Hunters Are Awesome

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

You specifically stated that a large percentage of hunters do it for fun. Please show me your evidence supporting your position that a large percentage of hunters do it for fun. Don't simply pull more numbers out your ass.

I just clarified what I meant by a large percent in my last post. It doesn't matter whether it's 10% or 80%, there are people out there doing it for sport. Do you dispute that? There will never be a way to know anything close to a precise percentage because not everyone who simply hunts for sport will admit that it is just for sport.

There aren't a ton of hunters who live in Los Angeles, so I can't claim to knowing a lot of hunters. But I have met some. A good friend of mine (who happens to be a very successful pinhooker) is a hunter. He lives in Ocala. I talk to him about once a week on the phone. I will often give him a hard time about hunting. He usually uses a cross-bow. I think he eats a lot of what he kills but he pretty much does it for fun. Like most hunters, he likes the challenge, the outdoors, the camaraderie, and that type of thing. I tell him to go play golf instead and he will still have the challenge, camaraderie, etc., but he won't be taking a life.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

'for fun'.

not sure how one would decide if it's purely for 'fun'. can people buy food instead of hunt? sure. but they choose to do it on their own. and i'm sure there are many reasons for deciding. i know the last few years i haven't bothered to go. it's a lot of work, and i guess i just decided it was more work than enjoyment.
and i have to say, it's the act of being outside, seeing things you never see if you're not out there that's fun. the act of shooting isn't fun. and for most it's the same way. people like their venison, or whatever they're hunting. and it's not easy to get the stuff from the grocer.
besides, much like other hobbies, it's not incredibly enjoyable. people like to work on their cars, but they could certainly pay a mechanic. it may not be fun to do some of the work, but it's nice to have that sense of satisfaction, that you can do it all yourself.
when we take a deer, it never leaves us. we take care of it from start to finish. lots and lots of work. it'd be a lot easier to just buy a side of beef.

You make a good point. There could certainly be some crossover in terms of doing it for necessity but also enjoying the satisfaction, etc.

If a person told me that instead of going to the store to buy his meat, he prefers to hunt because the meat is much healthier, and he also gets some satisfaction out of it, I wouldn't have a problem with that. In reality, that is probably a much better death for the animal than an animal in a slaughterhouse would have.

I just don't like the people that think it is fun to shoot an animal and take its life. Could I tell you the percentage of hunters who fall into that category? No, I couldn't but I know there are a lot of them. I haven't talked to hundreds of hunters but I've talked to enough of them to know that there are plenty of them out there. They usually won't admit that they enjoy killing the animal but it isn't too hard to figure out. Practically none of these people have told me that they hunt because the meat is healthier and they use this meat in place of buying meat.

Now it is possible that hunters from big cities hunt for a different reason than hunters who live in rural areas. I don't deny that.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I just clarified what I meant by a large percent in my last post. It doesn't matter whether it's 10% or 80%, there are people out there doing it for sport. Do you dispute that? There will never be a way to know anything close to a precise percentage because not everyone who simply hunts for sport will admit it that it is just for sport.

There aren't a ton of hunters who live in Los Angeles, so I can't claim to knowing a lot of hunters. But I have met some. A good friend of mine (who happens to be a very successful pinhooker) is a hunter. He lives in Ocala. I talk to him about once a week on the phone. I will often give him a hard time about hunting. He usually uses a cross-bow. I think he eats a lot of what he kills but he pretty much does it for fun. Like most hunters, he likes the challenge, the outdoors, the camaraderie, and that type of thing. I tell him to go play golf instead and he will still have the challenge, camaraderie, etc., but he won't be taking a life.

What does that mean? Does he kill things and not eat them or give them to someone who will?

[3kings]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You make a good point. There could certainly be some crossover in terms of doing it for necessity but also enjoying the satisfaction, etc.

If a person told me that instead of going to the store to buy his meat, he prefers to hunt because the meat is much healthier, and he also gets some satisfaction out of it, I wouldn't have a problem with that. In reality, that is probably a much better death for the animal than an animal in a slaughterhouse would have.

I just don't like the people that think it is fun to shoot an animal and take its life. Could I tell you the percentage of hunters who fall into that category? No, I couldn't but I know there are a lot of them. I haven't talked to hundreds of hunters but I've talked to enough of them to know that there are plenty of them out there. They usually won't admit that they enjoy killing the animal but when it isn't too hard to figure out. Practically none of these people have told me that they hunt because the meat is healthier and they use this meat in place of buying meat.

Now it is possible that hunters from big cities hunt for a different reason than hunters who live in rural areas. I don't deny that.

I don't think it matters what the reason the hunter kills the animal or if he enjoys killing it. As long as he is hunting legally and the animal is not wasted what does it matter?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

What does that mean? Does he kill things and not eat them or give them to someone who will?

I think he gives it to someone who will eat it. I guess you could argue that it doesn't matter who eats it, as long as someone eats it. That is a legitimate argument. But I would argue that he is still just killing for fun, which he basically admits, but not in those words. As I said before, when I ask him why he does it, he talks about the challenge, the camraderie, etc. That doesn't sound to me like any kind of necessity. If he truly believed that this was the only healthy meat, and he hunted so that he had this meat to feed his family, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by 3kings

I don't think it matters what the reason the hunter kills the animal or if he enjoys killing it. As long as he is hunting legally and the animal is not wasted what does it matter?

I love animals. I am appalled that anyone would want to kill one. If it's a necessity to kill one, I can understand that. As I said before, if I lived in the wilderness and I had to fend for myself, I would probably go fishing. I wouldn't enjoy killing the fish. I would actually feel bad about it but I would do it out of necessity.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Speaking of deer, here is a good story about a stray dog and a deer that became good friends.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/motherle...032652172.html

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by 3kings

I don't think it matters what the reason the hunter kills the animal or if he enjoys killing it. As long as he is hunting legally and the animal is not wasted what does it matter?

it doesn't matter. the trick is that some say 'live and let live' and others say 'i don't understand it, or want to do it, so it must be wrong'. people who hunt just want to maintain that right-why should they change?

rupert, no one is saying 'i hunt, you must hunt too'. so why should you be able to say 'i don't hunt, don't comprehend it, so no one should do it'??

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So you are all for depriving animals of their right to life if it means you can eat tasty beef.

Rupert, I'm actually on your side when it comes to population control of predators- I don't think that's the sort of thing that should be offered via hunting licenses because I don't think the populations are large enough to sustain recreational hunters who are itching to display their own wolf skin. It's not like people eat wolf meat. When it comes to big predators, I really think population control should be performed by Parks Departments, and not by the private citizen.

But it's very true, as others have pointed out, that hunters are an economic force for wildlife conservation because in order to have good hunting, you must have good HABITAT, and habitat loss is the greatest threat to most species of animals, not hunting. And in the case of herbivores like deer, that have thrived to excess in the absence of large predators, hunters help control the population, and their zeal for their sport will, I hope, help conserve wild habitat which benefits us all, including the species they hunt. And most of the hunters I've known have eaten at least some of what they kill.

Your proposal to move animals is sweet, but in the absence of enough habitat, not possible. There have been a fair number of coyotes showing up in Central Park over the years. Because they have are getting pushed out of habitats further north. Freaking coyotes. In Manhattan, which is as non-rural as you can get.

The other option for population control is involuntary birth control (because of course, with animals, it must be involuntary), which has been tried in some areas, but I don't know to what success.

That said, I hope PA doesn't follow through on the occasional threats to opening hunting up seven days a week (currently, I think, it's not permitted on Sundays). While I support hunters in their sport, I do think hikers, trail walkers, horseback riders, etc. should get one day a week during the season when they don't have to fear getting accidentally shot.

Excellent post (though some animals are facing extinction more so by poaching than by loss of habitat). One thing that is working in other countries where retaliation killing is a serious issue is an insurance program for livestock in the instances of loss by a predator.

I love my Sunday trail ride, but I sure wish I could take one on other days during the best weather to be out on a horse..

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Yeah, I'm sure the orange vest will keep a horse quiet when guns are firing. A lot of hikers and horseback riders are also limited to weekends only, so they too, are only getting one day a week. It seems a reasonable share to say one weekend day off so other weekend warriors can enjoy their own sports safely.

There isn't enough orange in the world for me to risk my horse.

They also run deer in VA with dogs which bothers a lot of horses even more than the occasional gun fire.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it doesn't matter. the trick is that some say 'live and let live' and others say 'i don't understand it, or want to do it, so it must be wrong'. people who hunt just want to maintain that right-why should they change?

rupert, no one is saying 'i hunt, you must hunt too'. so why should you be able to say 'i don't hunt, don't comprehend it, so no one should do it'??

As I said before, i would never say someone shouldn't do something simply because I don't like it, if it a victimless activity. I don't care what you do in your home. But when I see someting that I think is an injustice, it's a different story.

Let's take horseracing. There are some animal rights groups that are against it. Whether I agree with them or not, I totally respect their objections to horseracing. I think they have every right to object. They think it is cruel and that is understandable. That wouldn't be the same as a group objecting to a victimless crime like smoking marijuana in your home. Can't you see why people would object to something they think is cruel?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As I said before, i would never say someone shouldn't do something simply because I don't like it, if it a victimless activity. I don't care what you do in your home. But when I see someting that I think is an injustice, it's a different story.

Let's take horseracing. There are some animal rights groups that are against it. Whether I agree with them or not, I totally respect their objections to horseracing. I think they have every right to object. They think it is cruel and that is understandable. That wouldn't be the same as a group objecting to a victimless crime like smoking marijuana in your home. Can't you see why people would object to something they think is cruel?

It's cruel that in support of your "victimless" crime, thousands die every year in Mexico in horrible ways but since you partake, it's cool.

[knickslions2]

Originally Posted by herkhorse

Humans are the dumbest animals on the planet, it's not even close.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

It's cruel that in support of your "victimless" crime, thousands die every year in Mexico in horrible ways but since you partake, it's cool.

Because I think marijuana should be legal, you assume that I smoke? In the last 15 years, I have smoked marijuana a total of 1 time. I was never into marijuana or any drugs. When I was a teenager, I smoked marijuana 2 or 3 times a year.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

There isn't enough orange in the world for me to risk my horse.

They also run deer in VA with dogs which bothers a lot of horses even more than the occasional gun fire.

Is that both weekend days, or is there a safe day for riding?

My elderly gelding is a former Queens trail horse; he crossed a busy parkway every day without turning a hair and dealt in the park with loose dogs, joggers, people running those stupid motorized toy cars that are louder than real ones, etc.. But when I took him to my uncle's after I bought him when the stable closed, he absolutely freaked at the first gunshots. And they were some distance away. Fortunately, he was in an enclosed paddock and I was not on his back at the time.

There's a reason police horses have to be desensitized to gunshots before they can work for the force. It's not the horse's safety; it's the safety of the officer on his back.

[Honu]

Where I grew up in western PA if there was not hunting season the deer would die of starvation or be killed more than they already are crossing roads and highways to find food. I guess if the non kill people would like to invest their time and money sterilizing deer and making sure there is enough food for them to get through the winter then I guess I would agree to stricter hunting laws. But as it is I have no problem with legal hunting, there is a reason for it like it or not.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Honu

Where I grew up in western PA if there was not hunting season the deer would die of starvation or be killed more than they already are crossing roads and highways to find food. I guess if the non kill people would like to invest their time and money sterilizing deer and making sure there is enough food for them to get through the winter then I guess I would agree to stricter hunting laws. But as it is I have no problem with legal hunting, there is a reason for it like it or not.

And, as has been said before, hunting really does provide economic incentive for habitat preservation. In addition, to some extent, it also provides incentive for public lands. People have a right to declare no hunting on their own properties, so public lands and forests become even more essential to preserve and not sell off to private interests.

One of the books I recorded this year was a text on European history. For a long time, hunting was absolutely forbidden if you weren't a nobleman. If you owned no land of your own, you could not hunt because you were "stealing" some nobleman's game. Even something a small as a rabbit.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And, as has been said before, hunting really does provide economic incentive for habitat preservation. In addition, to some extent, it also provides incentive for public lands. People have a right to declare no hunting on their own properties, so public lands and forests become even more essential to preserve and not sell off to private interests.

One of the books I recorded this year was a text on European history. For a long time, hunting was absolutely forbidden if you weren't a nobleman. If you owned no land of your own, you could not hunt because you were "stealing" some nobleman's game. Even something a small as a rabbit.

yeah, you'd be killed for 'poaching the kings/earls deer'.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And, as has been said before, hunting really does provide economic incentive for habitat preservation. In addition, to some extent, it also provides incentive for public lands. People have a right to declare no hunting on their own properties, so public lands and forests become even more essential to preserve and not sell off to private interests.

One of the books I recorded this year was a text on European history. For a long time, hunting was absolutely forbidden if you weren't a nobleman. If you owned no land of your own, you could not hunt because you were "stealing" some nobleman's game. Even something a small as a rabbit.

In traditional foxhunting attire the direction of the bow strings running up or down on the back of your helmet signified if you were a land owner or not. I wonder if this 'rule' began when this law was changed or because the noblemen did bring their non land owning stable hands as mounted grooms along with them? (I'm too short on time to research this right now )

[SOREHOOF]

I live in Whitetail mecca (Catskills). I don't know one single person who doesn't eat what they kill, or one morsel that goes uneaten. I understand people who have a mostly urban background may have a different outlook on hunting. There is a lot more habitat due to out of business farms, mild winters, and a lot fewer hunters over the years. Hotels, eateries,bars, sport shops all suffering or out of business. The deer thrive. Body shops thrive. Ever hit a deer? I live amongst these beautiful animals and I wouldn't hesitate to eat most any one of them, and I think a lot of them would feel the same way about me. The alternative to hunting is a controlled kill by the all-providing Govt. at your expense. The State Govt. makes a pretty good buck selling Hunting Licenses. BTW New York State is very friendly to hunting and fishing. World Class.