posted on December 20, 2000 09:34:52 PM new
What is more offensive and disgusting is when the uninformed, lacking credible knowledge, belittle and mock others because they (others) engage in activity that the person criticizing does not do and do not understand.
Now that someone decided to contribute some facetious substantiation to their ridiculous accusations and beliefs, since real facts do/did no good, they do not recognize a humorous confirming of their own allegations by the accused.
posted on December 20, 2000 11:11:44 PM new
Stusi,
You asked on the first page what a life trap was. I think it should be a live trap which is a kind of tall corral that food and salt (probably) are placed in to entice the deer to enter. After they enter some type of gate closes automatically. I can't imagine the terror those animals displayed and the damage they did to themselves trying to escape. As far as I'm concerned a clean shot in their natural habitat is much kinder.
Deer are a big problem now where I live. We don't have the larger carnivores anymore to weed out the weak and there are so many of them that sickness will be a coming problem.
As farmers I can't say that they destroy our crops, either. Yes, we would probably have a little more yield but in the scheme of things it is negligable.
I don't hunt. My husband and son do. Both have been taught that if a deer is wounded you track it down and put an end to it's suffering though thank goodness neither have ever had to do that. This year we have a freezer full of deer hamburger, summer sausage and some kind of other stuff. I won't touch it. I have to buy my meat at the store. They eat it and give it away to friends and have been known to leave some on needy family doorsteps. It gets used. Most hunters we have around here do the same. i can't say all because there are a certain few.
I completely agree with you about heads on walls. Yuck! I've also known people who have gone out of their way to hit a cat or dog who is next to the road. We had two Newfoundlands who were taking their daily stroll around the area (in the country) and a couple of guys stopped at the end of the road, got their guns out and shot at them for the heck of it. They hit the female and she lived the rest of her life with buckshot next to the bone in a back leg. So yes, there are some scumbags out there who make proficient and responsible hunters embarrassed and the good hunters do let them know about it.
End of my spiel. I understand what you are trying to say.
Wow, haven't done this for a long time.
posted on December 20, 2000 11:12:59 PM new
I'm trying to figure out what's being said on this thread. It seems some people know how to kill and enjoy doing it, and others don't understand that desire, and find the whole business of killing distasteful. That I've got, but other points aren't playing. For one, I can't understand how the thrill of the kill is rendered more morally palatable when the killers eat their victims. In this land of plenty, extending the pleasure of the slaughter by consuming the flesh connotes greed, not need. I pity the few who may be so pressed, since wild animals are susceptible to a lot of parasites and diseases. I don't care how well that deer is cooked, I don't want to eat something that's been infested with nematodes, bluetongue virus, Leptospirosis, meningeal worms, or Ehrlichia, and I don't think anyone else should have to either.
I was puzzled by some other references. AFAIK, a common effect of taking Viagra is blue vision. The desire for a series of cigarettes suggests anxiety and nicotine withdrawal, and the need for sleep after smoking several cigarettes indicates an elevated level of carbon monoxide in the brain. None of it sounds very sexy to me.
posted on December 21, 2000 05:35:12 AM newKRs - "Sounds almost Bushist". I'm assuming that Bushist is an adjective, but I like the way it sounds and the way it looks in print. Bushist, bullsh... Gee, a new synonym is born. Congratulations.
MEYA, I know a lot of hunters, and I live in an area where hunting is quite popular, but nobody I know does it for necessity. I was just wondering where you're located.
posted on December 21, 2000 05:43:24 AM new
I never used the word "necessity". The people I know who hunt do use the meat, but because they like it, not because they "have" to.
posted on December 21, 2000 05:46:11 AM new
Darn!! If I had known we were going to have this much fun in the RT last night, I wouldn't have answered my doorbell for company.
---------
If I thought all it took was to send my husband on a boar hunt, I would have sent him and his "gun" long ago.
posted on December 21, 2000 06:02:32 AM new
Femme,
I have been laughing so hard at some of the remarks here.
First I must tell you that dh and S enjoy hunting very much.
Last night after reading remarks that were made and I quit laughing I just had to talk to dh. Keeping a straight face was difficult!
I went in and sat down beside him and said,
"Honey, I know how much you have always enjoyed hunting. Can I ask you a serious question? When you are deer hunting and get your deer, does it give you a "rise"?"((truthfully I did use a different term)
Answer: "Where the #$#$ did you get that idea? Where are you reading on the internet to get a load of BS like that? The answer is NO!"
Notice I asked dh but let me tell you it was really difficult to keep a straight face while asking.
I usually have a house full during deer season. I am wondering how I could bring this topic up nicely. I can just picture the scene, "Jim, could I get you another helping and by the way do you..". Nah, I couldn't do that but I think you have something about the wives. They could probably use a good laugh too.
posted on December 21, 2000 08:16:17 AM new
sarge- are you one of the three other hunters in the world besides Nugent? if the charging boar experience was "bottled" and produced in virtual reality would you buy it? or would you still need to do the actual shooting? if one charging boar is a sexual experience to you, what are four french hens and three geese a-laying?
posted on December 21, 2000 09:12:12 AM new
Calamity, what you posted is exactly what I was visualizing as an example to say to Stusi about hunting. Thank you.
posted on December 21, 2000 09:27:13 AM new
I grew up in a rural area of New Jersey (hard to imagine any part of New Jersey being rural, eh?) and many folks I knew hunted. None of them could be even remotely described as bloodthirsty.
Mostly they enjoyed the outdoors and found hunting to be a link with a slowly vanishing past. They ate what they killed. They tracked a wounded beast rather than to leave it to die and go to waste.
Occasionally you hear reports of a hunter being shot by another hunter. Once or twice not even by accident or carelessness.
From personal experience I don't think that hunters (or fishers) are a problem. And hunting and fishing is entirely legal.
That it is an activity that some don't care for seems to bring out many accusations about hunters that are grossly exaggerated and often totally unfounded. And responses from hunters and their supporters that are just as grossly exaggerated and unfounded.
Most hunt not out of necessity. If hunting were a necessity then it would require year round hunting or taking and preserving enough game while in season to provide for the rest of the year. So I find the "necessity" argument to be merely self serving.
Those who oppose hunting often raise the argument about the needless and senseless slaughter of "innocent" animals. But where are these activists when it comes to the uncounted number of "innocent" animals needlessly and senselessly slaughtered every year on our roads. Or by the continued destruction and degradation of our environment.
Seems to me that "hunting" is merely a troll topic for public discussion as each side tries to outdo the other in the "violence" of their arguments.
posted on December 21, 2000 09:37:49 AM new
code- you are one of several people who have said that hunters will go after prey that they have wounded to finish the kill. firstly, do you think that a wounded animal is going to stand around waiting for another shot? i would think that even if a good number of hunters chased them(which i doubt) that very few would be able to find the wounded animal. do you think that having an issue with MOST hunting precludes one from caring about animals that get hit by cars and trucks? and what does this have to do with environmental issues? you are stretching it a bit!
posted on December 21, 2000 02:22:05 PM new
YES to the sergeant!!! stusi, you have obviously never been hunting before and it is amusing to read your blinfolded commentary. Wounded animals do not hang around and wait for a second shot! I have trailed a deer for seven hours in the cold and dead of night. Why?, because if I didn't find it, the coyotes were going to eat it. If you don't know anything about coyotes, they don't kill their prey first. They start eating at the hind legs while the animal is still alive. They basically eat everything they can before their prey dies, right down to the bones. Another gunshot sounds more humane, doesn't it? By the way, we hunt coyotes also!
posted on December 21, 2000 02:51:01 PM new
I'm always amazed when I come across someone who speaks in generalities, because they have no actual experience in a subject, yet have no qualms about broadcasting their lack of hard knowledge.
Lacking any actual facts, they make blank statements and dress them up as facts. Or dress up their opinions, dreams, and wishes as facts.
In all my years of being with hunters, I have yet to meet one who didn't follow a blood trail, or shot inappropriately (not knowing if the target would be squarely struck), or shot animals for "fun" and not to eat. If my husband shoots a rabbit, we eat rabbit. I see absolutely no difference between cows and rabbits as far as the dinner table goes. They both qualify as food animals. Someone argued about dogs vs deer. I have pets. They are raised to BE pets, not food animals. It's part of my culture, and I do see a difference there. In the Philippines dog=food. Their culture, and I have no right to tell them they're wrong.
The people who shoot dogs for fun are not hunters, they're vandals with guns. BIG difference. Hunting is a skill, and someone who is good at it, does enjoy it. Why else would he trek through ice encrusted woods and sit high up in a tree for 8 hours. Then drag 200 lbs for a mile.
The only hunting I have no use for is those who use dogs to run deer and shoot from the comfort of their truck.
They're not hunters. They're scavengers.
I have no respect for PETA. Everything I've ever heard from or about them made me wonder if there was adult supervision.
posted on December 21, 2000 03:06:19 PM new
the mere fact that you have trailed a wounded deer (how many?) means that you are not an expert marksman. it is your humble opinion that it is o.k. to wound the prey as long as you catch up with it 7 hours later. that wound could be excrutiatingly painful for 7 hours(or indefinitely if not caught). your justification is that a coyote could eat it alive anyway so therefore it is a lesser evil for you to kill it? that is some rationalization! to say that i have never hunted and therefore i don't know what i am talking about is like saying that i have never jumped off a building so i shouldn't say it is a bad thing. victoria- hunting from one's truck is not o.k. with you? i guess one has to trek through ice to be a real man!
posted on December 21, 2000 03:30:04 PM new
Another post reitterating the fact that you know very little about the things you think you do. A very well placed kill shot does not mean an animal will drop instantly. I enjoy muzzleloader hunting and the very first thing you must learn is the art of tracking and trailing. As far as jumping off a building............ go ahead. Maybe some of your PETA friends will be there to catch you.
posted on December 21, 2000 04:06:05 PM new
i am not in PETA and do not know anyone who is. i do not agree with all they do. it was nice chatting with you guys about this in a civil way. there will be no change of opinions here. the thread should probably be locked as it is getting repititive. a great holiday to all!
posted on December 21, 2000 04:16:19 PM new
OK, back on-topic? Any reports of PETA members countering by putting on orange vests themselves, tieing tree branches on their heads, wads of cotton on their butts, and frolicing around those woods with the deer?
posted on December 21, 2000 05:16:24 PM new
Stusi - You said "this thread should probably be locked....." Why? Since you are finished with the thread, do you automatically assume that no one will read further comments as you will not be one of the posters?
posted on December 21, 2000 06:20:36 PM new
"We don't have the larger carnivores anymore"
How big is sgtmike?
If you have to track you are not a marksman -
Yeah you never miss or make a mistake. You never hit a twig and have the bullet deflected. Get real.
We had an idiot dragging a deer out of the woods and he said shucks it would be easier to put it across my shoulders and carry it out.....It got shot again.
posted on December 21, 2000 09:16:33 PM new
jada- it should be locked when people make comments like yours that show that nothing different or worthwhile is still being said. but i am entitled to my opinion and that will not get the thread locked as you should know.
