Posted on 04/08/2002 4:23:46 PM PDT by Sungirl
You seem to be implying that "hunters" are people that go around killing anything and everything they get a chance to.... and if that's your position, I suppose they're probably shooting up some farmer's livestock too.
You also seem to be trying to set the rules for what is acceptable and what isn't. Lets see, killing for food is okay, but for any other purpose is bad. So... in order to fit with your standards, if I go duckhunting, I don't dare enjoy myself.... otherwise I'm doing it for the sport. If it was just for the meat, I'd be down buying meat at the grocery store like you.
Plus they are a real b!tch to skin.
Don't forget the catholic church.......?
I doubt I'll get any honest answers...lol. DId you know that many of the catholic churches were giving some of the donantion monies to victims of priests who molested them? Payoffs I guess.
Learn the laws where you harvest and abide by them.Happy hunting.
Isn't it more humane to kill wildlife by hunting than to allow animals to starve?
As a matter of fact yes. The presumtion by the anti hunters is that the hunters do not selectively hunt the weak/starving ones. In reality, that point is moot, for the reason of hunting them is to thin the herd, not necessarily to shoot the infirm. As te herd is thinner, there is more forage to go around, and therefore the population as a whole lives on.
Pound for pound, and person for person, the hunters are (with few exceptions, the case in any statistical group) moch more conservation oriented, and it is/was through their efforts that many of the "hunted" animals are in fact doing so well in the wild.
If you do not like hunting, so be it. Hunters who shoot wildly and do not practice conservation turn me off. However, those who take their activity seriously, those who shoot to eat, and even those who shoot for trophies, as deemed so by the powers that be in order to thin out herds (because their natural predator has been removed) are well respected by myself.
I happen to love pheasent, and there are many, many around my home. We often place food out for them in the winter, and plant berries and grapes for them to hide in and nest, and, yes, to reproduce. I have no problem bagging one occasionally for a good family dinner. It tastes so much better than that butterball at safeway, stacked four deep and 20 long.
I also prefer the taste of wild turkey to store-bought. All the innacurate and misleading propaganda you spew won't stop me or my fellow hunters from providing for our families.
BTW, my rule for hunting has always been, "Don't kill it unless you're gonna eat it!"
Ate Rattlesnake during E&E , tasted kinda like frogs legs too.
Funny, a lot of stuff tastes like frog , even chicken.
Bet Sg never had to catch and kill a chicken.
And you forgot, they only take one or two a year if they are successful at all. The percentage of tags filled that are bought each season are actually quite low.
Rather, deer hunters seek out the bucks that have the largest rack.
I agree there is a lot of emphasis put on trophy hunting. But trophy sized racks are VERY hard to come by and I sure wouldn't pass it up just because it's big, if it came my way. Usually by the time a deer has gotten to trophy size it has had a few years to spread its genes around. Also, many guides charge a lot more money to put you onto a trophy rack vs a management rack. I could never afford either, and the vast majority of hunters can't. Maybe once in their lives they will go on a guided hunt where the emphasis is on trophy racks. Many people that set up deer cameras on trails shoot pictures of bucks at night walking by with giant racks that otherwise are never seen by ANYONE anywhere in the area. So they *are* out there even if you don't see them. They are not stupid. I had a huge deer under me in the dark that has been glimpsed a very few times by the landowner as having 20 plus points and is nicknamed "the hereford." But every deer I know of that has been taken out of there in the last three years has been a doe.
First, hunting can impact the social structure of a herd because hunters kill the mature males of a herd and create a disproportionate ratio of females to males.
Yes this is called buck/doe ratio and the higher it is the more large bucks will be in the given area.
It is not uncommon to find a herd that has no bucks over the age of three.
This is true. But of what importance is that to non hunters?
Second, genetically inferior bucks may be left to propagate the species, thereby weakening the overall health of the herd.
I can't think of anyone that would pass up a goofy or weak-racked buck if it offered a shot. One thing we do like to do (at least until season is winding down) is to wait until a mature animal presents a shot, letting the younger ones go so they *will* have a chance to reproduce and contribute their genes to the pool. In addition, you get more meat off a mature buck than a mature doe. Substantially more. Bucks in the north can weigh close to 300 lbs where you won't find a doe weighing more than 180-200 tops. (I may even be overestimating the doe weight).
Because hunters largely want to shoot only bucks, hunting may cause artificial inflation of deer populations. When these populations reach levels that available habitat cannot support, increased disease and starvation may be the result.
Do you realize that in some places when the winters have been extremely bad, the DNR will severely limit the number and type of tags to compensate? People who live in that area are out of luck unless they want to travel to hunt.
Will the HSUS come over to your house when you are a$$ deep in those lovely little possums, shunks and prickle packs - catch them and care for them in a manner that you approve of?
I think maybe instead of attacking hunters who are actually playing a role in the ecosystem a better might be corporations that inject unhealthy hormones into meat and vegetable products.
Part of the problem with some environmentalists is that they are the product of the very society they question. They see themselves as being seperated from nature, not as a part of it. This reflects in their worldview that people should not hunt.
Maybe they would prefer that people go to the mall, buy some products from those nice environmentalists at Union Carbide and eat some arbys burgers instead? Because thats exactly what will happen. People wont stop eating meat, they will simply move from obtaining it themselves to having a producer package it up and sell it to them - usually with 50% more fat and loaded with unhealthy steroids and growth hormones.
If our forest acreage is protected by concerned citizens who want to hunt isnt that a better alternative than urban sprawl? I can see far more positives from having a society that values its natural resources and wildlife, even if for hunting purposes than a society that sees all natural resources as being nothing but disposable acreage for a future sludge plant.
I haven't read all the replies, I will later, but I'd also be happy to discuss anything you have to say which isn't a cut/paste, that too I guess, though it really isn't you.
PS, pasta with venison sausage tonight, lots of tomatos and onions, though I often harvest them too.
Well without one you can't have the other (minus the boredom... I am rarely bored)
The point is, they are still raised in very large quantities, solely for the purpose of then being killed, to supply your dinner table with food for that ever present profit motive.
So, a question to you, which animal is more "natural" and able to enjoy it's life. The deer, who gets to do all the neat stuff that deer do, then gets dropped with one shot, to be used as food for the table, or that calf, placed in a feed lot the day it drops, fed as much as it can consume in the shortest amount of time, shot with growth hormone (that dastardly profit motive again) only to spend it's entire short life staring through the wire until it gets stunned, throat slit, and processed in 90 seconds? Which is more natural, which is totaly man made, so that YOU can eat with a clear conscience while you rant about other's 'druthers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.