Quantcast

Any animals you won't kill?

Discussion in 'Hunting' started by brigadier, Apr 10, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. coyotehitman

    coyotehitman member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    Messages:
    558
    I kill only what I eat, unless:

    A. It is bothering or trying to harm me
    B. It is damaging my property
    C. It is sick and in need of taking a long nap
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2008
  2. LJH

    LJH Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    201
    Location:
    Austin TX
    I limit what is harvested to what is needed on the table. Unless it is a threat to health or safety. With that said I have never had an animal threaten my health or safety.
     
  3. Selfdfenz

    Selfdfenz Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,955
    Location:
    Small-sky country, again
    What about introduced species.

    On the east coast the coyote is an introduced species, ditto for the nutria everywhere in the US, as well as pythons and Nile Monitors in the Everglades. I guess we could add wild hogs in TX to the list.

    I've never shot any of the above but sure would if the opportunity presented itself because the native species and sometimes the environment is harmed by these interlopers.

    The whole idea of "I only shoot what I'm prepared to eat" might be misplaced in these cases, no?

    Best

    S-
     
  4. eliphalet

    eliphalet Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,682
    Location:
    Idaho
    I guess I would kill a knat to a blue whale under the right circumstances.
    There are thousands of species including the whale, I would prefer not to though.

    Picked up a used Marlin 22 Mag today, second shot it killed a ground squirrel. I don't eat ground squirrels and don't subscribe to that " if you kill it you eat it" train of thought. I don't particular enjoy killing stuff for the killing I don't believe, but it in no way bothers me to do it. Unless I need to put my own dog or the like down, that never makes for a good day.
     
  5. H&Hhunter

    H&Hhunter Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,131
    Along those lines.

    Us "evil" sport hunters who kill African big game and by doing so assign value to the species in question thus providing them a financial base which protects their habitat from encroachment and keeps them form being wholesale slaughtered for market purpose. There are many reasons to hunt which don't include the false morality of "only if I eat it".

    How about without us hunters this million acre reserve would in short order be void of wildlife and would be chopped up into low yield migrant farm patches. How about all of the meat that comes from my activity goes to supplement the diet of the local villages that surround this million acre reserve.

    How about here in the US. The revenue from our hunting activities. Over a billion dollars each years from hunting licenses alone. Over 500 Million from sportsman's taxes. This money is used in part to maintain, manage and keep wild places wild. Hunters assign value to the animals they hunt. When animals have value they will not be destroyed rather managed to healthy level. Humans have been doing this from the beginning of time. It is nothing new.

    When I see things like it degrades your soul to hunt and it is sin to kill animals. I respect your thoughts and beliefs. But the hard cold truth is without hunters their would be no animals left outside of private reserves and national parks. If you love wild life and respect it. It is a sin not to hunt. We hunters are the front line of conservation we always have been and we always will be.

    Their is no other group of people on the planet that provide the benefits to wildlife that the hunter does. Not by a long shot.
     
  6. ronwill

    ronwill Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    303
    Location:
    Georgia
    H&Hhunter, I agree that controlled hunts benefit game populations in many ways. The only time I would even consider thinking of someone as an "evil" trophy hunter is in the case of canned hunts. When a person pays thousands of dollars to go to a "reserve" where a guide points to an animal (which may be drugged in some cases) and says that's the one your going to shoot, I don't consider that hunting. This type of "hunt" happens far to often in the U.S. where exotic game species are often drugged and released shortly before a hunt for someone to "bag" a trophy. Those who hunt in the traditional manner, pay their license and tag fees, and work at getting their game are true sportsmen that contribute immeasurably to managing game populations. This is true for "sport" hunters and those who hunt for food.
     
  7. koja48

    koja48 member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    1,912
    Location:
    SE WA State
    Well stated, H&H. Thank you.
     
  8. H&Hhunter

    H&Hhunter Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,131
    ronwill,

    Some very good points their. I agree with what you have to say about the "Jimmy Houston" syndrome. These guys are scum.

    Two points I'd like to make.

    1. Not all high fenced hunting is canned. Some of these places that are 10, 15 20,000 acres with a perimeter fence can be a very good hunting experience. If the animals are left alone not ever penned etc etc. There are many high fenced places in the country of South Africa. But when you've got 50,000 acres with a perimeter fence around it mainly to keep undesirable critters OUT. It is a very good hunting experience. If the animals that reside within are left alone and are wild.

    2. And this is kind of a pet peeve of mine. the term "sport" hunter is a term that the radical anti hunters have made into a negative connotation. Unless you are a pure subsistence hunter who actually must hunt to live. In my opinion you are a sport hunter. We hunt for the enjoyment of the human experience of hunting. the food we derive from that experience is a bonus. But we can survive with out hunting therefore we choose to hunt we are not forced to.


    I am a sport, trophy, meat hunter 100%. I eat most of what I kill. And I am always looking for a fine head as well. You can't eat horns but they don't stop you from eating the softer parts of an animal either.

    In Africa nothing goes to waste. When I hunt in South Africa with my South African friends every bit of the meat is processed and eaten by their respective families. Or it is sold or given away to the locals none of it goes to waste.

    In deeper darker Africa most of the meat goes to the local tribesmen. The rest will come back to camp to feed the staff and hunters.

    The last buffalo I shot in Zimbabwe was about 3 miles form the nearest track. We quartered that buff and 6 of us packed him back to the track where we cut a trail in for the land cruiser to pick us and our precious cargo of meat.

    My point is the term "sport" hunter does NOT preclude the consumption of your target species.:)
     
  9. Rule556

    Rule556 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    75
    Same here.
     
  10. Mr. 16 gauge

    Mr. 16 gauge Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    78
    Location:
    Troy, MI
    Don't know where you got this little tidbit of information, but it's pure B.S.....if you've ever watched ducks mate, you then know that you have a bunch of males pursuing one poor hen and jumping on her any and every chance they get! Talk about a gang bang!

    I hunt whatever I can when I can.....usually eat most of it, but I don't eat crows, coyotes, or fox, and they do eat rabbits, grouse, pheasants, ect., and I do enjoy eating them as well.
     
  11. eliphalet

    eliphalet Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,682
    Location:
    Idaho
    Killing only to feed/eat almost eliminated the big horn sheep. I believe was the cause of the extinction of the passinger pigeon. Until hunter/sportsman's demands and the Gov. began to manage our game animals this country's big game was in real trouble. It has been sportsman's lobbies/tax dollars that have for the most paid for the successful management of deer, elk, wild turkeys etc. to including many non-game species so we all can enjoy them as much as we do today.

    With most "mate for life" critters it is just that. As long as both are alive they stay with the same mate. Once one of the pair dies the other will then find another mate to "mate for life" with again.
     
  12. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    Actually, I've heard that it had something to do with some other uses for them.

    Let's just say that, finally, someone invented something called the "clay pigeon."

    Now, it's probably time that we start rounding up and using city pigeons (rock doves) for the purpose, just to control their population. However, some people don't like the idea.
     
  13. ronwill

    ronwill Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    303
    Location:
    Georgia
    Eliphalet, I disagree with you on this instance. The Passenger Pigeon went it's way because it was a nuisance to farmers. The Big Horn Sheep is in trouble because of low birth rate and over hunting. I can't think of any instance where killing solely for food resulted in a problematic game population. One very good example of this is the American Bison. When Native Americans hunted them their populations remained large. It wasn't until the "buffalo hunter" started taking them simply as trophy's that they became endangered.
     
  14. eliphalet

    eliphalet Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,682
    Location:
    Idaho
    Excerpt from Wikipedia.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Pigeon

    I ave read they, big horned sheep, were a very popular meat in the mining towns of the 1800's that professional hunters had severely damaged sheep populations making a buck to feed the miners.

    I believe it was for the hides that the buffalo was eradicated that and the fact they were the staple meat of the indigenous peoples who were in the way so to say. Same with the the Beaver at the time it was for the fur. Our fore fathers were not the best stewards of the land to put it mildly.


    I am no expert in the matter for sure.
     
  15. H&Hhunter

    H&Hhunter Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,131
    Ronwill,

    This sir while it sounds good to support your argument your statement about buffalo and bighorn sheep are maliciously incorrect. What wiped out the buffalo was large scale market hunting for their hides and tongues. It had nothing to do with "trophy" hunting. Not to mention a concerted government effort to wipe them out to cut off the plains Indians food supply.

    Elk and bighorn were nearly shot to extinction for meat. Same as mule deer and Mt goats in certain areas.

    It was a trophy hunter who stopped all this and made sensible laws and hunting seasons and was one of the true fathers of American conservation and is THE reason we have any wild places and wildlife left in this country. His Name was Teddy Roosevelt.

    It is the same thing that happened to the elephant in Africa. When elephants were commercially hunted for Ivory by professional hunters their numbers began to dwindle. However about the 1940's most countries began regulating the hunting both commercial and sport. Elephant populations were just fine. they were stable or growing in many places.

    The major elephant reduction did not occur until the 1970's when most of Africa was decolonized and game laws were unenforceable. That is when gangs of mechanized heavily armed poachers began wiping out wildlife by the thousands for profit.

    Once again it was sport hunters who have stepped up forced various countries to get this under control.

    There is no over hunting of bighorn sheep sir! Once again it was hunters who brought the bighorn back from the brink of extinction. Bighorns and the hunting of them is highly regulated and extremely limited. The most recent culprits in sheep population reduction have been scabies and low lamb survival due to lion depredation. And I sir worked with the New Mexico Department of Game and fish as a contractor to try and limit the lamb kill problem in several key bighorn ranges in New Mexico.

    To state that the bighorn is trouble because of over hunting is simply a fabrication. I'd very much like to read your source on that because I and whole bunch of game biologists would VERY much like to have public debate on that statement.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2008
  16. ronwill

    ronwill Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    303
    Location:
    Georgia
    I think I used the incorrect terminology. When I refer to trophy hunting it is the type Buffalo Bill did, simply shooting standing bison from trains and leaving the carcass to rot on the prairie. It is true some of the bison killed by buffalo hunters was used but much of it was left to waste. When I refer to hunting for food, I mean where it is done for yourself, your family or your "tribe" in the case of Native Americans. Market hunting results in over hunting and, in the case of low reproducing animals such as the Carrier Pigeon, can lead to a troubled game population, or extinction. As an example of the "trophy" hunting I am referring to I give the following excerpt from an article in "Legends Of America" a site that is dedicated to those times.

    "The Indians watched in dismay as buffalo hunting took on an almost a carnival atmosphere when railroads began to advertise “hunting by rail.” This occurred when trains sometimes encountered large herds of buffalo crossing the tracks. Seeing a way to capitalize on the problem, the advertising flooded the newspapers and in no time, sporting men with rifles were shooting buffalo by the hundreds just for fun. Those animals shot from the train were simply left where they died."
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2008
  17. 106rr

    106rr Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    529
    Location:
    CA
    I have a soft spot for monkeys. Other than that, I would take anything edible, profitable or annoying.
     
  18. langenc

    langenc Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Messages:
    952
    Location:
    Montmorency Co, MI
    To answer poster #1 and others__

    Eat the rabbit-excellent eating. Kill the skunk and all friends and soon you will have more rabbits IF you dont have a couple cats hanging around. Just watch the cat-it is nothing more than a minaturized lion as it stalks and slinks about.
     
  19. eliphalet

    eliphalet Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,682
    Location:
    Idaho
    IIRC Buffalo Bill was a hide hunter as a young man, among several other occupations before becoming a entrainer.

    Shooting from trains was probably encouraged by more than the rail roads. The locals at the time's lifestyle revolved around those buffalo. Destroy the Buffalo, get rid of or control the people that depend on them. Pretty simple strategy really.
     
  20. H&Hhunter

    H&Hhunter Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,131
    Yes this was a horrible waste. But it took a sportsmen, a trophy hunter, Teddy Roosevelt to put a stop to these kinds of senseless slaughter.

    Teddy was truly a man who was wise beyond his years and had almost uncanny foresight.

    Even with the train shooters leaving hundreds of rotting carcasses on the plains the true destruction of the buffalo was a concerted and effort by market hunters and was promoted if not backed by the US government.

    I have always read that the passenger pigeon was destroyed for it's plumage which adorned ladies hats.

    In any case none of the examples we've brought up here have anything to do with sport hunting. These have all been examples of commercial market hunting or downright poaching for profit.

    In the case of the train shooters this was simply a symptom of the times. These buffalo were limitless in the minds of a mid to late 1800's man. With manifest destiny being what it was we didn't have respect for anything or anybody that got in our way. When the man of those times saw a redwood forest he measured it's value in board feet. When he saw buffalo on the plains they were nothing more than an impediment to their plans to restock with domestic cattle. We were conquerers and treated the land appropriately. Much like the Roman legions and any number of other conquistidors past and present.

    Eventually it was conservationist sport hunters who started to see the intrinsic value in these animals. And are the ones who eventually stopped the slaughter and created sensible game laws. Unfortunately it was to late for the American bison.

    If you want to have some fun go find the game numbers form the turn of the century and compare them to today. And when you do that think who pushed for these reforms and these incredible turn around in population density.
     
  21. eliphalet

    eliphalet Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,682
    Location:
    Idaho
    .My guess is that this is correct. Sounds far more logical for the time period as with the beaver for hats than "feed the poor" which I had not heard before either. My recollection was the pigeon population was destroyed beyond repair by professional hunters with punt types of shotguns. The wiki I referred to was what I found with a 2 minute search looking for a reference for my earlier statement.

    Boy have we strayed from the OP's original question, but hasn't this been an excellent thread?
     
  22. sixgunner455

    sixgunner455 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,936
    I hunt birds because I like working with dogs. If I ever get to where I don't care about the dogs anymore (not likely), I'll have to reassess whether it is worth it to hunt birds. Dove and quail, mostly, but sometimes pheasant, too.

    Just love seeing a dog get on a bird. Don't even have to be hunting, or get a shot, if the dogs get to work.

    I can't think of many things I won't shoot. I can think of things I will shoot that I won't eat, but there are other reasons than eating to have to do that, as discussed earlier. I don't see me going on a hunting safari anytime soon, so most of my hunting will be confined to the native and feral species populating my region of North America. Most of them, I'll have to confess, I'd shoot if the occasion warranted it, even though I haven't had that opportunity on any but deer, elk, quail, dove, pheasant, some other birds, rabbit, squirrel, coyote, rattlesnake, skunk (passed, thanks!), and a few others.

    Why didn't I shoot the skunk? Didn't want to!
     
  23. Selfdfenz

    Selfdfenz Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,955
    Location:
    Small-sky country, again
    H&H

    And a hat tip to you this AM for once again putting in words a well considered and informed set of comments in regard to hunting.

    I've encounter that comment myself but I've seen a stuffed PP and I can't imagine those hats were very attractive or much in demand. Small feather dusters I could believe. Still that concept seems to share top list billing for the explanation of the PP's demise with other human based causes. Based on my reading I've come to believe these specific human-activity-oriented explanations are only partly correct or perhaps not at all accurate. There was something going on with the PP other than ladies’ hats and #8 shot and it's something writers of the day missed. I believe something happened to their breeding grounds or perhaps more than one critical element of their food supply that closed the deal on them. They moved in massive flocks as we all know. What a perfect scenario for an introduced avian pathogen from domestic poultry to get into their flocks and cause havoc. It's speculation on may part but what if there was some connection between eradication of the buffaloe and conversion of much of their range to agriculture and the demise of the PP. Where would we find that connection in the literature. Who would have even considered it when it was happening. It’s the kind of thing that may not have been evident to casual observers of the day.

    Many books of the time identify shooting and similar as the cause of extinction of the Carolina Parakeet. A few biologically oriented observers of the day pointed out that CPs nested in big groups in hollow tree cavities. The disappearance of the CP coincides very well with the first full scale logging of large area of their habitat and as we all know that was clear cut type logging of a type few of us have ever seem other than in old pictures and illustrations.

    Again, casual observers of the day wrote about seeing people of the day shoot PPs and perhaps CPs in considerable numbers. Those comments come down to us through time and become the unquestioned explanation for extinction, when in fact they may be only one piece of far more complex scenario.

    Don't get me started on man inducted extinctions of ancient North American mega-fauna.

    Best,

    S-
     
  24. Mr. 16 gauge

    Mr. 16 gauge Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    78
    Location:
    Troy, MI
    Your guess would be wrong....passenger pigeons became extinct because of wanton greed & market gunning. Ladies fashion had nothing to do with it.
    The bird in that you are thinking about, with re: ladies fashionable hats, is the egret....looks like a blue heron only smaller and all white.
    Buffalo Bill never shot carcasses and left them lay; he shot bison for the railroads and the meat was used to feed the railroad workers as they lay track across the west. This was prior to the 'hide hunting' that took place later in the century; Buffalo Bill was to busy scouting for the army when this was taking place. The bison were hunted to extermination for two reasons: 1.) the bison was the main food source for the Native Americans, which the army was trying to move to reservations.....remove their food source (and the hides, which they used to make their teepees), and you now have starved your enemy into submission. 2.) the leather from the bison hides was superior to that of domestic cattle when it came to making belts to drive the machinery in the mills back in the east; with the industrial revolution at it's hieght, the demand for belts (and the leather that was used to make them) was high.
    Geez.....nothing like rewriting history, esp. to the benefit of the Peta folks!:uhoh:
     
  25. eliphalet

    eliphalet Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,682
    Location:
    Idaho
    We also deal with the tabloid type of reporting of the day. Much of which tended to exaggerate to being a outright fable.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice