Which animals are OK to hunt?

As sort of a follow-up question to this bear-hunting discussion, what animals do you consider "fair game" for hunters to harvest?

*Note, in the "exotic trophy animals", I am referring to foreign hunts (ie safaris) in which the meat of the animal cannot be imported into the US. Typically, only the trophy parts (hide, cape, skull, antlers/horns) of the animal can be returned to this country.

As for real hunting, as long as you eat it, I don't care.

You shouldn't waste it, though.

On edit: a Daily Show favorite. I think because it's rumored that Cheney et al engage in this 'most dangerous game' style human hunts.

I once stumbled on a website with that story about Cheney's hunting games.
some weird ass shit out there! :eyes:

Based on the bum hunt premise?

To me that means small game (squirrel, etc), some birds (duck, doves, quail), and large game (deer, elk) are ok if you need the meat to feed your family. Some folks feel that wild meat is better, health wise, too. My Native friends who hunt always say a prayer and thank the deer or other animal for the gift of their bodies.

mosquitoes anywhere, stinging things that get into my house and some insects that destroy my plants.

I do not eat them or make clothing from their skin.

I just kill.

"You're welcome?" I didn't think so.

Double post, sorry.

I offer the large, economy size

:popcorn:

Extra napkins?

I like licking all the butter and salt off of my fingers!

You go girl! If we weren't suppose to lick...

:rofl:

You know, to make it actually a fair fight?

Deer Hunter Avenger? It's a hoot-the deer are armed with AK-47s and have hunter calls like "Free Beer" and "Look At The Knockers On That One"

The animal has:

coloration that allows it to blend into its environment
exceptional eyesight
exceptional hearing
exceptional sense of smell
absolute knowledge of the terrain
the ability to run 40 miles per hour

The hunter has:

a gun

Check out tag fill rates and you'll see that the animal has the upper hoof in the hunt. IIRC if the state of Idaho wants to reduce the deer population in a unit by 400 head, they have to issue a thousand tags.

...let's make it truly a test of skill as hunters like to claim. Perfectly legal to hunt non-human animals as long as you use a weapon designed and constructed of your own hand. Now THAT'S a test of skill.

Of course, you'd have less drunk yahoos sitting in tree stands waiting to use someone else's skill, innovation and their own blind luck to pare down natural selection.

Oh, and we'd have to throw the provision in that they would only glean the least fit for survival (the young, old and diseased), not the most fit as they do now. That would make it corollary to the actual predators they claim they are replacing in the natural world.

Trophy hunting is, as I suspect you already know, the practice of hunting down and killing the animal with the biggest rack you can find because it looks great on your wall. (Incidentally, my father is number ten on the Boone and Crockett Club's Typical North American Elk record list--he went on the list in the late 1980s at number eight, but two elk larger than his were killed in the 1990s. This thing is fucking huge, I'm here to tell ya--the main beams are nine inches in diameter. And the weird thing is, he says that when he saw the bull and stalked it, he didn't realize how big it actually was. He killed it at probably 250 yards with a 30-40 Krag over iron sights and it took two guys three trips in and out of the woods apiece to retrieve the whole thing. If you want to see it, go to the sporting goods store at the corner of 6th and Main in St. Maries, Idaho--it's there on kind of a permanent loan. They had sausage made out of most of it and ate the rest as steaks and roasts--ground elk is a bitch to work with because it's about one percent fat.)

The general consensus used to be that you left the trophy animals alive and killed spikes because the large animal's genes would improve the species.

Now, you kill the trophy animal and leave the spikes alone because someone figured out that trophy animals cut down on genetic diversity in the herd. A bull with a rack wider than a Humvee will run off the younger bulls and do all the mating himself.

But only during Tourist season.

(Only understandable if you live in or near a popular tourist destination.)

Why does "Tourist Season" by Carl Hiaasen come to mind?!

Lu

And strip the restrictions about hunting from a moving vehicle!

:D

Alberta plates a favorite ( slow, easy)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Wow, that's really offensive.

Elmer Fudd wanted for crimes against rabbits!

What part of the country are the Fudd's from? Some state with a lisp.

The question is 'Which animals are Ok to hunt?'

My answer referred to those animals which IMO are ok to hunt - animals (supposedly in the homo sapiens species, but I wonder about this)of the racist type. often seen dragging their knuckles on the ground, but not always.

That's the fairest standard I can come up with.

Killing something just for the sake of killing is no sport. It's fucking immoral.

Several here already know i'm a rancher and also run a hunting operation on my place.

There are times and conditions, when certain species get out of control, right now we are experiencing a huge population of rabbits, they compete directly with my cows and deer. After deer season is over i'm going to have to eliminate most of them. We also experience high populations of predators, coyotes, skunks, fox. These predators have a direct influence on my deer, quail, and turkeys.

By the way, it's against the law in every state that i know of to kill and leave game animals in the field.

"sport" implies two competitors of reasonably equal abilities and resources competing against each other according to an agreed upon set of rules . . . when one side has guns and jeeps and all kinds of modern technology and the other only their instincts for survival, that's not sport . . . it's just killing for fun . . .

you want sport hunting? . . . go out to the woods, take off running (unarmed) after your prey, catch it and wrestle it to the ground, and kill it with your bare hands . . . then at least the animal will have a "sporting" chance . . .

Donning camouflage, quietly hiding perfectly still in a tree stand, and waiting for an animal to walk by so you can shoot it with a rifle with a high-powered scope is not "hunting"... it's sniping.

Now, if you take off all of your clothes, and enter the forest and smell the ground and taste the leaves, track and stalk your prey, then run after it, catch, and kill it with your bare hands or a sharp object... that's "hunting".

:toast:

but many may not. Too inconvenient.. tsk tsk.

And I think more highly of anyone who can hunt with a bow or crossbow than with a gun.

On the other hand, there is an absolute need for the human gene pool to be thinned. Removing the defective humans who enjoy killing other creatures can only brighten our prospects for surviving this century.

Repukes are another source of game, but they doesn't taste very good, my Precious. Even without eating them, it would help the species.

There is a lot of subsistence hunting in the US. We've got a lot of poverty here that people don't notice.

But we do definitely hunt to provide meat in the winter. Saves a bunch of money.

in equipment, ammunition, and licenses of course, right?

Most of the guns and bows are handed down, except for a few. We use reloaders whenever possible. Licenses are $19. Deer permits are $24.00, same for turkey permits. Arrows are relatively inexpensive. The heads are a bit more expensive. Clothing and boots last for years.

I find myself spending hundreds gearing up for the hunting season. But, that's probably my fault.

One year I hunt with Muzzy's, then somebody tells me Thunderheads are better, so I shell out the $$ for them.

One year I use 36-06 165 gr SPs at $15 a box, the next year I "just have to have" those Winchester Accubonds at $21 a box, even though I still have nearly all of the SPs

And, so every year it goes. I sat this hunting season out, so I saved myself the expense.

surely you jest. :sarcasm:

I know people who have hunted for food. I don't see why that's objectionable in a way that grabbing a burger at the local diner isn't ...

I would say that you don't live in an area that is over-run by deer. I do, and not only are they a large nuisance, but their overpopulation is a danger, not just to humans, but also to their own population.

I live in a state that is over-run with deer, even with generous hunting seasons. This results in many car-deer confrontations that not only kill and injure the deer, but people also. This is somewhat mitigated by our harvest of deer every year, but it continues to remain a concern while driving in both rural and urban areas.

In addition an over-population of deer leads to many diseases that wipe out large numbers of deer, and also diseases, such as Lyme disease, that transfer over to the human population. Again, this is somewhat mitigated by harvesting the deer, but due to just the sheer numbers remains a concern.

Our state is working on re-introducing deers' natural predators back to this area in order to combat these problems, but it is a slow process. Until then, the only way to keep our deer herds healthy and manageable is for people to hunt them every year. Frankly, I have no problem with that if the deer is used for meat, which the vast majority are. In fact a great many rural poor in this state rely on deer hunting for their meat year around, and if this was taken away, they would be starving. In addition a substantial quantity of the hunt is donated to the poor for food.

You may find hunting distasteful, but it is indeed a neccessity in a lot of states.

but we don't go around shooting them.





Well, sometimes we do.

Two factors have contributed to areas being "overrun" with deer. First, the loss of natural predators. But if you suggest reintroducing them, the hunting lobby goes apoplectic! There was talk of reintroducing cougars into an area where I once lived, and the "sport" hunters threw quite the hissy fit. Apparently they like competition in the marketplace but not in hunting.

The other factor is suburban sprawl and unlimited "development". Moving into the deer's territory means you're likely to see deer. There are ways to avoid this, but most of those who move from the cities to new areas aren't really concerned about the well-being of anyone but themselves.

That is admirable. I have seen a couple wolves in central MN in the past decade, and they were beautiful animals. This was out in the middle of nowhere on my dad's farm, however. Most people I know do not want mountain lions, wolves and grizzly bears in their suburban neighborhoods.

That could be an interesting poll: would you support reintroducing mountain lions into the suburbs of your hometown? I wonder what the results of that one would be?

Freepers, gonna have a blast with that one.

:hide:

:evilgrin:

Well played, my friend.

:rofl:

As long as there are plenty of the animals you intend to hunt.

I noticed elephant and other endangered animals on the list above. There is only one valid reason to ever shoot an endangered animal, and that's self defense. Since I don't see stories about Americans being mauled by elephants in the news, there's no reason for an American to ever shoot one.

Deer are rats of the forest, and aren't endangered in anyones book. Black bears, likewise, aren't endangered within their range. Neither are moose, elk, or a huge variety of other animals.
I have no problem with hunting them, and have done so (except the bear...I've never hunted bear and have no interest in doing so). I can't understand the mindset of people who shoot bison, eagles, wolves, and other endangered animals though. There's enough legitimate game to go around without resorting to killing the last specimens of species that are barely hanging on.

FWIW, I've actually been considering giving up rifle hunting lately. My dad gave up his rifle in favor of a bow several years ago, and he's been getting me hooked on it. Not only is it far closer to the traditional concept of sustinence hunting, but it's far safer and much more challenging.

I have no moral qualms about it but I am not a shooter and I am afraid of shooting my foot off. I also do not want to drag a deer through the woods because I am lazy. Also one should not drink while hunting because you might shoot yourself or others.

Now, I fish. Drinking and fishing are entirely compatible. I especially like the kind of "fishing" where I sit in a lawn chair with my pole resting on a stick, drinking beer and listening to the ballgame. I do other kinds of fishing but that is a nice way to spend an afternoon.

you may as well have a line in the water!

If someone eats what you kill, then there is no problem. I eat meat, so how can I object to hunting for food. There are also cases where human actions ahve put things so far out of balance that hunting can be a step in restoring it. Until there is widespread reintroduction of deer predators, or effective deer birth control, hunting is it.

I don't believe it shooting big game, elephants, that sort of thing. Waterfowl, deer, small animals as long as you're going to eat it. Large birds stink like you wouldn't believe when you field dress them. Blech. I dont' mind eating them but damn I don't ever want to clean another wild bird.

I always hated the evisceration of game birds when cleaning them. They smell positively fowl (tee, hee, hee).

It is necessary to control populations to an extent. Overpopulation leads to starvation and disease spreads quickly. I'd rather they died quickly than weeks of starvation or disease.

That said, I don't hunt but I say it is okay to hunt deer, geese, and duck, and possibly a couple others, IF you plan on eating them.

Even in the "exotic trophy" category, the meat can be eaten by locals. The problems with hunting come with people who don't follow safety rules and don't respect the ecological impact of hunting on a habitat. Many, if not most, hunters do. Hunters should not be confused with people who just want to shoot shit, and think a moving target is more fun than a can.

Nobody in my family shoots anything we won't eat. We all went through hunter's safety courses at 16 and all hunt legally. Even my 17 year old niece hunts deer. She got her first with a bow this year. :thumbsup:

I'm not a hunter, it's not something my dad or relatives ever did. We had some friends who were big on deer hunting. Venison tastes good, though.

I eat meat and wear leather, so how can I judge someone who wants to hunt for his own meat?

and pheasant and turkey are both great at thanksgiving.

So I'm going to go with "if you hunt it, eat it."

Golden Rule.

As long as the animals aren't endangered species, hunting can serve a useful purpose in animal population control when done responsibly.

I'm waiting for a friend to drop off some pheasent and chuckers so I can smoke 'em.

I can't find papers big enough

only because I was raised on WB cartoons.

thanks for making my day DU.

I would have predicted 25% at most would oppose hunting in general. We'll see how that might change as the afternoon progresses.

60 million Americans hunt and fish. Good luck winning rural elections with this outlook.

I think your "this is why we lose elections" claim is a little bit of an overstatement. I've never heard of this being a "wedge issue."

You have 60 million Americans who hunt and fish. Any mention of being against that means many of those people will simply vote for the other side. In many places, it's a way of life.

I don't think the Democratic Party should take an anti-hunting stance. In fact, we should appeal to hunters in areas with large pro-hunting populations.

What's the difference between right wing fundies trying to tell you you cant have an abortion, and people here telling hunters they can't hunt, even when they follow the rules?

attempts to keep people from hunting.

Using your abortion analogy, it is like asking


"Are you opposed to abortion?" and "Are you opposed to a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion?"

Yes, I am opposed to hunting and I think there should be laws regulating where, how and when people hunt. There is about as much need to discuss laws banning hunting as there is a need to discuss laws banning meat. It is of course politically assinine to consider such laws could ever exist in any reality within ten thousand billion light years from here.

I don't approve of eating our animal bretheren at all.

all of them.

:popcorn:

That said, I still eat wild coho and orange roughy. But only once a week...

I think the bear hunt is fine -- but I would prefer that anything that is killed be eaten, or made into an eskimo home, or something. I don't know if you can eat bear.

"Little House in the Big Woods?"

They're all about eating bear. I've heard from others that it's really tasty... fatty too.

always liberal chasin season wherever there is hunting season.

no sitting up in trees, if your going to hunt, dont be a coward about it..... get down on the ground and track them down on foot, it isnt enough that you got a ranged weapon like a rifle or bow, you have to sit up in a high tree and "relax" while you ambush your game? come on, show us youve earned what you killed, show us you had to do something other then sit on your butt

Unless it is as a last resort for genuine hunger or necessary because of environmental factors (e.g. Inuits).

However, I wouldn't legislate against it, I don't *think*. I can't fathom why anyone would want to do it apart from the above reasons, though.

:shrug:

The will to violence?

An attempt to get in touch with one's perceived, 'lost' ancient heritage?

Because one views animals with a Cartesian eye (e.g. they are only robots, devoid of feelings)?

Rack up dogs for barbeque. I hate them all.

Deer, elk, moose, caribou, wild pigs, rabbits, squirrels, ducks, geese, grouse, pheasants, quail, chukar, doves.

The usual suspects.

But I think shooting predators is messed up, and a lot of the "game" birds such as coots and snipe, I think "what's the point other than killing?" (I know snipe are supposed to be tasty, but the birds weigh what, 3 1/4 to 6 1/4 ounces undressed?)

Acceptable to have a national meat supply and for survival. Personally, I'm not a hunter - I'd be a vegetarian first.

Is that hunters do a HUGE amount for habitat conservation... more than most of the so-called environmentalists.

Organizations like Ducks Unlimited (DU!) at www.ducks.org spend a lot of money on wetlands conservation and restoration. Also, federal duck stamp money is spent on conservation too. The national and state wildlife refuge systems are run on hunter dollars.

The big threat facing most of these species isn't hunters, it's loss of habitat. Hunters kill a few individuals, but habitat loss kills entire ecosystems.

:toast:

For Post 85!

GMTA!

:toast:

Look at the endangered species. Not all are due to natural causes. The good that hunters do is overshadowed by the attitude of the conservatives in Bush's own cabinet, for example.

Which of the species on the endangered species list (which can be found here) are on the list directly because of hunters?

before hunting was regulated.

But which endangered species do you think are endangered due to hunting in the US?

(edit: clarification)

habitat destruction, like with the Gopher Tortoise. Worldwide, there are many examples from over the years. My main point is to not ignore the Bush administration mentality that is settling in, that to save species we should hunt them!

http://museum.nhm.uga.edu/gawildlife/reptiles/Testudines/Testudinidae/gpolyphemus.html

"The Gopher Tortoise ranges from the Atlantic Coastal Plain of extreme southern South Carolina west along the Gulf of Mexico's coastal plains to extreme eastern Louisiana and peninsular Florida. Due to habitat loss, its population has rapidly declined and this species is now dispersed as isolated populations within this range.

The Gopher Tortoise is listed as a Threatened species by state and federal law. Major perils are habitat loss and disturbance."

I'm not a believer "that to save species we should hunt them," I'm saying that hunters are not the big villain in decline of species numbers in the US. It's a red herring, and it divides environmentalists and hunters and keeps them from working together for the common good.

The "hunters killed Bambi's mom" thing is for the left what "they're going to take away our guns" is for the right-- it keeps the two sides more focused on hating each other than working together to fight the real villains: sprawl and pollution.

In the last issue of "Birding" magazine, there was a big article about working with hunters to save wildlands. Hunters as a group probably know more about natural history than most non-hunting city folks, and even probably many self-described environmentalists. Last week my house got robbed, and the cop who came over asked if I got the pheasant whose feathers are in a jar in my room. I said no, I didn't hunt, but then we had a great talk about chukar while he was dusting for prints. He'd been out chukar hunting the previous weekend, and spent the whole day looking for the little birds. Fortunately the cop wasn't focused on being a wildlife enforcer, and ignored some of the other feathers I had on display!

I don't eat critters because I think factory farming is cruel, and I think the concept of raising critters en masse to slaughter and eat is morally indefensible if there are alternatives. But I understand why people hunt, and as Pete Dunne, author of the aforementioned article puts it, "when I carry binoculars, I am a member of the audience, watching a drama on stage. When I carry a gun, I am an actor in the play." If someone is willing to kill an animal for food, and knows what life they're ending when they pull the trigger, I'm okay with that.

But sometimes hunters get a little over protective of the animals they like to hunt. Wasn't there a wildlife official who got harassed out of office in PA by a subgroup of hunters who thought that he wanted TOO MUCH deer hunting (in order to thin the population way down to restore forest habitat)? I seem to remember an Audubon magazine article about him.

I'm all for really thinning out the deer herds. unchecked, they wreak havoc on forest ecosystems, to the point that bird and plant species become locally extinct.

http://www.boksanctuary.org/conservation/species.html

I'm just not ok with hunting for sport or fun. I'm protective that way.

I've "hunted" snapping turtles with my grandfather. Basically it consists of driving around on gravel roads near swamps and lakes and picking up any turtles we see trying to cross the road.

It's not like anyone is out shooting gopher tortoises with deer rifles in the traditional sense of hunting.

Or a crossbow. So small birds, rabbits, game. If you can do a bear like that, then more power to you.

Much more fair, less dangerous, and also keeps the buckshot out of your food.

There's no need to go killing anything unless you really need it for survival.

etc. etc. etc.

not meant as a rude question, I'm just curious.

(I don't hunt, personally, though I do sometimes eat meat. But the turkeys that turned into my turkey burger tacos didn't die of natural causes ...)

I guess thinning of herds.

It's not a gun issue, self defense is OK, but I could never shoot a deer or duck, I would rather treat their wounds than create them.

Sit bluedawg sit.

http://www.noahswish.org/

Any animal is fair game if you're stuck in the woods and hungry, however.


Killing animals strictly for jollies is kinda sick, IMO, but there is a need for culling some herds...

I used to be anti-hunting, but now I'm all for it. If an animal like deer aren't hunted, they get overpopulated and starve to death.

vaccines that block fertilization, for one. I believe that humans are overpopulated sometimes, but I don't want to kill them.

I've heard this bandied around before and I've always wondered if giving large uncontrolled populations of animals hormone shots is honestly more humane. What are the long-term effects of pumping a free-ranging and rapidly-reproducing population with hormones/chemicals? Being shot by a hunter is at least natural population control, especially for prey animals like deer. I'm sure being eaten by a puma or a wolf is no picnic either. In fact, repopulating areas with large predator species like mountain lions would be the best and most natural way to control the population of prey species, but not particularly humane either (at least not for the prey animal's point of view!).

But the studies apparently think it's ok and more humane:

http://www.pzpinfo.org/faq.html

Skim through a Google search on "deer contraceptives". Most estimates run between $500-$1000 PER DEER, with some well over $1000.

There are ~25 MILLION deer in the US today.

To dart just 10% of all deer in the US at $500/deer would require $1.25 BILLION.

Boosters are required every couple of years to maintain infertility. Otherwise, a new vaccine contraceptive called SpayVac is supposed to last a lifetime, but the drug itself costs over $100 per dose (this does not include the cost of delivery via darting, which is the most expensive part of plans to make deer infertile).

10% is probably not even close to enough of the population to slow reproductive rates. 25% would probably be required at a minimum just to halt population growth, much less reduce the population.

I knew DU wasn't big on moderation, but I'm amazed at how many people answered either "all" or "nothing" compared to "some of the above".

I'd draw the line somewhere between rabbits and elephants, as would virtually everyone I know, I think, but very few people have given answers like that.

They've had an anti-fishing campaing for years.

And, what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

And vampires!

Thus, deer, moose, elk, etc., as long as you eat them and don't just shoot them for the antlers or whatever. Also rabbits/squirrels which we used to dine on regularly when I was a little farm girl in southern Ohio decades ago. And if you happen to be an Eskimo or other Alaska native living out in the Bush, it's okay to hunt just about anything for subsistence.

I should edit this to say ANY Alaskan living out in the Bush, native or not, because store-bought food out there is insanely expensive.

if they can afford them, they can afford to buy food.

I don't know this for a fact, but my guess is that most people who hunt from planes here are either Outsiders (people from the Lower 48) or Fish & Game guys hunting wolves (which I don't agree with, by the way. I think the wolves and caribou/moose would balance themselves out if left alone.)

seasons.

Follow the law.

Has something wrong with them. Anyone who takes pleasure in killing something that did nothing to you or your family is not right. I could care less if you eat the meat or not, it's still psychotic to ENJOY killing anything, and doing it unless your very life depends on it.

or to go to the grocery store and buy meat? Even if you know that the grocery store meat has been raised in a cruel manner, yet you still buy meat?

I have WAY more trouble with people who buy meat without thinking about the fact that it's the death of a creature.

(I'm not a critter eater, and I seem to recall from prior threads that you're not either, so it's rhetorical :hi: )

I'm not a vegetarian myself, though I eat less meat with each passing year. I'm not a hunter, either, but it always strikes me as odd when people (not speaking necessarily of this thread, just a general attitude) are repulsed by hunters but think nothing of grabbing a burger on their lunch break. It's quite easy to deny the brutality of the food our society consumes on a daily basis ...

It's not so much the killing I have a problem with (though I do), it is the enjoyment and fun and pleasure people who hunt get out of killing. People who hunt ENJOY the killing. They ENJOY murdering something that is not of any threat to them or their family, and they do not HAVE to kill that deer or their family will not eat for the next three days. They do it because they ENJOY the hunting and killing and think of it as fun. At least people who buy it in a grocery store do not find pleasure in the killing (usually).

I'm sorry, but if you find enjoyment out of killing *anything* you're majorly sick in the head. And I've heard the typical "but it's time spent with my son" or "but it's a chance to be with nature." You know what? Fuck that shit. I go on walks with my family all the time and we enjoy nature and spend time together and don't kill a fucking thing. (not yelling at you of course, just venting here, lol) :)

I totally get your point, I too think it is stupid when people are like "oh, I don't want to see the pictures from slaughterhouses! I don't want to know where it came from!" Or worse, those who just don't care and would eat anything that tasted good despite what it is or where it came from. I think both kinds of people are wrong and truly feel sorry for them.

We raised mainly hogs.

When the females were about to give birth, we forced them into cage pens so small all they could do is stand up and lay down. They were kept there for months until their piglets were old enough to be removed from them.

When the piglets were a couple of weeks old we would take clippers and snip off their budding baby teeth so that they could nurse longer without hurting the mother. This let them put on weight more rapidly.

We would take household scissors and cut off their tails so they wouldn't chew each other's tails off. To prevent infection, we would spray iodine on the wound.

When the male piglets reached 3 months of age, we would hold them down and castrate them without anesthesia. Immediately afterwards we would spray iodine directly into the open wounds to prevent infection. We wore ear plugs to dampen the screams.

Bear in mind this was on a small family farm that treats livestock FAR better than a factory farm does.

I think that anyone who would rather buy their meat from a store and continue this cruel cycle of production rather than shoot their own meat is psychotic. Compared to a farm animal, a deer's life is idyllic: be born, enjoy the great outdoors, frolic with it's family and fellow deer, and then 2 years later a single shot through the chest kills it in seconds. Based purely on how much cruelty a person inflicts to the animal, hunting is FAR, FAR more humane than farming.

but I've eaten wild game.
As long as you're not hunting for the 'thrill', but hunting to survive or to supplement your diet, I have no problem with it. And most animals are fair game - though I'm not in favor of hunting endangered species.
There's a very good article in this weeks New Yorker about feral pigs. (And an interesting correlation between Bush voters and counties that have feral pig problems).

I saw some pretty sickening things. Not only were wild animals killed out of season, but the smaller ones were abused in order to train dogs. Even the dogs were abused and regularly killed.

After growing up around such cruelty I will never hunt again unless it's to feed myself, a scenario which isn't very likely. If you want to hunt, you'd better eat what you kill or I don't want to hear about it. As for my family and their friends, raccoons, possums, skunks, bobcats, coyotes, foxes and dogs weren't on the menu. Sometimes they'd throw the entire animal near a highway so it looked like roadkill. What a waste. :grr:

other by accident. Guess it was the beer. Everyone I knew made sure they stayed out of the woods. Then a woman was shot in her backyard and the hunter claimed he thought her white mitten was the white tail of a dear.
Pretty impressive vehicles and toys though.
Expensive meat I would guess, but I think it was the 'racks' they were going for.

4X4's, CB radios, tracking collars and shock collars for the dogs. The radio tracking equipment by itself must have been very expensive. Good point. So much for inexpensive meat, eh?

When I served in the country, there was a cemetery between my house and the church. EVERY deer season there'd be some moron hunters hiding behind gravestones (like the deer didn't know they were there), all set to shoot things in the cemetery. I'd have to tell them the cemetery was posted (apparently they couldn't read) because people might come to spend time in prayer at a gravesite. Invariably they were belligerent, because invariably they were drunk. Ah, the flower of American manhood.

I always made sure my dog wore an orange vest during the hunt, too.

Morons.

...

to hunt animals that are abundant. Deer, for example. Otherwise, no. Most of those big game trophy animals are threatened or their habitat is threatened. I can't go along with hunting animals like that.

just because.

IMO if you hunt something you should eat it and use its body to the fullest extent possible.

I think its fucked up when people kill big cats, coyotes, and such just for the sake of killing them.

Its one thing to kill them in self defense of yourself or a third party but its wrong to just murder them.

I think it was Peter Singer who said the only animal that can be ethically killed and eaten(becuase it is not a sentient being) is shrimp. I would add lobster to that simply because something that delicious can't possibly be a sentient creature.

Eat them if you shoot them. Forget exotics or shooting to get trophys.

I love to ocean fish and deep sea fish. I see no ethical or ecological concern there. Hunting on land ... tricky. I've shot rabbits, and I feel bad about that now. I'd bar all birds, and all mammals apart from rats and mice, from hunting. Controlled culls are a different matter.

f***ing cowards

Which limits hunting to only one species - homo sapiens. Many are taken daily but the spoils are mostly wasted as most are simply left to rot without being consumed. Meat is meat. Cheers.

I saw the emaciated carcasses appear in the melt. There were soooo many of them. They were starved and seeking food.


We need to have a balance (wolves...) or to not allow them to die like that. I have not worked there for almost 20 years - but I gotta say - If there are no natural predators we need to either feed them (not enough food naturally) or allow the herd to be thinned ( I would prefer that yahoo hunters were not the ones to do it). I would like to see NPS personnel ' thin the herd ' and donate the meat.

You would be happy to know that within the YNP the wolf release has been very productive and the bear population has expanded to at least 600 :-)

For myself, I think life would be better if I lived as my ancestors, with the buffalo.

and I was thinking that natural deaths are not pretty or romantic.

Most wild animals don't die peacefully in their sleep.

I've seen a deer killed by a coyote before, and it was a long, slow, painful, miserable death. Starving to death is also pretty miserable. I'm not trying to say that hunting is a nice way to go either, but the cruelty argument doesn't really hold water for me considering the alternatives.

The fact that it's right in front of you doesn't make it more or less cruel.

And as an aside, I can't help but wonder how many who say they're opposed to hunting eat meat and fail to see their staggering hypocrisy, and how it is that some of those respondents who've chosen vegetarianism have arrived at the rather fascistic conclusion that since THEY made that choice, the rest of humanity (a species which, I may add, wouldn't exist in its present form had our ancestors NOT been meat-eaters) should follow suit. The former is an absurdity, and the latter is arrogance and insufferable self-righteousness.

I categorize animals by their intelligence. Deer, for instance, are extremely dumb creatures. Therefore, they fall into the category of "food item," either for us or for the wolves that we've driven out of most of the country. (As an aside, has anyone here ever dealt with domesticated turkeys? DAMN, those are some stupid animals. I'm shocked that they don't forget to breathe.)

Horses, for instance, are smarter, and therefore fall into the category of "useful sub-humans," a category which also includes many Republicans, despite their questionable intelligence.

Continuing up the line, we come to creatures like cats, who are very intelligent, thus falling into the "feline overlords" category.

If you're hunting for sport, then I say that you should have a level playing field. You can take out anything not endangered, as long as you kill it fairly. That means no guns, unless you're going to arm the wildlife too. You can only take weaponry equally as dangerous as its natural predators would possess. And if you think it's impossible, just remember that guy in Arkansas who broke a white-tail buck's neck with his bare hands. (Albeit after a 45 minute struggle, and apparently getting kicked in the nuts at least once.)

Though realistically, you should be VERY careful before hunting for meat. Prion diseases like Chronic Wasting Disease, similar to Mad Cow, are rampant among deer, moose, and elk populations. You should make sure that your local herds aren't infected (call the local Dept. Environmental Conservation) and even then you're taking a chance. Personally, I'd avoid it.

if my experience is any way to judge.

If and when it becomes endangered, then it's not ok to hunt it any more.

Easy enough.

Republican right wingers

Most states have certain seasons for hunting and limit how many animals that you take. In some areas, it is a good thing that hunters hunt. For example, in Wisconsin there are some areas that are overpopulated with deer. In more poulated areas, this causes many car/deer accidents. In some areas, overpopulation of deer leads to a large number of deer starving to death during the winter, especially in the Northern part of the state. Animals like deer evolved to have predation pressure. We have removed most of the predators, which may have been wrong, so for ecology to work out, we can become their predators.