BadMedicine
Moderator
I think a 200 pounder, hieght and wieght proportionate would make B&C. Just think about it, You could hunt the rut year round!!!
Rights to hunt or not be hunted
- Thread starter Dagny
- Start date
- Status
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
DorGunr: I well know where you're coming from. I often feel the same way. I guess what I try to do is to keep telling myself I'm teaching, not explaining. Sort of a "make a convert to hunting" kind of thing.
HOWEVER: Like the old joke about Lord and Lady Bottomley: They've enjoyed horizontal recreation one afternoon, and are sharing a post-coital cigarette and some brandy.
Lady B: "Do the lower classes do this?"
Lord B: "Why, of course they do!"
Lady B: "They shouldn't be allowed to! It's much too good for them!"
, Art
HOWEVER: Like the old joke about Lord and Lady Bottomley: They've enjoyed horizontal recreation one afternoon, and are sharing a post-coital cigarette and some brandy.
Lady B: "Do the lower classes do this?"
Lord B: "Why, of course they do!"
Lady B: "They shouldn't be allowed to! It's much too good for them!"
, ArtWill Beararms
New member
For the record: I am not excoriating anyone. I, like Art, started hunting at the age of seven. Mother's folks are Choctaw Indian and Dad's people survived during the depression by hunting. Hunting is me rather than a hobby or a pastime.
The same holds true for guns. I grew up thinking the glove box in a vehicle was called the gun box. My grandfather was concealed carry when concealed carry wasn't cool.
If you heard Gore's speech last night, you know that he qualified gun ownership by virtue of hunting or sport shooting. He can pound sand as far as I am concerned.
Hunters, by in large, are great people. We considerate of others and the environment and we realize that lethal force is not to be feared but respected.
We are a dying breed in Urban America. We embody what has made this country great: God-given, rugged individualism.
The same holds true for guns. I grew up thinking the glove box in a vehicle was called the gun box. My grandfather was concealed carry when concealed carry wasn't cool.
If you heard Gore's speech last night, you know that he qualified gun ownership by virtue of hunting or sport shooting. He can pound sand as far as I am concerned.
Hunters, by in large, are great people. We considerate of others and the environment and we realize that lethal force is not to be feared but respected.
We are a dying breed in Urban America. We embody what has made this country great: God-given, rugged individualism.
BadMedicine
Moderator
I just pray to god that Bush gets the House for a term or two and helps us gun owners out.
[This message has been edited by Gizmo99 (edited August 18, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Gizmo99 (edited August 18, 2000).]
Keith Rogan
New member
>>>>Hunting is essential now that we've decimated the natural predator population.<<<<
You've totally missed the point of what I said. Man IS a natural predator! Wild predators can NOT control populations of large herbivores, its been studied to death.
The animals we know reproduce at the rate they do because they've developed under the the pressure of human hunting. Man is an older species than deer, moose and elk and was hunting wooly rhinos and mammoths before these species even developed.
With man, these species becaome extinct no matter how many wolves, cougars and coyotes roam the world.
------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
You've totally missed the point of what I said. Man IS a natural predator! Wild predators can NOT control populations of large herbivores, its been studied to death.
The animals we know reproduce at the rate they do because they've developed under the the pressure of human hunting. Man is an older species than deer, moose and elk and was hunting wooly rhinos and mammoths before these species even developed.
With man, these species becaome extinct no matter how many wolves, cougars and coyotes roam the world.
------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Context, Keith, context. Dagny did miss your point, but his own was not incorrect if one considers the problems around urban areas in the eastern U.S.
Man is the apex predator, everywhere; in some areas he is the only predator.
We dip in and out of science one minute and morals and ethics the next. It's difficult to get everything expressed correctly, and it's also easy to misread posts. I try to keep reminding myself that, "You have no duty to understand; it's my responsibility to make myself understood."
As usual, Art
Man is the apex predator, everywhere; in some areas he is the only predator.
We dip in and out of science one minute and morals and ethics the next. It's difficult to get everything expressed correctly, and it's also easy to misread posts. I try to keep reminding myself that, "You have no duty to understand; it's my responsibility to make myself understood."
As usual, Art
Okay, I must go back and re-read Keith's points. I must also go back to my texts and studies on wild predator populations controlling wild prey populations. I must've missed something in those courses on wildlands, forest and game management. BTW, "control" in the wild does not mean a perfectly balanced population of both species or actually all the species in the system. There ARE some pretty substantial swings in numbers and health. But overall, wild predators do a pretty good job. We HUNTERS MUST REPLACE THAT NEEDED ROLE since we have essentially eliminated the predator population in many areas and for many prey species. Without predators, then disease and starvation step in - unfortunately in a wasteful and drastic manner.
Keith Rogan
New member
Dagny,
Its not just an academic exercise to express the notion that man is a "natural predator". The granola crowd has convinced everyone (even us apparently) that man is some alien species that has invaded the natural world like a virus - that we're not part of that picture like every other creature.
If we adopt their premise and use their language we will eventually lose the battle no matter how well we justify the activity with pragmatic arguments about population control, etc.
We are the older species and the animals we hunt have developed the way they have BECAUSE of our presence. If man was not present, deer might only reproduce every other year, or every third year.
Wildlife have developed this fecundity over the millennia and to remove us will adversely affect them.
Wild predators will cull a portion of the grass eaters, but they'll never stop the from population from eating itself out of browse without mans intervention - just as it has always been.
You can just look here to Alaska for proof of that, we're overrun with wolves but its still the best hunting in North America - its a "natural" environment with a variety of predators (including man) feeding on a variety of browsers.
Pick up some of Mech's stuff on Isle Royale wolves and moose - and starvation cycles.
------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
Its not just an academic exercise to express the notion that man is a "natural predator". The granola crowd has convinced everyone (even us apparently) that man is some alien species that has invaded the natural world like a virus - that we're not part of that picture like every other creature.
If we adopt their premise and use their language we will eventually lose the battle no matter how well we justify the activity with pragmatic arguments about population control, etc.
We are the older species and the animals we hunt have developed the way they have BECAUSE of our presence. If man was not present, deer might only reproduce every other year, or every third year.
Wildlife have developed this fecundity over the millennia and to remove us will adversely affect them.
Wild predators will cull a portion of the grass eaters, but they'll never stop the from population from eating itself out of browse without mans intervention - just as it has always been.
You can just look here to Alaska for proof of that, we're overrun with wolves but its still the best hunting in North America - its a "natural" environment with a variety of predators (including man) feeding on a variety of browsers.
Pick up some of Mech's stuff on Isle Royale wolves and moose - and starvation cycles.
------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Dagny, homo sap's evolution from hunter-gatherer to farmer to urban-hive-dweller has been a social phenomenon, not one stemming from biology.
Homo sap was intimately a part of nature for thousands of years more than he has been organized into large, urban groups. Remember that today's societal construct is highly artificial.
All artificial constructs are extremely vulnerable to dramatic collapses in population. With herbivores, it's over-crowding and stripping of the food supply. With carnivores, it's the absence of herbivores. (The jackrabbit/coyote cycle is well documented.)
Homo sap? I submit we're "do it to our-selfers". Gaia won't have to lift a finger.
, Art
Homo sap was intimately a part of nature for thousands of years more than he has been organized into large, urban groups. Remember that today's societal construct is highly artificial.
All artificial constructs are extremely vulnerable to dramatic collapses in population. With herbivores, it's over-crowding and stripping of the food supply. With carnivores, it's the absence of herbivores. (The jackrabbit/coyote cycle is well documented.)
Homo sap? I submit we're "do it to our-selfers". Gaia won't have to lift a finger.
, ArtKeith Rogan
New member
Art,
I guess I'm just not articulating my point very well.
The Greens come out with a premise of "Man Is Not A Natural Part Of the Environment" as the basis for their anti-hunting philosophy and we don't even examine this - we swallow the statement whole and then counter with pragmatic arguments, but on grounds that the enemy has chosen!
And its a bull**** premise! We are not the newer species that has adopted to them - we are the older species that has caused them to develop their rapid reproduction rates. Removing man from the equation is not "restoring the balance", it is upsetting the balance, turning it upside down.
Even modern tools are nothing new, man has always "cheated" with fire and fear to drive animals into enclosures, off cliffs, into bogs, etc. Our predatory advantage is not claws and teeth, its a brain.
The ONLY difference between now and a half-million years ago is that we have grown dramatically in population. So we limit ourselves with seasons and bag limits.
By allowing them to set the grounds for the argument, we are in effect turning a biological and scientific debate into an emotion and morality based one.
You can't win such an argument - Bambi will always trump biology.
We need to force them to take a step back and defend their original premise - that man is not part of the environment. Keep the debate there, on solid scientific grounds that they can't defend.
------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
I guess I'm just not articulating my point very well.
The Greens come out with a premise of "Man Is Not A Natural Part Of the Environment" as the basis for their anti-hunting philosophy and we don't even examine this - we swallow the statement whole and then counter with pragmatic arguments, but on grounds that the enemy has chosen!
And its a bull**** premise! We are not the newer species that has adopted to them - we are the older species that has caused them to develop their rapid reproduction rates. Removing man from the equation is not "restoring the balance", it is upsetting the balance, turning it upside down.
Even modern tools are nothing new, man has always "cheated" with fire and fear to drive animals into enclosures, off cliffs, into bogs, etc. Our predatory advantage is not claws and teeth, its a brain.
The ONLY difference between now and a half-million years ago is that we have grown dramatically in population. So we limit ourselves with seasons and bag limits.
By allowing them to set the grounds for the argument, we are in effect turning a biological and scientific debate into an emotion and morality based one.
You can't win such an argument - Bambi will always trump biology.
We need to force them to take a step back and defend their original premise - that man is not part of the environment. Keep the debate there, on solid scientific grounds that they can't defend.
------------------
Keith
The Bears and Bear Maulings Page: members.xoom.com/keithrogan
Keith,
Okay, I see your point about humans having been part of the predator/prey environment on some continents (the old world) for hundreds of millenia. Even in N & S America we have been here for 10,000 years and perhaps twice that long (but that is recent compared to the old world).
An interesting page that I've stumbled upon during my searches (I've not yet read it all or delved into its links)
http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/iceciv.html
[This message has been edited by Dagny (edited August 20, 2000).]
Okay, I see your point about humans having been part of the predator/prey environment on some continents (the old world) for hundreds of millenia. Even in N & S America we have been here for 10,000 years and perhaps twice that long (but that is recent compared to the old world).
An interesting page that I've stumbled upon during my searches (I've not yet read it all or delved into its links)
http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/iceciv.html
[This message has been edited by Dagny (edited August 20, 2000).]
Isn't it nice that this discussion can take place at all? Thanks to the modern conveniences (sterile canning, refrigeration, rapid transportation) we've all become accustomed to, we now have the option of gathering our own food or having others do it for us.
There is no right to hunt, any more than there is a right to an education, a job, medical care, a minimum wage, etc., etc., etc. The only right that humans have is to live their lives rationally to the best of their ability by their own labor, free from force or coercion, as long as they aren't infringing upon someone else's rights (an old idea that seems radical today). In my book, therefore, since hunting does not infringe upon any human's rights (unless it occurs on private property), it is a perfectly acceptable activity.
Hunting is a personal thing that each person must decide either to do or not to do. If someone chooses not to hunt, that's fine, and I support them as much as I do those who choose to hunt.
BTW, Dagny, could you, for the record, state unequivocally where you stand on the issue of hunting for me? Are you for, against, or on the fence on this topic? Maybe you've already stated your position and I missed it. If so, would you mind humoring me?
DAL
------------------
Reading "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," by Ayn Rand, should be required of every politician and in every high school.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."
--Patrick Henry, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)
GOA, JPFO, PPFC, CSSA, LP, ARI, NRA
[This message has been edited by DAL (edited August 20, 2000).]
There is no right to hunt, any more than there is a right to an education, a job, medical care, a minimum wage, etc., etc., etc. The only right that humans have is to live their lives rationally to the best of their ability by their own labor, free from force or coercion, as long as they aren't infringing upon someone else's rights (an old idea that seems radical today). In my book, therefore, since hunting does not infringe upon any human's rights (unless it occurs on private property), it is a perfectly acceptable activity.
Hunting is a personal thing that each person must decide either to do or not to do. If someone chooses not to hunt, that's fine, and I support them as much as I do those who choose to hunt.
BTW, Dagny, could you, for the record, state unequivocally where you stand on the issue of hunting for me? Are you for, against, or on the fence on this topic? Maybe you've already stated your position and I missed it. If so, would you mind humoring me?
DAL
------------------
Reading "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," by Ayn Rand, should be required of every politician and in every high school.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."
--Patrick Henry, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)
GOA, JPFO, PPFC, CSSA, LP, ARI, NRA
[This message has been edited by DAL (edited August 20, 2000).]
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Keith, I've been telling folks that "I-am-By-God a part of the environment!" for several decades. I gotta admit I pay little attention to the Greens, because outside their political power their babble is childish prattle.
When I speak to the various facts of wildlife dynamics and carrying capacity of the land, it's not for any justification. Most often, it's just to point out what happens in an "If A, then B" sequence. I can't help it; it's the teacher in me. (Like a buddy of mine who was caught "in flagrante delicto" with his sister-in-law. He looked up at his wife and said, "I can't help it, hon'; it's just a character defect.")
If somebody wants to believe that hunting is somehow immoral, my suggestion to them is that they not hunt. Further silence on their part does not offend me in the slightest.
, Art
When I speak to the various facts of wildlife dynamics and carrying capacity of the land, it's not for any justification. Most often, it's just to point out what happens in an "If A, then B" sequence. I can't help it; it's the teacher in me. (Like a buddy of mine who was caught "in flagrante delicto" with his sister-in-law. He looked up at his wife and said, "I can't help it, hon'; it's just a character defect.")
If somebody wants to believe that hunting is somehow immoral, my suggestion to them is that they not hunt. Further silence on their part does not offend me in the slightest.
, ArtDAL
You asked.
We have the RIGHT to procure food for ourselves and that includes hunting. To the extent that we can coexist with other predators who take weak & ill game that we do not want, so be it. But if we put ourselves as first and only, then we have the responsibility to kill as cleanly as possible and, in the least, to ensure the game population is not dangerously weakened by our hunting or, if we can, to improve health of the population. The latter includes killing the weak and ill - even if we do not consume them ourselves but leave them for scavengers.
Given our huge and burgeoning population, the "RIGHT" to hunt has now, by necessity, become a privilege simply because if everyone exercised this right in order to feed themselves, we would all starve. This causes me concern as many of our rights are being subjugated to the masses because of our numbers.
As to the right to not be hunted. Since we could be prey ourselves, I am still struggling with that concept. Definitely though, I put fish and fowl in the same league as nuts and berries. We harvest both wild and domesticated with no thought but our right to procure food.
Other mammals though have me thinking about our responsibility to cull their numbers as needed. If I won my dream of having an entire mountain valley to myself, would I permit other predators (both human and otherwise) the "right" to hunt in my valley if that valley could support only me and mine. I think not.
Thus, do I have the right to eliminate my competition - even if they are other humans who would eliminate me if they could?
You asked.
We have the RIGHT to procure food for ourselves and that includes hunting. To the extent that we can coexist with other predators who take weak & ill game that we do not want, so be it. But if we put ourselves as first and only, then we have the responsibility to kill as cleanly as possible and, in the least, to ensure the game population is not dangerously weakened by our hunting or, if we can, to improve health of the population. The latter includes killing the weak and ill - even if we do not consume them ourselves but leave them for scavengers.
Given our huge and burgeoning population, the "RIGHT" to hunt has now, by necessity, become a privilege simply because if everyone exercised this right in order to feed themselves, we would all starve. This causes me concern as many of our rights are being subjugated to the masses because of our numbers.
As to the right to not be hunted. Since we could be prey ourselves, I am still struggling with that concept. Definitely though, I put fish and fowl in the same league as nuts and berries. We harvest both wild and domesticated with no thought but our right to procure food.
Other mammals though have me thinking about our responsibility to cull their numbers as needed. If I won my dream of having an entire mountain valley to myself, would I permit other predators (both human and otherwise) the "right" to hunt in my valley if that valley could support only me and mine. I think not.
Thus, do I have the right to eliminate my competition - even if they are other humans who would eliminate me if they could?
Al Thompson
Staff Alumnus
Actually it's at 90k. When it hits the magic number, I'll close it.
Such a touchy subject and such polite remarks. Good work on all parties parts.
Giz
Such a touchy subject and such polite remarks. Good work on all parties parts.
Giz
Al Thompson
Staff Alumnus
Actually deer season has been open here since the 15th. 
BadMedicine
Moderator
It's been open since the 1st (aug) here in some units, for buck, unfurtunately you can only take FIVE!!!! hehe, that's just on the islandswhere there are quite a few. You can take does later in the season, and the season is like 4 or 5 months long!!! Anyone wanna take a wag at how much a deer tag is??? THEY"RE FREE!!!! That's right, we already had to buy our licsences so why should we have to buy tags?? the only tags you need are brownbear, and musk ox. I'm lucky to live in alaska where thay don't rape you everytime you turn around.
Anybody Here live in Washington?? You have to buy a tag for EVERYTHING!! Wanna fish in the ocean?? buy a FOOD FISH LICSENCE. Oh, you want to fish in fresh water? buy a GAME FISH LICSENCE. Oh, you wanna fish for spiney ray(bass, perch,walleye)? buy a SPINE RAY LICSENCE!!! Oh did you want to collect clams and oysters on the beach? Get a SHELL FISH LICSENCE. Get a SEAWEED LICSENCE!!!(no joke) You wanna pick mushrooms? Get a MUSHROOM LICSENCE!!! (yes, they charge you to pick friggen fungis!!) They even have a permit you have to buy to hike in the state parks now. I swear that state got you coming and going, and while you were there!!! I'm finally glad to live in alaska, you buy one licsence, and can get anything that walks fly's or swims.
Anybody Here live in Washington?? You have to buy a tag for EVERYTHING!! Wanna fish in the ocean?? buy a FOOD FISH LICSENCE. Oh, you want to fish in fresh water? buy a GAME FISH LICSENCE. Oh, you wanna fish for spiney ray(bass, perch,walleye)? buy a SPINE RAY LICSENCE!!! Oh did you want to collect clams and oysters on the beach? Get a SHELL FISH LICSENCE. Get a SEAWEED LICSENCE!!!(no joke) You wanna pick mushrooms? Get a MUSHROOM LICSENCE!!! (yes, they charge you to pick friggen fungis!!) They even have a permit you have to buy to hike in the state parks now. I swear that state got you coming and going, and while you were there!!! I'm finally glad to live in alaska, you buy one licsence, and can get anything that walks fly's or swims.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
BadMedicine, I understand your feelings. However, when you have a large number of people using a resource base, that use must be controlled or an over-harvest is quite possible--and even probable.
In Washington's example, the users pay for the cost of law enforcement, not the public at large.
For the vast majority of all people, the sum of all the costs of the licenses you mention is not all that much money. Texas has gone to a "Grand Slam" license which includes some 90% of peoples' outdoor hunting and fishing. It's cheaper than the cost of one-at-a-time, and sure simplifies getting a license...
Regards, Art
In Washington's example, the users pay for the cost of law enforcement, not the public at large.
For the vast majority of all people, the sum of all the costs of the licenses you mention is not all that much money. Texas has gone to a "Grand Slam" license which includes some 90% of peoples' outdoor hunting and fishing. It's cheaper than the cost of one-at-a-time, and sure simplifies getting a license...
Regards, Art
- Status