The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Hunt

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 10, 1999, 01:49 PM   #26
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: September 30, 1998
Location: Calif
Posts: 4,229

Ground squirrels! Fleas with fur. I shoot them every single day and I believe they are unearthly...they form from air.
All my cats hunt them and are amazingly successful...I encourage it, cat brings home a ground squirrel the cat gets a saucer of milk and lots of praise.
We must be vigilant and kill them when we see them lest we be overrun. I loathe ground squirrels

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

DC is offline  
Old June 10, 1999, 02:32 PM   #27
Mal H
Join Date: March 20, 1999
Location: Somewhere in the woods of Northern Virginia
Posts: 15,469
DC - I'd have to modify my philosophy when it comes to ground squirrels. Unlike worms, I can find no redeeming value in them, Ok maybe an occassional new oak tree or two. They're not even "cute", they look like fuzzy rats. I was just talking to my neighbor about them the other day, we would both take our 22's to them if it weren't so populated around us.

And crows! Don't get me started on crows!
Mal H is offline  
Old June 10, 1999, 02:45 PM   #28
Rob Pincus
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Hotels
Posts: 3,666

For the record, most people that I know who hunt for "trophies" kill a lot fewer aniumals than "regular" hunters. They are much pickier, spend much more money, and spend much more time in the woods per animal killed.

My personal view is that I don not like the guys who buy a license for a buck and two does, but won't shoot the does. They just take the buck. 40 years ago it would have ben detrimental to many herds to shoot does, but today, most herds need to have the does culled too. For every "trophy" deer I have shot inthe last three years, I've probly killed 2 does or "cull" bucks (sickly small small bucks that would never be or produce trophies). I think it is a hunter's responsibility to reduce the weaker side of the herd and the females, not just the big bucks.

In the herd, BTW, the loss of the "main" breeding buck after the Rut can really help things along, it will encourage competition among the younger bucks, and diversify the gene pool the next year.

I feel the need to again re-define "sport hunting".. it does not mean that you leave the carcass rotting in the woods, it simply means that you are hunting for reasons other than need.... even if you eat the meat, it is still sport hunting.

Rob Pincus is offline  
Old June 10, 1999, 03:07 PM   #29
Senior Member
Join Date: June 1, 1999
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 277
I don't hunt. I have no desire to kill anything. That said, I have no problem with those that do hunt. There is a need to control animal population, there are those that do need to hunt for sustenance, and there is a need for those to hunt for the sheer enjoyment of it. We have been hunter-gatherers much longer than we have been "civilized" and that need is possibly instinctual within us.

THAT said, the only exception I do take to hunting is when people remove the sport from it. Hunters that can take down a buck at 1000 meters, with a souped-up rifle with laser range-finder and a scope on it the size of the Hubbel space telescope, is to me, not a sportsman. Granted, a shot like that takes some amount of skill, but if someone can do it using a 30-30 Winchester model 94, then THAT'S a sportsman. A bowhunter using a recurve that requires him or her to get within 50 feet of their prey, THAT'S a sportsman.

Please remember, these are only my opinions. YMMV
joegerardi is offline  
Old June 10, 1999, 03:22 PM   #30
Futo Inu
Senior Member
Join Date: February 12, 1999
Location: Oklahoma City, OK, USA
Posts: 3,624
rabbit assassin, I understand what you are saying. First let me say that my values are not caused by religion because I have no religious beliefs at all, other than I don't think any human has or has ever had enough information to know for sure whether or not God exists (that might stir things up). Also, I am not trying to "put human emotions on animals". All I am saying is that for me personally, if you toucha my dogs, I breaka you face! Since they are my family, I value their lives more than a human whom I don't know. Perhaps that is "wrong", and almost certainly strange (not many accuse me of being normal), and this belief would in fact probably be 180 degrees different if I were religious, since obviously religion teaches that humans have souls, etc., etc. I agree with cornered rat, and a "hostile" human who has harmed my family or pets certainly has no value to me. If I didn't exact an eye for an eye on such a person, it would only be because I thought I'd get caught.

"All animals fish dog or ape should be treated with the same respect and not be treated cruelly, but if you want to eat them do so.": I agree, RA, and since humans are animals too, if someone hurts my dogs I will want to kill and eat them, so I will do so. Yum, Yum! Hey, it works for cannibals of Borneo. Good fat and protein are where you find 'em. That's Darwin's theory at work!

As for anti-hunting crowd being inexorably tied to anti-gun, you're probably right, which is why I have never sent them a dime (just as I would never send the anti-gun ACLU a dime, even though they often do very great work).

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited June 10, 1999).]
Futo Inu is offline  
Old June 10, 1999, 04:04 PM   #31
Paul Revere
Senior Member
Join Date: June 2, 1999
Posts: 624
Those who don't hunt, and those who have never hunted can be compared in many ways to those who don't own a gun, or have never shot a gun. There are so many stereotypes about hunters that have infiltrated our society by means of everything from Walt Disney to the movie "The Deer Hunter". The point here is, use this comparative analogy using gunowners today in America. Gunowners are being called names akin to the darkest known racism, demonized like we were a cult of snake worshipers, and even separated into categories which ultimately pit one gun owner against another. The same has happened to hunters.

The significant point that anti-hunters have with hunters is they see the legal killing of a game animal as violence. They anthropomorphize this killing (comparing it to human killing/suffering). They cannot understand the difference, much like a non-gunowner or an anti-gunner see no need for people to have handguns, or "assault weapons", because they do not understand the subject matter. Ignorance plays such an important role in diverting people's attention from the truth.
Paul Revere is offline  
Old June 10, 1999, 05:11 PM   #32
Abe Normal
Senior Member
Join Date: May 23, 1999
Location: Eastern North Carolina
Posts: 104
I also live by the credo that if I will not eat it I will not shoot it!

For those that keep track of such things; 9,462 irradiated haggis.
Abe Normal is offline  
Old June 10, 1999, 06:45 PM   #33
Senior Member
Join Date: December 14, 1998
Location: Shoshoni, WY USA
Posts: 556
This is a most interesting thread indeed. I have hunted since I was a child. In my state, hunting is a way of life. Most schools countywide close for the opening day of deer season. There are many reasons why hunting is beneficial to wildlife management. People also hunt for many reasons.

I come from a very poor family and we hunted because we needed the meat. Now, many years later, I hunt for sport (so sue me). Each year, I take my bow in hand and hunt, pursue, and kill trophy game animals. If I am not successful with my bow, I kill trophy big game animals with my rifle. If I am not successful in finding a trophy with my rifle, I harvest (I use that term because it fits here) an animal targeted by wildlife managers for reduction in numbers (depending on the buck/doe, bull/cow ratio) and then I donate the meat to needy families. I pay for the meat processing and any other costs.

After big game season closes; I hunt upland birds and waterfowl. In the summer I hunt fish. Just today I killed six nice walleye and they are in my refrigerator. Tonight I will deliver the walleyes to a neighbor lady who loves to eat them. Her husband passed away a couple of years ago and she only gets to enjoy fresh fish when someone brings her some.

I make no apologies to anyone for hunting. Why I hunt is my personal business and I do not feel compelled to justify my actions to anyone. I know many people do not understand “why we hunt” and that is fine. Likewise, I don’t understand why anyone would live in a town with over 5,000 people in it or drive down 4 lanes of traffic like a bat out of hell bumper to bumper. To each his own.
Ankeny is offline  
Old June 12, 1999, 02:03 AM   #34
Senior Member
Join Date: December 24, 1998
Location: WNC
Posts: 1,072
Mission accomplished!

This is just the kind of discussion I hoped to have, and exactly the kind of responses I expected from this group.

Rabbit Assassin: I do make the same point about fisherman, but you're right, no one else I know does, exactly because of the reason you gave: Fish aren't cute and cuddly.

And I didn't mean to equate hunters with bug-torturers, although re-reading my post, I did come off like that. I was trying to say something about the kind of person that I am. I'm sorry if anyone took it the wrong way.

I attribute 'human' feelings to animals to an extent. I mean, how does one define the difference between 'human feelings' and 'animal feelings'? We (mammals) all have similar brain structure and function. People get 'happy' or 'sad' or 'angry' because something pushes their brain chemistry buttons a certain way, be it food or praise or scratching an itch or whatever. I would think the same would apply to animal brains. I know my dogs get happy when I come home, and sad when I get ready to leave the house (though it may be the opposite with the cats ).

Would I kill someone who f*cked with my animals? If they used a firearm to do so, possibly. Depends on my perception of the immediate threat to myself. In any event, they would find out I was armed one way or the other.

The comparison of rabid animal rights activists to other antis is apt, and while I'm emotional about this thing, I would never try to stop someone from ethically hunting just because of my emotional reaction! The killing of individual animals doesn't injure me, even if it might hurt my feelings . Political correctness is evil, and I have no right not to be offended by the actions of others. That's Liberty.

And the responsible killing of individual animals helps the species, and the ecosystem as a whole. That's a benefit to everyone. Thanks to everyone for the examples, especially Rob: I figured you'd come through on that one, facts and all.

When I was much younger, I used to believe two things.

One is the "trophy complex" ctdonath mentioned: Hunters kill off the strongest, healthiest animals, leaving the weaker to breed an inferior species. That just doesn't wash. It's not like every time a hunter goes out, he finds a herd of deer, and picks off the most viable ones. It's take 'em as you find 'em, and you just don't find 'em that way.

And the ones left over may just be genetically a little cagier about hunters. Might make for a more challenging quarry, better suited to survive it's natural "enemy" (the hunter). See, evolution is a fact!

The other thing I used to believe was that Humankind shouldn't "interfere" with nature. But that's bunk. We are nature, and nature gave us these big brains. Animals manipulate their enviroment by instinct, a natural trait. If humans manipulate their enviroment by reason, such as through managed hunting, then that, too, is a natural trait.

I've even taken this line of thought to the point of saying that if humans, with our big, evolved brains, destroyed all life on earth through nuclear war, then that's not necessarily a tragedy, it's just where evolution led the planet.

It occurs to me that last Thaksgiving, my wife, a vegetarian, ate the turkey her mom made because it was 'free range'. It led a 'natural' life, so she was okay with eating it. (She says the same thing about fish, but stopped me when I tried to tell her about factory ships, piles of suffocating fish, etc...)

Considering that, and some of the responses here, I'm beginning to have the slightest inkling about going out, bagging a bird, plucking it, gutting it, and eating it. I wonder if she would go for it. Given that turkeys are so challenging, and I've never hunted, it might work: "Come on, honey, I don't stand a chance against one of those things!"

I'm not saying I will become a hunter. I won't. But it might be a worthy experience, exactly because I am emotional about it.

Again, I'm very gratified by the responses from the people on this board. Since I found The Firing Line, I've learned a hell of a lot, politically, technically, and otherwise. My mom was right when she gave us her obsolete 'devil-clicky' machine: "Once you get on the internet, you'll wonder how you ever lived without it!"

Thanks all.


[This message has been edited by boing (edited June 12, 1999).]
boing is offline  
Old June 12, 1999, 09:23 AM   #35
Senior Member
Join Date: May 20, 1999
Posts: 1,363
A friend lives in a hilly residential area, and uses cblong's and an old long barreled 22, makes little noise and is enuf to snuff one of those tree/ground rodents, now he is shooting from his second floor balcony which allows the trees to be backstopped by the hill which is his back yard......fubsy.
fubsy is offline  
Old June 12, 1999, 01:56 PM   #36
Miss .357
Join Date: May 2, 1999
Posts: 25
I don't hunt. I wouldn't consume any of the animals that one can hunt (or fish) so I don't hunt (or fish). Hunting has always interested me. My friends that hunt tell me about the thrill of the "kill", etc. I have always wanted to tag along but don't want to ask because I don't want to be in the way.

Because of land restrictions, hunting helps animal populations from overpopulation. I think hunting both as a sport and a hobby is important. I agree with others that it should be a "clean kill" and people should be able to continue hunting.

"Time changes everything"
Miss .357 is offline  
Old June 12, 1999, 07:10 PM   #37
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,127
As one who has hunted for well over 50 years, let me say that nobody in this thread has said anything notably disagreeable to me. I see a lot of honesty.

Miss .357, nobody who is quiet during hunting is "in the way". Nobody who is interested in learning to carry their share of the load around hunt camp is in the way.

For what it's worth, no game species in the U.S. is in a population decline. The only huntable animal in trouble is the Bighorn Sheep, due to habitat loss from overgrazing in their winter range and changes in land use.

In Texas, the eradication of the screw-worm fly led to a population explosion of white-tailed deer. In central Texas, from around Austin to Mason, Brady and Llano, deer have become so runty from over-crowding that IMNSH opinion there ought to be an open season on does for two or three years. Maybe even a bounty.

I hunt in part because that's the only way I'm going to be able to eat quail, dove, deer and javelina. They taste good. And I'm a natural-food freak.

On Jeff Cooper's recommendation, I bought "Meditations on Hunting" by (here I go again--forgot the name. The nice thing about Alzheimer's is that you meet so many new people.) a Spanish philosopher. A quote: "One does not hunt in order to kill. One kills in order to have hunted."

At any rate, sitting around a camp fire during hunting season gives me a sense of continuity with my hunter/gatherer forbears. I have the pride and sense of accomplishment from providing my own food, from the stalk through the shot; the field-dressing through the butchering; and then the cooking. I have not had to hire somebody else to do the dirty work for me.

"Trophy hunting"? Well, if you have to hire a guide to lead you to a staked-out pet, to Hell with you. (I could hire an outfitter to horseback me into the back-country. After we get there, he can stay in camp and cook.) If you hunt some 10,000 acres and compare the bucks; and then go back and find the largest, good on yer, myte! After all, a really worthwhile buck only makes maybe one mistake a season. If your first sighting was his only mistake, you have your work cut out for you. Always remember, Bambi practices being a deer 365 days a year. You do that maybe 5 or 10 days a year...

My preference is walking-hunting. I know quite well that some country cannot be hunted that way--so I don't go there, I don't sit in a stand. My shots are off-hand, and usually at a running deer. If I'm really good, the ball opens at 15 to 30 yards...I'm not always really good, but I've eaten a bunch of deer.
It's still a sort of challenge-compensation for using a rifle instead of a bow or spear, maybe...

Obviously, from the various postings, it is not a clearcut good/bad issue. There are as many opinions as there are posters, but at least here the arguments make sense.

Best regards, Art
And never forget that for many states, the only cash-money spent on wildlife enhancement and protection efforts comes from hunters and from shooters/outdoorsmen. Hunting licenses and the taxes on firearms and fishing tackle. Even if you don't hunt, buy a hunting license.
Art Eatman is offline  
Old June 12, 1999, 08:42 PM   #38
El Chimango Pete
Senior Member
Join Date: January 11, 1999
Location: Sierras de Cordoba - Argentina
Posts: 352
a good post, and honest opinions all around - starting with boing's. Art has it right I think - the Spanish philosopher is Ortega y Gasset by the way, but i can't remeber the name of that guy Al Henzeim-something. For the feeling of the hunt i recommend our fellow TFL'er Schmit's story in the gun-center e-zine that rabbit-assasin mentioned earlier:

"Blood sports"? I like getting my food better that way, more enjoyable than the professionalism of an abbatoir, though of course i don't boycott the butchers on that account. Pest control of doves with a shotgun is a darn sight better than with strychnene, and culling old deer (when we have suspended natures way long ago) is better than an animals agony in a way over-extended life span --- but its all begging the question:
I enjoy hunting, but don't mind people objecting to that. I have an intense dislike for spectator team-sports when supposedly ordinary humans go wild over their sides' fortunes in pushing some sort of ball around - and hope people don't mind my objecting to them.

On the matter of my dog however: An ancient Scottish tradition has it that killing a clansman's dog is not done and the killer may become fair game in turn

Peter Knight (El Chimango MacPete)

El Chimango Pete is offline  
Old June 13, 1999, 03:59 PM   #39
Senior Member
Join Date: December 24, 1998
Location: WNC
Posts: 1,072
To whom it may concern:

Thank you for moving this thread to the Hunt forum, where it really belongs.

I mulled this topic over for a long time before posting it, and debated quite a bit about which forum to post in.

I chose the General Forum because 1)the Hunt forum seemed to get very little traffic, and 2) I wanted to get opinions from non-hunters, too, and didn't think they would be inclined to visit this forum. I rarely do, although that seems to be changing!

So, whoever had to go through the trouble of moving this thread, sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks!

boing is offline  
Old June 14, 1999, 02:13 PM   #40
Senior Member
Join Date: March 25, 1999
Posts: 440
I hunt because I like animals. There's not much I like more than to sneak in very close to an animal which is unaware of my presence, and to observe as it goes about its business. But, what I definitely do enjoy even more is to hunt them the same way, to learn enough about their habits to be able to predict where they will be at particular times, and to be able to judge just how big or old they are to a fine degree.

You see, I'm a trophy hunter, first and foremost. As Rob said, we trophy hunters spend more time afield, spend more money on game conservation efforts, and take less game than meat hunters, yet somewhow we are vilified for having the gall to profess to enjoying the hunt. Meat hunting is easy compared to trophy hunting, and not nearly as enjoyable to me. Most sport and meat hunters kill the first legal animal that they get in range. Trophy hunters pass up shots at the vast majority of game they have chances at, because they are interested in the greatest challenge, and consequently, most hunts end without game in hand. To a trophy hunter, though, it's still a successful day afield as long as you got out and hunted. Many of my finest memories are of the animals I passed on, yet without having killed others I wouldn't have the same feelings.

For example, this spring I went black bear hunting on roughly 20 evenings, saw about 75 bears, and killed 1. Many of those evenings I spent helping a friend who is new to hunting and never even intended to hunt for myself, and had a wonderful time.

It's not about meat; if I want meat I can go to the butcher. It's not about the mount itself; if I want a sheep shoulder mount I can go to an auction. It's about the hunt, the thrill of the chase, and the challenge of getting to participate in nature.

Read Gasset's "Meditations on Hunting" by all means, and read some Capstick to learn the thrill of the chase. But, to really understand, go hunting, big game hunting in a unspoiled region and feel what happens when you hunt. There isn't a drug that can compare.

[This message has been edited by Ipecac (edited June 14, 1999).]
Ipecac is offline  
Old June 14, 1999, 03:12 PM   #41
Long Path
Senior Member
Join Date: May 31, 1999
Location: N. Texas
Posts: 5,896
Man is a predator. I am a Man. I hunt. I have in the past attempted to justify myself for this, but have found myself unable to do so.

Boing, your position is not to be ridiculed, nor applauded, for that matter. It simply is yours. Our dies are cast, and, so long as we do not hurt another, there is no wrong.

If you're *not* a member of the NRA, what *are* you doing to protect your rights to enjoy yourself on this Bulletin Board?

Long Path is offline  
Old June 22, 1999, 08:45 PM   #42
Senior Member
Join Date: June 8, 1999
Location: Iowa - northeastern
Posts: 1,781
BOING: I THINK that you miss the point of hunting. Killing is a by product of hunting and yes there are some out there who fill there limits everytime is all that matters to them. I don't consider that hunting but if it's within the law so be it. I can say that some of the very best times i've had while hunting nothing was shot or killed. For me i guess watching a flight of mallards lock up in the decoys is just as rewarding as dropping a couple of said ducks. [But i do enjoy eating certain game and going out with my bro's while hunting is just icing on the cake]. I respect your opinion and if you choose not to go hunting that's a personal choice. I just can't deal with folks who think that there right about this matter [on either side of the coin] and push there views on me and won't listen to my view. Whatever you decide; stick with it and remain firm in your convictions. 12-34hom. - OUT.
12-34hom is offline  
Old September 15, 1999, 07:16 AM   #43
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Waynesboro, Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,361
boing, you need to update us on your decision to hunt.

1) I see no moral difference between killing, cleaning, and processing an animal and paying someone else to kill a domesticated animal for me. In fact, I consider doing it myself to be more moral.

2) Coyotes have been introduced by fools into this part of the country where they are not native. I shoot them every chance I get.

3) Cougars have largely died out here. I would like to see them returned and would not mind if the deer harvest had to be shared with them. (As in cutting down the limit)

4) I am a part of nature not apart from nature. When I die my ashes will be scattered into the ecosystem I now hunt in. If I had my way my carcass would just be left in the woods. Unfortunately, state law prohibits this.
Byron Quick is offline  
Old September 15, 1999, 10:33 AM   #44
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 1999
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,135
"I don't hunt to kill, I kill to have hunted"

Ernest Hemmingway

JoeHatley is offline  
Old September 15, 1999, 08:47 PM   #45
Senior Member
Join Date: August 14, 1999
Location: Reynoldsburg, Ohio
Posts: 329
Boing, it is hard to add to the long list of excellent replies to your well thought out post. I do want to thank you for being openned minded enough to understand that there are two sides to every issue. You are infact a breath of fresh air when it comes to discussing this issue. As you can see, most hunters are very open to common sense discussion about hunting issues.

It was mentioned that this type of discussion does not happen when it comes to fishing. Well hold onto your hats. There are groups out there (PETA)that feel that fishing is a inhumane sport. Although several states have past laws or are inforcing laws already on the books to protect the sportsman. Extreme groups that intensionally obstruct sportsmen from fishing as well as hunting are out there.

Miss 357, if you really are interested in tagging a long on a hunting trip please ask your friends if they mind. I think you will be pleasantly suprise at there answer. Any hunter worth there salt would be happy to help you understand hunting either by taking you or by sitting down and talking to you about all the different aspects of the hunt.
Fisher is offline  
Old September 16, 1999, 12:00 AM   #46
Big Bunny
Senior Member
Join Date: August 9, 1999
Location: New South Wales - Australia
Posts: 605
Miss 357 for your interest the phrase you used "thrill of the kill" is used by feminists and anti-gunners here to bag gun-owners and hunting generally.
I am a hunter, you either are or you arn't.
[A bit like being 'slightly pregnant' or 'nearly dead' either ARE or youarer not!
I found Boring's posting on his inner turmoil a bit, well, boing really.
I wonder if he is from Kaliforia?

Now - after those bunz on the flats with the 12GA/223 CZ combo...

***Big Bunny***
Big Bunny is offline  
Old September 21, 1999, 11:55 PM   #47
Junior member
Join Date: September 21, 1999
Posts: 7
Edited by moderator.

Mr. Odin, please check your email.


[This message has been edited by Gizmo99 (edited September 22, 1999).]
Odin is offline  
Old September 22, 1999, 10:56 AM   #48
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 1999
Posts: 137
I am enjoying this thread. It is an important subject and should be discussed. In the past several years much has been written about hunting, the whys and the ethics. It is not an easy subject because like most other issues in our society it is confused with many falsehoods and emotions. I always wanted to hunt as a kid. However, my dad was born and raised in the Bronx and since he was career Navy we never lived anywhere long enough to establish the relationships necessary to pursue hunting. Besides, even though my dad sometimes carried a 1911, neither he nor my mom would allow a firearm in the house. A dead deer or pheasant wouldn't have ever crossed their property line if they knew about it let alone eat it (Hell, they never had Mexican food until I graduated college, and then only once). I didn't start hunting until 33 or 34 (I'm now 42) and it without question is what was missing in my life. But for me it is a rather complicated. As Ted Kerasote has written (in The Bugle and elsewhere) hunting for me is a celebration of nature in all of its myriad and wonderful forms. It is also a year round experience, not one or two weeks in the fall. I live in Oregon High Desert and every weekend spend at least 3 hours poking around the desert and forests (literally, 2 miles from my house) with a recurve or longbow stump shooting pine cones, grass and twigs. I usually take my dog with me. I see so much that I didn't see before I hunted because now I have a focus for my curiousity which has made me a much better naturalist. In fact many of the great naturalist/biologists were hunters--Aldo Leopold is perhaps the most famous. Today many of the leading conservationists are also hunters; those who write for Sierra and Audobon (?) like Kerasote above, but also Ted Williams and Rick Bass. Kerasote's book BLOOD TIES is a must read for anyone interested in this subject. He also gave a speech that was printed in several periodicals a couple years ago where he classifies the different hunter types. I don't recall all of the catagories but I think the major ones were the meat hunter, the social hunter (the one week at deer camp with family and friends), the naturalist hunter, etc. He didn't make judgements on whether one was better than the other but there are slobs in every group. I hunt with traditional/primitive bows as well as rifles and shotguns. As a group however, I have seen more unethical hunting practices with compound bow hunters than any other. Many, at least in Oregon, take up the compound because they didn't get a rifle controlled hunt draw. They buy a bow they can't shoot very well, and a hideous amount of camo (as if the camo and face paint will help them as stalk from the stopped pickup in order to get a shot), then road hunt and take 40 or more yard shots.
Three years ago I shot my one and only elk. It was a test because I didn't know how I would feel killing such a magnificant animal but also I wondered how I would feel cleaning it. It was like I had come full circle and had done things our immediate ancestors did not very long ago but in our plastic supermarket society have lost touch with. I didn't take pleasure in killing the animal but I did feel a satisfaction that I could and did do it. I had eaten elk before so knew what it tasted like. The one thing I did discover is one cow elk lasted 2 years for my family of four (two small boys). Whether one chooses to hunt is a personal and a very moral decision. The fact many feel they won't and can't kill an innocent (whatever that means; nature is cruel) animal is fine but to take to the next step and imply or say a hunter is less sensitive, less of one who appreciates nature, is totally false. I personally do not know any nonhunters who spend as much time in the desert or forests as I do (or some of my hunter friends) or who even approach the knowledge I have acquired of natural things. However, some of these same people think nothing of building a house in undisturbed areas destroying habit that in fact kills more wildlife than hunters. They presumably want to be close to nature but by living "in it" they destroy it.

[This message has been edited by Flashman (edited September 22, 1999).]
Flashman is offline  
Old September 22, 1999, 06:59 PM   #49
Al Thompson
Staff Alumnus
Join Date: May 2, 1999
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 3,611
Guys, closed the post as it's getting long.

Anyone want to go for round two, have at it.


Al Thompson is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12152 seconds with 7 queries