What's the problem with hunting?
Posted Tue Jan 01, 2013 12:54 AM
Wild boar, on the other hand, I don't understand why there would be an issue. Wild boar are not native, they tear up the natural environment, reproduce and spread like crazy without adequate predation, harm farms, and so on. Governments do not have the money to keep their population in check, and why should they when people are willing to pay money for a hunting license (if necessary in that state) to hunt wild boar?
Then there are predators. I have sheep, and to preserve and protect my sheep may need to shoot coyotes and packs of stray dogs (people from the city abandon their dogs in the woods where I live which causes problems for people like me with livestock). The only hunting I've done this year has been for coyotes on (and near) my property.
BTW I use an AR derived weapon chambered in .308 Winchester for hunting. It is one of those "assault" weapons that people want to ban because they look scary, lol. I like it because it is accurate, relatively easy to disassemble and clean, I'm familiar with it due to my military experience, and it has mostly proven technology (except the different chamber).
Posted Tue Jan 01, 2013 02:06 AM
Posted Tue Jan 01, 2013 08:01 AM
Posted Tue Jan 01, 2013 12:42 PM
Posted Tue Jan 01, 2013 12:53 PM
Posted Tue Jan 01, 2013 02:45 PM
Posted Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:58 AM
BTW ......... I've eaten Bambi's entire family & his Mom tasted better than his Dad (tough old bastard)
Ohhhhhhhh I know I'm gonna get hate mail for this one
Posted Wed Jan 02, 2013 04:49 AM
Hunter quality varies wildly from professional, semi professional, and amateurs who are patient, skilled and able to do a clean fair kill with most shots; on the other end of the spectrum you have the idiot with a hunting rifle who just wants to shoot things, who likely doesn't kill with the first shot on 90% of shots, and also likely ends up severly wounding and then failing to finish quite a few animals.
I have no issue with hunting in principle, the control of animals through the regulated hunting of them, the killing of animals for food, the killing of animals for materials, even the use of hunting as a recreation if those animals for one reason or another require killing anyway.
The issue I have with hunting, and the reason I put my support behind the FAR worse hunting scene in the uk, was that most animals aren't killed cleanly.
I am no animal rights activist, I eat meat, and wear leather. If I was hungry enough I'd go out and kill something. I might vomit a bit trying to gut it cause I am a girly girly man, but I'd do it. My lack of animal activist nature however does not mean that I feel animals should be allowed to suffer to allow some hick with a rifle to live out his rambo fantasies.
I know volunteers at american wildlife rescue places, and I know several of them have seen deer caught because they have "an unknown injury" and found the jaw bones been turned to splinters by a poor shot from a rifle, leaving the animal unable to eat, in extreme pain, and suffering infections. In my opinion that's not acceptable.
Licencing goes some way towards controling this. or should if licences weren't a case of merely controling the amount you can kill rather than verifying your ability to shoot accurately and humanely.
Do you get my point?
Posted Wed Jan 02, 2013 05:17 AM
How do you know that most animals aren't killed cleanly? I don't know of any unbiased statistics that would indicate the cleanliness of the kill. If there were such statistics, I would imagine it would be biased on one side or the other. For example, if you ask the hunters they would boast of the cleanliness of their kills, while the animal rights activists would influence statistics in the opposite direction.
Requirements vary by state in the US. Some states require range time as part of a hunter safety course to verify that the prospective hunter can hit targets, some don't. Both states that I've had to take hunter safety courses in stress the importance of shooting the upper body where the lungs and heart are, rather than the more risky head shots.
Posted Wed Jan 02, 2013 07:33 AM
Posted Wed Jan 02, 2013 08:49 AM
This post has been edited by Atta The Pyro: Wed Jan 02, 2013 09:02 AM
Posted Wed Jan 02, 2013 04:13 PM
Hunters actually despise the second group more than anti-gun & anti-hunting ppl do , trust me .
All the hunters I know & associate with are supreme at shot placement & shot decisions .
We meet up for trips to the range often both during & off season .
We are all willing to put the time , ammunition money , & time (I said time twice on purpose to make a point) to do what we do & do it very well .
I have personally passed on trophy bucks due to not being confident in the sight picture I was presented with .
The longest distance I've ever had to track was less than 500 yards (he was a monster) , I've never failed to recover what I pulled the trigger on , Id rather go home empty handed >:]
Posted Sun Jan 13, 2013 05:48 AM
Hunting is necessary to keep a balance in "nature" where people live. Nature, left alone, has its own mechanisms to keep balance between species. But since we have destroyed some of those mechanisms and have also introduced some species where they don't belong, or increased their numbers, man has to give nature a hand in keeping that balance. In Belgium, sometimes the population of wild pigs grows to a point, hunters are called to help control it, for instance.
There are also people who hunt to feed themselves. As long as one respects protected species and does it safely, I see no problem with that.
Posted Mon Jan 14, 2013 02:40 AM
Posted Mon Jan 14, 2013 09:16 AM
Oh, I see. Sorry about that. Perhaps it had nothing to do with the fact you're a hunter.
Posted Mon Jan 14, 2013 01:12 PM