Anti-hunting gun owners

[IllHunter]

My two cents, as a hunter...

Smellvin
You said..

No quarry has a chance against a decent marksman; they don't understand how a little moving blob on a hill a quarter of a mile away could possibly be dangerous. I do hold a begrudging admiration of people who hunt using more primitive techniques (such as atlatls). At least then, the quarry had a chance.

I'd like to invite you to hunt with me, if you're not too lazy and willing to expend the effort, we'll go where the snow is often deep during the deer season, north. We'll have to have the proper equipment and clothing or we may die.These will make us stand out prominently and will be orange. Our quarry will be wearing what nature provided which will render him or her practically invisible and they will wield senses more sensitive than you can imagine. I once heard the notion of escaping their attention as "you being oblivious to a two hundred pound deer hiding in your living room". If you wish we can use a camera but that would be lazy, leaving the work of harvesting our quarry out of the picture.
Let's say we use a scoped rifle, 270Win, enough to be effective, first shot if at all possible. I've accomplished that more often than not. That is my goal, on several levels, it pleases me. My ego likes the concept that I practiced enough to still my freezing numb hands to make a shot, that I can sublimate my "buck fever" to hold for the right sight picture and "right prey", to know what I might hit if I miss or go through the target. Then we can address the meat quality unspoiled by the huge adrenelin rush that a wounding shot elicits.
We will have to drag the harvest to the road (vehicle) could be miles. That would be after we've field dressed it. I wonder if you have the "stomach" for that? As a side note, if i'ts more than 30 degrees F the gut pile won't be here in the morning,and i'ts probably not hungry humans that claim it. When we get it home +- 500 miles, we can thaw it and butcher it, if again, you have the energy and stomach.
This is not tongue in cheek but a serious invitation to join me. I could use the help, you could use the lessons waiting there.

 

[bowfin]

Unless they're one of the whimps who crys everytime they see a peice of roadkill on the side of the road.

Well, that would be me. I see a dead doe, and I mourn that I didn't shoot it for sausage meat, because I would be a lot happier dropping it with my rifle than the guy is who dropped it with his Toyota. I see a dead coon, and lament that my hound didn't get to tree it, or my son didn't get to sell it to the fur buyer.

 

[Titan6]

H&H- The $30 Billion is kind of a made number as that is not any where near the "actual" amount spent. If I buy an ATV and use it for a week for hunting and four weeks for camping and fishing is that really a hunting expense? Look at the actual breakdown and you will see this to be true. And buying a foreign rifle or cheap Chinese boots and clothes does not really do much for the US economy in any case.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/econ.hunting.html

Anyway...

If you want to preface your arguement "for every tax dollar spent on wildlife preservation the hunter spends $12" fine I agree. But hunting is about a lot more than wildlife preservation. Consider the $11B budget of the DEPT of Interior and the amount of money that goes into all the other activities that directly and indirectly support hunting and you will soon see what I am saying, unless you don't want to see it.

Bowfin- Never once have I ever seen or heard of someone set a trophy record for the animal that he did not shoot. Don't see too many unshot animals in the hunting mags either, unless it is right before they are hooves up. Don't know what it is you are trying to say about trophy hunting being about not shooting animals. But what I am trying to say is that it is the game itself I don't like. The game of going out and trying to find the... biggest, most points, hardest to find, whatever ... seems like a silly time waster to me and yet people get so hung up in it. By all means have at it, if you have the time resources and mind set, it is just not for me.

 

[October]

I see it happening here on the front range of CO with startling rapidity. Massive tracts of wildlife habitat are bought every year and developed into high density housing. They are invariably named after the animals who were destroyed to make our developers dream come true. Names like Pronghorn Vistas and Wapiti estates. then without fail a bunch of glazed eyed city dwellers move in with their shiny new cars and their high and mighty environmental beliefs. Many are anti hunters and they are becoming a powerful force and are voting their unique brand of ethics and emotional Walt Disney wildlife management plans. And by doing so continue to wipe out wild animals at an alarming rate.

In America just like in Africa there would be very few wild animals left outside of National Parks if it wasn't for hunters. Your Anti hunting groups do NADDA, NOTHING, ZIPPO towards meaningful wild life conservation and land management and preservation.

The great irony here is that the policy you as a hunter are advocating (herd management) is exactly what is needed to control the spread of the human population.

 

[MDHunter]

Not Exactly...

How about hunting an animal to extinction in a particular area such a griz in most of the lower 48 and bear in MD? And then opening the hunting back up when it reaches an arbitrary number that is still too small in some ops to support a healthy population? But hunters pressure the state and find a friendly biologist to sign off on it... What do we do when we are down to the last few hundred of a species and then a disease wipes them out? Or hunting a wild animal to the point where it actually becomes domesticated to ensure survival such as buffalo? What about reducing the numbers to the point where we have to issue no tags because there is almost nothing left?

Titan6,

Let me take exception to this part of your post - the black bear population in Western Maryland is rising and healthy, and limited hunts have been open the past two years to manage the population in that part of the state. The bears have returned to a point where some nuisance bears are becoming too comfortable around homes and areas where children play; that is one of the reasons the hunt has been opened on a limited basis, to manage the population and hopefully reduce the incidents of nuisance bears.

As for biologists listening to pressure from hunters to open the season - I think it had more to do with complaints from farmers and homesteaders who didn't feel their children were safe playing in the yard.

Michael

 

[Titan6]

I see it happening here on the front range of CO with startling rapidity. Massive tracts of wildlife habitat are bought every year and developed into high density housing. They are invariably named after the animals who were destroyed to make our developers dream come true. Names like Pronghorn Vistas and Wapiti estates. then without fail a bunch of glazed eyed city dwellers move in with their shiny new cars and their high and mighty environmental beliefs. Many are anti hunters and they are becoming a powerful force and are voting their unique brand of ethics and emotional Walt Disney wildlife management plans. And by doing so continue to wipe out wild animals at an alarming rate.

Exact same thing already happened on the East Coast as I pointed out earlier. Richmond, VA all the way to Boston, MA is now one big megalopolis. The deer are going crazy though. Anywhere they can live they now live and wipe out people's gardens to survive. In Virginia the bag limit West of Sky Line Drive is normally about three white tail. On the East side it is six or higher. But where the population is thickest you can not hunt cuz there are too many people. Makes me glad I live in Texas now.

MD Hunter: Could be on the bears... I have been away from the area for several years. That is the conflict as I recall last in 2002, so my info is dated. The point is that everyone has a position that they stake out for reasons to them. Just like on Global warming. You can point to whatever scientist or numbers you want to validate your point but we won't know for sure until the last one is hit by a car...

 

[only1asterisk]

Titan6,

The Dept of Interior is much more than US Fish and Wildlife. The BLM, USGS, Minerals Management Service, Office of Surface Mining, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, National Park Service, etc. have little or nothing to do with hunting.

Even US Fish and Wildlife is much more than hunting and sport fishing.

The portion of the Dept. of Interior's budget that is related to hunting is a tiny part of the whole.

David

 

[Titan6]

Huh? You can't hunt on BLM land or reservations??? Are you sure about this?

 

[waynedm]

Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry provided over 400,000 high-protein meals to people who really need protein in 2005

I do know about this and it's a good thing.

Are anyone's concepts of "trophy hunters" driven by your actual experience, or are they driven by something out of Hollywood?

What does Hollywood have to do with anything? Not everybody that is against your middle-aged, white male opinions originated their opinions from some Hollywood propaganda.

I keep hearing that the meat is better, no hormones or gobblins in the animals food so it's better for you the consumer. Unless you bike everywhere you go, never smoke or drink or eat [anything] bad for you ever, you're a hypocrite. That reasoning or excuse may work on you or make you feel better but it doesn't hold water to me.

Somebody mentioned that they know a hunter that refuses to eat store meat because of the way the animals are treated. I find that interesting and I think he does have a point there. I do believe it's more cruel for an animal to sit his entire life in a pen, then to be trucked who knows how many miles just to be slaughtered (many times while still alive). If humans were hunting fodder (which we are in some places!) and we had the choice of running about in the wild while being free or to be caged up like POWs waiting to be killed I'd take the being free. I'm also sure that many times hunters manage to kill more intantaneously than the slaughter houses do. It's more human in my book.

Smellvin i hate to say it, and again I'm not personally attacking you, but your arguments stink.

You tell people to wake up and smell the coffee, but you make statements like this one? Just because you say aren't attacking somebody just before you [do] doesn't mean you didn't do it. That's like walking up to somebody and saying you aren't going to attack them, then hitting them. You, sir, need to smell the coffee.

I'm concerned with the state of mind of the killer. There was a video going around once where some nerdy kid videotaped his tarantula killing a mouse that had been used solely for the videotaping (as pet tarantulas generally eat crickets). I consider that morally objectionable behavior - not because I'm opposed to spiders eating or concerned about mice, but because I think there's something wrong in the head when you enjoy seeing a mouse die and derive pleasure from broadcasting the same.

I couldn't agree more with this. It's common knowledge that serial killers enjoy killing animals and enjoy watching them suffer. I have a problem with watching animals suffer, I can't stand it and would gladly torture any human that does unethical things to animals. That goes for breeding and training cocks or pit bulls or whatever. I've been attacked on here for saying I'd hunt hunters. All of a sudden the hunters are the ones screaming murder! When the hunters in Wisconsin were gunned down like 'varmints' by Vang I applauded it, it's about time a hunter looked down the barrel of a gun. When I see human suffering it doesn't bother me in the least, but when I say this all of a sudden I'm the one that has a problem.

-A person with a low IQ is still a person. A: Not tasty to me B: Worthy of drawing and quartering any SOB who thinks he can hunt his own race. Next.

People with low IQs are generally the ones leaching off the system the most. They're the ones causing traffic accidents. They're the ones lessening the human race. They are the 'untermensche' or vermin. Yet this argument works fine for you for the hunt of non-humans?

Not tasty? If you think deer and goose and duck and all these other animals are tasty I wonder what you think [is] good? I haven't had one thing that was wild that I thought tasted good.

Drawing and quartering anybody who thinks he can hunt his own race. Hmm, what would you say to all of those who have fought in wars to protect your rights and freedoms? Should they be drawn and quartered? Quartering a human . . . sounds like you have interest in killing them yourself.

If a need for hunting comes for me in the form of economics I'll do it for survival. Right now it just doesn't make sense. Spend $1000 on a shotgun. Another hundred on ammo. Another thousand for clothing. Taking the time off work. Hunting is a huge investment and it's all so you can get a few pounds of meat that you could have got at the store for a lot less time and money?

Hunters aren't going to convince me of their ways just like I'm not going to convince hunters that I think they're in the wrong. THR members will not agree on everything. I bet we're only going to agree on the one subject of the Second and on firearms in general. Hunting is another subject, don't be offended that we don't all agree on it.

I try to choose my battles, that's why I generally don't talk to anybody about religion - it just can't end well. Imagine if somebody started a thread on THR about Islam versus non-Islam? I'm not surprised at all that we THR members are this split on the issue. We like guns and that's our only common ground, well, except for maybe our distaste for Hillary.

 

[only1asterisk]

While you might be able to hunt on land managed by the BLM or on some reservations, these Federal agencys have little or nothing to do with hunting.

That's like saying because I can hunt a state park, the state police budget should be counted as being used toward hunting.

David

 

[Art Eatman]

Well, chilluns, having done a fair amount of hunting over these last 60-some years of being big enough to be a hunter, I tend to have a few comments on the issue.

No game animal species is anywhere near being endangered by the actions of hunters in today's world. Nowhere. I hope it's obvious I'm not seeing poachers as the same thing as hunters.

The near-demise of the bison was due to deliberate U.S. government policy, to "...destroy the commissary of the Plains Indian," per the War Department. The demise of the passenger pigeon was due to the mix of market hunting for restaurants and cafes, and clearing forested habitat areas for farming.

Today's game laws are a direct result of hunters' efforts to ensure an ongoing huntable populations. The Dingell/Johnson excise tax on firearms was called for by hunters. Same for the Pittman/Robinson tax. That money is allocated to state wildlife agencies, pro-rated by the numbers of licenses sold. Non-shooters get a free ride.

A birder can get a thrill from seeing one of the few remaining members of an endangered species. A hunter has a much stronger vested interest in the health of a species, in that there must be a surplus or he cannot hunt. The hunters' fundings, then, benefit all those who cherish wildlife. Some may not realize it, but it's rather difficult to do things which benefit one species of wildlife without benefitting all others in that habitat.

Morality? Well, meat's meat. The only difference between the hunter and one who buys meat in a grocery or eats meat at a restaurant is that the hunter is a do-it-yourselfer. The same holds true for a gardener and his veggies, of course. Those who don't provide their own are merely hiring others to do their scut work for them.

Opinion: A deer is no more noble than a cow. A wild turkey is no more noble than a barnyard chicken.

Philosophically? Well, when I'm hunting, I feel connected to a few hundred (few thousand?) generations of forebears. Same when sitting around the fire at hunt camp. I'm proving myself to myself, that I'm not condemned to be some sort of hapless couch potato who relies on somebody else to provide for me. I'm also thinking about yummy-tasties. I'm a natural food freak, loving the taste of backstrap, or quail breast or javelina hams. Those aren't sold in my local A&Poo Feed Store.

Practical: I once offered a $1,000 challenge to a guy who said there's no big deal to killing a deer with a scoped rifle: I'd rig a camera on a rifle stock, with crosshairs on the focal plane. The deal is, find a really nice buck, and bring me a picture with the crosshairs in the right place for a clean kill. Ya got two frames of film available. Good picture? Get a $1,000. No picture? Pay me. All he had to do was come go hunt with me. No cost to him for the deal, food, travel, lease, whatever. Seems like it didn't look all that easy, after all.

I'll never put any bumrap on somebody who doesn't want to hunt. It's not my business. But I won't tolerate a bunch of mouth music from an anti-hunter. In the last half-century or so, I've yet to hear an argument that sounded anywhere near like something I'd expect hear from a mature adult.

Art

 

[MrDig]

This is again an issue where a person says I don't like what you do so it should be illegal. If you don't like hunting don't hunt, if you don't like fishing don't fish. If you don't like Gay sex don't have Gay Sex. If you don't like American Idol change the channel Better yet don'twatch TV. But don't illegalize every thing you disagree with. This thread seems to create a rift, this is a single issue site owning firearms and all aspects of firearms ownership. Sorry but I own firearms because I hunt with them. Home Defense and TEOTWAWKI are secondary to me. Point of fact if I didn't Hunt, RKBA issues would never have entered my consciousness.
Today I am adamantly Pro RKBA regardless of what legal use you may have for firearms.

 

[Will Fennell]

Good post Art.....

Art summed things up for me rather well.......I would like to add this...

Allot of want to seperate hunters and the RKBA. I'll be the very first to agree that the 2A has absolutley NOTHING to do with owning firearms for hunting, but with 99.99% of all hunters in the US being gun owners, whats not to love Here is a body of US populace that number in the MILLIONS, that are pre-disposed to like firearms....some more than others, but here is a group that with some education can be "brought into the fold" so to speak regarding RKBA.

I guess it is just easier to sit back and complain than it is to go out and do something for the cause.

 

[doubleg]

If a need for hunting comes for me in the form of economics I'll do it for survival. Right now it just doesn't make sense. Spend $1000 on a shotgun. Another hundred on ammo. Another thousand for clothing. Taking the time off work. Hunting is a huge investment and it's all so you can get a few pounds of meat that you could have got at the store for a lot less time and money?

WOAH 1000 dollars on a field gun . Most of my hunting guns would make the "elites" at the gun club laugh. But they work just as good a their custom italian shotgun and mine cost 100$ including tax. Hunting is a tradition, to follow the same thing your ancestors have done for thousands of years just feels natural. In fact its more human than picking up some bag of ground beef filled with preservatives and soy at the supermarket.

 

[jhunter]

Hey Art, I visit Alpine often, I will take you up on that offer for a grand this next season.. Can it be one of my scoped rifles?

 

[ptmmatssc]

I've read most of the posts here and want to share a little info. The following was posted

You are not in danger of going without meat or protein. We have plenty of farm animals that we've specifically raised for this purpose.

What's more, our technology has greatly outpaced evolution. No quarry has a chance against a decent marksman; they don't understand how a little moving blob on a hill a quarter of a mile away could possibly be dangerous. I do hold a begrudging admiration of people who hunt using more primitive techniques (such as atlatls). At least then, the quarry had a chance.

And these are the stats for my state for deer season of 2006

Overall 29,918 deer were registered during 2006

It was estimated that over 172,000 hunters took to the woods to hunt deer in 2006.

That pretty much is a 1 in 5 chance at scoring a deer vs 100% chance that a cow/pig/chicken gets of being killed . To me personally , it's more ethical to hunt my meat than it is to raise it . I do both ( I don't buy my meat) only because we are limited to how many deer we take and there is no guarantee that I'll bag my limit , therefore I "freerange/grassfeed" a few pigs/chickens/cow .

3. The animals would starve and die a horrible death if the herds weren't culled.
By this reasoning, in areas of famine such as Ethiopia, the kind thing to do would be to drop in hunters and reduce the locals so that they can find death faster and more humanely

.

The difference my friend is humans can do something about it , animals can't . Humans have cognitive skills , the animal kingdom does not .

Maine wildlife biologists estimate that for a region's deer population and habitat to remain healthy, there should be 15 deer per square mile of land. Currently, biologists estimate 100 deer per square mile in parts of York County. This high population compromises the overall health of the deer herd and of forest ecosystems. Deer overpopulation also could lead to increased human health and safety risks from Lyme disease and automobile/deer collisions.

I am a hunter (30 yrs) and still do not understand how raising an animal for slaughter is more ethical than hunting . What people seem to forget is that all "raised" animals came from wild animals at one time . So was is ethical to take them out of their natural environment and domesticate them just to make it easier to kill them for food?

Btw , yes I understand the 2nd isn't about hunting and that's why my "hunting
" arms are also my "defense " arms . Defense is first on the list for what they are used for , they just happen to be great for hunting.

 

[bowfin]

The game of going out and trying to find the... biggest, most points, hardest to find, whatever ... seems like a silly time waster to me and yet people get so hung up in it

Okay, now we are down to opinions, and opinions don't change in debates. You put trophy hunting in your list of silly time wasters, I don't. My list of silly time wasters includes watching television and debating on forums, such as we are all doing now. The difference being, you really have to improve a set of skills and put forth effort to trophy hunt successfully.

Have you ever competed in a sport or game, Titan6? Did you ever have a hobby such as drawing, gardening, restoring a car, or something where the outcome was determined by how much effort and preparation you put into it? Could someone have come along and say "I don't know why you put so much time into <FILL IN THE BLANK> when it is such a silly time waster? Same deal here.

Oh, and I don't trophy hunt. In fact, I haven't bought a permit for an antlered deer in the last four years. I really don't want to put forth the time and the effort it would take to shoot a wall hanging sized deer. I like to shoot lots of deer and butcher them up for food. Yep, I know, it is a silly time waster when the grocery stores are full of meat...

 

[bowfin]

I haven't had one thing that was wild that I thought tasted good.

LOL! I've never shot a 1911 and got a decent group. That must mean that they are worthless, given my experience, right?

Here might be your problem, look at Post #41:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=249273&page=2&highlight=venison

 

[WhitetailFanatic]

I will never appologize or feel bad about being at the top of the food chain. I hunt, I fish, I kill cockroaches and I step on bugs.

 

[timsosvp]

The anti orgs. launch a 2 pronged attack. The anti gunners come at a certain type of firearm (handgun, "Assault", "Sniper") and the anti hunters come at a certain method or animal. The agendas of both are enhanced when one wins.

If the anti hunters were to succeed in eliminating bird hunting, the anti gunners now have a reinforced argument that semi-auto shotguns serve no sporting purpose. Conversely if "long range sniper rifles" are successfully removed from the equation, the anti hunters have a reinforced argument that deer hunting is no longer valid and should be eliminated. By only thinking of ourselves and pulling back to defend what we consider ethical, morale and justifiable we, by default, slit our own throats. As long as these divisions can be exploited there is no true victory. If you don't hunt but own a gun, think about the bigger picture when an anti hunting measure is on the ballot or in the halls of government. Same with hunters that don't have a passion for ARs. If ARs are banned, hunters better realize that their sacred semi auto birding shotgun functions the same way and is next on the list.

 

[HuntCast]

The bottom line for me is this:
If you don't support ALL lawful uses of arms, the you DO NOT support the second amendment, and I have no use for you what so ever. In fact, I will make it my personal mission to see you defeated.

 

[Hunt4life]

What an eye opening and disappointing experience

Here's what I've learned in the past day...

2nd-A activists can be no different than Fudds. They talk out of ignorance, care more about their feelings than truth and are happy to stay that way.

God help us all.

 

[BigO01]

The bottom line for me is this:
If you don't support ALL lawful uses of arms, the you DO NOT support the second amendment, and I have no use for you what so ever. In fact, I will make it my personal mission to see you defeated.

Agreed but , The bottom line is ,

The antis want to take all guns PERIOD !

It doesn't matter if it is your 270 or 30-06 bolt action that you use for deer and elk hunting , your $1,000+ 22 rimfire target pistol , your 38/357 , 9mm , 45 or 380 that you keep for personal defense againts home invaders or that Fal and AR15 you keep for a SHTF they want them ALL every single one of them !

If you think otherwise you are a Fool !

 

[Titan6]

Bowfin I always said it was MHO on trophy hunting. I feel the same way about golf as well...

You really should buy the tags. I always geta full lic, although in Texas it is free for me. The money goes to support conservation efforts and if the tags don't get filled that is sometimes a good thing also. Several years when I was out of the country or whatever during hunting season I still bought the lic.

Huntcast? Are you sure you want to go that way? That would be a whole new thread and a much uglier one to boot.

 

[bowfin]

Titan6,

I hope that didn't sound like I don't buy a permit.

I buy Antlerless Only tags. They cost the same as a regular permit allowing one to shoot a buck, but they are "Season Choice" permit, meaning they can be used during the archery, muzzleloader, firearm, or late firearm season while using the corresponding appropriate weapon. In some areas, the Anterless Only permits have an extra bonus tag for another antlerless deer. Since I would rather shoot two does than one buck, I have been buying these permits.

Actually, I think I like cutting up the meat and turning it into good stuff to eat as much as I do the hunting, any more. It seems the hunt doesn't seem finished until the deer is on the plate.

I do agree that shooting a huge antlered buck can be more a matter of opportunity ($$$) or luck, so I don't necessarily buy into the "My deer is bigger, I guess I am the better hunter" theory. However, people like noted trophy bowhunter Chuck Adams keep shooting record animals for a reason, and that is because they hunt a lot harder than I do, and spend more of their time and their money than I would be willing to get the opportunities.