminated. I want the hunters to stop leeching off me and pull their own wagon as I have to pull mine. I do not see why every year I pay thousands of dollars to hunters, but they give me nothing (but grief, "firearms are for sports, not for fighting", "assault weapons aren't used for hunting" as if the RKBA had a darn thing to do with hunting).

If hunters had to carry their own load instead of insisting that I carry their flabby flannel backsides, I would be actively pro-hunting. Abolish the P-R tax and eliminate the taxmoney hunters receive.

GET OUT OF THE %$#@*& WAGON; HELP ME PULL.

H&Hhunter

I think the concern is many hunters are ill-informed as to the encroachment on the RKBA that has taken place over the years.

I work part time in a gun shop and am sometimes amused when a rifle only owning shooter and hunter comes in and wants to buy a handgun. He is stunned to find out that he has to have a handgun safety certificate to purchase a handgun. Not having one he has to take a test and fork over $25 for the certificate. He also has to show proof of residency, as in a three month old utility bill or telephone bill. Owning an automobile registered in their name in California will suffice.

Equally amusing and somewhat distressing are the fellows who come in and want to transfer from one to the other a rifle that has been classified an "assault" weapon by the Roberti-Roos act of 1988 or SB-23 of 1998. The original owner does not have registration papers for his weapon per either of the two pieces of legislation. Both are dumbfounded to find out the weapon is illegal to possess, and the owner can be arrested and charged with a felony. So far there have not been any peace officers in the shop when this revelation takes place.

Pilgrim

I can sympathize with El Tejon's position. I'm one of those people who (in my case as a kid) got into guns because of hunting, not hunting because I had guns. My first firearms were all purchased based on hunting uses. But I happened to have also embraced firearms as both a right and a hobby, so my guns get used all year long, not just in the Fall. I belong to the NRA, GOA, and Calif. Rifle & Pistol Assoc. and contribute more than the yearly dues to them. I have my representative's fax numbers programmed into my fax machine (for all the good it does in this commie state ).

But there are a lot of hunters who only care about guns as a tool to hunt with, not as a right or a tool of self defense. Guns are no different to them than a pair of hunting boots. As Pilgrim stated, they are shocked when they learn about restrictions that have been around a coon's age. A guy I work with is a hunter, but he is also as anti-gun as any Brady Campaign member. He only hunts with a shotgun, and as long as that's all he does, he sees no need for anyone to have any other kind of gun. What would they use it for? He wonders why people get upset over gun control. He considers me a "gun nut' because I do. After all, nobody is trying to take away my right to hunt....

People who complain about the Pittman Robertson act shoud be sure they never shoot at ranges constructed and maintained with PR funds.
Lots of the tax money collected goes to safety instruction and range construction.

I can understand nonhunters being a little miffed about Pittman-Robertson - why should someone buying a snubbie revolver or its ammo HAVE to pay into a conservation fund? What's the logical connection?

On the other hand, the excise taxes on guns and ammo were started in 1932 because of the Depression, and while the 11% long gun tax started to go to P-R in 1937, from 1932 to 1970 money from the 10% handgun excise tax went into the general treasury, and even now I'm pretty sure that only 50% of the handgun money goes into the P-R fund (don't remember where I got that though). Would you rather that the money still disappeared into general revenue if you had to pay the tax anyway?

It's not fair to call it welfare for hunters - the states use P-R money to build ranges that must be of use to ALL firearms owners, and put it into hunter safety training that may be the only firearms training available for many.

I'd also say that the habitat restoration work funded by P-R is benefitting ALL Americans who value wildlife, not just or even mainly hunters/fishers. Hunters/fishers pay and pay and pay, and you won't see many who begrudge the benefits that the non-payers receive.

Just look at how P-R safety funding makes VPC froth at the mouth, it's worth it just for that alone. If they had their way the excise tax would be 1000% and not a dime of it would be spent on ranges or safety training.

I've never heard of Pittman-Robertson, id this a federal thing?

El T. has a point though. Many hunters are not active in RKBA issues because they feel they are only after the "Evil Assault Rifles" or machine guns. Many have no concept that there Mini 14 or even there auto laoding shotgun is next on the list.

I could easily count the people I know that are hunters/gun owners that are not active in any way. I could never count the people I know that are hunters/gun owners that have no clue and aren't active.

Smoke

I would have to say that most if not all of the hunters I know are are very pro RKBA. However most of them, while vocal in speach, never do anything to help our right to keep and bear arms. I do know some that are NRA members and do a good job of staying informed. These few do what they can by writing thier congressmen and the like. But the majority of the rest act like getting involved is like pulling teeth. I have friends who claim they would die before giving up thier guns but wont even write a letter to thier represenitives much less vote :banghead: . If I have strayed off topic I am sorry.
Back on the topic of hunting animals let me say this. Besides varmits I was raised to only kill it if you are going to eat it. My response to anyone who is against hunting usually is this. The next time you sit down to a hamburger or steak think about how that cow was slaughtered. No chance to resist or escape. Go to a slaughter house and tell me who has the better end, a deer shot with a well placed bullet or arrow or a cow with its head in a stock. Even a chicken has a worse fate waiting for it at a processing plant than a deer being shot in the woods. I really wish all anti hunters would spend some time in a slaughter house and then let me know if they still thought hunting was so inhumane.
Enjoy that hamburger, fried chicken,bacon, or thanksgiving turkey and while your chewing on it think about how that animal was slaughtered.

Smoke,

Here is the gubmint site detailing the PR Act:

http://fa.r9.fws.gov/wr/fawr.html

Although I generally don't hunt, I am far from an anti hunter.

I have no problem with hunters at all. I grew up with them, ate game at their tables, and even went afield with my friends on more than one occassion.

But when I read things like this: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9302 I become absolutely LIVID.

I realize that this isn't necessarilly representative of all hunters, but the sad truth is that it represents the attitudes of too durned many of them.

The belief that they'll never go after your duck gun or boltie deer rifle is a dangerous self deception. Look @ Europe, UK, Australia, for pete's sake!

I'm on record as saying the following:

(From
http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2003_12_21_geekwitha45_archive.html#107206495184679322)

You duck hunters are gonna be the death of us all.

If you own a duck gun or a deer rifle, and see nothing wrong with the "Assault Weapons Ban", I remind you that the Second Amendment is of sober and serious purpose that is not about your trivial right to entertain yourself with sports shooting.

When they come for your duck gun, my battle rifle and I won't be there to help you, because at that point, I either won't have a battle rifle, or it's shards will have been buried with me. And if that came to pass because you were sitting on your ???, you won't deserve any help either.

Click to expand...

And I stand by it.

I, and many, many others who will own "politically incorrect" rifles have INTENTIONALLY placed ourselves directly in the line of metaphorical, and perhaps someday, ACTUAL fire between the hunters and the gun grabbing bigots, because to us, deer don't matter, people's Rights do.

They'll get to your duck gun only after they've gone through us and our battle rifles.

A little bit of help in the voting booth, so it won't come to anything drastic, and an occassional "thank you" from hunters instead of being villified in rants like that Dale Bowman piece of crap are in order.

It seems to me that most of the newbies here the last few months are completely anti-gun, forget anti-hunting.

I personally haven't noticed anybody in particular being anti-hunting, just anti-gun.

geekwitha.45, that was extremely well-said.

DRJones

It seems to me that most of the newbies here the last few months are completely anti-gun, forget anti-hunting.

Click to expand...

It does seem that way, doesn't it?

Geek: Excellent post.

TC
TFL Survivor

El Tejon,

Thousands of dollars every year for hunters? From you? From the tax on firearms? Jeez, you buy a lot of guns.

H&Hhunter,

I'm a hunter...and many, if not most, hunters who only own guns to hunt totally piss me off when it comes to RKBA. Any gun control legislation that comes down the pike is OK with them as long as it doesn't gore their particular ox.

It's "I don't own any rifles with detachable magazines...only nuts own them...they should be controlled." Or "automatic weapons?...you can't hunt with them...people shouldn't own them."

Probably the skeet/trap shotgunners are the worst. I think the big game rifle crowd is finally beginning to realize that the legislation that will ban the evil scoped sniper rifles will royally screw them too.

Folks who only own guns to hunt and folks who only own guns for sport shooting need to realize that we're all in this fight together. And too many of the hunters and sport shooters don't realize that.

I've got a broader view than many. I hunt. I shoot clays from time to time. I own an automatic weapon. I carry daily for self defense.

Some can't see the forest for the trees. Most of these own guns only for hunting or sport.

Gun grabbers who "support firearms ownership for duck hunting" are playing to this crowd.

And after the gun grabbers get the automatic weapons totally (remember the 86 legislation where every single other group of guns owners and gun organizations left us automatic owners out to dry?), after they get the handguns, after they get the evil scoped sniper rifles (gee, sorry your deer rifle fits the definition), they'll come for what's left...the shotguns of the skeet/trap crowd and the duck hunters.

Byron, guns and ammo, sure do.

H&H, it is not I that alienate. It is the hunters (some hunters) that alienate me.

I am not a "anti-hunting activist." I do nothing to interfere with anyone hunting. I have the belief that they should pay their own way and that ruffles the feathers of the something for nothing crowd.

Getting the faces of hunters out of the federal trough helps the RKBA by making them more aware that we are all in this together.

El Tejon,
My hat's off to you. Wish I paid that much in the tax on guns and ammo. (Being kinda snide here...I hate ALL taxes...the hell with representation.) What's the tax rate on those purchases that goes to hunting and such?

As far as "anti-hunting activists" go...a high ranking member of the martial arts organization I once belonged to was braggin about disrupting hunts on public land. I gave him detailed instructions to where I hunt on private land and told him to put his butt where his mouth was: "Come disrupt my hunt on my land and see what happens." He hasn't shown up. Wonder why? He claims it is only because he is in Australia and that he would comes with bells on if I supplied the ticket. I've been mulling over starting a ticket fund for him.

I'm now 41 years of age. Only been hunting for the last 3 years. I've never had the chance to shoot a deer, I guess I've not learned the proper way to hunt? But anyhow, as a child, my father would not take either me or my brother hunting, since he grew up in an era where he HAD to go hunting while his Dad and brothers were off fighting WWII. He's not anti, he can just find his game easier in the grocery store.
I was into guns before I took up hunting, but since my friend bought a farm 4 years back, I will admit, the collection has tripled. I guess having a place to shoot has something to do with it. I'm an NRA member, SC Grass Roots member and the Garand Collectors Assn., and I spend plenty on guns and ammo. And best of all, I'm taking my two boys hunting and shooting with me. Even though I may not make donations to organizations, other than the required dues, I feel that I am planting a seed with my two boys that far outweighs an extra $50 a year to the NRA.
The funny way I go about it with the boys is to act like you don't want them to come along. Then they bug the crap out of you to take them. SUCKERS

Leatherneck:

Glad I'm not the only one who's noticed.

We need to discuss "hunting because I can" and "hunting becuse I should". Just becuse you can, doesn't mean you should. Hunting to appropriately control animal population is an honorable thing to do. Hunting to strictly put a "trophy" on your mantle is not, in my opinion. Hunting should have a moral and ethical obligation. Absent that it's killing, not hunting. As the animals go, so go the humans.

Gee I am new to the highroad and offended by DrJones. I am an old tfler and very pro gun and pro hunting. This is the kind of thing that may just drive some of us from this forum.

Gee I am new to the highroad and offended by DrJones. I am an old tfler and very pro gun and pro hunting. This is the kind of thing that may just drive some of us from this forum.

Click to expand...

Well I am sorry if I offended you sir, but there is really nothing to be offended by.

It is simply an observation, and a somewhat well-founded one at that, seeing as how I'm not the only one to notice it.

Frankly, my comment doesn't even apply to you since:

a) You aren't really a newbie since you are a former TFLer

b) You aren't anti-gun.


Anyhow, it was just my observation. I didn't say anything negative at all about our anti-gun newbies, I just observed that they are around.

Sorry if I offended you.

Drjones