Hunting !!!!!!!!!

[Member2019]

Yup. Eat it. Now those hunters that run around and shooting an animal and following it until dies for whatever reason is wrong. You do one hit, one kill. Now I understand sometimes the hit doesn't go as planned and you have to follow the animal to give it a follow up shot, but those are far and between.

You're kidding me, right? You do understand that the animals are pretty good at giving you a "run for your money" if the first shot doesn't kill, right?

This isn't some "sick bastard hour" where people try to torture animals. I don't know of any hunter who wants an animal to suffer any longer than it has to.

Furthermore, and this is what gets to me. People complain about large calibre rounds, and yet when it comes to medium size game or larger, they wonder why it takes multiple shots?

Man, I'm not even a hunter, but do we have that many that are clueless?

 

[Wainkerr99]

The 'unacceptable at any time' part of the poll needed called for a fourth option. Nowadays there isn't that much left to hunt that isn't either extinct or near extinction in many cases.

There are deals with hunters that some parks make charging them to assist in population control. I have never seen the purpose of going out to kill animals.

 

[Rey C.]

Lol we told my mates girlfriend who is from Liverpool that haggis was a little animal that ran about the highlands , we went camping and had her running around looking for them , it was sooo funny

I assume a "haggis" over there is what we call "snipes" over here?

With snipes, you have to stay really, really quiet. You gotta have two guys (usually city born): one carries the flashlight and the sack, the other carries the baseball bat or a big stick.

It's even funnier if you have them buy the beer before sending their dumb asses out into the woods.

 

[~~whimsy~~]

You're kidding me, right? You do understand that the animals are pretty good at giving you a "run for your money" if the first shot doesn't kill, right?

This isn't some "sick bastard hour" where people try to torture animals. I don't know of any hunter who wants an animal to suffer any longer than it has to.

Furthermore, and this is what gets to me. People complain about large calibre rounds, and yet when it comes to medium size game or larger, they wonder why it takes multiple shots?

Man, I'm not even a hunter, but do we have that many that are clueless?

Sometimes the shot you take is not going to be lethal 100% of the time! I am mainly talking about deer, most deer take off at that point, then you have to go and finish the job! Obviously you never have been hunting, so why are you criticizing so harshly?

 

[~~whimsy~~]

There are deals with hunters that some parks make charging them to assist in population control. I have never seen the purpose of going out to kill animals.

Some states allow you to hunt a deer a day while others only allow you to hunt one deer per licensed season. It is according to the numbers of the deer, and how many hunters come out in that particular area/state. It all depends on numbers. Even dead deer on the side of the road are accounted for because that is just one less in the left alive.

 

[~~whimsy~~]

Hunting seems to be a lot like politics, religion, and major social topics: you are either on one side or the other and very rarely will you ever convince anyone to think otherwise (or on your side).

 

[Rey C.]

Oh, and I've hunted since I was about 7 years old (squirrels & rabbits and then moved up to deer when I was older). I was expected to dress out anything that I killed unless it was a predatory or nuisance animal (coyotes, gophers, raccoons, etc.).

I don't hunt that much anymore because I don't have the time.. or the desire, really. But the one class of people that I have no respect for are the town dudes who show up with a $3,000 rifle/scope combo and shoot something tied to a tree or that is kept in a pen. I have nothing against preserves - I've hunted on them too. But I'm not going to shoot something that was in a petting zoo last week. Those are the types of "trophy hunters" that I will, and have called candy asses to their face. They're the people who give actual hunters a bad name.

 

[zell]

Every time I see a show with these idiots trophy hunting,I'm always hoping that the dear or moose,or what ever,sticks a horn up someones fucking ass.

The only way I could EVER respect a big game trophy hunter is if he killed an animal without a huge ass fucking gun,or super high tech compound bow.
I'd like to see these fucking pussies try to go after a buffalo like the Native Americans did,with nothing more than primitive hunting tools,and even then,it was for survival and not sport.

As for population control,I don't buy that.The only reason that we want to control animal population is not for the animals benefit,but for ours.

The Earth ALWAYS has a way to naturally balance itself out.It's man that's constantly throwing things out of whack and trying to control the conditions.

If there's an over population of geese people don't care about there being to many geese because of the ecosystem.People get pissed because they shit all over the place and stop traffic by crossing or standing in the middle of the street.It's always about how overpopulation is gonna effect us,not the animals.

 

[Member2019]

Sometimes the shot you take is not going to be lethal 100% of the time!

Yes, I know. I thought I said such!

I am mainly talking about deer, most deer take off at that point, then you have to go and finish the job!

Yes, I know. I don't understand why you were talking about hunters tracking the deer down waiting for the deer to die instead of trying to finish it off.

Obviously you never have been hunting, so why are you criticizing so harshly?

I've just never known any hunters to be that cruel. Every hunter I've ever known has taking the task with responsibility.

 

[Member2019]

As for population control,I don't buy that.

Apparently you don't hang out with too many state and federal park rangers then. The whole "hunting seasons" are built around population control! Same reason why some species aren't allowed to be hunted at all!

I highly recommend you meet some hunters and find out more. Honestly. There are many organizations where you can show up for meetings free of charge and find out more. You'll be shocked how a few of them know the general populations, the food cycle and where the breaking points are.

 

[Rey C.]

In some cases, Zell, the population control argument is valid. Where I live, not as many people hunt deer because so much of the land is now posted. So the Whitetail deer population sometimes gets out of control. When deer overfeed an area, there's not enough food to go around and so starvation and (especially) disease become problems. If they're in a weakened state and a contagious disease takes hold, it can wipe out or severely decrease a population.

But in mountainous preserves (and in the National Forest), I hunt with a large caliber pistol. A friend of mine generally takes a bow (even during rifle season). I went on a wild boar hunt several years ago and this crazy ass ex-Marine who was with us hunted with a spear, or a "pike", I guess it was called. The three of us had a good time and we all got something. And we made fun of the town clowns who went in "the pen" and shot tame Bambis with big Weatherbys and Sakos.

I agree with you, those people are pussies. If I saw one tumble out of a tree stand, I'd have to think about it before I helped him. I'm sure I would, but I might be a little slow about it.

 

[zell]

Apparently you don't hang out with too many state and federal park rangers then. The whole "hunting seasons" are built around population control! Same reason why some species aren't allowed to be hunted at all!

I highly recommend you meet some hunters and find out more. Honestly. There are many organizations where you can show up for meetings free of charge and find out more. You'll be shocked how a few of them know the general populations, the food cycle and where the breaking points are.

You gotta ask yourself,"what causes population to either spike or dip?",chances are,if you look back far enough,it's man's doing.So like I said before,it's for our benefit.

There are plenty of deer in the area where I live.If an over population of deer are eating up all the crops from the local farmers,then who benefits from hunting,we do,not the deer.

Overpopulation is mostly due to the shrinking of habitat of one particular species,usually due to housing/commercial development.If one species of animal is forced out of the habitat,like wolves,then the deer thrive because their natural predators are now gone.The population in deer spike through the roof,and then all of a sudden it's like "there are too many deer around here,we'd better start killin' 'em".Even better,the wolves come back and thrive off of the overpopulated number of deer.Then it "man,where did all these fucking wolves come from?"

Man refuses to look in the mirror and see the problems that he has are generally of his own doing.

 

[titsrock]

Well, seeing as I am for increasing the gun laws in this country, my views are in opposition to the gun and god crowd. For ever knowledgeable hunter/"killing conservationist" that the Prof claims to know, I know just as many, probably more, toothless, dumbass hicks who just head out to "shoot stuff." :dunno:

I am certainly against trophy hunting and the hunting of most predators (bears, wolves, etc.) but if other countries want to ruin their countries by catering to a safari market--I say let them. Let them go down in flames :dunno:

 

[Jagger69]

Re: So based on the continued replies ...

So based on the continued replies, there is no "middle ground" for those that kill to control the population that don't eat it, correct? They must just be sick motherfuckers, eh?

I guess we might as well put the park rangers in that category then? Or are they somehow "different" because it's "their job"? If you "volunteer" to do it, you must have some "alterior motive" and that's "wrong" regardless of the "compatibility" with population control?

I'm really scratching my head here. :dunno:

Middle-ground was not a poll choice but of course there's a middle-ground. If animals have to die for a legitimate reason, that is a whole lot different than hunting for the thrill of the kill. Two totally different situations.

 

[zell]

In some cases, Zell, the population control argument is valid. Where I live, not as many people hunt deer because so much of the land is now posted. So the Whitetail deer population sometimes gets out of control. When deer overfeed an area, there's not enough food to go around and so starvation and (especially) disease become problems. If they're in a weakened state and a contagious disease takes hold, it can wipe out or severely decrease a population.
)

You make a valid point,but it still comes back to the fact that more that likely the overpopulation is our doing and stemmed from conditions that we created.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Man refuses to look in the mirror and see the problems that he has are generally of his own doing.

Exactly.

The only reason that there are "over-populations" of animals is because we, as humans, said so. We just feel as if there are over-populations of certain animals so we try and justify our attempt at playing God by creating this overly analyzed, half-assed scientific reason as to why we "have to" kill off certain animals in certain areas of the country.

There are billions upon billions of ants in the United States, but we don't have a nationwide season for making it a point to kill them off. Why? Because, it's not fun to kill ants; it's more fun to kill deer, birds and other larger animals. That's what it's all about anyway when you boil it down. Not controlling the population or for some other Earth-friendly reason - FUN.

Statistically, there are a lot of areas in the United States that are over-populated by people, but you don't see hunters thinning out the human population. But, God forbid that there are a few "extra" deer running around the local forest, because that's going to make it impossible for us humans to live, you know?

Too many people? No problem.
Too many animals? OH NOES!!! WE HAS TO KILL THEMS!!!

 

[Will E Worm]

Hunting for food is a good thing and it controls the animal population.

If hunting isn't a sport or recreational activity as many of you have stated, why is a license required?

A license for hunting and fishing shouldn't be required.

 

[zell]

Exactly.

The only reason that there are "over-populations" of animals is because we, as humans, said so. We just feel as if there are over-populations of certain animals so we try and justify our attempt at playing God by creating this overly analyzed, half-assed scientific reason as to why we "have to" kill off certain animals in certain areas of the country.

There are billions upon billions of ants in the United States, but we don't have a nationwide season for making it a point to kill them off. Why? Because, it's not fun to kill ants; it's more fun to kill deer, birds and other larger animals. That's what it's all about anyway when you boil it down. Not controlling the population or for some other Earth-friendly reason - FUN.

Statistically, there are a lot of areas in the United States that are over-populated by people, but you don't see hunters thinning out the human population. But, God forbid that there are a few "extra" deer running around the local forest, because that's going to make it impossible for us humans to live, you know?

Too many people? No problem.
Too many animals? OH NOES!!! WE HAS TO KILL THEMS!!!

Well said Chef,well fucking said.

All this fucking land in the world and people dare to use the term overpopulated.

I heard once the you could fit the entire world's population into the state of Texas,with the density of NYC.That means that we don't cover shit in terms of area.

 

[titsrock]

The licenses pay for programs which protect animals, WillE, thereby ensuring that there are fish and animals out in the wild. If there were no licenses and limit restrictions there would be no useful animals/predator animals to keep the critter population in check. Do you really want to live in a place where the rat and mouse are at the top of the food chain?

 

[zell]

Hunting for food is a good thing and it controls the animal population.

If hunting isn't a sport or recreational activity as many of you have stated, why is a license required?

A license for hunting and fishing shouldn't be required.

Good point,but I think that's just so that the state can make some money off of you.I bet back in the day,when more people were hunting as a main source of food,there were a lot more hunter's and the state(or whoever is in control of that shit),was making a shit load more money off of them.Now they probably are just happy to get whatever they can from the fewer hunters that are still around.