Plus those trophies look classy!
What are you watching on TV? Page 1,342
Chicks dig it.
Okay, my mistake. All hunters are wonderful people who never do it for pleasure or to show how macho they are.
How silly of me to think differently!
Quote: Leevil @ January 8 2011, 3:42 PM GMTPlus those trophies look classy!
They look good in the proper setting. A cabin looks empty without a set of antlers at the very least.
How about a lovely picture instead? Maybe of a lovely moose. Surely these animal loving, gun loving, hippies would like that more?
Quote: zooo @ January 8 2011, 3:44 PM GMTOkay, my mistake. All hunters are wonderful people who never do it for pleasure or to show how macho they are.
How silly of me to think differently!
I never said there wasn't any pleasure involved. Hunting deer, for example, is a tedious and difficult task. Hunters take pride in having the skills required to locate their prey and get close enough to take a shot -- especially when using a bow and arrow.
Perhaps British hunters are a different breed but, as I've said, I know at least a hundred hunters and none of them treat hunting as a macho showoff event. They take the rules very seriously and are far more interested in the mechanics of the hunt and enjoying their time in the wilderness with their friends than they are in beating their chests and flexing their biceps.
Do you know any hunters?
Do you know any moose?
(I've known a couple. They both thought it rather a macho pursuit.)
Strangely, I'm on DaButt's side on this.. I feel dirty.
Hunting is fine as long as it's done responsibly and sensitively. It's things like safari hunting that I have the problem with- especially the African game parks which breed rare animals to be killed for pleasure (and for the most part not even used as food). In these cases, there isn't even the skill of catching a wild animal, because the whole hunt is set up and stacked in the hunter's favour.
I feel better about eating wild venison than I do chicken nuggets.
All I'm actually saying is that it's wrong for people to do it who think it makes them clever to be able to win in a battle between an animal with a gun and an animal without.
So by definition, I'm not even talking about the ones that do it without thinking that.
I don't see what there is to disagree with.
Quote: Nil Putters @ January 8 2011, 3:50 PM GMTHow about a lovely picture instead? Maybe of a lovely moose. Surely these animal loving, gun loving, hippies would like that more?
Most of the hunters I know are more than eager to whip out a photo album filled with pictures taken before and after the hunt. More likely than not, the walls of their houses will be adorned with photos and paintings of living wildlife.
Up until the last century or two people had to hunt to survive and there are still millions of people who rely on hunting and fishing for their daily meals. Would you begrudge them their survival because they kill their meat instead of buying a nice, plastic-wrapped slab of unidentifiable animal flesh at the supermarket?
That's exactly not what I'm talking about, just so you know. 
I even said that in my first/second post on the subject.
Quote: zooo @ January 8 2011, 3:56 PM GMTDo you know any moose?
I know people who have been attacked by moose and I know 2 moose hunters but both have come up empty handed after decades of moose hunting. They still head out every year during moose season in Alaska.
Quote: DaButt @ January 8 2011, 4:02 PM GMTMost of the hunters I know are more than eager to whip out a photo album filled with pictures taken before and after the hunt. More likely than not, the walls of their houses will be adorned with photos and paintings of living wildlife.
Up until the last century or two people had to hunt to survive and there are still millions of people who rely on hunting and fishing for their daily meals. Would you begrudge them their survival because they kill their meat instead of buying a nice, plastic-wrapped slab of unidentifiable animal flesh at the supermarket?
Just shoot photos then, not animals.
I don't have a problem with culling by rangers, or hunter for food for people way out in the wilderness (in the Us or anywhere else). But to say these people have to kill these animals to survive is probably over egging the argument. I'm sure the still have money for luxuries like beer.
We won't agree, so I'll shut up now.
Quote: zooo @ January 8 2011, 4:02 PM GMTAll I'm actually saying is that it's wrong for people to do it who think it makes them clever to be able to win in a battle between an animal with a gun and an animal without.
You're describing a subset of hunters who don't even deserve the title. I know there are zillionaires who spend small fortunes to travel to Africa to (legally) shoot an elephant, but there can't be too many of them. I recently read that 10 million Americans will be taking part in deer hunts across the nation this winter. 99.999% of them are conscientious hunters who are merely looking for some good food, good times in the woods and the chance to participate in a ritual that is as old as mankind itself.
For the record, there is a huge amount of cleverness involved when tracking large game animals. You don't just walk up to one and pull the trigger; something as simple as a change in wind direction or temperature often ruins an entire day's hunt.
Quote: Nil Putters @ January 8 2011, 4:06 PM GMTI don't have a problem with culling by rangers, or hunter for food for people way out in the wilderness (in the Us or anywhere else). But to say these people have to kill these animals to survive is probably over egging the argument. I'm sure the still have money for luxuries like beer.
So what do the rangers do, shoot the deer and leave the meat to rot? If it takes 10 million hunters to keep our deer population at reasonable levels that means we'd need millions of rangers to do the job at great public expense. Or we can just allow hunters to follow the rules laid down by conservation authorities and get them to pay for the privilege of doing so. Hunting licenses are quite expensive and the average hunter probably spends at least a thousand dollars once all is said and done. That money pays for the rangers and conservation programs that allow us to manage our deer population. Without a hunting program we'd find ourselves up to our ears in deer and then the herds would suffer a massive die off due to disease and starvation. Responsible hunting policies protect the species while allowing hunters to pursue their age-old passion.
Quote: Nil Putters @ January 8 2011, 4:06 PM GMTWe won't agree, so I'll shut up now.