I think one other thing that people dont take into account is that nature is a cruel mistress. If hunters stopped hunting and we relied on natural predators to keep the levels in check then you know what? It would actually be far more cruel. I mean if you were going to die would you rather be shot or get mulled to death by a mountain lion? Who might starting eating you before you have even passed away? There seems be a thought that if man would just get out of the way then nature would handle itself in a nice humane way and all the animals would live long full lives with little pain. Its just not true, in fact nature is far crueler to animals then most humans. Its why as a species we have developed technology the way we have that allows us to stay climate controlled, out of the weather, fences and walls to keep predators out, and all the other creature comforts that we have. Nature sucks to live in for the most part, its just not very comfortable.
You realize that population is limited by the living area of an animal as well correct? That is what I mean. The population of animals would become larger, but not overwhelming. Did I even say the word cow? Now you're putting words in my mouth and I'd really appreciate if you didn't resort to offensive personal attacks like you have in your childish post. It would be hard to have a degree at 18, but I know I'm smart as state tests have repeatedly proven it (When I've finished top 1% in the state numerous times) so even if you may know more about a particular subject than I do I'd appreciate if you didn't speak down to me. If you decide you cant have a discussion like a human being you can be the first person on my ignore list. Oh also let me add that I NEVER said I was against hunters at all. If you kill and eat your own food thats great. Predator vs Prey is perfectly natural. If you kill just for fun, I do think that's a bit sick honestly but that's nothing to do with this subject. What's not natural in the least is the inhumane conditions in most slaughterhouses, where animals are born to die without ever having a chance at anything else.
I will say one thing, the "the alpha buck",lol, more often than not, is nocturnal, and winds up being killed by a Buick rather than a hunters bullet. A doe is only going to breed with the buck she chooses, she not like some whore in a bar that waits for every swinging peter she sees to breed with. She's going to pick and choose her mate,every doe does not breed, and every buck does not breed every doe, and to think otherwise is just plain nonsense. When the "alpha buck" dies, there is another one waiting to take its place. I've been hunting for many years, and have never killed an "alpha buck". Killed some nice ones, but never the biggest buck in the forest.
This post was just filled with information, jokes, and everything you could ever want Thanks for the info there.
To be honest I'm really not sure as to why I'm getting into a debate about hunting. everytime a topic such as the one that this thread was originally about comes up, someone turns it into a hunting debate, and they really don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. have fun, this is my last post in this thread.
Okay Mike, to expand the conversation just a little bit, let me ask you this. How many times (general) have you gone out into the woods with the intention of bringing a deer back with you, but left empty handed because... A) you didn't have a sure kill shot and didn't want to wound an animal that would run off and suffer? B) didn't shoot a doe because she had a youngin' right behind her? C) because you were just enjoying the atmosphere watching them run around?
I plan on getting a buck everytime I go hunting...I'd say I come home with a buck 10 outta 20 trips. just a rough guess. could be more or less. more often than not hunters are unsuccessful. thats a fact. answer A. I will never take a shot that i'm not 100% sure of. the last thing I wanna do is wound a deer and have it run off and die for nothing, that does me no good, nor can I feed my family. B I have passed many deer just for that very reason. I'm not about to have a fawn die because I killed its mother. I hunt for food, not greed. C. I started hunting when I was very young and thats the very reason I enjoy hunting. it's not about killing animals, it's more just being there watching listening. I love every second that I spend in the woods. I have came home empty handed more often than not.
One time a few years back, I was sitting watching a hillside and a young spike was slowly heading my direction. I dosed off only to have the young buck lick my arm and wake me. he stuck by me for about an hour just letting me pet him. where else could that ever happen?
Ha, got you to post in the thread again. (celebrates childish victory) Exactly, I have alot of respect for the environment and wildlife, it's not all about the kill. I've been hunting for a while and I haven't pulled a deer out of the woods in the last 3 years for the very reasons I mentioned above. Hunting isn't about the antlers, those are nice, but it's about keeping things in check and feeding the family or needy families with that meat. I guess I just felt that alot of people get the wrong idea about hunting, sure there are some jackasses, but the majority of the hunters out there respect the environment and their place in it. That's the point I was trying to make with that post.
Just my humble opinion here. I have been both a vegan and vegetarian. I have never tried to influence my choices on others. I'm not really either now, as I eat shrimp, crab and lobster, and fish, if my husband catches it. I still don't eat chicken, pork or red meat, but that is my choice. It is not a problem. My husband even hunts, and I don't like it, but I don't judge it. The boar they hunt are not indigenous to the environment, and they ruin the whole spectrum of natural eating from birds to squirrels. (Okay, I threw in squirrels there... but you know what I mean.) My husband has never had a problem with my eating patterns, or my politics, on which we differ as well. I think it all comes down to how self-righteous a person is. When there is no flexibility for alternative points of view, surely a conflict will arise.
This is the same problem we had before, you are arguing with me based on things I didn't say and views I don't have. I haven't argued once about having livestock or eating meat. The problem it seems, is if a person disagrees with hunting they are thrown into the the animal nutjob PETA category. This is evidenced by your above paragraph, and arguing with me about the "humane" need for hunting, when I'm telling you that is not why I'm against hunting. I'm against it because has caused all our animal population problems. And it did in fact, begin with the removal of predators. The only thing you've said to refute that is, "They tried to re-introduce mountain lions." Which is, again, messing with the natural order of things. I'm pretty sure they'd go after their natural prey before they changed how they hunt. What sounds more likely, going back to the way they've always done it, or creating an entirely new social structure, that is counter to millions of years of evolution? What else has ever been tried besides hunting? Very little. In fact nothing has ever been tried, while hunting was stopped. Your DEC only looks for solutions, that allow for hunting to occur. Following the same logic, to reduce a fever, the medical industry would have us use leeches AND a pill. How? Do the numbers of tags allowed every year decrease? Seems to me, if the hunting thing was working, the population of deer would decrease every year. Considering the DEC doesn't manufacture the deer, the have a limited supply, for their business to stay open they absolutely have to put a limit on it. Point is, everything they do is to keep hunting going. Look at their site again, their first link is outdoor recreation, under which hunting is the first link, trapping is the second, and fishing is third. Being in the advertising business, that tells me, that's their main focus. Yes, let's be fair. first of all their are 2 different things: Is hunting effective and why do people enjoy hunting? You see that these are 2 different things, I hope. Now, we've been discussing, is hunting effective, and you want to bring the second thing into the conversation. Which is fine. (The animal "rights" protest I attended was for elephants and other animals to stop being used in a circus. It hardly has anything to do with this topic of discussion.) Bringing this up is further evidence you've slapped me into some category, that I don't actually belong in. I've tried to explain to you, that my views on hunting are based, not on anything humane, but because it is counter to the natural way and ineffective. I started the whole argument with, "hunting is more humane than factory farming" and I've said time and again I still eat meat. The bloodlust issue I brought up is from a purely logical standpoint. I never got a real answer to that one either, just offended blustering. There a number of components to hunting, that can be used with other activities, save the actual killing of the animal. That means there are a number of activities a person can do where they'll get the same enjoyment they do from hunting. The fact that they choose to hunt means, they actually enjoy the one thing it has that other activities don't...killing. If that's not true, then why do they not only do it, but also talk about it with such reverence, buy so much merchandise that promotes it (stickers, etc.), and put it on their avatars? Again, I'm not judging anyone here, merely trying to find the reason why so many people enjoy hunting. But again, this is separate issue from the one we've been discussing. Again, that is great. We should all look out for them. (As a side note, I wonder why it seems you draw the line between domestic and non-domestic animals.) However, once again, I'm not coming at this from an animal "rights" or "welfare" standpoint. I'm coming at it from, "is it effective?" Now, I've been to your DEC site, I've been to the Florida Fish and Wildlife site, I've been to many sites regarding hunting, pro & con, I hope you understand that. I've even been hunting. Hell, I've been to a slaughterhouse, and actually helped slaughter a cow, from the moment it was put down all the way down to salting the hide to cure it. It is fact that the hunting of predators have helped cause major population increases. It is fact, human hunters, hunt counter to the natural predator and prey way. It is fact, that the population problem has to constantly be dealt with, meaning that we are clearly not really making any headway with current "solutions". It is fact, hunters enjoy the killing part of hunting, otherwise they could do something like, take a picture, and still get everything else hunting has to offer for entertainment. Looking at those facts, you haven't actually presenting anything to the contrary.
Finascious... I don't agree with you bro, but I sure do respect the effort and respect you are putting into your discourse here.. thank you. Mike hasn't been worked this hard in awhile
After the landing at Plymouth Rock, the white man proceeded to remove, from the forest and the plains, all the animals that scared them. The white-tailed's world became a safer place to thrive. Following the post-civil war years of reconstruction and market hunting, hunting seasons and bag limits were imposed on the consuming public in efforts of restoring and developing larger deer herds. The white-tailed's world became an even safer place to thrive. Throughout the last century, the priorities of State game agencies regarding deer, were the improving of habitat, and relocation/restocking. These programs were at the delight of sportsmen and the viewing public. The sight of a beautiful white-tailed buck has universal appeal. The timber industry has changed forever the landscape of America. Little did we know that the best thing you can do for a deer is to cut down a tree. White-tailed deer do not thrive in mature, old growth forest. Here, food is only available for a short period of the year. The canopy of the mature forest prevents sunshine from reaching the forest floor, thereby limiting new growth. When man with chain saws started clearing large tracts of land, the forest floor sprung forth with low, nutritious, abundant new growth that provides food and thick cover for security. Not only has the landscape changed forever, human density has changed forever. The demographics of America have moved off the family farm and into cities. In most of the United States, particularly east of the Mississippi River, gone forever are the large tracts of land where hunters freely roamed and harvested deer. Private property is private to people, not deer. "No hunting" signs create defacto refuges. If the refuge is suitable, the deer thrive without any form of predation. These unchecked populations grow exponentially; eating everything they can digest. Traditional hunting is restricted now more than ever and bag limits are the largest since being imposed. There are fewer hunters every year, hunting on fewer acres every year. Job and family demands time from the hunter as never before, offering fewer hours available for being afield. Urban sprawl and metropolitan development have created protected pockets of habitat that white-tailed deer readily adapt to and exploit. These areas are generally off limits to traditional hunting, therefore, the deer herd's population grows uncontrolled limited only by deer/vehicle accidents and nutritional value of the neighborhood's azalea beds and dog food bowls. White-tailed deer readily adapt to close quarters living with humans. When we turn off the lights at bedtime, we silently ring the dinner bell for our forest neighbors.
Ob boy, the Vegetarian issue. This is one of those deals where no matter how long you argue, you won't budge anyone. I'll simply say that Ive been involved in animal rights and can't bring myself to hunt. So it's safe to assume I believe whole heartedly in regulations that force humane treatment of animals. Having said that, I also believe in the food chain. I'll eat a steak or chicken without shedding a tear. If someone wants to hunt, as long as they follow regulations then so be it. Trapping is an area that I cannot get behind though. How do I justify being an animal rights supporter who eats meat? I simply make sure to buy from sources that are regulated as free range and humane kill farms. Your local Whole Foods has plenty of those options. I believe you can be dedicated to animal rights causes and eat meat.
Just for clarity, you're not really for animal rights unless your Vegan. You seem to be Animal Welfare, like me. Question though, do you eat pork anymore? I've just recently stopped.
Big difference between arguing and discussing, this is a conversation, not a fight. Which was in response to your suggestion of adding llamas into the mix. On the one hand you want nature to straighten itself out, then say we haven't done enough and only tried hunting. Which one is it? I've never once aligned you with PETA, I've only pointed out things that you have said and done in the past to shed a little bit of light on what I feel is your contempt for hunting. But I will say this, alot of people like animals and are concerned with their treatment, not alot of people go the extra mile to protest or use buzz words like "bloodlust" when talking about hunting. There's nothing wrong with that, but I do think that you are far more "involved" than the average person. Again I admire you dedication, but disagree with the way you are labeling something that you know little about. You used the example of an easy meal, and believe it or not, finding a way under/over/around a fence is easier than stalking, chasing and killing an animal. Farmers have tried to keep predators out with fences and other means and the predators always find a way to get around them, they don't look at the fence and say "Ahh shucks, guess it's back to hunting for me". They have tried alot of things, everything from fences to cages, relocating them, poppers, other animals (your llama example), etc, etc, etc and they don't work. That can't be stressed enough. Any success that they may have is minimal at best and does nothing to control populations. Depending on the numbers, sometimes they do. And sometimes they make more tags available, it all depends on the fluctuations of the population numbers. As for how their website is set up, that's a silly argument that doesn't necessarily reflect their mission statement. A website is for the public, it's meant to be user friendly and make information readily available for the people who seek it. Most people that go to the DEC websites are looking to see when hunting season opens and what restrictions are in place. IMO criticizing the DEC for that is like criticizing this site for having the welcome and birthday forums above the Miami Dolphins forum. I think it has alot to do with the conversation because you are repeating alot of the same things that I've heard time and time again from people that you try to distance yourself from. You're defending animal rights by making the case that hunting doesn't work, which you haven't provided any hard data to support, just opinion. Hunting is effective, we've tried other ways to help deal with the population problem and they haven't worked, we will never go back to letting nature take its course because populations would increase....yet you still argue that hunting isn't effective and real data from the DEC is tainted because they are only interested in making money. If you aren't willing to believe the data that the DEC provides, there isn't any point in going any further. You did, you just ignored it because it wasn't the answer you were looking for. You said that you actually went hunting once and felt a bit of bloodlust while out there, I responded by telling you "if that's the case, you were hunting for the wrong reasons". When I walk out into the woods I don't think to myself "Oh goody, I'm going to kill something", rather I enjoy my walk and soak in nature. I have the utmost respect for nature, the animals and my place in it. Sometimes I just sit there are relax while watching things that most people either take for granted or couldn't care less about. When it comes time to fire my weapon, I don't feel bloodlust, I feel that I'm doing my part to keep a system in check and keep these animals from wandering into our backyards. The enjoyment comes from my surroundings, the enjoyment comes from walking through the woods with fellow hunters and sharing stories, it doesn't come from standing over a dead deer doing a happy dance. Simple, domestic animals don't have that gamey taste that I like. Cats, dogs, etc rely on us to feed them and take care of them, wild animals don't. I think you are, whether it's a conscious thing or not. By dismissing facts (the hard data from the DEC) as nothing more than a money making scheme, you found a way to make hunting irrelevant and the bad guy. Links please Noooo, that doesn't sound like something that an animal rights person would say. I don't necessarily enjoy the killing part, I actually feel a little sad, but I also know that I am doing my part to help keep a balance in nature. The fact that you keep trying to push that point home tells me that you don't understand the art of hunting at all. Again, there is no bloodlust, there is more respect than anything. Again, I'd rather manage a deer with a gun than see it get hit by a car (endangering human lives). I would rather manage a deer with a gun than put up more fences that it will just jump over and many times get itself tangled in and left to suffer. One of the cemeteries in the area put up a huge 10 ft iron fence with spikes on the top of it to try and keep the deer away from the plots (where the deer eat the flowers). My nephew is a police officer in the city and part of his job once a week is to go in there and help animal control remove the deer that are impaled on the fence. Those methods don't work, they just cause more suffering. Hunting works, I urge you once again to contact the DEC for the numbers to educate yourself on the subject.
Is there really a difference? And who sets the definition? To me it sounds like it's based only on what you consume and has nothing to do with the differences in the concern for animals, which seems to be the same concerns in both cases.
Fair enough, sorry I misspoke, er...mistyped??? Sigh. I hope you're not being like this on purpose. I've made it pretty clear, that adding llamas in with livestock, will help keep the predators away. Predators, that would be hunting native populations, which would help keep down their numbers. Since we are keeping livestock, which is not the natural way, that is causing predators to go for the easy, penned up meal, adding animals like llamas, will help protect the livestock. The predators will then revert back to stalking, and chasing their natural prey, because it will be easier than getting its head kicked in by a llama. It is a way to offset the "speedbump" that keeping livestock, has been to the circle of life. This is neither contradictory nor confusing. You are making a broad assumption based entirely on your preconceived notions, and are in no small part implying that I'm being disingenuous in how I'm portraying my views. That is not only inaccurate, but uncalled for. I could say, that not a lot of people will go the extra mile and shoot a deer on the off chance it'll be one that'll cause a car accident sometime in the future. (The word you looking for is touche.) I am more involved with animal issues than most people, that is true. When I went to the circus protest, it was about animal welfare. I admitted it then, and I admit now. Shooting a deer, is much more humane for the deer then being mauled by a mountain lion or starving to death. I'm not a moron. Yet, here I am calling for that exactly, and you say it because this is an animal welfare issue for me? This is precisely why I say you're prejudging me. Clearly, you're reading the cliff notes version of my posts. I know going under a fence is easier, that is what I've been saying. Throw in a large, protective animal like a llama, and it is no longer the easiest way for predators to eat. They will go back to natural prey. You said they'd start changing their social structure, ftr. C'mon now, read what I wrote. None of this was done while hunting was stopped. Now, if I'm saying hunting causes a lot of these problems, then how does it make sense that other stuff will work, if hunting is allowed to continue? Why are the numbers fluctuating if hunting is working? Seriously think about this for a moment. They base their numbers off of the maximum amount of deer that can populate a given area, correct? The number of tags given, fluctuates, based on the amount of deer OVER that maximum point. If hunting worked, as real population control, then those numbers should be consistently lower, considering the amount of available land is consistently shrinking. That means there is a discrepancy. Ok, what do they sell again? Hunting, trapping, & fishing licenses, maybe? I didn't like President Bush, neither do terrorists, ergo I'm a terrorist? Of course not. I'm not defending animal rights, with arguing against hunting. No matter how many times you insinuate it or flat out say it, doesn't make it true. I will say again, it is not effective and helped cause the problem in the first place. How do you define effective? And with that definition, are you applying it to deer populations as a problem or so hunting can continue or both? I haven't discounted their data. I'm discounting that their methods are solely to control the deer population for safety of people and the species. I contend that they use the data to justify the fact that they can continue to hunt. Therefore, their "non-hunting" solutions aren't done in real earnest or to the extent that would those solutions viable. I'm not saying they're evil, just that they have a particular interest in keeping hunting viable. I promise you, I've ignored nothing. I'm willing to stipulate that you hunt for the sole purpose of saving human lives. You however, are hardly the norm then. The parts I bolded are all things that can be done without shooting a deer, right? Now, you say you go that extra step and shoot the deer because you are doing your part to help. However, every hunting publication, web site, etc. has plenty of pictures of hunters standing over their kill, smiling, who then take their trophies home to be mounted or turned into gun racks, what have you. These hunters, who are the majority, are not in it for the reasons you are. That's actually the first honest response I've ever gotten to this question. yet, apparently they need us to control their numbers, so they don't get sick and starve? Hmmm, sounds like to me you actually do think they need us to take care of them. I don't believe its a scheme, I believe its a business. They make money off of hunting, which they do, so I believe their interests are biased towards keeping hunting going. You really need links to this stuff? Really? Ok: It is fact that the hunting of predators have helped cause major population increases: Link You'll also notice they talk about how much money deer bring into a local area, by the way. Oh and this data is taken from Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources - Bureau of Wildlife Management found on a pro hunting site. I hate the Jets, I guess I'm a pats fan.... Do you take trophies? If yes, then you don't really feel all that bad. If no, then you are unique, because we can agree most hunters do. First off, its not managing a deer its shooting it. I have a manager where I work, he doesn't shoot us. It is unfortunate that the deer keep doing that, however, they'll eventually learn and stop doing it. As you said, animals are smart and they'll find away, right? You do not know that, because you've never lived or received data from a time when hunting wasn't the "solution" and practice. I urge you to visit other places beside the DEC so that your information isn't spoon-fed to you from a single source.
I DON'T WANNA EAT MEAT!!! Good, go ahead and lay down infront of an on coming train and don't eat meat.
See, you're the one that is clearly prejudiced in one direction here. Animal Rights- is for the complete and utter removal of animals from human use. No food, no by products, no zoos, no pets, no circuses, no entertainment, no clothing, etc. Animals are not to be used by people for anything. Animal Welfare- is for the humane treatment and care of animals that are used for human needs. Elephants for example, are flat out abused and tortured in circuses, they should be stopped. I think that is a pretty big difference actually.
The perfect video for this thread. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VFxA7o4f5E&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VFxA7o4f5E&feature=related[/ame]
My best story about ****ing vegeterians... When I first moved to Seattle I developed friendships with a lot of younger folks (20-somethings) in the local theater scene. (those girls are almost 100% hot, and SO easy ) To a person, ALL were vegetarian. I went to dinner one night to a very good vegetarian restaurant on Capital Hill with a group of them, twelve of us altogether. And the high (low?) point of the evening? The fact that at any given time before the food arrived and between the appetizer, main and dessert courses, I was the only person at the table - because all the VEGETARIANS were outside, SMOKING CIGARETTES.
Hmm, I really wasn't aware of the designations. To me Animal rights encompasses a number of different issues. I had never heard the Animal Welfare designation. Where does this categorization come from? This is not meant to argue with you on this, I'm just curious as I've never heard the designation. By the definition you're giving I would have to distance myself quite a bit from "animal rights" and "animal welfare" would definitely be what I follow.
Yes I'll still eat a chop from time to time. What made you stop eating pork specifically? There are producers of pork that follow humane kill procedures as set forth by the Animal Welfare Institute. That's all we'll buy personally. Again, you can find products like this easily at a whole foods.
Yes, specific companies are able to get that designation by use of specific netting equipment and dockside testing of their products. Not all fisheries follow it though. You have to look for this seal on the can. If it dosen't have it, it aint "Dolphin safe".
In my opinion, you are on one side of the fence or the other. You are either an animal rights activist or your not! You can't say I have nothing to do with PETA, and turn right around and say protect the circus animals. An activist is an activist, just like a dog is a dog. They may have different breed titles, but they are still a dog. There is no gray area here. Thats like saying don't kill the deer because they are so pretty, but I'll take my steak medium rare...We can beat this subject til we're blue in the face, and never accomplish a thing. Truth of the matter is, I'm not going to change your opinion about going to an activist rally, and you are not going to change mine about hunting. I eat that meat the same as you eat steak and hamburger. Do you feel sorry for the cow with each bite of steak you take? Or mourn the death of a chicken when you are frying it in a skillet? Probably not, and yet you condemn me for killing a deer to feed my family? This, my friend, makes you a hypocrite!!
This just isn't true IMO. There are different degrees of animal protection and "the line" where people feel animal use and abuse cross is different for many people. You certainly cannot lump all people that feel there is a need for animal protection in certain circumstances as PETA like radicals. As far as your hunting, I don't condemn you for it at all. I personally just can't do it and don't need to do it since we have food distribution these days. If I had to hunt to live I certainly would but I'd make sure I was as swift in killing an animal as possible and make sure I didn't cause any undo suffering to the animal. I would hope any hunter would do the same along with following all regualtions and seasons. If that's done, I have no problem with hunting.
It has nothing to do with being prejudiced, close minded or making assumptions, I was trying to better understand the differences between the two. I think you are being way too sensitive and view everything as criticism. You were already trying to distance yourself from the animal rights people long before I posted in this thread. I still see the line between the two being extremely blurred. No worries Which goes back to transplanting animals into an area that they aren't native to, just like adding the mountain lions. You're introducing a new species into the equation to help regulate, no? Nor is it correct. I'll go back to Dary who lost his bull which he brought in specifically to try and keep the predators away. Instead he woke up to a carcass. Not disingenuous, more unaware of how your words and thoughts are coming across. You may think that you aren't being an advocate for animal rights, but your words suggest otherwise. That's where the blurred line comes in, some people are vegetarians and understand the purpose of hunting, you're a vegetarian who holds the same views on hunting that an animal rights person does, that hunting isn't necessary, that we should leave nature alone and hunters should put their guns down and go take a picture. That isn't the sole reason that I hunt, but it's a good one, an important one. If we allow animal populations to increase, they start becoming a problem in our everyday lives. I'm sure there was a mixture of animal rights people and animal welfare people in that crowd, there's that blurry line again. You were both concerned with the same issue and protested it. That isn't what I'm saying, alot of predators already hunt in packs, coy dogs are a good example. If a coy dog thinks he can pick off a chicken as an easy meal, he'll do it. If he sees a llama in his way, he may try on his own the first time, if it doesn't work they group together just like they already do. But again, you're talking about transplanting a new species into a area that it isn't native to. Here's the thing, as long as man has been on this planet we've been hunting, there has never been a time when we left nature alone because we are concerned about our survival first and foremost. That's one of the points that I think is total bunk whenever I hear it, we've always hunted. It's a very simple answer, because we don't control every single variable out there and we adjust accordingly. We don't control... how many times a single deer may mate how many deer survive the winter how many hunters buy a tag and don't shoot a deer how many deer move from one area to the next how many deer run out infront of a car how many deer are eaten by predators how many deer die of disease, etc, etc, etc. It's not nearly as black and white as you try to make it appear. The numbers fluctuate for many different reasons (regardless with whether hunting is involved or not) and we adjust accordingly. As a part of their managment program, but that doesn't change the numbers on the ground. If it did, they would sell more tags, simple as that. Animal groups, including the Humane Society, ask for donations and sell merchandise, I guess they're only concerned about money as well? I wholeheartedly disagree, and I submit the bloodlust comment as evidence A, and dismissing the DEC's figures because you feel they have an ulterior motive as evidence B. If the DEC came out tomorrow and said that there wouldn't be a huntng season this year because the numbers are to low, I wouldn't complain about it, I don't want to do harm to the populations, just help to keep them in check. Do you think if the numbers said that hunting wasn't needed that they would ignore it to make money? They are in the business of managing the environment and keeping balance, that's all. They aren't about to fudge their data or ignore it in order to make a dime, which is what I'm taking away from the bolded text. Nor should they be, man has been huntng since the beginning. The only time they put a hault to it is when an animal is threatening to become endangered. Overhunting doesn't happen like it used to, nowadays it's regulated and animals are becoming endangered due to disease rather than the gun. That isn't true, that's just one aspect of it. I've repeated several times (and it's becoming redundant and boring) that I understand the idea of management and understand my place in it. Sure they are, they are sharing their hunting stories and tips/techiques just like every other hunter in the world. Those are publications that cover every aspect of hunting, everything from the manufacturing of the guns to the processing of the meat. When you look at those magazines and websites you see a carcass and a smile, I see a beautiful animal and people who are helping with conservation and management. And yes, all of those things could be done without shooting an animal, except I wouldn't be hunting, I would be bird watching. Huge difference. It was sarcasm Nuance And the fact that they have reduced management permits and even banned hunting in certain places refutes the 2nd part of that quote. That really doesn't prove anything, there isn't enough information to say why the predators are no longer a threat, it doesn't say anywhere in there that hunting is the reason for predator numbers decreasing, it could very easily be disease or migration. And that is a horrible link to post to try to prove your case. Maybe you missed it, but there was also this. Not only do they spell out very clearly what their goal is and how they go about determining population numbers, but they also give alternatives to helping deer populations, which you said they don't even concern themselves with because hunting is their business. Again, you ignore the data infront of you to make your point. I don't have anything hanging on my wall, if that's what you're asking. But that has more to do with not wanting to spend the money on it unless I feel it's worthy, I would rather spend the money mounting a 10 pointer than a 4 pointer. So far, I haven't come across a 10 pointer that I could shoot and be sure that it would go down. I'm not about to shoot an animal and have it run off and suffer because of it's antlers, and I don't know any hunter that would. Again there is a respect there that you aren't taking into account. Although I do have fur that I use to tie flies for fly fishing, not sure if you think that's a trophy. I see it as not wasting any part of a deer. It absolutely is and your link proved it. If it wasn't about management for hunters, they wouldn't bother buying tags and they would bag as many deer as they could. It's not impossible, sure they would face major fines if caught, but I've been hunting for years and have never been stopped and asked for my tag by a DEC officer or regular police officer. If it was about survival or bloodlust, the tags wouldn't matter. But seeing that hunters buy their tags, abide by the limits and sometimes don't even shoot a deer because they don't have a good shot, it's shows that there is a respect there to the enviroment, to the animals and to the management system. Are there people that abuse the system? Sure there are, and there are also animal people who feel the need to blow up (and break into) research facilities, throw blood and disrupt businesses. There are isolated extremes on both sides, you have to look at the majority, not the fringe. Brother, this is getting silly and getting us nowhere. The conversation has run it's course, there is nothing left to say that hasn't been said 20 times already. Hunting is as old as humans, we've always done it and we will always continue to do it. Hunting works to manage animal populations, it has nothing to do with bloodlust or money, and you can choose to believe it or dismiss it. I really don't care at this point, this conversation has become endless circle that I no longer choose to be a part of. I admire your dedication to animals, I just think that you are way off in your opinion of hunting and what it hopes to accomplish. The facts are there is you choose to look at them.
I think this is too "black-OR-white," JMO. I support the ethical treatment of animals; however, PETA doesn't represent me at all because they are far-left nutcases with ZERO common sense. I have always tried to buy meat from animals that were killed humanely; eggs and meat from cage-free and free-range animals. I simply believe that's the right thing to do by the stewardship we are privileged with in terms of the animals we choose to consume. I'm also for much stiffer sentences for animal abusers. We just had a case recently here in Washington of a poaching gang that was infiltrated and stung by a Fish and Wildlife undercover Officer. The ringleader hunted for the "fun" of it, not the meat or the sport; he would kill indiscriminately and often leave the carcasses. He used dogs; on one hunt, the dogs kept getting distracted by porcupines and were covered in quills. He thought shock collars would be the solution. But when the dogs continued to mess up he singled one out - his oldest dog, Copper. He held down the "shock" button for minutes at a time to punish the dog. When he still wasn't satisfied, he attached a second shock collar to him - this time around his midsection, near his groin. He held down the button for minutes again...but this time he also kicked and stomped the dog repeatedly during the process. The dog took two weeks to die of its internal injuries. This scumbag was convicted of several counts of poaching - but got almost no jail time for that; he did receive a 7-year sentence for his treatment of the dog...but he's eligible for parole as early as next month if he exhibits "good behavior." This is one of the few times I've ever prayed to God for something terrible to happen to another person. I hope he's killed in jail. But guys like him are the exceptions; I do support safe, ethical and regulated hunting, and I commend those who hunt and kill as humanely as possible. There is no contradiction; we are omnivores, capable of consuming any non-toxic form of nutrition on the planet; and a few of the toxic ones too. We are meant, by our physiology, to need the varied nutrients in both animal flesh and plant matter. That's the way it is. Vegetarians; I don't personally care - you want to defy your own nature, like the self-flagellating fundamentalist asswipes who would regulate our hearts and minds if they could, be my guest. But don't foist your bull**** on me. And judge me at the peril of your own hypocrisy.
In my opinion, hunters standing over their deer are taking pictures, no different that a family vacation to an amusement park. Hunting is a vacation for most of us that hunt, and we take the pictures to be able to tell stories and have memories of our vacations. Do you not take pictures when you are on vacation? or when you want reminders of a pleasant trip that you took with your family? Every body likes to have memories, and stories that they can pass along. Deer hunters are no different!!
This to me is a very reasonable approach, and I agree about needing tougher laws. Ridiculous that that guy could be out in a month.
Great post Nabo! I now understand a little better about animal rights activists. Sorry if I offended you, or anyone else, by lumping them all together, but for whatever reason, people lump together hunters and poachers, and we ARE 2 totally different classes of people. There is a huge difference between hunters and poachers. Some people prefer to buy their meat, I prefer to hunt mine. There are no steroids, artificial flavors or colorings, etc...I know exactly what goes into the meat I eat.
I see. So to hell with facts then. OK, all hunters are the same, there is no difference between hunters, poachers, trophy hunters, canned hunters, trappers, etc. In fact, you either care about animals or you don't. Right? Of course not. Your view of that is as silly as me saying everyone from hunters, to cops, to terrorists are the same because they use guns. Furthermore, please don't comment on something you haven't read. I've said time and again in this thread that me being against hunting isn't about feeling sorry for the animal. In fact, i've said, more than once, that them dying by hunting is MORE humane than death by predator or starvation, yet I'm saying they should die by those things. I can't be more clear about that. EDIT: I posted this before I read your response to Nabo. Nevermind then.
The delineation actually comes from the people themselves. Like i said many AR people consider AW people the enemy, even more so than people who couldn't care one way or the other. Those people are idiots, and a lot of them make up the rank and file of PETA and ALF. Its why its very offensive when, after the differences are explained, some try to link them together. Its a ridiculous stereotype. There is actually more difference in those 2 fundamental philosophies than in Catholics & Protestants. Well, really, it was a bit of internal contention when i first got our pet pigs. Which is why I asked you that. Anyway, the more I see of their intelligence the more I thought about the horrors they felt in a factory farm. Then of course i imagined my pigs being there and that made me cut back quite a bit. Then i saw this picture of 2 pigs on spits, heads and everything, and it sort of hit me this time. I've seen that thing a 100 times before, even live, but this time it just affected me. So, I was just wondering if you've ever even thought twice about it since you got pigs, that's all.
