Might have to take you up on that some day, when my brothers not in Iraq (with the Army) or in Alaska (on base) he lives in San Francisco
Pete
sick hunters
- Thread starter Rob Tangtent
- Start date
Might have to take you up on that some day, when my brothers not in Iraq (with the Army) or in Alaska (on base) he lives in San Francisco
Pete
I'm looking to the time we are able to re-introduce mammoths - they'll kick down a few estate fences
Is this april 1st or some other wind up? You sound like a confused peta groupie with your irational animal centred value system, like its "ok" to kill those weird hunters but this deer is special
hey there mr dazzler its your mumy here
Tea is ready downstairs its your favourite, Deer stew
are you going to try the treadmill today.
its not to scary i will start it up for you.
say bye bye to your friends now
mummy xxxxx
i know noone will probably read this but just incase...
when i was like 10 i saw ray mears kill a deer. he was talking about how he must respect it and was stroking its face. he said he must use as much resources from the body as possiable. Now i agree 100% with this, I just think the whole idea of sentancing something to death when it hasnt done anything wrong is wrong. its a difffernt case with people like Saddam Hussean who have killed innocent people. They HAVE done wrong therefore they should suffer the consequences. Even having killed so many people he shouldnt be killed. he should be left in jail untill he naturally dies (far worse).
so i think hunting should be done. Assuming that you try your best to respect the animal.
In my opinion, the whole idea of bushcraft is respecting the wilderness around you so killing something then pinning it on the wall is disgusting, thats my opinion.
I agree 100% with what dogwood and John Fenna are saying
i made a fire in the garden once and at the end i was scattering the ashes around when i came across a snails shell. Obviouselly what had happend was i had accidentally burnt that snail up. i felt really really bad and prayed for that poor snail
my point is killing is wrong unless you can use as much resources as possiable.
wether its over the top or not i strongly believe in this
Peace!
when i was like 10 i saw ray mears kill a deer. he was talking about how he must respect it and was stroking its face. he said he must use as much resources from the body as possiable. Now i agree 100% with this, I just think the whole idea of sentancing something to death when it hasnt done anything wrong is wrong. its a difffernt case with people like Saddam Hussean who have killed innocent people. They HAVE done wrong therefore they should suffer the consequences. Even having killed so many people he shouldnt be killed. he should be left in jail untill he naturally dies (far worse).
so i think hunting should be done. Assuming that you try your best to respect the animal.
In my opinion, the whole idea of bushcraft is respecting the wilderness around you so killing something then pinning it on the wall is disgusting, thats my opinion.
I agree 100% with what dogwood and John Fenna are saying
i made a fire in the garden once and at the end i was scattering the ashes around when i came across a snails shell. Obviouselly what had happend was i had accidentally burnt that snail up. i felt really really bad and prayed for that poor snail
my point is killing is wrong unless you can use as much resources as possiable.
wether its over the top or not i strongly believe in this
Peace!
I dont see what his post had to do with bushcraft, it seemed to me that he was trying to rally support for his rant. I agree that youngsters who show an interest should be encouraged. He has now hopefully learned a lesson that in real life strong opinions are ok but some should be kept to yourself or worded differently, especially on a site where there are people involved in field sports. Put you toe in the water first dont just jump straight in.
[rant]
Have you ever eaten fast food? If so, did you ask how the meat and poultry were reared?
Do you ever eat mayo? Where did the eggs come from?
Do you eat bread? Or vegetables? How many insecticides were used in their production? How many rabbits were exterminated for trying to eat the lettuce that you eat? How many slugs and snails?
All those deaths were caused by your actions. Vastly more than one white deer.
Why not look into all the deaths that you own action and inaction have caused?
I have heard so many bleeding heart liberals bleat about hunting without considering the effects of their own actions. Many a supercilious housewife (and it is mostly women firecrest ) have a warm fuzzy moment about their free range chicken without looking into whats in their mayo, or soap, or where their vegetables come from.
I have heard silly little vegetarians twitter on about how they are not responsible for animal death. Oh sure
monoculture arable farming isn't responsible for animal death? Its not responsibe for animal consumption. It is responsible for vast amounts of virtualy sterile land and hence animal death. Far more so than grazing land is. Grazing land is kept to raise meat.
Every decision every person makes results in huge impacts on the animal population of this planet. Hunting is a tiny, tiny amount of all animal deaths. What people shove in their mouth every day, how they live, what they buy etc. has an effect mnay orders of magnitude higher.
If you haven't checked every bar of soap you buy for the presence of palm oil, ever buy a Macfactory, eat in a pub or restaurant without knowing the provenance of food, stop bleating about one little cuddly wuddly fluffy ickle bamby and actually learn to do something about all the animals YOU are killing
[/rant]
Red
I want to echo what Dogwood said about trophy hunters. In my opinion, they are the worst thing that has ever happened to hunting. I read somewhere recently that there has not been a trophy tusk taken on an elephant in over a hundred years. (The gene pool does not produce them any longer.) Here in the States, trophy deer racks go for ridiculously high prices. Probably to people who never shot a deer. I think the various states need to regulate trophy hunting somehow. While I'm on a rant let me further say that we used to have primitive firearm deer seasons where the only weapon allowed was a flintlock or percussion black powder rifle. The so-called "primitive" guns used today are as sophisticated as modern engineering can make them and they are a travesty to the whole idea of primitive hunting. I hope the states wake up and put it back the way it was intended to be.
As long as they are not trophy hunting endangered animals, I say let them if thats what floats their boats.
As for the albino, well, if some one wants to pay for it, let them too. Its not like we live in amoralist dictatorship is it?
People may not like it, but I bet the hunters don't like things about your life styles either.
As for the albino, well, if some one wants to pay for it, let them too. Its not like we live in amoralist dictatorship is it?
People may not like it, but I bet the hunters don't like things about your life styles either.
If you want the world stripped of the strongest and most spectacular examples of a species, then encouraging trophy hunting is a great way to do it.
There is *nothing* good that comes from trophy hunting.
Actually, I *am* a hunter and I find trophy hunting loathsome.
Trophy hunting isn't about a life style choice, it's about vanity.
Chinkapin,
When you're talking about today's so-called "primitive" guns, are you referring to things like modern in-line blackpowder guns? I've never shot one of those, but I agree they appear to be about as sophisticated as cartridge guns.
But I've got and hunted with both percussion and flintlock rifles and those are almost identical reproductions of guns from the 19th century (other than better steel...) Do you object to those too, or only the modern inline black powder?
Or, would you prefer a *real* primitive hunting season of self bows, atlatls, spears, etc. (I'd be TOTALLY in favor of that!)
14 or otherwise......he's kicked of a blindin thread! Top Posting mate........don't know the original story so no valued comment to make myself here.....but as ever some valuable retorts...
Smoggy
Smoggy
it's not dumb. I think that there is a problem in modern society people don't realise that things die. The deer will die, if not by human hands, then because it is poorly camouflaged, or because it will have other problems , or through purely natural causes. If someone wants to pay £6000 to shoot it, then let them! that £6000 goes straight back into the area where the deer live and the rest of the deer, and the land as a whole benefits.
Even if the deer was being shot for the wrong reasons, it's still good that people are in touch with the food chain. I hear so many people saying " it's terrible that this animal or that animal is hunted" or complaining that the meat i eat is tantamount to murdering animals. They don't seem to realise that their snazzy exotic wooden furniture is doing more damage than my pigeon shot 3 miles from my house, or that the strawberries they import in february do a hundred times more damage than the intensively reared chicken i eat from the uk.
Even if the deer was being shot for the wrong reasons, it's still good that people are in touch with the food chain. I hear so many people saying " it's terrible that this animal or that animal is hunted" or complaining that the meat i eat is tantamount to murdering animals. They don't seem to realise that their snazzy exotic wooden furniture is doing more damage than my pigeon shot 3 miles from my house, or that the strawberries they import in february do a hundred times more damage than the intensively reared chicken i eat from the uk.
Hunters didn't wipe out hundred-pounder elephants, ivory poachers did.
And hunters aren't hurting the deer gene pool here in the states, they're helping it. With proper management, whitetails have expanded their range and density and their racks are getting larger, not smaller.
There are many similar wildlife success stories here, from turkeys to elk, and hunters are the ones who foot most of the bills and do most of the habitat work.
We're making a distinction between hunters and *trophy* hunters -- the points above apply to general hunting, not specifically trophy hunting. And the beef I have is with trophy hunting, which demonstrably hurts the gene pool.
The elephant example is valid and pertinent -- poachers were trophy hunting (just for sale of the trophy).
It's vital to make a distinction between different kinds of hunting.
To be fair this isn't quite the same as your average trophy hunting. Your typical example of trophy hunting is hunting the biggest, strongest buck they can find with the biggest tines and most points, which obviously weakens the gene pool because strong bucks become less available for mating so the weaker ones mate instead. That's not the basis for this hunt so it's not weakening the gene pool. The deer's white due to whatever mutation, and we know (not think, know) that because of our climate, it is poorly camouflaged and if we had left the original predators in place, it would probably get killed. So hunting this deer for a trophy is not like going after the most impressive animal you can find.
As BR has stated, your average person (veggies included) is responsible for more just through ignorance and inaction than a hunter killing a white deer is.
Also want to agree with Oblio, ivory poaching is a completely different league.
Pete
As BR has stated, your average person (veggies included) is responsible for more just through ignorance and inaction than a hunter killing a white deer is.
Also want to agree with Oblio, ivory poaching is a completely different league.
Pete
Even hunting the biggest "trophy" deer doesn't really hurt the gene pool.
1. It's almost impossible to bag the biggest, smartest bucks. It's almost impossible to even see them.
2. Dominant bucks don't survive long anyway. Once they reach that stage, they wear themselves out fighting and breeding and don't make it through the subsequent winter. It's Mother Natures way of keeping the gene pool fresh.
3. Trophy hunting gives economic value to game. Without economic value, habitat becomes strip malls and subdivisions.
Hypothetical situation: You see a yearling spike buck and a huge 12-pointer at the same time. If you take the 12-pointer during the legal season, he's already impregnated lots of does and was likely to die before the next season anyway. If you take the young spike, no one will ever know what his genetic potential was, and he's probably never bred.
1. It's almost impossible to bag the biggest, smartest bucks. It's almost impossible to even see them.
2. Dominant bucks don't survive long anyway. Once they reach that stage, they wear themselves out fighting and breeding and don't make it through the subsequent winter. It's Mother Natures way of keeping the gene pool fresh.
3. Trophy hunting gives economic value to game. Without economic value, habitat becomes strip malls and subdivisions.
Hypothetical situation: You see a yearling spike buck and a huge 12-pointer at the same time. If you take the 12-pointer during the legal season, he's already impregnated lots of does and was likely to die before the next season anyway. If you take the young spike, no one will ever know what his genetic potential was, and he's probably never bred.
Similar threads
