Hunting Misrepresented (rifle, make, point, mag)

[jimboburnsy]

Originally Posted by Mac_Muz

Icy, I kind of hear ya, but I fish but for wild fish only. That means taking a hike to me. Farm raised fish is just like farm raised chicken, all sticky bland meats. I an not talking little farms where chickes get to roam out doors in the comparsion.

There is a big difference in a wild bird over a factory raised bird as there is with fish.

I have never been on any sort of canned hunt, and wouldn't. There is no sence in shooting at game tied to a tree, but there is gobs of money in it for the private so called preserve, and the Govt. The Govt gets to TAX a big fancy club house, the land the taxes on income, import taxes on what ever the game is and that can't be cheap. Taxes on the gun and ammo, and I have no idea if you need a hunting lic for that or not. Then more on the taxidermy, Pro butcher, and every other related service for the overly wealthy. I am just not sure I would go so far as to call it hunting.

To me it's more the a Micky D's drive thru, but more expensive, and not quite so fast. I could be wrong too, since I haven't been to a Micky' D's in better than 15 years, or anyplace like one.

Once living in the dead center of the Ossipee Ring D i k e (that would get nannied) A bird I never saw before landed in the door yard. It was a all tan color partridge looking bird, with a black mask on it's eyes. I looked it up in the bird book as I watched it out the window. It turned out to be a canned bird that got away called a Chucker. Dumbest bird I ever saw, I went out side to get a closer look, and I got to be in range to kick it! I didn't kick it, but I could have, and it flew to a small out building and sat up on the ridge line looking back at me. My basic feeling was I could have eatten it as easy, armed with no more than a hatchet to chop its head off like a chicken than to bother shootting it first. In fact a dooryard chicken is faster and far more leery.

I hope I never get to hear bragado from a hunter that gets a few of these because i will laugh in his face. There is a local Spruce Patridge here that isn't a game bird. The state must figure they are to stupid to hunt. You can find these on higher ridge lines, and give em the boot easy too. Now I have mildly kicked them off the trail with my boot toes several times. They are so dumb they just waddle ahead of you for 3 steps or so and you can nugde them again.

There is no way you can hunt a bird like that. Porky pines are the same way you can't really hunt them. When I want any quills I get armed with gloves pliers and a old burlap sack, but that isn't hunting.

You beat me to it about fishing. I thought everyone knew that not all fishing is at a catfish pond.

Incidentally, I feel exactly the same way about managed, exotic, "agreement" hunting. Why would I want to go to the King Ranch, pay $10,000 to ride around in a pick-up, shoot a basically tame deer that a guide has selected for me and authorized me to shoot, then sit around twiddling my thumbs while a staff of migrant laborers gut, skin and butcher it for me. That's not hunting and I wouldn't do it either. At least there aren't a lot of people with the requisite money:sense ratio.

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by chucksnee

My point....you say these canned hunts generate income.... for who? not the state game management..for that person....you do not need hunting license for these exotic animals, and can be hunted anytime...

Walk into a wal-mart and ask for hunting license for a Kudu....or better yet ask a game warden what the season is for a Kudu....

Never seen a wild a free Kudu in the united states either....

So if you do not need a license and can be hunted anytime....how does that fund the state game management officers?

My example dealt specifically with safaris in Africa. No, the same does not apply when you try to compare apples to oranges. However, I'll play your game.

In my state a percentage of every hunting/fishing related sporting good purchase is reserved for the state Department of Conservation. Thus, out of staters who make such purchases in my state are directly contributing to Conservation efforts, even when they intend to hunt at a licensed game preserve. Similarly, those operating the same licensed hunting preserves are also making contributions as it is to their benefit to have product easily available for their customers.

The many decades long practice of collecting revenue from sporting goods for state Conservation efforts have led our state to have one of the best Conservation Dept.s in the lower 48.

Do you really think that licensed game preserves operate in a bubble? Do you not think that their profits in turn allow them to spend money that eventually makes its way back to Conservation efforts? Reputable entities find it to their advantage to be members of a number of Conservation organizations in order to attract their customer base. Those membership and advertising fees again make theire way back to conservation efforts.

I'm not certian if you are anti-hunting or anti-capitalist. If either is your position I think I've disproven your arguements.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by stan4

I couldn't do it. The idea of taking an innocent life makes me feel too guilty.

Well, you seem to lean slightly more toward the "non-hunter" as opposed to an "anti-hunter" catagory. There can be overlaps for sure, and can see some of that in your post.

IMHO, the difference really comes down to that the former don't hunt because they just -- for one reason or another -- either don't have the time or inclination to do so, or just can't stomach killing an animal themselves. However, most of this genre do not condemn hunting per se nor look down on those who hunt their own meat for the table.

On the other hand, the anti-hunters usually oppose hunting, period. Would love to see it banned...and have the attitude that those who hunt are blood-thirsty killers.

Anyway, the reason I say your post is a bit ambiguous as to where you clearly fall, is the "innocent life" statement. Wild animals are not "innocent." Neither are they "guilty" Those terms are really of legal creation by humans and to be applied to humans and by humans in courts of law and concience and judgement as to the crime commited (whether legal or ethical).

Amimals are part of a food chain of God and/or Natures design. They have no sense nor comprehension of guilt or innocence. And I submit, to afford rights in that realm must be predicated on that the animal is capable of understanding and reciprocating the same.

I mean, you might see a deer (and really, I prefer bird hunting) as an innocent creature harmlessly grazing and not want to kill it for your own table (which is fine). But what if that same deer, if we apply legal terms to wild creatures, had just got thru eating from and trampling the harvest raised by a farmer or gardner upon which their family might depend? Is the deer not so innocent at all...but "guilty" of theft and and criminal mischief?

I am not trying to be a smarta$$, just trying to make a point. Also, please keep in mind that if you eat meat and do not hunt it yourself, then you have only paid someone else to kill the "innocent" animal for you.

BTW -- again, don't necessarily take this as personally directed. It isn't. If you dont hunt and dont want to, fine. And nothing you said slammed hunters. You just spoke your own mind on the subject and I respect that. I am just giving another side of it.

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

My example dealt specifically with safaris in Africa. No, the same does not apply when you try to compare apples to oranges. However, I'll play your game.

In my state a percentage of every hunting/fishing related sporting good purchase is reserved for the state Department of Conservation. Thus, out of staters who make such purchases in my state are directly contributing to Conservation efforts, even when they intend to hunt at a licensed game preserve. Similarly, those operating the same licensed hunting preserves are also making contributions as it is to their benefit to have product easily available for their customers.

The many decades long practice of collecting revenue from sporting goods for state Conservation efforts have led our state to have one of the best Conservation Dept.s in the lower 48.

Do you really think that licensed game preserves operate in a bubble? Do you not think that their profits in turn allow them to spend money that eventually makes its way back to Conservation efforts? Reputable entities find it to their advantage to be members of a number of Conservation organizations in order to attract their customer base. Those membership and advertising fees again make theire way back to conservation efforts.

I'm not certian if you are anti-hunting or anti-capitalist. If either is your position I think I've disproven your arguements.

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

Ok, that is one way to look at it even if it is completely incorrect. Most states have public access hunting areas and state fish and game programs are not geared toward the "monied folks". Do you also disparage farmers who get extra income by offering hunting leases?

Lets examine African safaris. These "canned hunt preserves" generate income, encourage game management and breeding, and help deter poaching of the wild free-range endangered populations by local opportunists. When animals have long-term, sustainable economic value they are seen as worth preserving, not only ideologically, but with those financial resources generated by the safari hunters that fund state game management officers (game wardens/conservation agents).

O.K. I'll play also, lets examine your statement....I have highlighted what

You started with African Safaris, correct?

Then you said "these" which would lead everyone to believe that you are talking about "African Safaris", Correct?

In the same paragraph that started out with "African Safaris" you then talk about how "the Safari Hunters" that "fund STATE GAME MANAGEMENT officers......

Never knew Africa was a state....or that Africa had state funded game management officers.

Please correct me if I'm wrong...

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

I'm not certian if you are anti-hunting or anti-capitalist. If either is your position I think I've disproven your arguements.

Well lets see, I believe the only thing you have proven is that you have no clue what you actually wrote....

But, I grew up in Kentucky, had a rifle in my before I was out of diapers (still have the old photo), paid my license fees, hunted up until I joined the Army. Then as most will know, the Army is not a place to keep up with things you actually enjoyed enjoy....can you keep them while in the Army, yea but somethings are not worth it.....

So....22 years later, retired from the Army, I will pick back up on hunting and paying everything I need to hunt legal, for me and my son....

So you tell me what I am....I have proven you wrong...Now, will you admit it?

[Mac_Muz]

Tex, yeah that guy is a non-hunter, not a rabid anti. Once i ran into a elderly female anti rabid, LOL.

It was late August maybe early Sept and 10 days camping in the NH rain. On my way out and to home in a really odd Volvo pick up truck I made, and with my brindle Great Dane sleeping in the bed, I stopped to get a 6 pack. It wasn't hunting season, but the anti rabids don't know when hunting season IS.

As i exited the store this 'Thing' was staring at my dog, and as it became known the vehical was mine, the 'thing' began to sputter, mentioning words like dammned hunters and murderers.

I caught the drift pretty quick and so gave a little whistel, and the dog twitched an ear , sorta opened one eye to see the 'thing', which didn't seem to overly dangerouse to him, and laid his head back down. Well the 'thing' saw that much, and scurried off, muttering the deer isn't dead.

I got out of there before F&G could come. The anti rabid has no clue about hunting or much else if you ask me.

[Mac_Muz]

Originally Posted by jimboburnsy

You beat me to it about fishing. I thought everyone knew that not all fishing is at a catfish pond.

Incidentally, I feel exactly the same way about managed, exotic, "agreement" hunting. Why would I want to go to the King Ranch, pay $10,000 to ride around in a pick-up, shoot a basically tame deer that a guide has selected for me and authorized me to shoot, then sit around twiddling my thumbs while a staff of migrant laborers gut, skin and butcher it for me. That's not hunting and I wouldn't do it either. At least there aren't a lot of people with the requisite money:sense ratio.

Well, I can't say there isn't a group of wanna be men who were raised like girls, that have more money than sence. They don't seem to mind being led around around by a ring in their nose and dropping copious amounts of jinggle on anyone willing to help prove they indeed are male.

They are smart enough to know better than play woodsman because that act won't stand up after the first 15 minutes lost in the woods 1/4 mile from where they parked.

So they buy a proper suit, just like they do for riding a pedal bike, and buy some real shiney gun, usually the shinnier the better, and have all the latest high tech gear. Probably the new SUV is a rental, but there is no mistaking all brand new clothing still looking pressed. The matching $1,500.00 bowie is still bright and all stainless steel.

Why I bet they serve wines, Guda cheese and what ever crackers are the lastest fashion as pre and post hunt, while they wait for guides, and skinners. If a dinner is involved they mention the delicate flavor of that store bought farm raised chef boned trout, as if they knew what a real trout was.

If a real hunter of old were to walk in, they would call him a hick and choke to a faint from the hunters cigar.

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by chucksnee

O.K. I'll play also, lets examine your statement....I have highlighted what

You started with African Safaris, correct?

Then you said "these" which would lead everyone to believe that you are talking about "African Safaris", Correct?

In the same paragraph that started out with "African Safaris" you then talk about how "the Safari Hunters" that "fund STATE GAME MANAGEMENT officers......

Never knew Africa was a state....or that Africa had state funded game management officers.

Please correct me if I'm wrong...

Yes, I thought it was perfectly clear that I was discussing hunting on the continent of Africa (in licensed hunting preserves). In turn Africa is comprised by a number of nations. The reference to "state game management" meant of the government (a.k.a. nation/state), no more, no less.

Sometimes I forget how poor education is these days and the inability of people to employ critical thinking skills but rather requiring a road map for a conversation.

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by chucksnee

Well lets see, I believe the only thing you have proven is that you have no clue what you actually wrote....

But, I grew up in Kentucky, had a rifle in my before I was out of diapers (still have the old photo), paid my license fees, hunted up until I joined the Army. Then as most will know, the Army is not a place to keep up with things you actually enjoyed enjoy....can you keep them while in the Army, yea but somethings are not worth it.....

So....22 years later, retired from the Army, I will pick back up on hunting and paying everything I need to hunt legal, for me and my son....

So you tell me what I am....I have proven you wrong...Now, will you admit it?

The tone of your previous posts had me thinking otherwise. Good, glad you are passing the love of the outdoors and hunting on to your son.

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

Sometimes I forget how poor education is these days and the inability of people to employ critical thinking skills but rather requiring a road map for a conversation.

Yes, I know exactly what you mean....