Dan Richards may be removed as Fish & Game president (legal, licenses)

[KTMMan]

California NEEDS Dan Richards and a lot more like him. Mountain lions won't obey laws so they need to be controlled by other means. An area I used to frequent in the Sierra's has become basically devoid of wildlife since the ban on lion hunting was put in place.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by jaijai

(and "i" never really left for long btw)

Now I know! Still glad.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

It's interesting. When I was young I hunted with my father and, yes, we ate everything we shot. I enjoyed being with him, the outdoors and the challenge of it.

Then I went to war. I haven't hunted since. Hunting animals was no longer a challenge. Unlike men, animals cannot shot back. Since coming to that conclusion I've also come to the mind that if I want to eat meat I can simply buy it. The idea of killing animals, other than defensively or to put a badly injured one out of its misery holds no interest for me.

It doesn't interest me, either. I own firearms and have used them, but the only animals I have killed on purpose were fish and a few surplus chickens. There's no pleasure for me in the killing itself, but I'll admit that stopping a mean old rooster dead in its tracks was a bit of a thrill.

That really is beside the point, though. A moral hunter takes pleasure in the hunt and in accomplishing his mission, but not in the pain and suffering inflicted. I don't see Dan Richards' smile as anything other than pride in a job well done.

[ferretkona]

Originally Posted by KTMMan

California NEEDS Dan Richards and a lot more like him. Mountain lions won't obey laws so they need to be controlled by other means. An area I used to frequent in the Sierra's has become basically devoid of wildlife since the ban on lion hunting was put in place.

Might have a lot more to do with declining rain falls in the Sierras.
I see way more bears then I see mountain lions. The mountain repairs itself if we let it. I get a deer, birds and fish yearly. I do not hunt for sport but to feed my family.

Still trying to understand the flatlander view that congress is restricting their water usage. The valley farmers are screaming that the US government is not allowing them the water they want each year. Have they ever looked up and seen we get a lot less rain than decades ago?

CA Fish and Game are a power in their own. They are corrupt and they do not listen to facts other than the ones they want to see.
A few years ago a CA mountain was closed to logging and hunting as a mountain lion had been detected on a spore check, a tacky post that collects hair from passing animals.
Ended up a high official lost his job as he had taken a stuffed animal out of a display and dragged it across the tacky post to screw around.

[sjnative]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

It's interesting. When I was young I hunted with my father and, yes, we ate everything we shot. I enjoyed being with him, the outdoors and the challenge of it.

Then I went to war. I haven't hunted since. Hunting animals was no longer a challenge. Unlike men, animals cannot shot back. Since coming to that conclusion I've also come to the mind that if I want to eat meat I can simply buy it. The idea of killing animals, other than defensively or to put a badly injured one out of its misery holds no interest for me.

Whoa there, C, your post looks like something by a CA liberal.

Better keep mum on this topic in MO or AR when the Real Americans are discussing it or they'll suddenly decide you're the CA granola eater tree hugger commie nutty flaky pagan they think all Californians are and ostracize you.

[jaijai]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

At this point, I find your views - as you've expressed them here - totally incoherent.

Here's what I think. You are a moral absolutist because everyone is a moral absolutist. You believe that some things, at least, are always right and that other things are always wrong. Even if you claim otherwise, that entails believing that moral absolutism is always wrong, and so the idea of moral relativism is self-contradictory. The closest anyone really gets to moral relativism is a selective moral absolutism.

Moral relativism is an intellectual game we play with ourselves to excuse or justify some kind of wrongdoing, or to avoid the question of wrongdoing altogether. But it fails in the end. Man is a moral creature, and human nature can't help but make moral judgments of some kind.

I said that i wish that women did not have abortions but that it needs to be their choice.
Who else can make such a choice?
I said that i have my own relationship with Christ but that i'm not affiliated with any religion.
I said that i cannot understand why anyone takes pleasure in killing an animal because of my love for animals.
How any of that is incoherent to you is certainly a mystery.

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by jaijai

I said that i have my own relationship with Christ but that i'm not affiliated with any religion.

Oh, stop. You brought Jesus into the conversation - along with quotes from a sacred religious text! - as a moral authority with specific application to a political issue. The context is plain as day.

When conservative Christians do that, you guys come down on us like a ton of bricks. That looks a lot like hypocrisy to me.

[ferretkona]

Can we bring this back to CA and the Fish and Game?

[WesternPilgrim]

Originally Posted by ferretkona

Can we bring this back to CA and the Fish and Game?

Have at it. Gone for the day.

[jaijai]

Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim

Oh, stop. You brought Jesus into the conversation - along with quotes from a sacred religious text! - as a moral authority with specific application to a political issue. The context is plain as day.

When conservative Christians do that, you guys come down on us like a ton of bricks. That looks a lot like hypocrisy to me.

Because you follow the bible I provided the quotes for you in response to your statement that killing animals for sport is not morally wrong.
You use your religion and morality as a weapon.
I was using those quotes as a way of showing you that you may be misguided in your attitude toward killing animals.
That's for you to know though.
Being that i'm not a biblical scholar and being that i am not very familiar with the bible i did not realize that they were not from the bible.
That was my mistake although i am not at all convinced that Jesus did not speak such words or hold such feelings.
I think and more importantly i feel and sense that he most certainly did have such feelings.
And it's quite possible that he did indeed speak those words.
Machthild of Magdeburg was a Christian mystic who i happen to adore.