Hunters Are Awesome

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I have a mainly vegetarian diet but I am not a vegan. If you are a vegan, you need to take Vitamin B12 supplements. That fact alone makes me think that we are not meant to be total vegans. If you eat a ton of meat, you will end up with blocked arteries. That tells me that we are not meant to eat a lot of meat.

I eat a lot of fruits and vegetables. I have fish a few times a week. I eat chicken a few times a month. I eat red meat once every month or two.

In another thread a couple of months back, we were talking about how much healthier grass-fed beef is. I finally tried grass-fed beef for the first time last week. I thought it was great. I think it is worth the extra money, both in terms of taste and health benefits.

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.

[Danzig]

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.

except that many are limited to wknd hunting, and no sundays means they're limited to saturday only.

as for the latter, wear orange. i wear it when i walk around where we live during hunting season, because we're in the country.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

except that many are limited to wknd hunting, and no sundays means they're limited to saturday only.

as for the latter, wear orange. i wear it when i walk around where we live during hunting season, because we're in the country.

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.

[Danzig]

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.

people hunt from horseback around here. and hunters are limited to a few weeks a year, whereas everyone else has all year long.
and there are a lot more places to go hiking and riding, whereas hunters are limited to where they can go. not exactly a fair sharing of areas.

[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.

[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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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

I certainly don't feel good about eating anything that has to be killed. If I lived out in the wilderness and I had access to fruits, vegetables, streams with fish, cattle, chickens, grains, nuts, etc., and I had to fend for myself, I wouldn't have the heart to kill a chicken or a cow. I would force myself to catch some fish. I wouldn't like it but I would force myself. As I said before, I don't think it's very healthy to be a total vegan.

I live in a city, so I obviously don't have to find my own food. I can go to the store or to a restaurant. When you think about it, I am basically hiring someone to get the food for me. I know I am being somewhat of a hypocrite in occasionally eating meat, since I wouldn't have the heart to kill a cow myself.

I will tell you one thing. From everything I have heard, the conditions and the way animals are treated in slaughterhouses is supposed to be horrific. This is an area where I think the government should be even more stringent in terms of making sure the animals are treated in a humane way.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I certainly don't feel good about eating anything that has to be killed. If I lived out in the wilderness and I had access to fruits, vegetables, streams with fish, cattle, chickens, grains, nuts, etc., and I had to fend for myself, I wouldn't have the heart to kill a chicken or a cow. I would force myself to catch some fish. I wouldn't like it but I would force myself. As I said before, I don't think it's very healthy to be a total vegan.

I live in a city, so I obviously don't have to find my own food. I can go to the store or to a restaurant. When you think about it, I am basically hiring someone to get the food for me. I know I am being somewhat of a hypocrite in occasionally eating meat, since I wouldn't have the heart to kill a cow myself.

I will tell you one thing. From everything I have heard, the conditions and the way animals are treated in slaughterhouses is supposed to be horrific. This is an area where I think the government should be even more stringent in terms of making sure the animals are treated in a humane way.

the only difference between you and a hunter is the hunter cuts out the middle man. i think people have lost touch with certain things because they go to a store and buy sanitary packages of 'meat'. it's beef, not cow. or pork, not pig.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the only difference between you and a hunter is the hunter cuts out the middle man. i think people have lost touch with certain things because they go to a store and buy sanitary packages of 'meat'. it's beef, not cow. or pork, not pig.

I agree with you. When a person buys a hamburger, they are basically hiring someone to kill a cow for them. Most people don't really think about that. When you're sitting there eating a hamburger, you're not thinking about a cow being killed (often times in a horrible way) in a slaughterhouse.

As I said before, I can't knock someone hunting for food. Unless a person is a vegan, I think they are being a hypocrite if they criticize someone who hunts for food.

I'm not going to be critical of someone who hunts for food. But what percentage of hunters hunt for food? I doubt the percentage is all that high. A large percentage of hunters simply do it for fun. It's awfully hard for me to defend killing an animal for fun.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I agree with you. When a person buys a hamburger, they are basically hiring someone to kill a cow for them. Most people don't really think about that. When you're sitting there eating a hamburger, you're not thinking about a cow being killed (often times in a horrible way) in a slaughterhouse.

As I said before, I can't knock someone hunting for food. Unless a person is a vegan, I think they are being a hypocrite if they criticize someone who hunts for food.

I'm not going to be critical of someone who hunts for food. But what percentage of hunters hunt for food? I doubt the percentage is all that high. A large percentage of hunters simply do it for fun. It's awfully hard for me to defend killing an animal for fun.

So you established that you have no idea what percentage of hunters eat their kill. If you have no idea then how can you then say "A large number of hunters simply do it for fun"? Personally I know about 30 hunters and 100% of them eat what they kill. All of them not 29 of 30 , ALL of them. The line I hear over and over from them is "Don't kill what you won't eat".

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

So you established that you have no idea what percentage of hunters eat their kill. If you have no idea then how can you then say "A large number of hunters simply do it for fun"?

Whether it is 10% or 70%, there are tens of thousands (at the very least), who do it for fun.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Whether it is 10% or 70%, there are tens of thousands (at the very least), who do it for fun.

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.

[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..