Poll: Texas Forum Attitudes on Hunting (Victoria, Howe: how much, buying, fence)

[thenewtexan]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

LOL I'm not? Apparently I am because you keep answering and shifting a few things around. Also? What do you mean by "here"? You mean as in with you? Or on the forum in general? If it is the former? Believe it or not, it is really not all that important to me if I do or not.

Now, if you are presuming to speaking for the Texas forum in general? Wellll, forgive me if I am not particularly humbled by your standing in the whole scheme of things, to do so!



And I have stated mine. Are we on the same side of the hunting issue? I don't know. Are we? Perhaps so, perhaps not. I hope not (on the opposite side that is). I don't really know how you voted on the poll, or if you did at all. And that is your right, either way.

BUT...the only "issue" -- far as I am concerned -- is not so much your underlying point...but the condescending manner you originally presented it, and continued to do so in subsequent exchanges

Then later, when challenged a bit with another viewpoint, continue in the same patronizing tone...although shifting into the telling mode of implying the latter are just too dense to "get it"...



The only reason I "need" to know (and perhaps some others might want to know as well), is because not only did you bring the incident up to begin with -- as per association with Texas neighborhoods and where you live -- but certain details seem to be coming out that just don't seem to square with the initial example you gave.

Why in the world would you bring it all up to begin -- especially involving public school kids -- if you didn't anticipate some later clarifications/details might be asked for? Especially when such is directly stated to be a mistake that Texas hunters might make in your own neighborhood?

For instance, the original was related by you as being a "deer hunter" in the woods near a school and, mistaking some kids for a deer, and tuned his rifle on them. Then, it became a guy hunting out of season and this nut was in turn given some "advise" by a track-running high school kid in a wooded area which, you say yourself, was known for gunfire during the wintertime? Yet the track team was still allowed to run in the said woods? What kind of woods were they? Pine forests? Was there a secondary man-made track around the said woods? Etc.,



Well, hell, it must have been a big deal or it would not have been the foundation of your general point!

Anyway, believe it or not, anewtexan, I am not trying to get into a lengthy pi$$ing contest with you. I already said I regret making some unwarranted assumptions. However, I am not going let you call the dance tune, either. And in this case, there are just a few things about this incident that (IMHO) don't add up.

Break here. Hey, I can relate to that. In fact, when I was in high school it was no big deal at all for kids to have shotguns/rifles in their vehicles in order to go hunting right after school. Further, for teachers to come out into the parking lot and discuss the guns in question and where the best hunting spots were. So this is not anything that I do not understand in terms of guns being no big deal.

BUT? With that said? I spent well over a decade teaching in public schools and thus know that -- even in Texas -- there is simply no way a group of male athletes would not have said something to their coach, at least, if someone in the woods pointed a gun at them. Even if they didn't? Word would have certainly gotten around school just by the simple fact kids love to talk/embellish things like this...and eventually up to the principal and administration. And even if it actually was dismissed -- by arguably the most liberal state in the Union concerning possession of firearms of any sort -- and not reported to law-enforcement? Then someone's head would roll. LOL At the least, there would be a report of the incident in the school records. That just stands to reason...

OK...enough of all this. I am content to let other forum members judge for themselves and let it all go at that. No problem at all...

Look, you can try to question my experience and reasoning all you want based on your assumptions of something that happened 25 years ago. It doesn't change the fact that it happened, and it's really a moot point. I have nothing against hunting or hunters. It just doesn't interest me. Peace out...

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by thenewtexan

Look, you can try to question my experience and reasoning all you want based on your assumptions of something that happened 25 years ago. It doesn't change the fact that it happened, and it's really a moot point. I have nothing against hunting or hunters. It just doesn't interest me. Peace out...

This is my last reply on the subject as well, unless you add something to it in turn...

I have said in every single reply I have written to your original, that I was wrong for making some hasty assumptions about your general experience with guns and hunting in Massachusetts. As even MA has a hunting season -- even if the possession of almost any kind of firearm is subject to severe state regulation -- then it is not out of the question something as you describe may well have happened, on some level, at some time. Further, noted for the record, I realize you intended elements of humor into it all. I appreciate that.

But that doesn't change that my skepticism as to events and facts is not at all unreasonable...

No, my real reason for making this an issue was what came across (IMHO) as a patronizing post which linked your own single said experience in your home state with anything comparable to Texas...when the two states and their respective gun and hunting laws and attitudes and behaviors on the same, are about as opposite as any two states can be...

So far as the experience you relate? Well? I don't agree it is a "moot" point when it started and evolved into the whole issue as concerns differences in MA woods and hunting in Texas neighborhoods.

Bottom line is, only you really know if it happened the way you say it did. But I stand by that I have good reason to be skeptical about certain things, too. Hey? Maybe it is just cultural differences and translations, reckon...?

Regardless, I accept and agree that we should just -- both of us -- at least on this particular exchange -- just let the bugles sound a truce. We have both spoken our minds and points of view! Nothing really more to add, far as I can see.

Sound ok to you?

[jtur88]

The problem I have with hunting in principle, is that it subdivides the animal kingdom into "game" and "non -game" animals. This distinction is not based on any present-day rationale, but on the relative utility of certain animals in a long-forgotten society in which hunting was a livelihood in order to gain food or other useful materials.

It is analogous to a debutante's cotillion, as a form of pageantry that we cling to no matter how absurd or irrational it is by any of today's standards.

If people want to hunt, that is their business, and they can live with themselves. But it offends me if they twist and contort the brutal savagery and macho ceremony of it into a form that fits into some semblance of what they foist off on us as "nature" or "environmentalism".

[lonestar2007]

Originally Posted by jtur88

The problem I have with hunting in principle, is that it subdivides the animal kingdom into "game" and "non -game" animals. This distinction is not based on any present-day rationale, but on the relative utility of certain animals in a long-forgotten society in which hunting was a livelihood in order to gain food or other useful materials.

It is analogous to a debutante's cotillion, as a form of pageantry that we cling to no matter how absurd or irrational it is by any of today's standards.

If people want to hunt, that is their business, and they can live with themselves. But it offends me if they twist and contort the brutal savagery and macho ceremony of it into a form that fits into some semblance of what they foist off on us as "nature" or "environmentalism".

Damn. I've just got to say I find this entire post bizarre.

[Cathy4017]

Originally Posted by lonestar2007

Damn. I've just got to say I find this entire post bizarre.

You and me both, LS2007......cotillion, pageantry...really?

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by lonestar2007

Damn. I've just got to say I find this entire post bizarre.

Likewise. Except I just went and read their profile and it suddenly makes sense.

[Two4damoney]

Originally Posted by jtur88

The problem I have with hunting in principle, is that it subdivides the animal kingdom into "game" and "non -game" animals. This distinction is not based on any present-day rationale, but on the relative utility of certain animals in a long-forgotten society in which hunting was a livelihood in order to gain food or other useful materials.

It is analogous to a debutante's cotillion, as a form of pageantry that we cling to no matter how absurd or irrational it is by any of today's standards.

If people want to hunt, that is their business, and they can live with themselves. But it offends me if they twist and contort the brutal savagery and macho ceremony of it into a form that fits into some semblance of what they foist off on us as "nature" or "environmentalism".

babbling baby talk - YouTube

[High_Plains_Retired]

Originally Posted by jtur88

The problem I have with hunting in principle, is that it subdivides the animal kingdom into "game" and "non -game" animals. This distinction is not based on any present-day rationale, but on the relative utility of certain animals in a long-forgotten society in which hunting was a livelihood in order to gain food or other useful materials.

You are aware that many Americans still eat game animals? You may have forgotten but I assure you that wildlife agencies that actively manage wildlife populations, and have the responsibility of deciding what is game and what is not, have not forgotten.

[TexasReb]

Add me to the list of the others above who consider the post in question to be extremely bizarre and disjointed. In fact, it ranks (in that category) right up in the Top 10 of any I have ever read on this forum.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by jtur88

The problem I have with hunting in principle, is that it subdivides the animal kingdom into "game" and "non -game" animals. This distinction is not based on any present-day rationale, but on the relative utility of certain animals in a long-forgotten society in which hunting was a livelihood in order to gain food or other useful materials.

It is analogous to a debutante's cotillion, as a form of pageantry that we cling to no matter how absurd or irrational it is by any of today's standards.

If people want to hunt, that is their business, and they can live with themselves. But it offends me if they twist and contort the brutal savagery and macho ceremony of it into a form that fits into some semblance of what they foist off on us as "nature" or "environmentalism".

I am going to cut right to the rind to the melon, jtur88. Can you re-word/articulate/etc, your intended point into something that makes sense to those of us who do not live in the "world" described by your "About Me" profile?

In other words? What in the bleeding hell are you even talking about?

But ok, if you can, please bring it down to earth level for the point of discussion among earthlings. I would definitely like to go over this with you. To start?

1. Do you eat meat/poultry?

2. Does not even the most elementary biology curriculum, divide the animal kingdom into sub-divisions and sub-sub divisions and sub-sub-sub divisions, and on down the line? So what is your point here?

You have the floor!