Shooting animals for the sake of shooting them?
- Thread starter SteelJM1
- Start date
- Status
I live in the sticks, and prefer them. I'm railing against like i said before, people who go out blasting anything that moves for the kicks. Trust me when I say, I have a tough time in this part of the country at my age to be pro-gun and pro -CCW when most of my friends have been brainwashed by the liberal attitudes around here. It sure makes chasing tail hard as soon as these girls find out I have guns.
It's a great question. I can only speak for myself, living in a semi-rural part of Maine. Coyotes repopulated the state in the last century, the came down from Canada and filled the vacuum that was created after wolves, cougars, and most bears were wiped out. They may have crossbred with wolves in Canada, they've had recorded weights of up to 75 pounds in Maine.
Yeah, people shoot them for fun. But people also shoot them because they eat sheep, chickens, and other livestock. I've noticed that since coyotes have established themselves in suburban and urban areas some of the same people who cry and moan about shooting deer are worried to pieces about coyotes. I love it when I see a letter to the editor complaining about a coyote eating a pet cat- hello!???!- food chain.
Coyotes are fantastic. I love hearing them call at night in the woods behind the house. but I'd hunt the heck out of them if I had stock to protect. To me they represent nature's resilience.
Yeah, people shoot them for fun. But people also shoot them because they eat sheep, chickens, and other livestock. I've noticed that since coyotes have established themselves in suburban and urban areas some of the same people who cry and moan about shooting deer are worried to pieces about coyotes. I love it when I see a letter to the editor complaining about a coyote eating a pet cat- hello!???!- food chain.
Coyotes are fantastic. I love hearing them call at night in the woods behind the house. but I'd hunt the heck out of them if I had stock to protect. To me they represent nature's resilience.
My nephew lives in that part of the country and does alright
Perhaps it has to do with more than just being progun
Perhaps it has to do with an attitude that encourages you to criticize things you know nothing about and tell others how they should behaved based on broadbrush emotional arguments
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
You come out here to the Uintah Basin and I'll show you the toll that coyotes have taken on livestock and the local populations of antelope, deer, and elk.
The coyotes have no fear anymore of people... too few people hunt them.
There are stories of coyotes taking pets, and threatening children. These are not just fantasy tales. This stuff happens. I saw an old rancher in tears, because coyotes had ravaged his newborn stock. A local kid in the FFA had her prize winning sheep killed.
I've got guys paying me to come around and hunt them around their areas.
And now some city dweller questions the validity of hunting predators?
You come out here and see things for yourself.
The coyotes have no fear anymore of people... too few people hunt them.
There are stories of coyotes taking pets, and threatening children. These are not just fantasy tales. This stuff happens. I saw an old rancher in tears, because coyotes had ravaged his newborn stock. A local kid in the FFA had her prize winning sheep killed.
I've got guys paying me to come around and hunt them around their areas.
And now some city dweller questions the validity of hunting predators?
You come out here and see things for yourself.
That statement, above all others, is a clear indication of your ignorance on this issue. It makes it PLAINLY obvious that you have no idea what it takes to hunt coyotes and that you have made your judgement from afar with little info in hand. And yes, you do immediately come off as an arrogant city dweller that think he knows better than us country bumpkins. Regardless of where you live or your intent.
Coyotes are such a problem in almost every state that they are open to hunting all year long with no bag limits. They wreak havoc on small game species, wild turkeys, deer, game birds, not to mention domestic animals like goats, sheep, calves, chickens, etc. You don't "defend" your livestock against them, you hunt them to control their numbers. Deer need to be hunted to control their numbers, period. Coyotes are no different.
I get a chuckle every time I hear that something has "no natural predators". As if we were an alien species that doesn't belong here. As if it didn't take thousands of years of evolution for humans to reach the top of the food chain.
TexasSeaRay
New member
Long as you do it from up where you're at with the rest of the Mass-holes. I wouldn't advise trying it down here, especially in the rural areas. Northeasterners down here are about as popular as nosebleeds. Your attitude explains why.
Dead on right.
Hell, we have coyotes wandering our suburban neighborhood and like a previous poster noted, animal control won't do a damned thing--even when small dogs and cats start to turn up missing.
I'm not a huge fan of killing just to kill. But I also differentiate between wanton killing and necessary eradication.
Jeff
Thunderhawk88
Moderator
There are other reasons besides food for hunting and taking an animal. Coyote are considered a nuisance out here because of their numbers and the damage they do.
It's a whole different world out here compared to the Bay State.
I'll admit when I'm wrong, and apparently I am. Sorry. MY attitude was only in response to being attacked in the first place. As far as the thread is concerned, i was trying to comment on some people who seemingly take more joy in just the wanton killing of whatever species is overpopulated than the hunt itself. The more the better, right? Problem is, they can use population control as an excuse, but I digress.
Again I admit about being wrong about the general problem of coyote overpopulation. I'm more than happy to learn more about it (as I'm currently doing) and I apologize for ruffling feathers. I wasn't trying to say that i know more than you guys, or what you're doing is wrong (unless you do it to get your rocks off). What i AM saying however is that I think we need to think of more effective population control measures because as far as i can tell, and I could be wrong, is that the coyote pop. is only getting bigger despite the hunts, unless they were really aggressively hunted down to normal numbers. Hows that?
Again I admit about being wrong about the general problem of coyote overpopulation. I'm more than happy to learn more about it (as I'm currently doing) and I apologize for ruffling feathers. I wasn't trying to say that i know more than you guys, or what you're doing is wrong (unless you do it to get your rocks off). What i AM saying however is that I think we need to think of more effective population control measures because as far as i can tell, and I could be wrong, is that the coyote pop. is only getting bigger despite the hunts, unless they were really aggressively hunted down to normal numbers. Hows that?
We got alot of coyotes around here in Ohio, even at the edge of town. Farmers shoot them to protect their pets and stock. Never saw one when I was a kid, thought they all lived 1000 miles away. Then I occasionaly saw one in town in the winter looking for little dogs to snack on or something. I have no problem with anyone clearing out as many as they can. We also have problems in this state with large deer herds. So get more venison to donate to the homeless shelters etc. Talk about shooting dogs. Well I hope it is really identified ferals, not some clown shooting the neighbors harmless pet because he broke off his chain. All the coyotes I have seen could not be mistaken for a pet, if seen clearly!
RockyMtnTactical
New member
I don't have any problems shooting varmints and rodents for any reason whatsoever.
This thread reminds me of when PETA stepped in and made all kinds of threats to Oscar Goodman when they were needing to kill some of the pigeons that were really causing problems in Las Vegas... PETA ended up winning that one...
This thread reminds me of when PETA stepped in and made all kinds of threats to Oscar Goodman when they were needing to kill some of the pigeons that were really causing problems in Las Vegas... PETA ended up winning that one...
MrAnteater
New member
I have no problem shooting animals whether its a game animal or a nuisance species. Sure it's fun and challenging. Why else hunt?
The bigger problem is there has been this growing movement in this country (animal rights groups and the like) that demonise hunting or shooting a nuisance animal because it's "cruel" in there eyes. They think animals have "rights" the same way human beings do. Especially if some animal is furry and cute to them. It's really sick and disgusting listening to people that think animals are more important than humans.
I feel for people in more rural areas that are stuck living with pests like coyotes. I'm all for controlling animals that effect peoples safety or livelihood.
The bigger problem is there has been this growing movement in this country (animal rights groups and the like) that demonise hunting or shooting a nuisance animal because it's "cruel" in there eyes. They think animals have "rights" the same way human beings do. Especially if some animal is furry and cute to them. It's really sick and disgusting listening to people that think animals are more important than humans.
I feel for people in more rural areas that are stuck living with pests like coyotes. I'm all for controlling animals that effect peoples safety or livelihood.
Spacedoggy
Inactive
Didn't Jeffery Dahmer start off that way?
Coyotes, and ...others
Your problem with people who just seem to take pleasure in killing animals is justified. Sportsmen have had this problem for a long time. We used to call them "city hunters", and other less savory names.
See, the main problem is that anyone who buys a gun and steps off the pavement is a "hunter". NO matter how well or how poorly they exibit sportsmanship, to the press and the non-hunting public, they are "hunters", and the worst people tend to become the image that is held up to the public. The entertainment industry is dead set against what they call "blood sports" (unless it involves men in a ring that they can make money from), and killing animals is "cruel". These people have never seen, and never will see nature in it's actuality, only in the edited version you get on TV. It is not more cruel to humanely kill any animal with a gun, bow, or even traps, than it is for them to die a "natural" death. A natural death for a wild animal is to be killed and eaten by a predator (not exactly painless), to die of disease, or to starve to death when old age cripples them to the point where they can't get food. Or to die of cold or starvation in the winter. All kind gentle painless gun things, right? Old animals don't spend their time being cared for in nursing homes until one day the pass away in their sleep. Harvesting game animals could actually be looked on as a kindness, and true sportsmen do their best to take game cleanly, humanely, and as painlessly as possible.
Each generation for the last few, fewer and fewer people have taken un sport hunting, and have fewer and fewer places and opportunities to hunt. Many previously hunted animals are now protected, not because their populations are in danger of extinction, but because hunting is "wrong", and many places formerly open to hunting are now closed to it.
Coyotes back east (I grew up in northern NY, so I do know a bit about it), have filled the role of general predator, and as you have noted, have few natural enemies, and man in that area is not doing his job of being one of them. The reason the coyote comes into your subdivision, shows no fear, and raids your garbage and eats your pets is that he is not being hunted! So he stands there, and looks at you, because you are not dangerous to him. If you started hunting them, you would find out pretty quick that once they realize you are dangerous to them (and it won't take long), that they won't just stand there so they can be shot "like fish in a barrel".
True, coyotes don't attack humans often (or even frequently), but that is because they eat everything else. Humans aren't worth the trouble.
Population cycles are just that. Cycles. Have a mild winter, more rabbits survive, next year, more coyotes. Too many coyotes, eat too many rabbits, fewer rabbits, then fewer coyotes. Up and down. We killed or drove off the big predators, and we used to kill enough of the smaller ones (coyote, fox, bobcat, etc), but we had a lot more people (hunters and ranchers/farmers) who were doing it. And we used traps, And we used poison. And we never really did more than hold our own in local areas.
Today, you can't use poison (never really cared for that one myself, too indiscriminate), most places you can't use traps that kill, and many places no traps at all, and there aren't nearly as many people who can take the time to hunt them. AND, you don't get hardly nothing from hunting them anymore, either. 30-40 years ago, coyote pelts could bring as much as $100 for a prime winter pelt. Made the time hunting them worth it and more.
Can't wear (real) fur today they say it is "wrong". No market for coyote pelts anymore, can't hardly even give them away. Why bother hunting them if you aren't a rancher. And if you are, you don't really have the time.
No matter what you see on Disney, they aren't nice critters. They can (and do) carry rabies. And one kind of rabies has NO visual symptoms. They can be rabid without the wild foaming at the mouth behavior. And if you get bit, you got it too! And rabies is fatal, eventually. We have treatment, but it is no fun at all.
No matter who you blame for how we got here (over hunting predators, habitat destruction, whatever) the fact is we are here, and we are not being allowed to do what needs to be done, as well as it needs to be done. Not enough people hunt, hunting is looked down on by the social elite, trapping and poison are out, and the same social elite won't spend the money needed for game depts to manage the animals. In fact, the majority of the money that state game depts do get comes from hunters and fishermen, through license fees and taxes on sporting goods.
Out where I now live, we used to be able to hunt cougars. And they were hunted with dogs. A handful of cougars were killed each season. About half a dozen years ago, they banned dogs from being used. You can still hunt cougars, just not with dogs. Today, almost no cougars are taken by hunters each season, as cats are really hard to find and track down without something like dogs. Several outfitters who used to make money for the state (through fees) got out of the business, because, without dogs, there isn't any business. Cougar population is way up, and they are coming into towns now, because they are no longer afraid of dogs (and men). In fact the state, instead of making money off the hunting, now has to spend money ($2 million last year) hiring out of state hunters and using game dept personel to hunt, trap, and kill nuiance cougars. Children have been menaced, and there have even been a couple of attacks, fortuanately non fatal.
This is the animal protectionist idea of proper animal management. Do nothing, nature will take care of it all. Sure, it will all work out, but as it does we have to listen to the people who caused it whine.
Your problem with people who just seem to take pleasure in killing animals is justified. Sportsmen have had this problem for a long time. We used to call them "city hunters", and other less savory names.
See, the main problem is that anyone who buys a gun and steps off the pavement is a "hunter". NO matter how well or how poorly they exibit sportsmanship, to the press and the non-hunting public, they are "hunters", and the worst people tend to become the image that is held up to the public. The entertainment industry is dead set against what they call "blood sports" (unless it involves men in a ring that they can make money from), and killing animals is "cruel". These people have never seen, and never will see nature in it's actuality, only in the edited version you get on TV. It is not more cruel to humanely kill any animal with a gun, bow, or even traps, than it is for them to die a "natural" death. A natural death for a wild animal is to be killed and eaten by a predator (not exactly painless), to die of disease, or to starve to death when old age cripples them to the point where they can't get food. Or to die of cold or starvation in the winter. All kind gentle painless gun things, right? Old animals don't spend their time being cared for in nursing homes until one day the pass away in their sleep. Harvesting game animals could actually be looked on as a kindness, and true sportsmen do their best to take game cleanly, humanely, and as painlessly as possible.
Each generation for the last few, fewer and fewer people have taken un sport hunting, and have fewer and fewer places and opportunities to hunt. Many previously hunted animals are now protected, not because their populations are in danger of extinction, but because hunting is "wrong", and many places formerly open to hunting are now closed to it.
Coyotes back east (I grew up in northern NY, so I do know a bit about it), have filled the role of general predator, and as you have noted, have few natural enemies, and man in that area is not doing his job of being one of them. The reason the coyote comes into your subdivision, shows no fear, and raids your garbage and eats your pets is that he is not being hunted! So he stands there, and looks at you, because you are not dangerous to him. If you started hunting them, you would find out pretty quick that once they realize you are dangerous to them (and it won't take long), that they won't just stand there so they can be shot "like fish in a barrel".
True, coyotes don't attack humans often (or even frequently), but that is because they eat everything else. Humans aren't worth the trouble.
Population cycles are just that. Cycles. Have a mild winter, more rabbits survive, next year, more coyotes. Too many coyotes, eat too many rabbits, fewer rabbits, then fewer coyotes. Up and down. We killed or drove off the big predators, and we used to kill enough of the smaller ones (coyote, fox, bobcat, etc), but we had a lot more people (hunters and ranchers/farmers) who were doing it. And we used traps, And we used poison. And we never really did more than hold our own in local areas.
Today, you can't use poison (never really cared for that one myself, too indiscriminate), most places you can't use traps that kill, and many places no traps at all, and there aren't nearly as many people who can take the time to hunt them. AND, you don't get hardly nothing from hunting them anymore, either. 30-40 years ago, coyote pelts could bring as much as $100 for a prime winter pelt. Made the time hunting them worth it and more.
Can't wear (real) fur today they say it is "wrong". No market for coyote pelts anymore, can't hardly even give them away. Why bother hunting them if you aren't a rancher. And if you are, you don't really have the time.
No matter what you see on Disney, they aren't nice critters. They can (and do) carry rabies. And one kind of rabies has NO visual symptoms. They can be rabid without the wild foaming at the mouth behavior. And if you get bit, you got it too! And rabies is fatal, eventually. We have treatment, but it is no fun at all.
No matter who you blame for how we got here (over hunting predators, habitat destruction, whatever) the fact is we are here, and we are not being allowed to do what needs to be done, as well as it needs to be done. Not enough people hunt, hunting is looked down on by the social elite, trapping and poison are out, and the same social elite won't spend the money needed for game depts to manage the animals. In fact, the majority of the money that state game depts do get comes from hunters and fishermen, through license fees and taxes on sporting goods.
Out where I now live, we used to be able to hunt cougars. And they were hunted with dogs. A handful of cougars were killed each season. About half a dozen years ago, they banned dogs from being used. You can still hunt cougars, just not with dogs. Today, almost no cougars are taken by hunters each season, as cats are really hard to find and track down without something like dogs. Several outfitters who used to make money for the state (through fees) got out of the business, because, without dogs, there isn't any business. Cougar population is way up, and they are coming into towns now, because they are no longer afraid of dogs (and men). In fact the state, instead of making money off the hunting, now has to spend money ($2 million last year) hiring out of state hunters and using game dept personel to hunt, trap, and kill nuiance cougars. Children have been menaced, and there have even been a couple of attacks, fortuanately non fatal.
This is the animal protectionist idea of proper animal management. Do nothing, nature will take care of it all. Sure, it will all work out, but as it does we have to listen to the people who caused it whine.
grymster2007
New member
Shooting any living creature for thrills is friggin sick!:barf: That said; there are legitimate reasons for dispatching animals that pose a threat or nuisance. I don’t mind anything edible being shot for the dinner plate (as long as it's not the last of the species or some such), and require a bit more justification for coyotes, wolves, bears, cats, etc. But just for thrills don’t cut it!
- Status